It's Time for a Book Burning

No, I'm not talking about censorship--I need some heat!

It is 63 degrees in my office. I know this because I brought a thermometer with me to find out just exactly how cold it is. 63 degrees doesn't sound so bad, and it wouldn't be if I were outside. However, right now I am in my office trying to type handouts and grade essays. I am running a space heater (that's the only reason it's 63 degrees in here), and I'm wearing a quilted down throw over my lap. I am refraining from putting my coat back on until I just can't stand it any longer. I would put on gloves to keep my fingers nimble (typing and writing is quite the challenge), but then it would be impossible to write or type.

I'm sure you are thinking that this is a temporary problem that will be better tomorrow; however, that is not the case. It is always cold in here. In fact, it stays so cold that I run the space heater even in August. To complain does no good. The pipes in this building are old; heat will never reach the cold dungeon deep in the bowels of Old Main.

I guess I should look on the bright side. I can leave a tuna sandwich out on my desk all day without any fear of it spoiling, and I'll have a refuge when global warming gets really bad.

Bloggers, News Informers, and Enemies

On 7 Feb. 2006 in a U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing on wartime executive power, Senator Lindsey Graham made these statements to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

The FISA statute, in a time of war, is a check and balance. But here's where I think I'm your biggest fan. During the time of war, the administration has the inherent power, in my opinion, to surveil the enemy and to map the battlefield electronically -- not just physical, but to electronically map what the enemy is up to by seizing information and putting that puzzle together.

And the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements.

And let me tell folks who are watching what a fifth column movement is. It is a movement known to every war where American citizens will sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy. And it's happened in every war.

And President Roosevelt talked about, "We need to know about fifth column movements."

So my friends on the other side, I stand by this president's ability, inherent to being commander in chief, to find out about fifth column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that.

Graham went on to say, however, that when such information seems to implicate individual citizens, the administration must not be allowed to persue investigations independently without judicial oversight.

What constitutes, for Mr. Graham and those who think along the same lines, a “fifth column” movement? When the War on Terror (now being referred to by the Pentagon as “The Long War”) began, the President said that “You’re either for us, or you’re against us.” The attitude of the war supporters has been that those who speak against the war are undermining the mission and placing our troops in danger. Does a “fifth column” include only those who, as Graham said, “sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy,” or does that definition also include those who don’t sympathize with terrorists but genuinely oppose war or disagree with the President's policies?

Here are some highlights of a speech given 17 Feb. 2006 by Donald Rumsfeld at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he outlines the need for the military to engage in more effective communications within the various media:

Our federal government is really only beginning to adapt our operations to the 21st century. For the most part, the U.S. government still functions as a five and dime store in an eBay world. Today we’re engaged in the first war in history—unconventional and irregular as it may be—in an era of e-mails, blogs, Blackberrys, Instant Messaging, digital cameras, a global Internet with no inhibitions, cell phones, hand-held videocameras, talk radio, 24-hour news broadcasts, satellite television. There’s never been a war fought in this environment before.

[ . . . ]

The growing number of media outlets in many parts of the world still have relatively immature standards and practices that too often serve to inflame and distort, rather than to explain and inform. And while al Qaeda and extremist movements have utilized this forum for many years and have successfully further poisoned the Muslim’s public view of the West, we in the government have barely begun to compete in reaching their audiences.

[ . . . ]

What complicates the ability to respond quickly is that, unlike our enemies, which propagate lies with impunity with no penalty whatsoever, our government does not have the luxury of relying on other sources for information—anonymous or otherwise. Our government has to be the source, and we tell the truth.

[ . . . ]

We need to get better at engaging experts from both within and outside of government to help communicate, to rapidly deploying the best military communications capabilities to new theaters of operation, developing and executing multifaceted media campaigns—print, radio, television and Internet. But let there be no doubt: The longer it takes to put a strategic communication framework into place, the more we can be certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy and by news informers that most assuredly will not paint an accurate picture of what is actually taking place.

Does Donald Rumsfeld consider those bloggers who oppose the war and/or criticize the Bush administration's policies to be “news informers” who are not not telling the truth—unlike our government who always tells the truth? Are the people who vocally disagree with the President’s policies the same people that Bush said are “against us”? Does putting a “strategic communication framework into place” simply mean being louder than the enemy, or does it mean going so far as to silence all opposing views?

