Who Knew? Obama and Nixon are Peas in a Pod!
September 15th 2008 22:34
Who would have thought that Barack Obama and Richard Nixon had something in common besides the hunger to become President of the United States of America? Well, it appears that the two of them are peas in a pod when it comes to a strategy to get elected. Reports out of Iraq are painting an interesting picture of Barack Obama’s discussions with the upper echelons of Iraqi Government when he visited there in July. They say that Obama pleaded with the Iraqi’s not to reveal the timetable for withdrawal they had been working out with the Bush Administration until after the election, purportedly so the Iraqi’s can make the deal with the new President and thereby give it more legitimacy. Sources that sat in on the talks with Obama say that he was quite insistent that the Iraqi’s put their announcement off until after the November election, and that it was a major theme of the talks. You can take this one of two ways: firstly, Obama legitimately thought it was best for the Iraqi’s to renegotiate the settlement with the new President by stalling its implementation for up to a year by the time the new agreement is made, or alternatively Obama wanted to make sure that Iraq was an issue that he could play off in the run-up to the election. Either way, Obama comes off as either ineffective or opportunistic. This isn’t good news for the Obama camp.
It would be one thing if all this was coming from unnamed sources. Then, one could claim, it was some Bush Administration crony angling for a position in a McCain White House, or someone in the McCain team trying to stir up controversy. But the fact is that this has been revealed by someone who has no relation to the internal American political scene whatsoever. This comes from a person who actually put their name to the words, in another display that these claims might just have truth to them. This comes from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who met with Obama himself. Obama’s camp say that the discussion never happened (of course) but in saying that, it means the Obama campaign team are calling the Iraqi Foreign Minister a liar. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. But if it was a lie, it wouldn’t be beneficial for him to poke a finger in the chest of a man who could be the next President and then put his name behind it, taking responsibility for the words and standing behind them. The fact that he didn’t go anonymous means trouble for Obama.
So what has this got to do with Nixon? Well, apparently, Nixon did the same thing trying to get elected during the Vietnam War. In 1968, when Nixon was running for his first term, President Johnson was attempting to negotiate peace between North and South Vietnam. He wanted it done fast in order to give a publicity boost the Democratic candidate, and was willing to cut corners to get it done. So what did Nixon do? Well he talked to the South Vietnamese President and convinced him to scuttle the talks because Nixon would make sure he got a better deal due to the fact he wouldn’t be rushing to get things done for political reasons. The talks were scuttled and Nixon did win the election. President Johnson, having bugged the Nixon campaign, knew about these discussions (which were illegal and considered treasonous) but refused to reveal them because it would damage the Presidency almost beyond repair. Much like Watergate would less than a decade later. The question is then, if Obama was trying to scuttle the hasty removal of troops from Iraq for political reasons, would that too be considered treasonous? That’s for a lawyer to say. To coin an Obama phrase, it’s above my pay grade.
What I can say is that they are serious allegations that should be looked into. If Obama can be cleared of any wrong-doing, he should be. It’s only fair. But if he is shown to be manipulating a dangerous situation that he has built a career around solving for political gain, we should know that too. Someone who can walk into Baghdad and tell them to hold off on revealing and implementing troop withdrawal until after the US election has to take responsibility for what was said, if anything at all. If he had good intentions in saying it, he would be vindicated by his explanation. If he was doing it purely for political gain, he owes his supporters to give them all the relevant information about his actions before they cast their vote.
If not it might be Obama we see in a few years time striding away from the White House, jumping on a helicopter and making the peace sign before flying off into the sunset. We don’t need another scandal.
It would be one thing if all this was coming from unnamed sources. Then, one could claim, it was some Bush Administration crony angling for a position in a McCain White House, or someone in the McCain team trying to stir up controversy. But the fact is that this has been revealed by someone who has no relation to the internal American political scene whatsoever. This comes from a person who actually put their name to the words, in another display that these claims might just have truth to them. This comes from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who met with Obama himself. Obama’s camp say that the discussion never happened (of course) but in saying that, it means the Obama campaign team are calling the Iraqi Foreign Minister a liar. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. But if it was a lie, it wouldn’t be beneficial for him to poke a finger in the chest of a man who could be the next President and then put his name behind it, taking responsibility for the words and standing behind them. The fact that he didn’t go anonymous means trouble for Obama.
So what has this got to do with Nixon? Well, apparently, Nixon did the same thing trying to get elected during the Vietnam War. In 1968, when Nixon was running for his first term, President Johnson was attempting to negotiate peace between North and South Vietnam. He wanted it done fast in order to give a publicity boost the Democratic candidate, and was willing to cut corners to get it done. So what did Nixon do? Well he talked to the South Vietnamese President and convinced him to scuttle the talks because Nixon would make sure he got a better deal due to the fact he wouldn’t be rushing to get things done for political reasons. The talks were scuttled and Nixon did win the election. President Johnson, having bugged the Nixon campaign, knew about these discussions (which were illegal and considered treasonous) but refused to reveal them because it would damage the Presidency almost beyond repair. Much like Watergate would less than a decade later. The question is then, if Obama was trying to scuttle the hasty removal of troops from Iraq for political reasons, would that too be considered treasonous? That’s for a lawyer to say. To coin an Obama phrase, it’s above my pay grade.
What I can say is that they are serious allegations that should be looked into. If Obama can be cleared of any wrong-doing, he should be. It’s only fair. But if he is shown to be manipulating a dangerous situation that he has built a career around solving for political gain, we should know that too. Someone who can walk into Baghdad and tell them to hold off on revealing and implementing troop withdrawal until after the US election has to take responsibility for what was said, if anything at all. If he had good intentions in saying it, he would be vindicated by his explanation. If he was doing it purely for political gain, he owes his supporters to give them all the relevant information about his actions before they cast their vote.
If not it might be Obama we see in a few years time striding away from the White House, jumping on a helicopter and making the peace sign before flying off into the sunset. We don’t need another scandal.
| 49 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
