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

Re:Whaaaa?

[g3000]

As far as the country is concerned, getting a BJ wasn't the problem. Lying to his family wasn't the problem. Lying to the public wasn't even the problem. Lying to a grand jury as holder of the highest public office in the country (not to mention using powers of that public office to cover it up ahead of time), WAS a problem.

Republican or Democrat affiliations aside, that's a serious matter, in my opinion. If we can't count on politicians not to lie in such forums, I don't care who it is or what they're lying about, they're putting their own interests ahead of their public duty as a citizen...and as President of the United States.

So, both W's lies and Clinton's lies are both important, in different ways.

Re:Whaaaa?

[Pharmboy]

Actually, the rest of the world had concluded that Iraq DID have WMDs, including some plans to build nukes (save for the aluminum pipes). This is not even in dispute. France, Russia, Germany all agreed that Iraq had and was building WMDs, and voted for sanctions. Even Seria voted for the resolutions. Again, google it and see that this is not in dispute.

But then again, why should be let the facts get in the way of a good US bashing, right?