Swear Him In' Provokes Expulsion

By Ray McGovern
September 10, 2007

“Swear him in.” That’s all I said in the unusual silence this afternoon as first aid was being administered to Gen. David Petraeus’s microphone at the hearing 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 would be enough to get me thrown out of the hearing.

Questions For Debate:

(1) If Gen Petraeus was about to testify truthfully why couldn't he be sworn in and provide the testimony under penalty of perjury?

Officers in the United States military are under oath at all times. They do not require any additional obligations.

Sounds to me as Mr. McGovern was out of line and should have been expelled.

Some of us have been asking similar questions about Bush administration officials who have appeare before Congress and various other panels without giving sworn testimony. Neither Bush or Cheney were sworn in when they testified before the 9/11 Commission.

Harriet Miers recently ignored a congressional subpoena. We had a debate on that issue.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry221793

Your question is one that has been asked before with different players involved. Your rolleyes emoticon at the end of the question, seem to bias your effort, as if you have reached a conclusion you want us to validate. Generally the validation has already come in a number of threads about the Bush administration's stonewalling on sworn testimony or even giving testimony at all.

Click Here

ROTFL

So are US Attorney Generals , our chief law enforcement officers.

San Francisco Chronicle

Justice probes whether Gonzales lied under oath

Inspector general's investigation is expanding, letter suggests
The Justice Department's inspector general indicated Thursday that he is investigating whether departing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave false or misleading testimony to Congress, including whether he lied under oath about warrantless surveillance and the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.






I believe that their failure or refusal to swear him in is prima facie evidence that the Iraqi invasion and the escalation (surge) are dismal failures. The general's failure to provide sworn testimony is different than other witnesses because people are dying - both US and Iraqis. Secondly the invasion is costing American Taxpayers 10 to 12 bbbbbillion dollars per month.

I remember hearing several times yesterday on different networks General Petraeus' response to what the state of morale is for the troops in Iraq.

His response was that morale was "solid," to which I wondered, solidly what?

I'll echo the assertions made by BoF and Contumacious that all of these officials are supposed to tell the truth in Congressional hearings, and that their refusal to be sworn in would suggest that they do not want to be strictly held to what they say. Now why is that?

Could it be that we have several Jehovah's Witnesses in this administration who just haven't told us that they are and that their religion forbids them from swearing oaths?

I personally think that General Petraeus could not give an assessment that wasn't vetted previously by the President, that he was in much the same predicament as General Colin Powell was when he had to give "evidence of WMD's" in Iraq to the United Nations.

After all, soldiers have to follow orders...

General Petraeus stated in his testimony before Congress both today and yesterday that his report was his own, not vetted by the White House or the Pentagon. Are you calling him a liar, PE? Are you falling in lockstep with the Internet trolls like MoveOn.org that are calling him a traitor as in "General Betray Us"? Is that where you're coming down on this?


Edited to add......

From CNN's published transcript of the hearing.......




Aquilla

Everyone should be sworn in before they testify. Why else it called "testimony?" No offense to this particular incarnation of Miles Gloriosus, but no one's truth should be undoubted, certainly not a general's.

Everyone is sworn in before they testify at a JUDICIAL hearing. This is not a judicial hearing, and there is certainly no "customary" requirement for swearings-in before presentations. Did the officials at the GAO have to be sworn in before offering their analysis?

McGovern was entirely out of line, as well as factually incorrect, because there is no "customary oaths" taken at nonjudicial House Armed Services Committee hearings.

Edited to add to help out the especially argumentative:

From the Dictionary: definition of testimonial (we'll skip the religious one):
1) All such declarations, spoken or written, offered in a legal case or deliberative hearing.
2) Evidence in support of a fact or assertion.

Petraeus' testimony was in the second category.

That is ridiculous. It states in Manual for Courts Martial (http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2000.pdf) page II-83, that "Each witness before a court martial shall be examined on oath." There is no exception for officers.

Furthermore U.S. military officers are routinely sworn when they testify in state or federal court, or even before a justice of the peace.

"Under oath at all times," indeed! Do you imagine they stand to attention at all times, as well?



Fair enough, I stand corrected. The larger point is, of course, that the General's word is not above doubt.

Yes indeed.

