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.