On the December 5 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, NPR foreign correspondent Deborah Amos introduced her interview with Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) by stating that Wolf, after returning from his third trip to Iraq in September 2005, “decided the [Iraq] war was not going well,” and “came up with the idea for an independent panel to analyze U.S. policy” on Iraq, which “became the Baker-Hamilton Study Group.” But in touting Wolf's leadership in forming the group, Amos left out an important fact: When Wolf returned from that third Iraq trip, he wrote an official report and an op-ed for the September 24, 2005, edition of The Washington Post that stressed, not that the war was going badly, but rather, that “real progress is being made, despite the ongoing security concerns” -- progress to which, he wrote, the media were not giving sufficient attention. Indeed, contrary to Amos' suggestion that Wolf's sole interest in formulating “the idea of an independent panel” was to examine U.S. policy, Wolf mentioned in the op-ed that one area the panel could explore is the “underreported but significant successes” in Iraq and could as well “assure Americans -- no matter what their positions are on the war -- that every effort is being made to protect our troops and realize our goal of a secure and peaceful Iraq.”

The Baker-Hamilton Study Group, also known as the Iraq Study Group (ISG), was launched “at the urging” of Congress in March 2006 to “make a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq and how that affects the surrounding region as well as U.S. interests,” and is co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former 9-11 Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton. The group is scheduled to release its final report on December 6.

In his September 24, 2005, Post op-ed, titled “Fresh Eyes on Iraq,” Wolf did not write, as Amos put it, that “the war was not going well.” Instead, he wrote that the United States should “stay the course in Iraq,” and that "[t]he Bush administration needs to face the reality that a growing number of Americans are becoming skeptical of our efforts, partly because they do not have the benefit of seeing the entire picture." Wolf's op-ed was based on his September 2005 "Trip Report," in which he further elaborated on the proposed independent panel, writing: “My motive behind the appointment of this group is not to find fault with the U.S. effort there now,” adding:

The administration has nothing to fear by putting together the “fresh eyes” group I propose. Progress is being made. The American people need to know that. Mistakes have been made, too, and I believe the American public is an understanding public and are willing to forgive as mistakes are acknowledged. Most of all, Americans just want an honest assessment.

From Wolf's Post September 24, 2005, op-ed:

Having just returned from my third trip to Iraq, I came away with three thoughts.

One, real progress is being made, despite the ongoing security concerns. Two, the Bush administration should pull together an independent and balanced group of respected individuals to go to Iraq to conduct a critical review of our efforts. Three, a necessary element of this review would be communicating to the American public what it would mean to our country if the Iraq mission failed.

I have now visited all but the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq and have seen improvement with each trip I have made. Schools are being renovated. Hospitals and health clinics are being built. Safe drinking water is available in places that it never was before. The new Iraqi army is being constituted. While we still have a long way to go, positive things are happening. Regrettably, they are often overshadowed by the suicide attacks carried out by foreign fighters who have poured into Iraq in hopes of undermining our progress and turning the Iraqi people against us. Yes, security remains our biggest challenge. It also limits where reporters can safely go, leaving them with little option but to focus on the bloodshed and bombings. But in truth, all across Iraq, in regions rarely visited by the media, there are heartening, albeit less riveting, stories of measurable progress.

These underreported but significant successes could be explored by the group tasked with reviewing our efforts in Iraq. The review would essentially provide “fresh eyes on the target” and assure Americans -- no matter what their positions are on the war -- that every effort is being made to protect our troops and realize our goal of a secure and peaceful Iraq. While the Bush administration has sent other teams to Iraq to assess the situation, the “fresh eyes” review I propose would be different in that, rather than just reporting back to the president, the secretary of defense or the secretary of state, this group would report to the American public.

[...]

The Bush administration needs to face the reality that a growing number of Americans are becoming skeptical of our efforts, partly because they do not have the benefit of seeing the entire picture. No one I talked to during my recent trip believes we will lose the war on the ground in Iraq; it's here at home that they are concerned about. One general told me point-blank that the “center of gravity” for our success in Iraq is the American public.

For the United States to stay the course in Iraq the public needs to fully appreciate the progress that has been made, be able to trust that those directing the war have made an honest assessment of what has gone right and what has gone wrong, and understand the potentially cataclysmic consequences of walking away from Iraq before the job is done.

At one point in the interview, Wolf himself referred to his “Trip Report,” noting that he advocated getting “fresh eyes” on the Iraq situation. Amos also claimed that Wolf conceived the idea for an independent Iraq panel after the White House's “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” failed to “convince[]” him. However, the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” was released on November 30, 2005 -- over a month after Wolf originally proposed the independent panel.

From the December 5 broadcast of Morning Edition:

AMOS: When Congressman Frank Wolf went to Iraq, he saw progress in schools and hospitals. He also saw security failures, increasing violence. At the same time Wolf decided the war was not going well, the White House released a new strategy document, titled “Victory in Iraq,” about winning on the ground. Not convinced, Wolf came up with the idea for an independent panel to analyze U.S. policy. That panel became the Baker-Hamilton Study Group. Republican Frank Wolf of Virginia joins us. Good morning.

WOLF: Good morning. How are you?

AMOS: Well, Congressman, tell us a little bit about that September trip to Iraq. What did you see? How did you get out of the Green Zone? And what did you learn?

WOLF: Well, it was my third trip to Iraq, and the first two times I was with my chief of staff, Dan Scandling. We were by ourselves, without any military, and we drove through the entire country. The third time, we were with the military and, every time I've been there, we've always spent our time outside the Green Zone. I could see the difference. Some things were better -- schools were open, hospitals were much better than they were the first and second time -- but some things were much worse, and that is the security issue. The first two times we drove all over, lived with Iraqis, and this last time I could see that that was not possible.

So, it just seemed that we needed to take a -- as you said, or as I've said in the report -- a fresh eyes: to get a group of people, bipartisan, who love their country more than they love their political party.

AMOS: You came home alarmed, so who did you call at the White House when you got back home?

WOLF: I spoke to the secretary of State, and I spoke to the secretary of Defense, and then we spoke to Steve Hadley, the national security adviser.

AMOS: What kind of response did you get from the secretary of State?

WOLF: Well, initially, it was not overly positive, but once I laid it out, I think, in fairness, the secretary of State became very, very open. Actually, the secretary of Defense became very open, and the National Security Council. But it took a while because, you know, I think no administration -- Republican or Democrat -- likes Congress meddling in their business.

AMOS: Do you think that they were looking for a way to reassess the policy despite what they were saying publicly, and you offered that way?

WOLF: I don't know the answer to that. I would always hope that everyone's always thinking about what can be done and how you can do better. I mean, as well as something is done, if somebody is outside -- it's fresh eyes, it goes a little bit better. So, I would hope that they would always be analyzing because we have American men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day, and you're talking about the security of the country. So, it would be my hope that this was going on at all time and would always go on on every policy with regard to the federal government.

AMOS: Congressman, are you concerned, though, that events on the ground in Iraq may have even overtaken the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group?

WOLF: I think that's probably a problem, but yet, if you had a very serious illness, you've got to begin to deal with it. So, we are where we are and, hopefully, their recommendations will be such that, however late it is, we'll provide an opportunity for the nation to develop a policy whereby we can be together when our country is divided and we're not sure and everything is just turmoil. And when the United States is weak, the world becomes a much, much more dangerous place -- so, hopefully, better late than never.

AMOS: Frank Wolf, thanks so much.