I think that every president has lied for one reason or another; some more than others. But if you look at the lies, you might get a little insight. IMO, one lied to get us to fight (and win) WWII (FDR) or simply believed the lies (Reagan). Nixon, Clinton and now Bush II lied for political expediency or to “save face”, which I think is less commendable.
FDR’s radio address 10/23/1940:
Yet by October he had already ordered the Navy to involve themselves in the European war, both by escorting convoys and the “shoot on sight” order for German subs.
The Navy Day radio broadcast, 10/27/1941, he discussed the sinking of the Greer and the Kearny as “unprovoked acts of aggression” and Germany will go down in history as having fired the first shot. Blatantly untrue. Both subs were being attacked by the destroyers, under the “shoot first” rules of engagement, and both shot only after being shot at.
Both the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War publicly called for convoy escorts in May and June 1941. FDR publicly disagreed with them, saying he was against convoys. Yet in April 1941, in a cable to Churchill, FDR asked for the dates and routes of planned convoys, promising to beef up convoy protection with Navy assets.
On July 7, 1941, US Marines replaced British troops in Iceland. As we now know, that was done at Churchill’s request and coordinated in advance. At the time, FDR announced it was done at the request of the Iceland government.
The Marines landed at Rijkjavik on July 7 with the announcement that they had done so at the request of the Icelandic government.
Of course there’s a scale. All of FDR’s deceptions were ultimately good ones: the country needed to fight WWII, even though public opinion was against it. In contrast, Nixon’s deceptions were almost totally self-serving.
I’m merely saying we can’t use this Pollyanna-ish “Oh, the superhuman burden - I will never lie, never deceive.” Drop that line - no one can live it.
Of course.
First things first: “Naked Agenda” is not a good band name.
But it is an accurate description of the charade of a thread, which purports, batting big brown innocent eyes, to be about the prevalence of absolute truth amongst US Presidents and breathlessly reports that there is none. Gasp! We are then subtly invited to join friend Bricker in hoisting GeeDubya on our shoulders, and carry him aloft while shouting glad cries of praise and carrying a banner: “Lying Sack, Sure, But They All Are!”
Piffle, drivel and rot. Any statement of an ideal can be rendered an absurdity, there is no art to it, the merest inflation can accomplish the end. Are my demands superhuman, impossible? Perhaps, clearly we have not found them in this President.
But more importantly, we don’t find any attempt to meet those goals, but an underhanded and mendacious effort to meet other goals entirely.
The Fortress has collapsed, the walls of “Can’t Prove He Lied!” are rubble, and we see here the retreat to the second line of defense: “They All Do!” It permits a whole nother argument, or series of arguments, about any number of Presidents and their relative veracity, and offers friend Bricker a nearly unassailable defensive position: all he need prove is that a President so much as fibbed, and his absolutist position carries the day, huzzah!
Come now, friend Bricker, read the sign above the cage: No Chain Yanking or Cage Rattling. No fair putting forth themes for argument that you know full well cannot be addressed reasonably. If you want to say I am hopelessly idealistic and my opinions should be dismissed accordingly, have the good grace to say so plain, without trying to set me an argument with all advantage to you. That is Republican Draw Poker: all my cards are dealt face up, I get five, you get seven and you get to draw twice.
As to idealism, that is not a charge, that is a characteristic, and a noble one, by my lights. I haven’t met that many true cynics, but, to a man, they regard themselves as hard-headed and realistic.
You’ve said this before in other threads. Has some new evidence come to light or is this more retorical bullshit? Did I miss the memo?
Actually, the deeper I’ve read into this thread the more I’ve realized Bricker has a point, about FDR and Bush if nothing else. Had I been an American citizen (and alive of course) when FDR was president, and had I been privy too all the things he was doing behind the scenes I would have been as pissed as I am currently at Bush…for much the same reasons. Its only in retrospect that we can look back on what FDR did and see that it was the right thing to do…at the time he was just the president making decisions that were counter to what the majority of his citizens wanted.
So, what it boils down to in the end is that if we like the results, then the ends justifies the means (as in FDR’s case)…if we don’t then we castigate the president and call him all kinds of silly names (as in Bush’s case). I’m guessing the point Bricker was trying to make is to show the irony of folks (including myself) who gush about FDR while railing at Bush…when their actions were seemingly quite similar. All based on whether or not we approve of those actions of course (and with the ability to use hindsight in the case of FDR).
