Get Us An Easier Test!

The Washington Post reports what people who've been paying attention to the National Security Network's measuring the benchmarks will already know, namely that the "Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy."

Naturally, in response to this the administration plans to . . . abandon their own chosen benchmarks and instead "officials are marshaling alternative evidence of progress to persuade Congress to continue supporting the war."

Defense Department photo by Sgt. Michael Pryor, US Army.

Comments

Insane. Just insane.

Posted by Korha | July 8, 2007 11:28 PM

I see their NBLB (no benchmark left behind) initiative is seriously lacking....

Posted by zAmboni | July 9, 2007 12:24 AM

Favorite quote from the story:

"There are things going on that we never could have foreseen," said one official...

Of course, it was very easy to forsee that unforseen things would go on. And that they would probably be bad. But maybe that kind of thinking isn't tolerated near the white house.

Posted by ed | July 9, 2007 12:37 AM

this takes "never negotiate against yourself" to a new level - another triumph for the MBA presidency!

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 12:49 AM

My favorite quote has got to be:

"The heart of darkness is the president," the person said. "Nobody knows what he thinks, even the people who work for him."

I'd suggest that not even Bush knows what Bush thinks.

Posted by ProfD | July 9, 2007 2:37 AM

No Chimperor Left Behind!

Posted by low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | July 9, 2007 4:43 AM

Posted by ed | July 9, 2007 12:37 AM :"Of course, it was very easy to forsee that unforseen things would go on. And that they would probably be bad. But maybe that kind of thinking isn't tolerated near the white house."

Hmmm, I seem to recall someone neat the White House predicting precisely that. You may recall his nice comments about "known knowns" and "known unknowns" etc etc. For which he was roundly mocked by every right thinking person on the planet.

If you're going to attack this Administration then you could at least make a vague effort at being fair.

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 4:49 AM

Here's a vague effort to be fair: When Mr Bush set the benchmarks, he expected the Iraqi administration to attempt to meet them. Instead, members of the Iraqi government bickered among themselves, slaughtered one another, and announced that they would take the summer off. The entire world outside of the White House knew by the middle of February that no benchmarks would be met. We knew by the middle of March, that the Iraquis weren't going to try and by the middle of April, that they weren't even going to pretend to try.

If I was going to make an effort be accurate instead of vaguely fair, I would say that most fair-minded analysts predicted this quagmire before it began. See, e.g. Lt. Gen William Odem, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Numerous other analysts able to see what existed instead of what they wished. Donald Rumsfeld was the useful idiot of an idiot.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | July 9, 2007 6:38 AM

Hmmm, I seem to recall someone neat the White House predicting precisely that. You may recall his nice comments about "known knowns" and "known unknowns" etc etc. For which he was roundly mocked by every right thinking person on the planet.

If you're going to attack this Administration then you could at least make a vague effort at being fair.

Of course, that statement didn't change any of the administration's disastrous policies, nor did it prevent the Vice President from continuing to represent Iraq as a campaign that would be quick, easy and painless.

Posted by Freddie | July 9, 2007 7:12 AM

Funny, the Bush administration as grade grubbers:

"I don't deserve a failing grade."

"But you failed all the tests."

"Those tests were unfair."

"But you designed the tests yourself--how can you say they were unfair?"

"That doesn't matter. I'm going to give myself an A anyway."

Posted by RSA | July 9, 2007 7:57 AM

When Mr Bush set the benchmarks, he expected the Iraqi administration to attempt to meet them.

This assumes a degree of good faith on the part of the Mr Bush that's a bit at odds with his past behavior.

Whatever small legitimacy the Iraqi government might possess is entirely dependent on the US Army keeping the country from degenerating into open civil war. When we leave, the whole place is going to hell. "Benchmarks for withdrawal" were, and are, completely meaningless.

Posted by James Gary | July 9, 2007 8:36 AM

This assumes a degree of good faith on the part of the Mr Bush that's a bit at odds with his past behavior.

