A False Restoration | 1, 2

HICH BRINGS US TO the current president of the United States. All presidents ought to be truth-tested. But George W. Bush has invited more than routine scrutiny. As a candidate, he maintained he was pursuing the presidency to return integrity to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (A good son, Bush obviously believed integrity had been present prior to the arrival of the Clintons, despite irrefutable proof to the contrary.) Bush was leading a restorative cause (and also calling for massive tax cuts, the partial privatization of Social Security, and what he called education reform). He and his campaign strove to depict Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, as a say-anything serial fibber, the product of the weasel-words culture of Washington. A candidate who rises to power by denouncing lies warrants more attention when he engages in dishonest behavior.

And these days there is more reason than ever for a president to be beyond reproach. In perilous times, the nation needs a strong and credible leader. The president must be able to strike alliances overseas and inspire at home, in order to implement policies that protect the nation and enhance security in the United States and elsewhere. But if the president is a demonstrable fabricator, portions of the American public and some foreign leaders will be hesitant to rally around him.

Following the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush and his executive branch assumed greater powers. Congress authorized him to wage whatever war he deemed necessary against whatever forces he held responsible for the suicide-homicide attacks. A year later, Congress handed Bush the authority to launch a war against Iraq whenever he determined that military action was imperative. And he did so. Bush also reserved for himself and the federal government the right to conduct secret military tribunals, to detain non-citizen suspects or material witnesses indefinitely (while withholding information from the public about these detentions), and to monitor conversations between people held in federal prisons and their attorneys.

Because of September 11, Bush became the most powerful president in decades. As he moved to expand the war on terrorism to include military action against Iraq, his aides and outside-the-government champions occasionally suggested that Bush's decisions were informed by intelligence that could not be shared with the public. In essence, the argument was, trust us. In fact, in the middle of the public debate before the war against Iraq, late one night on a Washington street corner, Richard Perle, a hawkish adviser to the Pentagon, made the case for war to me with two words: 'Trust me.' Democracies are not supposed to operate that way, I replied. But Perle's we-know-best attitude was somewhat representative of the administration he was serving. Bush and his crew have embraced paternalistic secrecy as a virtue. Vice President Dick Cheney adamantly refused to tell the public (that is, the people he works for) what corporate lobbyists he met with while he was crafting the administration's energy plan. Attorney General John Ashcroft urged federal agencies to be as tight-fisted as possible when replying to Freedom of Information Act requests. The Justice Department drew up drafts of harsh anti-terrorism legislation -- which challenged civil liberties -- without consulting Congress. Bush and his aides have repeatedly noted that much of their war on terrorism must be conducted in the shadows, away from the prying eyes of the public and even from most members of Congress.

If Bush is going to lead the most secretive and opaque administration in years, he must demonstrate his trustworthiness at every turn, especially when he is guiding the country during a war. Lies and secrecy are a troubling mix. When Bush asserts the nation must resort to violence, the public ought to have full confidence in him. Yet as he tried to rally support for war against Saddam Hussein, he repeatedly misrepresented intelligence information. Such distortions -- as well as Bush's distortions related to non-war matters -- undermine (or should undermine) his credibility as he attempts to convince the public his decisions on war and peace merit support. Lying in office not only poses a potential political risk for Bush, a president who lies is a risk to the nation. He might steer the country into a war under false pretenses. Or, if he comes to be regarded as untruthful by a significant portion of the public, he might fail to rouse the country for military action that is indeed warranted. A liar in the White House is a national security threat.

Is George W. Bush more of a liar, less of a liar, than his predecessors? A better one, a worse one? Are his Cabinet members and aides more or less honest than those of previous chief executives? It may well be that Bush has pushed the envelope further than recent presidents. But if his consistent reliance upon deceptive arguments to support the major initiatives of his presidency is not unprecedented, it is still distinctive. Comparisons to previous administrations, though, are unimportant. Bush is the president the nation has now -- at a point when honesty in government is needed as much, if not more, than ever. And he was the leader -- after winning office in a bizarre climax, having polled 500,000 fewer votes than his opponent -- promised to bring the nation together, to work with political foes, to change the nasty tone of Washington. Such noble goals cannot be achieved by a president who soils the Oval Office with lies.

Bush, certainly, does not always lie. On the campaign trail, he stated he would stick with his tax proposal -- which did not poll well -- no matter what public opinion surveys said. He kept his word. He promised to confront Saddam Hussein. That happened. He said he would drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness, seek a partial privatization of Social Security, and appoint conservative judges. Once in office, he moved in each of these directions. But this book is not a study of those instances when Bush spoke or acted honestly. A president wins no points for behaving properly. Integrity ought to be considered the default position. Lies deserve the attention and exposure.

There is the risk a volume of this sort can be seen as a one-note endeavor. Bush lied here, Bush lied there, Bush lied once again, and so on. But lies, in part, made this president, and lies frequently have been the support beams of his administration. An examination of Bush's lies turns out to be one way of charting and scrutinizing much of the Bush presidency. (And this book does not document every single lie.)

'Facts are stupid things,' President Reagan once malapropped. He meant to say 'stubborn.' Indeed they are. It is beyond argument that Bush has lied more than once. This book will show he has trampled the truth often -- without (as of yet) paying an obvious price. His lies did not turn off the 48 percent of the voting public that chose him or the significant majority of Americans who approved of his performance in office following the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But regardless of what he accomplishes during his tenure in the White House -- be it four years or eight -- a fair-minded reading of the record cannot escape the conclusion that Bush has failed to achieve what he claimed as one of his prime objectives. He has not been a president of integrity. The Bush White House has been no beacon of honesty. This president has treated the truth in the manner his predecessor treated an intern.