There has been some talk in the press and on the blogs that suggests the White House intends to tamper with -- or simply write -- General Petraeus' assessment to Congress. In a discussion today with a DOD Legislative Affairs expert, we got the truth.
Congress itself mandated by law who will assemble each of the several reports due in September. It also, separately, mandated that General Petraeus be available to testify to them at this time.
Public Law 110-28 specifes that "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."
The law separately requires that: "[T]he 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."
So, in answer to the question: there is a report, and there is a separate assessment. The law requires the President to prepare the report, and General Petraeus to consult with him on that. The law also requires the General to testify separately before Congress.
There are no political games here: the US military is simply complying with the law as passed by Congress. The full text of that law is in the extended entry.
Public Law 110-28
121 STAT. 112
110th Congress
[HR 2206]
An Act
Official Title:
Making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
Short Title:
Other Short Titles:
Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007
Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007
Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007
SEC. 1314.(a) Findings Regarding Progress in Iraq, the Establishment of Benchmarks to Measure That Progress, and Reports to Congress.—
Congress makes the following findings:
(1)
Over 145,000 American military personnel are currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest traditions of the United States Armed Forces, and are deserving of the strong support of all Americans.
(2)
Many American service personnel have lost their lives, and many more have been wounded in Iraq; the American people will always honor their sacrifice and honor their families.
(3)
The United States Army and Marine Corps, including their Reserve components and National Guard organizations together with components of the other branches of the military, are performing their missions while under enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. These deployments, and those that will follow, will have a lasting impact on future recruiting, retention, and readiness of our Nation’s all volunteer force.
(4)
Iraq is experiencing a deteriorating problem of sectarian and intrasectarian violence based upon political distrust and cultural differences among factions of the Sunni and Shia populations.
(5)
Iraqis must reach political and economic settlements in order to achieve reconciliation, for there is no military solution. The failure of the Iraqis to reach such settlements to support a truly unified government greatly contributes to the increasing violence in Iraq.
(6)
The responsibility for Iraq’s internal security and halting sectarian violence rests with the sovereign Government of Iraq.
(7)
In December 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy that includes new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq, that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.
(8)
The President said on January 10, 2007, that "I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended" so as to dispel the contrary impression that exists.
(9)
It is essential that the sovereign Government of Iraq set out measurable and achievable benchmarks and President Bush said, on January 10, 2007, that "America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks" .
(10)
As reported by Secretary of State Rice, Iraq’s Policy Committee on National Security agreed upon a set of political, security, and economic benchmarks and an associated timeline in September 2006 that were: (A) reaffirmed by Iraq’s Presidency Council on October 6, 2006; (B) referenced by the Iraq Study Group; and (C) posted on the President of Iraq’s Web site.
(11)
On April 21, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that "our [American] commitment to Iraq is long-term, but it is not a commitment to have our young men and women patrolling Iraq’s streets open-endedly" and that "progress in reconciliation will be an important element of our evaluation" .
(12)
The President’s January 10, 2007, address had three components: political, military, and economic. Given that significant time has passed since his statement, and recognizing the overall situation is ever changing, Congress must have timely reports to evaluate and execute its constitutional oversight responsibilities.
(b) Conditioning of Future United States Strategy in Iraq on the Iraqi Government’s Record of Performance on Its Benchmarks.
(1) In general.
(A)
The United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks, as told to members of Congress by the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and reflected in the Iraqi Government’s commitments to the United States, and to the international community, including:
(i)
Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.
(ii)
Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification.
(iii)
Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
(iv)
Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
(v)
Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
(vi)
Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.
(vii)
Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.
(viii)
Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.
(ix)
Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
(x)
Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.
(xi)
Ensuring that the Iraqi Security Forces are providing even handed enforcement of the law.
(xii)
Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said "the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation" .
(xiii)
Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
(xiv)
Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.
(xv)
Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.
(xvi)
Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.
(xvii)
Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
(xviii)
Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.
(B)
The President shall submit reports to Congress on how the sovereign Government of Iraq is, or is not, achieving progress towards accomplishing the aforementioned benchmarks, and shall advise the Congress on how that assessment requires, or does not require, changes to the strategy announced on January 10, 2007.
(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.
(C)
If the President’s assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political, economic, regional, and military components of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report, the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.
(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.
(E)
The reporting requirement detailed in section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 is waived from the date of the enactment of this Act through the period ending September 15, 2007.
