Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Lied About Iraq Nuclear Programs

michael posted about 10 years ago | from the say-it-isn't-so dept.

Republicans 3201

An anonymous reader writes "This New York Times article reports that in 2002, the Bush Administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program were based on evidence that was doubted by the government's foremost nuclear security experts. Specifically, aluminum tubes most likely meant for small artillery rockets were interpreted by the administration as parts for uranium centrifuges." In a nutshell: while Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were announcing to the American public that these tubes were slam-dunk evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions, they already knew that there was completely overwhelming evidence that the tubes were just for artillery rockets (as Iraq said) and that the tubes were totally unsuitable for use in centrifuges.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Whaaaa? (5, Funny)

acxr is wasted (653126) | about 10 years ago | (#10424007)

Politicians? Lying??


Re:Whaaaa? (5, Insightful)

josh3736 (745265) | about 10 years ago | (#10424116)

You're being sarcastic, but what I don't understand is how they straight-up lied about WMDs and whatnot (and knew about it), yet not a damned thing is happening about it. Clinton gets a BJ, and everyone starts screaming "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?" So I have to ask, what's really more important?

And yet people still want to vote for W. I just don't get it.

Re:Whaaaa? (1, Insightful)

YouHaveSnail (202852) | about 10 years ago | (#10424122)

The sarcasm is well taken, but it sure as hell isn't funny.

Stupid moderators.

Lied is a bit strong (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424009)

They went with the CIA judgement that they could be used for nuclear projects. Regardless of whether they were or weren't, the other option is for Saddam to build rockets. Why would he need rockets? Oh, that's right, he was a dictator that killed lots of people.

Burden of proof (2, Interesting)

XanC (644172) | about 10 years ago | (#10424047)

Everyone conveniently forgets that when we let Saddam off the hook in '91, one of the conditions was that he would have to prove that he had no weapons.

At some point, we had to say "enough" to his gamesmanship, and make good on the resolutions to do something about it.

Just because it looks like he was screwing with us instead of building weapons doesn't mean the casus bella was wrong. The ball was in Saddam's court.

Re:Burden of proof (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 10 years ago | (#10424104)

I agree with you. I think a big part of the problem is if you asked these people what the were doing 4 years ago, the would have to answer "homework for my 9th grade pop-rock class"

Only on Slashdot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424069)

Would calling Saddam a dictator that killed people get you modded down as flamebait.

Re:Lied is a bit strong (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424090)

Bush said this in response to a question about why he was shrugging off CIA intelligence that said Iraq was going to hell in a handbasket with a JATO strapped to it.

"The CIA laid out several scenarios that said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like."

JUST GUESSING?!?!?! The CIA, the agency that said that there was NO DOUBT there were WMDs and NBCs in Iraq, are now just GUESSING?!?!

That's funny.

All the Bushies are yammering on about how Saddam would have ended the world if we didnt take over Iraq... all while Iran and North Korea DO have nuclear weapons and are itching to try one out.

Just guessing... well I'm just guessing that Bush won't be in office for long.

whatever (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424010)


Nothing to see here... move along? (0, Flamebait)

TibbonZero (571809) | about 10 years ago | (#10424012)

.... is what it said when I first clicked on comments? Oh, and like it's a big suprize to any of us? Bush et al lied!

Re:Nothing to see here... move along? (1)

quintessent (197518) | about 10 years ago | (#10424103)

So maybe it's preaching to the choir, but it's always a good idea to have concrete facts in hand when your neighbor starts singing the gospel praises of the Bushies.

In other news. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424015)

Current administration Lies, Microsoft Evil blablabla

fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424018)


irrefutable evidence (4, Insightful)

dirvish (574948) | about 10 years ago | (#10424019)

"Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States."

So where are those tubes now Dick?

Re:irrefutable evidence (4, Funny)

wankledot (712148) | about 10 years ago | (#10424133)

Haliburton found them and resold them to someone... probably Israel.

Tubes? (1)

bioteq (809524) | about 10 years ago | (#10424020)

And here I was thinking the tubes were used for a gigantic mouse maze he was building.

If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424022)

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People

by John Hawkins

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Re:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424065)

just cuz you disagree with mr anonymous does not make him a troll/flamebait

Re:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424089)

Bah. If I still had points I'd be fighting the dumbasses that modded this down right now. Just because you don't want to hear that your Demo buddies saw teh SAME intelligence and came to the SAME conclusions, doesn't make it untrue.

Re:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, (0, Flamebait)

ericdano (113424) | about 10 years ago | (#10424144)

Exactly. Well, you know Kerry has a plan. Or so he says. Kinda sounds like the plan already in progress.....

