|
'Swear Him In'
By Ray McGovern
09/11/07 "ICH" -- -- -That's all I said in the unusual silence
on Monday afternoon as first aid was being administered to Gen.
David Petraeus' microphone before he spoke before the House
Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.
It had dawned on me that when House Armed Services Committee
Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) 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 my suggestion would be enough to get
me thrown out of the hearing.
I had experienced a flashback to a Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing in early 2006, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) reminded
chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that Specter had forgotten to
swear in the witness, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and how
Specter insisted that that would not be necessary.
Now that may or may not be an invidious comparison. But Petraeus
and Gonzales work for the same boss, who has a rather unusual
relationship with the truth. How many of his senior staff could
readily be convicted, as was the hapless-and-now-commuted
Scooter Libby, of perjury?
So I didn't think twice about it. I really thought that Skelton
perhaps forgot, and that the 10-minute interlude of silence
while they fixed the microphone was a good chance to raise this
seemingly innocent question.
The more so since the ranking Republican representatives had
been protesting too much. Practicing the obverse of "killing the
messenger," they had been canonizing the messenger with
protective fire. Ranking Armed Services Committee member Duncan
Hunter (R-Calif.) began what amounted to a SWAT-team attack on
the credibility of those who dared question the truthfulness of
the sainted Petraeus, and issued a special press release
decrying a full-page ad in today's New York Times equating
Petraeus with "Betray-us."
Hunter served notice on any potential doubters, insisting that
Petraeus' "capability, integrity, intelligence … are without
question." And Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), ranking member of
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, rang changes on the same
theme, unwittingly choosing another infelicitous almost-homonym
for the charges against Petraeus – "outrageous."
Indeed, Hunter's prepared statement, which he circulated before
the hearing, amounted to little more than a full-scale
"duty-honor-country" panegyric for the general. On the chance we
did not hear him the first time, Hunter kept repeating how
"independent" Petraeus is, how candid and full of integrity, and
compared him to famous generals who testified to Congress in the
past – Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Schwarzkopf. Hunter was smart
enough to avoid any mention of Gen. William Westmoreland,
commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, who fell tragically short
on those traits.
If memory serves, the aforementioned generals and Westmoreland
were required to testify under oath. And this was one of the
more embarrassing sticking points when CBS aired a program
showing that Westmoreland had deliberately dissembled on the
strength of Communist forces and U.S. "progress" in the war.
When Westmoreland sued CBS for libel, several of his
subordinates came clean, and Westmoreland quickly dropped the
suit. The analogy with Westmoreland – justifying a White House
death wish to persist in an unwinnable war – is the apt one
here.
If Petraeus is so honest and full of integrity, what possible
objection could he have to being sworn in? I had not the
slightest hesitation being sworn in when testifying before the
committee assembled by John Conyers (D-Mich.) on June 16, 2005.
Should generals be immune? Or did Petraeus' masters wish to give
him a little more assurance that he could play fast and loose
with the truth without the consequences encountered by Scooter
Libby?
With the microphone finally fixed, much became quickly clear.
Petraeus tried to square a circle in his very first two
paragraphs. In the first, he thanks the committees for the
opportunity to "discuss the recommendations I recently provided
to my chain of command for the way forward." Then he stretches
credulity well beyond the breaking point – at least for me:
"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?
As Harry Truman (D-Mo.) would have said, "Does he think we were
born yesterday?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing
ministry of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington,
DC. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and now serves on the
Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS).
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
