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.

Comments

Nothing to see here... move along?

[TibbonZero]

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

"new york times"

[rwven]

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

Re:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD,

[ericdano]

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

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

Re:What makes you think this will change anything?

[kd5ujz]

This coming from an AC. Who is the pussy now? Typical right wing bullshit. "YOUR WRONG FRENCH BASTARD!" But america is a safer place now, just dont get too far from your gas mask.

When veiwed in Context...

[Dozix007]

I find it interesting (thought not shocking) how a newspaper, such as the NYT, will pull anything out of context to extract the best headline possible. I somehow doubt that Aluminum Tubes were the single piece of evidence that the current Administration had. It is more likely that this information was used as a small piece of evidence along with other information. Also, I think it is quite interesting that this is considered a Republican story. As I recall Democrats and Republicans had access to the same evidence that Bush did. Then again, that wouldn't make for a juicy headline for the masses. What was I thinking, honest news ? That would never sell (at least in NY).

And we all know The New York Times

[adzoox]

... that the New York Times should be considered an unbiased and balanced source for all of our political news.

Funny, they haven't had a single anti-Kerry piece so far.

- no coverage of political campaign contributions being misappropriated and illegal

- little to no coverage of the backlash against Fahrenheit 9/11

- no coverage of George Bush interview with Bill O'Reilly

- next to zero coverage of CBS evidence mistake

And let me just say - slashdot - you are REALLY polarizing your users, I know this makes no difference and will be modded into flamebait oblivion. But how about a pro Bush post - like computers for education plans that he's signed - or an Anti Kerry story - about how the military is actually using the best technology and they needed more funds for it and Kerry voted against sending more money to fund it. (Yet says he's for removing Saddam and completing the job in iraq)

Re:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD,

[Biscayne]

The only difference between Kerry's plan and Bush's plan for Iraq is the name on the top of the page saying who wrote it, and some minor differences, such as they way things are worded. I honestly think that Kerry is trying to use the Hitler plan, hoping that people will believe what they want to believe, and tune everyone and everything else out. I hope that the American people are smart enough to realize that the BS that Kerry and the Liberal media is spouting off is just that, BS. But then again, I was always told one thing, and that is to never underestimate the stupidity of people.

lying == lying

[Doc Ruby]

Strong?! They lied! And then we invaded Iraq, where we're bogged down in a miserable catastrophe built on lies. Isn't that "a bit strong"? This isn't TV, this is WAR. LIES!

Re:Whaaaa?

[character_assassin]

For your information: The Clinton Administration did not sell nuclear missles, nor any other US military technology, to China. That's Israel's job.

Re:LIAR

[lateralus_1024]

It's no use, there's a looney republikan fringe that share the same brain and refute facts because Faux didn't report it. I can't wait for W to narrowly win and then let Congress loose on Galileo's clearly liberal gibberish.

Re:Whaaaa?

[The boojum]

I am so sick of this kind of thing. Each time someone discovers a coinage like this they think themselves clever. But it's not clever, it's trite and juvenile, and it's been done a million times before.

Bushshit, BusHitler, Sheeple, Shrubya, Chimpy, etc. They've all been beaten into the ground.

Lay off the name calling, present your ideas calmly and without the rhetoric and hysteria and people might start to take your ideas seriously. Keep it up and you'll be instantly dismissed as just another radical lefty wacko.

Re:/. Bias

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Oh, it's absurd on so many levels.

First of all, "lied?" I'm so fucking sick of that word being thrown around. I know that there are some people out there who are just so consumed by hate that they refuse to think. I know this, you know this, everybody knows this. But do there have to be so many of them?

Did we invade Iraq over aluminum tubes? No, no we did not. People who fixate on aluminum tubes or yellowcake or bioweapons trailers or any other single aspect of the situation are like Johnny Cochrane pulling the ridiculous and phenomenally successful glove defense: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Guys, we didn't go to war over one thing. We didn't go to war over a single breach of a treaty or a single act of terrorism or a single anything at all. We went to war because the sum of the available facts and inferences led to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat that we could no longer tolerate.

Is that too hard for you to wrap your heads around? Is that too complicated for you? Fine, let me put it in the simplest way I know. The very simplest. Ready? Here it is:

We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had close ties to all sorts of international terrorist organizations and active weapons programs that either already had or would soon give him weapons that, if used in a terrorist attack, would result in devastation on a scale that has only ever been associated with total war.

