White House Lied About Iraq Nuclear Programs 3201
An anonymous reader writes "This New York Times article reports that in 2002, the Bush Administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program were based on evidence that was doubted by the government's foremost nuclear security experts. Specifically, aluminum tubes most likely meant for small artillery rockets were interpreted by the administration as parts for uranium centrifuges." In a nutshell: while Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were announcing to the American public that these tubes were slam-dunk evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions, they already knew that there was completely overwhelming evidence that the tubes were just for artillery rockets (as Iraq said) and that the tubes were totally unsuitable for use in centrifuges.
Contempt of Congress (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this extend to the President?
The same question dogged Nixon to resign.
Really a surprise? (Score:1, Interesting)
Burden of proof (Score:2, Interesting)
At some point, we had to say "enough" to his gamesmanship, and make good on the resolutions to do something about it.
Just because it looks like he was screwing with us instead of building weapons doesn't mean the casus bella was wrong. The ball was in Saddam's court.
High tolerance tubes (Score:1, Interesting)
We already knew they were full of shit but... (Score:3, Interesting)
This was a case study in lying and having the fucking people fall for it because we were told to have faith in the leaders of our country or be labeled unpatriotic.
On Aug. 17, 2001, weeks before the twin towers fell, the team published a secret Technical Intelligence Note, a detailed analysis that laid out its doubts about the tubes' suitability for centrifuges.
Perhaps this is partially why the administration originally claimed that Hussein was not a credible threat to the United States?
One senior official at the agency said its "fundamental approach" was to tell policy makers about dissenting views. Another senior official acknowledged that some of their agency's reports "weren't as well caveated as, in retrospect, they should have been." But he added, "There was certainly nothing that was hidden."
Let's not fuck around here. It's called making the viewpoint you want noticed more apparent than those you don't regardless of whether or not it's true... This is what any good position paper should do.
"Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
Sounds like exactly what the United States ended up doing. It decided it was right and it had the power to make sure it got what it wanted out of the deal. Notice the reference to oil... Not to the safety of the United States' populace. Oil. Cute.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is a different election prediction: it will be a landside victory, but I do not know who wins.
Vote. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What makes you think this will change anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
No Nuke, who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
i always thought it was right to invade iraq (Score:3, Interesting)
couldn't the administration had just said "look, we should have killed this snake saddam in 1991, but we couldn't deal with a lot of body bags then. we now know a basket case of a middle east is bad for the us, and so we can stomach the body bags, because it's better a couple hundred dead servicemen in iraq than a couple hundred thousand dead civilians in washington dc. osama is not a cause, he's a symptom. and the cause is a f**ked up middle east. so to war with iraq we go, to begin the the process of fixing the middle east. because september 11th shows that the middle east will export its problems to us, so it is our responsibility to fix the middle east, whether we deserve it or not."
and i fear it's tehran, here we come, and a draft, in 2005. because i don't know about you, but i don't trust those mullahs with nukes, and i know for certain the neocons, or even the dems, don't either.
i just hope that when we go to iran, they level with the us citizen, rather than play let's make up a stupid excuse.
Re:COULD (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't tell me you're one of those guys who reads "pull in case of fire" on the alarm panel, and pulls the thing, just in case there's a fire?
-ben
Slashdot goes DU... (Score:1, Interesting)
Impact? (Score:4, Interesting)
If this were a surprise, it might matter more. However, I have trouble believing that an intelligent person can believe most of the things the Bush administration says. I do not think this will hurt Bush because his supporters are completely uninterested in knowing the truth.
Do you remember the cost estimates of the Republician Drug Plan? (e.g. here [washingtonpost.com], here [thebatt.com]).
What about WMD?
Do you believe him when he talks about how much better is the economy?
Did you believe Bush or Greenspan when they talked about the need for tax reductions because the federal government was going to have too large a surplus?
"But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.
"I believe, as I have noted in the past, that the federal government should eschew private asset accumulation because it would be exceptionally difficult to insulate the government's investment decisions from political pressures. Thus, over time, having the federal government hold significant amounts of private assets would risk sub-optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency, and lower overall standards of living than would be achieved otherwise.
"Short of an extraordinarily rapid and highly undesirable short-term dissipation of unified surpluses or a transferring of assets to individual privatized accounts, it appears difficult to avoid at least some accumulation of private assets by the government." (From here [federalreserve.gov])
When I hear Bush or his crew talk, I know that the truth is the exact opposite of their opinion.
Iraq was a hotbed of terrorists before we invaded? NO!
Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorists because Bush invaded? YES!
Did Bush look like a "little boy" who did not really belong in that first debate?
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:0, Interesting)
You might want to consider some Kerry-grade nuance on that issue.
But no mention of Kerry and Iran. (Score:1, Interesting)
What happened to
Re:Impeach Bush! (Score:1, Interesting)
NY Times. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/
-Hack
This isn't news to us liberals... (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot needs a new Political story editor system (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: Whaaaa? (Score:1, Interesting)
Remember kids, s-e-x is bad, but it's okay if our Republican president lies about going to war to fight the Terrists.
Claim was known to be doubtfull before the war (Score:3, Interesting)
That is why the world opinion was so critical of this war as it was clear from the beginning that this was a war of choice and not necessity.
The scandal here is twofold:
1) An administration that set out to send troops into harms way for very dubious reasons (I still don't understand what they hoped to gain).
2) A complacent American press that allowed the American public to be suckered into this pointless war.
Comment removed (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:3, Interesting)
Michael Moore [wikipedia.org] is just not Kenneth Starr [wikipedia.org], I guess.
Weapons Technology Sale (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, (Score:3, Interesting)
You do know how much money Cheney has made from Halliburton while he's been VP, don't you?
I'm still voting for Bush, and here are my reasons (Score:1, Interesting)
#1 - Iraq is a strategic location flanking Iran on the west. We are also in Afghanistan flaking Iran on the east. WMD's were just a floater to get us into Iraq and prepare for the next targets. The Pentagon and CIA know much more than we do and know that all of our media is watched by the enemies. So due to national security, they cannot disclose all information.
#2 - Peak Oil (and natural gas). Just Google for Peak Oil. China is now the #2 importer of oil behind the US. Our entire economy and way of living depends on oil. There is no way at all we can just switch to solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power in a decade. Further, we use natural gas for fertilizers for food. We use oil to power the machines which harvest and transport food. Without oil, the US economy and population will die. So you liberals can cry me a farking river about Iraq. We are better off now and in the future by securing oil in the Middle East. That is, unless you want to starve and die.
#3 - US Dollar. If oil is allowed to trade in a currency other than the US Dollar such as the Euro or Gold, the US Dollar will collapse, our economy will grind to a halt, and we will be in a Greater Depression. We must ensure that oil transactions will continue to take place in the US Dollar currency.
Cheney
#1 - I really like this guy. He's a no-nonsense guy who won't take BS from anyone. Just watch the VP debate on Tuesday. Cheney is a great business leader and enhances the Bush ticket.
#2 - He worked his way up from nothing. That, my fellow Patriots, is the American dream. You start out with nothing and build yourself a fortune! Only in America is that possible.
Guns & Lower Taxes
#1 - Clinton's "Assault" Weapon Control Act expired! You liberals can take my guns from my cold, dead hands. If you really want it, I'll give it to you, one bullet at a time.
#2 - My money is exactly that - my money. I am now paying less taxes due to Bush's tax cuts. I don't give a damn about the lazy people (or as the liberal media calls them: poor). They can get a job and work hard just like I and Dick Cheney did.
And lastly, Pax Americana. There is nothing wrong with being an empire. Someone has to be an empire, so why not us? I fully embrace it. Those who threaten us and our allies (Poland, etc.) will suffer missile strikes and death. I honestly do not have any problem at all with that and am voting for Bush this November. It's either us or them, kill or be killed. We were attacked on 9/11 and now it's time to kill everyone involved. Only Bush is man enough to attack other nations who support terrorists and give the UN, an evil socialist organization, the finger.
Now, you can mod me down at -1 Troll, but I am not trolling - I am telling you my reasons for voting for Bush, though some of you may disagree with them.
Don't believe the media (Score:2, Interesting)
How many people really know who said what, when, and based upon what evidence? I'd bet 99% of the people responding in this forum really don't have a clue as to the real facts.
I have read excerpts of the 9/11 report. I don't believe everything I hear from the media. I actually listened to Bush's initial speech about going into Iraq and know that WMDs were not the only reason. I also know that not only Bush and his administration, but Clinton and his, and every government agency in the federal government screwed the pooch on the whole damned deal. How do I know?
I pay attention to the facts (and research them when they seem to be lacking), and ignore the editorializing, half-truth telling, spin-doctor journalists. I won't even waste my time reading the NYT article. Maybe Bush (or his administration) lied, maybe not, but I won't take the word of the NYT on it.
PGA
All the news that is fitted to print? (Score:3, Interesting)
On matters of the body politic in the US, the NYT has to be one of the leading non objective papers running. Period. When they aren't making up the news - they are slanting it, but I digress.
Even after reading the 15 pages, I still come away with the following.
1. The intelligence community latched onto an idea and passed it on up.
2. The executive branch wanted very much to believe this evidence.
3. Neither the intelligence community, nor the executive did a lot of vetting.
Lets be honest here people. You've been systematically lied to for more than a decade. For some reason a country starts ordering a bunch of tubes and claims a legitimate use for them. Considering past behaviour you go looking for non legitimate uses - and you find one. After a decade of deciet - which concept for the tube's use do YOU latch on to?
Lets not forget, that for some reason we can't find WMD, but we can find pesticides. Lots of them, all stored in **tada** ammunition bunkers. Now either the Iraqi army was extremly fastidious, and had really bad crabs, or something else was going on there. Another honesty check folks. The difference between weapons of mass destruction and pesticides is the intended target.
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
WMDs not Bush's issue rather Blairs. (Score:2, Interesting)
And if one talks about policy... US policy was always massive response to any attack of any sort on the US. For those of you old enough to recall it was called MAD [wikipedia.org] - Mutual Assured Destruction. For sixty years it keep the US and USSR from fighting each other on their respective lands.
According to the MAD doctrine any attack on the US mainland should be met with a massive nuclear response.
By this logic one could hold Bush at fault for not launching a massive attack after 9-11 in the general direction of the perps.
In-fact, by not following the MAD doctrine, Bush made the US nuclear deterrent effectively worthless. No nation will believe the US stance anymore and will be more likely to attack the US with nukes. Why? Because Osama has proven that the US will try and find perps and reasons instead of just blindly lash out. It makes the inconceivable attack conceivable.
Now some claim the doctrine was dropped earlier but it has never been stated to be the case.
I am not advocating this action rather pointing out that Bush took a "nicer" course of action than doctrine suggested toward the Middle East. A course of action that reduced the USA's security according to the logic of MAD.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:3, Interesting)
What so few people seem to want to mention is that (1) many of us Americans would rather take a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to a hostile nation that may or may not be developing nuclear weapons, and (2) many people, if pressed to do so, would agree that the world is at least a little bit safer without Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq, regardless of whether he had any WMD's.
The above are the opinions of one person and most likely do not reflect the opinions of the rest of
Re:Damned if they did, damned if they didn't. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
-What are you and Pete doing tonight?
-We are going to Bush It, and demand that the movie theater start playing Memento again.
It sounds inappropriate to an uninitiated ear, but it simply means that we intend to engage in irrational, unjustified, unlateral behavior. I reccomend any high-school age slash dotters adopt the term in an effort to make the admin uncomfortable.
My opinion on that Superbowl halftime show.. (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who invited a bunch of teenagers from church watch the Superbowl together at a youth group superbowl party, I found the whole halftime "tit show" disappointing.
And rather disinginuous on the part of the stars involved who had been promising "a big surprise" for weeks. There's enough sexual cr*p on TV... does it have to even be on during the Superbowl? Showing the tit was only the culmination of a build up of various gyrating actors wearing leather S&M-type outfits...
Don't get me wrong... the Superbowl broadcasters can do whatever they want to get an audience. Us people who think sexuality matters and should be encouraged to be channeled into a bonding experience between monogamous partners for the benefit of both those partners' emotional security and the emotional security of their offspring will adjust our viewing accordingly. But the broadcasters can't ultimately have it both ways; either the Superbowl broadcast is family-friendly or it's an MTV pseudo-veiled sex-fest. They've tried to stretch to catch both audiences, and last year was merely the breaking point.
In hindsight, the Britney Spears shakeathon at the prior year's halftime show should have been a warning of what was coming. Oh well, live and learn. Dunno if we'll be having a church Superbowl party next year. We'll see. Maybe we'll all just watch it at home. Or not watch it. The ads are half the reason I watch the game, and I can catch those on the Internet advertising agency websites the next day anyway.
--LP, who apologizes for letting a one-line off-topic post spur an additional lengthy off-topic alternate-perspective-posting.
Re:Burden of proof (Score:3, Interesting)
Course, you can't prove that you don't have weapons (in fact one can prove that that proof doesn't exist).
Isn't math fun?
Re:Burden of proof (Score:3, Interesting)
Conservatives often like to point out that professors, teachers, and journalists lean left. These, of course, are three professions that require a person to be well-informed of current events. So they're alleging that liberals are the ones that are the best informed.
