Green Bay Press-Gazette Endorses John McCain

"Now, another collapse, this time in the mortgage industry, has led to even greater economic uncertainty on election eve. It's no time to repeat past mistakes; this time voters must choose the candidate with the experience to lead us through the storm. The Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board endorses John McCain for president." -- Green Bay Press-Gazette

"Press-Gazette Endorses John McCain For President"
Editorial
Green Bay Press-Gazette
October 24, 2008

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Eight years ago on the eve of the presidential election, the economy was reeling from the collapse of the dot-com market. A recession either loomed or had already begun. The nation's voters had a chance to choose a moderate Arizona senator as their new president, but he didn't advance past the Republican primaries.

Now, another collapse, this time in the mortgage industry, has led to even greater economic uncertainty on election eve. It's no time to repeat past mistakes; this time voters must choose the candidate with the experience to lead us through the storm.

The Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board endorses John McCain for president.

There is nothing automatic or routine about this decision, even though this newspaper has usually picked the Republican candidate in recent decades. Our choice follows literally hours of the most heartfelt and deep discussions to accompany an endorsement in many years. In Barack Obama, the Democratic Party has its most compelling nominee in memory.

Strip away the politics, which seem to get nastier with every election cycle, and McCain is correct about Obama: "I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

In point of fact, both candidates are decent men who don't deserve the sordid attacks that have been launched against their records, their beliefs and their very characters. Sweep away the chaff, however, and the edge must go to McCain's long record of working for change and reaching across the aisle to achieve important results.

A senator since 1987, McCain was a major author of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. He opposed President Clinton's military intervention in Somalia, and he joined Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold in working for campaign finance reform.

He was one of only two Republican senators to vote against the 2001 tax cuts favored by President Bush, although he reversed that stance in 2006 when the cuts were extended -- noting accurately that opposing the extension was the same as raising taxes.

McCain led a group of 14 moderate senators who preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances." Far from foiling the nomination of conservative judges, the compromise aided the confirmation votes for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, there is no doubt that the troop surge of 2007 achieved its goals of reducing violence and American casualties there, and McCain supported that action from the beginning, even when many senators and presidential candidates were resisting the idea.
McCain also stood for the ideal that America does not condone or endorse torture, and he has questioned the long confinement of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. We are disappointed that he has backed away from those principled positions during the campaign and fervently hope he will revisit them once in office.

These positions reflect McCain's understanding of the President's solemn authority to commit troops to battle. Certainly McCain's personal biography -- in the military and Congress -- gives him the edge when it comes to the matter of national security. And what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, is one of the most compelling reasons that John McCain is the more attractive candidate.
"I'm not running for president to be somebody, but to do something; to do the hard but necessary things, not the easy and needless things," McCain said as he launched his campaign in April 2007, reflecting the philosophy he has followed for two decades in Washington.

Sen. Obama may one day be able to point to a similar record of achievement, but the plain fact is that he has served barely more than half of one term in the Senate. He is an eloquent speaker with great promise as a future leader.

But we also see in McCain someone who shares the bedrock positions of the Press-Gazette -- that the government that governs least governs best, that the best tax relief occurs when government spends less, that the American dream is within reach to anyone willing to put in the necessary hard work and commitment.

And that, finally, is why we support John McCain for president.

Read The Editorial

McCain-Palin Campaign Conference Call On Stories About Terrorism And The 2008 Election

"Now let me be clear. If we are going to talk about who had got support from terrorist groups in this election I am going to read some quotes, I am not going to characterize them, I will let others judge whether the amount of expression of support or opposition whether they amount to expressions of endorsement or opposition. First this week a Hamas spokesman, Ahmed Yousef said quote, 'I do believe Mr. Biden is a great man and we do count on him as also a good partner with Mr. Obama to put the right policy regarding how to handle problems in the region. It is good for America to have the new administration with someone like Mr. Obama and his vision for change. I do believe actually with this administration, the Bush administration, we don't have luck in ending our isolation. We as Palestinians are thinking we might have better luck with the new administration if Obama wins the election. I do believe that he will change American foreign policy in the way they are handling the Middle East.'" -- Randy Scheunemann

