The White House is forcefully denying reports that President Obama has settled on the number of troops to send to Afghanistan.
Several stories in recent days have suggested he has made a decision and cite specific troop levels.
Officials have dismissed those as inaccurate, but tonight the White House is sending out a rare statement from National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones:
"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters today the president is holding another Situation Room meeting of his war council as he continues to gather information for his decision.
The Wednesday session in the Situation Room is the eighth such meeting and comes right before Obama travels on Thursday for a more than week-long trip to Asia. Gibbs said he does not expect the president to make the decision - or the announcement - before he leaves.
Gibbs also had some snark for reporters asking about the troops decision:
Q Robert, as far as you know, has the President decided on number of troops, additional troops he'd like to send to Afghanistan?MR. GIBBS: No, no. Despite the many chances to read otherwise throughout the weekend. Safe to say if he'd made a decision, I think we could free up at least part of his Wednesday.
Late update: Today on air Force One, Gibbs was even more irritated with reporters. Here's one exchange:
Q The stories about Afghan troop numbers -- does the President find it troubling that this kind of information, even if it's not final, is leaking out? Does it bother him, and does it make him concerned? And is he done with his decision?MR. GIBBS: I think you may have summed up my answer in your question. I will say this -- I will tell you what General Jones said and I think we said to a few of you last night: The President will have an opportunity to discuss four options with his national security team tomorrow. Anybody that tells you that the President has made a decision or -- what was the artfully used term last night, "tentatively agreed to" -- doesn't have, in all honesty, the slightest idea what they're talking about. The President has yet to make a decision.
I would counsel you all to -- I got asked on Saturday about a story of approving 34,000 troops, only to be asked yesterday about a story of approving nearly 40,000 troops -- this all two weeks after being asked about whether or not we were coalescing around an entirely different option. I don't know that it's annoying as much as it is generally amusing to watch somebody or some group of people decide they know what only the President knows. You know, it keeps me busy and it's in some ways fun to watch two reports that contradict each other be reported virtually simultaneously.
Q Does it bother him, though? Does it bother him?
MR. GIBBS: He hasn't let me know that.
Q -- presented him with the four options -- is that the four options by General McChrystal or -
MR. GIBBS: The four options that his national security team, including the Pentagon and General McChrystal, that the President will discuss with the team tomorrow.
Q Can you describe those just real briefly, or --
MR. GIBBS: (Laughter.) See my previous answer. And please note that the transcript should include me laughing. No, I'm not getting -- I appreciate the opportunity to get into --
Q Wanted to give you every opportunity.
MR. GIBBS: You know, and I -- Bloomberg is always fair like that.
Q Well, just to follow up on that, in all seriousness, from your perspective, so you want us to know that he's considering four options, but don't want us to know what they are? What's the White House --
MR. GIBBS: With all due respect, you guys reported last night with some degree of certainty that the decision had already been made. Am I sensing from your follow-up question that you don't think the story that you wrote last night on the AP wire was accurate?
Q I have every reason to think it is. I'm trying to --
MR. GIBBS: Maybe we should ask you questions. (Laughter.)
Q I'm trying to figure out what the White House thinking is about saying there's four options --
MR. GIBBS: -- I said yesterday, I'll say what I said last night after, with some certainty, AP and CBS reported a decision had been made, and I'll tell it to you now: The President hasn't made a decision. Now, I don't expect that will change the AP wire; it didn't this morning.
Q I understand your point. I'm trying to move on, which is why --
MR. GIBBS: I am --
Q I have no personal animus with you -
MR. GIBBS: I don't either. You have to understand my somewhat -- my surprise that you'd ask a follow-up based on what you reported.
Q I'm following up on your specific point of telling us tomorrow in this council meeting they'll discuss four options. I'm asking, why are you telling us that fact and not others?
MR. GIBBS: Because, honestly, Ben, we've been -- I think we've been very transparent throughout this process. We've let you all know when these meetings are; we've let you know who's in these meetings; we've put out pictures of these meetings. The President is doing this in a very purposeful and deliberate way to get the best decision. And I promise you that when he makes that decision we'll let you know. And as I've said before, the President will take the time to explain that decision and its reasoning to the American people.