Thanks, guys!!
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it, in fact, enough safer that we can feel justified in basically ticking off the entire rest of the world aside from England, making our intelligence services into a laughingstock, and swelling the ranks of Al Quaida tenfold?
Yep, sure is. Great war. Fully justified. We should teach those Koreans a lesson too. After all, it's not like their atomic weapons would take out more than a few thousand Americans.
-fred
Re:Damned if they did, damned if they didn't. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that they don't take any intelligence seriously, but act on what they believe, regardless of what the facts are. We call it "faith-based intelligence."
Enter Richard Feynman.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush constantly accuses Kerry of his flip-flops, or whatever you want to call them, and cites them as evidence of him being unfit to lead. Let me share an excerpt or two from the transcripts of some public lecture by the late RP Feynman (who should need little introduction here, if he does, just google it ok?):
"The government of the United States was developed under the idea that nobody knew how to make a government, or how to govern. The result is to invent a system to govern when you don't know how. And the way to arrange it is to permit a system, like we have, wherein new ideas can be developed and tried out and thrown away. The writers of the Constitution knew of the value of doubt. In the age that they lived, for instance, science had already developed far enough to show the possibilities and potentialities that are the result of having uncertainty, the value of having the openness of possibility. The fact that you are not sure means that it is possible that there is another way some day. That openness of possibility is an opportunity. Doubt and discussion are essential to progress. The United States government, in that respect, is new, it's modern, and it is scientific. It is all messed up , too."
So, to wit, as most geeks should be aware, uncertainty is key to progress, and the american constitution rates well, having been written according to these principles. He continues in the next lecture:
"... has to do with whether a man knows what he is talking about, whether what he says has some basis or not. And my trick that I use is very easy. If you ask him intelligent questions - that is, penetrating, interested, frank, direct questions on the subject, and no trick questions - then he quickly gets stuck. It is like a child asking naive questions. If you ask naive but relevant questions, then almost immediately the person doesn't know the answer, if he is an honest man. It is important to appreciate that. And I think that I can illustrate one unscientific aspect of the world which would be probably very much better if it were more scientific. It has to do with politics. Suppose two politicians are running for president, and one goes through the farm section and is asked, 'What are you going to do about the farm question?' And he knows right away - bang, bang, bang. Now he goes to the next campaigner who comes through. 'What are you going to do about the farm problem?' 'Well, I don't know. I used to be a general, and I don't know anything about farming. But it seems to me it must be a very difficult problem, because for twelve, fifteen, twenty years people have been struggling with it, and people say that they know how to solve the farm problem. And it must be a hard problem. So the way that I intend to solve the farm problem is to gather around me a lot of people who know something about it, to look at all the experience that we have had with this problem before, to take a certain amount of time at it, and then to come to some conclusion in a reasonable way about it. Now, I can't tell you ahead of time what conclusion, but I can give you some of the principles I'll try to use - not to make things difficult for individual farmers, if there are any special problems we will have to have some way to take care of them,' etc.,etc., etc.
Now such a man would never get anyhere in this country, I think. It's never been tried, anyway. This is in the attitude of mind of the populace, that they have to have an answer and that a man who gives an answer is better than a man who gives no answer, when the real fact of the matter is, in most cases, it is the other way around."
This is why I consider Kerry better than Bush, he's not so damned sure of everything. The fact that he changes his mind atleast shows that he THINKS. It also illustrates very well the fundamental flaw not only in american politics, but democracy in general.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know. I think the world would be a safer place if we put him back in charge. He was doing a fine job at keeping all the different extremist religious groups in check. Now it's hell-in-a-handbasket over there. Know how many Americans Saddam killed in the past decade? None. Now he's gone and we're past 1,000 casualties.
Of course, I suppose you could argue that the "world" might not be safer, but at least the Iraqi people are. Not these Iraqis, for course. [iraqbodycount.net]
Can a Condoleezza Rice fan explain? (Score:1, Interesting)
It sounded like she said in Sep 2002 that the tubes COULD NOT be used for anything else.
Today, she said that SHE WAS AWARE in Sep 2002 that some people believed they were to be used for artillery rockets.
The only way should could have avoided lying in Sep 2002 would have been to say "We believe these tubes will be used for uranium
To say that they COULD NOT be used for anything else is to (1) lie and (2) suppress evidence. Yet no one seems up in arms (well, she kept cutting the guy off on her appearance, but no one else in the media has taken her to task for it).
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:2, Interesting)
In my mind there are two interpretations of "criminal." One is that the letter of the law was broken. This places no value judgment on the action, it is just a statement of fact that a law that was agreed upon by the government was broken.
The second interpretation has nothing to do with what the law is but represents a VALUE judgement on the action. i.e. A crime against society or humanity - independent of the laws we happen to have in effect.
Clinton is a criminal in fact, he did lie under oath. But, that doesn't mean what he did (lying under oath) was actually damaging to the country, or really meaningful in any way. He shouldn't have been asked the questions he was asked under oath, they were none of America's business. It was just a manipulation of people and laws to entrap Clinton into making a felonious mistake under extreme pressure. He probably should not have lied, but like whatever.
In order for us to have a functioning society we HAVE to maintain a rational, common-sense eye on our laws and how they are applied to people. Usually this is where Judges come in. Laws are the law, but they aren't necessarily Right. And what is Right is of course different to everyone... but it seems strange to me to say that an action that breaks a law, yet has no real consequences to anyone warrants more consideration and concern than an action that is perfectly legal within our system, but places many people in harm's way, has several distinct costs, and has dubious gains to the country and its people (I'm talking about invading Iraq, if you hadn't guessed).
I am not someone who believes that the law is sacred and should be always fully upheld to the letter. Humans write laws, and people are never really sure of the consequences until they see it in action. Maybe a law is valuable in 90% of all cases, but is actually UNJUST to uphold in 10% of the cases. Should we punish people unjustly because of some situation or viewpoint unconsidered by the lawmakers?
-If
Re:I'm not listening!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
This was pretty simple to scare up off the Internet:
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will.
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq (no matter what the outcome). Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
Re:Explaining that 45% (Score:3, Interesting)
If less-than 50% of the U.S. votes, Bush only needs greater-than-or-equal-to 26%.
26%!
Re:US Govt == Hypocrites (Score:4, Interesting)
So what's a country to do now? Build nukes!
-b
Re: Whaaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
Republican ideologue: The US is a Christian nation founded by Christians, so people should accept that prayer and the Bible have a role in government, and then all will be well.
Democrat ideologue: We have to provide every handup to people who need it, because to not do so is inhumane, and then all will be well.
Green ideologue: We can shift everything to wind and solar and tidal power, and not have to be reliant on oil for power ever again, and it will be cheaper and more reliable, and then all will be well.