His statements like candor:

""At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress."

Is not the commander in chief in Petraeus' chain of command?

Should it be a big surprise if the commander-in-chief follows his own misguided and dishonest path regardless of what Petraeus says.

I predict that Petraeus influence will be felt about as much as the Baker/Hamilton report.

This war belongs to Bush/Cheney. Petraeus is but another pawn on Bush's chess board - to be used like so much toilet paper and discarded if "necessary."

Should 30,000 soldiers be removed from Iraq by mid-July, 2008, we will be back to pre-surge levels. This will leave Bush a little more than six months (190 days to be exact) to finish his term. Like a "good" quarterback, he will fall on the ball - thereby running out the clock and handing off his mess to another president.

A briefing is not the same thing as a testimony. A briefing is, as the name would imply, "brief". He briefed his assessment and recommendations and then wrote the testimony, which he (according to him) didn't clear with the aforementioned agencies. I see no contradiction in what he said.

I do see a lot of contradictions between reality and what the author of this piece of work, whom you obviously seem to trust, says. He likens his own testimony at a judicial hearing in the past to Petraeus', which is completely disingenuous. Go see if you can find a customary swearing in before any sort of legislative or policy related non-judicial hearing. That should keep you busy for a long while.

Edited to add: I'll even start you out! Here is a Testimony Delivered On Military Transformation before the Armed Services Committee.

Again, whether or not the escalation, aka, the surge is working depends on how a particular faction defines the term.

According to 57% of Americans the military operations is a failure. 65 to 70% of Iraqis assert that the condition has worsened.

So the general deserves the adjective ascribed to him by moveon.org, I mean is 57% still a majority, right?!?

What a quantum leap. Just because 57% of Americans think the surge has failed, does not necessarily mean they approve of moveon.org's calling General Petraeus, General Betrayus.

Ok, you wanna play the "poll game"? Fine, let's play. From the New York Times......



General Petraeus is a "military commander". In fact, General Petraeus is the highest ranking "military commander" in Iraq. So, you wanna play the poll game along with the whacklibs at MoveOn, then learn some math.


Aquilla

No.....the adjective used by MoveOn.org is another act of immature name calling, usually used when one has little to no substance to their ascribed position. If there is one thing I've learned since the war in Iraq has begun, it is that just as the Administration uses facts and figures to promote its position, so does the opposition.

I really don't care what MoveOn had to say.

I don't distrust General Petraeus; I just don't trust George W. Bush.

I also remember how forthcoming Colin Powell wasn't allowed to be at the U.N. hearing.

If a soldier were ordered by his Commander-in-Chief to lie, what would he do?

I don't know. That would depend on the soldier I suppose. But, you're answering a question with a question, so I'll pose the question to you again. Do you think General Petraeus lied to Congress (twice) when he stated that his testimony was his own, not the White House's or the Pentagon's? Is General Patraeus a liar? Do you agree with the Internet trolls like MoveOn.org and others in various places on the Internet who characterize him as a traitor?


Aquilla

I think the way MoveOn responded was a cheap shot, and I do not endorse it. EDIT: And no, I do not believe that General Petraeus is a traitor in any case.

I do not know if General Petraeus lied. I am still thinking about it. But his testimony does seem to contradict what was said earlier about the majority of the criteria for the surge NOT being met.

Is it lying, or is it spin? Takes a smarter person than I am to figure that out. All I know is that this administration has been deceptive before, and I wouldn't put it past them to try to skew the findings to put the best face on it.

Yes, of course.

Let me demonstrate how corrupt these individuals are. And let me remind you that Mr. Gonzalez was at the time Attorney General --the chief law enforcement officer in the nation. Yet he sets aside his oath to defend the Constitution in order to please his boss:


Gonzales On Testifying Under Oath

by BarbinMD

Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 09:37:14 AM PDT

When Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, the subject of testifying under oath came up twice. See if you can find the difference in Gonzales' answers:

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: Do you think that whether a witness is sworn or not makes a difference in what their obligations are when they're the witness before a congressional hearing?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, it certainly wouldn't matter to me in terms of the answer that I would provide.

RUSS FEINGOLD: Why did you decide to seek FISA Court authorization in the Spring of 2005, and not earlier? Did this relate in any way to the administration learning that the New York Times was looking into the program?

