c Cain - Mayor Rudy Giuliani On NBC's "Today"

"So I think it either indicates that Senator Obama is not on a fact-finding mission, because the facts don't seem to affect him or Senator Obama has a stubbornness of wanting to stick to his political position which now turns out to be incorrect. The position he took a year ago to oppose the surge would have left us with a great loss and a Middle East in chaos right now. The position that was the correct one, that turned out historically to be correct, is the position that we should have done the surge." -- Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani
NBC's "Today"
July 22, 2008

NBC's David Gregory: "Let me turn to Iraq this morning. A lot of news, Senator Obama's trip and he said late last night that if he had it to do again, he would not support the support troop surge in Iraq. McCain has already been critical about that, what do you think that should say to voters about his view of the war and his judgment?"

Rudy Giuliani: "I don't understand what Senator Obama is saying. He goes to Iraq to go on a fact-finding mission and the facts that he finds are that violence is down 70 to 80%. That everyone believes, particularly the military commanders he's talking to, that it was a great success. The only reason al-Maliki is talking about a possible withdrawal in 2010 is because the surge has worked -- couldn't possibly be talking about something like that and we don't know if it will happen or not depending on the facts on the ground. So I think it either indicates that Senator Obama is not on a fact-finding mission, because the facts don't seem to affect him or Senator Obama has a stubbornness of wanting to stick to his political position which now turns out to be incorrect. The position he took a year ago to oppose the surge would have left us with a great loss and a Middle East in chaos right now. The position that was the correct one, that turned out historically to be correct, is the position that we should have done the surge."

Gregory: "But let's take on this argument a little bit, because Mr. Mayor, as you know, Senator McCain has effectively chalked up Obama's position on Iraq to naivete. That he has effectively called for surrender, and yet by sticking to the idea of a 16-month phased withdrawal from Iraq that has ultimately been validated by the Iraqi Prime Minister, hasn't that effectively refuted that argument?"

Giuliani: "Of course not. You wouldn't be there if the surge didn't work -- unless, he wanted to pull out the troops in the midst of chaos. Unless, you wanted to create civil war in Iraq. These are the facts that Senator Obama ignored a year ago. It now turns out that had you not had the surge, either we would be in a much worse situation in Iraq or as the Democrats and Harry Reid and Obama wanted to do, we would have declared we lost and pulled out."

Watch Rudy Giuliani.

McCain - Barack Obama's Mistaken Statement

"...Barack Obama made the first mistake of his trip, in my judgment, in releasing a statement in which he said exactly what Maliki had said in those conversations. We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. He's the commander in chief and the negotiator in chief. I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that's under way with another party outside the country." -- David Gergen

CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360"
July 21, 2008

David Gergen: "I think it was the first -- Barack Obama made the first mistake of his trip, in my judgment, in releasing a statement in which he said exactly what Maliki had said in those conversations. We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. He's the commander in chief and the negotiator in chief. I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that's under way with another party outside the country. I think he leaves himself open to the charge tonight that he's meddling, that this is not his role, that he can be the critic, but he's not the negotiator. We have a president who does that. So, I think the underlying facts support him, but I think it would be a real mistake -- and I think it was a mistake -- to get into these conversations and let it be used politically."

CNN's Anderson Cooper: "That's interesting. Gloria, do you think this is the first mistake he made on this trip?"

Gloria Borger: "You know, it's very interesting, I do agree with David. And Candy, in her earlier piece, talked about walking the fine line between being this candidate and being presumptuous. And I think that he may just have crossed that, because, you know, it is a tradition. You don't talk about these private conversations. And it's not up to Barack Obama right now to negotiate troop withdrawals. It's up to Barack Obama to be on a fact-finding mission, which is indeed what he has said he was on."

Watch The CNN Report.

Key Part Of Barack Obama's Statement:

Statement: To The Delegation, "[Maliki] Stated His Hope That U.S. Combat Forces Could Be Out Of Iraq In 2010." "Third, Iraqis want an aspirational timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces. Prime Minister Maliki told us that while the Iraqi people deeply appreciate the sacrifices of American soldiers, they do not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces. The Prime Minister said that now is an appropriate time to start to plan for the reorganization of our troops in Iraq -- including their numbers and missions. He stated his hope that U.S. combat forces could be out of Iraq in 2010." ("Statement of Senators Obama, Reed, And Hagel on Trip to Iraq," Press Release, 7/21/08)

McCain - John McCain On NBC's "Today"

"I'm glad that Senator Obama is going to get a chance for the first time to sit down with General David Petraeus and understand what the surge was all about. Why it succeeded. And why we are winning the war and that is because we carried out a strategy which has succeeded and Senator Obama rallied against, voted against, and used his opposition to the surge as a way of gaining the nomination of his party." -- John McCain

John McCain
NBC's "Today"
July 21, 2008

NBC's Meredith Vieira: "You have been tough on Senator Obama. You have questioned his judgment on foreign policy, called him naive and his trip little more than a campaign rally overseas. So, given what you have seen and heard over the past few days, do you still hold to that assessment?"

John McCain: "I'm glad that Senator Obama is going to get a chance for the first time to sit down with General David Petraeus and understand what the surge was all about. Why it succeeded. And why we are winning the war and that is because we carried out a strategy which has succeeded and Senator Obama rallied against, voted against, and used his opposition to the surge as a way of gaining the nomination of his party. I hope he will have a chance to admit that he badly misjudged the situation, and he was wrong when he said that the surge wouldn't work. It has succeeded and we're winning the war. I think it's important that the American people know that that is the situation. I have mentioned general Petraeus, yes."