Libertarian ideologue: We have to think of America first, and get out of every foreign nation, and drop all taxes and trade barriers, and then all will be well.
Pragmatists are usually somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, pragmatists rarely like to yell much.
Re:My opinion on that Superbowl halftime show.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The evolution of the modern human breast seems to have began with the development of walking upright. Before this development, the primary attribute on which potential mates were judged was the buttocks.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now on your points, I disagree in some cases:
Dubya is responsible for the truths or lies the FBI/CIA tell.
If he uses those truths or lies in his policy making, that is the case. Otherwise, he is obligated to ensure that those who mislead investigations are appropriately disciplined... Usually this is delegated but the responsibility still goes to the top.
He's responsible for being up to date on everything.
He is responsible for the decisions he makes. He clearly lied about the "new killer(sic)" weapons programs in Iraq and several pieces of intelligence used *was* discredited long before it was used. This is either his fault knowingly, or he should be pushing for ensuring that people don't mislead him (perhaps firing people).
He is responsible for the CIA/FBI being incompetent.
What do you mean? I think they did a fine job before Sept 11. Of course counter-terrorism wasn't the primary job of the FBI, so I guess that it makes the bank robbers feel more secure...
He is certainly responsible for his own lies. Beyond question. No need to clarify.
The more, he is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Perhaps, but I remain unconvinced.
He will still be elected, cause US citizens are nothing but sheeps.
We will see. After his remarkable performance in the first debate, I think he might actually be in trouble....
Re:WMD Spin Machine (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure I'd write this story off to NYT grand standing. Its is an extremely important story that has unfortunately never acquired legs before. Unfortunately there have been a dozen extremely important stories that haven't gotten the play they should partially thanks to the skill of the media handlers in the Bush administration and widespread fear of retaliation in the press, or being branded "Unpatriotic" if you question the Bush administration's truthfullness.
Bush's National Guard SHOULD be a major story but instead of Bush getting what he deserves over it Dan Rather is getting filleted for it. Its bad CBS got suckered by forged documents, but its WAY WORSE that Bush operatives managed to purge all the real and embarrasing documents out of Bush's Guard file. Its a near certainty he refused his flight physical because they'd just instituted drug testing as part of it and George would have failed due to his fondness for Cocaine at the time. When he refused it he should have been brought up on charges or sent to Vietnam but for the string pulling of his family and friends.
Another story that shouldn't be forgotten is the role Chalibi played in fabricated the Iraq WMD case. His "defectors", especially "Curveball" fabricated most of the anecdotal evidence on WMD's. The CIA and everyone else doubted their credibility, except that is for Cheney and the DOD Neocons who WANTED to hear what they were saying even if they new it was a lie and either fell for it hook, line and sinker, or more probably figured everyone else could be made to fall for it.
Basic info on centrifuge plants (Score:3, Interesting)
For a good discussion of centrifuge enrichment plants see this brochure for a German centrifuge plant. [urenco.de] This gives the basic design formulae for sizing rotors and cascades, and has pictures of a large centrifuge cascade. There are more advanced designs, but they are experimental. That 1991 plant is proven. So that's probably what someone would try to copy.
Public reports are vague on what materials are actually used for centrifuge tubes in existing plants, but high-strength steels and carbon fibre are mentioned. Still, if you're willing to accept lower performance, aluminum could work. That German plant is commercial, and has to be cost-effective. A country that only wants a few bombs need not be as efficient.
Re:Explaining that 45% (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not going to discuss anymore about Bush vs. Kerry with you... But what I wanted to say was this: Religion dictates a moral standard. If our President feels obligated to live within a moral standard of "not lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, etc", because of his religion, then so much the better. Religion gives a person focus, and if it helps keep a politician on a more honorable path, so much the better.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did they all lie, too?"
NO, they did not.
Intelligence agencies really don't "believe" in things, unlike Bush. They work on best-case, bad-case, and worst-case scenarios.
In their worst case scenarios, Iraq had some chemical weaponry. But the best-case was none. Every service in the world, INCLUDING THE CIA, presented their scenarios, but did not give great weight to the worst-case.
What Cheney did (I'm ignoring Bush here) was to go to the CIA and literally sit in the headquarters cherry-picking worst-case scenarios for several weeks. Not many remember this, but I do.
Intelligence analysts were screaming for help on all media wavelengths, shouting that the intel was being politically savaged by the neocons in the Pentagon and in Cheney's little posse. Several resigned in protest. Some even went on record, thus destroying their careers. Few in the US bothered to hear them.
Here's the beauty part. Tenet the CIA director decided to play ball with the neocons and fluff the intel by ignoring the analysts recommendations and going with all worst-case scenarios for presentation to the President. He though he was covering his ass.
I figured immediately that the poor dingo was being classically set up, and I was dead right.
After the WMDs and all the other nonsense was finally shown to be just that, guess who became the fall guys? YESSSSSSSSSS, Neo, the intelligence services. They very people who screamed that they were being overruled were being set up for suckers.
And it was TECHNICALLY true; the intel did come from the CIA, Jordan, yadda yadda. If you view English words the way Bushites do. The intel was from the CIA, bad CIA.
BUT -- it wasn't complete and it wasn't nuanced. All other-case scenarios were dumped, and only that which Bush needed was presented to the EXTREMELY lazy and cowed reporters in the White House.
The CIA et al did their jobs, and actually DID get the facts straight. But the Cheney neocons twisted worst-case scenarios into real "data" and got their war.
And now, as a reward to himself for his own faith-based reinterpretation of the CIA's facts, Bush has created a superdirector of the intelligence services who will report directly to him: President Bush. After crushing the CIA revolt against the neocons, he now has demonised the CIA as idiots and TAKEN DIRECT CONTROL OF THE AGENCY.
How can Bush get so many facts wrong? Listen to the debate with Kerry again. Bush doesn't understand, literally has no erudition about foreign policy matters. He goes with his gut, and never second-guesses himself. He never *doubts*. He *knows* something is true, such as WMD's, and will not listen to arguments that fault his beliefs. He is impervious to logic or facts. He knows what his people tell him, and that is Cheney once more feeding him like a mushroom.
I know what a lot of you are thinking. Where do I get all this stuff? I got it by READING THE NEWS for the last three years. It's surprising what you get when you read, especially if you stop getting your "facts" from the thoroughly whipped American mainstream news and reading, well, news from anywhere else but here. There are no surprises concerning the Bush manipulation of the CIA if you read the Guardian, the International Herald Tribune, any Candaian news outlet.
Re:Explaining that 45% (Score:3, Interesting)
The American president who lived by that code more than any other is, beyond a reasonable doubt, Jimmy Carter.
