Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
BENCHMARK ROUND-UP. Nobody with any sense is pleased by the President's performance.
Winslow Wheeler, Defense Tech:
While the Iraqis are assessed in the White House's report to have achieved "satisfactory progress" on only eight of 18 "benchmarks" (six are rated "unsatisfactory"; two are given mixed ratings, and two are rated unable to be rated), it is painfully clear from reading the report that the "satisfactory" assessments are graded on a sharp curve. On political issues, any change - even a decision to delay a decision - is deemed "satisfactory." On military questions, characteristics that would mean a military unit is unfit to fight in the American Army (such as the three brigades the Iraqis barely managed to cobble together to deploy to Baghdad) are deemed "satisfactory" in this report.
Fred Kaplan, Slate:
Yet a close look at the 25-page report reveals a far more dismal picture and a deliberately distorted assessment. The eight instances of "satisfactory" progress are not at all satisfactory by any reasonable measure—or, in some cases, they indicate a purely procedural advance. The eight "unsatisfactory" categories concern the central issues of Iraqi politics—the disputes that must be resolved if Iraq is to be a viable state and if the U.S. mission is to have the slightest chance of success.
Anthony Cordesman, CSIS
It is clear, however, that the Iraqi government has not really met the Bush administration’s benchmarks in any major area. Seen from a more nuanced perspective, actual progress as has been more limited and had often had tenuous meaning unless it can eventually be shown that a faltering legislative start will be put into practice over the months and years to come in ways that Iraq’s major factions will accept.
Like Matt, I have to wonder what the point of all this kabuki is. No opponent of the war is going to be convinced by this, and the populace in general seems to have conclusively turned against the war. It comes down, I suppose, to an effort to give Senate Republicans some political cover until September. After that, I have no idea what they plan to do.
--Robert Farley
COMMENTS (15)
It's required by law, and GWB doesn't like bad press. So they kabuki.
Posted by: gfw | July 13, 2007 9:08 AM
They plan to blame "libruls" and the media, of course.
Posted by: merlallen | July 13, 2007 9:18 AM
No idea, huh? Here's an idea: maybe they plan to listen to Petraeus.
Posted by: simon | July 13, 2007 9:42 AM
No idea what they'll do? Of course you do. They'll report "signs of progress" in September and ask for another Friedman. And they'll keep doing this dance until Bush leaves office, leaving his successor the unenviable task of cleaning up the crap.
Posted by: PaulB | July 13, 2007 12:19 PM
I forgot one important step: They'll blame the crap on his successor.
Posted by: PaulB | July 13, 2007 12:20 PM
That's the thing about kabuki. The idea is to keep going through the motions, hoping that the media will play along (a no brainer), and that the Republicans in Congress who keep saying they're going to break with the president's policy won't do it, and that the Dems with their slim majority won't be able to do anything (and won't have the wherewithal to make the Republicans pay for towing the White House line), and that most Americans won't pay all that much attention. I don't know whether this strategy will take Bush all the way to January 09, but it has worked quite well so far.
Posted by: mary | July 13, 2007 12:51 PM
No idea, huh? Here's an idea: maybe they plan to listen to Petraeus.
I'm sure Petraeus will give a full and balanced report that in no way will sugar coat the problems. He knows the administration won't just toss him under a bus if he tells them things they don't want to hear....oh wait.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | July 13, 2007 12:52 PM
"... I have to wonder what the point of all this kabuki is. No opponent of the war is going to be convinced by this ... It comes down, I suppose, to an effort to give Senate Republicans some political cover"
Wasn't it Congressional Democrats who wanted this report? Is Farley claiming that the Dems who wanted these reports were actually seeking to provide the Republicans with political cover?
And if such a report means nothing - in that it has no chance to convince anyone of anything (apparently) - then why did our Congress request the report? What's the point of the analysis?
If folks like Farley value the opinion of Slate writers more then why on earth do they even listen to the government, the military, our intelligence agencies at all? And if they have no credibility with Farley then why does he approvingly cite these same sources (military, intelligence) when they agree with his viewpoint?
Just more foolishness by war opponents who have already made up their minds? Thanks for wasting our time ...
Posted by: sunbeltjerry | July 13, 2007 12:54 PM
the point? aw, come on, the entire report is actually kind of funny, in a pathetic black humor sort of way.
Posted by: upyernoz | July 13, 2007 1:16 PM
Nobody will be surprised to know that Krauthammer brought up the silly Prateus argument up today; it seems to be the latest dead-ender talking point. As to SBJ's argument from authority, you'll note that most of these arguments are internal criticisms of the report. Their data for the most part shows no substantive progress which is being characterized as progress.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | July 13, 2007 1:46 PM
close italics.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | July 13, 2007 1:48 PM
Hi Scott! Thanks for joining the party. Are you still smarting from that commutation? (ouch) Hope that you can still manage a smile midst all of your frustrations ...
But seriously, I wish you wouldn't use such lofty terms - what's an argument from authority? My points were farily simple, and you did not address them:
Wasn't it congressional Democrats who requested these reports?
If so, how can Farley claim that they are designed to provide cover for Republicans?
These points stand regardless of how the report is characterized. (Or is it the case that the Democrats were just too foolish to realize that this would be the case? It seems hard to believe that the party in power would be so inept at playing the political game.)
Looking forward to your next bashing of the conservative members of the Supreme Court or defense of the UN ... I remain curious as to why Dems would request a report that provides political cover for Repubs ...
Posted by: sunbeltjerry | July 13, 2007 3:06 PM
The point of all this kabuki (and it worked!) is in this LA Times article, titled "Bush quiets GOP revolt over Iraq:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush13jul13,0,6806874.story?coll=la-home-center and the lead para reads:
Stemming a revolt among Senate Republicans, President Bush appeared Thursday to win two more months for his "surge" strategy in Iraq after arguing that U.S. forces had made some progress and needed time to make the country more secure.
Well done, Karl! Not so good for the troops, for the U.S., for Iraq, for the Iraqis...
Posted by: wendell | July 13, 2007 4:21 PM
sunbeltjerry, this isn't really very hard (well, of course, it is for you).
the dems wanted a report because they hold the quaint idea that the executive office shouldn't be a font of propaganda and dishonesty.
the bush administration used the report as an opportunity for propaganda and dishonesty, with the intent, as wendell noted, to provide cover for the authoritarian thugs who make up the republican congressional delegration to do what they want to do: blindly support idiotic policies as long as a republican is in the oval office.
was that so hard?
Posted by: howard | July 14, 2007 3:07 AM
sunbeltjerry, this isn't really very hard (well, of course, it is for you).
the dems wanted a report because they hold the quaint idea that the executive office shouldn't be a font of propaganda and dishonesty.
the bush administration used the report as an opportunity for propaganda and dishonesty, with the intent, as wendell noted, to provide cover for the authoritarian thugs who make up the republican congressional delegration to do what they want to do: blindly support idiotic policies as long as a republican is in the oval office.
was that so hard?
Posted by: howard | July 14, 2007 3:07 AM