Earlier today, The Body Politik noted that in his address to the nation, President Bush falsely claimed that the surge strategy has been effective. Below is a more comprehensive fact-check of Bush’s remarks.

CLAIM: “This ally [Iraq] has placed its trust in the United States.”

FACT: According to a new ABC/BBC poll, 57 percent of Iraqis call violence against U.S. troops acceptable. “More than six in 10 [Iraqis] now call the U.S.-led invasion of their country wrong, up from 52 percent last winter… Seventy-nine percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces in the country.

CLAIM: “Many schools and markets are reopening…And ordinary life is beginning to return.”

FACT: “Six in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going badly, and even more, 78 percent, say things are going badly for the country overall – up 13 points from last winter.”

Iraq’s markets are far less prosperous that they appear to lawmakers, pundits, and reporters in search of “good news” from Iraq. The U.S. military “includes barely operating stores in its tally,” as most stores are “open for just a few hours” and are “mostly deserted” by noon. According to one shopkeeper, “if the Americans were not here, we would close earlier, maybe one or two hours.”

“On July 19, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said that residents of Baghdad are now receiving just one or two hours of electricity each day — the lowest level of the war.”

CLAIM: “They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces.”

FACT: The New York Times reports today: “A carefully constructed compromise on a draft law governing Iraq’s rich oil fields, agreed to in February after months of arduous talks among Iraqi political groups, appears to have collapsed. The apparent breakdown comes just as Congress and the White House are struggling to find evidence that there is progress toward reconciliation and a functioning government.”

CLAIM: “Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare.”

FACT: According to Oxfam International, Iraq is already facing a humanitarian crisis. “The violence in Iraq is overshadowing a humanitarian crisis, with eight million Iraqis – nearly one in three - in need of emergency aid.”

Also, Bush mentioned Al-Qaeda 12 times during his 17 minute address, but ignored the nearly four million Iraqis displaced by the war.

During their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker mentioned Al-Qaeda 100 times, more than three times the amount of references they devoted to ethno-sectarian violence.

Petraeus’ and Crocker’s overemphasis of the role of Al-Qaeda exaggerates the group’s strength and distorts the true nature of violence in Iraq. According to “U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush’s own government,” most of the violence in Iraq is “primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists.” Similarly, a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, concludes that “increasingly in 2007, U.S. commanders have seemed to equate AQ-I with the insurgency, even though most of the daily attacks are carried out by Iraqi Sunni insurgents.”

In fact, the Bush administration may even be overestimating the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq. According to “working-level analysts and troops on the ground,” in the first half of 2007, Al Qaeda accounted for just 8 percent to 15 percent of attacks in Iraq and the group is believed to comprise just 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency.

By overstating Al Qaeda’s role, Petraeus and Crocker are reinforcing the false notion that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and bolstering the Bush administration’s misleading claim that if we withdraw our troops from Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home.

UPDATE I: Gen. David Petraeus at the National Press Club: “Al-Qaeda…are the organization that has carried out the most horrific attacks in Iraq…I believe, was that we don’t know what would happen if Al Qaida had a sanctuary in Iraq from which they could presumably export violence, perhaps train others. We just don’t know.”

UPDATE II: A new White House ‘Benchmark Assessment Report‘ released on Friday, September 14th notes that “Iraq faces daunting challenges: a complex security situation whose main elements include a communal struggle for power and resources between the Shi’a majority and Sunni, Kurd, and other minorities. Al-Qaida in Iraq extremists continue to act as accelerants for ethno-sectarian violence, and Iranian lethal support to Shi’a militants clearly intensifies the conflict.”

During today’s Congressional testimony, Ambassador Ryan Crocker argued that the war in Iraq did not divert resources “from the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.”

I did not feel from my perspective as ambassador to Pakistan that the focus, the resources the people needed to deal with that situation weren’t there because of Iraq.

