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.

If Bush Administration Lied About WMD,

[Anonymous Coward]

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 l

Well, not really...

[neema]

"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).

Re:Contempt of Congress

[beldraen]

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:COULD

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

michael's madness

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

For Fuck Sake...

[nazzdeq]

What about the 4 Al-Quaida related attacks on the US interests during the Clinton 8 year reign? 1. World Trade Center 1st attack 2. Khobar Towers 3. Embassies in Africa 4. USS Cole The whole Clinton administration should be thrown in jail due to negligence. Eight years in office and we bombed a tent in Afghanistan, got dragged through the streets of Somalia and bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Wow. Bush is kickin' ass and taking names. Leave him alone.

Re:High tolerance tubes

[sweatyboatman]

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:High tolerance tubes

[coinreturn]

If you care to RTFA, you will find that they'd been ordering these greater tolerance tubes and USING them for small artillery rockets for years. Our nuclear experts said that if Iraq wanted them for nuclear centrifuges, we SHOULD LET THEM HAVE THEM, because they were a HUGE step BACK from the last centrifuges they constructed.

LIAR

[Doc Ruby]

What the hell are you talking about? They threatened to fire the Medicare auditor if he told anyone their actual estimated cost, because it exceeded Congressmembers' upper tolerance of $400B by at least 10%, now nearing 50%, before the program is even fully underway. This is the truth, and your tired denial with "liberal" as a smokescreen is sleazy. How do you like Representative Tom DeLay's criminal inducements to his fellow Republican, to vote for the bill in exchange for DeLay backing the reluctant Rep's son's campaign? Your own words apply only to the extent of not believing your Slashdot posts: they're part of the pack of lies destroying this country. Happy?

TheShrub

[jmd]

This is fairly old news. I mentioned it on my website [65.19.170.85] on Aug.1 2004. Do a search on www.theshrub.com using *office of special plans*. Interesting stuff. Then Google it. TheShrub created an intelligence office inside the Dept of Defense. Thereby discarding other agencies such as the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency. All this to come up with a lame excuse that comes back to haunt him. Do lots of reseach before you vote this Nov 2004. BUT DO VOTE!! Check out www.2bozos.com too.

A useful tip and a suggestion to Slashdot coders

[Bill_Royle]

Considering the utter shit that Michael's been approving lately, I'd just about decided to kill the bookmark to the site and go my merry way.

Then I remembered that you *can* exclude stories posted by any of the Slashdot supermods, or whatever the hell you call them. Just go to:

/. Preferences [slashdot.org]

Click on the tab titled "Homepage," then under "Exclude Stories From the Homepage" locate the author you don't want to see again (in this case Michael) and check the box.

Now, the suggestion to Slashdot coders: Why not create a special section called "Ignore shitty articles by Michael?" After all, it's not that I want to exclude stories as much as I don't like my time wasted by a jackass like him.

Re:High tolerance tubes

[OWJones]

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.

Wrong wrong wrong WRONG!!!!

From the story:

It turned out, they reported, that Iraq had for years used high-strength aluminum tubes to make combustion chambers for slim rockets fired from launcher pods. Back in 1996, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had even examined some of those tubes, also made of 7075-T6 aluminum, at a military complex, the Nasser metal fabrication plant in Baghdad, where the Iraqis acknowledged making rockets. According to the international agency, the rocket tubes, some 66,000 of them, were 900 millimeters in length, with a diameter of 81 millimeters and walls 3.3 millimeters thick.

The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a perfect match.

That finding was published May 9, 2001, in the Daily Intelligence Highlight, a secret Energy Department newsletter published on Intelink, a Web site for the intelligence community and the White House.

[...]

But that made no sense, they argued in a new report, because Iraq wanted tubes made at tolerances that "far exceed any known conventional weapons." In other words, Iraq was demanding a level of precision craftsmanship unnecessary for ordinary mass-produced rockets.

More to the point, those analysts had hit on a competing theory: that the tubes' dimensions matched those used in an early uranium centrifuge developed in the 1950's by a German scientist, Gernot Zippe.

[...]

Over and over, the reports restated Joe's main conclusions for the C.I.A. - that the tubes matched the 1950's Zippe centrifuge design and were built to specifications that "exceeded any known conventional weapons application." They did not state what Energy Department experts had noted - that many common industrial items, even aluminum cans, were made to specifications as good or better than the tubes sought by Iraq. Nor did the reports acknowledge a significant error in Joe's claim - that the tubes "matched" those used in a Zippe centrifuge.

The tubes sought by Iraq had a wall thickness of 3.3 millimeters. When Energy Department experts checked with Dr. Zippe, a step Joe did not take, they learned that the walls of Zippe tubes did not exceed 1.1 millimeters, a substantial difference.

To sum up: a low-level analyst found an old centrifuge design that he thought the Iraqis were copying. He ignored the fact that the tubes were an exact match of rockets the Iraqis used earlier, and didn't even bother to ask the inventor of the original centrifuge whether or not the tubes could be used in that centrifuge.

End of story, WRT the "much greater tolerance" line.

-jdm

Energy Task Force had maps of Iraqi oilfields

[revscat]

I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone that Judicial Watch, that great thorn in the side of the Clinton administration, was able to get a FOIA request approved for the Cheney Energy Task force. This gives a LOT of credence to the "war for oil" thing:

CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS [judicialwatch.org] (Their caps, not mine)

First three docs:

Iraq Oil Map.PDF [judicialwatch.org]

Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.2.PDF [judicialwatch.org]

Iraq Oil Foreign Suitors.1.PDF [judicialwatch.org]

So, before the war, the Vice President, like, has this task force thing, and they won't tell anybody what they talked about. But they had a map of the Iraqi oilfields AND lists of people who would be intersted in those fields. Oh, and the VIP himself? He's still pulling down mad money from Halliburton, to the tune of about half-a-mill a year.

But "War for Oil"? Man, that's just CRAZY talk right there. CRAZY.

Re:US Govt == Hypocrites

[Flamingcheeze]

Those very "agreements" that Germany was forced to sign were the direct cause of Naziism. Check your history.

The brutal treatment of Germany by the Allies after WWI was beyond inhuman. It created an incubator for fascism. We are foolishly repeating history now in the Middle East, and children being born today will pay for it dearly. I guarantee it.

They lied

[Tony]

Much of the evidence presented as "proof" had been discredited before the President's State of the Union address that presented the evidence as unequivocable. The yellow-cake evidence had already been determined to be a forgery, the British intelligence report that figured prominently had been shown to be a cribbed-together mishmash of outdated sources (a 5-year old thesis available off the 'net, and some stuff from one of the Jane's military references), the the "aluminum tubes" evidence had been widely discredited by experts in the nucular field. I read all of this after the UN presentation by Collin Powell, and before President Bush's State of the Union address.

The one piece of evidence that was kept rather quiet, mentioned obliquely as reports from defected Iraqi citizens, turned out to come from one or two con artists.

There was not one single piece of evidence that was valid, and anybody following the leadup to war could tell. Anyone who questioned the legitimacy of the evidence was labelled a "liberal," as if it were a dirty word. Hell, even Anne Coulter called those folks traitors.

To place so many citizens in harm's way (and to perform a national variety of vigilante justice) based on such questionable evidence took either an unbelievable amount of self-deception, or a desire to attack Iraq *in spite* of the evidence.

Considering there was *no link whatsoever* between bin Laden and Hussien, I can only interpret the evidence in one way: President Bush intentionally lied to the US citizens to follow a path to war with a beaten enemy. I don't know why. The "liberal" in me thinks it might be to benefit Halliburton and Bechtel. The realist in me realizes it might be nothing more than a distraction from the complete disaster in Afghanistan. Or there might have been a *real* reason to go after Iraq, one that had to be hidden from the world.

Considering the price tag in human life and our nation's honor and credibility, I'm not sure which would be worse.

