Is it ever okay for your leaders to lie to you if they genuinely believe it is in the best interest of the country?

Personally, I'm okay with that, even if it turns out to be a colossal mistake. All I ask is that smart people did their best to get it right. Hey, no one is perfect.

That's why I can't generate any genuine anger toward our current bumbling government despite the fact they killed hundreds of thousands of people, steered the economy into a ravine, and ruined two hundred years of International good will. I actually think they were trying to do the right thing as they saw it. And if they weren't smart enough, the voters have to be blamed for that. Our politicians didn't get any dumber after being elected. We knew what we were getting.

I don't think I'm alone in my opinion. Otherwise we'd be in the middle of the impeachment process.

(Sorry about the line spacing. The blog interface is random today.)

Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +6
  • Print
  • Share


Sort By:
Jun 12, 2008
I just wanted to clarify my previous post. I just re-read it and I can see that it might be interpreted as an attack on Quintus Publius comment, when I actually agree. I'm glad he pointed out facts. I just know from previous experience that facts don't seem to carry much weight when talking to people.

The way I see it, we have bascially had 20 years of the same administration (4 Bush I, 8 Clinton, 8 Bush II). But I still think Bush acted according to current information as Quintus points out.

Jun 12, 2008
In theory, I agree with Scott. You shouldn't feel angry at people who do what they, in their heart, consider to be the right thing for you. So if someone is convinced that they are saving your soul by burning you alive, it's not their fault.

However, being a moist robot, I can't help but feel slightly ticked off at them.
Jun 12, 2008
Apparently then there should be no genuine anger against those who murdered 3.000 innocent Americans in our heartland over differences of religious ideology. This massive terrorist act set into motion the ills that the current administration faced. It is amazing how quickly the victims suffering, the loss to their family and friends are forgotten to trumpet the human rights of the perpetrators.

Historically, due to the checks and balances in our government and the market place, most Presidents and their administrations have little to do with changing the US economy for good or bad while in office. There is a big difference between being smart and being psychic.
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
the Hamas have recently come out publicly in support of Barak Hussein Obama. What does that mean to everyone? Just curious.


Gosh, maybe it means they want someone who isnt senile and can be reasonable to deal with? That seems just as likely as any fantasy conclusion you might be drawing from it
Jun 12, 2008
I agree that I can find no real anger in me for this administration's 'bullsh!t in a china shop' approach to foreign and domestic policy. And I am intriuged by Scott''s reasoning. The problem with holding the voters accountable is that there are no real alternatives out there. Vote the other party into office, sure. We all know George Will's comment about "shooting myself in the head to stop a headache..." This two party system is slowly constricting American politics to death, and if the hold is not broken we will end up with a fat global empire which is only a sad parody of a constitutional republic .

And no, I am not a !!@# ron paul maniac.
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
The only way you can pin "the economy" (by which you mean high per gallon gas prices and the home mortgage meltdown) on the current or any past administration is as follows:

* You blame the executive branch for not opening up ANWR and the outer continental shelf (50 !$%*! offshore) to drilling. In fact, that takes Congressional action.

* You blame the executive branch for loose credit and credit outreach. In fact, the Federal Reserve probably kept interest rates artificially low following the recession of 2001 and 9/11/2001. In fact, beginning in Bush Sr.'s administration, lending regulations strongly encouraged investment in actuarially riskier communities to help minorities and disadvantaged people. In fact, 94% of homeowners are not delinquent on their mortgages, despite anyone with a brain (and long term debt) having refinanced since 2000.

If you really meant "the government" and not the executive branch, I am with you. But you can't pin this on Bush any more than you can pin the Internet bubble on Clinton. Ups and downs happen. Think about what you had in 1992. Of course you were better off in 2000. Think about what you had in 2000. Of course, you are better off today. Show me that vintage 2000 iPod and vintage 2000 46" flat screen TV.

If you want to hang the ethanol debacle on Bush, he was certainly a player. And Obama is no better.
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
Lies can be OK, even necessary - intent is critical there. I agree that you should hold the voters accountable - and 100% accountable for the second term, when they were not dealing with an unknown quantity.

After four years of stunning incompetence, arrogance, deceit, lies, and the refusal to listen to anyone whose opinions did not fall within their myopic scope, catastrophic environmental policy, destroying every last ounce of goodwill and making our nation a global pariah - the second Bush term is possibly the best argument one could make that Democracy is not a workable system, and that the 'wisdom of the people' is nothing but a myth.
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
Wizzlepig, you're kidding right? You think going to war was a foregone conclusion when we elected Isolationist "I dont think American troops should be used for 'nation-building'" George W. Bush?

It might have been a foregone conclusion when the towers fell, but lets be a little realistic. After 8 years of skirmishes all around the world under Clinton, people were looking for someone who said "America first!" and thats who we elected. He couldnt find Iraq on a map before 9/11, even though he might have hated Saddam.
+10 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
If a leader makes an informed decision based on the best information available from multiple sources and a robust debate within their organization about the pros, cons, risks etc, but it doesn't work out, that is okay and doesn't reflect defective leadership.

On the other hand, if a leader makes a decision based on the ideas of a few underlings with the same views, stifles debate, impugnes anyone with contrary views, and plans only for the best results and charges ahead with a policy, that is leadership at its most defective.
Jun 12, 2008
Is the word 'politician' not just a synonym for 'liar'?