Crocker’s assessment has been disputed by military and intelligence officials. Here is a sampling:

Retired General Tommy Franks: According to Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), on February 19, 2002 Franks told Graham that “Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan” because “military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq.” [Intelligence Matters pg. 125, 2004]

Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL): The removal of Predator drones from Afghanistan is “a clear case of how the Bush administration’s single-minded focus on Iraq undermined the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.” [WP, 10/21/04]

Richard Clarke: “If we catch [bin Laden] this summer, which I expect, it’s two years too late. Because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq.” [Meet The Press, 3/28/04]

Bob Woodward: “[Former Secretary of State Donald] Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq…Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn’t know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved.” [60 Minutes, 4/18/04]

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke: “And they didn’t keep looking [for bin Laden]. They diverted to Iraq. That is simple and clear.” [CNN, 10/31/04]

Professor Jeffrey Record: Iraq is “an unnecessary preventative war” that has “diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al Qaeda.” [Army War College Report, 12/1/03]

Deputy Director of Operations of the CIA, James Pavitt: Author James Risen writes that Pavitt “asked CIA Director George Tenet to relay concerns to the White House that invading Iraq will undermine US counterterrorism efforts. They warn that it will divert attention and resources away from the ongoing fight against al-Qaeda, at a time when the United States’ counterterrorism efforts seem to be having a decisive impact.” [State of War, pg. 183-184, 2006]

CIA Analyst, Flynt Leverett: “There is a direct consequence for us having taken these guys out prematurely. There were people on the staff level raising questions about what that meant for getting al-Qaeda, for creating an Afghan security and intelligence service [to help combat jihadists]. Those questions didn’t get above staff level, because clearly there had been a strategic decision taken.” [WP, 10/22/04]

Director C.I.A.’s Counterintelligence Center, Robert Grenier: ‘They wanted as much as they could get…the best experienced, most qualified people who we had been using in Afghanistan shifted over to Iraq.” [NYT, 8/12/07]

Moreover, mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and most recently Newsweek have all reported that in early 2002, the U.S. military began shifting resources from the hunt for bin Laden to Iraq.

Ambassador Crocker seems to be unaware of this shift, which begs raises the question — if Crocker was divorced from reality then, how can we be sure that he’s married to it now?

When ABC began promoting it’s distorted version of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 as “based solely and completely on the 9/11 Commission Report,” commentators from the right and left, national security experts, historians, noted politicians, and members of the 9/11 Commission all denounced the so-called docudrama as contradicting the historical record and called on ABC not to air the inaccurate program.

When ABC ignored such calls and finally aired the program, it was a flop.

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, Cyrus Nowrasteh — author or the Path to 9/11 screenplay — again falsely claims his docudrama is based on the 9/11 Commission report, compares ABC’s refusual to issue his failed film on DVD to the censorship of “Joseph Stalin or Big Brother,” and argues that ABC “owes it” to shareholders to release his failed film for their potential financial benefit. In an op-ed entitled ‘A Real 9/11 Cover-Up‘ Nowrasteh writes:

Privately, I was told by an ABC executive that “If Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem.” The clear message is that ABC/Disney isn’t eager to reopen the wound, or feel the pressure again from politicians anxious to whitewash their legacy. … This passive self-censorship is just as effective as anything Joseph Stalin or Big Brother could impose. ….

This was a $40 million project that, because of the overblown controversy, attracted no sponsors and thus made not a penny of profit from its broadcast. It is a quality production, both entertaining and educational, that has the potential to recoup a significant part of its cost, if not actually turn a profit, through the sales of an eagerly anticipated DVD. Does ABC/Disney not owe it to its shareholders to make this basic effort to reclaim some of their $40 million?

The sheer audacity of Nowrasteh’s attempt to use the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks for the benefit of his career and his bottom line is unconscionable. That aside, however, Nowrasteh’s attempt to call ABC’s refusal to issue a DVD of his film a “cover-up” akin to Stalin or Big Brother leaves one important aspect out: Generally, such “cover-ups” involve suppressing truthful accounts of the events in question — not blatantly false political propaganda.

UPDATE: ThinkProgress has more.

For months, President Bush has said he would wait for the upcoming progress report on the “surge” in Iraq before deciding on future action:

[B]y respecting the command structure, I’m going to wait for David to come back — David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees. And then we’ll use that data, that — his report to work with the rest of the military chain of command, and members of Congress, to make another decision, if need be.

Yet, it now appears the White House has already made its decision on Iraq in advance of the report.

In an interview with the USA Today editorial board published today, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten was asked whether there will be a substantial commitment of U.S. troops in Iraq at the beginning of 2009. Bolten replied, “it partly depends on the, on your definition of ’substantial.” Bolten went on to say that, “I don’t think that any realistic observer thinks that by the time the president leaves office in 2009 it’ll be possible — safely — to get all or even most of the American troop presence out.”

