About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Echoing GOP talking points, CNN's King falsely suggested Obama would "leave" Afghanistan "now"

February 13, 2008 12:52 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: During CNN's coverage of the February 12 primaries, John King claimed that if Sen. Barack Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, "Republicans will run a campaign that this is a liberal who ... does not understand that if the United States leaves Iraq or Afghanistan now ... that America loses, and that's a naïve position." In fact, Obama has consistently called for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan while reducing the number of troops in Iraq.

19 Comments

During CNN's coverage of the February 12 presidential primaries, CNN chief national correspondent John King claimed that if Sen. Barack Obama (IL) wins the Democratic presidential nomination, "Republicans will run a campaign that this is a liberal who does not understand the world, and does not understand that if the United States leaves Iraq or Afghanistan now, whether you think it was a good idea to go in or not, that America loses, and that's a naïve position." In fact, Obama has not called for "leav[ing] Iraq or Afghanistan now"; rather, he has consistently called for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan while reducing the number of troops in Iraq.

In predicting the Republican general election campaign against Obama, King specifically cited a February 12 statement from Republican National Committee chairman Robert "Mike" Duncan, in which Duncan claimed that "Obama does not have the experience to serve our nation as Commander in Chief."

From the 10 p.m. ET hour of CNN's February 12 coverage of the Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., primaries:

COOPER: John King, you hear Barack Obama's speech and you think what?

KING: I think the Republicans will run a campaign that this is a liberal who does not understand the world, and does not understand that if the United States leaves Iraq or Afghanistan now, whether you think it was a good idea to go in or not, that America loses, and that's a naïve position. You see the Republican -- the Republican National Committee already tonight put out a statement, put the chairman out on video saying Barack Obama does not have the experience to be commander in chief. If that's the kind --

COOPER: We heard that from President Bush on Sunday, who said in an interview, that Barack Obama wants to embrace Ahmadinejad, which is nothing that of course Barack Obama has said. But that is clearly --

KING: And that is the contrast -- that's the contrast they will make. They will essentially say he's a nice guy, he's too inexperienced. He was in the Illinois Senate just a few years ago, there are 100-plus thousand troops in Iraq, 50,000 or so in Afghanistan -- that this guy is not ready. That will be McCain's message.

In several speeches going back to 2006, Obama has advocated sending more troops and resources to Afghanistan. During a September 12, 2007, speech, Obama said:

OBAMA: George Bush is afraid of this future. That is why all he can do is drag up the past. After all the flawed justifications for his failed policy, he now invokes Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq. Let's put aside the strange reasoning -- that all would have been well if we had just stayed the course in Vietnam. Let's put it aside and leave it where it belongs -- in the past.

Now is not the time to reargue the Vietnam War -- we did that in the 2004 election, and it wasn't pretty. I come from a new generation of Americans. I don't want to fight the battles of the 1960s. I want to reclaim the future for America, because we have too many threats to face and too many opportunities to seize. Just think about what we can accomplish together when we end this war.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves.

From an August 1, 2007, speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

OBAMA: In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support -- not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country.

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

From a November 20, 2006, speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs:

OBAMA: Drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional troops to Northern Iraq and elsewhere in the region as an over-the-horizon force. This force could help prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, consolidate gains in Northern Iraq, reassure allies in the Gulf, allow our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda wherever it may exist, and demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.

Perhaps most importantly, some of these troops could be redeployed to Afghanistan, where our lack of focus and commitment of resources has led to an increasing deterioration of the security situation there. The President's decision to go to war in Iraq has had disastrous consequences for Afghanistan -- we have seen a fierce Taliban offensive, a spike in terrorist attacks, and a narcotrafficking problem spiral out of control. Instead of consolidating the gains made by the Karzai government, we are backsliding towards chaos. By redeploying from Iraq to Afghanistan, we will answer NATO's call for more troops and provide a much-needed boost to this critical fight against terrorism.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (February 13, 2008 1:06 pm ET)
         
      I don't want to pick on anyone in particular, but didn't the White House's current chair-moistener just about give up on Afghanistan?

