George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. His Iraq lies have loomed largest.

Poverty increased for a second straight year in 2002 with 1.7 million more people dropping below the poverty line, the Census Bureau said Friday. Incomes were down, too, fresh evidence of the struggling economy's effect on Americans' pocketbooks. ...

Before the two years of increase, poverty had fallen for nearly a decade to 11.3 percent in 2000, its lowest level in more than 25 years. Income levels increased through most of the 1990s, then were flat in 2000.

Census Bureau: Poverty Up, Incomes Down Poverty rose and income levels declined in 2002 for the second straight year as the nation's economy continued struggling after the first recession in a decade, the Census Bureau reported Friday. ...

It seems to me that if we just shipped America's poor to Iraq, we could alieviate the Army's manpower problem, decrease the surplus population here at home and raise average income levels in both countries.

You know: The "compassionate conservatism" thing. [Whiskey Bar]

With one phrase Dick Gephardt has defined the issue to be decided next November. Can a "miserable failure" of a president win re-election? Bush's victory would testify to a civic failure more dangerous to the American future than any policies implemented or continued during a second Bush term. A majority would have demonstrated that democratic accountability is finished. That you can fail in everything and still be re-elected president.

You can preside over the most catastrophic failure of intelligence and national defense in history. Can fire no one associated with this fatal chain of blunders and bureaucratic buck-passing. Can oppose an inquest into September 11 for more than a year until pressure from the relatives of those killed on that day becomes politically toxic. Can name Henry Kissinger, that mortician of truth, to head the independent commission you finally accede to. You can start an unnecessary war that kills hundreds of Americans and as many as 7,000 Iraqi civilians—adjusted for the difference in population, the equivalent of 80,000 Americans. Can occupy Iraq without a plan to restore traffic lights, much less order. Can make American soldiers targets in a war of attrition conducted by snipers, assassins, and planters of remote-control bombs—and taunt the murderers of our young men to "bring it on." Can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on nation building—and pass the bill to America's children. (Asked to consider rescinding your tax cut for the top one percent of taxpayers for one year in order to fund the $87 billion you requested from Congress to pay for the occupation of Iraq, your Vice President said no; that would slow growth.) You can lose more jobs than any other President since Hoover. You can cut cops and after-school programs and Pell Grants and housing allowances for the poor to give tax cuts to millionaires. You can wreck the nation's finances, running up the largest deficit in history. You can permit 17,000 power plants to increase their health-endangering pollution of the air. You can lower the prestige of the United States in every country of the world by your unilateral conduct of foreign policy and puerile "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric. Above all, you can lie the country into war and your lies can be exposed—and, if a majority prefers ignorance to civic responsibility, you can still be reelected.

Imagine, if you will, that you lived in a neighborhood that was controlled by an organized gang. Pretend this gang, in an effort to make sure that its territory was secure, had banned all non-sanctioned inter-gang violence from within its borders - the streets under its immediate control, the parks and schools, etc., a job it did with relative success. Also imagine that, in addition to its many other illegal activities, this local gang had a thriving business in dealing handguns and rifles to the other gangs who controlled separate communities on the other side of town - an operation that brought in, say, over a million dollars a year to the leaders of our neighborhood gang.

Now, let's say one day, at a community forum gathered to discuss the issues of crime in the city, the leader of this gang got up and said that no one should be able to tell his group what to do because, under his control, there is a whole lot less violence on his neighborhood streets than in other parts of the city, and he and his fellow gang members were responsible for such a state of affairs. And, in fact, not only should the community embrace him and his people, their gang should be given community money and support to carry on their operations.

Do you think anyone would be willing to greet these people as liberators, keepers of the peace, and worthy of a free pass? Or line up behind them to offer their support?

Unfortunately, that's one way of looking at the behavior of the United States when examining the world's arms market. Not only does the U.S. continue to single-handedly dominate the world market for arms sales, as evidenced by a new report sent to Congress this week by the Congressional Research Service , but it also continues to pretend that it does no such thing, instead preferring to present itself as a peace-loving nation who deserves the respect and support of the world community for its unquestionable commitment to peace.