Vieira: "I'm bringing him up because he told the AP on Saturday that al-Qaeda may be shifting its base back to Afghanistan and then on Sunday Barack Obama reiterated his belief that Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terrorism. Do you agree with that?"

John McCain: "I agree with General Petraeus when he said Iraq was the central battleground in the war in the struggle against al-Qaeda and he said that repeatedly. And I agree with him when he said we will be able to withdraw troops as conditions on the ground dictate, not to do what Senator Obama wanted to do which was that we would be out by last March and never have had the surge and the success. And you can't choose to lose a war in Iraq in my view in order to win in Afghanistan. Of course we have problems in Afghanistan and as we succeed in Iraq there will be troops available to go to Afghanistan, but it's more than just troops. Senator Obama doesn't understand that it is a strategy, the same strategy that succeeded in Iraq, we will employ in Afghanistan, the one that he rejected and still does not accept the success of."

Vieira: "Senator Obama's timetable of removing U.S. troops from Iraq within that 16-month period seemed to be getting a thumbs up by the Iraqi prime minister when he called it 'the right timeframe for a withdrawal.' He has backed off that somewhat, but the Iraqis have not stopped using the word timetable, so if the Iraqi government were to say -- if you were President -- we want a timetable for troops being to removed, would you agree with that?"

John McCain: "I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be -- the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it's fragile, and could be reversed very easily. I think we should trust the word of General Petraeus who has orchestrated this dramatic turnaround. And by the way, we would have been out last march if Senator Obama's original wish would have been called for. Not 16 months from now, but last March. He was wrong on the surge, he was wrong today when he says it didn't succeed. And obviously we have challenges in Afghanistan which will require more troops and more NATO participation, but we can win. If we had lost in Iraq, we would have risked a much wider war that would have put enormous challenges and burdens on our military."

Watch John McCain.

McCain - Senator Joe Lieberman On "Fox News Sunday"

"Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today. It wouldn't be safe. Barack Obama, John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq. John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line because as he says he'd rather lose an election than lose a war that he thinks is this important to the United States." -- Senator Joe Lieberman

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
Fox News' "Fox News Sunday"
July 20, 2008

Senator Joe Lieberman: "Senator McCain and I and others want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later, but want us out in a way that does not compromise all the gains that American and Iraqi forces have made in Iraq, which Admiral Mullen spoke to. And frankly, we want to stay there to a victory because we don't want all those who have served in the American uniform there to have served, or in some cases died, in vain. Remember this Chris, we wouldn't be having this discussion about how to get out unless the surge, which John McCain courageously fought for taking on the president of his own party, popular opinion, risking his campaign, and which senator Obama opposed, worked. So that's the good news.

"I think everybody -- that is Prime Minister Maliki, President Bush, people like John McCain and I -- agree the sooner we are out the better. It has to be based on the conditions on the ground. Senator Obama doesn't seem to feel that way. It looked like he did a little bit after the primaries were over but then he was pushed by MoveOn.org and others on the anti-war left of the Democratic party back to a rigid timeline."

...

"The fact is that if Barack Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today. It wouldn't be safe. Barack Obama, John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq. John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line because as he says he'd rather lose an election than lose a war that he thinks is this important to the United States. The reason I say ... if Barack Obama's policy in Iraq had been implemented he couldn't be in Iraq today, is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat and that would mean today Al Qaeda would be in charge of parts of Iraq, Iranian-backed extremists would be in charge of other parts of Iraq. There'd be civil war and maybe even genocide. And the fact is that we are winning in Iraq today. And, you know, you can't choose, as Senator Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can win in Afghanistan. The reality is if we lost in Iraq, whi ch Obama was prepared to do, we -- we would go to Afghanistan as losers."

Watch Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Statement by John McCain on Recent Iraq Progress

U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement on recent progress in Iraq:

"Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded. Most of the U.S. forces used in the surge have already been withdrawn. When a further conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. forces is possible, it will be because we and our Iraqi partners built on the successes of the surge strategy, which Senator Obama opposed, predicted would fail, voted against and campaigned against in the primary. When we withdraw, we will withdraw with honor and victory. An honorable and victorious withdrawal would not be possible if Senator Obama's views had prevailed. An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat. If we had followed Senator Obama's policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized."

McCain - Barack Obama 'Refining" Iraq Position on Own Website

Today (July 15, 2008), the New York Daily News reported that Barack Obama has begun to "refine" his Iraq position by removing from his website the statements that he would "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq" and the Surge is "The Problem" in Iraq:

Barack Obama "Refining" His Position On Withdrawal...

New Obama Website: "The Removal Of Our Troops Will Be Responsible And Phased" And Would Be Done In 16 Months. "The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 more than 7 years after the war began." (Obama For America Website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, Accessed 7/15/08)

Vs.

Old Obama Website: "Obama Will Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq." "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." (Obama For America Website, Accessed 7/3/08)

· Click Here To View This Part Of The Old Website.

Barack Obama "Refining" His Position On The Surge...

This Weekend, The Obama Campaign Removed All Criticism Of The Troop Surge From His Website. "Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a 'problem' that had barely reduced violence. 'The surge is not working,' Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks -- not U.S. military muscle -- for quelling violence in Anbar Province." (James Gordon Meek, "Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq," New York Daily News, 7/14/08)

· The New Website Cites An "Improved Security Situation." "Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an 'improved security situation' paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' 'hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.'" (James Gordon Meek, "Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq," New York Daily News, 7/14/08)

New Obama Website: Problem Is "Inadequate Security And Political Progress In Iraq." "Inadequate Security and Political Progress in Iraq: Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military's hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush's failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable." (Obama Fo r America Website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, Accessed 7/15/08)

Vs.