      Did King comment that our pull back at the time was a "a naïve position"?

      I may have missed it, but I don't think he did.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (February 13, 2008 1:09 pm ET)
           
        And didn't Obama say in one of the debates that if we had actionable intelligence of Bin Laden's presence in Pakistan that we would go in and get him even if Musharraf objected?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wolf kotenberg (February 14, 2008 11:35 am ET)
             
          This opens up a huge can of worms if that happens. One would have to ask if GW Bush had this intelligence during his tenure as president and if so, why didn't he cat on it ?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 13, 2008 1:30 pm ET)
           
        Howdy, W-King. I may be reading this wrong, but I understood the comment as saying that the idea that leaving means America loses is naive. Or is he saying that the Repubs are calling the idea that we can leave naive?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (February 13, 2008 1:37 pm ET)
             
          You could be right, Col.

          I just re-read what King said. His run on sentence could be interpreted to mean just about anything.

          I think the problem is that King, like most of the talking heads in the news game today, is afraid to pause while speaking. So he just keeps yammering away until someone stops him.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by TopekaMan (February 13, 2008 1:12 pm ET)
         

      "I think the Republicans will run a campaign that this is a liberal who does not understand the world..."

      If Mr. King knows of any republicans who understand the world I would love to know where they are, because they certainly AREN'T in Washington, DC.  I think that republicans in Washington have proven without a doubt over the last eight years that they know absolutely nothing about the world and should not be trusted.  

      Also, why doesn't anyone ever call-out the war hawks when they bring up b.s. about America "losing" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the "GWOT."  Nobody has ever defined what "winning" is, so why do we allow them to define what "losing" is?  

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 13, 2008 1:20 pm ET)
         
      Put aside all the distortion, and Obama is the ONLY candidate with even a remotely sensible foreign policy.  Inexperienced?  More like "not a victim of group-think."  Every the guy actually SAYS makes perfect sense [to me.]  They have to distort to debate it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (February 13, 2008 1:55 pm ET)
           
        I come from a more center then far left position so my take is a little different.  I think foreign policy is where I find Obama to be the weakest and the area that gives me the most doubt about his presidency.  I still intend to vote for Obama if he is the nominee because I think we need a change in party to fix what needs fixing but I will worry about his thinking on foreign policy.  I do think his diplomacy policy is naive...not the part about talking (both dems candidates agree with that)...but the part where he gives up all his leverage as he claims he will do by personally meeting in his first year without qualification.  I am hoping that his initial comment was a mistake and  so it couldn't be exploited he is stubburnly sticking to it but in reality he will listen to wiser council  and advisors about diplomacy and strategy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (February 13, 2008 2:05 pm ET)
             
          What leverage, that hasn't already been squandered by the cowboy in chief, does he sacrifice by trying to make amends with those disenfranchised countries that the neo-con war agenda has obliterated?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 13, 2008 2:23 pm ET)
               
            The problem is not in trying to "make amends" as you term it, but not quite the position that I would go from, the problem is his lack of understanding of diplomatic strategy and foreign policy strategy as shown by his foreing polict gaffs.  I do not think you negotiate from a position of weakness.  Your very terminology of making amends and disenfranchise puts you in a position that leaves you with very little room to negotiate. We are not the only ones in the wrong in the world you know.   The Bush administration was an absolute failure at strategic diplomacy.   I would say he was the other extreme of Obama's policy.  I think Obama also showed a lack of finesse and diplomacy in his Pakistan comments it was too heavy handed in his comments about disregarding Mushariff from a diplomatic stand point.   I think foreign policy involves strategy and diplomatic strategy in order to be effective.  As I said I don't follow the far left views on this issue. I think Obam's public comments show he doesn't get strategy.  He naively gives the impression that he can simly go visit Kim Jong Il or Amadinijad (forgive my spelling) and make nice and all will be well with the world.  There is too much foundational work he is leaving out of his "plan". 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (February 13, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
                 
              "the problem is his lack of understanding of diplomatic strategy and foreign policy strategy as shown by his foreing polict gaffs."