If our leaders truly believed what they were doing was for the good of the country, sure, I agree it'd be hard to get too angry with them.

However, we knew we were going to war somewhere in the middle east the second the republicans won the 2000 election. To imagine for a moment that the actions that followed our new president's swearing-in were all in good faith, on the up-and-up, looking out for our welfare, etc- I honestly think you'd have to have your head inserted in your rear. It's clear they have been lying, backpedalling, distracting, avoiding, and essentially refusing to comply with legitimate requests for information. They're criminals, they deserve imprisonment, and it's a terrible shame that the rest of our apparently useless elected officials have not impeached them long ago.

They've made a mockery of our country, and it's a crime they'll never answer to.

People that rich are completely disconnected from the reality of being a human being in many cases, and they could care less if a few poor people are ground into a paste each morning to grease the bearings of their ride to the office.
Jun 12, 2008
The whole problem with being a smart candidate is that you are labeled "elite" and lose an election. This means that politicians have to dumb themselves down so voters can "connect" with them. It's basically Russian Roulette between a smart person pretending to be dumb and a plain dumb person.

Jun 12, 2008
Quintus Publius, are you using facts? Don't worry, people will still ignore them. Even Clinton admitted that Bush was doing was needed based on the same intelligence he had. But the fact is that Bush isn't that much different than Clinton was. But Clinton was loved and Bush is hated. It is kind of funny, but mostly pathetic. But hey, if it makes you feel better to chant "Bush lied, people died", then go ahead. Just know that the facts don't support that.
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
stupid blog...censored the word e n t i t i e s. probably confused it with a slang for mammory glands.
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
There's lying to protect the people and then there is lying to deceive the people. Bush et al did the latter because they had a goal first (get rid of Saddam) and "facts" second.

And as far as nobody is perfect, I believe Bush is a perfect failure.. I cannot in honestly think of even ONE thing that he did through action (or a choice of inaction) that brought any good to the US.
-5 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
Oh, and this must be the n-th mention...the comment rating system is a piece of crap.
Jun 12, 2008
I'm hoping to heck that this is a DMD post...because I really want to give Scott the benefit of the doubt for making such an idiotic post. And even so, its in poor taste...like most of the DMD posts.

It was idiotic enough to compel me to register.

So, the government really really thought they were doing the right thing? Awww...thats so touching, in a hippie universe. Guess we should not pay any attention to the fact that W had made it all too clear that it was his ambition to have a war of his own, and to continue his dad's great legacy in Eye-raq. Of course, all those Bush/bin-laden family connectios are 100% conspiracy. As is the fact that the Bush family is heavily vested in big oil. And Cheney in Halliburton.

And of course, lets not even begin to point 1 finger at NSA and FBI...the largest, most well equipped and ridiculously funded intelligence !$%*!$%* EVER. They completely missed the largest terrorist attack in history (which was 5 years in the making), couldn't tell Saddam's supposed nukes from sand dunes, and can't find an ailing bin-laden in Afghanistan's caves. But this is asking for way too much, I suppose.

My right-nut the govt. "thought it was doing the right thing". This was a business venture with 100,000s lives Trillions of $s as collateral. No surprise then that no one could be half-bothered about impeaching or trying anyone...when we got MENSA members saying, "oh lets not be too harsh on them...they thought they were trying to do the right thing."
Jun 12, 2008
It's our representatives' fault that they have not yet begun impeachment proceedings against the president. They are too worried about their personal careers and reputations to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution.

It is also the voters' fault because we decide whose careers succeed in politics. That is, if somebody doesn't fark with the voting machines in close elections, Georgy.

On the other hand, one could blame the media for its inordinate sway of a large portion of the voting community. Dennis Kucinich has tried to start the impeachment thing, for example, and the media portrays him as a floppy-eared, chuckling leprechaun from Mars. ABC even altered its entrance criteria the night before its debate to specifically exclude the Congressman.

Seeing as that's how the media attacks those who attempt to read the Constitution, it is no wonder that few have lined up to follow in their footsteps. Try to imagine one candidate who would look good standing in front of a rainbow in green suspenders.
Jun 12, 2008
I agree with you on both counts:

1. I'm certain that leaders will need to lie, and to withhold information in the name of national security, but I will not put up with the lying to cheat or to protect one's own ass. I would respect a competent leader who own's up to a mistake if he was earnestly trying to do what was right. I get mad at an incompetent leader who lies to cover up his bumbling mess.
2. I agree that the electorate is responsible, and I include those who voted for Bush, Cheney, Rove etal in 2000 as well as those who unbelievably voted them in a second time after a disastrous first term.

As JFK once said
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 12, 2008
- Most people are average-not smart-, they don't know how to make the right decision, they are manipulated by the leaders.
- The leaders (in politics, news, etc.) split in their choices/opinions because of their own agenda/interests/benefits/beliefs which makes average people even more confused.
- People didn't really vote for Bush, they vote for the party. The same thing will happen in the next election.
- Look at the history of many poor countries: the reason they stay poor is mainly because they do not have a good leader, the leader is usually a corrupted person who do not act on the benefits of the people/country.
- We have to blame the leaders first , but we can also say people get what they deserve.

Jun 12, 2008
You know, howabominable, Hitler was only doing what he thought was best as well, so the *idea* behind your reasoning can justify the actions of both Bush and Hitler.
I do not by any means agree with Hitler, but the extremities of his actions serve for some interesting comparisons...
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog