White House Lied About Iraq Nuclear Programs

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.

Whaaaa?

Politicians? Lying??

Bullshit.

Re:Whaaaa?

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?

It has been proven many times: The American people don't mind violence, even extreme violence, but the moment you do something sexual, the American public will call for your head on a pike. Same concept here, really.

Re:Whaaaa?

Is this all that you can come up with? Could you point to something to refute what was said?

Actually, does that even matter? They are responsible for knowing this if the CIA knew this. They said what they said while the knowledge existed in their little club. Whether or not the president was personally aware of the fact is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned.

It's called responsibility.

Re:Whaaaa?

Bah. I don't need Slashdot to tell me that Bush lied. I knew it all along. Back when the whole Iraq thing was starting, I was saying they are full of shit.

Face it, Bush was going to war because he wanted to go to war, period. When the UN voted against invasion, he basically gave them the finger and went in anyway. (What would happen if a country other than the US did the same thing? That country would probably be a giant hole in the ground right now.) Now look at the mess we have. We haven't accomplished a damned thing over there other than making the Arab popluation hate us even more.

It really hit home last week during the debate. Kerry said something along the lines of "what we decide to do has to pass the 'global test,'" which I thought is indeed very true. As soon as he said that, Bush got pissed. It just highlighted the fact that Bush & co. couldn't give a shit less about what the rest of the world thinks. They are gonna do what they want to do and no one is going to get in their way.

It's time to get real, guys. Every decsion you make has a global impact and you better damn well think about how the rest of the world is going to react to your decisions if you are truely concerned with making the world a better place in the long run.

Does it matter?

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?

Indeed. Even if Bush loses I've been demoralized by the amount of support he still enjoys. It may be below 50% but in my mind that's far too high.

I do not feel better off than I did four years ago. I don't even feel the same as I did four years ago.

michael's madness

Michael: When you rip off posts from Drudgereport.com, The New Scientist and other well-read sites, make sure you follow the thread through to the point where they explain that the story was nothing more than a political hit piece.

For instance, check out an earlier NY Times piece [nytimes.com] that actually reinforces the administration's position. Or you could review that this hit piece was to be joined by CBS News in another attempted effort to push fraudulant information and sucker all the sheep out there.

Or should we expect a post from you about "critical national guard documents damage Bush" and experience a deja vu Slashdot experience?

Slashdot readers - you too can read it before Michael (or some alleged anonymous reader, just like the CBS anonymous sources) reads it and makes up a libelous headline damaging Slashdot credibility and objectivity:

Drudge Report [drudgereport.com]
The New Scientist [newscientist.com]

and other excellent critical reads include:

Power Line [powerlineblog.com]
Weekly Standard [weeklystandard.com]
Little Green Footballs [littlegreenfootballs.com]

Oh... I should warn you - if you're determined to vote for Kerry in spite of everything, do NOT go to the any of the above sites. It'll destroy any opportunity for ignorance you might have.

Does it matter?

GWB can rebut any statement by just saying the same simplistic catch phrases that cite only the successes in Iraq. For better or worse, Bush really knows his constituency. People can take "Saddam is in jail" to the polls, but not the three-paragraph (well reasoned or not) statements Kerry makes about why he thought Saddam was a threat but would have relied on inspectors using war as a last resort with a larger coalition of nations, etc.

Re:Contempt of Congress

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

Re:Contempt of Congress

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.

Re:What makes you think this will change anything?

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.

Re:COULD

The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002.

Doesn't leave much wiggle room for "could."

And when the plan entails thousands of US casualties, and tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, do you call that "caution?"

Re:COULD

Easy to say when it's not your country that was invaded. Easy to say when it's thousands of non-American civilians that are paying the price.

Re:No Surprise

Oceania has always been at war with East Iraqistan. It has always been allies with EurArabia.

Oceania has always been at war with EurArabia. It has always been allies with East Iraqistan.

You may be crimethinking without even knowing it comrade. Please report to the Ministry of Homeland Security.

US Govt == Hypocrites

Iraq, North Korea, China, India, Wales, etc, actually any country, has a right and a duty to defend itself. If the US and other countries have nukes, then every sovereign nation on the planet has the duty to defend itself with similar force.

Re:Burden of proof

Regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong to go to war, ie whether or not we had a casus bella against him that would stand up in a court of law, it is, in my oppinion, bad policy to risk so many of your own lives, and kill so many of their people, just because you are legally allowed to and pretty fed up. If your experts aren't giving you real data that says yes, in all likelihood this country is producing weapons of mass destruction, and is likely to use it, it's just not worth it. It is particularly not worth it if all the experts are saying the likely result is chaos which is not beneficial to U.S. interests. The problem with the Bush administration's approach is that they basically were looking, from day 1, for a way to justify attacking Iraq. What they then did was latch on to any flimsy excuse. The result isn't that pretty, but regardless of the result, it was wrong to risk U.S. lives, and Iraqi lives, on flimsy evidence that you knew to be flimsy and probably inaccurate. They payoff that was expected to off-balance those risks has yet to come, and it looks like it probably won't.

Re:Burden of proof

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.

Why don't you prove that YOU don't have weapons. Let us know how that goes. Good luck!

BTW, if you can prove a negative, please let the world know. It will be a great advance.

Re:Burden of proof

Even if that gives us the right to invade Iraq, the question is, was it in our best interest?

Re:Burden of proof

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.

How do you prove that something doesn't exist?

Re:Burden of proof

And don't say inspections, we tried that for OVER A DECADE and it wasn't working.

Of course it was working ... if it had failed, they wouldn't have had to have lied about the WMDs!!

Re:I'm not listening!!!

If by "Flip-Flop" you mean "Being able to change his opinions based on new information", sure.

Re:High tolerance tubes

as the NY Times article points out, similar quality aluminum is found in tin cans and other commercial products. And the same material (with similar specs) was used to make rockets for the US Military.

If you RTFA it's very clear that the tubes would be completely useless in a nuclear program. And that the specs were consistent with the Iraqi army's requirements for these rockets.

And, as the article shows, all this was known to the current administration months before the Iraq war began.

Great reporting by the Times. Very eye-opening.

So the argument that Sadam was developing nuclear weapons was based on the discredited Yellowcake report from Niger. And on these aluminum tubes. Both of which were known to be suspect before the war began.

Re:Is there no haven?

I think the point is that this is another indication of this administration's willful disregard for advice and information from the scientific community if it conflicts with their agenda. If that isn't news for nerds (or news that should worry nerds) then I don't know what is.

Slashdot provides a discussion forum for a reason.

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

I don't know about liberal eyes, (or even what a liberal is exactly), and I don't know about aluminum tubes either. But I do know that anybody who claims that the Bush government doesn't lie and manipulate on a regular basis is not in the business of viewing the world at all.

-FL