New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 03:10pm Jul 19, 2003 EST (# 13050 of 13055)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

" "Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean something is true," said Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a Pentagon news briefing after major combat ended in Iraq. "You know, it's your best estimate of the situation. It doesn't mean it's a fact. I mean, that's not what intelligence is."

"Best estimates and biased estimates are different.

Questions, criticism surround information that led to start of war By Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay Knight Ridder Newspapers http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/6335732.htm

In the Wisconsin State Journal this morning, there is a good Knight Ridder piece Report reveals experts had reservations about Iraq claims By Ron Hutcheson http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/ron_hutcheson/6336025.htm

Also from Knight Ridder - look at the disparity between what was asserted, and the way it was asserted - and what we now know was in back of the assertions.

Beating and Silencing the Drum - - from Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

What the U.S. and British Governments said before the Iraq War regarding Iraq President Saddam Hussein's capability to make nuclear weapons and what they are saying now.

Aug. 26:

Vice President Dick Cheney, Veterans of Foreign Wars convention: "Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

Sept. 8:

Cheney, "Meet the Press" "We do know with absolute certainty" Saddam is getting tools for a nuclear weapon.

Sept. 12: President George W. Bush, U.N. General Assembly:

. Iraq could make nuclear weapon "within a year" if it got the materials.

Sept. 12: White House document Iraq could build nuclear weapon "within months."

Sept. 24: British government report accuses Saddam of seeking "the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

October: CIA assessment: " Baghdad may have acquired uranium enrichment capabilities that could shorten the time necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

October 7: George W. Bush , Cincinnati: Satellite images show Iraqis "rebuilding" facilities at sites that had been part of its nuclear program.

Feb 5, 2003:

. Powell, U.N. Security Council called Iraq's attempts to buy aluminum tubes, magnets, an "indication of Iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program."

Feb 11, 2003:

CIA director George Tenet, testifying before a Senate Committee - "Iraq had pattern of clandestine procurement to rebuild program."

Feb 12, 2003

Tenet testifying before the Senate Arms Services Committee: Saddam is "going to get nuclear weapons sooner or later."

March 7, Powell , UN Security Council

Quotes "new information" about Iraq's attempt to buy aluminum tubes, after International Atomic Energy Commission doubts tubes would be for nuclear program.

March 16, Cheney , "Meet the Press":

" We believe he (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

NOW, contrast to statements made in July 2003:

July 7: White House statement

" . . . reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech."

July 11: Statement by Tenet:

rshow55 - 03:12pm Jul 19, 2003 EST (# 13051 of 13055)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

July 11: Statement by Tenet:

"These sixteen words (on Iraq's buying uranium) should never have been included in the text written for the president."

- - - -

More than an inadvertent addition of "sixteen words" is involved here. The American people were intentionally misled.

One might parce "misled" as "lied to" or misLED - - in the sense of led by deception.

If leaders lead by deception they are - strongly responsible for results and are expected to have good judgement.

We've seen astonishing degrees of misjudgement here - as bad as anything leading up to the Challenger disaster, and attempts to deflect criticism after it.

Is CIA, or the NSA any better than NASA? Any wiser, or more honest? Are Condoleezza Rice, or Tenet, or subordinates, or the President, any wiser, or more capable, or any more honorable than Ronald Dittmore?

If they are sincere that's a major problem.

If they are hypocrites - that's a major problem.

My guess is that they are subject to severe criticism on both counts.

My guess, also, is that gisterme is either the President, or very close (with higher rank than Secretary Powell). Gisterme , much too often, is a cocksure, ignorant bully. On technical matters, involving missile defense and other things - he is usually misinformed on anything where technical questions of right or wrong are actually involved - if you count cases.

Am I " connecting the dots" badly? People might look for themselves. I think staffed organizations - in the United States and elsewhere, should do so.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense