NOT LISTENING TO YOU LA LA LA SURGE IS WORKING

Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?

Is there anything they do that doesn't come pre-spun. (It's all like cotton candy that turns out to be asbestos.)

look, us dirty hippies know what the "report" is going to contain, but that the gao knows that the "report" is going to be bogus is as revealing a moment as you could ask for....

The Beltway consensus is that the surge is working; who cares what some obscure bunch of bureaucrats think? Does the GAO ever get on Meet The Press?

Horatio Parker >"...who cares what some obscure bunch of bureaucrats think?..."

Ask Brian Baird about that sorta thing

"We the people..." know whatz goin on

"The first lesson of democracy is not to hold the public in contempt." - Ronnie Earle

The failed 15 benchmarks is news and shows recent failure since Mid July. The midterm report in July released by the Whitehouse claimed to have met 8 of 18 benchmarks.

http://www.google.com/search?q=18+benchmarks

... failed to meet all but three of 18 ...

Didn't the report a month or two ago say that 7 or 8 goals were met?? I forgot the actual #, but it was more than 3! What happened? Did we screw up in areas that were once passable? or did we redefine the goals in hopes of getting a higher score this time only to screw worse? or do I just have a faulty memory altogether?

Aha! Thank you, Jerry :)

How many legions does the GAO have?

What's slightly more surprising is that the GAO all but calls the administration and the Pentagon liars.

More than that...

...the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."

Johndroe emphasized that "while we've all seen progress in some areas, especially on the security front, it's not surprising the GAO would make this assessment, given the difficult congressionally mandated measurement they had to follow."

WaPo says this draft will be more accurate than the final report. They say the leaker acted ethically in releasing the draft, because the final report may be less accurate.

It seems to me that the leader acted unethically in putting out a draft that was not his/her place to release. Presumably s/he would lie about having released it, if asked by his supervisor. in private industry, that would be a firing offense.

Given that s/he acted dishonorably and dishonestly in leaking, maybe his/her motives were dishonorable. Maybe s/he wants the war ended and did whatever s/he could to convince the public in that direction. Maybe there are several drafts, and the leaker released only the most pessimistic one.

In fact, we don't know whether the leaked draft was accurate at all. It seems possible that someone who lies to his boss and lies to the US Government might also lie to the Washington Post.

I think everyone responsible for that draft will get a pink slip very soon...

Wow, when our very own fox-conservative sets his mind to reciting RNC talking points he can really hammer them home.

Look dimwit, leaking documents that might embarrass the government has a long and glorious history. Few of them turn out to be false, most of them are like the Pentagon Papers, things the government wants hidden because they demonstrate that those in charge have been lying.

This report conforms to the facts already known and all of your (is that you Charlie?) spin doesn't change a bit of it.

The experience gained in Iraq will be invaluable in then next wars against Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

ex-liberal: WaPo says this draft will be more accurate than the final report.

No, they did not say that. They stated only that "The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq."

in private industry, that would be a firing offense.

This isn't private industry. It is our country and our government. Do you understand the difference between private industry and government service? Have you taken an oath to the constitution in government service? If you don't understand the difference, you should take a class in civics.

Given that s/he acted dishonorably and dishonestly in leaking, maybe his/her motives were dishonorable.

You make an assumption that under normal conditions might be correct. However, given the track record of this administration, the assumption among most people is that the administration is being dishonest. The administration has lost the trust of the people. As unfortunate as that may be, it's reality.

In fact, we don't know whether the leaked draft was accurate at all. It seems possible that someone who lies to his boss and lies to the US Government might also lie to the Washington Post.

I seriously doubt that a GAO late-stage draft is that far off the mark. This close to the deadline it's already gone through several wringers. And given the buzz surrounding the apparent last minute changes to the NIE to bolster the administration's position, the story is credible.

The facts are that previous reports support the WaPo story. Trying to dismiss this as nothing more than a bad apple in the GAO with an anti-administration agenda is dumb.

It seems to me that the leader acted unethically

Typo? Or Freudian?

And so shall the term 'congressionally mandated benchmarks' be stricken, and thus spoken nevermore, unto the end of time.
And let the new term be 'bitchmarks', and so propagated unto the faithful, where it shall merit general rejoicing and mirth.

Kevin--there you libruls go again. SO the GAO reports 3 goals, but you must multiply that by the 3 letters in GAO which equals 9. 9 is the square root of 81. In 1981 Reagan became President, so in fact the surge is going quite well because Reagan ended the Cold War. BTW, 3 is also a holy trinity which indicates we will defeat Allah.

Fake Al - that was funny.

Perhaps paradoxically, I see this report as indicating something positive. Apparently underneath all the Cheney-mandated lying, there is still a functioning government evaluation process in place. If we can clear away all the politicized dead wood, it might be possible to start getting reliable data from the government again.

This report ought to make it harder for the blue dog dems to roll over and let Junior get the next $50 billion for his war. We'll see.

