Ray McGovern was thrown out of the Joint House Committee (Armed Forces and Foreign Affairs) hearings yesterday for speaking out the statement, "Swear him in." McGovern was surprised that the Democratic Chairman Ike Skelton had not had General Petraeus sworn in prior to his testimony. Truthout has McGovern's story here.
It is shocking to "discover" that the testimony of General Petraeus was able to testify before two House Committees and two Senate Committees and he was not sworn in for "any" of his testimony.
The Democratic party made a big deal over the issue of the Republican Congress allowing Bush's representatives to testify before Congress without taking the oath. We were assured by the Democratic leaders that this would not occur while they were in charge. True to their word the Democrats insisted on Attorney General Gonzalez taking the oath before he testified.
Senator Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (which was NOT involved in the Petraeus hearings) held hearings and insisted that Attorney General Gonzalez testify under oath. According to Leahy, "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability." (Source)
So why did the house committee chairs--Rep. Ike Skelton(House Armed Services) and Rep. Tom Lantos (House Foreign Affairs)-- and the Senate committee chairs--Sen. Joe Biden (Foreign Relations) and Sen. Carl Levin (Armed Forces)--allow General Petraeus to give testimony without being sworn in?
We were promised that the Democratic party would run Congress appropriately. It was the Democrats who criticized the Republicans for allowing testimony while NOT under oath.
Why did the Democrats insist on Attorney General Gonzalez taking the oath before his testimony and NOT General Petraeus?
Maybe the General needs to come back and present his testimony under oath. It might be a good idea to bring his boss--Centcom Chief Admiral Fallon--to the hearings also.