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.
Controversial, that – having the civilian Executives constitutionally responsible for the execution of foreign and defense policy report directly to Congress. Probably happens 20-30 times a year.
“Americans deserve an even-handed assessment of conditions in Iraq. Sadly, we will only receive a snapshot from the same people who told us the mission was accomplished and the insurgency was in its last throes,” warned House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
Actually, no – unless the President himself will testify, bringing Don Rumsfeld back off waivers along the way. But let’s don’t let that get in the way of a good sound bite.
Fundamentally, the administration would like, in its last 18 months, to ensure that a growingly successful effort has a chance to finally succeed. I believe this first volley in the discussion over the format can be seen as an opening gambit to negotiate the presence of their own political representation in what is now clearly intended to be stage managed as a political theater by the opposition on Capitol Hill.
If, as seems likely, Petraeus’ testimony to Congress in September will present a textured picture of marked military success (Defense) unleavened as of yet with compensatory political progress elsewhere (State), the American people will likely give the effort a little more time so long as the political lethargy of the Iraqi government can be plausibly explained. By eventually conceding to an open testimony format in front of Congress but with the participation of those Executive Branch members actually in charge of policy, the Administration will have gotten what it wanted while appearing to compromise.
Some among the opposition may well howl, dedicated as they still are to reflexively campaigning against a sitting president who will never again face the public at the polls and seemingly willing to embrace national defeat if that is the cost of doing so. But their protestations may well spring forth from the sudden realization that, having planned their own star chamber strategy, they once again have been outmaneuvered.
I blame Karl Rove.
Still, this reeks a bit of bread and circuses, all the way around.
Further down in the story it also says “…the legislation says that Petraeus & Crocker will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress before the delivery of the report.”
And also “…Petraeus and Crocker have said repeatedly that they plan to testify after delivering private assessments to Bush. U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad appeared puzzled yesterday when told that the White House had indicated that the two may not be appearing in public…”
Why would the White House not want them to appear in public testimony as they have previously indicated? Seemingly that would be a great opportunity to show Congress and the public what’s been acheived and what lies ahead. Don’t you think?
This is sheer speculation, but I think the administration very much wants Petraeus to testify openly. He’s got a good story to tell from his side, and he will tell it compellingly. They just want to ensure that the political arms of the Executive also have a seat at that table.
Waving the “closed hearing” red flag in front of congressmen and senators was a calculated affront considering the fact that they’re already incensed at the President for his Executive Privilege claims that demonstrated his unwillingness to let Harrier Myers and Karl Rove testify openly and on the record. By using this as a throw-away card, they get to play their real hand – sitting beside the beribboned example of military competence. Congress walked right into it by focusing on the “closed hearing” aspects, which will – I believe – be conceded in ultimate negotiations.
Congressional leadership would never have assaulted Petraeus if he’d testified by himself openly – they would have painted him as a good soldier ably attempting to implement a failed policy. Not his fault, the poor guy.
If policy gurus Rice and Gates sit beside him, the congressional leadership is stuck with unpalatable options: The first would be going to the full-on attack mode against them. Given the emotionalism on this topic and the bad blood between Congress and the White House, this is an almost irresistible temptation. But blazing away at the sympathetic figure of Condi Rice and the unflappable Bill Gates gains them little while risking the appearance that they’re also firing on that poor general, who after all is only trying to make the best of a bad situation – with some success.
The other option is to give Rice and Gates a pass, but that ends up looking like an endorsement of the administration’s policies – a position guaranteed to be anathema to the “net roots.”
Like I said, I think they’ve been maneuvered into a bad spot, but we’re still early in the game.
Interesting, to say the least, how it’ll work out. A lot can happen in four weeks. I can’t wait to hear what they have to say.
Lex,
To add to excitement, ANSWER, Code Pink, MoveOn, Cindy Sheehan and a host of others plan to march to Congress on the 15th of September. Their itinerary includes “black Actions” by the resident anarchists, various public acts of vandalism, confrontation, traffic disruption, etc. You can get a run down on all this by visiting (if you can stomach it) the various group’s own websites, etc.
As a counter, GOE, the Gathering of Eagles group, is also planning a full-on response for the same day. I’ll be in attendance again. Wouldn’t miss the opportunity to help jeer on the teeming unwashed masses, after all.
GOE expects to exceed it’s March ’07 attendance record at this event. It ought ta be a whole lotta fun
Respects,
AW1 Tim, I envy you, please take some pictures and if you would be so kind, An AAR would be appreciated.
Unkawill,
That’s a charlie. I’ve got a nice little digital camera with a big memory stick in it. I’ve been practicing on the uploading and playing around with PSP & the like, although I am not nearly as good at photoshopping as the AP & Reuters photogs are
I’ll gin up an AAR upon return and send it to Lex to edit, etc.
Actually, the only difficult part about this trip is the 14 hour bus ride each way.. sigh…
Respects,
AW1 Tim – wish I could be there physically; but will be in spirit. And yes please, a full report upon return would be terrific!