How long will it be before those who have the “wrong” opinions are considered enemy sympathizers who need to be silenced or even punished for their views?

Free Speech is Going to Become Costly

Today I'm back in class teaching my students about proper documentation of sources. I'm very meticulous about this, and those who don't follow instructions to give proper credit to borrowed material will not receive a good grade on their essays. During the last few class periods I have spent most of the time on technical aspects of writing essays. That's not nearly as fun as discussing controversial issues--something we do periodically to help with our argumentative strategies.

Lately, however, class discussions have not been fun for me. We had a discussion in one of my classes last week that resulted in one student having her feelings hurt, and in fact, this could have turned into a serious situation if she had decided to complain to the administration. I don't think I or any of my students did or said anything wrong, but the fact is that in this day and age, people who get their feelings hurt can cause problems for other people who meant no harm. I thank God that that didn't happen this time.

But the thought stays with me that one day it could happen. And that makes me very nervous. Because I allow students to voice their opinions--whether they are "good" opinions or not--I could be held responsible for the content of those opinions. The university was always known as a place where free speech is valued, but society today has made the free expression of ideas very difficult. If you know "what's good for you," you'll keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself when you're at a public university.

And it's only a matter of time before we start getting into trouble for expressing our opinions in our blogs.

Good Books but no Coffee

Today I am enjoying a quiet afternoon at the library. My classes are meeting here today and tomorrow so that I can help them with research, so I thought I'd just have my office hours over here too. I'm getting a lot of work done, but the Starbucks downstairs is calling my name begging me to come and buy an overpriced latte. I am trying very hard to resist. Knowing that I'll have to pack up my stuff and carry it with me to keep it from being stolen is a good incentive to stay put for a while. I sure wish we could have coffee in the main part of the library.

Sacrifice and Daily Bread

For the past few weeks in BSF we have been discussing Abraham and his faith in God. This week we looked at the famous incident in which God tested Abraham’s faith by telling Abraham to offer his son on the altar as a sacrifice. Abraham, in his faith, obeyed God, and God stopped Abraham before he was able to take the knife to his son. God then provided a ram for Abraham to offer on the altar in the place of his son. Abraham was overjoyed by the turn of events and gave God a new name, Jehovah-Jireh, God who provides.

God had made a promise to Abraham to make him the founder of a great nation, to make him famous, and to bless him so that Abraham would be a blessing to others. He had also promised to fulfill this promise through Abraham’s own offspring. Abraham had great confidence in God’s willingness to follow through on this promise even in the prospect of the death of his son, and he was willing to give up the only visible means of the fulfillment of the promise because God had proven himself faithful to Abraham before.

Jesus teaches us that we also can depend upon God to follow through with his promises for us. In Jesus’ sermon on the mount, he teaches his listeners about kingdom behavior and what it means to be a citizen of God’s kingdom. To Jesus, to obey God’s laws means more than a simple adherence to a set of statutes; it means more than simply not doing wrong to others; rather, it means cultivating a desire to go beyond treating others with civility to developing a real concern for the needs of others. It means showing a genuine love to all regardless of who they are. Jesus promises his listeners that those who obey these laws of God will find themselves to be great in God’s kingdom. In addition to this, to those who adhere to this teaching, Jesus promises rest from their weary and burdensome life. He tells us that we no longer need to worry about matters of everyday living such as where our next meal will come from or what we will wear. Jesus says that if we seek to be righteous by following God’s precepts, if we make God’s kingdom the main concern of our hearts and minds, God will meet these daily needs.

Most of us would readily admit that we do not have the type or intensity of faith that Abraham exhibited. Indeed, most of us have not cultivated the faith to take Jesus at his word about this promise from God. Sure we have faith that we will enjoy a better life when Jesus returns, but we don’t take Jesus at his word that we don’t have to have any worries about our future during this lifetime. Jesus said plainly that if we have God’s kingdom as our primary concern—if we go about practicing kingdom behavior now in this lifetime—we will have no need to worry about tomorrow. What does that really mean? I think it’s safe to say that as we go about our daily lives doing our regular work, if we make it our additional job each day to make the concerns of other people higher than our own concerns and if we take concrete steps to bring comfort to others (as the good Samaritan man did), God will see to it that we will have our daily needs met.

