Fact-Checking the President

The Wall Street Journal

Yochi J. Dreazen and John D. McKinnon write in the Wall Street Journal: "President Bush sought once again to convince Americans he has a victory strategy in Iraq. But the speech was as notable for what he left out.

"Mr. Bush said that the number of battle-ready Iraqi army and police battalions has grown markedly -- but didn't address accusations that Shiite and Kurdish security forces are torturing and killing Sunni civilians. He said continued progress means 'we will be able to decrease our troop levels' -- but declined to offer a general timetable for when. He said U.S. forces are 'learning from our experiences [and] adjusting our tactics' -- but outlined no new administration strategy. . . .

"In his remarks, Mr. Bush compared the roles played by Iraqi forces in coalition-led assaults on a pair of insurgent strongholds. He noted that, when coalition forces swept into Fallujah last year, American forces did virtually all of the combat and used the Iraqis mainly as backup. During the recent battle in Tal Afar, by contrast, Iraqi forces outnumbered American ones and 'primarily led' the assault, Mr. Bush said.

"But experts warned against extrapolating too heavily from the Tal Afar assault. They noted that Iraqi forces used in the attack were battle-hardened Kurdish fighters, not new recruits trained by Americans. Iraqi forces played an active role, but the experts said American commanders planned the overall assault and sent U.S. forces into areas where the insurgent presence was believed strongest."

Washington Post reporter Jonathan Finer , who covered the battle for Tal Afar for The Washington Post, told MSNBC that Bush didn't tell the whole story. "The president didn't mention that the Iraqi units at the very small unit level . . . were led every step of the way by U.S. special forces soldiers. . . . All those units were also supplied very much by U.S. logistics operations. . . . So I think that to say that progress was made is probably a fair statement, but to say that they are capable of conducting an operation like that on their own, I don't think anyone's ready to make that case just yet."

Knight Ridder Newspapers

Ron Hutcheson writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "Bush failed to address one of the most vexing issues on the security front -- how to deal with tensions between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Sunni Arabs say they're often brutalized by Shiite security forces, and widespread anecdotal evidence supports their complaints. At the same time, Sunni killing squads tend to target Shiites. And both groups distrust Iraqi Kurds, who want autonomy for their northern region."

Hutcheson also notes: "In his speech, Bush also rolled back some of his earlier rhetoric.

"In November [2004], the president praised Iraqi security forces for their efforts against insurgents in the city of Fallujah. On Wednesday, he acknowledged that Iraqi troops played only a minor role in Fallujah, but said they took the lead in more recent operations in Tal Afar."

And, he writes: "Although Bush's determination to stay the course echoed his previous comments, Wednesday's speech and the newly released war plan effectively repudiated the administration's earlier optimistic predictions that grateful Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and embrace democracy.

"As recently as June, Vice President Dick Cheney declared that the Iraq insurgency was 'in the last throes.'"

The Associated Press

Calvin Woodward writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush's depiction of Iraqi security forces as 'helping to turn the tide' is difficult to square with persistent setbacks in handing control of the country back to its own people."

"His suggestion that Americans are solidly behind the mission also understates opposition at home, and his hard sell on the rising quality of Iraqi forces overlooks complexities on the ground."