Slashdot Mirror
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.
This is utter crap that such a topic would appear on Slashdot. Anyone worth their politcal salt would already have knowledge of this issue and the complexity surrounding it. Please, move on or join a politics 101 forum. And for it to make the FRONT PAGE??? Bias showing through?
And this is why...
Not because I'm for one side or another, I'm not. I really could care less. But all I see is constant bickering and splintering of whats left of the already sparce intelligent community.
Most have left already, the rest will go.
Instead of uniting behind intelligent debate on technological issues, you're doing your best to find hype to divide the rest.
How about Kerry Cheating during the debates?
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc57.htm
Nope, wont see that one here, but lets post old news instead about something that the CIA did, and blah blah blah... so it continues.
Basically I hate seeing what has happened to the community here. Trolls and moronic posts, and the topics are now lamer then ever. Worst part, I usually read about these topics elsewhere, long before I see them here. Slashdot has become more of an archive then anything.
Oh, and OSDN? What happened to that? Now we're OSTG.. ah yeah... Why don't you just close down the site, call open source a sham because you lived out your 15 minutes.
Bleh... Karma to spare because I used to care.
Let the moronic and short smart-ass and anonymous posts ensue...
If you care, then you can see the truth in my post. If you don't care, then just mod me down because you're a liberal, and I'm an open minded thinker. Thank you.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Soemone already has. It's in wide use on the bush_sucks lj community.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Clickable:
How about Bush's lies about the cost of their geriatric/pharmaco bribery^Wprescription drug plan, promised at $400B to convince Congress to vote for it, then readjusted to $534B after the law was (barely, illegally) passed? Another lie: now it's up at least $42B more, to $576B, a 44% increase over that already vast sum. When the decade after its passage on a pack of lies, how close to a trillion dollars will have been fed to pharmaceutical companies to get their campaign bribes^Wdonations, and votes from old people who believe they're getting free drugs?
--
make install -not war
obviously the blowjob is a bigger problem - think of the children!!!11!eleventy-one!
And you are a bad one at that.
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
First on your sig (sorry, cannot resist) "If you disagree with something I say, reply and tell me why. Modding down tells me I'm right."
... I guess that Mumar Kadafi must be eliminated or Lybia will develop WMDs (and his sons will rule Lybia forever); these must be the only options.
The correct actions are for some people to mod you down and for others to reply and tell you about your errors. This way you will be uncertain of the slashdot opinion - modded down = "I am right" replies = "I am wrong" ???
(By the way, do you doubt yourself if you are modded up?)
"Another question could be--was it in the best interest of the Iraqi people to remove Saddam? We could have just left him there until he died and passed on his leadership to his sons. It would have gone on forever."
So this was an either-or situation. The only options were (1) to invade or (2) let Saddam's heirs rule forever? It is too bad that there is no third alternative.
I hope you grow up someday.
How do you reason with such persons?
Just like anyone else, the difference is that they don't agree with you about what is reasonable.
I'm a two issue voter. I don't care what else a candidate does, if he's right on my two issues and the other guy is wrong, nothing else matters.
No matter what gets dug up about your guy in this election, it's not going to change your mind.
You're no different, there is no reasoning with you either. We've just come to different conclusions.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Here's a well thought out 30 sec. TV ad of Bush-isms. Enjoy. http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/06_large.shtml
Yeah, he's a jerk - I didn't think he had you fooled, but the bio to which I linked was licking his boots while pointing out his crimes. That's from "a fellow New Yorker" (me), who can tell a liar when he sees one. On that subject, ask me sometime about Rudolph fascist Giuliani, who practically got kicked out of NYC before the WTC fell on him, getting him knighted for selling us out in the aftermath. Those two clowns will make a run for the White House, possibly together in 2008. And I'm with you on that Niger uranium fraud having precedence, too - the one that BushCo defended by outing CIA secret agent (fighting *real* WMDs) Valerie Plame. The lies never stop with these creep - until January 20, 2005, that is.
--
make install -not war
Let me guess, one of your issues is abortion?
Yes. The other is Gun Control.
Single issues voters are the puppets on the hands of the republicrat duopoly in the sick joke that is the American politics show. Double issue voters are just slightly less repugnant.
I don't need your approval. I'll vote how I want to. You vote however you want to. I don't much care how or why that is.
If another party wants my vote, then they'll get on board with my issues.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Do you really want an answer? Put it that way, we shouldn't show *any* bare skin at all, because someone, somewhere sucks/licks/touches/squeezes it as a precursor to ejaculation.
Sorry, I'm with the chick on this one. Why can men show nipples on TV but women can't? Why are boobs considered indecent? What *is* decency, and what right do you or anybody else have to force your standards of decency onto me? I sure in the hell don't lay claim to any right to force my own standards of decency on you. Can we get some Golden Rule action going, please?
For the record, my own kids are well-familiar with boobs. The older ones have each watched the younger ones breastfeeding, and they've all sucked tit for food. The two older ones also watched the younger one being born. They have no myths at this time about sexuality, even if we haven't covered every little detail yet. But they've seen at least what the woman's parts are for.
And I don't have a TV because there's so much crap on TV. I really couldn't care less that Janet Jackson showed a tit, there's much worse crap on their every day. If my kids saw her tit? I wouldn't care. No reason to, they see tits every day. My daughter's gonna grow her own at some point, right?
This is crap. The whole idea that sex is indecent is antithetical to one of the basic missions of life: procreation.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Those of us who just like to fuck were bummed by the fact that Justin didn't take Janet doggy-style right there on the stage, in high-definition TV. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, the half-time show was a big disappointment.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Disappointed that the tit they showed was friggin *Janet Jackson* - couldn't they have at least sprung for Britney Spears or one of the Olsen Twins?
God. Jackson is kind of old and nasty.
This is one of the most insightful posts I've seen in while. I wish I had some mod points right now.
I've got news for you. This same area is also an erogenous zone for men. In fact, in both genders, we have many many erogenous zones that you're probably not even aware of.
Western and American children, deprived of the NORMAL two to three years of breast feeding that homo sapiens have enjoyed throughout recent evolutionary history, never got enough of the boob and spend their lives lusting after what they missed. The hyper-sexualization of breasts is DIRECTLY related to the decline of breastfeeding. Remember, however -- correlation does NOT imply causation...
Even assuming they lacked legal claim, your "*way outside*" its original boarders is less than 110 meters (360 feet), and still within the existing terms and conditions of the War World II DMZ, completely legal under any standard of international treaty and law.
This map here, from that evil and ineffectual body we like to call the UN, shows that the wall is in places up to 10km from the Green Line and is currently planned to include about 15% of the West Bank.
And I am well aware of the situation following the 6 day war.
Read Pynchon.