Former D.C. National Guard official says generals lied to Congress about Jan. 6

[AlterErgo]

Col. Earl Matthews calls military leaders "absolute liars" over their accounts of riot


There indeed was a COUP on Jan 6


From DUMZ and the "MILITARY"


https://justthenews.com/government/...l-says-generals-lied-congress-about-january-6

 

[ll74]

Sounds like he should be testifying under oath in front of Congress.

 

[AlterErgo]

The DUMZ dont want Booby Mule LIAR redux

 

[Rightguide]

Here is the link to Colonel Earl G. Matthews report:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-8aca-dee4-a5ff-eeda79e90000

 

[BidudeinWi]

Sounds like he should be testifying under oath in front of Congress.

We finally agree!

 

[ll74]

We finally agree!

Doubt it. Because I know you've already decided that this sheds a bad light on your political opposition and I just want transparency.

 

[phrodeau]

Here is the link to Colonel Earl G. Matthews report:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-8aca-dee4-a5ff-eeda79e90000

So, a typical military operation.

 

[Rightguide]

Looks like the left has no interest in the truth, only the Jan 6 narrative.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/jan-6-generals-lied-ex-dc-guard-official-523777

 

[ll74]

Looks like the left has no interest in the truth, only the Jan 6 narrative.

What does this even mean?

 

[Rightguide]

What does this even mean?

It means the whole narrative is built on lies.

 

[ll74]

Looks like the left has no interest in the truth, only the Jan 6 narrative.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/jan-6-generals-lied-ex-dc-guard-official-523777

It means the whole narrative is built on lies.

They're still in the process of investigation. They've interviewed almost 200 people. The only way what you're saying is even remotely correct is if they built some sort of case based on two peoples' testimony out of 200.

 

[Rightguide]

They're still in the process of investigation. They've interviewed almost 200 people. The only way what you're saying is even remotely correct is if they built some sort of case based on two peoples' testimony out of 200.

The fundamental lie is, the riot was an insurrection.

 

[ll74]

The fundamental lie is, the riot was an insurrection.

They are investigating the entirety of events to determine why it happened.

You really are just going down a rabbit hole when your original comment just makes absolutely no sense based on the OP.

They should bring the official in for questioning.

 

[Paul_Chance]

So, a typical military operation.

LOL - having read the report, that was my initial reaction. Typical, chaotic, confusing, and as they say "FUBAR". It doesn't really shed any new light on the events of Jan. 6th.

 

[JohnnySavage]

A Colonel. In a city's National Guard unit.

That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel for confirmation bias.

FFS next we will be listening to the Lance Corporals.

 

[Paul_Chance]

A Colonel. In a city's National Guard unit.

That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel for confirmation bias.

FFS next we will be listening to the Lance Corporals.

I'm sure the enlisted men and women who were actually deployed as "boots on the ground" have a completely different story to tell.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm sure the enlisted men and women who were actually deployed as "boots on the ground" have a completely different story to tell.

Yeah, this sounds like somebody on a level analogous to a Corporal:

"Col. Earl Matthews, a high-level Pentagon official during the Trump administration, has authored a 36-page report"

 

[icanhelp1]

A Colonel. In a city's National Guard unit.

That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel for confirmation bias.

FFS next we will be listening to the Lance Corporals.

They listened to a light colonel named Vindman, why not a Full Bird if it fits the narrative?

 

[Rightguide]

They listened to a light colonel named Vindman, why not a Full Bird if it fits the narrative?

Ah, you remember Lt.Col. Alexander "Oh say can you see" Vindman? The man no one could question?

 

[phrodeau]

It means the whole narrative is built on lies.

So the siege of the Capitol could have been prevented if the DC National Guard had been on the ball.

I can think of another way that the siege of the Capitol could have been prevented, and it also would require certain folks to be on the ball and not tell lies.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Doubt it. Because I know you've already decided that this sheds a bad light on your political opposition and I just want transparency.

Hard to believe YOU want “transparency” on this but not on covid, “vaccines,” masks etc! Shrugs.

 

[ll74]

Hard to believe YOU want “transparency” on this but not on covid, “vaccines,” masks etc! Shrugs.

I want transparency on both.

You are an idiot.

 

[BidudeinWi]

I want transparency on both.

You are an idiot.

HAHAHAHAHA! So full of shit. You’re the biggest partisan hack on this board, you fat fuck!

 

[ll74]

HAHAHAHAHA! So full of shit. You’re the biggest partisan hack on this board, you fat fuck!

Good retort. Want to offer up more misinterpretations of VAERS data? Oh wait...you already did today....guess you have a 24 hour cool off period

 

[Paul_Chance]

Yeah, this sounds like somebody on a level analogous to a Corporal:

"Col. Earl Matthews, a high-level Pentagon official during the Trump administration, has authored a 36-page report"

Anytime you have a complex event (such as the Jan 6th riot), you'll have multiple people sharing the same broad experience but having different perceptions of how that event unfolded. Take any teleconference or meeting with an audience of any size and you'll have different memories of what happened, who said what, and even who was there. That's why meeting minutes are so important and transcripts are always better, with actual recordings best (I am surprised they didn't have some enlisted clerks or civilian clerks sitting on the calls and taking extensive notes - and I am sure that many of the participants have their own notes, which is common).

In any sort of after action report you've got someone putting together the official version of events - and someone disagreeing with that official version. That just comes with the territory. You also routinely have people pointing in different directions to cast blame is the action failed or went awry. When it comes to the perceptions of the boots on the ground, their perception and memory of events often is different than that of the officers, especially the farther removed from the action the officers are.

For example if you look at deployment readiness, you might get entirely different perceptions - for either better or worse - on that readiness. They might have been standing there, fully kitted, and chomping at the bit to be deployed. Or, they might have been struggling with equipment, short on personnel, and trying desperately to arrange logistics. A QDF is, on paper, ready to go at a certain time interval. In reality, the "Quick", in a quick deployment force is a flexible thing and subject to dozen of very situational circumstances.

All that is why I often think you have to wait, and often far longer than you want to wait, especially in the age of instant media gratification, for all the pieces to come out. We'll know the full story of the Jan 6 events in a couple of years, with doesn't satisfy that insatiable need to know now.