Re:Burden of proof

[dvdeug]

If something is binary, weapons or no weapons, it can be proved one way or the other.

Really. Just because we didn't find any weapons in your house, doesn't mean they aren't there, especially if your house is the size of Iraq and we have political goals of discovering that you were hiding weapons. You just hid them better than we searched. You hid them in a dam, in Joe Shmo's basement, in the foundation under Joe Shmo's basement, in a secret basement under a dam, hidden somewhere in the desert. While we were searching, you moved them. Remember the alleged bio-terrorism trucks? How was Iraq supposed to prove that they didn't exist, stop all traffic on all roads while we searched all the trucks? How could they prove they hadn't stuck them away somewhere while we searched the trucks?

As apparently you didn't know, you can't prove a negative, unless you can exhaustively search a space. Which you can't, for any real space.

Re:I see Slashdot is the new Fox News

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush Campaign Offices Burglarized [slashdot.org]

You officially fail it.

Scott Ritter

[hankaholic]

Google for Scott Ritter sometime.

Scott Ritter was a U.S. Marine who served in the Gulf war and acted as chief inspector of the United Nations Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). He resigned his role as chief inspector after the CIA was caught trying to into the inspection teams in 1998.

In an interview with Paula Zahn, one of the United States' leading experts on Iraqi weapons programs left no question as to his feelings on the justification for war:

RITTER: What makes them convinced? What evidence do they have? We're talking about going to war here, Paula. [...] So frankly speaking, I'm going to need a hell of a lot more than some aluminum tubes before I'm convinced there's a case for war. The bottom line is in 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iraq had no nuclear weapons capability, none whatsoever, zero. So how suddenly are they now an emerging nuclear threat? We'd better have a heck of a lot more to go on than some aluminum pipes.

ZAHN: Let's talk more about what some say is the only independent voice in this whole argument, and that is the International Institute for Strategic Studies. And you just cited the study. In this report, it suggests -- and this report is just out this morning -- that Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months if it had foreign help.

Let me read to you what the conclusion was, that, "War sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded but not eliminated Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capabilities, nor removed Baghdad's enduring interest in developing these capabilities."

RITTER: Paula, what do we have here? Rhetoric? Where's the facts? Enduring interest in weapons capability? What does that mean? What evidence do they cite for this enduring interest? You know, ballistic missiles, they say he has 12. What, did they grow? Where are they? They didn't have 12 when I was a weapons inspector.

Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? They talk about bulk agent in terms of Iraq's biological weapons program. What bulk agent? Where did they make it? Bulk agent has a three year lifetime in terms of storage in ideal conditions. The last time Iraq was known to have produced bulk agent was in 1990. That stuff, even if they held onto it, is no longer viable. So to have bulk agent today, Iraq would have had to reconstitute a manufacturing base in biological weapons. Where is it?

This report is absurd. It has zero factual basis. It's all rhetoric. It's all speculative and, frankly speaking, it's meaningless without, you know, with the sad exception that hawks in the Bush administration are going to point to this as justification for war.

We need a heck of a lot more than this if we're going to talk about sending our forces off to fight in a war in Iraq.

Scott Ritter was bashed by the media, who painted him as a traitor to the United States for failing to accept the White House's justifications. It's interesting how the media, often accused of being quite liberal, went out of their way to discredit Ritter and show loyalty to the White House in late 2002, yet reported of just which mouths had engulfed Clinton's penis could hardly be avoided during Monicagate.

The real story here isn't that the White House lied -- if you pay attention, White House officials "flip-flop" so much over the supposed motivations for war that even their caricature of Kerry looks rock solid. The real story here is that the media fell for the Iraq justification (or lack thereof) hook, line, and sinker, while doing the dirty work of discrediting Scott Ritter and ignoring or discrediting any other voices asking for more investigation for military action against Iraq.

You want links? Try these:

Documentation of "flip-flops" by the "liberal" media -- reporting the truth [fair.org] (that UN inspectors voluntarily left in December 1998), then

Re:Hindsight and the pathetic Slashdotter

[AEton]

Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete.

I've seen this sentiment stated in almost exactly this way probably hundreds of times, and I'm not sure I understand it. Inevitably, the author never presents evidence of said "nebulous lists". He ignores the fairly clear formualtion of policies on the campaign platform page [johnkerry.com] for the candidate.
Further:
By definition, this argument must ignore any presented evidence of clearly formulated policy (because it's too complex [slashdot.org]). It is, besides, impossible to present an intelligent alternative because someone will raise the ad hominem issue of the other candidate appearing unintelligent; then the issues are lost in the partisan discussion. (This is an incredible clever move on Mr. Bush's part; he's pulled it off with much more panache than ex-President Ford).

The issue will be continually distorted by these ad hominem attacks - "he really is that stupid!" - "flip-flopper!" - "liar!" - which ignore the first question we sought to answer, that of policy.

==

As to the issue of "the same information, the same decision, etc. etc." - really? Was John Kerry also privy to the intelligence this article discusses, about the useless tubes? I honestly don't know; I'd love to find out.
Even so - even if Bush's favorite phrase out of that whole debate a few nights ago ("same information, same conclusion!" - my favorite is still the "he forgot Poland" classic) - then it's at the very least a vote against Ashcroft.

Re:For Fuck Sake...

[jalefkowit]

Um, the 1st WTC attack had nothing to do with al Qaeda. It was orchestrated by the Egyptian terror group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya [cdi.org], the same network that was behind the 1997 attack on tourists in Luxor, Egypt.

al-Islamiyya are now loosely affiliated with al Q as part of a general network of terrorist groups -- but that was a late-1990s development.

"Wow. Bush is kickin' ass and taking names."

Too bad they're the wrong asses and wrong names, huh?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Don't believe the media

[jalefkowit]

Why stop at reading "excerpts" of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Read the whole thing [9-11commission.gov]. (I did.) If you think the report somehow says that Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq, you clearly haven't been reading the right "excerpts". (Like, say, Chapter 2's [9-11commission.gov] detailing of the lack of substantive links between Iraq and al Qaeda.)

Re:Burden of proof

[greg_barton]

Did we find any WMDs? NO!

Actually we found a lot. We cleaned up Saddam's chemical weapons program and discovered he had an active nuclear program.

So don't go saying we never found WMD in Iraq, we did, back in the late Bush Sr administration and Clinton years.

This points out an interesting fact: the inspections worked. Saddam was contained, his weapons programs destroyed, due to inspections.

Re:Does it matter?

[Boronx]

1. His response in the days after 9/11

He let precious minutes fly by while the nation was under attack. There were several actions he could have taken to defend the country that he didn't because he sat motionless in a classroom.

2. He doesn't waffle on the issues

Bush said war was a last resort, but rushed to war, pulling out the UN inspectors when they wanted more time and had seen increasing cooperation.

Bush said he'd go after any country that helped the terrorists, but he's covered up involvement by the Saudi government in 9/11.

Bush attacked Saddam for phony nukes, while North Korea has an assembly line. Bush knew about the NK nukes weeks before the Iraq vote but decided not to disclose it.

Bush was against Homeland Security Department until it started hurting him in the polls.

Bush was against a Senate 9/11 investigation until it started hurting him in the polls.

Bush was against the 9/11 commission until it started hurting him in the polls.

Bush was against Condi testifying to the commission until it started hurting him in the polls.

Bush imposed steel tariffs until it started hurting him in the polls, he quickly repealed them.

We attacked Iraq to disarm a dicator. Bush told Saddam if he disarmed we wouldn't attack.

We attacked Iraq because "of 9/11".

We attacked Iraq to bring Democracy to the mid-east.

Bush couldn't handle France's input on Iraq, but apparntly from Thursday's debate, he won't bat an eye lash towards North Korea without Chinese approval.

3. George is unpolished

George is a product of Yale, Andover, Harvard, and the state of Connecticut. Look at any private video of him before his first gubernatorial run.

