About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC News' Wright simply asserted that Obama "seemed to criticize" troops

August 17, 2007 7:02 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: During an ABC News report on Sen. Barack Obama, David Wright clipped a recent statement by Obama in order to assert that he "seemed to criticize the performance of U.S. troops" there. But Wright left out the rest of Obama's sentence, which makes clear that Obama was criticizing the troop shortage in Afghanistan, rather than the troops' conduct.

26 Comments

During a report on Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) on the August 17 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, ABC News correspondent David Wright clipped a recent statement by Obama in order to assert that he "seemed to criticize the performance of U.S. troops" there. Further, when referring to Obama's August 1 comment -- "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won't act, we will" -- Wright stated that Obama's rival candidates would "probably not" "wait to act on actionable intelligence," but asserted that, unlike Obama, "[t]hey just might not say so out loud." In fact, Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have both acknowledged that they agree that a president should retain the option of attacking terrorists within the territory of an ally, as Media Matters for America documented. Throughout Wright's report, the on-screen graphic read: "Obama's Foot in Mouth Disease? Too Inexperienced for Campaign?"

As evidence to support his claim that Obama "seemed to criticize the performance of U.S. troops," Wright aired a brief clip of Obama saying: "[A]ir-raiding villages and killing civilians," accompanying the video with a caption of those words printed on the screen. But Wright left out the rest of Obama's sentence, from his speech at an August 13 campaign appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire: "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." The full sentence makes clear that Obama was criticizing the troop shortage in Afghanistan, rather than the troops' conduct.

Wright went on to report: "Civilian casualties are a huge issue in Afghanistan. Last week at Camp David, the Afghan president raised the issue directly with President Bush," but presumably," Wright added, "Hamid Karzai used language that was more diplomatic, more presidential." In fact, U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media. President Karzai has reportedly criticized U.S. airstrikes resulting in alleged civilian casualties, with the state-run Anis newspaper reportedly saying after one such airstrike: "Repetition of such mistakes and occurrence of such events not only puts under question the credibility of the government, but also leads to the failure in the war against terrorism." Such airstrikes have also reportedly provoked criticism from a British commander stationed in southern Afghanistan.

Additionally, as the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" report, titled "Obama on Afghanistan," "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents." Further, in a July 7 article on NATO and U.S. airstrikes reported to have killed more than 100 Afghan civilians, Reuters cited the assessment of military analysts that "a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power." Moreover, like Obama, the Afghan ambassador to the United States, Said Jawad, expressed the need for a greater troop presence in the country when, during a July 17 interview with Talking Points Memo's Spencer Ackerman, he stated that "room has been provided" for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to restore themselves in Afghanistan "on one hand due to the fact that we don't have enough international soldiers to be in Afghanistan."

During the report, Wright also asserted: "When Obama said he'd chase Osama bin Laden into Pakistan with or without that country's approval, Pakistan protested and his rivals questioned his experience. Would any of them actually wait to act on actionable intelligence? Probably not. They just might not say so out loud." In the speech to which Wright referred, Obama said:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

But despite Wright's assertion that Obama's rivals would not make such pronouncements "out loud," both Giuliani and Romney have, in fact acknowledged their agreement with the substance of Obama's statement, as Media Matters documented. When asked during an August 1 interview on PBS' Charlie Rose if he would go into Pakistan "to crush the Taliban and al-Qaeda ... despite the objections of Musharraf," Giuliani responded, "I certainly would not take that option off the table. You would have to judge that given the circumstances that were presented to you, hey, these things are all to be called on."

ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos asked Giuliani about this comment during the August 5 Republican presidential debate, saying, "[Y]ou said, 'If we had a chance to take bin Laden we've got to do it ourselves, because we're not sure if someone else is going to do it correctly. Yeah, I think I would take that option.' " Giuliani acknowledged: "Well, I would take that option if I thought there was no other way to crush Al Qaeda, no other way to crush the Taliban and no other way to be able to capture bin Laden." During the August 5 debate, Romney referred to Obama's remark and said, "It's wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say "We're going to go into your country unilaterally"; but he then went on to agree with Obama's statement, as Wright would say, "out loud." Indeed, Romney said: "Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America."

Additionally, aided by the on-screen graphic, Wright and ABC News political commentator Cokie Roberts repeatedly suggested that Obama comes across as too inexperienced to be president. Roberts claimed that Obama "comes across as someone who's not quite ready for prime time." Later, Wright asked: "There's no question Obama is smart and well-briefed, but is he ready to be president?" His question was followed by another clip of Roberts saying, "Politicians get into trouble when they do or say something that plays into a story line that's already there. When Ronald Reagan seemed too old, that was a problem; when George Bush seemed too elite, that was a problem." Wright added: "For Obama, the Achilles' heel may be experience."

