McCain - Barack Obama vs. NBC on the Surge

Today, Barack Obama will sit down with NBC News for an interview to be aired on NBC's "Nightly News." 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, NBC News was reporting the progress being made in Iraq because of the surge:

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:

Barack 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

NBC ON THE SURGE

In September 2007, NBC Reported On The Success Of The Surge:

NBC's Jim Maceda: "They have had a lot of successes, and it is true that levels of violence are way down in Anbar. There are two main reasons for that, Brian. First of all, those additional 4,000-plus US Marines and soldiers that were part of the surge beginning in February there. Secondly, the local Sunnis, particularly those tribal sheikhs who broke away, as David was suggesting there, from al-Qaeda, about six months ago and started fighting on our side, with US forces." (NBC's "Nightly News," 9/3/07)

In November 2007, NBC Reported On The "Signs Of Change" As A Result Of The Surge:

NBC's Brian Williams: "We are all hearing more and more these days about a significant drop in violence and deaths in Iraq, even though 2007 some time ago became the bloodiest year of the war yet for US forces. These new stats show a different trend. When our own Tom Aspell went out in Iraq to report this story, he found there are, indeed, signs of change." (NBC's "Nightly News," 11/14/07)

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 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'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.

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)