I have serious doubts that GW is going to be as kindly written up in the history books as FDR though. I suppose that is going to depend on how Iraq turns out. Time will tell.
-XT
Up until recently, I would have cited David Palmer as an honest President.
I think that has been accomplished. “Presidents shouldn’t lie” is certainly a goal most of us would support, but few would expect any president to actually live up to-- especially of we talk not so much about out-and-out lying, as about shading the truth and/or making deliberately misleading statements that might technically be true.
In the Other Thread, Bricker has conceded that Bush lied (absent a report turning up that nobody seems to expect will turn up). If that’s what you’re asking, then check the other thread.
Frankly, I doubt we’ll find anyone who hasn’t lied, and I don’t think that’s a standard that we can realistically hold people to. HOWEVER, we can turn up the heat on people when they lie to us, especially when they lie in the course of their job duties in a way that endangers democracy and endangers human lives. I submit that the Administration has done this.
Since Bricker’s original question seems to have been answered, let me ask another question. Can anyone give an example of a president whose lies have resulted in less than, oh, say, ten thousand violent deaths?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Daniel
Ah, I hadn’t realized that Bricker wielded such power or knew so much about the internal workings of the Administration that his mere acknowledgement of Bush lieing made it fact. My bad. I figured there was some new piece of evidence…a memo from Bush or a taped converstation or something.
I can’t think of one who lied about war related things that resulted in less than 10k violent deaths. Did Reagan lie about Granada or Panama? If he did I suppose that fits the bill. Can YOU think of one?
-XT
Nor, Mr. Snarky, had I realized I said anything of the sort. You were asking for evidence; I pointed you to the other thread, and mentioned Bricker’s concession as support for the idea that the other thread was worth checking out. What, you think Bricker conceded this point easily? If you got a problem with the argument in other thread, howsabout addressing it there instead of being all supercilious about it here without reading it?
The question wasn’t limited to presidents who lied about war-related things: it was about presidents in general. If a president never lied aboiut war-related things, they win the prize.
I submit Bill Clinton and (probably) Ronald Reagan (I’m not sure about how many people the Contras killed–he certainly lied about them) and Jimmy Carter as recent examples of presidents who fit these criteria, and I raise the point to show that Bricker’s impossible-to-meet standard isn’t the only possible standard for judging the ills of a president’s dishonesty.
Daniel
If you don’t wish to defend a position, don’t stake it out.
If your complaint is that Bush’s lies are worse than other lies, then say so. I started the other thread denying that there had been any lies at all; I was persuaded that there has been at least one. But during the defense of my position, you came along and said that the President must never lie, must never deceive. If you don’t want to defend that claim, withdraw it. But I’m not the one that made the claim, bucko, you are.
Note: when I’m wrong, I admit it. I concede the point. I change my stance.
You have never, to my recollection, done that. This would be a perfect time to practice the art: “I spoke with hyperbole. I never meant to seriously advance the idea that the President must never lie about anything.” Go on - try it.
My standard??
Quiz: who said that? Hint: not me.
Piffle, drivel, and rot. Do you seriously imagine that, outside of your own fevered imagination, that anybody reading my post failed to understand the blazingly obvious? That being an expression of an ideal to be honored? We swear in witnesses with a similar ideal in mind, i.e., the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We are understanding of human failure in such circumstances, but judge deliberate obfuscation rather severely.
I am equally understanding of human failure, having so much experience. I do not expect the President to embody every jot and tittle of my stated ideals. I expect him to try, ceaselessly. Are you going to suggest that GeeDubya has met that standard, or even that he has attempted to?
I join your many fans in thanking you for the opportunity to bask in the light of your faultless integrity. I have no such recollection either, but then I am hampered by the results of a strict regimen of glaucoma prevention. And the ravages of advancing age, of course. I am flattered that you have given me such close attention that you are adequately informed to make such a judgement.
Your OP; your standard. I know you were quoting elucidator, and I know that you were proposing the standard in the OP only so you could demolish it; at the same time, I feel comfortable referring to it as your standard, since it’s the standard you asked us to meet in the OP (or rather asked us to find a president that met).
What about it–what do you think about the alternative standard I propose? Because that would be the substantial part of my post, not the issue of whether I am correct in calling the standard you challenged us to find a president to meet in the OP your standard.