And wasn't Mr. John Flip-flop Kerry an advocate of disarming Iraq? And he saw the same intelligence as well.

Contempt of Congress (3, Interesting)

Baldrson (78598) | about 10 years ago | (#10424024)

If administration officials testified before Congress with falsehoods that were known to be falsehoods by their authorities, the authorities with said knowledge are subject to criminal prosecution.

Does this extend to the President?

The same question dogged Nixon to resign.

Re:Contempt of Congress (4, Funny)

bahwi (43111) | about 10 years ago | (#10424072)

It doesn't affect the President anymore, unless he slept with one of the female nuclear scientists.

Re:Contempt of Congress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424092)

hey, your web site has an error message at the bottom... not a good thing for a PHP consultant. Off topic, but hth.

--Slashdot samaritan

Re:Contempt of Congress (1)

dirvish (574948) | about 10 years ago | (#10424075)

I think it should. I think he should be thrown in prison. I think the international community should charge him with war crimes also and the U.N. should refuse to deal with him.

Re:Contempt of Congress (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424077)

If you're going to say that. Then John Kerry should be in jail no matter what.


B. If he lied to congress in a hearing about his war crimes and that of others, HE GOES TO JAIL.

Re:Contempt of Congress (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | about 10 years ago | (#10424100)

Did the President testify before Congress?

Re:Contempt of Congress (5, Informative)

beldraen (94534) | about 10 years ago | (#10424114)

Yes and no. The President is bound by all laws, but he cannot be tried while in office. He must either finish his position in office or be impeached and removed from office before he can be tried; however, it seems to be standing policy by each new president to pardon the previous president, as each wants the same from the following president. I wouldn't count on Bush being tried in a court of law unless he personally killed someone, in cold blood, with 10 witnesses, and was caught grinning into the camera.

oooo (-1, Offtopic)

foxcorp (517283) | about 10 years ago | (#10424025)

first post!

Really a surprise? (1, Interesting)

Alcohol Fueled (603402) | about 10 years ago | (#10424029)

I mean, come on.. They lied about a lot of stuff dealing with Iraq.

Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

TrentL (761772) | about 10 years ago | (#10424033)

I keep reading stories like this, hoping the American public will finally "get it". But it never happens. Richard Clarke, the 9/11 commision, Abu Ghraib, whatever. If it's not there kid in Iraq, they don't care. We just need to face it: about 45% of this country is going to support Bush no matter what. I'm not saying people should switch to Kerry, but if you still support Bush at this point, you must have constructed a very elaborate little fantasy world in your head.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424050)

There are only two choices, if you are saying don't support Bush, then you must support Kerry or no one.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424086)

Agreed. I'm also surprised at what a large percentage of the American people feel their loyalty should be to a political party rather than the ideals of their country.

Re:Does it matter? (2, Interesting)

astar (203020) | about 10 years ago | (#10424096)

I have some doubt that Bush is sane enough to be a liar. I think he had a fantasy world in his head.

Here is a different election prediction: it will be a landside victory, but I do not know who wins.

Re:Does it matter? (2)

dirvish (574948) | about 10 years ago | (#10424131)

I haven't been able to figure this one out. People just refuse to open their eyes. I liken it to the same sort of power religion has over some people, it's like the cult of Bush. The guy could start killing a baby a day until the election and people would still vote for him.

Re:Does it matter? (0, Troll)

TummyX (84871) | about 10 years ago | (#10424139)

Yes. The fantasy world you speak of is in vast constrast to reality which includes, Arabs not being able to handle democracy, noone (and certianly not Kerry or Edwards) believing that there were WMD in Iraq before 2003, pre-war Iraq and Afghanistan being idyllic paradises, America safer with Saddam in power, less people dying from the next X amount of years under Bathist rule than under a war which will spread freedom and liberty into the middle east.

Is there no haven? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424035)

Is there nowhere to turn where I don't have to read partisan political crap? What does this have to do with tech news?

Give it a friggin rest already.

Ad money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424048)

Have you seen how many comments the political stories get? $$$$!

Re:Is there no haven? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424107)

Yeah, it's so annoying when the facts become partisan!

Re:Is there no haven? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424127)

It is annoying when they're presented in such a partisan way. There's a huge difference between "White House ignored doubts about Iraqi Nuclear Programs" and "White House Lied About Iraq Nuclear Programs."

Re:Is there no haven? (1)

Smitty825 (114634) | about 10 years ago | (#10424141)

Agreed. This article should be on the Politics only page, and not the main Slashdot page. The ONLY thing political that Slashdot should have on it's front page is something that is Tech/Science/"News for Nerds" stuff. If I want to discuss politics, I'll do it at a more appropriate place!