Today, McCain-Palin 2008 held a press conference call with former CIA Director Jim Woolsey and McCain-Palin Senior Foreign Policy Adviser Randy Scheunemann to discuss recent news stories about which candidate terrorists would like to see in the White House in 2009:

Randy Scheunemann: "The Washington Post story that Mike referred to was an amazing piece of 'journalism' and I use journalism in quotations marks when referring to this story. One post of a relatively obscure individual justifies the headline that Al-Qaeda Websites Supports John McCain'. Only one website was named and only one author was quoted. Even The Associated Press which wrote a follow on story recognized that the author of the posting that The Washington Post cited, Muhammad Haafid, quote 'is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaeda plans or knowledge of its operations' closed quote and that's according to the same SITE, s-i-t-e, analysts quoted by The Washington Post. Did The Washington Post not even bother to ask him the question about this author and whether he was linked to al-Qaeda or did they not care?

"The article goes on to say that terrorism experts say that bluster by a group that may have more to fear from a McCain presidency, yet they couldn't find any space to quote these experts in a story that didn't seem to be overly constrained by space limitations.

"Now even if you take this posting that The Washington Post reported on at face value let me make a couple of points. First, The Post assumes if you read the whole thing, which I have, that Obama wouldn't even be in the fight. Only Senator Obama has advocated withdrawal and surrender to al-Qaeda in Iraq when al-Qaeda was at the peak of its power. The Washington Post didn't provide any of that context that Senator Obama advocated a withdrawal and voted against funding for our troops while we were engaged in fighting with al-Qaeda in early 2007, when al-Qaeda was at the peak of its power. Even Senator Biden has expressed doubts about Senator Obama and how he is going to react when the going gets tough. In fact when Senator Biden talked about a generated crisis and a response to which an Obama-Biden presidency would not be seen as right, it didn't even rate a full story in The Washington Post, a 230 word blurb is all that they gave that.

"Next point is that only Senator Obama has said that we can't afford to spend the money to win in Iraq. So while the jihadists are posting gleefully about the financial crisis, the Post barely found time to mention that it is only Senator Obama that said for financial reasons that we need to withdraw from Iraq. John McCain will spend what it takes to win in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

"If you read the full posting to, it has an interesting item where the author says quote 'this explains it's, meaning the U.S., submission to the Taliban in Afghanistan in seeking to negotiate without preconditions.' To my knowledge, the U.S. doesn't have that course of action but clearly the author of that posting sees negotiation without precondition as weakness and as submission and in fact there's only one candidate in this race that has advocated negotiating with our enemies and state sponsors of terrorism without preconditions, and that's Senator Obama.

"Now The Washington Post can explain why it used the quotes it did. Minimal perusing of the same website they quoted finds many, many other quotations including one which says quote, 'regardless of who wins the election, the old man or the climber, I inform you it will be dealt with according to your policies towards the land of Islam and Muslims.' So they had many alternative postings that they could have chosen to write about but they obviously chose one, for whatever reasons, wherever they found it, why ever they did it, to create an inflammatory headline that is not even supported by its own story and certainly not supported by a full reading of the Post.

"Now let me be clear. If we are going to talk about who had got support from terrorist groups in this election I am going to read some quotes, I am not going to characterize them, I will let others judge whether the amount of expression of support or opposition whether they amount to expressions of endorsement or opposition. First this week a Hamas spokesman, Ahmed Yousef said quote, 'I do believe Mr. Biden is a great man and we do count on him as also a good partner with Mr. Obama to put the right policy regarding how to handle problems in the region. It is good for America to have the new administration with someone like Mr. Obama and his vision for change. I do believe actually with this administration, the Bush administration, we don't have luck in ending our isolation. We as Palestinians are thinking we might have better luck with the new administration if Obama wins the election. I do believe that he will change American foreign policy in the way they are handling the Middle East.' Now this has been publicly available for several days. Again this is terrorist group Hamas and their spokesperson Ahmed Yousef. The Washington Post did not find time to write a story about that. Not a single story, not a single mention about a very clear statement from Hamas.

