the other in the substance of propaganda and conscription. i mean, conscription of propaganda are not relevant to the first world war at all. the the libyan mosque was conscription, and conscription through of what? conscription in exchange for citizenship, nationalism, conscription, citizenship, and propaganda, the equality for opportunity and what better propaganda could that polian produce to overthrow all the monarchies in europe and liberty party, lovely propaganda. ..

>> the termination and widespread orchestration by the government bringing in

all of the leading writers and listing them, nothing quite like that although of course, they have the floor. >> this just hit me like a lightning bolt. i appreciate your books. something you said about the calgary, it seems to me with the hard-core from that point* on it became much more descend. from world war ii from the vietnam war and up to the fact now the at iraq invasion, the so in terms of the literary level would you

consider world war i to be the personalization of war in terms of the way people flight? >> in many ways it was. it was a gradual progression toward that. if you go back to the knights in armor if you a better swordsman than the other guy, you prevailed this is one of the romantic images always associated with combat. medicis soon as the rifle and the long-range repeating rifle came into being, with the reduced the guarantee if you are a better swordsman nor markman-- marks many would prevail because somebody could carrier for a great distance. but from the first world war, that to inability of

one's own ability to have anything to do with whether you survive or not was so extreme and never known before because most people who were injured were not killed by a machine gun fire but artillery shells which burst into shrapnel scattering hundreds of pieces of hot steel in all directions. this was filed from several miles away. it doesn't matter how heroic you were charging across the battlefield, you were killed by something by eight something you couldn't see and that was very modern and even more so today. [applause]

>> university of chicago professor at john mearsheimer who do politicians like to? >> guest: tutu audience is. they lie and two other leaders and their public. number two, they like to their own people. >> host: to whom do they tell the truth? >> guest: they tell the truth often and in fact, politicians and leaders like to a foreign audience and

lie to their own people. and if you think about it it makes sense if you lie all the time nobody would believe you if nobody believe do with it would not make sense new can catch people off guard. >> host: you have examples why leaders -- "why leaders lie" about american presidents with specific examples of when they lie. >> i have a whole slew of examples. my favorite example of what i call a noble lie is what kennedy told with the cuban missile crisis. he hoped to end that by getting christian of to withdraw the soviet missiles from cuba but the end of the crisis before it can in the word remove those munn from

the jupiter missiles. kennedy had no problem and in fact, told pentagon to get them out of turkey before it that he agreed to a deal to take those missiles and he told kristian of and could say nothing and did anyone of the american media suspected ideal to ask if there was a deal, a kennedy would have to live but khrushchev should understand the deal was still on. of course, the media quickly picked up the possibility there was a deal and ast kennedy and his lieutenants about it and they lied. it was smart because kennedy ended the cuban-- cuban missile crisis given the gravity of the situation it was imperative he bring it

to an end without the possibility of war. he felt the only way he could do that was to tell a lie. >> host: did fdr lie to get into world 42? >> he tried in the late summer of 1941 there was unable incident involving the uss career hat and involved with a british aircraft running into a german submarine. what roosevelt did is told a series of lies about that incident for the purposes of getting into world war ii because at the time he was desperate to get into the war having great difficulty doing it dealing with isolationist america so told a lie to get us in but it did not work. it took pearl harbor.

>> host: went to world leaders get behind closed doors to they like to each other? >> the main reason is there is not a great deal of trust to begin with when the two leaders get behind closed doors. states cannot trust each other very much and reagan hit the nail on the head when he said trust but verify. he said you have to verify they are telling the truth. separate it would be the highly unusual circumstance where one leader is in a position where he or she can bamboozle another leader. you don't see much of that. you see some but not much. >> when you see a president having a special relationship with another world leader does that tell you anything about the truth level? >> if it is usually a

function of strategic factors. franklin d. roosevelt had a special relationship of four. and that was very intense the year before pearl harbor because he wanted the united states to be involved very much and fdr wanted to get us into the war so they worked hand in hand to do everything they could to get the united states into the war. they have a special relationship but had no incentive to lie to each other. >> host: politically, why do leaders find it easier to lie to their own public and other leaders? >> guest: it is simple. it is easiest to lie when there is trust between two groups. in international politics, there isn't much trust between any two