4. George is a personally moral man

Q: when your not talking politics, what do you and [your father] talk about?"

BUSH: "pussy"

-to david fink of the hartford courant, at the 1998 republican convention, salon, 9 april 2000

Bush famously does not go to church.

5. He tells us we can succeed, not that we will fail

George Bush believes that what we are doing in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Sudan is the best that we can do. That it's Hard Work. We all know that we can do better. That we could have donebetter.

Re:Explaining that 45%

[Anonymous Coward]

A tax cut during a time of increased expenditures is merely a delayed tax increase. Bush has merely shifted the financial burden onto your generation from your parents' one. You may as well have cut them that cheque because 10 years from now, you will be the one left with the financial burden of paying down the debt. It would be one thing if Bush accompanied the tax cut with spending decreases. But he hasn't. Like a typical Neo-Conservative, he wants to have his cake and eat it too, then let his successor deal with the problem, all the while preaching accountability and responsibility.

Re:LIAR

[james_in_denver]

I beg to disagree, Exhibit "A" was the forged documents purporting that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. It took the U.N. Atomic Energy Agency all of TWO HOURS to prove those documents were forgeries. The sophisticated tool that they used?????? Google [google.com] Seems a signatory on that forged document HAD BEEN DEAD for a number of years. Didn't stop Bush & Co, (or even, sadly, Colin Powell) from ranting and raving about "mushroom clouds"....

How Soon We Forget...

[hacker]

Does everyone forget that we did the same exact thing to a little country called Iran about 25 years ago?

We stepped in, overthrew their government, and deposed their leader. In doing so, we were able to put our own (US-chosen) leader, the "Shah of Iran" (yes, THAT shah) into power, with a very specific set of rules and policies that were to be followed by his people, dictated by... you guessed it.. the United States Government.

We've been screwing around with the Middle East for several decades, even long before radicals like Osama and Al Zawahiri were even born.

Also, lets not forget that the same Afghanistan rebels that the United States helped and funded with money and military arms to beat the Russians out of Afghanistan... were the the same Afghanistani rebels that became Al Queda, and attacked us on 9/11. Yes, the very same group.

There's a lot more to this than people are seeing at the surface.

Re:Whaaaa?

[demachina]

Poland is in the "bribed" part of the coalition. Their foreign minister flat out admitted [bbc.co.uk] last summer they were in Iraq to get a piece of the oil field action. Gotta give the guy kudos for honesty though I should think it would be a career limiting trait for a diplomat.

Its unfortunate Kerry didn't know about this statement and didn't throw it back in George's face when George was losing it on "Don't forget Poland".

One thing I'll give the British over the U.S. they make their Prime Minister stand up in front of the opposition and take a grilling. Its pretty obvious George is living in a cocoon, no one ever challenges him, and the first time he had to face some from Kerry he pretty much lost it. I also wager he simply can't deal with the issues unless its regurgitating his "message" or Cheney is whispering in his ear what to say. The debate seemed to prove that.

I'd have to say there may be at least a grain of truth to the rumours circulating about George's mental health. You don't come out of years of acute alcoholism and drug use, untreated, and not carry deep mental scaring, especially when you are under major pressure. The guy simply doesn't have what it takes to hold any position with any power.

Re:Whaaaa?

[targo]

If you care so much about global opinion why are you trashing this fine international coalition that our heroic president has formed. What do you say to Tony Blair? What do you say to Poland? Poland! Why does everybody forget that we were supported by Poland!

I know you're being sarcastic here but it should be noted that the governments of American allies pretty much went to war against the public opinion of their population (and some of them are paying for it now), that includes both Britain and Poland. In many cases (including Estonia, my own native country), "official" approval for US policy was achieved by simple bribery and threats. There was probably no country in the world but the US (where it took a lot of brainwashing and spineless media parroting everything the administration said) where the people would actually have believed the story of Bush administration.

What does Poland say to US?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you say to Poland? Poland! Why does everybody forget that we were supported by Poland!


The real question is what does Poland say to us. Here's what the President of Poland says about the Bush administration's justification to going into Iraq:

"That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."

-President Aleksander Kwasniewski
(March 18, 2004)

Great way to build a coalition.

Full Story [timesonline.co.uk]

Re:Burden of proof

[mosb1000]

"No, he let the weapons inspectors in and let them search anywhere."

Uh, I'm not sure if you were watching the news at all before then, but he most certainly did NOT allow inspectors to go wherever they pleased. That statement is just plain false. In the years after the first Iraq war, he continually kicked out and restricted access to inspectors. This was in contradiction to the agreement we had with him at that time.

Re:Whaaaa?

[Caseylite]

"When the UN voted against invasion, he basically gave them the finger and went in anyway" - what if they voted to kill all blue-eyed people in the world (or any other thing which we would oppose)? Should the US abide by the vote, or do what it thinks it should do? Face it, nations act in their own best interests - do you think that is not what was happening in the UN? Why would France not back an invasion into Iraq? Could it have something to do with their 8% Muslim population? Germany has 4% Muslim population, and both countries have had a steady increase in Muslim immigrants in recent years. Do we remember the "Oil for Food" program? If you need a refresher for why it is that some countries had a vested interest in the US staying out of Iraq, check this conservative think-tank's page of facts (I'm letting you know the bias ahead of time, so follow the link and try to dispel the facts): http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217. cfm [heritage.org]

Do you believe that the President of the US has access to more and better information than reporters? I would like to leave the possibility that there is intel out there that CANNOT be shared with the public that may explain Bush's actions. I am not so egotistical to believe that I can or should know as much as my leaders. What I do see gives me no reason to distrust them - Bush obviously is deeply motivated to do the things he does. He thinks he is right. Now, history may rule him a madman, but for now all we can judge him by is his other actions.

Aside from the war in Iraq, what is it about Bush that bothers you? The economy? Last I checked, the economy is doing a lot better now than it was when he took office. I think so, anyway. So does Susan Bies, a governer on the Federal Reserve Board: http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/01/news/economy/fed_b ies.reut/index.htm [cnn.com]. The Fed is the body charged with day-to-day management of our nation's economy, not a president. It is simplistic and foolish to ascribe credit or blame for an economy on a president. The Fed members serve 14 year terms precisely so that they will not be controlled by party politics - and if Kerry is elected, he will have the same Fed to deal with. Yes, the war has cost a lot of money, but I believe it is worth it. Until we can rid ourselves of a dependence on oil, it is plain looney to have the world's oil supply in the hands of the tribal leaders that happened to own the land on top when it was discovered. Showing the nations free democracy and capitalism makes them much more stable trading partners for us and the rest of the world. This is why Bush said from the start that it would be a long process, not a quick bombing campaign like Gulf War 1991.

"...if you are truely concerned with making the world a better place in the long run" - Okay, now I would love to make the world a better place. But is that really the job of my government? I believe my government exists to provide me with the things that I cannot do on my own, such as police and fire protection, a military to protect our nation's interests, macro-economic controls, enabling me to make more money by trading with other nations, etc. Making the world a better place is not necessarily my country's charter from the people. Protecting my life, liberty, and property is. There are times when the best interests of the world align with the best interests of the US (often), but that should not become the rule by which we make global decisions. Do not delude yourself into believing that any other country in the world would be benevalent if they had the power that the US has - and if you disagree, take a look at a history book's section on colonialism. The countries who oppose the US now have proved themselves utterly incapable of fair rule when they had the reigns of power.

Wouldn't it be good for the nation

Re:LIAR

[Doc Ruby]

Powell has been a leader in the Republican lying industry for decades. FYI, he was the point man in the failed coverup of the My Lai massacre [google.com] of Vietnamese civilians. Even an admiration fest bio [phillyburbs.com] points out his despicable political flackery for murderers.

Re:all you offer is fud

[Viking Coder]

why should the us care what anyone else thinks?