ALBERTO GONZALES: (pause) No. Ummm, not at all.

RUSS FEINGOLD: Why didn't you seek the authorization earlier?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, we certainly would not have been prepared to be in a position to make any kind of application. I must tell you, and I want to go back and think about this in terms of, I'm fairly certain, but again I'm under oath so I want to be careful how I say this.

Very simply put IMO, I would never call General P. a liar; he's probably the best we've got! BUT I do feel that his report was edited by this administration before General Patraeus presented it! I'm only responding to all the prior "SPIN" to which we've been subjected over the past 7 years. When Bush commands, General Patraeus is going to click his heels and salute! I just wish we could all get a hold of the first draft; it would be very interesting, I'm sure.

You just did call him a liar. Read the transcript text I posted from the House hearing. He stated that his report was not vetted or edited by the White House. So either he is lying as some of the Internet trolls are claiming, or he's not. You can't have this one both ways. Today in the Senate hearing he even expanded on how his report was prepared and when I find a link to the transcript I'll post it here as well. He said (paraphrasing here) that his staff had prepared a first draft that he reviewed and re-wrote with their help. You can't say you're not calling him a liar and then turn around and say you think what he told Congress was a lie because you don't like Bush or whatever. It may work that way in the MoveOn troll world and play well in whacklib land, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. Not even here in this forum.


Edited to add......

And the oblique reference to the "heel click" doesn't help your case at all.

Aquilla

Ray McGovern is a former CIA agent who famously took Donald Rumsfeld to task while the cameras were rolling during one press conference. The result was an embarrassment for Rumsfeld, and while the networks initially questioned whether McGovern was what he said he was, they came around to believe him, thereby legitimizing his questions and assertions that Rumsfeld was not telling the truth.

While I do not support the Petraeus/Betray Us ad by MoveOn.org, I do respect Mr. McGovern.

Obviously, their expulsion of McGovern after he made that one simple statement (and the article does state exactly why he did so, based on another time when the act of swearing in a witness was "forgotten" by the questioner) was seen as disruptive, which is curious.

Generals have been sworn in before in Congressional hearings--on the face of it it seems reasonable enough.

I go back to the "what if"--What if the Commander-in-Chief ordered a general to lie to Congress, and said that it was of the utmost importance to our national security for that general to do so? What would the general do?

Are we suggesting that a man or woman in that position possesses so much integrity that s/he would disobey a direct order from the President in order to maintain that integrity? I don't know, especially if the order were phrased in such a manner. Would a general sacrifice personal integrity for the sake of his/her country? Maybe.

No, I don't think that General Petraeus is a traitor, but I don't know, either, what he would do under that circumstance. I also don't know what influences his staffers were exposed to as they prepared their reports, or how much cherry-picking of data took place before these reports made it to General Petraeus' desk.

I do recall in the book "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke that he said Rumsfeld and Cheney were adamant about the FBI and State Department tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, and sending back reports that failed to find a connection between them. That sounds very dishonest to me.

So, as far as I am concerned, this is yet another referendum on the Bush administration and its determination to stay the course, come hell or high water, not on the integrity of one General Petraeus in the hearings.

How can a President be said to be right about his strategy when he has so often been proven to be so wrong? After the years of blunders in Iraq, is it really all the fault of the previous administration, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Donald Rumsfeld, with George W. Bush coming out of this right and lily-white? I don't think so. I look at the record and see half-truths, deceptions, and "faulty intelligence," and all the while staffers have fallen on their swords to protect our Fearless Leader.

NOTE: To the General's credit, he did say that Iraq was not connected to the 9/11/2001 attacks.

PE, McGovern's referenced "other time" when the oath was forgotten was during a Senate Judiciary Committee. This was not a judiciary hearing of any kind. So this clown yells 'swear him in!' when Petraus is standing in front of the House Armed Services Committee about to give his presentation. I can see very well why they threw him out. And no General (or anyone else, civilian or otherwise) swears in before such things. Do you think the Congressmen swear in every time they testify at a legislative hearing? Could you please cite where or when any General has been sworn in to testify at such a nonjudicial hearing? They take an oath when they testify as a witness for judicial trials, they take an oath when they are promoted and when they become officers, but they don't take an oath before making proposals or assessments. Nor does anyone else.

