Isn't this typical. I swear EVERYBODY I don't give a shit whether Military or Civilian 2 Years old or 100 Years old. If it is vital testimony they should be sworn in. Typical Fucktards.

Larry

If someone is going to lie, they'll do it whether they are under oath or not -- even the president.

If someone is going to lie, they'll do it whether they are under oath or not -- even the president.

Yes, but under oath they are less willing to lie because it is against the law.

No harm if not under oath.

"No harm if not under oath."

Not true. Lying to Congress is against the law, whether the person is under oath or not. The oath simply opens the person up for possible perjury charges in addition.

Goatman

Isn't the reason Congress takes testimony to gather information to assemble a clear picture of whatever matter is at hand so that appropriate steps, considered decisions, or in some cases remedies, can be made to set things right where they're wrong, and keep government transparent as the founding fathers intended?

Oaths hold a person to a standard of truth only. If they lie there are consequences. Why would anyone refuse to testify under oath unless they intended to lie? No court in America allows a person in a civil or criminal trial to offer testimony without an oath promising truth and nothing but the truth at threat of criminal penalty if they fail to do so. Congress usually swears people to an oath. For our president or any member of government to refuse to do so begs the question, "what are they trying to hide"?

By the way, I don't think Petraeus is a liar

Bush and Cheney hell ya.

Valerie Plame's oath when she testified as adminstered by U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman:

Our first witness is Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson. She's a former covert CIA employee whose service to this country included work involving the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against our nation. Her employment status was name was revealed in July 2003, effectively terminating her covert job opportunities within the CIA.

WAXMAN: Ms. Wilson, it's the practice of this committee that all witnesses are administered an oath, and I'd like to ask you to stand and raise your right hand.

Do you promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

WILSON: I do.

WAXMAN: Thank you.

The record will reflect the fact that the witness answered in the affirmative.

Why would anyone refuse to testify under oath unless they intended to lie?...

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-09-11 01:47 AM

Precisely.

CalifChris it's like Moneywar said just remind the Republicans that the blood of Our fallen Countrymen and Countrywomen are upon their hands and not a thing will wash that off.

Larry

. Why would anyone refuse to testify under oath unless they intended to lie?

I agree. But the gist of the story (as I understand it) is that the oath was overlooked -- not refused to be taken.

invited Gen. Petraeus to make his presentation, Skelton forgot to ask him to take the customary oath to tell the truth,

Patraeus was afraid to take that same simple oath? Why?

I read the story again. I don't see anywhere that he refused. I'm not being sarcastic, but did I miss something in the story?

Bwhahahahha too fucking funny.

Larry

So when Ray McGovern reminded them that the oath had not yet been given he was thrown out of the meeting? Sounds a little more than it being "overlooked"

It had dawned on me that when House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, invited Gen. Petraeus to make his presentation, Skelton forgot to ask him to take the customary oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I had no idea that [saying "SWEAR HIM IN"] would be enough to get me thrown out of the hearing.

I was referring more to Bush and Cheney's refusal to testify under oath regarding 9/11, not Petraeus. I think his morals as a military man would lend him 100 times more credibility out of the gate. The fact he didn't take an oath didn't particularly bother me. From what I read about him, he's a straight shooter and hired a crack team from a broad spectrum to help him in Iraq.

So many questions went unanswered though, and I'm not sure he could have. Such as when Iraq will be stable. We hardly heard a peep from the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (?), and he's the one who's far more able to answer the main question of Iraqi political solutions. The one he did didn't give me a lot of optimism at this point.

Chris

Read your note about the 'Iraq Swindle'. NOW maybe you can understand why I'm such a rabid Bush basher. He deserves every single word -and a nice 10 year prison sentence too. It's our troops who have suffered because the cronyism and greed.

I didn't read it that way, CC. He never said (but you added) that he got thrown out for that reason. It is a very clever play on words. If he had not exhibited a bias in the article, I might believe it. But some of his wording indicated he is not an unbiased person as journalists are supposed to be.

I did not question it until now, but this reporter reports for an unquestionalby left web site. And I think I've made clear before than IMO, a website that asks for donations usually has an agenda. Clearly this one does.

