my kingdom for a well-formatted post...

Repeatedly in his speech, Bush mentioned Syria, Iran and North Korea -- Syria above all. If push comes to shove there, it would be nice to have absolute confidence in American intelligence and the case for possibly widening the war. If we are to go to the mat with North Korea or the increasingly alarming Iran, then, once again, it would be wonderful to have the confidence we once had in the intelligence community -- as imparted to us by our president.

I'm curious.  When were these halcyon days when we could "have confidence" in the intelligence community?

Were they back when the CIA was telling us to bomb the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?  Or when Richard Clarke was convinced an aspirin factory in Sudan was producing VX for Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda (yeah, I know, Saddam didn't work with al Qaeda and neither had anything to do with WMD) so our President blew it up?  Or when we were convinced that a treaty had stopped North Korea's nuclear ambitions?  Or when Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were being so helpful?

Or was it sometime before that?  Say, back when the CIA prepared su so well for the fall of the Shah of Iran?

Matt is basically correct.  The point is a bit more of a game theoretical one though.  Essentially, with our leaders we play a repeated game, and not a single game. 

There are two reasons for the President to defect from the truth strategy.  One is if the President thinks that the payoff matrix demands it, which is what Roosevelt thought.  That is-sometimes it makes no sense to "cooperate" because the payoff from defecting is so large that there is no reason to cooperate, especially if you "move first".  The other reason to defect is if you don't face re-election, and it only is a 1 stage game in which there is no incentive to cooperate--a great argument against term limits.

Regardless, what Bush did was defect from the truth strategy <em>to make it seem as though the case was strong enough</em>.  This is exactly backwards.  The case has to be strong enough, and not seem as though it is.  Moreover, the President may know things that the public doesn't, and can't know, and the President will need to use information that the public knows to make a case for a war which they may not enter if he doesn't.  Again, our dear leader has it exactly backwards--he made the public think he had information which he didn't in order to sell a war.  

He's so f'd, so f'ing f'd 

In some instances lying can be justified.  However, in terms of large foreign policy decisions and the outcome of crises lying is unacceptable.  Just read Eric Alterman's When President's Lie to learn the damage done by lies told by presidents.  And one of those lies comes from FDR (about Yalta) and another from JFK (about the Cuba Missile Crisis).  FDR was a big liar but he worked in the interests of the American people.  His failure was that he thought he could make a good deal out of Yalta so he lied to the American people about the outcome and then he died.  This set in motion a snowball of lies that led to JFK's lies about the resolution of the Cuba Missile Crisis which subsequently led to LBJ's decisions in Vietnam.  And here we are today with a President whose entire Presidency is built on lies, from the 2000 campaign on (heck they even paint the east coast elitist as a texas populist), piling more lies to cover up the old.  Bush has abused his office by lying and must continue lying to cover it up.  He cannot admit a mistake because that would tear down the wall of lies to uncover the big lie.  He is trapped by his lies much as the lies of FDR and JFK trapped the Democratic Party and led to LBJ, Vietnam, and the break-up of the Democratic coalition.  I don't see how Bush can govern for the next three years without these lies burying him. (nor can I imagine what Bush as an ex-president will look like.  i mean he'll be 60, what the hell is he going to do?  disappear like ford?  or maybe he'll last as long as Johnson did.)

You are right to flag "confidence in the intelligence community" as a bit of weaselage on Cohen's part. Intelligence gathering will, as you point out, never be perfect. The problem in this case wasn't the intelligence gathering itself, but the claims made about that imperfect intel by Bush et al.

Before Bush, we could rest assured that intelligence would be viewed judiciously, even skeptically, not mined to market a war that had already decided upon for entirely other reasons; not sexed up, overstated, and just plain lied about.

Recall the Cuban Missile Crisis: Kennedy offered to show DeGaulle satellite photos of the missile installations. DeGaulle declined, saying the word of the POTUS was good enough for him. Can anyone imagine a major world leader giving Bush similar credence, after what has already transpired? That's what Cohen is talking about.

Geez . . . I thought the Republicans were the party of the 10 Commandments--"thou shalt not bear false witness" and all. Apparently that only applies to other people?

Seriously, though, lying to the American people is against the spirit of democracy. Our government is supposed to be "by the people," but it can only be that if the American people hear the truth and make up their own minds. A commitment to democracy (which Bush claims to have) requires that respect. As someone said already, if a cause is right, then present the facts and I'm sure the American people will decide in favor of it.

Finally--we need to get back to declarations of war made by Congress (See Slaughter and Gelb). The way we make democratic decisions in this country is through our Congress (not through the executive branch). Let's return to debating issues in Congress using independent information, and let the President worry about executing the war only once (and if) Congress decides it's necessary.

Goldberg's point is that FDR's lies may have helped him sell US involvement in World War II to a skeptical populace. I will take his point that we did the right thing fighting the Japanese and the Germans, but what strikes me about Goldberg's argument is how anti-democratic it is.

Lying to the public to engender support for a favored policy is a form of fraud. And just as it isn't a defense to fraud in the world of commerce to say that you felt it would be in the mark's best interest to participate in the transaction, it isn't up to Goldberg and FDR and Bush to override the will of the people just because they think the public is misguided.

To believe in a democratic society is to believe in the public's right to be "wrong". Believing that leaders should lie in order to prevent their decisions from being overridden by the will of the people is essentially endorsing dictatorship-- "benevolent" dictatorship, of course, but dictatorship.

Goldberg should heed the words of another World War II leader-- Winston Churchill, who is supposed to have remarked that democracy is the worst system conceivable, except for all the others.