1

MEDIA TRAVEL PACKET

QUESTIONS FOR OBAMA...........................................................................................................................................................2
AFGHANISTAN ........................................................................................................................................................................2
IRAQ .........................................................................................................................................................................................3
OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON IRAQ ................................................................................................................................................6
OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON SUPPORT FOR THE WAR AND TIMETABLES FOR WITHDRAWAL ........................................6
OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON TROOP FUNDING.......................................................................................................................8
OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON THE SURGE ..............................................................................................................................10
OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON THE STRIKE FORCE IN IRAQ ..................................................................................................11
AFGHANISTAN...........................................................................................................................................................................11
OBAMA’S LACK OF LEADERSHIP........................................................................................................................................11
OBAMA’S HYPOCRISY ON TROOP FUNDING ....................................................................................................................12
OBAMA’S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON AFGHANISTAN.......................................................................................................13
ISRAEL .......................................................................................................................................................................................14
OBAMA’S WEAK POLICY ON IRAN ......................................................................................................................................14
OBAMA’S BLUNDERS WITH THE JEWISH COMMUNITY....................................................................................................15

QUESTIONS FOR OBAMA

AFGHANISTAN
You said on “Meet the Press,” on May 4, 2008, “I think we have to be focused on Afghanistan.” So why is it that, according to
The Hill newspaper, you have “missed two of three Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Afghanistan since joining
the panel” ? And why have you only now decided to visit Afghanistan for the first time after having been in office for more than
three and a half years? Yet you’ve already visited Iraq once. Why aren’t you focused on Afghanistan in your work as a senator?
You’ve also talked about how critical it is to get our European allies to increase their contributions in Afghanistan. “As we step
up our commitment,” you said on August 1, 2007, “our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome
restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts.” Yet as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European
Affairs since January 2007 you haven’t held a single hearing on this or any other subject. Why not? Are you putting your
political ambitions above doing the job that the people of Illinois elected you to do?
You predicted that the surge in Iraq would fail. In January 2007 you said, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in
Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” You still deny that the surge has been a
success, even if violence is down. “Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge,” you
claim. Yet you are now proposing a smaller surge in Afghanistan of two brigades, or about 8,000 troops. Why do you think a
smaller surge will work in Afghanistan when you were convinced that a bigger surge would fail in Iraq?
You opposed the surge and called for withdrawing all of our combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. You said that we
should be “getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Why do you think that losing to Al
Qaeda in Iraq would have helped us to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
On May 13, you said that we should redeploy translators from Iraq to Afghanistan. "We only have a certain number of them and
if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," you said. Are you aware of the fact that Iraqis speak
Arabic while Afghans speak Dari, Pashto, and other languages?
At a presidential debate on February 21, 2008, you complained that our troops in Afghanistan “didn’t have enough ammunition,
they didn’t have enough Humvees.” So why did you vote against giving them the funding they need to fight? On May 24, 2007,
you were one of only 14 senators who voted against a $94.4 billion spending bill that included crucial funding for our troops not
only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan.

