Pushback on upcoming Bush report

August 16, 2007

I received an interesting press release today from House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel. The headline read: “Emanuel Statement On White House Iraq Report.”

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement today regarding the forthcoming report from the White House on the status of the war in Iraq:

“From the inaccurate prediction that we would be greeted as liberators, to the claim about weapons of mass destruction, to the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner, the war in Iraq has seen too many reports and rosy assessments that put spin first and facts second. Unfortunately, the White House intends to continue this pattern. The American people have had four years of spin and slogans. Now, they are ready for the truth — the good, the bad and the ugly. The President’s report should provide a complete picture of Iraq’s security and political progress.”

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “So? It looks pretty routine. Emanuel is repeating the Democratic line. No biggie.”

But I thought it was interesting anyway, in part because of what it didn’t say. The mid-September report has, for a while, been referred to as Gen. Petraeus’ report, or sometimes the Petraeus/Crocker report. Emanuel is shifting the rhetoric here — he’s now calling it the “White House Iraq Report,” as an apparent way of undermining its reliability.

Obviously, with yesterday’s news that the White House, not Petraeus, will prepare the report on current conditions in Iraq, Emanuel and other Dems are hoping to take advantage of the opportunity. Petraeus has credibility; the Bush White House does not. Petraeus’ opinions are taken seriously; the Bush White House’s are not. Petraeus has the stature to change people’s minds; the Bush White House stopped even trying to persuade people quite a while ago.

So, Emanuel is subtly (or, some might say, not so subtly) reframing the debate, which is probably why Petraeus’ name isn’t in today’s press statement at all. Why debate the General’s perspective if a) he’s not writing the document; and b) the administration wants to keep him hidden from view anyway?

Petraeus’ credibility is not the issue; the White House’s is.

And while we’re on the subject, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing back against the White House’s proposal to limit what the American people are told in the September progress reports:

“The White House’s effort to prevent General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker from testifying openly and candidly before Congress about the situation in Iraq is unacceptable. Not only does it contradict the law President Bush himself signed in May, but it appears to be yet another politically driven attempt to avoid giving Congress and the American people an honest and open assessment of a war we can all see is headed in the wrong direction.

“From the very beginning of this war, the Bush Administration has refused to level with the American people about its flawed policy. It has instead done everything in its power to escape accountability and mislead us about the reality on the ground. The result: an open-ended civil war that has taken nearly 4,000 American soldiers’ lives and an Iraqi government that refuses to take responsibility for its own country.

“If the President is going to continue to ask American soldiers to fight in this civil war, ask taxpayers to spend $10 billion each month to fund this war and ask the American people for patience as he conducts this war, then those closest to the situation on the ground must give Congress and the American people a frank and honest account of this war free of White House political spin.”

At a minimum, you can’t say the Dems are failing to swing at these pitches.

Now if they would just quit referring to it as a “War” and properly call it an “Occupation” they’d start to get some traction.

  • I think Emmanuel is also spiking the WH’s “You can’t second guess the troops on the ground!” squawking point.

    …then those closest to the situation on the ground…

    And Reid just strolls up and takes it from them.

    But I’ve learned not to get too excited about what the Dems are saying. When I see Petraeus (and Crocker) on CSPAN, then I’ll get excited.

  • Sayeth Harry:

    Not only does it contradict the law President Bush himself signed in May, but it appears to be yet another politically driven attempt to avoid giving Congress and the American people an honest and open assessment of a war we can all see is headed in the wrong direction.

    (1) Note that the use of the word “another” suggests Reid has prior knowledge that BushCo does this sort of thing (fool me once, shame on you);

    (2) Substitute “domestic surveillance program” for “war” and note the passage still reads correctly (fool me twice. . .);

    (3) Ask why in hell Reid didn’t stuff the FISA amendments (shame on me!)

  • I wonder if this is just a game the WH is playing–they are indicating now that they are not necessarily going to let Betraeus speak publicly, but will ‘change their mind’ in the near future and claim that they are reasonable and are working with Congress, and that this shows they are reasonable.

  • “…ask taxpayers to spend $10 billion each month to fund this war…”

    To which Bush would reply “Ah HA! You are so wrong! As a matter of fact, we’re BORROWING all that money.”

  • Bush hears voices no one else hears. Whether Petreus testifies openly or in secret won’t change the Bushfacts. Whether we get our information from Petreus an Crocker directly or through the WH filter won’t change the fact the Bush listens to the voices and no one else. And until Bush can hear what is being said to him – nothing changes for our troops, for Iraq or for us.

  • Petraeus has credibility — CB

    Erm… What makes you think so? He has a fairly long history of being Little Boy Blue blowing the horn for the malAdmin. Even when we expected him to write his own report and to tesitify openly, we figured that all of that would be fone to the WH’s dictation. Repubs were actually counting on it, hoping — with a good reason — for an excuse to stay the course. So, what’s changed? Where is his credibility coming from, all of a sudden?

    As for whether or not they’ll let him testify… This from TP:

    Today, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe dismissed a report by the Washington Post that claimed Bush aides were resisting the open testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. “General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify to the Congress in both open as well as closed sessions prior to the September 15th report,” he said. “That has always been our intention.”

    It appears that they’d been yanking our chain again. Even if it’s a change of mind on their part, they’ll still make it look as if we got our knickers in a twist without any reason — sooooo like Democrats to make much ado about nothing.

  • Petraeus’ credibility is at question if he allows false and misleading statements to be made in his name, and does not then speak the truth

  • I’m not sure it will matter much whether the General and Crocker do the spinning or the WH does. There will be no truth revealed, nor any honest assessments discussed of what’s really happening on the ground. Once again the WH PR machine is jerking us around in ways the Dims and the rest of us never understand in advance. Probably they will try to look reasonable by letting Petraeus testify, but the message won’t be his in any case. These guys are geniuses at this stuff. The rest of us wonder what happened after they close the trap into which they lure us so easily.

  • I agree with Libra (8). Petraeus is a glad-hander. “Betraeus”(4) is the likely outcome.

    Rather than focus on what the White House is doing (what’s it doing, after all, that’s any different from what it’s always done?), we should focus on what Congress does.

    So far Congress has let us down badly with few exceptions. Will this be an exception or… same old same old? Next question: if it’s the same old, will the voters — the last resort of a diminished democracy — do the right thing?

    Do you get a nasty feeling in the pit of your tummy when you ask yourself those questions?

  • The Administration has done “everything in its power to escape accountability?” Really, Harry? And who holds them accountible? Oh, that’s right, fucking Congress. You guys have nothing but roll for those lying pricks and I don’t want to hear any more “talk” from you, Leahy, or any of you unless you are going to do something about it.

    If approving “The Surge” was contingent upon a report directly to Congress from the General on the ground in six months, and the White House refuses to follow through, than cut off the goddamn money. Period. If Bush wants to continue the War, or the Surge or whatever, Congress gets the report it demanded and Bush is bound by law to fucking provide.

    Anything else constitutes you “accepting” the “unacceptable.”

    The American people did their job, they put you in charge of Congress. Now it’s time for you to do your job. Bush is only escaping accountibility because you allow it. As Mr Blonde says, “Are you gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite?”

    • Comments are closed.