Obama backs Iraqi Terrorists: Iraq investigates alleged US-insurgent talks

In yet another devastating blow to American foreign policy and abandonment of our allies, Obama is secretly holding appeasement/surrender talks with Iraq terrorists. If you wrote this as fiction, no one would believe it. Thank G-d we executed that brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, otherwise, Barack Hussein would be installing him as we speak. :(

I'll say it again, Obama is to democracy what General Sherman was to the South. Enemy in the White house.

From Islam in action: While our government is intent in destroying things here at home, they have allegedly gone behind the back of the Iraqi government and signed a "document that included U.S. recognition of the Iraqi resistance". The less decisions that our government is involved in the better.

Iraq investigates alleged US-insurgent talks
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

BAGHDAD – Iraq said Friday it was investigating reports that U.S. delegates and Sunni insurgents held reconciliation talks in Turkey this year, alleging the meetings violated Iraqi sovereignty and showed tolerance for terrorists.

The State Department acknowledged that unspecified meetings took place, but said Iraq knew about them at the time.

The matter raises sensitive questions about Iraqis' newfound authority as the United States hands over responsibility to Iraqi forces, which have taken charge of security in cities since June 30. The revelations came as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ended a visit to the United States after meeting President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

Although the meetings in Turkey are said to have occurred months ago, news reports about an agreement supposedly signed by the American and insurgent sides have angered Iraqis who are struggling to assert their independence after years of conflict.

A man identified as the secretary-general of the Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance told Al-Jazeera TV last week that his group held talks with U.S. officials in March and in May. He said the two sides signed a "protocol to organize the negotiation process and a document that included U.S. recognition of the Iraqi resistance."

The man, Ali al-Jubouri, said the group's other demands included a formal U.S. apology for the 2003 invasion and the release of all Iraqi prisoners, but that the talks had since broken down.

U.S. diplomatic and military officials have negotiated with Sunni insurgents in the past, and scored a notable success by persuading Sunni tribal leaders, whose followers included anti-American fighters, to turn against al-Qaida in Iraq in what was considered a key factor in reducing violence in 2007.

Despite the drop in insurgent attacks and sectarian bloodshed, political reconciliation among Iraq's factions remains difficult. Iraq's Shiite-led government, whose supporters suffered under the Sunni-dominated rule of Saddam Hussein, is deeply skeptical of the possibility of an accord with Sunni insurgents, some of whom might have links to Saddam's old Baath party.

"Nobody can make decisions on behalf of Iraq, which has a legitimate government," said Abbas al-Bayati, a member of the security and defense committee in the Iraqi parliament. "We want to know if these armed groups are included in the national reconciliation project and whether their hands have been stained in Iraqi blood."

In an interview with the U.S.-funded Al-Hurra network, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he received confirmation of a meeting involving U.S., insurgent and Turkish representatives in Istanbul in March.

Zebari said it was "shocking" and "amazing" that U.S. and Turkish officials met "the supporters of the former regime, groups that adopt violence and terrorism as a way to change the situation, and the networks that believe in killing, bombing and targeting innocents."

Comments

[PB-in-AL]

As a Southerner I know the effect of Sherman's march to the sea. There are remnants of that still visible here in my town, lo these many years past. At least Sherman could say that he was acting in a war on behalf of his known superiors. The local folks knew precisely who Sherman was, his intention, and his chain of command. And yes, he left behind a trail of destruction.

Though Obama's results, with regard to our Republic, will likely be similar, i.e. scorched earth, there are some distinct differences. We don't know where his commands are coming from, a pretty good suspicion with Soros, but there has to be something more. We have a pretty good idea of the effect, decimate our economy and society. But we still don't know the motivation. Sure, he's socialist/communist, kisses Soros'(King Fahd, Hamas, Ah-wanna-jihad, etc.) butt(s), but those don't quite tie things up. I can't even put my finger on how to say it. And finally, in the case of Sherman, it was known that he'd do his deed, move on, and that it would finally end.

What is Obama's end, to which any means is justified?

Obviously, it doesn't have anything to do with racial reconciliation. It doesn't have anything to do with Truth, Justice, or the American Way. In fact truth becomes completely relative; justice is subject to the whims of those in power (or wise latina experiences); the American Way, as cheesy as that term sounds, is anathema, the one thing that must, at all costs, be crushed.

It seems that the only goal is to kill the spirit of America, and her citizens. What he, most world leaders, and the left always seem to forget is that America and her people are much more resilient than that. This country was born out of resistance to injustice. There are enough folks that are awake and aware, now, of the current injustices, and many more will come to that understanding. The harder they try to squeeze us the more push-back they'll get. I pray that it doesn't result in another civil war. But each time I see a dystopian movie, or book like 1984, it serves as an illustration of where the things that are happening now might lead us. If Obama, Pelosi, et alia have designs on a totalitarian regime, I HOPE that the American People are willing to stand up for their G-d given rights and fight for CHANGE.

The Constitution is just words to these knuckleheads in DC; it's the lifeblood of what makes us American.

[PB]

I was going to comment last night and decided not to go through the trouble, but after the repeat comment about Gen Sherman I had to sign up and try to set things right.

I am a son of the south and realize the animosity that is felt towards Sherman, but that generation is passing. I have spent many years studying the war between the states and the reasons for it's causes. Comparing Obama to Sherman is just totally wrong. Sherman was defending the Constitution of the United States and was doing anything he could to end the war. The path of destruction his army created helped trap Lee and end the war.

I would compare Obama to Benedict Arnold, Neville Chamberlain, Jane Fonda, Bill Ayers, ......

[Pamela Geller]

PB, I was not comparing Obama to the formidable General Sherman. I was equating the Obama's destructon of democracy and freedom movements to the Sherman's path of destruction as a metaphor.
Nothing more.
Obama is no general.
He is a destroyer.

