Posted on 05/08/2007 3:34:52 AM PDT by captjanaway
A spokesman for President Bush says a demand by Republicans for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to follow through on former White House insider Sandy Berger's promise to take a polygraph test regarding the classified documents he took from the National Archives will be studied.
The response from Tony Snow came on a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House.
"Congressman Tom Davis and 17 other Republican House members have called on Attorney General Gonzales, Department of Justice, to administer the polygraph test that Sandy Berger agreed to in paragraph 11 of his plea agreement. And my question, could you give us a substantial answer to these Republicans' request of the Bush administration?" Kinsolving asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I don’t have any problem with the idea of using it as a pretext to interview him, though I am not sure that would really be necessary. I suspect they’ve already interviewed him at length. The problem is that the device doesn’t really tell whether you’re lying. All it does is give the guy administering the test the opportunity to announce his opinion of whether you’re telling the truth or not. And in the case of Burglar, I would not be surprised if the guy administering the test would declare him innocent. The Clintons don’t leave that kind of thing to chance.
The main problem with polygraphs, is that while they may ask subjective questions, they only want or can use objective answers. When you ask someone why....., and they answer because....., then it’s not conclusive.
You’re correct, all it does, is show a body response. The interpretation, is strictly up to the examiner...that’s why they can’t be used for anything other than casting doubts, depending on the questions asked.
Of course, that is exactly what a jury does when it watches someone testify. Is he sweating? Does he look nervous? Does he look you in the eye?
I am not sure why anyone would think that the body responses recorded by a polygraph are a more accurate indication of whether the witness is telling the truth than merely watching his demeanor while he testifies.
Oh, never mind.
Rather than a polygraph, I’d like to give Sandy Burglar a cell in the general population. After he tells who was going to retrieve the documents.
Yep, use Scientological Auditing instead!
Hmm, WHY do they have to ‘study’ this? Wasn’t he supposed to take one anyway? cheez.
Uh, sorry, WND, but when Tony Snow tells Les Kinsolving: “I will study it,” that’s simply a polite way of saying: “Screw you and shut up.”
Kinsolving raises important issues at the White House press conferences, he’s a conservative, and Snow, from what I’ve seen, treats him like dirt. One reason I’m not a big fan of Tony’s.
I don’t know that Les is crazy. Joe Farah, maybe, but Les seems to raise good questions, even if he isn’t the typical Beltway smoothie. Actually, I find him refreshing not only substantively, but stylistically.
The only thing polygraph tests can do is trick someone into saying more than they otherwise would.
It’s pure voodoo science. They can’t determine if anyone is lying or not. This is completely ridiculous. The results of the tests are totally useless.
Yep, polygraph and scientology e-meter are about the same.
It’s a nightmare that they’ve been used to actually confirm someone either way as truthful or liar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.