If you read his report, he doesn't even say he got thrown out. Did he? Who knows? He says, " I had no idea that would be enough to get me thrown out of the hearing." A good reporter does not use ambiguous wording like that.

So either he is a poor reporter who doesn't know better than to use unambiguous language and defer from slanted words, or he does know what he is saying and is a master of the art of splitting semantic hairs.

Petreaus is between a rock and a hard place. Any gains he make in reducing sectarian violence will only hold if the political situation improves dramatically. That doesn't look so good at the moment and has only deteriorated since the 'surge'.

Security in Baghdad has largely improved because the 65% Sunni majority population formerly in Baghdad has been replace by a 70% Shiite majority due to Sunnis fleeing for their lives from militias. Still, people living behind walls without venturing out except when absolutely neccessary, and commercial districts that used to bustle now largely empty don't look like the change from Sunni to Shia majority has done much to reduce the militias and their vengence killings. New York, a comparable sized city had less murders in a year than Baghdad had last month.

AU

Getting my Mom squared away to go to sleep right now so I'll be back on here to discuss a couple points in that article with you. Even a cynic like me was stunned at the depth of the corruption. Apparently it was planned to rob our treasury blind from day one by Bush on down the line.

No wonder Bush has no intention of ever leaving Iraq until the day he's out of office. And to use our troops for phoney trips around Iraq so the contractors could increase their billing while putting our troops in such danger -- made me want to throw up.

What really blew me away was that they had it all planned out that the CPA would be the funnel for the money they were going to steal and the Bush thugs made their case in court (and won) that the CPA was not "U.S. government" and therefore couldn't be prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Dept.!!! And a Reagan appointed judge decided in their favor.

AU -- can you tell me why -- if the CPA was not a "U.S. government agency" as Bush argued in court, then WHY WERE BILLIONS OF OUR U.S. TAX DOLLARS BEING FUNNELED DIRECTLY TO THE CPA???

I'm going to relink and nag and nag and badger people on here to read this ENTIRE ARTICLE -- people like RIR and ROC -- and demand them to tell me after reading all 12 pages why Bush and Cheney should not immediately be impeached (Cheney first) and then prosecuted by the courts for fraud, theft, etc. etc.

BUSHLOVERS -- I DARE YOU TO READ THIS:

Goat


I didn't read it that way, CC. He never said (but you added) that he got thrown out for that reason. It is a very clever play on words. If he had not exhibited a bias in the article, I might believe it. But some of his wording indicated he is not an unbiased person as journalists are supposed to be.

... I had no idea that would be enough to get me thrown out of the hearing.

Chris

Only the 'real' troop supporting patriots of either party could walk away after reading that article still believing that Bush and Cheney have our troops best interests in mind. 'Patriotism' and 'traitor' smears are cynically used by the White House and the NeoCons while the tragic misdeeds outlined in the RS article clearly show that our troops are getting the short end of the stick all the way. It is sick.

I meant: only the 'real' troop supporting patriots of either party could walk away after after reading that article DISBELIEVING that Bush and Cheney have our troops best interests in mind.

It so clearly shows how little the FAKE rah rah troop supporting, 'traitor' calling rightwingers know about how much our troops have suffered at the hands of these greedy bastards. Waste, fraud, and cynical divisive rhetoric? Bush and Cheney have opened the door to a whole new level of understanding to the definitions of those words. I was aghast after reading that article.

Yet we couldn't make armoring every Humvee and treating every wounded vet a priority of the highest order while these greedy cronies raped our treasury?

Chris

I hung around here for awhile. Another time. I didn't get a lick of sleep last night. My mom had a rough time. Off to bed for me again.

Spread the word about that article. Let's see if the Bush-loving 'patriots' still think he has the troops best interests in mind, or whether the righties 'conservative' blood doesn't boil at the waste and fraud that could have been better used by honest intentions.