When God’s people wandered in the desert after fleeing slavery in Egypt, God provided bread for them daily, and he wouldn’t allow them to store more than what they needed for each day. God’s people learned to have faith that the bread would come every morning. Jesus taught his disciples to pray “Give us this day our daily bread,” not “Give us enough bread to last a year.” Don’t worry about tomorrow, Jesus says, because we have enough to be concerned about just dealing with today’s problems. God knows what you need, and if you practice kingdom behavior now, God will take care of those needs; you don’t need to worry about it.

Most of us are extremely concerned about our futures. If we were really honest, we would admit that providing for our own future security, and our children’s security, is the main factor that governs how we live our lives each day. As an example, we work extremely hard to ensure financial security for our future, making sure that our children’s college fund is fully established and fully funding our 401k’s. We call this being prudent, and certainly, the bible advocates the need to make preparations for future hardships such as storing up food from the harvest for the winter (taking a lesson from the ants: Proverbs 6.6-8) or as when Joseph stockpiled grain to get his people through the upcoming famine. We certainly should exercise the common sense that God gave us and prepare for the needs of the immediate future. And certainly, God doesn’t frown upon our saving for retirement. However, like Abraham, we should be prepared to offer as a sacrifice the visible means of our future comfort and security when we see that others are in need.

If we believe that God will provide for our needs, then it shouldn’t alarm us to give up the security that we sought to provide for ourselves. To sacrifice his son meant to Abraham that the future God had promised was in jeopardy, but he trusted God enough that he went ahead and made the sacrifice and believed that somehow God would replace what was lost. In the same manner, we should have enough faith to believe that God will replace what we sacrifice in an effort to bring aid and comfort to others. God will give us what we need for today, and he’ll give us what we need for tomorrow when tomorrow gets here.

Happy Birthday to Me

Today I am now closer to the age of 50 than to the age of 20. That's sort of scary to think about, but when I really consider it, I don't really feel completely like a grown-up. Does one ever feel completely grown up? In a way, I sort of hope not.

Response to ajmac

The following is a response to a comment by ajmac to my previous post, "Real Freedom." Ajmac said:

Your sarcasm is neither persuasive nor funny. What do Christians in other countries have to do with it?

I'm curious: Do you disagree that American Christians experience freedom in the temporal sense to a far greater degree than any Christians throughout history?

Thank you for visiting, ajmac. My post was not meant to be funny. I think I assume correctly when I say that the regular readers of my blog knew exactly what I was talking about.

As for your questions, Christians in other countries have everything to do with it. It seems that many American Christians equate the flag and the U.S. with Christian values. While I certainly don't disagree with being patriotic, I believe it is rather arrogant to assert that the values represented by the flag are equal to the values represented by the cross, which is what the window sticker I referenced seems to do.

In the church where I attend bible study, there was a display of the flag and the bible side by side with the words "I pledge allegiance" written above the display. How must that look to Christians from other countries who may happen to attend that church? That display and the sticker seem to send a distorted message about American Christians--that we place equal value on Christian values and the flag. Brotherhood with Christians from other nations takes a backseat to allegiance to the flag, it seems.

As for your second question, of course I don’t disagree that American Christians experience more temporal freedoms than other Christians. We American Christians are free to speak out against the church or the government when we believe them to be in the wrong. We are free to come and go as we please, and we enjoy tremendous economic freedom, much more so than people in other nations. Is this, however, the true freedom that Jesus spoke of? Jesus said that those who obey his teachings are the ones who are truly free.

It is obvious from Jesus’ teachings that he did not endorse the accumulation of material wealth, but this is a “freedom” that many Americans enjoy. However, how free are we really if we have lots of stuff but our credit cards are maxed out and we have to work overtime to pay for it? How are we truly free if what we are working so hard for can be destroyed in the next hurricane or fire or tornado? When we lose these things, we begin work all over again to get more of them. How is that true freedom? And for those whose economic situation will not allow them to accumulate things but everything in our society says that we don’t fit in if we don’t have all the latest gadgets, how is that true freedom?

Jesus said that his yoke is easy and his burden is light and that those who trust completely in God and make his kingdom their primary concern will not have to worry about having their temporal needs met, yet American Christians’ yoking of the flag with the cross indicates that we do not really trust in God and that many of us treasure the temporal more than the eternal.

