FNC's Rove Highlights Obama's Flip-Flop on Iraq Troop Withdrawal

Looks like Obama is just another "say anything it takes to get elected" liberal...

On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, FNC analyst Karl Rove quoted an AP story by Christopher Wills from September 18, 2004, which had reported not only that Barack Obama had previously been open to a U.S. troop increase in Iraq when he was running for Senate, but had warned against a premature troop withdrawal as a "slap in the face to the troops fighting there" which could make Iraq "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity." (Transcripts follow)
After devoting his "Talking Points Memo" to debunking Obama's recent claim that "there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," Bill O'Reilly started his interview with Rove by asking why it is "bad strategy for Obama to go out and say that the Bush administration fouled it all up and we need to get out."
Rove began: "To answer that question, I might read the words of a United States Senator," referring to Obama, before quoting from Wills's article, titled "Obama Willing to Support More Troops in Iraq."
Below is the portion of the article quoted by Rove as originally written by Wills:
America cannot afford to withdraw immediately, said Obama, an early opponent of invading Iraq. That would create more chaos in Iraq and make it "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity," he said at a meeting of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to "a slap in the face" to the troops fighting there, he said.
Wills also reported that Obama, at the time, was open to a temporary increase in the number of troops in Iraq:
Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he 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.
"If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that's something I would support," he said.
Rove later questioned Obama's logic in a way the mainstream media have so far failed to do, in response to Obama's assertion that "there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." After pointing out that Obama admitted that Al-Qaeda is already in Iraq and that it would be bad if Al-Qaeda gained control, Rove continued:
He has this internal conflict of, saying, okay, I admit they're there, it would be bad if they got control, bad enough that I'd send American troops back, but I want to withdraw them in the meantime. Now, isn't it easier and better to beat them while we're there without allowing them to get control of the country?
Below is a complete transcript of Wills's AP article from September 18, 2004, titled "Obama Willing to Support More Troops in Iraq," followed by the relevant portion of the segment with Rove from the Thursday February 28 The O'Reilly Factor:
From the September 18, 2004 AP:
Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he 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.
"If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that's something I would support," he said.
America cannot afford to withdraw immediately, said Obama, an early opponent of invading Iraq.
That would create more chaos in Iraq and make it "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity," he said at a meeting of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to "a slap in the face" to the troops fighting there, he said.