Q That's still weeks away? You would still say weeks? Weeks or --
Q Any more decision about how he would do that?
MR. GIBBS: No, not yet.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

FebM
November 9, 2009 10:05 PM
bring them home!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
November 9, 2009 10:09 PM
I doubt anyone would want to listen to Di Feinstein. She's desperate. Another Bill Clinton slackjaw. I'd prefer Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein out of office (Barack Obama). I don't know if either party can stand them any longer. The Dem females were put in their place wtih that one interview. The only one not there was diane feinstein. Nothing like a queef not aging gracefully.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 10, 2009 8:20 AM in reply to USgreentech
I think Boxer has been an excellent Senator. Feinstein is another story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 9, 2009 11:37 PM
I'm as liberal as one can get, but I support the Afghan war. It was the right war. Iraq was a distraction and a personal vendetta by Bush. It is reprehensible to abuse the trust of the military in the manner Bush did. I believe the Afghan war would have been over by now if Bush had not diverted precious resources so his Oil pals could enrich themselves. End the Iraq War NOW!
With that said, get Osama and bring him to justice. I am a Vet and I ask for all of you to give as much support as you can to the troops in Afghanistan, and their families at home..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Crandell
November 10, 2009 1:01 AM in reply to mophan
Dear "liberal as one can get":
you poor, misguided and unknowing fool. But then there are so many like you at this point in time, just like there were forty some years ago.
Suggest that you proceed directly to the TruthDig website and that you check out Chris Hedges current post regards the Afghan military. So-called military that is. From there, proceed directly to your local recruiting office and sign your ass on the line and go onwards and fight for all of your sad illusions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scottrichardson
November 10, 2009 6:39 AM in reply to John Crandell
John, switch to decaf. No one is saying it is pleasant, or an easy decision, but there are reasons to stay there. I'm still unclear for myself -- but I do trust Obama.
Dial back the name-calling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 10, 2009 9:27 AM in reply to John Crandell
It is amazing that someone like you are so willing to quickly resort to name calling when your reading comprehension skills are greatly lacking. Please understand to what you are replying to before hitting the submit button unless you like making a fool of yourself. As I stated in my original posting, I am a VET. To make it clear for someone like you who does not understand the context in which it is being used, it is an abbreviation for VETERAN. Although, I can see how someone who doesn't seem to have a clue can mistake it for Veterinarian.
As for your unwarrented hostility, reasonable people have reasonable discussions. And believe it or not, can agree to disagree in a reasonable manner. You should try it sometime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
November 10, 2009 11:15 AM in reply to mophan
Oh, I will try it.
How can you seriously think that we can succeed in Afghanistan? This is a country that is so corrupt, so lacking values, so insanely unmanaged that it seems entirely possible that we could add another 100,000 troops and be there for another eight years and have no better result.
Our own State Department has criticized Afghanistan for its ridiculous human rights record.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61704.htm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 10, 2009 11:44 AM in reply to Mateo123
Please see the posting by Walrus at 9:44 AM below.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 10, 2009 9:38 AM in reply to mophan
Just to clarify my original posting. I do not support "nation building" and spreading "freedom and democracy." Every society has the right to choose for themselves under what kind of government they want to live in. The US military's sole objective in Afghanistan should be capturing Osama and other top level al-qaeda responsible for 9/11. Or have we as liberals forgotten about 9/11?