What makes you think this will change anything? (3, Insightful)

savagedome (742194) | about 10 years ago | (#10424036)

The saddest part is that there is a very high chance you guys will have this team back in business (?) again for the next four years. I read the transcript of that debate last week and it amazes me that GWBush still has the balls to stand in front of people and talk about it when he managed to bomb the f#@$ out of a country for no rhyme or reason. Damn shame.

Re:What makes you think this will change anything? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424084)

You must be from france, pussy boy.

Re:What makes you think this will change anything? (3, Insightful)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | about 10 years ago | (#10424098)

I read the transcript of that debate last week and it amazes me that GWBush still has the balls to stand in front of people and talk about it when he managed to bomb the f#@$ out of a country for no rhyme or reason.

There was rhyme or reason. Whether or not said reasons were substantial, or actually based on evidence, is another question.

Re:What makes you think this will change anything? (5, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10424113)

it amazes me that GWBush still has the balls to stand in front of people and talk about it when he managed to bomb the f#@$ out of a country for no rhyme or reason. Damn shame.

No, it's a damn shame that the idiots in this country believe that he is right. His administration has been caught in the liars den multiple times yet somehow they are able to get people to continue to turn to them in the face of this "imminent threat".

Once the people of this country get their heads out of their false reality created by what they are fed via consolidated media perhaps they will learn. It is unlikely that anything will change because people refuse to think for themselves. They want to be a passive recipient of all the news they get.

You cannot be successful in life being a passive recipient in anything.

Wrong place (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424038)

This is utter crap that such a topic would appear on Slashdot. Anyone worth their politcal salt would already have knowledge of this issue and the complexity surrounding it. Please, move on or join a politics 101 forum. And for it to make the FRONT PAGE??? Bias showing through?


Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424142)

This shit should not be on the frontpage of /..

This is Michael's unbalanced ass taking advantage of his "editor" position since he has no "blog platform" that anyone in their right mind would read.

Taco will not be please. Mods, mod parent up.

Re:Wrong place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424143)

Flame should also watch the debates so you can "really" tell who will make the best president. FOOLS.

COULD (0, Troll)

chunkwhite86 (593696) | about 10 years ago | (#10424039)

The tubes were stated as COULD be used for nuclear weapons. They could also be large drinking straws or sewer pipes. I, for one, would rather NOT take that chance. Better to be too cautious than not cautious enough.

Re:COULD (4, Insightful)

eliza_effect (715148) | about 10 years ago | (#10424081)

You COULD be a terrorist. I think we should lock you up just in case. We'll let you out when the War on Terror is over.

Re:COULD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424095)

Oh my fucking god.

Please, find a gun, point it at your head and pull the trigger.

Die you fucking moron die!

Re:COULD (1)

AnwerB (255422) | about 10 years ago | (#10424105)

The tubes were stated as COULD be used for nuclear weapons. They could also be large drinking straws or sewer pipes. I, for one, would rather NOT take that chance. Better to be too cautious than not cautious enough.

I have evidence that you *could* be a terrorist!

Please do not deny that you are, in fact, alive, and as such you could at some point in the future commit henious acts of terrorism!

Re:COULD (1)

mp3LM (785954) | about 10 years ago | (#10424115)

I'd say that's a little too cautious. Especially since something that COULD have been a drinking straw was our reason for invading another country.

Re:COULD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424117)

"Better to be too cautious than not cautious enough."

Whats next... Tattooing the Jews as well?
After all just a tiny tattoo is not that know in the name of freedom.

Re:COULD (2, Insightful)

Draconix (653959) | about 10 years ago | (#10424123)

Wouldn't caution entail _not_ attacking a country for extremely questionable motives and alienating most of the world?

Re:COULD (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424138)

Did you read the whole article? The Energy Commission-- the experts that would know-- said that it was physically impossible for these tubes to be used for nukes. The White House somehow "finessed" that statement into a "could".

I don't know. I found this story to be deeply disturbing, and I thought I was jaded to begin with. It seems to be one of those stories that the more closely you read, the more horrible it becomes. :shiver:

"new york times" (0, Flamebait)

rwven (663186) | about 10 years ago | (#10424040)

and you want to trust something coming from the new york times? That's just shy of the reliability of CBS news. They're a totally liberal news source with a rather smudged record regarding reliability... Them bashing the white house is not a new thing. Why does this suddenly get reported? nuff said

Re:"new york times" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424088)

this is slashdot, where bias is ok as long as it is part of the groupthink.

screw you michael, why don't you tell us bush broke into your car too.

