Obama Response to McCain Call on Iraq

On yet another conference call today, the McCain campaign repeated their completely false attack on Senator Obama's consistent call for a phased withdrawal from Iraq that would maintain a residual force to protect our interests. Independent fact checkers have found that their attack on Senator Obama's position is “false” and the facts show that Senator Obama has consistently said that he would support residual forces to carry out discrete and well-defined missions.

Please see the facts below:

Independent Fact Checkers and Journalists conclude McCain Attack on Obama's Position on Iraq Withdrawal is “False” and “Not Accurate.”

· PolitiFact: “Obama's Iraq Flip-Flop? Nope.” “Weighing all these statements together, we find the McCain campaign is off-base in saying Obama has changed position. Obama repeatedly said facts on the ground could affect the tactical moves of an overall withdrawal. Obama's position was not an iron-clad withdrawal timeline in the first place. We find the McCain campaign's statement that Obama has reversed position to be False.” [7/10/08]

· The Atlantic: The McCain attack that Barack Obama has changed his position on Iraq “is not accurate but is nonetheless being widely repeated.” [7/8/08]

OBAMA HAS repeatedly SAID HIS IRAQ PLAN INCLUDES RESIDUAL TROOPS TO PROTECT ENDURING U.S. INTERESTS

· Obama Introduced Legislation in January 2007 that Authorized a Residual Force: On January 30, 2007, Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 which included a provision that: “A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.” [Senate Press Release, 01/30/07]

· Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And “Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground.” Obama said, “The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation. But let me be clear on one thing: I will end this war, and there will be far fewer Americans in Iraq conducting a much more limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08

· Obama Said The Size Of His Residual Force “Is Going To Depend On What Our Military Situation Is.” “I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities. How large that force is, whether it's located inside Iraq or as an over the horizon force is going to depend on what our military situation is. What we're not going to be doing is engaging in broad-based counter insurgency. We're not going to be providing long-term and constant embedded training operations and logistical training operations and the sort that, I think, Senator Clinton has in some cases talked about. We're certainly not going to be engaging in what I consider mission creep, where we are structuring our forces based on preventing Iranian influence in Iraq, something that Senator Clinton has talked about as a possibility in a previous interview.” [New York Times, 11/1/07]

· Obama Recognized The Necessity For Some US Forces To Remain In Iraq. “We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces. But we will set our own direction and our own pace, and our direction must be out of Iraq. The future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government.” [Speech On Turning The Page In Iraq, 9/12/07]

· Obama Advisor Said Obama Would Maintain A Residual Force In Iraq For “Clearly Defined Missions.” Anthony Lake, who was Democratic President Bill Clinton's national security adviser and now a senior Obama foreign policy adviser, told the Financial Times Obama would maintain a ‘residual force for clearly defined missions' in Iraq. This would include military training and ‘preparedness to go back in if there are specific acts of genocidal violence.'” [Reuters, 7/2/08]

· Obama Advisor Said That Obama Had More Specific Tasks For Residual Troops In Iraq Than Clinton Or McCain. Susan Rice said, “I'm trying to answer that. Yes. He would leave behind a presence to protect our embassy and civilian employees who continue to do reconstruction and engage in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in Iraq. Senator McCain has said we will stay there in large force levels indefinitely, and Senator Clinton has described a much longer term mission and a broader residual to include having our forces in Iraq be deployed in a fashion that can affect Iran's behavior as well as her surrogate said yesterday a long-term stabilization presence for the middle east and go after other non-al Qaeda terrorist entities in the region. There is a significant difference here between Senator Obama's conception of what would be the residual missions and Senator Clinton's and indeed, of course, Senator McCain.” [CNN, 4/10/08]