That GAO report:
... saying that there is little progress in Iraq, is a stab in the back
UPDATE: Bill Kristol is on the case! You knew he couldn't let that report sit there without a challenge. Here's part of what he's got to say
: (excerpts, emp add)
A Pathetic Preemptive Strike
The Washington Post and the GAO try to mislead on Iraq.
The Washington Post, working hand-in-glove with Democrats in Congress, has gotten out front in preparing the domestic battlefield for September's fight over the war in Iraq.
The headline: "Report Finds Little Progress on Iraq Goals; GAO Draft at Odds with White House." Here's the good news: If this is the best war opponents have to offer, the administration is in amazingly good shape going into September.
The benchmarks they do use are often absurd. To take one example: "Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently." This is particularly silly.
Basically, Kristol is saying that September is too soon, that the standard should be improvement
in various categories, and that the GAO evaluation is based on not achieving
goals. But here's the question for Kristol: If it's too soon ("just two months after the major combat operations of the surge began") then why did Bush sign the legislation in May
mandating a GAO report in September?
Kristol would do well to take a refresher course in anatomy and physiology so that he is able to tell his ass from his elbow which he has consistently been able to do to date.
Unable. My mistake.