I'm really sorry that it's not any simpler than that. I'll try to break it down for you.

1. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. This is a partial list of terrorist acts that Saddam was personally involved with. It is not a complete list. Do not look at this list and go "is that all?" because it isn't.

a. Up until the very week before the invasion, Saddam was making large cash payments to the families of Hamas terrorists. He wasn't even trying to hide it. The presentations of the checks was shown on Iraqi state-run television like Saddam was fucking Ed McMahon.

b. Saddam used the Iraqi diplomatic corps to pass messages back and forth to Abu Sayyaf, an Islamist terror group that operates in and around the Philippines.

c. After Tunisia expelled terrorist Abu Abbas over the hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, Saddam gave him safe haven in Iraq. Abu Abbas was captured outside Baghdad last year.

d. After the defeat of the Taliban and the destruction of al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan in the winter of 2001, members of al-Qaida relocated to Iraq and set up shop in the mountains south of Kirkuk. One of these was Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was known to have spent a lot of time at al-Qaida camps in 2000 and 2001.

e. Sometime in the 1990s --we do not know precisely when--Saddam gave terrorist Abu Nidal permission to enter and leave Iraq at will, including setting him up with a Baghdad safehouse. Ironically, it was Saddam who ordered Abu Nidal's execution in 2002. Why? Because he refused to train the al-Qaida terrorists who set up shop inside Iraq in early 2002.

The list just goes on and fucking on. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist himself, a friend of terrorists, a supporter of terrorists. That alone is enough to make all non-head-up-asses Americans really fucking nervous, because of the whole thing with that chunk of real estate in lower Manhattan that's not there any more.

But that's not all there was, you see. What really took it from "we're nervous" to "this can't be allowed to continue" was Saddam's weapons programs. His chemical program is thoroughly documented. His nuclear program is thoroughly documented. His biological program is thoroughly documented. His ballistic missile program is thoroughly documented. His UAV and drone programs are thoroughly documented. These things aren't even in dispute. Nobody's suggesting that Saddam wasn't actively seeking weapons of mass destruction.

What people are saying is that he didn't actually have weapons of m

Come on

[bobbuck]

The aluminum tubes were just one element of the case against Saddam. He would have tried to get WMD's as soon as the international heat was off, maybe sooner.

As for Clinton, nobody really cared if he was boning his interns. That was just a way to get at him. He was accepting millions of dollars from Chinese and other Asian donors and making any policy they saw fit. Another point is that he was being paid to look out for the United States and he was completely AWOL. Madeline Albright admitted she and the Clinton adm. knew the North Koreans were cheating on the nuclear deal and they didn't do anything about it! US foreign policy then was more about propping up Tyson Foods than anything, else.

Conservative Rule #1

[revscat]

"Attack the source."

So what specifically do you challenge? Because from where I sit it looks like yet another variation on the "don't believe your lyin' eyes" mem that conservatives love to trot out whenever the facts are against them. You have a specific rebuttal, then speak up. Until then, shut yer whining yap.

Re:Burden of proof

[fmaxwell]

University.. You mean that place where professors that didn't know anything outside of campus life tried to brainwash me with liberal and communist ideals?

Brainwashing you would be like trying to perform a hysterectomy on a worm.

Professors are liberal because they are informed, educated, and intelligent. The lack of those three qualities is precisely why you are not liberal.

Bush endangers national security

[t_allardyce]

...and what do we do to people who endanger national security? we arrest them without charge and dump them in cuba. Go on, someone make my day! please be sure the media get a good position to catch him being taken away in a police cruiser. Bush is certainly up there as one of Americas worst presidents, I really want to see him loose badly, it would definately boost respect for America.

Oh please!