The Afghan war should have been done and over with at Tora Bora. The incompetence of the Bush administrating already making plans and concentrating on Iraq allowed Osama to escape. Now, Obama is responsible for fixing that as well on top of all the other crap that was left on top of his desk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HawkeyeD
November 10, 2009 5:35 PM in reply to mophan
I'm a vet (that means "military veteran") too and agree with everything you've written here. The Bush administration did bollix our response to 9/11, yet we still have a job to do with AQ and Bin Laden. That's the tragedy. Bush spent all those lives and so much money for so little gain. Bin Laden wanted to hurt our economy and get us bogged down in a land war in Afghanistan, so Bush pursued that and threw in an invasion of Iraq as a bonus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
socraticgadfly
November 10, 2009 12:20 AM
Bullshit on Gibbs. McClatchy is usually pretty accurate on stuff like this. Besides, look at all the infrastructure we're building there already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Swift63
November 10, 2009 8:02 AM
Why am I getting flashbacks to the summer of '62-'63? Madame Nhu, the monks "barbecuing" themselves, and the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem? Kennedy (now, and only by some accounts) thinking of withdrawing, and then LBJ finding himself trapped in the Big Muddy, damaging his otherwise laudable domestic legacy? Haven't we already found that guns and butter bust the budget?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
November 10, 2009 9:23 AM in reply to Swift63
There do seem to be parallels here. Everything about this smells bad: propping up a corrupt gov't and the fact that its where empires go to die bother me especially.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
November 10, 2009 9:44 AM
All of our troops should be immediately pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. A formal apology should be issued to the people of both countries, a committee should be set up to investigate war crimes, reparations should be made, diplomatic and economic aid should contiinue and the entire mess should offically and formally be called "Bush's Folly".
At the same time small teams of highly-trained, covert agents should be sent to Pakistan to specifically attempt the capture of any remaining 9/11 perpetrators.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 10, 2009 10:03 AM in reply to theWalrus
Exactly - Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 10, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to theWalrus
Yes. We shouldn't be in a 'war' with terrorists. It's just too nebulous. How do you know when you've won? We should be searching for terrorists and bringing them to justice with discreet policing actions (with international civilian and military cooperation where necessary). Our approach to all this has been plain stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 10, 2009 10:13 AM
Glad to see a strong pushback by the WH on this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
November 10, 2009 10:20 AM
Will Obama make any threats that if a troop increase isn't made, we'll be fighting them on our porches next year? Maybe he should update it and warn us that we'll be fighting them in our kitchens? Or bathrooms?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
November 10, 2009 10:33 AM
If only our presidents didn't have this compulsion to feel and seem manly. And, don't say we should have elected Hillary - she seems more determined to be manly than the rest of them. I just can't understand why so many people are blind to the facts in Afghanistan - there is no military objective there. Keeping US troops there is just a way for presidents to feel manly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
November 10, 2009 11:48 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
I don't care which president it is, I think you are simplifying things way too much here.
And if it was that simple, it's not "presidents" that have to feel manly, IT'S MEN, in general, that have to feel manly. And I don't know if you are a part of the bunch that does this, but I find it strange that the Left is always calling for Obama to "man up" or "grow a pair", yet you just accuse him of feeling the need to be manly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
November 10, 2009 11:06 AM
Bring them home.
We've done all we can, militarily, in Afghanistan. This isn't like Honduras or Germany or even Kuwait. This is like a fourth world country where leaders are fighting to control the government of a nation without much in the form of established law. And, whether there are 60,000 troops or 120,000 troops, we aren't going to control the country.
Sure, we want to have Karzai in charge. But the troops are under constant fire from these thugs that refuse to have an orderly society. Democracy at gunpoint won't work. We can provide some assistance -- technical stuff and infrastructure -- but providing troops seems detrimental at this stage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 11, 2009 12:06 AM
Yes, you are correct, "Honduras or Germany or even Kuwait" Afghanistan is not. Honduras, Germany, and Kuwait did not attack and in cold-blood kill over 2,000 American civilians on American soil. They did not provide refuge to the terrorists who committed such an atrocity against the United States.
An imperialist agenda sounds more like right-wing fascists propaganda. Afghanistan cannot be controlled by the US, and that is not the reason the US is there. Stop propagating false allegations and misleading statements to further the anti-war agenda.
Osama bin Laden committed an act of genocide against the United States and you will allow such a criminal to continue without standing trial for his crimes against the American people?
No. The Afghan War is not to exert control over a sovereign nation. It is to bring to justice terrorists who have committed atrocities on American soil. Every resource available to the United Stated military should be made available towards apprehending these cowards.
War is a horrible thing and should be used as a last resort. In Afghanistan, it was the last resort. In Iraq it was the first. Bush is to blame for the Afghan war still raging. Not Obama. Let Obama draw down the war in Iraq so we can concentrate on the true objective, capturing Osama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?