Real Freedom

Yesterday I saw a car with a sticker on it that made me sort of angry. The sticker had an American flag on it, and superimposed on top of the flag was the cross. Underneath the flag in small letters, it said "God Bless America," and underneath that in large block letters were the words "REAL FREEDOM."

I thought that real freedom was found in obedience to Jesus. Jesus said that "if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." Who are we to add the American flag to the cross of Christ? I guess people who have found freedom in Jesus in other countries don't have real freedom.

Nothing New to Say Today

After one week into the semester, things are going nicely. I kind of like having five sections of the same course because I can do the same lessons with everyone, and I only have to do one website. When I finish thinking about Argumentative Writing, I don't have to remember to think about Literature.

My students really are getting into the discussion boards on my website. In fact, I didn't have to start the topics--they jumped right in and began discussing campus problems, the war, the fact that most of them hate Bush, etc. One of the discussions got so heated at one point that I had to jump in and remind them to watch their tone and not engage in namecalling.

Discussions in class aren't nearly that heated, but they're good. There is one guy in my 8:00 who is a die hard Bush supporter, and I have a very difficult time not expressing my extreme disdain for our President. He's outnumbered in class, so I feel I have to help in out some, but it's hard!

On another note, Husband is sick. I think he caught the flu at the doctor's office when he went to get a physical. He slept on the couch last night so I could sleep instead of hear him cough all night.

So that's about all that's going on. I'm working on a new article that I hope to post in the next week. I'm calling it "In Jesus' Name, Amen." There, now that I've told you about it, I have to finish and post it.

For now, I have to get to class.

Back to the Old Grind

Today I'm back at work after a month off. (Have I said I love being a teacher?!) Finding a parking space was not so bad--I decided not to even try parking really close to the building--but traffic was terrible, and it was raining hard. Campus has terrible drainage problems, so I knew to dress for the weather and not for fashion. My pants legs were soaked by the time I walked to my first class.

My first class went well. I had five students from last semester; seeing familiar faces really helps out on the first day. In fact, there should be lots more familiar faces in the rest of my classes. Several students asked questions about the course--I felt a little like the president fielding questions from the press corps.

I have three more classes today. Tuesdays and Thursdays are very full, and lunch comes at a weird time. The good thing about this semester, though, is that I get to teach argumentative writing, so in class we get to have great discussions about current issues. Today we talked about "Brangelina." (What's up with that?)

Well, my desk is still cluttered from last semster's junk, so I guess I should straighten up now.

Good Laugh!

If you like (or even if you don't like) blonde jokes, this one is a must see!

Illegal Immigrants and Our Comfort

This is not an opinion either way on illegal immigration, just an observation of an effect of it.

Many people say that immigrants take jobs such as construction, agriculture, etc. away from citizens by working at the same jobs for much less money. This is often true. Employers can sometimes get away with paying an immigrant (illegal or otherwise, I suppose) minimum wage or less with no benefits, when a citizen would demand twice the pay and benefits. How is it that when citizens seem to have so much trouble making ends meet, immigrants don't seem to complain about the low pay? They seem to have plenty to eat, and they come to work wearing clean clothes and looking like they've slept well. And we know that they also send money back home to their families in other countries because of the proliferation of so many Spanish-language money transfer establishments. Why, then, do we have such a problem working for so little?

Perhaps the answer lies with lifestyle. Many immigrants share housing costs by having numerous roommates. They don't seem to mind sharing close quarters with several friends or family. The sacrifice of privacy is apparently worth it to be able to save hundreds of dollars on rent each month. Lots of citizens complain about this mode of living that seems so foreign to us. Many of us wouldn't want to live next door to a three bedroom house that is occupied by ten grownups. We have grown accustomed to having our space and our privacy, and we mistrust those who don't conform to society's norms. (Oh sure, it's OK for college students to bunk up to save money; we expect it from them. But the time comes when they must grow up and conform. If they persist on bunking together after college, it must be because they are having drunken orgies and are manufacturing meth in the bathtub.)

We work hard and save our money to buy nicer cars and bigger houses. Many immigrants work hard and save their money to send home to mothers and fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles who don't have the opportunity to work for a "decent" wage. These immigrants will sacrifice their own comfort so that their relatives back home can eat a good meal every day. When is the last time that we sacrificed our comfort for the good of someone else?