states. has therefore it is hard to live because the the other side is distrustful. when you deal with your own public, in most cases the publix tend to trust their leaders thinking they're looking out for their own good. look at the president of united states thinking he tries to protect us. it is a rough-and-tumble business and a leader is doing the best to maintain the security of the country. there is a certain level of trust between the public and the leadership and whenever that this stage there is that element of trust the possibility of waging a lie is very great. we saw this as a run-up to the iraq war. we trust the bush and administration that they

trusted him mostly he helped to tell a handful of wise to get them into the war. >> host: we hear about the special relationship and given the status of that are there lies told between the two nations as well? tony blair and bill clinton were close george bush and tony blair were very close. >> i looked very carefully at the relationship between tony blair and the art -- bill clinton and george of the bush. i know a lot about the bush player relationship because both were involved to drag their countries into war march 2003. thin in both cases of 20 blair and the case of george of the bush there is evidence they told a handful of lies to their public but

there is no evidence they told lies to each other. they worked hand in hand to drag the united states and britain into that war. >> host: did you write this book before wikileaks started? >> yes. i began a long time ago 2003. i got a call from a man who was with "the new york times" and writing a piece for the weekend review section of the times on international wind. we had never met but he said for some reason when he thought of the subject line name popped into his head. >> host: why is that? >> guest: i am not sure. a i am somebody who is likely to believe and states ally a lot. i thought i would find evidence of leaders lying all the time but i was shocked and that was not the case that lies are told clearly i used to go around

the country talking about the subject until audiences i could not find much evidence of lying it was how the most cynical people were said you cannot believe that. you're not looking hard enough. there just isn't that much evidence and he thought my subjects on the thought and didn't know literature and his idea is we have a fruitful conversation. then a few months later somebody asked to give a talk at m.i.t. and i decided to talk on this subject and a low and behold may end up with this book. >> is it a different book give written after wikileaks? >> no. and i look at a lot of wikileaks documents and

stories that have come out over the past year and a half and what you see with the wikileaks documents is the same of what i say and the book you know, see a lot of evidence in fact,, it seems from the wikileaks document it is not to say the evidence of line but to the extent that you do it is leaders lying to their own country more often and to each other. it is the main theme of the book. >> host: how do you compare the u.s. to other countries when it comes to the issue of flying? >> you will find more evidence of united states more than other countries do to the fact is a democracy you would expect to find

more of that to the and authoritarians-- for the simple reason democratic leaders are accountable to the public can have to explain to their publix why they do xyz. any time a democratic leader pursues an unpopular policy, he or she will be tempted to tell a lie to get the public to go along with the unpopular policy. that the leader thinks is smart. if you're a dictator you don't have to worry about what the public thinks about making a policy. you can do what you want. and in the american case of to fight the war is the choice presidents will have to do heavy lifting to get the people to buy on to the enterprise is.

and also as president chun sen had to lie about the gulf of tonkin incident to get the american congress to buy into the villa now more and held roosevelt told a lie to get isolationist america into world war ii. the american people are not that enthusiastic. the leaders tend to be much more therefore this would be a serious temptation to deceive. >> host: is it dangerous for presidents to lie to congress? >> there is a potential danger for sure. one can tell a story where it makes good strategic sense for a president who believes he has a smart policy to tell a lie to congress lowered to the american people and if he proves to be correct, but

often what happens in these cases is the reason the president has to lie is the policy is not very smart and the people are congress to revisiting the president. if you think about the iraq war president bush thought he had the other side of the story and could deceive the american people and in the end would be proved right but in the end was not. the iraq war turned out to be a disaster. it was the ill-conceived scheme. all of that resistance in existed since the american body politics was correct. all of the people who oppose the war was smaller and president bush and the the tenants was wrong. do not think that they did not lie for selfish reasons they lie when they took the united states into the war because they thought they

were doing good for america. but they did not pursue a policy and the naysayers have the stronger hand to play and it is too bad they did not carry the day. >> host: the jimmy carter campaign i will never lie to you was the line he used. did he live up to that? >> guest: he told at least one lie when it became clear that the iran rescue mission would be exposed, he had his press secretary lie to the newsman who could smell the operation was about to take place. in that case carter and powell did the right thing. none of them felt a good about it. what is very interesting about lie as a form of

deception come and be engage in deception and all the time of the day the lives. when you ask president obama about the economy, he downplays or omits the negative news. when boy meets girl he was to date the girl he goes to great lengths to portray himself and the positive light. he is spending. that is part of the daily life but hotline is a special form of deception and most people in our society the vast majority of people would recoiled being call the lawyer. something terrible about watching. as a result, i don't think the lighters who like to their people feel good about it. there maybe some exceptions

