Author: George Maschke

Speaking at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies on 10 April 2006, President George W. Bush referred to Iran’s “nuclear weapons program” as if the existence of such a program were a known fact. In the official White House transcript, Bush says:

…I want Russia to be a part of the — part of the team, trying to convince the Iranians to give up its nuclear weapons program.

As I heard it (at 9 minutes and 15 seconds into the video of his Q&A session), he fumbled just a bit more than the official transcript indicates:

…I want Russia to be a part of — part of the team — tryin’ to convince the Iranians to give up its [sic], uh, its nuclear weapons program.

Bush paused briefly, apparently choosing his words quite deliberately when speaking of a putative Iranian “nuclear weapons program.”

However, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamad AlBaradei has stated that his agency has no evidence of the existence of such a program.

Earlier this year, at a White House press conference, President Bush erroneously stated that “the Iranians have said, we want a [nuclear] weapon.”

If the Bush administration has evidence of the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, it should provide it to the IAEA. If, however, Bush is asserting without evidence the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, then the American people need to know this when considering any case for war that the Bush administration may make.

The U.S. Government’s official polygraph handbook, formally titled the Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook, published by the Department of Defense Counterintelligence Field Activity (parent agency of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute) and marked “For Official Use Only” is now available to the public.

An earlier version of this document (dated 2001) was released under the Freedom of Information Act, but was heavily redacted. This new version, dated 2004, is available in its entirety.

According to a foreword by Counterintelligence Field Activity director David A. Burt II, “[the handbook’s] purpose is to prescribe uniform Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD/polygraph) procedures. The provisions of this manual are effective immediately and apply to those DoD elements that use PDD, and by agreement to other Federal law enforcement, counterintelligence, and security agencies that also use PDD procedures.”

It’s worth noting that in 2002, a study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “[Polygraph testing’s] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.” This report has been studiously ignored by federal agencies that rely on the polygraph for national security purposes.

Some background discussion of the federal polygraph handbook is available here.

The NSA requires applicants and contractors to submit to broad-ranging polygraph interrogations as a condition of employment. One contractor who has been through the experience multiple times with different agencies recently reported:

I have been accused of being a child molester, someone who views child pornography, a spy, someone who has secret meetings with foreign nationals, and of controlling my breathing during a test, among other things.  I have been cursed at, yelled at, and called a jerk.  I have been told that the Junior High students that I worked with at my Church were sluts who were trying to have sex with older men.  I have been forced to guess bra sizes of girls in order to obtain security clearances.  I have been told by government quality control that such lines of questioning are appropriate.  I have seen many other very good people abused and rejected by polygraphers in a similar manner.

Yet there is broad consensus amongst scientists that polygraphy has no scientific basis, and the National Academy of Sciences confirmed as much in it’s recent report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Nowadays, detailed information about the unreliability of the polygraph is now available to anyone with Internet access. But a poster on the AntiPolygraph.org message board whom I trust now now reports that NSA candidates are being instructed not to research polygraphy on-line:

Just heard, from an SSO [Special Security Officer], that NSA is cracking down on people doing research on polygraphy on the Internet (nothing new). Sounds like they are pretty upset about it. In the past, we were always told not to discuss the polygraph questions, with other employees/candidates – what dumbasses we all were to be mystified by this fantasy. Now, candidates are being told not to do research on the Internet….

This calls to mind the Wizard of Oz commanding, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

When the FBI submitted a secret National Security Letter demanding information about Internet journalist Doug Thompson of CapitolHillBlue.com to the company that hosts his servers, they were apparently unaware that he owns the company himself. See, Bush Declares War on Freedom of the Press.”

A press release issued by U.S. Capitol Police public information officer Kimberly Schneider on February 1, 2006 under the title “Accountability” insinuates that Cindy Sheehan at some point engaged in some unspecified wrongful conduct, even as it acknowledges that she “should not have been confronted” about her t-shirt. Note the following paragraph from the press release (emphasis added):

As the Department reviewed the incident, it was determined that while officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the Department in the House Gallery for years, neither Mrs. Sheehan’s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention. The USCP also asked Mrs. Beverly Young, to leave the gallery because of a T-shirt she was wearing. Mrs. Young did not return to the Gallery so there was no need for further police action. Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts.

1) The insertion of the word “initially” implies that at some point Cindy Sheehan did engage in conduct that warranted law enforcement intervention.

2) The remark that in the case of Mrs. Young, “there was no need for further police action” because she “did not return to the Gallery” does not adequately explain why she was treated so differently from Cindy Sheehan, who did not return to the Gallery, either.