"Second, last month when Iranian President Ahmadinejad was in the United States, he was asked by a student whether he supports Democratic nominee Barack Obama or Republican John McCain. This is what president Ahmadinejad, who has called for the extinction of Israel has said, quote, 'the American government 28 years ago decided to cut its own ties with Iran. We do prefer to have relations whereas one of the candidates in this election would prefer that.' I think everybody on this call understands which candidate for president has endorsed unconditional meetings with president Ahmadinejad.

"Three, from Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, he said talking about Obama 'all the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaign to enable him to win the American presidency.' I'm not sure if The Washington Post ever reported on that. So we have three clear examples here of very strong statements, none to my knowledge have ever been covered by The Washington Post, all are on the record, all are clear, they are not on an obscure website by an obscure individual where words have to be twisted to create headlines that The Washington Post chooses to put on its stories."

...

Jim Woolsey: "I would just make two additional points. Beginning about three months after our move into Iraq in 2003, John McCain began saying on national television that we did not have enough forces and we needed to change strategy. He stayed on that tact for three and a half years until finally President Bush listened to him in December of 2006 and began the surge and the change of strategy. Now one important aspect of the change in strategy was to link up with the Sunnis and the Awakening Movement in the Anbar Province and to cooperate in going after al-Qaeda in Iraq. In posting after posting, it was clear from al-Qaeda itself and from Bin Laden's statements and Zawahiri's statements that this link up which John McCain was essentially the father of, this change in strategy, was what was causing al-Qaeda in Iraq, which al-Qaeda put at right in front of their struggle, the biggest difficulty and the biggest problem. It was killing al- Qaeda in Iraq, leaders that drew the biggest concern from al-Qaeda and from really all of the Islamists. John McCain was responsible as much as anyone in the country for that turn around. It is ridiculous to believe that in its heart of hearts al-Qaeda wants John McCain to be the President. And it is ludicrous.

"The second point is that if one takes one individual Islamist blogger from one terrorist Islamist blog, who has come up with this statement that it would be good to have McCain in the White House, I think one has to consider the motives. This individual knows that the endorsement of people like him is a kiss of death, figuratively and literally, so it seems to me it's pretty clear that by making this statement that he wants, that it would be a good thing for McCain to be President, he is clearly trying to damage John McCain, not speaking from his heart. So I must say I think the overall structure of the debate as one analyzes it coming out of this story taken at face value is quite remarkable."

Listen To The Conference Call

Senator McCain's Speech at Ohio Rally Today

I'm happy to be introduced by Governor Sarah Palin from the Great State of Alaska. She is a bit of a maverick herself. She will be my partner in reforming everything that's broken in Washington, and she is a leader who knows what it means to put her country first.

Sarah has a debate this week against my friend and colleague Joe Biden. He is a good man. But his is not the heart of a reformer, and if there's one thing every voter I've met this year agrees on, it's the need for big, tough reforms. We need the kind of reforms that require us to ruffle feathers and take on the entrenched special interests. And that's Governor Palin's specialty! Whether it's taking on big oil, or members of her own party, Governor Palin knows who she works for. She works for you!

Sarah and I have news for the big-spending, smooth-talking, me-first, country-second crowd in Washington and on Wall Street:

Change is coming!

We need reform in Washington and on Wall Street. When the financial crisis threatened the economic security of all Americans, I laid out principles to protect hardworking Americans. I believed that inaction was not an option.

I put my campaign on hold for a couple days last week to fight for a rescue plan that put you and your economic security first. I fought for a plan that protected taxpayers, homeowners, consumers and small business owners.

I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made on Wall Street and in Washington.
Some people have criticized my decision, but I will never, ever be a president who sits on the sidelines when this country faces a crisis. Some of you may have noticed, but it's not my style to simply "phone it in."

I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. I believe our leaders belong "in the Arena" when our country faces a challenge. I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now.

Senator Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was "monitoring the situation." That's not leadership, that's watching from the sidelines.

And watching from the sidelines is exactly what got us into this mess. It was the lack of accountability and oversight that put your tax dollars on the line. But it shouldn't be surprising that Senator Obama isn't interested in protecting your tax dollars.

Senator Obama has proposed more than 860 billion dollars in new spending. He was asked in our debate Friday to name a single program he would consider cutting to help our country through this crisis, and he struggled to name a single program!

