"...such a positive take on the Iraqi reconstruction would undermine the White House's credibility...."

How do you undermine something that's been missing since January, 2001?

And, by now, we're supposed to be surprised at another example of Bush White house censorship? The issue is in the headline--where are the resignations on principle? But, I did think that the members of Bush's Council had long since surrendered their credibility and peronal integrity on matters economic, just to work there. So looking for "resignations on principle" from people who have given up theri principles a long time ago is looking in the wrong place. There have been so many other opportunities before now. The honest FY 2006 President's budget comes to mind, as does the President's "plan" for Social Security "reform." See any resignation over those?
Charles

This doesn't make sense. If the chapter was accurate and it was able to demonstrate that the Iraqi economy was doing well, wouldn't that be a positive reflection on the administration. Unless it did not indicate success or was not accurate I can't see how it could be bad.

Why would you "resign on principle" over what was either (a) a too-optimistic view of the Iraqi economy or (b) an attempt by the CEA to cheerlead for the White House that even the WH rejected?

If it's the latter, you breath a sigh of relief and hang in there hoping that there might eventually be some credibility restored. If it's the former--the unmarked bills from the Saddam Era and the unaudited funds from the Rumsfeld Era having combined to create a prosperous black market--then there are a dozen think tanks that will be more than happy to add you to their payroll if you don't deliberately embarass the administration.

From a personal point of view--especially if you've been on the CEA for a while, so your credibility has been Kudlowized--it's a win-win not to resign.

"some White House staff members believed that such a positive take on the Iraqi reconstruction would undermine the White House's credibility."

??? The White House has credibility?!? That's news to me.

"some White House staff members believed that such a positive take on the Iraqi reconstruction would undermine the White House's credibility."

White House staff members understanding the concept of credibility, let alone valuing it, is what's news to me.

Does anyone have a linkto the missing chapter?

I agree with Ed Finnerty. It's hard to see how the explanation for the deletion makes sense.

That information comes from "White House officials," apparently. They would never lie, of course.

Didn't at least two people, James Poeterba of MIT and John Cogan of Stanford, turn the spot down? I am almost positive that's the case, and if so, isn't that kind of unheard of? I thought the rule was, if the president asks you, you basically have to do it, not by legal requirements but because the president is, well, the president.

[Ben Bernanke of Princeton]

Can we all give Bruce Bartlett a big round of applause for being one of the few conservative economists to publicly voice his honest opinion of the Bush Administration?

"It's hard to see how the explanation for the deletion makes sense."

Curiouser and curiouser.

Deleting good news sounds fishy to me too..

So have we excluded the possibility that it wasn't the CEA who excluded the chapter over White House political-types' objections? In other words, maybe the good guys at the CEA never wanted the chapter and enlisted help from other agencies to get it out?

Not exactly what Weisman said, I know, but he's obviously being spun on this by somebody who maybe is not giving him the straight dope.

"But the White House intervention heightened concern among some economists that the Bush administration does not value lengthy, reasoned analyses of its policies."

THAT is the most brilliant thing I've read all week.

Thanks, Brad!

Today the Federal Budget was announced in Canada. CBC Radio 1 just by coincidence segued into the news special on the budget while playing AC/DC "Back in Black." The budget if not wonderful is balanced for the 10th year in a row.

"such a positive take on the Iraqi reconstruction"

Now help me here: we "America Haters" have been roundly condemmed for giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" for purportedly giving an "unbalanced" take on the news coming out of Iraq. That would be, because, uh, because the American military operation cannot help but crumble under the hurtful slings of intemperate blog posts and sharply worded letters to the editor. The Military-Industrial-Complex has feelings too, you know.

But the White House is now suppressing GOOD news? Well, if I have any grasp of arithmetic at all, a given sum can be reduced just as well by deleting one of the positive quantities as it can by adding a negative quantity, no?

