"Obama Tried To Sway Iraqis On Bush Deal"

"At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval. Mr. Obama's conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate's contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war." -- The Washington Times

"Obama Tried To Sway Iraqis On Bush Deal"
Barbara Slavin
The Washington Times
October 10, 2008

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.

Mr. Obama's conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate's contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war.

Some of the specifics of the conversations remain the subject of dispute. Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new president will be in office - a charge the Democratic campaign denies.
Mr. Obama spoke June 16 to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was in Washington, according to both the Iraqi Embassy in Washington and the Obama campaign. Both said the conversation was at Mr. Zebari's request and took place on the phone because Mr. Obama was traveling.

However, the two sides differ over what Mr. Obama said.

"In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [memorandum of understanding] between Iraq and the United States until the new administration was in place," said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States.

He said Mr. Zebari replied that any such agreement would not bind a new administration. "The new administration will have a free hand to opt out," he said the foreign minister told Mr. Obama.

Mr. Sumaidaie did not participate in the call, he said, but stood next to Mr. Zebari during the conversation and was briefed by him immediately afterward.

The call was not recorded by either side, and Mr. Zebari did not respond to repeated telephone and e-mail messages requesting direct comment.

Mr. Obama has called for a phased U.S. withdrawal of all but a residual force from Iraq over 16 months, a position the Iraqi government appears to have embraced.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have been struggling for months to finalize a deal that will allow U.S. troops to remain after Dec. 31, when a U.N. mandate sanctioning the military presence expires. Iraqi officials have said that the main impediment is agreement over a timeline for U.S. redeployment and immunity from Iraqi prosecution for U.S. troops and civilians.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Mr. Obama does not object to a short-term status of forces agreement, or SOFA.

Mr. Obama told Mr. Zebari in June that a SOFA "should be completed before January and it must include immunity for U.S. troops," Miss Morigi wrote in an e-mail.

However, the Democratic nominee said a broader strategic framework agreement governing a longer-term U.S. presence in Iraq "should be vetted by Congress," she wrote.

She said Mr. Obama said the same thing when he met in July with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mr. Zebari in Baghdad.

A recent article in the New York Post quoted Mr. Zebari as saying that Mr. Obama asked Iraqi leaders in July to delay any agreement on a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq until the next U.S. president takes office.

Miss Morigi denied this. She said the request for Senate vetting was bipartisan and noted that the first Obama-Zebari conversation took place 12 days after four other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - including Republican Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urging consultation over any agreements committing U.S. troops and civilian contractors to Iraq "for an extended period of time."

When Mr. Obama spoke to Mr. Zebari, he was speaking in his capacity as a senator and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Miss Morigi said. "It's obvious that others are trying to mischaracterize Obama's position, [but] on numerous occasions he has made it perfectly clear that the United States only has one president at a time and that the administration speaks with one voice."

Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who accompanied Mr. Obama in Iraq along with Mr. Hagel, said they made "no suggestion of any type of delay" in any agreements.

A congressional aide who was also present and spoke on the condition of anonymity said the senators asked for a congressional role similar to that required by the Iraqi Constitution for Iraq's parliament.

Still, the fact that the Illinois Democrat on June 3 clinched enough delegates to be assured the Democratic presidential nomination gives his comments special force - something that also applies to the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a key proponent of the surge of extra U.S. forces to Iraq last year.

As a U.S. senator, Mr. Obama "has a foot in both camps," said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. "It's within the jurisdiction of his committee and something he's entitled to speak about. It doesn't raise a red flag for me."

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on the matter.

Leslie Phillips, a press officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, also declined to comment even though an embassy note-taker was present during the senators' meeting in Iraq. "The embassy's role is purely to facilitate the meetings," she said.

Presidential nominees traditionally have not intervened personally in foreign-policy disputes, although campaign surrogates have done so.

Historian Robert Dallek has documented meetings with South Vietnamese diplomats in 1968 by Republican vice-presidential candidate Spiro Agnew and Anna Chennault, widow of Gen. Claire Chennault, the commander of "Flying Tiger" forces in China during World War II.

Mr. Dallek, author of "Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times 1961-1973," obtained tapes of the conversations from bugs the Johnson administration had placed in the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington.

Negotiations to end the Vietnam War were taking place in Paris at the time between the Johnson administration and the North and South Vietnamese.

Mr. Agnew and Mrs. Chennault "signaled the South Vietnamese that they would get a better deal with Richard Nixon as president instead of the Democrat" Hubert Humphrey, Mr. Dallek said.

"Johnson was furious and said that Nixon was guilty of treason," Mr. Dallek said, but neither he nor Mr. Humphrey disclosed the matter before the election, which Mr. Nixon won.

Read The Article

McCain - Barack Obama vs. ABC on the Surge

Today, Barack Obama will sit down with ABC News for an interview to be aired on ABC's "World News Tonight." Please find below a reminder that while Barack Obama was trying to score political points in the Democratic primaries by calling the surge a failure, ABC News was reporting the progress being made in Iraq because of the surge:

Just This Week, Barack Obama Told ABC That Even With The Success Of The Surge, He Would Not Have Supported It:

Obama Told ABC's Terry Moran That, Despite The Progress That Has Occurred In Iraq, He Would Not Have Supported The Surge. Moran: "'[T]he surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis' rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country. Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again.' If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you -- would you support the surge?" Obama: "No, because -- keep in mind that --" Moran: "You wouldn't?" Obama: "Well, no, keep -- these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with." Moran: "And so, when pressed, Barack Obama say s he still would have opposed the surge." (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 7/21/08)

BARACK OBAMA ON THE SURGE

In January 2007, Barack Obama Opposed The Surge:

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. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal." (MSNBC's "Response To The President's Speech On Iraq," 1/10/07)

· Click Here To View

In July 2007, Barack Obama Said The Surge Had Not Worked:

Obama Said The Surge Had Not Worked In Iraq. Obama: "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)

