QOD

Filed in National by on June 24, 2008

If the President lies, but it is not under oath should he still be held accountable?  assume that we aren’t talking about if he liked the eggs his wife just made him…

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Delaware Dem says:
    June 24, 2008 at 9:19 am

    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.

  2. liz allen says:
    June 24, 2008 at 9:20 am

    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.

  3. Delaware Dem says:
    June 24, 2008 at 10:34 am

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

  4. Anders says:
    June 24, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    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.”

  5. Brian says:
    June 24, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    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.

  6. Duffy says:
    June 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm

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

  7. Dana says:
    June 25, 2008 at 6:43 am

    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.

  8. jason330 says:
    June 25, 2008 at 6:58 am

    Here we go with the Clinton stuff again.

    Just say, “I got nothing.”

«
»