Obama Shows the Audacity to Exaggerate & Make Stuff Up
Sorry Barak-- It wasn't Pelosi the Terrible who caused the Anbar Awakening.
Barak Obama did not have the slightest idea what he was talking about when he touched on the Anbar Awakening tonight in the New Hampshire Democratic Debate on ABC.
OBAMA GOOFS:
Obama says it wasn't the troop surge-- it was the Democrats winning in 2006 that caused the Anbar Awakening!
Oh brother!
Here's Obama's Living History:
That's right! Democrats are responsible for the success of the Anbar Awakening.
In reality- the main ones cheering the Democratic win in November were Khamenei, Iran, Al-Qaeda, North Korea, etc.
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.
UPDATE: Wizbang has the transcript on how Pelosi single-handedly defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq:
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.Democracy Project has more on Obama insulting the troops in Iraq.
MORE... BG pointed out that the actual formalization of the Anbar Awakening had been ongoing for more than a year. It wasn't something that just happened when Pelosi the Terrible took over the House... Try February 2006.
UPDATED: Prairie Pundit notes that Fred Barnes also caught this major misstep by the democratic candidates.
Hat Tip Larwyn
posted by Gateway Pundit at 1/05/2008 09:41:00 PM
26 Comments:
Oh yeah. I'm amazed people think him a legitimate candidate for the presidency. Couple his lack of experience, knowledge and his voting record... it's all just a shame.
++
hmmm, lets see now, the 2006
elections took place when??
Sunni tribes turn against jihadis (2/06/06)
Anbar Sunnis Turn on al-Qaeda (9/22/06)
there's more, but no need to
clutter.. point is made.. ;)
==
++
oh what the heck, what can two little excerpts do to discredit a Democratic MESSIAH'S fantasy huh..
Anbar Sunnis Turn on al-Qaeda
excerpt:
[Twenty-five Sunni tribes in Iraq’s western Anbar Province say that they have sealed an agreement to unite against al-Qaeda because of the foreign terrorist group’s indiscriminate killing of innocent Iraqis. This is actually the formalization of a process which has been ongoing for more than a year, as native Sunni Iraqis who opposed the presence of U.S. troops came to view foreign jihadists not as the allies they claimed to be, but as enemies of the Iraqi people.]
[“We held a meeting earlier and agreed to fight those who call themselves mujahedeen,” Mr. Rishawi said in an interview today. “We believe that there is a conspiracy against our Iraqi people. Those terrorists claimed that they are fighters working on liberating Iraq, but they turned out to be killers. Now all the people are fed up and have turned against them.”]
==
Obama: the audacity of B.S & hot air
can any of the journalist ask this guy to give a specific? or they all are blinded by their love of Obama!
Among the people over at my place to watch the debates was a marine with two tours in Anbar.
All he ever talked about when coming back was about the ground work they had done with the tribal chiefs to turn this whole thing around even before the surge was ordered.
bg's link shows that up also. Mike Yon will tell you the same thing.
All Obama did was minimize all the hard work done by our guys to get the process rolling.
++
sorry, one more, i just can't resist..
[This splintering of the insurgency has fed directly into increased support for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s reconciliation and amnesty plan, based on a series of conferences and working groups in which Sunni and Shi’a religious, tribal and community leaders meet to discuss issues. On July 17, the Iraqi newspaper Al-Sabah reported that a tribal conference in Karbala resulted in “more than 300” tribal leaders signing a document foreswearing the shedding of Iraqi blood, and committing themselves to the peaceful resolution of conflict. A separate agreement between the Shi’a and Sunni Waqf administrations was reported by the Iraqi newspaper Al-Rafidayn on September 14, committing themselves to doing everything possible to keep the holy month of Ramadan safe for all Iraqis. The same article noted an agreement involving 20 Sunni insurgent factions which committed to a variety of points, including a prohibition on shedding Iraqi blood, a prohibition on attacking Iraqi infrastructure, and a commitment to help rebuild infrastructure in Sunni areas.]
==
++
quotecritter @ 11:56 PM..
yep, you can bet your bottom dollar the entire scenario was due to the long hard work & dedication of our troops along with the Iraqi forces.. Bush & Maliki had a plan.. they put Petreaus in charge & he executed it!! (thumbsup)..
==
Is anyone outside of a democrat voter really surprised? We've been prediciting for months that the dhimmicrats would begin to claim credit for the coming victory. Obama just beat the msm to it.
Oh! the humanity!
