Bush & Iraq: Lowering The Bar And Still Failing

No doubt many of you have already read or seen news reports about the "mixed" progress in Iraq according to the Iraq Progress Report that the Bush Administration compiled for Congress.

Iraq has achieved only limited military and political progress toward a democratic society, the Bush administration said Thursday in a report that became prelude to a House vote on ordering a U.S. troop withdrawal by spring.

''The security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging'' the report concluded. The economic picture is uneven, it said, and the government has not yet enacted vital political reconciliation legislation. (snip)

Describing a document produced by his administration at Congress' insistence, he said there was satisfactory progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting eight of 18 so-called benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the others.

Now, by itself this and taken at face value, these "mixed results" add up to a picture of failure. Simple math tells us that 8 out of 18 is below even 50% and technically an F if in school. They manage to effectively demonstrate that the much vaunted 'surge' that was supposed to have created much progress by now, is already failing to meet most of its benchmarks -- And this is if we take their report at face value.

But we shouldn't take this report at face value.

The New York Times July 11th edition notes that:

[The Administration] will qualify some verdicts by saying that even when the political performance of the Iraqi government has been unsatisfactory, it is too early to make final judgments, the officials said.

The administration’s decision to qualify many of the political benchmarks will enable it to present a more optimistic assessment than if it had provided the pass-fail judgment sought by Congress when it approved funding for the war this spring.

The Times article cites other experts and reports from outside the White House which (surprise surprise) are a lot more bleak in their assessments of progress

Administration officials said the Pentagon had been much more willing than the State Department and the White House to make hard and fast calls about whether Iraqi progress was satisfactory.

An assessment of political progress provided to the House Armed Services Committee by Thomas Fingar, the deputy director for analysis at the National Intelligence Council, painted a much bleaker picture than the White House report, saying there were “few appreciable gains.”

The Washington Post on July 8th highlighted this trend of the White House lowering the bar in order to present a much more optimistic case than would otherwise be justified. It appropriately dubbed it "Shaving the Yardstick" for Iraq gains.

As they prepare an interim report due next week, officials are marshaling alternative evidence of progress to persuade Congress to continue supporting the war.

"Alternate evidence of progress"!? They couldn't meet the criteria of progress so they are arguing for these alternate evidence in order to pass off failure as "mixed results."

Understanding the "mixed results" of the Administrations Iraq Progress Report is only possible once you understand how the administration got to those "mixed results."

The picture the Administration painted wasn't all too rosy to begin with, but it is in reality a lot worse.

In reality the situation is a lot bleaker and most if not all of those benchmarks are rightfully "failures." But, most of the media is parroting the report as "mixed results" so, in that sense, the Administration has achieved its small victory in terms of framing the progress report of its "surge." Because mixed results still sounds better than failure. A small but significant victory for White House propagandists but I cannot say it's going to do much for the White House, nor will it help stem the tide of increasing pressure on Republicans to abandon President Bush on his war.
------

My previous posts detailed some of the progress of Democrats (and some Republicans) to pass legislation to help end this war and overcome the Presidential veto pen.


In order to overcome the President's veto, Congressional Democrats must peel off enough Republicans to form a 2/3 majority in each Chamber of Congress. In other words it will become law without the signature of the President.

But...what if binding withdrawal legislature (with teeth) is not enough? What if its not enough to pass a law - even overcoming the Presidents veto? There are indications that President Bush will defy the law if tries to compel him to bring the troops home.

Back in late February of 2007, the Associate Press wrote:

WASHINGTON: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Not just veto, but, one law, he would defy the law. That I believe would become a constitutional showdown. Honestly, I'm not one of those people who throws around 'impeachment' often but this would definitely push me to support it. Not that there aren't plenty of other crimes and abuses that justify the impeachment of both the President and the Vice President, but its one thing for it to be justified, and another for me to promote the action. Defying the law to keep troops in Iraq would be one of those things that would bring me over the edge, and I think it would become politically tenable too.

