would it be a disgrace to the uniform he wears if general Petraeus tells congress and the american people his report was independent and unbiased, if he really collaborated with the Bush administration and followed their order to come up with an "optomistic report". I am not saying he did. But thats what happened, is that acceptable? is it dishonorable behavior for an officer?
2007-09-19 23:12:21 · 12 answers · asked by ballerb j 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Of course, it's not honorable. Not acceptable, and definitely dishorable behavior for a military officer of that stature. If he really lied to congress, a case should be put together to prosecute him.
2007-09-19 23:37:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
"Here are the Army values that guide you, the leader, and the rest of the Army. They form the acronym LDRSHIP:"
Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage
I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
2007-09-19 23:57:14 · answer #2 · answered by Michael F 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I loved the fact that Moveon.org had the ad for Petraeus in the Times set up even before they knew what he was going to say. It ran the very same day as he started so it was set up before then. Talk about close minded left wing liberals. Criticizing the guy before he even speaks. Disgraceful. The Dems had supported him before. Now, since they are so embedded into the idea that America has to lose the war, they don't believe him. Ahh, the left wing.
2007-09-19 23:29:39 · answer #3 · answered by Splitters 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
and that i assumed i grow to be long winded. The hypocrisy is that as an officer, that is Congress who voted on and authorized his promotions. Being a 4 megastar means that he made wide-unfold long earlier Bush have been given into workplace -- meaning that that is not any longer approximately HIS (the wide-unfold's) politics. If the conflict is going so rather undesirable, then why because of the fact maximum individuals, have the democrats no longer delivered this factor to an end? that is not any longer that they won't be able to. that is extra approximately decision and means.
2016-10-19 04:39:16 · answer #4 · answered by reardigan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Betrayus DID lie. He just did it with a straight face.
And given the public's negative reaction to Bush's speech and the general's report, I'd say the facts fit the mold.
If you're going to hold yourself to a higher standard--whether in the military or public office--the least you can do is LIE about things in general; thus expecting people to accept it is as they are.
Because--sooner or later--the public will find out the truth. And once that happens, your image and credibility takes a massive ding.
2007-09-19 23:24:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Would it be a disgrace for the New York Times to give moveon.org bargain rates to spew their propaganda while still claiming to be a newspaper.
Would it be honorable for the Democrats to impugn the reputation of General Petraus just so they can achieve a political objective.
Would it be honorable to have your talking points accusing a man of lying ready to go right after his presentation was made. Someone less cynical than me would think that the leftists already had their tiny little closed minds made up.
The Democratic Party would not know honor if it bit them in the A$s.
2007-09-19 23:22:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
As a professional soldier, his duty would undoubtedly be to bring up the truth about the situation, he's not bound however to make out eventual predictions on premises of something not existing in reality...
2007-09-19 23:25:56 · answer #7 · answered by javornik1270 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As of now, the US military has not acted honorably since they began killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children, for which they should be brought to justice for along with their leaders like Betray-us, Bush, Rice, Cheney, and the rest of them. bring them all to the Hague for prosecution
2007-09-19 23:35:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
His track record shows that he is more honorable than, say, Hillary Clinton, a liar who accused someone with an immaculate track record with dishonesty. Throw me a frickin' bone.
2007-09-19 23:49:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it would be honorable.
However, dishonor hasn't stopped any of our other high level administration officials from lying to us.
2007-09-19 23:20:42 · answer #10 · answered by Theresa 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