Senator Obama is a fan of all that spending because he's always cheering for higher taxes or against tax relief. He's voted that way 94 different times.

Two times, on March 14, 2008 and June 4, 2008, in the Democratic budget resolution, he voted to raise taxes on people making just 42,000 dollars per year. He even said at the time that this vote for higher taxes on the middle class was "getting our nation's priorities back on track." Then something amazing happened: on Friday night, he looked the American people in the eye and said it never happened. My friends, we need a President who will always tell the American people the truth.

Senator Obama's record of higher taxes and more spending isn't going to help "95 percent" of Americans, as he likes to say: it's going to hurt 100 percent of us by growing government, slowing growth, and destroying jobs.

Times are tough for our economy, but I am confident America and Americans will emerge stronger than before. I will do my part. My commitment to the American people is this: I will clean up the Wall Street mess, reform Washington, and focus the entire federal government on a pro-growth agenda that creates jobs and gets this country back to work and back on track.

Now, let me give you some straight talk about this election:

In 36 days your vote will determine the next president of this great country we all love. I think the differences between Senator Obama and myself are pretty clear.

A vote for me will guarantee immediate pro growth action: tax cuts for America's hard working families, strong support for small businesses which are the back bone of our economy, and an end to pork barrel spending in Washington.

A vote for Barrack Obama will guarantee higher taxes, fewer jobs and an even bigger federal government. These policies will deepen our recession.

A vote for me will guarantee that the forces that have brought down our economy will be out of business. I will end the corrupt practices on Wall Street and the back room deals in Washington DC. I will hold accountable those responsible for the oversight and protection of consumers, taxpayers and homeowners.

A vote for Barack Obama will leave this country at risk during one of the most severe challenges to America's economy since the Great Depression.

You see, when it comes to growing the economy and protecting you from the corruption of Wall Street and Washington, Senator Obama just doesn't get it.

Americans have had enough of business as usual. Americans have had enough of the cozy relationships between politicians and power brokers. The status quo will end on November 4 with a vote for me and Sarah Palin.

You see, we've made the tough choices that make us unpopular in our own party. We have pushed for difficult reforms that leave special interests on the sidelines and give "the little guy" a seat at the table.

We will never forget who we work for -- we work for you.

So, that's how we see this election: Country First or Obama First, and I have a feeling I know which side you're all on.

When it came to cutting taxes for seniors, for working families, for small businesses -- my opponent did not put the hard working people of this country first.

When it came time to support our troops fighting to protect our freedoms and way of life, my opponent said he'd never deprive them of the funds they needed to fight -- and then he did just that. Barack Obama voted against funding the equipment our troops rely on as they fight to protect us. That is not putting the men and women of our military first.

When it comes time to reach across the aisle and work with members of both parties to get things done for the American people -- my opponent can't name a single occasion in which he fought against his party's leadership to get something done for the country. That is not putting the interests of the country first.

The country is looking for leadership. The country is hungry for change. They want a leader who will stand up to entrenched special interests -- in Washington, and on Wall Street. They deserve a president who knows when to put politics aside and act in the best interest of the nation. The choice is clear. You have my word. I will always put this country first.

John McCain 2008 Launches New Video: "The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand"

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today (July 17, 2008) released a new video entitled "The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand." Examining his many statements on Iraq over the last several years, the video is a timeline of Barack Obama's political positioning on the most critical national security issue America faces today. As the video concludes, Barack Obama's positions on Iraq are shaped by "whatever the politics demand."

View the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM

Script For "The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever The Politics Demand" (VIDEO 7:40)

CHYRON: The Obama Iraq Documentary

CHYRON: Where Does Barack Obama Stand On Iraq?

CHYRON: Said The Surge Would Make Things Worse

BARACK OBAMA (1/10/07): "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

CHYRON: Said He Always Said The Surge Will Make Things Better

BARACK OBAMA (1/5/08): "And I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence."

CHYRON: Translation: You're Never Wrong If You Pretend You Gave The Right Answer All Along

CHYRON: Predicted That The Surge Would Fail

BARACK OBAMA (10/22/06): "Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve."

BARACK OBAMA (7/18/07): "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now."

