Petraeus report will actually be written by the White House

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

In all honesty, does anyone expect the Democrats to change their position based on what Petreaus says (either way)? They’ve already pretty much made up their minds that we need to start exiting Iraq ASAP.

If only!

@John Mace

I’m not sure how I’d feel about an open session of Congress grilling Petreaus. I want them to grill him, mind you, but I don’t know if I want that to be telecast around the world . . .

Whyever not? This situation is the whole world’s business.

[RTFirefly]

@Mr. Moto

Democrats have a perception problem here, and they aren’t fixing it well. Let’s remember that General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by these senators. They and our representatives ought to give him a listen without getting the vapors or blaming the fax machine.

If they don’t show up in September, feel free to give 'em hell.

In the meantime, the Bush White House has a credibility problem here: it has none. That’s what the whole Petraeus bit was all about: because Bush & Co. had no cred left, they held up Petraeus as the white knight who would try to do Iraq right, this time, and who was the Straight Shooter who could be trusted to give us the straight word in September. They had to hide behind Petraeus’ credibility because they had none of their own.

Except now it turns out that Petraeus’ report will be written by the no-cred crew after all. It will have no meaning, because for five years, any connection between the Administration’s words about Iraq and the actual truth has been at best coincidental.

It’s been fucking up for five years, and lying about it for five years. And what do you have? The Dems missed a meeting they should have been at. And the Dems have the perception problem? In your fantasies.

Not that the Dems don’t have a PR problem - but it’s because people expected them to stand up to this Administration, and not be jerked around by it on the war, FISA, and who knows what else.

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

Whyever not? This situation is the whole world’s business.

Because it would be a grandstanding circus?

-XT

[BobLibDem]

I can’t fault someone for walking out of Keane’s testimony.

Almost all Iraqis I have spoken to - and there are hundreds across the full socioeconomic spectrum to include Sunnis and Shiite - almost to a person believe that security has improved and we do not want the Americans and the Iraqi security forces to leave. We are now living with the people in Baghdad on a 24/7 experience. Sectarian violence, which is the Sunni-Shi’a violence, is down significantly from '06, with June being a one-year low.

This goes against every bit of polling data I have seen where the vast majority of Iraqis want the US out.

I have visited almost every neighborhood in Baghdad more than once. Schools are open, markets are teaming with people - most are operating at full capacity, some are returning to it. Cafes, pool halls, coffee houses that I visited are full of people. Government services, albeit some in a limited and uneven fashion, are being applied to the people.

Yep, it must be just about like Disney World there.

I agree a better move would have been to listen, take notes, and question intensely. But it sure looks like you needed your boots on and your legs off the floor to keep ahead of the manure being spread.

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

Because it would be a grandstanding circus?

-XT

And the downside to that would be . . . ?

[XT]

…self evident, I should say. If you don’t think that a media circus with a bunch of hard blowing politician types grandstanding for the spotlight is a bad thing then I guess YMV, BG.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

…self evident, I should say. If you don’t think that a media circus with a bunch of hard blowing politician types grandstanding for the spotlight is a bad thing then I guess YMV, BG.

-XT

That description applies with equal force to the Watergate hearings and the Iran-Contra hearings, to which there was no downside. (There was a downside to the Monicagate hearings, but only because of the utter bullshit of the subject matter.)

[elucidator]

Grandstanding politicians will attract unwarranted attention to this trivial matter.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Whyever not? This situation is the whole world’s business.

That’s an incredibly naive notion, BG.

“The whole world” can read about the War in the press, but they have no business knowing what our Generals think of the situation. Congress does, yes, but not the world. Besides, if the cameras are rolling, Petraeus is going to be less than open, as well he should be, and that’s not a good thing.

[Captain_Amazing]

@RTFirefly

And who writes the Comptroller’s report, what independent commission are we talking about, and will we get to hear Petraeus’ and Crocker’s testimony?

It’s all in the law I referred to above. The Comptroller’s report is written by the Office of the Comptroller, the indepdendent commission is the one mentioned in this article:

Commission to Report to Congress on Iraqi Security Forces

and both Petraeus and Crocker will testify before Congress. That’s what the law requires.

[E-Sabbath]

I don’t think anyone has an issue about testimony in a closed session, recorded.

[Merijeek]

Petraeus’s September Report:

"We have made important gains. However, they can be difficult to quantify when the whole of the situation is so poor, so I’m going to give some anecdotes and cherry-pick some statistics.

The upshot of my report is that we must persevere until my next report. So, I think all you nattering nabobs of negativity really need to keep quiet for another six months."

The next six months will consist of Tony Snowjob telling everyone that “We don’t want to comment on anything important until General Petraeus’s March report.”

And I’m not even a psychic like some users claim to be!