The General Accounting Office was renamed the Government Accountability Office. And it was never heard from again.

I'm sure New Orleans could find a use for the $10 billion in reconstruction funds that the Iraqi government cannot.

Irony alert: serial liar and neocon propagandist tool "ex-liberal" accuses the leaker of "unethical" and "dishonest" actions.

One more interesting thing: the Post actually explains why someone leaked a draft copy of the report to them: the leaker was afraid it would get watered down before final publication and wanted to make sure that someone knew what the GAO really thinks.

—Kevin Drum

Don't buy it. I think the report was leaked by the administration.

Where in Iraq does the GAO have its office? I would assume that since they are making judgments on the state of Iraq they are, of course, located within a close proximity to the area. They wouldn't pass judgment on something thousands of miles away would they?

Do you think a Democrat congress would have asked for a report from a group in the government who would SUPPORT the military? Nope. this is a pre-emptive move to discount anything positive which will come from the surge report.

Moonbats ought to be honest and admit that no amount of evidence or positive result of anything millitary will ever be excepted. Nothing will be believed until a Democrat president is elected.

Hillary (with her "Made in China" tatoo)will make everything all right.

... this is a pre-emptive move to discount anything positive which will come from the surge report.

Posted by: orwell

No, this is a preemptive move by the administration to decouple the lack of political progress from the decision to go forward. They feel they have the momentum to push forward on military progress alone -- that they can roll the dems once again simply by Bush saying he's listening to his general and the troops need our support.

They're putting this out there early to debunk it now and make sure it's old news when Petraeus reports.

I'm a little concerned that this report could work in favor of the administration: Iraq isn't up to snuff, so we will be there another couple of lifetimes or gazillions more, whichever comes last.

h

First, the GAO works for the Congress, not the Bush administration.

Second, the leaker clearly thinks the report would be watered down before being published. Since the GAO is a Congressional critter, this suggests something OTHER than a Bush conspiracy to suppress information.

Third, these reports ALWAYS have lots of on-the-spot reporting and analysis. GAO generally gets most of the executive branch's internal stuff (after all, they work for the guys who write the checks), as well as doing direct investigation: if even an early draft says things aren't going well, there's evidence for it.

Finally, leaking this draft early to make a Petraeus whitewash easier later doesn't make any sense.

This GAO draft sets a marker -- 15 of 18 benchmarks missed. The earlier White House line was that they hit 8 of 18, so for the GAO draft to knock it back to 3 is a serious erosion of the White House interpretation.

If Petraeus comes back and says that they hit 5 of 18 (splitting the difference with the GAO), he's simply formally reporting slippage since the White House in July. If he reports the same or higher (8 or more) goals met, he's opening up a debate with the GAO draft. If he splits the difference and then makes distinctions, like we nearly hit another 6 and are 'making measurable progress' on, say, another 4 (leaving 'em with just 3 completely missed, while the GAO reported just 3 actually made), they won't murk it up.

The complex message will simply underscore their lack of credibility, while the clarity of the GAO report (to which the Post has now lent its own reporting credibility) will benefit by contrast.

[Trolling Deleted]

The Americanist is correct. The only person who could have leaked it was the Congressional client (member or committee) who requested the report in the first place. No one else -- except the GAO, of course --- would have the draft and the GAO does not engage in leaks.

This would be a good time to read, March of Folley, Barbara Tuchman. cleve

And while we're recommending books, I'll suggest
A Bright, Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan.

Barbara Tuchman - How fitting - The Guns of August, as well - As we move into September - The opening of College and NFL football - And the bombing of Iran, or either How to Salvage an Administration, or the Last Throes of a Madman.

So, much shock and awe ahead on FAUX

Americanist nails it.

Right On, JimBob. Leakers like this are the constitutions last line of defence against totalitarianism, from either the left or the right.

Second, the leaker clearly thinks the report would be watered down before being published. Since the GAO is a Congressional critter, this suggests something OTHER than a Bush conspiracy to suppress information.

This is an important, and easily overlooked, point. Good catch, Americanist.

To theAmericanist:

First, if you don't think the administration has a copy of the draft GAO report, you're really naive. Anybody familiar with how Washington works knows that they do.

Second, it is absolutely in the administration's interest to leak it now. They can't show political progress, and they want to decouple the political failures from the military successes, which Petraeus will heavily emphasize.

They want the argument in a few weeks to be over MILITARY progress, not political progress. They want the debate over political progress to take place over the Labor Day weekend, when no one is paying any attention, under the cover of the Craig scandal. The talking heads will be out in full force marginalizing the GAO report with how Maliki needs to be replaced -- to buy another 6 months for Petraeus.

Repeat: They want the GAO report -- particularly, the lack of political progress documented in it -- to be OLD news by the time a decision to go forward or not has to be made.

Anyone who thinks that this GAO report will have any effect on the process is being suckered -- again. The fix is in here. The argument to go forward will be a military one: (a) giving the generals (Petraeus and his staff) what they ask for; and (b) supporting our troops in the field.

