'Move On'? Not So Fast, Mr. President

"The rest of his Republican Party, however, is looking at something entirely different: elections for the House, Senate and the presidency that, absent a miraculous turnaround in Iraq or a suicidal stumble by Democrats, are headed for a debacle. . . .

"Democrats have expressed rising outrage and astonishment at what they call Bush's refusal to face reality and have said the only thing likely to change between now and mid-September is that more American troops will die in a war that is in its fifth year.

"'The president has his head in the sand,' said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. 'The Iraqis have not met a single of the 18 benchmarks we laid out, and yet this president has the audacity to ask for more patience while our troops are getting killed every day policing a civil war.'"

The House Vote

Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman write in The Washington Post that not long after Bush's press conference, "the House responded by approving legislation requiring U.S. combat forces to start leaving Iraq within 120 days. The resolution passed on a largely party-line vote, with only four Republican defections -- a reflection of White House efforts to keep House Republicans from joining restive GOP senators in challenging the president."

Benchmarks Fact Check

Julian E. Barnes writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The Bush administration's status report Thursday on the Iraq war gives the Iraqi government an even mix of 'satisfactory' and 'unsatisfactory' grades, but a closer look provides a more sobering impression: The least progress is being made on the most important goals. . . .

"Many of the goals on which the government earned 'satisfactory' marks were at best procedural. But where real political compromise was demanded, results were more disappointing."

Anthony Cordesman writes for the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the real score on the benchmarks is not 8-8-and-2, as the White House would have it, but more like 0-and-18.

"It is clear . . . that the Iraqi government has not really met the Bush administration's benchmarks in any major area. Seen from a more nuanced perspective, actual progress as has been more limited and had often had tenuous meaning unless it can eventually be shown that a faltering legislative start will be put into practice over the months and years to come in ways that Iraq's major factions will accept."

For example, the White House claims the Iraqis provided three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support operations in Baghdad. Cordesman writes: "The main elements of such Iraqi forces arrived more or less on schedule, but at manning levels were variously reported to be 50-75%. Some battalion elements had performed well but they seemed to total only one brigade equivalent and some have done little. Much of existing force was to rotate out."

Ilan Goldenberg writes for the National Security Network: "Some benchmarks claimed as 'satisfactory' only demonstrate minimal progress, not achievement. Others have been achieved on the surface, but fail to accomplish the overall purpose of the specific measurement."

For instance, the White House says that the Iraqi government, with substantial U.S. assistance, has made satisfactory progress toward establishing the planned Joint Security Stations in Baghdad. Goldenberg writes: "While the Joint Security Stations have been established there is little to [indicate] that they are having a substantial impact on security and in some cases are actually making Iraqis feel less safe."

Michael O'Hanlon and Jason Campbell write in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that as far as security goes, "the bottom line in Iraq this year is not very encouraging"; as far as the economy goes, "[h]ad the 18 benchmarks mandated by Congress included more such economic indicators, this week's report card would have been even bleaker"; and as far as politics goes, "[w]ithout major progress . . . soon, there is little hope for a reduction in sectarian tensions and thus little hope for the success of the overall strategy."