To celebrate Tom Cruise's wedding, ABC News reprints the 1992 Ted Koppel interview with Cruise's best man, and spiritual leader, Religious Technology Center chairman David Miscavige. It was his first and last significant interview, and you can see why.
posted by Arcaz Ino on Nov 18, 2006 - 81 comments

Seattle clown crime spree! It seems that clown makeup is the New Black for robbers. Besides those Seattle clowns, clownish robbers have hit San Francisco, Tucson, Arizona, Manchester, England, and Sao Paulo, Brazil. The resourceful clowns have apparently even invented a new crime - posession of "simulated weapons of mass destruction". Where will it end?
posted by Kirth Gerson on Jul 25, 2006 - 44 comments

Curveball's motive, CIA officials said, was not to start a war. He simply was seeking a German visa.
You would think that there would be some serious repercussions for "mishandling" intelligence used to start a war.
Then again it's not like this is really news (dated 4/2004)
A different angle previously discussed here on Metafilter
posted by threehundredandsixty on Nov 20, 2005 - 12 comments

Cleaning up the WMD's 20 years ago the US passed a law to destroy the stockpiles of WMD's it has. There have been many snags and lack of funding. We need to get rid of them before they are used against us and the old ways of disposal just won't work anymore. What can be done?
posted by Balisong on Oct 30, 2005 - 11 comments

They've found those WMDs! Well, not quite. Just chemicals that eventually could be turned into weapons. But what's interesting is that this chem lab dates from AFTER the US invasion.
posted by John of Michigan on Aug 14, 2005 - 37 comments

A distinction between “old” and “new” wars is vital. “Old wars” are wars between states where the aim is the military capture of territory and the decisive encounter is battle between armed forces. “New wars”, in contrast, take place in the context of failing states. They are wars fought by networks of state and non-state actors, where battles are rare and violence is directed mainly against civilians, and which are characterised by a new type of political economy that combines extremist politics and criminality... I argue in this article that the United States viewed its invasion of Iraq as an updated version of “old war” that made use of new technology. The US failure to understand the reality on the ground in Iraq and the tendency to impose its own view of what war should be like is immensely dangerous and carries the risk of being self-perpetuating. It does not have to be this way.
Iraq: the wrong war - Mary Kaldor writes of what was happening in pre-invasion Iraq, what happened thereafter and what the alternatives were. Well, there is always Exit strategy: Civil war. And on that, note this: Kurdish Officials Sanction Abductions in Kirkuk--a city from which, I am afraid, we will hear more and more as time goes by.
posted by y2karl on Jun 15, 2005 - 20 comments

What's my bail for a WMD offense in California? If against a person, or water or food: $1 million. But for just $100k, you can use WMDs against animals, crops, or natural resources and be out free by dinnertime.
posted by Kickstart70 on Jun 11, 2005 - 8 comments

Iraq's WMD capability was essentially destroyed in 1991, according to the report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq.
posted by kirkaracha on Oct 6, 2004 - 28 comments

Colin Powell in Four-letter Neo-con 'crazies' Row Perhaps Colin should have said they were cheney crazies.
posted by rough ashlar on Sep 14, 2004 - 30 comments

Scott Ritter on Iraq. Some interesting reading here from the man who stood up to the President, the pundits, the media, etc and told the world that chances are Iraq had few to no WMD. Now he's warning us that Saddam's people are really in charge and how Allawi's government is doomed to fail. Man, I hate the IHT interface.
posted by skallas on Jul 26, 2004 - 27 comments

Iraq's Arsenal Was Only On Paper
posted by FormlessOne on Jan 7, 2004 - 52 comments

Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S. U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities. If this is true, is he in trouble for saying it?
posted by bas67 on Dec 17, 2003 - 32 comments

"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything." So says Ray McGovern, who worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Now, who still believes the P(L)OTUS?
posted by acrobat on Nov 10, 2003 - 50 comments

"Never before have so many stories been created to sell a war," says Sam Gardiner, author of a new report {.pdf, here's an html cache} that explains how the world was deceived.
posted by Domain Master 666 on Oct 17, 2003 - 35 comments

“Various people would laugh at various times [during Powell’s speech] because the information he was presenting was just, you know, didn't mean anything -- had no meaning,"
posted by specialk420 on Oct 15, 2003 - 62 comments

