The Report Liberation Review Process

by emptywheel

Remember back when someone liberated the Office of Special Counsel report finding Lurita Doan had violated the Hatch Act? I speculated that someone had liberated the report to prevent it from getting watered down in the review process.

I'll bet Doan and her lawyer are pissed this report got leaked--kudos to whatever person in OPC liberated this report, which was provided to at least the WaPo and LAT. As the report notes, only President Bush can implement the recommendation of the report, which is to fire Doan. Any bets on whether, by leaking the report, the chances are greater that Doan will actually be canned for her illegal political activities?

Well, the propaganda has gotten so thick that now, when people liberate reports to ensure their harsh conclusions see the light of day, they tell you they are doing so. At least that's what has happened with the GAO report finding that the Iraq effort has filed to reach most benchmarks.

A GAO spokesman declined to comment on the report before it is released. The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, normally submits its draft reports to relevant agencies for comment but makes its own final judgments. The office has published more than 100 assessments of various aspects of the U.S. effort in Iraq since May 2003.

The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Congress requested the GAO report, along with an assessment of the Iraqi security forces by an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, to provide a basis for comparison with the administration's scorecard. The Jones report is also scheduled for delivery next week. [my emphasis]

So here's the gig. There are several reports that have come and will come in in the next month. They are:

• The Petraeus White House report.The White House tried to prevent Petraeus from briefing Congress directly, presumably because Petreaus might deviate from the script if someone asked him a tough a question. Regardless of who delivers the briefing, though, we know that the White House will actually be the one writing the report.
• The NIE. Petraeus (or the White House?) "succeeded in having the security judgments [of the NIE] softened" after military officers in Baghdad balked.
• An independent report from James Jones. Who knows how they'll try to "soften" this report? Already, though, Anthony Cordesman has been predicting the report will deliver bad news, perhaps (as with this GAO report) to pre-empt any "softening" of the conclusions by the military.
• This GAO report. One of the funniest things about it is Congress mandated strict up-or-down judgments of Iraq's success at meeting benchmarks. You know--kind of like No Child Left Behind does? Well, I guess when Bush is judged in those terms, those gentleman's C's are not so easy to acquire, because the GAO declares Iraq to be a failure on fifteen of eighteen measures. At least that's what this liberated version of the report says--who knows what will happen once the military buries the conclusions?

I don't know about you. But I'm pretty convinced that we're not getting anything but managed fluff in our September reports. And even that fluff declares Iraq a failure!

Comments

[DemFromCT]

Note that the public's conclusion matches emptywheel's and mine.

Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report

[Diane]

I'm past the point of expecting honesty from the Bushies - but it is good to know there are career people trying to liberate the truth.

[katie Jensen]

I hope that the lying brings all who have associated with the liars down, and down hard.

[mighty mouse]

The Bush administration spends so little of its energy on getting things right (health care, NCLB,government contracts and oversight, oh and bridges) and so much on image management and fact manipulation--if somebody did a cost-benefit, time management analysis, it would seem like just trying to get it right would be more efficient. And besides, the images they manage are so tacky. It may be theater, it may be kabuki, but it's not done at all well. Which is to say, how dumb do they think we are?

[JohnJ]

I'll bet the WH is in panic driven overtime between now and the release of the "official" version (had to call in an army of temps from Regent University?). They were probably 90% done rewriting their fantasy version when this hit this morning, if they hadn't just invented their own before even seeing the first draft. It would be fun to see the headcount and working hours in the WH for the next few days.

[DemFromCT]

From AP:

Stung by the bleak findings of a congressional audit of progress in Iraq, the Pentagon has asked that some of the negative assessments be revised, a military spokesman said Thursday.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that after reviewing a draft of the Government Accountability Office report - which has not yet been made public - policy officials "made some factual corrections" and "offered some suggestions on a few of the actual grades" assigned by the GAO.

[bmaz]

Jeez, I go to comment on DemFromCT's thread, and I get directed to EW. She is truly a magnetic personality!

[Alyx]

Katie, I agree with what you said on the first post on the original thread...where are the American people and why don't we stand up...? Like I mentioned in another post on another subject...seems Marches and Protests are a thing of the past. Okay so we use votes then...it's more PC I guess...well then folks we have to use it I guess...we need to convince even Repub's to do it as well...even though it's probably easier to convince a slice of American Cheese.

Mighty Mouse....because they don't care about us...never did never will, they are not the party for the "People" but the party for the "Rich"...they only seek to further their own endeavors and the hell with the rest of us. It's a sad thing the average poor joe shmoe Repub does not even realize they are handed 'fluff' on top of their 'undesireable intentions for the wicked'. Hmmm kinda like a Cream Puff desert..that really has Devils Food filling for the center.

[OED]

PC had the same issue with the five year employment law and promises of employment beyond that law. It also applied to the five year no intelligence law(for PC PCVs as opposed to PC employees - the law does not apply), not classfied, classified and return from overseas federal employment.

They figured out what to do with all the military coup juntas they signed a memorandum of understanding with and kept the agreement in force(see URL).

PC is pushing for twenty years and a pension for medical employees, but they asked to be classified first(how PC employees get around the five year employment law - see director PC Tanzania), which has become the standard for employment and beating the five year employment law; the question is where the Hatch Act fits in here; promising employment based on being classified, how one gets classfied, and promises of employment once classified(or a promise to be classified) and how the Hatch Act is applied to a non classified federal employee after they are beyond the five year employment law and classified or non classified.

There is also the IIPA five year law and how that applies to non CIA agency federal employees, PC and and PCV; but is should be obvious that it is a problem when applied to non CIA agency employees as both Ames and Plame where violations related to non CIA agency employees; both did not follow the law under IIPA because they felt it involved agency, the DoJ and Dod did follow the IIPA for the non CIA anency emplyees, but found that it was a violation by CIA agency employees; that was the point in the IIPA for the non CIA agency employees - CIA was the problem, which is why they aere asked not to violate the IIPA.

[Mary]

The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version

and

From AP:

Stung by the bleak findings of a congressional audit of progress in Iraq, the Pentagon has asked that some of the negative assessments be revised, a military spokesman said Thursday.

Am I the only one who didn't know that Cassandra's new gig is working for the GAO?

[MarkH]

Senators are outed.
Whistleblowers are blowing whistles AND talking.

We're winning!

[Josiah Bartlett]

It is important to note that bush* received LEGACY's C's not gentleman's C's. If you think about it for a moment it is a profound difference.

A gentleman's C's is still an earned C.

[joejoejoe]

Truthiness is no longer on the menu, all we have left is puree of truthiness. Good thing Democrats has no teeth.