Petraeus report will actually be written by the White House

[BrainGlutton]

This story from the LA Times focuses on expectations that General Petraeus, in his long-awaited September report on the success of the “Surge,” will recommend withdrawal of U.S. forces from some regions of Iraq; but buried on the second page is this astonishing statement:

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq’s warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.

The senior administration official said the process had created “uncomfortable positions” for the White House because of debates over what constitutes “satisfactory progress.”

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq’s oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

Then what’s the point? Weren’t we supposed to be getting an independent (not unbiased, certainly, but independent) assessment from the commanding officer on the ground?!

[Voyager]

I’m not surprised. If Bush Commissars can rewrite scientific reports to match the party line, you think they’d take the chance that something as important as this would reflect reality? Even if they don’t write it, they’d sure as hell edit it.

[John_Mace]

Looks like **BG **read another news article…

For crying out loud, that article clearly states (in the section you quoted) that Petraeus and Crocker will present the report to Congress. The Dems will have adequate opportunity to quiz them and ask them any questions they want. Did Bush ever say that Petraeus was going to present Congress with a written report directly? All your article says is that Bush repeatedly said the report would “reflect” the views of Petreaus and Crocker.

BTW, isn’t this the result of legislation that the Dems passed saying the WH (not a specific general) had to report progress to Congress every 3 months?

[XT]

Do you seriously believe that the Dems in Congress will whitewash the report because the White House does?? What would be their rationale? Will it gain them votes to be in lock step with Bush??

Then what’s the point? Weren’t we supposed to be getting an independent (not unbiased, certainly, but independent) assessment from the commanding officer on the ground?!

Serious question…were you going to listen to the WH’s spin on the report anyway?? Why would anyone do that at this point?

-XT

[elucidator]

If we are not inclined to believe them then their attempt to deceive us becomes innocent?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

This bothers me:

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.

Does that mean that Congress left itself with no authority to evaluate the data itself? Does the President’s “interpretation” trump Congress? If the President’s “interpretation” of the report is all that matters, doesn’t that make the actual facts of the report irrelevant?

[elucidator]

According to the Bushivik theory of governance, that issue is long settled. The Universal Executive is entitled to make any and all decisions of a military nature, the Congressional role is either a)applaud and write checks or b) backstab our brave heroes with carping.

So I wouldn’t worry to much about that word, its a skirmish in the struggle between the Legislative branch and the Imperium.

[Der_Trihs]

@xtisme

Do you seriously believe that the Dems in Congress will whitewash the report because the White House does?? What would be their rationale? Will it gain them votes to be in lock step with Bush??

Yes I do, their rationale will be a terror of being accused of not supporting the troops, and no it’ll lose them votes.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Diogenes the Cynic

This bothers me:

Does that mean that Congress left itself with no authority to evaluate the data itself? Does the President’s “interpretation” trump Congress? If the President’s “interpretation” of the report is all that matters, doesn’t that make the actual facts of the report irrelevant?

I’ve found it, I think. This is from Public Law 110-28

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ028.110

2. Reports required.–
   (A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.
   (B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
   (C) If the President’s assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.
   (D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.

(3) Testimony before congress.–Prior to the submission of the President’s second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

But there’s also supposed to be independent reports by the Comptroller General and also by an independent private sector entity named by the Department of Defense.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

Did Bush ever say that Petraeus was going to present Congress with a written report directly? All your article says is that Bush repeatedly said the report would “reflect” the views of Petreaus and Crocker.

Greg Sargent at TPM has collated a number of statements along those lines (bolding mine, btw):

Dana Perino, yesterday:

Obviously, there is going to be **a report from Ambassador Crocker and General David Petraeus in September.** We'll have to take a look at those.

Tony Snow, August 1:

MR. SNOW: Now, let us keep in mind that the full burden of this report does not fall on his shoulders. A lot of the key judgments, especially about politics, will fall on Ambassador Crocker. So this is — although I know a lot of people talk about "the Petraeus report," in fact, you have a report that is **a joint report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. **And so we trust him.

Dick Cheney, July 30:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't want to make those judgments. I think those really turn more on the kind of advice we get from the military. **We're all waiting to see what General Petraeus produces by way of his report back, in September.** But in terms of achieving our objectives, I think it's very important that the United States not withdraw from Iraq, not adopt a posture of some of our friends on the other side of the aisle who are calling, in effect, for accepting retreat as the outcome.

Tony Snow, July 24:

MR. SNOW: **The fact is that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus will be putting together a plan — not really a plan, but a report — that will assess the success to date of the surge, militarily, economically, diplomatically, politically, and so on. **And that's really what you've got to look for.