(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.
(c) Limitations on Availability of Funds.
(1) Limitation.—
No funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the "Economic Support Fund" and available for Iraq may be obligated or expended unless and until the President of the United States certifies in the report outlined in subsection (b)(2)(A) and makes a further certification in the report outlined in subsection (b)(2)(D) that Iraq is making progress on each of the benchmarks set forth in subsection (b)(1)(A).
(2) Waiver authority.—
The President may waive the requirements of this section if he submits to Congress a written certification setting forth a detailed justification for the waiver, which shall include a detailed report describing the actions being taken by the United States to bring the Iraqi government into compliance with the benchmarks set forth in subsection (b)(1)(A). The certification shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
(d) Redeployment of U.S. Forces From Iraq.—
The President of the United States, in respecting the sovereign rights of the nation of Iraq, shall direct the orderly redeployment of elements of U.S. forces from Iraq, if the components of the Iraqi government, acting in strict accordance with their respective powers given by the Iraqi Constitution, reach a consensus as recited in a resolution, directing a redeployment of U.S. forces.
(e) Independent Assessments.
(1) Assessment by the comptroller general.
(A)
Not later than September 1, 2007, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress an independent report setting forth—
(i)
the status of the achievement of the benchmarks specified in subsection (b)(1)(A); and
(ii)
the Comptroller General’s assessment of whether or not each such benchmark has been met.
(2) Assessment of the capabilities of iraqi security forces.
(A) In general.—
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense, $750,000, that the Department, in turn, will commission an independent, private sector entity, which operates as a 501(c)(3), with recognized credentials and expertise in military affairs, to prepare an independent report assessing the following:
(i)
The readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to assume responsibility for maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, and bringing greater security to Iraq’s 18 provinces in the next 12 to 18 months, and bringing an end to sectarian violence to achieve national reconciliation.
(ii)
The training, equipping, command, control and intelligence capabilities, and logistics capacity of the ISF.
(iii)
The likelihood that, given the ISF’s record of preparedness to date, following years of training and equipping by U.S. forces, the continued support of U.S. troops will contribute to the readiness of the ISF to fulfill the missions outlined in clause (i).
(B) Report.—
Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the designated private sector entity shall provide an unclassified report, with a classified annex, containing its findings, to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, Foreign Relations/International Relations, and Intelligence
So the closed session testimony of Crocker and Petraeus would be the one where any news will be made. I suppose one would have to have a mole in there somewhere. Oh well, again we stand with our noses pressed up against the glass, watching and waiting.
If there is closed session testimony, I'm sure it will be in the NY Times in short order, accuracy and truthfulness optional.
As to how the administration is complying with the law, I don't have high confidence that Congress reads the laws before they pass them, and I'm pretty sure they never read them afterwards.
Look how they have misinterpreted Public Law 107–243.
Uh, no, not exactly, Jordan. Sort of like the "tree falling in the forest...", news is only "made" when it gets to the media. What gets done in the closed session is the real work of presenting and dealing with the blood and guts facts, as well as the actual evidence of what and who is doing what and how to whom, with what results. If you want to get your nose off the window, go get a job in DoD, the Administration, or Congress, where you actually have to take some responsibility for the privelege and obligations of access to really sensitive, and usually ambiguous, information, as well as frank discussions, away from the distorting cameras and microphones with which "the news" gets made.
Charming, emjayinc, but you spoke too soon. I spent ten years at DoD, and have forgotten more sensitive data than most people ever learn. Actually drafted two NIEs, dontcha know. Actually gave briefings in closed sessions, dontcha know. Sorry my humble, just-another-citizen comment gave you the wrong impression, but we do try not to be know-it-alls around here.
Yeah, once it gets in the media, then it's news. It has to happen first. Check. Gotcha.
Now thats a giggle-inducing statement if I have ever heard one.
The Pentagon will attempt to spin the report to favor itself. The President will spin the report to favor his own image and objectives. The Congress will do the same. As will the media. And as bloggers surely will, Left and Right.
(Its funny how the "new media" is the same as the old these days.)
heh. Like a liberal would understand the nuances of this... hahaha.
You can put stuff in black and white with 8 X 10 glossies and a complete description written on the back of each one, complete with sworn testimony from a bonafide officer of the law and a liberal will still believe what he hears on wolf blitzer's romper room instead.
