MSNBC military analyst Jacobs misquoted Obama, asserted: "Obama doesn't know what he's talking about"
SUMMARY: Discussing a comment Sen. Barack Obama made about Al Qaeda in Iraq during the February 26 Democratic presidential debate, MSNBC military analyst Jack Jacobs misquoted Obama and also stated: "Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. ... I think it would be useful if he found out what was actually going on."
On the February 28 edition of MSNBC Live, while purporting to assess "who is right" in what anchor Contessa Brewer called a "rapid-fire exchange over Al Qaeda in Iraq" between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, MSNBC military analyst Jack Jacobs asserted, "Obama doesn't know what he's talking about," and stated, "I think it would be useful if he found out what was actually going on." But in supporting his claims, Jacobs misquoted what Obama said about Al Qaeda in Iraq during the February 26 Democratic presidential debate, falsely claiming that Obama said: "I think if there's Al Qaeda in Iraq, we'll go in -- we'll go back in there." In fact, what Obama said during the debate was, "if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan." At no point did he say, as Jacobs -- and McCain himself -- suggested, that Al Qaeda does not currently have a presence in Iraq.
At a February 27 town hall meeting in Texas, McCain said: "I am told that Senator Obama made the statement that if Al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws -- after the American troops are withdrawn -- then he would send military troops back, if Al Qaeda established a military base in Iraq. I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda -- it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq." By asserting that "Al Qaeda is in Iraq," McCain falsely suggested that Obama had said the opposite.
Jacobs also asserted that Obama was "right" in the exchange with McCain when he said at a campaign event following McCain's February 27 comment that "there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." Jacobs said: "There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we went in there and deposed Saddam Hussein, who was doing a very good job of knocking off -- brutally, I might add -- everybody who opposed him, including all the Muslim revolutionaries." Yet, despite asserting that Obama was right, Jacobs then went on to assert: "But John McCain's also right; Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. And I think that it would be useful if before he says something, like, 'I think if there's Al Qaeda in Iraq, we'll go in -- we'll go back in there,' I think it would be useful if he found out what was actually going on."
During the debate, Obama was responding to a question from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert. Following an exchange with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in which Russert asked, "[I]f this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it? Russert went on to ask Obama "[D]o you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?" " Obama replied:
OBAMA: Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.
I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.
From the noon ET hour of the February 28 edition of MSNBC Live:
BREWER: Barack Obama and John McCain, taking aim at each other in a rapid-fire exchange over Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Republican presidential hopeful criticizing Obama's view of the terror group in Iraq, and Obama quick to fire back, saying GOP policies brought the terrorist group to Iraq in the first place. Joining us now is retired Army colonel and MSNBC military analyst Jack Jacobs. All right. Let's play what they actually said and then get your reaction.
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda -- it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq.
OBAMA: I have some news for John McCain. And that is that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.
[end video clip]
BREWER: I believe -- I believe that's pretty much what I said leading up to the sound bites. But that aside, who is right?
JACOBS: They're both right. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we went in there and deposed Saddam Hussein, who was doing a very good job of knocking off -- brutally, I might add -- everybody who opposed him, including all the Muslim revolutionaries. But John McCain's also right; Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. And I think that it would be useful if before he says something, like, "I think if there's Al Qaeda in Iraq, we'll go in -- we'll go back in there," I think it would be useful if he found out what was actually going on.
















And don't forget to review your RNC e-mails before you go on the...
air.
"There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we went in there and deposed Saddam Hussein, who was doing a very good job of knocking off -- brutally, I might add -- everybody who opposed him, including all the Muslim revolutionaries."
I love how this is the new reason we went to war.
and yes, you may add brutally, because it was brutal.However, if Saddam did a very good job knocking off the Muslim revolutionaries, then that deflates the whole argument for why we had to go to Iraq in the first place, which was...
....
uhm...
...