Robert Scheer on the missing WMDs, claims of Iraqi exiles, and how Bush is getting away with it all. Scheer: Oops. There are no weapons of mass destruction after all. That's the emerging consensus of the second team of weapons sleuths commanded by the U.S. in Iraq, as reported last week in the Los Angeles Times. The 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group found what the first wave of U.S. military experts and the United Nations inspectors before them discovered — nada.
posted by skallas on Sep 3, 2003 - 37 comments

Search the New York Times website for any occurrence of the words "Valerie Plame" during the last week ...and you'll find nada, zilch, zip. The so-called "paper of record" has remained totally mum on what may be one of the biggest scandals of the Bush administration yet. You can read about it at Newsday, CBS, Time, and The Nation, and it's been mentioned on NBC... but not a word from the New York Times (save for a reference to it last week by syndicated columnist Paul Krugman, and a wire service story today; neither of those pieces mentions Plame by name). The Times' news and editorial divisions are asleep at the switch on this story. Maybe the Jayson Blair scandal was a distraction from the deeper problem: a paper that is so concerned with being balanced and respectable, it refuses to cover any politically controversial stories. You can e-mail letters@nytimes.com to ask why the Valerie Plame news blackout. Or just click this link a few dozen times to send 'em a message.
posted by Artifice_Eternity on Jul 25, 2003 - 38 comments

Bush "will reveal the truth". But what truth is that? Where he says freedom, he means curtailing press freedoms. When he talks about restoring the dignity of a great nation, he means handpicking Iraq's new government. When he mentions WMD, he could be referring to two trailers lacking any biological agent inside and show no signs that they had been used to produce biological weapons, or alternatively, a swimming pool, a drinks distillery and a factory making car license plates. Curiously enough, it's not him but his pals who find themselves in awkward positions. Then again, maybe it is them who are bringing it onto themselves.
posted by magullo on Jun 6, 2003 - 47 comments

Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq. The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms.
posted by The Jesse Helms on May 13, 2003 - 76 comments

BOOM! High resolution pictures of US atomic bomb tests. More photos. Nuclear wallpapers. Some history and movies. Rapatronic (a very fast camera) images (and more, from an old mefi post). For more information about these and other weapons of mass destruction visit the Trinity Atomic Web Site (don't miss the High Energy Weapons Archive hosted there) and the Federation of American Scientists' WMD resources page.
posted by wobh on May 12, 2003 - 17 comments

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." So are there WMDs in Iraq or not? ABC is running a story that says that the Bush administration was not primarily concerned with any threat from Iraq, but with making an example of them to other evildoers. Discuss.
posted by eateneye on Apr 28, 2003 - 76 comments

Robert Scheer on the so far non-existant Iraqi WMDs. If the President went to war without real evidence of a threat would this be considered an impeachable offense as Scheer suggests? What's Ken Starr been up to lately?
posted by skallas on Apr 25, 2003 - 86 comments

Weapons of mass destruction free mid-east
sound like a good idea - perhaps could lead to other countries in hot zones giving up their WMDs as well? I wonder if other countries in the region would consider giving up their stockpiles?
posted by specialk420 on Apr 16, 2003 - 27 comments

SADDAM AIDE SURRENDERS Saddam Hussein's chief weapons adviser has surrendered to the US military. US officials had described Lieutenant General Amir al-Saadi as the person they most wanted to speak to about Iraq's weapons programmes. Now we will know about WMD or the integrity and effectiveness of the give-inspections-a -chance folks. Any bets to be placed?
posted by Postroad on Apr 12, 2003 - 42 comments

"Weapons of Mass Destruction", you say? Question: If Iraq is the vicious rat and North Korea the furious pygmy of WMD threats, where is the 800 pound gorilla? Answer - "...law enforcement officials worldwide have seized 40 kilograms of Russian-origin uranium and plutonium since 1991. Stanford researchers have also estimated that only 30 to 40 percent of the nuclear material stolen from facilities in Russia and other territories in the former Soviet Union are ever recovered by authorities." the collapse of the Soviet Union left vast stores of Nuclear weapons and weapons grade plutonium and uranium, and stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents lying about at dangerously underfunded facillities scattered through the vast expanse of the ex-Soviet realm. "Russian stockpiles of weapons and materials are the most likely source for terrorists attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction", said US Senator Richard Lugar, Republican chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. An international effort to destroy these stores of ex-Soviet WMD's is currently funded at a tiny fraction of the estimated cost of a possible US invasion and occupation of Iraq. (more inside)
posted by troutfishing on Mar 16, 2003 - 10 comments