Old Obama Website: The Surge Is Part Of "The Problem." "The Problem -- The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war." (Obama For America Website, Accessed 7/3/08)

· Click Here To View This Part Of The Old Website.

McCain - "The Iron Timetable"

"After hinting earlier this month that he might 'refine' his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq." -- The Washington Post

The Iron Timetable
Editorial
The Washington Post
July 16, 2008

Barack Obama yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Mr. Obama's charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama's timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and a historical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

Read The Editorial.

McCain - "Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq"

"Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a 'problem' that had barely reduced violence." -- Daily News' James Gordon Meek

Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq
James Gordon Meek
[New York] Daily News
July 14, 2008

Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."

GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. "The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong," said McCain, adding that Obama "refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding."

Read The Article.

McCain - "Planning To Ignore The Facts"

"It's gotten harder as the success of the surge has become undeniable, but - despite some wobbles - Obama is sticking to his plan for a 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. He musters dishonesty, evasion and straw-grasping to try to create a patina of respectability around a scandalously unserious position." -- Rich Lowry

"Planning To Ignore The Facts"
Rich Lowry
New York Post
July 15, 2008

At some point, Democrats decided that facts didn't matter anymore in Iraq. And they nominated just the man to reflect the party's new anti-factual consensus on the war, a Barack Obama who has fixedly ignored changing conditions on the ground.

It's gotten harder as the success of the surge has become undeniable, but - despite some wobbles - Obama is sticking to his plan for a 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. He musters dishonesty, evasion and straw-grasping to try to create a patina of respectability around a scandalously unserious position.

Obama spokesmen now say everyone knew that President Bush's troop surge would create more security. This is blatantly false: Obama said in early 2007 that nothing in the surge plan would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence," and the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." He referred to the surge derisively as "baby-sit[ting] a civil war."

Now that the civil war has all but ended, he wants to claim retroactive clairvoyance. In a New York Times op-ed, he credits our troops' heroism and new tactics with bringing down the violence. Yet our troops have always been heroic; what made the difference was the surge strategy that he lacked the military judgment - or political courage - to support.

Obama states that "the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true," citing the strain on the military, the deterioration in Afghanistan and the fiscal drain. All are important, but pale compared with the achievement in Iraq - beating back al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias and restoring a semblance of order to a country on the verge of a collapse from which only our enemies could've benefited.

Politically, Obama has to notionally support defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, so even after he's executed his 16-month withdrawal, he says there'll be a "residual force" of American troops to take on "remnants of al Qaeda." How can he be so sure there'll only be "remnants"? If there are, it'll be because the surge he opposed has pushed al Qaeda to the brink. The more precipitously we withdraw our troops, the more likely it is to mount a comeback.

Obama treats as a vindication a recent statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling for a timeline for withdrawal of US forces. But neither Maliki nor anyone around him talks of an unconditional 16-month timeline for withdrawal as being plausible. His defense minister says Iraqis will be ready to handle internal security on their own in 2012 and external security by 2020.

The Iraqis most enthusiastic about Obama's plan surely are al Qaeda members, Sadrists, Iranian agents and sectarian killers of every stripe. The prospect of a US president suddenly letting up on them has to be the best cause for hope they've had in months. His withdrawal would immediately embolden every malign actor in Iraq and increase their sway in Iraqi politics.

Obama sticks to the badly dated contention that Iraqis "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge." In fact, roughly 15 of 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqis - progress Obama threatens to reverse.

Obama loves to say that we have to withdraw from Iraq "responsibly." There's nothing responsible about his plan. US commanders on the ground say it may not even be logistically possible. Does Obama even care? He says that when he's elected he'd give the military a new mission - to end the war. Conditions in Iraq, let alone winning, are marginalia.

There are two possible interpretations: Either Obama is dangerously sincere or he's a cynical operator playing duplicitous politics with matters of war and peace. Watch this space.

Read The Op-Ed.

McCain - "Obama On The War"

"This point cannot be emphasized enough: Obama, in opposing the surge, was wrong on the most important politico-military decision since the war began. He not only opposed the surge, he predicted in advance that it could not succeed and that it would not lead to a decrease in violence." --Commentary's Peter Wehner

Obama On The War
Peter Wehner
Commentary
July 14, 2008

In his New York Times op-ed today on Iraq, Barack Obama makes several claims worth examining.

In his opening paragraph, Obama writes:

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

A phased redeployment of combat troops can now be done in the context of a victory in Iraq, whereas when Obama first called for the complete withdrawal of all combat troops in Iraq by March 2008, it would have led to an American defeat. It is because President Bush endorsed a counterinsurgency plan which Senator Obama fiercely opposed that we are in a position to both withdraw additional combat troops and prevail in Iraq.

Obama goes on to write:

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda - greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge ... Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis' taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country.

This point cannot be emphasized enough: Obama, in opposing the surge, was wrong on the most important politico-military decision since the war began. He not only opposed the surge, he predicted in advance that it could not succeed and that it would not lead to a decrease in violence (on January 10, 2007, the night President Bush announced the surge, Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there." A week later, he repeated the point emphatically: the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.")

