Rove falsely claimed Obama didn't "speak out" about troops in Afghanistan
In an interview on NBC's Today, Fox News contributor Karl Rove falsely claimed that in 2007, Barack Obama "didn't speak out" against the Bush administration's war strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Obama advocated prioritizing the conflict in Afghanistan and repeatedly criticized Bush's Iraq war policy.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Rove: Obama "in no position whatsoever to criticize what President Bush did." In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, Rove falsely claimed that "in 2007, President Obama, then a member of the United States Senate, voted against war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If this was so vital, then why did he not speak out?" [Today, 12/1/09]
Rove: "[A]t the time, he didn't speak out on this." Rove went on to say that "President Obama is not in a place to be critical of this. He can look back and rewrite history or whatever, but at the time, he didn't speak out on this." [Today, 12/1/09]
Obama repeatedly criticized Bush's Iraq strategy and advocated more troops in Afghanistan
Obama in 2006 called for troops in Iraq to "be redeployed to Afghanistan." 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." Obama went on to state, "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." [Speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 11/20/06]
Obama did "speak out" through the very vote Rove cited, calling for a "better plan." In a press release following his vote against a 2007 war-funding bill that did not include a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, Obama stated: "This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one. We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. We need a plan to compel the Iraqi people to reach a political accommodation and to take responsibility for their own future. It's time to change course." Obama further stated, "After [Bush] vetoed a plan that would have funded the troops and begun to bring them home, this bill represents more of his stubborn refusal to address his failed policy. We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly." [Obama press release, 5/24/07]
Obama: Withdrawing from Iraq will "allow us to redeploy additional troops in Afghanistan." In a January 2007 speech on the Senate floor, Obama 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." [C-SPAN, 1/18/2007]
Obama specifically called for "at least two additional brigades." In an August 2007 speech, Obama called for "getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He continued: "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." [8/1/07]
Obama: "When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan." In a campaign speech in Clinton, Iowa, Obama reiterated his support for deploying additional troops in Afghanistan, stating, "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." [9/12/07]
Obama: It's time to "increase our military, political, and economic commitment to Afghanistan." In a December 2007 campaign speech, Obama stated: "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." [12/18/07]
Then take a picture for the Internet to Trace.
Then call the Department of Justice and give Factual Testimony on the Valerie Plame Case.
Then go on "Fox News Sunday" and explain why the Bush Administration was a Complete & Absolute Disgrace.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Axis and Allies?
And it can't happen soon enough for me.
He uses it, and he continues to make a living from it.
Maybe by August of 2012 it will be a crime.
I'd suggest that you tune in tonight to understand what I meant about intelligently.
And I will credit some on the left for obliterating Obama for this decision, the Huffington Post has a lot of material on that.
"If history has taught us anything its that we never learn from the lessons that history teaches us"
- anon
Isn't if funny?? The very thing you are finger-pointing the supposed 'liberals' are doing by siding with partisan politics is exactly what it seems like you yourself are doing.
I'm curious, did you support Bush for his 8 years, and then now are condemning Obama?
I for one think sending more troops is a huge mistake even though I like Obama and hope he succeeds. More troops means more innocent lives lost. It means greater number of deaths due to war than from terrorist attacks. It means an increase in spending that the U.S. economy can't afford. I believe this will all lead to a greater loss of life and liberty than terrorism and Bin Laden could have ever caused.
People really need top be consistent that's all I'm asking. The partisan politics is very transparent.
I still stand by disagreeing with your weak posts parsing words instead of the substance in what you are posting.
It's always on the lines of 'Bush did something and Democrats said it was wrong and Obama is doing the same thing and Democrats are not saying it is wrong'.
You appear to intentionally want to blur everything into 'the same thing', knowing they are not.
Honestly, i CANT WAIT to hear why we must continue this imminent path towards catastrophe. I would love to hear obama answer three questions tonight - One, why are we still in afghanistan? Two, who are we fighting and where are we fighting them? Three, what are our ultimate goals? Im not saying I will even remotely agree with this "plan" even if obama does answer these three tonight in a logical and rational manner but it would certainly be nice to know why we are going to spend about a trillion dollars on defense and sacrifice countless more american lives to continue this fiasco. Even the most brilliant of speakers like obama, cannot convince the country that the devil is actually good even if he himself wholeheartedly believes it and fact is, I know obama had severe reservations about such a decision himself.
No, I will not support obama just because I know he is intelligent or because I think he has our best interests at hearts or even because he is a democrat. And the rest of the dems and liberals out there should not just throw their weight behind this because of such illogical reasoning either. We are dems and not republican robots because we think about things before just blindly and mindlessly following the leaders of our party. And this is the number one reason, I like to call myself a liberal and a progressive but rarely ever associate myself as a democrat. I myself will not blindly follow a party into the abyss. As Mark Twain once said, "Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. "
Really? Can you please show us where Bush INTENTIONALLY let bin Laden go?
As always credible links only please.