That is about the most un-American thing that I've ever heard. America is not an island that can force its views on the world. To ignore entirely what anyone else thinks would be suicide. Why not invade Canada? It's rich in natural resources! It would surely be a boon to our economy, as war always is!

The logic you're using allows for no uncertainty: if it's good for the U.S., screw everybody else. That is suicide. That's a psychotic sociopath's view of the world: ripe for the plucking. Plus you've managed to fill it with, I feel, the perfect mix of "us versus them" paranoia.

can you give me a solid, justifiable reason why anti-american sentiment should matter when confronted with a world environment that creates something like 9/11?

Uh, because it was anti-American sentiment that was the cause of 9/11. See, in order to beat your enemy, you have to understand them. If that's not clear enough for you, then I guess I should point out who owns our national debt, and point out that we live in a world economy where inflation can be caused by dropping evaluations of the US dollar, and when the US does something freakishly stupid, the US dollar drops. Or is that too "high falootin" for your apparent "Kill 'Em All, and let God sort 'em out!" attitude?

9/11 says to me that the largest problem that the U.S. has is (mostly irrational) unpopularity. How in the world does attacking the U.S. benefit the lives of anyone affiliated with Al Qaeda? It doesn't. They must have hated the hell out of us. Winning the hearts and minds of the world is the best defense that we could possibly have. Ignoring the concerns of the rest of the world (legitimate concerns AND illegitimate concerns) is what got us into 9/11 in the first place.

because thousands of my fellow citizens incinerated is a whole hell of a lot bigger issue than who is loved or not.

They were incinerated because we are hated. If you want to end that, you have to end the hatred. Because those guys were armed with boxcutters. You will never "win a war" against an enemy who can use such low-tech to kill thousands of people. You must instead establish peace.

Re:Burden of proof

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

As long as you start with day one being 9/12, then you are ok. We would not be in iraq if 9/11 had not occurred.

I suggest you read up on the Project for the New American Century [newamericancentury.org] and some of its publications. Most members of the bush administration have ties to this organization.

Specificly, see this website's [pnac.info] analysis of PNAC, and PNAC's open letter to Clinton in 1998 [newamericancentury.org] urging military action in Iraq, signed by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, among others.

Re:Hindsight and the pathetic Slashdotter

[hacker]

"The winds have changed in our world and we need a dynamic leader who is capable of adjusting the sails."

I totally agree. You can't fight a war, and remain rigid, because the constructs of war are constantly changing. You have to be flexible and be able to recalculate your plans at every step.

Bush isn't.

As a testament to that, here is an excerpt from the 2004 Presidential Debates [cnn.com], where Bush said:

"I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has.

As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts."

This, in effect, proves that Bush thinks that by remaining firm, not changing his plans, we will "win" this war. That is outright ridiculous.

I also find it funny that the top 9 people who are leading us through this war, NEVER EVEN SERVED IN THE MILITARY [awolbush.com]. Just look at that list. Pathetic. These people don't even understand what war is, other than a board game they can play from 12,000 miles away.

Re:Whaaaa?

[Fnkmaster]

Wait a second, I just read that link and it's about an expansion of the AmeriCorps program, a community service initiative that Clinton put in place. It says nothing at all about reinstating the draft - the only mention at all on the page of the military is where it talks about increasing funding for the ROTC program. It does mention mandatory community service for high school students (this is already the case in many areas - my high school had a mandatory community service requirement) and a program that offers 4 years of college tuition in exchange for 2 years of public service - this doesn't sound like the draft to me.

If you are going to troll with false claims, don't post a link that makes perfectly clear you are full of it.

Re:Whaaaa?

[minion]

The way I interperted "global test" was more along the lines of carefully thinking out our actions and basically putting ourselves in the rest of the world's shoes. "How will the Arab world react if we do X? What if we do Y? And what about the Chinese?" The Global Test is more of an abstract concept than a strictly defined set of rules. Sure, for things that don't require immediate action, we should most definately get the input of foreign leaders

Its well known that Kerry is a UN supporter. When he says Global Test - he means asking the UN permission and obeying their decision.

The UN is a body of appointed officials acting on behalf of the world governments. Not to mention their sessions are closed to all but a few non-government-organizations. Its scary enough that OUR politicans are as slimey as they are - do you want to trust someone else's politicians to appoint someone to make our rules?

Re:wow

[Viking Coder]

al qaeda is not the ghost of us cold war sins past

Apparently, you are unaware of the fact that Al Qaeda is literally "the ghost of U.S. cold war sins past." We armed them to fight the Soviet Union. This pretty much decapitates your entire argument.

"orginal sin"

9/11 was not "original sin." These people hated us, and they thought they had a pretty good reason to do it.

if the us turned into a lake tomorrow, al qaeda would not celebrate and become pastoral sheep farmers. they would go right on with their agenda: bali, chechnya, madrid. capisce?

Well, first, they would celebrate - and second, the next stop on their list is Israel.

I think we should work towards a peaceful Middle East. Going to war in the Middle East will result in more basket cases, and breeding more terrorism, as increasing casualty rates in Iraq indicate.

9/11 says to me that that the us has larger problems than a popularity contest

You have presented no basis for why the 9/11 attacks occured. In fact, you've dismissed as irrational the belief that they attacked us because they didn't like us. So, what? They attacked us because they love us?

Even the most simple-minded terminology, such as "they don't like us" seems to be lost on you, and you attack me with "high school" criticism.

Idiot: I'm using dumbed-down terminology, and you can't even understand that.

Al Qaeda hates the United States and Israel, and pretty much everyone who doesn't believe in all power residing in the hands of their religious leaders. The U.S.'s perceived interference in Palestine was a major cause for the 9/11 attacks. The teachers of hatred are beginning their lessons when children can barely walk and talk. When we invade an Arab nation, unfortunately we will fuel their hatred. Does that mean we should never do it? Of course not. But we have to understand the issues. And when you start off this whole conversation by stating that "the us not respected or liked, doesn't matter at all", I call your argument BULL FUCKING SHIT. That is precisely the problem - these people hate us and want us to die. Can you explain it better? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Re:Whaaaa?

[Catbeller]

Actually, no he can't. His relationship with Monica had nothing to do with the deposition that day, which was about some bimbomissle shot at the court system by the Richard Mellon Scaife elves.

The lawyers deposing Clinton lied to the judge about the relevance of the Lewinsky questions. The questions were indeed irrelevant, and designed soley to humiliate and ruin Clinton. The lawyers should have been disciplined, but the judge would have been ruined by the powers that were after Clinton. The victim was punished instead. Much easier.

And Clinton DID NOT LIE UNDER OATH. A bloody, fat lie. He had the judge define sex; what he did did not qualify under the judge's definition; he did not lie. He outsmarted the bastards.

And it wasn't a trial. It was a deposition. There was no case. It melted into the sewer lines along with all the other Scaife-driven crap during those years.

Re:Whaaaa?

[0utlaw]

I dont think Germany and France having an 4% and 8% muslim population wouldve had anything to do with their decision to not take part in the war. If anything, the only reason France might not have wanted to go to war with Iraq is because Saddam's Iraq owed them a war debt of 3 billion [google.com]. I dont think the number of muslims had anything to do with it because we've got more muslims in America [google.com] than they have in France and Germany, about 6 million. Even if they make up only ~2% of the population, that is still 6 million people. As for Germany's reason not to go to war with us, I'm guessing it probably had something to do with the UN weapons inspector Hans Blix not finding any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the war.

Re:Whaaaa?

[Fnkmaster]

Rough breakdown of foreign troops deployed in Iraq: American = 170,000, British = 8,000, S. Korea = 2,800, Italy = 2,700, Poland = 2,400, Ukraine 1,500, Netherlands 1,400. Then about 20 other countries have contributed between 10 and 700 troops, neglible amounts in mostly supporting or specialized functional roles (this list includes Australia, with about 250 troops actually in Iraq, and Japan with 550).

