Questions for Petraeus

Today's New York Times asked a number of people to suggest questions for General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

TONE was not one of those asked, so here are the questions I would have asked:

1. General Petraeus, when did you give a draft of your report to the White House? 2. What changes in that draft, if any, did the White House suggest? 3. What changes, if any, did you make in the report from the time it was given to the White House until your appearance here today?

To a trial lawyer, the ideal question is the one where it does not matter what the witness answers. These questions are in that category. It is almost inconceivable that the White House did not seek changes in Petraeus' original report, and nearly as hard to believe that the report was not re-written in accord with those "suggestions." If Petraeus had refused to answer (I suspect that the White House would not have briefed him on claiming executive privilege), that would tell us all we need to know. If he had answered honestly about the way that the White House made the vaunted "Petraeus Report" into the administration's report, we would have a good picture of the General's true thinking, and yet another example of the way that Bush and his crowd seek to manipulate information about the war.

(Any claim of executive privilege would be specious. Petraeus' report was not intended to guide the President; it was specifically aimed at Congress and the American people. One of the limitations to the attorney-client privilege comes when the communication is meant to be relayed to a third party--such as an offer to settle. By the same token, information given to the White House that is not expected to stay within the Executive--like the Petraeus report--is outside any claim of privilege.)

Update: After posting this, I learned that the General told Congress that his testimony was his own, written by him and not revealed to the White House or anyone else in advance. Good. But I might still have inquired whether he'd talked to people in administration about what he planned to say, and whether there were discussions with them about the subjects he would cover or the way in which he would express himself. In other words, while it's good to know that General Petraeus prepared his own testimony, that does not wholly answer the questions I suggested above.