Re:Explaining that 45% (Score:1, Interesting)
3 years 9 months of a Republican President, 9 years 9 months of a Republican Congress, and how conservative the USSC is can be debated.
Bush made no in-roads on abortion.
He reinstated the global gag rule. Because of him, my tax dollars are not being used to perform abortions overseas.
If Bush is reelected, in 4 years, abortion will still be legal. If Kerry is elected, in 4 years, abortion will still be legal.
This is a long term battle. I wans a Pro Life president to choose the next member of the USSC. I want a Pro Life Congress voting for confirmation of the next Justice.
There is a constant battle over edge cases (minors, specific procedures, term definitions, etc), but you're deluded if you think any of that is going to change much or if any movement on those small issues indicate a real precursor to change on the larger issue.
This is where the meat and potatos of the abortion battle lies. Can a minor have an abortion without parental consent, even though she can't get a tattoo or any other type of elective surgery without it? Must a spouse be notified in the event of an abortion? Will it remain legal to abort a child up until the point of birth? Will the Federal Government use tax dollars to support faclities that provide abortions? Will it remain legal to pierce the skull of an 8 month fetus and remove its brain with suction?
The case isn't much different for gun-control - don't expect any real differences in federal gun-control if either candidate (or anyone else) is elected.
Kerry voted to renew the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. That speaks volumes about what kind of leader he'll be. Under the previous President, there are things that I own that could no longer be legally made or imported, under the current President that changed. If you think that there is no difference between the two major parties on gun control, you don't know the issue.
LK
Oopsies (Score:2, Interesting)
Except for those 17 U.N. resolutions that Saddam violated, but no one cares about those.
Re:I hope you get cancer (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually I did loose my high paying IT job. And I choose to discontinue my insurance because it was too expensive, and I would have lost it anyway. After that, my second daughter was born, and every month I wonder if it's the one they'll forclose on my house, because I'm sixty days on both mortgages.
So in order to keep the lights on, and eat, (literally, we went several weeks when the only food in the house was baby formula.) I started a business, and sent out resumes. No takers on the resume. Now my credit is shot, so I can't work for a bank, or work under a waiver while I wait for a new DoD security clearance. My business phone line was disconnected, followed by my home phone. Things looked bleak. Some of you will know who I am from these details, so you know what happened next. I got back up, and kept working.
The government didn't help me, and I didn't ask. i got knocked on my ass, and I got up. I got knocked down again and got back up. I'm looking for work and finding it. I'm turning things around, and the only reason I that businesses are able to afford to hire my company is that the Bush cut taxes on the "rich" freed up capital, and reduced drag on the economy. Don't tell me the economy hasn't turned around. I see it every time I go in for a sales meeting and come out with more work. (which is difficult since I'm and engineer, forced to become a salesman.) Kerry wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts. I, quite literally, can't afford to see him elected.
So, you whished ill on me not knowing it had already happened. But being true to who we both are, I would never do that to you, and you will never succeed in life because you have no desire to. This also explains our political leanings which are an outgrowth of the kind of life we lead. I found the strength to survive and move forward, Helped by the lessening of government restraints. While you lack even the courage to be known by a psudeonym. And this speaks volumes of the cause you espouse.
Oh, and my dad died of cancer a few years ago. He had insurance, but strangely enough, it didn't help. Maybe if we elect enough "caring" liberals such as yourself to office, we can pass a law to make having cancer illegal. But like most failed social programs, it won't cure cancer, it'll just put a bunch of cancer patients in jail.
Re:Yellowcake in Iraq (Score:1, Interesting)
Here is an excerpt from one of your own conservative sources.
"Key documents supporting the claim were found later to be forgeries, but the U.S. said its original information about the alleged attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger came from British intelligence. The UK's Foreign Office still stands on its claim."
I dub thee hypcrite because you dispute CBS's take on W's service/lack thereof/coverup and back dating as baseless even though proven to be correct in all but the visual prop, yet are willing to back an administration that used forgeries to support its claims of WMDs to go to war. Better still despite all the "evidence" they presented they have not found credible stockpiles.
Oh but it gets worse for you and your terrible argument. No one discounts that Iraq had nuclear capabilities/materials at some point in time. So your yellowcake could have been materials disposed of in the past. Many were stored in secured sites. If this administration had done such a shoddy job of securing these sites, perhaps this steel would have never gotten out of the country.
Where are these potential "100 nuclear warheads" of yellowcake? Did this President win the War of Iraq only to compromise this countries battles to thwart terrorists from getting nuclear waepons. If so he should go. Though I am sure not your intent, thank you for giving me yet another reason to vote him out.
Terrorist networks? (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like the ones in Afghanistan that he's been ignoring to carry on this vendetta against Saddam Hussein?
Saddam Hussein was already "taken out" by the other President Bush, who said that invading Iraq then (even when they had more resources and better support from the neighboring countries) would have been a mistake?
I feel sorry for him. President Bush Sr., that is. He must be mortified.
Re:michael's madness (Score:2, Interesting)
And you find the Drudge Report to be credible?
why not quote the Enquirer as well? around the same rank aren't they?
Lord knows, I never understand how people think it's so legitimate because it's on the 'net and linkable. Ohhh..I hyperlinked it. Now it's a respectable reference! Blogs too!
Those are pretty weak references pal. Might as well link to the heritage foundation while at it eh?
Why I don't like Bush (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, absolutely. I doubt that there's a potential presidential candidate that absolutely refrains from lying.
However, Bush is in hot water not for lying (Clinton, for instance, lied about his sex life and the public didn't care) but for lying to convince the public that we needed to declare war on Iraq. Clinton's lie maybe set a bad example, but that's about it -- Bush's had a lot of lives, international relations, and money at stake.
People are attracted to voting for Bush because we always know where he stands, and yes I do want him to send the military to kill terrorists and terrorist networks (and yes I do know somewhat of the sacrifice military people make, my dad was in the military, and was half paralyzed and half brain dead from the time I was 7 due to his injuries in the service).
Do you? What's Bush's timeline for Iraq over the next four years? What, in detail, does he intend to do with alternative fuel research? I don't know, because Bush hasn't announced anything. I don't really know much about Bush's specifics. I know that:
* His VP is very hawkish.
* Bush is willing to invade and occupy countries for reasons that I do not consider sufficient to invade and occupy countries.
* Bush backs changing the Constitution to ban gay/lesbian marriage. I don't like this.
* Bush has pushed NASA into reallocating a huge amount of their funds towards a manned Mars mission, not something that I view as worthwhile as other projects that were replaced.
* Bush has said that he supports the Assault Weapon Ban (one of the few reasons I could see voting for Bush instead of Kerry would be that Republicans tend to be better about protecting gun rights).
