Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's not a completely accurate representation of the State Dept.'s views.> It's more accurate than your account. <Again, a reasonable reading is that the INR and Energy Dept. had serious questions about the most damning evidence cited by the CIA and the DoD for their conclusion that Saddam was in fact building nukes.> I agree, that is a reasonable reading. It doesn't mean, however, that a majority of intelligence agencies thought that Saddam was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear program. They did, probably because, he was. <If the CIA and the Admin. were honest about their beliefs that Saddam was building nukes, they would have at minimum directly addressed those concerns about the usefulness of those tubes, since they were the cornerstone of ANY nuke program.> They did address them. The experts were divided, as I've already shown. <Again, the fact of the matter isn't solely that the MAJORITY of the Intel. Community made a tiny mistake, thinking Saddam had nukes, it's the FACT that every argument the MAJORITY used to incite this war was WRONG.> Nonsense. They all said Saddam's was a rogue regime that threatened its neighbors, supported terrorism, harbored terrorists, pursued WMD's, oppressed its people, and refused to comply with UN resolutions. Those reasons are as true now as they were when they were given.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Beau, give that Saddam argument a rest. It simply isn't true, and you know it.>> If Elkay was president would Saddam be in prison now or his two sons dead? Uh... NO. Dabob, same question? Tom, same question? No, no, no.... If you guys had your way Saddam would still be getting oil for food money from France, 25 milion people would still be living under his horror, Uday and Qusay would be ready to rule for 50 more years of rape and murder, and Saddams weapons programs would be as dangerous as ever if not full blown nuclear. So don't tell anyone you are not for having a free and happy Saddam because you fought and argued for us to leave him alone.
Originally Posted By ElKay "If you guys had your way Saddam would still be getting oil for food money from France, 25 milion people would still be living under his horror, Uday and Qusay would be ready to rule for 50 more years of rape and murder, and Saddams weapons programs would be as dangerous as ever if not full blown nuclear." The weaker Beau's arguments get, the more hysterical they become. Beau, you, Bush and his Poppy made the same mistake of attempting to turn Saddam into another Hitler or Stalin. Saddam was no threat beyond his immediate neighbors, with the exclusion of Iran, who he didn't dare try a second Iran-Iraq War. The only people who thought Saddam was a threat were folks like the Bush family and others with heavy investments in Middle East oil. To them, Saddam did the unthinkable by trying to upset the OPEC cartel's strangle hold on world oil supplies. Saddam attacked Kuwait to set off the Gulf War, not Jordan, just as weak of a country as Kuwait and adjacent to Israel. When Saddam used chem weapons against both the Iranians and against his own people, he was essentially an ally of the US during the Reagan Admin. There wasn't hardly a stern letter from the State Dept. at the time. The time to act was back then, if it was about the issue about evil intent. Beau, they way you work yourself up about Saddam, it's a wonder you haven't mixed up a batch of Kool-Aid and drank it for fear of Saddam living in a hole under your bed.
Originally Posted By ElKay Dougie: "It's more accurate than your account." No it's not. . . So's your old man. . . You keep making that sort of inane non-argument. You spin the State Depts. position by claiming they agreed that Saddam was at least having a non-coordinated nuke program. State along with Energy Depts. were debunking the notion held by the CIA and Cheney that the key element of ANY nuke program was the ability to process yellowcake into bomb grade material. The main point of State's rebuttal was the doubtful usefulness of those tubes for that purpose. If the Majority's main argument were those tubes, then the whole notion of Saddam building nukes was off the mark. "I agree, that is a reasonable reading. It doesn't mean, however, that a majority of intelligence agencies thought that Saddam was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear program. They did, probably because, he was." You make no sense, Dougie. Your answer can't be that the Majority didn't believe Saddam was rebuilding his nuke program, then you say "he was." State was rebutting the wrong conclusion of the Intel. Estimate on Iraq that Saddam was rebuilding his nuke program. The argument by State that those tubes were not useful for a nuke program was 100% true before the war and was proved conclusively afterwards. "They did address them." They did not address State's rebuttal, the Majority did nothing of the kind. They made an assertion that the tubes were proof positive that Saddam was reconstituting his nuke program without saying in what ways State was mistaken about the usefulness of those tubes. Show us where the Majority addresses State's concerns. "The experts were divided, as I've already shown." The only real experts on this matter had to be the nuke engineers from the Energy Dept., CIA analysts only sift through the raw intel that they gather to for recommendations. Technical intel, like the discovery of a shipment of aluminum tubes to Iraq should have been referred to the those with the technical knowledge to know how to evaluate that intel. FYI, it's the Energy Dept. that builds the US nuke arsenal, not the Pentagon, so Energy is the agency with the best technical knowledge. If the Energy Dept. experts cast doubt on those tubes, it the responsibility of the CIA to gather further evidence to support their claim to the contrary. I mentioned earlier that the then Deputy CIA director was asked by a PBS/Frontline reporter about this discussion and his only explaination was he thought Energy Dept. sent the wrong representative to a meeting, which caused everybody to discount the dissent. CLEARLY, this is a lame excuse. A nation doesn't go to war just because the wrong person goes to a meeting. Prudent officials would just get on the phone and ask Energy to back up their findings. There was ample time to address these questions before going off to war. That's the rub, IF the Majority along with the President had already made up their minds to go to war regardless of any amount of credible evidence against going to war. That would be dishonest and tragic for the country. "Nonsense. They all said Saddam's was a rogue regime that threatened its neighbors, supported terrorism, harbored terrorists, pursued WMD's, oppressed its people, and refused to comply with UN resolutions. Those reasons are as true now as they were when they were given." Again, Dougie, you get the FACTS wrong. It's been proved that NONE of Bush's arguments for war has been proved. Saddam didn't have a threatening WMD program of any kind. That was the argument from State that was ignored. Nor was there any credible evidence that Saddam was able to work closely with al Qaeda, because he was a godless Socalist. Plenty of dictators, some close American allies, abuse their own people or even atack their neighbors. That's a hollow excuse. I doubt even few GOP Congressmen would have voted to go to war just because Saddam brutalized his own people. It was the issue of WMDs and the false connection with terrorism that took us to war. The only argument of your that has any sort of truth was Saddam's flaunting of the UN's orders to cooperate with the disarming inspections. However, Saddam was finally agreeing to let the inspectors do their work, knowing we had 150k+ troops poised to attack. The problem was the inspectors had not found the banned WMDs, only rockets that were in technical violation. Had Bush kept his pledge of letting the inspectors complete their work, he might have been able to get more support from NATO and the Security Coucil had the inspectors found WMDs. Dougie, you arguments are non-credible because we know now from the occupation that NONE of Bush's arguments have panned out. You can't even argue that nobody knew the truth at the time, because at least the State Dept. had serious doubts to the contrary. Finally, I and other critics at the time didn't see any reason to rush into war without the final report of the UN inspectors first. Of the three "axis of evil" Saddam was the least threat because he was essentially bottled up in his huge sand trap. North Korea with both an active nuke program and the ability to mate them with multi stage rockets was and still is the greatest threat to the region and potentially to the US west coast territories. IF Saddam was concretely tied to the attack on the USS Cole, then that would have been an entirely different issue. He would have been a real, instead of an implied threat.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Did it ever occur to you that your "Really pitiful, Doug" comment was arrogant?" No.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You spin the State Depts. position by claiming they agreed that Saddam was at least having a non-coordinated nuke program.> I didn't spin it; I quoted it and linked to it. You're the one that's only looking at part of what they said. <Your answer can't be that the Majority didn't believe Saddam was rebuilding his nuke program, then you say "he was."> You're right. I left out a "not" in the first sentence. The majority of agencies, including those of other countries, believed that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program. They believed this because it was true. <Show us where the Majority addresses State's concerns.> I provided a quote from Sec Powell's right hand man about how French experts said the tubes had to be for a nuclear program. I've never seen a quote from an expert that said the tubes could not be used for one. <Again, Dougie, you get the FACTS wrong. It's been proved that NONE of Bush's arguments for war has been proved.> No they haven't. Amongst President Bush's argument for war were that Saddam's Iraq was a rogue country that threatened its neighbors, supported terrorism, harbored terrorists, pursued WMD's, oppressed its people, and refused to comply with UN resolutions. Those reasons are as true now as they were when they were given. <Of the three "axis of evil" Saddam was the least threat because he was essentially bottled up in his huge sand trap.> That's not what Democrat Senators said at the time.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The only people who thought Saddam was a threat were folks like the Bush family and others with heavy investments in Middle East oil.>> Elkay, your the one who has no credibility with statements like this one. Here are a few dems who you left out. Check Mate Joe Biden > August 4, 2002 "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction." Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002 "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states." Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998 "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." John Kerry > January 23, 2003 "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998 "He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983." Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002 "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Al Gore > September 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002 "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons." Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002 "(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away." Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003 "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons." Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Saddam didn't have a threatening WMD program of any kind. That was the argument from State that was ignored.>> Elkay, you really want to stick to this position? Wow, it must suck to get hit with the facts. Time to start spinning.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You left out one of my favorites: John Edwards, talking about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - "But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States—they’re dictatorships, they’re involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html" target="_blank">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA NSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Well Douglas, there are som many dems on record saying what a bad guy Saddam was and how he needed to be stopped I can't possibly get them all.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh True. I just wanted to counter the statement Elkay made at the end of his latest post.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Pretty clear. If you're honest about it.>> <Sure. It means the INR believed Iraq was pursuing a disjointed and ad hoc approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.> If that's what they meant, they'd have said that. Clearly, they said what they said to counter the view being pushed that they knew was bogus. I don't agree with everything ElKay said, but one thing he nailed: no ability to process yellowcake, no nuke program. And as he also said: "FYI, it's the Energy Dept. that builds the US nuke arsenal, not the Pentagon, so Energy is the agency with the best technical knowledge. If the Energy Dept. experts cast doubt on those tubes, it the responsibility of the CIA to gather further evidence to support their claim to the contrary. I mentioned earlier that the then Deputy CIA director was asked by a PBS/Frontline reporter about this discussion and his only explaination was he thought Energy Dept. sent the wrong representative to a meeting, which caused everybody to discount the dissent. CLEARLY, this is a lame excuse. A nation doesn't go to war just because the wrong person goes to a meeting. Prudent officials would just get on the phone and ask Energy to back up their findings. There was ample time to address these questions before going off to war. "
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If that's what they meant, they'd have said that.> They did, remember? "The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities." And I've already shown how the CIA got confirmation from other experts that the tubes could be used in a nuclear program.
Originally Posted By ElKay "And I've already shown how the CIA got confirmation from other experts that the tubes could be used in a nuclear program." That sooooo very funny for "fellow traveler" to Beau would take the word of the French over true blue Americans. Check this out: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5090&en=ef507f3c3c97f6bd&ex=1254801600&partner=rssuserland" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10 /03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5090&en=ef507f3c3c97f6bd&ex=1254801600&partner=rssuserland</a> >> Suddenly, Joe's work was ending up in classified intelligence reports being read in the White House. Indeed, his analysis was the primary basis for one of the agency's first reports on the tubes, which went to senior members of the Bush administration on April 10, 2001. The tubes, the report asserted, "have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program." This alarming assessment was immediately challenged by the Energy Department, which builds centrifuges and runs the government's nuclear weapons complex. The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges. Simply put, the analysis concluded that the tubes were the wrong size - too narrow, too heavy, too long - to be of much practical use in a centrifuge. What was more, the analysis reasoned, if the tubes were part of a secret, high-risk venture to build a nuclear bomb, why were the Iraqis haggling over prices with suppliers all around the world? And why weren't they shopping for all the other sensitive equipment needed for centrifuges? All fine questions. But if the tubes were not for a centrifuge, what were they for? Within weeks, the Energy Department experts had an answer. It turned out, they reported, that Iraq had for years used high-strength aluminum tubes to make combustion chambers for slim rockets fired from launcher pods. Back in 1996, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had even examined some of those tubes, also made of 7075-T6 aluminum, at a military complex, the Nasser metal fabrication plant in Baghdad, where the Iraqis acknowledged making rockets. According to the international agency, the rocket tubes, some 66,000 of them, were 900 millimeters in length, with a diameter of 81 millimeters and walls 3.3 millimeters thick. The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a perfect match. That finding was published May 9, 2001, in the Daily Intelligence Highlight, a secret Energy Department newsletter published on Intelink, a Web site for the intelligence community and the White House.