They don't want the GAO report muddying the waters two weeks from now. They want it out of the way as soon as possible.

One more point. If you had a copy of the original, highly negative GAO draft, and were sure it was going to be watered down by the administration, would you release it now?

Or wait until the administration had watered it down, and then release it?

Which would have a greater impact?

And, of course, there will that slight problem with any attention being paid by the Media, because of the coming blitz of "IRAN-THE EVIL EMPIRE" - When, the WSJ, FAUX, Weekly Standard, CNN FAUX-Lite and hacks throughout the rest of the media unload their barrage of anti-Iranian missiles, all other news will take the back burner. The Blitz is due after Labor Day - Cheney on the March. Ride the bombs down, Dickie - Strangelove rides again.

It seems possible that someone who lies to his boss and lies to the US Government might also lie to the Washington Post.

But someone who lies to the American people resulting in a tragic, disastrous war is A-OK in my book. [/ex-liberal]

Which would have a greater impact?

The one which was released first. The second report would be a footnote.

Trying to dismiss this as nothing more than a bad apple in the GAO with an anti-administration agenda is dumb.

Well, consider the source.

Where in Iraq does the GAO have its office?

Rigth next to Dick Chaney's in the Green Zone.

Which would have a greater impact? The one which was released first. The second report would be a footnote.

Posted by: Tyro

Wrong. If one waited for the watered down draft to be released first, releasing the original highly negative draft after it would double its impact. It would show not only that no progress had been made BUT ALSO that the administration was trying to hide the facts from the American people.

In fact, we don't know whether the leaked draft was accurate at all. It seems possible that someone who lies to his boss and lies to the US Government might also lie to the Washington Post.

Posted by: ex-liberal on August 30, 2007 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK
-----------------------------

Apparently written with no sense of irony.

The position would have some credibility except practically everything conservatives and the Bush administration told us about Iraq turned out false.

Conservative denial of reality is a stunning thing to behold.

One of the great revolutions of the last 50 years is the disappearance of the cultured middle class as the guiding force of political democracy. This is the class that made up much of the bureaucracy within government and corporations and staffed the universities. Their values of humanism, equity, and democracy were the guides against which the propertied elite and populists have revolted. The rich did not like the middle class reigning in their wealth accumulation in the name of economic equity (usually denounced as crude leveling). The southerners didn’t like their social justice programs and the romantics of the left and right rejected the overlordship of Western Culture.

One of the goals of the Bush administration has been to undermine what is left of this mandarin culture in the civil service as well as to overpower the Congress. Their goal is simply to undermine those who would put a check on the propertied elite and on those would limit an exclusive Herrenvolk society (which is white and religious) in favor a broad multicultural national identity.

The Bush administration tries to wrap its private big lie propaganda in the mantel of the detached national mandarinate.

And for all those wingnuts out there, don't forget that the GAO is the NON-PARTISAN investigative agency of Congress....thus giving it's report extra weight since it's not coming from a partisan organization.

Homepage Pentagon won't make surge recommendation to Bush

WASHINGTON — In a sign that top commanders are divided over what course to pursue in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday that it won't make a single, unified recommendation to President Bush during next month's strategy assessment, but instead will allow top commanders to make individual presentations.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19356.html

I suppose the Pentagon is lying too.

Porter ties U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to $9 gasoline

Lawmaker reports on his trip to country

http://www.lvrj.com/news/9466252.html

We didn't invade because of oil, but now we have to stay because of the invasion's impact on oil prices.

Right.

To those wondering how the administration can water down the conclusions in a legislative branch report, as I understand it the problem comes because the Department of Defense can simply "classify" any conclusions it doesn't like, and then those have to be omitted from the report.

I say we can call success when all the rightwing pundits can cruise around in Iraq in a suburban without armed support.Oh yea outside the green zone.I will even pay for Hannity's ticket.

Once again, the fix is in. The GAO report will be shredded over the next week or two.

From the AP today:

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been made public, also said the administration is preparing a case to play down its findings, arguing that Congress ordered the GAO to use unfair, "all or nothing" standards when compiling the document. ...

An internal White House memorandum, prepared to respond to the GAO findings, says the report will claim the Iraqis have failed on at least 13 benchmarks. It also says the criteria lawmakers set for the report allow no room to report progress, only absolute success or failure. The memo argues that the GAO will not present a "true picture" of the situation in Iraq because the standards were "designed to lock in failure," according to portions of the document read to the AP by an official who has seen it.

By contrast, the memo says, a July interim report on the surge called for the administration to report on "progress" made toward reaching the wide-ranging benchmarks. ... The GAO, however, has been told to "assess whether or not such benchmarks have been met," and the administration plans to assert that is too tough a standard to be met at this point in the surge, the officials said.

9 dollar a gallon gas is still a whole lot cheaper then 500 billion we already spent,not to mention all the lives. 9 bucks a gallon pricless.