Promoted from the diaries by Steven D. And great find, Mr. Maschke.

At a White House press conference convened on Thursday, 26 January 2005, in response to a reporter’s question regarding under what parameters the U.S. might find Iran’s nuclear power program acceptable, President George W. Bush warned, “And the Iranians have said, we want a [nuclear] weapon.” However, Bush’s claim is completely untrue: the Iranian government has consistently denied that it has any desire to acquire a nuclear weapon. No one in the White House press corps challenged the President on this.

How could the President of the United States utter such a blatant falsehood at a nationally televised press conference? I am inclined to believe that the President was not consciously attempting to deceive. Perhaps his misapprehension stems from CNN’s mistranslation of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks at a press conference held on 14 January 2005. CNN erroneously quoted Ahmadinejad as saying, “the use of nuclear weapons is Iran’s right.” In fact, what he had said was, “The use of nuclear energy and technology is Iran’s right.” CNN very publicly apologized for the error. President Bush should have been briefed on this. If he wasn’t, then why not?

At a time when the United States is reportedly contemplating a “pre-emptive” strike against Iran, possibly using nuclear weapons, it should be deeply troubling to all that the President of the United States should be so badly misinformed about the Iranian government’s public pronouncements regarding its nuclear program.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the White House transcript (emphasis added):

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. On the subject of Iran, what parameters might the U.S. be willing to accept Iran having a nuclear power program? And to the extent that you’ve said in the past that the United States supports the Iranian people, would you support expedited legislation, or a move that would send resources to such groups in Iran that might hasten regime change or democratic reform?

THE PRESIDENT: I have made it clear that I believe that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear program — power program under these conditions: that the material used to power the plant would be manufactured in Russia, delivered under IEEE — IAEA inspections — inspectors to Iran to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia. I think that is a good plan. The Russians came up with the idea, and I support it.

And the reason why I think it makes sense is because I do believe people ought to be able to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power. However, I don’t believe non-transparent regimes that threaten the security of the world should be allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a weapon. And the Iranians have said, we want a weapon.

And it’s not in the world’s interest that they have a weapon. And so we are working hard to continue the diplomacy necessary to send a focused message to the Iranian government, and that is, your desires for a weapon are unacceptable. Part of that is — part of that diplomacy was to provide an acceptable alternative to the Iranian desire to have a civilian nuclear power industry.

And secondly, we will support freedom movements all around the world. I constantly talked about today’s reformers will be tomorrow’s leaders, and therefore, we will work with groups that demand for people to be given the natural rights of men and women, and that right is to live in a free society.

Update [2006-1-27 9:43:42 by George Maschke]:

David E. Sanger and Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times did catch Bush’s error. In an article titled, “Bush and China Endorse Russia’s Nuclear Plan for Iran” and dated 27 Jan., they write, among other things:

Mr. Bush made his statement embracing the Russian idea at a news conference on Thursday. He said, “The Iranians have said, ‘We want a weapon.’ ”

In fact, Iran has denied that it is pursuing a weapon, and in the afternoon, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, acknowledged that Mr. Bush had misspoken.

“He was referring to their behavior,” Mr. McClellan said by telephone later. “Our concern is their intention is to develop a nuclear weapon under the guise of a civilian program.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Bush’s slip may cement the perception among some members of the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency that he has decided, at least in his own mind, that Iran is intent on building a weapon as fast as it can, a situation he has said repeatedly that he will not tolerate….

Sherrie Gossett of the conservative Cybercast News Service has written a searing two-part investigative series on whistleblower retaliation by the NSA that should be of interest to Americans of all political persuasions. See, “NSA Accused of Psychologically Abusing Whistleblowers” (Jan. 25) and NSA Whistleblowers Were Allegedly Isolated, Intimidated” (Jan. 26).

Despite a recent warning from the National Academy of Sciences that polygraph testing is unreliable, the U.S. intelligence community continues to rely on polygraphs to assess the credibility of prisoners, agents, informants, and even its own employees. But a recently translated article titled “The Myth of the Lie Detector” that was originally published in an Arabic-language jihadist magazine dispels any doubt that America’s Islamist adversaries understand that polygraphy is a sham:

The lie detector or polygraph is in reality a method used by the enemies of God in their prison cells and detention camps to put psychological pressure on the mujahidin during the interrogation of those they take prisoner in order to collect as much intelligence information as possible. Security and intelligence agencies – especially Western ones – have spun a halo of lies around it to obfuscate the truth, so that many think that a person being tested will only be saved by the truth, and nothing but the truth!

The article goes on to offer ideas on how to beat the polygraph. The full translation (and original Arabic) are available here.