Jesus sacrificed his comfort for the good of those around him. Think about that.

Wisdom From Wally

On Leave it to Beaver last night:

Wally: You could buy it on the installment plan.
Beaver: What's that?
Wally: It's so that people who can't afford to buy something can buy it anyway.

Size Matters

I just saw a story on Inside Edition about Cosmo Girl magazine's use of a plus sized model in this month's issue. How nice, but she's a size 10. You male readers of this blog may not understand the significance of this. If your wife is a size 10, you will not be shopping in the plus size section of the store for her birthday this year.

If I keep feeling sick at my stomach, maybe I'll lose enough weight to qualify as a plus size rather than what ever I must be.


P.S. Weren't you intrigued by the title of this post? Get out of the gutter!

The Gum Tree

I don’t chew a lot of gum these days. I chew gum like the gentleman caller in Tennessee Williams’ play The Glass Menagerie: I take it out as soon as the flavor is gone. But when I was a teenager, I chewed gum all the time. In fact, I think the only time I didn’t chew gum was when I was eating or sleeping and during band practice. I remember the band director’s wife once commenting that every time she saw me I had gum in my mouth. I recall wondering what was wrong with that.

I liked chewing gum when I was a little kid too. Mama used to let me have chewing gum, usually in the car on the way to town—probably to keep me busy and from thinking too much about McDonald’s. Mama’s choice of flavor was Wrigley’s Doublemint, which I liked just fine, but my favorite was Juicy Fruit. I loved its flavor—instead of tasting minty like toothpaste, Juicy Fruit was sweet like candy and slightly exotic. It was a taste like nothing else, and I craved that unique mouthwatering sensation. Mama hardly ever bought Juicy Fruit, but I knew where I could get a fix.

Uncle Dean almost always carried a pack of chewing gum in his shirt pocket, and it was almost always the coveted Juicy Fruit. Back then, much of the extended family lived right there within a mile of each other, so it was a regular occasion to find family members at each others’ houses for whatever reason. This situation enabled my Juicy Fruit addiction because I might see Uncle Dean at any time. Whenever he was around, I wouldn’t leave him alone until I got my hands on a precious stick of that juicy, fruity treat. Sometimes, however, Uncle Dean’s pocket would be empty, and severe disappointment would set in. Every now and then, he would have taken his pack of gum out of his pocket and left it in his truck, so my temporary disappointment would be alleviated, but every now and then, no amount of begging would produce a piece of that wonderful treasure. “Gum doesn’t grow on trees,” Uncle Dean would say. (Actually, I don’t remember if he really said that—I wouldn’t have known what that meant, much less remember it—but it goes so well with the next part of the story, that I’m going to believe he did.)

One afternoon during the early spring or late fall—I don’t remember when, just that there weren’t many if any leaves on the trees—several of us were gathered in Uncle Dean’s front yard. It seems to me that there were lots of us there, but like I said earlier, there was always lots of family around, so nothing seemed out of the ordinary to me. I don’t remember the exact events as they transpired or what all was said, but what happened next was a momentous event for a young Juicy Fruit addict. Uncle Dean pointed me toward a tree on which were growing, miraculously, slender stalks in the familiar bright yellow hue. When I got closer, I saw that packs and packs of Juicy Fruit gum had been painstakingly tied to the tree, and they were ripe for the picking. My hand took hold of one the golden fruits, and my heart leaped for joy. I unwrapped a stick of my harvest and quickly savored its deliciousness. My brother Michael and my cousin Rachel helped me gather the bounty, and I was exceedingly happy even though I had to share with them. It was a wonderful day.

It must have taken hours to tie all those packs of gum to that tree. Looking back on it now with nieces of my own, I think I can see why Uncle Dean might have done that. I’ll never forget the pleasure I got that day, the day that for just a little while, in Uncle Dean’s front yard, gum really did grow on trees.

It's 2006 Already!

I can't believe another year has arrived. I just can't believe it. It's going to take me two months to get used to writing 2006 on my checks. Even typing 2006 feels weird.

Husband and I stayed up until 11:00 last night, but that's as long as we could hold out, so we didn't get to see 2006 come in. But I'm sure it looked a lot like most any other midnight.

