>I think you just did. Or at least to us thinkers.

So you get the point. That brings me to a rather serious inquirey.

Let's say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And let's also say, hypothetically, that Afghanistan had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Let's say that the Bush administration knew all along that Iran was the culprit, a hot bed for terrorism. Iran had assisted ObL, and are even harbouring him. Let's say that could be true.

So then the powers that be, knowing all of this, told the world that Afghanistan and Iraq were the culprits (a lie) and replaced the rouge governments of these nations.

The situation is now that, Afganistian and Iraq have replaced their oppresive rulers (a good thing), and for the first time the (alleged) enemy Iran is sourrounded by friendly and accountable governments (a good thing), and all that it required was a few little strategic lies.

Obviouslly the US, if they're dedicated to addressing Iran, would prefer the most strategic method of doing so. Being discrete about their plans, and having something in the way of local support fits that. They also can play dumb while Iran has to guess on whether they are in the sights or not.

The alternative is that the US reveals all its information to its people, and in today's world, the entire population of the Earth.

Now, I'm obviouslly a lowly computer programmer. If the government is elected to solve government problems, including dealing with dangerous enemies, why should they risk failing in their job because I, little old computer programmer, feel I should be entitled to the truth?

That's the inquirey. I don't have a good answer to that question, so I'm inclined to say that lieing can be a good thing and an acceptable method of governing (in some situations).

Anyone else?