James Joyner, on Congressional Democrats’ apparent new strategy to turn the surge report from General Petraeus into the “Bush Report” in order that they may preemptively dismiss its findings (and, in the process, dismiss Petraeus himself as an Administration shill):
There’s something to the idea that this is in fact “the Bush Report.†Julian Barnes and Peter Spiegel reported three weeks ago that “administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.†As I wrote at the time,Doing it this way is so mindnumbingly stupid as to defy measurement. The whole point of the September report was to 1) freeze the political debate until a set point in the future and 2) present the views of trusted experts on the ground that, while there remains a lot of work to be done, there is real progress being made and therefore 3) we need more time. If this is just the White House’s view of the situation, the first two advantages are rendered moot.
Joyner goes on to note that he doesn’t think Petraeus will lie — though he fully expects emphasis will be placed on US military successes, given that “there’s no way to do otherwise while leading the military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq” — before concluding that the Democrats’ gambit could put them in a precarious political position.
However, as one commenter at OTB notes — and it is upon this that I wish to focus — the reason the White House is involved in the report to begin with, which involvement Joyner characterizes as an active decision “so mindnumbingly stupid as to defy measurement,” is that they are required by law to be so involved, at least, according to the Supplemental Appropriations Law (Public Law 110-28, “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007″), specifically, Sec 1314:
States that, hereafter, U.S. strategy in Iraq shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting specified political, security, and economic benchmarks, as told to Members of Congress by the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and reflected in the Iraqi government’s commitments to the United States and the international community. Requires the President to submit reports to Congress on how the Iraqi government is or is not achieving progress in accomplishing the benchmarks, and to advise Congress on how that assessment requires, or does not require, changes to the strategy announced on January 10, 2007.
[my emphasis]
If this is indeed mandated (and there is a chance I’m way off base here, I admit), it would seem that the White House has, from the outset, been tasked with preparing this report, and that Democratic congresspeople would most certainly have known this, making their latest attempt to suggest Administration impropriety particularly craven.
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will provide testimony — and it is on this testimony that we should be focused.
By attempting to preemptively invalidate the findings of a report based on who has a hand in presenting it — after having mandated the method of presentation — the Democrats are showing themselves once again willing to ascribe to malfeasance what can better be explained by a strict adherence to procedure.
And why not? After all, they must know by now that at least, say, oh, 42% of their constituents, will believe the worst without even batting a critical eye.
If I’m wrong about the law or the procedural burden here, please let me know — and I’ll readily agree with James that the White House’s role in preparing the report is a gross political miscalculation. Lord knows they’ve made more than a few of those.
Otherwise, however, I’ll be forced to conclude that the Democrats, by suggesting that the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will necessarily match up with a White House report that has been sanitized and “fixed,” are quite willing to challenge publicly the honor of these two men in order to further taint the Bush Administration with the appearance of impropriety.
In the case of Petraeus, such a charge leveled against him would amount to accusing the General of providing public support for a war he knows can’t be won — which means he is actively sending American soldiers to their (potential) deaths for a cause he knows to be lost.
Which is tantamount to saying that General Petraeus is willing to murder US troops to curry favor with the President.
And that, it seems, is an accusation that shouldn’t be treated lightly.
****
Additional thoughts from Confederate Yankee.
****
update: Petraeus’ letter to the troops.
Comment by BJTexs on 9/7 @ 9:58 am #
Regardless of the report and knowing that the following would never happen; how cool would it be if Patraeus read back some of the “Bush report” quotes and asked if any of the committee people had some concern about his honor and duty as a soldier?
I know, it will never happen quite that way but I can dream.
Comment by McGehee on 9/7 @ 10:00 am #
They have learned how to increase cravenness logarithmically on a daily basis.
Comment by dicentra on 9/7 @ 10:06 am #
If they’ve started with the assumption that:
(a) Bushco stole the elections in 2000 and 2004
(b) Bushco LIHOP or MIHOP on 9/11
(c) Bushco lied us into Iraq to line his pockets
(d) Bushco stages the capture of “terrorists” at opportune times to keep us fearful
Then it’s not such a leap to believe that a Bushco toady would send soldiers into harm’s way to get in Bushco’s good graces.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 9/7 @ 10:13 am #
The Democrats were oh-so-clever in creating that poison pill, weren’t they?
Craven, indeed.
Comment by Old Dad on 9/7 @ 10:23 am #
Warning: This thought experiment will give you a near fatal headache–try and follow the Democrat logic.
1. Dems want executive accountability on Iraq. Hence, a Dem lead Congress requires the CIC to report on progress. But Dems believe that the CIC is a liar as are his toady generals. Hence, the Dems are requiring that sunshine be blown up their collective asses.
2.Dems demand a change in war strategy. The CIC appoints a new general to deliver said change, and congress virtually approves him unanimously. But Dems know that said general is in reality a Bush toady who has intended all along to blow sunshine up their collective asses.
One can only conclude that Dems prefer high colonic sunshine.
Comment by JD on 9/7 @ 10:24 am #
Jeff G - I am glad someone with a voice that will be heard is pointing this out. The Dem Congress requires that the President submit this report, and then acts outraged, that the President is submitting the report. The legislation outlined that it is to be prepared with the input of a variety of people, including Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, and they will be testifying.
I am so sick and tired of hearing how Gen. Petraeus is a politcal figure, and will only report the good, because his career depends on it, and as evidence of that, they trot out that bullshit about Shinsheki. They can do this kind of bullshit because they know that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN (and even Fox on this issue) will not call them on it.
Mandate a report. Mandate who prepares it. Then discredit report due to who prepared it. This would be remarkable, were it not predictable.
Fuckers.
Comment by ThomasD on 9/7 @ 10:25 am #
Seems the Dem’s planted the seeds of the ‘Bush Report’ meme back when this legislation was being created.
From a coldly partisan political standpoint it makes sense. Why would they want to put themselves in a position of arguing against Petraeus after voting for him? Better to break out the Bushitlerwarforoilco stencil and spraypaint the General into the background.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/7 @ 10:29 am #
Here’s the actual for real law that passed (search down to 1314) - instead of the “summary” - which is the same thing but different. I have no idea really cause this whole summary business was completely ignored by Schoolhouse Rock.
Comment by RC on 9/7 @ 10:39 am #
BJ,
You don’t go far enough. I’d like to see the General respond to the inevitable dumbocrat slur with something along the lines of:
Sir,
Your comment is a direct attack upon my word and honor. I demand you meet me in front of this building immediately where we will determine if you are a man of honor or a gutless coward.
Comment by Jeff G. on 9/7 @ 10:43 am #
JD –
I wish I had that kind of reach. But I don’t. Now, if I could persuade Greenwald(s) to post this…
Happyfeet –
Thanks. Added the new link as well.
Comment by JD on 9/7 @ 10:44 am #
RC - We already know how that would turn out.
Just for once, I wish the military would stand up to these clowns, and call them out on their questioning the word and honor. Especially, especially, face to face, during the testimony.
Comment by JD on 9/7 @ 10:44 am #
Jeff G - You do have that kind of reach, at least to the people that have brains.
Comment by dicentra on 9/7 @ 11:13 am #
…at least to the people that have brains.
You talking about us? The same people who posted their manly bona-fides on that thread awhile back, and most of us were wimminz? And who, week after week, fall for that “the ‘dillo’s going to dance on Friday bit? Us?
Comment by Major John on 9/7 @ 11:14 am #
“Which is tantamount to saying that General Petraeus is willing to murder US troops to curry favor with the President.
And that, it seems, is an accusation that shouldn’t be treated lightly.”
And which every single O-6 and up is watching. If we see a Democrat in the Whitehouse soon, we can look forward to naught but the likes of Wesley Clark climbing up the ranks. Thank God I’ll be retired, or dead, by that point.
Comment by JD on 9/7 @ 11:18 am #
Major John
Either way, we will be worse off.
Comment by Major John on 9/7 @ 12:19 pm #
Thanks JD, I’m trying to show a little gallows humor about my upcoming deployment - it did come off a bit harsh, in retrospect. As for retirement, should I reach LTC in a year, that will about do it. I’ll come home at the 24 year mark, and it’ll be time to sit on the porch in a rocking chair and drink lemonade while calling myself “colonel” in a mock Kentucky accent.