* Bush has made my nation very unpopular internationally over the span of his presidency.
* Ashcroft is Bush's appointed AG -- and Ashcroft pushes his conservative religious values on the nation, is an advocate of monitoring and eliminating oversight of the Department of Justice.
Does anyone remember September 11th? Does anyone remember Osama declaring war on the U.S.? Does anyone remember the feelings they had that day, or the day after 9/11,... the feelings that justice must be done for these several thousand people that died, and we must prevent it from happening again. Look, Kerry voted for this war too, he supported it. Bush just stuck to his guns, I know where he stands and that's why I'm voting for him.
That many people die each week from smoking or each month from car crashes. Both problems cause much more economic on a *recurring*, *yearly* basis. Yet most of Bush's presidency has been spent prioritizing the "War on Terror" over everything else, and allocating my money to fight this "War on Terror". Said "War on Terror" could be taken directly from 1984. I don't like it.
Even if there weren't WMD's, remember Saddam was a tyrant dictator that killed thousands of his own people with WMD's and then threw them in mass graves.
He killed those people *after* we encouraged them to rise up against him. It's a little difficult to call him out on that point. Besides -- I expect that with the proper media coverage, the skeletons in just about anyone's closet can be made pretty awful -- I don't want a leader to declare war and try justifying it afterwards on very flimy grounds. By this logic, if we find Bush's grounds for war to be legitimate, we also need to allow him to declare war on a large number of other regimes around the world, and try to use military force to cause change. I think that this is a bad idea -- I don't accept the "well, Saddam was a nasty guy" justification. Besides, if Saddam is *that* bad, don't you think it'd be better for the Iraqis to rise up and remove him, rather than us? Look at our Revolutionary War. We had enough people get fed up with the leaders
He wanted this from the start... (Score:1, Interesting)
I was in the Army when Bush took office. Within about eight or ten weeks of him taking office, we were told to be combat-ready at all times, and had to be ready to deploy within 24 hours. They put us "Level-A" alert, and gave no reasons. The fact is that Bush wanted to go to war from the start: he wanted to play with his military toy. And no man like that should be in office.
Re:LIAR (Score:3, Interesting)
Anarchism, n. a doctrine advocating the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensible condition for full social and political liberty.
Seems most of you so-called anarchists don't have a clue what anarchism is about either. Been there, done that countless times in human history, *it didn't work*.
Max
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
When said policy includes things with such massive collateral damage such as shooting missiles into the streets, killing alleged terrorists as well as many civilians. (I'm using the word alleged here, since it's probably on the word of Mossad, and not any court-ruling that these people are named terrorists.)
Now, before you say, "but what about the terrorists, they're bombing Israeli civilians", I'll be happy to state the difference. The terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such; arrested, if possible, and put to trial. Israel, however, is a state, and should not use the same inhumane methods as criminals that blow people up right and left.
Now, these terrorists may or may not be supported by Arafat (or whomever) in the Palestine government. It's certainly something that requires further investigation. The difference here (between two possible variants of state-sponsored terrorism (term used losely)) is that Palestine (if it actually sponsors the terrorists) does so with more clandestine methods, thus concealing the link between the terror and the state. Israel does no such thing, but instead explains that the methods used are the same their enemies are using (or less worse actually, since Israeli operations has a military target, whereas suicide bombings and such does not - neither side seems overly concerned with collateral damage though). But a state cannot compare its methods or actions to that of a non-state. It simply doesn't work that way.
If the UN were to vote on whether or not to support terrorist activities in Israel they would naturally not support it, nor do they support state-sponsored terrorism of any kind (please correct me on this, if I am mistaken).
As Israel is naturally a sensitive subject, perhaps a small disclaimer is appropriate. This post is NOT antisemitic in nature. My views on the matter would be the same regardless of with nation acted as described above, and I do NOT condone terrorism (not the 'ordinary' kind or the state-sponsored kind (in the slightly Chomskyan sense)).
Re:Burden of proof (Score:4, Interesting)
But the inspections were working before the invasion. Can you really use actions that took place long before as an excuse for a war, espesially since the matter had been resolved already?
And, at one point, USA asked the inspectors to leave due to immiment military action (Operation Desert Fox). Funnily enough, that incident is usally described as "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" in the USA, when it fact it was USA that asked them to leave.
Uh, no they didn't. He did posess such weapons earlier, but they were destroyed after the first Gulf war.
Inspectors did not believe that they existed. They had no evidence one way or the other. They were there trying to make sure they were destroyed. Unfortunately USA did not let them finish the job.
Let's review the facts shall we? USA claimed that Iraq had WMD's. Iraq claimed it had no WMD's. USA had no real evidence to support their claims. Iraq had evidence to support their claims with some omissions. There were inspectors on the ground determining the validity of the claims made by USA and Iraq.
Where was the need to invade? And since no WMD's have been found, it seems that Iraq was right and USA was wrong. So how exactly was the war (and killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians) justified? Iraq was telling the truth it seems.
So, if no WMD's are found, it just proved that Saddam hid them REALLY well? It does not prove that there are no WMD's? If US Forces are able to find one man in a hole in the ground in some remote location, surely they can find those WMD's?
And how do you prove a negative? According to you, if no WMD's are found, it only proves that they are really well hidden. How do you prove that there are no WMD's? It seems to me that Iraq had no way to convince people like you that they had no WMD's. You just wanted to have your little war, no matter what.
Re:Burden of proof (Score:3, Interesting)
Another one I like is the phrase 'do-gooder', i.e. someone who always wants to make sure that things work out well for everyone in a given problem/situation. This is also apparently a term of derision, although I'm not sure I understand why.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:2, Interesting)
So there's oil, and then there's also the strategic placement of the country, and a desire to replace Hussein with somebody more friendly (which unfortunately entails pissing off a whole new group in the Middle East), and the blind 9/11 terrified patriotic fervor of which the chickenhawks took advantage.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr200
But anyway, oil wasn't the only reason.
Re:And this is surprising why? (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the lessons was: "it is easier to get forgiveness than to get permission".
One of the lessons the Bush administration applied, apparently.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
The average Iranian likes America as the cradle of the American way of life and has no grudges against individual Americans. They do show, however, increasing distrust of America as a political entity. As I've said, if the US were to invade Iran to prevent the government from acquiring the A-bomb, the outcome depends on how quickly the US would be able to restore/provide peace, stability, prosperity and individual freedom so that the Iranian people would come to judge America by the former aspect rather than the latter. Seeing the US Iraq experience as well as the fact that Iran is a much more complicated country topographically, ethnically, linguistically and politically, I sincerely hope that the US don't botch this. But then, there's a reason why my country expects to be on a large-scale peacekeeping mission in Iran over the next ten years.