· Click Here To View

In November 2007, Barack Obama Said The Surge Strategy Was Not Working And That America Was "Actually Worsening" The Situation In Iraq:

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 the 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." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/11/07)

· Click Here To View

ABC ON THE SURGE

In July 2007, ABC's Charles Gibson Reported On Progress In Iraq:

ABC's Charles Gibson: "A bit of a surprise today on Iraq. Two long and persistent critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war today wrote a column in the 'New York Times' saying that after a recent eight-day visit to Iraq, they find significant changes taking place. Military analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack wrote, 'We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.' They added, 'We were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce, not necessarily victory, but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.'" (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 7/30/07)

In October 2007, ABC Reported That Casualties Had Decreased Dramatically:

ABC's Jonathan Karl: "This is Jonathan Karl at the Pentagon, where military officials say the lower US death toll has caught them by a surprise. They had been expecting an increase in attacks tied to General Petraeus's report to Congress and the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Instead, US casualties were at their lowest level in over a year. One reason, officials say, a dramatic drop in attacks linked to al Qaeda in Iraq. The military announced last week that this air strike killed top al Qaeda leader Abu Usama al-Tunisi. At the location, officials say they uncovered a note from Tunisi saying, 'I have been surrounded. We are so desperate for your help.'" (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 10/1/07)

ABC's Charles Gibson: "We began this broadcast a few days ago talking about the sharp drop in US and Iraqi casualties last month. And this month looks even better. General David Petraeus says attacks in October so far are at an 18-month low. Even better, he can now travel safely to some areas that might have been problematic just as early as this summer." (ABC's "World News With Gibson," 10/11/07)

In November 2007, ABC News Reported That Violence In Iraq Was "Down Considerably":

ABC's Jonathan Karl: "Charlie, nobody over here is anywhere near ready to declare victory, but the military statistics tell an unmistakable story. Violence in Iraq is down and down considerably. Baghdad's marketplaces are slowly coming back to life as violent attacks in Iraq have fallen to less than half of what they were a year ago." (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 11/1/07)

In December 2007, ABC News Reported On The Success Of The Surge:

ABC's John Hendren: "As 2008 dawns, General Petraeus is taking stock, eager to showcase what he describes as the fruits of the American troop surge. Topping the list is a 60% drop in violence over the past six months with roadside bomb attacks falling 68%. The drone of daily killings in Iraq would be shocking anywhere else. But here, the sense of growing normalcy is striking and it is reflected in the voices of Iraqis who, in city after city, told us they felt safer." (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 12/31/07)

McCain - "Mr. Obama In Iraq"

"The initial media coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy." -- The Washington Post

Mr. Obama In Iraq
Editorial
The Washington Post
July 23, 2008

The initial media coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about ... a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?

Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.

Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

Read The Editorial.

McCain Campaign Conference Call On Barack Obama's Iraq Trip

"I was skeptical about the surge at that point and time. And he said this is what we've got to do and we did it and thank goodness for John McCain because we won. I was wrong on the surge. Thankfully, John prevailed in this and because John McCain prevailed on this we are looking at a situation where we can substantially draw down troops in Iraq today instead of defeat." Senator Sam Brownback

Today, U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Randy Scheunemann, McCain 2008 senior foreign policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's Iraq trip:

Senator Sam Brownback: "Number one, as I said earlier, thank goodness for John McCain and his tenacity and his knowledge and wisdom on calling for this surge on pushing the Bush Administration for this surge. I mean this is, you may recall from earlier, the McCain surge. It was called that derisively early on when people were really questioning the wisdom and the judgment of it.

"I think what you are seeing here are the results of somebody that's knowledgeable about the military that's ready to be commander-in-chief. He knew that we didn't have enough troops in the theater. He knew if we would show confidence and stay in power that we could and would win. And he had been through the Vietnam experience. He wasn't about to get involved in something that wasn't moving toward success. So he stood there in the face of all on comers, including myself. I was skeptical about the surge at that point and time. And he said this is what we've got to do and we did it and thank goodness for John McCain because we won. I was wrong on the surge. Thankfully, John prevailed in this and because John McCain prevailed on this we are looking at a situation where we can substantially draw down troops in Iraq today instead of defeat.

"If we had stayed on the Obama strategy, you would be staring at a wholly different situation in Iraq today. You'd be looking probably at heightened violence, a segmented country being run by different groups, and an expanded terrorist base in all likelihood. We don't know any of that for certain, but we do know for certain that the surge has worked and it's because of the surge that we are in the situation that we are today. I believe it would be right for Senator Obama to simply say look I was wrong the surge has worked, the surge had produced these results. That's how you then learn from past experiences on it rather than to deny the surge's success.

"So I think you've got a clear dichotomy here, and you've got probably the best example you could possibly see on two different commanders-in-chief, and John McCain and Barrack Obama, and how they would have handled a really difficult situation. And the one produced success and the surge and the other would have in all likelihood produced massive failure and expansion of terrorism globally. You've got the best real life example possible here.

"Final point, there's two things that the president does alone. The president is commander-in-chief and the president does foreign policy. Most other things the president does with Congress or with other groups, but those two specifically given to the president. John McCain has shown and demonstrated in the most difficult of circumstances, both personally in his own life and as a policy maker and a statesman, his ability to lead troops as commander and chief and his ability to conduct foreign policy. I don't think you are seeing near that and I think you're seeing support for failed policies the way Barack Obama has shown he would lead."

...

Representative Heather Wilson: "I think there are a couple of things that are important to remember today. One is that Senator Obama has shown a complete inability to acknowledge that the surge worked. Last night on television, he said that he would not have -- even in hindsight -- he wouldn't have changed the way he voted, which was against the surge and even against funding of the troops in harm's way, which led to the success that we've had today. So he would have chosen failure over success, even looking in hindsight. And I find that completely perplexing.