Maybe there are no weapons, after all... "On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims...." This is the same defector cited by the Bush administration numerous times as a reliable informant on the scope of Saddam's long-term WMD plans.
posted by Artifice_Eternity on Feb 28, 2003 - 49 comments

These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed
posted by Mwongozi on Feb 14, 2003 - 23 comments

Canada's forgotten weapons of mass destruction. Shortly after the end of World War II, the Canadian navy began to dispose of its surplus chemical weapons by dumping them off the shore of Atlantic Canada. Large quantities of chemical agents, including mustard gas, were loaded onto barges and scuttled at undisclosed locations. Over 50 years later, some of these military dumpsites have become lost due to poor record keeping. With increasing offshore oil exploration and a commercially successful shellfish industry, there's a possibility that these forgotten chemical agents could return to the coasts of "Canada's Ocean Playground".
posted by Caffine_Fiend on Jan 13, 2003 - 14 comments

The Push For War (by Anatol Lieven). "The most surprising thing about the Bush Administration's plan to invade Iraq is not that it is destructive of international order; or wicked, when we consider the role the US (and Britain) have played, and continue to play, in the Middle East; or opposed by the great majority of the international community; or seemingly contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism. It is all of these things, but they are of no great concern to the hardline nationalists in the Administration....The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless....What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind."

Excecutive summary: Lord Acton foretold all fruit of "military superiority".
posted by fold_and_mutilate on Oct 4, 2002 - 44 comments

U.S. helped Iraq start bioweapons program

"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs,'' said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector. "But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."

" -isn't iraq just another case of blowback and is anyone asking what the next round of "blowback" will be if we go in again?
posted by specialk420 on Sep 30, 2002 - 35 comments

Agency disavows report on Iraq arms "The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was 'six months away' from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. 'There's never been a report like that issued from this agency,' Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria."
posted by owillis on Sep 29, 2002 - 52 comments

Scott Ritter on Weapons Inspection, Chemical, Biological and Nuclear WMD Why hasn't the American media picked up on these issues that are being put forth by Scott Ritter? Is Mr. Ritter correct in his assessment of Iraqi capabilities?
posted by FullFrontalNerdity on Sep 27, 2002 - 44 comments

weapons of teeny boo-boos? and now for something completely different. Weapons of mass destruction are so twentieth century.....
posted by johnnyboy on Feb 22, 2002 - 3 comments

Finally, finally, finally!! Someone in the mainstream media is finally asking some questions. Lots of people (here and abroad) have known about this book for some time. I think it deserves some checking into.
posted by bas67 on Jan 8, 2002 - 77 comments

From a piece in the NYTimes today, Home Front Is Minefield for President: "The lesson we're learning," one administration official said today, "is that you can bomb the wrong place in Afghanistan and not take much heat for it. But don't mess up at the post office."

Leave it to the White House to come away with exactly the wrong interpretation. But the facts are there, too -- most Americans are more concerned about the (relatively slight) risk of getting Anthrax than the rather significant risk that, if we screw up in Afghanistan, we might lose the current coalition against terrorism, Bin Laden, and any hope for "homeland security" for a long time to come....
posted by mattpfeff on Oct 25, 2001 - 12 comments

The Republican Administration is ready to back out of the verification and enforcement protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention , only their latest move after abandoning talks with North Korea on ending their nuclear and missile programs, slashing assistance to Russia for dismantling their nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons infrastructure in the new budget, going ahead with plans to unilaterally abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that underlies nuclear arms control, and preparing to place weapons in outer space. It's not a secret that the Administration is leaning toward tearing down the entire edifice of strategic arms control and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but you would think there would be more of an outcry that the Republicans seem hell-bent on making the world a noticeably less safe place as quickly as possible... especially taking into account the other foreign policy faux-pas they've committed in the past four months.
posted by SenshiNeko on May 21, 2001 - 15 comments