Re:"new york times" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424129)

The NYT only reported this because CBS scrapped it--they decided it was "inappropriate" to run, due large in part to being caught peddling BS as stories (TexANG Memos, etc) and not wanting to go through that again.

Being the good upstanding liberals they are, they just couldn't let the story die, even though it is largely unfounded.

In Other News... (-1, Troll)

repruhsent (672799) | about 10 years ago | (#10424043)

LastMeasure hits the 100000 watermark
Zeikfried - Reuters, Nigeria

In a self congratulatory press conference described by one historical analyst as to be "worth 10 Dresdens", the now world famous egalitarians of the Gay Nigger Association of America announced to the worlds press that their highly successful open source lastmeasure project has now reached over one hundred thousand homes across the world.

Amidst a snowstorm of tickertape and parade like festivity, Penisbird, one of the founders of the LastMeasure project, screeched triumphantly from his now gold plated dong perch that the exponental growth of the sought after shock site can only continue. And even those outside the GNAAs dark skinned sphere of influence can only agree, in the face of the cutting edge "xangadot" marketing techniques applied by GNAA LM sales reps Incog, Saturn, Trake, qat, and Zeikfred Tuvai.

The sheer ferocity of the xangadot effect has caught many by surprise, none more so than xanga spokesperson AzN_ThuG_08, who was quoted as saying "MUTHAFUCKA TAKE DOWN MAH SITE...BITCH IM LETTIN U...FUCK DIS SITE AND FUCK U TOO. I CAN MAKE A NEW ONE I GOT THA TIME u stupid muthafucka" before driving his nitroglycerin laced riced up honda into GNAA Headquarters in a suicidal and dastardly attempt to decapitate the GNAA leadership. Thankfully the 140 decibel exhaust of the now vapourised vehicle allowed the surrounding buildings to be evacuated several minutes before the atrocity took place.

Speaking from his converted 1970's brothel, overpaid financial analyst Gary Niger told Reuters, "The effects of what has been dubbed the 'Open Source Final Solution' can be felt in almost every area of digital society. A striking example of this would be the once worthless .info TLD being re-energised with a huge cash and semen injection from the GNAA LastMeasure project, punctuated by Netcrafts recent confirmation that the GNAA has now gained a massive controlling stake in .info over the course of the past 2 months".

Can this momentum continue? Or has LastMeasure reached its unsurpassable xenith, with the only way left down? GNAA President timecop refused to comment, instead choosing to bathe naked in a pool of Yen laughing insanely. The future seems bright.

About LastMeasure:

A primitive version of LastMeasure was concieved by Penisbird of the GNAA after playing with an AIM utility named AIM Invader. It offered Penisbird a myriad of ways to crash AIM clients. By far the most powerful crash was the "last measure" crash, which would inundate an AIM client with file transfer requests, buddy list sends, messages full of smileys and colors, until the AIM client crashed due to lack of RAM.

The LastMeasure site originally consisted of Penisbird, Goatse, Tubgirl, Lemonparty, and Shitfaced Lady. But has expanded to include many other of the internets treasured icons. And with the addition of StatsMeasure, the clipboard data of thousands of unwitting victims has now been exposed for the world to see.

For more information about LastMeasure, visit the official website, []

LastMeasure is licensed under the BSD Version 2 License.

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [] ?
Are you a NIGGER [] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [] and watch it. You can download the movie [] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [] on [] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Indian
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2004 Gay Nigger Association of America []

No Surprise (3, Insightful)

xombo (628858) | about 10 years ago | (#10424044)

Weren't some of the news channels telling us that before hand or am I the only person that remembers history? I feel like we're living in the world of 1984.

I intentionally gave party members syphilis, et all.

The us lied (0, Offtopic)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | about 10 years ago | (#10424049)

and in other news: the sky was proven to be blue today by a group of scientists. no... seriously.. whats witht eh obvious statements: coffee being addictive, now this!

High tolerance tubes (1, Interesting)

LinuxGeek (6139) | about 10 years ago | (#10424051)

I read this story Saturday evening and the tubes that Iraq was shopping for were of a much greater tolerance than needed for their small artilery rockets.

Re:High tolerance tubes (1)

ajna (151852) | about 10 years ago | (#10424087)

Where did you read this, about the tubes' tolerances?

Ugh. (1)

SynapseLapse (644398) | about 10 years ago | (#10424052)

Validity of the article aside, this really irritated me...

"Joe graduated...
Joe went to work...
, and Joe's job...
Joe spent the...
In 1997, Joe transferred..."

Five lines right in a row starting with "Joe..."
In college, that kind of crap would have gotten me a "Please see me after class!"

The NYtimes is slipping.

Although, who is the Joe? Is he an all American Hero?

I'm not listening!!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424053)

Also, Kerry's a flip-flopper. Also, in the debate he said he never used the word "lie" to describe what Bush did, but he actually did use it. And those National Guard documents that CBS News showed were faked.

We know what's important.


Fox News
Most Bush Supporters

What is even worse... (0, Troll)

CanadaDave (544515) | about 10 years ago | (#10424054)

You know what is even sadder than this? That there were countries in the world who supported the US (Spain) and that there were other countries who sat on their asses and didn't say anything (Canada) rather than aligning against the US like France and Germany. The rest of the world is really to blame here, not the U.S. Had the rest of the world (or even the Democrats) aligned against Bush and his government then none of this would have happened.

Re:What is even worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424124)

Except that there are not too many people who would come out supporting saddam, except france and germany who did it for economic reasons, not some high moral reason. No one really wanted sadaam to stay, but not everyone was willing to use force to get rid of him. Basically, the status quo was good enough for many people, except the USA after 9/11. So for that reason, the rest of the world can fuck off and stick their head back in the sand.

uhhh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424055)


We already knew they were full of shit but... (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10424057)

The tubes episode is a case study of the intersection between the politics of pre-emption and the inherent ambiguity of intelligence.

This was a case study in lying and having the fucking people fall for it because we were told to have faith in the leaders of our country or be labeled unpatriotic.

On Aug. 17, 2001, weeks before the twin towers fell, the team published a secret Technical Intelligence Note, a detailed analysis that laid out its doubts about the tubes' suitability for centrifuges.

Perhaps this is partially why the administration originally claimed that Hussein was not a credible threat to the United States?

One senior official at the agency said its "fundamental approach" was to tell policy makers about dissenting views. Another senior official acknowledged that some of their agency's reports "weren't as well caveated as, in retrospect, they should have been." But he added, "There was certainly nothing that was hidden."

Let's not fuck around here. It's called making the viewpoint you want noticed more apparent than those you don't regardless of whether or not it's true... This is what any good position paper should do.
"Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

Sounds like exactly what the United States ended up doing. It decided it was right and it had the power to make sure it got what it wanted out of the deal. Notice the reference to oil... Not to the safety of the United States' populace. Oil. Cute.

The Racist Neocons Have Been Planning To Attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424058)

Iraq for over a decade.

The sick union of racist filth who support the state sponsored terrorism and ethtic cleansing in Isreal and the nutty right wing bible prophesy nuts needed any pretense, no matter how flimsy, to launch the invasion.

A big thanks to all the retards who voted for Bush.


/. Bias (2, Insightful)

zmcgrew (265718) | about 10 years ago | (#10424059)

I'm glad we don't have a bias one way or another here at /.. I mean, "In a nutshell: while Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were announcing to the American public that these tubes were slam-dunk evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions, they already knew that there was completely overwhelming evidence that the tubes were just for artillery rockets (as Iraq said) and that the tubes were totally unsuitable for use in centrifuges" screams "I'm a Democrat, I hate Republicans!" to me.

When did /. become a mouthpiece for the Democrats? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424061)

I don't get it... How is this news for nerds? In light of all the other political blather going around, it isn't news that matters, either. Can we stop the political BS and just get back to the nerdy stuff?

Slashdot, let's not try to be a site you're not. Let's leave the political discourse to the other sites and leave it out of here. Please!!

Bullshit (1)

LegoEvan (772742) | about 10 years ago | (#10424062)

Truth? If truth got into the American political system the whole country would fall apart!

That's why we elected and re-elected Bill Clinton.
Dole kept saying, "I'm a plain and honest man." Bullshit.
Clinton said, "Hi folks I'm full of shit and how do you like that?!"

And people said, "Well, at least he's honest."
" George Carlin On another not, it's shameful that our political system is the way it is, in terms of the disintegration of checks and balances. If the Senate had heard everything and seriously debated, do you think the public would have heard of the "slam dunk"? Probably not. Sorry to mix humor and serious.

News for nerds? (1)

Pres. Ronald Reagan (659566) | about 10 years ago | (#10424067)

News for nerds? More like flamebait.

Disputed != Lied (3, Insightful)

BurritoWarrior (90481) | about 10 years ago | (#10424070)

If y'all would tone down the rhetoric, you would have Bush out of office, but instead you use inflammatory terms like the headline here. You wind up turning off the undecideds/moderates out there with the over-the-top Bush bashing.

