The White House said that President Bush would base his assessment of progress in Iraq on a Sept. 11 report due from Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and not on the GAO findings. “General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are there on the ground every day in Iraq,” a White House spokesman said, “and it's important to wait to hear what they have to say."
What “a bunch of baloney,” said The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an editorial. Everybody knows the Iraqi government has “failed to try to reconcile the warring sects and movements among its people.” The White House can’t simply wish away the “agreed-upon benchmarks” to track Iraq’s progress—or the lack thereof.
If this is “the best war opponents have to offer,” said William Kristol in The Daily Standard, Bush is in “good shape.” Congress set “absurd” benchmarks, and then asked if they had been “completed.” This “ridiculous standard” made failure a foregone conclusion. Bush can point to “mounds of evidence” to argue that the surge of troops he sent earlier this year has made Iraq a safer place.
It’s clear that the surge didn’t save Bush’s failed strategy, said The New York Times (free registration required) in an editorial. The GAO report was a “powerful fresh dose of nonpartisan realism,” but a recent National Intelligence Estimate said essentially the same thing. When is Bush going to face “reality”?
- Which professions have the most psychopaths?
- 5 books to read before your 30th birthday
- 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to
- 6 photos that Facebook controversially banned
- Is it possible to live forever?
- 32 TV shows to watch in 2013 [Updated]
- Remembering Nelson Mandela: The world's front pages
- The indignity of canine bath time
- He said he was leaving. She ignored him.
- What to expect when you're expecting (100 years ago)
Subscribe to the Week