BARACK OBAMA (11/11/07): "Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

CHYRON: Now Says It's Working

BARACK OBAMA (2/21/08): "I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq."

BARACK OBAMA (4/8/08): "I also think that the surge has reduced violence and provided breathing room."

BARACK OBAMA (7/2/08): "The extraordinary work that our troops have done. They have performed brilliantly throughout the process. And obviously, I am very pleased to see the reductions in violence that have occurred over the last several months. There's no doubt that because of their heroism and their outstanding work, we had the opportunity to salvage the situation in Iraq."

CHYRON: Translation: He Isn't Going To Let Facts Get In The Way Of His Position

CHYRON: For Immediate Withdrawal

BARACK OBAMA (9/12/07): "So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now."

BARACK OBAMA (3/19/08): "In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove one to two combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them in 16 months."

BARACK OBAMA (5/2/08): "When I promise that we are going to bring this war in Iraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, '04, '05, '06 and '07, so you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war."

CHYRON: Against Immediate Withdrawal

ANCHOR (4/5/04): "You've said you thought troops should be withdrawn." BARACK OBAMA: "No. No, I've never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I've said is that we've got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don't think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that."

BARACK OBAMA (6/21/06): "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy."

CHYRON: Translation: Changes His Position To Fit the Election

CHYRON: Against Funding The Troops

BARACK OBAMA (11/16/03): "Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion, I said no. And I said no unequivocally, because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush."

CHYRON: For Funding The Troops

BARACK OBAMA (4/5/04): "What's important is what I don't want a situation in which we have 80 or 90,000 young American men and women who are over there in a situation where they do not have the resources sufficient to ensure their own protection. And what we have to do is make sure that we have enough troop strength. As long as we have troops there, we have to make sure we have enough troop strength to make sure we are safe and secure."

BARACK OBAMA (1/10/07): "We've got to make sure that they have all the resources necessary to come home safely and to execute the missions that have been laid out for them."

CNN'S WOLF BLITZER (3/28/07): "Some ardent opponents of the war, like Dennis Kucinich, for example, who is a Democratic presidential candidate" BARACK OBAMA: "Right." BLITZER: "He takes a principled stand. He's not going to vote to fund the troops going off to this war, because he believes that would help bring the troops home." OBAMA: "Right. You know, the problem is, is that you have got an obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change, in the face of circumstances on the ground. And, in that situation, what you don't want to do is to play chicken to -- with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor; you don't have reinforced humvees; you don't have night-vision goggles."

ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (5/13/07): "You said then that you have to say 'no' to George Bush because we can't get steamrolled. Yet you go in the Senate, your critics say, and vote for the funding every single time." BARACK OBAMA: "Because at that point you've got hundreds of thousands of young men and women who have to carry out the mission on behalf of the American people."

CHYRON: Against Funding The Troops -- Again

BARACK OBAMA (6/19/07): "Now, I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops home by now, with the goal of bringing all combat brigades home by March 31st, 2008. Now we know the president vetoed a bipartisan plan just like that one a few weeks ago. And I'm proud I voted against giving a blank check."

CHYRON: Translation: Only in Barack Obama's Mind Is Voting Against Troops A Virtue

CHYRON: Says He Will Put A Strike Force In Iraq

BARACK OBAMA (3/19/08): "After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and our diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda."

CHYRON: Says He Won't Put A Strike Force In Iraq

REPORTER (3/31/08): "You've said you'd leave a small force there to deal with terrorist attacks. How long would you leave them there? And what's your criteria for pulling them out?" BARACK OBAMA: "Well, no, no, that's not what I've said. What I've said is that we will have troops looking after our embassy there, which we do everywhere. We do it in France. We do it in Great Britain. We have some military personnel that ensure that our diplomatic forces are taken care of."

CHYRON: Translation: How To Keep Troops In Iraq And Still Sound Like You Want A Withdrawal

CHYRON: So What Is Barack Obama's Position On Iraq?

BARACK OBAMA (6/5/08): "Well, you know, I never say there's nothing or never or no way in which I'd change my mind."