<< Note the dates of this discussion--Spring of 2001, almost two years before the war. The Energy Dept. not only casts doubt on the usefulness of these tubes, but questions why the Iraqis would haggle over the price of the tubes when they should have been aware that by doing so would bring attention and possible retrobution for doing banned nuclear research. Furthermore, the Energy Dept. accurately surmised the actual indended application for those tubes as for 81mm rockets. Seemingly, the technical objections from the Energy Dept. should have placed this "fable" on to the dustbin of crock theories. No matter what the French or other intel. services, the CIA would have direct access to the Energy tech personel and their published conclusions. Dougie, why do you place so much credience in France's opinion on these tubes when it has been proved after the war that Saddam didn't revive his nuke program. Also why if you believe the French, why don't you oppose the preemptive war as France did, even though they supposedly had evidence of material violations? Finally, the coup de gras. All of this discussion of the grudging acceptance by the State Dept. is pretty moot because of this factiod from the "Washington Monthly." # <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonmonthly.c om/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php</a> >>3.The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said they were "irrefutable evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address. What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery rockets. The State Department concurred. Link. Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA's declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. Link. They were subsequently made public after the war, on July 18, 2003. Link.<< "Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA's declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002." I've been looking for this factiod for a while now. This strongly implies that the Admin. omitted State's rebuttal in order to make it appear that there was NO debate in the Intel. Estimate on Iraq, when there clearly was. Also it can be concluded that Congress may not have seen State's rebuttal, so were manipulated into believing the weak arguments for war. I understand that even the Senate Intel. Committee members may see this IE document, but are forbidden to take notes or discuss the contents in public (floor debate). So Powell and the INR got it right, but their views were essentially squelched and hidden from the public and possibly Congress in order to make a weak case for war as strong as they possibly could. If this fact can be proved as a policy of the WH, then it's a good case for impeachment, since Bush repeatedly promoted this tubes issue over and over again.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<If that's what they meant, they'd have said that.>> <They did, remember? "The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities."> Sure, I remember that. I was the first person to quote it. It was the short qualification to the longer main points I also posted earlier. <And I've already shown how the CIA got confirmation from other experts that the tubes could be used in a nuclear program.> I love this. ElKay just nailed it in the very next post. And it shows how typically weak the things you're always claiming to "show" are.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Elkay hasn't nailed anything. All he does is copy somebody else who misrepresents what somebody says. I've read the documents that his source cites, and I don't recall anyone ever saying the tubes couldn't be used for a nuclear program, only that it seemed unlikely. Again, the consensus was that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program. The only question was how far along it was.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Elkay hasn't nailed anything.> He did, though, and I think you know it. <All he does is copy somebody else who misrepresents what somebody says. I've read the documents that his source cites, and I don't recall anyone ever saying the tubes couldn't be used for a nuclear program, only that it seemed unlikely.> "Unlikely?" I've read them too, and "unlikely" doesn't begin to cover it. But I suppose you need to cling to that. Please tell me what in these paragraphs is contradicted by the DOE. "The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges. Simply put, the analysis concluded that the tubes were the wrong size - too narrow, too heavy, too long - to be of much practical use in a centrifuge. What was more, the analysis reasoned, if the tubes were part of a secret, high-risk venture to build a nuclear bomb, why were the Iraqis haggling over prices with suppliers all around the world? And why weren't they shopping for all the other sensitive equipment needed for centrifuges?" And it is worth noting again that all these objections were raised long before various admin. officials brought up the aluminum tubes again and again as nuclear components - in other words, after they should have known better. Unless, of course, they were trying to plant the fear of nukes in the minds of the public. <Again, the consensus was that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program. The only question was how far along it was.> That's a pretty damn big question. And throws off your whole definition of "consensus." For instance, today there's a broad consensus that our decifit is too high and should be lowered. But how to lower it? That's a pretty damn big question - there is no consensus on that. What tinhorn dictator WOULDN'T like to have nukes? Sure, Saddam would have liked them. The big question is: is he likely to be able to get them, with the various obstacles placed in his way? and with the DOE, INR, and CIA itself dissenting on key elements of the admin's case for nuclear, there was no real consensus on how large a threat Saddam was with nuclear, or how quickly he could get them if at all. The only real consensus was that he'd like to have nukes. Or as you put it because I guess it sounds more ominous, he was "trying to reconstitute his nuclear program." But trying ain't succeeding. Meanwhile, Cheney, Rice, et al raised the specter of mushroom clouds repeatedly in the minds of the public as though it were just around the corner. And they knew it wasn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And it is worth noting again that all these objections were raised long before various admin. officials brought up the aluminum tubes again and again as nuclear components - in other words, after they should have known better.