Regardless of what happens afterwards, the question of who writes what report is not subject to political games. It is spelled out in formal law, which the DOD and the President are both obliged to obey.
Of course after the fact there will be attempts at spin by various parties. On this question, however, there is no gamesmanship. The law is clear; you can read it yourself.
"There has been some talk in the press and on the blogs that suggests the White House intends to tamper with -- or simply write -- General Petraeus' assessment to Congress. "
President Bush has made a half dozen references to General Petraeus' report over the past months, not at all saying "My report in September". And he did this because he has lost credibility with many people, while the General has not. In addition to this - I see no part of the law that specifies that General Petraeus will give anything more than open and closed testimony to Congress - which has the potential to be far from an unvarnished assessment.
"There are no political games here: the US military is simply complying with the law as passed by Congress."
There are no political games by the military - that doesn't mean there are none going on.
Grim makes the instructive point that anyone who doesn't like who writes the report need only go back to who wrote the legislation to find out whom to blame. Any question regarding who should write what was decided and resolved at that time. They can't come to the WH at this point and complain that Crocker and Petraeus only should write the report, when the WH is only executing the directive as written. Blame how Congress wrote it up if anyone has a problem with it.
There is an outstanding opportunity here if the WH would grab it. President Bush should call a presidential address the evening before Gen. Petraeus' and Amb. Crocker's testimony. They could present their open session testimony directly to the American people and bypass the filters, ala Reagan. Unfortunately, given the past performance of the info geeks at the WH, I'm not very confident they will take advantage of the opportunity.
President Bush has made a half dozen references to General Petraeus' report over the past months, not at all saying "My report in September".
Well actually, when Petraeus and Crocker testify before Congress, they will be "reporting" to them their findings.
Duh.
And then the President will ALSO deliver a formal report, only AFTER Petraeus and Crocker have spoken to Congress. Now you can try and turn this into some kind of Evil Conspiracy all you want, but unless someone sucks Congress' brains out of their freaking heads BETWEEN THE TIME PETRAEUS AND CROCKER "REPORT" TO THEM AND THE TIME THE PRESIDENT PRESENT HIS FORMAL REPORT, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW THEY PASSED, seems to me they ought to be able to consult the record, no es verdad, Paco?
This isn't brain surgery. But then we *are* talking Congress.
» The September Iraq Reports: from Pajamas Media
Blackfive explains that several reports on Iraq are due in September, not just Petraeus', as specified by Congress itself. "Public Law 110-28 specifes that 'the President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Comm... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 27, 2007 8:40:34 PM
» Wearing the Black Flag (3) from Mudville Gazette
The story began here. Latest chapter here. ***** Speaking of the Petraeus report.... It seems that those who routinely feed from the various toilets along the left wing information sewer are currently being instructed how to feel about said upcoming re... [Read More]
Former Paratrooper and Army Officer, Matthew "Blackfive" Burden started this blog upon learning of the valorous sacrifice of a friend that was not reported by the journalist whose life he saved. Email: blackfive AT gmail DOT com
Retired Special Operations Master Sergeant, James Hanson is now focused on writing about the military, politics, intelligence operations and foreign policy. Email: jimbo AT unclejimbo DOT com
Writer, photographer, and raconteur C. Blake Powers is the Laughing Wolf. He is independent in politics and covers topics including journalism, military, weapons, preparedness, space, science, cooking, food and wine, product and book reviews, and even spirituality. Email: wolf1 AT laughingwolf DOT net Laughing Wolf's Amazon Wish List
Grim -- an Old Norse name that means 'one who wears a mask' -- blogs on issues of intelligence, information operations, and foreign relations. Email: grimbeornr AT yahoo DOT com
Instapinch
Bill Paisley, otherwise known as Pinch, is a 22 year (ongoing) active and
reserve naval aviator. He blogs over at www.instapinch.com on a veritable
cornucopia of various and sundry items and will bring a tactical naval
aviator's perspective to Blackfive. Readers be warned: any comments of or
about the F-14 Tomcat will be reverential and spoken in low, hushed tones.