He says this because of Fury's account -
"A former Delta Force commander, using the pen name "Dalton Fury", who was present at Tora Bora has revealed in a book that bin Laden escaped into Pakistan on or around December 16, 2001. Fury gives three reasons for why bin Laden was able to escape: (1) the US mistakenly thought that Pakistan was effectively guarding the border area, (2) NATO allies refused to allow the use of air-dropped GATOR mines, which would have helped seal bin Laden and his forces inside the Tora Bora area, and (3) over reliance on native Afghan military forces as the main force deployed against bin Laden and his fighters. Fury states that the Afghan forces would usually quit the battlefield in the evenings to break their Ramadan fasts, thereby allowing the al-Qaeda forces a chance to regroup, reposition, or escape.
Fury, in an interview on 60 Minutes, stated that his Delta Force team and CIA Paramilitary Officers traveled to Tora Bora after the CIA pinpointed bin Laden's location in that area. Fury's team proposed an operation in which they would assault bin Laden's suspected position from the rear, over the 14,000 foot high mountain separating Tora Bora from Pakistan. But, Fury's proposal was denied by unidentified officials at higher headquarters for unknown reasons. Fury then proposed the dropping of GATOR mines in the passes leading away from Tora Bora, but this was also denied. Forced to approach the al-Qaeda forces from the front, at one point Fury reports that his team was within 2,000 yards of bin Laden's suspected position, but withdrew because of uncertainty over the number of al-Qaeda fighters guarding bin Laden and a lack of support from allied Afghan troops."
Maj Greer claims also to have been within 2 k's of OBL also...Make sure you read that last sentence again very closely. "Lack of support from Afghan troops". That is the key to why Maj Greer was "denied" to advance. Funny how al Qaida fighters captured after the battle don't corroborate his story. They claim OBL was long gone by that point. I wont get tied up with he said she said, because we'll never know for sure.
Maj. Greer was denied by CENTCOM. That has been well established. It wasn't "unidentified officials" and it wasn't for some "unknown reasons" either. It was the battle plan from the beginning. I'll give Maj "Fury" that Tora Bora was a tactical failure in a strategic victory. The fortress of TB had held out for YEARS against the Soviets. Why would we think any different? The window of opportunity was very small at TB. It takes a huge effort and logistics to get the manpower needed to assault that redoubt. I don't follow why Maj Fury thought his team could take it with shaky Afghan Intell. Gen Franks thought better also.
Why are we even going over this now? Sen Kerry has pulled a musty old Senate Foreign Relations report that HE headed, to give Unprecedented Barry cover from the rabid leftwing. Remember this is the same Kerry that was AGAINST more troops for Tora Bora in 2001.
Now he is in the position of being FOR troop surge in 2010 nine years after he was against it. HMMMM...where have we heard THAT before?!
Another interesting tid-bit is I can't find Gen Franks rebuttal to Kerry from the NYT published around '04. Seems "The Google" has banished it? If anyone has it please post.
Ironically, Obama himself is now going to go on tv and advocate for more troops in afghanistan but will his solutions be any more clear? Will his motives be any less entangled in a web of confusion and prefabricated lies? This war is a mess - it is already a mess. No matter what the president says tonight, afghanistan will remain a disaster with the dissent and opposition only gaining momentum in the public. The strongest supporters for afghanistan are bush supporters and the hardcore republican base. Obama's base and the people that got him elected to the highest office are mostly against sending more troops in. Most of the left wants to de-escalate and start the process of withdrawing.
Just ANNOUNCE WE WON and begin deployment. We have absoluely destroyed all presence of al queda in afghanistan. Al queda itself is a tiny fraction of its former self. Is this not the group we went in to obliterate? Our continued presence is now helping to fuel their recruitment AND they are no longer in the country in which we are fighting. The taliban is not the entity that we should be fighting. That is not what the public believed when we all called for war in afghanistan after 9/11. No one expected nor is it realistic to think we can knock out the taliban for good. There is absolutely nothing the president can say tonight that will change the minds of those that are now against this war no matter how eloquent and superb a speech he gives. GET OUT MR PRESIDENT, GET OUT before this war becomes your vietnam and destroys your political career like vietnam did to LBJ. Its just not worth it for you or for this country. We have near 600 billion going to the military industrial complex this fiscal year. Add in further cost commitments to an escalated war and we are looking at far over 1 trillion dollars!!! That could cover the entire healthcare overhaul and then some. PLEASE OBAMA DONT DO THIS TO YOURSELF, YOUR BASE OR THIS COUNTRY!
did you even read the article your responding to?
You don't make these types of decisions before an election. You make them as president. I know he did re-access and he feels like this is our only option but honestly, it is far from our only option. There is no more sense of good and bad anymore. We have inserted ourselves right into a civil war that seems unevitable. 30,000 troops will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stabilize the area. There is just too much conflict and division to overcome with that type of escalation. Obama has no idea nor do any of us what stability or victory would even look like at this point. You can;t set a deadline when you have no real objective. This is nonsense. Your argument is ridiculous - he ran on bulking up our presence so now he is forced to do it even if it only means more lives and money? COME ON! I never said obama didnt talk about increasing troops in afghanistan and he actually did that but it is time to CUT AND RUN. Nothing good will ever come of this.
If not President Obama, then who?
If anyone can be blamed for this disaster, bush is the guy - Bush and Dick. One is nowhere to be seen anymore and the other is hurling insults at obama by the hour. Plleeasse - IF obama can't blame bush than cheney cant blame obama. hOW ABOUT THem apples?!