Of these others, South Korea depends heavily on the US for their own national defense, Berlusconi and Bush are actually buddies, Poland has already stated they were duped by the US on the WMD issue, and were offered financial incentives, and I'm betting Ukraine and Netherlands have similar stories.

In the total breakdown, the US represents about 85% of the troops currently deployed, the British about 7%, and a bunch of other countries have contributed a token amount of troops to show their 'support' for the country that their economies depend on. As you can see, it's not just about the breadth of the coalition as it is about its depth, and the types of countries that are 'members' and their reasons for being there.

Re:Explaining that 45%

[FredFnord]

How about Reasoned Compromise: "May not agree with his every last item of policy, but in comparing the two likely candidates, he is at least closer to the preferred side of issues involving government spending, taxation, business incentives, and military functions."

Um... yeah. Except that, let's see, where the heck did I see that article? Ah, here:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.po litics/ [cnn.com]
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/20 04_03_late-night-knowledge-2_9-21_pr.pdf [annenbergp...center.org]

Of a simple six-question quiz on stances that the candidates hold on major issues, the average person got less than three questions right.
'Who wants to privatize Social Security?'
'Which one doesn't like assault weapons?'
'What is the cutoff income for Kerry's tax increases?' (50k, 100k, 200k, or 500k)
'Who is a former prosecutor?'
'Who favors making the recent tax cuts permanent?'
'Who wants to make it easier for labor unions to organize?'

People who didn't watch any 'late-night comedy show' scored 2.6 out of 6 right. 2.6. Now, even being charitable and assuming that people can't remember numbers (200k, hint hint) and that people don't remember that before becoming President, GWB's only political experience AT ALL was as Governor of Texas, that's still totally utterly pathetic. Do you realize that it means that MORE THAN HALF of those surveyed scored between 0 and 2 out of 6? And that only one of the questions had more than two possible choices?

If you answer that quiz randomly, you get 2.75 right, on average. Let me say that again. If you don't speak English, and just randomly pick an answer for each question, you get a 2.75.

People who watched Jay Leno got 2.95, David Letterman viewers got 2.91, and viewers of The Daily Show, astoundingly enough, got 3.59. Frequent (more than 3 days a week) network news viewers got 40% right, frequent cable news viewers got 48% (they didn't differentiate out Fox viewers, which might have told a different story), and newspaper readers got 46%. Less than half! The only group of people who averaged more than half were viewers of The Daily Show, who were what, 14% more informed than newspaper readers? (Wow, not to digress or anything, but that's kind of neat.)

Anyone who was paying any attention at all got six, and could have done so while drunk and standing on his or her head. The amount of illegal substances that would have been required to make me score 2 would have incapacitated a small midwestern town.

The American public doesn't even know what the two candidates stand for, and you think they're seriously giving weighted averages of all of the different stances and coming up with a decision?

The extent of your optimism awes me.

-fred

Re:Let's apply a little criticle thinking here

[Templaris]

Bin Laden would beef up the approval numbers, but wouldn't Saddam do just as much? Bin Laden seems to have completely escaped into that northern Pakistan region, that even Pakistani soldiers won't go into, much less American troops. Maybe American forces cant get Bin Laden without rock hard intelligence, good enough for special forces to go in and pick him up same day.

On the issue of timing, maybe the planning phase for Iraq was terrible. Perhaps they were overly optimistic in thinking that the Iraqi people would be happy beyond belief. It doesn't seem they counted on a guerrilla war at all. Also, Bush's approval numbers were slowly dwindling with time. The longer he waited to start the war, likely, the less support he would have. His approval only jumped up at certain times during major events, but afterwards it always steadily declined (From his election to 9/11, from 9/11 to Iraq major combat operations ending, to now).

Why make up a reason to go to war? This goes back to the planning stage. Completely overly optimistic, perhaps the planners suffered from Groupthink and putting down dissenting views. Being blind to other ideas and doubts, they did not account for much. This also allows for more secrecy, only those trusted similar views are allowed in the group, so you have less to worry about.

As for the oil, its not just oil. All the reconstruction contracts, like the no-bid contracts to Haliburton. Those same Corps. overcharging the government. Again, back to bad planning. They probably thought they could easily get the oil; however, they didn't count on guerrilla warriors taking out oil pipelines and facilities constantly.

I don't know they certain reason Bush decided to go to war with Iraq, but its evidently clear; Iraq was a poorly planned situation that allowed for the initial support of regular Iraqi citizens to be squandered, also foreign militant organizations were not only allowed to enter the country, but setup shop there. The plan only looked at Saddam's Army, not the possibility of Guerrilla warfare. For the reason that this was not planned for, Americans soldiers will die in Iraq for many years to come, regardless of Kerry or Bush being elected.

Re:no

[orin]

The "basket case" of the middle east has not been fixed and the current actions of the US administration don't even go close to addressing them.

Can you even articulate what the problems are in that region? The historical causes of the problems in that region? There are a highly complex set of issues that aren't easily solved by the "simple and easy to understand" solutions proposed by your President.

Bashing it with a hammer won't make it better - yet that is the approach that has been used. The occupation of Iraq is failing. Do you believe it to be a success? Do you believe that what is happening today is really solving the "basket case" issue? Here is a hint. It isn't. It is making things worse.

The solution to this problem is the sort of nuanced diplomacy that, in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's the United States used to excel at. Not the ham fisted "you are with us or against us" rubbish that the current administration uses.

New York, directly after 9/11 is not the place where policy that influences the next century or so should have been written. Approaching world affairs with a revenge mindset is unlikely to lead to good outcomes.

Re:I'm still voting for Bush, and here are my reas

[Lightning Hopkins]

WE WERE ATTACKED ON 9/11.

Yes, we were. By whom? This is the important question you're missing. The main problem with your line of reasoning is that you're conflating Al-Qaida with Iraq or perhaps the entire Middle East. If you cannot distinguish between enemies and neutral parties, or even between different enemies, or even keep track of which enemy was responsible for which offense, then you cannot know how to react. The enemy who attacked us on 9/11 was Al-Qaida, an international terrorist network based in Afghanistan but with operatives in several different countries worldwide. Al Qaida was not in league with Saddam Hussein, because Al Qaida saw him as a "secular infidel." And "Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." (9/11 Commission Report, page 61). They were two quite separate enemies. (In fact, America wasn't an object of Hussein's aggression; his problem with the U.S. was that we stopped his aggression against his neighbors.) Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to George HW Bush, laid the situation out pretty well here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110002133 [opinionjournal.com]. Furthermore, after the first Gulf War, then-Secretary of State Dick Cheney noted that Saddam's capacity to threaten his neighbors had been virtually eliminated http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/chen ey.htm [washingtoninstitute.org] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2705275.stm [bbc.co.uk].

Top U.S. military commanders argued against invading Iraq because it was at best tangential and at worst entirely counter-productive to the war on terror. These include General Anthony Zinni, http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/zinni.html [npr.org], General Joseph Hoar, http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/s803482.htm [abc.net.au], and General Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded U.S. forces in the first Gulf War http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2705275.stm [bbc.co.uk].
Yes, we absolutely need to get the guys who attacked us. But to do that, we need to get the guys who attacked us. This "hit 'em where they ain't" strategy is just bloody stupid. Afghanistan is a justifiable war. Iraq is not.

"Thank you England and

Poland and the other nations in our coalition. Together, we will root out and wipe out terrorism anywhere, anytime, in any country that threatens us."

Heh, well, at least you didn't forget Poland. But you did neglect to note something about Poland: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1069242.htm [abc.net.au]
"[Polish President] ALEKSANDER KWASNIEWSKI (translated): They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."

There's no need to discuss. We disagree.

[Lord Kano]

Were guns banned?