"The second thing I think is important to remember is that he is being driven by the calendar and not by the conditions on the ground. It's interesting that, as we've been successful in Iraq in eradicating Al Qaeda in Iraq and calming the violence, it's become possible to look at reduced force levels. And John McCain has always said, against the opinion of public opinion and also, in some cases, against the opinion of his own president of his own party, that we need to be successful, irrespective of the calendar, and he'd like troops to come home earlier than 16 months, if the conditions allow it.

"Senator Obama has said it's a 16-month timeline no matter what. And he's apparently today muddied his position somewhat on this. But we never -- I think the important thing here is -- we never would have gotten to this situation if Senator Obama had his way, because he would have withdrawn from Iraq and left it in a mess."

...

Randy Scheunemann: "I want to comment on some of the statements Senator Obama has made, both in televised interviews, as well as in his press conference. Senator Obama said he and General Petraeus occupy different roles. That is certainly true. Senator Obama is a candidate for president, and General Petraeus led one of the most amazing military campaigns in American history.

"General Petraeus knows what led to the successes to date. And the policy, strategy, and force levels that led to those successes were opposed by Senator Obama. He voted against them; he predicted they would fail, even as they were succeeding."

...

"Senator Obama said that completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground say would mean, 'I am not doing my job as commander-in-chief. I am rubber-stamping decisions made on the ground.' This is really an amazing statement. He believes that deferring to the commanders on the ground is not the job of the commander-in-chief. He believes that deferring to the best military judgment of commanders is rubber-stamping. He refuses to credit General Petraeus and General Odierno for their leadership. He disparages their strategic judgment and trumpets his own.

"What is Senator Obama's judgment based on? He predicted the surge would increase violence. He was wrong. He voted to cut off funds for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was wrong. Now he wants to supplant his judgment for successful military commanders."

...

"The reality is that Senator Obama's judgment on the most important national security question facing our country in 2007 was wrong. And it demonstrates both his inexperience and his ideological rigidity."

...

"Senator Obama used to say U.S. forces were babysitting a civil war. Now he argues Sunni and Shia leaders would have made the same decisions over the last 18 months if the security situation was as bad as it was at the end of 2006. Earlier this year in January, he said, 'I would point out that much of the violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know, that the Americans were leaving soon. That's how you change behavior.' This is 100 percent wrong. First, he re-wrote his Web site to purge his criticism of the surge. Now, he's trying to re-write history. It is nothing short of fantasy to dream that the election of a Democratic Congress led to progress in Anbar.

"In late 2006, the situation in Anbar was bleak. In fact, there was a front-page Washington Post story based on a leaked Marine Corps intelligence memo that gathered wide attention at the time. That memo reportedly said, 'Most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability. Between Al Qaida's violence, Iran's influence, and the expected U.S. drawdown, the social and political situation has deteriorated to such a point that U.S. and Iraqi forces are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in Anbar.'

"That was in November 2006. Then the surge came. The surge first focused in Anbar, and the success there enabled Iraqi and U.S. forces to move on to other parts of the country. Senator Obama said today that Shia militias stood down. They didn't stand down. They were beaten down. They were beaten down by American and Iraqi forces.

"Senator Obama will not credit generals; he will not credit the strategy that works. And he consistently demonstrates his core judgment and his inflexibility in the face of clear facts on the ground."

Listen To The Full Conference Call.

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

John McCain's Weekly Radio Address

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign released the text of John McCain's weekly radio address for July 19, 2008.

John McCain's Weekly Radio Address:

Good morning. I'm John McCain, and this week, debate in the presidential campaign turned to the war in Afghanistan. My opponent, Senator Obama, announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq before departing on a fact-finding mission that will include visits to both those countries. Apparently, he's confident enough that he won't find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy. Remarkable.

This is similar to the mistake Senator Obama made when he confidently declared that the surge in Iraq could not possibly reduce sectarian violence there, and might well increase violence. He was so certain the surge would fail that he called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible. Senator Obama's previous statements against the surge have been hastily removed from his campaign website, in the audacious hope that no one would notice. But we all remember quite well that he said the surge would fail, and today we know that he was wrong.

Although the situation in Iraq is much improved, the war in Afghanistan has taken a bad turn that must be quickly reversed. Security in that country has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive. And it is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to victory over the Taliban.

Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say they need at least three additional brigades. I will ensure our commanders in Afghanistan get the troops they need by asking NATO to send more and by sending U.S. troops as they become available.

But sending more forces, by itself, is not enough to prevail. What we need in Afghanistan is exactly what General David Petraeus brought to Iraq: a nationwide civil-military campaign plan that is focused on providing security for the population. Today no such integrated plan exists. When I am commander-in-chief, it will.

There are many differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, which any plan must account for. But, as in Iraq, the center of gravity is the security of the population. The good news is that our soldiers in Afghanistan have begun to apply the lessons of Iraq -- especially in the east, where our forces are concentrated. These efforts, however, are too piecemeal. They are the work of innovative local commanders, rather than a strategy for the entire country. In particular, American forces must re-engage deeper in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban stronghold.

A cardinal rule in any military operation is unity of command, and this has been lacking in our Afghan campaign. Today, there are three different American military combatant commands operating in Afghanistan, as well as NATO. And some of their members operate under national restrictions as to where their troops can go and what they can do. This is not a smart military practice, and it is not how wars are won. As commander-in-chief, I will work with our allies to ensure unity of command. Moreover, with help from other nations, we must double the size of Afghanistan's own fighting forces to 160,000 troops -- so that battle-tested Afghan soldiers can safeguard their own people.

A successful counterinsurgency requires all instruments of our national power, and that military and civilian leaders work together, at all levels, under a joint plan. Too often in Afghanistan this is not happening. So I will appoint a highly-respected national security leader, based in the White House and reporting directly to the president, whose sole mission will be to assure victory in Afghanistan.

A special focus of our regional strategy must be Pakistan, where terrorists are known to hide. One way to root them out is to strengthen local tribes in the border areas that are willing to fight them. Senator Obama has spoken in public about taking unilateral military action in Pakistan. But in trying to sound tough, he has only made it harder to enlist the full support of Pakistan in the fight against terrorists.

