They Won't Put Their Lies in Writing

by emptywheel

Well, I guess that'll make it harder to prosecute General Petraeus for lying to Congress.

In the latest twist to the ongoing saga over the Petraeus White House report, a senior military official tells the Washington Times today that there will actually be no report at all:

A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. “There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony,” the officer said.

The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus’ opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.

[snip]

While Petraeus’ statement to Congress will be made available, the public will not know what information he is providing to President Bush. The lack of transparency over Petraeus’ “report” will only intensify the high level of skepticism surrounding his statistics.

UPDATE: In a recent hearing, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) said he recently met with Gen. Petraeus and was shown “the data.” Coleman said the data is “very clear about a reduction in violence. General Petraeus has those charts,” Coleman explained. Apparently, those charts will not be for public consumption.

You see, I'm sure if we had those charts, then 1) we'd be able to point out how deceptive they were while Petraeus was in front of Congress and 2) we'd be able to show that Petraeus ignored real data to put together those charts and fake 75% decreases in violence.

At some point Democratic Members of Congress need to start calling this charade what it is: a willful intent to lie to Congress. And leave almost no paperwork that might mean Petraeus would get caught.

Comments

[jimBOB]

If the entire presentation (including questions and answers) is not on the record and the methodology for statistics used is not publicly disclosed, Democrats should boycott the testimony. There's no excuse for participating in such a charade.

[bmaz]

Give Petraeus a subpoena duces tecum for the hard data documents and place him under oath during his appearance. This is blindingly simple to handle if Congress has the inclination to actually do it's job.

[dead last]

Once again we have been sold a bill of goods....

We, the American People have been told there will be a report. Could you imagine the Starr report without the graphical description of "the cigar, freshly unwrapped, aromatic..."

Bush says America is kicking ass in Iraq. If so, there should be verifiable proof. Let the Hannitys and O'Hanlons talk til they are blue in the face. The majority of the American people will see this is bigger than a cigar.

[cboldt]

-- At some point Democratic Members of Congress need to start calling this charade what it is: a willful intent to lie to Congress. --

Ever the critic that I am, I'd adjust this slightly.

"At some point members of Congress need to start calling this charade what it is: a willful intent to mislead the public."

[qibqibun]

Aren't military officers commissioned by and answerable to Congress? Does that give Congress some extra leverage?

As bmaz reminds us, he should produce what documentation he has and testify under oath.

If Congress is unable to find a way to compel the Surgin' General to do his duty and report to the people, it might want to turn its focus to the stack of reports from other sources that have just come out. Their authors are willing to put their conclusions in writing and to defend them, which says to me that their conclusions should carry the day if nobody does anything comparable on behalf of the Emerald City diehards.

If Petraeus won't put his report in writing and won't submit to questioning under oath, his opinion becomes baseless and therefore worthless.

[bmaz]

Congress? Public? Whats the difference? They are all dumb as a stump and apathetic. The lowest common denominator level of intelligence and discourse in this country, on even the most critical aspects that confront us, is comical and pitiful.

[emptywheel]

cboldt

No, I said what I did for an important reason. This presentation is legally mandated. That raises the bar on its veracity even higher than normal old congressional testimony. What Petraeus is setting out to do is tell the same kind of deliberate, deceptive lie as Bush did in his 2003 SOTU. There's a reason why there are laws to punish such deliberate deception, and they're there to make sure policies are based on sound foundations.

[oldtree]

does anyone know if congress lost their way back to DC to begin hearings and impeachment proceedings against, well...
sorry, I am at a loss to include all the people that should be on trial for criminal charges.
I don't hear anything at all from congress so they must still be on vacation

[radiofreewill]

The price tag hanging off that 'Trust Me' is a mere $200 Billion - to go with the half Trillion we've poured into the sand already.

Bus, meet Cliff...

[phred]

EW, I agree with your take on the legalities involved, but I also think cboldt makes an important point. This charade is exactly that. Congress knows it and is on board with it. All of this nonsense, including Levin's brilliant idea of having Betray-us testify on Sept. 11th was choreographed to sell the continued occupation to the public. Congress has no intention of holding Betray-us or anyone else in this administration accountable for their lies, their damn lies, or their laughable statistics.

[MayBee]

I am certain you would have found a way to disbelieve any written report or reported data.

[dead last]

Bush is Don Quixiote fighting the windmills again. Unfortunately the Democrats are the windmills.

[emptywheel]

MayBee

You mean like the GAO report? Or the Jones report? Jones' report, in particular, doesn't accord with my beliefs. But he knows better than me. And more importantly--his data is credible.

This may be surprising to you on the non-reality based side of the aisle. But there are good reasons to disbelieve Peteraeus, in addition to his history of spreading propaganda and the fact that he is pulling a bait and switch on what the objectives of the surge were (primarily, political progress). Notably, his claims don't accord with any independent numbers out there, but he won't show us either his methodology or his numbers.

You get him to show me his numbers, and I'll give him due consideration.

[phred]

That's the problem MayBee, a written report is not to establish a set of beliefs, but a set of facts. The whole idea is to prove one's point. When properly executed such a report should establish that the author has a firm grasp of the facts available. People can further debate the interpretation of those facts, but the facts themselves should be clearly conveyed with references as to the source of the information, methodology, etc. This is commonly referred to as the scientific method. Propose a hypothesis, cite relevant data, test the hypothesis, revise it if necessary, and repeat until one can prove whether or not the hypothesis holds. At which point it becomes accepted theory (or not, as the case may be). The most important feature of this method is a willingness to accept that one's hypothesis, while undoubtedly a lovely idea at the beginning, may be proven wrong in the end. I haven't seen much of that lately, have you?

