Well, it was bound to happen. Now that things look like they finally are working out well for Iraq, the media powers that be are eagerly giving full credit to Barack Obama and the Democrats — never mind that most of them opposed the war (after most of them voted for it), voted against every successful measure, and declared the war lost on numerous occasions.
One is put in mind of the Iran Hostage Crisis. That particular situation was one of the key factors in the utter failure of the Carter administration — he bumbled into it, stumbled through it, and fumbled the ending. The Iranians chose to release the hostages just as Carter was leaving office, either as one last insult to the Blunderer In Chief or out of fear of what Ronald Reagan would do (or, possibly, both).
Reagan, it must be said, had nothing directly to do with the peaceful resolution of the hostage crisis. (“October Surprise” conspiracy nuts notwithstanding.) But many observers believe that Iran was in no way eager to put the solidly-hawkish Reagan to the same test they had used to destroy Carter so effectively. (Albeit with a great deal of help from Carter himself.)
Almost the exact contrary is true of the current situation with Iraq. The pending arrival of the Obama administration probably has quite a few Iraqis eager to wrap up as many details and form as many ties with the U.S. while Bush is still in office, to give Obama as many excuses as they can to not keep his promise to pull all American troops out within 16 months.
To ascribe any credit at all to Obama for the success in Iraq is to fly in the face of the facts. At every step, Obama has counseled for withdrawal, for appeasement, for retreat. He opposed every single successful strategy, even voting against General Petraeus’s surge strategy that is credited with the current state of affairs.
But that won’t keep the press from trying to rewrite history even as it is being made.