Say Anything Blog

We all know that a lot is hinging the now much-talked-about September showdown between General David Petraeus and Democrats in Congress.  General Petraeus has a lot of respect from both sides of the aisle, and his success in Iraq thus far is obvious to all but the most blindly partisan demagogues.  If the General goes before Congress and says that we’ve made significant progress in Iraq and that we’re capable of winning we will likely see this war through.  If his report is more negative than that, we’ll likely withdraw in relatively short order.

So it’s obvious that the left, which has a lot invested politically in the idea that Iraq is an unwinnable disaster, would be looking for ways that would allow them to discount Petraeus’ testimony should it turn out to be more positive than is comfortable to them.  Unfortunately for those interested in seeing the war out, the Bush administration just served them what they need up on a platter.

  Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq’s warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

  Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government. And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.

  The senior administration official said the process had created “uncomfortable positions” for the White House because of debates over what constitutes “satisfactory progress.” During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq’s oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous. “There were some in the drafting of the report that said, ‘Well, we can claim progress,’ ” the administration official said. “There were others who said: ‘Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it’s not credible to . . . just neglect the fact that it’s had no effect on the ground.’ “

This is a tactical blunder in the political war over the war, and it’s going to cost the Bush administration dearly.  I have no doubt that General Petraeus will be testifying to his true feelings about the war in Iraq before Congress, and that the Bush administration’s report on the subject will reflect his feelings as well, but the fact that the report is being written by the White House instead of by Petraeus and his staff gives the Democrats a ready-made talking point.

If the report doesn’t say what the Democrats want it to say, it will be “Bush’s report” and not General Petraeus’.  General Petraeus will be moved to the side of the debate, and his report to Congress will be cast as more propaganda from the Bush administration trying to paint a cheery picture of a war gone bad.

Which is unfair to General Petraeus and the troops fighting the war, but the Democrats are interested in a fair evaluation of Iraq.  They’re interested in losing the war.  Because that’s what’s best for them politically.