We need to be ready to nail Gen. Petraeus with perjury charges

[Hugabear]

If Gen. Petraeus and his lackeys think they can waltz into Congress and wow everyone with tales of wonder, we should be ready to bring him back down to reality. We've had enough of their lies - how many more Americans and Iraqis have to DIE because of them?

[spanone]

1. yes, but is congress up to the job????

their track record doesn't look good

[Muttocracy]

9. what did you think of foreign relations and armed services hearings this week? nt

[calimary]

2. Kick!

WE have to start generating the stink about it.

Because I doubt the mainstream media is going to lift a finger about it.

[zorahopkins]

3. K&R

You are exactly correct!

We are THROUGH with any more LIES!

[movonne]

4. He really did betrayus...

[DemocratInSoCal]

5. LOL!!!

You've got to be kidding me.

The folks in Congress can barely chew gum and walk at the same time, and you're expecting ANY CHANCE at perjury charges?

Pass that joint this way please.

[annabanana]

6. You are right. We already know that he WILL lie!

Does anyone know if he'll be under oath?

[Muttocracy]

8. ditto (posted below)

[Muttocracy]

7. I though perjury was for lying while testifying under oath

Has he ever "testified" officially?

[Hugabear]

11. I'm pretty sure that lying before Congress is a crime

Even if it's not technically perjury, I'm pretty sure it would still be a crime.

[Muttocracy]

12. but there must be tens of thousands of people who give their opinion and turn out to be wrong

I guess if they lie about specific data, if there are specific questions (how many, where, when questions).

[Hugabear]

14. But how many of those tens of thousands do so in direct response before Congress?

We can't allow these lies to keep continuing.

[Muttocracy]

17. I agree, it's just that issue of whether he'll be under oath and susceptible to perjury. nt

[annabanana]

16. He's the GODDAM GENERAL IN CHARGE! He'd better have more

than an "opinion".

[Muttocracy]

18. I agree, it's just that issue of whether he'll be under oath and susceptible to perjury

[I work for workers]

13. LMAO. "I'm pretty sure what he hasn't said yet is probably a crime".

The Betrayus stunt worked wonders for the anti-war movement last time, didn't it? Let's quickly repeat that fiasco! After all, we all know that the American public never inappropriately mixes the opinions of the party's fringe with those of its mainstream candidates and that independents trying to decide who to vote for in November love to hear ad hominem attacks against the military.

[Muttocracy]

15. so much for due process with that...

I agree with you, attacking the military leaders is not that useful. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., most of whom never served were the ones who got us into this mess. Well, Powell unfortunately provided help.

My impression is that Petraeus has done his job well (in terms of use the surge and change tactics to bring down violence) and he's done it by trusting the troops to make decisions in their local areas (e.g., http://www.newsweek.com/id/123475), comments Barry McCafferty made at SFRC hearing last week, etc. So I bet the military and their families like Petraeus? If Petraeus' approach had been used earlier maybe things wouldn't have been as bad but who knows. I'm no military expert. Don't know his stand on Iran and don't quite understand the stuff with Fallon (if Petraeus is going along with dragging us into Iran conflict, then I'll have a much different opinion).

[40ozDonkey]

10. Robert Wexler is looking for questions to ask Petraeus next week.

If anybody hasn't seen it or has any good ones, go check out this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=259x13091