Monday, September 10, 2007

'Swear Him In' Provokes Expulsion

By Raymond 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.

Read on.
Posted by at

3 comments:

Michael Collins said...

A grateful populace thanks Mr. McGovern for his efforts in behalf of common procedure and common sense. The normal routine was played out today. The Democratic faction of the War-Money Party had an encounter with the other Republican faction. While the public knew that it was going to be a pack of lies, the Democratic faction rolled over dutifully and let the obedient General have his way. "Swear him in" - the simple words can't be grasped by the Democrats. The public thought they were electing an opposition party but, little did they know, the opposition was against the public wishes. The April 97 to ZERO endorsement (the Lieberman amendment) of Bush-Cheney's next project, Iran, says it all.

Contempt for the public works some of the time, but not this time. Hopefully, there are some countervailing forces fighting the White House agenda of death. Such opposition was certainly not found today in Congress.

Mon Sep 10, 09:32:00 PM 2007
Mike said...

Unbelievable.....why exactly did we elect Democrats to control the agenda in '06?

Wed Sep 12, 01:19:00 PM 2007
Germ said...

"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." [Petraeus]
Is not the commander in chief in Petraeus's chain of command?" ...

In the NeoCon administration lying double-speak is the recommended way to communicate with U.S. consumers. Citizens would call for a nationwide strike, but consumers and bloggers--bloggers consume in the virtual world--are just fragile easily damaged machine-like lemmings and can be treated as such, although they can panic, run amok, and turn on each other, as dumb animals sometimes do.
Of course in lying doublespeak, "assessment", as in "briefed my assessment", does not imply that Petraeus' assessment is his testimony. In fact, Petraeus is being precisely and legally honest (just as when Clinton said he "did not have 'sex' with that woman", 'sex' defined in the [Random House College] dictionary as sexual intercourse). Petraeous stated clearly and precisely that his assessment given to his chain of command was not the same as his written testimony, was not shown to them, and [obviously] could not have been cleared by them. Did anyone question him about his actual briefing to his chain of command? No.
Whose fault is that? If we do not show by our actions that we care how dumb or devious our elected representatives are, then we ought to quit our sniveling and quietly follow the other lemmings.

Thu Sep 13, 04:57:00 AM 2007

Post a Comment