The Surge is a Timetraveller

Drum finds a nice example of Republicans lying.

Over at the Corner, Andy McCarthy berates Barack Obama's explanation for the reduction in violence in Iraq ("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"):

Does Obama think the Sunni Awakening and the Shia militia stand-down are somehow separate developments from the surge and the brilliant performance of American forces? If he really thinks that, it's dumb.

Hmmm. Let's roll the tape:

• February 2006: Muqtada al-Sadr orders an end to execution-style killings by Mahdi Army death squads.

• August 2006: Sadr announces a broad ceasefire, which he has maintained ever since.

• September 2006: The Sunni Awakening begins. Tribal leaders, first in Anbar and later in other provinces, start fighting back against al-Qaeda insurgents.

• March 2007: The surge begins.

Obviously, the Surge was not responsible for things that occurred before it was implemented, or even before Gen. Petraeus was placed in charge of Iraq. And yet we hear this talking point all the time.

Reminds me of the Republicans saying there were no oil spills caused by Katrina.