How dare we all question the Next Moses who will lead us all to the New Canaan where men are men, women can be men too, newly-vaccinated children study under the soft glare of eco-friendly lightbulbs, and every day is a holiday...from history.
/snark-OFF! ;)
Things that make you say Huh?
I can't believe Obama said that with a straight face.
It would be pretty funny watching them spin in the wind if they were not running for president of the United States. Even more pathetic, exactly which members of the media have called Obama on his statement?
I find it a challenge to control my temper when listening to the Democrat candidates.
None of them are anywhere near qualified to even be considered. It's embarassing.
JIm
Those of us who read Roggio's the Fourth Rail know that he was reporting on the Anbar Awakening in early 2006 and so we knew that what this phony was saying was untrue as soon as the words were out of him mounth. What we didn't know is whether he was lying or is so delusionally uninformed on Iraq that he believes what he said.
Either way I hope the GOP does not turn their sights on him until after he's confirmed. He's going to get creamed in a national security debate with Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson.
I think you should update your post to include bg's excellent proofs that this boy wonder is full of it. And thanks bg.
Is the RNC writing this stuff down?
To the extent that Democrats have served bravely side-by-side with Republicans in the field, they are responsible.
I find it amusing that conservatives, who just a week ago were claiming that the Anbar Awakening was due to the glorious Surge, now admit that the Anbar Awakening started long before the failed Petraeus surge.
I agree that Obama is wrong in ascribing everything to U.S. domestic politics, but it's no stupider than pretending that a surge that actually killed more Iraqis, not fewer, was responsible for the Iraqis deciding that they don't like Al Qaeda.
Pretty soon you guys will be admitting the fact that Iraq is in a civil war (as long as you can use it to contradict something a Democrat says).
anonymous liberal
The Surge and the Anbar Awakening occurred virtually simultaneously, you idiot. And one supported the other. Conservatives like me have been saying this for months.
And the Surge has not failed. You have. The Surge preceded the formation of CLC's throughout Baghdad and surrounding areas and now in Diyala- which is al Qaeda's last refuge in Iraq. And the number of innocents being killed is way down (even Obama admits that- though not as far down as your IQ, but down.
And there is no civil war in Iraq.
++
adding to previous posts re:
Barak Hessien Obama: "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"
America's New Shi'a Allies
The Shia awakening
Shiite Leader Makes Rare Visit to
Al-Anbar to Unite With Sunnis
The Shia Awakening
Sunni And Shiia Join Up Against Al Qaeda In Iraq
again, just a sample..
ps: just want to mention how belated both the Sunni & Shia "awakening" news is via the MSM.. as i know i've been reading about one and/or the since the beginning of 2006 (and albeit more or less the same thing, not to mention the Iraqi Awakening)..
==
++
Anon @ 11:31 AM..
well, here's how it worked in a nutshell.. US/COTW forces did good for Iraqis, AQ et al did evil to Iraqis.. Iraqis from all sects turned on AQ & terrorist insurgents & turned to the US/COTW & IG..
in the interim, the Iraqi Government established it's "Rule of Law".. all the pro - US/COTW & IG Iraqis needed were military support, and that's what they got via the "surge".. one could not work w/o the other.. hence, it was a magnificent "political & military" success thanks to US/COTW laying the foundation, the Iraqis building on it & General Petreaus bringing it to fruition!!
there a go.. now you can get back in line at the fast food drive in & b*tch about how slow the service is..
ps: reoconnot @ 12:49 PM.. (thumbsup)
==
You seem to hold Dems to a higher standard than Republicans. Obama may have gotten the details on this point wrong, but the current President didn't even know the name of the leader of Pakistan when he was running for office, so maybe some consistency is called for.
++
anyone else smell a desperate
dhimmi troll @ 1:22 PM?? :D
==
Very definitely, BG. anon doesn't even appear to know of the plethora of gaffes his own hitlery just made about Pakistan in the last 2 weeks, let alone Bush's minor mistake.
but the current President didn't even know the name of the leader of Pakistan when he was running for office,
--Yep a booby trap quiz by an ambitious journalist is the same as a formal debate statement about the strategy and success of our wartime military efforts..... on planet moonbat!
++
btw Anon @ 1:22 PM..
and Ted [hic] Kennedy referred to
Obama as Osama several times..
two can play that juvenile game..
==
The Anbar Awakening started long before the surge, and as due to al Qaeda trying to inflict itself on the local tribes and kill off tribal leaders and marry into the tribes. That may work in Africa, but it does not work in Iraq.
