KOA Morning News anchors allowed Fox News analyst's misleading claim of Obama flip-flop on Iraq

Summary: On Newsradio 850 KOA, Colorado's Morning News co-anchors Mark Johnson and April Zesbaugh failed to challenge their guest, a Fox News analyst, who suggested that Sen. Barack Obama had reversed his Iraq war policy by stating during a July 3 news conference that he would "continue to refine [his] policies." In fact, at the news conference and on numerous previous occasions, Obama has said that he would consult military commanders in setting his policy.

On the July 7 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's Colorado's Morning News, co-anchors Mark Johnson and April Zesbaugh did not question the assertion of guest Jeff Birnbaum, a Fox News political analyst and Washington Post columnist, who repeated Republican claims that at a news conference the previous week, Sen. Barack Obama had reversed himself on his Iraq war policy by stating he would "continue to refine [his] policies." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Obama has said on multiple occasions -- including the July 3 news conference to which Birnbaum referred -- that he would set Iraq war policy in consultation with military commanders.

After Johnson noted that "the political shows over the weekend" were "talking about ... the two presidential candidates flip-flopping," Birnbaum stated that, of the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, "Barack Obama, I think, has the most serious flip-flopping problem." Birnbaum claimed Obama held "an 'emergency' news conference last week when he was in the Dakotas to explain himself about 'refining' his position on Iraq." According to Birnbaum, Obama held the "emergency" press conference to explain "[w]hether he was backing off his promise to get the troops out of there in 16 months." However, neither the co-anchors, Johnson and Zesbaugh, nor Birnbaum pointed out that Obama's remarks during the news conference in Fargo, North Dakota, were consistent with statements he has made numerous times about setting Iraq policy after consulting with commanders on the ground.

According to a July 3 New York Times article, "Obama said at his first news conference that he planned a 'thorough assessment' of his Iraq policy when he visits the country later this summer." The article continued:

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," he said. "That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

Mr. Obama has long spoken of consulting with commanders in the field as part of his plan for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but his shift in emphasis in the way he spoke about the situation on Thursday -- after weeks in which Republicans and even an outside Iraq policy adviser to the Obama campaign argued against a withdrawal along the lines he had proposed -- fueled speculation that he might not be wedded to his timetable.

So the Obama campaign hastily scheduled a second news conference to try to clarify his remarks. "We're going to try this again," Mr. Obama said. "Apparently, I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq."

[...]

In his second news conference Thursday, Mr. Obama laid out his proposal in less-ambiguous terms.

"Let me be as clear as I can be," he said. "I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."

He added that when he had spoken about possibly refining his policies, he was referring to questions about how big of a residual force should be left behind to train Iraqi forces and conduct counterterrorism operations -- not the overall timeline for withdrawal.

Media Matters for America has documented other examples of Obama previously stating the possibility of refining his Iraq war policy based on consultation with military commanders:

• In a March 19 speech, Obama said: "Let me be clear: Ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved -- just as there would be dangers involved with staying indefinitely. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure."
• During a March 2 Washington Post foreign policy "Q&A," when asked what size his proposed "over-the-horizon" force in Iraq would be, Obama responded: "The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation."
• During an interview on the February 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, when asked, "[I]s there anything that would change your position about pulling out troops ... if he [Gen. David Petraeus] convinces you that we're on the right track?" Obama began his response by saying, "Well, what I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground":

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Right behind you is the word "change." When General Petraeus comes back in a month, if he talks to Barack Obama privately and shows you what we're doing over there, is there anything that would change your position about pulling out troops if he's convinced -- if he convinces you that we're on the right track?

OBAMA: Well, what I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground, but ultimately the commander in chief sets the mission. And my strong belief is that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are not going to be in Iraq permanently. I mean, I have a fundamental disagreement with John McCain on this.

• Obama also said during an interview on the February 4 edition of CBS' The Early Show that he would "consult with commanders":

HARRY SMITH (co-host): If you were to be elected president --

OBAMA: Mm-hmm.

SMITH: -- and your commanders on the ground there and your secretary of defense said, "Hold back" --

OBAMA: Right.

SMITH: -- "you can't be pulling these people out. We're going to create a civil war and a blood bath." What would you do?

OBAMA: My job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe. But I firmly believe that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that it is time to withdraw. We will not have a permanent base there. We will not have a permanent occupation there.

SMITH: Even if it --

OBAMA: Within those constraints --

SMITH: Even if it meant the beginning of civil war?

OBAMA: No, no, no, no. Within those constraints, I think there is going to be some flexibility and, obviously, I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say. Having said that, what we can't do is simply say we are going to leave it open-ended, the way John McCain, for example, suggested. We might be there 50 years or 100 years. That is not going to make the American people safe over the long term, not only because of the loss of life, not only because of the anti-American sentiment that it fans and the constraints it places on our diplomacy, but also because we can't afford it. It's costing us $9 billion per month.

• During a November 1, 2007, New York Times interview, Obama was asked: "You've argued that the United States should leave behind residual force in Iraq and the region. How large would the force be and how much would be inside Iraq versus the Persian Gulf Region?" Obama replied:

I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won't for precisely the reason I was just talking to [reporter] Michael [Gordon] about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what's happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator [Hillary] Clinton and I do have a significant contrast.

