"Just wait until we get the report from Gen. Petraeus..."

For months now, the standard response from the Bush administration to any questions or concerns about Iraq has been "Let's wait until September when we get Gen. Petraeus's report." This response became the latest version of "We will not answer questions about an ongoing investigation" or "we won't answer hypothetical questions."

And now we discover that "the Petraeus report"--the report that is supposed to quiet all critics and become the basis for future policy--is not even going to be written by Gen. Petraeus. As reported by the L.A. Times yesterday,

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.

Just more bullshit from Bush about how he only does what the commanders recommend. Yeah, right. Bush might listen to his commanders, but he won't let them write their own reports.

And anyone doubting that Bush and the rest of his administration have been saying that this report was going to be Petraeus's report needs to check out this post at Talking Points Memo.

As noted in that post,

In light of this news, we thought it would be interesting to go back and look at just how comprehensive, thorough, and coordinated the White House effort to convince the American people that this report will represent Petraeus' exclusive word has been until now.

So TPM's Eric Kleefeld and I went back to see just how many times White House officials said the report would be the work of Petraeus, or of Petraeus and Crocker. It wasn't hard to find examples. In fact, we stopped at ten. If you look at them all together, it really becomes clear just how premeditated -- and how audacious -- the White House's deception campaign here really has been.

This isn't just some academic exercise, by the way. It goes directly to the heart of the credibility of the report itself -- something which a tremendous amount is being staked on in advance of the showdowns between the White House and Congress on Iraq that are coming this fall.

Their ten examples are then listed. But wait...there's more!

One would think that after all the emphasis put on Gen. Petraeus's report and his views that he would certainly appear openly before Congress and the American people to discuss these matters and answer questions. Gen. Petraeus has seemed to be very forthright and candid in all his previous dealings with Congress and the public, and surely that is what is needed given the importance placed on "his" report by the Bush administration. Surely that is what is needed since "his" report is supposed to be the basis for future policy and action in Iraq.

Well, guess again. Today the Washington Post reported that

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.

*******

White House officials suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that Petraeus and Crocker would brief lawmakers in a closed session before the release of the report, congressional aides said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide the only public testimony.

(emphasis added). First they won't let Petraeus write his own report, and now they don't want him speaking publicly about it. Not only that, but the White House wants Petraeus to speak privately to Congressional committees BEFORE the report is even published. That would mean that no one could check with Petraeus to see if he agreed with the report (that he will not have written) or ask him whether the report is accurate and the recommendations are feasible.

The WaPo article also reported that

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. They said they will continue to prepare for the testimony in the absence of instructions from Washington. "If anything, we just don't know the dates/times/or the committees that the assessment will be presented to," a senior military official in Baghdad said in an e-mail yesterday.

I'd say those "instructions" will be delivered soon.

So, here's the situation...We have been told repeatedly for months that 1) everything hinges on Gen. Petraeus's report, and 2) to there's no way to judge or criticize Iraq policy until we have Gen. Petraeus's report. And now we find out that "Gen. Petraeus's report" is going to be written by White House political hacks and that the White House does not want us, the American public, to know what Gen. Petraeus really thinks.

Just another deceitful day of life under the Bush administration. Ain't life grand?

CLARIFICATION (8-17-2007): I am not complaining about the fact that Petraeus might brief Congress in a closed (non-public) session. That possibility, standing alone, does not upset me, for there might very well be legitimate reasons for a closed session. I am complaining that this is in contravention to the way the Bush administration has been portraying and selling the "Petraeus report" for months. I am also complaining that the White House wants Petraeus to speak with Congress, and possibly the public, only BEFORE the report is published.