Length:
8:35
LARGE (99.4 MB) -----
SMALL (10.3 MB)
ERICA
HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Barack Obama on the defensive over
Iraq. He now says he may refine his plan to pull out
most U.S. forces within 16 months. And he tried
several times today to explain what that means. As
always, we will give you the real story here, no
bias, no bull.
Iraq is not the deadliest front in the war on terror
anymore, though. Afghanistan, the war everybody
seemingly forget, now the war we can't afford to
ignore.
And now that John McCain has shaken up his campaign,
insiders tell us you can expect to see more big
changes as soon as next week.
But we begin tonight with Barack Obama's scramble to
put out a firestorm over his signature issue: his
pledge to get out of Iraq and to get out fast.
Jessica Yellin has been watching. She joins us
tonight live from Washington.
Jessica, really pressed on this today. And it took
him more than one news conference to clarify, which
is not exactly the norm for a candidate.
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No,
it's not, Erica.
It really was unusual, a do-over press conference
from Barack Obama. He held it to back down mounting
questions about whether he is backing away from his
pledge to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16
months of taking office.
Now, earlier in the day, he had told reporters that
he might -- quote -- "refine his policies" after he
visits Iraq this summer. And that brought about a
deluge of inquires about whether he was doing an
about-face on the central promise of his campaign.
The pressure clearly became so intense that he
decided to face reporters for a second time this
afternoon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I
have also said that I would be deliberate and careful
in how we got out, that I would bring our troops home
at a pace of one to two brigades per month, and, at
that pace, we would have our combat troops out in 16
months. That position has not changed. I have not
equivocated on that position. I am not searching for
maneuvering room with respect to that position.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
YELLIN: Now, Erica, I will tell you that, for the
last two days, his campaign staff has been calling me
and other reporters, insisting that he is not
changing his position.
And this is really crucial for Obama, not just
because Iraq policy is central to his campaign but
because he's supposed to be the candidate of real
integrity. And he cannot be seen as changing
positions on such a big issue -- Erica.
HILL: So, then he is pledging, just to clarify,
Jessica, that he is going to stick to that timetable
of getting troops out of Iraq within 16 months?
YELLIN: Right, good question.
Well, the one area he showed some wiggle room was
when he was asked point-blank whether he would commit
to keeping that 16-month timetable. He said any good
commander in chief listens to their generals.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: 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 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
YELLIN: But, Erica, time and again, he made it clear
that his mission is to get those troops out.
HILL: Jessica, though, Republicans, of course, are
not going to let this one go, quickly retaliating
today, calling him a flip- flopper. Were today's
press conferences enough to put out those fires,
those claims?
YELLIN: Well, not in the view of the McCain campaign.
I will tell you, they issued a statement saying today
that Barack Obama is -- quote -- "reversing the
position, proving once again that his words do not
matter."
They say, "Now that Barack Obama has changed course
and proven his past positions to be just empty words,
we would like to congratulate him for accepting John
McCain's principled stand." Clearly, they're not
going to let this one go -- Erica.
HILL: All right, that's for sure. And we know you
will stay on top of it.
Jessica, thanks.
So, is Barack Obama at this point being consistent?
Or are his messages about Iraq suddenly mixed
messages?
Well, let's see how they sound to the finely tuned
ears of tonight's first panel.
Joining us here in the studio, CNN correspondent
Michael Ware, who, of course, is usually stationed in
Baghdad, but making one of his rare trips stateside.
In Washington tonight, Cliff May, a former
communications director for the Republican National
Committee. He is now president of the Foundation for
the Defense of the Democracies, which was founded
shortly after 9/11 to fight the ideologies that lead
to terrorism. And nationally syndicated radio talk
show host Ed Schultz joining us from Fargo, North
Dakota.
He is also an Obama supporter and interviewed the
senator today.
Cliff, I want to start with you.
Barack Obama insisting he hasn't changed his position
here. He is still going pull troops out within 16
months. He is simply refining his position, basically
saying, hey, look, you know what? I have learned
more.