> As I've already said, there does not appear to be universal agreement over the tubes. I'm not taking the word of a reporter and some anonymous source over an official document. <Unless, of course, they were trying to plant the fear of nukes in the minds of the public.> Is that an unreasonable thing to do? Shouldn't we be fearful of nuclear technology in the hands of people who would be willing to do things like 9-11? <What tinhorn dictator WOULDN'T like to have nukes? Sure, Saddam would have liked them.> Yes, but Saddam had agreed not to pursue them, in return for us not invading his country at the end of the first Gulf War. If we then learned that he was still pursuing them, and did nothing, what message does that send? <The big question is: is he likely to be able to get them, with the various obstacles placed in his way?> Those obstacles couldn't remain in place forever. What then? <Meanwhile, Cheney, Rice, et al raised the specter of mushroom clouds repeatedly in the minds of the public as though it were just around the corner. And they knew it wasn't.> Another unsupportable statement.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And it is worth noting again that all these objections were raised long before various admin. officials brought up the aluminum tubes again and again as nuclear components - in other words, after they should have known better.>> <As I've already said, there does not appear to be universal agreement over the tubes.> That's pretty much my point. DOE (the agency responsible for OUR nukes) said they almost certainly weren't meant for centrifuges. Yet months and months after they said that, the admin. was still saying that they might have been acquired for centrifuges. Intentionally scaring and misleading the public, IMO. <I'm not taking the word of a reporter and some anonymous source over an official document.> I've read the official document. Again I ask, what in those paragraphs is contradicted by the official document? <<Unless, of course, they were trying to plant the fear of nukes in the minds of the public.>> <Is that an unreasonable thing to do? Shouldn't we be fearful of nuclear technology in the hands of people who would be willing to do things like 9-11?> Just can't shake the habit of insidiously trying to link Saddam and 9/11, can you? Are you sure you're not really Dick Cheney? And yes, if the DOE and CIA and INR have all told them that Saddam is not going to have nukes any time soon, then yes it is unreasonable to imply to the public that he is. <<What tinhorn dictator WOULDN'T like to have nukes? Sure, Saddam would have liked them.>> <Yes, but Saddam had agreed not to pursue them, in return for us not invading his country at the end of the first Gulf War. If we then learned that he was still pursuing them, and did nothing, what message does that send?> What constitutes "pursuing?" The tubes weren't for a nuclear program. He might or might not have sent feelers to Niger to get yellowcake, but he already had tons of the stuff sitting unused, because he couldn't process it. And the sanctions and inspections and no-fly zones we had against him was not doing "nothing." <<The big question is: is he likely to be able to get them, with the various obstacles placed in his way?>> <Those obstacles couldn't remain in place forever. What then?> Why couldn't they? If he continued to be in violation of UN agreements, why couldn't they have been extended? <<Meanwhile, Cheney, Rice, et al raised the specter of mushroom clouds repeatedly in the minds of the public as though it were just around the corner. And they knew it wasn't.>> <Another unsupportable statement.> Hardly. Unless they were ignorant of the positions of the INR, DOE, and CIA (and if they were, that's a dereliction of duty), they knew that nukes were not just around the corner for Saddam. Yet they made it sound as though they were. Do you really want the quotes again?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <DOE (the agency responsible for OUR nukes) said they almost certainly weren't meant for centrifuges.> According to the NIE, the DOE "concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose." I don't think that's the same as almost certain that they weren't used for that purpose. <Yet months and months after they said that, the admin. was still saying that they might have been acquired for centrifuges.> Which is true, apparently. <Again I ask, what in those paragraphs is contradicted by the official document?> The official document does not say that anyone was certain the tubes were not for nuclear use. Only that some people doubted they were. <Just can't shake the habit of insidiously trying to link Saddam and 9/11, can you?> They are linked. 9/11 was an act of terrorism; Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. <And yes, if the DOE and CIA and INR have all told them that Saddam is not going to have nukes any time soon, then yes it is unreasonable to imply to the public that he is.> I don't see where either VP Cheney or Sec Rice said anything that was not supported by intelligence reports. <The tubes weren't for a nuclear program. He might or might not have sent feelers to Niger to get yellowcake, but he already had tons of the stuff sitting unused, because he couldn't process it. And the sanctions and inspections and no-fly zones we had against him was not doing "nothing."> The tubes might have been for a nuclear program, and Saddam did send envoys to Niger. And he could have processed it. Remember the centrifuge in the garden? <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/</a>
