In an August 2 article headlined “Iraq Snapshots Give 2 Views,” The New York Times quoted U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker saying of the 18 military, economic, and political benchmarks mandated by Congress for the Iraqi government: “The longer I'm here, the more I'm persuaded that Iraq cannot be analyzed by these kind of discrete benchmarks.” However, the article did not mention that President Bush originally called for the Iraqis to meet certain benchmarks as a part of his “surge” strategy and that he has since endorsed the benchmarks laid out by Congress in a Republican-sponsored amendment to the supplemental war funding bill that passed on May 24 with a majority of congressional Republican support.

The Times article analyzed how lawmakers, the Bush administration, and analysts are interpreting recent data on the war in Iraq, including casualty figures and the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report released by the White House on July 12. It asserted that “the snapshots emerging from the American counterinsurgency campaign [in Iraq] can seem particularly contradictory” and that “both sides of the debate in Washington are searching desperately for evidence to bolster their judgments about the success or failure of the strategy that the Bush administration calls a 'surge.' ” The article later reported that “Congress tried to quantify success or failure in Iraq by mandating periodic White House progress reports on 18 military, political and economic benchmarks. When the first report was issued last month, White House officials stressed the positives and Democrats in Congress accentuated the negatives.” It then included Crocker's quote:

Earlier this year, Congress tried to quantify success or failure in Iraq by mandating periodic White House progress reports on 18 military, political and economic benchmarks. When the first report was issued last month, White House officials stressed the positives and Democrats in Congress accentuated the negatives.

Perhaps because the report found that the Iraqi government had fallen short on the most significant of the measures, the American ambassador in Baghdad wondered whether this whole benchmark concept was a good idea to begin with.

“The longer I'm here, the more I'm persuaded that Iraq cannot be analyzed by these kind of discrete benchmarks,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at the time, in an interview with The New York Times.

Yet the article did not mention that Bush endorsed the setting of benchmarks in January and later specifically endorsed the requirement in the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 " that the administration report on benchmarks. For example, Bush included them as part of his so-called “surge” strategy he announced in January:

BUSH: A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks.

On May 10, Bush asserted that "[i]t makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward" in Iraq, and just as Congress was set to pass an emergency war funding bill, on May 24, he endorsed the benchmarks Congress included in the bill:

BUSH: As [the funding bill] provides vital funds for our troops, this bill also reflects a consensus that the Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice. The Iraqi Study Group -- the Iraq Study Group recommended that we hold the Iraqi government to the series of benchmarks for improved security, political reconciliation and governance that the Iraqis have set for themselves. I agree, so does the Congress, and the bill reflects that recommendation.

Upon release of the interim benchmarks report, Bush claimed that "[t]hose of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism." Bush added:

BUSH: Another constituency group that is important for me to talk to is the Iraqis. Obviously, I want the Iraqi government to understand that we expect there to be reconciliation top down; that we want to see laws passed. I think they've got that message. They know full well that the American government and the American people expect to see tangible evidence of working together; that's what the benchmarks are aimed to do.

Further, Republican lawmakers also supported the establishment of benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Sen. John Warner (R-VA) sponsored the amendment to the war funding bill that established the benchmarks provision. Forty-two Republican senators and 194 House Republicans voted for the bill.