Buzz, before you tell folks with 25 years experience in the House, Senate, and other Congressional work that those "familiar with how Washington works" "know" that the administration has a copy of the GAO draft, it would help if you realized that it is the legislative branch, not the executive, which releases GAO reports.

In fact, it is the Committee (sometimes the individual member) who requested the study who generally releases it, since that is who is sent TO. It is even hard for THOSE guys, the ones who gave the assignment, to know what's going on before the GAO is done.

There is NO executive branch role in researching, drafting, or releasing a GAO report. They get asked questions, and are required to produce documents. They don't even get to review the drafts.

Frankly, I suspect it would be considered in a sense a bigger breach to leak one to the Pentagon than to the Washington Post -- and I also suspect that on some level, this is an AUTHORIZED leak with a figleaf cover story.

That's cuz the role of the GAO is mostly to investigate what the executive branch is doing with Congressional mandates. If Congress directs the executive to require that all schools getting Federal money be painted red, white, and blue, they will ask to see the painting specs, AND they will go out and look at schools to see what color they are before they report to Congress (most likely that many schools have been painted whatever pale shade of purple you get from combining red, white and blue).

For the GAO to show an unreleased draft to the executive branch (which would enable 'em to pressure or pre-empt the report) DIRECTLY conflicts with their mission -- and the Congress is damned jealous of their mission, on a bipartisan basis.

To assume that the GAO would provide a draft critical of an administration TO the administration to be pre-emptively leaked and inoculated, is like expecting the Red Sox and the Yankees to share every salary demand from every player and prospect before they answer.

This sounds more to me like, given the high stakes, the powers that be at the GAO figured that it wouldn't be prudent to formally release a report that pulled no punches -- but that it WOULD be effective to release a draft that hit hard. Once that's clear to the folks who handle the draft, it's easy to find somebody authorized to hand it to the press, PROVIDED they do the right spin with it (or else, they don't get the document: 'gee, Karen, the NYT would be happy to see this...')

It's plausible deniability for the GAO, which has to answer to ranking minority members as well as the majority: THAT'S how it works, Buzz.

Buzz, before you tell folks with 25 years experience in the House, Senate, and other Congressional work that those "familiar with how Washington works" "know" that the administration has a copy of the GAO draft, it would help if you realized that it is the legislative branch, not the executive, which releases GAO reports.

Posted by: theAmericanist

Please, I was reading draft GAO reports over 30 years ago -- before they were released to the public. (And, btw, I didn't work for GAO.) So, please, I don't need a lecture on which branch of government GAO is in.

I think we're on the same side here. But, once again, if you think the White House didn't have a copy of this draft, you don't know how Washington works. And if they did have it, it made eminent sense for them to leak it now and shred its credibility as soon as possible.

.......Do you think a Democrat congress would have asked for a report from a group in the government who would SUPPORT the military....G.W. orwell at 7:34 AM

theAmericanist at 8:25 AM
....leaking this draft early to make a Petraeus whitewash easier later doesn't make any sense....
Of course, not; it's to provide data which supposedly will make it easier to cross check later reports. Patreaus softened an NIE before. Furthermore, Bush is already moving away from benchmarks altogether.
Note the request for verifiable data. This is in line with the Iraq Study Group report which called for accurate reporting of the violence in Iraq

...The report also finds that the U.S. government intentionally misled the world by systematically distorting information about the violence in Iraq. As Associated Press Military Writer Robert Burns reports:
* The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases ... Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.[15]...

For the GAO to show an unreleased draft to the executive branch (which would enable 'em to pressure or pre-empt the report) DIRECTLY conflicts with their mission ....theAmericanist at 12:16 PM

...The 69-page draft... is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions....
Now, what branch of government do you think the DoD is in?

...The 69-page draft... is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions.... Now, what branch of government do you think the DoD is in?

Posted by: Mike

QED

Apples and oranges: they're not reviewing the wording for publication, they're vetting to avoid releasing sources and methods. Not the same thing.

The GAO report (as I pointed out) necessarily relies on the executive, cuz that's after all who they are reporting ON. In this case, there is surely classified material.

So I stand by what I said -- if the report's conclusions were to be watered down, it would be by the LEGISLATIVE side, not the executive branch.

Put it this way -- are you claiming that the GAO would buy if DoD was to say, gee, don't report that we failed to hit this benchmark because that fact is classified?

Put it this way -- are you claiming that the GAO would buy if DoD was to say, gee, don't report that we failed to hit this benchmark because that fact is classified?

If DoD classifies it how is the GAO supposed to refute that? Do you think they would release classified (even if bogus) material against the wishes of DoD? And they wouldn't classify the fact that the benchmark hadn't been met just all the supporting data. You have an oddly trusting attitude towards an executive branch that has been reclassifying material released in the 1980's.

Two things:
1) The administration said it agreed that Iraq had not reached the objectives.

"I think we have said they have not met the benchmarks," Perino said. "I don't see how it would be news for them to come out today and say they have not met benchmarks. We have said that."

