It’s February 16; do you know where your progress is?

On January 10, shortly before the president announced his escalation strategy in a nationally televised address, the White House held a press briefing to explain the Bush policy to reporters. An unnamed senior administration official, speaking from Tony Snow’s podium, specifically emphasized benchmarks that will let Americans gauge progress in Iraq.

“Well, here’s — but you’re going to have to — you’re going to have some opportunities to judge very quickly. The Iraqis are going to have three brigades within Baghdad within a little more than a month. They have committed to trying to get one brigade in, I think, by the first of February, and two more by the 15th. When it comes to benchmarks, they are talking about, in a fairly short span of time, addressing some of the key legislative business, including the hydrocarbon law, de-Baathification reforms, and election/constitutional reforms.

“So people are going to be able to see pretty quickly that the Iraqis are or are not stepping up. And that provides the ability to judge.”

As it happens, the 15th was yesterday. It was the date the White House set, for itself, as a measurement of accountability. To their credit, the Bush gang wasn’t vague about when we might start to see encouraging signs of progress; they specified a date on the calendar. Yesterday.

And as Dan Froomkin noted, a “key benchmark” has already been missed, but no one seems to have noticed.

[A]t a Pentagon press conference yesterday, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace acknowledged that only two of those three Iraqi brigades are there: “You’ve got two of the Iraqi brigades in — that were going to plussed up in Baghdad in Baghdad now. The third one is moving this month,” Pace said.

Other press reports suggest that even those two brigades are not anywhere near full strength.

And action in Baghdad seems thus far to be almost entirely led by Americans, in stark contrast to what was promised.

In fact, Froomkin noted this news item, which noted bi-partisan disappointment from the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee about the president’s escalation strategy, “citing news reports of an overwhelmingly American-led operation despite administration promises to let Iraqi forces take the lead.

Virginia Sen. John Warner, a senior Republican, used a committee hearing to call attention to a New York Times report that the first major sweep of the Iraqi capital under the new security plan used only 200 Iraqi police and soldiers, but 2,500 Americans.

“Warner, who has warned against sending more Americans to combat a low-grade civil war, expressed surprise that the first major security sweep of Baghdad under the new plan would be conducted by so few Iraqi forces. Defense officials had stressed in recent weeks that U.S. troops would be deployed in phases over coming months – with time allowed to measure the commitment of the Iraqi government to beef up its own security.

“Gen. Peter Schoomaker, chief of staff of the Army, and Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, told Warner Thursday they were not familiar with the details of the described security sweep. But Conway added, “It is counter to what I understand to be the plan as well.”

Remember, according to the White House’s own month-old words, judging the success of the strategy is exactly what we’re supposed to be doing right now. At the president’s press conference this week, Bush said we should give his plan a chance to work, but his own team said we should judge the results based on the first major benchmark of the president’s policy.

And they came up short.

How is it possible that Dan Froomkin is the only political writer in Washington to notice?

Well the mainstream pundits only write once a week, so you can expect them to notice this stuff. And the regular reporters have to have a “story” to file. That’s why it takes a blogger like Froomkin to notice stuff.

It’s hard to imagine that before the web, I’d get one newspaper and then 30 minutes of national news each day. Who knew there was so much to know about what is going on.

Watched The US vs John Lennon last night. Nixon had it relatively easy in his secrecy and he still flubbed up. I miss John.

  • agree with dale. i never knew how much was going on that the regular media ignored. now it’s almost like a contest to see how much i learned during the day, that i don’t hear on the nightly news. and i always sit back and wonder why the network broadcasters find “their” top stories to be so important…….when they always miss the big stories….

  • Along those lines just bill, I realized that the nightly news started parroting what the bloggers are saying. Watching Keith Olbermann last night, most of the clips and points he brought up had already been discussed here, on MyDD, DailyKos etc. Traditional outlets are having a hard time keeping up it seems.

    Also, maybe the press are afraid of being ‘hanged’ for criticizing the president during a war. Oh wait, thats only congresspeople, my bad.