Re:Israel (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't even a Bush Jr issue. When Clinton needed to deflect some attention from the fact that the president lied in court (which was the real issue, not the BJ) he went and bombed someone.
However, to be entirely fair, I don't think you can really single out the Americans for that. The whole human species is deffective like that.
I remember some years back India going all nationally happy about their nuke program. FFS, it's still a very poor country (as income per capita goes), and was even poorer back then. Yet instead of, I dunno, building more factories, they dump billions of dollars into WMD research. And the people were actually _happy_ about it.
Or I remember way back when the civil war raged in Beirut. So there was this TV reporter talking to a civilian widdow. And she shows the reporters all the destruction, including a church were civilians took refuge during an artillery barrage. Good idea until a shell flew in through a window, and gibbed every single soul inside that church.
So the distressed woman is calling for help from the western world. Now take a guess what kind of help she wanted. Maybe humanitarian relief? Stopping the war?
No. FFS, she wants more weapons so they can do the same to the other side.
It's one of those things you don't forget easily. It's such a testimony of the utter stupidity of average humans.
And just so noone discounts that as happening only in backwards countries, it happened in Europe too.
E.g., WW2 started with Germany officially just "defending" itself from a heinous attack from Poland. Just in this case, a lie. But it worked.
Hitler's gaining absolute power was also based on another heinous (and fabricated) act of terrorism. A symbolic building, the Reichstag (Parliament building) is burned down on 27 February 1933.
Just like the Americans now, the shocked Germans back then didn't see anything wrong to give up some liberties in such an extreme situation. The very next day, on the Februaray 28'th, President Hindenburg and Chancellor Hitler invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permits the suspension of civil liberties in time of national emergency.
Where that led, we all know.
It doesn't matter???? (Score:1, Interesting)
The US administration lied to the citizens in order to start a war that has killed at least 10,000 innocent people so far, destabilized a moderate-sized country, and caused the United States to become almost universally hated outside its borders; and you think it doesn't matter?
I can understand somebody who argues it isn't true; I can sort of understand somebody who argues it was the right thing to do anyway.
But I can't understand somebody who thinks it just doesn't matter.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
The contrary? Are you claiming there was proof of non-destroyed WMD's? All I heard the inspectors say was that they couldn't prove without a doubt that all the weapons had been destroyed, but that they had no proof that they hadn't been, and that with a few more months they could account for all the weapons.
And then bush pulled them out and sent in the troops.
Let me repeat: there is no proof Saddam didn't comply with the resolutions to disarm. There were no iraqi WMD's. If there were, they would have been found by now.
And that's the thing, the whole international legitimization for invading another country is that your nation is under attack, or is under threat of attack, by that country. The Iraq war could only be legal if there was clear-cut evidence that not only Iraq had WMD's or an active WMD program, but that in addition they intended to deploy these WMD's against the US and had the capability to. There is no undisputable proof for any of these things, and there never was. So the Iraq war is a violation of international treaty, making it illegal, as Kofi Annan already stated.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if only the US Government hadn't helped him in the first place...
and a people freed of his tyranny.
Instead they have foreign soldiers in their country, a puppet government and infrastructure which is in even more of a mess. The Iraqi people are certainly not "free".
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:2, Interesting)
How about:
1) Syria into the Golan Heights
2) Israel into the Golan Heights
3) Russia into Afganistan (ok, Russia is on the UN Security Council)
4) Argentina into Falklands
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:4, Interesting)
1 in 60 of our entire population. 1 million people.
The British population did not want this war. We knew there was no evidence.
We still took it in the ass.
-Nano.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just like the Americans now, the shocked Germans back then didn't see anything wrong to give up some liberties in such an extreme situation. The very next day, on the Februaray 28'th, President Hindenburg and Chancellor Hitler invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permits the suspension of civil liberties in time of national emergency.
The Weimar Republic isn't only a historical warning about giving up civil liberties, it's a permanent reminder of democracy in it self not being inherently "good" and as such it can't be a moral justification for political change or a goal of militairy intervention; there is no guarantee whatsoever that a (newly installed) democracy will not turn into a dictatorship.
The only democracy that has some real constitutional safeguards against ending up as a dictatorship is (you guessed it) Germany, but to install this kind safeguards you have to take away some civil liberties too...
Re:The Falklands War and Using Your Own Brain.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The comments that count are from Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others in their 1998 letter to Clinton about why Iraq needs to be invaded to capture its oil supply for the West. Read it online at The Project for the New American Century [newamericancentury.org], the far-right website for all things Pax Americana. It's worth noting that ten of the people that signed this letter have now served in the Bush administration.
It was always about oil, even before Bush got in.
TWW
Re:Does it matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny how Bush keeps repeating Kerry's sound bite about how Kerry voted for the $87 billion, before he voted against it. Of course, the version of the bill that Kerry voted for, Bush threatened to veto, and the version that Kerry voted against, Bush signed. Why Kerry doesn't frequently accuse Bush of flip-flopping on that issue, I'm not sure... maybe something to do with what you said?
As much as everybody hates bush..... (Score:2, Interesting)
I am TOTALLY angry at the Dem's for stacking the primary process so that they had a candidate so early in the primary process. So very FEW states decided for the rest of the country who was going to be their candidate that the vetting process was not fully completed. AND as a result I'm of the opinion that Kerry is one of the WORST if not THE WORST candidate they could of fielded.
Mind you I don't like BUSH...but don't think that Kerry is anything more than a Political opportunist who has no values other than the collection of POWER. Say what you want about Bush and I'm likely to agree with you.
Bush is stuck up in moral self-righteousness
Kerry is stuck up on an Elitist attitude that he should be prez because everybody else is "little people" and "HE" knows whats "right"
If Kerry wins....mark my words he'll be just as much in bed with Corporations as Bush. AND he'll change his position at a moments notice if he thinks public opinion is against him.
Don't think Kerry would go to war for stupid reasons. I think that if Kerry were in the same position and as Bush was and the public just happened to be screaming for war against Iraq/Iran
So who do you want? Somebody who does not give a rats ass about public but uses his own hard religious convictions(Bush)? Or somebody who is so fickle that he'll follow the masses wherever they lead....right off the cliff (Kerry)!
To all you German/French/Russian citizens....there is enough hypocracy to go around. Where were you when your countries ignored the sanctions and sold everything under the sun including WEAPONS to Saddam during the sanctions.
I've never seen a worse set of canidates to vote for. I hate ALL of them!
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not necessarily causation... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a correlation, but an equally valid interpretation is that American sexual/religious conservatism and certain psychological theories popular in the first half of the 20th century combined to temporarily universalize the notion that breast-feeding should be minimized or eliminated from the rearing process.