Seems like everybody got the report early, doesn't it?

I liked this, too:The objective ... is not to reach consensus," he said. "That may be the end result, but that's not what he (Gates) is looking for. He is looking for a way to sort of make sure that the normal bureaucratic massaging that sometimes eliminates the rough edges or the sharp differences between individuals does not victimize this process, so that the president can get distinct _ if that's the way it turns out to be _ points of view on where we are and where we need to go."

It's always striking how 2 assessments of the same country can be so different. Where has that happened before? Oh, right, here:
Two weeks after the fruitless Krulak-Mendenhall mission,...it was the turn of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor, the Chairman of the JCS, to assess the problem.
Their report was a somewhat contradictory compromise between the views of the civilian and military staffs. It affirmed that the war was being won,... although it noted that the political tensions were starting to have an adverse effect on it. But, more importantly, it recommended a series of measures to coerce Diem (Maliki) into compliance with American wishes....

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The benchmarks passed by Congress and to be reported by the GAO were and are
a purely partisan political ploy perpetrated by the Democratic leadership.
They were written and the GAO was mandated to only report success or
failure. The report will not be allowed to include progress. It's strictly
a binary system of measurement, zero or one. Success can only be reported
if the all the conditions of a benchmark have been completed. The reasons
for this thumbs up or thumbs down approach are multifarious:
1. To appease some on the far-left by giving the impression they're
finally getting tough on the Administration about Iraq.
2. To validate the Democratic leadership's statements and predictions
that the war is lost, the surge won't work, it's just a continuation of the
Administration's failed policy, it's time for a new direction in Iraq, etc.
3. To claim that they have been bipartisan by giving the President what
he asked for, he had his chance, times up.
4. For political cover to de-fund the war in Iraq, and by doing so,
guaranteeing defeat for the US and victory for the Democratic Party in the
2008 elections.

The congressional benchmarks are just one attempt to secure the interests of
the majority party. Whether they are valid, viable or vapid is up to others
to decide.

"Yes, it would be useful if Petraeus and the White House provided actual credible data to back up their assertions of tactical triumph, wouldn't it?"
____________________

Yes, it would be useful, but then, anything they produced would probably be dismissed by most here, anyway. As regards the GAO, my experience with them has always been that they'll fairly examine anything presented to them, but that they have little expertise in anything. One usually has to educate them in the basics of what they are investigating, then provide the answers and hope they understand and remember the relationships accurately.

Bat misses the point... "If DoD classifies it how is the GAO supposed to refute that?"

and then, groping, finds it again: "And they wouldn't classify the fact that the benchmark hadn't been met just all the supporting data."

That's the point: the DoD can't do what the article hints they can do, with bad phrasing.

They can say 'this piece of data is wrong' or 'that conclusion isn't justified' -- and even THAT is way out of line with the respective roles of the executive and the GAO, but mostly when a GAO report deals with classified material, the various agencies get a crack at making certain that sources and methods are protected.

They can't re-write the conclusions of a GAO report.

For fourth time, this isn't a Bush conspiracy: it's a damning report that pre-empts Petraeus.

Besides, I am liking my prediction more and more: early next year (just about the time a fifth of our troops will come home without anybody available to replace 'em), a Shi'ite dominated coalition will DEMAND that American forces be reduced 'by at least 20% immediately!', and wind up the new Iraqi government on the strength of credibly standing up the Bush administration.

Then Bush will hand over a whole lot of weapons and ammunition to those guys, and to the Kurds, and take out another big chunk of our troops before the election: 'as they stood up, we stood down.'

They will use those weapons and ammo primarily against foreigner fighters in Iraq, at least at first.

And, what the hell: I'm still predicting that a new Pakistani government hands us bin Laden during the Republican convention.

Here is a counterinsurgency expert who thinks the surge is showing success mostly because a tribal uprising against Al Qaeda had already begun independently.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/

"The uprising began last year, far out in western Anbar province, but is now affecting about 40% of the country. It has spread to Ninewa, Diyala, Babil, Salah-ad-Din, Baghdad and – intriguingly – is filtering into Shi’a communities in the South. The Iraqi government was in on it from the start; our Iraqi intelligence colleagues predicted, well before we realized it, that Anbar was going to 'flip', with tribal leaders turning toward the government and away from extremists."

"[T]he tribal revolt is arguably the most significant change in the Iraqi operating environment for several years. But because it occurred in ways that were neither expected nor accounted for in our 'benchmarks' (which were formulated before the uprising began to really develop, and which tend to focus on national legislative developments at the central government and political party level rather than grass-roots changes in the quality of life of ordinary Iraqis) the significance of this development has been overlooked to some extent."

"The other implication is that, to be perfectly honest, the pattern we are seeing runs somewhat counter to what we expected in the 'surge', and therefore lies well outside the 'benchmarks'. The original concept was that we (the Coalition and the Iraqi government) would create security, which would in turn create space for a 'grand bargain' at the national level. Instead, we are seeing the exact opposite: a series of local political deals has displaced extremists, resulting in a major improvement in security at the local level, and the national government is jumping on board with the program."