From the August 17 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

DIANE SAWYER (co-anchor): And now we turn to the race for the White House: This weekend in Iowa, George Stephanopoulos and ABC News holding -- sponsoring a Democratic presidential debate, and this time, the spotlight is sure to be on Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who has spent the past few days defending himself about his own words.

Here is ABC's David Wright.

[begin video clip]

WRIGHT: When Obama said he'd chase Osama bin Laden into Pakistan with or without that country's approval, Pakistan protested and his rivals questioned his experience. Would any of them actually wait to act on actionable intelligence? Probably not. They just might not say so out loud.

ROBERTS: A lot of people would agree with a lot of what he's saying, but the way he's saying it comes across as someone who's not quite ready for prime time.

WRIGHT: The Pakistan flap came on the heels of Obama's promise to sit down face-to-face with [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY): I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive.

WRIGHT: They disagree.

OBAMA: Thank you, Nashua.

WRIGHT: Then this week at a New Hampshire forum, Obama seemed to criticize the performance of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

OBAMA: Air-raiding villages and killing civilians --

DAVID GERGEN (former presidential adviser): I think they are positions a presidential candidate can take, but they have to be taken with precision. It's not wise as a candidate to bring a sledgehammer.

WRIGHT: Civilian casualties are a huge issue in Afghanistan. Last week at Camp David, the Afghan president raised the issue directly with President Bush, but presumably Hamid Karzai used language that was more diplomatic, more presidential.

KARZAI: I had a good discussion with President Bush on civilian casualties.

WRIGHT: There's no question Obama is smart and well-briefed, but is he ready to be president?

ROBERTS: Politicians get into trouble when they do or say something that plays into a story line that's already there. When Ronald Reagan seemed too old, that was a problem; when George bush seemed too elite, that was a problem.

WRIGHT: For Obama, the Achilles' heel may be experience. So, on Sunday, he'll have to weigh every word. For Good Morning America -- David Wright, ABC news, Washington.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by CaseySpring (August 17, 2007 7:10 pm ET)
         

      Obama did not criticize the troops. I have been watching how this media seems very biased toward him from the start of this campaign.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (August 17, 2007 7:18 pm ET)
         

      WRIGHT: Then this week at a New Hampshire forum, Obama seemed to criticize the performance of U.S. troops in Afghanistan

      How was he critical of our troops? I still do not get this? We do kill civillians. Can we never mention this in the eyes of the GOP?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (August 18, 2007 9:33 pm ET)
           

        No, apparently not.

        But even if he DID criticize "the troops"... so what? They're humans like everyone else, and do great things as well as horrible things.

        I hate this idea that "criticizing the troops" is somehow forbidden. That's what leads to disasters. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by smittymatt16 (August 20, 2007 10:07 am ET)
             

          It's the idea of criticizing the troops without giving them the benefit of the doubt that poses a problem with some.  Troops, as you should know, do what they are told, and they fight brave fights.  To immediately criticize those who give you and I freedom is unfair to them and disrespectful.  The military has accountability measures in place, and soldiers are held to a standard to which they are to adhere to, or they know they can and will be court martialed.  It's the idea that Obama conveyed in say that we are "just" air raiding and killing civilians.  No one is disputing that civilians have been killed, but to suggest that this is the only thing are doing  there is disrespectful and unacceptable.  That is the issue.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (August 19, 2007 6:25 am ET)
           

        This is just the Bush apologists' default method for derailing a conversation which is heading in an embarassing direction for the GOP. It's based on the bogus premise that our soldiers are so thin skinned and emotionally fragile that they just cannot function if we criticize the idiotic policies of President George W. Numbnuts Bush. They usually throw it out there when someone raises an uncomfortable truth to which they cannot respond.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Vondarrien (August 17, 2007 8:06 pm ET)
         

      What an ass, this guy is.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by clams casino (August 17, 2007 8:54 pm ET)
         

      Congratulations, David Wright. You've been Hannitized!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kevin1007 (August 17, 2007 9:11 pm ET)
         

      This is ridiculous. It is obvious that Obama was attacking our troops. The folks at Media Matters for Al Qaeda, none of whom served in the military, should stop spinning for this vile man.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (August 17, 2007 9:58 pm ET)
           

        Buh-bye troll...

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (August 17, 2007 11:35 pm ET)
           

        YOU are a liar, stop lying

        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (August 18, 2007 12:47 am ET)
           

        Why would it matter if MMFA staffers served or not?  How does that invalidate anything they have written?

        Secondly, if it was really obvious, you guys would stop relying on interpretations and paraphrases of what Obama said and would show his remarks in full context - without embellishment of any kind.  You simply can't and won't do that.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by james.m.k (August 18, 2007 1:30 am ET)
           

        This is ridiculous. It is obvious that Obama was attacking our troops. The folks at Media Matters for Al Qaeda, none of whom served in the military, should stop spinning for this vile man.