CHYRON: Translation: Barack Obama's Position: Whatever the Politics Demand

AD FACTS For "The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever The Politics Demand" (VIDEO 7:40)

CHYRON: The Obama Iraq Documentary

CHYRON: Where Does Barack Obama Stand On Iraq?

CHYRON: Said The Surge Would Make Things Worse

BARACK OBAMA (1/10/07): "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

· In January 2007, Barack Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violence In Iraq. Obama: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." (MSNBC's "Response To The President's Speech On Iraq," 1/10/07)

CHYRON: Said He Always Said The Surge Will Make Things Better

BARACK OBAMA (1/5/08): "And I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence."

· In January 2008, Barack Obama Claimed That He Always Said That Increasing The Number Of Troops In Iraq Would Improve Security. Obama: "Now, I had no doubt -- and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence." (Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 1/5/08)

CHYRON: Translation: You're Never Wrong If You Pretend You Gave The Right Answer All Along

CHYRON: Predicted That The Surge Would Fail

BARACK OBAMA (10/22/06): "Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve."

· In October 2006, Barack Obama Said That We Cannot "Through Putting In More Troops Or Maintaining The Presence That We Have, Expect That Somehow The Situation Is Going To Improve." Obama: "Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 10/22/06)

BARACK OBAMA (7/18/07): "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now."

· In July 2007, Barack Obama Said The Surge Had Not Worked In Iraq. Obama: "But we are facing a choice. My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." (NBC's "The Today Show," 7/18/07)

BARACK OBAMA (11/11/07): "Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

· In November 2007, Barack Obama Said The Surge Has Not Worked, And Had Potentially Worsened The Situation In Iraq. Obama: "Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a search and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/11/07)

CHYRON: Now Says It's Working

BARACK OBAMA (2/21/08): "I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq."

· In February 2008, Barack Obama Said That It Was "Indisputable" That Violence Had Been Reduced In Iraq. CNN's Campbell Brown: "Senator Obama, in the same vein, you were also opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?" Obama: "Well, I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN/Univision Democrat Presidential Debate, Austin, TX, 2/21/08)

BARACK OBAMA (4/8/08): "I also think that the surge has reduced violence and provided breathing room."

· In April 2008, Barack Obama Said That The Surge Has Reduced Violence. Obama: "I also think that the surge has reduced violence and provided breathing room -- but that breathing room has not been taken the way we would all like it to be taken." (Sen. Barack Obama, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/8/08)

BARACK OBAMA (7/2/08): "The extraordinary work that our troops have done. They have performed brilliantly throughout the process. And obviously, I am very pleased to see the reductions in violence that have occurred over the last several months. There's no doubt that because of their heroism and their outstanding work, we had the opportunity to salvage the situation in Iraq."

· In July 2008, Barack Obama Said That He Was Pleased With "Reductions In Violence." Obama: "Now, that does not detract from the extraordinary work that our troops have done. They have performed brilliantly throughout the process. And obviously, I am very pleased to see the reductions in violence that have occurred over the last several months. And there's no doubt that because of their heroism and their outstanding work, we had the opportunity to salvage the situation in Iraq." (Sen. Barack Obama, Interview With Military Times, 7/2/08)

CHYRON: Translation: He Isn't Going To Let Facts Get In The Way Of His Position

CHYRON: For Immediate Withdrawal

BARACK OBAMA (9/12/07): "So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now."

· In September 2007, Barack Obama Called For The U.S. To "Immediately Begin To Remove Our Combat Troops" From Iraq. Obama: "So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Clinton, IA, 9/12/07)

BARACK OBAMA (3/19/08): "In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove one to two combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them in 16 months."

· In March 2008, Barack Obama Said He Would "Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq." "In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove on to two combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them in 16 months." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Fayetteville, NC, 3/19/08)

BARACK OBAMA (5/2/08): "When I promise that we are going to bring this war in Iraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, '04, '05, '06 and '07, so you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war."

· In May 2008, Barack Obama Said "I Promise That We Are Going To Bring This War In Iraq To A Close In 2009." "When I promise that we are going to bring this war in Iraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, '04, '05, '06 and '07, so you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The North Carolina Democrat Party 2008 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Raleigh, NC, 5/2/08)

CHYRON: Against Immediate Withdrawal

ANCHOR (4/5/04): "You've said you thought troops should be withdrawn." BARACK OBAMA: "No. No, I've never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I've said is that we've got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don't think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that."