[MayBee]

That's the problem MayBee, a written report is not to establish a set of beliefs, but a set of facts.

So is an oral report.

[bmaz]

Jeebus Maybee, are you dense or what? Nevermind, it was a rhetorical question. The report whether oral or written, is either based upon empirical data or its a partisan turd pulled out of his ass. Disclose the empirical data, that is all we ask.

[MayBee]

I'm saying that even if you had the empirical data in front of you, I have no doubt you all would turn to casting aspersions on the preparers/gatherers of the data (they were politically motivated!). Or there would be claims that Cheney or Bush (or Hadley!) put pressure on the data-gatherers ala the pressure (supposedly) put on the CIA in the run-up to the war. Or you would assume the really damning stuff was kept out.
I do not believe you all could be convinced by anyone or anything associated with this administration.

[phred]

No MayBee, that is incorrect.

The entire scientific literature is in print (whether on paper or electronic) for the purpose of building a body of evidence. Yes, scientists give oral reports all of the time, but those are not acceptable as a principle basis of evidence. Occasionally, you will see references to an abstract of a paper presented at a meeting, or what are called "personal communications" of unpublished data from one researcher to another. However, it is EXPECTED that that evidence will be published IN PRINT in the near term. If it is not, it is not considered acceptable evidence in the long run. And in any event, such citations are treated as ancillary to the principle data presented in the paper. Go to any scientific journal. Go look at its references. Nearly all, if not all, will be to published papers. An oral report DOES NOT carry the same scientific weight.

The whole point of having something written down is to simplify the process of fact checking, further analysis, etc. Trying to refer back to statements made in an oral report leaves entirely too much wiggle room for misunderstanding, whether inadvertent or intentional. I was once interviewed and was stunned to discover upon reading what the reporter wrote, how utterly misinterpreted I had been. I had thought I was the picture of clarity. I had thought the reporter understood the analogies and metaphors I used to more simply convey my research. Turned out, the reporter didn't get it at all. Fortunately, the reporter allowed me to correct the copy (with her ultimate approval) before it went into print. So there are real valid reasons for a properly written and annotated report.

[emptywheel]

MayBee

Nice dodging my two examples of reports I accept, one of which is precisely that--just a bunch of objective facts, the metrics for which Congress and Bush agreed upon back in spring. You're ignoring the fact that, for those reports that do present facts reliably, I do accept them.

So you don't even need to wax hypothetical, "even if you had empirical data in front of you," because in fact I do. It's called the GAO report. And I accept that it presents facts in a reasonable manner. Therefore, your claims are proven false.

Now, back to the reasons why Petraeus won't show his data but the GAO will ...?

[greenhouse]

OK Maybee, yer thru. Next

[phred]

Geez, MayBee, have you never had a science class in your life?!? This is depressing...

Our last comments crossed, so when I wrote that you were incorrect it was in reference to your statement that an oral report is to establish facts. Having disptached with that above, let me move on to the next problem you seem to have with the scientific method...

OF COURSE we will debate the evidence presented -- THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. And lest you think I am singling you out, I was listening to a program on NPR not too long ago that nearly had me bashing my head against the steering wheel of my car in aggravation. The host seemed to think that science is all about numbers, and that once we had whatever numbers, that that should be the end of it. Numbers are like a language, they are trying to tell us a story, but the devil is in the interpretation of that story. The lion's share of the work in science is not collecting data, but in interpreting that data, through statistical analyses, computer models, and mathematical theory. It may come as a shock to you, but we don't actually know everything. So it takes a lot of work to figure out what we do and do not know. The whole point of collecting data, writing up exactly how we did it, and then interpreting that information to the best of our ability is precisely to make it possible for others to review what we did and hopefully shed new light on our interpretations. THIS IS DONE WITH GOOD INTENTIONS, not some nefarious conspiracy to beat up on people you don't like. It is because the collective wisdom tends to be better than that of one person. Different people with different areas of expertise bring something new to the discussion and thereby making our understanding more robust. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

The only people who shy away from such a rigorous treatment of their data are those with egos too fragile to withstand scrutiny, those who cannot face the possibility they may be wrong, or those with something to hide.

It is through rigorous debate and scrutiny that the public at large may be persuaded. Are you so frightened of what the data may show, that you cannot tolerate such public scrutiny of the evidence? If you really think things are going well, then show me your evidence, and debate it. That is the only way your views will carry the day in the long run. Of course, that also requires you to run the risk of losing.

[MayBee]

You're ignoring the fact that, for those reports that do present facts reliably, I do accept them.

"Reliably" being the operative word.

Perhaps if Congress thinks Petraeus's report contradicts the GAO, they will ask for a special investigator to see if he has lied to Congress. Because as you see, that is obviously his intent going into this whole charade. No need to wait to see what he says.

[bmaz]

Why waste time with ignorant, dogmatic trolletariat?

[greenhouse]

Written report Maybee, is that too difficult to understand? He can talk till is ass is blue in the face, where's the evidence to back up whatever he's gonna say? Re Bmaz, can you be that dense?

[MayBee]

I'm smart enough to recognize my own biases, bmaz.