Both predictions were demonstrably wrong. And for Obama to state that Iraq's leaders "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge" is misleading and false. Iraqi leaders have reached comprehensive political accommodations, including passing key laws having to do with provincial elections, the distribution of resources, amnesty, pensions, investment, and de-Ba'athification. In fact, a report card issued in May judged that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" -- almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. Is Obama unaware of these achievements? Does he care at all about them?

In addition, Prime Minister Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, has taken to lead in opposing Shiite militia throughout Iraq, which in turn has led in a rallying of political support for Maliki throughout Iraq and respect for him among other Arab leaders.

The successful, Iraqi-led operations in Basra, Sadr City, and elsewhere completely subvert Obama's claim that "only be redeploying our troops" can these things be achieved. They are in fact being achieved, something which would have been impossible if Obama's "redeployment" plan had been put in place.

Obama writes this as well:

for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

In fact, it is far from clear that Iraq will be judged a strategic blunder at all, let alone the "greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy." It is now plausible to argue that the Iraq war will lead to a defeat of historic proportions for al Qaeda. It has already triggered a massive Sunni Muslim uprising against al Qaeda, a repudiation of violent jihadism from some of its original architects, and a significant shift within the Muslim world against the brutal tactics of jihadists. Iraq is also, right now, the only authentic democracy in the Arab world. And Saddam Hussein, the most aggressive and destabilizing force in the Middle East for the last several decades, is dead, and his genocidal regime is now but an awful, infamous memory.

This is not to deny that huge mistakes and miscalculations were made in the Phase IV planning of the war; it is to say, however, that those mistakes have been rectified and that we are now on the road to success in Iraq. None of this would have been possible if Senator Obama's recommendations had been followed. It's worth adding, I suppose, that if Obama's recommendations had been followed, the results would qualify as the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy.

Finally, Obama writes this:

on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

This is in some ways the most revealing statement written by Obama. He still cannot bring himself to say that the mission in Iraq is success, even when success is clearly within our grasp. For Obama the mission is, and since his presidential announcement in February 2007 has been, to end the war, even if it means an American loss of epic proportions. And if Obama had had his way, that is exactly what would have come to pass.

Among the most striking things about Obama's op-ed is how intellectually dishonest it is, particularly for a man who once proudly proclaimed that he would let facts rather than preconceived views dictate his positions on Iraq. Obama's op-ed is the effort of an arrogant and intellectually rigid man, one who disdains empirical evidence and is attempting to justify the fact that he has been consistently wrong on Iraq since the war began (for more, see my April 2008 article in Commentary, "Obama's War").

Senator Obama is once again practicing the "old politics" he claims to stand against, which is bad enough. But that Obama would have allowed America to lose, al Qaeda and Iran to win, and the Iraqi people to suffer mass death and possibly genocide because of his ideological opposition to the war is far worse. On those grounds alone, he ought to be disqualified from being America's next commander-in-chief.

Read The Column.

McCain Campaign Conference Call On Barack Obama's Iraq Position

"You know last week, Barack Obama had indicated he was going to refine his position on Iraq, and then a few hours later he then said that, really with a mix of qualifying sentences, that there were going to be no changes. We're back again today to highlight the fact that Barack Obama has seemingly been very unsure -- his words have been, to me, very unclear about where he really is on his original unilateral 16 month withdrawal proposal from Iraq." -- Rep. Eric Cantor

Today (July 6, 2008), U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with U.S. Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) and McCain 2008 senior policy adviser Randy Scheunemann to discuss Barack Obama's position on Iraq:

Representative Eric Cantor: "You know last week, Barack Obama had indicated he was going to refine his position on Iraq, and then a few hours later he then said that, really with a mix of qualifying sentences, that there were going to be no changes. We're back again today to highlight the fact that Barack Obama has seemingly been very unsure -- his words have been, to me, very unclear about where he really is on his original unilateral 16 month withdrawal proposal from Iraq. These are vital questions obviously to the American people as we approach November, and I'd just like to make a few points. First of all, both candidates in this presidential election want to end the war, but John McCain clearly has indicated he wants to see the gains in Iraq -- as discussed by The Washington Post, The New Yorker and others -- he would like to see those ga ins solidified on the ground before a withdrawal.

"And secondly, I've said before that Barack Obama is a great politician, but he is a politician who's caught between a rock and a hard place politically, because his anti-war base has frankly fueled the campaign, but reports have indicated now that the reality on the ground in Iraq is that there is progress that has been demonstrated. And I think that there is an agreement on the part of everyone that a secure Iraq helps the United States, it helps Israel, and it also helps with the security of the region against a nuclear-crazed Iran. And as a member of Congress, I have seen just a pretty unprecedented event or happening that occurs repeatedly and that is an anti-war base that has pushed the Democrats into taking one vote after another, and I think over 50 attempts trying to de-fund our troops in the middle of a war. We have spent hours on the floor debating withdrawing from Iraq and we've taken these votes all to no avail because really the reality on the floor in Congress is the votes aren't there, because I believe that that reflects where the American people are, and the American people simply do not support a unilateral, unwise decision to leave our job in Iraq unfinished."

