The question, "Hmm, exactly what is preventing Senator Obama from forthrightly declaring that if he is elected he will repudiate and declare null and void any last-minute agreement by President Bush, thereby rendering it moot?" was rhetorical in nature, the answer (which this blogger also provided) being because "... that would require him sticking his neck out!"
Well, Obama is being accused of being "a traitor" and of "unfairly interfering" in U.S. foreign policy because he allegedly "urged Iraqi officials to delay agreements with the U.S. until after the election." The McCain campaign has issued a statement on this issue - 'At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq’s Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama’s judgment and it demands an explanation.'
If Senator Obama did indeed send a 'back-channel' message re SOFA/SFA to the Iraqis, then this blogger's only issue would be that he did not have the nerve to do it publicly via a (perfectly OK) clear and forthright declaration as suggested in the earlier post. Equivocating publicly while sending messages doesn't exactly show any intestinal fortitude. However, "a traitor", 'responsible for the deaths of American servicemen', 'blood on his hands', "egregious act of political interference"... What nonsense! Bah, humbug!!
A traitor in our midst
Is Obama illegally and improperly interfering in U.S. foreign policy