Democrat-Controlled GAO Cooks The Books To Preemptively Rebut Petraeus Report

Isn't it funny that whenever Republicans have control over an institution, that institution's reports are presumptively dishonest and skewed by partisanship, but when Democrats or liberals control one, its reports are presumptively the Gospel?

This is part of the reason why obviously-ideological liberal organizations like CREW are called "nonpartisan watchdog groups" whereas Heritage is always branded a "conservative think tank." I've got news for the media: Heritage is nonpartisan too. But nonpartisan does not mean non-ideological, nor does it mean "neutral." And yet the media forever apply the "nonpartisan" label to extremely ideologically driven groups like the Sierra Club, whereas the same term -- "nonpartisan" -- is never applied to nonpartisan but conservative leaning groups.

At any rate, William Kristol discusses the fudged-up GAO report, ordered by its Democratic masters to serve up a gloomy report and of course dutifully complying. The report studiously ignores signs of progress in order to focus like a laser on those areas in which progress is lacking, chiefly the top-down political situation. As Carl Levin, I think, unabashedly announced, it was the Democrats' intent to ignore military and grassroots poltiical progress in order to focus exclusively on the sluggish national political situation. He was so sure the media would make no issue of this intent he felt perfectly comfortable announcing it. And of course he was quite right in his comfort and lack of shame, and needless to say the GAO, under his fellow Democrats' control, reflects his political agenda.

Incidentally, on FoxNews, Shep Smith reported this inaccurately. For example, the report says that there is no progress in fielding additional Iraqi army units capable of acting independently of US forces; as Kristol notes, this is a rather contrived standard, as most coalition troops of all countries in Iraq are incapable of acting "indpendently" of the US. But Shep just said there was "no progress" being made in the Iraqi army, which is flatly, demonstrably untrue.

He then reported the White House had denigrated the report by setting the standards "too high," and smirked as he noted that, indicating his contempt for the explanation.

He's a real cocksucker, all right, and he continues auditioning for another, more respectable, more liberal news outlet on Murdoch's dime. I'll be happy to see him go, delighted to see him finally among his own at CNN or MSNBC.

posted by Ace at 04:02 PM

| Access Comments