"Here is a counterinsurgency expert who thinks the surge is showing success mostly because a tribal uprising against Al Qaeda had already begun independently."

ROFL... Not only has Kevin already covered this in a topic below, but this statement is laughably incorrect since what happened in Anbar a year ago had nothing whatever to do with "the Surge."

Moreover, his rosy-eyed view of what is happening in Anbar is not borne out by the facts. The tribes there are not "turning toward the government," they're turning toward themselves -- creating fiefdoms with our cooperations and with our weapons. And it's been reported that those same tribes and weapons have been turned on Shi'ite forces and U.S. forces in some cases.

And as already noted by a number of sources, the good news in some areas of the country is offset by the bad news in others. We're playing "whack-a-mole" in Iraq, precisely as predicted. Overall, the violence isn't down and neither are the deaths.

So much for your "counterinsurgency expert."

"Yes, it would be useful, but then, anything they produced would probably be dismissed by most here, anyway."

LOL.... Nice ad hominem attack. Got anything substantive to say?

"As regards the GAO, my experience with them has always been that they'll fairly examine anything presented to them, but that they have little expertise in anything."

Nice ad hominem attack. Got anything substantive to say?

Since you haven't provide any argument, forgive me if I dismiss this as the partisan drivel that it is.

PaulB wrote:

"ROFL... Not only has Kevin already covered this in a topic below"
_______________________

I missed that, Paul. Do you recall the thread title?

PaulB wrote:

(Quoting me) "As regards the GAO, my experience with them has always been that they'll fairly examine anything presented to them, but that they have little expertise in anything."

Nice ad hominem attack. Got anything substantive to say?

Since you haven't provide any argument, forgive me if I dismiss this as the partisan drivel that it is.
__________________________

Paul, it isn't an ad hominem and wasn't meant as such. It is a function of how the GAO works, as anyone who has worked with them can tell you. They do have people who are generally familiar with specific areas of government, but it is literally impossible for them to have experts in every federal specialty, program, or issue.

What does that have to do with partisanship?

And I note that your posts have their usual, substance-free character, as well.

I note that your posts have their usual, substance-free character, as well.

Well, speaking of substance, Trashy, you have no standing whatsoever to accuse anyone here of ignoring uncomfortable facts for partisan reasons, you Bush-supporting jackass, and PaulB was quite correct to deride you for your ad hominem there.

If you want substance -- as opposed to merely trying to distract from PaulB's accurate depiction of your partisan dishoensty -- you might start by providing some yourself.

As for Kevin's previous post, do your own homework, for Ford's sake. You'll find the Archives at the bottom of the page.

Here is a counterinsurgency expert who thinks the surge is showing success mostly because a tribal uprising against Al Qaeda had already begun independently.

Clearly, this is an "expert" who doesn't understand what "independently" means, then.

CI expert:
"The uprising began last year, far out in western Anbar province, but is now affecting about 40% of the country

PB:
ROFL... Not only has Kevin already covered this in a topic below, but this statement is laughably incorrect since what happened in Anbar a year ago had nothing whatever to do with "the Surge."

Paul, glad you see the humor. "The uprising BEGAN LAST YEAR", not "..a year ago.."

TH:
"...who thinks the surge is showing success mostly because a tribal uprising against Al Qaeda had already begun independently"

And Paul, I believe the above indicates what it has to do with the surge, sort of self evident.

TH:
"Yes, it would be useful, but then, anything they produced would probably be dismissed by most here, anyway"

PB:
"LOL.... Nice ad hominem attack. Got anything substantive to say?"

Well, there you go again, Laughing Paul. Oh, just a question. Is what Trashhauler said true or false?

And Greg, whoa fella. Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Feel better? And thanks for the tip on locating the archives, since it doesn't seem Paul is able to recall the thread title.

Lord, things have come to an odd place when calling for civility falls to ME.

Greg: Trashhauler's point is well-taken. The GAO has a LOT of expertise, but its specialty is more general knowledge -- they are experienced bullshit detectors. If Congress mandated the schools be painted red, white and blue, the GAO isn't supposed to be able to paint 'em. They're in the business of pointing out that the result should NOT be light purple.

For the record, Kristol's take on this surely prefigures the party line: the standards are different. Congress wants Petraeus to report on 'progress'; the GAO was tasked to report done/not done. The report is two months early, of COURSE they haven't hit the targets.

I stand by my prediction: one-fifth reduction in our forces in the spring, AS IF it was forced on us by an independent Iraqi coalition.

"Well, speaking of substance, Trashy, you have no standing whatsoever to accuse anyone here of ignoring uncomfortable facts for partisan reasons, you Bush-supporting jackass....
__________________________

Yep, another insult-prone denizen of the slavering wing of the Washington Monthly, chock full of substance.