-Joe

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

“The whole world” can read about the War in the press, but they have no business knowing what our Generals think of the situation. Congress does, yes, but not the world.

I see no justification here for closed hearings such as would be used for reports to the intelligence committees involving highly classified information. Whatever Congress is told about how our generals view the Iraq situation, the American people and the world at large will also know, one way or another.

@John Mace

Besides, if the cameras are rolling, Petraeus is going to be less than open, as well he should be, and that’s not a good thing.

:dubious: No, there is certainly not any good reason why Petraeus should be “less than open” if the cameras are rolling.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

I see no justification here for closed hearings such as would be used for reports to the intelligence committees involving highly classified information

Well, there you have it. You don’t see it, so it’s not there. Dude, this is a war. You don’t broadcast your every thought about the war to the other side. I want Congress to know Petraeus’ every thought about the war.

Whatever Congress is told about how our generals view the Iraq situation, the American people and the world at large will also know, one way or another.

Maybe, maybe not. No need to facilitate the process.

:dubious: No, there is certainly not any good reason why Petraeus should be “less than open” if the cameras are rolling.

:rolleyes: See above.

Besides, did you read the law Captain Amazing quoted? It said that testimony in both open and closed sessions was required. It’s already decided, so your naive idea about how a war is executed is irrelevant.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Besides, did you read the law Captain Amazing quoted? It said that testimony in both open and closed sessions was required.

Right – classified matters can be discussed in the closed sessions, but Petraeus is still required to testify (presumably on more general matters such as whether and how benchmarks have been met) in open sessions. With, you know, the TV cameras and everything.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Right – classified matters can be discussed in the closed sessions…

So, you’ve changed your mind?

@BG

I see no justification here for closed hearings such as would be used for reports to the intelligence committees involving highly classified information. Whatever Congress is told about how our generals view the Iraq situation, the American people and the world at large will also know, one way or another.

For examples, details about which tactics have been more/less successful are just as sensitive as any intelligence reports. Ditto for tactics we plan to use in the future, including where we will deploy our troops.

Note that the closed sessions are a subset of Congress, the committees. There is no reason to believe that info discussed in those sessions will be stuff that “the world at large will also know, one way or another”.

[RTFirefly]

@Captain Amazing

It’s all in the law I referred to above. The Comptroller’s report is written by the Office of the Comptroller,

Care to quote the law in relevant portion?

the indepdendent commission is the one mentioned in this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201853.html

Which commission is apparently only looking at the question of the abilities of Iraqi security forces. The articles implied that even whose side they were on was out of scope.

Big whoop.

both Petraeus and Crocker will testify before Congress. That’s what the law requires.

IOW, you’re not answering this question.

[Captain_Amazing]

@RTFirefly

Care to quote the law in relevant portion?

Here it is again, along with other relevant parts:

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.

. . .

(e) Independent Assessments.–
(1) Assessment by the comptroller general.–
(A) Not later than September 1, 2007, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress an independent report setting forth–
(i) the status of the achievement of the benchmarks specified in subsection (b)(1)(A); and
(ii) the Comptroller General’s assessment of whether or not each such benchmark has been met.
(2) Assessment of the capabilities of iraqi security
forces.–
(A) In general.–There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense, $750,000, that the Department, in turn, will commission an independent, private sector entity, which operates as a 501(c)(3), with recognized credentials and expertise in military affairs, to prepare an independent report assessing the following:
(i) The readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to assume responsibility for maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, and bringing greater security to Iraq’s 18 provinces in the next 12 to 18 months, and bringing an end to sectarian violence to achieve national reconciliation.
(ii) The training, equipping, command, control and intelligence capabilities, and logistics capacity of the ISF.
(iii) The likelihood that, given the ISF’s record of preparedness to date, following years of training and equipping by U.S. forces, the continued support of U.S. troops will contribute to the readiness of the ISF to fulfill the missions outlined in clause (i).
(B) Report.–Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the designated private sector entity shall provide an unclassified report, with a classified annex, containing its findings, to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, Foreign Relations/International Relations, and Intelligence.

[elucidator]

@John Mace

…For examples, details about which tactics have been more/less successful are just as sensitive as any intelligence reports. Ditto for tactics we plan to use in the future, including where we will deploy our troops…

The enemy knows what we’re doing, we’re doing it to them. If anyone knows the effectiveness of those tactics, it would be they. The only people left in the dark are us.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

The enemy knows what we’re doing, we’re doing it to them. If anyone knows the effectiveness of those tactics, it would be they.

Got a cite for that?

But lets address the larger picture: Are you of the same mind as **BG **(or at least what his earlier mind was) that no closed session testimony is necessary-- that the world deserves to know everything that Congress hears from Petraeus?