GAO: Bush is Lying

Karen DeYoung and Thomas Ricks in The Washington Post have a great piece about a draft GAO report that says the administration is full of it on progress in Iraq (though not quite in so many words). The report was leaked by officials who (correctly) fear that the administration will water it down or use the classification process to obscure key findings.

As usual with these things, the question is whether the press can not merely break the big story, but then incorporate this information into future reporting about administration claims.

Comments

Yea, but you will rend your garments, and beg for strangers to pluck out your eyes and plug your ears, such will be your shame at ever having doubted our progress in Iraq, When General Petraeus Gives His Report.

Posted by El Cid | August 30, 2007 9:48 AM

Everyone knows that the GAO, just like the CIA, is full of pot-smoking, liberal hippies. Or something.

Posted by jim | August 30, 2007 9:58 AM

As the article points out, the legislation that requires the GAO report is bullsh*t. It requires an up-or-down verdict on each benchmark, rather than how much progress is being made. Which, of course, is complete and utter bullsh*t - if progress is being made, you don't stop in the middle, even if the goal hasn't yet been reached.

Moreover, it is not surprising that the Democrats would react in bad faith, as Matthew did. We all know perfectly well that if the GAO said "hey, all the benchmarks were met", Matthew would react by saying "OK, our work is done, let's go home".

As the September report will no doubt say, substantial progress is being made on most of the benchmarks. We aren't where we need to be yet. But that just argues in favor of staying until the job is done.

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 10:05 AM

We all know perfectly well that if the GAO said "hey, all the benchmarks were met", Matthew would react by saying "OK, our work is done, let's go home".

Dig real deep here and find an honest answer for why it would hurt you if the everything was under control in Iraq and we left.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 30, 2007 10:22 AM

Front page news.

Posted by ed | August 30, 2007 10:32 AM

"As usual with these things, the question is whether the press can not merely break the big story, but then incorporate this information into future reporting about administration claims."

Simple answer? No.

Posted by Stefan | August 30, 2007 10:34 AM

"We all know perfectly well that if the GAO said 'hey, all the benchmarks were met', Matthew would react by saying 'OK, our work is done, let's go home'."

Well, yeah. If all the benchmarks were met then why wouldn't we go home? What reason would we have to stay?

Posted by Stefan | August 30, 2007 10:37 AM

Obviously, what's keeping Iraq from reaching those benchmarks is Al's failure to sign up.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 30, 2007 10:44 AM

It's a well known fact, too, that the Bush July report which said 8 out of 18 were met or being meet was highly dodgy, and very dubious. At least 5 or 6 of those "met or being met" benchmarks could be very seriously contested, and that takes you down or 2 or 3 - exactly the same as the GAO report.

In other words, the Bush July report was saying the same thing as the GAO one, but with a heap of grade A Bush Administration bullshit. Who needs that, though?

Of course, Al doesn't care, he is just a troll, he doesn't debate, he just spouts the RNC talking points of the day. What a loser.

Posted by Joshua | August 30, 2007 10:46 AM

Al is just projecting bad faith; obviously, he's in favor of staying in Iraq forever irrespective of whether progress is being made or not.

Posted by Scott Lemieuxs | August 30, 2007 10:47 AM

This incarnation of Al gives away the game. As Steve Benen pointed out, the so called "surge" -- with its increased cost in lives and treasure -- was the Administration's last chance to get it right.

I and several others have predicted all along that the dishoenst warfloggers -- but I repeat myself -- would not be able to cite success, since the "surge" was doomed by the standards of Petraeus' own counterinsurgency manual. So they'd ignore all the bad news, point to some spurious signs of "progress," and insist that the war go on.

You know, like they've been doing for the past four years. Remember?

That dog won't hunt, Al. Bush has been lying about progress, and no amount of your spin can disguise the fact.

And no, Al, in the real world, you very often don't get to continue work by claiming you're "making progress." The surge has not met its goals, period, full stop. The Administration has had its chance and has blown it. They do not deserve to sacrifice more american lives and treasure to punt their failure into the lap of the next President.

Posted by Gregory | August 30, 2007 10:52 AM

As the article points out, the legislation that requires the GAO report is bullsh*t.

