Former Clinton spinner George Stephanopoulos, now ABC’s “chief Washington correspondent,” argued on Friday’s Good Morning America that Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s votes last night against funding U.S. troops was a smart move to “keep them in the game,” and speculated that by next year the vote could look “prescient” because “either American troops will be on their way home, or the war will be so unpopular, that everyone else will be coming along to their position.”
As Stephanopoulos repeated the logic of the Democratic campaign operatives, nowhere in his equation did he suggest the possibility that either the situation in Iraq may be significantly improved — making the Democrats urge to surrender now seem foolish — or that if the Democrats succeed in forcing American troops off the battlefield, they would be blamed if the bloodshed becomes far worse.
In the segment, which aired at about 7:06am EDT, Stephanopoulos did admit that the candidates were being led by far-left grassroots efforts like MoveOn.org: “They are under tremendous pressure from grassroots activists in the Democratic party, from MoveOn.org....and calculated that they could not afford to defy these activists.” Such profiles in courage.
Here’s a transcript of the exchange:
Robin Roberts: “Also there in D.C. is chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos, also the host of This Week. Good morning, George, and you heard about-”George Stephanopoulos: “Good morning, Robin.”
Roberts: “Good to see you. You know about Senators Obama and Clinton voting against the bill, so how will this affect their presidential campaigns?”
George Stephanopoulos: “Robin, I think they are both calculating that this vote will keep them in the game, even though both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have voted for the funding in the past, they are under tremendous pressure from grassroots activists in the Democratic party, from MoveOn.org, from those voters who work hardest in the primary, to vote against this bill. They were looking at each other, looking at John Edwards, who’s had already said he would vote against the funding, and calculated that they could not afford to defy these activists in these primary states.”
Roberts: “When you look at a brand new poll that is out today in the New York Times it says, George, that 69% say Congress should fund the war if the Iraq government meets benchmarks. So how much of a defining moment will this vote become?”
Stephanopoulos: “This could end up being a problem for either candidate if they got the nomination in the general — if they got the nomination, they could be in the general election — this could come into play, but I think they’re both calculating that by the time they get to that point that, either American troops will be on their way home, or the war will be so unpopular, that everyone else will be coming along to their position. They’re calculating that this vote will look prescient, not unprincipled.”
Roberts: “No doubt, of course, the Iraq war will go a long way in the presidential election and the campaigning. Yesterday in the White House with the President there in the Rose Garden, in the press conference, he said that if the Iraqi government, if the government asked the U.S. to leave Iraq, that we will. How realistic is that?”
Stephanopoulos: “Well, you know, just about a week ago a majority in the Iraqi parliament signed a petition that said U.S. forces should leave. They didn’t put it to a vote, yet, but they did sign that petition, so it, there is a possibility that this will happen, and I think if the pres — if that did happen, the President would have no choice but to call on U.S. troops to withdraw, and this is a position shared not only by Democrats in the Congress, but the top Republicans in the Congress as well. What the President is hoping is that he can prevent that type of vote, at least in the short term.”



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So their votes were political
May 25, 2007 - 11:45 ET by Airforce_5_OSo their votes were politically motivated to keep them on the good side of the far left? They voted to get elected and not to help the troops? What a crock of (insert favorite type of animal excrement here)!
Here's what Romney and McCain
May 26, 2007 - 06:28 ET by ThisnThatHere's what Romney and McCain had to say about those votes:
Romney:
"Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cast a vote that singularly defines their lack of leadership and serves as a glaring example of an unrealistic and inexperienced worldview on national security that is regrettably shared by too many of their fellow Capitol Hill Democrats," Romney said in a statement. "Their votes render them undependable in the eyes of the men and women of the United States military and the American people."
McCain said Clinton's and Obama's votes sends the wrong signal to Al Qaeda.
"I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama andSenator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," McCain said in a statement. "This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to Al Qaeda."
Now, where are the rest of the Republicans?
Hey, Steffi,Why is it that
May 25, 2007 - 11:52 ET by Dave RHey, Steffi,
Why is it that I get the feeling that the three signatures appearing on your paycheck each week are those of David Westin, Howard Dean and this guy.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
The DNC strtategy is to have
May 25, 2007 - 11:59 ET by GalvanicThe DNC strtategy is to have the US troops withdrawn by the November 2008 Election so that the war lasts long enough to remain a hot button campaign issue, but is gone before the presumed Democratic President has to do something about the war after getting sworn in on Inauguration Day. To the Dems, nothing would be finer than to hang a "Vietnam" loss around the necks of the GOP and blame them for future terrorist attacks.