In a time of war, the commander-in-chief's job doesn't get a learning curve. And if I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience. It was this experience that guided me in the conviction that the surge in Iraq could turn things around, and clear a path to victory. And I believe with equal conviction that we can prevail in Afghanistan, assuring freedom to the Afghan people and greater security to the American people.

Thanks for listening.

Statement by the John McCain Campaign on Iraq

Today (July 19, 2008), McCain 2008 Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann issued the following statement:

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."

McCain Campaign Conference Call On McCain - Barack Obama's Afghanistan And Iraq Positions

"My concern is not just with Barack but the committee itself and not having any hearings on Afghanistan over the last year and a half on our subcommittee -- we have missed a lot opportunities to take more responsibility and to bring to public light the problems. ... So I'm calling on Senator Obama to work with me to have hearings, to help bring to light the issues in Afghanistan, to put pressure on the Administration and others to act decisively there before the situation deteriorates more." -- Senator Jim DeMint

Today (July 15, 2008), U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), Kori Schake, senior foreign policy adviser and Randy Scheunemann, senior foreign policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's Afghanistan and Iraq positions:

Senator Jim DeMint: "There's been a lot of talk about leadership in Congress and in the presidential election, and I think one good indication of real leadership is what we've actually done with the responsibility and authority that we have. And here in Congress, we have the opportunity to use hearings, to provide oversight, develop policies and also bring a lot of issues to the public light that might not come out of the Administration.

"Barack Obama and I are leaders of the European Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's the chairman and he has the ability to have as many hearings with his choice of witnesses that he would like.

"I wrote the letter to Barack because of my concerns about Afghanistan and the fact that Afghanistan is a NATO operation, which comes under the purview of the European Subcommittee that he chairs. My trip to Afghanistan and a number of briefings here suggest some serious concerns. I believe as we've made progress in Iraq we've seen deterioration in Afghanistan. I know that McCain when he saw the problems in Iraq was able to come up with a strategy which was used by the President which has worked and I believe what McCain has put forth here for Afghanistan suggests the same type of understanding.

"My concern is not just with Barack but the committee itself and not having any hearings on Afghanistan over the last year and a half on our subcommittee -- we have missed a lot opportunities to take more responsibility and to bring to public light the problems. I think most Americans would be surprised and concerned to learn of the deterioration there militarily, the increase in poppy crop and the things that have happened and the potential problems if NATO does not keep its commitment.

"So I'm calling on Senator Obama to work with me to have hearings, to help bring to light the issues in Afghanistan, to put pressure on the Administration and others to act decisively there before the situation deteriorates more."

Kori Schake: "It seems to me odd that [Barack Obama] emphasized in his speech today that main strategic challenge the U.S. faces is Afghanistan, and yet he chose to cut off funds to U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan and he's never once held a hearing as the committee he overseas on it.

"That said, I want to focus on John McCain's message as well, because he made a very important statement today outlining a comprehensive strategy for victory in Afghanistan and I think it deserves a lot of attention because it demonstrates the serious-mindedness that he brings to being commander-in-chief and his ability to assess the situation and take a leadership role in fixing it, in the way that he has done with Iraq and that he is doing with Afghanistan. The strategy that Senator McCain is calling for in Afghanistan actually applies the principles of the counter-insurgency that has proven successful in Iraq, to carry those lessons into Afghanistan."

Randy Scheunemann: "As Senator McCain pointed out today, it's very strange that Senator Obama laid out his strategy and policies for Iraq and Afghanistan before he visits the countries. He hasn't been to Iraq in over 900 days. He's never been to Afghanistan. He has never met privately with General Petraeus. He's going to go over and presumably and get briefings, but in Senator Obama's world view, he doesn't need to benefit from the insight gained in those briefings. He believes that he already knows what the policy changes should be. ...

"Senator Obama ignores the consequences of the policy he's advocated in Iraq, and he's missing the point when he is expressing a demonstrable preference for defeat in Iraq. He said today that his commitment is to end the war in Iraq. It is strange that he talks about ending the war, but he doesn't talk about winning the war. Senator McCain is advocating winning in Iraq and in Afghanistan. If Senator Obama takes office, he has said he would reject the advice of his military commanders. Instead, he has pledged to give an order unprecedented in American history, an order no U.S. Commander-in-Chief has ever issued -- withdraw from Iraq and lose this war. Senator Obama refuses to recognize that such as order would have profound strategic consequences. As Senator McCain said earlier today, Senator Obama believes that it is necessary to lose in Iraq to win in Afghanistan. Senator Obama stubbornly clings to a withdrawal timetable he drew up to appeal t o the left-wing of the Democratic party. He reiterated his commitment to that today. ...

"Let me finally say, that Major General Hammond is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, responsible for Baghdad -- is likely to be one of the generals that Senator Obama will hear from when he travels to Iraq. When Hammond was asked about how he would feel about getting an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month, which is what Senator Obama's plan is, he said, quote, 'Instead of any time-based approach, any decision based on withdrawal has got to be conditions-based.' When General Hammond was asked if it was dangerous to pull if the withdrawal is not based on conditions, General Hammond said, quote, 'It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage. We have a mission, and it is not until the mission is done, that I can execute an order like that.'

"That's a very, very important statement. I hope Senator Obama will actually listen to the briefings that he gets and will revise his position -- a further refinement in his position on adhering to his rigid timetable for withdrawal from Iraq."

Listen To The Full Conference Call.

Myth vs. Fact: Barack Obama's Iraq Op-Ed

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today (July 14, 2008) released the following Myth vs. Fact on Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed in The New York Times today:

MYTH #1: Barack Obama Opposed The Surge Because Of The Military Strain, Situation In Afghanistan And The War's Monetary Cost

MYTH: Barack Obama Writes That He Opposed The Surge Because Of The Military Strain, Afghanistan Situation And The War's Monetary Cost. "But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge." (Barack Obama, Op-Ed, "My Plan For Iraq," The New York Times, 7/14/08)

FACT: Barack Obama Said He Opposed The Surge In Iraq Because It Would Not Work Or Reduce Violence.

