Should General Petraeus be tried for Treason?

Question

Petraeus based much of his assessment on the claim that violence in Iraq is dropping. That just isn't true:

Petraeus is using "funny math." According to the Washington Post, Petraeus and the Pentagon are using a bizarre formula for measuring violence in the country. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count. And assassinations count only if you're shot in the back of the head—not in the front.4

Iraqis believe the surge has failed. According to a massive new ABC/BBC poll, every single Iraqi polled in Baghdad, the primary target of the "surge," said it had made security worse. Iraqis themselves overwhelmingly think the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, in terms of security, political cooperation, the economy, and other measures. Overall, 70% think the escalation worsened rather than improved security conditions.

********************
What did he do that was treasonous? He misrepresented facts in order to continue the slaughter of American soldiers.

"In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor."

Answer 1

Perhaps you should read the definition of treason in our Constitution.

Perhaps you should read the Constitution.

Some tend to fault the public school system for this failing of some citizens in basic knowledge of terms, such as the definition of treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

But I see past that. I can't fault the schools, since they taught you. I fault *YOU*, because you attempt to change the definition to fit your political hackery.

Perhaps *YOU* should be tried for treason, since your objective is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Answer 2

No, but most of the Democrats in congress should be. They are the true traitors to this country and each day they show their hand more and more. They're a disgrace.

Did any of the Democrats who called him a liar before he even spoke ask if there was any way they could help us win the war? No, because they don't want us to win.

The more we learn about the new Democrats, the more we should ask them if they have an ounce of decency in them.

The answer to that would also be NO.

Answer 3

in all likelihood the different. we are able to prefer extra Generals to guard usa if usa does not get out and vote. Do the study and be conscious the place those persons stand. **could desire to the persons go with Clinton i prefer to propose coming up some bunkers on your over prolonged mortgaged residences & on the valuables, practice as we did interior the 60's for the chilly conflict. Venezuela, Iran and hundreds of undesirable adult men have long techniques. And long selection plans too. thank you.

Answer 4

If he is prosecuted for treason then the Dems and the lone RINO better stand by for some intense questioning and investigations. All of his testimony can be explained that he was acting on not only on orders from President Bush but he was supported unanimously by the Congress in a vote to send him to Iraq. How will they explain this? Double jeopardy?

You sir, in all that you have written here, have given credence to the old saw "Keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt."

Your sources are so far left they wouldn't know the truth if it rocked them to sleep. Too many S-Ps keep citing too many Bush Haters as the end all and be all of truth.

Answer 5

Pay close attention to that ABC / BBC poll. 70% THINK the surge has worsened violence, and yet nowhere in the article is any proof or facts given that would support an increase in violence. They also THINK the situation is deteriorating. All in all, the article is a nice collection of opinions and polls for anti-war folk, but lacks the facts to convince any skeptics that the article has any merit.

Answer 6

he was asked under oath if those allegations were true. he said undeniably those are false. So if he is lying about it then he lied to congress which is a crime and should be brought up on the charges. That seems to be a pretty easy thing to confirm for the armed services committee that by the way is lead by a democrat. so when the DEMOCRATICALLY LED armed services committee doesn't bring charges will you then believe the Post was wrong? dont think so.....

Answer 7

Hes a honorable general and you just a low nothing with no class dishonoring a man like him.

Answer 8

Japan once had been warring feudal fiefdoms - opened to the West - took Western style democracy and capitalism after WW2 - is now an internally peaceful country.
Germany once had been warring feudal fiefdoms - united its sections like other countries of theWest - took Western style democracy and capitalism after WW2 - is now an internally peaceful country.

Iraq? refuses to adopt Western style democracy (has a constitution based on sharia law) - fighting continues.

Answer 9

From what I can tell, the general has only given his country honorable service. And I also realize that whatever kind of report he would have presented, the Dem's in Congress were going to challenge him.

Answer 10

Any one who uses the washington post as a refrence, loses me right off.