McGovern's um, "memory" isn't serving him very well, to put it very very euphemistically.

Edited to add, from Contumacious' quote in the last post. He is using the time-honored fallacious debate tactic ignorus repeatus (ignore conflicting information and repeat the same thing three times and it's true!):

I respectfully dissent . Congress has the authority to issue subpoena and compel sworn testimony:

The Constitution vests all legislative authority in Congress. U.S. Const., art. I, § 1. Although the Constitution does not expressly authorize Congress to issue subpoenas, the Supreme Court has stated that the authority to subpoena is an "indispensable ingredient" of Congress' legislative power. Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 505 (1975). In McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927), the Court declared that "the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." According to the Court:

A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-which not infrequently is true-recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.

It also has been held that the subpoena power may be exercised by a committee acting, as here, on behalf of one of the Houses. Id., at 158. Cf. Tenney v. Brandhove,341 U.S., at 377-378. Without such power the Subcommittee may not be able to do the task assigned to it by Congress. To conclude that the power of inquiry is other than an integral part of the legislative process would be a miserly reading of the Speech or Debate Clause in derogation of the "integrity of the legislative process." United States v. Brewster,408 U.S., at 524; and United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S., at 172.

Really, someone needs to speak authoritatively here as to whether an oath would normally have been called for in this case, and was waived; or whether an oath would not normally have been called for. Based on Mrs. Pigpen's remarks, I assumed that "she" (is Mrs. Pigpen a woman?) had sure and certain knowledge that the latter was true. Assuming that, this question as framed is trivial. I would be interested to know which it is.

As to the larger question of the worth of General Petraeus' testimony, I think it is sufficient to observe that the general has every incentive to satisfy his commander-in-chief. As noted by NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, the general has continuously issued optimistic assements and even op-ed pieces in service of the general policy of war in Iraq, ever since he was involved with it. General Petraeus may be in uniform, but he is best viewed as a political operative with significant military and extra-military ambitions. I have scant doubt that after he retires, he will be put forward as a Republican presidential candidate.

I also read that piece in the NY Times, to which someone here has pointed, that the U.S. public better trusts the military commanders to formulate a good Iraq war policy than either the President or Congress. That is lovely, except that in a democracy, generals do not formulate war policy, but rather carry out whatever policy has been set by the people's elected representatives. We tread dangerously close to military rule when we look to the generals to tell us whether continuing to wage a war in progress is a good idea. In any case, as military experts, they can only tell us the relationship between given military actions and likely results; as Shinseki did when he said, if you go into Iraq, you'll need 400,000 men to control it. A general can recommend national policy no better than any Iowa housewife can.

Very enlightened choice of words.

As for Petraeus's un-sworn testimony/hearing/whatever—can one testify without swearing in?—I'm not sure what's the point. I don't mean to question Petraeus's service to the country but I have not viewed him as an unbiased actor since he replaced Casey as commanding general. He came up with the surge plan and he may be invested in its perceived success for future military campaigns and, like Vladimir, I wonder what is a military officer doing lobbying Congress on foreign policy:


I also wonder where Petraeus is getting his numbers. According to at least one report the military is playing with figures:


Here's an example of more obfuscation. If Iraqi ministries report more deaths than our military there's some serious sugarcoating going on. As the saying goes there's data and then there's data.

At the risk of inciting a pile on I will say that yes, I think Petraeus will lie to Congress with or without being sworn in by a desire to salvage whatever public support there is left for Iraq. We've been lied to from Day One about Iraq's prospects for a transition from a dictatorship to a democratic regime with rosier reports than reality could back up and missed several opportunities to address mistakes in the process. Why should that change because the man in the seat is wearing a uniform? Extending our presence long enough to break the Army and Marines may be what Bush needs to hand off Iraq to the next president. This has been Six Years of Endless Six Months.

You are citing actual trials, not legislative hearings (Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund et al). These are legal disputes that include a plaintiff and a defendant. Is Petraeus himself on trial in this instance? Is he testifying as an expert witness for a defendant on trial? Not to my knowledge.