· October 2006: Barack Obama Says 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)

· January 2007: Barack Obama Says 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)

· January 2007: Barack Obama Says He Did Not Know Of Any Middle East Expert Or Military Officer That Believed That The New Strategy Would "Make A Substantial Difference On The Situation On The Ground." Obama: "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 1/14/07)

· March 2007: Barack Obama Warns The Troop Surge Would Not Make A Long-Term Difference. Obama: "[E]ven those who are supporting -- but here's the thing, Larry -- even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 3/19/07)

· May 2007: Barack Obama Says He Does Not Believe The Surge Is Working. Obama: "And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we're on in Iraq is working, I do not." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Chicago, IL, 5/25/07)

· July 2007: Barack Obama Says The Surge Had Not Worked In Iraq. Obama: "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)

· November 2007: Barack Obama Says 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)

MYTH #2: Barack Obama Claimed That He Could Remove Troops Within 16 Months

MYTH: Barack Obama Writes That He Could "Safely Redeploy" All American Combat Troops Within 16 Months. "We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began." (Barack Obama, Op-Ed, "My Plan For Iraq," The New York Times, 7/14/08)

FACT: Military Commanders And Troops On The Ground Say That There Is "No Way" For The 16-Month Timetable To Work.

· ABC News: Commanders In Iraq Say "No Way" Barack Obama's Withdrawal Plan Could Work. "While Anderson and his troops have a positive attitude, several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that there was 'no way' it could work logistically." (Martha Raddatz, "Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult," ABC News, 7/11/08)

· ABC News: "Physically Removing The Combat Brigades Within That Kind Of Time Frame Would Be Difficult, As Well." (Martha Raddatz, "Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult," ABC News, 7/11/08)

· ABC News: Removing The Equipment From Iraq Could Be "The Real Problem." "It is the equipment that is the real problem. In the kind of redeployment that Anderson is talking about, the troops head home, but much of their equipment stays behind. Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers, tankers and helicopters. And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and limited numbers of wash racks." (Martha Raddatz, "Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult," ABC News, 7/11/08)

MYTH #3: Barack Obama Claimed Iraq "Never Has Been" The Central Front In The War On Terrorism

MYTH: Barack Obama Writes That "Iraq Is Not The Central Front In The War On Terrorism, And It Never Has Been." (Barack Obama, Op-Ed, "My Plan For Iraq," The New York Times, 7/14/08)

FACT: Iraq Has Been Called "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today" By Al Qaeda And "The Central Front" By Our Commanding General.

· Osama Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War ... Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

· General Petraeus: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq." (Gen. David Petraeus, Press Briefing, Arlintong, VA, 4/26/07)

MYTH #4: Barack Obama Says He Is Concerned About The Situation In Afghanistan

MYTH: Barack Obama Writes That We Must "Pursue A New Strategy" In Afghanistan. "As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there." (Barack Obama, Op-Ed, "My Plan For Iraq," The New York Times, 7/14/08)

FACT: As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Has Failed To Hold Any Hearings On Afghanistan.

· Barack Obama Has Served As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs From 2007 -- 2008. (U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Website, www.senate.gov, Accessed 2/15/08)

· The Subcommittee On European Affairs Has Jurisdiction Over The Countries Of Europe As Well As NATO Activities. "Jurisdiction: The subcommittee deals with all matters concerning U.S. relations with the countries on the continent of Europeand with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe." (U.S. Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Website, http://foreign.senate.gov, Accessed 2/27/07)

· As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Could Have Held Hearings On The Role Of NATO In Afghanistan. "[A]mbassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations[P]oints out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change..." (Joe Conason, "Obama's European Problem," www.salon.com, 12/29/07)

· Barack Obama: "I became Chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 2/27/08)

FACT: Barack Obama Has Never Been To Afghanistan; Skipped The Opportunity To Go In 2006.

· "Obama's Second Trip Abroad As A U.S. Senator Starts In Qatar And, In Addition To Iraq, Will Include Stops In Kuwait, Jordan, Israel And The Palestinian Territories, According To A Statement From His Washington Office." ("Obama To Visit Middle East, Including Iraq," The Associated Press, 1/4/06)

· "[Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)] Is Traveling With U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sen. Christopher 'Kit' Bond, R-Mo., And Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn. Their Weeklong Trip Including A Stop In Israel For Meetings With Israeli And Palestinian Officials. Other Stops Included Kuwait, Qatar, Afghanistan And Pakistan." (Rick Callahan, "Bayh: Next Six Months Crucial To Iraq's Future," The Associated Press, 1/7/06)

· "After A Two-Day Iraq Tour, Obama Is To Travel To Jordan And Israel On His Own." (Jeff Zeleny, "Obama Making 1st Visit To Iraq," Chicago Tribune, 1/5/06)

FACT: Barack Obama Voted Against Providing Funding For Operations In Afghanistan.

· Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

The Emergency Supplemental Provided The Following For U.S. Operations In Afghanistan:

$40 million for new power generation
$314 million for rural road rebuilding
$155 million for rural development
$19 million for agriculture
$174 million for Provincial Reconstruction Teams
$25 million for governance capacity building
$10 million for a Civilian Assistance Program
$79 million to support Diplomatic and Consular Programs
$16 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance
$16 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance for Internally Displaced Persons Assistance
$47 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement activities (Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda Margesson, and Bart Elias, "FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations For Defense, Foreign Affairs, And Other Purposes," Congressional Research Service, 7/2/07)

MYTH #5: Barack Obama Opposed The Iraq War Because It Would Be A Distraction From The Fight In Afghanistan

MYTH: Barack Obama Writes That He Opposed The Iraq War From The Beginning Because He Believed "It Was A Grave Mistake To Allow Ourselves To Be Distracted From The Fight Against Al Qaeda And The Taliban." "The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks." (Barack Obama, Op-Ed, "My Plan For Iraq," The New York Times, 7/14/08)

FACT: Barack Obama Said In 2002 That He Opposed The War Because It Was A Political Attempt "By Political Hacks Like Karl Rove To Distract" From Domestic Issues.