Email: wpaisley AT comcast DOT net
Mr. Wolf has over 26 years in the Army, Army NG, and USAR. He’s Airborne with 5 years as an NCO, before becoming an officer. Mr. Wolf has had 4 company commands. Signal Corp is his basic branch, and Public Affairs is his functional area. He recently served 22 straight months in Kuwait and Iraq, in Intel, PA, and senior staff of MNF-I. Mr. Wolf is now an IT executive. He is currently working on a book on media and the Iraq war. Functional gearhead.
In Iraq, he received the moniker of Mr. Wolf after the Harvey Kietel character in Pulp Fiction, when "challenges" arose, they called on Mr. Wolf...
Email: TheDOTMrDOTWolfAT gmail DOT com
Deebow is a Staff Sergeant and a Military Police Squad Leader in the Army National Guard. In a previous life, he served in the US Navy. He has over 19 years of experience in both the Maritime and Land Warfare; including deployments to Southwest Asia, Thailand, the South Pacific, South America and Egypt. He has served as a Military Police Team Leader and Protective Services Team Leader and he has served on assignments with the US State Department, US Air Force Security Police, US Army Criminal Investigation Division, and the US Drug Enforcement Administration. He recently spent time in Afghanistan working with, training and fighting alongside Afghan Soldiers and is now focused on putting his 4 year Political Science degree to work by writing about foreign policy, military security policy and politics.
COB6 spent 24 years in the active duty Army that included 5 combat tours with service in the 1st Ranger Battalion and 1st Special Forces Group . COB6 was enlisted (E-7) and took the OCS route to a commission. COB6 retired a few years back as a field grade Infantry officer.
Currently COB6 has a son in the 82nd Airborne that just returned from his third tour and has a newly commissioned daughter in the 4th Infantry Division.
Major Pain --
A Marine who began his blog in Iraq and reflects back on what he learned there and in Afghanistan. To the point opinions, ideas and thoughts on military, political and the media from One Marine’s View. Email: onemarinesview AT yahoo DOT com
"Grab it before the Pentagon orders it burned..." - Vanity Fair
"...nonpartisan patriotism is the common thread tying together these reflections, love letters and stories of combat. They make for riveting reading." - The Washington Post
Winner of the 2006 Gold Medal for Anthologies - Military Writer's Society of America
"This collection is an excellent introduction to an emerging form of war reporting." - Booklist
"...there is much to tell, and celebrate, in the tough, day-to-day work that our soldiers are doing in one of the most challenging environments any army has ever faced..." - The Philadelphia Inquirer
"...the collection is riveting...a worthy tribute." - The American Prospect
Click here
for more information and list of blogger/authors
So the closed session testimony of Crocker and Petraeus would be the one where any news will be made. I suppose one would have to have a mole in there somewhere. Oh well, again we stand with our noses pressed up against the glass, watching and waiting.
Posted by: jordan | August 27, 2007 at 02:06 PM
If there is closed session testimony, I'm sure it will be in the NY Times in short order, accuracy and truthfulness optional.
As to how the administration is complying with the law, I don't have high confidence that Congress reads the laws before they pass them, and I'm pretty sure they never read them afterwards.
Look how they have misinterpreted Public Law 107–243.
Posted by: SouthernRoots | August 27, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Uh, no, not exactly, Jordan. Sort of like the "tree falling in the forest...", news is only "made" when it gets to the media. What gets done in the closed session is the real work of presenting and dealing with the blood and guts facts, as well as the actual evidence of what and who is doing what and how to whom, with what results. If you want to get your nose off the window, go get a job in DoD, the Administration, or Congress, where you actually have to take some responsibility for the privelege and obligations of access to really sensitive, and usually ambiguous, information, as well as frank discussions, away from the distorting cameras and microphones with which "the news" gets made.
Posted by: emjayinc | August 27, 2007 at 03:35 PM
Charming, emjayinc, but you spoke too soon. I spent ten years at DoD, and have forgotten more sensitive data than most people ever learn. Actually drafted two NIEs, dontcha know. Actually gave briefings in closed sessions, dontcha know. Sorry my humble, just-another-citizen comment gave you the wrong impression, but we do try not to be know-it-alls around here.
Yeah, once it gets in the media, then it's news. It has to happen first. Check. Gotcha.
Posted by: jordan | August 27, 2007 at 04:32 PM
Actually, if recent past is any window into probable future, what gets to press will be misinformation, ignorance, disinformation and spin.
No low to below in the efforts to force a victory for our enemy.
