In Patrick Buchanan's book "A Republic, Not an Empire" he quotes historian Thomas Bailey, concerning FDR and WWII.



He continues the quote:



So my question:

Is it OK for a President to deceive the American public for our greater long-term good?

And to repeat a question Buchanan follows his quote of Bailey with;

"If the people are so "notoriously short-sighted" that they cannot "see danger until it is at their throats," what is the argument for democracy?"

First of all let me state that I don’t believe the Administration deceived the American people over the Iraq situation. IMO the violation of every UN resolution, numerous WMD programs and even “small” amounts of WMD gave us the right and need to deal with Saddam.

That said I don’t believe that a president should deceive the people unless the information needed to make the case is so secret that revealing it would substantially compromise our intelligence assets and thus our national security.

Well Hugo you ask a good question. I don't believe the President or our government should ever deceive us in any manner. With that said it doesn't mean they are not allowed to keep secret stuff from us that would jeopardize national security, but once they decide to let us know the facts on a particular issue I do believe it is up to them to tell the facts truthfully. If they need to hold back some information I am fine with that like how they got the information etc. but when they decide to make intelligence public they have a duty to tell the truth about it.

Straight out decieving the American people, no. Id rather be told up front what's the deal. Ignorance isn't always blissful. But I will say that we are, and we should be, kept on a need to know basis as far as certain issues go. There's logic behind that.

I live in San Bernardino, California right now. This city was once home to Norton Air Force Base. Now what you wouldn't of been told during the Cold War is that the Soviets had that base targeted by nukes since forever. If this city and the surrounding areas had been told this and shown concrete evidence, panic might of ensued. So, though lying to us is wrong, Im ok with being on a need to know babsis.

Awesome question and might I say I am suprised.



Although by many, I am considered by being on the left, a person who means to undermine all that this country ever stood for, anti-american and anti-patriotic. I believe this to be inaccurate to the extreme for myself many of us who have recently, or in the past, critisized the US for its policies. Many of us on both sides of the line are seeing that the power is being taken out of the hands of the people and the government is acting upon its own agenda time and time again. Many of us desire an America more closely attuned to original intent. Constitutionalists?

I believe in, study, and admire what the founders were looking for, spent their lives trying to achieve. They wrote extensively about and knew the pitfalls, both of the masses and the Government. They knew that the Mobocracy would eventually vote themselves paybacks from the Federal Government. They also knew that the Excecutive would be the most likely to wage war for personal profit and power.

They posed, with incredible foresight, a system of checks and balances that kept any singlar portion of the government or judicial branches from having totalitarian power, hopefully controlled by the people for the people. They were generally convinced that an educated public would make educated decisions. They could never have forseen television.

It was a great idealogy, and they also wrote that it hardly would last, knowing that power corrupted, and could corrupt the people as well.

I can find the quotes from the framers, but it takes too much time for me right now, that we should not underestimate the intelligence of the people, to know right from wrong, to make decisions about their own governance. Of course that was in a different time, when the people actually had a say in matters.

I do not belive that a doctor should tell a patient lies for the patients own good, this is playing god. How could a doctor know what is for the patients own good? A metaphor for our government.
If we begin to believe that our government knows what is better for us than we ourselves do , what separates the US from any dictatorship or totalitarian system? The idea that a governing body knows what is good for the masses without consultation becomes Communism or Fascism.

What happens to 'freedom'? I suppose, when the government believes that freedom is no longer beneficial to its own existance, when it believes it knows better what the people need than the people themselves, like the parasite that government is, freedoms and freedom of say is slowly, step by step infringed upon. Federal government will try to control morality, access our personal accounts and property, infringe upon privacy and rights to move freely about within or despite our personal/ financial circumnstances and /or private affiliations, besides and beyond manipulating us into endless wars for profit. Exactly what we are seeing in these days, which is NOT anywhere near the America of original intent, far from it.

Democracy is only as great as lack of apathy amongst the people, and IMO we are losing the battle.

I would be curious to know exactly what these 'deceptions' on the part of FDR were, as that is quite an assertion. Certainly there are cases where he acted and did not fully inform the American Public... and so? Every President makes 80% of his decisions in secret, the US people are not privy to the secret conversations of the cabinet or war room, nor is the President bound to ask or inform the people of his every thought and consideration. In particular back in the day, before the internet, computers, or even widley available Televisions.

Thus, to make the assessment that FDR deceived the people, one needs to show that by Commission, he went to the people and told them something he knew to be factually untrue in order to serve his own political purposes.

I would be curious to see evidence of this.

I don't what to steer the debate to FDR's deceptions. I am interested in the two questions posed and am looking for responses like Artemise's, a response I basically have to ditto. You might try reading Chapter 15 of Buchanan's "A Republic not an Empire". One of many examples, Buchanan uses, of FDR's deception was his use of a map, that he knew was a British forgery, to show Nazi ambitions in the Western hemisphere.

I think this debate is basically about the concept of the "hypothetical will of the people" and the "empirical will of the people".
Both are based on the concept of "public welfare/common well-being" of the people.
Do the people know what is best for them or do representatives of the people know what is best for the people?
Both concepts are concepts of democracy, both concepts exist in the world, both are heavily debated in political science.

The question is whether the President should deceive the public for a greater common goal and common well-being, giving him time to take actions or whether the people should be told the truth, which may lead to public disapproval of the actions taken by the President, compromising his long-term goals.

In my opinion the latter has to be the rule in a democracy, but there might be few cases in which that rule does not apply.

This is a great debate question. IMO, the Public will never know what is good for them--the other day I read a poll that mentioned that a majority polled believed that interest groups should not be allowed to influence Congress Members opinions (it was actually a couple of months ago--so I can't find the quote). However, this is in direct violation of



If the American public is so willing to give up their Constitutional guarantees--how would they do sailing on the high seas on international politics?

Does this mean that President Bush should have misled the public? No.

It was deplorable. Regardless of which option you choose

1.) Bush was lied/misled/minsinformed to by Intelligence
OR
2.) He purposefully misled the American Public

They both make me sick to my stomach--and they help me to realise how shady this administration is. There are too many things--that keep adding up.

So, no, it is not ok for the President to decieve the public. Tell the truth, and sell your case--unless the threat really IS immininent.

About the second question: I'm going to stick withRousseau on that one...

The other choice is everyone was wrong. Check the Record.

The Majority of Countries in the World, Including France and Germany believed that Iraq had WMDs and so did their Intelligence services.

The Vast Majority of Politicians In America including Kerry believed Iraq had WMDs based on available Intelligence information.

There is no question that Iraq had programs, has some WMDs and did have WMDs in the Desert Storm Era.

Iraq would not allow inspectors to ensure WMDs were destroyed.

Iraq let everyone think they had massive stockpiles of WMDs because it helped keep Saddam in power.

American Intelligence has been hamstrung for decades now with red tape, and budget cuts. The latest round of cuts all but eliminated human intelligence in favor of Satellite surveillance.


The Record:

The Intelligence Communities of the World thought Iraq had WMDs
The Leaders of the world thought Iraq had WMDs
The vast majority of American Politicians on both sides of the Aisle are on record as having believed Iraq had WMDs
The UN believed Iraq had WMDs
The majority of the Iraqi public thought Iraq had WMDs.

The truth is, the Administration did not lie to the public, they had access to the same information that all of the world leaders had and them some. And like all the world leaders they believed Iraq had WMDs.



Like what?

Havent you heard Sailor, like how the administration doctored up Iraq having WMD's to stel their oil! LMAO. I agree with you completely. The war may not of been perfect, but I don't want to wait till the 'smoking gun' everyone is/was looking for, ended up if someone's backyard. Her or elsewhere.

An interesting sidenote is that few internet GOPers gave Bill Clinton a break when his intelligence on a Sudanese "chemical weapons factory" turned out to be faulty. Partisan bomb throwers have been decrying Clinton since 98 for firing cruise missiles at an aspirin factory. If you mention the fact that he didnt personally conduct the onsite soil samples and determine it to be chemical weapons precursors they just say that the buck stops with him anyway.

But Bush gets off freely because the intelligence was bad?

Interesting.

For one, I was not one of those Republicans.

More importantly:

No one accused Clinton of committing American Service Personal's Lives (Like my own) to war and possible death for political gain.

To accuse someone of such a terrible act one had better have proof.

I agree that Clinton too had faulty intelligence to work with. However, in Bush's case the whole world had faulty intelligence.

At this moment I think youd be hard pressed to *find* a conservative who admits to criticizing clinton for hitting that aspirin factory. Funny, they used to be everywhere.

And clinton was very much accused of bombing both afghanistan and sudan as a wag the dog strategy to shift attention from his personal problems. He also killed vince foster and (according to Fred Thompson-R) sold US secrets to the Chinese for campaign cash. When did proof suddenly start to matter?

I had many problems with Clinton. Actually taking action against Terrorists was not one of them.

However, this is getting way off topic.

The question is (paraphrased): Did Bush misled the public in order to wage war on Iraq?

Do you believe he did? If so why? My opinion on this is on record here. What is yours?

I believe he probably did mislead to some degree. I agree with conservatives like Robert Novak who thought that WMD was simply the pretext to do what Bush felt was the right thing to do for other assorted reasons. The neocon democratic domino theory, finishing family business, *possible* association with al-qaeda, sending a message to the islamic world and, yes, the fear of eventual WMD blackmail by hussein. Do I think he sexed up saddams current access to WMD estimates? yes, probably.

The Suskind book on Treasury Sec. ONeill shows Bush and co. were talking up the need to get saddam from the very beginning and it didnt center on WMD. ONeill also says he read every intelligence report that crossed his desk and the CIA was meticulous in qualifying its estimates. I have no more reason to trust Bush than Oneill and given that we have no WMDs, im a little suspicious.

Do I believe it was to, 'get the oil'? not really.

I have one reason to believe Bush over Oneill. How many intelligence reports that do not involve the US monetary system, the secret service or the ATF cross the desk of the Treasury Secretary?