This can and will happen again (4, Insightful)

cOdEgUru (181536) | about 10 years ago | (#10424074)

What concerns me most is the ability of this administration (or the potential of any future ones) to pull a veil over the collective US public to go to war against an enemy that was a perceived threat, not a real one. What worries me most is that this could very well happen again, if we let this one slide. That in the future, a Republican or democrat white house could choose to shift its focus on a nation that it deems to be evil and take its own young men and women in to a hail of bullets and ill will.

Bush was brilliant or clueless enough to have his administration divert the public's gaze from Afghanistan or Iraq, forcibly or otherwise and even the critics in the media remained largely silent over the unjust war the country was being dragged in to. The esteemed Bob woodward said it himself that he finds himself guilty of ignoring stories that were of relevance, that could have proven to the public time and again that this war was being fought in the name of lies, that this was an unjust war. But men, who shirked their duties when their country asked of them to fight, chose to send young men and women in to harms way.

It were a crime then to question the legality of this war, it was unpatriotic to do so, it was simply wrong to doubt on the ability of our Commander in Chief, who chose to surround himself with yes men instead of criticism, like a clueless King who was fed what he needed to know by his courtiers, and never the truth.

It happened once, and it will happen again. And its a shame that it does, in this age when media remains omnipotent, the public has access to information of any nature, that a group of men and women could pull a veil over our collective judgement and lead many a mother's kid in to a nation in peril and a war that never end.

Well, not really... (3, Informative)

neema (170845) | about 10 years ago | (#10424076)

"Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were announcing to the American public that these tubes were slam-dunk evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions, they already knew that there was completely overwhelming evidence that the tubes were just for artillery rockets (as Iraq said) and that the tubes were totally unsuitable for use in centrifuges."

Not that I buy it, but the claim the Bush administration is going to be making (and this is covered in the article) is that the CIA didn't highlight or even mention the debate going on in the intelligence community over the use of these aluminum tubes. Condoleeza Rice appeared on a lot of Sunday shows today (I saw the CNN one) claiming that back when she claimed that the tubes could "only really be used for nuclear weapons", she knew of the debate but thought it was a marginalized dissent and that the overwhelming consensus in the intelligence community was that these tubes were to be used for nukes.

Of course, the response to these claims is: you couldn't have afford to have just based your information on the CIA briefings. If you're leading the nation to war, call in the advice of every relevant department and organization. The path to war shouldn't be a light one. And of course, since the nuclear issue was one of the major ones that drove us to war, supposedly, then the Energy Department clearly should have been consulted. And their overwhelming views were that the tubes were to be used for rockets.

Two points that are interesting in this article (that deserve a read)...

#1: The fact that the CIA endorsed the nuclear threat theory through the aluminum tube evidence, knowing the yellowcake evidence was bullshit. Meanwhile, the Energy Department endorsed the nuclear threat theory through the yellowcake evidence, knowing the aluminum tube evidence was bullshit. And yet, this was just read as a double endorsement.

#2: Dick Cheney's roll throughout all this (the fact that he was basically demanding evidence before any surfaced, or at least any that he was aware of).

In other news... (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | about 10 years ago | (#10424078) other news was sky reported to be mostly blue and sun is expected to rise tommorow morning.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424112)

no you fool. its the sky is blue, YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!

(the "in other news" joks getting old REAL FAST)

2-bit extremist liberal hash (-1, Flamebait)

rooskie (741631) | about 10 years ago | (#10424079)

on the front page? what is slashdot coming to?

Re:2-bit extremist liberal hash (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424108)

Business as usual.

Liberal bullshit. (-1, Flamebait)

chunkwhite86 (593696) | about 10 years ago | (#10424082)

How does this have anything at all to do with computing, science, gaming, linux, or even microsoft for that matter. It's offtopic liberal bullshit like this that's making /. get worse and worse.

Re:Liberal bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424091)

I agree with this.

Can we keep this biased libreral crap off the site unless it really is technolgy related?

Smells to me like someone at slashdot has an agenda.

Repsonse (1, Insightful)

sethadam1 (530629) | about 10 years ago | (#10424111)

I was going to mod you troll, but then I realized, maybe better to explain to you that you can set preferences in your account settings to ignore the politics section.

Do that, and then you won't have to worry about us liberals getting in the way of your video game updates.

Re:Liberal bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424130)

Chow down on that corporate cock, you whore.

Uh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424083)

How is that news? Or are there really people left in the US who trust the Bush administrations and will be totally _shocked_ by this? Duh.

Wow. Shock Horror. (1)

colonslashslash (762464) | about 10 years ago | (#10424093)

Ok so we have had "Coffee proven addictive by scientific study" and "Whitehouse lied about WMD's in Iraq".