[solarrhino]

The NYTimes (and its ilk) are a horde of lying liars who'll print (or broadcast) anything to win, baby. Here's what today's column by John Leo has to say about the "paper of record", among others:

In July, a Senate intelligence committee and an official British investigation both concluded that President Bush had been on firm ground when he spoke the famous 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union message (that the British had learned Saddam Hussein had sought to acquire uranium in Africa). When the 16 words appeared to be untrue, the press endlessly trumpeted them, often on the front page, but when Bush drew heavy support from the two investigations, you could hardly find the news with a magnifying glass. In the New York Times, the British report was carried way inside the paper and read like a muddled translation from classical Urdu. This seems to happen a lot when the Times is forced to report news it doesn't like. On July 25, the Washington Post press critic, Howard Kurtz, reported that his newspaper had carried 96 references to the issue when Bush appeared to be wrong and only two after the revelation that he looked to be right. The totals for the three major networks and three elite newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, were 302 before and nine after. According to Kurtz, CBS never did get around to mentioning that the investigations had supported the president.

This will turn out the same way. Over and over charges like this get flung at Bush, and each and every time he comes up smelling like a rose. When you people understand - he's not a scoundrel like Clinton, he's honestly doing the right things for the right reasons!

Re:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD,

[mrbrown1602]

When? Clinton never EVER testified before Congress, so right there you show you don't know what you're talking about. Sitting presidents don't.

Mr. Clinton sent his representatives to various forums (including the UN) in 1997 and 1998 during the height of the Iraq disarmament crisis in the 90s. In fact, the stated goal of Operation Desert Fox was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities. Secretary Albright actually stated several times that Iraq had WMDs and that Hussein should be taken out - see Albright's March 1997 speech to Georgetown University on the subject

When? When did John Kerry know that aluminum tubes were not capable of being used in nuclear weaponsmaking, but claimed they were so capable anyway, and did so in front of Congress? Do tell.

Typical liberal, spinning what I said. The "lies" I was referring to was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Senator Kerry actually helped author and signed a letter to Clinton in 1998 which state [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.". Hmm... 1998? Yeah, that's right, I'm pretty sure Bush wasn't given any intelligence on Iraq in '98, seeing as how he wasn't President and all... There are more quotes where that came from.

They were stating what they believed. When the Bush admin officials testified in front of Congress, they were intentionally LYING. Big difference. They had information beforehand that contradicted what they were saying, and can be proven to have known it.

The article doesn't really state anything new. It just says the administration embraced a disputed theory, and there's really nothing wrong with that. Saying that the 9/11 Terrorists were arabs and followers of Osama bin Laden is a disputed theory, as there are some out there that are silly enough to believe that the MOSAD did it. Bush Sr, Clinton, and Dubya all believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and unlike his father and BJ Boy, he took action after we were attacked on 9/11. Yes, I know, Iraq was not involved in 9/11. However, the policy of this administration is that if you support ANY form of terrorism, expect your ass to be taken out. The case can be argued that Hussein supported Palestinian suicide bombers by paying their families, and actually on occasion trained terrorists. In addition, some members of al-Qaeda received medical treatment in Baghdad. And oh yes, did you know there was a camp outside of Baghdad that contained a Boeing 707 that Iraqi Special Forces used to practice hijacking planes?

I'm not even going to go into the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed by President Clinton, which actually made the policy of the United States that of regime change in Iraq. I'm not going to go into the 16 UN Resolutions that the United States pushed since 1991 which stated Hussein was a threat.

Shyah? Conservatives alwas find it so easy to find a hole to crawl into when the rhetoric fails to be convincing.

I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence out there, because you're just a blind ideologue. It was obvious that you are one when you made the Halliburton comment. At least I can see the other side, and I've proven that by campaigning for Democrats in the past (and currently in the Baton Rouge Mayor-President race). Stop being an ideologue with spun arguments and maybe people will listen to you.

crusade?

[circletimessquare]

you mean 9/11?

i see what you mean then ;-P

how can you filter out the negative actions others take on you and only see the negative actions you take others?

it's stupid to see only your heroic acts and be blind to your sins, no?

well, it's equally stupid to see only your sins and be blind to your capacity for good

you can only characterize the us in the middle east as a crusade only if nothing came before: that the us just launched into iraq on religious reasons, and the middle east was just minding it's own business

when the truth is, it was largely religious reasons that caused some middle eastern madmen to execute 9/11.

which perciptated iraq and afghanistan

but not in your mind: you filter out all that obvious cause and effect and come to the breathtaking conclusion: the us is on a crusade

and that you can say "sounds like a grand crusade" and not see the irony of your maladaptive pov, that the opposite is the truth

wow

jokes on you ;-)

you are self-centered

[circletimessquare]

you have an interpersonal issue

because you are incapable of understanding other people's actions without understanding how they relate to you

you can't conceive that someone would do something because of their own agenda, regardless of what you did or did not do

example: what happened in bali to the australian tourists and the balinesians? in madrid on 3/11? in chechnya in the schoolhouse?