Randy Scheunemann: "I want to put Senator Obama's positions on Iraq in a little bit of context because he has held almost every conceivable position in the course of his relatively brief career in the Senate. In 2004-2005, at one point, he indicated he was open to additional troops to stabilize the situation. He said he was opposed to a deadline for withdrawal. He said it would be wrong to cut off funds for troops that are fighting in the field. In January 2007 when the surge and the new strategy was first announced, he indicated that he didn't think the additional 15 to 20,000 troops had any chance of reducing sectarian violence, and in fact, he indicated it might make the situation worse. In May 2007, he voted with a small minority to cut off all funds for troops in the field, and had his position prevailed on that funding bill, we would have forced the most precipitous kind of withdrawal imaginable. Fortunately, his position did not prevail. In the fall of 2007, he said explicitly that he would overrule the advice of commanders in the field to secure the withdrawal along the rigid deadline that he had proposed, and he also said the time to end this war is now. That was in September 2007.

"Now at the end of this week, we've seen a completely new position from him where he claimed he has always said the safety and security of the troops and the need to maintain stability in Iraq would guide his withdrawal -- that is a new position, the need to maintain stability. He also said he would continue to refine his position. With this new position, of course, there was quite a bit of interest in the media and a number of people pointed out it was a significantly new departure from any of the previous positions he had on Iraq. He then came out and claimed that he was puzzled by the reaction.

"And the position of our campaign is that words do matter. And Senator Obama's words have left significant questions as to exactly what he intends if he is now joining Senator McCain's position and saying that the need to maintain peace and stability in Iraq is a prerequisite before a responsible withdrawal which is Senator McCain's position. We welcome his conversion to that position, but that's significantly different from the position he's had in the past which is an irresponsible withdrawal, disregarding the advice of commanders in the field and irrespective of conditions on the ground.

"Now it's been 910 days since Senator Obama's been to Iraq, so it's understandable if he's a little bit unclear on what the situation on the ground is, but I think this key question if he now is going to maintain that the need to maintain stability in Iraq is an essential prerequisite to withdrawal, we need to understand if this is clearly a position he is going to hold moving forward, or if in fact he's being intentionally vague, and we've got yet another position on Iraq, because you do literally need to have a kaleidoscope to follow Senator Obama's positions on Iraq."

Listen To The Full Conference Call.

McCain - Editorials Raise Questions About Barack Obama's Iraq Position

"Listen closely to Sen. Barack Obama's talk on Iraq and one thing becomes clear very quickly: it makes absolutely no sense." -- New Hampshire Union Leader

"Sen. Barack Obama told Iraq's foreign minister this week that he plans to visit the country between now and the presidential election. We think that's a good thing, not because Sen. John McCain has been prodding the candidate to do it but because it will give Mr. Obama an opportunity to refresh his badly outdated plan for Iraq." -- The Washington Post

A Plan For Defeat: Obama's Iraq Doublespeak
Editorial
New Hampshire Union Leader
June 18, 2008

Listen closely to Sen. Barack Obama's talk on Iraq and one thing becomes clear very quickly: it makes absolutely no sense.

Here is Sen. Obama speaking in Michigan yesterday, explaining what he told Iraq's foreign minister: " ... an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq ... that we won't act precipitously, but that we will move to end U.S. combat forces in Iraq."

What progress in Iraq? That would be the progress made under Gen. David Petraeus' "surge" strategy, which Sen. Obama opposed. Back when Obama was criticizing the surge and calling for rapid withdrawal from Iraq (aka, surrender), Sen. John McCain was pushing for more troops and a plan for victory. Now that the policy Obama opposed has turned the tables, decimated al-Qaida in Iraq and made victory possible, Obama says he wants to "continue the progress."

But how? Gen. Petraeus says further troop reductions must come only after certain gains on the ground are made. Obama says exactly the opposite: withdrawals will come, gains or no.

Obama's initial plan was to withdraw within 16 months of his inauguration. But something funny happened on the way to the surrender. The surge worked. Now he is paying lip service to our success by claiming that he wants to continue it. The problem is, he cannot do both.

The United States cannot hold both of Obama's goals simultaneously because they are opposed to each other. One is based on improved conditions on the ground, the other ignores those conditions entirely. The only way to achieve both is through pure luck. Without that, the very troops working to accomplish one goal will be withdrawn to meet the other.

The United States cannot base its defense policy on crossed fingers. (That's what got us into this mess, remember?) It must have a comprehensive plan to win the war, not two competing plans, one to win and one to lose, operating at the same time.

Read The Union Leader Editorial

Mr. Zebari's Message
Iraq's foreign minister has a chat with Barack Obama.
Editorial
Washington Post
June 18, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama told Iraq's foreign minister this week that he plans to visit the country between now and the presidential election. We think that's a good thing, not because Sen. John McCain has been prodding the candidate to do it but because it will give Mr. Obama an opportunity to refresh his badly outdated plan for Iraq. To do that, the Democrat needs to listen more to dedicated Iraqi leaders like Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister -- who, it seems, didn't hold back during their telephone conversation.

Mr. Obama laid out his current strategy for Iraq in November 2006, shortly before announcing his candidacy for president. At the time, Iraq appeared to be on the verge of a sectarian civilian war, and Mr. Obama was trying to distinguish himself in the Democratic primary race by offering a timetable for withdrawal. Nineteen months later, the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically, with violence down 75 percent from its peak and the Iraqi government and army in control of most of the country. But Mr. Obama has not altered his position: He still proposes withdrawing most U.S. troops according to a fixed timetable, set to the most rapid pace at which commanders have said American forces could be pulled out.

Mr. Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama's proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, "we are just turning the corner in Iraq." A precipitous withdrawal, he said, "would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others" -- enemies of the United States -- "would celebrate."

Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that "Iraq is not an island." In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. "We have a deadly enemy," Mr. Zebari said. "When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity." Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.