As far as checking the past, Gregory, my reference to missing the thread was meant as a clue - the article to which I referred was posted on 29 August. There was no previous mention of it or the information it contained anywhere in this forum that I can find.

Therefore, PaulB's preemptively dismissive post was written without regard for the article's own merits or its author's credentials, but simply because it doesn't fit PaulB's personal, and very ignorant, anti-war narrative. Dismissing it with his usual unsupported, "everyone-knows-that" rant, he didn't even have wit to note the author was pointing out that the surge itself is less responsible for improvements in Iraq than is a general tendency on the part of Iraqis to reject al Qaeda for their own reasons. Meaning an argument can be made that the "surge" could possibly be curtailed sooner, rather than later. Hell, people have made close to the same argument here - that if we withdrew, al Qaeda would soon lose its foothold in Iraq.

Talk about unhinged - you two just throw insults for the sheer fun of it.

"Clearly, this is an "expert" who doesn't understand what "independently" means, then."
_______________________

"Independently" was my word, cm, so if it is a mistake, it's mine. The author seems to know his stuff. He certainly has the credentials for it, though being associated with the Administration probably opens the door for him to be dismissed as an obvious liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kilcullen

Yep, another insult-prone denizen of the slavering wing of the Washington Monthly, chock full of substance.

Trashy, your whining presumes you partisan bullshit doesn't merit insults and deserves "substance" -- two assertions not remotely in evidence. Post something of substance yourself -- as opposed to ad hominem predictions that we here will dismiss facts we both know the Bush Administration is never going to provide -- and maybe you'll be worthy of respect. But you have a lot of atoning to do, I'd say.

In the meantime, here's all the substance you deserve, Trashy: You have no standing whatsoever to accuse anyone here of ignoring uncomfortable facts for partisan reasons, you Bush-supporting tool.

Trashy, old chap - Try a Surge Report Card of August 27, '07 - Also, known as the daveinbocaburger hour.

Gregory:
"Well, speaking of substance, Trashy, you have no standing whatsoever to accuse anyone here of ignoring uncomfortable facts for partisan reasons, you Bush-supporting jackass."

Greg again:
"Trashy: You have no standing whatsoever to accuse anyone here of ignoring uncomfortable facts for partisan reasons, you Bush-supporting tool."

Fellas, help me out, will ya'? I'm new here and I don't know the process for being in good standing. Are there dues to pay? Is it exclusive? Are certain types of people not allowed to have standing? Is there someone, maybe one of the elite, who makes the determination who has standing. Anyone, please, I'm totally in the dark on this.

Oh, I almost forgot to ask. Is this a precognition site? After Greg's comment, it made me wonder.
Gregory:
..."we here will dismiss facts we both know the Bush Administration is never going to provide -- and maybe you'll be worthy of respect. But you have a lot of atoning to do, I'd say."

Clipped from an interview of Gen.Petraeus Aug 17th. I believe everyone would agree that he is an expert in counter-insurgency.

Petraeus also cited recent progress in Anbar province, specifically in the once-troubled city of Ramadi, and noted there has not been an indirect-fire attack there since May. "This was a city in which violence was prevalent everywhere, all the time. If you went from one area to another, you better be in an M-1 tank or an M-2 Bradley," Petraeus said.

Now the focus is on reconstruction, and officials have walked through the marketplace without wearing body armor or a Kevlar helmet, he said. "It's a result of the local population ... finally rejecting al Qaeda in Iraq, its Taliban-like ideology, its indiscriminate violence, and other practices, and standing up and fighting against them, and us helping them as they did that," Petraeus said.

"Trashy, old chap - Try a Surge Report Card of August 27, '07 - Also, known as the daveinbocaburger hour."
______________________

Yes, I read that, Paul. May I suggest you read the 29 August article? Colonel Kilcullen has some fascinating insights, not all of them positive and tons of background information not usually discussed. What he is saying is that we've lucked into a situation where the tribal loyalties are working in our favor for once, but that it certainly isn't what our plan called for. I wonder how much of this stuff will find its way into the September report.

Fellas, help me out, will ya'? I'm new here and I don't know the process for being in good standing. Are there dues to pay? Is it exclusive? Are certain types of people not allowed to have standing? Is there someone, maybe one of the elite, who makes the determination who has standing. Anyone, please, I'm totally in the dark on this.

Since you claim to be new here, majarosh, you're unaware of Trashy's history. If you were, you'd know that, as I said, he has no standing to criticize others of ignoring unpleasant facts in support of his own political tribe -- Trashy does exactly the same thing, as any perusal of the archives will demonstrate.

As you're evidently a war supporter, I find your citation of Petraeus as an expert on counterinsurgency puzzling. Yes, we all know he literally wrote the book, and because of that, we're aware of the uncomfortable fact that even the so-called "surge" doesn't have enough troops to run a successful counterinsurgency according to Petraeus's own manual. And, indeed, we've seen that, while of course US soldiers control whatever ground is within rifle shot as long as they're there, we simply don't have the ability to prevent the insurgents from fading away and regrouping or striking elsewhere as they please.