2
In that same debate, you claimed that our troops in Afghanistan “were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was
easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.” Have you
found any evidence to back up that claim? Has there been a single published report of shortages of ammunition in
Afghanistan? And, if there have been such shortages, doesn’t that make your vote against funding the troops even more
irresponsible?
You now complain that “We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.” Did you make a single public statement in
the fall of 2001 calling for more U.S. troops to be sent to Afghanistan to finish off Al Qaeda? Or is this just after-the-fact second
guessing for political advantage?
You’ve said we need to “use the power of American diplomacy” and that “It's time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough
talk and no action.” Yet in the very same speech, you also said: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist
targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.” Pakistan’s foreign minister branded your statement as “very irresponsible.”
Why do you think it’s a good idea to bluster in public about taking military action on the soil of an American ally? And how do
you think that such statements will help you to achieve your goal of initiating “a new relationship” with Pakistan “so that we can
get better cooperation to hunt down al-Qaeda”?
You have warned against “the invasion of a country posing no imminent threat” and said that we should not fight “in a country
that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks,” because to do so “would fan the flames of extremism. You were
speaking of Iraq. Yet what imminent threat does Afghanistan currently pose against the United States that would justify the
heightened commitment you propose? There is no evidence that any of the perpetrators of 9/11 are still in Afghanistan. Won’t
sending more troops to Afghanistan simply “fan the flames of extremism”?
You applauded the Supreme Court’s recent ruling giving habeas corpus rights to captured terrorists. Your supporters, Senator
John Kerry and former NSC staffer Richard Clarke, say this means that if Osama bin Laden is captured he will have habeas
corpus rights too. Do you agree with them? And if so do you think this is a good idea?
You said, in explaining your opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2002, “What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard
Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas
down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.” Given your attacks on “armchair, weekend
warriors,” what credibility do you have, never having served in uniform yourself, to order more American men and women into
harms’ way in Afghanistan?
IRAQ
Twenty-nine Senate Democrats—including your strong supporters Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, and John Kerry —
voted in 2002 to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Other prominent Democrats also spoke out in favor of the
war. You have said that this was “the most important foreign-policy decision in a generation,” and you have denounced
politicians “who feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions.” Since, by your lights, these senators failed this
generational test and failed to ask the hard questions, why are you seeking their advice today? Will you pledge not to appoint
any of them to a position in your administration?
You have pledged to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months. But you have also said, “We will need to retain
some forces in Iraq and the region.” However you have never said how many troops you would leave behind—not even a
range. Your former adviser Samantha Power said that "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a
presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator.” When Fareed Zakaria asked you whether you “you could imagine a situation where,
if the Iraqi government wanted it, 30,000 American troops are still in Iraq 10 years from now,” you replied, “You know, I have
been very careful not to put numbers on what a residual force would look like.” Don’t you think the American people deserve to
know how many troops you plan to leave in Iraq?
Colin Kahl, coordinator of your Iraq issues group, has co-authored a study that says we may need to retain 60,000 to 80,000
troops in Iraq by the end of 2010. That would seem to contradict your pledge to pull out all of our combat brigades. Is Kahl
wrong? And if so why is he still advising your campaign?
3
You have said repeatedly that you would “end this war.” In 2007 a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that, far from
ending the war, “a rapid withdrawal” of US forces would result in an ever-expanding war that would destabilize the region and
provide a safe haven for terrorists. Why do you think that withdrawing American troops would end the war? What do you think
Iraq will look like after an American departure?
You have said of Afghanistan: “This is a war we have to win.” Yet you do not talk about winning the war in Iraq—only of ending
it. Why do you think it’s not important to win in Iraq? If we don’t win who will? Al Qaeda and Iran’s proxies?
What would Iraq look like today if we had implemented your plan, announced in January 2007, to bring all of our troops home
by March 2008? Would we have seen the reduction in violence that has occurred since the beginning of the surge—up to 80%
according to the Pentagon’s most recent report? Or would we have seen the continuing rise in violence that we saw in 2006?
And, if the latter, can you explain how that would have been in America’s interest?
In 2004, according to the Associated Press, you said you “would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy
that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.” But when
President Bush announced just such a strategy in January 2007—the surge—you opposed it. You said, “the President’s
strategy will not work,” and you voted against it in a Sense of the Senate resolution. Why did you change your mind? Was it
simply because you were seeking the Democratic nomination in 2007 but not in 2004? And do you regret your change of
heart?
In 2003 you said, “I’ve indicated that I was opposed to the war at the outset, but I do think that if we removed our troops
immediately we would see an enormous power vacuum and chaos in an area that’s already destabilized.” In 2004 you said,
“I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is that we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the
rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do
that.” As late as 2006, you said, “My position has been that it would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously
draw troops down regardless of the politics, because I think that all of us have a stake in seeing Iraq succeed.” Why have you
changed your position to favor “an artificial deadline”? Is there any evidence you can point to that removing troops today
wouldn’t create in an “enormous power vacuum and chaos”?
In July 2004, you said, “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this
stage.” Why were you supporting a failed strategy in Iraq at a time when John McCain was calling for more troops?
In June 2006 you said, “We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos,
ethnic cleansing, and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral
and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.” How do you square this with your current calls for a
withdrawal within 16 months? Can you cite any military officers who think that our withdrawal can be managed responsibly in
16 months?
In January 2007 you said, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence
there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” You also said that you “did not see anything… that provides evidence that an
additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place
there.” But in February 2008 you admitted, “I think it is indisputable that we’ve seen violence reduced in Iraq.” Why do you
think you were so mistaken in your analysis? And how can you claim, as you now do, that, “I had no doubt--and I said at the
time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then
we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence” ? Why are you removing
all references to your earlier views from your web site?
In April, Ambassador Ryan Crocker told Congress, that there has been a “positive trend” in Iraqi politics: “Iraq’s parliament has
formulated, debated vigorously, and in many cases passed legislation dealing with vital issues of reconciliation and nation
building.” The examples he cited included a pension law and amnesty law for former Baathists, a provincial powers law which
sets elections for this fall, a law redesigning the Iraqi flag, and a new budget for 2008. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has
recently certified that Iraq has met at least 15 of the 18 benchmarks laid out by Congress. So how can you still claim that
4
“Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge” ? And on what basis can you claim that
accelerating American troop withdrawals would lead Iraqi leaders to make faster progress?
If you think that the surge has failed in Iraq, why are you advocating a surge in Afghanistan?
You said in January that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar
province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what?—the Americans may be
leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shiites. We should start negotiating now.” Are you aware that
the Anbar Awakening began in September 2006—months before the Democrats gained control of Congress?
In February of this year you said on “Meet the Press” that you would consider sending troops to Iraq to fight Al Qaeda: “As
commander-in-chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda
is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.” So
why haven’t you supported the presence of American troops in Iraq over the past several years when they have been rooting Al
Qaeda out of bases that undeniably existed in Iraq?
General Petraeus told Congress in April that recent gains in Iraq are “fragile and reversible” and that “withdrawing too many
forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the last year.” You have said you would “listen to our commanders on the
ground.” So why aren’t you listening to Petraeus (whom you just voted to confirm to be the head of Central Command) on this
issue?
General Petreaus has said: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign." Osama bin Laden has said, "The
most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began
against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers [Iraq]. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the
capital of the caliphate." Yet you have claimed, “The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was.” Why
do you think both the leader of our forces and the leader of the enemy forces are wrong?
You have said repeatedly, “I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government.” So why didn’t you bother
consulting with them before issuing your plan for Iraq in advance of your first trip to that country in over 900 days? And why did
you issue a plan for Afghanistan before your first trip ever to that country?
You have said “the Iraq War has left us less safe than we were before 9/11” and that “the war in Iraq has emboldened al
Qaeda.” Yet CIA Director Michael Hayden says that we’re winning the war on terrorism: “On balance, we are doing pretty well:
Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda
globally--and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically'--as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam.”
His judgment has been confirmed by experts writing in Newsweek , the Washington Post , The New Yorker , and the New
Republic who have described Al Qaeda’s “unraveling” (the headline in The New Republic). Studies show that terrorism is
actually on the decline and Al Qaeda has lost substantial support in the Muslim world. Given that there hasn’t been a single
major terrorist attack on an American target outside Iraq since 2001, how can you claim we’re less safe?
You have said, “The war in Iraq has emboldened Iran.” Yet Vali Nasr, a respected nonpartisan expert who recently visited Iraq,
has concluded that, as a result of recent Iraqi offensives in Basra and Sadr City, “America has the advantage while Iran is on its
heels.” Do you disagree with Nasr? And if so why?
You have said that you would withdraw from Iraq while restoring America’s standing in the world. As part of that commitment,
you have pledged to find “common cause with old allies and new partners.” Can you cite any statement by leaders of any of
our “old allies” that favor the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq?
You have said, “We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.” Martha
Raddatz of ABC News reports that “several commanders who looked at the Obama plan told ABC News, on background, that
there was ‘no way’ it could work logistically.” Why, in your considered judgment, are the officers on the ground wrong?
Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of Multi-National Division Baghdad, told Raddatz that withdrawing based on a
timetable, as you propose, would be “very dangerous.” Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal,” he
5
said, “it’s got to be conditions-based”—precisely the position of John McCain. Why are you substituting your judgment for those
of the commanders on the spot?
You have said repeatedly that the reason you oppose the war in Iraq is that it “distract[s] us from the fight against al Qaeda and
the Taliban.” So why is that when you gave your definitive speech against the Iraq War on October 2, 2002, you never once
mentioned Afghanistan? Instead you said, “What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us
from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and
a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.” Do you still believe the war in Iraq was
the result of a plot by “political hacks like Karl Rove”?
You have claimed, “the American general in charge of training Iraq’s Security Forces has testified that Iraq’s Army and Police
will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq’s security in 2009.” Yet all that Lt. Gen. James Dubik said is that “The ground
forces will mostly be done by middle of next year.” He said nothing to indicate that Iraq’s ground forces—much less its naval
and air forces—would be ready to police Iraq on their own without substantial U.S. assistance. Why are you distorting his
remarks?
Are you aware that Iraq’s defense minister, Abdul Qadir, has said that his forces won’t be ready to handle internal security on
their own until 2012 and external security until 2018? How does that square with your desire to pull all U.S. combat troops out in
2010?
You have said that “Prime Minister Maliki’s call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity” to
implement your withdrawal plan. Yet Maliki has never endorsed a 16-month timetable for withdrawal, and Reuters reports that
“when Mr. Obama visits Baghdad, as he is expected to later this month, he is unlikely to find that the Iraqi government is quite
as set on demanding deadlines for US withdrawal as he would like to think.” Why are you distorting the Iraqi prime minister’s
comments?
You have said that “a strategy for staying” in Iraq “runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people.” Yet a poll released in March by
ABC, BBC, and other Western news organizations found that only 38% think that coalition forces should “leave now.” Fully
62% said that U.S. forces should remain until the Iraqi government and its security forces are stronger. Do you think the poll is
wrong? Do you know more about the wishes of the Iraqi people than the people who actually talk to them?
On May 13, 2007, you said that you would support giving troops in Iraq the funding they need even while opposing the war
because “it’s not their fault that our civilian leadership made bad decisions and what I wanted to make sure of was that they
had night vision goggles that they needed, the Humvees that they needed.” Yet just nine days later you voted against $94.4
billion in funding for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and claimed you were “proud” of your vote. Why this about face? Just
politics as usual?

OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON IRAQ

OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON SUPPORT FOR THE WAR AND TIMETABLES FOR WITHDRAWAL
In November 2002, Obama Said He Would Have Opposed The Iraq War Resolution:
Obama Said He Would Have Voted Against The Iraq War Resolution. Berkowitz: “How would you have voted a few months
ago when they had the vote on the so called Iraq war powers resolution? Would you have – is the democratic party split on
that?” Obama: “I think there is a division.” Berkowitz: “And how would you have voted? Would you have supported that
resolution? Voted yea or nay?” Obama: “If it came to me in an up or down vote as it came, I think I would have agreed with our
senior Senator Dick Durbin and voted nay.” (“Public Affairs With Jeff Berkowitz,” 11/25/02)
In November 2003, Obama Said That Withdrawal From Iraq Would Lead To Chaos:
In November 2003, Obama Said That If We Removed Troops From Iraq “We Would See An Enormous Power Vacuum
And Chaos…” The Illinois Channel’s Terry Martin: “Let’s talk about Iraq for a bit. Now that we are there, would you stay?”
Obama: “I think we have no choice unfortunately but to stay for some period of time. I’ve indicated that I was opposed to the
6
war at the outset, but I do think that if we removed our troops immediately we would see an enormous power vacuum and
chaos in an area that’s already destabilized.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Interview With The Illinois Channel, 11/6/03)
In April 2004, Obama Said He Was Against An Artificial Timetable For Withdrawal From Iraq:
In April 2004, Obama Opposed Withdrawal And Said We Must Rebuild And Reconstruct Iraq But Should Not Have An
“Artificial Deadline When To Do That.” WTTW11 Anchor: “But right now the U.S. is the one that’s there. And you’ve said you
thought troops should be withdrawn.” Obama: “No. No I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is that
we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I
don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that. I think what’s important is that we have a long-term planning
process and a short-term security strategy.” (WTTW11’s “Chicago Tonight,” 4/5/04)
In June 2006, Obama Warned Against “A Hard And Fast, Arbitrary Deadline” For Leaving Iraq:
In June 2006, Obama Said That “A Hard And Fast, Arbitrary Deadline For Withdrawal Offers Our Commanders In The
Field, And Our Diplomats In The Region, Insufficient Flexibility To Implement That Strategy.” Obama: “What is needed is
a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our
commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy. For example, let’s
say that a phased withdrawal results in 50,000 troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi
Government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional 3 or 6 months would enhance stability and security in the
region, this [Kerry] amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Congressional
Record, 6/21/06, p. S6233)

In September 2007, Obama Called For The U.S. To “Immediately” Begin Withdrawing Troops From Iraq:
In September 2007, Obama Called For The U.S. To “Immediately Begin To Remove Our Combat Troops” From Iraq.
Obama: “So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to
pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one
year, but now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Clinton, IA, 9/12/07)
In March 2008, Obama Said He Would “Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq”:
In March 2008, Obama Said He Would "Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq And Have Them Out In 16
Months." Obama: "In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can
responsibly remove one to two combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we
can remove all of them 16 months." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Fayetteville, NC, 3/19/08)
In May 2008, Obama Said He Would Bring The War To An End In 2009; Continued Touting His War Opposition:
Obama: “When I promise that we are going to bring this war in Iraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to
understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, '04, '05, '06 and '07, so you can have confidence that I will be serious about
ending this war.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The North Carolina Democrat Party 2008 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Raleigh, NC, 5/2/08)
In June 2008, Obama Claimed That He Would Listen To Commanders On The Ground With Regard To Withdrawal
From Iraq:
Obama Told CNN's Candy Crowley That He Was Open To "Facts And To Reason" With Regard To His Plan For
Withdrawal From Iraq. Crowley: "You have said you want to go back to Iraq." Obama: "Yeah." Crowley: "See what the
situation is on the ground. Is there nothing that they could show you or that General Petraeus could tell you that would move
you from wanting to immediately begin removing U.S. troops?" Obama: "Well, you know, I never say there's nothing or never or
no way in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen
significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08)

7
 Obama Maintained That The U.S. Should Leave Iraq, But Said He Would Consider What Commanders Say And
Conditions On The Ground With Respect To Withdrawal. Obama: “What I won't do is to leave an open-ended, strategic
policy that says we are going to leave it up to essentially the Iraqis to determine the pace at which they train their folks, the
pace at which they negotiate on critical issues like how oil revenues are distributed. We've got to light a fire under their feet to
start taking responsibility and the only way to do that, I think, is to have a clear timetable. But I've said before, I will listen to our
commanders on the ground. I will be paying attention to the facts as I make these assessments.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Press
Conference, 6/10/08)

In July 2008, Obama Claimed That He Has Always Said His Timetable For Withdrawal From Iraq Would Be Based On
Conditions On The Ground:
Obama Claims That He "Always Said" He Would Slow The Pace Of Withdrawal From Iraq Based On Conditions On The
Ground. Obama: "And as I've said before, and this was true during the heat of the primary, it was true when we posted this
Web site. I have always said, and again, you can take a look at the language, that as commander-in-chief, I would always
reserve the right to do what's best in America's national interests. And if it turned out, for example, that, you know, we had to, in
certain months, slow the pace because of the safety of American troops in terms of getting combat troops out, of course we
would take that into account. I would be a poor commander-in-chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account." (Sen. Barack
Obama, Press Conference, 7/3/08)

Obama Said The Pace Of Withdrawal From Iraq Would Be Determined In Consultation With Commanders On The
Ground And The Iraqi Government. Obama: “If current trends continue and we’re in a position where we continue to see
reductions in violence and stabilizations and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police,
then you know my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government, at
a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground and it strikes me that
that’s something we can begin relatively soon after inauguration. If on the other hand you’ve got a deteriorating situation for
some reason then that’s going to have to be taken into account.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Interview With Military Times, 7/2/08)
At The Same Time, Obama Re-Committed To Having Troops Out Of Iraq In 16 Months:
Obama Said Troops Would Be Out Of Iraq In 16 Months. Question: “You just said that when you used the phrase refined
policies, it did not -- you did not refer to the 16-month timetable. Does that mean you can tell us today you will not change the
16-month timetables?” Obama: “Here's what I can tell you: that I will bring our troops out at a pace of one to two brigades per
month. And at that pace we will have our combat troops out in 16 months. That is what I intend to do as president of the United
States.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 7/3/08)
Obama: “And so what I've called for is a phased withdrawal, a phased redeployment that is not precipitous, that is responsible,
getting our combat troops out at a pace of about one to two brigades per month. And at that point, we would have our troops
out, our combat troops out in about 16 months.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Powder Springs, GA, 7/8/08)
OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON TROOP FUNDING
In November 2003, Obama Opposed Iraq Reconstruction Funding:
In November 2003, Obama Said He Would Have Voted Against $87 Billion For War Funding. Obama: “Just this week,
when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion, I said no. And I said no unequivocally, because, at a certain point, we
have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.” (Sen. Barack Obama,
Remarks To The New Trier Democratic Organization, 11/16/03)

In April 2004, Obama Said That He Wanted Resources For The Troops’ Protection:
In April 2004, Obama Said He Wanted To Ensure That Troops Had The Resources They Needed For Their Protection.
Obama: “[W]hat’s important is what I don’t want is a situation in which we have 80 or 90 thousand young American men and
women who are over there in a situation where they do not have the resources sufficient to ensure their own protection. And

8
what we have to do is make sure that we have enough troop strength. As long as we have troops there we have to make sure
that we have enough troop strength to make sure that we are safe and secure.” (WTTW11’s “Chicago Tonight,” 4/5/04)
In May 2005, Obama Spoke In Support Of Funding For Troops In Iraq:
Obama Said He Hoped That Providing Funding For Troops Would Give Them “All The Support And All The Equipment
They Need To Do Their Job.” Obama: “Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the fiscal year 2005 emergency
supplemental appropriations bill. Every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their
lives to defend ours. They are completing a mission they did not ask for and, in Iraq, a mission that is longer and more
dangerous than they were ever told. Yet amid roadside explosions, insurgent attacks, and the loss of some of their closest
friends, they wake up each day and do their jobs. They wake up each day and do whatever it takes to leave a democratic Iraq
for a free Iraqi people. This bill is a way for us to support these efforts. With its passage, I sincerely hope our troops will receive
all the support and all the equipment they need to do their job. With its passage, I hope we do not hear any more stories about
troops driving convoys with unarmored Humvees, or about troops going into battle with armor their parents had to send them
from home for their birthday. And I sincerely hope this money will be used to train more Iraqis to secure their own country so we
can bring home our young people safe and secure.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Congressional Record, 5/10/05, p. S4830)
In January 2007, Said That No One Would Be Willing To “Strand The Troops That Are In Iraq”:
In January 2007, Obama Said That Congress Needed To Make Sure That Troops In Iraq Had “All The Resources
Necessary To Come Home Safely And To Execute The Missions That Have Been Laid Out For Them.” Obama: “I think
that we have to look at a variety of options where Congress can exercise its responsibilities. I know nobody in Congress,
Republican or Democrat, who is going to in any way strand troops who are presently in Iraq. We’ve got to make sure that they
have all the resources necessary to come home safely and to execute the missions that have been laid out for them.” (MSNBC’s
“Reaction To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)

In March 2007, Obama Said He Did Not Want To Leave The Troops Under Equipped:
#In March 2007, Obama Said He Did Not Want To Leave The Soldiers In A Position Where They Were Not Equipped.
Blitzer: “Because some ardent opponents of the war, like Dennis Kucinich, for example, who is a Democratic presidential
candidate…” Obama: “Right.” Blitzer: “[H]e takes a principled stand. He’s not going to vote to fund troops going off to this war,
because he believes that would help bring the troops home.” Obama: “Right. You know, the problem is, is that you have got an
obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change, in the face of circumstances on the ground. And, in that
situation, what you don’t want to do is to play chicken to -- with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you
don’t have body armor; you don’t have reinforced companies; you don’t have night-vision goggles.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,”
3/28/07)