I'd like to point fingers at Clinton and Obama for their cynicism, but I see some Republicans leaning that way too (Although not among the current candidates). We've seen guys like Hagel openly distance themselves from the Bush Administration and the war; I suspect that more will follow.
I really think that they vote
May 25, 2007 - 17:31 ET by motherbeltI really think that they voted this way because it was a "safe" vote. They could vote against it, knowing that even without their votes it would pass. This way they get credit from the Kos left, for voting no, but because it passed anyway, disaster will be averted, so they won't get blamed.
"Smart", like the s
May 25, 2007 - 12:09 ET by Chris Norman"Smart", like the slippery, slimy snake that is Stephanopoulos. This guy, like his former bosses, has a smarm factor that is off the charts.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
A must read, C.O. powerline:T
May 25, 2007 - 12:11 ET by drillanwrA must read, C.O. powerline:
Timeline of Defeathttp://www.nysun.com/article/55168
The moral and political cow
May 25, 2007 - 12:11 ET by daveinbocaThe moral and political cowardice of the Dems is surpassed only by their narcissistic treasonous agendas. Stephie-boy is a Clinton mole and advances her agenda at any occasion possible.
As for Hillary, this represen
May 25, 2007 - 12:35 ET by mattmAs for Hillary, this represents about the 4th or 5th position shift. At least Obama rhymes with Osama is consistent...but the key is that they are both betting on American defeat.
"...the war will be so u
May 25, 2007 - 13:51 ET by RESTLESS 1"...the war will be so unpopular that everyone will come around to their position."
Sounds like he knows that the msm will continue to ram negative stories from Iraq down our throats until they can convince everyone that the war is unwinanable, and our only choice is to bring the troops home. That the msm will do it's best to make sure their votes seem "prescient".
It must be nice to know that the msm will have your back no matter how unprincipled you are.
Barack Obama’s and Hillary
May 25, 2007 - 19:59 ET by USA4freedomBarack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s votes last night against funding U.S. troops was a smart move to “keep them in the game,”
Well I guess that is just what it is to them, a big game. Sad and pathetic.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Using the lives of our brave
May 25, 2007 - 20:05 ET by Clear thinkerUsing the lives of our brave soldiers as pawns in a game to get a vote is disgusting!
Help a wounded soldier here...
http://newsbusters.org/node/12877
USA...The majority of the d
May 25, 2007 - 20:13 ET by bigtimerUSA...
The majority of the dem party has been using them as a game...they are so stupid as to not think that people do not see through this...I listened to the Pelosi news conference on C-Span today...it was so sickening...bowing down to the Soros ilk and looney leftist crowd.
They will rue the day....all of them...Hill and Obama are cute by half.
Unpatriotic ungrateful treasonous b#stards all.
USA, my guess is that n
May 25, 2007 - 20:18 ET byUSA, my guess is that none of these Dems are believers in God. No one who believes that a true and lasting judgement will be would ever play such games with the lives of the troops.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
It's been that way for awhile
May 25, 2007 - 20:27 ET by RESTLESS 1It's been that way for awhile now. Always about winning and keeping power. It doesn't matter who gets hurt.
lucky man
May 26, 2007 - 08:40 ET by CatherwoodI consider myself lucky...when I see a picture of George S., my brain automatically morphs the image into a picture of Alfred E. Newman. That immediately puts anything George says into the relevant context.
I can do that with Rosie, Hillary, Bill, Olberman, and Mathews too. What images they morph into, I'll let you guess. Hint, Bill becomes a famous character from Star Wars.....no, not Vader.
Clinton's Vote on Iraq Supplement
May 26, 2007 - 12:03 ET by merlin61Hillary keeps saying she supports the troops, then pulls this. The Clintons are responsible for the cutting of all
sorts of military spending while they were in the White House. The military was in dire straits when GWB took
over and that's one of the reasons we were attacked.
There was no good intellitgence going on either. They
hated the military and still do. All they care about is
their political agenda which is communistic.
communistic?
May 27, 2007 - 04:41 ET by AgnosticTo be fair the Clinton's are way too interested in pushing their own "legacies" and reaping the profits of their various deals to be good communist. Don't let the HillaryCare throw you into believing that it is about socialism/communism; IMHO, it is all about controlling more $$$ and therefore power.