Comment by JD on 9/7 @ 12:44 pm #
Maj. John - It did not seem overly harsh to me. Seemed to be an accurate assessment, given what I have heard from yourself and others, though they would prefer to simply just retire. ;-)
I now realize why this perfidy by the Dems isn’t considered newsworthy. It is expected. It is the norm. It is “dog bites man”. It is “Cincinnati Bengal arrested”.
We shall look forward to addressing you as Colonel John.
Comment by JD on 9/7 @ 2:25 pm #
He is just a political hack, lying to save his career, blah blah blah …
Comment by maggie katzen on 9/7 @ 2:33 pm #
but see, then they just fall back on the old, “OMG! this is why there’s civilian control of the military!”/”There’s going to be a military coup!” bit. maybe I’m just cranky today(okay, this month, whatever).
Comment by happyfeet on 9/7 @ 3:38 pm #
- Bill Clinton, this morning
Can herpes get into your brain?
Comment by JD on 9/7 @ 4:00 pm #
I think it is syphillis that erodes the grey matter. Though, if you think about it, if you were the Leader of the Free World, and were going to get caught getting hummers from someone other than your wife, would you pick Monica? Clearly, this has been manifesting itself for a long time.
Comment by happyfeet on 9/7 @ 4:11 pm #
I don’t think he picks much. He’s a whatever’s available kind of guy. He has a creepy sort of passive-aggressive sexuality I think.
Comment by Patrick Chester on 9/7 @ 7:03 pm #
maggie katzen wrote:
…and hope no one remembers one of their number calling upon General Pace to relieve President Bush.
Comment by Major John on 9/7 @ 7:23 pm #
“If we had a genuine national security emergency in this country tomorrow that required ground forces, they would have to be supplied by the Navy and the Air Force.”
My God, when did he fully detach from the Reality Based world?
Mr. Former CinC, please note how many #$%&ing troops we poured into New Orleans not so friggin’ long ago. Howz zat fer a ‘murgency?
Comment by cynn on 9/7 @ 9:55 pm #
JD et al, let’s see what you have to say after the great minstrel show.
Comment by cynn on 9/7 @ 10:03 pm #
Oops, sorry, intended for otherwise. (My above comment)
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/8 @ 1:39 pm #
Major John at 24; IIRC, most of the times US forces went to war since the US Civil War it wasn’t with a “blank-month tour” it was “until the end of hostilities plus six months”. So, if there was any major problem that Mr. Clinton talks about, available forces would be deployed until the threat was done (done as in dead). And then additional forces would be recruited or drafted (yes, I signed my selective service card in 1984 so I guess they could call me if I didn’t volunteer - thought they did not take me in 2001 due to age and physical issues) to fill in the ranks and increase them.
Unles my understanding of reality as opposed to political hyperbole is way, way off.
Am I wrong about that?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 9/8 @ 1:44 pm #
JD: Right. Bill Clinton was supposed to be the second coming (no jokes!) of John Kennedy. Okay, he made it with the hair, but Hillary=Jackie? Monica=Marilyn?
They’re right; first time is a tragedy, the second time is a farce.
Pingback by Jeff On Fire [Dan Collins] on 9/8 @ 1:59 pm #
[...] On “the Bush Report†[UPDATE] [...]
Comment by Merovign on 9/9 @ 2:24 pm #
Major John - your real last name’s not “Lingus,” is it? :)
Hey, I have to do something to distract myself from the bottomless crass hypocrisy the Democrat party has become.
Pingback by Watching Petraeus and Crocker deftly fight off defiance and ignorance from Congressional Democrats reminds me -- on 9/10 @ 3:14 pm #
[...] update 2: Petraeus and Crocker both say that the draft they saw of the White House Petraeus report (mandated by a Democrat-led Congress, remember) is in no way substantively different from the their collaborative effort to inform that [...]
Trackback by Mydvd 9 Studio Physical on 7/16 @ 6:45 am #
Mydvd 9 Studio Physical…
Purchase My DVD 9 by Sonic Solutions with free FS coupons and save on your order. Roxio MyDV…