They interview dozens of experts who analyze the major components of the case for war and stack them against the evidence that existed at the time. Its a very accomplished and expert group of people, all "establishment" people. Civil servants, diplomats, weapons inspectors, CIA analysts, agents and station chiefs among others.
I wish that this was the documentary that everyone went to see about the war, instead of Mike Moore's F 9/11. Its not a flashy movie... much more a serious sit down with technology policy analysts.
I Highly recommended Uncovered for anyone interested in getting into the details of this, would be great to show for a TPP event.
Well, last night was quite a historic night for Boston and all the Red Sox fans. I went out to take a look at the celebrations in the streets of Boston, and I am sure that the revellers continued until the morning. Meanwhile, John Kerry finds hope in the Red Sox victory.
"About a year ago, when things weren't going so well in my campaign, somebody called a radio talk show and they said, thinking they were just cutting me right to the quick, they said 'John Kerry won't be the president until the Red Sox win.' Well, we're on our way."
May be the Red Sox have done it for Kerry's sake :-)
Physics Today asked both Bush and Kerry to comment on a variety of science policy issues such as Missile Defense, Climate Change, Science Investment, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Proliferation, Energy, and Space policy. The story is titled Presidential Candidates Speak Out on Science Policies. As the article notes, science policy is almost a background noise in this election, but never the less, there are people like us who may care about them.
I do not know how many people out there are going to get excited about the Scientists and Engineers for Change Road Tour 2004, but I know I’m all jazzed. I might even make a contribution (it is a 527, so my name will not be appearing on any websites). Scientists and Engineers for Change Road Tour 2004 kicked off this past Monday and is coming soon to a swing state near you.
In today’s Washington Post, Bradley Graham writes that “sometime this autumn” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld will activate a key component of our National Missile Defense - an interceptor system in Alaska. (Interceptor System Set, But Doubts Remain)
In the article Mr. Graham says, “President Bush already has begun to claim fulfillment of a 2000 presidential campaign pledge -- and longtime Republican Party goal -- to build a nationwide missile defense.”
How about that? What I thought was a non-functioning boondoggle is actually a nationwide missile defense system. (I’ll cut Bush some slack because that was not a direct quote - I would be interested if anyone sees a quote where Bush says that we have an operational national missile defense system).
The article details some of the major problems with the national missile defense program (which is now looking like it will cost more than $100 billion). The interesting part for me was reading about the non-technical problems. It seems the debate in the Pentagon is not about whether or not the system works – there is almost universal acknowledgement that the current system would not work – the debate is about whether we should go live with a system that we know does not work. It all comes down to politics.
In a passage that is eerily similar to his analysis of the Iraq situation, Secretary Rumsfeld is quoted as saying we should go ahead with the current system,
"Did we have perfection with our first airplane, our first rifle, our first ship? I mean, they'd still be testing at Kitty Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted perfection."