Posted by: Grimmy | August 27, 2007 at 04:39 PM
That most msm reports will be spun up and distorted goes without saying, as usual.
Posted by: jordan | August 27, 2007 at 05:06 PM
I suspect a load of msm reports have already been produced, complete with "insider" quotes and are just awaiting the proper date for release.
Posted by: Grimmy | August 27, 2007 at 05:59 PM
I have seen, on another blog, a person declare that he will not believe the report if it is "written by the White House."
That seems to me to be his way of setting up a statement that while he respects General Petraeus, he doesn't believe the report the General delivers.
Of course, when I pointed this out to him, he reacted with indignation.
Posted by: C-C-G | August 27, 2007 at 07:28 PM
"There are no political games here:..."
__________________________
Now thats a giggle-inducing statement if I have ever heard one.
The Pentagon will attempt to spin the report to favor itself. The President will spin the report to favor his own image and objectives. The Congress will do the same. As will the media. And as bloggers surely will, Left and Right.
(Its funny how the "new media" is the same as the old these days.)
-So color me cynical.
Posted by: Gryph | August 27, 2007 at 08:26 PM
heh. Like a liberal would understand the nuances of this... hahaha.
You can put stuff in black and white with 8 X 10 glossies and a complete description written on the back of each one, complete with sworn testimony from a bonafide officer of the law and a liberal will still believe what he hears on wolf blitzer's romper room instead.
But carry on fine gentlemen.
Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob | August 27, 2007 at 08:51 PM
Gryph:
Regardless of what happens afterwards, the question of who writes what report is not subject to political games. It is spelled out in formal law, which the DOD and the President are both obliged to obey.
Of course after the fact there will be attempts at spin by various parties. On this question, however, there is no gamesmanship. The law is clear; you can read it yourself.
Posted by: Grim | August 27, 2007 at 09:48 PM
"There has been some talk in the press and on the blogs that suggests the White House intends to tamper with -- or simply write -- General Petraeus' assessment to Congress. "
President Bush has made a half dozen references to General Petraeus' report over the past months, not at all saying "My report in September". And he did this because he has lost credibility with many people, while the General has not. In addition to this - I see no part of the law that specifies that General Petraeus will give anything more than open and closed testimony to Congress - which has the potential to be far from an unvarnished assessment.
"There are no political games here: the US military is simply complying with the law as passed by Congress."
There are no political games by the military - that doesn't mean there are none going on.
Posted by: dwxpub | August 28, 2007 at 04:35 AM
Grim makes the instructive point that anyone who doesn't like who writes the report need only go back to who wrote the legislation to find out whom to blame. Any question regarding who should write what was decided and resolved at that time. They can't come to the WH at this point and complain that Crocker and Petraeus only should write the report, when the WH is only executing the directive as written. Blame how Congress wrote it up if anyone has a problem with it.
Posted by: jordan | August 28, 2007 at 06:01 AM
There is an outstanding opportunity here if the WH would grab it. President Bush should call a presidential address the evening before Gen. Petraeus' and Amb. Crocker's testimony. They could present their open session testimony directly to the American people and bypass the filters, ala Reagan. Unfortunately, given the past performance of the info geeks at the WH, I'm not very confident they will take advantage of the opportunity.
Posted by: Deputy Dawg | August 28, 2007 at 06:32 AM
If libs would listen to reason we wouldn't be talking about this.
You're dealing with people who assume in a massive way, that GWB has already broken the law and continues to do so almost daily.
Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob | August 28, 2007 at 05:05 PM
President Bush has made a half dozen references to General Petraeus' report over the past months, not at all saying "My report in September".
Well actually, when Petraeus and Crocker testify before Congress, they will be "reporting" to them their findings.
Duh.
And then the President will ALSO deliver a formal report, only AFTER Petraeus and Crocker have spoken to Congress. Now you can try and turn this into some kind of Evil Conspiracy all you want, but unless someone sucks Congress' brains out of their freaking heads BETWEEN THE TIME PETRAEUS AND CROCKER "REPORT" TO THEM AND THE TIME THE PRESIDENT PRESENT HIS FORMAL REPORT, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW THEY PASSED, seems to me they ought to be able to consult the record, no es verdad, Paco?
This isn't brain surgery. But then we *are* talking Congress.
Posted by: Cassandra | August 28, 2007 at 06:15 PM