Obama & Stolen Valor

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 talking 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.

A water board official in California claimed he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, and was prosecuted under the 2005 Stolen Valor Act. (More about the background of the Act here, the book it was named after here, and other Questionable Military Accounts here.)

Now, this water board official claims his First Amendment rights have been violated!

The motion argues that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, under which water board member Xavier Alvarez was charged, is incompatible with the First Amendment because it restricts free speech by criminalizing false claims of military honors…. But government prosecutors said in their opposition submitted Wednesday that the First Amendment does not protect deliberate falsehoods.

Neither does the First Amendment or running for president protect Obama, or others, from falsehoods.

Obama, beware a backlash, as Kerry learned to his rue, if you persist in denigrating the service and contributions of our servicemen and women, and the politicians more honest and courageous than yourself who backed the “surge” instead of cutting-and-running like you preferred and still do.

MORE PERSPECTIVE:
Robert Caldwell, editor of the Insight Sunday opinion section of the San Diego Union-Tribune, adds “Obama in perspective.” Aside from untruthfulness,

For a candidate aspiring to the toughest, most important job in the world, shouldn't experience count for something?

 

Foreign policy and national security are a president's top responsibilities, especially in time of war. Obama is devoid of experience in either field. His gaffes – threatening to invade Pakistan, offering prompt negotiations with anti-American despots – bespeak his amateur standing on matters vital to the safety and security of the American people.

Obama's inconsistency on Iraq is amply documented. He's been alternately for and against withholding funding for the troops, for and against setting timelines for withdrawal, and for and against a quick retreat from Iraq.

Whatever one's views on Iraq strategy and homefront support, these vacillations on a war in progress don't inspire confidence; in Obama's judgment, his grasp of Iraq realities and his constancy of purpose. Whatever this is, it isn't leadership.
All of this betrays Obama's lack of experience; a glaring deficiency that should be raising profound questions about his qualifications and fitness, at least now, for the presidency....

Cataloguing the doubts about Obama isn't nitpicking or partisanship. It's the sort of scrutiny every presidential candidate should get. This is information that every voter deserves, and should want before making fateful decisions about this country's future.                             http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003597.html  I can't believe this hasn't come up at all.