What next? "Duke Nukem Forever delayed"?


Canned response: (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 years ago | (#10424097)

"Look over there!" Seriously, changing the subject is an effective defense for any accusation, if you just want to hang on to your following.

Watch how quickly these charges are met with irrelevant counter-charges about Al Gore inventing the Internet or Kerry and his 4th purple heart.

Well thank goodness... (4, Insightful)

Spectra72 (13146) | about 10 years ago | (#10424099)

Thank goodness that Congress stepped in and asserted a few checks and balances, otherwise this could have gotten out of hand!

Or not...

The failure of Congress to voice even token dissent on every foreign policy decision since 9/11 is the biggest failure of the entire system in my view. Every Congresscritter should be voted out of office and barred from even running for town dogcatcher for the rest of their miserable lives.

Half the country knows George Bush and Co. are a bunch of half-wits with their own agendas, but we deserve better from Congress. That they chose to goosestep to the White House's tune with nary a word of protest is unforgiveable.

In other news (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 10 years ago | (#10424102)

Chamberlain gives Hitler Carte Blanc to annex Czechoslovakia, announces "Peace in our time."

Actually, why don't we see a Politics story on Slashdot about the corruption in Food for Oil? Way bigger of a deal than the WMD issue.

Vote. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424110)

Those of you who can, will vote this time around, right...? right? 2 weeks left to register if you haven't already. If you've moved, changed your name, or haven't voted in 4 years, re-register.

Iraq attempted to import (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424118)

The attempts to import nuclear materials from Sudan and other places are documented. The NY Times is one of the most liberal pieces of fish wrap in the US. I put them right up there with CBS News, the Washington Post, and CNN.

All have had their problems with "creative" journalism.

I really began to dislike the NY Times after I read the book "Bias". To hear the stories about the article counts on homeless and poor change simply because of who was in the presidents office made me want to puke.

It's like the national insurance plan. During 51's term in office, there were 42 million people without insurance. During Slick Willy's 8 years in office, there were 43 million people without insurance. But you never, EVER read about that in the newspapers. Now, we've got 44 millions people without insurance, and it's in the papers every day. Why? Because we've got a conservative in the oval office.

Media Bias. I don't watch Fox News either. I don't watch any news. The media is about selling advertisements. There's NOTHING good in the media anymore. Nothing. How many human interest stories in Iraq? None. How many human interest stories in Afghanistan? None. Yet the women over there have been oppressed for decads. We don't hear about that from the lefties in the media. Yet if Kerry wins, we'll hear about all those great humanitarian things that happened... and they'll be praising Kerry for those things. I'm tired of it. The public is realizing it, and that's why Bush remains popular, even though it's during wartime.

The bleeding hearts put up a weak candidate with a poor work ethic, weak morals, and a shady past, and the biggest thing they can do is "hate Bush." Well, Bush didn't lie as bad as John Kerry.

John Kerry's lied to us for 30+ years. He's lied to himself for so long that he believes it himself. Cambodia for Christmas in 1968? Ha. Good one.

Who signed that Silver Star? And when was it awarded to John Kerry? (I'll give you a hint... it's just about the time when Kerry decided to run for a Senate seat. Hmmm...)

Who lied?

New York Times a credible source? (0, Troll)

ruiner5000 (241452) | about 10 years ago | (#10424121)

I have a hard time believing the New York Times as being a credible source for anything. They are in the same league as CBS and the LA Times. Is this post even Slashdot worthy? I don't think so.

Is slashdot still relevant? (1)

nelsonen (126144) | about 10 years ago | (#10424126)

A few years ago, slashdot reported on news items that were unusal, intersting, and not on the major news services. You could tell when CNN picked up stories FROM slashdot. Now more and more news items I have already seen on or show up hours or even days later on slashdot. And there are more and more non-tech news items.

Is slashdot still relevent?? Is it still worth reading? If this continues, I will have no reason to read it.

Slashdot, if you are listening, get back to your roots and stop just repeating cnn and nytimes articles.

