Thank you, I stand corrected. He was not under oath. I just assumed that the Democrats had learned their lesson when the Republicans kept letting people give testimony not under oath. Silly me.

Well, Lying to Congress is still a crime. The question becomes whether or not a lie of omission is a lie, especially if it involves bringing context to a question that had none.

Letter by Project for the New American Century

O’Hanlon signed a letter and a statement on postwar Iraq published by the Project for the New American Century.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030328.htm

So, he is a PNACer. He signed TWO of there letters. WOW, that explains a lot, doesn’t it???

But no matter what you call it, Bush and his willing general “kicked the can down the street” and now they say that they need another six months to determine if the “surge” is working. Don’t call us, we’ll call you suckers in March 2008. Ha. Ha.

Nice con job, orchestrated in the White House. How many more metals for Gen. BetrayUs to pin on his jacket?

Comment by Candyce — September 23, 2007 @ 11:45 am

I agree, and part of the problem is one of semantics and ethics. Is it “lying” to give a less-than-truthful response, when you have taken an oath that the testomny you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And if you feel the term “lying” isn’t quite accurate, would the legal term “perjury” apply to an answer that was, let’s say, “inexactly deceitful”, meaning it was technically true, but ommitted details which could change someone’s interpretation of your response. For example: “Is sectarian violence down since the start of the surge?” “Yes.” But to omit that it is down because the neighborhoods experiencing it have largely succeeded in their attempts at ethnic cleansing, so there is less of a “need” from their perspective to kill people, is to not be completely truthful. By simply answering “Yes”, are you deliberately trying to leave a cause-and-effect relationship in the mind of the inquisitor, even though the question did not ask if there was one? Would this be considered “lying” or “perjury”? Tough question to answer.

*****Evidently he didn’y learn much.We are still keeping our troops in Iraq to solve a political solution.Same difference as Nam folks.

OBTW, thank you for your service.

from http://www.nndb.com/people/078/000160595/

Born: c. 1958

Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Scholar
Party Affiliation: Democratic

VERY DOUBTFUL, THAT…
…

The CENTCOM Commander, Admiral Fallon, and Gen. Petraeus’ boss, called Petraeus an “ass-kissing little chicken-sh*t”. What do the Senate Republicans say to that?

The security that the “surge” was designed to supply in order to bring about political progress doesn’t exist.

The real reason that troop levels are being reduced is due to an overstretched military and would have happened anyway with or without Petraeus’ plan.

Petraeus testified that sectarian violence is down, but the Pentagon’s methodology is in question by the intelligence community. The ridiculous statement that if a person is “shot in the back of the head it is murder” and not sectarian violence reflects poorly on this general’s credibility.

The GAO could not find any evidence that sectarian violence has decreased.

Petraeus claimed that the number of ethno-sectarian deaths were down by 55%, when the number of deaths has actually risen from July to August this year.

Petraeus began his testimony by saying that the report he was about to give was his and his alone. In truth, Ed Gillespie, a White House counselor, organized twice-daily conference calls between the White House and the military in Baghdad to map out ways of selling the surge.

General Petraeus has been used repeatedly by the White House to sell Bush’s “surge”. In August he hosted over 38 members of Congress inside the Green Zone and gave numerous radio and TV interviews.

He is as much concerned for his own political futre as he is Iraq.

Seems to typify the neocon way, dictate what one’s opinion will be and accuse any that disagree of the very faults that are their own. This tactic is becoming painfully obvious and only the kool-aid crowd is buying it. O’Hanlon should just STFU and crawl back under his rock.

O’Hanlon’s an expert on sucking up to powerful old bastards (and I do not want the details on that) so that he can brownnose his way into one of their worthless Righty think tanks.

PA-THETIC!

How is it that, weeks after going on every talk show and making his case for supporting the war, only now are we hearing of his personal connection to Patraeus?

and i can’t believe this guy is given any cred ’cause
he looks like such a puppy…
that “what can HE know… still wet behind the ears” look…

i know… petty…
:-P

As for O’Hanlon, is any conscious person really surprised?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003

And I don’t think anyone can argue that Petraeus wasn’t presenting the facts in a way that reflect the President’s policies. We saw what happened when he gave the one true answer, that was solely his own. Is it making America safe? “I don’t know,” he replied, only to clarify it later after a call from the White House. That was a betrayal, as Olbermann said, of himself, as well as us.