Here it is: "The President has NO responsibility to tell The People the Tr

[BiggJawn]

Heard from a RW caller to Nancy Skinner's show today (Ski's on holiday)

The punk actually said "The president is under NO obligation to tell the American People the Truth. Where Bill Clinton failed was that he was under oath when he lied..."

There you have it, the RNC's new Battle Cry..."He doesn't HAVE to tell you the Truth..."

Now...Oh, to have the input of a "Contstitutional Scholar" like I used to cross words with over on MHO back in the day....
My question is....Since the President has a Constitutional DUTY to report the state of the union to Congress, and since he swore an OATH to "Uphold, defend, etc." the Constitution, would he NOT be bound, by virtue of that oath, to be truthful in all his reportings and other dealings with the Congress?

Never mind ReTHUG mouth's claim that Chimpy is under no promise not to lie to US, the SOTUA is given to CONGRESS...

Is the President under any obligation or rsponsibility to tell CONGRESS the Truth????

that's how I'm approaching it...

[w13rd0]

1. Have they no shame?

Haha, no they defend liars and those who commit fraud. Well, at least they are being forthcoming with their allegiance. Ends justify the means. Lying is Ok if you are a Republican. Fraud is acceptable if it fattens the family coffers...

[opihimoimoi]

2. if that is true, how can WE Americans ever TRUST him?

Without the truth, all credibility is gone

[bobd]

3. The Rules Are Different for Conservatives

By wearing the mantle of "consevative" Bush has, in effect, changed the rules for himself. As a conservative his is allowed to do pretty much anything he wants. He is immune from "official" (read: mainstream news media) criticism of any note and is not required to tell the truth on matters of "national security". The sheeple like it that way.

Bob D.

[Cha]

4. they may not want to hear the "Truth",,,but I do!

they don't ever want to say or know the Truth because it just gets in the way of their grab for power..

If they told the truth we know they would not be even squatting in the white house now..so no, they must never tell the truth.

[RainDog]

5. that caller belongs in China

...where there is no accountability of the totalitarians to the citizens.

if this person and other repukes think this is going to "sell" with middle-class America, all I can say is, bring them lies on, idiot.

[Sava]

6. yeah that guy was stupid... I heard it

He said Clinton was under oath and Bush wasn't, so the lying was justified. Bullsh1t... Bush took an oath when he became president.

[MODemocrat]

9. Clinton's little sexual excapade didn't take any lives

Bush's lying for justification of his war has taken many innocent lives, and still counting. There is absolutely NO comparison between the two. Simple minded people think they have the simple answer to everything.

[Sava]

17. new spin on monicagate

I think Clinton's excapade did cost lives... 3,000 of them on 9-11 could have been saved if the witchhunters didn't waste over 70 million dollars and intelligence man-hours investigating a stain. Imagine if that 70 million dollars were put into aircraft security... perhaps Mohammed Atta would have been caught!

[indepat]

20. And prior to 9-11, was counter-intelligence even on the AG's top ten

list of priorities? After all, we must keep our priorities straight notwithstanding mounting terrorist threats for weren't there those whores in New Orleans to catch in the act, those nefarious growers of marijuna for medical purposes in California to shut down, and those right to death supporters in Oregon to pursue?

[BiggJawn]

26. That's a REAL stretch there...

Let's lay the blame where it belongs:
Gingrich, the so-called "House Managers", Ken Starr, and whoever in the BFEE or PNAC was pulling the strings.

[mac56]

29. Are you serious?!

Do you really believe the money not spent on the Clinton witch hunt would have gone to aircraft/airport security?

Welcome, newbie, but that's quite a stretch.

[dansolo]

30. Without the witch hunt

Gore would have most likely become president. So I believe that some of that money would have gone towards aircraft/airport security, because President Gore wouldn't have ignored the issue like * did.

[mac56]

36. Another stretch.

You forget that Gore actually won. I think you'd be more accurate to blame the SCOTUS.

Are you really contending that Monica and the witch hunt that followed are the only reasons we don't have Gore in the White House right now?!