· In April 2004, Barack Obama Opposed Withdrawal And Said We Should Not Have An "Artificial Deadline." Anchor: "But right now the U.S. is the one that's there. And you've said you thought troops should be withdrawn." Obama: "No. No, I've never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I've said is that we've got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don't think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that." (WTTW11's "Chicago Tonight," 4/5/04)

BARACK OBAMA (6/21/06): "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy."

· In June 2006, Barack Obama Said That "A Hard And Fast, Arbitrary Deadline For Withdrawal Offers Our Commanders In The Field, And Our Diplomats In The Region, Insufficient Flexibility To Implement That Strategy." Obama: "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy." (Sen. Barack Obama, Congressional Record, 6/21/06, p. S6233)

CHYRON: Translation: Changes His Position To Fit the Election

CHYRON: Against Funding The Troops

BARACK OBAMA (11/16/03): "Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion, I said no. And I said no unequivocally, because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush."

· In November 2003, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Voted Against $87 Billion For War Funding. Obama: "Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion, I said no. And I said no unequivocally, because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The New Trier Democratic Organization, 11/16/03)

CHYRON: For Funding The Troops

BARACK OBAMA (4/5/04): "What's important is what I don't want a situation in which we have 80 or 90,000 young American men and women who are over there in a situation where they do not have the resources sufficient to ensure their own protection. And what we have to do is make sure that we have enough troop strength. As long as we have troops there, we have to make sure we have enough troop strength to make sure we are safe and secure."

· In April 2004, Barack Obama Said He Wanted To Ensure That Troops Had The Resources They Needed For Their Protection. Obama: "What's important is what I don't want is a situation in which we have 80 or 90 thousand young American men and women who are over there in a situation where they do not have the resources sufficient to ensure their own protection. And what we have to do is make sure that we have enough troop strength. As long as we have troops there we have to make sure that we have enough troop strength to make sure that we are safe and secure." (WTTW11's "Chicago Tonight," 4/5/04)

BARACK OBAMA (1/10/07): "We've got to make sure that they have all the resources necessary to come home safely and to execute the missions that have been laid out for them."

· In January 2007, Barack Obama Said That Congress Needed To Make Sure That Troops In Iraq Had "All The Resources Necessary To Come Home Safely And To Execute The Missions That Have Been Laid Out For Them." Obama: "I think that we have to look at a variety of options where Congress can exercise its responsibilities. I know nobody in Congress, Republican or Democrat, who is going to in any way strand troops who are presently in Iraq. We've got to make sure that they have all the resources necessary to come home safely and to execute the missions that have been laid out for them." (MSNBC's "Reaction To The President's Speech On Iraq," 1/10/07)

CNN'S WOLF BLITZER (3/28/07): "Some ardent opponents of the war, like Dennis Kucinich, for example, who is a Democratic presidential candidate" BARACK OBAMA: "Right." BLITZER: "He takes a principled stand. He's not going to vote to fund troops going off to this war, because he believes that would help bring the troops home." OBAMA: "Right. You know, the problem is, is that you have got an obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change, in the face of circumstances on the ground. And, in that situation, what you don't want to do is to play chicken to -- with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor; you don't have reinforced humvees; you don't have night-vision goggles."

· In March 2007, Barack Obama Said He Did Not Want To Leave The Soldiers In A Position Where They Were Not Equipped. Blitzer: "Because some ardent opponents of the war, like Dennis Kucinich, for example, who is a Democratic presidential candidate" Obama: "Right." Blitzer: "[H]e takes a principled stand. He's not going to vote to fund troops going off to this war, because he believes that would help bring the troops home." Obama: "Right. You know, the problem is, is that you have got an obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change, in the face of circumstances on the ground. And, in that situation, what you don't want to do is to play chicken to -- with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor; you don't have reinforced humvees; you don't have night-vision goggles." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 3/28/07)

ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (5/13/07): "You said then that you have to say 'no' to George Bush because we can't get steamrolled. Yet you go in the Senate, your critics say, and vote for the funding every single time." BARACK OBAMA: "Because at that point you've got hundreds of thousands of young men and women who have to carry out the mission on behalf of the American people."