Bolten is misleading on both counts. Time and again, the White House has repeatedly hinted at their intent to “draw down troops from Iraq,” only to instead maintain or increase the number of forces there.

Moreover, many “realistic observers” do believe it is possible “to get all or even most of the American troop presence out.” A new report authored by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb and other military analysts at the Center for American Progress demonstrates that an “orderly and safe withdrawal is best achieved over a 10- to 12-month period.”

Bolten has it backwards: withdrawing from Iraq by 2009 would be safe; it’s continuing to follow the misguided policies of the Bush White House that would be truly dangerous.

In a new book entitled, Dead Certain, Bush attempted to absolve himself of responsibility for dismantling the Iraqi Military after the 2003 invasion of Iraq — a mistake “widely regarded” to have “stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers.” Bush is quoted “as saying that U.S. policy [in 2003] had been ‘to keep the army intact‘ but that it ‘didn’t happen.’ Bush said further that he “can’t remember” how he reacted to the decision to disband the Army, but added, “I’m sure I said, ‘This is the policy, what happened?’”

Subsequently, former head of the Provisional Authority in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer released an exchange of letters to the New York Times proving Bush had been informed and signed off on his intention to disband the Iraqi military.

Today, in an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, “How I Didn’t Dismantle Iraq’s Army,” Bremer goes further. He attempts to absolve himself — as the senior-most civilian leader in Iraq at the time — of nearly all responsibility for the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. Instead, he blames the Defense Department, the State Department and, most ironically, the other post-war Iraq calamity: widespread, unchecked looting. He writes, “to recall the former army was a practical impossibility because postwar looting had destroyed all the bases.”

Previously, Bremer blamed the “horrid” post-war looting on low troop levels. While in Iraq, however, Bremer repeatedly affirmed that troop levels were “adequate” enough to provide needed security.

And while Bremer attempts to shirk responsibility for the part he played in failing to stabilize post-war Iraq, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright looks for solutions. She argues in the Washington Post that the U.S. must stop pointing fingers and finally admit that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was misguided and ill-concieved:

The president is beseeching us to fear failure, but he has yet to explain how our military can succeed given Iraq’s tangled politics and his administration’s lack of credibility. …

President Bush could do his part by admitting what the world knows — that many prewar criticisms of the invasion were on target. Such an admission would be just the shock a serious diplomatic project would need. …

A coordinated international effort could help Iraq by patrolling borders, aiding reconstruction, further training its army and police, and strengthening legislative and judicial institutions. It could also send a unified message to Iraq’s sectarian leaders that a political power-sharing arrangement that recognizes majority rule and protects minority rights is the only solution and is also attainable.

During tonight’s GOP presidential debate, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) argued that legalized gay marriages have undermined the institution of marriage. In reality, marriage rates have been decreasing in “all countries, regardless of whether or not they adopted same-sex partnership laws, and these trends were underway before the passage of laws that gave same-sex couples rights.”

Gay marriages are legal in Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain. In Canada, where same-marriage was legalized in 2005, “marriage continues to form the foundation for most Canadian families. Canada researchers say that in 2002, about 84 per cent of Canadian families were headed by married couples.”

In South Africa, marriage rates have decreased due to cultural and economic changes, not gay marriage. While customary marriages and cohabitation displace conventional forms of marriage, lower marital rates have also resulted from “concomitant increases in labor participation and migration among women.”

Spanish marriage rates have been on the decline decades before Spain legalized gay marriage in 2005. Since at least 1976, marriage rates have fluctuated and actually increased in 2006 (a result of the legalization of gay marriage), the same year Spain’s fertility rates crept up for the first time since 1991.

By stripping marriage statistics of their context, Brownback misrepresents decreases in global marriage rates to fit his ideological agenda.

UPDATE: Washington Post’s ‘The Fact Checker’ has more.

After returning from their military-orchestrated tours of Iraq, proponents of the president’s surge strategy and media commentators often cite Iraq’s markets as indicators of “progress.”

- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “Two months ago, there was a huge bombing in that very same place that I was, where about 200 people were killed. That place is being rebuilt today and is a functioning market. Of course, it isn’t entirely safe, but it certainly is a functioning market and progress is being made there.” [CQ, 4/9/07]

- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “We went to the market and were just really warmly welcomed. I bought five rugs for five bucks.” [4/1/07]

- Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): “Like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.” [CBS, 4/3/07]

- William Kristol: “My traveling companions…and I walked around the Haifa Street market in Baghdad with Colonel Bryan Roberts…and watched him coordinate reconstruction efforts and deftly manage the political-economic interactions with local shopkeepers and citizens.” [Time, 8/10/07]

- Katie Couric: “Well, I was surprised, you know, after I went to eastern Baghdad, I was taken to the Allawi market, which is near Haifa, which was the scene of that very bloody gun battle back in January. And, you know, this market seems to be thriving.” [CBS, 9/2/07]

- Gen. David Petraeus: “I’m talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks — big ones, markets that are very vibrant. … The Iraqi army has, in general, done quite well in the face of some really serious challenges.” [USA Today, 6/17/07]

In reality, Iraq’s markets are far less prosperous that they appear to lawmakers, pundits, and reporters in search of “good news” from Iraq. The U.S. military “includes barely operating stores in its tally,” as most stores are “open for just a few hours” and are “mostly deserted” by noon. According to one shopkeeper, “if the Americans were not here, we would close earlier, maybe one or two hours.”

And while the heavy American troop presence and strict security measures allow visitors to swiftly tour Iraqi markets, the surge has failed to produce the necessary conditions for reconciliation and has only terrified Iraqis.

In fact, top military commanders now admit that Bush’s strategy is unsustainable. As Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commanding general of the coalition forces in Baghdad, argued recently, “we know we cannot maintain the surge of forces and we know that they will start to reduce in April of ‘08 at the latest.”

Last week, after visiting Iraq for the fourth time, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) warned that it’s “very, very easy to be influenced, from [the military’s] point of view, that things are better,” even though it “certainly hasn’t gotten better” since her last visit in 2005. Proponents of the president’s policies should heed Tauscher’s warning by consulting with actual Iraqi citizens and reading the widely available government reports that describe the grim reality of life in Iraq before falling back on their misleading talking point that Iraqi markets are “thriving” indicators of progress.

During his high-profile, six-hour visit to Iraq, President Bush declared: “if the kind of success we are now seeing here continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”

The media latched on to this superficial remark as a “clear indication” and a “hint” that the President intended to redeploy troops from Iraq in the near future. CBS News called the trip a “dramatic move to steal the thunder from the Democratic Congress.”

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, however, are skeptical. They’ve produced a new ad, nothing that we’ve heard exaggerated declarations of progress in Iraq and false promises of troop reductions from the Bush administrations before. They pose the question, “Do they really mean it this time?“:

For a reality-based assessment of the results of the surge, see BodyPolitik’s own “ActUp” report, “The Surge Has Failed, The Troops Must Come Home.”

Over the summer, the administration mobilized conservative members of Congress, politically-motivated members of the military leadership, “and other right-wing allies to spin the facts on the ground and create a false impression of progress in Iraq.” The campaign culminates next week when the Bush administration will “use Gen David Petraeus’s testimony before Congress…to claim that escalation [Iraq] is working.”

BodyPolitik has compiled a list of indicators demonstrating that — contrary to the President’s overtures — escalation in Iraq has failed to produce the necessary conditions for reconciliation in Iraq:

SECTARIAN KILLINGS ARE RISING

“[T]he death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.” [AP, 8/25/07]

ESCALATION IS BREAKING OUR MILITARY

After having dinner with Gen. David Patreus, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) reports that the general will express his concern that the “troops were being pushed to the limit.” [Chicago Tribune, 8/30/07]

Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste wrote in an op-ed last week, “The war in Iraq is breaking our fine Army and Marine Corps, and we are perilously close to doing damage that will take more than a decade to fix.” [ThinkProgress, 8/22/07]

NO POLITICAL RECONCILIATION

The Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shia coalition, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish parties. [NIE, 8/23/07]

Read the full list of indicators »

The American people must stand up against the administration’s attempts to “water down” intelligence assessments, and pressure Congress to reverse course in Iraq. Please contact Congress and ask them to bring our troops home. You can find contact information for your Representatives HERE and for your Senators HERE.