Polygraphs cannot be used to determine if a thing is true. James Randi, among others, has shown the use of a polygraph to be on par with dowsing, psychics, etc., and its use just represents a tool for extending "probable cause" in the police's favor. Have a look.

Ooo, a machine. That machine can't lie, so whoever is hooked up to it must be lying! Nope.

Bush did lie. Remember lower taxes, smaller government, less spending. Or how about less intrusive federalism, more personal freedoms. Also as mentioned re: the polygraph, as with anything else, practice makes perfect. If you believe what you are saying is the truth, from your perspective, then it is. And re: intelligence, one must remember anything other than an eyewitness account of an event is heresay.( as I had to remind many defense attorneys ) in my many hours in court, usually as a witness for the prosecution.

Great stuff, Rad. And absolutely right, teebone.

Amy - I think you missed the point of the Rockefeller report. It's intent was to PROVE THAT BUSH LIED ABOUT IRAQ.

The Rockefeller report says that everything Bush said "was generally substantiated by available intelligence"

In other words - HE DIDN'T FUCKING LIE.

And who the fuck is John Rendon? I've never even heard the name before.

teebone - Bush DID lower taxes. I don't recall him promising a smaller government, or less spending (I remember him saying "compassionate conservatism", which is a euphemism of "liberalism", which is hardly inexpensive), but if he did, and you believed him, you weren't paying attention.

Remember "no nation-building"?

"Mission accomplished" was another good one, too.

C'mon, all politicians lie. It's one of the requirements.

Amy, Amy, Amy.

"No nation building" was before we were attacked. Although there is a certain je ne sai quois about just flattening the entire middle east that appeals to my Old Testament side. Of course, when I start thinking with my brain instead of my hate, I realize that the whole genocide thing is probably not the best option available.

"Mission Accomplished" was, in fact, true for the vessel upon which it was placed. It was a political blunder, but it was true. That ship had accomplished its mission, and was returning home.

Flynne, that's as may be, but they don't lie about everything. Occasionally, they tell the truth.

Well, sure they do, Brian, but how are we supposed to be able to tell when?

Here, Brian, this is something my dad just sent me:

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years' 'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the dependency phase.'

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals, and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Put more succinctly, once more than 50% of the population is no longer paying income taxes, there will never be any need for a politician to even pretend to favor tax reform.

When that time hits, it's time to leave - before they cancel everyone's passport. I hear Costa Rica's nice. I guess I could go work for Cisco's tech support call center down there.

U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq, Shiite lawmakers say

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/40372.html

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

de Tocqueville said something similar in Democracy in America about the American republic enduring until the politicians discover they can bribe the people with their own money.

In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...

I'm not sure about this analysis. Many reliably democratic states (NY, NJ, CA) are also our nation's economic powerhouses, and provide far more in dollars to the government than they take in.

E.g,:

Mississippi had a large surplus because, with low incomes and a high poverty rate, it generates a relatively small amount of taxes and receives large amounts of Federal aid

New Jersey, with high per capita incomes and Federal tax payments, receives relatively little in the way of Federal expenditures.'' The state is not a major center of military spending and, with a comparatively low poverty rate, gets a small share of Federal welfare spending.

> de Tocqueville said
> something similar

I should have asked this 40 years ago, but...

Would someone please remind me why we're supposed to be so concerned with what Alex thinks of us?

Listen, I felt this way during the Lewinski constitutional crisis as well: People who whine too much about politicians who lie are being childish. They want to pretend that their kindergarten understanding of honesty can guide them through adult public affairs. It can't.

The "Bush Lied!" people aren't being aware. They're not being attentive. They're not being sophisticated. They're being infantile .

They want to pretend that their kindergarten understanding of honesty can guide them through adult public affairs. It can't.

Then what can? Because their adult understanding of honesty ain't cuttin' it.

If you read a history of Rome, it reads remakably like the US. We are headed for anihilation, no doubt. The question is, where do those of us looking to jump the sinking ship go? Belize, perhaps?

> We are headed for anihilation,
> no doubt.

Christ, what is this shit?

Would someone please remind me why we're supposed to be so concerned with what Alex thinks of us?

You mean we're not supposed to lie in our beds at night and worry about what the French think of us? John Kerry lied!

The "Bush Lied!" people aren't being aware. They're not being attentive. They're not being sophisticated. They're being infantile .

Indeed. But it's hard to chant the accurate, "Bush and his surrogates claimed a far greater degree of certainty regarding Saddam's weapons programs than the data supported!"

Indeed. But it's hard to chant the accurate, "Bush and his surrogates claimed a far greater degree of certainty regarding Saddam's weapons programs than the data supported!"

There's also a question of the relative costs of error.