The American people would definitely support it once they see how a law was passed (finally) to bring the troops home, and the President illegally stands in the way to keep them there.

I found this interesting from Condi Rice:

"I would hope that Congress would recognize that it's very important for them to have the oversight role," Rice said. "But when it comes to the execution of policy in the field, there has to be a clear relationship between the commander in chief and the commanders in the field."

The White House seems to believe Congress' only job is to shut up and provide funding for the war, as if Congress is somehow constitutionally impotent on matters of war and peace. But this is far from the truth.

The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and thus can direct the armed forces once war has been declared. But we must remember that the Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility of initiating war. In other words Congress has a legitimate role in determining policy as it regards initiating war and ending them. Generals determine strategy and tactics in a military campaign, but they cannot tell anyone when we leave or when we stay. That is up to our civilian leaders, including Congress.

It is completely consistent and proper for Congress to legislate whether we should stay or leave Iraq, and there is ample history of Congress exercising those very powers in past conflicts. Perhaps the President believes he is the sole arbiter of foreign policy and our involvement in wars, but he is very wrong.

If he defies Congress, he and his vice president should be stripped of their Office by Congress.
------

The Roundup

Who says the House isn't doing anything? - attempts to dispel the notion that the Dem led House has achieved nothing. In fact it has achieved a lot, and to the extent that it hasn't is due to Republican obstruction. Guess who is group trying to drill this myth into Conventional Wisdom?

Yes. The very Republicans who are doing all they can to make sure the House achieves little. Their Senate counterparts are even more obstructionist than House Republicans. In the Senate the Republicans have the Filibuster -- the reason why a lot of Democratic proposals in the Senate cannot pass.

To most Americans, they don’t look very busy. In fact, recent polls put their job performance rating at close to an all-time low.

But the reality — at least in the House — is that federal lawmakers have held more votes on legislation and other matters in the first six months of this year than they did during the entire 2006 session of the Republican-controlled 109th Congress. That was when GOP leaders decided to defer action to the 110th Congress, now controlled by Democrats, on most of the 2006 spending measures.

-----

Report: Al-Qaeda has regained its full strength - I thought the war on terror as waged by Bush-boy, and especially his precious Iraq invasion where supposed to have critically wounded and hurt the terrorists. What happened? *sigh*

Its not only that they are back to full strength, because in my view they are now much more sophisticated and deadly than before. The Iraq war has formed and trained the next generation of jihadis in newer and more advanced terrorist tactics, urban guerrilla tactics, explosives technology and use. In essence, today's jihadi is much more advanced than those pre-Iraq war, and they are already spreading those deadly new skills and tactics worldwide into other hotspots.

In addition, the Iraq war itself has proven to be the most effective "recruitment tool" to date for the cause of jihad and al-Qaeda. Lets just say that al-Qaeda has found an ally (although they are certainly so unwittingly) in President Bush and his neoconservative allies. Ironic huh?

I think the old Cold War-era term "useful idiots" is quite appropriate here...
------

Moderate Dems and Republicans put out weak and toothless Iraq Amendments - These loser moderates are feeling the pressure to 'do something' about Iraq yet don't really want to do anything that is actually substantive for fear of being associated with the anti-war caucus in Congress.

So what do they do? Put out a proposed amendment with is not binding and will change absolutely nothing. What cowardice! No one will fall for this crap except for the moronic "cool kids" and "serious people" of the Washington Punditocracy and elite media. These "serious folks" will love how bipartisan this crap is...It matters not how awful and useless the legislation actually is.

Worse than useless, if Bush for some reason signs this (knowing its not binding), it gives him some political cover and relieves some pressure.

Senator Lugar bailed on legislation to actually end the war, and instead choosed to pay lip service to change in Iraq with this sorry amendment.

Here a little more about the emerging Gang of 13 'moderates' and their plans - Douches. All of them - republican and democrat - douches.

Good night folks.