Several were. Guns that I owned at the time could no longer be legally manufactured or imported.

And in fact, the legislation Clinton got the Republican-dominated House to pass was a restriction on the sale of certain newly-manufactured or imported guns that look like military weapons.

Check your facts. The House and Senate were firmly in the hands of Democrats in the spring of 1994, when the ban passed. It was in November of 1994 that the Republicans were elected en masse.

Remember Clinton's 1995 state of the union speech?

Here's a quote for you.

• I think everybody in this room knows that several members of the last Congress who voted for the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill lost their seats because of it.

That vote was the reason why Democrats lost Congress.

One guy even shot a nazi skinhead with a 22-caliber rifle.

Hopefully he shot him in the face.

You seem to take great delight in the fact that missed a "g" in my last post. Why is that?

LK

Re:Whaaaa?

[Some Bitch]

Is it, in fact, enough safer that we can feel justified in basically ticking off the entire rest of the world aside from England

Don't think we're not pissed off, we are. We just don't blame you, we blame Blair for being such a slimy bastard and ignoring the largest protest ever held in the UK. Oh, and your media for skewing things to the point where a large part of the US has gone from opposing the war to supporting it (insert Goebels quote about patriotism here).

Re:Whaaaa?

[Spyffe]

No. George Bush claimed in his State of the Union address of the 28th, that Saddam was trying to buy tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

These tubes were made of the wrong kind of aluminum for uranium enrichment. They were too long and too narrow to be suitable. This was in the IAEA report the Bush administration, and the entire UN Security Council, had seen. It was not speculation, it was based on real tubes seized in Jordan. The administration, with Bush as its mouthpiece, lied.

In his speech to the Security Council which underscored the need for war, Colin Powell told the Council that the tolerances for the tubes were better than for any rocket even the US uses. He had, actually, been informed that the tubes were manufactured to comparable tolerances as US rocket tubes. The administration, with Colin Powell as its mouthpiece, lied.

Seems like much ado about nothing, right? But this is the cornerstone of the Administration's belief that Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. These tubes were the only hard evidence they had going for them.

They weren't just willfully gullible in taking biased reports from a no-name in the CIA which contradicted evidence from DoE experts (a crime of which Kerry and Edwards are also guilty), but they willfully lied. This is now clear.

Re:My opinion on that Superbowl halftime show..

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you've never had any sort of sexual experience in your life. Is there a -1, uninformed verbal diarrhea option?

Vaginas are used for popping babies out, does that make them nonsexual?

Re:Whaaaa?

[MosesJones]

Errr the British Intelligence said that there was no evidence that Iraq had any WMDs....

The British GOVERMENT and the JIC say "There is clear evidence that Iraq has WMDs"

We got fucked over too.

Fake Uranium Evidence

[Izaak]

Seems like much ado about nothing, right? But this is the cornerstone of the Administration's belief that Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. These tubes were the only hard evidence they had going for them.

Bush also claimed that Sadam was trying to buy uranium from Africa, even though the administration knew there was no evidence of that. And the scandal goes even deeper than that. When the man they assigned to investigate the uranium rumors (retired ambassador Joseph Wilson) revealed the truth (that the evidence was forged), the administration retaliated against him by revealing to the world that his wife was a CIA agent (thus placing her life in danger and risking American security).

And before you discount this as liberal spin, the reported who outed Wilson's wife is Robert Novak, a well known conservative reporter, and he has confirmed that his sources were a pair of senior whitehouse staff member. This assertion is backed up by additional investigation from the Washington Post. A special investigator has been appointed, and even the President has been questioned. The rumors abound now that the two staff member have already been identified (the names have even been leaked), but the Bush administration has put pressure on the FBI to hold off on the arrests until after the election.

Of course there is no proof that Bush himself ordered the retaliation against Wilson, or that he even knew about it, and in fact I believe it very possible that he did not. The evidence so far indicates a couple of staffers reporting directly to Vice President Cheney. It is entirely possible that Cheney took this action upon himself without consulting with the President. Either way, a couple of alarming things remain: The administration used the uranium evidence to support their case for the Iraq war even though they had been told the evidence was bunk. Furthermore, senior staffmembers in the whitehouse broke the cover of an undercover CIA agent (an agent involved in the hunt for weapons of mass distruction no less)... a treasonous act by any measure.

Re:When did /. become a mouthpiece for the Democra

[Artifex]

Can we stop the political BS and just get back to the nerdy stuff?

It appears to me that the story appears under politics.slashdot.org; that's why it gives the section name before it on the front page.

Have you turned your political bit off? If not, stop being a luser, and fix your settings.

Re:Oopsies

[vidarh]

Does that mean you support US invasion of Israel to remove Sharon and throw Israel out of the illegally occupied areas? If not, why, as they have been systematically ignoring UN resolutions since before Saddam got to power in Iraq in the first plae.

Re:Whaaaa?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Israel was the aggressor in every single one of her wars (1947-48, 1956, 1967) EXCEPT for the Yom Kippur War in 1972.

Sure, in some cases the Arab countries were going to attack so Israel attacked first, but as Israel was an aggressive, invading, colonial, terrorist, mass murdering, genocidal, ethnic cleansing foreign entity imposed by outside (Western) forces on to the Arab world, what would you expect them to do? Roll over and say, "please sir, may I have another?"

The very creation of the state of Israel was an act of naked aggression. Everything that has come afterwards has followed logically from the creation of this "shitty little country".

Re:Burden of proof

[daybyter]

Just a comment to the 'Let Europe' buy their oil: I live in Germany, and there are a lot of activities to find alternative energy resources. Wind already produces more than 10% of our local energy, because alternative power plants are pushed. I don't pay taxes for my current car, because it consumes less than 5 litres per 100km. Just another example how energy efficiency is supported.

Re:Whaaaa?

[Trailwalker]

Apprdoximately 50% of the eligible voters actually bothered in 2000. This means only 25% of the eligible voters wanted either one. Actually, a bit less than that. Nadar and other third party candidates drew off some votes.

A "none of the above" choice would draw more voters.

Re:Israel

[wass]

Once again I'll put my karma on the line and go against some of the rampant anti-Israel FUD being tossed around here. Before the hordes respond to me please understand I do NOT support the Israeli occupation, but that doesn't mean I'll let unsubstianted FUD get tossed around easily.

(a) Israel is building a big fuckoff wall *way outside* those borders, conveniently annexing large swathes of territory that do not belong to Israel with NO JUSTIFICATION

The first part I can't argue much with, but there IS justification. Namely that the wall between Israel and Gaza has worked quite well, and the parts of the wall between Israel and West Bank thus far completed have cut down on attacks.

If you want to get into the mindset of many Israelis, not just the right wingers, they consider taking extra land as the lesser of two evils than deaths of terror attacks and Israeli reprisals. Do you actually consider land more important than life?

At this point people claim "just end the occupation and the terror will stop", but before there was any occupation, the terror existed. The Palestinian LIBERATION Organization formed before Israel captured Gaza and West Bank, those parts were OCCUPIED by Egypt and Jordan respectively. What part of Palestine was Arafat and company trying to liberate?

(b) Israel is pursuing a systematic policy of colonising a foreign territory with 'native' Israelis

Well, if you know what happened at the end of the Six Day War, Israel offered to return ALL occupied territories back to their owners. The Arabs collectively refused with the famous Three No's (No Recognition, No Talks, No Peace). What the hell was Israel supposed to do at that point? Say "Well, take your strategic land back then and by all means keep attacking us."?

Now I do agree with you that during Oslo Israel didn't fulfill it's requirement to remove settlements, but neither did the Palestinians meet their requirements to end the incitement and arrest known terrorist leaders. Some minor terrorists were arrested, but usually released (as the saying goes, put into Palestinian jails with revolving doors).