Intel on domestic terrorist threats, threats against the president, or possible acts of terrorism on American soil would likely cross his desk. ALL of the Intel reports on a foreign power? I doubt it.

Then there is also all the backpeddling he did from the moment the book came out.

Gee, and to think dubya trusted him enough to let him sign the dollar bill.

Just to check: how many intelligence reports pass over the President's desk? Do you have any evidence that he actually read any of them? Considering he admits that he doesn't read newspapers and has someone personally brief him on what's going on outside the castle walls, I have to wonder why you'd think he would have actually seen or read ANY intelligence reports?

Do you have proof he didn't? Of course the president doesn't read every intelligence report, no President ever does. They don't have that kind of time. They are briefed daily on all intelligence information relating to threats throughout the world. That doesn't change the fact that the intelligence the briefs as well as world opinion was based on was flawed.

Let's get back on topic, the questions:

So my question:

Is it OK for a President to deceive the American public for our greater long-term good?

And to repeat a question Buchanan follows his quote of Bailey with;

"If the people are so "notoriously short-sighted" that they cannot "see danger until it is at their throats," what is the argument for democracy?"

The question is not weather he had the right or wrong information about WMDs. The question is, did he have strong evidence that Iraq was an imminent danger to the US enough to start a preemptive war and send our kids to die and kill more people??????

I'd better be damn sure before I start attacking another country, killing its people and make more enemies.

Actually no. The question of this Topic was:





Now, if you'd like to debate the reasons for the Iraqi war and if they were valid or not I welcome you to join an existing Topic on that different Debate Issue. If they are all inactive then why not start a new Topic yourself?

This is slightly off-topic, but relevant:

I highly recommend that everyone here see the movie "Fog of War: 11 Lessons from the life of Macnamera", now out in theatres. It gives a truly compelling look at the top level of politics in the white house. I saw it last night and was blown away, exceptional movie.

"Is it OK for a President to deceive the American public for our greater long-term good?"

This is really a very interesting question--one which probably has more value in its discussion than in ever actually arriving at 'the answer'. As I have stated in other threads, I do believe that almost all politics involves the ends justifying the means (not in favor of that, just think it is an accurate description). Given that, I would have to say that at some point, the answer to the question is probably 'Yes'. I don't like, but I think that in fact almost every politician we have (from both parties) probably behaves as if the answer is yes, and not just for the President, but for them as well. After all, by definition, they're doing it "for our greater long-term good"? What could be more justified than that?

They do so everyday. There are many bits of information regarding intelligence operations, military operations and law enforcement operations that require secrecy to ensure their effectiveness as well as the safety of the personnel involved. Thus the "black budget" items that fund secret projects and our elected officials choosing to focus on some items when making a case to the American people and leaving out others due to secrecy. Those secret items sometimes are the "real" reasons for actions, but to publicize those would be to risk operations and operatives alike.

(this is a general statement, not one directed at any particular issue)

I agree. The President of the United States has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people from threats. I don’t like the idea of being deceived. I would expect it to happen only in the event of extremely urgent and compelling necessity.

"If the people are so "notoriously short-sighted" that they cannot "see danger until it is at their throats," what is the argument for democracy?"

The same argument for democracy concerning every other interest of the public good. We are a representative republic for that reason. JFK 1962,” We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

That quote by JFK is doubly true in today’s world, with WMD, vast technological advances, and rogue leaders who would use them against us. There is simply limited time for the public at large to form a consensus, especially when the most important information to base those decisions is unavailable to them.

You nailed it on the head Mrs. Pigpen. Since the begining of the Cold War, we have lived in a country where, on matters of national security, we are on a need to know basis with our leaders. And rightly so. As I said before, if it had been made widely known in the US that the Soviets had missiles pointed at targets all over this country, we'd have a panic. And panic at home is the last thing a president needs to deal with when confronting threats from abroad.

Er..., you better stop saying that. It was widely known that Soviet missiles were pointed at targets all over the country.

Last I heard all those ICBMs are STILL being pointed at us and were pointing them at every else. They must be, to have a successful counter attack, in my mind anyway.

Its just reality of war these days, the rules have changed. Past leaders understood this concept. currently not so much.

PNAC's Wet Dream

Its true the president does deceive the American public on issues that could or would cause a national panic. He also should keep secret information that could hurt operations or even the operatives. However, should he be allowed to decieve the American people on an issue such as the War on Iraq, which was completely public in the first place?

No. America was founded on democracy. It was founded for the people's rights. We voted for President Bush, and we expect him to make the best decisions for America and to tell the truth. He hasn't seemed to rise to my expectations for the most powerful leader in the world. He lied to his People. The War on Iraq was started for reasons other than the ones that he publicly gave to the American Public. Is this ethical?

Couldn't he have given the real reason behind starting a war against the expressive wishes of the U.N. against a country that posed no threat with WMDs towards us?

It was wrong of President Bush to lie, to make a fool of the American Public, telling them something that the rest of the world knew was not true (that there were WMDs in Iraq). We need a president we can trust.

Again, I know that I don't know all of the circumstances about why President Bush went to war. What was it for if not WMDs? Does anyone know? Please reply or email me if you do.