Attention President Bush (Updated)...

... or at least those handlers who damned well ought to be handling this absolute bovine fecal matter that characterizes this exchange in last night's Democratic debate:

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to take this to Senator Obama and to Senator Edwards. But -- but -- and I'm not here to debate -- but parliament meets, and the oil law is under consideration, de- Ba'athification has progressed to some extent, and were it not for the surge, instead of counting votes we'd be counting bodies in the streets.

GOV. RICHARDSON: But this has been going on -- (off mike) -- Charlie.

MR. GIBSON: And all of you -- all of you wanted the troops out --

GOV. RICHARDSON: There has been serious talk --

MR. GIBSON: -- last year.

SEN. OBAMA: Charlie?

MR. GIBSON: Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?

Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: Let me respond. I think the bar of success has become so low that we've lost perspective on what should be our long- term national interests. It was a mistake to go in from the start, and that's why I opposed this war from the start.

It has cost us upwards of $1 trillion. It may get close to 2 (trillion dollars). We have lost young men and women on the battlefield, and we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence.

Now, I had no doubt -- and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. But understand, we started in 2006 with intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. We saw a spike in the violence, the surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago. We have gone full circle at enormous cost to the American people.

What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will -- we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province -- Sunni tribes -- who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.

And that's why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been -- they've been talking about now for years.

We can't be surprised that no one followed up with Mr. Obama on his two faced no answer to Gibson's question.  But there it is for the world to see.  First he states that the surge reduced the violence and then he contradicts himself within a breath or two by stating that the violence reduction took place as a direct result of the Democrats being elected in 2006.

Incredible.

While on the one hand I sit and admire Barack Obama's rising political star (his victory in Iowa is huge in my belief yet overshadowed by Clinton's third place finish), his ability to connect with his audience, his mass appeal, the aura he exudes that speaks to so many people, this kind of crap here needs to be dissected and destroyed and the Bush Administration ought to be on the forefront of that particular mission.

Wake the hell up W. and speak against the picture Obama painted last night of the surge. 

Or that lame duck label will have more than it's usual meaning.

UPDATE:  Others are chiming in, including this from Bruce at Democracy Project with additional links:

It’s not just everyday faux heroes claiming medals that aren’t theirs, but the now leading Democrat prospective for president of the United States claims the honor for the turnaround in Iraq.

Reaching a new low of faux, Barack Obama at last night’s Democrat debate in New Hampshire claimed that the Anbar Awakening is due to fears among Sunnis that Democrats might get their way and stage a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Lorie Byrd picked up on this:

[Debate moderator Gibson] He asked the candidates if they were wrong to oppose the surge. Predictably they all said the surge is a failure because there has not been political progress made. Obama said that much of the progress that has been made was due to agreements made between the tribes in the Anbar Province and that those were made (not because of the surge, but) because those in Iraq saw the Democrats win back the Congress in 2006 and decided they would be pulling the troops out so they had to step up.

Jim Hoft has the video. Hoft adds the other evidence that Obama doesn’t know what he’s talkin about:

Not only that... Obama also said the Anbar Awakening was an attempt by the Sunnis to make peace with the Shia.
SORRY- The Anbar Awakening was an agreement among Sunni Tribal Leaders to join together to fight Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorists.
It had nothing to do with the Shiites.
Obama showed that besides hope- he also has the audacity to make things up.

And The Anchoress and I are thinking alike:

... if the White House disagrees, they’d better address it, otherwise, that’s the narrative the left and the press will run with.

MORE: AJStrata, with just a touch of sarcasm:

Obama’s ‘logic’ is really stupid. The Iraqis would never have risked the lives of the families and tribes if they thought the US was going to bolt and run. It seems Obama is trying to be just like al-Gore when he tried to claim credit for the internet. Dems claiming credit for victory in Iraq is so laughable it calls into question whether the man is sane.

The Dems caused the Awakening!  What a crock.  Does Obama have any other tall tails he wants to share with America?

 

Comments

[Morgan K Freeberg]

I've not yet met the guy who is willing to buy a car from the salesman who is most charismatic. Or, at least, the guy who is willing to admit that this is what motivates him.

How it makes sense to anybody that we should be electing the most charismatic President...