· In May 2007, Barack Obama Told ABC's George Stephanopoulos That He Supported Funding To Give Troops The Equipment They Need. Stephanopoulos: "[Y]ou said then that you have to say 'no' to George Bush because we can't get steamrolled. Yet you go in the Senate, your critics say, and vote for the funding every single time." Obama: "Because at that point you've got hundreds of thousands of young men and women who have to carry out the mission on behalf of the American people. It's not their fault that our civilian leadership made bad decisions and what I wanted to make sure of was that they had night vision goggles that they needed, the Humvees that they needed and I also felt and I've continued to feel this way that if we could create some semblance of stability and success in Iraq, that would be a good thing." (ABC's "This Week," 5/13/07)

CHYRON: Against Funding The Troops -- Again

BARACK OBAMA (6/19/07): "Now, I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops home by now, with the goal of bringing all combat brigades home by March 31st, 2008. Now we know the president vetoed a bipartisan plan just like that one a few weeks ago. And I'm proud I voted against giving a blank check."

· In June 2007, At The Take Back America Conference, Barack Obama Said He Was "Proud" Of His Vote Against The Iraq Funding Bill. Obama: "Now, I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops home by now, with the goal of bringing all combat brigades home by March 31st, 2008. Now we know the president vetoed a bipartisan plan just like that one a few weeks ago. And I'm proud I voted against giving a blank check to the man who said he sees keeping us -- keeping our troops in Iraq for as long as we have kept them in Korea. But we can't give George Bush the last word here. We are 16 votes away in the Senate from ending this war, a comparable number in the House. We need to keep turning up the pressure on all those Republican congressmen and senators who refuse to acknowledge the reality that the American people know so well. We will call them; we will knock on their doors. We will bring our troops home . It is time to bring this war to a close. It is time to recognize there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq. It is time to turn the page." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The 2007 Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/19/07)

CHYRON: Translation: Only in Barack Obama's Mind Is Voting Against Troops A Virtue

CHYRON: Says He Will Put A Strike Force In Iraq

BARACK OBAMA (3/19/08): "After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and our diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda."

· In March 2008, Barack Obama Said He Would "Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq." "After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and our diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Fayetteville, NC, 3/19/08)

CHYRON: Says He Won't Put A Strike Force In Iraq

REPORTER (3/31/08): "You've said you'd leave a small force there to deal with terrorist attacks. How long would you leave them there? And what's your criteria for pulling them out?"

BARACK OBAMA: "Well, no, no, that's not what I've said. What I've said is that we will have troops looking after our embassy there, which we do everywhere. We do it in France. We do it in Great Britain. We have some military personnel that ensure that our diplomatic forces are taken care of."

· In March 2008, Barack Obama Claimed That He Would Keep A Strike Force In Iraq "Looking After Our Embassy There." Reporter: "You've said you'd leave a small force there to deal with terrorist attacks. How long would you leave them there? And what's your criteria for pulling them out? Obama: "Well, no, no, that's not what I've said. What I've said is that we will have troops looking after our embassy there, which we do everywhere. We do it in France. We do it in Great Britain. We have some military personnel that ensure that our diplomatic forces are taken care of." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 3/31/08)

CHYRON: Translation: How To Keep Troops In Iraq And Still Sound Like You Want A Withdrawal

CHYRON: So What Is Barack Obama's Position On Iraq?

BARACK OBAMA (6/5/08): "Well, you know, I never say there's nothing or never or no way in which I'd change my mind."

· In June 2008, Barack Obama Told CNN's Candy Crowley "I Never Say There's Nothing Or Never Or No Way In Which I'd Change My Mind." Crowley: "You have said you want to go back to Iraq." Obama: "Yeah." Crowley: "See what the situation is on the ground. Is there nothing that they could show you or that General Petraeus could tell you that would move you from wanting to immediately begin removing U.S. troops?" Obama: "Well, you know, I never say there's nothing or never or no way in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08)

CHYRON: Translation: Barack Obama's Position: Whatever the Politics Demand