[jj]

pamela, pb's:

obama is a betrayer.

he has betrayed each and every american, soldier, marine (and, yes, private security employees) who died in the service of this country defending iraq.

he has betrayed each and every american who serves there now. and, who is greatly endangered by the studpidity of this man, who apparently regards everyone, no matter their evil, the equivalent of a chicago ward heeler, with whom a deal can be cut.

he is a fraud.

betrayal.

he has betrayed american heroes, and those who serve for nothing for a pittance, and put their lives, and who sacrificed their lives for the ideals of this country, and for the heritage of service and sacrifice by its citizens.

obama betrays all, and he betrays all of us.

but, he does advance the cause of islam, each day. in that, he is quite purposeful.

he is a traitor to the sacrifice of every service person who has served in iraq and afghanistan.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

[PB]

JJ,
I definitely agree that he is a deceiver. He says words one way and then the next day he uses the exact same words to mean something else. Words have meaning and the democrat leaders are constantly trying to change the meaning of the words. We need a democrat to English dictionary so we can keep track.

Pamela,
I appreciate your reply, I understand what you were implying. The destruction could be great. One lession that can be taken from Sherman's march, is many people suffered because of lack of food and shelter. My wife and I have taken this hint.

BTW, we are going to try and make the meeting in McKinney, TX.

Thanks for the site.

[jj]

pb:

he exposed men and women under his command, put them on the battlefield, against an enemy that he gave new resolve, and by doing so he betrayed them. he also betrayed an ally, who for all of his difficulties, persevered under nearly insurmountable odds and who had achieved genuine reforms and made progress toward rule that in the middle east was not despotic. iraq was well on its way to being a functional, self sustaining nation.

all of that has been thrown down the toilet by this despicable fraud.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

[jj]

CITE 18 USC Sec. 2381
EXPCITE TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
TEXT Sec. 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
SOURCE (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L.
103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(2)(J), 108 Stat. 2148.)

[jj]

pamela, friends:

he should be impeached. rfn.

john jay

p.s. i will say no more, i think i am tiresome at this point, ... , but this really makes me angry. first he jeopardizes c.i.a. types on a whim, and now this. but, he has appointed "two devout muslims" to sensitive posts in our government. what a goon, what an ultra maroon!!

[Achilles]

I am not sure how many may have seen this from yesterday:

Thu Jul 23, 6:41 pm ET The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says he's uncomfortable using the word "victory" to describe the United States' goal in Afghanistan. He says the U.S. fight there is against broader terrorism and not a nation.

Obama said Thursday that the fight is not going to end with a country surrendering to the United States. The president says the fight is against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations so that they cannot attack the country.

When Obama delivered a speech in March about his strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, he did not use the word "victory."

Obama spoke with ABC's "Nightline" while traveling to Ohio and Illinois.

I want to throw up. The Usurper says that victory is not our goal in Afghanistan. Is he that ignorant of the military, or he is deliberately attempting to destroy its effectiveness? Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines fight to win. There has never been, and can never be any other goal for the warrior. Yet, the Usurper says that we do not fight to win, and he remain the Commander-in-Chief.

My youngest son is in Afghanistan now. In our infrequent phone calls from him, it is clear that he is engaged in fire fights with the "bad guys" 2 or 3 times a week. If "victory" is not our goal, why is he there?

What do we say to the wives, sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers of those who have died in that third world armpit called Afghanistan? If "victory" is not our goal what is the meaning of their sacrifice?

If victory is not our goal, why is this waste of skin, masquerading as the President of our country, sending more young men and women into harm's way?

Obama's statement quoted above, by itself is more than sufficient grounds for him to be removed from office. One of the biggest ostrich, head-in-the sand moments in the history of mankind has been the West's failure to acknowledge that Islam has declared war upon us. Actually they have never stopped fighting since they dragged their flea-bitten, thuggish carcasses out of the desert.

I humbly submit that we are guilty of the same offense when it comes to the political "elite." They have declared war on the United States - on us. Yet most of us refuse to acknowledge it. Folks - it's time we did, and to act accordingly.

Raw, blinding, all-consuming rage - I am so tired of feeling this way. Please G-d let the revolution begin.

[Achilles]

PB - I respectfully disagree that "Sherman was defending the Constitution of the United States." Prior to the war, most people firmly believed that since the United States was created by the free and voluntary association of sovereign States, that any State, could decide to leave that union whenever the federal government became "destructive of these ends" [i.e., the protection of the right to life, liberty, and property ownership).

The minority opinion before the War Between the States was that once in the union a state could never leave for any reason. Holders of this view were known as the coercionists.

It is contrary to the very definitions of Liberty and freedom to believe that any group of people can and should be forced into association with any other group. Yet, this is exactly what Lincoln and coercionists did. Their actions were completely unconstitutional and paved the way for the eventual destruction of all Constitutional restraint on the federal government. Because of them, we now have an all-powerful, all-intrusive federal government that has no restraint and brooks no dissent.

I do believe that Sherman was probably the best general to fight on the Union side. I also believe that he properly analyzed the Southern psyche and understood that only complete and total destruction could ever destroy their zeal to defend their Liberty and their freedom. And, in some ways, I think he thought that such destruction was preferable to an interminable war in which many more would have died. In short, I think he was an honorable man - but he was totally wrong about the Constitution and his fight was, and will always remain unconstitutional.

[aprilnovember811]

I go to bed at night, and wake up in the morning wondering, what new havoc, this Obama regime is wreaking accross the world. I just shake my head, and say, Oh God. This government, can not protect us from the enemy within, probably the enemy outside anylonger either. And to think, the left is calling people who don't believe his eligibility kooks. I can't take it anymore.