how do those relate to to the us?

exactly, they don't

get it?

i don't think you do, i think your understanding of the world speaks volumes about your own maladative psychology: "people only do this or that because of me"

you have issues, you don't have solutions to these problems

you can't conceive that al qaeda does not revolve around the us, that it has its own agenda, and it invovles the us, but is not centered on the us

you are centered on the us

i am centered on the world, i see many players

you see nothing until it has to do with you

you have issues

Re:Whaaaa?

[Rayonic]

> Or if you're Israel and trying to stomp out somebody else, that's just swell and peachy

My good sir, if the Israelis were trying to kill all the Palestinians, then all the Palestinians would be dead.

But regardless, you weren't paying attention. Anything Israel does (like defending themselves from terrorist groups) does not have the United Nations seal of approval. Not by a long shot.

you're kind of stupid

[circletimessquare]

no really, i mean you're kind of low intelligence

there's no nuance in your words or arguments

just "kill all the palestinians!"

wo said that? who remotely was talking about that?

japan, germany- once scary, unstoppable forces in the world. did we kill every japanese, or german to stop them?

i feel as if saying any words past that obvious simple observation is wasted breath on you, that any more nuanced arguments might be wasted, because you are so prone to simplistic hyperbole and jumping to frankly downright stupid conclusions ("kill every palestinian!"=just plain stupid) that you're almost not worth talking to, because you can't seem to talk in reasonable tones, only jump to idiotic extremist simplsitic things: "kill every palestinian!"

who is even remotely talking about that?

only you

you're kind of... dumb

really, your observations seem genuinely low intelligence

The lies are extremely extensive.

[Futurepower(R)]

As you said, the lies are extremely extensive. The Bush administration corruption is the worst in U.S. history. Read the reviews of 3 movies and 35 recently published books that say the corruption is extremely intense: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

Explaining the OTHER 45%

[kylef]

To balance your decidedly un-funny characterization of republican supporters, here is my own summarization of Kerry supporters (or really, Bush Haters).

• Nature Freaks : They hate SUVs and think trees are more precious than people, smoke more pot than Tommy Chong in 1971, and mysteriously drive ancient Volkswagens that pollute worse than any modern fuel-injected vehicle. Usually pacifist, but only because their chronic protein deficiency from lack of meat consumption makes them physically weak; not, as some think, because of a well-conceived ethical philosophy.
• Earth Liberation Fronters : They're like nature freaks, but violent. They hate corporations as much as they hate genetically modified corn. Their scaremongering is usually relegated to city street corners where they attempt to get you to sign their petition, but they look utterly confused when you question how banning bumper crops of genetically modified produce could possibly help the millions starving annually in Africa due to famines.
• Moral Equivocaters : These people blame the US for terrorism, and consider US responses to terrorism the moral equivalent of the 9/11 attacks. Usually (and quite conveniently) they never blame themselves, or their own political heroes: just Republicans. These people are plagued by guilt at living in a country that is a superpower, and feel compelled to side with the underdog at all times, even when the underdog murders innocent people intentionally.
• Internet Revolutionaries : They know just enough about using a computer and a web browser to read (and believe) 99% of what they see on the Internet. They do not read print media (like newspapers), and think that they get a balanced perspective by only clicking on the stories they want to read. The groups they form online help them to feel like they're a part of something special, when in reality they are simply hiding from reality by clinging to cyberspace. They would never attempt to argue in person like they do online, because they actually aren't very knowledgeable: they rely entirely on Google to "back up" their pathological reasoning.
• Social Libertines : Paranoid that their way of life will be prosecuted by John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, they spread more FUD to derail legitimate law enforcement than actual terrorists themselves. This paranoia is most likely the result of illegal activity and the fear of being caught, e.g. closet pedophilia or habitual drug use/sales. They are convinced that John Ashcroft is more concerned about their silly little antics than about world terrorism. If the weed smoke were to ever settle down, they might see reality.
• Militant atheists : The scientific equivalent of religious fundamentalists. Most atheists are fairly tolerant, but these folks cannot stand anyone who believes in anything other than science. They think Karl Marx's idea of banning religion is the greatest idea ever. Ironically, they can't stand people who put "blind faith" in religion. If you ask them why they put "blind faith" in science, they don't understand what you mean. As such, they are just as intolerant as religious fundamentalists, but they don't see it that way, because they know they are right. Sound familiar?
• Christian-reactionaries : These people were so traumatized when they learned about the Crusades in history class that they have never been able to forgive Christians. Unlike the atheists, Reactionaries get along fine with new-age religions, or anything resembling "mystical spirituality". Eerily like the Equivocaters, Reactionaries feel guilty living in a society populated by Christians and feel compelled to fight against them because they're worried about what others world religions might think. Due to the missionary-style conversion tactics of many well-meaning Christian groups, Reactionaries have become paranoid, worried that the Christians