I don't normally make any resolutions, and this year is no different. How about y'all? Are you making any resolutions?

Puzzler

Here's an interesting passage from Deuteronomy about recognizing false prophets:

You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the Lord or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the Lord's name and it does not happen, the Lord did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared (NLT 18.21-2).

I would like to know what was an acceptible time frame for the prediction to come true? How long did they have to wait before knowing whether the prophet was really speaking for God?

Hmmm.

In his weekly radio address, the President just said that "in the war on terror, we can't be without [the Patriot Act] for a moment." He also said that before September 11, "terrorists at home communicated with terrorists abroad," but we didn't know that the terrorists were here [at home].

I'm not very intelligent about this type of thing, but can't the people who monitor these communications tell from the context of the conversations whether someone is inside or outside the country? Also, if a person in our country is reasonably suspected as a criminal, don't the authorities then have probable cause get a court-ordered wire tap? And can't this be done pretty quickly?

It seems to me that the President just wants to be able to spy on anyone and everyone for no particular reason without having to go through the judicial system for authorization. Sounds like that violates the Constitution.

Good Gifts Don't Come Wrapped in Pretty Paper

During the past few days I have been doing my Christmas shopping, and I am becoming increasingly more and more uncomfortable with the giving and receiving of stuff that we don't really need. We draw names on both my and my husband's side of the family, so we each have had to choose gifts for two persons (not including shopping for the kids in the family). When I think about it, though, we aren't buying things for these people that they couldn't buy for themselves. In my family, we have pretty much just asked each other what the other wants for Christmas, and for many of us, that's what we'll get. It all seems so contrived. None of this will keep me from having fun on Christmas, but, well, I don't really know what I'm trying to say here.

On another note, this week, my mom and I went to the mall to do some shopping, and we saw a big booth set up by one of the local churches where volunteers from the church are wrapping gifts for mall shoppers for free. Hmmm.

I used to attend a church where this idea was considered. The whole idea was to "show God's love in a practical way." OK. I agree that Christians definitely need to go out and show God's love, and most certainly they need to go about showing this love in practical ways. But wrapping gifts? C'mon. What's next, showing God's love by volunteering to hang lights and wreaths on the tops of people's houses?

Aren't there some other more pressing practical needs than giftwrapping presents for people who obviously can afford to buy their own wrapping paper and bows? What about the practical need of heat for someone who can no longer afford the outrageous price of propane or who is physically unable to split his own firewood. What about the practical need of food or rent money for people who have lost their jobs? Or the practical need of companionship for someone who is lonely? Sure makes the practical need for giftwrapping services seem trivial.

This is going to sound harsh, but those who think they are doing a service by wrapping presents for mall shoppers need to get real. Giftwrapping is not a worthwhile cause for the follower of Christ. The type of gifts Jesus gave required self-sacrifice and didn't come wrapped and tied with a bow. I'll be so bold as to say that those who think that wrapping gifts is a practical need are either very self-consumed or extremely ignorant. What kind of sacrifice does it take to wrap presents? Oh, yeah, those paper cuts can be brutal!

Jesus met people's practical needs by giving the gift of food to hungry masses, giving the gift of sight to people who couldn't see, giving the gift of health to people who were sick. Surely we, Christ's followers, can at least give a meal to a hungry person, or a coat to a cold person, or maybe even pay for a prescription for a sick person, or pay someone's heating bill for a month. Those types of gifts would be much more practical, and certainly they would be more appreciated. And the sacrifice involved would be much better than a paper cut.

A Good Read

I just finished reading an extremely interesting article in Rolling Stone about our government's use of public relations firms to help shape public opinion. This article deals mostly with one particular firm and how it has helped not only to shape public opinion, but also to orchestrate events that make war efforts seem more legitimate.

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

The road to war in Iraq led through many unlikely places. One of them was a chic hotel nestled among the strip bars and brothels that cater to foreigners in the town of Pattaya, on the Gulf of Thailand.

On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide, a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man's chest and another across his abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man's brachial artery, on the inside of his upper arm.

Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.

It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.

The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn't true didn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war. And the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.

From:
Bamford, James. "The Man Who Sold the War." Rolling Stone 17 Nov. 2005.

This is a long article, but it makes for a very interesting read if you have the time.