Breaking! Petraeus Part of Bush Administration

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:24:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A lot of pixels have been devoted to the fact that the Bush Administration will be writing the September report, as "opposed" to just General Petraeus. The problem with this logic is that General Petraeus is part of the Bush Administration too. So how is this different? The Left blogs seem to have bought into the notion of Petraeus as honest broker. He is not. Matt Yglesias gets it right:

But as we read yesterday, the [September] reports are being written by the White House. This is, in my view, appropriate. Petraeus and Crocker work for Bush and it's always been silly to portray them as independent actors. But the point is that there's no independent assessment here -- the White House is going to make an official statement of the White House's assessment of the situation and why the White House believes its official assessment supports the policies the White House favors. All that's fine, and insofar as the White House is persuasive it should sway people. But we've already seen what the White House talking points on the surge are . . . -- there's no particular reason to wait with baited breath to see how they format the official document.

Zactly. BTW, what happens if the Bush Administration allows Petraeus to "write" the report on his own? It is suddenly now the Holy Grail again?

< Thursday Open Thread | Class Action May Proceed on Behalf of NYC Homeless >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Breaking! Petraeus Part of Bush Administration | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What happens... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:38:53 PM EST

...if Petraeus refuses to sign off on a WH written report?

And would he refuse to?

And if he doesn't refuse to, what happens to his reputation?

Hmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:21:06 PM EST

Petraeus still has the respect of his left leaning and against the Iraq War peers. Makes ya wonder huh what happens if truthiness is lacking and Petraeus signs off on it. What happens to his General peer support? He hasn't done anything to break the honor code thusfar but the Bushies may be asking him to do just that shortly. I'm told though by officers who served under him that Petraeus can tango, foxtrot, and cha cha like a contestant on dancing with the stars. Soon we will know.


I'll bet (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:23:39 PM EST

he's a dancing fool.

I hope lose the bet.


: errr... "I hope ::I:: lose the bet" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:24:41 PM EST

Ventriloquist Politics - Confuse the Lefties (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by seabos84 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:18:57 PM EST

a tangent on your point

it seems to be an occupational hazard of THE TRUTH tellers that the frequently focus on the blather coming from the dummy VS. what the dummie's handlers are running around doing behind the dummy.

at the end of the day, some flacks 2 or 3 levels below all the main players are gonna write some pack of f'ing lies that all the big thieves are gonna sign off on.

BTW, why are we playing the let's-see-what-patreas-says game anyway? its like paying attention to the arguements between 2 dummies on stage ... whatever!

here are some FACTS and THE TRUTH

they are gonna lie,
they are gonna try to win.

do we need graduate school degrees to make that more understandable to those who have to see too much complexity?

rmm.

Good point (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by kovie on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:19:21 PM EST

But made somewhat irrelevant by news coming out today that the administration does not want them to report in open session to congress, but rather privately, and that the "Petreaus" report will instead be delivered by Gates and Rice.

I'm far less concerned with who actually writes this report (since it was going to be ghostwritten for them anyway even if it had their names on it) than with whether they get to testify to congress under oath. Having Gates and Rice be their proxies is clearly unacceptable and yet another clear indication that the administration does not stand behind its rhetoric.

Are we now going to have to endure the spectacle of congress subpoenaing an active duty general and US ambassador? Does the administration want this fight and does it really believe that it can and will win it? Is it aware of the slipping support for a large number of GOP senators up for reelection in '08, due to their support for Bush and the war? Do they really want to ensure landslide Dem wins in '08, or are they still confident in their "math"?

Sheesh. Either they're incredibly stupid, incredibly crazy, or have other plans...

(Which, of course, if they did, would not be inconsistent with either.)

following on (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by manys on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:04:06 PM EST

Aren't all of these questions moot if the sole goal is to prolong the war past the elections?


: Plus, the questions are meaningless iff (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:09:23 PM EST

Congress lacks the fortitude to defund the war.

: Only if one considers (none / 0) (#14)
by kovie on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:09:40 PM EST

the constitution and democratic process to be themselves "moot", and the prospects for beginning a withdrawal before 1/20/09 to be zero.
They may or may not be, but I'd like to believe that people who continue to post here and elsewhere and take action to fix things do not believe this and are not prepared to believe it. I certainly don't, and I hope that you don't, either.

That Article (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by talex on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:07:29 PM EST

also said the WH is being pressed:

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.
White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.