· Barack Obama's Definitive Anti-War Speech In 2002 Does Not Mention The Word "Afghanistan" Or The "Taliban" Once: http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

· In October 2002, Barack Obama Said The Iraq War Was An "Attempt By Political Hacks Like Karl Rove To Distract Us From A Rise In The Uninsured..." And A Whole Host Of Other Domestic Issues. "What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war." (Barack Obama, Remarks, 10/2/02)

· In April 2003, Barack Obama Accused Bush Of Using The War To Divert Attention From Economic Issues. "Asked if Bush is re-electable, Obama said: Bush has had his political 'spin-masters, who are very good on focusing the public's attention on the war in Iraq, and they will do their best to keep the focus away from the economic disaster that is occurring in our communities. By next year, I think the cost of the war will be that much more apparent. We'll probably have to spend at least $30 billion annually in troop deployment in the rebuilding of Iraq which can be used to cover prescription drug coverage for seniors.'" (Chinta Strausberg, "Obama To Bush: 'Fix Up U.S. Budget First,'" Chicago Defender, 4/15/03)

MYTH #6: Barack Obama Says He Will "Be As Careful Getting Out Of Iraq As We Were Careless Getting In"

MYTH: Barack Obama Writes That He Will "Be As Careful Getting Out Of Iraq As We Were Careless Getting In." "As I've said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." (Barack Obama, Op-Ed, "My Plan For Iraq," The New York Times, 7/14/08)

FACT: But Barack Obama Recently Said That The Withdrawal Would Not Be "Perfectly Neat" And It Would Be A "Messy Affair."

· Barack Obama Said That The Withdrawal Of U.S. Forces From Iraq Won't Be "Perfectly Neat." "'I don't expect that a withdrawal will be perfectly neat,' Obama said. 'I think that we've got to do a lot of legwork and we've got to make sure that we are ramping up both diplomatic efforts and reconstruction efforts and humanitarian efforts in Iraq, and that we have to make sure that Sunnis have some assurance that they're going to be legitimate partners in the government process.'" (Glen Johnson, "Obama Says 'Little Doubt' Country In Recession," The Associated Press, 7/13/08)

· Barack Obama Said Iraq Would Be A "Messy Affair." Obama: "Now, the last point I would make on this is, this is going to be a messy affair. There's no elegant and easy solutions to what I believe has been an enormous strategic blunder by this administration." (CNN's "GPS," 7/13/08)

MYTH #7: Barack Obama Would Leave A "Residual Force" For "Limited Missions"

MYTH: Barack Obama Writes That He Would Leave A Force In Iraq For "Limited Missions." "After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal." (Barack Obama, Op-Ed, "My Plan For Iraq," The New York Times, 7/14/08)

FACT: Barack Obama's "Residual Force" Could Be As Many As 80,000 Troops In Iraq.

· The New York Sun Reported That A Key Adviser To Obama Is Recommending That 60,000 To 80,000 Troops Remain In Iraq As Late As 2010. "A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office." (Eli Lake, "Obama Adviser Calls For 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops To Stay In Iraq Through 2010," The New York Sun, 4/4/08)

· Barack Obama Would Not Say How Many Troops He Would Keep In Iraq. CNN's Fareed Zakaria: "But you could imagine a situation where, if the Iraqi government wanted it, 30,000 American troops are still in Iraq 10 years from now." Obama: "You know, I have been very careful not to put numbers on what a residual force would look like." (CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," 7/13/08)

McCain Campaign Conference Call On Barack Obama's Iraq Position

"There's nothing less than total confusion about where Senator Obama is on the issue of Iraq and where he's been over the course of the past several years." -- Randy Scheunemann, Senior Foreign Policy Adviser

Today, U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb and senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann to discuss Barack Obama's remarks on Iraq.

Campaign Spokesman Michael Goldfarb: "The peg for this call today is Senator Claire McCaskill, Obama's National Co-Chair, appearance on 'Meet the Press' today. She was asked directly about Senator Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and she said that 16 months is simply a 'goal' and she said also that it would be 'irresponsible for a commander-in-chief to set a date in stone.' Now this is directly at odds with what Senator McCaskill said just two weeks ago on MSNBC when she was read that quote by George Packer about how dramatically different things are in Iraq now and how there is some urgency for Senator Obama to recognize the new reality in Iraq and come up with a new plan. And she said at the time that Barack Obama would absolutely not be changing his position.

"Meanwhile on Senator Obama's website, he still says that he is committed, absolutely, to a 16-month timetable for getting all American troops out of Iraq. And at the same time, we saw just before July 4th that he talked about refining his policy and called a subsequent conference to clarify that he would not be refining his policy. So we're sort of left wondering where Barack Obama is on Iraq, and today an interview aired with Fareed Zakaria on CNN in which Senator Obama said that he had been 'very careful not to put numbers on what a residual force would look like.' We've heard Senator Obama talk about a strike force in the past, about a residual force in the past, he has always been very careful to make it entirely unclear what that would be about. So we have seen them all over the map in the last couple of weeks." ...

Randy Scheunemann: "It wasn't too long ago when Senator Obama called a second press conference and said that he was puzzled by the reaction of the media to his latest change of positions on Iraq and frankly I think what's puzzling is Senator Obama's position. I think the American people are puzzled about where he is. There's nothing less than total confusion about where Senator Obama is on the issue of Iraq and where he's been over the course of the past several years. In 2002, he spoke out against the war, yet in July 2004 he said he had the same position as President Bush. In August 2004 he said clearly he was against an artificial timetable. In 2005, he voted for funding for the war in Iraq. He said it would be wrong to cut off troops in the field. In January 2007, as the surge was announced, he said the surge would not be likel y to decrease sectarian violence. In fact, the reverse was more likely. In other words, he said the surge wouldn't work and it would likely lead to an increase in violence. In May 2007, he voted to cut off all funds and this is significant because he voted to cut off all funds not just for Iraq but also for Afghanistan, so had his position prevailed, in May of 2007 there would have been no funds provided for the troops in that supplemental funding bill which provides the funding for troops in the field, for all their operations, for their body armor, for their ammunition, for their fuel. He voted to cut off all funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"He's campaigned throughout the primary season on his 16-month withdrawal plan, a rigid, inflexible deadline. He said in September 2007 in a debate that he would disregard the advice of commanders in the field, that he would order an end to this war. He said September 2007 the time to end the war was now.