Isn't that what you want in a leader?
CLIFF MAY, PRESIDENT, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF
DEMOCRACIES: Yes, exactly, I do.
The facts have changed in Iraq. And if he recognizes
that and is adjusting his position, I think he
deserves not criticism, but praise. An inflexible
timetable for leaving would be disastrous. It is very
important that we not be defeated in Iraq by al Qaeda
or by the Iranian-backed militias.
And if Obama is saying, I'm going listen to my
generals, I'm going to sustain the progress that we
have achieved there, I'm going to see that when we
leave Iraq, we do so in a way that the Iraqi
government, the defense forces can defend themselves
against our common enemies, I think he should only be
praised for that.
HILL: Ed, as an Obama supporter, this is really a
point of contention for a lot of Obama supporters.
This is why they are backing the candidate, because
they want out of Iraq.
If, all of a sudden, he decides, you know what, we
can't do it the way I initially thought we could --
you spoke to him today -- how would you look at him?
Would you still support him? Would you say, you know
what, he is being pragmatic; he is looking at the
intelligence, or is he, in your mind, a flip-flopper
who you can't get behind anymore?
ED SCHULTZ, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I thought he was
very clear today, Erica, on his position.
It's interesting how the media is having a hard time
figuring out what he really means on Iraq. Today,
when he spoke to the veterans in Fargo, North Dakota,
he was very clear that he's going to change policy in
Iraq. He's going to draw down immediately. And it's
going to continue with a complete assessment of the
situation. He's going to withdraw very responsibly.
Now, none of the people in Fargo today had problem
understanding. When I interviewed Barack Obama, I
told him, I said, look, they're trying to mix up your
position on this. Then he comes out and calls another
press conference. And I sensed a real air of
frustration on the part of the senator today. He
thinks this is some what manufactured by the McCain
camp.
HILL: Cliff, is this manufactured, real quickly?
MAY: Look, there are those who are going be angry on
the left if he has actually moved his position and
now is saying, I'm not going to have an inflexible
timetable. I'm going to make sure we sustain the
achievements that the Petraeus mission and the
so-called surge has managed to accomplish.
I think it's sort of frivolous to talk about it in
terms of flip- flopping. This is a war. It is a real
war. And what's more, this is the most consequential
front in the global war we're fighting. Al Qaeda says
that. Ayman al-Zawahari and Osama bin Laden say that.
We shouldn't use this as a political football.
It is very important that what we have spent in blood
and treasure not be wasted because somebody has an
ideological or dogmatic view that we have to get out
in so many months.
To the extent he has moved, I think that's
praise-worthy. And it means he is understanding what
has been accomplished over the past year.
HILL: Okay. He's understanding that.
But do we all understand what is really happening on
the ground?
Michael Ware, you're there. You're in Iraq. Would a
16-month timetable be based in reality? Is it even
possible?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT: Well, just
to comment on the first part of your question, no,
you guys have no idea what's going on.
And pundits sitting in the beltway haven't got a
clue. Now, anyone who says that America is avoiding
defeat has, like, missed the point. Defeat is already
on the cusp. Iran already has the momentum in this
war.
And, on the flip side, if the Democrats want to say
that you can pull out without America paying an
enormous price strategically, then they're deluding
themselves.
Both sides in this argument are operating under
misconceptions, if not absolute delusion.
HILL: So, will they be able to come back from those
delusions, the question.
We're going to continue to discuss this in just a
second. We have to take a quick break.
Barack Obama, though, as we know, as we just heard,
blaming the McCain campaign for starting these Iraq
problems. So, is that the case, or is it perhaps
self-inflicted? Do both candidates need to better
understand the situation there?
Then, later, the front line in the war on terror may
not be where you think. And just who is winning that
war anyway? Find out here in the ELECTION CENTER.