OKAY -- I'm back. Just left you a post now on the "woman attacked thread" -- talk about running all over the threads. Sorry your Mom is having a rough time again. I had hoped she was doing a little better. Catch some sleep and you'll feel more like talking about it tomorrow. I've bookmarked the article so I will keep posting the link for awhile -- for any good that it will do. see you around manana.

If GWB and Darth Vader don't have to take the oath at the 9-11 Commission hearings then, by God, Gen. Patreus doesn't have to take the oath when testifying about Iraq. It's just a perjury trap.

I was referring more to Bush and Cheney's refusal to testify under oath regarding 9/11, not Petraeus. I think his morals as a military man would lend him 100 times more credibility out of the gate.



same was said about powell in February 2003.

Beware the honest man, for more harm is done by his actions than the dishonest man.

Petreaus is between a rock and a hard place. Any gains he make in reducing sectarian violence will only hold if the political situation improves dramatically. That doesn't look so good at the moment and has only deteriorated since the 'surge'.



Posted by AMERICANUNITY


he should speak the truth, this is his moment and he is failing.

""I think his morals as a military man would lend him 100 times more credibility out of the gate.""

I mean no disrespect to Gen. Patreus, but his position as a general, in the military does not indicate any better morality, any more honesty, etc. than any other citizen. He seems like a straightforward, honest gentleman and I am sure he is but it is not necessarily so and testifying under oath should be required just like any other witness.

Patraeus was afraid to take that same simple oath? Why?

Posted by CalifChris

Did he refuse to take the oath???? or was he not ask to???

Since Monicagate, Republicans have persistently refused to testify under oath. What do you fucking proletariat think, the Republicans should be held to the same standard as a Democrat? That this is a Democracy (i.e. Government of, by and for the people)? Get real, its an extortion mechanism. Pay of a Politician or be relegated to proletariat.

He seems like a straightforward, honest gentleman and I am sure he is but it is not necessarily so and testifying under oath should be required just like any other witness.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-11 11:30 AM |


Most people of moral conscience have taken an oath at a very young age.... (thou shalt not bear false witness)... This was an opinion/estimation of his veiw/personal take on Iraq.

It's obvious many other people take a different view. They write articles take out libelous ads in the newspaper etc. Are they to under oath before doing so?

Should they to be under oath before doing so?

That's better

"...testifying under oath should be required just like any other witness.

Posted by danni"

This is my point about whether the oath is necessary.

He is not a witness. He is not presenting testimony for a criminal investigation (well, you might think so. It's Iraq)

People go before Congress for many reasons before many committees. They are not subjected to the Oath.

So, again I ask - when is the Oath mandatory? It obviously isn't always required.

Incubus, the short answer is yes.

"...testifying under oath should be required just like any other witness.

Posted by danni"

This is my point about whether the oath is necessary.

He is not a witness. He is not presenting testimony for a criminal investigation (well, you might think so. It's Iraq)

People go before Congress for many reasons before many committees. They are not subjected to the Oath.

So, again I ask - when is the Oath mandatory? It obviously isn't always required.

Posted by Petrous at 2007-09-11 12:22 PM |


Was Michael J. Fox sworn in before giving testimony?

Many of the people on this board are so blindly partisan and hateful that they can't distinguish between an opinion/personal assessment of a situation and a criminal investigation of a crime.

Was Michael J. Fox sworn in before giving testimony?

I don't remember, was he testifying about the war?

Incubus, the short answer is yes.

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2007-09-11 12:22 PM

Actually, it is no. Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, oaths are not required for testimony in front of Congress, it is up to the Chair of a particular Committee to make that determination. Moreover, as an officer in the US Military, the UCMJ requires truthfullness when testifying before a panel, tribunal, congress or a commanding officer, including the Commander in Chief.

The Chair of the Committee and or the Ranking Member can also vouch for the witness' integrity, which is clearly what Hunter attempted to do here. If a member of the Committee disagrees, they can make a motion to require an oath, which only needs to be seconded to pass.

Clearly, the Committee was satisfied that Gen. Petraeus was not going to prevaricate.

Clinton lied, under oath, too bad they did not catch his evil wife , im sure her hands are more dirty than his .. well.. anyway..

