You may have heard about the Government Accounting Office’s strikingly negative report about the situation in Iraq. The Washington Post broke the story, having been leaked an early copy:

The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. “While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced,” it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that “the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved.”

Lane Hudson points out a fascinating tidbit in the story: that the reason the Post was able to snag the document was “because they fear the White House or the Pentagon will change them so much that they will no longer accurately reflect the truth.” From the Post:

The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version — as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Good civil servants now have to take it for granted that their bosses are liars. No wonder the administration is obstructing whistleblower protection.

[UPDATE: A reader calls our attention to a second article in today’s Post making the exact same point—this time about the rigging of a report on voting rights.]