Length:
4:26
LARGE (51.6 MB) -----
SMALL (5.3 MB)
(BEGIN
VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I think what's happened is that the McCain
campaign primed the pump with the press to suggest
that we somehow we were changing our policy, when we
hadn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: You heard it there, Barack Obama blaming the
McCain camp today for his perception problems with
Iraq. But is any of that going to help him with the
voters?
Back now to talk about it with us, Michael Ware,
Cliff May, and Ed Schultz.
And, Michael, I want to go back to you, because we
were talking about the situation on the ground in
Iraq. You say neither one of them gets it. As we
know, Barack Obama is planning a trip in the very
near future to Iraq. When he's there on the ground
there, what will he see?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He will see a very
sanitized, very skewed version of the reality on the
ground. And that's just a fact of life.
I mean, even General Petraeus -- General Petraeus is
a great commander. And I have known him for several
years now. I have nothing but respect for him. But
from the American grunt on the street to his platoon
commander, company commander, battalion commander,
all the way up the chain, they're all divorced from
the reality of Iraq.
HILL: Is that because of the safety issue, though?
WARE: Well, when a man in uniform enters your house
with a tank behind him, do you think you are going
express your real feelings?
Now, it's much different when, say, someone with the
luxury of a journalist can slip in there. We get to
hear people speak much more freely when the foreign
forces are not around. So, often, it's very hard for
them to get a true gauge of the Iraqi feeling. I
remember when al Qaeda first arrived in Iraq, and the
military was months and months and months behind. So,
he can only learn what the military knows.
HILL: So, he can learn -- but that would still be
something. One would say, especially from the other
side, hey, it's good to get him there.
WARE: Right. Full credit to him. He has to go.
Politically and militarily, he has to go. Now, the
value...
HILL: And, Cliff, this is going to be -- obviously,
he's not your guy, Cliff, but John McCain has been
there a few times, the first time for Obama going. Is
that going to add a little credibility to him?
MAY: I think it will if he goes over there and asks
questions.
Michael is right. As a candidate, he's going be a bit
in a bubble. But he can talk to a lot of the troops.
He can talk to Iraqis. He can learn something. He
hasn't served in uniform himself. It will help.
Certainly, to have not been there in as long as he
has and to say, I'm going to take command of all the
armed fores and not to know the battlefields at all
on which they are fighting would be difficult for
him.
So, he should go. I think he will go. He will talk to
Petraeus. And I think he will adjust his position.
Will that hurt him on the far left? To some extent,
yes. But it probably will bring him some credibility
from people in the middle who would like us to leave
Iraq, but do not want us to leave with our tail
between our legs or in disgrace or in defeat, ceding
a principal battlefield like Iraq in the heart of the
Arab Middle East to either al Qaeda or to Iran.
HILL: But, Ed, you even said today, in terms of
losing voters, that a lot of your listeners in Fargo
were okay with what he has been saying now. So, is he
going lose that many people from that far left base
if he decides to maybe change that timetable a
little?
SCHULTZ: Well, let me point out that people on the
far left want to win the war on terror as well. We
want to fight terrorism, but we want to fight it
where it is.
And that's why I asked directly Barack Obama today,
are you in favor of sending more troops into
Afghanistan? He said unequivocally, yes. Barack Obama
told me today face to face that he will send more
troops and he's in favor of more troops going into
Afghanistan.
It's not a question of whether you want to fight
terrorists and rub out those who hit us on 9/11. It's
where we're doing it. What we're doing in Iraq is
depleting our resources. Barack Obama was very clear
about that today. I don't know where this
miscommunication is coming from. I think it's the
McCain camp. So does the Obama camp. I think it's
this Schmidt guy, his first day on the job, doing a
pretty good job for McCain.
(LAUGHTER)
HILL: I guess they chose the right guy, then, huh, if
you're McCain.
Ed, Cliff, Michael, stay right there, because, Ed,
you brought it up, Afghanistan. While everyone is
arguing what about to do in Iraq, the situation in
Afghanistan sliding out of control. Is it time to
shift now America's focus to Afghanistan? We will
take a look at that.