Therefore, it requires no precognition to note that the Bush Administration will not be able to point to the success of the surge, merely half-assed incidcators of "progress" -- no precognition indeed, as the Administration yesterday admitted as much, with its comment that success was too high a bar.

But going back to your earlier comment, the process for being in good standing is quite simple, indeed universal: Be an honest commentator. Alas, with your silly "walking in the marketplace" comment, you aren't off to a good start.

Gregory wrote, "Alas, with your silly "walking in the marketplace" comment, you aren't off to a good start."

Didn't say it, wouldn't be prudent. BTW, my previous question is still unanswered:

TH:
"Yes, it would be useful, but then, anything they produced would probably be dismissed by most here, anyway"

PB:
"LOL.... Nice ad hominem attack. Got anything substantive to say?"

Me:
"Well, there you go again, Laughing Paul. Oh, just a question. Is what Trashhauler said true or false?"

BTW, my previous question is still unanswered

Yes, it is. And since you evidently belive Trashy's dishonest, ad hominem question is apt, there's no longer any reason to give you the benefit of the doubt as an honest commentator. Bye, now.

Does this really qualify as an ad hominem, "anything they produced would probably be dismissed by most here.."?

I mean, I observe that when folks stay something dumb, it denotes they're "stooopid", all the time. I've never argued THAT's not an ad hominem attack, just that it's always in the service of the larger point: if you don't say anything dumb, there is a smaller chance that you're BEING dumb.

But to point out that Petraeus, et. al., or the GAO for that matter, has little credibility with folks around here for ANYTHING they might say which tends to support staying in Iraq a nanosecond longer, just seems pretty grounded in reality.

Am I wrong? Then what's with heavy, et. al, insisting that the MOST important consideration about what to do about Iraq in the future, is to condemn those who got us into this mess?

I had taken Trash's point to be that the GAO may not have specific expertise (Arabic-speakers, etc.), to evaluate what DoD is claiming directly, but they ARE in the bullshit-detection biz.

And they've leaked a report that is pretty damning.

I took Trash simply to be observing that lots of folks here believe ONLY stuff that tends to justify whatever they have been arguing for years, dismissing other evidence out of hand.

I think it's weird that this extends to a GAO report that tends to SUPPORT the position of most posters here.

That's why I noted Kristol's objections to the report. You can consider the source all you like, but his points ARE valid, about the different standards (progress vs. done/not done), and so on.

The fact is, if you don't know the other side's arguments, you're unlikely to be able to refute 'em.

Consider Peggy Noonan's column today: is there a progressive who could have written it?

"From the pro-war forces, the surge supporters and those who supported the Iraq invasion from the beginning, what is needed is a new modesty of approach, a willingness to admit it hasn't quite gone according to plan. A moral humility. Not meekness--great powers aren't helped by meekness--but maturity, a shown respect for the convictions of others.

What we often see instead, lately, is the last refuge of the adolescent: defiance. An attitude of 'Oh yeah? We're Lincoln, you're McClellan. We care about the troops and you don't. We care about the good Iraqis who cast their lot with us. You'd just as soon they hang from the skids of the last helicopter off the embassy roof.' They have been called thuggish. Is this wholly unfair?

The antiwar forces, the surge opponents, the "I was against it from the beginning" people are, some of them, indulging in grim, and mindless, triumphalism. They show a smirk of pleasure at bad news that has been brought by the other team. Some have a terrible quaking fear that something good might happen in Iraq, that the situation might be redeemed. Their great interest is that Bushism be laid low and the president humiliated. They make lists of those who supported Iraq and who must be read out of polite society. Might these attitudes be called thuggish also?

Do you ever get the feeling that at this point Washington is run by two rival gangs that have a great deal in common with each other, including an essential lack of interest in the well-being of the turf on which they fight?"

Well, Gregory, it's been enjoyable, at least for me. So, let's recap. Just want to make sure I've got it straight. You accuse others of accusing, when in fact, you are the only one accusing. Trash said "probably", and it appears from your exit post, that you finally answere my question, "Is what Trashhauler said true or false?" and that your answer, "Yes, it is.", indicates what Mr.Hauler said is true.
Continuing with the recap: You, without any substance, demanded substance from some one else. You accused me of making "a silly comment", when in fact, I never said what you said I said. The words were from an interview with Gen. Petraeus, a fact that was clearly explained. You, while indulging in name-calling and labeling, dogmatically proclaim that others have no standing and are not honest commentators. There's more, but no need to pile on.
So, Greg, I believe you suffer from "substance" abuse. You have so much invested in US failure in Iraq that you have become emotionally incapable of believing anything positive about what is happening there. Don't worry,i t will be OK. Acceptance is the first step. Just remember, you are not alone and others have recovered from that seemingly helpless and hopeless state of mind.