Obama claims the '06 elections caused the Anbar Awakening

Much has been made about John McCain telling Katie Couric that the Surge “began the Anbar awakening.”

Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening.

McCain answered this by explaining that the Surge was more than just the addition of more troops. This would mean that the surge would have its effects long before it was fully implemented, when all the troops were in place and doing their thing.

How would Barry explain own his mistaken timeline?

Last January, in an ABC News debate in New Hamphire [transcript], Obama uttered the following to Charlie Gibson. He is answering Gibson’s question regarding the reduced violence in Iraq vs. his opposition to the surge:

I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as.

He is asserting that it was the 2006 elections which sparked the [Spring ’06] Anbar Awakening. There is a big problem with this claim, besides its prima facie absurdity. RedState.com’s Streiff caught Obama’s gaffe:

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.Conveniently for us, inconveniently for Obama, we’ve looked at this timeline before for a different reason.As early as March 2006, the inestimable Bill Roggio was reporting on the Anbar Awakening from open sources. Probably the earliest mentions of this was blogged by Bill Roggio in June 2005. Success in Anbar Province was evident and substantial before the 2006 elections were even held.

We can discuss John McCain’s timeline, but Obama’s is just plain, inexplicably wrong. The assertion that elements of the surge helped with the Anbar Awakening is one thing, to claim that the elevation of Nancy Pelosi to the Speakership frightened Iraqis into taking on al Qaeda is another.

Am I missing his speech?