No Nuke, who cares? (2, Interesting)

Supergoad (745153) | about 10 years ago | (#10424128)

Im not a fan of Bush 100%, but I do believe we had a just reason to go over there. If my leader was commiting genocide and I could not get out of under his control, I sure would want somebody to come kick his ass. We dont have to police the world, but make sure everybody atleast has the right to life(or atleast those who want it). Now if somebody would have came out and said this is why we are ousting Saddam, it would have been better than trying to convice people of WMD's...

i always thought it was right to invade iraq (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 10 years ago | (#10424132)

but i also always thought their trumped up reason was laughable

couldn't the administration had just said "look, we should have killed this snake saddam in 1991, but we couldn't deal with a lot of body bags then. we now know a basket case of a middle east is bad for the us, and so we can stomach the body bags, because it's better a couple hundred dead servicemen in iraq than a couple hundred thousand dead civilians in washington dc. osama is not a cause, he's a symptom. and the cause is a f**ked up middle east. so to war with iraq we go, to begin the the process of fixing the middle east. because september 11th shows that the middle east will export its problems to us, so it is our responsibility to fix the middle east, whether we deserve it or not."

and i fear it's tehran, here we come, and a draft, in 2005. because i don't know about you, but i don't trust those mullahs with nukes, and i know for certain the neocons, or even the dems, don't either.

i just hope that when we go to iran, they level with the us citizen, rather than play let's make up a stupid excuse.

What a lousy Slashdot article (2, Insightful)

LinuxParanoid (64467) | about 10 years ago | (#10424135)

Ugh, the spin on this article, both the headline and the editorial comment by Michael, is annoying. (The actual NYTimes piece is worth reading.)

1) Old news. All this analysis that the tubes could have, or even
were fairly likely to have been used for rockets, not centrifuges
was known and public in Dec2002-Mar 2003. If you don't remember
it, you just weren't paying attention. It's even old news that
the Energy Department and State Department experts were the
ones disagreeing. (What *is* news is that the caliber of experts
that said the tubes were likely not for centrifuges was not
made public at that time to the best of my knowledge.)

2) Michael grossly mischaracterizes the Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld
position at the time as saying the "tubes were slam-dunk evidence".

That was *not* the way the White House or the administration
presented the case at the time. The tone of 95% of their statements
was basically... well, we're not sure but it doesn't look good.
There is evidence that Saddam is reconstituting his nuclear program, etc.
What are we going to do about it?

In fact, the "slam dunk" comment was made *in private* by CIA director
Tenet to George Bush when Bush told the director that the case seemed
weak and was that the best info he had? At least that's the
story documented by Bob Woodward's book that came out a year after
the war, "Plan of Attack" (WSJ opinion [] ,
a longer CBS News summary [] .)

Now why Tenet said it was a slam dunk is a bit of a mystery to me.
And it presumably is the basis for the 2-3 statemtents pre-war
made to various obscure audiences but reported in the mainstream
press where Bush or Cheney said things like "we *know* Iraq
has WMD"... statements that were remarkable and notable precisely
because the administration was generally not so definitive in
saying that Iraq had WMD... most of their statements centered
around Saddam's recalcitrance in the light of various UN resolutions
and inspectors.

Hey, I'll go so far as to say Bush misled the American people
and/or made a poor decision to go to war, knowing that the evidence
was thin. And I think that is a #1 reason not to vote for him.
But I don't think a Slashdot article heading "White House Lied
About Iraq Nuclear Programs" or a editorial comment that the
administration was announcing that the tubes were "slam-dunk evidence"
is right. It's really sad to see such misrepresentation of what happened.


get over it (-1, Troll)

b17bmbr (608864) | about 10 years ago | (#10424137)

we had no fucking way of knowing what he did and didn't have. the intel all said he had WMD's. the french, the germans, the russians, the UN, even blix said he acted alot like a guy with something to hide. and it turns out his top scientist had all kinds of shit buried in his back yard, and saddam was waiting for the sanctions and inspections to end. then he'd restart it.

what is it with you people? we're not dealing with bill gates and some operating system thing. this shit is for real. saddam had a decade of al qaeda connections, at least back to the '93 WTC bombing. he had wmd programs, had aQ training in salman pak, funded ansar al islam, and sent his chem scientists to train aQ in the sudan in the 90's. (which is why clinton bombed sudan by the way) live in your fantasy worlds. when some fucking nuke blows up in manhattan and we all go "golly fucking gee", peresident kerry said we were safer. wake the fuck up. you think in five years saddam wouldn't have been cranking out wmd's like candy? grow up, welcome to the real world. they want to kill you. even though y'all hate bush. they still hate you and want to kill you.

Show the other side of the story too, please (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10424145)

If your going to post liberal biased garbage like this, at least please try to put the other side of the arguement on it...

Damn liberals, Think the world is only viewed through their eyes..,2933,134325, ml

Useless Troll (1)

starfire-1 (159960) | about 10 years ago | (#10424146)

Come on! I'm fed up with this election and posts like this just steam me. I come to this site to keep up with the ins and outs of the technical world. A posting like this is just going to turn me off. True believers cannot be reasoned with and reading these posts just make me hit the back button.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?