Sen. Barack Obama said it was "fair" to notice that he did not anticipate that the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq would be coincident with the so-called Sunni Awakening and the decisions of Shia militias to reduce their footprints, the combination of which led to measurable declines in violence. In an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Obama said that he "did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

Nice work. Sen. Obama clearly lied. A minor mischaracterization of his earlier comment, but a lie none the less.

But I think you are winning a tactical victory at the risk of strategic catastrophe. Sen. McCain has made a habit of this kind of behavior, and making a campaign issue out of it is probably not in the interest of your candidate.

For example, in 2005, the Senator said, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” In 2007, the Senator said, "The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”

But just weeks ago, when an interviewer started a question with this: "You have admitted that you are not exactly the expert when it comes to the economy and many have said that... " Sen. McCain barked back, "I have not. I have not. Actually, I have not."

Even better, this all happened over a period of just a couple of days in March, 2007:

Sen. McCain said the "surge was going so well, “General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee.” Then he said on the radio that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.”

When the generals in Iraq called him on his, shall we say "agricultural by-product,"
He simply denied it: “Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.”

Do these more important lies disqualify Sen. McCain for the presidency?

None of which answers the question of why the Neo-Con Chicken Hawks made up a pack of lies in order to take over Iraq. The USA is not the ruler of the world.

All your crap about going to stop Saddam from killing his own people is not fooling anyone. You do not even believe your own bullshit on that.

What is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan proves that Bush/McCain do not give a rat's arse about stopping ongoing genocides. The world knows that they are just a bunching of lying thugs, and that is why the tinpot junta of Burma could tell them to get bent, and the US Flotilla turned tail and left up to a million starving people to their fate.

Cut the crap. The Republicans lied us into Iraq, made a complete shambles of the place, and no matter when we leave it, Iraq will still be a mess.

You guys are just like those drunken fools who wreck their cars, and then try to get away with claiming that they had nothing to do with it.

You broke Iraq, and you have broken America, The evidence is clear. Your crowd are the biggest bunch of incompetents that the modern world has ever seen. You could not handle the flooding of New Orleans. You still have not restored it, but you want us to believe that you can run the world.

Republicans are, and always have been the Reverse Robin Hood party. They always rob the poor to give to the super wealthy.

I did not complain about not intervening. I complained about your bullshit about the reason why we were lied into Iraq. I used the Darfur example, as clear proof that Bush/McCain could care less about stopping regimes from killing their own people, and therefore they did not give a rat's arse about stopping Saddam from doing so.

You can come up with all the retroactive claims about going to stop Saddam from killing Iraqis but that was not the case that was made by the Bush/McCain gang before the invasion. It was all lies about WMD. Powell put on his UN dog an pony show, and talked up all kinds of nonsense, including the aluminum tubes bullshit.

You can not walk away from your clear record of throwing WMD "Curveballs" at us, to justify the invasion.

As for stopping Saddam from killing his own people; Bush One did the exact opposite; he talked the Shiites into rebelling and then gave Saddam the green light to slaughter them.

Same goes for the WMD nonsense. It was Rumsfeld/Cheney et al, that provided Saddam with the chemical and biological starter kits, when he was at war with Iran. You Republicans do not give a shit about how many people Saddam slaughtered. You stood by when he gassed the Kurds. You are just trying to bullshit your way out of having been caught in your WMD lies.

Here's Ben's version ->

Right, he said it would fail, explicitly because he didn't think the Sunnis and Shiites would do their part. They surprised him, pleasantly.

Here's Obama as quoted from AP =>
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that
night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Nothing about Sunnis and Shia, just that it will fail

More from Ben ->

His initial statement made it clear that he thought the surge would work if the Sunnis and Shiites did their part, so it's not a lie to say that he thought the surge would work if the Sunnis and Shiites did their part.

Clearly just invented by my friend Ben. Re-read the quote from Obama. Now the second quote:

"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."

Notice the blatant lie "I said it at the time"
Re-read the first quote, is that what he said? NO.

Admit it, he lied. BTW, read his latest from Iraq, it's full of more flips that I will write about tomorrow.

I did not complain about not intervening. I complained about your bullshit about the reason why we were lied into Iraq. I used the Darfur example, as clear proof that Bush/McCain could care less about stopping regimes from killing their own people, and therefore they did not give a rat's arse about stopping Saddam from doing so.

You can come up with all the retroactive claims about going to stop Saddam from killing Iraqis but that was not the case that was made by the Bush/McCain gang before the invasion. It was all lies about WMD. Powell put on his UN dog an pony show, and talked up all kinds of nonsense, including the aluminum tubes bullshit.

You can not walk away from your clear record of throwing WMD "Curveballs" at us, to justify the invasion.

As for stopping Saddam from killing his own people; Bush One did the exact opposite; he talked the Shiites into rebelling and then gave Saddam the green light to slaughter them.

Same goes for the WMD nonsense. It was Rumsfeld/Cheney et al, that provided Saddam with the chemical and biological starter kits, when he was at war with Iran. You Republicans do not give a shit about how many people Saddam slaughtered. You stood by when he gassed the Kurds. You are just trying to bullshit your way out of having been caught in your WMD lies.