The article goes on to mention a number of high profile Dems who are pressuring Bush for Petraeus to testify publicly. I think he will testify and I hope they ask a lot of probing questions.

I also think he will offer a mixed bag of both truth and Bush talking points. It should be easy for anyone to separate the two.


: You mean (none / 0) (#21)
by kovie on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:57:08 PM EST

being able to tell the difference between a meaningless throwaway remark like "there have been some successes" (we lowered the number of bombings in a specific neighborhood of Baghdad for over 6 days--yippee!), and an obvious lie about how the surge has been an overall success in terms of its objectives?
I certainly hope so!

Suggestion (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Al on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:37:17 PM EST

FTWPA:

Several Republicans have hinted that their support will depend on a credible presentation by Petraeus, not only of tangible military progress but of evidence that the Iraqi government is taking real steps toward ethnic and religious reconciliation.

They could try reading the papers. All the Sunni members of the government have just resigned.

When do members of the Iraqi parliament (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Geekesque on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:09:55 PM EST

submit their report?

: When is C-span covering that debate? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 04:40:12 PM EST

Oh what a debate that would be if everybody showed up.

A question (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by glanton on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:24:24 PM EST

Are there still people saying let's wait and see what Petraus says in September, before we draw any conclusions ETC?

That was funny a few months ago when pundits were saying such things, as though there were any element of suspense.

Are you a nonbeliever? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 04:42:07 PM EST

You do know that Petraeus was a virgin birth don't you?


: Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by glanton on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 04:53:26 PM EST

I just don't get the "Halo Effect" people keep trying to attach to this guy.
It has been clear since the September Date was announced, the essence of what he would say. Did it ever occur to anyone that there was even a modicum of a possibility that he or any other Bush official would stand in front of cameras and say....?
Oh, never mind. All the rhyme and reason in the world won't stop the Network and Cable news people, and front pages everywhere, from "reporting" on his speech the way we know they will....

Waiting For Petraeus (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by john horse on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:54:51 AM EST

The bait and switch practices of the Bush administration continues. They are worse than some telemarketers. They kept telling us that we should give the surge a chance. We shouldn't make any judgements until we hear from Petraeus. We needed to hear from him because he was the commander in the field. Now it turns out that Petraeus isn't showing up or is barely showing up. The report is being written by the White House and for the most part will be delivered by the White House.

Tell me another lie about Iraq.

It isn't lying john (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:06:01 AM EST

It's hard work, you have to make modifications to things, it's hard work and someone has to decide because we thought the oceans kept us safe and it's hard work.


Are Bush Supporters Masochists? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by john horse on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:54:54 PM EST

Tracy,
(Sarcasm alert!) I'm starting to think that Bush's supporters must be masochists. Maybe they just enjoy being humiliated again and again. How many times can they repeat his talking points as the gospel truth only to find out later that it was just more BS? As Rep. Bob Allen's explanation of his arrest demonstrates, there seems to be almost nothing that Republicans won't swallow.


: I woke up sick today (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:44:47 PM EST

Fever, body aches, I think the peanut harvest has started down here but not sure. It makes some people with allergies evil ill but Bob Allen has managed to make me laugh my tail off. Thanks for the link. If I wasn't as positive as any of us can ever be I am conscious and mostly awake I would swear I have had the longest surreal R.E.M. nap in the history of napping human beings ;) Neither King or Koontz could have made this past six years up.

White House folds on Petraeus and Crocker (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:31:32 AM EST

testifying in public. link

Q Gordon, is the White House trying to restrict the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker when they come here in mid-September with their latest report on the situation in Iraq?
MR. JOHNDROE: General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify to the Congress in both open as well as closed sessions prior to the September 15th report. That has always been our intention. I believe the President has talked about the need to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Those two men will come back to the United States, they will report to the President; they will report to Secretary Rice, they will report to Secretary Gates, as well as the joint staff. They will report to Congress, and more importantly, they will report to the American people on what they see on the ground there.
And I think it's unfortunate that anyone would suggest that they would not do that; trying to start a fight where there really isn't one, because this has always been the plan, and in fact it's even called for in the legislation.
Q So, Gordon, can you clarify -- there was no effort by the White House or the State Department to put Secretaries Rice and Gates out before the public to testify, as opposed to Ambassador Crocker or General Petraeus, in their place?
MR. JOHNDROE: That's correct. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify, they will testify about the conditions on the ground in Iraq, what they see, what they think are some recommendations about the way forward. I expect that Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates will also testify during this time period. They often testify before various members of both -- of various committees of both Houses. But it was never an either/or, because Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus will be testifying.
Q And just to be absolutely clear, they're going to be testifying publicly, before cameras, before these various committees?
MR. JOHNDROE: Yes. They will -- both Ambassador Crocker, as well as General Petraeus, will have public testimony prior to September 15th.