This conservatism can be identified directly with, or at least blamed for, the fetishization of the breast in modern mainstream America. Hence, mere correlation or even reverse causation.
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can agree to every word of this article. (Score:4, Interesting)
But now I can agree with every word of the article linked by parent post.
Re:A defense of "no superbowl tits..or warn me fir (Score:3, Interesting)
"My main objection, as I've stated in another reply, was that our current regulatory and cultural environment conditioned me not to expect a strip show in the middle of the superbowl."
I'm not sure I understand, was there actually a strip show during the superbowl or just a tiny glimpse of a breast for a fraction of a second ?
If it was indeed a strip show then it should certainly have been advertised as such but if it was just a very quick flash of a single breast which was over in a second then I can't see any problem with that and I see no need to specifically advertise that beforehand.
Despite what you say it does seem rather like you are trying to impose your moral views on other people by requesting that such minor things are made such a big fuss of.
"global test" (Score:3, Interesting)
Taking the first step of unilateralism will force us to do more of it, in the future.
So either ANY country can apply the Bush Doctrine, or perhaps any country with enough weapons.
Allowing the Bush Doctrine to stand is a Danger to all, because it's going to be even harder to prevent from proliferating than nuclear weapons.
One can think first of China or Russia deploying troops based on the Bush Doctrine, but there's something far more insidious. Think about Rawanda, Congo, and the like, all feeling that pre-emptive strikes are in their best interest, and the US has given the idea the green light to do so. For us to disapprove then puts us more squarely into the role of World Police. I doubt we'd have much luck motivating other nations to take action against an "innappropriate Bush Doctrine action," especially once they figure out to call it by that name. So either we have to get in there and police, or we have to let it just happen, essentially giving it our tacit approval.
circling vultures (Score:2, Interesting)
What about this one, [msn.com] where the NYT got hosed like everyone else?
Let us not forget that the NYT sometimes plays dirty games. [prweb.com]
And this. [powerlineblog.com]
And this. [etext.org]
And this. [rnc.org]
Also do not forget the "journalists" [yahoo.com]that actually fabricate stories.
The fallout. [gazetteonline.com]
Supporting my argument [flash.net]
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe you are being selective in your memory. The forged Guard document story was thoroughly covered on Slashdot to the detriment of CBS, Kerry and the Democrats though its questionable if it had anything to do with Kerry and the Democrats. Maybe you just can't cope with stories that don't agree with your world view so you fixate on them.
It is becoming a tried and true tactic by the right to scream bias at every opportunity and pound the media and editors in to becoming biased to the right because they get worn down by constantly accused of having a liberal bias. Its worked really well thanks to 9/11, the rise of Fox News, and constant threat of being accused of being unpatriotic if you question the Bush administration.
The "liberal bias" in American media has been largely erased, and the pounding CBS is taking should finish it off. In its place we have an increasingly right wing bias which is why the U.S. was very successfully rushed in to the war in Iraq without the media questioning a fabricated case for WMD's and ties between 9/11 and Iraq at all. They were to busy riding along with the troops cheering it on, to do their job and challenging the reason for an aggressive, preemptive, illegal war.
more tech news.. no politics (Score:3, Interesting)
This is nothing but a hot bed of liberal left ideas, and nowhere are conservative ideas permitted to have any creedence, as they are always marked troll, flamebait, or some other term straight out of the leftist playbook.
The rebellion of these people against the establishment from years of being socially outcast, manifested into a powerful cynicism permeating every aspect of life and skewing observed information to suit their predefined jaded position. After searching for meaning and finally finding a niche in computers, "education", and anti-establishment/anti-mainstream ideas, the newly intellectual elite now come to spread the creed of those who would suppress the "intellectually inferior" ideas, viewed as wrong or archaic, but claim to promote tolerance of ideas and free speech. This along with the intrinsically socialist left ideas of free and open source software, as well as the destruction of property rights, which people here advocate ad infinitum, amounts to a group of people who embrace the ideas of those who would not separate them from those who outcast them, despite their intellectual elitist mentality. Ever the champion of the downtrodden, the democratic party (now hijacked by marxist/socialism) now finds itself ready to assimilate those outcast, oppressed newly intellectual elite; ready to take their cynicism and anti-establishment mentality to the promised land of equality, equality with those who are clearly not equal.... unless you expect to make it into the ruling body.
I am so pissed that this source for breaking tech news is comprised of the remnants of the former Soviet politburo and their indoctrinated youth.
Re:Israel (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes creating walled ghettos for your enemies does work quite well on the security front. Thats why the Nazis put Jews in walled ghettos in Poland and elsewhere. If you want to take it to the next level, concentration camps work even better to keep your enemies under control and keeping yourself safe. What degree of brutality are you willing to justify to insure your security.
Walled ghettos are what we are talking about here aren't we? Israel is building walled and ever shrinking ghettos in to which they are shoving all the Arab's in their borders where they will do their best to starve them in to oblivion, Gaza being the biggest and worst. Israel wants to build a walled Ghetto in Gaza and then pretend like they are giving the miserable people in it their "freedom" in exchange for stealing more "living room" on the West Bank.
A key point here is Jews can't allow Arabs to grow in to a majority at the ballot box, because then the Jewish government would fall peacefully or they will have to institute apartheid which is practically what they are doing. Arabs in Israel are breeding at a far higher rate than Jews so a loss at the ballot box is inevitable unless the Jews take extreme measures which is what they are doing.
How exactly are the people in these ghettos supposed to make a living and feed themselves with Israeli guards shutting them off from the rest of the world and each other at their whim.
If you want to insure a never ending supply of suicide bombers put millions of people into ghettos with 50%+ unemployment, grinding poverty and no hope. Yeah its a real winner of a strategy. Its been the strategy for most of Israel's history and it hasn't worked. They act like they don't understand why Palastinians, born in slums, raised in slums and who will die in slums, want to kill them. Its either stupid or disingenuous for Israelis to pretend like they don't understand why Palastinian's are fighting back and trying to kill them.
After the brutality Jews suffered in the Third Reich's ghettos you'd think they'd be a little more sensitive to doing many of the same things, albeit not to the same extreme level, to their racial enemies.
Bottomline all I could hope for from Israel is they tap their collective memory and refrain from employing the same tactics the Nazis employed against them, tactics which they still constantly wave in the world's face as justification for getting special consideration from the world
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is pure artistry to give your self a blank check to conquer the world. The only flaw is most of the rest of the world didn't buy it the first time around and even the myopic American people are getting a little skeptical now after they see Iraq didn't have them and North Korea does.
I'd say the Bush administration has put themselves on pretty shaky ground when they try to build the same case for invading Iran next year.
I am an Iraqi and I thank you (Score:3, Interesting)