maybe not adolf hitler but it eisenhower or kennedy was very reluctant to lie for moral reasons. it is a form of behavior that is detestable but the fact we deal with international politics and if the security of your country is on the line, you will not hesitate to live. not because you are evil but you do what you have to do to protect your country. that is what i am trying to get that in this book. >> host: are there examples of leaders line for personal reasons are not national security? >> i made it very clear i would not consider those sorts of cases there are certainly lots of them buy i left them out. i have been on a few radio and tv shows where clinton and lied about the monica lewinsky affair has come up

and people have asked about a that a and i say he did that to save his own skin that does not fit the category of what i am looking at. i am looking a strategic allies that leaders tell for the national interest. >> host: when more example? >> of good example of lie backfiring nikita khrushchev most americans would be shocked to know 1957 the soviet union was the first country to put a ballistic missile in the air in the first country to put a satellite into outer space. but after launching the first intercontinental ballistic missile, the soviets common name the about nikita khrushchev who was their leader at the time, who lied to the

american people and the american leadership and tried to give us the impression that they had a huge advantage in missiles over the united states. they did not have a huge advantage. we could not tell the balance of power because we did not have overhead satellites at the time to look down and counted the missiles. when they said they had a lot of missiles most people assumed that was true. of course, they didn't but it spurred us to build many missiles and therefore when president kennedy came to office 1961 thinking there was a missile gap in favor of the soviet union we discovered is that there was but it favored us because they were lying and did not have that many and of course, we respond to the lies to build a rather large

arsenal. that is the case of one lie that backfired and there are a few cases that have backfired even on american president's. >> host: professor what is your role here? >> and a political science department i have been here 28 years my only academic job which is very unusual for people of my age cohort of most of had to our three jobs by have only been at the university of chicago since my starting days as the assistant professor 1982. >> host: what courses are you teaching currently? >> guest: great power politics, liberalism and american foreign policy, and for the first time this past quarter a course on zionism and, because i have gotten very interested in the israeli palestinian conflict and then the history of

zionism. >> host: what was the reaction to your last book? >> guest: as i am sure you know, , the reaction here in the united states was loud and almost overwhelmingly negative in the mainstream press. i don't think we got a single positive review in the united states. the most positive review we got was from israel which is "the new york times" of israel coverage of the book and a three separate pieces including one major review and all three of those pieces so we have much better treatment in israel and in the united states. >> host: why is that? >> it is almost impossible in the united states to criticize israel or the u.s.-israeli relationship and in the mainstream media.

if you do it, you will pay a price haircut israelis are much more comfortable about themselves and much more aware of their foibles and much more open in a free society when it comes to talking to israel. it is quite amazing to the extent that israel is a taboo subject in the united states. >> host: why? >> guest: my view is the strongest supporters of israel here in the united states wants israel and the united states to have a special relationship. they want to give israel large amounts of diplomatic assistance and material and to give that assistance without qualification and

give it to them no matter what they do. that is what makes this relationships so special. we have a large interest group called the israel lobby working overtime for decades now to put the united states into a position where it supports israel unconditionally. a few of have an open debate where israel is criticized for pursuing policies in ways to make it clear the american and israeli interest are sometimes at odds with each other, then you begin to question in the special relationship to say why are we supporting israel when the interest of the two countries are at odds? the lobby does not want people like john mearsheimer saying israel and united states have different interests because that might

undermine the special relationship. instead what the lobby wants is for everyone to be on the same page to say israel is the indispensable lie and nothing that it ever does is wrong there for the united states should support israel. the argument that we make it is from the point* of view this is a foolish policy but we argue it is a normal country like every other country in the world sometimes it pursues smart policy and foolish policies but we have never seen a country in the history of the rollback got it write every time. so when israel gets it wrong we should be able to criticize just like we criticize united states. but the special relationship prevents from doing that and to maintain that unusual relationship which is not healthy for the united states or israel comment to

make sure there is no criticism. this explains there is hardly any criticism of israel in the mainstream media. >> host: was any spending lowered lying with true meant? >> no. there was significant pressure brought to bear on harry truman and is well documented to recognize israel immediately and to help get the united nations general assembly, with with the jewish state and palestinian state. truman played a key role there but he was not spending zero lowered lying. the real lying that took place at that time had to do with the zionist and shortly thereafter the israelis and palestinians to create the state of