Comments on: QOD

By: jason330

jason330 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:58:36 +0000

Here we go with the Clinton stuff again.

Just say, “I got nothing.”

By: Dana

Dana — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:43:42 +0000

And y’all are interested in this because . . . ? Our 42nd President lied when he was under oath, and the Democrats leapt to his defense, saying it wasn’t about anything serious.

By: Duffy

Duffy — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:37:19 +0000

So…should we pre-impeach Obama for lying about the FISA wiretap law?

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:04:15 +0000

Wait a second there Anders…. we are not necessarily discussing national security issues. There is one thing to issue a no comment when we are at war with the biggest threat to the entire world….sometimes they say saying nothing speaks louder than NOT saying a lot. That is true in a war. But a no comment is better than a refusal to answer. And there is a world of difference between the two.

On the other hand if it is lying about the premise of conflict, international affairs, domestic policy or rigging the CPI and monetray policy so that I get accurate figures for inflation in America from Xinhua but not from the treasury, then there is a serious problem.

The duty to uphold the consitution, is not a carte blanche approval to dismantle it becuase you do not agree with it. So in that respect Liz is right, but in the larger moral context, it is the president’s duty to keep the people in the know about affairs as long as we call this a republican form of democratic government. You see, FDR’s vision of this republic was that we the people are the government there is not this wall of seperation between the government out there and the people. The people FDR said, were the government.

On the other hand, if we want to alter the constitution and have a different form of government, then Congress alone has that authority. And they need to let us know why and what it means to people’s lives. They have an obligation to do that for our system of government to work even if they decide we need to change it.

By: Anders

Anders — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:31:28 +0000

No.

I may be the minority in this, but I honestly believe that sometimes a president may have to lie to prevent crucial information from becoming public – information that could cost lives like troop movements or military plans. Sometimes even the phrase “no comment” is a confirmation.

Reporter: “President Roosevelt, is it true that you are developing a weapon of previously unimagined power at secret labs across the country?”

FDR: “No comment.”

By: Delaware Dem

Delaware Dem — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:34:24 +0000

You’re right Liz. I was speaking in generalities, not thinking about his oath of office.

By: liz allen

liz allen — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:20:01 +0000

His first oath which he swore to was to “defend protect the Consitution of the United States”, he has violated that oath. He is guilty as per the Articles of Impeachment, and therefore under our Consititution must be impeached.

By: Delaware Dem

Delaware Dem — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:19:06 +0000

Of course, but the only accountability that can be imposed on him or those who support him (McCain) when he is not under oath is being voted out of office. He cannot be impeached for merely lying when not under oath.