The Political Chase

The significance of Petraeus’ testimony tomorrow

Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress are wringing their hands over what should be done in Iraq. The American people are equally, if not more anxious and concerned. On an average, only 23% of the people believe the country is headed in the right direction and the overwhelming factor contributing to the dissatisfaction is directly related to the war in Iraq. Moreover, even though we already know basically what General David Petraeus will tell Congress tomorrow, there is a sense of anxiety and “demand” centered on his pending testimony. So much emphasis has been placed on the Commander’s testimony it seems to have changed the overall focus to a limited, tactical, binary view and that should not be the case. Petraeus testimony tomorrow is ominously the same as Colin Powell’s pivotal speech at the U.N. just before the war.

Now, consider George Bush and Dick Cheney for a moment. They are the exceptions to the hand wringing. There is no ambiguity on their part, except what they intentionally make ambiguous. Moreover, their message and actions exhibit the precise, and all too successful, strategy they have used for more than six years in everything they do. It’s a Karl Rove derived strategy. Remain focused. Repeat the same message. Do not waiver. And what is the most troublesome of all – declare what they say and their “facts” as the only acceptable reality. Dismiss everything as lies, incredulous, and partisan.

We already know what the situation is in Iraq. The reports from the GAO and the independent commission provide the data that’s needed. Petraeus’s testimony tomorrow is just an exercise to meet Congressional requirements and unfortunately will be of little real value. If Petraeus wants to keep his job, he basically has no other choice but to present a position that is highly representative of the Bush-Cheney strategy. There will be a few nuggets in Petraeus’s testimony that may deviate from the White House norm, but the Bush-Cheney agenda will be the prevailing, thesis, albeit somewhat veiled. And that is indeed what should be most disconcerting. What levers and switches are Bush and Cheney really pulling behind that curtain?

It is too easy and naive to simply declare Bush wants to stay the course and leave it with that. Indeed he does, but what do we not know and what is his and Cheney’s real end game? It is not hard to argue that Petraeus not submitting a written report, supposedly, to anybody is extremely significant. To not generate a report on an issue as grave as Iraq defies logic to the point of being negligent, but if there are specific reasons for not generating a report, the dynamics are different. First, and foremost, Congress cannot subpoena what does not exist. Second, Bush and Cheney cannot be contradicted at a future date by Petraeus releasing a report that shows he did not agree with them. Moreover, Petraeus cannot tell or lead Congress to believe he did not produce a report, if he in fact did, and then produce it later for other compelling reasons. If the situation were today as presented several days ago — Petraeus submitting a report to Bush and then prohibiting him from giving it to Congress — it is really moot for several reasons, except for the potential of the report being revealed at a later date.

Isn’t it just a little too coincidental after Paul Bremer produced his letter about releasing the Iraq Army that we’re suddenly told Petraeus did not provide a report? Furthermore, consider the similarities between the White House refusing to allow Rove and Miers to even talk to a select group of Senators and Representatives if a transcript would be taken. It’s blatantly obvious why there will be no paper trail.

There is no doubt we should be focused on Iraq, but is that the problem or is it a subset of something bigger? The Bush-Cheney administration has an unprecedented level of secrecy and deception. From the first day Bush entered the White House, the administration began an all out war to give the President unlimited power and cloak everything possible in secrecy. We have absolutely no idea what their end game really is.

Charlie Savage provides an excellent account of the Imperial Bush Presidency in his book Takeover. I cannot overemphasize how well Savage illustrates that Dick Cheney is the driving force of the Bush presidency — not George Bush. Now, consider this passage from Savage’s book in conjunction with Petraeus not providing a written report to anybody.

Any investigator seeking to uncover what Cheney was up to would find few writings by the vice president. Four years into the Bush-Cheney presidency, Cheney would remark that because of Watergate, he refused to keep a diary or engage in correspondence, and barely wrote anything down — he didn’t even use email.

If Petraeus was told not to provide Bush-Cheney a written report and destroy anything he might have written, Petraeus would have no choice but to follow orders.

I think it is extremely important that Congress and the American people take a close look at General Petraeus’s testimony tomorrow and discern what it is and what it is not. And that cannot be done properly without considering the Bush-Cheney administration’s cloak of secrecy in everything it has done and the consequences thereof. Dick Cheney is an absolute mastermind at deception and manipulation. What he and Bush present on any given day can never be taken as a steadfast indicator of reality or remotely close to full disclosure.

Forgetting things that happened in the past is something we all do, and when we do, we can easily lose perspective. In that vein, I want to revisit Bush and Cheney’s past — take another look at the extent of the administration’s zeal for secrecy and the underlying objectives, but I will do so in a separate post because it can’t be done in just a few words. That notwithstanding, we still know how things stand in Iraq with the reports we already have; Petraeus’s testimony tomorrow should not viewed in a single dimension; and, Congress can move forward to the extent necessary, but somehow must dig deeper into what levers Bush and Cheney are pulling with Petraeus serving as their curtain.