Bush Administration Pushed For Private Briefings For Petraeus, Dems Confirm
Amid a bitter skirmish between the White House and Dems yesterday over whether General Petraeus will testify publicly to Congress about Iraq, the Bush administration repeatedly claimed yesterday that the administration had never pushed for closed-door-only briefings for Petraeus.
But that claim is false, according to an on-the-record statement we've obtained from the office of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Rather, the Bush administration did in fact push for limited private briefings for Petraus and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker, and even did so as far back as early July, according to the statement, which was provided to Election Central by Lynne Weille, the communications director for Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Lantos.
"Administration officials told senior Congressional staff in early July that they preferred to have Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus testify in closed session before the entire House of Representatives, rather than in open hearings," Weille said in the statement, which constitutes the first on-the-record assertion by Dems that this happened.
The statement is striking, because any White House bid to limit the briefing suggests that the administration may have wanted to prevent the public from hearing Petraeus' views of Iraq straight from him directly. Petraeus will also share his views via input he'll give on a written report, but that will be written by the White House.
What's more, the statement appears to directly contradict assertions made yesterday by administration spokesperson Gordon Johndroe. Asked yesterday if the White House had pushed for closed-door-only briefings, Johndroe said, "No, no."
The statement also suggests that the White House may have been trying to circumvent a key legal requirement that was written into the Iraq supplemental bill passed this spring with White House support -- i.e., that Petraeus and Crocker testify publicly.
The question of whether the administration wanted Petraeus to testify only privately emerged as a political flashpoint because Petraeus' testimony on Iraq this September will be central to the political showdown shaping up for this fall between the White House and Congressional Dems over Iraq.
At yesterday's White House press briefing, adminstration spokesperson Gordon Johndroe was quizzed about a report yesterday in The Washington Post citing anonymous Congressional officials asserting that the administration had asked for the closed-door briefing. In response, Johndroe claimed that the adminstration had always intended for Petraeus' testimony to be public. He was asked this question: "So the White House didn't, then, ask Congress, or suggest that he do limited testimony?" His reply: "No, no."
"I just don't think it's correct," Johndroe said of the WaPo report.
The White House spokesman added that it "has always been our intention" that Petraeus and Crocker testify openly. And he went on to accuse Dems who were critical yesterday of the move towards closed-door briefings as "trying to start a fight where there really isn't one, because [testifying openly] has always been the plan."
But this version of events is now being directly contradicted, on the record, by House Foreign Affairs Committee spokesperson Lynne Weille, who is confirming the WaPo version of events. Here's her full statement:
Administration officials told senior Congressional staff in early July that they preferred to have Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus testify in closed session before the entire House of Representatives, rather than in open hearings. Chairman Lantos objected to this proposal in discussion with the appropriate Administration officials more than once. The Committee has requested that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus testify in an open hearing before the report is delivered. We have just reiterated that request, and have not yet received an answer. The Committee has also requested testimony from Secretary Rice at a hearing tentatively scheduled for after the report's delivery.
According to this statement, then, adminstration officials did in fact say in July that they "preferred to have Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus testify in closed session before the entire House of Representatives, rather than in open hearings." And this was discussed "more than once."
Weille’s statement is further bolstered by a report in Congressional Quarterly from last night saying that two key Senators in on the negotiations were surprised by the White House's denials and hadn't heard that the administration had agreed to open testimony.
Johndroe didn't immediately return a call for comment.















If the Dems let them get away with this, I'm voting for Nader.
...and I hate Nader.
August 17, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lie from the White House? Oh no! Shocking!
August 17, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it all depends on what "push" means. Just because the White House "preferred" something doesn't mean they were "pushing" for it.
Smart move on the part of the Democrats to require that Petraeus and Crocker testify publicly.
August 17, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Administration is beneath contempt.
August 17, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, this is pretty low...
August 17, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The usual suspects were floating this and did not expect to get kicked in the ass so quickly. By now no one believes the gang in the WH ( outside the faihful) and, it seems, the public tooo ha some doubts about Petraeus's impartiality. Americans are way ahead of the Washington insiders.
August 17, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was the proposal to have ONLY closed session hearings a loss leader with the expectation that the Administraton could settle for a combination of open and closed hearings?
The political advantage of the combination would be that WINOs could claim that they were sticking by the Administration based on what they heard behind closed doors.
There has been such a fuss over the Administration's proposal to break the law and move the goal posts that it looks like there will be open only.
I hope this sticks.
August 17, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, I hadn't thought of that. the winos would say one thing about what petraeus said, the dems another, and it would just become a he-said-she-said circus, with the Dems getting hit for "only" hearing the bad news
August 17, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is my SNARKY take on this article over at my blog. Hope you enjoy!
Titled: TPM Falls For Ancient Semantic Trickery
One of my favorite daily reads is Talking Points Memo. So it was with great dismay today that I read TPM and discovered a glaring instance of anti administration hokum and blather...
The issue they covered deals with a supposed administration attempt to have General David Petraeus give his much anticipated report to a closed session of Congress. This desire for the closed session was confirmed by Congressional sources, and the great "controversy" over this story is that a White House spokes person (formerly refered to in this blog as "spokestoady") supposedly lied about it.
Yet a careful examination of the actual quote by the White House spokestoa... erm... spokes-hero shows the utter dishonesty and hatefullness of administration critics. Here is the direct quote in question.
Asked yesterday if the White House had pushed for closed-door-only briefings, Johndroe said, "No, no."
Frankly people who use wordcraft to make a living ought to be smart enough to not misinterpret the meaning of a classic double negative. When Johndroe said "no, no" he was technically affirming that the White House HAD pushed for the closed door session.