In May 2007, Obama Said He Would Support Funding For Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan:
In May 2007, Obama Told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos That He Supported Funding To Give Troops The Equipment
They Need. Stephanopoulos: “[Y]ou said then you have to say ‘no’ to George Bush because we can’t get steamrolled. Yet you
go in the Senate, your critics say, and vote for the funding every single time.” Obama: “Because at that point you’ve got
hundreds of thousands of young men and women who have to carry out the mission on behalf of the American people. It’s not
their fault that our civilian leadership made bad decisions and what I wanted to make sure of was that they had night vision
goggles that they needed, the Humvees that they needed and I also felt and I’ve continued to feel this way that if we could
create some semblance of stability and success in Iraq, that would be a good thing.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 5/13/07)
In June 2007, Obama Said He Was “Proud” Of His Vote Against The Iraq Funding Bill:
#41 At The June 2007 Take Back America Conference, Obama Said He Was “Proud” Of His Vote Against The Iraq
Funding Bill. Obama: “Now, I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops home by now,
with the goal of bringing all combat brigades home by March 31st, 2008. Now we know the president vetoed a bipartisan plan
just like that one a few weeks ago. And I'm proud I voted against giving a blank check to the man who said he sees keeping us

9
-- keeping our troops in Iraq for as long as we have kept them in Korea.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The 2007 Take Back America
Conference, Washington, DC, 6/19/07)

OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON THE SURGE

In October 2006, Obama Began Opposing The Surge:
In October 2006, Obama Said That We Cannot “Through Putting In More Troops Or Maintaining The Presence That We
Have, Expect That Somehow The Situation Is Going To Improve.” Obama: “Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at
this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the
situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.” (NBC’s
“Meet The Press,” 10/22/06)

In January 2007, Obama Continued Opposing The Surge:

In January 2007, Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violence In Iraq. Obama: “I am not
persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the
reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the
ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal.” (MSNBC’s “Response
To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)

In July 2007, Obama Said The Surge Had Not Worked:

In July 2007, Obama Said The Surge Had Not Worked In Iraq. Obama: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked
and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)
In November 2007, Obama Said The Surge Strategy Was Not Working And That We Were “Actually Worsening” The
Situation In Iraq:
In November 2007, Obama Said The Surge Has Not Worked, And Had Potentially Worsened The Situation In Iraq.
Obama: “Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a
course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a search and at that stage I said very
clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.” (NBC’s “Meet The
Press,” 11/11/07)

In January 2008, Obama Claimed That He Always Said That Increasing The Number Of Troops In Iraq Would Improve
Security.
In January 2008, Obama Claimed That He Always Said That Increasing The Number Of Troops In Iraq Would Improve
Security. Obama: “I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place
30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the
violence.” (Sen. Barack Obama, ABC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 1/5/08)
In February 2008, Obama Conceded That The Strategy In Iraq Was Achieving Security Gains:
In February 2008, Obama Said That It Was “Indisputable” That Violence Had Been Reduced In Iraq. Obama: “I think it is
indisputable that we’ve seen violence reduced in Iraq.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN/Univision Democrat Presidential Debate, Austin, TX,
2/21/08)

In May 2008, Obama Said We Didn’t Need More “Spin” About The Surge:
Obama: “We don’t need more spin about how the surge is succeeding in doing what it was supposed to do which is to get the
Iraqi’s to stand up and take responsibility for their own future, so we can start sending our troops homes.” (Sen. Barack Obama,
Remarks At Town Hall, Rapid City, SD, 5/31/08)

In July 2008, Obama Admitted That The Surge Has Improved The Situation In Iraq:

10
Obama Said He Was “Pleased To See The Reductions In Violence That Have Occurred” In Iraq. Obama: “Now, that does
not detract from the extraordinary work our troops have done. They have performed brilliantly throughout the process. And
obviously, I am very pleased to see the reductions in violence that have occurred over the last several months. There’s no
doubt that because of their heroism and their outstanding work, we had the opportunity to salvage the situation in Iraq.” (Sen.
Barack Obama, Interview With Military Times, 7/2/08)

OBAMA’S EVOLUTION ON THE STRIKE FORCE IN IRAQ

In January 2007, Obama Said That U.S. Troops Would Remain In The Region To Support The Iraqi Government And To
Deter Iran:
In January 2007, Obama Said U.S. Troops Would Remain In Iraq To Support The Iraqi Government And Deter Iran.
NBC’s David Gregory: “But is it also an important point to say specifically if you want a phased withdrawal, if the government
were to fall, if there was an explosion of civilian deaths inside of Baghdad, if the Saudis start supporting the insurgency, if Iran
gets in, would you be prepared to recommit U.S. forces to put down that new spate of violence?” Obama: “Well, look, I think all
of us are talking about a phased redeployment which would leave American troops in the region to send a strong message not
only to the Iraqi government that we want to help them, but also to neighbors like Iran that we’re not abandoning the field.”
(NBC’s “The Today Show,” 1/24/07)

In March 2008, Obama Said He Would Keep A Strike Force In Iraq, But Just Two Weeks Later Said It Would Either Be
In Iraq Or “Perhaps Outside Of Iraq”:
On March 19, 2008, Obama Said He Would Keep Troops In Iraq After The Majority Of Combat Troops Withdrew.
Obama: “After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-
terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Fayetteville,
NC, 3/19/08)

On March 31, 2008, Obama Claimed That He Would Keep A Strike Force In Iraq Or “Perhaps Outside Of Iraq” To
Protect Civilians And Respond To “Potential Problems.” Question: “You’ve said you’d leave a small force there to deal
with terrorist attacks. How long would you leave them there? And what’s your criteria for pulling them out?” Obama: “Well, no,
no, that’s not what I’ve said. What I’ve said is that we will have troops looking after our embassy there, which we do
everywhere. We do it in France. We do it in Great Britain. We have some military personnel that ensure that our diplomatic
forces are taken care of. We have troops to make sure that our civilian populations are cared for. And what I’ve said is I would
have a strike force in the region, perhaps in Iraq, perhaps outside of Iraq, so that we could take advantage or we could deal
with potential problems that might take place in the region. That’s very different from saying that we’re going to have a
permanent occupation in Iraq.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 3/31/08)
In July 2008, Obama Said A Residual Force Would Remain In Iraq:
Obama: “I've also said that we'll leave a residual force there to engage in counterterrorism activities inside of Iraq…” (CNN’s
“Larry King Live,” 7/15/08)
AFGHANISTAN
OBAMA’S LACK OF LEADERSHIP
As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Obama Has Failed To Hold Any Hearings On Afghanistan:
Obama Has Served As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs From 2007 – 2008. (U.S. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Website, www.senate.gov, Accessed 7/11/08)