The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear ... Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying.

Read The Washington Post Editorial.

Barack Obama Vs. The Washington Post

"Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the 'this-war-is-lost' caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)." -- The Washington Post

Today, not even a full day after Barack Obama accused discussion of the Surge's success in Iraq as being "spin", The Washington Post editorializes about "The Iraqi Upturn" which flies in the face of Obama's accusations:

Yesterday, Barack Obama Said "We Don't Need Any More Spin About How The Surge Is Succeeding" But "To Recognize Where We Are In Iraq":

Barack Obama: "We don't need more spin about the surge that was supposed to get the Iraqis to step up. We don't need any more spin about how the surge is succeeding in doing what it was supposed to do which was to get the Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for their own future so we could start bringing our troops home. We don't need more tough talk from George Bush or John McCain, because the Taliban's still fighting in Afghanistan. The terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are still at large. We don't need more leaders who just see what they want to see in Iraq -- it's time to recognize where we are in Iraq." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Rapid City, SD, 5/31/08)

Watch Barack Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5thPwpddUg

Today, The Washington Post In "The Iraqi Upturn" Writes About Where We Are In Iraq:

The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.
Editorial
The Washington Post
June 1, 2008

There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Read The Washington Post Editorial

Senator Kerry Acknowledges That Senator Obama Should Visit Iraq

"That statement by John Kerry, almost an implicit acknowledgement of the truth of what the McCain campaign has been saying -- that it has been a bad thing for Obama to have been absent from the theatre, lo these two-and-a-half years." -- Fox News

Fox News' "Happening Now"
May 30, 2008

FOX NEWS' JAMES ROSEN: "Lastly, however, John Kerry did acknowledge in his conference call with reporters that it would be a good thing if Barack Obama went to Iraq -- not, he says, for the purposes of a photo-op or a political stunt, but to meet with commanders and get an idea of what's going on there. That statement by John Kerry, almost an implicit acknowledgement of the truth of what the McCain campaign has been saying -- that it has been a bad thing for Obama to have been absent from the theatre, lo these two-and-a-half years."

Watch The Fox News Report

Bill Richardson Makes Final Four

New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson finished in fourth place in today's Iowa caucuses, moving his campaign forward to the New Hampshire primary on January 8th.

"We made it to the final four," Richardson said. "My staff and volunteers worked their hearts out to get us here. Now we are going to take the fight to New Hampshire."

Richardson received 7 % of the vote in entrance polls. After watching the results at a rally in Des Moines, he boarded a plane for New Hampshire.

"It has been an honor to meet with Iowans and be a part of this extraordinary process," Richardson said. "I am the one candidate who has said we must end this war by getting all our troops out of Iraq. We cannot truly change this country until we end this war- and we can only do that by getting every US troop out. Americans who want to get us out of Iraq aren't giving up and neither am I. We cannot end the division in this country until we are out of Iraq and we cannot focus on fixing our problems at home and our image abroad until our troops are out of Iraq. We cannot wait until 2013 or longer."

"Thank you, Iowa. Now we go on to New Hampshire."

Romney: A STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE MISSION IN IRAQ

"All Americans want U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible. But walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world. Iran could seize the Shiite south, al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and Kurdish nationalism could destabilize the border with Turkey. A regional conflict could ensue, perhaps even requiring the return of U.S. troops under far worse circumstances." – Governor Romney (Governor Mitt Romney, "Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007)

Governor Romney Has Always Been A Strong Supporter Of The Surge.
On The Same Day The President Announced The Surge Strategy, Governor Romney Stated That He Supported Additional Troops. "I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction. In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops." (Romney For President, "Governor Mitt Romney On Iraq," Press Release, 1/10/07)

Governor Romney: "My view is that the troop surge is the right course for us now. I know we've made a lot of errors as a nation in managing the conflict over the last three or four years. But I think the troop surge is the right course." (Howie Carr Show, 8/2/07)

Governor Romney: "A number of mistakes have been made and those mistakes have contributed to some of the challenges we now face. … I’m glad we’re seeing a change in strategy. I’m glad we’re adding to the mission of our military the protection of the safety of citizens in and around Baghdad." (Adam Nagourney, "Romney: Clinton's Wrong About Bush," The New York Times, 1/29/07)

Governor Romney Believes America Must Remain Committed To The Mission In Iraq:
Governor Romney Believes That "Walking Away" From The Conflict In Iraq Would "Present Grave Risks" To The U.S. "All Americans want U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible. But walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world. Iran could seize the Shiite south, al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and Kurdish nationalism could destabilize the border with Turkey. A regional conflict could ensue, perhaps even requiring the return of U.S. troops under far worse circumstances." (Governor Mitt Romney, "Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007)

Governor Romney: "Well, a President Romney is not going to set a specific timeline that would suggest that we don`t care whether al Qaeda is playing a major role in that country or not. It is critically important to America and the world that al Qaeda not have a safe haven in the nation of Iraq. And, so, to set an artificial deadline which ignores whether or not al Qaeda is being successful is, in my view, a position which would – which should disqualify someone as a potential president -- president of the country." (Fox News' "You World," 9/12/07)

Governor Romney: "We obviously want our troops home as soon as we can have them home, but we don’t want to have them home and lay behind us a safe haven that could become a huge threat to the entire world, and us in particular." ("The Hugh Hewitt Show," 9/14/07)