Frankly, when administration critics take statements like these and twist the meaning of the words to make it appear the administration somehow lied, the terrorist win. I'm sure THEY know a double negative when they hear it. In fact TPM was probably clued into this entire affair from their direct sattelite feed from a cave in Pakistan!
For TPM's unfair and unpatriotic attack on the Bush administration I have only one word. OUTRAGEOUS!
August 17, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems more than clear that bushco had no intention of letting Petraeus and Crocker speak and be questioned in a live CSPAN type setting.
Once again, bushco tries to keep the American people from the truth.
Why do GWB and his henchmen hate Americans?
August 17, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since it appears to me that the Decider and his cronies view 1984 as a blueprint rather than a warning, I wonder if Johndroe's the use of the term "no no" is an example on the New Speak concept of doublethink.
August 17, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some time ago I wrote, and it bears repeating: Republicans almost all eventually lie. (So do Democrats but at this point the Republicans have more to be defensive about.) Condi lies. Even Colin Powell now admits he lied. Come on, readers, stop being victims. They lie. Of course they lie. Truth isn’t important. Only what they think in their head, only what concoctions get brewed in their bunker-like mentality, seem to be “real” to them. So why—why, indeed?—would anyone expect anything else from them? It was convenient to lie about Iraq being connected to Al Qaeda. Bush’s head is so muddled that he probably believes it; Rove likes twisting people’s heads; so does Cheney. By this time they may believe we went to war to stop Al Qaeda in Iraq. But my point is: Who cares? It’s not true and truth IS NOT IMPORTANT TO REPUBLICANS at this point in time. The media by and large aren’t journalists, or keepers of the “truth” flame; they by and large sell advertising and entertain; they have no discipline or sensitivity or even any reason to ask hard questions. Why, oh why, do people always seem to expect it? It’s playing the victim, and that seems to be the role they’ve assigned for yourselves. When they get over it, and strike back to reclaim the electorate by asking the hard questions and not dumbing down statements like “Bush lied today”, or “Bush made wildly conflicting statements today” or “Bush didn’t answer the question he was asked.” When this begins to happen, when influential people say, Stop the madness, they won’t be victims any more. So if you help Republicans in any way, by not voting or by not persuading your friends and family to vote, by not contributing to the Democrats, you'll be helping to promote a draft, among other things too stupid to mention. So make sure the Democrats win this time around, and don't jawbone about it or prevaricate or think about how inept or stupid they are, just vote for them. Right now the Democrats are the only force that will balance off the Republican's march to a totalitarian state; they may become corrupt but it'll take some time for that to happen.
August 17, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
They really don't seem to realize, be it Cheney from 1994 or Giuliani from ten years ago, or these jokers from last July -- that their words are recorded, one way or another, often in blazing color video. They really think it's "1984" and the Ministry of Truth will oblige them by rewriting history, rewriting their words from ten years ago to fit what they want, today, to have said back then.
It's pretty cuckoo.
August 17, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johndroe = John Doe?
Isn't he that guy who's always getting sued?
gary
August 17, 2007 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how Gen. Petraeus feels now that he's been exposed as *yet another* scapegoat for this administration, sullied from the very beginning in a partisan political agenda?
It's not the "whites of their eyes" you should be worried about, General, it's the "Heckuva Job" pat on the back. Your first clue that you were just another pawn in the game, should have been that you were accepted for the job. Heads up to Gen. Lute. You, too, can be replaced.
We now have a hollow force. The warnings about that have been a constant refrain in the background. We are buying bullets from other countries; our troops are stretched thin; the Marine Corps Commandant has warned that any Marine who hasn't served in the war zone won't be promoted; the Air Force is sacrificing AF personnel to fill in for the lack of Army troops for the mission now. Will Gen. Petraeus be the next *trojan horse* in the slow-motion, sickening abandonment of the entire military by those who pose as their leaders--Generals who are blatantly politicized to the point where they sacrifice their troops for ego and rank.
General Petraeus was defended in a letter to the editor on Aug. 15th. So, I wonder how the General's defender feels now, that it's clear the General is being exploited for a partisan political agenda by the White House for slighting Gen. Petraeus?
I haven't read Hoagland's column, to which the letter-writer responds. However, I would have to say that Gen. Petraeus will need to be careful that he doesn't end up deserving Hoagland's assessment. This White House will betray Gen. Petraeus and his defenders if they need to do so.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; A10
A Slight That Gen. Petraeus Didn't Deserve
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; A10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401592.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Jim Hoagland could have made his political point in his Aug. 12 column, "Waiting for Petraeus," without detonating a verbal roadside bomb aimed at Gen. David H. Petraeus's reputation. Calling the general "extraordinarily self-confident and ambitious," Hoagland went on to observe: "When he was awarded his fourth star in January at the relatively young age of 54, his peers joked among themselves that at last his rank had caught up with his ego."
Hoagland's assertion runs diametrically counter to the enormous respect that David Petraeus enjoys among those who have associated with him inside and outside the military. That respect springs from his high personal character and values, solid professional competence, and selfless service -- all demonstrated across a spectrum that ranges from combat-tested paratrooper to Princeton doctorate holder, tested in the classrooms of West Point and at the doctrinal drawing boards of senior staff positions.
I was fortunate to have David Petraeus as a student and as a member of the West Point Debate Council and Forum, which I directed during his cadet days (1970-74), and I am honored now to have him call me "mentor."
WILLIAM J. TAYLOR JR.
Bethesda
The writer is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service
August 18, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink