If the Liberals in Congress think that General Petraeus lied in his report, why not charge him with Perjury?

Small sticking point: - HE WASN'T UNDER OATH!!

but other than that it worked for Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney right?

I heard this on the Limpbones not an hour ago ditto brain, GEEZE you people are stupid

also - see Mitchell's answer dummy

Because he was not under oath as you have 'assumed'. Please get the facts straight before asking a question.

Regardless, it is true what Mitchell said. He presented the facts as the Bush Administration would have wanted him to present them.

Can someone tell me what is wrong with asserting the positives of the war? Can you really put a time table or limit on success or failure? What if our forefathers had decided to give up after a few years. Democracy takes time, it is not something that happens overnight nor or we going to be able to make it happen. It will be up to the people of Iraq to accept the changes and to make it work. Time is on our side....not the terrorist. Once the people decide to take a stand against those who would destroy their homeland....then we can talk about when to leave.

He wasn't under oath. It's kind of hard to charge someone with perjury when they are not testifying under oath.

1. He is not under an Oath

2. not one of us know what he said

3.We do not know it is is made up or not at this point.

If someone can be charge for lying,Hilliary would be behind bars and not running the Democrats

They can't charge him with anything. He is not under oath and the congressional committee is not a grand jury.

No, they don't claim he lied. They claim he selected certain facts that support the Bush administration while omitting many more facts that do not.

Was he sworn in? Check again.