[MODemocrat]

7. Didn't Chimpy take the oath of office as pResident?

What happened to the RULE of LAW that Henry Hyde loved so much when he was going after President Clinton? Evidently, the rule of law has been abolished under president Dumbo.

[MattNC]

12. heard it as well

stupid

[lkinsale]

8. A cold stare would be the best answer

If that's the excuse they are going to use, they are utterly doomed.

[Orangepeel]

10. Great. Let them go with that.

That can be *'s campaign slogan. "Bush 2004: The President is Under No Obligation to Tell the Truth!"

[Sick of Bullshit]

21. "Bu$$$h-- Bringing back honor and integrity to the White House

ONE LIE AT A TIME!"

[Buns_of_Fire]

11. My employees don't HAVE to tell me the truth, either

But if I find out they lied to me, they rapidly become EX-employees.

I think it would behoove Bunnypants and his minions to remember WHO works for WHO around here.

[Tinoire]

13. Bush Considers Iraq Uranium Issue Closed . Dead as a door-knob.

Bush considers the matter closed, said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "The president has moved on," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=3&u=/ap/us_iraq
-----

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) earlier insisted that it was now time for the drama to be closed.

"The president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well," Fleischer told reporters during a tour of the National Hospital in Abuja.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030712/pl_afp/us_iraq_weapons_africa_030712192038

[bandy]

14. in his dreams

to quote someone on CNN today

[Tinoire]

22. Let's make it a nightmare! n/t

[BiggJawn]

27. Ari sure likes to "move on", doesn't he?

"The president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well," Fleischer told reporters..."

Ari, you forgot to say "So let it Be Written, So let it Be Done..."

Just that part of the country that watches unfettered breasts jiggle on FAUX, you moron.

Oh, sorry, I forgot....Ari don't do breasts...

[Allah Akbar]

15. Repukes have been saying this since the day Bush "took" office

Anytime I ever point out a lie Bush has told to one of them, they admit it, but say since he wasn't under oath it doesn't matter to them.

Bullshit, I agree, but it has been their MO since day one.

[Walt Starr]

16. Looks like some Reichwingers are beginning to wake up

They are admitting their boy king lied.

[iH8repukes]

18. Of course he has to tell the truth . . . but what is the truth?

I still haven't seen where the British have said that their evidence about Iraq trying to buy uranium from west africa is false. In fact, Blair still stands by his belief that Iraq was in fact trying to buy uranium from west africa. And he will say so on his upcoming visit to the U.S.

So if Bush said that the British have evidence that Iraw was trying to buy uranium from west africa, where is the proof that (1) Iraq wasn't trying to buy the uranium or (2) Bush personally knew the British claim was false.

What am I missing? Seriously, please fill me in with facts and not opinions. I think we could get millions and millions of Americans to vote against Bush if we could prove (1) and (2) above.

Gore in '04

[uhhuh]

25. ok

If you make an assertion that something is true, it is YOUR resposibility to show the facts that support this. Passing off the accusation to another source that says it's true, in the face of LOTS of evidence to contrary, is not a responsible way of coming to a decison. This especially true if the other source whice is supporting your accusation will not show the evidence. It is hearsay of the worst kind. If someone makes a charge serious enough to start a war over it, they better damn well be able to do the research necessary to establish the facts.
At best, this was irresponsible wishful thinking on the part of the the chimp administration, at worst it was conscious deception. they were warned off of this info BEFORE the speech. That should have put it in their heads, if they were even trying to be honest, that they need to verify the British intel before going with it.
If Pakistan claimed that India had massed chemically armed troops on its border, and we were asked to intervene, do you think we should just say, oh, ok. Here's some ships and troops, we'll be right over.
That is preposterous on its face. We would investigate and find out the facts first. (If we had a real government)

Consider this. This is in no way an accusation, by the way. If I were to alert on your post and claim that you were a Freeper disruptor, and I based the assertion on the 'evidence' that another DUer told me they had absolute proof that it was true, but would not share it because it could harm the DU community, do you think that the admins should just go ahead and delete your acount, or should they wait till there is some supportable evidence for such a claim?
I've seen your posts. I don't agree with most of them, but it would be irresponsible of me to accuse you of anything. It is similerly irresponsible for this non stop reality crime show to go off using rumors to get us into war with out turning up ANY of the evidence they have claimed was absolutely true.