  • Don’t you think Anna Nicole Smith is important? Doesn’t the integrety of our republic depend on that story? The MSM are worse than whores, they are lazy bums, who violate the trust the public places in them. I have all but quit watching network news. I read yesterday’s news in my local paper and turn to the internet for my information. TV? I like Olberman and Comedy Central. I’ve got a feeling I am not alone.

  • The Republicans are scared of their leader and his money machine, but according to my math, the measure passed with a 64 vote margin. That’s quite a few votes. The ones who were afraid to vote will have to explain their actions to their constituents. Maybe they are in “safe seats.”

  • I notice that passing of the hydrocarbon law is mentioned in equal weight to security and troop deployments. Do you suppose they’re sweating al-Maliki? “Just sign the damned paper!!!! We’ll take care of everything else!!!

    As usual, just like earmarks, they’re sneaking mention of the hydrocarbon law in with the big stuff, so they can say later, “Play the freakin’ tape!! There, see? I said it right there!!”. U.S. intentions for Iraq have not changed a bit; the surge is just another stall tactic to keep a military presence there until the oil contracts are finalized. Few Americans will quibble as much about America using military force to protect American oil, as opposed to protecting Iraqi oil that might one day, by the vagaries of the market, become American oil.

  • Completely off topic here, but I had to note this:

    It’s hard to imagine that before the web, I’d get one newspaper and then 30 minutes of national news each day. Who knew there was so much to know about what is going on.
    –Dale

    Well put, Dale. Without bloggers, most of the past 6 years would’ve gone down the Memory Hole. Now, most of it will be there for history to judge.

    The problem is that I pay too much attention and get too worked up over it … which is why I’m dumping my site and starting one on a different subject.

    Besides, I’m a better political/news commenter than blogger.

  • “Watched The US vs John Lennon last night. Nixon had it relatively easy in his secrecy and he still flubbed up. I miss John.”

    –Dale

    Hell. I miss Nixon!

    “It’s hard to imagine that before the web, I’d get one newspaper and then 30 minutes of national news each day. Who knew there was so much to know about what is going on.”

    — Dale

    I miss the time when we had 30 minutes of national news each day, 5 minute weather reports — and even a couple of competitive newspapers in a few cities. News was compacted, and if newscasts didn’t cover everything, they at least did a pretty good job of *reporting*. There were exactly NO talking heads.

    There always much going on, and much of it important. But TV/Cable news in the “information age” shovels out drivel. That’s because drivel (which includes the talking heads) costs much less to report and is easier for young “journalists” to grasp.

    Right now, the blogs are offering more in-depth info. But sometimes I wonder, when we rave about the MSM not reporting or not following up on a story, if our irritation originates with the fact that anyone reading this blog follows politics closely and with great interest.

  • I know you meant it tongue-in-cheek, GRACIOUS, but the court house where all of this Anna Nicole stuff is playing out is directly across from the street of where I work, and it’s causing considerable havoc in our building. Reporters on the street, elevators extremely slow due to all the extra people using the building’s cafeteria on the 7th floor, excessive traffic in the area. It’s all much ado about nothing, and I just want it over with.

    BTW, I’m completely with you and Ohioan RE: MSM. I gave up on network news years ago.

  • NPR just had a soundbite from Bush’s meeting with the new ambassador-designee Ryan Crocker. In his public remarks, Bush made reference to the Iraqi commitment to move troops to Baghdad — without being specific about the numbers of troops pledged or their missing the mark. The transcript of his remarks was not available on the White House website when I checked a few moments ago.

    I wonder whether anyone in the MSM will call Bush for hedging the numbers in his claims for progress.

  • Same problem different day.

    The media conglomerates must be demolished.

    Dean was right on target before they killed him. Time to send another wave at the front lines.

    First of all, eleven companies in this country control ninety percent of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their television. That’s wrong. ,

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=1140

    Live Free Or Die.

  • Comments are closed.