(c) Israelis forces are performing violent operations against civilian, terrorist and militia forces alike with no real concern as to which is which, outside its own territory, with no international sanction and indeed against international law and consensus

Well, if you look at the past few decades, they kept trying to get Arafat and the PA to do these on their own. They refused. Even just days after the most recent intifada broke out, Arafat released hundreds of known terrorists out of jail. This was long before Israel started destroying Palestinian jails and other infrastructure.

The PA refuses to do anything. Many attacks, both before and after the intifada, were carried out by Palestinian policemen, many were trained and/or armed by Israel as part of Oslo.

PA does nothing to stop this, except issue mild rebukes IN ENGLISH to the media.

(d) the Israeli government actually talks about maintaining the genetic purity of Israel (ah the irony) in the sense of making sure that at least 50% of Israelis are Jewish so that there can never be a 'democratic coup' inside Israel at election time

You're misleading people here, whether intentionally or not. Firstly, of course Israel wants to be a Jewish nation, that was the point of its creation. Remember the UN partition plan also called for no Jews to be allowed in Jordan, and in fact Jews are specifically barred from becoming citizens there. Same thing with other Arab countries, Jews are inferior or forbidden from becoming citizens. So if you criticize Israel, at least criticize the rest of the Arab Leage too.

And as far as being a Jewish nation, given treatment of Jews through history (Obviously Holocaust, but also pograms in Russia, Inquisition in Spain, being inferior dhimmis in Arab lands, etc) the point of Israel is to create an outl

Re:Israel

[wass]

Well, newsflash- if the right to vote is contingent on religion, you're not a democracy.

Newsflash to you - Arabs can vote in Israel. There are even several Arab officials elected to the Knesset (ie, the Israeli parliament).

Stock options

[cameldrv]

Cheney holds 433,000 options on Haliburton stock. That is, if Haliburton goes up one point, Cheney makes $433,000. Please explain how this does not constitute a conflict of interest.

Re:Whaaaa?

[mr100percent]

According to the White House, the reports that Iraq submitted did not show that they were destroyed. I found it amazing that 24 hours after the Iraqi government released a 1500 page report disclosing what they had and used to have, the White House was calling it lies and omissions. Who reads that fast?

By March 2003, Iraq was destroying its Al-Samoud II missiles, the ones that if you stripped of all payloads somehow went slightly further than the UN sanctions allowed. Everybody knew it wasnt a big deal, a technicality really, as empty missiles would not be a threat and they'd never launch them empty anyway, but Iraq was getting rid of them anyway, they saw the threat of invasion looming.

Quickly skimming the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections reports [mideastweb.org], I don't see any UN assertions that there were WMDs. In fact, the conclusion states" "we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."

Re:wow

[multipart]

so what does it take to get from you a conviction to fight for a middle east that isn't a basket case that breeds terrorism... not even on the grounds of concern for your fellow human being, but even when 9/11 establishes that such a cause is even for your own self-preservation?

So what does it take to convince you that your fighting is the very thing that breeds terrorism in the Middle-East?

In your typical USA way of thinking, you seem to think that you can win peace by fighting a war, apparently. Ain't gonna happen, baby! You win peace by winning the hearts of the people. And you don't do that by, say, keeping a one-sided view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, by draining oil from Arab countries without caring about the people who live there in poverty and uneducated, or by ousting a dictator without good reason to go to war (after first supporting the dictator for more than a decade, after already failing to remove him in 1991 when there was a just cause, and after betraying rebelling parties a couple of years later).

Cheney has signed away those 433,000 options...

[LinuxParanoid]

To quote from a nice paragraph at factcheck.org [factcheck.org]:

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The actual PDF of the agreement can be found here [factcheck.org].

That's what you're talking about, right?

--LP

Re:Whaaaa?

[Tarwn]

Why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a perfectly good diatribe. Now without bothering to say which way I lean in this issue (though seeing the previous biases, I don't doubt I will be given a direction, those that disagree and all).

I am looking for these documentation errors that your talking about, unfortunatly articles about Iraq rejecting inspectors and purposely making the process as protracted and confusing as possible keep getting in the way. The only reference I have seen to documents so far are the documents by UN inspectors that questioned several priority issues that "had not been satisfactorily resolved", mainly in reference to chemical (VX) and biological warfare. Not to mention the (likely untrue at this point) news from a defector that Saddam had restarted nuclear development, shortly before expelling the weapons inspectors from his country. Add in the fact that the former leader of the UN Inspectors had felt that they were being gamed the whole time, that they thought they were seeing signs of ongoing weapon development but never direct evidence, which just seemed to back up rumors that the weapons were being moved around. The most "anti-Bush" (not agreeing or disagreeing, just a description) of the Inspectors I could find thought that 95% of the previously built WMD in Iraq were accounted for.

Taking a couple of the facts and showing that they were untrue does not magically remove all other facts. I agree that some serious misjudgements were made in choosing what to believe and what not to believe, however there is one fact that I find amazingly overlooked, or perhaps not so amazingly. The purpose of going to War with Iraq was originally for one reason, Iraq refusing to follow UN sanctions concerning weapons inspectors.

WMD's, fictional ties with Al Queada, et al were merely sub points that got picked up by a media that was looking to add more spice tothei stories. Sure these were on the list of reasoning, but they were afterthoughts, originally the entire point was due to Saddam attempting to break sanctions.

As for your hole in the ground, remote location issue, it alwaysheklps to have someone say "oh yeah, btw, he's over there in that hole. "
Even as late as a month or so ago I seem to remember seeing pictures of buried planes that they had found out in the desert, though I can't remember if they were found through complete chance or satellite imaging (believe it was chance, but won't say for sure without info backig me up).

And considering that every body count I have seen so far has been an estimate, I am not surprised that you picked the estimate that was based upon media coverage. Excuse me, media reports. Of course the rest ofthe estimates are not much beter. I don't doubt their was a great deal of civilian casualties (though, an interesting comparison is the average death rate of previous years to that figure) but I think I will wait for someone who is actually on the same continent to do an accurate (semi-accurate at least) documented count. A group of 20-some people counting supposed bodies from media reports for the sole reason of proving how many deaths there were seems to me that some severe bias is in play. It's like sending kids to count gumdrops after telling them there is no way you know how many there are.

But I digress, fact generally get's swept under the rug in the political thread around here.

Re:Oopsies

[zpok]

If ignoring UN resolutions is all it takes, can we please invade the US now?

Get a clue.

Re:Whaaaa?

[jweage]

You mean like this:

"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, 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, 2002

If you honestly look at what members of both parties were saying in '02, including Kerry, this latest "revelation" is a blind attempt to destroy the Bush administration.

More info here [americandaily.com]

Re:He wanted this from the start...

[nullportal]

Around February and March of 2001, roughly 8-10 weeks after a Jan 20 inaugural, weren't there plenty of tensions concerning the Taiwan straights, Korea and weapons programs, and other similar things that might have called for a hightened readiness? Whether your agree or disagree with improved readiness in response the China/Korea arena of tension, please note these tensions were under various sorts of strategic responses from Clinton and before, are part of a long term US strategic interest, Bush had quite openly told the electorate which elected him to office that he was going to take the US into a more assertive posture (so it was no surprise to anyone paying attention to the news really) and the meetings Bush had with Chinese and Korean leaders about this time would indicate posturing going on by all parties, in the usual course of these things, which often takes the form of putting militaries on heightened alert. Nothing about heightened readiness because of China/Korea tensions (a major point of Bush's campaign, you may recall) should be surprising, or indicate a secret war-lust. Perhaps low level army troops simply wouldn't absorb the implications of these events, free beer not being dispensed to troops in reward for reading the newspaper, and that is why no one bothered to inform you. Higher level army personnel probably did not need to be told why heightened readiness was desirable - they simply read the newspapers during campaigns and around the time of the increased readiness.

Re:Please rec. unbiased news sources

[jotaeleemeese]

http://www.bbc.co.uk

Something to Consider...

