Is the Proof in the Pudding When Presidents Lie?

In his Oct. 30 commentary, Benjamin Schwarz’s reasoning for forgiving President Bush is as disingenuous and ridiculous as the softball headline, “Bush Fibbed, and That Might Be OK.” And to warn Democrats against judgment because of previous Democratic presidents was absurd. There was already a serious war going on that would have eventually engulfed the U.S. when Franklin Roosevelt “maneuvered” the United States into war, and Harry Truman never “hyped” us into a preemptive war as President Bush has. There was no reason to forgive them because they did nothing wrong.

Schwarz then theorizes that we forgave Ronald Reagan for Grenada (why were we there again?), former President George Bush for Panama (why were we there again?) and Bill Clinton for Kosovo (for stopping genocide with practically no American lives lost. You’re forgiven, Bill). No, it is not OK for presidents to “lie” us into a war. Bush deserves our animosity for exactly the same reasons we give it to Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, for being deceiving, manipulating and destructive misleaders of our public trust. And I won’t be forgiving any of them real soon.

Renny Temple

Los Angeles

*

Imagine, Mr. Schwarz, that tomorrow President Bush informs us of a North Korean plot to nuke Los Angeles. Let us suppose the plot is genuine. He then demands congressional approval to launch a preemptive strike. Would you believe him?

If your answer is no, then you cannot say it might have been OK for him to “fib” about his reasons for invading Iraq -- it was not OK even if Iraq eventually becomes our staunchest ally.

Chuck Milbourne

Woodland Hills

*

Schwarz wrote: “From what we know now, however, it’s clear that the administration massaged the truth, to put it charitably, concerning Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda and the imminence of the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.” But Bush not only never claimed the Iraq threat was “imminent,” he specifically said, in the State of the Unioin address, that we had to act before the threat became imminent, or it would be too late -- hence the controversial but openly expressed idea of preemptive war. He said: “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

As far as Hussein’s prewar connection with Al Qaeda and other terrorists goes, the evidence for this is strong and growing. But the thrust of the article was absolutely correct: Sometimes a president -- or a newspaper columnist -- has to lie for the best of reasons.

Dafydd ab Hugh

Glendale