Whoopsie! Captain Bullshit Misssed one "The Surge Has Failed" Statement on His Website

I'd say Obama owes Gateway Pundit a finder's fee for helping him track down the last of these statements which, I guess, are now to be considered nonstatements that never existed, DoubleThink style.

Look, up in the steady gaze of his own conscience...
it's a hope... it's a change!
It's Captain Bullshit!

Thanks to CJ for the tip and, of course, Slublog for the pic. Also to DrewM. for suggesting the photoshop.

PS, if you look at his emblem -- I think that's cow-flop.

Hitchens on Captain Bullshit: Worth reading, as ever:

If it is true, as yesterday's three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that "U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan," then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates. Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about "the hunt for the real enemy" or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.

One point Hitchens didn't make about the contrast between Iraq and Afghanistan: The left is fond of insisting that for every terrorist (or, as they have it, "terrorist") we kill in Iraq, we make two more. And yet they all claim to be gung-ho about sending tens of thousands more troops into Afghanistan... and even conduct the Great Overmountain Invasion of Pakistan (a nuclear armed state of one hundred and seventy million, by the way) while our troops are conveniently positioned there.

The left never actually explains what it is about Arab terrorists in particular that grants them this hydra-like strike-one-head-off-and-two-shall-grow-back property, and why Pakistani/Asian terrorists do not share this special super power.

I would submit that they believe the same thing about both groups, and that War Never Solved Anything, and Arms Are Made For Hugging, and all that jazz, but lie about this belief as regards Afghanistan because most realize that's the one war they cannot oppose, undermine, and subvert with any hope of clinging to power.

But Democratic voters are less shy about telling pollsters their true beliefs:

On Afghanistan, however, independents side more closely with Republicans than with Democrats. Majorities of Republicans and independents think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting and that the effort there is linked to the eventual defeat of terrorism more broadly. Majorities of Democrats disagree.

As Allah notes, Qunnippiac conspicuously doesn't give us the exact numbers for that particular tidbit.

Wonder why?