The Subcommittee On European Affairs Has Jurisdiction Over The Countries Of Europe As Well As NATO Activities.
“Jurisdiction: The subcommittee deals with all matters concerning U.S. relations with the countries on the continent of
Europe…and with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union and the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe.” (U.S. Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Website, http://foreign.senate.gov, Accessed 7/11/08)

11
  As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Obama Could Have Held Hearings On The Role Of
NATO In Afghanistan. “[A]mbassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee’s senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations…[P]oints out that as subcommittee chair,
Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to
European energy policy and European responses to climate change…” (Joe Conason, “Obama’s European Problem,”
www.salon.com, 12/29/07)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Criticized Obama For His Inaction On Afghanistan:
Clinton Attacked Obama For Not Holding Hearings As European Affairs Subcommittee Chairman. Sen. Clinton: “But I
also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations
Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in
Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger
presence with NATO in Afghanistan.” (Sen. Clinton, NBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)
Sen. Clinton Attacked Obama For Not Holding Hearings As European Affairs Subcommittee Chairman, Saying
Americans Should Ask If He’s Proven Himself. Sen. Clinton: “And last night in the debate, Senator Obama basically said
that he’d been given the responsibility to chair an important subcommittee on the Foreign Relations Committee that oversees
Europe and NATO. And it’s very important to us right now, because of Afghanistan, because of Kosovo, and what’s happened
in Serbia with our embassy being burned. And basically he said, ‘You know, I haven’t conducted any business in that
committee of any substance because I’ve been running for president.’ I mean, four years ago, he was in the state senate. And I
think that people have a right to say, ‘What is it you are presenting to the American people as evidence?’” (PBS’s “The Newshour
With Jim Lehrer,” 2/27/08)

Clinton Campaign Ad Attacked Obama For Not Holding Hearings On Afghanistan. Clinton Campaign Ad Announcer:
“Barack Obama says he has the judgment to be president. But as chairman of an oversight committee charged with the force of
fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - he was too busy running for president to hold even one hearing.” Obama: “I became
chairman of this committee, at the beginning of this campaign-at the beginning of 2007, so it is true that we haven’t had
oversight hearings on Afghanistan.” Announcer: “Hillary Clinton will never be too busy to defend our national security-bringing
our troops home from Iraq and pursing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.” (Hillary Clinton For President, “New Ad: Hillary Promises Never To Be
Too Busy To Defend Our National Security,” Press Release, 3/3/08)

Obama Has Never Been To Afghanistan; Skipped The Opportunity To Go In 2006:

“Obama’s Second Trip Abroad As A U.S. Senator Starts In Qatar And, In Addition To Iraq, Will Include Stops In Kuwait,
Jordan, Israel And The Palestinian Territories, According To A Statement From His Washington Office.” (“Obama To Visit
Middle East, Including Iraq,” The Associated Press, 1/4/06)

“[Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)] Is Traveling With U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sen. Christopher ‘Kit’ Bond, R-Mo., And
Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn. Their Weeklong Trip Including A Stop In Israel For Meetings With Israeli And Palestinian
Officials. Other Stops Included Kuwait, Qatar, Afghanistan And Pakistan.” (Rick Callahan, “Bayh: Next Six Months Crucial To Iraq’s
Future,” The Associated Press, 1/7/06)

 “After A Two-Day Iraq Tour, Obama Is To Travel To Jordan And Israel On His Own.” (Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Making 1st
Visit To Iraq,” Chicago Tribune, 1/5/06)

OBAMA’S HYPOCRISY ON TROOP FUNDING

Obama Has Said He Will Increase The Number Of Troops And Aid In Afghanistan:
Obama: “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. … 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.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The Chicago Council On Global Affairs, Chicago, IL, 11/20/06)

12
Obama: “As president, I will deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations
and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Woodrow Wilson Center On Terrorism, Washington,
D.C., 8/1/07)

But Obama Voted Against Providing Funding For Operations In Afghanistan:

Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ
Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

The Emergency Supplemental Provided The Following For U.S. Operations In Afghanistan:
 $40 million for new power generation
 $314 million for rural road rebuilding
 $155 million for rural development
 $19 million for agriculture
 $174 million for Provincial Reconstruction Teams
 $25 million for governance capacity building
 $10 million for a Civilian Assistance Program
 $79 million to support Diplomatic and Consular Programs
 $16 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance
 $16 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance for Internally Displaced Persons Assistance
 $47 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement activities
(Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt Tarnoff, Rhoda Margesson, and Bart Elias, “FY2007
Supplemental Appropriations For Defense, Foreign Affairs, And Other Purposes,” Congressional Research Service, 7/2/07)

OBAMA’S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON AFGHANISTAN

Obama Said That Commanders On The Ground Would Rather Have More Agricultural Specialists Than Troops In
Afghanistan:
Obama: “That's part of what we're missing right now in Afghanistan. If you talk to -- if you talk to commanders on the ground
there, they'll tell you, ‘Instead of having another platoon, I'd rather than a couple of agricultural specialists.’ We need more
troops on the ground in Afghanistan. But what we also need is to teach them to grow things other than poppy. Right? And that's
something that we just simply have not focused on.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Memorial Day, Las Cruces, NM, 5/26/08)
 Click Here To View
Obama Said American Troops Were “Just Air-Raiding Villages And Killing Civilians” In Afghanistan:
Obama Said American Troops Were “Just Air-Raiding Villages And Killing Civilians.” Obama: “We’ve got to get the job
done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is
causing enormous pressure over there.” (Philip Elliott, “Obama Gets Warning From Friendly Voter,” The Associated Press, 8/14/07)
 Click Here To View
Obama Claimed That Arabic Linguists Needed In Afghanistan Were Being Sent To Iraq:
Obama Claimed That We Are Placing “All” Of Our Arabic Interpreters In Iraq When They Are Needed In Afghanistan.
Obama: “What I can tell you is this, that if we are going to catch bin Laden or most importantly breakdown al Qaeda, which has
reconstituted itself and is stronger now than at any time since 2001, we've got to have the capacity to put more troops in
Afghanistan. Both our troops and NATO troops. Right now, we don't have enough troops and NATO hasn't provided enough
troops because they are still angry about us going into Iraq. So we just don't have enough capacity right now to deal with -- and
it's not just troops by the way, it's like Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers. We only have a certain number of them and
if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them, and obviously they may not speak Arabic, but the various dialects that
13
they speak in Afghanistan oftentimes people who speak Urdu or Pashto or whatever the languages are, they are going to be
needed in those areas and a lot of them have ended up being placed elsewhere. So, we've got to focus on Afghanistan.” (Sen.
Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Cape Girardeau, MO, 5/13/08)