Lying to Congress is against the law,.. Hmm dont they tell lie's to each other and the voters.. EVERY DARN DAY!. someone needs to lock them all up and toss the key away...

"It's obvious many other people take a different view. They write articles take out libelous ads in the newspaper etc. Are they to under oath before doing so?

Posted by Incubus_Con"

You mean like Rush's website's headline story yesterday was along the lines of 'Democrat Traitors', followed by hours and hours of more of the same blanketing our radiowaves? Or an entire cable network (FOX) who have little but?

They tell whoppers day after day and call Senators 'Hildabeast' and "Hitlery'. Ya sure. They always tell it straight - as long as it's along the farthest right line

Incub and Petrous - why do you both focus only on whether this was a criminal investigation? Oaths are not only for criminal investigations, you know. If you don't believe, waddle on down to your local courthouse and learn something about the civil justice system in our country.

"someone needs to lock them all up and toss the key away...

Posted by kc101 at 2007-09-11 12:50 PM"

And I think you are just the woman to do it. You go girl!

MonteCore

Shit. They swore me in before a deposition in a lawyer's office in a civil matter (I wasn't the defendant)

Oaths are a given in almost every area of testimony.

Our president and VP should certainly been willing to do so over such an important matter as 9/11. So much for restoring integrity to the Oval Office and ensuring transparency in government. Secret too. We can't even read what they said.

If you don't believe, waddle on down to your local courthouse and learn something about the civil justice system in our country.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2007-09-11 12:53 PM


Maybe you should do the same... Unless of course you're going to declare to me that they've brought the general up on civil charges. Tell us what the charges are. Okay?

Did Michael J. Fox take the oath before testifying?

Montecore - because a point is being made. Oaths aren't mandatory and in cases before Congress involving criminal investigations, its obvious why an oath should be taken.

Since this isn't a criminal investigation, an oath to be taken should have some basis for requesting it.

Did Al Gore testify under Oath about global warming? Should he have been under Oath?

This is just like when the repubs rebuffed having the CEO's of the Oil Companies sworn in.....can't have that. There's billions to be stolen afterall!!

Shit. They swore me in before a deposition in a lawyer's office in a civil matter (I wasn't the defendant

You apparently were a witness to specific charges.

What charges have been brought forth that would have anything to do regarding the generals testimony?

He was giving an OPINION, offering SUGGESTIONS and BRIEFING Congressional members of his PERCEPTION of the SITUATION in Iraq as to the progress or lack thereof. That's it. Nothing more nothing less.

Some of you people are so partisanly blind you make yourselves slavishly dense.

Incubus

I could care less if Petraeus was sworn in

I did care a lot that Bush and Cheney refused to be sworn in for their testimony before the 9/11 Commission, and further refused to allow that unsworn testimony to be made public.

Tell me why you might think differently about their unsworn testimony regarding such a huge national tragedy and the steps they did or didn't take to prevent it? You don't think we had a right to know let alone hold them to the highest standards of truth telling?

Incubus, the short answer is yes.

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2007-09-11 12:22 PM

Actually, it is no. Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, oaths are not required for testimony in front of Congress, it is up to the Chair of a particular Committee to make that determination.

...

Clearly, the Committee was satisfied that Gen. Petraeus was not going to prevaricate.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-09-11 12:44 PM

That was my short answer for was it necessary. Not whether it was legally required, but necessary. When Generals in the past gave testimony to Congress they were under oath many of the times. What has changed that makes it unnecessary since then?

"Some of you people are so partisanly blind you make yourselves slavishly dense.

Posted by Incubus_Con at 2007-09-11 01:09 PM"

I'm glad you are able to admit that about yourself. You are really impressing me today, young lady.

It is standard procedure to take the oath in testifying before Congress.

Petraeus should have taken the oath... he should have volunteered to take the oath to avoid any of this.

It is a shame that a private Citizen has to risk arrest to point this out. Did any elected officials speak up? Why did not our elected representatives speak up?

If indeed the report was his own he should not be afraid to testify under oath to that fact. It was obviously set up ahead of time to allow for Patraeus to avoid taking the oath.