He doesn't ask that anyone view him as an unbiased actor. He fully admits that his recommendations are coming from opinion. But it is a knowledgeable opinion.



And yes, Vladimir, MrsPigpen is a she.

Thought I'd add:

That's one of those quotes that has been used many times and no one seems to know where the mysterious e mail came from originally. I highly doubt its authenticity considering Petraeus himself mentioned the most deadly car bombing attack in his testimony. Some articles cite the New York Times as the source for the above 'car bombs don't count' quote. From the New York Times:

I don't begrudge his experience or desire to put on a good face before the committee. It's his plan, after all. I'm speaking of sugarcoating and, against his better judgment, making predictions that aren't actionable.


That' well and good that he mentions the most deadly car bombing attack. Is he taking this attack and others into consideration throughout his testimony? Was it taken into consideration when he gave Fox News an exclusive interview, and did it include this histogram? David Walker, the sky-is-falling anti-deficit guru at the GAO, complained the Pentagon refused to give him recent statistics.

That's what I'm getting at. I think the content presented to Congress is framing an incomplete picture.


Actually, I realized it was the LA Times' "Troop buildup fails to reconcile Iraq" that quoted car bombs don't count after editing my post. The story was published 4 days before the NYT's article.

So we have the GAO complaining about the Pentagon withholding information, the Iraqi government giving death estimates that are higher than the military's, and a histogram from the Defense Intelligence Agency using MNF-I's numbers undermining Petraeus. Whom should I believe? I don't dispute that the surge has worked in some respects, but we've been playing a long game of whack-a-mole with insurgents. The surge did not change the nature of the game because no military plan, no matter how brilliant, can. That's up to the Iraqi people and their government.

Edit: I found his slides. This one states "Density plots are of incidents where deaths occured from any means that were clearly ethno-sectarian in motivation, to include car bombs". Does ethno-sectarian include Shia-on-Shia and Sunni-on-Sunni violence?

Lord. You really shouldn't use arrows on a line chart to guide the eyes.

Second edit: It appears swearing in a witness, with a few exceptions, is up to the discretion of the committee's chairwo/man. I think the House overreacted.

This begs the question Lesly, was the picture left incomplete intentionally or unintentionally? I'm seeing alot of similarity between Colin Powell's address and Petraeus'. When there were gaps and inconsistancies in Powell's address, people relied on the character of the person with the expectaction that all would be revealed in due time. Trust through integrity was used quite effectively here.

Now we have some dispute over statistics and again we are relying on the "integrity" of the individual to provide clarification. If we step back and look at the succession of generals, Petraeus, Casey, Sanchez, we find a repetitive pattern that was alluded to earlier by Vladimer in Paul Krugman's article. Even though Petraeus' predecessors were confident in their abilities, reported progress regularly, they still were replaced as the situation deteriorated.

It is against this backdrop Petraeus has given his speech and must be judged accordingly. I'm skeptical at this point.

I read Ray McGovern's statement differently:

The fact that one says "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is the "customary" of an oath. Upon my first read, I didn't catch the other meaning you inferred, Mrs. P, that is, it is customary to give an oath at a (any) hearing. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to be asked for an oath before giving testimony on the implementation status of one's own war plan. As for McGovern's outburst, he *was* being disruptive: his removal should have been unsurprising to him.

There does seem to be some controversy over how the numbers were gathered and whether or not the methodology has been consistent. If one is making comparisons to previous stats, it is critically important to be sure that the methodology for gathering those stats remains consistent. If not, then the comparisons are invalid.

I don't believe it is. There are four types of hearings (legislative, oversight, investigative, confirmation) and unless there is suspicion of wrongdoing (investigative) I do not think that there is any "customary" oath for presentations. Was Al Gore required to take an oath before his global warming testimony? Michael J Fox before his testimony? That would be rather odd, I think. Odder still would be a person demanding it from the audience. To solve this once and for all, I found the actual military handbook on testifying before Congress.

On page two under types of hearings, it lists 'investigative hearings' and states 'all witnesses are under oath'. This is demonstrably absent for the other types. Petraeus was not participating in an investigative hearing.

Later, it says this:

Apparently this one didn't. Either way the above would imply that the practice is certainly not customary for other types of cases.



