Why Did General Petraeus Not Have To Be Sworn In?

Question

So if he lied he wouldn't be subject to perjury?

Defense Inteligence Data refutes what he has said.

Swear Him In!
by Ray McGovern
That’s all I said in the unusual silence on Monday afternoon as first aid was being administered to Gen. David Petraeus’ microphone before he spoke before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.

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 my suggestion would be enough to get me thrown out of the hearing.

I had experienced a flashback to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in early 2006, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) reminded chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) that Specter had forgotten to swear in the witness, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; and how Specter insisted that that would not be necessary.

Defense Intelligence Agency data shows that insurgent attacks have remained constant and that more attacks are on U.S. troops than on Iraqi Forces and Civilioans combined-something you would not know by following the U.S. media coverage.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070909/480/db9bd6c31aa94a4db6006787904fb337&g=events/iraq/082701iraqplane;_ylt=AsjwSEeNtVgwXRUga2AVRO6WwvIE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/11/3755/

The "Report" was written in the WHITE HOUSE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,1634199,full.story?coll=la-home-center

Answer 1

A report is written and testimony is oral. His introductory remarks were written, but the rest of what he's said is testimony. Since Bush has drawn parallels to Vietnam, let's draw another one: General Westmoreland testified before Congress in 1967, to report (verb) on the status of the Vietnam War, and he did so under oath.

Gen. Petraeus could have and should have been sworn in, if for no other reason than to validate his credibility and accountability. As it is, rather than douse the flames by administering the oath, Congress actually fueled the fire of doubt and controversy surrounding his testimony. There's certainly precedent for sworn testimony and even more justification. He's not only testifying to the status of the war, people's lives are literally riding on his recommendations for future action.

Answer 2

If General Petraeus went earlier than congress to inform the reality the entire reality and not anything however the reality, He might have selected to were sworn in, in view that General Petraeus selected to not be sworn in, then He certainly didnt move earlier than congress to inform the reality the entire reality and not anything however the reality. General Petraeus wasn't sworn in so he might hinder telling the entire reality.

Answer 3

The GAO report refutes his testimony.

Edit-- G Man - No stretch at all. The GAO (General Accounting Office) put together its own report that shows that deaths in Iraq are the same as they were last year pre surge. The only difference is that Car Bombs and suicide bombers were somehow removed from the General's count for sectarian violence. The resulting number showed a 75% drop in violence. That would be a case of "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"

If it pleases the semantic crowd. Yes, it's a report. An inaccurate report that isn't worth the paper it was printed on report that is at odds with the non-partisan GAO report.

Answer 4

Because they knew what he was going to say before he said it. Its an opinion anyway its not real data. Its his interpretation of the events in Iraq. You can check the casualty sites. Deaths are up no matter how you change the definition around.

Answer 5

YO Rocket Scientist he was giving a report not testimony. He is not on the witness stand here. He is the number one man in charge of your freedoms and best you consider some respect. You have rights to dispute the information and as always question but of what authority do you speak?
Thank you.

Answer 6

im so sick of this general petraeus crap in the national news

Answer 7

As said, it was a report, not testimony.

Answer 8

He is the general.

Answer 9

He was giving a progress report, not testifying in a Congressional inquiry or anything along those lines. You liberals are really grasping at straws trying to discredit him aren't you?

Answer 10

Man, you guys really are stretching to discredit him.