Uh, the benchmark portion of the legislation was written by Republican John Warner, who I'm pretty sure is not in the bag for the Democrats.

The point is that the GAO is not in a position to evaluate whether "satisfactory" progress is being made toward the various benchmarks; that's a judgment call that is left for the President's own report, although the President obviously has credibility problems. But the GAO can certainly tell us whether we've gotten there or not.

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 10:56 AM

By the way, for the curious, here are the 18 benchmarks. You can judge for yourself whether it's okay to have only 3 of them completed at this stage in the war.

(i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.

(ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification.

(iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

(iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

(v) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

(vi) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

(vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.

(viii) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.

(ix) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.

(x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

(xi) Ensuring that the Iraqi Security Forces are providing even handed enforcement of the law.

(xii) Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said `the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation'.

(xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

(xiv) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

(xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.

(xvi) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

(xvii) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

(xviii) Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 10:59 AM

If you read the Washington Post Summary of each issue. The GAO adds extra requirements and then says because those extra requirements haven't been completed then the actual requirements haven't been completed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/08/30/GR2007083000168.html

For example:

"(i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review."

Now why does the GAO not feel this has not been completed.

1. Contentious issues have not been resolved.

But what does this have to do with forming the Committee and completing the REVIEW. It doesn't say all issues have to be resolved because that would be a rediculous requirement

2. No referendum scheduled.

Where is a referendum even mentioned under (i)? Of course you arent going to meet goals that weren't even on the list to begin with.

Posted by Dave | August 30, 2007 11:11 AM

Lets look at some more

(xii) Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said `the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation'

GAO reason for not being completed.

"Militia inflitration of security forces creates some havens."

So the GAO says this is not complete because the US hasn't achieved perfection. Could any reasonable person think perfection in this regard could ever possibly be attained?

(iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

The GAO says this goal has not met because the law doesn't go into affect for a few months. Silly.

Posted by Dave | August 30, 2007 11:16 AM

The point is that the GAO is not in a position to evaluate whether "satisfactory" progress is being made toward the various benchmarks; that's a judgment call that is left for the President's own report, although the President obviously has credibility problems. But the GAO can certainly tell us whether we've gotten there or not.

That may well be, Steve, but Matthew says that the GAO report "says the administration is full of it on progress in Iraq". Obviously the spin from the antiwar crowd is that the GAO report is about "whether 'satisfactory' progress is being made toward the various benchmarks". If you want to go ahead and say that it is Matthew's spin that is bullsh*t, rather than the report, I'd find that acceptable.

By the way, as to the above commenters, I'm all for leaving Iraq at the appropriate time when the job is done, but I don't think that these 18 benchmarks are necessarily the appropriate markers for when that is.

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 11:17 AM

BTW, Steve, to know that Matthew's spin is the standard Democrat antiwar spin, you just need to look at the WaPo headline:

Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals
GAO Draft at Odds With White House

You may very well be right that the GAO report isn't intended to state what progress is being made, but the MSM/Democrat/antiwar spinners certainly don't accept that interpretation.

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 11:24 AM

So Al, I gotta know. What IS the measure for succes in Iraq by your estimation.

Because, really, I never see a clear "this is what success means" for Iraq anywhere. Ever. Since the whole mess started.

Posted by NonyNony | August 30, 2007 11:24 AM

The endless bickering about the "surge" or about the "benchmarks" proves that they're accomplishing exactly what they were intended to accomplish: help prolong the war until BushCo leaves office. That way BushCo can blame his successor for the eventual and inevitable bad end to it all.

Looks like everybody is falling for it.

Posted by kafka | August 30, 2007 11:25 AM

Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

The GAO says this goal has not met because the law doesn't go into affect for a few months. Silly.

Uh, the GAO says the goal has been partially met, because the legislation has been "enacted" but not yet "implemented." How hard is this to understand.