Saddam was a very, very bad leader. A winnable case could have been made for that, and even gotten support at home and around the world. He could have been easliy stopped by a broad coalition of forces and and a hardline UN inspection regime, with little of no loss of life on both sides. The robber-buffoons just couldn't wait to get American blood on Iraqi soil, so they went...
After promising a second UN resolution vote.
Did that happen?? Hmm.. I seem to remember some feces eating bugpicker with flags draped all around him, grunting something about that.
As far as the chimp personally knowing ...I'm not sure he personally knows how to put on his own underwear. He probably has a team of advisors for that. It doesn't matter if he knew or not. SOMEONE should be in trouble in his inner circle for letting him puke this garbage out of his mouth. If they didn't know either, then none of them have any business even being allowed to manage their own personal hygiene. The only nuclear threat in this whole event is the megatonnage of incompetence, air blasted over this nation since 2000.
How can you not see that?

[absolutezero]

19. repukes

Will do anything to bash clinton and justify themselves

Let's get this straight....Clinton, after keeping this country at peace, on good terms with other nations and helping create a skyrocketing economy, Gets a blowjob...and is impeached for lying about it.

But * kills the economy, proves himself to be a stupid bigot, pisses off every other nation and lies to make a case for war with a dinky little third world country to keep our minds off the economy and gut civil liberties and he doesn't have to tell the truth? Bullshit.

screw the idiot republicans, they're arrogant rich pricks and racists that should all be forced to live in the ghetto for a year, without money and force them to earn their keep.... :mad:

[are_we_united_yet]

23. Ughhhhhhhh!

RW's have an affinity for being consistently inconsistent.

There is no hope for some people. Just hope the don't operate heavy machinery or reproduce.

[DrBB]

24. That's a GREAT defense! I'm hoping Karl Rove RUNS with it!

That's gonna make SUCH a great campaign ad don't ya think? "Vote for Shrub: He's Under No Obligation to Tell You the Truth!" My god, they'll flock to him like flies to honey with a slogan like that. He'll crush us all and rule the world!

Seriously, is there any chance we can get this guy a job in the GOP campaign strategy department? We could use a few more like him.

Hey, wait a minute. His name wasn't Boudelang by any chance?

[BiggJawn]

28. No, wasn't Boudelang...

He didn't tell Nancy "Bush isn't lieling so STOP SAYING THAT!!!"

[LiberalLibra]

31. Then it's simple! Put the damned jerk under oath sand don't lift it. n/t

....

[Eloriel]

32. That's actually the Straussian view

All the PNACers were Strauss students, or students of his protogees. They subscribe to a theory where "the elite" not only may have to lie to their subjects, but that can be preferrable.

Pretty anti-American and anti-democratic if you ask me. But these fascists are in charge of our government.

Eloriel

[berry]

34. Good point, Eloriel! I knew that--but it only clicked when you said it.

But that Straussian thing--it's a private code for the elites, right? So what's that caller doing blowing their cover? Could he think that if he votes GOP he's part of the in-group? (Could Strauss have defended masses of Republicans going around lying? Not that they don't do that. But does that fit with the rule of a secretive, lying elite? Are the masses they lie to just us Democrats?)

Seriously, though, if we could get Bush*'s lies linked in people's minds to the Straussian/Machiavellian worldview, most (I *think*) would be properly appalled. And indeed, I think there is a clear link--the willingness to lie.

[Ponderer]

33. Actually, SOTU is not under oath

In reality though, this has hurt Bush.

When was the last time we saw a 10% drop in popularity because of a lie. Not even with Clinton did we see that.

[maggrwaggr]

35. Well, the word "fan" is short for "fanatic"

and anyone who's still a fan of Bush MUST be a fanatic.

He lied? SO WHAT? He's a criminal? SO WHAT? He's killed thousands of people? SO WHAT?

We love him anyway.