No and Yes

The Obama Campaign denies that its leader interfered where he didn’t belong.

Barack Obama's White House campaign angrily denied Monday a report that he had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November's election.

Then, in the next breath, the campaign admits that Obama interfered where he didn’t belong.

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, [Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi] said.

If this campaign and its product aren't the perfect personification of Leftist "theology", I don't know how much closer they could get.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

PREVIOUSLY:

Trippin' in Iraq

Comments

[Original Pechanga]

What's the codeword for interfering with US Policy?

This really needs to be played up.

Does this mean he really wants more American troops to die?

[karrde]

What shocks me is the crassness of the act.

He proclaims that something ought to be done.

Then he works, under the table, to keep it from happening. (Presumably until he could get into a position to do it himself.)

Or he just like trying to throw a monkeywrench into the plans of the current Commander in Chief.

Either way, it gives an impression of a self-centered man, not a public servant.

[Trish]

This is what all media (good luck) and the McCain campaign should be shouting to the skies.

"Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason?
When it doth prosper,
None dare call it treason."

[DarkStar]

So, now that Republicans who were on the trip, including Bush administration officials are saying it's not true, what do you have to say?

The Obama campaign said that the Post report consisted of "outright distortions."

Lending significant credence to Obama's response is the fact that -- though it's absent from the Post story and other retellings -- in addition to Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, this July meeting was also attended by Bush administration officials, such as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the Baghdad embassy's legislative affairs advisor Rich Haughton, as well as a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Attendees of the meeting back Obama's account, including not just Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., but Hagel, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers from both parties. Officials of the Bush administration who were briefed on the meeting by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad also support Obama's account and dispute the Post story and McCain attack.

The Post story is "absolutely not true," Hagel spokesman Mike Buttry told ABC News.

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations," said Obama campaign national security spokesperson Wendy Morigi, "nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades."

Buttry said that Hagel agrees with Obama's account of the meeting: Obama began the meeting with al-Maliki by asserting that the United States speaks with one foreign policy voice, and that voice belongs to the Bush administration.

A Bush administration official with knowledge of the meeting says that, during the meeting, Obama stressed to al-Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate, as soon as possible, the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with, among other matters, U.S. troops having immunity from local prosecution.

Obama did assert at the meeting with the Iraqis that he agrees with those -– including Hagel and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- who advocate congressional review of the Strategic Framework Agreement being worked out between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government, including the Iraqi parliament.

[DarkStar]

Oh, and I have some posts you'll like.