Daniel
Whatever snark you think was in that wasn’t really directed at you. I haven’t gone thru that other thread in detail, but I dont’ think its ‘evidence’ that Bricker conceeded the point. Thats entirely up to him. I make no judgement on whether this was easy for him or difficult as I don’t know why he did so or what he was getting at. From the evidence I’ve seen here on this board and read for myself I’m unconvinced that GW lied at the core of his assertions that Iraq had WMD…I think Bush was convinced they had them. If there is new evidence I’m more than willing to go through it…but I’m not going to take Brickers word for it as ‘evidence’, no matter how well respected he is.
Well, if a president didn’t preside during a war then they are automatically removed aren’t they?
Does it count if the US didn’t kill all 10,000? If so then you can rule out Clinton (Bosnia). Otherwise you are right…we only killed a few thousand in Samolia. Reagan…well, what about covert killings? I think we could nicely get his body count up to 10k if we do a cumulative count or if covert things count. Carter…well, he didn’t lie for sure, but I’d guess more than 10k died in Iran due to his allowing the Shaw to fold. Perhaps that was a good thing (unless you were one of the many posing for gunfire of course), but they still died though he didn’t lie about it.
I agree with you though that there are other standards to judge a president by than whether or not he lied…though I disagree that body count is a meaningful measurement. Results spring to mind. How effective he is at getting his agenda through is another. Whether he is re-elected for a second term. What state he leaves the nation in when his term(s) are up.
-XT
Again, I’m not suggesting that Bricker’s concession is evidence of anything except perhaps evidence that the other thread is worth checking out. The evidence of Bush’s lie is in that thread.
Only in the sense that a person who doesn’t rob a 7/11 is automatically removed from a survey of people who robbed 7/11s. Presidents very often choose to go to war. War isn’t an act of God. They may choose for very good reasons, or for bad reasons, but they choose. So no, I’m not excluding those presidents who chose not to go to war.
Huh. What lies and misinformation, specifically, did Clinton spread that led to the deaths in Bosnia? Reagan I’ll give you, probably: the major lies we associate with his administration (or at least that I associate with it) revolved around covert killing in Central America, and you’re probably right that the death total reached 10,000. As you say, there aren’t many lies associated with Carter’s involvement with the Shah of Iran.
Body count is the meaningful measurement, I think. I mean, we’re talking about matters of life and death here. We’re talking about whether the president is responsible for getting people killed. If you said that the lying aspect weren’t meaningful, I could see where you’re coming from, but how on earth is the death aspect not meaningful?
The idea that a president’s re-election effort is more meaningful than the number of people left dead in his wake just boggles my mind.
Daniel
Not to cross the streams again, but if the elements are (a) lies, and (b) body counts, then FDR has to be the worst villain of all time.
Right?
Is it fair to say that, but for FDR’s lies, the body counts would probably not have occurred?
Is so, then yes. If not, then no.
Personally, I don’t think there’s strong evidence that the US entry into WWII increased the number of people that overall died in the conflict. I think there’s pretty strong evidence that US invasion of Iraq increased the number of people who have died in the country.
Daniel
I am surprised at that statement.
Trivially, 405,399 American fighting men died. Those men clearly are the result of US entry into World War II. In addition, I’m willing to bet that one or two of them managed to kill some Germans or Italians before they died. I can’t quantify how many of those men would have died anyway. And we probably saved some British and Russian lives on top of that by being where we were, and I can’t quantify that. But sticking just with the basics, over four hundred thousand Americans died because we entered WWII.
I’m sorry, did you think I was denying that anyone died as a result of US intervention in WWII? Did you think that’s what I meant by “increased the number of people that overall died in the conflict”? Admittedly, I just emphasized the adverb, but it was there all along.
To make your case, you need to demonstrate that US intervention didn’t save an equal or greater number of lives. For example, what would’ve happened had the deathcamps been left unchecked? What would’ve happened had Hitler been able to overrun England? What would’ve happened had Hitler been able to keep his atomic scientists?
The Man in the High Castle isn’t an historical document, but it’s good reading nonetheless.
Daniel
Ahhh…
Then we also need to add in the what-if deaths if Saddam’s reign had been left unchecked. Again starting with the trivial: how many people per year was he killing?