Nothing will become the Bush presidency so much as him leaving it. That loathsome, self-righteous prick.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 9, 2007 8:51 AM

Of course. And they abandon their own benchmarks without acknowledging the fact. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jq0j80UB_c

Posted by stinger | July 9, 2007 9:06 AM

heigou, if you're going to support the administration, you might at least make an attempt to have something intelligent to say.

there was nothing wrong with the notion of "unknown unknowns" (which to the best of my knowledge as a phrase at least dates back to NASA in the '60s, where they were called "unk unks"). what was the matter was planning as those the unknown unknowns wouldn't make any difference.

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 11:36 AM

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 11:36 AM:"if you're going to support the administration, you might at least make an attempt to have something intelligent to say."

It was as intelligent as it needed to be. Maybe a little bit more. If you cannot see that then perhaps the problem is not mine?

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 11:36 AM:"there was nothing wrong with the notion of "unknown unknowns" (which to the best of my knowledge as a phrase at least dates back to NASA in the '60s, where they were called "unk unks"). what was the matter was planning as those the unknown unknowns wouldn't make any difference."

Well perhaps, in so far as I can follow what you are saying, but the bottom line remains - this administration did think, at least for a little while, about their unknown unknowns. For which they were roundly laughed at - and are now being condemned for not saying what they did in fact say. Bush Derangement Syndrome at work.

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 11:39 AM

heigou, your second paragraph is exactly what i have in mind: there is nothing intelligent to it. the administration did not think about "unknown unknowns." Rumsfeld talked about them. and they were not laughed at for thinking about "unknown unknowns;" they were laughed at for offering the phrase as a response to the problems we were having.

and, indeed, to go a step further, there is something seriously wrong with treating as "unknown unknowns" things that were highly predictable.

and most unintelligent of all, you used the phrase Bush Derangement Syndrome, for which all right-thinking people mock you: it is not deranged to note the obvious. it is deranged to ignore the obvious.

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 11:45 AM

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 11:45 AM:"your second paragraph is exactly what i have in mind: there is nothing intelligent to it. the administration did not think about "unknown unknowns." Rumsfeld talked about them. and they were not laughed at for thinking about "unknown unknowns;" they were laughed at for offering the phrase as a response to the problems we were having."

There is nothing to suggest they did not think about them and the fact that Rumsfeld mentioned them is strongly suggestive that he did. They may not have thought about them enough or they may have thought about the wrong things or they may have thought they could muddle (or more likely blast) their way through, but think they did.

If you have the slightest evidence that they were laughed at merely for offering a phrase I'd love to see it. Here is someone laughing at the words:

http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 11:45 AM:"and, indeed, to go a step further, there is something seriously wrong with treating as "unknown unknowns" things that were highly predictable."

Again, I am open to any evidence that this administration did that - although of course the Democrats in the Congress and the MSM felt precisely that way about the unknown unknown that was 9-11.

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 11:45 AM:"and most unintelligent of all, you used the phrase Bush Derangement Syndrome, for which all right-thinking people mock you: it is not deranged to note the obvious. it is deranged to ignore the obvious."

It is deranged to assume that Bush is the source of all evil. It is not deranged to think that Bush is stupid or that this administration is not working. However it is deranged to think that Bush was behind 9-11 or that the Iraq War was all about oil or any number of other things that are regularly said on blogs like this. There is sensible and rational criticism and then again there is derangement. That is perfectly rational reasonable and intelligent an observation to make and I am happy to say that some people clearly suffer from Clinton derangement syndrome as well.

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 12:11 PM

heigou, there is a vast literature already demonstrating that the administration did not think about anything other than "cakewalk/liberation/greeted with flowers/install chalabi." only in your imagination is rumsfeld talking about "unknown unknowns" evidence that they considered them. indeed, the evidence is that the administration hated expertise, because expertise called their presuppositions into question and meant you weren't loyal.

as for your someone "laughing" at the words: he's a comedian, for crissake! that's what he does! get serious.

no, you're not open to evidence about the administration's failure to consider, because that evidence, like the purloined letter, has been sitting in plain sight for years. still, as one very small example, read this study, produced at the Army War College in feburary, 2003, which was available for anyone, including the administration, to read. every single basic problem we have faced in iraq was identified herein:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB182.pdf

your discussion of bush derangement syndrome is too silly to even respond to, as well as being considerably off topic.

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 12:36 PM