              Why should Clinton's judgment on foreign policy be trusted? And of what gaffes of Obama do you speak?

              "I do not think you negotiate from a position of weakness. Your very terminology of making amends and disenfranchise puts you in a position that leaves you with very little room to negotiate. We are not the only ones in the wrong in the world you know."

              And your perspective shows your preference for militarism over humanitarianism. What some call weakness I call boldness. It's a sign of strength to listen to friend and foe alike without precondition.

              Furthermore, is it the the people with a voice in politics who resort to terrorism or is it the disenfranchised who commit acts of terrorism?

              "He naively gives the impression that he can simly go visit Kim Jong Il or Amadinijad (forgive my spelling) and make nice and all will be well with the world. There is too much foundational work he is leaving out of his "plan". "

              He gives you that impression anyway.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by lostlogic (February 13, 2008 3:44 pm ET)
                   
                I clearly said these were my positions.  I even explained that I may be coming from a different school of thought then some of you.  I was giving my opinion...you compalin that you don't hear substance in the opposition to Obama I am explaining why I oppose Obama.  I trust Clinton more because her philosophy on the issue mirrors my beliefs on the issue.  I do not see stretgh as militirism as you try to pigeon hole my stance.  I think negotiations are best intitated from a position of strength...thats doesn't mean you don't negotiate it simply means that at the end of the day you want to strike a position that is most favorable to what is in the best interest on the country and the best way (in my opinion) to achieve that is from a strong position.  As for the gaffs...I mentioned the two I find most notable in my posts already.  His answers in the debates on these issues follow along those lines too and reinforced my opinion of his weakness.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (February 13, 2008 3:51 pm ET)
                     
                  Fair enough.

                  But I will admonish you not to complain about being pigeonholed when that is clearly what you did to me when you wrote, "I do not think you negotiate from a position of weakness. Your very terminology of making amends and disenfranchise puts you in a position that leaves you with very little room to negotiate."
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by lostlogic (February 13, 2008 5:18 pm ET)
                       
                    It is not pigeon holing you when I say your terminology is weak terminology.  I didn't say you were weak. I said the terminology you were using puts you in a weakened position for negotiations.  I hop eyou can see the distinction.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by lostlogic (February 13, 2008 5:24 pm ET)
                         
                      to clarify if I was going to pigeon hole you I would say something like well you obviously favor weakness over strength...I don't think that is your position.  I think we simply have different schools of thought on what makes good diplomatic strategy.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (February 14, 2008 1:23 am ET)
                           
                        "It is not pigeon holing you when I say your terminology is weak terminology."

                        Whatever.

                        There's no need pretend you weren't trying to place my statement on the disenfranchised into an oversimplified category, aka pigeonholing.

                        When one invokes the classic conservative stance of, "negotiating from a position of strength," the implication is that noncompliance promises the use of military force, hence my comment on militarism. I know I'm in the minority on this, but I don't care. I believe an open hand, not a closed fist, is the first step in the process of negotiation.
                        Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (February 13, 2008 2:16 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

      What made George W. Bush ready, certainly not his governorship of Texas? The office is the weakest governor in the nation, a figure head more than anything.

      If they can't lie, distort, or re-invent history and events they would just be sitting and drowling, instead of talking and spitting.

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (February 14, 2008 3:12 pm ET)
         
      I agree Roundhouse an open hand instead of closed fist is the best policy to pursue---and I really don't understand the cliche "dealing from a position of strength"? What does that mean?  I don't think Obama is niave enough to believe that all he has to do is talk to Kim or the president of Iran, I don't think that is even his position,but talking would be a start, particularly since the approach of this president and that of his party has not worked and all their canidates promise more of the same. "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb...Iran we thought was meant as a joke until we saw the NIE and realized the cruel lies spouted by this administration and McCain were leading us into another War under false pretenses. 
      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.