Lies and the Presidency

brbr
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
During the three year witch hunt of Clinton which put nearly all progress to a halt, people kept saying that it wasn't about the BJ in the oval office but the fact that he LIED UNDER OATH. He was impeached because he LIED UNDER OATH.



Now we have Bush lying about the nature of the threat that Saddam posed against the US. He lied to start a war. Was it under oath? No. Still, one would think that with the severity of the events that took place because of our trust in his words, this is worse than what Clinton did.



So, which is worse? Lying under oath about a BJ or lying while not under oath to start a war?



Hmm?



I think you all know my answer.
«13456728

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 560
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    What oath does the president take to get into office? Technically he may be under oath, depending on his actions.
  • Reply 2 of 560
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    This is the oath he took:



    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
  • Reply 3 of 560
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Is that all? I couldn't even find that on Google though. Maybe it's the Brazilian liquor.
  • Reply 5 of 560
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    "To the best of my ability"



    That could be a vast escape.....



    Fellowship
  • Reply 6 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    It would seem a lot of people aren't comfortable with the idea of the president lying to us to get his way. Imagine that.
  • Reply 7 of 560
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    It would seem a lot of people aren't comfortable with the idea of the president lieing to us to get his way. Imagine that.



    I don't like it if it is the case.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 8 of 560
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    "To the best of my ability"



    That could be a vast escape.....



    Fellowship




    hehe, your best post yet.
  • Reply 9 of 560
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    There is something very wrong in the world when Fellowship starts stealing my jokes.
  • Reply 10 of 560
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders the White

    There is something very wrong in the world when Fellowship starts stealing my jokes.



    LOL!! Cheers



    Fellowship
  • Reply 11 of 560
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    "To the best of my ability"



    That could be a vast escape.....



    Fellowship




    I just discovered the dark face of fship
  • Reply 12 of 560
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR



    I think you all know my answer.




    Prove Bush Lied ?

    I am sure that congress will be waiting with baited breath for your evidence....
  • Reply 13 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    BR:



    Quote:

    So, which is worse? Lying under oath about a BJ or lying while not under oath to start a war?



    In a legal sense Clinton lying under oath is "worse" than Bush lying while not under oath.



    In a moral sense, Clinton lying about WMD to bomb Iraq and strengthen sanctions is "worse" than Bush lying about WMD to bomb Iraq because the ends were different; Clinton accomplished nothing (no good came of it), Bush ousted Hussein and got rid of sanctions (2 good things). Because those are the two lies you have to compare if you want to be honest about it.
  • Reply 14 of 560
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    First of all. this thread is total bullshit. Why? Because there is no evindence Bush lied about anything at all. None. We've found bioweapons trailers. We've found banned delivery systems. We've found traces of WMD in the Euphrates. And, I think we'll see more.



    There is also the possibility that the intelligence given to him was flawed or exaggerated. In addition, many here seem to be under the impression that said intelligence is "cut and dry". From what I hear, there is a lot of guesswork involved, possibilities ranging from "extremely high" to "significant" to "low". It's not the exact science people think it is. The administration has said itself it focused on WMD as a justification for war because, in the words of Paul Wolfowitz "it was the one thing everyone could agree on. He went on to talk about the human situation in Iraq, the threat to Israel, etc. There were a multitude of reasons, including the fact that Iraq had targeted and fired on our aircraft thousands of times. The justification for war was overwhelming. From Saddam's complete violation of the 1991 ceasefire, to his lack of cooperation witht he toothless UN, to his violation of the oil for food program....the evidence for it was staggering.



    What Bush and Blair may have done wrong is focus on the WMD a bit too much. In fact, going to the UN may have been a mistake. Rumor has it Powell convinced him to go....perhaps Bush was right in his instincts to go it alone after all. Perhaps they should have focused on our planes being targeted, Saddam's open praise of 9/11, Al-Queda, etc.



    In any case there is absolutely ZERO evidence Bush lied at this point. I don't believe he and Blair would be that incredibly stupid to think no one would ever find out. Really now...I think they're going to find a shitload of banned weapons and/or present much of the intelligence they had.



    My question is: Since many of the Dems are jumping on the "we haven't found the WMD/Bush may have lied" bandwagon, what will happen to them politically if and when we find this stuff? It would be worse for them to be wrong than if Bush turned out to wrong. He could always show the intelligence he had, and simply say he was acting on what he felt was a threat to the American people and American interests abroad. Let's also not forget that members of Congress saw this intelliegence as well, and that Bush subsequently acted under the added authority of a joint Congressional resolution. It's going to be very bad politically if they criticize him and are proven wrong. VERY bad.
  • Reply 15 of 560
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    The main point is that all Presidents lie, just not all get caught/punished. Nixon's lying was much much worse than Clinton's, but Clinton was still wrong. Bush's lying was so obvious that anyone who really believed that we were going to Iraq just because of WMD is a tad naive. I don't think lying is an impeachable offense...impeachment should be reserved, as the Constitution says, for high crimes and misdemeanors. It should be a last drastic step and as much as I hate Bush and his administration, he shouldn't be impeached just because he fudged a bit on the war.
  • Reply 16 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I agree with SDW to an extent, I think Bush knew he was going out there and selling a shaky plan as if it were solid. I'm even willing to say he lied for expediency. I definitely wouldn't say there's ZERO evidence that he has lied, only evidence that's as strong as what he said about WMD; up-to and including the latest Guardian debacle.
  • Reply 17 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Ladies and Gents, if you think GWB went into Iraq without covering his ass, you are out of your tree.
  • Reply 18 of 560
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    Ladies and Gents, if you think GWB went into Iraq without covering his ass, you are out of your tree.



    But while Bush may not take the fall for the apparent reasons we went to war in Iraq, someone will. Its either going to be Rummey, the CIA chief, or some other spooks. I dont think you can silent people forever though... well there is one way.
  • Reply 19 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    well there is one way.



    They go camping with Vince Foster?
  • Reply 20 of 560
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    irony, n. -



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    this thread is total bullshit.



Sign In or Register to comment.