kind of odd to see the politician advocating truth and the journalist advocating something else -- a continuation of the political dumb show that constitutes government today? A continuation of the facade that hides what's really going on?

This says more about journalism today than it does about politics. Woodward, if anyone, should know the value of honesty in politics since, as a journalist, he's supposed to be an advocate of the people's right to know the truth, not this strategic crap that has given us what we have today -- a government run by unspoken agendas that have nothing at all to do with what the media reports. Why? Because so many in the media, like mr woodward, are playing the game.

Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, & Bush II have all been habitual liars. When they haven't been lying, they were constantly spinning or manipulating the truth, (by way of mass use of propaganda,) in order to try to twist events toward their perverted point of view.

Since Nixon, (with a very brief hiatus during Carter,) dishonest Presidents have been instrumental in corrupting government at it's very core.

And the shame of it is that the American public have been groomed to basically accept this form of corruption as a legitimate part of the governmental process.

Sometimes deception is necessary and at what point does deception crosses over into the area known as lies, is not very difficult to judge.

Deceptions and deceits are part and parcel of most secret services assignments. In addition, Presidents do happen to be part of security apparatus. So if the President or congressional committee happen to omit facts in response to a public enquiry that may jeopardize safety of individuals tasked with secret services or security, will that be an acceptable lie?

I am firmly of the view that lie has nothing to do with moral ethos, it is simply a defense mechanism ingrained in us. As long as people do not lie under oath (fail to remember or the way I remember a fact is this...) in a court of law, lying can be acceptable in certain forms as long as it is used to save some life (and does not harm another in the process) or to provide means of sustenance to some needy people.

At what point does deception cross over into the area known as lies.

Deceptions and deceits are part and parcel of most secret services assignments. In addition, Presidents do happen to be part of security apparatus. So if the President or congressional committee happen to omit facts in response to a public enquiry that may jeopardize safety of individuals tasked with secret services or security, will that be an acceptable lie?

I am firmly of the view that lie has nothing to do with moral ethos, it is simply a defense mechanism ingrained in us. As long as people do not lie under oath (fail to remember or the way I remember a fact is this...) in a court of law, lying can be acceptable in certain forms as long as it is used to save some life or to provide means of sustenance to some needy people.

They were not president.

Thanks, Bob! That was a good anecdote. I can't say I believe Goldwater's lie was necessary, but it probably did more good than harm by getting Nixon out sooner, rather than later. What should we do NOW, though? I trust Pelosi and Hillary about as much as Cheney and Bush to tell the truth. Now we're stuck with judging which liars are lying more than the other liars. Not a pretty picture.

I wonder how many lies Bob Woodward told in his books to prevent the American people from learning what was actually said in his converations with the President and his staff.

The biggest lie ever told is documented in the Bible, Moses talking to a supernatural being in the famous burning bush. Just in case you haven't heard, been in a cave asleep the Bible is a proved hoax. That part of the Bible, Moses making deals with supernatural being said to be God. God lies are as lying as lies get aren't they.

Was that God in the burning bush or is that story a lie? You can read Exodus yourself or hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul where it's read like a preacher only with a radically different conclusion.

I would expect an investigative reporter to be frothing at the mouth over something as earth shattering as the archaeological find proving Moses and Jesus were the same person and a woman to boot. Why no? Into acceptable lies yourself?

Part II:

The poster Truthalways? (below) seems to accept lies if and only if he likes the person telling them.

One problem with lies, whether about WMD or the tooth fairy, is that they almost always come out, and then they destroy trust. The person who was lied to does not know where the liar's boundary is, and probably has a different one him-/herself. Thus the liar is rarely believed any more.

Of course there are examples where the full truth should not be blurted out, but still a lie is wrong and unnecessary. "Daddy, is there really a Santa Claus?" "Well, dear, I've never seen him; but lots of people talk about him. I guess you'll have to find out for yourself."

Occupation soldiers: "Where is your father?" Answer: "I can't answer that."

Finally, as with torturing, there is the real danger that once one finds an excuse to lie, further lies will become easier and easier to justify to oneself.

"Having" to tell a lie is a symptom of a slow or lazy mind. Most hard questions should and can be anticipated. The clever, honest person can usually give a non-answer or deflect the question. If nothing else works, she/he can say "no comment".

Of course , many questioners take "no comment" to be equal to an answer that the person does not want to give. Take the case of the little boy asking his father what he's going to get for his birthday. "Is it a pony?" "No", says the father, "you're not getting a pony." "Is it a rifle?" "No, you're not ready for a rifle." "Is it a bicycle?" "Hey", chuckles the father, "stop asking so many questions!" And bingo!, the boy knows he's getting a bicycle. If the father had started out (a couple of years earlier?) saying, "I'm not going to answer advance questions about birthday presents, one way or the other.", he couldn't have been so manipulated.

Similarly, if Goldwater had (1) "taught" reporters early on that his "no comment" meant "This could be a sensitive issue, so I won't take questions on it." and (2) *used* "no comment" on a few occasions where the answer would have been (and was later seen to be) unremarkable, then they would have learned that "no comment" means "no comment".

'Lying is always wrong' - ??? Oh, good grief.

Ever told your child that Santa Claus will come down the chimney on Christmas?

Or, for that matter, the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy?

Ever felt like crap, but answered 'Fine' to someone who asks 'How ya doin'?'

Ever been pulled over by a cop and told him, 'Gee, officer, I wasn't speeding!'

Ever told someone 'Oops, I forgot' when you know damn well you didn't forget?

We are all guilty. But there are lies, and there are bad lies. The above examples really harm no one.

thats the thing with todays pathetic journalists. truth is subjective.

We should never tolerate the sniper fire story.
Wake up Bob.

Mr. Woodward was provided information after 9-11, which should have been pursued to get these lying, spying, torturing warmongers from wrecking havoc on our Constitution and the world...

Instead, he used it to get himself an exclusive inside the White House.

Of course, a person of such morals believes our elected officials should lie to us... he wouldn't be able to sleep at night if he thought otherwise.

Um, let me pose a related question: Is it acceptable for a person under torture to lie?

If a person in authority is given permission to lie to protect him/herself from public embarrassment, why should we not expect a captive, innocent or not, from lying under torture?

Goldwater could have just said, "No comment"
Only a fool would take that to mean something.

I will now tell my children that lying is bad unless you are an important politician you know like the president. I will also tell them that no one is above the law accept the president.

What a great country we live in - a democratic republic with an aristocrasy. And all this time I thought we fought wars to protect the American way of life - apparently that way of life is only for white, wealthy, protestant, well connected politicians and businessmen who are allowed to lie to the rest of us for our own good. I will go lay by my dish now. :-(

Thanks for clearing that up Bob!

According to right wing nutt jobs there is no nuance in anything. "You are either with us or against us", there is good and there is evil, everything is black or white, right or wrong.

Oh, unless is suits their purpose to have it otherwise that is.

Bob, the truth of it is that it is only a lie to the people that are kept from the truth by the lie. To the liars the lie is useful and serves as a means to an end. Politics is all perception and perspective. Remember, it is only a lie if someone finds out the truth.

Woodward seems to say that lies are acceptable dependin gon who's telling them. Bush made lying as hihgly acceptable and admirable. No one made a peep about Iraq's WMDs, the rationale for the invasion, secret wiretapping, the Attorney Generals' firing, torture, rendition, slow Katrina response. Bush never made any truthful respnses to the aforementioned topics. He was very truthful about his 1% base, the rich and richer. Deplorable.

Then again perhaps not.

Wow! I now see the problem with trying to discuss serious ethical issues in a newspaper. People have no capacity for nuance. Everything is black or white. Without necessarily agreeing with Mr. Woodward one can point out that the question was not whether a politician should continuously lie or make a habit of lying or lie for his own self interest. The question concerned whether lying is ever justified. If the future of the nation is at stake, I would hope a political leader would consider whether a lie was necessary. As for the Goldwater example, it may have not been the best one to use, but whether "no comment," would have worked in the high pressure atmosphere of that evening, is open to question. I guess you had to live it to understand.
Finally, there are two big lies in many of the posts. One is that, if Woodward argues lies are sometimes necessary for reasons of state he must lie all the time and accept lying by others all the time. The second is that politicians lie more than the rest of us. The first is a logical fallacy. The second is one of those comforting lies we tell about our political leaders in a democracy so we can feel superior to them.

Wow Bob. Great Argument and an Excellent Example of a small lie that means absolutely nothing to anyone. Great work.

I don't think I have enough time or space to dedicate to the obvious differences between "spin" and "lying," though both should be described as substantially misrepresenting the truth.

SPIN is an act that presents the disposable facts of the day in a light most positive to the subject matter being "spun." At worst, this would probably be described as "exaggerating the truth," but it mostly relies on facts and truths leaning in certain directions.

Spinning is therefore like a person bending a tree and holding the top to the ground: He can tell you that the tree naturally grows that way as long as his hands are manipulating it, but as soon as he lets go, everyone can plainly see that the tree is a tree again.

LYING is an act that actively disregards the truth by replacing the truth with something that is not. It essentially replaces one measurable, verifiable truth with an alternate declaration that the liar wishes to be true. Like "spin", this can often be revealed, but not as easily. Truth can be determined through research and cross-examining various witnesses and accounts of the matter. On a presidential level, the Lie is generally only verifiable by the facts that the liar is obscuring.

Lying is therefore like cutting down a tree, putting up a picture of a tree, and telling people that you can't go up there and touch it, but the tree is right there and don't you see it?

The catch is that, by its very nature, "lying" is deemed to be deliberate deception on the part of the liar. Prior to "spin," it was very easy to assign responsibility to the liar. Facts were not the malleable playthings of pundits, morally-bankrupt politicians, and cable "news" television. Facts were facts and their deft use would quickly designate someone as a liar. The fact that the person was a liar would become a new truth.

Because of spin, truth may not exist anymore. Nothing is unanimous, so no consensus can exist. Minority views are treated as equally valid to majority views. Kids grow up hearing things like, "everyone's a winner," which is philosophically a small step away from "everyone's right."

Everyone is not a winner. (Sorry parents, but some of you have losers for kids. That's just the way it goes.)

Everyone is not right. (Sorry Big Tobacco, but there is a verifiable link between smoking and cancer, despite your scientists' "ongoing research.")

Fighting to get "truth" back from the spinners is going to be so much harder than anything we as a people, as a nation, could possibly do that we have altered our collective consciousness to understand that everything is a pitch. Everyone is now selling some version of "truth" that they want us to sample, and if we decide to believe, then they will get to continue selling similar "truths" and pocketing significant sums of money to do so.

We have only ourselves to blame.

Yes, well....

Woodward would know a lot about lying.

"tactical lies of the moment." how sad for Mr. Woodward that he seems to have no understanding that just about everything can be neatly squeezed under that circus tent.

Well Mr. Woodward you've swallowed the beltway kool-aid and I canno longer read your current writing with respect.

Was it because of how close you grew to Bushco that your perception has been so warped?

TRUTH is MANDATORY for ANY politician.

The FIRST time,
the LAST time,
and EVERY time they speak.

Goodbye Bob.

I've never studied ethics formally, but I believe it's a commonly held position that no one who is using force (the man at the door with a gun demanding to know where someone is; the soldiers who are seeking a terrorist father) is entitled to a truthful answer.
Journalists--in our society--serve a useful function: obtaining information for the rest of society. They were entitled to ask Goldwater about the conversation with Nixon, and he was entitled to say "No comment."
The current administration has raised lying to an art form, and withholds information about matters which should be public information, as well. I am confident Obama will set a new standard of openness and truth-telling.

Hmmm, how does that go: Thou shalt not bear false witness against John Ashcroft unless there is alot of money to be made Duck ? Psssst, follow the money.

Here is some personal insight. Since, I can only communicate in the english language, I got a dictionary from England. It really sucks to be me.

My name is mud and I approved this message.

What a nice little story about Goldwater. But so what? Was this "little" lie necessary? Emphatically NO! Just ask yourself if anything would have fundamentally changed if he'd told the truth or simply said, "No comment." Politicians are expected to lie precisely because they do it so often. Doesn't make it right and it certainly is not necessary.

This is the single worst moment in history to be floating excuses for presidential mendacity.

And to hear it coming from Bob Woodward. The very worst crimes of Watergate look quaint when compared to what the current administration has done.

The older one gets, the more one finds out, you cannot and must not be telling the truth all the time. When the Japanese soldiers were asking my sister where our guerrilla father was, she said, she did not know. If she told the truth, you know what would have happened. So, people who want their leaders not to lie at all are being unreasonable or don't know any better.

For leaders of my nation, the USA, I have never concerned myself about lies they make if the lies would not affect my life. A good example was the lie of Hillary Clinton about the snipers and the hospital patient. The examples of lies that I am concerned about is the WMD in Iraq and Obama's not knowing about my pastor's ideas for denying them makes me wonder whether he actually agrees with him. But, of course, I won't be able to change the minds of the Hillary haters, because they have already made up their minds about her. In this country, people hate someone, because they just feel like doing so.

The older one gets, the more one finds out, you cannot and must not be telling the truth all the time. When the Japanese soldiers were asking my sister where our guerrilla father was, she said, she did not know. If she told the truth, you know what would have happened. So, people who want their leaders not to lie at all are being unreasonable or don't know any better.

For leaders of my nation, the USA, I have never concerned myself about lies they make if the lies would not affect my life. A good example was the lie of Hillary Clinton about the snipers and the hospital patient. The examples of lies that I am concerned about is the WMD in Iraq and Obama's not knowing about my pastor's ideas for denying them makes me wonder whether he actually agrees with him. But, of course, I won't be able to change the minds of the Hillary haters, because they have already made up their minds about her. In this country, people hate someone, because they just feel like doing so.

Bob,
Are other lies acceptable like Bushlies and Cheneylies about Iraq? And how guilty is the reporter who published those lies in two best selling books? Do you bear any responsibility because the lies you promoted that helped justify decisions leading to 4,000 dead Americans and 200,000 dead Iraqies and $4 gasoline? Referencing your early career cannot avoid your role in far greater lies this decade that still cause so much death and damage to us outside your beltway bubble.

Bob,
Are other lies acceptable like Bushlies and Cheneylies about Iraq? And how guilty is the reporter who published those lies in two best selling books? Do you bear any responsibility because the lies you promoted that helped justify decisions leading to 4,000 dead Americans and 200,000 dead Iraqies and $4 gasoline? Referencing your early career cannot avoid your role in far greater lies this decade that still cause so much death and damage to us outside your beltway bubble.

I'm not at all defending lying as a basic virtue of some kind, but would point out that sometimes life is more nuanced & complicated than we often acknowledge.

If a good friend you've known well for 20 years runs into your house and says someone's chasing him and trying to kill him, and asks if you would let him hide upstairs, you probably would say yes.

If the bad guy shows up at your door and asks if your friend is there and you say no, are you lying?

I believe Truth is sometimes bigger than mere "facts".....it is what is reasonably right, fair and just under the circumstances. You may lie about "facts", but in the process be telling or serving a greater Truth.

Some people don't believe such paradoxes and subtleties exist in life, everything to them is black and white; but in my experience almost everything is in fact shades of grey.

Again, I'm not defending lying, only attempting to point out we all at times engage in various practices that are not strictly, factually true.

Lies are always and forever wrong. I cannot understand the need to think otherwise. Besides being immoral, lies are harder to remember and thereby totally impractical. Truth is easy.

If one does not wish to say the truth, then say nothing at all.

Elected officials should not lie to their constituants. I see no problem in lying to the media becasue the media will not truthfully report what the elected official said anyway.

Telling a lie is always the wrong thing to do.

Goldwater did not need to lie when asked a question.

He could have answered it differently. He could have stated that confidential conversations with the president will remain priviate.

When someone asks a question, you can 1) answer it truefully, 2) answer it with a lie or 3) evade the question.

Just because someone asks you something, it doesn't mean you have to lie. You don't have to answer it at all.

Hey, Bob, congratulations. Now I know I can't believe you.

How ironic -- the former president pointing out the insidious destructiveness of lying, and the journalist defending it.

Mr. Woodward, I suppose it has not occurred to you that lies hurt journalists as much -- if not more -- than presidents. The stock in trade of journalists is their credibility with the public. Once that's gone, journalists have nothing else; presidents at least have the power of their office (and nothing else, in the case of the current occupant.)

Your reputation is already badly tarnished, and now you compound the damage by defending lying. I never imagined that American journalism could sink this low.

