Via Instapundit, I read a report by Jake Tapper which discusses how Bush administration officials - and other Republican congressmen - are saying that Barack Obama did not try to interfere with Bush’s policy towards Iraq in a meeting with Iraq leaders as originally reported … because those officials and congressmen were with him.
This story’s gotten incredibly confusing, but in the end, Tapper’s right - if Obama had tried to do what Amir Taheri suggested he did, the Bush administration officials would not have treated it lightly at all. It’s quite possible Taheri got the Status of Forces Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement mixed up, as AllahPundit explains here. Whether he did or not, though, the confirmation from the BA and other Republicans in Congress is enough for me to retract what I wrote earlier, even though an Obama spokeswoman herself appeared to confirm Taheri’s account. Like I said, confusing.
See, far lefties? That’s how you admit it when you’re incorrect about something. Maybe one day, you’ll learn how to do it yourselves.
| Email This Post | Print This |
This is the second time Taheri has been wrong about something serious. (The first was when he claimed Iran had passed a law requiring Jews, Bahais, and Zoroastrians to wear distinctive clothing.) I used to think he was a respectable journalist. Now I have to wonder.
Comment by Anthony (Los Angeles) @ 9/19/2008 - 11:08 pm
Well, Taheri’s follow-up cited the June 16 phone call between Obama and Zebari, not the July Baghdad meeting.
I still smell a rat and have posted same.
Comment by Tom Maguire @ 9/20/2008 - 12:16 am
So are we to assume that the Obama spokeswoman, who essentially confirmed Taheri’s story, was also wrong?
Comment by Helen @ 9/20/2008 - 9:15 am
Helen asks “So are we to assume that the Obama spokeswoman, who essentially confirmed Taheri’s story, was also wrong?”
Yes, and the bus is being jacked up another foot or so as we read.
Comment by teqjack @ 9/20/2008 - 6:35 pm
I think it’s very noble to admit error and I wish the left would learn to do the same. That said, I think a full retraction is premature. If this newest information is correct, it means only that Obama may not have been in violation of the Logan Act and committed no crime, but the fact remains, he tried to persuade the Iraqis to hold off on negotiating a troop withdrawal until after the election (assuming he wins, of course) so he could claim credit. That he may have had company doesn’t change that. This should be an issue, as it says something about his character, and it isn’t good..
Comment by Joe @ 9/20/2008 - 7:21 pm
So, the guy who was made to look bad by this allegation was unable to debunk it — the truth had to come, finally, from the leadership of the other party, all of whom want to elect his opponent.
Yeah, Obama is really ready for prime time, isn’t he?
(Even if we interpret this in the best possible light for Obama, it still makes him look bad. Story of this campaign for the last several weeks, y’know?)
Comment by McGehee @ 9/21/2008 - 11:51 am