Tony Snow, July 23:

** Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus will be issuing a report**, again pursuant to that legislation, that’s due September 15th. I think the first thing to do is to figure out, when you have a brand new operation underway, how’s it doing. I think the American people want to know that, as we

Tony Snow, July 20:

MR. SNOW: You know what, I'm not going to try to prejudge. **It is the business of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to provide a full report to Congress. It is — those are their — it is their call to make** in terms of trying to measure against the metrics that are outlined in the benchmarks, as well as providing other supporting data. I do not — I don't think it's their business to prejudge; what they're supposed to do is to provide a full and factual report.

Tony Snow, July 18:

It's important for members of Congress to get a fuller sense of how the surge is working, or also where they think it's not working. **They're going to get a report — they want a report on September 15th from Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus; they'll get that. **And at that point, people will be able to make further assessments.

Stephen Hadley, July 13:

There is a process for doing an orderly consideration in September about where we are in Iraq. It starts with **a report from General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker**, but it's, as the President said, it will be a process that will be an inclusive one, and will include Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

Tony Snow, July 13:

What happens is, is that **the report you're going to get is going to be a joint production between the two**, so it will reflect their combined judgment.

President Bush, July 12:

And you asked, how long does one wait? I will repeat, as the Commander-in-Chief of a great military who has supported this military and will continue to support this military, not only with my — with insisting that we get resources to them, but with — by 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.

I think it’s a bit late in the day to claim that the White House wasn’t saying this report would be the handiwork of Petraeus and Crocker. As Cheney said, “We’re all waiting to see what” it will say.

Yeah. In about the same manner that I’m waiting to see what the rest of this post will say.

Liars.

[elucidator]

OK, so they did sort of promise an entirely independent report, with autonomy of authorship. Well, doesn’t “reflect the views” mean pretty much the same thing, if you kinda squint and hit yourself between the eyes with a hammer?

Look, John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath. And all experts agree that it accurately reflects his views. He had, of course, sole and autonomous authorship of the book! So, then, it is perfectly reasonable to say that “reflects the view” means exactly the same thing as they were saying! * Quod erat duh monstrum.*

[Frostillicus]

Will the report be required to mention George W. Bush at least three times on every page?

[Little_Nemo]

Well I guess this resolves the question of why Karl Rove needed to take some time off. He’s got a lot of writing to do.

[Squink]

Hiding the horse’s mouth:

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration’s progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

[Blalron]

@Squink

Hiding the horse’s mouth:

For months Bush has been using General Petreaus as a human shield to keep himself from having to answer for the Iraq clusterfuck. And now when it comes time for us to hear from him, the public doesn’t get to hear it.

How completely and utterly full of shit can a person be? :smack:

[Mr.Moto]

Look, General Petraeus is a very important guy in the fighting of this war. But his authority doesn’t trump that of Cabinet officials or elected constitutional officers.

Much as Eisenhower was a national hero during WWII, his authority during it did not trump that of Roosevelt, Truman, Stimson, Knox, Forrestal, Hull or Stettinius. And if a joint report were to be written, any of these men would have had a chop.

[tagos]

@Mr. Moto

Look, General Petraeus is a very important guy in the fighting of this war. But his authority doesn’t trump that of Cabinet officials or elected constitutional officers.

Much as Eisenhower was a national hero during WWII, his authority during it did not trump that of Roosevelt, Truman, Stimson, Knox, Forrestal, Hull or Stettinius. And if a joint report were to be written, any of these men would have had a chop.

Truth has nothing to do with authority. P was touted as the ‘straight shooter’ after all the lies and incompetence. Now (and I’m in no danger of being knocked down by a feather at this juncture) here you are telling us it’s no biggie if the same lying, incompetent politicians ‘mediate’ his supposed trusted ‘truth’.

I guess it figures.

[plnnr]

@Mr. Moto

Look, General Petraeus is a very important guy in the fighting of this war. But his authority doesn’t trump that of Cabinet officials or elected constitutional officers.

Much as Eisenhower was a national hero during WWII, his authority during it did not trump that of Roosevelt, Truman, Stimson, Knox, Forrestal, Hull or Stettinius. And if a joint report were to be written, any of these men would have had a chop.

Then the Administration should have originally said, “We will be receiving a report from General Patraeus by [insert date]. The Administration will consider that report and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State will report the Administration’s analysis and recommendations to Congress.” I find it hard to believe the Administration hasn’t been planning on taking this position from the beginning.

[Captain_Amazing]

@plnnr

Then the Administration should have originally said, “We will be receiving a report from General Patraeus by [insert date]. The Administration will consider that report and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State will report the Administration’s analysis and recommendations to Congress.” I find it hard to believe the Administration hasn’t been planning on taking this position from the beginning.

This isn’t a surprise, though. I mean, that’s what the law says, and the law was passed at the end of May. So, it’s not a secret that this report would be authored by the President. It’s been Public Law and available for anybody to read for the past 3 months. So why raise objections to it now…why didn’t you raise objections in May when the report law came out?

[plnnr]

Because as was shown in Post #10, the Administration has been taking the tack that the report will be prepared and presented by the General and the Ambassador (presumably without substantive cleanup and redacting by the WH).