Man, which one of the crazy messed up reasons do I pick? I mean, we went for WMDs, which turned out to be WM duds, but then Al-Qaeda was in Iraq, so we had to take them out right? But here above this it says that "There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq," so that's out. But oh yeah, Saddam was a brutal dictator and we had to rescue the Iraqis from his oppressive regime, that must be it.
What I find the most utterly ironic is the WMD argument. Saddam was hiding the fact that he didn't actually have WMDs to keep Iran in check. Now, Iran, supposedly, is trying to obtain WMDs. We f**ked ourselves in the ear on that one.
DEBEDEN - You nailed it !!! All that experience to make decisions and just look at the mess - ALQaeda in Iraq and Iran going nuclear....They were cancelling each other out ..now we got both problems to deal with..Even if Saddam had WMD's Who was he planning to use them on other than Iran?He wouldn't have hit Israel because of the threat from the US plus what Israel would have done to retaliate!!
Jacobs misquotes Obama, absolutely. Of course Obama acknowledges Al Qaeda is currently in Iraq, but it's because of our invasion they are presently there.
When some on the right refuse to at least accept responsibility for that, it's stunning.
Not only that Tommy, but how do we know exactly who Al-Qaeda is? It could just be a couple of really pissed of teens who decide to take up arms against us. That doesn't mean there is a power structure over them directing them where to go and who to kill.
It's scary isn't it? I could claim to be Al-Qaeda. Or you. Or anyone. There's no way for the government to know exactly who Al-Qaeda is, because it has become an abstract idea, a concept that anyone can pick up and run with.
DB,
I would hope, despite recent failures, that our intelligence is up to the task of determining the functionality and sophistication of Al Qaeda operations, as opposed to a couple of pissed off teens. If not, we are in real trouble.
Oh I'm sure they can find an Al-Qaeda cell. But my point is, how do we know Al-Qaeda in Iraq isn't just some pissed off teens? I mean, they could claim their Al-Qaeda as they blow themselves up, I don't see how anyone could substantiate the claim.
And the reverse of that, What if Al-Qaeda is claiming the violence of local Iraqis as their own? How would we know the difference?
(I'm really curious to know, if someone with some knowledge of the situation could explain, it'd be great)
When some on the right refuse to at least accept responsibility for that, it's stunning.
Come on Tommy, it's really not stunning. The right have been refusing to tell the truth or accept responsibility from the beginning of this war. Remember Iraq and Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Remember Saddam provided a training ground for Al Qaeda? The right knowing full well that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11 nor did he provide a "training ground" for Al Qaeda continued to lie even when their lie was exposed. Accepting responsibility and telling the truth would force the right to tell the American people the real reason for invading Iraq, "Saddam tried to kill by daddy" or #1 OIL or #1 OIL or "Saddam tried to kill my daddy". It has nothing to do with the rights's refusal to accept reality and everything to do with the rights refusal to tell the truth!
Pearl,
I was simply commenting on this particular incident, not every word I utter has to be politically motivated to assail the left or the right at every turn. Sorry to disappoint.
Tommy I dont know why you would find that stunning. When does the right ever take responsibility for anything they screw up. Americas mistakes and problems are always the lefts fault. More specifically it's usually the Clintons fault.
I know that is too complicated for Black and White thinkers, but try to keep up.
Let me get this straight. Obama said there was no AQI before the invasion. Jacobs agrees with that - but then says Obama doesn't know what he's talking about.
So what they hey is it that, according to Jacobs, Obama doesn't know or needs to find out? He doesn't actually say. He misquotes Obama to imply that Obama said that AQI isn't there now, but in context, that would be absurd: It would make his response to McCain a total non sequitur.
Given, then, that to make sense, Obama must hold that there are al-Qaeda elements or supporters in Iraq now, that only leaves one part of his (misquoted) statement to which Jacobs can be referring: the idea of "going back in." That has to be where Obama, in Jacobs' eyes, "doesn't know what he's talking about."
Jack Jacobs is a peacenik!
I hate it when America's finest disgrace themselves...
But Jacobs clearly has in this case. Maybe it's just being around all this cable TV "news" crap that makes his brain go soft?