Ken Berwitz

I can't just call it Obama's Big Lie, because it is in a tie with other big lies.  So let me be more specific and call it Obama's Big Lie About The Iraq Troop Withdrawal.

First the lie itself, as excerpted from an article at Reuters:

Obama says Iraq war is ending, his promise is kept

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Saturday Iraq could "chart its own course" and told Americans the drawdown of U.S. troops helped fulfill a promise he made during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Obama, who is vacationing on the Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard, declared in his weekly radio and Internet address that "the war is ending" and pledged to take care of troops who are returning home.

The U.S. military recently cut its strength to under 50,000 troops in Iraq, helping to make good on Obama's promise to end the war launched 7-1/2 years ago by his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama's Saturday remarks may be a preview of a rare, televised address the president plans on Tuesday evening from the White House Oval Office about the troop drawdown.

"On Tuesday, after more than seven years, the United States of America will end its combat mission in Iraq and take an important step forward in responsibly ending the Iraq war," Obama said.

"As a candidate for this office, I pledged I would end this war. As president, that is what I am doing."

The White House is trying to emphasize Obama's accomplishments ahead of November elections to bolster fellow Democrats, who are likely to lose seats and possibly majorities in one or both houses of Congress.

With economic growth slowing and unemployment still near double-digit levels, the White House hopes the fulfillment of a foreign policy promise will help offset the economic pain at the forefront of voters' minds.

How dare President Barack Obama take claim to this withdrawal as if it were his doing?  How dare he not even mention President George Bush?

Let's start with the fact that there is no way either President would have been able to effect a withdrawal of this kind if it had not been for the troop surge in 2007;  the one that decisively turned the tide and won the war.  It was President Bush who approved and ordered that surge.  It was then-Senator Obama who opposed it and who said, over and over again that it would not work.

In several previous blogs, I've put up a single quote of Mr. Obama's ("I am not persuaded...I think it will do the reverse") to show that he was against the surge.  But his latest thoroughly dishonest, thoroughly narcissistic claim of accomplishment regardling Iraq has angered me enough to put up other quotes as well. 

Peter Wehner's July 28, 2008 article at The Weekly Standard  provides a sampling of the Obama quotes, and proves just how completely opposed to (and wrong about) the surge he was:

In October 2006--three months before the president's new strategy was unveiled--Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."

On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." And in reaction to the president's January 23 State of the Union address, Obama said,

I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum--military and civilian, conservative and liberal--expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it's not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.

In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."

Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.

Yet now this consummate fraud takes credit for withdrawing troops that the surge enabled him to withdraw.

But wait.  I'm not through yet. 

Are you aware that Barack Obama isn't even responsible for the withdrawal agreement?

Do yourself a personal favor and read the "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq".  You will see that the very first part, Article I, says:

 "This Agreement shall determine the principal provisions and requirements that regulate the temporary presence, activities, and withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq",

And Article 5, section 2 says (bold print is mine):

Upon their withdrawal, the United States Forces shall return to the Government of Iraq all the facilities and areas provided for the use of the combat forces of the United States, based on two lists. The first list of agreed facilities and areas shall take effect upon the entry into force of the Agreement. The second list shall take effect no later than June 30, 2009, the date for the withdrawal of combat forces from the cities, villages, and localities. The Government of Iraq may agree to allow the United States Forces the use of some necessary facilities for the purposes of this Agreement on withdrawal.

Now look at the bottom of the agreement and see what date it was signed.  You'll find the date to be November 17, 2008.  When George Bush was President.  Not Barack Obama, who took office on January 20 of the following year.

In other words, the entire negotiation for withdrawal of forces from Iraq, right through to the signing of the formal agreement detailing how it would be accomplished, took place 100% under President George Bush. 

This, readers, is what President Obama is now taking full credit for.

How dare he?

And how dare our media for not making these facts - these easily checkable facts that I found in about two seconds flat sitting at my computer - known to the public?

How can you believe a thing Barack Obama says?

And how can you believe a media that goes this far to abet him in his big lie?