It looks like Petraeus has indeed chosen to Betray Us.

I guess every one of you swear an oath everytime you present a report to your boss...Right...

He wasn't there to testify. He was there to present his report. Are you all retards or what?

AU, I totally agree about the oaths over the issue of 9/11. That was a criminal act and an investigation into crimes against the United States.

Big John, if previous Generals were required to provide testiimony under oath and there have been no exceptions, then I totally agree. If there are exceptions, then it's a choice of Congress to not have the oath taken.

The issues of Iraq are very important and perhaps the oath should be taken. This is a topic that shouldn't be taken lightly.

But, neither should global warming. If the situation is so dire, was Gore under oath? He was asking Congress to take drastic measures for a drastic situation. I would hope an oath was used since it would be horrible to think Congress would make a bad decision based on false information.

"It is standard procedure to take the oath in testifying before Congress."

Pure BS. There are hundreds of people who have testified before Congress without an oath taken. See the Commissioners of the Treasury Departments when they give their reports to Congress. It's not under oath.

Why would anyone refuse to testify under oath unless they intended to lie?...

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-09-11 01:47 AM

Precisely.

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-09-11 02:04 AM


Ever wonder why Bush refused to testify under oath before the 911 commission? Ever wonder why he didn't want the commission formed?

He wasn't there to testify. He was there to present his report. Are you all retards or what?

Posted by Sniper


Bet you wish there were a delete key for posts like these, eh snippy?

Did Debbie Dortzbach testify under oath?

Just another person who testified before Congress and no oath.

I can only think the Oath is used when the Congress really feels a threat of perjury is needed to ensure truthfulness.

I'm sorry, that's just too funny. Funnier still, is that you call OTHERS retards within a post as nonsensical as that one.

""Ever wonder why Bush refused to testify under oath before the 911 commission? Ever wonder why he didn't want the commission formed?""

It is unpatriotic to wonder about things like that.

It is standard procedure to take the oath in testifying before Congress.

No it is not, see my 12:44 PM.

Petraeus should have taken the oath... he should have volunteered to take the oath to avoid any of this.

Who says he didn't...also, under the UCMJ it is presumed that he was testifying truthfully.

Did any elected officials speak up? Why did not our elected representatives speak up?

No, and under parlimentary proceedure it only takes two members to require he be sworn. Call your Congressperson to complain.

If indeed the report was his own he should not be afraid to testify under oath to that fact. It was obviously set up ahead of time to allow for Patraeus to avoid taking the oath.

Once again, what evidence (other than base conjecture) do you have regarding this assertion? Better get it to your Congressperson ASAP so that comtempt proceedings can commence.

It looks like Petraeus has indeed chosen to Betray Us.

Posted by donnerboy at 2007-09-11 01:56 PM

Say hello to everyone using this talking point at Moveon.org for us.

Hello to everyone at Moveon.org!!!!

Petraeous betrayed us.

Hello to everyone at Moveon.org!!!!

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-11 03:05 PM

I had you pegged as a Codepink kind of guy.

Hello to everyone at Moveon.org!!!!

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-11 03:05 PM

I had you pegged as a Codepink kind of guy.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-09-11 04:18 PM



I had you pegged as a McCarthy kind of guy.

I had you pegged as a McCarthy kind of guy.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-11 04:30 PM |

Thanks for the kind words.

"I had you pegged as a McCarthy kind of guy.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-11 04:30 PM |

Thanks for the kind words."

Ann OC Coulter

This General who, based on his astute judgment and
strong intuitive discernment, is advising Congress and,in fact, the entire nation on what to do in Iraq. The citizens and congress are eating it up. The whole nation is basing it's future on the expertise of the General who, in May, 2003, identified positively a captured trailer as a mobile biological warfare lab.
We all know how good that analysis and judgment proved to be. God help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder what the righties will say now that Petraeus could not bring himself to say that the war was making us safer. Yup, the leader of the war strategy wouldn't simply say "Yes" when asked by Sen Warner.

Amazing.

Tell me again why our kids are dying?

Gen. David Petraeus is a member of the Council on Foriegn Relations.