If we're wrong about his having WMD and we invade, well, we've overthrown a dictatorship and wiped out a shithead.

If we're wrong about his not having WMD, and we don't invade, then we could be looking at thousands to millions of casualties from direct hostilities, and untold financial harm from the interruption to the flow of oil.

Pick your poison. But don't make the error of imputing ill will to the choice made.

/> We are headed for anihilation,
/> no doubt.

/Christ, what is this shit?

Well crid each civilization goes thru stages.

Founding,
slight expansion,
religious fervor,
manifest destiny expansion,
cultural and scientific growth usually acompanined by new technology,
complacency,
boredom,
governmental smoke and mirrors - ie bread & circuses or sports and tv and fake news casts paid for by the government
forced conflict to bolster economy
propoganda reenforcing need for military action and support
apathetic pubilc refusing to get involved forces govenment to substitue nations army with mercs and forigners bribed with possibility of citizenship
after a while merc turn on employeers(usually beacuse nation ran out of funds)
nation overthrown

Happens time after time, currently it looks as though we are heading into the promises of citizenship and mercs

Ofcourse britian was heading down the same path and they mannaged not to self destruct when their empire collapsed so there is no gaurentee we will either

But don't make the error of imputing ill will to the choice made.

I don't. It's not the choice I would have made, though. I do hold against Bush and his team the torture and the incompetence, though. Those are both disgraceful. It's possible the hiring of Petraeus may offset the worst of the it, fortunately, but Bush is responsible for some ghastly mismanagement of our country.

WOW.. there are some really disturbing comments on this thread.

Mom ... if you really believe the USA is on the verge of collapse, then maybe you should head to the border. i think i will ride it out here. Every country and society goes through its growing pains, we are going through them now. We'll get past it.

Brian, "If we're wrong about his not having WMD, and we don't invade, then we could be looking at thousands to millions of casualties from direct hostilities, and untold financial harm from the interruption to the flow of oil."

This kind of justification is the same as the idea some Pentagon brass used in the 60's to support a first strike against the USSR.

Frankly, I didn't, and still don't have an issue with taking out Saddam. the guy was a murderous dictator. he killed more Iraqis a year than have died inthe entire 6 year war we have been fighting there. Last numbers I saw was approximately 500,000 to 750,000 political murders a year.

The issue I have is Bush and his cronies went into a sovereign nation and destroyed the government with no effective plan:
- to install a new workable government immediately
- to safeguard the infrastructure of the country
- to respond to any internal threats of further insurrection
- to remove our forces

Steve -

No plan survives first contact with the enemy.

The things I'll hold against Bush are his failure to anticipate Iranian meddling, and his unwillingness to respond forcefully to said meddling.

A shot across the bow to Syria and Iran would have prevented much of the "insurgency".

And the country had no infrastructure to speak of, so there wasn't anything of value to protect outside of Baghdad.

This kind of justification is the same as the idea some Pentagon brass used in the 60's to support a first strike against the USSR.

and no doubt there were those in the USSR that argued the same.

And it was never a realistic possibility for one reason.

The Russians didn't want to die, either.

The difference with the nihilists in the middle east is this: the leaders of those countries don't give a fuck if their "subjects" get annihilated.

> The question is, where do
> those of us looking to jump
> the sinking ship go?

You offer yourself in the metaphor of a rat? Is that really how you regard your patriotism?

> Belize, perhaps?

I remember the notice on the triangular paper standup on the credenza in my room at the coastal Belize City hotel. It was from the Chamber of Commerce(!), and it had been translated into spotless English: Do not move through the city alone. Do not travel in areas you are unfamiliar with. Do not expose wristwatches, jewelry, or expensive cameras. Let other guests or the hotel's front desk know when you're leaving and when you're expected to return; our staff will be happy to assist you in arranging responsible transportation.

Great diving, though.

> their adult understanding of
> honesty ain't cuttin' it.

Flynne, I believe you're old enough to remember the heyday of this joke. Whaddya mean their understanding?

Go to Google, or to your public library's unread archive of Vital Speeches magazine, and pick out any five public monologues from the past fifteen years. The State of the Union, congratulations new graduates, dear friends of the General Assembly... anything you like. You know that any one of them that you cite would be torn to shreds if you posted the link here... Even though it expressed your most sincere and hard-won beliefs. And this isn't even a representatively diverse sample of the voting public.

(A few months ago I tried to get a Yalie lawyer visiting the blog to post a piece from Hillary that she admired, and she wouldn't take the bait.)

But it's not enough to say "Opinions are a like assholes"... Mainly because they're not (opinions can be backed up with something besides shit.) But also because saying so discounts the churning engine of wisdom that makes this planetary machine run. And by churning, I mean non-static. The best knowledge of this planet doesn't reside in just a few darling hearts. Many, many people carry some of it. If fact, I think most people do. They'll often infect someone else before developing an immunity.

