Obama sympathizers threaten Taheri with Death

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm?&page=0

Taheri discusses the Obama rebuttal of his article. The salient points from my perspective:

“ . . . the rebuttal actually centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords under negotiation - the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA, to set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the months and years ahead). . . If there is any confusion, it's in Obama's position - for the two agreements are interlinked: You can't have any US military presence under one agreement without having settled the other accord. (Thus, in US-Iraqi talks, the aim is a comprehensive agreement that covers both SOFA and SFA.) “

Taheri challenges the idea that Obama was separating the SOFA & SFA: “That Obama was aware that the two accords couldn't be separated is clear in his words to NBC: ‘Obviously, we can't have US forces operating on the ground in Iraq without some sort of agreement, either a further extension of the UN resolution or some sort of Status of Forces agreement, some strategic framework agreement. As I said before, my concern is that the Bush administration -- in a weakened state politically -- ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain' s administration.’”

Taheri then quotes Obama at length and concludes what everyone with any objectivity remaining has also concluded, that Obama in his objection to Taheri’s article confirmed what Obama wrote – except for the quibble about the difference between the SFA and SOFA.

Taheri notes some other issues that haven’t received much emphasis during these discussions, namely that Obama “now talks of ‘the prospect of lasting success,’ perhaps hoping that his own administration would inherit the kudos. And he makes no mention of his running mate Joe Biden's pet project for carving Iraq into three separate states. He has even abandoned his earlier claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was "illegal" and admits that the US-led coalition's presence in Iraq has a legal framework in the shape of the UN mandate. In his statement on my Post article, Obama no longer talks of "withdrawal" but of "redeployment" and "drawdown" - which is exactly what is happening in Iraq now.”

I noted that most of the Leftist responses to Taheri’s arguments involved violent words. But the Leftists didn't restricted themselves to violently abusing his article. Taheri writes, “While I am encouraged by the senator's evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a "cease and desist" plea to the battalions of his sympathizers - who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.’”

The visit of the ATTF to my house at the request of someone who wasn’t content to merely abuse my writings, pales in comparison with this. None of the people I’ve debated has ever threatened my life. But I’ve spent enough time with those violent little Leftist Pacifists to have considerable sympathy for Taheri’s predicament.

Lawrence Helm