        I see... Well, when you put THAT way it seems obvious.

        *rolls eyes*

        Report Abuse
      • Author by onionhead (August 18, 2007 1:53 am ET)
           

        If it is "Media Matters for Al Qaeda". Then why are you fraternizing with us terrorists?

        Since you are knowingly fraternizing with terrorists, you are commiting an act of treason. Therefore, you must also hate the troops, you flag-burning hippie. 

        Wow! Neo-Con "logic" is fun!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 18, 2007 2:41 am ET)
           

        Kevin, by "spinning", do you mean providing entire quotes in context, as opposed to clipping phrases out of those quotes?

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (August 19, 2007 6:19 am ET)
           

        Well, well. JamesBondKevin has come in from the cold. I guess he's been on a secret mission to some terrorist hotbed. Kevin went to spy school, you know.

        I'm glad Kevin has time in his busy schedule of torturing terrorists and rescuing kittens to stop by and share his stale Rush Limbaugh talking points. It makes me feel....special.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (August 19, 2007 10:18 am ET)
           

        We'll encourage the eligible MMFA staffers to enlist as soon as we see the bush girls, the Romney boys or anyone named Cheyney in uniform.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by heru (August 19, 2007 10:11 pm ET)
           

        This is ridiculous. It is obvious that Obama was attacking our troops. The folks at Media Matters for Al Qaeda, none of whom served in the military, should stop spinning for this vile man.

        kevin

        -------------------------------

        Hey Dick Cheney where were you and G Dumbya when it was time to serve in Nam?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jjamele2880 (August 18, 2007 5:10 pm ET)
         

      Oh god please don't respond to trolls, they can't be taught, they don't want to learn, and eventually responding to them just ruins the thread. Which, I suspect, is their intention.  When someone says something that goes against the Media Matters take but is intelligent and thoughtful, we can have a decent debate.  When someone uses terms like "Media Matters for Al Quaeda" it ought to be a good enough indication that that person is not interested in debate, just mudslinging. Really, not worth our time.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by moresby82 (August 18, 2007 5:26 pm ET)
         

      I believe the greatest comeback during this whole campaign was Obama's when he responded to Hillary's comment about not saying things even if you think them.  It was something to the effect:  "I don't believe in hiding things from the American people....there has been too much of that."

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (August 18, 2007 11:03 pm ET)
         

      Wright needed a sound byte of some kind. Since he does "cartoon" news reporting what do you expect?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (August 19, 2007 1:32 am ET)
         

      Cut the story and Run with it .........

      Report Abuse
    • Author by redking75687 (August 19, 2007 11:42 am ET)
         

      Our troops in Afghanistan do need criticized. They sit in air-conditioned bases eating pizza and drinking beer while the Taliban slowly move out and take over more land from their enclave that US troops refuse to enter. We have plenty of troops in Afghanistan, they just don't do anything. We're not setting up infrastructure, repairing roads, bridges, and public works, organizing border guards and crossings, etc. Our troops sit on bases and do NOTHING in Afghanistan. You can blame our moron generals for that.

      Obama doesn't know this, he doesn't understand the situation or warfare at all. He'd just send more troops to sit and do squat under the same generals.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by newagestepper (August 19, 2007 6:39 pm ET)
         

      Part of the issue deals with the policy, rather than the troops.  The policy which has been followed has been based on the use of technology rather than "boots on the ground."  This has been the problem.  The Bush administration has focused on technology, rather that well qualified physical personel.  In regards to the Taliban this has meant shifting troops to Iraq, and ignoring the Taliban.  The substitution of technologies such as those of the airforce have been based on expanded usage of technologies.  These technologies, however in spite of the labor saving goals have increased the level of inadvertant casualties while limiting the capability of building up regional infrastructures.  Obama is, i suspect, at least hypothetically dealing with this issue.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (August 20, 2007 2:06 am ET)
           

        I think the problem is that the current administration hasn't used EITHER technology or "boots on the ground". They are plainly and simply so incompetent that they haven't managed to carry out a single successful strategy, and it doesn't matter what they have done.

        Bill Clinton, and to some degree George HW Bush before him, had simple, limited strategies in place that worked at least somewhat (many of which were IMO objectionable from a humanitarian standpoint, but that's another matter).

        I think what's needed is a mix of the old and the new - but more importantly, the non-military side of these conflicts need to be dealt with. And the current administration is incompetent in that area too.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (August 20, 2007 6:51 pm ET)
           

        I don't think Obama is smart enough to grasp the realities of infrastructure. To him, it's a catch-phrase in a speech given at a fund-raiser. Beware the leader who talks much and does little.

         

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.