So why is the White House helping the "terrorists"? Are they traitors now, too? I don't like the Bushies but I don't enjoy slinging the word "traitor" around, either, yet inexorable conservative logic seems to leave me no choice but to think that they have revealed themselves as being against the "vast majority of the Iraqi people". A shame.

Well, doesn't it depend on whose field workers you trust more?

"[T]he White House excised a full chapter on Iraq's economy from last week's Economic Report of the President, reasoning in part that the 'feel good' tone of the writing would ring hollow against the backdrop of continuing violence, according to White House officials."

I expect that major money problems in Iraq reconstruction may have caused the deletion.

Follow the money. Then you'll understand. Might be surprised as to how big the domino effect is. I suspect that more investigations will follow.

How could this happen? I could swear I read just a couple weeks back about how the President had empowered a roving deputy chief something-or-other to make sure the efforts of this Council and that Council mesh noiselessly?

"The National Security Council believed the Council of Economic Advisers strayed too far from its domain, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid the appearance of dissent within the White House."

For God's sake. More than anything else, more than the Iraq flag-waving, more than giving a pass to Bush on economics, drug-taking, TANG-record, inability to grasp basic details of the policies he proposes and hundreds of other failings, what annoys me most about the WaPo and the NYT is their loud, pious declaration that unnamed sources would in future be used only in exceptional circumstances, followed by their greatly expanded use under completley unjustified circumstances. They're citing people who profess to disagree with the WH, and giving him/her the cover of anonymity to "avoid the appearance of dissent". How ridiculous can you get? If you don't want the appearance of dissent, don't dissent!

Anyway, it seems pretty obvious (minor tinfoil hat mode) that this is a classic GOP move - create a mini-scandal in order to get out the message that there's "good news" in Iraq without actually having to stand behind the bullshit report itself.

The only explanation that makes any sense at all is that the missing chapter was crashingly critical, they took fright and kiboshed it, published the remaining cruft, and now this is the spin.

Offtopic, isn't cruft a great word?

From the wonderful Hacker's Jargon File:

--one version found here:
http://www.outpost9.com/reference/jargon/jargon_toc.html

cruft /kruhft/

[back-formation from crufty] 1. /n./ An unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is cruft; the TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attacking it with a broom only produces more. 2. /n./ The results of shoddy construction. 3. /vt./ [from `hand cruft', pun on `hand craft'] To write assembler code for something normally (and better) done by a compiler (see hand-hacking). 4. /n./ Excess; superfluous junk; used esp. of redundant or superseded code. 5. [University of Wisconsin] /n./ Cruft is to hackers as gaggle is to geese; that is, at UW one properly says "a cruft of hackers".

cruft together /vt./

(also `cruft up') To throw together something ugly but temporarily workable. Like /vt./ kluge up, but more pejorative. "There isn't any program now to reverse all the lines of a file, but I can probably cruft one together in about 10 minutes." See hack together, hack up, kluge up, crufty.

cruftsmanship /kruhfts'm*n-ship / /n./

[from cruft] The antithesis of craftsmanship.

crufty /kruhf'tee/ /adj./

[origin unknown; poss. from `crusty' or `cruddy'] 1. Poorly built, possibly over-complex. The canonical example is "This is standard old crufty DEC software". In fact, one fanciful theory of the origin of `crufty' holds that was originally a mutation of `crusty' applied to DEC software so old that the `s' characters were tall and skinny, looking more like `f' characters. 2. Unpleasant, especially to the touch, often with encrusted junk. Like spilled coffee smeared with peanut butter and catsup. 3. Generally unpleasant. 4. (sometimes spelled `cruftie') /n./ A small crufty object (see frob); often one that doesn't fit well into the scheme of things. "A LISP property list is a good place to store crufties (or, collectively, random cruft)."

This term is one of the oldest in the jargon and no one is sure of its etymology, but it is suggestive that there is a Cruft Hall at Harvard University which is part of the old physics building; it's said to have been the physics department's radar lab during WWII. To this day (early 1993) the windows appear to be full of random techno-junk. MIT or Lincoln Labs people may well have coined the term as a knock on the competition.