Ignorance or Lies??

Poindexter’s testimony during which he claimed that he did not inform Regan about the plan to exchange weapons for hostages, leaves me with many questions about President Regan and his morals and/or his efficacy as a president. As Patterson says, “[Poindexter’s] statement helped to shield the president, though it also exposed Regan’s abstracted, hands-off style of management.” I can’t decide which is worse! Would it be better for Regan to know about the arms-for-hostages and lie about it, or would it better for our president to be ignorant to what is happening in the high ranks of his own administration? Obviously, lying to your constituency violates the democratic ideals the president should uphold. But it seems like presidents make decisions the American public don’t agree with all the time, and just like Nixon and Clinton, presidents lie to the American people all the time too. Not saying that just because it is a prevalent issue it is okay…But I think a president being ignorant, or hands off, has the potential to be so much more dangerous to society in the long run. Without a true command over what is happening within the government you lead, a president has nothing, and the American people can never be sure what the government is doing. So I guess, both scenarios are just losses for the American people, who gain no transparency in their government. I just don't know which one is worse...