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 11:28 AM

The whole point of benchmarks is to know when we can leave. We don't set benchmarks for the pleasure of meeting benchmarks. Once the prez's benchmarks have been met, we're SUPPOSED to leave. Yunnerstan?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 30, 2007 11:28 AM

Is the GAO going to issue benchmarks on why the Congress hasn't passed any of the appropriations
bills yet. Or passed any energy policy
legislation; in these days of nearly $3.00 gas.
Or taken near two monthes to provide money for the surge. What is their excuse; they don't have car bombs going off near their police stations,
hospitals, churches, schools. Legislators and Governors slain in drivebys; their families kidnapped or murdered. Re-Baathification is very complicated; because the majority was/is being victimized by many of these persons; in the Army, Republican Guards, Mukharabats; and then transitioned into the insurgencys. The same for
the status of most resources, utilities etc; just consider the state of Sadr City re Adhamiya and Karrada

Posted by narciso | August 30, 2007 11:54 AM

Dig real deep here and find an honest answer for why it would hurt you if the everything was under control in Iraq and we left.

I am continually amazed by this sort of cynical attack politics. Many Democrats, (including many Democratics in Congress, MY if my memory is correct, and others), initially bought into the whole WMD scenario, and continued thereafter to support what they saw as reasonable democracy-building efforts in Iraq. Meanwhile the Bush administration ignored everyone, dismissed any suggestion for a modified approach as political, trashed bipartisan recommendations, and repeatedly twisted facts.

"[W]hy would it hurt you if everything was under control in Iraq and we left." indicates a complete loss of contact with reality.

We live in a real world. The facts are that regardless of how anyone wished things would have turned out, things are not under control, or going well, in Iraq. It is a humanitarian disaster.

The facts are also that the Bush Administration has finally lost all creditability.

Posted by JustMe | August 30, 2007 11:58 AM

Defeatists appear to be eagerly seizing on the Democrat's commissioned GAO report as proof that evil America has lost, that defeat is certain, that the only issue left is how fast the troops err. the duped children in uniform should run.

Funny how the Lefty's daily death count of "unbearable losses" isn't as prominent these days when all discussion is about "The Surge" and how Bush and the generals "have to be lying".

When you are committed to defeat, embrace defeat, want defeat...why should anyone be surprised when you call any positive signs "lies!!!!!!"??

Posted by Chris Ford | August 30, 2007 12:14 PM

don't feed the trolls. thanks in advance.

Posted by ed | August 30, 2007 12:32 PM

Defeatists appear to be eagerly seizing on the Democrat's commissioned GAO report...

Just a reminder that John Warner is not a Democrat. The rest can be safely ignored.

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 12:36 PM

"As the article points out, the legislation that requires the GAO report is bullsh*t. It requires an up-or-down verdict on each benchmark, rather than how much progress is being made."-Al

While the report requires judgements as to whether a benchmark has been met or not, it also states whether progress has been made on each benchmark. It is not simply 18 statements of "met" or "not met". In several key areas it claims regress, such as the dramatic decline in Iraqi forces ready for duty.

Posted by Njorl | August 30, 2007 12:45 PM

Once the prez's benchmarks have been met, we're SUPPOSED to leave. Yunnerstan?

Unnerstan. Bush is not going to leave Iraq. Even if Laura and Barney turn against him, he's not leaving. In fact, if you complain one more time, he's going to bomb Iran, even if Patreaus has to apologize for it afterwards. Yunnerstan?

Posted by Peter Driscoll | August 30, 2007 12:51 PM

Defeatists appear to be...

You might want to clue in your "defeatist" leader that he shouldn't be cautioning against "cut and run" as that makes it sound like we're losing. Instead he should be saying "We need to stay and add more gains to the impressive list of gains we've made to date in Iraq."

Posted by JustMe | August 30, 2007 1:06 PM

Ah, you're all just not on board with Bush's "run out the clock" strategy for victory in Iraq.

He has a perfectly workable exit strategy. January 20, 2009, he is out of there.

Then, when someone else withdraws the forces, he and his friends will say "Oh noes! Right when we were on the cusp of victory!"

It's the "run out the clock" victory strategy. It will bring victory for Bush. Or at least give him someone else to blame his loss on.

Posted by anonymous | August 30, 2007 1:20 PM

He has a perfectly workable exit strategy. January 20, 2009, he is out of there.
Then, when someone else withdraws the forces, he and his friends will say "Oh noes! Right when we were on the cusp of victory!"
It's the "run out the clock" victory strategy. It will bring victory for Bush. Or at least give him someone else to blame his loss on.