The paragraphs below are from a buddy of mine who is there in Iraq..not some blowhard. This is the effect that MoveOn and its supporters (like you on this web site) are having on the troops.

The only thing I have added is the quotes" "

Quite frankly Biden and the rest should be ashamed.

FS



"Well, I don't know how many of you have been watching the testimony, but if you have now you know many of the facts. The charts you saw were many of the same charts that we review every morning over here to start our workday. We track those statistics in great detail everyday.

So, I hope you are left with the impression that we have made lots of military progress, but not as much political progress as we might have liked, but there has been progress. As AMB Crocker stated, Iraq is a traumatized country. They will not be a smaller version of the US next year. Probably not in 10 or 20 years. In my opinion it is probably going to take decades for the government and the political institutions to operate EFFICIENTLY. However, I think it could be as soon as a year or two that they can be an EFFECTIVE government. My take on it is that we have planted the seeds for a democracy and now we need to remain for awhile longer to help nurture that tree of liberty while it takes root. We need to stay here until 1) the security forces can provide security internally and externally (in concert with joint security agreements with us and other responsible nations) and 2) the democratic principles, ideals and institutions we have put in place have a chance to work and demonstrate to the Iraqi people that their government is a servant of the people and not the master of the people (at least one more election).

I don't know if you all saw the full page add that moveon.org published, but I was absolutely appalled by it. I want you all to know that I personally have a great deal of respect for both GEN Petraeus and AMB Crocker. They are both exceptionally intelligent and talented men but also very down to earth and amiable people. I have had both of them smile, say hello and wish me a good day when I have passed them in the building or been in meetings with them.


I had started another letter over the weekend, but I haven't sent it out because I started going on and on, on this subject. I know that I live this issue 24x7 and you guys don't and I don't want to appear to be some ranting lunatic and alienate everyone. I'll try to come up with some other subjects to talk about in these letters. I think that it is just all of the activities leading up to the testimony and all of the stories in the media talking about how we are messing everything up and the surge is a failure and everything would be better and happier if we just got out of the way etc., etc,. (Sorry, I can't help but get a little defensive.)"

This is the effect that MoveOn and its supporters (like you on this web site) are having on the troops.

The troops are blocked from reading moveon.org. if they hear any far left wing commentary, it's through the filter of rush limbaugh and bill oreilly.

Why oh why would those two troop lovers pass on such hurtful words, if said words really harm the mission?

Could it be...ratings? Or could it be that the whole "evil liberal thought rays(pointing out W's fuckups and lies) made us lose Iraq" talking point is total bovine feces?

"What say you?"

I'm sorry, but when the NIE, GAO, and Jones reports all say nearly the polar opposite of what petreuas is saying...

well, 3vs1 I'm starting to think the general is padding his report.

Alex - you cannot be serious...how did he read it if he is blocked from reading....they are not blocked ...the troups (and Al Queda) have full access to ANYTHING printed in the US. Which is why these comments from the left are so damaging.

And GAO - Oh..they are there on the ground - NOPE
NIE - They are in Iraq on the ground - NOPE

IF Petreuas would have came out and said "this is a hopeless situation" you would be hailing the man as a genius - but because he is not saying what YOU want him to say...you choose not to listen.

Why are you and the rest SOOOOOOO invested in the US not succeeding in Iraq? This is your country too.

My buddy is there - I have a bunch of stuff from him..get a mail a day....and it is not at all like it is being reported. Yet you choose to believe the lies and call the truth the lies.

I really do not understand.

(September 11, 2007) -- WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jim Walsh, in a dramatic break with the White House, returned Monday from a trip to Iraq saying it's time to bring troops home and stop funding the war.

The moderate Republican from Onondaga has struggled for months with conflicting emotions about the war.

"Before I went, I was not prepared to say it's time to start bringing our troops home," Walsh said. "I am prepared to say that now. It's time."

Walsh's announcement came as Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, told House members that the troop "surge" has made progress.

But Walsh said he saw little evidence that much has changed in Iraq since he last visited four years ago. He said he hopes to meet with President Bush to convey his change of heart.