Governor Romney Traveled To Iraq In 2006 To Meet With The Troops:
In May 2006, Governor Romney Traveled To Iraq. "Traveling under tight security, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday wrapped up an unannounced, one-day trip to Iraq to visit troops from Massachusetts, and warned against a 'cut and run' pullout from the war-torn country." (Frank Phillps, "Romney Makes Surprise Stop In Baghdad," The Boston Globe, 5/25/06)

Governor Romney: "It Would Be A Severed Mistake For Us To Cut And Run." "'It would be a severe mistake for us to cut and run,' the governor said yesterday in a telephone interview from Kuwait City just hours after he arrived from Baghdad. The potential sectarian strife that could ensue if the United States pulled out suddenly, he said, 'could lead to a humanitarian disaster.'" (Frank Phillps, "Romney Makes Surprise Stop In Baghdad," The Boston Globe, 5/25/06)

Governor Romney Believes There Needed To Be Changes In Iraq Strategy:
Governor Romney: "We've removed Saddam Hussein but, afterward, I'm afraid to report that we were underprepared and underplanned and undermanaged and undermanned." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Conservative Political Action Conference, Washington, D.C., 3/2/07)

In September 2006, Governor Romney Said "My Inclination Would Be More Boots On The Ground." "During his speech, Romney rejected suggestions that the United States should pull troops out of Iraq, even suggesting that more troops may be needed. 'My inclination would be more boots on the ground, not less,' said Romney. 'If we were to withdraw precipitously, we would have a very significant threat of a full-scale civil war with massive casualties.'" (Mike Glover, "Romney Receives Backing In Iowa For 2006 And Perhaps 2008," The Associated Press, 9/28/06)

In February 2006: Governor Romney Said He Doesn't Believe There Were Enough Troops On The Ground. GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "I think also that we haven't had sufficient troops following the period of major conflict, and so those are not new or novel observations. I think the president would agree there's a benefit that comes with hindsight. And yet I supported the president at the time that he entered into Iraq and believed that he had the kind of information he needed to have to make that decision." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 2/26/06)

In October 2004, Governor Romney Said "Looking Back Over The Last Several Months, I Wish We Had Done Some Things Differently." "Mr. Romney said he regrets some things that have happened in Iraq. 'Looking back over the last several months, I wish we had done some things differently. Of course there are mistakes made in the fog of war, as it is called. Had we known what we know today many things would have been done differently, I am sure,' the governor said." (John J. Monahan, "Iraq War Deepens Political Differences," Sunday Telegram, 10/10/04)

Governor Romney Supported The Persian Gulf War:
In 1994, Then-Republican Senatorial Candidate Mitt Romney Stated His Support For "America's Participation In Gulf War." (Romney For U.S. Senate, Campaign Flier, 1994)

ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT LAUNCHES NEW WEB AD, "FULL-SPECTRUM CONSERVATIVE"

Today, Romney for President launched its newest web ad, "Full-Spectrum Conservative." The ad highlights Governor Romney's conservative platform to build a stronger America. Unlike Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Governor Romney supports the President's tax cuts, opposes the McCain-Feingold bill that limited free speech and opposes any amnesty immigration plans. As the National Review wrote, Governor Romney is "a full-spectrum conservative." Script and viewing links are below.

Script For "Full-Spectrum Conservative" (WEB:30):
ANNOUNCER 1: "The National Review had it right."
ANNOUNCER 2: "Senator McCain is 'a hero' and a strong supporter of the war in Iraq."
ANNOUNCER 1: "But McCain 'is not as conservative as Romney.'"
ANNOUNCER 2: "He opposed the Bush tax cuts – twice."
ANNOUNCER 1: "His campaign finance law limits free speech."
ANNOUNCER 2: "He pushed a plan to keep illegal immigrants here permanently.
ANNOUNCER 1: "Mitt Romney, 'a full-spectrum conservative.'"
ANNOUNCER 2: "A supporter of 'limited government.'"
ANNOUNCER 1: "'The preservation of marriage.'"
ANNOUNCER 2: "And a 'foreign policy based on the national interest.'"
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."

To watch "Full-Spectrum Conservative," please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9r6xgw9FFw

AD FACTS For "Full-Spectrum Conservative" (WEB:30):

ANNOUNCER 1: "The National Review had it right."
ANNOUNCER 2: "Senator McCain is 'a hero' and a strong supporter of the war in Iraq."
National Review: "Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness." (Editorial, "Romney for President," National Review, 12/11/07)
ANNOUNCER 1: "But McCain 'is not as conservative as Romney.'"
ANNOUNCER 2: "He opposed the Bush tax cuts – twice."
ANNOUNCER 1: "His campaign finance law limits free speech."
ANNOUNCER 2: "He pushed a plan to keep illegal immigrants here permanently."
National Review: "John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still
champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year's amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else." (Editorial, "Romney for President," National Review, 12/11/07)
ANNOUNCER 1: "Mitt Romney, 'a full-spectrum conservative.'"
ANNOUNCER 2: "A supporter of 'limited government.'"
ANNOUNCER 1: "'The preservation of marriage.'"
ANNOUNCER 2: "And a 'foreign policy based on the national interest.'"
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."