 Click Here To View

But Arabic Is Not A Language Spoken In Afghanistan:
According To The CIA World Factbook, The Languages Spoken In Afghanistan Are: “Afghan Persian Or Dari (Official)
50%, Pashto (Official) 35%, Turkic Languages (Primarily Uzbek And Turkmen) 11%, 30 Minor Languages (Primarily
Balochi And Pashai) 4%, Much Bilingualism.” (CIA World Factbook Website, www.cia.gov, Accessed 5/13/08)
According To The CIA World Factbook, The Languages Spoken In Iraq Are: “Arabic, Kurdish (Official In Kurdish
Regions), Turkoman (A Turkish Dialect), Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic), Armenian.” (CIA World Factbook Website, www.cia.gov,
Accessed 5/13/08)

“The Vast Majority Of Military Translators In Both War Zones Are Drawn From The Local Population. Naturally They
Speak The Local Language. In Iraq, That's Arabic Or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, It's Any Of A Half Dozen Other
Languages -- Including Pashtu, Dari, And Farsi.” (David Wright and Sunlen Miller, “Obama Gaffes On Iraq And Afghanistan,” ABC News’
“Political Radar” Blog, 5/13/08)

ISRAEL
OBAMA’S WEAK POLICY ON IRAN
Obama Has Said That He Would Meet With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Even Though Iran Is The World's
Most Active State Sponsor Of Terrorism And Has Threatened To Wipe Israel Off The Map:
At A September 2007 Press Conference, Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Ahmadinejad.
Question: “Senator, you’ve said before that you’d meet with President Ahmadinejad ...” Obama: “Uh huh.” Question: “Would
you still meet with him today?” Obama: “Yeah, nothing’s changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong
presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious and
I’ve said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don’t have
American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but
we should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with - that sends a
signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so
long.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07)
Ahmadinejad Previously Said Israel Should Be Wiped Off The Map And Denied That The Holocaust Occurred. “Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in the past he wants to wipe Israel off the map and dismissed the Holocaust as a
myth.” (Nick Wadhams, “Israel: No Greater Threat To World’s Values Than The Leaders Of Iran,” The Associated Press, 9/21/06)
Ahmadinejad Referred To Israel As A "Stinking Corpse" And Said It Was "On Its Way To Annihilation." "President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a 'stinking corpse' that was doomed to fail, and warned countries that they would 'burn in
the fire of their people's hatred' if they helped Israel, the news agency IRNA reported.'Today the reason for Zionist regime's
existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation,' he said in a speech on the 60th anniversary of the Jewish
state." (Nazila Fathi, "Iran: A Hate Note On Israel's Birthday," The New York Times, 5/9/08)
The State Department's Annual Terrorism Report Says That Iran Is The World's "Most Active" State Sponsor Of
Terrorism. "Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Elements of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts throughout the region and continued to support a
variety of groups in their use of terrorism to advance their common regional goals. Iran provides aid to Palesti nian terrorist
groups, Lebanese Hizballah, Iraq-based militants, and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan." ("Country Reports On Terrorism," U.S.
Department Of State, Office Of The Coordinator For Counterterrorism, 4/30/08)

14
Obama Opposed Legislation Labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps A Terrorist Organization And
Encouraging Tougher Sanctions On Iran:
"Obama Opposed The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, Which Says We Should Use Our Military Presence In Iraq To
Counter The Threat From Iran." (Obama For America Website, http://www.barackobama.com, Accessed 7/9/08)
"The Senate First Approved A Resolution, Sponsored By Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) And Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.),
Urging The State Department To Label Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps A Terrorist Organization, With
Associated Economic Sanctions Under The 'Sense Of The Senate' Legislation." (Ashley Roque, "Senate Backs Resolutions To
Label Iranian Force A Terrorist Organization And To Back Partition Of Iraq," CongressNow, 9/26/07)

 "The Senate Resolution, Which Is Not Binding, Also Calls On The Administration To Impose Economic
Sanctions On Iran." (David M. Herszenhorn, "Senate Urges Bush To Declare Iran Guard A Terrorist Group," The New York Times,
9/27/07)

Former Israeli Ambassador To The U.S. Danny Ayalon Expressed Concern About Obama's Ability To Address Issues
Important To Israel's Security:
Former Israeli Ambassador To The U.S. Danny Ayalon: "The threat of Islamic terrorism and the expanding scourge of
fanaticism are also concepts which have been addressed by Obama in only the most ambiguous of terms." (Danny Ayalon, Op-
Ed, "Who Are You, Barack Obama?" The Jerusalem Post, 1/23/08)

