Benchmarks? Who said anything about benchmarks?

Sometimes, these guys make it too easy. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, today:

“No, benchmarks were something that Congress wanted to use as a metric. And we’re going to produce a report. But the fact is that the situation is bigger and more complex, and you need to look at the whole picture.”

Reality, as reported last week:

It was the White House and the Iraqi government, not Congress, that first proposed the benchmarks for Iraq that are now producing failing grades, a provenance that raises questions about why the administration is declaring now that the government’s performance is not the best measure of change.

Snow emphasized today the importance of looking at the “whole picture.” But that’s partly why the Bush administration and the Maliki government came up with 18 benchmarks, covering a variety of areas. That way, we wouldn’t just assess part of the conditions in Iraq; we’d be able to see whether there’s been progress in different facets of the country (political, military, reconstruction, etc.).

The administration presented a to-do list and said, “Judge us in September on these points.” They’ve successfully completed three of the 18 tasks. In response, the new line is, “To-do lists are stupid.”

The White House defense is predicated on two principal hopes: 1) that we all have very short memories, and can’t remember promises from a few months ago; and 2) none of us know how to use Google.

There was this comment from Bush, on Feb. 5, for example.

“What we’re trying to do with this reinforcement of our troops is to provide enough space so that the Iraqi government can meet certain benchmarks or certain requirements for a unity government to survive and for the country to be strong. The success of that plan is going to depend upon the capacity and willingness of the Iraqis to do hard work, and we want to help them do that work.”

The president, not Congress, was talking about the point of the surge policy and Iraq “meet[ing] certain benchmarks.”

A week later, Bush insisted that he was “paying close attention to whether or not the government is meeting these benchmarks.”

A few weeks prior, here was the White House radio address:

“America will hold the Iraqi government to benchmarks it has announced. These include taking responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November, passing legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis, and spending $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction projects that will create new jobs. These are strong commitments. And the Iraqi government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people.”

Well, guess what?

I know Snow is stepping down soon, so maybe he no longer cares about being proven wrong (again), but for him to argue that “benchmarks were something that Congress wanted to use as a metric” is so ridiculous, I feel embarrassed for him.

When the White House claims it has credibility on Iraq policy, and people laugh out loud, this is why.

Well, I am not laughing out loud.

  • The White House defense is predicated on two principle hopes: 1) that we all have very short memories, and can’t remember promises from a few months ago; and 2) none of us know how to use Google.

    A third of the country still thinks Hussein was behind 9/11.

    I’d say they aren’t hoping.

  • Snowflake’s Whole Picture:

    And the Iraqi government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people…

    …but not the support of the Loyal Bushie Brownshirt Cabal.

  • “It was the White House and the Iraqi government, not Congress, that first proposed the benchmarks for Iraq that are now producing failing grades”

    JOURNALISM!

    That wasn’t so hard, was it, NYT?

  • “The White House defense is predicated on two principal hopes: 1) that we all have very short memories, and can’t remember promises from a few months ago; and 2) none of us know how to use Google.”

    It’s more likely that they are counting on the MSM having short memories and not knowing how to use Google.

  • (evil haik)

    Snow isn’t necessarily wrong. Just because “the White House and the Iraqi government, not Congress, that first proposed the benchmarks,” doesn’t mean benchmarks weren’t something that Congress wanted to use as a metric.

    Bush proposing benchmarks and Congress wanting to use them as a metric aren’t mutually exclusive. You could call it a lie of omission, but just because Snow isn’t telling the whole truth doesn’t mean he’s not telling the truth.

    The way these people think and talk isn’t very hard to figure out, and shouldn’t come as any surprise to political observers.

    *****
    I gotta get some kind of job in politics. I see through this shit like it’s clear glass. I’ll tell you, the moment I heard Bill Clinton say “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” I knew exactly what he meant. He meant she just blew him, but he didn’t fuck her. I saw it live and I knew immediately. It was patently obvious to me.

    ****

    Most people are slow. Like, Duh-slow. Sooner or later 9-11 will come clear to you turtles, too… And Clinton and Romney are already the nominees- that’s obvious too. Duh.

    (/evil haik)

  • What AK Liberal said.

    If the MSM had to hire one top-notch liberal blogger for each wingnut gasbag, and give them proper airtime/page space, the entire industry would be embarrassed into becoming journalists again.

    So of course that won’t happen.

  • Tony Snow always tells Americans they need to look at the whole picture whenever there are indications (in the form of embarassing questions) that some of them are seeing too much; as if to imply that there is some mysterious quality they are missing, when in fact they are seeing more than they should.

  • Poor Tony Baloney, can’t stop lying.

    Oh well, if he did ever tell the truth no one would believe him anyway.

  • I make lace, so I know exactly what Sowjob means when he urges everyone to “look at the whole picture”; when looked at from a good distance, a piece will look pleasing but, when you squint for detail, all the oopsies become apparent. One of the reasons I don’t participate in competitions — them darned judges always squint for detail; some even through a magnifying glass! I wish I could tell *them*, to take a few steps back and “look at the whole picture” 🙂

  • benchmarks? we ain’ got no benchmarks. we don’ gotta show you any benchmarks. WE DON’ NEED NO STINKIN’ BENCHMARKS!

  • Comments are closed.