> But it's hard to chant
> the accurate, "Bush and
> his surrogates claimed...

Yes, which is one good reason not to chant. But furthermore, I decline your implication that "supportable data" would be the only path to war. And I absolutely, aggressively deplore the suggestion that the intelligence agencies would be the ones to trust for such "data" and judgment in its interpretation.

A responsible nation has no place for black budgets. Aside from the suicidal political bungling on their own behalf, the positions of lefty Dems compel them to argue that events of the last ten years demand more respect for the spy community. This is lunacy.

Love the blog, but I think that your take on the the Bush administration's motives misses the fundamental reality of military intelligence as it relates to military planning (I'm finishing up my Ph.D. in military history). Military intelligence is, by its very nature, flawed and incomplete. More than that, it is often contradictory, as any nation worth its salt will employ counter-intel operations to intentionally mislead potential opponents (something at which Saddam's Iraq excelled).

In short, making decisions based on military intelligence is like doing a connect-the-dots puzzle in which many of the dots are either missing or are planted to intentionally mislead anyone solving the puzzle. From this analogy it follows that different people often see whatever picture they want to see in the available dots.

Hindsight, of course, is 20/20, but it will be many years yet before we can claim such perspective on the Iraq war. Passions are still inflamed and it usually takes (at the very least) a generation or two before adequate information is available to make sound judgments (for example, real histories of the First World War are only now hitting the bookshelves - and the Vietnam War is undergoing a major re-appraisal).

In the case of the Iraq war, a fair observer must acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence to support both sides of the argument.

Rendon who? Rolling stone? Cia?

Come on people. Stop using what you know now and assuming Bush knew all that then. Even Saddam was shocked to find out his WMD arsenal was not operational, but merely drawings and computer files ready to go when the heat died down.

the poster above is right when he says the whole damn insurgency could have been nipped in the bud if Bush had slapped Iran and Syria back in 2004. Maybe a few vists by B-2's to Iranian republican guards buildings etc.

After spending time in Iraq I judge it is hard for us to understand the culture of people in that part of the world. They do not make decisions like we do. That whole metaphor about them following the strong horse, is exactly correct. They do not have any idea of chain of command responsibility. We do. Even the far left knows that to be successful they have leaders and that if they do not follow orders, they lose.

People in the ME are just not wired the same way and wont be until their military has had years to spread its culture into the general public like ours and the british empires has over the past several centuries. They have always had kings or emirs or pashas whatever. Taking an order and following it from a Gunnery Seargent is not in their culture.

so when Bush turned a blind eye to Iranian and Syrian meddling in hopes of winning over democrats and limp wristed europeans, he was playing a fools game. Reagan was right people, peace through strength. Or superior firepower whichever way you like; crap or get off the pot, in for a penny in for a pound, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, etc etc etc.

Those sayings have endured for a reason people.

...the whole damn insurgency could have been nipped in the bud if Bush had slapped Iran and Syria back in 2004...

WOW... why stop there? You act as if we have carte blanche to unilaterally decide to go to war with anyone we so desire. it is insanity to think Bush could have attacked either of those countries without starting WWIII. First of all, no country in the mideast would sell us oil if we did so, completely shutting down our economy. Secondly, do you think Russia would allow us to attack those countries? No way, they would have come guns blazing had we extended the war beyond Iraq. China would probably have joined them as well. We would have been seen in the same light as the NAZI's when they started their imperialistic conquering of Europe.

You need to check your John Wayne ideas and see the reality, we are a powerful country but we cannot take on the world - nor should we for that matter.

As far as what Bush knew, he knew the intelligence reports were faulty, and in some cases downright wrong, but he put them together in such a way that he convinced the Congress to authorize use of force. This war was a sham at the beginning - and is still a sham. Even discussions of victory ring hollow .. victory over what? How has the last few years of war made our country safer or improved the world?

steve, please. Seek help.

First off, we get only 16% of our imported oil from the middle east.

Second, if we attacked Iran, Saudi Arabia would be kissing our feet. They want nukes if Iran gets nukes because they are terrified of Iran. Nobody in the area likes Syria, and if we finally chopped Hezbollah off and got Syria the fuck out of Lebanon, well, there's another ally.

The only thing Russia could do to us is wave their fists in impotent rage. They are selling their third rate weapons systems to the middle east because they have no money and no military to speak of any more.

China could give a fuck. As long as they can still buy oil from someone when the smoke clears, they are perfectly happy to leave us be. The only place they want us to ignore is Taiwan.