 Ayalon: “Since early on in his campaign he has said that he would meet with the President of Iran - but we are left in
the dark as to what agenda he would pursue on this issue. With the exception of promoting American divestment from
Iran, an idea he adopted during a meeting with Bibi Netanyahu, Obama has largely avoided highlighting what specific
demands he would make of Ahmadinijad and any timetables he would establish for the Iranians to dismantle their
nuclear program.” (Danny Ayalon, Op-Ed, "Who Are You, Barack Obama?" The Jerusalem Post, 1/23/08)
 Ayalon: "As far as Israel is concerned, Obama has yet to suggest specific measures he would enact regarding the
Jewish State's Qualitative Military Edge that allows us to defend ourselves against our current and future enemies.
Given the increasingly tense security environment Israel is confronting on all sides, now is not the time for American
leaders to shy away from such fundamental questions. The four years ahead are far too critical for global security to
place the presidency of the United States in the hands of a leader whose campaign is leaving us with more questions
than answers." (Danny Ayalon, Op-Ed, "Who Are You, Barack Obama?" The Jerusalem Post, 1/23/08)
OBAMA’S BLUNDERS WITH THE JEWISH COMMUNITY
In His Remarks To The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama Said That Jerusalem Should Be The Undivided
Capital Of Israel, But Later Said The City's Future Should Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians:
Obama Said Jerusalem Would Be The Undivided Capital Of Israel. Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and
it must remain undivided." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)
One Day Later, Obama Said The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians.
CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain
undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?" Obama: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties
to negotiate a range of these issues." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08)
 "Facing Criticism From Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama Acknowledged Today That The Status Of Jerusalem
Will Need To Be Negotiated In Future Peace Talks, Amending A Statement Earlier In The Week That Jerusalem
'Must Remain Undivided.'" (Glenn Kessler, "Obama Clarifies Remarks On Jerusalem," The Washington Post's "The Trail" Blog,
www.washingtonpost.com, 6/5/08)

NOTE: Middle East Advisor Dennis Ross, Who Will Accompany Obama To Israel, Said Israel Would Have To Give Up
Its Insistence On An Undivided Jerusalem To Achieve Peace:
15
Ross Said Israel And The Palestinians Would Have To Give Up Some Of Their “Animating Principles” To Achieve
Peace, Including Israel’s Insistence That Jerusalem Be Its Sole, Undivided Capital. “Ross said Clinton's outline was
based on meeting the fundamental requirements of both sides: for Israel, security and a normal life; for the Palestinians,
freedom from Israeli control. But both sides had to give up some of what Ross called the ‘animating principles’ of their national
movements. For Israel, that included Jerusalem as the sole, undivided capital of the Jewish state; for the Palestinians, that
included the right of return. ‘To make peace, you have to be prepared not to reconcile slogans but to reconcile needs,’ he said.”
(Eric Black, “Former Mideast Envoy Offers Insight Into Last Year's Talks,” [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, 5/6/01)

“Most Of The Arab Neighborhoods In East Jerusalem Have No Jews Living There, Noted Former Top U.S. Peace
Negotiator Dennis Ross, Questioning Why Israel Would Want To Absorb Nearly A Quarter Of A Million Arabs Who Live
In Parts Of The City Where Jews Don't Visit.” (Douglas Bloomfield, Op-Ed, “Dividing Jerusalem - When, Not Whether,” The Jerusalem Post,
3/16/08)

Ross Acknowledged That The Clinton Administration Proposal To Divide Jerusalem Was Not In Line With The Views
Of Pro-Israel Groups In The U.S. NPR’s Steve Inskeep: “Tell me something that you did that - and let's say the American-
Israel Public Affairs Committee, to name one huge organization that's seen as part of the Israel lobby - something you did that
they strongly, strongly opposed.”… Ross: “In the Clinton administration, I can assure you that the - when we put on the table a
proposal that would have divided East Jerusalem, that was not something that the Israeli government wanted. In the end they
were prepared to accept it if it was going to produce an agreement.” (NPR’s “Morning Edition,” 7/7/06)
Jewish Voters Expressed Concern About Obama’s Remarks On The Suffering Of The Palestinian People:
Obama: “Now, in the interim, nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people from this whole process.” (Sen. Barack Obama,
Remarks At A Campaign Event, Muscatine, IA, 3/11/07)

 Obama Later Clarified That Palestinians Were Suffering Because Of Their Leaders’ Unwillingness To
Renounce Terrorism And Recognize Israel. Obama: “Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the
whole thing, said. And what I said is nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the
Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and
security for the region.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)
“[I]n The Halls Of The AIPAC Policy Conference…There Was No Denying That The Members Of The Pro-Israel Group --
Largely Democrats, Though They Tilt Right -- Feel A Real, If Kind Of Inchoate, Skepticism About The Illinois Senator.”
(Ben Smith, “Obama's Jewish Problem,” The Politico’s “Ben Smith’s Blog,” www.politico.com, 3/13/07)

Iowa Democrat David Adelman Wrote To Obama Seeking Clarification On His Comments. “Now, an Iowa Democrat and
AIPAC member, David Adelman, has written Obama a letter asking for clarification of Obama's remark to the Des Moines
register that ‘nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,’ a statement Adelman writes he found ‘deeply troubling.’”
(Ben Smith, “Obama's Jewish Problem,” The Politico’s “Ben Smith’s Blog,” www.politico.com, 3/13/07)

At An April 2007 Debate, Obama Did Not List Israel As One Of The U.S.’s Strongest Allies:
Obama Required Prompting To Say That Israel Was One Of The U.S.’s Closest Allies. “Obama appeared to hesitate when
he was asked to name the United States’ three closest allies, then listed the European Union, NATO and Japan. He added
Israel after debate moderator Brian Williams prompted him.” (Steven Thomma, “S.C. Lawmaker Gives Clinton High Marks,” McClatchy
Newspapers, 4/28/07)

Obama Has Been Criticized For Saying That Hamas Has “Legitimate Claims”:
Obama Said That Hezbollah And Hamas Had “Legitimate Claims.” “The U.S. needs a foreign policy that ‘looks at the root
causes of problems and dangers.’ Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that
‘they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.’ He knows these movements aren’t going
away anytime soon (‘Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve’), but ‘if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s
an evolution that should be recognized.’“ (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “Obama Admires Bush,” The New York Times, 5/16/08)
16
The Chicago Sun-Times’ Steve Huntley Criticized Obama For Saying That Hamas And Hezbollah Had Legitimate
Claims. “Obama further muddied the waters last week when he told David Brooks of the New York Times that Hamas and
Hezbollah need to understand ‘they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.’ What would
be the ‘legitimate claims’ of Hamas, an organization founded for the purpose of the destruction of Israel? What are the
‘legitimate claims’ of Hezbollah, also dedicated to the death of Israel, as well as serving as the agent of Iran and Syria in trying
to kill democracy in Lebanon? Obama has asserted unequivocal backing for Israel. But his ‘legitimate claims’ remark gives you
pause, making you wonder a bit about his worldview.” (Steve Huntley, Op-Ed, “Obama’s Vulnerable On National Security,” Chicago Sun-
Times, 5/20/08)

17