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.
And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.
The senior administration official said the process had created “uncomfortable positions” for the White House because of debates over what constitutes “satisfactory progress.”
From my standpoint, a report from Petraeus written by the WH isn’t a report written by Petraeus at all, and should be ignored. What is the point of even debating the results of this report? Why get mired down in arguing the specifics of the report when you know it is going to be full of shit from word one?
Bonus Fun Game: When this story breaks with the public and a furor is caused that Petraeus will not be authoring the Petraeus report, who will be the first administration flack to state that Petraeus is too busy winning the war to write long reports, so the WH had to do it?
My money is on Hewitt or Dean Barnett.
*** Update ***
Actually, I was wrong about the spin. It won’t be Petraeus is too busy to write the report, because that would pass up the opportunity to bash the media. Instead, I am betting the route to victory that will be followed is to demand that the liberal media announce who these anonymous sources are that claim the WH is authoring the report. Then, when the Times refuses to burn their sources, they can claim it was all a lie to discredit the report, and that Petraeus is actually the author.
I don’t know how I missed that, as it is a twofer- liberal media + treasonous Defeatocrats. Someone page the Confederate Yankee.
*** Update ***