Shifting Goalposts Dept: Now Petraeus Report Won’t Be Written Report
File this in your here-we-go-again department. Once again the administration has led everyone (the media, voters, members of Congress) to believe one thing has been asserted and is suddenly shifting the goal posts — in a way as if the original description had never occurred:
In the latest twist to the ongoing saga over the Petraeus White House report, a senior military official tells the Washington Times today that there will actually be no report at all:
A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. “There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony,†the officer said.
The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus’ opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.
To recap, first the public was incorrectly led to believe that Gen. David Petraeus would issue his own report about the situation on the ground in Iraq. Then the Los Angeles Times reported that the so-called “Petraeus report†would “actually be written by the White House.â€
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) then suggested the White House would probably “tweak†the “Petraeus report.†In an effort to put the controversy to rest, Gen. David Petraeus assured lawmakers that the White House was not going to be involved in the “writing†of the report.
Think Progress then notes how then this has been changed.
What’s notable here is that some will say reports such as this try to sandbag the report’s credibility in advance. But if you remember the chronology of how this report was first billed, it’s clear it is a case of the administration either blowing it in p.r. terms or deciding it needed to tightly control the information and final form of the report. Choose your motive according to your political beliefs.
What will happen is now predictable:
(1) Because the administration is changing the rules of the originally laid-out-game as it goes along on this “report,” it is now a totally politicized issue.
(2) People who strongly oppose the war will not believe what Petraeus says. He would have to make a very strong case that holds up to intense scrutiny in the original form as stated. The changed form won’t help his case in preaching to the choir of a different church.
(3) Strong supporters of the war will play defense attorneys for the administration saying that the administration never implied it was really a written report, or find some other way to spin it because they want their (political) sports “team” to win this one.
(4) Those in the middle will feel it is now politicized and perhaps conclude there may be some good points in it (or not), but a lot of it will be suspect so the jury for independents will likely remain largely out depending on how each side “spins” (read that to mean demonizes the other side) this event there could be some movement in independent opinion, up or down.
Just as in the case of how the administration could avoid a lot of domestic headaches if they simply genuinely tried to work to work WITH Democratic critics (Senator Joe Lieberman does not qualify in that department), the changed form from what most felt it would be is not the wisest way to nurture national consensus. That the administration can just keep changing what they led people to believe was going to happen without a real fuss is another case of the strange American political notion that if you officially state something it somehow eradicates the original earlier assertions or strong implications that had been covered in the print, broadcast and internet news media.
And since the White House is still effectively giving half a peace sign to those who do not totally agree with its take on the war (and the President suggesting that his critics are short-sighted, merely political hacks worried about opinion polls and/or essentially cowards who don’t have the guts to stay the course like he does), the report Monday is likely to get tons media coverage but probably will not be the milestone many thought it would be.
Unless the delivered report is stunningly convincing and holds up to questions that are sure to be posed later, it sounds as if this will be one more administration event that in the end pleases the Republican Party’s base — a base that is reportedly shrinking as the GOP loses independent voters and many young people.
11 Responses to “Shifting Goalposts Dept: Now Petraeus Report Won’t Be Written Report”
The Bush administration seems to take perverse joy in jerking around the American people. It long ago stopped serving our interests, and perhaps never did. How many times does the president get to slap us in the face like this?
Essentially the White House does not want anything in writing that can be picked apart. Generalities will prevail and thus it will be impossible to counterattack the surge arguements. My guess is Bush has decided Congress won’t do anything to stop or slow down the surge so why provide the opposition with any ammunitions. For a preview of Patreaus’ “report” see the letter he sent to the troops today.
Patreaus Letter
One more time, tell me where it is says in H.R.2206 that Petraues would be WRITING anything?
Amazing how people make assumptions, THEN accuse the President of wrongdoing when their assumptions end up being based on LIES.
Wha wha what?
This comment makes no sense. What are the lies that the assumptions are based on?
FTR, a report is generally considered to be a written document. Unless of course you are looking to make excuses for the Administration.
Spree, it is assumed since the president isn’t in Iraq that the report he would be submitting to Congress would be largely the work of the General in charge of the fight.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/08/29/petraeus-report-myth
Review: Congress mandated certain written reports, including one due in mid Sept authored by the White House.
Petraeus and Crocker are to give testimony to Congress but there was never a claim that they would submit a written report.
None of these facts have changed since day one. Please stop the spin, you’re making me dizzy.
CS – Now who is spinning? This link from Defense links indicates that the Whitehouse will react to Petraeus’ report to determine the next action in Iraq.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46685
If no report is required or expected, why did Bush/Petraeus give an initial report in July and not plan on giving one now. Will the real report be behind closed doors?
Is Defense Link a biased site like Newsbusters or MediaMatters?
I guess BlackFive is another Far Left Liberal site or MSM.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/08/the-petraeus-re.html
The pro-soldiers at BlackFive also infer from the law that Bush WILL write the report. Now W says – no,no,no?
Geez, this is ridiculous.
There was a report issued by the White House in July. There will be a report issued by the White House in September.
There will be testimony by Petraeus and Crocker in September.
There will not be a written report submitted to Congress by Petraeus.
All of this is as mandated by Congress. It has not changed. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THERE WILL BE NO WRITTEN REPORT. What is being said (and now spun in a new way) is that PETRAEUS will not be writing a report. Petraeus gives oral testimony, White House writes a report. Got it??
Rudi,
That Blackfive link you provided explains it perfectly well. Now the only question is, why do you ask about Bush saying no to writing a report? It’s only because ThinkProgress and some others have twisted the fact that PETRAEUS will not write a report to say that there will be no written report (and Joe repeating that here, even though that isn’t the case), that anyone is thinking that there’s been a new development here. The White House has not said that it will not write a report. What is being discussed is that there will be no written report submitted by Petraeus.
Ok, now I don’t understand it anymore. Will there be a written report or not? If so, by who? If not, why not?