Also, just how important is it now to find Osama bin
Laden in this equation? -- all that and more when we
come back -- right here in THE ELECTION CENTER.
Length:
7:27
LARGE (86.4 MB) -----
SMALL (9.0 MB)
HILL: We
know you're getting ready for your July 4 holiday.
And that got all of us around here thinking about
freedom, specifically, freedom from fear. The fear of
terrorism is at its lowest point since the 9/11
attacks, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research
poll.
Only 35 percent of those questioned think an act of
terror in the U.S. is likely in the next few weeks.
Sixty-five percent say a new terror attack is
unlikely.
For years, Iraq has really been considered the front
line in the war on terrorism. Tonight, though, an
important new warning on the table. Afghanistan, the
war's original front line, needs our attention again
and needs it fast.
Here's David Mattingly.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The
war the U.S. can't afford to lose may be the war it
can't afford to fight. U.S. and allied troops killed
in Afghanistan spiked to a seven-year high. Now two
months running, it is bloodier than Iraq. U.S. Joint
Chief Chairman Michael Mullen says it's a matter of
too many fronts and not enough troops.
ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN, JOINTS CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: What
we're going through right now is an ability to, in
almost every single case, win from the combat
standpoint, but not unlike the insurgency in Iraq, we
don't have enough troops there to hold. And that is
key, clearly, to the future of being able to succeed
in Afghanistan.
MATTINGLY: Forty-six U.S. and allied troops were
killed just in June, the deadliest month for allied
personnel since attacking the Taliban in 2001.
Experts say the new Taliban is driven by leaders
hiding safely in Pakistan, funded by the home-grown
illegal opium trade in Afghanistan, and adopting
suicide tactics used by al Qaeda in Iraq.
MULLEN: I am and have been for some time now deeply
troubled by the increasing violence there. The
Taliban and their supporters have without question
grown more effective and more aggressive in recent
weeks, as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate.
MATTINGLY (voice-over): Maybe even more troubling,
casualties in Afghanistan demonstrate how stretched
U.S. forces are. Moving troops in Iraq to fight the
Taliban elsewhere could jeopardize hard-fought
progress. The Pentagon will extend the tours of 2,200
Marines already in Afghanistan.
Mullen says it could be months before the U.S. could
move more.
WARE: You can pull them out of Iraq, if you like, and
send them to Afghanistan, as long as you're prepared
to pay the price in terms of American strategic
interests.
MATTINGLY (voice-over): And the winner of that battle
would be Iran, emboldened to spread influence without
the fear of a full-on military response. It would be
a new front Mullen says the U.S. would find very
stressful, more than enough reason for the
back-burner fight in Afghanistan to again be front
and center.
David Mattingly, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HILL: Joining me now from Washington, CNN national
security analyst Peter Bergen, who interviewed bin
Laden for CNN back in 1997. He's the author of books
about him and al Qaeda. And his recent article in the
latest issue of "TIME" magazine explains why Osama
bin Laden may still matter.
We're going to get to that question, Peter. But I
just want to -- coming off of David's story there, al
Qaeda and the Taliban, as we know, really ramping up
in Afghanistan, the coalition deaths in that country
greater than in Iraq, even though there are far more
troops in Iraq. You have said it's the very nature of
Afghanistan as a country that makes it more of a
challenge to fight the war on terror there. How so?
PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well,
Afghanistan is a third of a size larger than Iraq. It
has a much larger population, six million more
Afghans than Iraqis.
Topographically, of course, it's very different. Iraq
is largely desert, whereas Afghanistan is quite a
mountainous -- has many mountainous regions. So, it's
a perfect place to wage guerrilla warfare.
And using classic counterinsurgency measures, you
would have something like 750,000 security personnel,
both Afghan and coalition, to basically manage a
situation in Iraq
[he means Afghanistan]. Right
now, in fact, you have something like 70,000 members
of the Afghan army, 80,000 members of the Afghan
police, and 60,000 U.S. and NATO troops. So, there's
just not enough people by any kind of standard to
really maintain order and security in the country.
