Stephanopoulos falsely suggested Obama "now" aligned with McCain on more troops in Afghanistan -- but Obama has called for more troops for years
SUMMARY: ABC News' George Stephanopoulos falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama shifted positions on increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan and is "now" aligned with the position of Sen. John McCain. In fact, Obama has been calling for increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan since at least 2006.
While discussing Sen. Barack Obama's trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, ABC News' chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos falsely suggested during the July 21 edition of ABC's World News that Obama shifted positions on increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan and was "now" aligned with the position of Sen. John McCain. Stephanopoulos stated that "despite this major difference with Senator McCain on the surge itself, there's been a blurring of lines on foreign policy generally. He [Obama] agrees now with McCain on more troops for Afghanistan." Stephanopoulos' comments follow speeches by Obama and McCain last week in which both advocated increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. In fact, as several reports about the speeches have noted, Obama has been calling for increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan since at least 2006.
Both Obama and McCain addressed the need for an increased military presence in Afghanistan in separate speeches on July 15. In his speech, Obama stated, "Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq," and proposed "send[ing] at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions -- with fewer restrictions -- from NATO allies." During his speech, McCain asserted: "Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades. Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them." As Media Matters for America has noted, after his speech, McCain reportedly said that his proposal to deploy three additional brigades to Afghanistan would require "greater participation on the part of our NATO allies" adding that, in the words of The Washington Post, "he might call on NATO to supply part of the additional troops he hopes to send to the region."
Indeed, Obama has been calling for an increase of U.S. troops in Afghanistan since at least 2006 and has specifically proposed the addition of at least two combat brigades since 2007. For instance:
- In a November 20, 2006, speech, Obama asserted: "The President should announce to the Iraqi people that our policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces." He added: "I am not suggesting that this timetable be overly rigid. We cannot compromise the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground. ... 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."
- In a January 19, 2007, floor statement on the proposed troop "surge" in Iraq, Obama argued for a "a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces." He stated: "Drawing down our troops in Iraq will put pressure on Iraqis to arrive at the political settlement that is needed and allow us to redeploy additional troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, as well as bring some back home."
- On August 1, 2007, Obama specifically called for the addition of two U.S. brigades in Afghanistan during a speech in Washington, D.C. Obama said: "When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements," the first of which was "getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." Obama stated: "The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He went on to add: "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."
- Obama reiterated his call for adding brigades in Afghanistan during a September 12, 2007, speech, in which he said: "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."
- On December 18, 2007, Obama stated during a speech in Des Moines, Iowa: "Six years after we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan - the origin of the 9-11 attacks -- we still don't have our priorities straight. That's why it's time to stop funding a failed policy, to remove our combat brigades from Iraq, and to increase our military, political, and economic commitment to Afghanistan.
- During a March 12 speech, Obama said: "When I spoke out against the war, I said that I was not opposed to all wars. In fact, one of the central reasons why I opposed going to war in Iraq is that we had yet to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban. That remains true today. That is why I have consistently called for an increased commitment to Afghanistan, and why I called last August for at least two additional combat brigades to support our mission there. And that is why I will end the war in Iraq when I am President, and focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan."
From the July 21 edition of ABC News' World News with Charles Gibson:
CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): So, how's it going for Obama?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Halfway through -- through the trip, it's going about as well as it can possibly go for Senator Obama. He's hit all his marks. He's met with the prime ministers of Iraq and Afghanistan, the commander of our troops on the ground in Iraq, without making a major mistake, which is important. And despite this major difference with Senator McCain on the surge itself, there's been a blurring of lines on foreign policy generally. He agrees now with McCain on more troops for Afghanistan. He agrees with Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki in Iraq, apparently, on a timeline for withdrawal. And even on the issue of Iran, since the Bush administration sent a representative to meet with the Iranians last week, there's a blurring of the lines there. That all helps Barack Obama.
GIBSON: This has got to be very frustrating for John McCain, as [ABC News correspondent] Ron Claiborne pointed out [earlier in the program], that he wants to make his points, he wants to get coverage, and yet everything seems to swarm around Barack Obama.















It seems lately that MMFA keeps correcting the media by moving Obama's position to the right of where the media portrays it. He's the Centrist I always knew he was.
He's the Centrist I always knew he was.
He'ws definitely not the "most liberal" Senator the National Journal said he was....
Then why did Obama vote AGAINST funding the troops in Afghanistan:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181
He is a LIAR
Anyone believe this guy when he says he's not a racist?
No that's been pretty well hidden from the places I go for news. So now its his own that have let him down.
I don't like Hitler comparisons mostly, but this one is screaming for attension. In the end he blamed the German people for failing to support his vision.
Thanks for the link, Snoop.For the life of me, I cannot figure out how that knothead has been elected twice, and how normal working Americans vote Repooplicken.It's like the "haves and the have-mores" bit in Fahrenheit 9-11.
W's stand-up routine is essentially "Hey, some people are really hurting in this country, & we're filthy rich! Ain't that a hoot?"
And, inexplicably, millions of those having a rough time go to the voting booth and try to help him have some more laughs.
I might be able to shed a little light on that, Col.
nolefturns
ssands
science
...
The fact that McCain has gotten away with these two geographical mistakes, and that Stephan. lies the way he does, or is so abysmally uninformed despite his multi $$ salary, is terrifically scary.
Head for the hills, folks. These are the guys in charge. And they're gonna make sure it stays that way.
Seriously, how do you explain a guy like Stephanopoulos? He was an aide to Richard Gephardt and Bill Clinton. He's not a stupid man. He knows that he's lying, and he knows that we know that he's lying. He can't be doing it for his own sake.
He clearly feels that to get ahead at ABC News he has to lie in support of the Republicans on a regular basis. He's a whore, but aren't we past the point where we blame whores but not pimps? ABC News is the pimp. Boycott them.
Snoop,
No need to get in the gutter.
AA, based on today's articles, I think I may have a ways to go?
But out of respect for you, I'll try not to go there...
I'll agree it's a slow news day. Thanks!
I am all for Obama meeting with the Iranians. Israel needs to take care of her own problems. The Israeli's inability to get along with their neighbors does not constitute an emergency or cause to go to war on our end. It seems everything centers around Israel, and putting US funds and lives towards the protection of Israel. Enough is enough, Israel needs to support and protect itself.
All of the issues we have related to terrorism deal with our support of Israel. My question is, What have you done for me lately?
We need to re-establish our relationships in the Arab world, including Iran, as well as Pakistan. Israel either needs to get on the bus, or deal with their own issues. I listen to the news nightly, and it's all about Israel, etc. How much money are we going to spend on this? How many Americans will continue to do without?
I feel for Israel's problems, but we have problems here too, including healthcare, not just gas. It's time to take our resources to solve our problems no one else's. Prioritizing, something Congress has no understanding of. The foreign opinion on who we vote for to be our president is of NO concern to me, I am voting for the candidate that is focused on AMERICA, Thank you!