National Review: "Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest." (Editorial, "Romney for President," National Review, 12/11/07)

To watch "Full-Spectrum Conservative," please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9r6xgw9FFw

BIDEN: BUSH IRAQ POLICY ONLY HELPS BIN LADEN

Osama Bin Laden sent a new message to his followers over the weekend. In it, he tried to rally support by claiming that the United States wants to control Iraq’s oil and to build permanent military bases in Iraq to dominate the region. Bin Laden claimed, “America seeks, alongside its agents in the region, to create an allied government ... that would accept in advance the presence of major U.S. bases in Iraq and give the Americans all they wish of Iraq's oil.” [Washington Post, 12/29/07]



For two years, Sen. Joe Biden has led the effort to put Congress on record that the United States will not build permanent military bases in Iraq and does not seek to control its oil. As a result, none of the funding that Congress gave to the President for Iraq last year could be used for those purposes.Sen. Biden has repeatedly pressed President Bush to clearly state U.S. policy in order to dispel the widespread belief in Iraq and across the Middle East that the United States intends to build permanent bases and to control Iraq’s energy resources. The President has refused to make a clear statement of U.S. policy. For example, the Defense Authorization bill he vetoed this week included a provision barring the construction of permanent U.S. bases that Senator Biden originated.



Sen. Biden issued the following statement:“The President’s failure to make it clear that we will not build permanent military bases in Iraq and do not seek to control its oil, has handed Bin Laden a huge propaganda tool that allows him to enlist new recruits and makes the world more dangerous. President Bush has steadfastly refused to heed my call on this critical issue as seen in his veto of the Defense bill that included my language that the United States will have no permanent military bases in Iraq. “I call on the President to state clearly and unequivocally, once and for all, that the United States will not build permanent military bases in Iraq and does not seek to control Iraq’s oil. With each passing day, the American people witness the negative consequences of this White House’s failed diplomacy. It is time for a change in Washington.”



Biden Sponsored Amendment to Bar Permanent Bases in Iraq. In May 2006 and again in August 2006, Senator Biden sponsored an amendment that was agreed to in the Senate by voice vote. The first provided “that no funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq or to exercise control by the United States over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.” [S.AMDT.3855, agreed to in Senate by voice vote on 5/3/06; S.AMDT.4423, agreed to in Senate by unanimous consent on 6/22/06; S.AMDT.4851, agreed to in Senate by unanimous consent on 8/3/06]


The Washington Post reported, “The Senate also approved by voice vote an amendment by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) putting the chamber on record as opposing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and U.S. control of the country's natural resources.” [Washington Post, 5/4/06]


According to Army Times, “The Senate approved an amendment to the 2007 defense appropriations bill sponsored by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., barring U.S. government funds from being used to establish any facility in Iraq for permanent stationing of U.S. armed forces or exercise U.S. control over Iraqi oil resources.” [Army Times, August 2006]

Richardson calls for new way forward in American foreign policy

New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson distinguished his position on Iraq from those of the other major candidates in a major policy speech entitled "The Difference" today in Coralville, Iowa.

"The bottom line is this: my opponents believe in changing the mission," Richardson said. "They wish to task our troops with new combat roles, new training roles, and new policing roles. I see it differently.

"One year from now, I do not want to have to wake up and lower my state's flags for another New Mexican killed in Iraq. Three years from now, I do not want to read in the morning newspaper about bombing attacks against Americans because our presence in Iraq continues to inflame the Muslim world. Five years from now, I do not want to see today's schoolchildren patrolling and dying on the streets of Baghdad. Now is the time for peace."

To read Governor Richardson's speech, click here.

Governor Richardson criticized the Washington conventional wisdom on America's foreign policy.

"Our foreign policy decisions must be based in reality, not ideology," Richardson said. "Nor should foreign policy decisions be dictated by the same Washington conventional wisdom that was wrong before, during, and after our invasion of Iraq. Those who subscribe to the new Washington wisdom that we must leave our troops in Iraq indefinitely are getting it wrong again.

"Only in Washington would people suggest that leaving a smaller force behind can accomplish what a much larger force has not yet done. We have been down the road of an undermanned force before, and we paid the costs dearly. For the sake of our troops, we cannot make that mistake again."

Richardson concluded by calling for a new way forward in American foreign policy.

"I ask all Americans to join me in once again making our nation the world's beacon of hope," Richardson said. "Together, we need the compassion to commit the necessary resources, the courage to stand fast in the face of inevitable setbacks, and the determination to put our troops first. Finally, we need the resolve to shunt aside the naysayers and Washington conventional wisdom and simply do what we know is right."

BIDEN: MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT ABOUT THE TROOPS?

Sen. Joe Biden issued a statement following President Bush’s veto yesterday of the Defense Authorization Conference Report:

“It is shocking that this White House thinks it’s more important to shield the Iraqi Government from lawsuits than to meet the needs of our troops. President Bush has said for months that Congress must immediately support our troops and that any delay was unacceptable. Now he's vetoed legislation that provides a pay increase to our troops and reforms the health care system for our veterans in the wake of the Walter Reed scandal. Why? Because it doesn't do enough to protect the Iraqi government.

“This president’s priorities are exactly backwards. Our troops must come first. The men and women on our front lines and our wounded warriors back home will have a hard time understanding what the President has done. And they’re right – this is outrageous. The most important promise a president must keep is to our troops. This president has broken that promise."

Bush said Defense Authorization is “A Promise to Fund our Troops in Combat.” In a radio address, Bush said, “This week, Congress considered a defense authorization bill. An authorization bill is a pledge to spend money. Under such a bill, Congress will make a promise to fund our troops in combat.” [Bush Radio Address, 12/15/07]

Bush: Funding the Troops is the “First Priority.” In a radio address, Bush said, “Congress's first priority should be to provide the funds and flexibility to keep our troops safe and help them protect our Nation.” [Bush Radio Address, 12/1/07]