HILL: So, then, seven years on, when you look at the
progress that has been made in terms of the fight
against al Qaeda, where do we stand?
BERGEN: Well, I think the National Intelligence
Assessment of July 2007 speaks for itself. By the
collective assessment of 16 American intelligence
agencies, al Qaeda has resurged and regrouped in the
tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Its
leadership is protected. Its operational lieutenants
are protected. And it's able to conduct operations in
other countries.
So, it's -- obviously, that is not a particularly
good result.
HILL: No, the picture is actually pretty bleak, is
the one that you paint.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said,
look, we need -- absolutely need more troops in
Afghanistan, but there just aren't any more to give.
So, when you look at a situation like that, what's
going to happen in Afghanistan? How bad will it get?
BERGEN: Well, unfortunately, it's already -- as
stated in David Mattingly's piece, and as you said
earlier in the program -- it's obviously not good
right now.
The Taliban is profiting from one of the largest drug
bonanzas in history -- 93 percent of the world's
heroin and opium is coming out of Afghanistan. The
Taliban is profiting from that.
And so this situation is likely to get worse before
it gets better. There's also a problem with NATO.
NATO is a fractious coalition of 26 countries. And
many of them have different aims and will have
caveats about what they can and can't do in
Afghanistan. So this is not going be something that
is easily rectified.
There are, I think, some -- we have some positive
developments on the horizon. General Petraeus, who
Michael Ware was talking about earlier, is going take
over CENTCOM, if he's successfully nominated, which
I'm sure he will be. And he will effectively take
control of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And
I would anticipate that that would perhaps bring a
shift in strategy and Afghanistan and Pakistan, but,
clearly, one is needed.
HILL: And we can all hope for that.
Your latest article for "TIME" magazine, as we
mentioned, talks about, does Osama bin Laden still
matter? Does he at this point? Is he the mastermind
anymore?
BERGEN: Yes, he's providing broad strategic advice to
al Qaeda, to like-minded jihadi groups around the
world. And he continues to release videotapes and
audiotapes.
And I can assure you that he will release a videotape
in the run-up to the American election, which is
going to quite an interesting moment, because when
that videotape comes out a few days before the
election -- as I anticipate it will, as it did before
the last election -- both campaigns, the Obama
campaign and the McCain campaign, will have to have
some sort of strategy to know what to say.
Here we are, seven years later. This guy is still on
the loose. This is under a Republican administration.
That's going to be a problem for the McCain campaign.
On the other hand, the Republican Party is supposed
to be better on the war on terror. And that may play
well for the McCain camp. But I can assure you that I
think both camps will be planning for this, because
it was a surprise last time, but not a surprise this
time.
HILL: Definitely won't be.
Peter Bergen, always a pleasure. Thanks.
BERGEN: Thank you.
HILL: Just ahead, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff says, as we mentioned, we do need more troops
to fight in Afghanistan. But if there are only enough
troops to fight one war, which one should it be? That
question when we come back.
Length:
4:42
LARGE (54.6 MB) -----
SMALL (5.7 MB)
[Note:
the audio is very low for the first 90 seconds or
so]
(BEGIN
VIDEO CLIP)
MULLEN: I don't have troops I can reach for or
brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I
have a reduced requirement in Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: But with those troops stretched so thin in the
region, as you just heard Admiral Mullen say, should
we maybe be moving some of them from Iraq to
Afghanistan?
Back with us now, our panel: Michael Ware, Cliff May,
and Ed Schultz.
The Obama campaign really jumped on those comments
from Admiral Mullen today, saying, look, this is
clear. This shows us. This is what Senator Obama's
been saying all along, that Iraq is really diverting
these needed resources from Afghanistan.
Cliff, is that the case? Is he right?
MAY: This is one war, and we have more than one
front, a front in Iraq and a front in Afghanistan.