[NickDonovan]

former US Marine Officer, a Chiropractor by training and CEO of a technology company by trade. Let me tell you what I've seen in Iraq.

I remember (I believe it was 1988 or '89 or so) I was in the Middle East and saw much of the misery ascribed to Saddam myself.

As an XO of a Weapons company in the 3rd Marines, my company was dispatched initially to Bahrain. From there we dispersed to other points.

I remember both in the initial runs and the subsequent runs we made after the Gulf War had started seeing Women, Children and young boys in prisons in the REGSAT photos.

I then dispatched our TOW, 81's (mortars/observers) and STA (Scout/Snipers) to a region in the north not too far away form that village on orders from my superiors (albeit for different reasons)

We were too late.

I will never forget seeing the sightless eyes of dead children on the streets, looking like broken dolls. Their Skin blistered from the gas.

You as an American citizen can vote for whomever you feel to be the most appropriate representative of your values.

Just remember, the choices you make affect numerous generations to follow.

Those of us who are now parents and have children that are or almost the age of service know this all to well.

It's a choice we don't make lightly.

Think for yourself. Don't listen to the pundits or your buddies. Investigate for yourself. Don't give in to irrational hate or loyalty to any party.

Semper Fi,

Nick

Nick Donovan - CEO
Ioni Corporation
Frisco, TX USA

Iraqi WMD expert said they were ready

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the N.Y. Times regularly you would know that they had already done an interview with an Iraqi nuclear scientist who said they were ready to reconstitute their nuclear program when the sanctions were lifted. The tubes are dual use and the administration wasn't ready to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Now a Iraqi nuclear scientist has a new book about the the bomb in his backyard. Here's more from the Australian.

An Iraqi scientist-turned-author says the most significant pieces of his country's dormant nuclear program were buried under a lotus tree in his backyard, untouched for more than a decade before the US-led invasion in 2003.
But their existence, Mahdi Obeidi writes in a new book, is evidence that the international community should remain vigilant as other countries try to replicate Iraq's successes before the 1991 Gulf war to develop components necessary for a nuclear weapon.

In The Bomb in my Garden, Obeidi details fallen Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's furious, and then abandoned, quest for a nuclear bomb.

"Although Saddam never had nuclear weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came to developing them should serve as a red flag to the international community," Obeidi writes with his co-author Kurt Pitzer.

The Associated Press obtained an advance copy of the book, to be released Sunday.
[...]
While only the former president knows fully why he didn't restart his nuclear program, Obeidi believes Saddam may have realised the scope of the massive undertaking.

United Nations inspectors had dismantled the program, removed the enriched uranium stockpiles and exposed Iraq's international network of suppliers. And Saddam was making a mint off the UN's oil-for-food program, while increasing his control over a population reliant on him for basics such as flour, Obeidi says. To get caught importing components needed to produce a nuclear weapon, the scientist says, would have ended the program.

Yet Saddam kept his Iraq Atomic Energy Commission running, apparently without weapons programs, as late as 2003.
[...]
Obeidi, 60, was the creator of Iraq's centrifuge, a key component in one method of enriching bomb-grade uranium. He considers it the most dangerous piece of nuclear technology because related advances make it possible to conceal uranium enrichment programs inside one warehouse.
[...]
By the late 1980s, Iraq was making breakthroughs. However, the international help dried up as Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. The UN arrived after Saddam's 1991 defeat, intent on taking apart his weapons programs.

To hide signs of uranium enrichment then, Obeidi describes a massive demolition and reconstruction program he led to remove everything from the top soil to the coffee makers at his former centrifuge lab.

After the 2003 invasion, Obeidi attempted to take the nuclear secrets buried in his garden to US authorities. He describes disorganisation as the CIA and military intelligence wound up fighting over him.

Only after extensive negotiations involving former UN weapons inspector David Albright, who was in Washington, did Obeidi turn over all of his information.
[...]
Looking back, Obeidi struggles to find words to describe how he could arm Saddam, whose government at one point kept him from his family for six months so he could work and left them fearing the walls had ears.

He says it was a matter of national pride and scientific pursuit, but more than anything, it was fear: "The idea of dozens of nuclear bombs in Saddam's hands is horrifying in retrospect."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_ page/0,5744,10863824%255E31477,00.html [news.com.au]

Re:Let's apply a little criticle thinking here

[AdamHaun]

Or the other option--he's part of an ideological movement which believes that attaining American "global leadership" should be our mission in the future, and that Iraq is a good first step to gaining a foothold in the Middle East. Check out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org [newamericancentury.org]

Here's their statement of principles(note the signatures):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm [newamericancentury.org]

Look, here's a letter to President Clinton from 1998 advocating a regime change in Iraq, for the same ridiculous reasons(again, note the signatures):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm [newamericancentury.org]

Ludicrous!

[c.ecker]

Clinton didn't just lie -- he lied under oath during testimony at a trial. That's serious, especially for the leader of the Free World.

Bush didn't lie.

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy -- someone the world will be better without. Fact is Saddam's regime never complied with the terms of the Cease-Fire Saddam agreed to after the first Gulf War:

1. Violation of the 'No Fly Zone', continued attacks on U.S. and U.K. pilots.
2. Violation of U.N. Trade Sanctions at every opportunity.
3. Violation of mandatory UN Weapons Inspections
4. Finally, but most significantly, cash sponsorship of terrorism in the region.

Here's detail on how Saddam Hussien thwarted the UN efforts at containment at every opportunity: http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL31641.pdf [usembassy.it] We now know that he bought the help of the French, German, Russian, Chinese gov'ts, and even people inside the UN, with fat contracts under the Oil-For-Food program.

While these particular tubes might've been dual use, that doen't even fit into the equation. You can place these aluminum tubes where the sun don't shine.

Saddam and his cronies had 500 tons of yellow cake Uranium, which is only used to create enriched Uranium for a Nuclear Reactor or Nuclear weapons. Iraq has had no functioning Nuclear Reactor since the first Gulf War, and was not working on building one. 500 tons of yellow cake is enough to produce enriched uranium for 1 nuclear bomb.

The only reasonable conclusion available is that Saddam DID have their sights on a nuclear weapons program.

Now, thanks to the Coalition, he no longer does.

BTW - Clinton killed thousands by not protecting the American People in the face of Al-Qaeda threats. Lobbing cruise missiles at shadows, State Dept mix-ups and his cut-and-run in Somalia, and various non-responses to the many terrorists attacks abroad during the Clinton administration left terrorists around the world with the impression that the U.S. could be pushed out of the way with terror. If he could've kept it in his pants long enough to think, maybe he could've dealt with terrorists effectively. That whole Al-Qaeda-Afghanistan thing went on while he was in office.

Re:Ludicrous!

[Hassman]

I'm so worked up, I'm forgetting to say things.

The independent commission investigating 9/11 proved that Saddam had no connection to it. No cash sponsorship! You want that, look at Iran and N. Korea and Lybia. I wonder why we didn't invade there? They are more of a threat than Iraq ever was. 2 of those countries actually have atomic bombs or the capability to make them.

I don't understand how people can take a side in this matter and not know / do reseach on the facts.

Bush is praying that we all just take his word for it to win this election. Read up on this. Learn his actual policies! You'll see all the lies.

And don't get me started on his domestic plans...

Re:Israel

[wass]

Compare it with North America in 1771. Was it right for the British Empire to control those people without allowing them to vote, just hanging it on "Oh, they don't live in Britian, just in a land totally under our military and economic control?"

Huh? The colonists never attacked the English before they moved to the New World. Israel was attacked by Palestinians (and Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, etc) before the occupation. Your analogy makes no sense.

You try to sway the argument by using vernacular like 'conquer'. Israel 'captured' the land in a war it didn't start. Its offers to return the land immediately after the war in exchange for peace were absolutely refused by all Arab nations. What was Israel supposed to do at this point?