The US mainstream media has been in bed with the government for decades. Most of the time, MSM functions like a palace press. Pravda USA. Of course Woodward, as an MSM stalwart, can tolerate tactical lying. Strategic and substantive lying too, for example the kind he and the rest of MSM facilitated to justify Bush's criminal attack on Iraq.

how have we reached a point where we debate
whether or not its ok to lie in office?

I realize thats a silly question since you can be assured the opposite is true of any statement
you'd care to mention.
But when will people ever smarten up?
Will they ever?
No?
Perhaps lies are alright then...
If people want to be treated like animals
I suppose they should be...

Mr. Woodward, your examaple is full of it. All Sen. Goldwater had to do was say 'no comment', it was not an issue that he needed to reply to, and he would have acheived the same result. I think you've become too close to the power brokers if you think lying is acceptable.

WOODWARD SEES NO PROBLEM IF HE IS TOLD LIES AS LONG AS THOSE LIES SELLS BOOKS. YOU AND MANY KNEW ABOUT BUSH- CHENNEY LIES BUT DID NO CARE. YOU AND MANY OTHER'OJOURNALISTS' WENT TO THE MAT TO PROTECT ROVE, THE BIGGEST LIAR, AND YOU ARE HAPPY ABOUT IT. WHAT A PATRIOT YOU ARE

At the risk of sounding Bill Clintonian and asking what the meaning of "is is," what is a lie besides the obvious: "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

As an attorney, I can assure you the most outrageous falsehoods are made by so-called experts who give "opinions." An opinion by its nature is a judgment or belief that was not witnessed. The expert must assume certain facts are true for his opinion. These are facts he's supplied with. Thus is spawned, "there are weapons of mass destruction."

Then there's the best lie: one that has a kernel of truth. For example: I can't go to school today because my tummy hurts. True, there is some gastric distress caused by a scheduled exam that the student didn't study for. Is this a lie?

Woodward's point about lying may be "true." But it seems the moral bar is sinking for our elected officials while they should be above reproach.

How about the lies told by Bob Woodward hiding his involvement in the outing of a CIA operative? Oh, that's right, he had a book coming out and wanted to make sure that he would make as much money as possible from the deal. Anything for a buck, eh Bob?

Well put. Never again will i thank a 50% ram / 50% man combo with pre-apocalyptic statutes when saying ANYTHING. My word is my bond.

As the man said many years ago, "honest, your honor, i wouldna done it if i'da known it was a stachoo."

One can avoid lying by simply saying, "No comment"

A very appropriate subject (acceptability of lies) for Woodward. To borrow a term from Woodward on Larry King Live the night before the Plame-related charges came out,we don't need "junkyard dogs" trying to see beyond the lies. Our president has been very lucrative for Woodward - 3 books already during this administration!

When I think of Nixon and W, I think of Woodward copiously taking notes for his books!

No lie is acceptable - lies, preverications, whatever, are why the country is so badly in the ditch right now. If a pol thinks truth is destructive, or disruptive, no comment, or I am not at liberty to say anything at this time, are better. Reporters, citizens may draw their own conclusions, some possibly harmful in themselves, but not as bad as lying. High muckity-mucks often decide that 'the people' cannot handle the truth and treat us in a way that even little children should not be treated - but the citizenry for the most part, sees through political obfuscation. Members of the political party involved may be somewhat more tolerant but, in the end, they will be unhappy with such shenanigans.

No lie is acceptable - lies, preverications, whatever, are why the country is so badly in the ditch right now. If a pol thinks truth is destructive, or disruptive, no comment, or I am not at liberty to say anything at this time, are better. Reporters, citizens may draw their own conclusions, some possibly harmful in themselves, but not as bad as lying. High muckity-mucks often decide that 'the people' cannot handle the truth and treat us in a way that even little children should not be treated - but the citizenry for the most part, sees through political obfuscation. Members of the political party involved may be somewhat more tolerant but, in the end, they will be unhappy with such shenanigans.

Of course Woodward would think it's okay to lie. I recall him revealing a few years back his lying about how much he knew about the Valerie Plame case. But that didn't hurt his book sales, now did it?

This column is poorly written. Did Goldwater tell Nixon he had 16 to 18 votes, or four?

This column is poorly written. Did Goldwater tell Nixon he had 16 to 18 votes, or four?

youtube.com/watch?v=Vpp8J2tzYa8