Re:Whaaaa?

[maxpublic]

I'd have to say there may be at least a grain of truth to the rumours circulating about George's mental health.

Although it certainly isn't PC to say it about a sitting president, his observed behavior sure fits the bill for clinical sociopathy. I'd love to get that guy alone for day-long interview to see if my armchair analysis is correct.

Max

Re:dear sir

[Troed]

Iraq is(was) not islamic, it's secular.

You must be american - knowing so little about the world and still using BIG WORDS.

(BTW, it's becoming more islamic _thanks to_ the US invasion)

Re:No need to RTFA. Consider the source. NYT. LOL!

[zpok]

"No need to RTFA. Consider the source."

Right, that's what the whole world says every time GWB opens his holy mouth...

Wilson lied during that testimony

[dammy]

Bad news for you, Joseph Wilson, Kerry-Edwards, foriegn-policy advisor (well, he was as of the end of July, not sure as of today), was completely discredited by the bi-partisan Senate Itelligence Commitee's report. It's pretty bad when his wife won't even back up his testimony.

Do you have any more shrilled loony left propaganda to spread on /.? Times like these with so many geeks falling for conspiracies and out right lies, makes it so hard to be identified as a geek in public.

since we're all chiming in

[yourfatmama]

Kerry is a flaming moron, and if i hear of his "combat" experiences one more time i'll puke, hahaha my favorite quote by Kerry is "certainty, can sometimes get you in trouble" what in the world??? so basically we should all just not stand for anything but rather just make whoever happens to be listening to us at the time happy and side with them. i'm voting Bush because the thought of Kerry in any position higher than white house cafeteria janitor just scares me to death. i also love how so many people believe democratic nominees when they say they are "from and for the people" implying their down to earthness -- when in actualty they are about as "down to earth" as the British Royal family. -- in Kerry's case-- yea i think being married to 2 different multimillionaire wives is very "down to earth". just look at the issues, and vote your conviction, yes all politicians fudge fib and flat out lie. its their nature, Bush at least appears to have some sense of morals, he's not afraid to use the word God and prayer and he sounds like he means it unlike Kerry who sounds like the spawn of satan when he briefly mentions anything pertaining to religion. (yea i'm exaggerating, but as do we all when making out soap box ridden points.) God help us all.

I have a solution...

[kabbalah]

Let's appologize to Saddam (and to liberals), put him back in power, so that he can continue on his mass murdering rampage.

I know I'm about 20 hours late but...

[Dr Kool, PhD]

This whole story is bullshit. If I wanted to read liberal idiot propaganda then I'd visit moveon.org, NOT slashdot.

Posting a BS story like this has only one purpose - to try to get people to vote for Kerry. Browse all the comments here at +4 and you'll see a patern of modding even the most insane "BUSH=HITLER" liberal looney tunes up, while any dissenting opinion at all is modded down.

Guess what guys, it's not going to work. People aren't falling for the BS of either side - you aren't convincing anyone to change their vote, you're just wasting your time and looking like fools.

If you're going to keep posting stories like this then change your slogan to "Leftist politics for nerds. Stuff that matters."

Re:Whaaaa?

[einhverfr]

Michael Moore's movie Faranheit 9/11 is nothing but propaganda. There are countless examples where he has taken clips from one interview and led the viewers to believe it was from another..just to make his point.

I haven't seen the film. But how is this different from the President of the US blatently lying to the US public about Iraq's WMD programs?