I agree with you here (and everyone else on this point). If there isn't enough oversight, or the methodology is poor, the numbers could be suspect.

Well, let's carefully analyze this and see if the adjective "Betrayus" fits:


(1) Soldier's Oath:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


Nowhere in the oath does it say the GOP Platform, the neoconservatives' agenda , or the State Of Israel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(2) The Nuremberg and Lt William Calley's Trials taught us that soldiers are required to follow orders IF THE SAME ARE LAWFUL!!!!!!

(3) I'd like to take this time to recognize Lt Ehren Watada who when given the UNLAWFUL order to invade Iraq he said NO!!!!!!!!!. Saaaaaaaaaaalute!!!

Umm... Did you miss what I was saying or do I misunderstand you?

The statement "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is a customary type of oath. There are many oaths. If you were to poll a bunch of people to state an oath, the builk of them would say: "here's one: '...the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'" In *that* sense, the oath is customary.

Edited to add:


I was trying to say something stronger than "could be suspect".

Let me lay out an example. I want to count the number of apples produced by my orchard. In previous years, I counted the bushels of apples picked. This year, however, I counted the bushels of apples I can sell. When I compare my current year stats with my previous year stats, I see a significantly smaller number (not all apples picked can be sold). Note that the stats from my previous years and from my current year are valid and useful. They are just different numbers. It's like comparing apples to... .

Ah, I understand what you're saying now.



Okay, let's take that apple orchard and suppose the trees became infected with a blight that started rotting apples. How would you go about determining if a medicine was working? In best case scenario, you would take a measure of apples rotted during good times (because apples rot even when trees are in perfect condition due to worms, birds, ect), apples rotten before treatment and then after. If you don't have the first measure for a data point, you would try to discard apples that rotted due to causes other than the blight, wouldn't you?

There are many measures that indicate violence is down in Iraq since December. That might be the weather, or any number of things, but those numbers aren't isolated to Petraeus' testimony. The GAO and Iraqi government figures indicate this as well. NY Times piece above.

Contumacious, if Congress authorizes the military to act, they must act. Military members do not have the power to ignore or override the orders of Congress. Well, actually, sometimes they do but it isn't desirable. In those cases it is something called a military coup. Then soldiers get to refuse all kinds of orders from their (former) leaders.

Let's be honest, that type of name calling was expected given the way Petraeus cozied himself into the position. Admiral Fallon used far more abrasive comments and this should be taken into consideration.

Betrayus sounds tame considering Fallon's comments trip the profanity filter not once but twice. The enmity between the two men was evident and reported as "bad relations" and "understatment of the century". If it can be proven that Petraeus' put his own interests ahead of a sound military posture as Fallon states this would put a considerable dent in "man of integrity" angle and illustrustrate bad decision making on the part of Bush to put the two men together. They clearly do not want to work with each other. This translates into operational efficiency, the kind that affects the lives of many people as you well know.

Now step back look at all the other people who became Bush loyalists, who have traded professionalism for political brownie points and suddenly McGovern's comments become at the very least, understandable.

Since we're being honest, it's worth noting that those profane remarks are probably a myth.

1 - "IPS" is not a real news source. Civil Society's leading news agency? Give me a break.
2 - The author, Gareth Porter, is famous for telling Nixon that there would be no bloodbath in South Vietnam if we pulled out. He also denied that the Khmer Rouge were killing people, finally admitting it after a couple million were dead. A typical liberal journalist, he still views everything through the prism of Vietnam, remembering when he was actually relevant, albeit dead wrong.

3 - This is so thinly sourced as to be laughable.


Sources familiar with reports of the meeting. Not sources familiar with the meeting, or God forbid, sources who were in the meeting and heard the remarks.

4 - The conversation took place in March, and IPS reports it on September 12 to coincide with Petreus' report. I question the timing, to coin a phrase.

File this piece of manure along with stories by Jason "Karl Rove has been indicted for perjury!!!11!!11" Leopold and TruthOut.

Sites like ThinkProgress and DailyKos are American patriots, of course. That's why they leap at any opportunity to call four-star generals names. Stay classy liberals!