The Vietnamese exile community in the USA, now 1 million, puts square blame on the Democratic Congress for the American part of Vietnam's defeat. Not Nixon, Kissinger, of Ford. Historians and Vietnam Communists agree in their books.

What will happen if the Democrat Congress gets their "cut and run" defeat is that they will be the ones blamed if worse events happen in the ME following us quitting. Not Bush. Not Petreaus.

If it happens with a Democratic President who has run embracing our defeat, after Bush is gone, they will be blamed as well.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 30, 2007 1:40 PM

I think that if Democrats know what's good for them, they'll definitely listen to the advice of neo-Confederate Jew-fearing right wingers who want us to have kept fighting in Vietnam as long as they thought necessary.

Posted by El Cid | August 30, 2007 1:46 PM

I think that if Democrats know what's good for them, they'll definitely listen to the advice of neo-Confederate Jew-fearing right wingers who want us to have kept fighting in Vietnam as long as they thought necessary.

Also, they'll need to listen to neo-con Jewish right wingers who have been consistently wrong about everything (including what happened in Viet Nam).

Posted by Peter Driscoll | August 30, 2007 1:54 PM

Okay Al won't respond so I'll turn the question to Chris Ford:

What IS the measure for success in Iraq by your estimation?

What counts as "success"? What counts as "winning"? When do we get to say "we win - let's go home"? What are the, oh let's call them "benchmarks", you want to have happen so that we can bring our military home?

Because I never see this question answered. What does "winning" mean in Iraq?

Posted by NonyNony | August 30, 2007 1:57 PM

Just read a news story that says that the Pentagon has (extra secret, very serious) information that they think will cause the GAO to revise their report from "really shitty" to "pretty darned shitty".

Un-freaking-believable. The arrogance and gall of this administration is simply unprecendented. Well, maybe not that unprecendented. LBJ and Nixon did the same with Vietnam. If the facts don't line up with what you're selling, just change the facts. But no, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam...except for the fact that those silly politicians in DC and wimpy liberals are going to lose a war we are definitely, really, really winning.

Posted by OGLiberal | August 30, 2007 2:40 PM

Also, they'll need to listen to neo-con Jewish right wingers who have been consistently wrong about everything (including what happened in Viet Nam). Posted by Peter Driscoll

Hmmm. A neo-conservative / neo-Confederate teamup. Neo-Confederatives? Neo-conserverates? FrontPageDixieMag? The National Jefferson Davis Review? General Irving E. Kristol Lee? Committee on the Present Re-Enactment?

Posted by El Cid | August 30, 2007 3:04 PM

El Cid, it do get complicated, don't it. I just used the Google. Answers to all of your questions on Jefferson Davis Soros and The Weakly Neo-Whatever Review can be found here:

www.redstateupdate.com

If you haven't plucked out your eyes yet.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | August 30, 2007 4:07 PM

The Vietnamese exile community in the USA, now 1 million, puts square blame on the Democratic Congress for the American part of Vietnam's defeat. Not Nixon, Kissinger, of Ford. Historians and Vietnam Communists agree in their books.

Um, what?

This is a novel interpretation of facts, history and reality. It's not even clear what the implication of what you're saying means. It's a hash of terrible grammar, projection, willful misrepresentation and confused goals.

So...The Iraqi exile community will blame Congress? Which ones? The ones we wouldn't even let into the country? Are you saying that Nixon wasn't commander-in-chief? And that he didn't settle for a 'peace plan' almost identical to the one LBJ had on the table in Paris in 1968? Or does this mean, in your fever dreams, that if we just held out longer, Vietnam would once again be -- what exactly? Vietnam is a trading partner of the US and is doing just fine. They also managed to end the reign of the Khmer Rouge.

That's not to say Vietnamese refugees from Ho -- much like the Cubans who hated Castro -- wouldn't go about blaming liberals. That's what conservatives do. Doesn't mean it has any basis in reality.

Posted by Jay B. | August 30, 2007 7:08 PM