"At the same time, he's talked about reserving the right to go back into Iraq if Al-Qaeda establishes a base, while insisting the need to retreat in the face of combat with Al-Qaeda. As Michael pointed out he's talked about retaining a strike force, very vague what that means. Now apparently he's calling for a residual force, and in response to a question today, he did not deny that that residual force could leave as many as 30,000 troops in Iraq for up to 10 years.

"The reality is the confusion out of the Obama campaign is the exact opposite of what we've seen over the course of the past 4-5 years from Senator McCain. He was one of the first to call for an increase in forces and a change in strategy after his first visit to Iraq in 2003. He has been clear and consistent throughout the course of this campaign and for the years prior to this campaign pushing for a plan that now has created the conditions for success. He has always said he would put the national interest over his political interests, and what we see now is Senator Obama searching for the most politically expedient position. We're glad to see that he's going to go to Iraq. He hasn't been there for over 900 days. We're glad to see that he's going to Afghanistan. He's never been there. Senator McCain's been to Iraq eight times, he's been to Afghanistan four times, he's intimately familiar with the situation o n the ground, and perhaps when Senator Obama travels there this candidate of change will change his position once again and come to a responsible view, one that recognizes the success that's taken place in Iraq thanks to following the course advocated by Senator McCain for many years."

Listen To The Full Conference Call.

Remarks By John McCain At AIPAC

U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., today:

Thank you all very much. I appreciate the kind introduction, and the invitation to address you. I see we have some students here, including a few from Arizona, and I welcome you to Washington. It's a pleasure, as always, to be in the company of the men and women of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. And I know that all of us are proud to be in the company of the distinguished senator from the State of Connecticut, my friend Joe Lieberman.

All of you involved in the work of AIPAC have taken up a great and vital cause -- and a cause set firmly in the American heart. When President Truman recognized the new State of Israel sixty years ago, he acted on the highest ideals and best instincts of our country. He was a man with courage and a sense of history, and he surely knew what great challenges the Jewish state would face in its early years. To his lasting credit, he resolved that the people of Israel would not face them alone, because they would always have a friend and ally in the United States of America.

The cause of Israel, and of our common security, has always depended on men and women of courage, and I've been lucky enough to know quite a few of them. I think often of one in particular, the late Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. I got to know Senator Jackson when I was the Navy liaison to the Senate. In 1979, I traveled with him to Israel, where I knew he was considered a hero. But I had no idea just how admired he was until we landed in Tel Aviv, to find a crowd of seven or eight hundred Israelis calling out his name, waving signs that read "God Bless you, Scoop" and "Senator Jackson, thank you." Scoop Jackson had the special respect of the Jewish people, the kind of respect accorded to brave and faithful friends. He was and remains the model of what an American statesman should be.

The people of Israel reserve a special respect for courage, because so much courage has been required of them. In the record of history, sheer survival in the face of Israel's many trials would have been impressive enough. But Israel has achieved much more than that these past sixty years. Israel has endured, and thrived, and her people have built a nation that is an inspiration to free nations everywhere.

Yet no matter how successful the nation of Israel, or how far removed from the Holocaust, there are experiences that will never pass from memory. Not long ago I was in Jerusalem with Senator Lieberman and our colleague Lindsey Graham, and we went to the Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem. And for all the boundless examples of cruelty and inhumanity to be found there, for all the pain and grief remembered there, somehow I was especially moved by the story of the camp survivors who died from the very nourishment given to them by their liberators. They had starved and suffered so much that their bodies were too weak even for food. They endured it all, only to die at the moment of their deliverance.

These are the kind of experiences that the Jewish people carry in memory -- and they are far from the worst experiences of the Holocaust. These are the kind of griefs and afflictions from which the State of Israel offered escape. And today, when we join in saying "never again," that is not a wish, a request, or a plea to the enemies of Israel. It is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us.

The threats to Israel's security are large and growing, and America's commitment must grow as well. I strongly support the increase in military aid to Israel, scheduled to begin in October. I am committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. Israel's enemies are too numerous, its margin of error too small, and our shared interests and values too great for us to follow any other policy.

Foremost in all our minds is the threat posed by the regime in Tehran. The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and suggested that Israel's Jewish population should return to Europe. He calls Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." But the Iranian leadership does far more than issue vile insults. It acts in ways directly detrimental to the security of Israel and the United States.

A sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah, the leadership of Iran has repeatedly used violence to undermine Israel and the Middle East peace process. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq who have killed American soldiers fighting to bring freedom to that country. It remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism and threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East, from Basra to Beirut.

Tehran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow. Emboldened by nuclear weapons, Iran would feel free to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others to join a nuclear arms race. The world would have to live, indefinitely, with the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. Armed as well with its ballistic missile arsenal, an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to the people of Israel.

European negotiators have proposed a peaceful endgame for Tehran, should it abandon its nuclear ambitions and comply with UN Security Council resolutions. The plan offers far-reaching economic incentives, external support for a civilian nuclear energy program, and integration into the international community. But Tehran has said no.

The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program. And the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history. In reality, a series of administrations have tried to talk to Iran, and none tried harder than the Clinton administration. In 1998, the secretary of state made a public overture to the Iranians, laid out a roadmap to normal relations, and for two years tried to engage. The Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But even under President Khatami -- a man by all accounts less radical than the current president -- Iran rejected these overtures.

Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it's hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.

Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on. Essential to this strategy is the UN Security Council, which should impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to delay in this responsibility, the United States must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework. I am proud to have been a leader on these issues for years, having coauthored the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act. Over a year ago I proposed applying sanctions to restrict Iran's ability to import refined petroleum products, on which it is highly dependent, and the time has come for an international campaign to do just that. A severe limit on Iranian imports of gasoline woul d create immediate pressure on Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

At the same time, we need the support of those in the region who are most concerned about Iran, and of our European partners as well. They can help by imposing targeted sanctions that will impose a heavy cost on the regime's leaders, including the denial of visas and freezing of assets.

As a further measure to contain and deter Iran, the United States should impose financial sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, which aids in Iran's terrorism and weapons proliferation. We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. I was pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama. He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a "wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region." But here, too, he is mistaken. Holding Iran's influence in check, and holding a terrorist organization accountable, sends exactly the right message -- to Iran, to the region and to th e world.

We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign. As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already. Years ago, the moral clarity and conviction of civilized nations came together in a divestment campaign against South Africa, helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid. In our day, we must use that same power and moral conviction against the regime in Iran, and help to safeguard the people of Israel and the peace of the world.

In all of this, we will not only be defending our own safety and welfare, but also the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. They are a great and civilized people, with little sympathy for the terrorists their leaders finance, and no wish to threaten other nations with nuclear weapons. Iran's rulers would be very different if the people themselves had a choice in the matter, and American policy should always reflect their hopes for a freer and more just society. The same holds true for the Palestinian people, most of whom ask only for a better life in a less violent world.

They are badly served by the terrorist-led group in charge of Gaza. This is a group that still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, refuses to denounce violence, and refuses to acknowledge prior peace commitments. They deliberately target Israeli civilians, in an attempt to terrorize the Jewish population. They spread violence and hatred, and with every new bombing they set back the cause of their own people.

During my last visit to Israel in March, I saw for myself the work of Hamas in the town of Sderot, just across the border from Gaza. I saw the houses that have been hit by Hamas rockets. In the face of injuries, death, and destruction thousands of Israelis have fled the town. Many others have stayed, to carry on as best they can. I visited the home of a man named Pinhas Amar, who lives with his disabled wife, Aliza, and their children. One day, last year, the sirens sounded again to alert the town to incoming rocket fire. The rest of the family found cover. Aliza, on the other side of the house, was knocked out of her wheelchair and struck by shrapnel.

This occurred on December 13. And from that day until the day of my visit just some three months later, more than a thousand rockets had struck Sderot. Today, siren warnings are commonplace, the elementary schools are surrounded by concrete shelters and children walking the streets in costume for Purim celebrations did so in fear. No nation in the world would allow its population to be attacked so incessantly, to be killed and intimidated so mercilessly, without responding. And the nation of Israel is no exception.

Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are engaged in talks that all of us hope will yield progress toward peace. Yet while we encourage this process, we must also ensure that Israel's people can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership willing and able to deliver peace. A peace process that places faith in terrorists can never end in peace. And we do no favors to the Palestinian people by conferring approval upon the terrorist syndicate that has seized power in Gaza.

Likewise, Israel's chance for enduring peace with Lebanon depends on Lebanese government that has a monopoly on authority within its country's borders. That means no independent militias, no Hezbollah fighters, no weapons and equipment flowing to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah fighters recently took up arms against their fellow Lebanese, starting the worst internal fighting since the civil war ended in 1990. In the process, they extracted an agreement for a new political arrangement in which Hezbollah and its allies can veto any cabinet decision. As the leader of Hezbollah often reminds us, this group's mission is the defeat of Israel. The international community needs to more fully empower our allies in Lebanon -- not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal: better schools, hospitals, roads and power generation, and the like. We simply cannot afford to cede Lebanon's future to Syria and Iran.

And we have an additional task. In the summer of 2006, Hamas and Hezbollah kidnapped three young Israelis -- Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser -- and have held them ever since. I met with the families of two of these men in December 2006, and heard firsthand about their ordeal. I committed then to bring attention to their situation, to insist that the Geneva Conventions are observed, and to call for the swift release of these men. These men are being unlawfully held, and they must be set free and returned home to Israel.

Another matter of great importance to the security of both America and Israel is Iraq. You would never know from listening to those who are still caught up in angry arguments over yesterday's options, but our troops in Iraq have made hard-won progress under General Petraeus' new strategy. And Iraqi political leaders have moved ahead -- slowly and insufficiently, but forward nonetheless. Sectarian violence declined dramatically, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in the fight against al Qaeda, and Shia extremist militias no longer control Basra -- the Maliki government and its forces are in charge. Al Qaeda terrorists are on the run, and our troops are going to make sure they never come back.

It's worth recalling that America's progress in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. It was the strategy he predicted would fail, when he voted cut off funds for our forces in Iraq. He now says he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq -- one to two brigades per month until they are all removed. He will do so regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of the consequences for our national security, regardless of Israel's security, and in disregard of the best advice of our commanders on the ground.

This course would surely result in a catastrophe. If our troops are ordered to make a forced retreat, we risk all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Al Qaeda terrorists would rejoice in the defeat of the United States. Allowing a potential terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends, and would invite further intervention from Iraq's neighbors, including an emboldened Iran. We must not let this happen. We must not leave the region to suffer chaos, terrorist violence and a wider war.

My friends, as the people of Israel know better than most, the safety of free people can never be taken for granted. And in a world full of dangers, Israel and the United States must always stand together.

The State of Israel stands as a singular achievement in many ways, and not the least is its achievement as the great democracy of the Middle East. If there are ties between America and Israel that critics of our alliance have never understood, perhaps that is because they do not fully understand the love of liberty and the pursuit of justice. But they should know those ties cannot be broken. We were brought together by shared ideals and by shared adversity. We have been comrades in struggle, and trusted partners in the quest for peace. We are the most natural of allies. And, like Israel itself, that alliance is forever.

Thank you.