Why Are We Not Surprised, NY Times Attempts to Give Obama & Liberals Shared Victory Credit In Iraq

Democrats, Liberals, Pelosi, Reid, The NY Times and Barack Obama were on the wrong side of the war in Iraq … now when victory is at hand they look to take credit. In the end the MSM’s work is all about making Obama look presidential.

The NY Times and Liberals have tried everything in their power not to support the war in Iraq. In fact they have done everything to thwart the war effort in Iraq. How many times did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their ilk attempt to defund our troops and force them into defeat?  President elect Barack “The Chosen One” Obama is on record as not supporting the war and also stating that the surge would never work. Once again no media spin here. As Newsbusters comments now suddenly because the Obamamessiah has been elected … Iraq “has the potential to eventually tilt the Arab-Muslim world in a different direction.” Does anyone think that such an article would ever have been wrote if McCain won the election? Wasn’t the surge and victory occurring in Iraq before Obama was elected, dare say during the Bush administration? Far be it from the NY Times to let facts get in the way of carrying the water for Obama and the Libs.

Now comes revisionist history as reported by the Confederate Yankee in that the ‘NY Times Scurrying To Give Obama Victory Credit For Their Shared Defeat In Iraq’.

Barack Obama and his Democratic allies have famously done everything in their power to try to lose the Iraqi War while President Bush is in office, but now that everyone with any understanding of the conflict knows that the war is effectively won, Democrats are trying to steal credit for the victory they fought so hard against:

Spinmeisters like Thomas Freidman at the NY Times will attempt to provide shared credit to those that not only opposed this war, but did everything possible to make it fail. Isn’t it convenient that now that Obama is in office there must be the perception of positive news and that some how Obama and Liberals actually had something to do with a foreign policy victory. 

In the last year, though, the U.S. troop surge and the backlash from moderate Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda and Iraqi Shiites against pro-Iranian extremists have brought a new measure of stability to Iraq. There is now, for the first time, a chance — still only a chance — that a reasonably stable democratizing government, though no doubt corrupt in places, can take root in the Iraqi political space.

That is the Iraq that Obama is inheriting. It is an Iraq where we have to begin drawing down our troops — because the occupation has gone on too long and because we have now committed to do so by treaty — but it is also an Iraq that has the potential to eventually tilt the Arab-Muslim world in a different direction.

I’m sure that Obama, whatever he said during the campaign, will play this smart. He has to avoid giving Iraqi leaders the feeling that Bush did — that he’ll wait forever for them to sort out their politics — while also not suggesting that he is leaving tomorrow, so they all start stockpiling weapons.

If he can pull this off, and help that decent Iraq take root, Obama and the Democrats could not only end the Iraq war but salvage something positive from it. Nothing would do more to enhance the Democratic Party’s national security credentials than that.

Stop the ACLU provides us with the Harry Reid video reminder:

I think I remember Barack Obama voting against the surge along with all his liberal cohorts. Now that Bush has remained steady through all the criticism, and succeeded with a victory, they want credit? Good luck with that!

The Gateway Pundit points out that not everyone is buying this NY Times BS.