Wingers Attack Democrats For Accurately Describing Iraq Report As Work Of White House
September 7, 2007 -- 12:38 PM EST // //
Really, you couldn't ask for a more perfect postcript to the whole battle over what to call the "Petraeus report" than this. Just unreal.
For a day or so now the right-wing media and bloggers have been attacking Congressional Democrats because of the way they've been talking about the Iraq report that's due to be delivered to Congress next week.
Their beef? Well, they literally appear to be angry with Democrats because they're describing the report accurately as the work of the White House, and not General Petraeus.
No kidding. The outrage kicked into gear yesterday when The Washington Times published this piece, which accused Dem leaders such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi of seeking to "undermine" Petraeus' credibility by calling the forthcoming assessment the "Bush report."
The piece was linked on Drudge and a bunch of winger bloggers have been running with it, lots of them calling Dems traitors (snore) and worse. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez said that this shows Dems are "dissing Petraeus." Wizbang wrote that this reveals that the "Democrats are so predictable it's sickening." And Ace of Spades accused the Dems of preemptive "spin," asking: "Didn't these guys specifically demand a report from Petraeus in the legislation to continue troop funding?"
Why, yes, Ace, they did pass this legislation. Shall we take a look at the relevant section about the reports? Here were go:
(2) REPORTS REQUIRED-(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress...
(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above....
(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS- Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.
Got that? The law calls for the President -- you know, Bush -- to prepare the report. Petraeus will offer Congress what's known as testimony. So the "Bush report" is far and away the more accurate way to describe the report, unless Petraeus engineered a military coup and installed himself as President when I wasn't looking.
It gets better. As Think Progress notes, The Washington Times is actually reporting today that according to a senior military official, Petraeus won't even be giving any written testimony at all to the White House in helping it prepare the Bush report, let alone giving any "Petraeus report" to Congress. This comes literally one day after WashTimes whacked the Democrats for their refusal to falsely describe the coming assessment as the "Petraeus report."
Dems aren't trying to "undermine" Petraeus' credibility. They are pointing out that this report's credibility should already be seen as questionable, because, yes, it in fact will be the "Bush report."
To reach the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.