And what intelligence reports do you have that showed that Bush knew it was all a sham? Because Rockefeller (who spent the last three years trying to prove the "Bush Lied!" meme) couldn't come up with a fucking thing and had to LIE ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF HIS OWN COMMITTEE REPORT!

But you keep telling yourself those little stories. Some day the nice young men in the clean white coats will come to take you away.

"if we attacked Iran, Saudi Arabia would be kissing our feet."

Brian, first, if we attacked another muslim country, the entire muslim population of every country would go against us. Maybe the Saudi royal family would be secretly happy, but the pressure from the people would force them to turn the spigot off to us and anyone that declared themselves an ally. The Saud family is not in the best of political situations and there is a significant fear of revolt within the country. They would have no choice, and other muslim countries would follow suit fpor exactly the same reasons, as would the lunatic Chavez in Venezuela who is just waiting to take a political shot at us.

Second, you are dead wrong about Russia and China. There is no way either country would allow us to control the world's oil supply, they would certainly enter the fray. Oh and BTW since China is the number one owner of US debt, they would simply stop lending additional money, forcing future debt to carry higher interest rates to aqttract other lenders, causing more significant deficits and additional debt. The economic war would be as devastating as the physical one since your hero Bush feels he can spend as much as he wants to blow up as much of the planet as he feels necessary.

Third, fearing the certain oil embargo that would result, the USA would have absolutely no support from any of our "allies" (such as they are). We would lose our bases in the area, as well as navigation rights for our ships. Countries would forbid our planes from entering their airspace. (BTW both Afghanistan and Iraq would forbid using their territory to launch an attack against another country - for the same political reason as the Sauds, for fear of internal revolt.

Fourth, I have read numerous sources that say Bush knew that the Iraqi attempt to purchase uranium from Nigeria was false, that the purchase of the special aluminum tubes needed to enrich uranium (i forget the term) was false, and that the long range missiles they had were in fact not long range, could not reach the US and could not carry much more than a camera nevermind any kind of a war head. Iraq was not involved with Al Qaeda, they had no WMDs, and the administration knew it. His press secretary's latest tell-all is only the most recent testimony to that. Let's see if he testifies to Congress. Wait until Bush is out of power, then watch the rest of the tell alls come out of the woodwork. History will not be kind to Bush for what he has done - and even less kind to us as a nation for allowing him to do it.

Oh and BTW since China is the number one owner of US debt, they would simply stop lending additional money, forcing future debt to carry higher interest rates to aqttract other lenders, causing more significant deficits and additional debt. The economic war would be as devastating as the physical one since your hero Bush feels he can spend as much as he wants to blow up as much of the planet as he feels necessary.

If we announced a tariff on Chinese consumer products tomorrow, their economy would crash. The last thing they are going to do is tempt us to do that. An economic war is not something China can win. They need us more than we need them.

Oh, and Bush isn't my hero. I didn't WANT to vote for him. But I'd open my wrists before I'd vote for Algore or Lurch. Or Obama.

We would lose our bases in the area, as well as navigation rights for our ships. Countries would forbid our planes from entering their airspace. (BTW both Afghanistan and Iraq would forbid using their territory to launch an attack against another country - for the same political reason as the Sauds, for fear of internal revolt.

And who, precisely, has the power to stop us? The Chinese can't hit our planes, they can't sink our ships, and they wouldn't risk it anyhow. Iran goes and kidnaps a bunch of British sailors and England genuflects. They don't dare approach our ships in the gulf because they know that we'll blow them to hell.

Regarding the last paragraph - It wasn't Nigeria, it was Niger (although he said, explicitly "Africa" per the British intelligence). And the guy that went to Niger to drink mint tea and shoot the breeze, Joe Wilson? Apparently that little op-ed he wrote for the NYT contradicts everything he told the CIA. And it wasn't an attempt to purchase, Saddam was only beginning discussions of buying uranium. Iraq was known to be harboring Al Qaeda operatives as well as Abu Nidal and other Palestinian terrorists. He was also personally paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Oh, and the latest tell-all from Scott McLellan? Mostly bullshit. He complained at the time of his departure that he was leaving because they never told him anything. Now he knows all this shit? I don't think so. Add to that the fact that the book he pitched and the book that he ultimately put together don't resemble each other in any way, and you've got a massive bullshit attack.

And if you're going to say that the administration knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq, you better go after the intelligence agencies of France, England, Spain, Italy and Germany, the UN, and Iraq itself. Oh, and prepare to indict Congress. Because in 1998 they voted overwhelmingly to take Saddam out on that basis. And in 2003, the very same Democrats who spout the "Bush Lied" line of shit (Rockefeller, Clinton, Biden, etc.) were all talking about how Saddam was an imminent threat. Which, by the way, is something the administration never said.