Redstate

By Soren Dayton Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hoshyar Zebari | Iraq — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Reporters are beginning to notice something quite disturbing. Either Barack Obama didn't understand what Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari was saying, Obama is lying about the meeting, or Zebari is lying. However, we have no reason to think that Zebari would be lying, while there is a pattern of Obama at least obscuring the truth about his Iraq position (again, think Samantha Powers), just as he is doing on trade (think Austen Goolsbee). Or he could just be ignorant about what he is talking about, which has become the Obama's campaign's defense about his Jerusalem "undivided" flip-flop under Palestinian pressure.

So which is it?

ABC's Jake Tapper, in a post entitled "Obama and Iraqi Foreign Minister Have Different Memories of their Conversation" recounts asking Obama about this:

At a press availability in Michigan, I asked Obama if Zebari had expressed any concern to him that his plans to withdrawal U.S. troops as president would undo any security advances.

"No, he did not express that," Obama said. "He did emphasize his belief that we've made real progress and I think was eager to see political accommodations between the factions follow up in the wake of this progress.

But Tapper points out ... that's not what Zebari told the Washington Post:

The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying.

Recall that this is not all that different from what former Obama advisor Samantha Power said about Iraq in an interview with the Scotsman (via The Democratic Strategist):

“He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator,” she said. “He will rely upon a plan — an operational plan — that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.”

At the time, the New Democratic Network's Will Marshall said, in a post called "Political Poetic License":

But the flap obscured another, far more substantive Power utterance, namely a remark she made to the BBC in which she characterized Obama’s promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months as “a best case scenario.” [...] Here, Power was telling the truth, and a very reassuring truth at that. Of course, it exposed Obama to charges from the Clinton camp that he doesn’t really mean what he says about pulling out of Iraq, any more than he means what he says about renegotiating NAFTA.

So is Barack Obama planning to be responsible but lying about it for political advantage? Or is he just talking about things that he doesn't understand? Both of these have scenarios have precedents in his campaign. Hopefully the press will help us figure it out. But I kind of doubt it.