There was a lot of damn hard work done throughout 2006 before the official tribal meeting in SEP to seal the Anbar concept, and there was much hard fighting to finally oust al Qaeda and get the entirety of the tribes on-board. The Awakening *on its own* could not get out of Anbar easily if at all, and that required hard work and fighting to open up breathing space for civil society to catch its breath in neighboring provinces. The surge helped clear those paths out but the Awakening would not have happened without a long-term presence by the US armed forces to show that we were *not* running in the face of al Qaeda.
Without that security and showing it in US lives that we mean to actually oppose al Qaeda and other terror groups, there would be no Awakening as al Qaeda would kill its way to power. By the time JAN 2007 was rolling around we had good evidence in Ramadi and Fallujah that the Awakening had taken hold and now could expand beyond Anbar.
Neither the D or R party can claim this: it belongs to the US armed forces and the Iraqi people. When America shows her determination to stand beside those that we have rescued from tyranny and help them stand up on their own after a war, we succeed as a Nation. And since both parties have had problems supporting the Nation and its armed forces by doing their jobs in the federal realm of ensuring that enough equipment, munitions and support are done from the Congressional end, the victory belongs not to a political party in the US, both of which have been negligent in their duties.
I see no wartime draft.
I see no wartime tax.
I see no wartime bond drives.
This is a peacetime economy and our political class has no fortitude to actually support doing their jobs to keep the armed forces supplied in two conflicts Congress *approved* in a bi-partisan way?
Save your finger pointing.
Save the credit claiming as neither party deserves it.
Support our wars or expect to see the Nation die due to lack of interest. And then things get very messy, indeed.
++
Democrats in Denial
excerpts:
[Barack Obama is of a sudden the front-runner, so his view of the surge merits the closest look. His first assertion echoed what has become a standard line by the war's opponents, that "we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence." What can this possibly mean? In more than six years there hasn't been one successful terrorist attack on the U.S., even as places elsewhere were hit or actively targeted.
Then Senator Obama placidly said that the Sunnis in Anbar Province began to help the U.S. "after the Democrats were elected in 2006." What's more, the Democrats' victory showed them they were "going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias." This obviously means the Democrats would abandon them.
But the Sunni Awakening, as it is called, with its fall in bloodshed, occurred only after the Anbar Sunnis were convinced that the U.S. troops would not abandon them to al Qaeda in Iraq. Sunni sheiks have said explicitly it was the new U.S. policy of sustaining the offensive against AQI that made it possible for them to resist the jihadists. The U.S. military has supported the spread of these "awakening councils" in other areas of Iraq. It is navel-gazing in the extreme for Mr. Obama to suggest U.S. Congressional elections caused this turn.]
[Even allowing for the stresses of the endless campaign, these responses are astonishing. Has the self-directedness of these candidates gone so deep that they now believe they can get away with saying anything at all on national TV?
We are not arguing that one had to agree with the surge or the Bush decision to go into Iraq. Dissent is a deep tradition in U.S. politics, and this war has become a bitter subject.
It is evident, though, that the opposition to Iraq after the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006 has put these candidates in a corner. For the past year, Democrats in both the Senate and House have enforced rock-solid party opposition to every jot and tittle of the Bush policy. They now have four candidates running for the U.S. Presidency who seem to believe it is to their political advantage to deny manifest reality.]
==
"Save the credit claiming as neither party deserves it."
How about some credit claiming for the deserving party - er, should I have said dis-serving party:
Let's face it the war is lost - Harry Reid (D). They killed innocents in cold blood - Jack Murtha (D)
A surge will not, and has not worked - Bill Richardson (D), Nancy Pelosi (D) Barack Ohmama (D) (in fact it will do the opposite, yet, we need a surge in Afghanistan - someone explain that conflit in rationality) -
Obama (D), Kerry (D) & Kennedy(D) Durbin's (D) air-raiding, terrorizing, and tourture comments regarding our troops.
Pelosi (D) trying to fuel tension between the Turks & Kurds - as progress in Iraq was becoming obvious.
Constant, and partyline denial of surge progress by Democrats, attempts to cut off funding for our troops, attacking the Iraqis for failures when our troop success was too obvious to deny. Wanting to "get out now" leaving the Iraqis to face mass slaughter - to lay blame on Bush and Republicans - and on and on....
No, let's give credit where credit is due!
right4us
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home