It's okay everyone, I'll break it ppj. Then we can fight about how Reid and Congressional aides really didn't lie about the White House attempting to hide Petraeus and Crocker testimony from the public. Cracks me up, what do these guys do when they have to give in the law? To make themselves better do they all sit there and pout and then one of them says "Not fair, I hate those Democrats and I'm telling everyone they are liars liars pants on fire sitting on a telephone wire!" It's so juvenile.

The WH has managed to (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Edger on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:54:56 PM EST

arrange for Crocker and Petraeus to

report to Secretary Rice, ... report to Secretary Gates, as well as the joint staff.

then they they will report to Congress, and say publicly to Congress what the WH wants them to say, and more importantly, they will report to the American people on what they see on the ground there, and say publicly to Congress what the WH wants them to say...

Do you think Rice and Gates (none / 0) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:30:03 PM EST

will think of all the possible avenues of questioning inquiring Dems can and will use? Do you think the Congressional Dems will care enough to apply themselves to the task of ending Iraq this time?


: Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Edger on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:40:35 PM EST

Yes, I think Rice and Gates and WH will do their best to do exactly that. It's just standard planning and role playing, and they have managed to play the game two three chess moves ahead of the Democrats all along.
And no, I don't think the Democrat Leadership wants to end the occupation, or do anything to rein in Presidential power, because I think they want that power themselves.
Maybe I'm wrong and I hope I am, but I lost confidence in them after the supplemental in May and especially after the FISA amendment, and they haven't done anything to show me any reason I shouldn't have.
Cynicism 'r us?

Malebolge (none / 0) (#2)
by Sumner on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 01:47:46 PM EST

Malebolge, Dante's name for the Eighth Circle, continues the circular, funnel-shaped landscape; it's graded very steeply downward towards a really low, central pit. This central pit will be the next and last circle, the very bottom and center of Hell. Before arriving at the center, the pit, the travelers have to make their way into and then up out of 10 deep ditches, or "pouches" ("bolgia"), that make up the eighth circle. Each pouch is devised to punish a particular class of sins, all related to fraud. The contrapasso becomes more and more severe the deeper the travelers descend. At the bottom of Malebolge, the horror is not for faint-hearted readers.
Fraud incurs a severe form of divine justice because it involves the active use of reason, our distinctly human, angelic faculty, for unnatural ends. The sins of incontinence may be less severely punished because they can be considered crimes of passion which don't involve the intellect as directly. Sins of violence can go either way--they are sometimes crimes of passion, sometimes premeditated. Violent crimes against your neighbor are likely to involve the least amount of will, whereas violence against God, Art ("God's grandchild"), and Nature are more likely to involve the will. Fraud, however, always involves a perversion of human intelligence--that is, human intelligence used for evil (rather than angelic) purposes. There is always the active use of reason, the active free will involved.
Since humans are distinguished compared to the "lower" animals by their intelligence, it stands reason that to corrupt this aspect of yourself, to abuse reason, is to fail most miserably at being a human being, and to be, consequently, the worst possible sinner.

I like hanging out with a bigger (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:24:38 PM EST

$marta$$ than self, takes the heat and pressure off what my mouth types ;)

In fairness (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:41:42 PM EST

I can't remember reading anything at DailyKos MyDD etc. about taking Petraeus seriously.

I don't think any informed person really believes that he's some kind of impartial observer.

: There is certainly a lot on DK today on the (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:58:58 PM EST

procedural niceties surrounding the report though.

: I read quite a few things (none / 0) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:10:06 AM EST

over a month back at DK where people expressed feelings of betrayal by Petraeus. He seemed to bring a grain of hope with him into the picture for many folks. Even people in the military seemed to believe something wonderful was going to happen under his command and around the same time frame I heard soldiers calling him David Betrayus. It seemed to be a perception that many had and not given to any specific demographic.