No. The problem arises when trying to compare the previous measurement of rotten apples (which you never made and so substitute a different measurement) to the current measurement of rotten apples. Instead, you would choose the same measurements that you made in the current year and in previous years to make the comparison. If you've never measured for rotten apples, how can you make a statement about the rate of change of rotten apples from year to year? You may, however, be able to derive the year-over-year rotten-apple metric by looking at other metrics that you have made year over year as long as the methodology for *those* metrics have remained unchanged. Also, you may be able to back-calculate the previous years' rotten-apple metrics if and only if you have more fundamental data to work with.


Yes, it appears that the first 6 months of 2007 shows a decline in Iraqi civilian deaths from the prior 6 months. Of course, 2007 is still far higher than 2005 or 2004 or 2003.

I want to note something about these numbers and why they are useful. The absolute numbers provided by iraqbodycount.org are surely incorrect: civilian deaths that are not documented are not counted (they are not even estimated). HOWEVER, the *methodology* for gathering these numbers has remained unchanged for the past 4 years. This means that it is valid to make comparisons within those year-over-year stats.

Here's a graph of US fatalities month over month. Definitely not seeing a downward trend there.

Here's an article discussing problems with the way the numbers were gathered as reported by Petraeus

It does?

Well they should publicly disclose them.

If they are going to testify using facts what's the problem with being swore in.

The kinds of facts that I am looking for go something like this:

Saddam Hussein was suicidal. He could only reach orgasms when attacking and invading superpowers. An impartial 3rd party confirmed that Iraq had WMD's. Saddam has the wherewithal to deliver the same to the Continental US. He declared war on the US.

Got facts?

And your source is? Or are you going with your "gut" on this one?

These "mythical" remarks were easily heard from across the hall as grown men shouted at each other. I brought Fallon into the discussion because he represents the broader view which is the limits of the American military have been reached. Further, I can demonstate there are some pretty big names behind Fallon's ideas including Richard Clarke, Jon Alterman (CSIS), and Rand Beers are worried that Petraeus' remarks are becoming more of a dog and pony show for the public. link

The details on Fallon's and Petraeus' dirty laundry are all over the internet. The earlier comments of "bad relations" I quoted come from a Washington Post article, and when you think about it, commenting on some of the highest military men in the country might call from some discretion when you are a working stiff. link


Are you familiar with the rules concerning strawmen? Would you be more comfortable reading the same remarks out the Asia Times or Antiwar? Porter has regualr columns in both. I suppose Washington Post is pretty obscure as well. Would you prefer I use Guerrilla News in its place?



No, that is a revisionist statement. To the best of my knowledge of the man and I have followed his articles for a few years he has never denied saying the Khmer Rouge were killers. I think what you meant to say is the authour is famous for telling Nixon that Cambodia would be fine as long as Kissinger didn't bomb the country. The critical piece being when the order was given to bomb. With an intensive bombing campaign there Khmer no longer had state opposition and could enact any means of coercion they wanted to take control of the country. Don't take my word for it, listen to his interview. Listen to the comments Bush's Viet Nam address garnered.





In addition to the WaPo article which establishes a baseline, there is more than a little information to suggest the entire surge was going against the better judgement of several generals and again used this press conference to generate enthusiasm.

See, The General as a Salesman by Michael Hirsh or the LA Times article on the Joint Chiefs of Staff or once again the CSIS [.pdf] report which states the "footprint" can no longer be maintained. Petraeus here is truly on his own which makes an oath on his testimony all the more prudent.



Speaking of coincidental timing McGovern was aware that Petraeus' comments fell in the middle of Ari Fleischer's ad campaign. You know the 5 week, 15 million dollar blitz to promote the surge, win a couple of votes, and find a few suckers one? Perhaps the question we should be asking are:

"Were General Petraeus' remarks overly politicized?

Did the conference warrant the highly unusual circumstance of "swearing in" when there was a supportive ad campaign running in the background?

This thread started with the authour presenting a decent case that "swearing in" is theoretically possible under the constitution. Mrs. Pigpen proved beyond a shadow of doubt that this is not the norm. I'm not going to contest that. Rather, I'm shifting the focus from McGovern onto Petraeus by demonstrating that his surge is running counter to mainstream military opinion and such action should be challengeable to scrutiny. Unusual circumstances warrant unusual oversight.