| Global Freedom Institute |
| National Security Leaks (Page 2) In each negative case, and there are plenty more, the idea is to remove information from the decision process for the people to justify the actions of the government. The hope is that when the information is released, no one will notice or care because the myths of the time were told well enough for them to stick in the history books. Also, Americans tend to focus on the now, not the past, so having the information released decades later tends to be overlooked by many who supported the actions at the time. No matter how you look at it, we are an �open society� that has pushed �democracy� around the world for over 40 years. President�s like Kennedy and Reagan condemned the Soviet Union for secrecy, propagandizing their people, not telling the whole story so the people could decide, etc., and yet has also played out the very same roles in our own government. And that role continues today. Control the media and you control the story. While Kennedy was not the origin of this policy, he definitely started taking it to the levels we see today. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy was very careful to limit who said what to the media. He also made sure to keep reporters off of ships during the blockade and the crisis, so there were no first hand media accounts. That way, the media was totally reliant upon the government for its information and he controlled the flow of information out of the White House. The War on Terrorism is very similar. The media are kept from much of the information. While they have places to go in Afghanistan, much of the rest of the stories go unreported unless the government gives them the information. Notice, America has been working in Kuwait, Iraq, Yemen, the Philippines and other places we have yet to hear. Yet the only reports are out of Afghanistan unless the White House releases the information. That allows them to control what is said, who says it, and how it is phrased. Much of the information is �intelligence based�, which means that they can�t tell you, but you have to trust them. Let�s test just how far we should trust the Presidents in recent times: -President Kennedy made a statement that he would not allow offensive weapons in Cuba in response to a question about the existence of weapons in Cuba. First, he did not know the information that the missiles were being built there until the question, which means he wasn�t paying attention to Cuba in terms of Soviet military transfers. Second, he made a commitment that he had no information on because he didn�t want to look bad politically. Third, that political comment drove his policy right into the Cuban Missile Crisis because he could not back down from his public comments. Fourth, there is no public reason to believe that those missiles in Cuba posed any more of a threat than the missiles coming from the Soviet Union. Both could kill a lot of people and both would allow us to launch retaliation. The only real difference: the President might not have had time to get away from the blast. -President Johnson repeatedly told us how we were winning the conflict in Vietnam, how it would be over soon, and how we weren�t taking many casualties. The number of lies about Vietnam as the time would make Al Gore look like an honest man in a political debate today. -President Nixon. Combine the lies of Vietnam and the lies of Watergate and there isn�t much else that needs to be said about Nixon�s honesty. Though one could go into his energy policies that led to the fall of Iran and later the Carter Doctrine; the assassination of the President of Chile and other policies that could make this list incredibly long. -President Ford. Besides pardoning Nixon, there is little of value done in the Ford Administration. Though many could point to his lack of an energy policy that starts the energy crisis for Carter years later. While it doesn�t show complete dishonesty, it does show a lack of judgment to not address the issues later. -President Carter. Long known for the energy and economic issues that were failing in America during his term, also began what would be known as the Carter Doctrine, which would defend Saudi Arabia from all attacks, internal and external, to protect the flow of oil to the world. He would also start the overthrow of the Afghani government that would incite Soviet help to the Afghani government. None of which would be known for over a decade, and would eventually lead us to terrorist actions against our government for our policies. President Reagan. Besides the obvious Iran-Contra affair that he would later admit to, Reagan would sign budgets that created incredible debt in this country illustrating his judgment issues. In terms of foreign policy, he would wag the dog with Grenada and Lebanon; authorize the War on Drugs to a new level that would later infringe on the rights of ordinary people in a way that they still don�t realize in many cases; and kill a leader�s child to make a point to the leader. He would lie about balancing the budget, distort the Cold War in ways only mirrored by the Soviet state, and somehow still be loved for his grandfather-like communication abilities Page 3 |
|