• During the September 12, 2007, broadcast of National Public Radio's All Things Considered, Obama said: "If commanders came to me and said, 'We are making progress in reducing violence,' and I see continuing political progress taking place, then obviously that's going to be weighed against the need to, I believe, have some additional troops in Afghanistan." From the interview:

MICHELE NORRIS (host): So, in trying to determine what the U.S. footprint in Iraq would look like -- say you're in office, and your commanders, your military commanders, are telling you that progress is being made. If they're saying, "We can win this," are you still going to draw down forces? As a commander in chief, who does not have personal military experience, are you willing to look someone like David Petraeus in the eye and say, "You're wrong. We're going to do it my way"?

OBAMA: If commanders came to me and said, "We are making progress in reducing violence," and I see continuing political progress taking place, then obviously that's going to be weighed against the need to, I believe, have some additional troops in Afghanistan. That's going to be weighed against our homeland security needs in the United States. I think that the overarching question is: What is going to be needed to make the United States more secure, meet our strategic interests around the world, and make sure that we are meeting the obligations that we have towards the Iraqi people?

But that is all part of a decision that the president makes in consultation with his generals, but not in deference to them. And I think one of the unfortunate aspects of the last several days and General Petraeus' testimony is the illusion that, somehow, General Petraeus has been setting policy and the president has simply been accepting those recommendations. That is not what has been taking place. The president has been laying out a mission of continuing this failed course in Iraq and General Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker have been trying to carry out that mission as best they could.

From the July 7 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's Colorado's Morning News:

JOHNSON (co-anchor): Joining us on the live line right now, Fox News political analyst Jeff Birnbaum. Jeff, good morning.

BIRNBAUM: Good morning.

JOHNSON: Well, it's interesting watching some of the political shows over the weekend; it's, as Yogi Berra once said, it's déjà vu all over again. Here I'm watching, and all they're talking about is the two presidential candidates flip-flopping. That seems to be the --

ZESBAUGH (co-anchor): Yep.

JOHNSON: -- topic of discussion right now.

BIRNBAUM: Well, that's right. Barack Obama, I think, has the most serious flip-flopping problem. He had to call an "emergency" news conference last week when he was in the Dakotas to explain himself about "refining" his position on Iraq. Whether he was backing off his promise to get the troops out of there in 16 months was the issue, that was after the first of the press conferences that the emergency press conference supposedly answered. But not according to John McCain. I'm sure later today you'll get that answer from him when he comes to Denver. He believes that Barack Obama has a John Kerry problem, flip-flopping on very important issues. John Kerry, of course, was labeled that four years ago and lost his chance at the White House in part because of it. Barack Obama is going to have to be very careful, or John McCain is going to make that label stick and perhaps gain an advantage in this very tight presidential election.

ZESBAUGH: Yeah, you say very tight. What do the latest stats show if the election were held today?

BIRNBAUM: Well, there are a variety of polls, but if you were to average them, Barack Obama is ahead by slightly more than the margin of error. In other words, he would win narrowly across the country and would also take some very important swing states, places like Michigan and Ohio and even Pennsylvania. But it is very close and it is very early, so the real benchmark will be not taking polls in the doldrums of the summer but looking right after Labor Day, after the presidential nominating conventions -- one, of course, in your town -- and then seeing where the race really starts.

JOHNSON: There is at least a sense out there, as you read some of the analysts around the country, that the McCain campaign is maybe not the most focused. What's the sense you've been able to get following these two campaigns?

BIRNBAUM: I think that's a fair assessment. McCain himself in a recent interview said that he's beginning to get the state organizations together around the country. That's not so good, considering he clinched the nomination back in February, March or so. He should have a better organization than he does now. And the result has been that he has changed some of the leadership in his campaign, bringing on a very tightly focused veteran of the Karl Rove brand -- a fellow named Steve Schmidt, who worked closely with President Bush's main political architect, Karl Rove, to try to focus the campaign message, which seems to be wandering; to focus the candidate, who seems to be allergic to a teleprompter; and to focus the efforts, the basic blocking and tackling to get offices up and running in important states where they don't appear to be already.

ZESBAUGH: Well, and then you hear on the Barack Obama side of things about these cost overruns and planning problems at Pepsi Center for the Democratic National Convention. Is that typical stuff that you see ahead of a convention, or is this somehow unusual to Denver?

BIRNBAUM: No, no. It does seem to be endemic to Democratic conventions.

ZESBAUGH: Hmm.

BIRNBAUM: There are always hiccups, worries. This time, though, there have been money problems, it's fair to say. Usually these things are fixed at the last minute, but there is a lot of tightrope worrying up to the last minute. And so, it makes for some very good stories, but it is rare that a political party will allow these kinds of logistical problems get in the way of what is their most important platform -- the launching pad, really -- for their fall election. So, I do expect more bumps in the road, but it would be a surprise to me if they weren't fixed as we get closer.

—C.H. & J.F.B.