Senator Slams General's Torture Testimony-Calls Commander's Answers "Incomplete, at Best"

Source: ABC

Senator Slams General's Torture Testimony
Calls Commander's Answers "Incomplete, at Best"
By JUSTIN ROOD
June 17, 2009

Obama's new pick to oversee U.S. forces in Afghanistan misled Congress about his role in the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation" by U.S. Special Operations forces in 2003 and 2004, a senior Democratic senator has charged.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) said late last week that then-Special Operations commander Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal was not direct with lawmakers at his confirmation hearing regarding his approval of harsh interrogations by personnel under his control.

"This testimony appears to be incomplete, at best," Feingold said in a statement published in the Congressional Record June 11. For that reason and others, he said he opposed Obama's nomination of McChrystal to lead the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan.

Despite Feingold's comments, he did not object when the Senate approved McChrystal under unanimous consent to his new post June 10. The senator's comments were first reported by the Secrecy News newsletter.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7855749&page=1

If the General gave "incomplete, at best" testimony to Congress wouldn't that be considered "lying" or "perjury" by normal human standards?

Why the hell did Feingold even bring this up if he wasn't going to stand against it? Jaheezus, these politicians are some wimpy mofos.

I thought Russ was better than that.

He was involved in torture and in hiding prisoners from the ICRC.

This guy is going to have to go eventually just as Ross had to go. That's my bet.

He brought it up during questioning when the general testified before congress June 2. When the article says he communicated to Pres. Obama his reasons for opposing McChrystal, I presume that meant he voted against the appointment in committee. So, when it became obvious the appointment was going to pass a full vote in the senate, he asked that his objection be published in the record.

Where's the faux outrage here? You'll have to point it out because clearly, having read the entire article, I'm missing it.

The General lied or misrepresented or committed perjury by omission (if that's possible), yet the one Senator who has brought this up votes FOR him.

Just mind boggling.

A motion for unanimous consent requires and objection. Whether or not Feingold formally objected, the confirmation would have passed anyway. He put his objections in the record.

But if you want to ignore that Feingold brought all this up in the hearing and made an issue of it before the vote, if you prefer to go into a snit because the man didn't attempt to single-handedly hold up the vote, please, by all means, enjoy the wallow.

I'm sure Sen. Feingold is well aware that he has a plate full of important matters to deal with in which he can have more influence. Why waste time on certainties?

Wow. Go figure. :shrug:

lalalalalalalalalalalalala