And we don't want to lose on any of those fronts.
Think of World War II, where we had troops committed
in Europe, troops committed in Asia, troops committed
in North Africa. You don't want to lose on any of
your fronts.
Two things. One is, we need a larger military than we
have right now to fight these prolonged,
low-intensity conflict. Second, NATO has not
acquitted itself very well at all. I have talked with
a lot of Afghan diplomats and officials recently, and
they are very disappointed that NATO doesn't seem to
be up for the fight. And, so, the Americans have to
do it.
And, third, what was talked about before is very
important. The Taliban and al Qaeda has based itself
across the border from Afghanistan and Pakistan,
where it is very difficult for U.S. troops or NATO
troops to penetrate and get at their bases.
HILL: Ed, can you -- can that situation be rectified?
Can you get people to come together, then, and work
towards a solution?
SCHULTZ: Well, I think it's interesting. Mr. May just
told us what a failure George W. Bush is. We don't
have allies. We don't have enough equipment. We don't
have enough troops. And we have got a manmade issue
in Iraq that we created because we invaded them.
The fact is, the fight is in Afghanistan. You can't
do it with 32,000 troops. That's what Obama has been
saying all along.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Can I respond to that very quickly, Erica?
HILL: Sure.
MAY: Look, to Ed, everything is political. And he
doesn't seem to understand this is a real and a
consequential war.
HILL: No, it's not political. No, it's not. You're
trying to say that Barack Obama doesn't want to fight
terrorism.
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: Hey, guys, one at a time. One at a time.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: That is not true.
MAY: Ed, I didn't say anything of the kind. You know
-- and maybe you don't know that, but I didn't.
What I am saying is very clear. That, strategically,
Iraq is vitally important and it's the most important
battle we're fighting. But I would hate to see us
lose. I'd hate to see us lose. It's the heart of the
Arab Middle East. It's oil rich. It's right there in
the center. Afghanistan...
HILL: You know what, we're tight on time, so I've got
to cut you off there. Ed, you're disagreeing, you're
saying that Iraq is not the most important battle
there.
SCHULTZ: It is not. It is not the most important
battle. The most important battle is in Afghanistan.
We've got to go after al Qaeda. Those are the people
that hit us on September 11th and Barack Obama is
willing to do it.
HILL: So Michael Ware, what do you then? If you have
to choose between troops in Afghanistan, troops in
Iraq, because clearly there are not enough troops to
cover both. Which one? Who wins?
WARE: Well, you go after the biggest enemy. And
that's Iran. Iran is absolutely kicking your ass
right now. Al Qaeda is always going be a threat.
They're always going be a pestering, dangerous
nuisance. But they're never going be the strategic
threat that Iran is. You've been at war with Iran--
HILL: Both President Bush and Admiral Mullen have
said, both of them saying yesterday look, we want to
do Iran. We want to go after Iran, but with
diplomacy. That's the way to do it.
WARE: Absolutely.
HILL: So if they're looking at those battles then -
if you have to choose between Iraq and Afghanistan,
is there one that gets the troop over the other? Is
there one battle that is in fact more important?
WARE: Well, no, they're not because basically, you've
got -- your adversaries are fighting you across many
theaters. Afghanistan and Iraq are theaters for both
al Qaeda and Iran. And they're both making headway in
both those theaters. Because you don't have the
troops, you don't have the mandate. And these wars
have not been fought properly from the beginning. And
your allies are not standing up because quite simply,
it's not in their interests.
So really, you're damned if you do and you're damned
if you don't. So that's why you've turned to Britain
to escalate their war in Iraq
[he means Afghanistan] as a stop
gap measure. But the real war that you've got right
now certainly in Iraq is with Iran. And Iran is now
playing again in Afghanistan. That's your real
dilemma.
HILL: And that I guess is going to be dilemma for
whoever wins in November.
WARE: Oh, yes.
HILL: Michael Ware, Cliff May, Ed Schultz, I
appreciate it gentlemen.