ER, Great post.
Is it possible (and it is really scary to consider this possibility), that the WHIG group did NOT read the reports despite is availability. In other words they simply ignored the reports and stuck to their ideology of invading middle east. Is that possible? Bush, in particular, has never sounded intelligent or informed, when discussing Middle East Policy. Coming to think of it, I would add Rice to the category as well. Cheney just sounds scary.
Posted by Bad Ass at November 18, 2005 08:21 AMBad Ass,
To borrow a page from the IC, it is possible but highly unlikely :-)
A fair reading of the evidence shows that they very much read the reports but deliberately ignored the material that didn't fit with their objectives. By the time I'm done with this series I hope to make that clear with some examples.
Posted by eriposte at November 18, 2005 08:59 AMExcellent, and cannot wait for the story to unfold!
Posted by Bad Ass at November 18, 2005 09:01 AMI am still looking for a copy of that Pre-War Document that debunks the WMDs claim. You can’t point out one because none existed prior to the invasion. No matter how many blogs, reporters, or “unnamed sources” claim to have debunked the claim of WMDs, none was able to put that thought in a report. Also there were 22 other reasons to toss Saddam out of office, are they also invalid and did the President lie about those as well? FYI I think you all are peaking a bit too early in the election cycle with the “He lied” campaign. It didn’t stick in 2004 and I doubt it has any legs to crawl through next November. Deceptions tend to fade when brought out into the light of truth. I see more Democrats debunking their claims than I see Administration officials defending theirs.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at November 18, 2005 10:56 AMOK, but completely obscures the most damning evidence- the folks cited were NOT centriguge experts. The experts are w/DOE and the National Labs- of those (strongly discouraged from speaking out) I am not aware of ANY expert who felt that it was really a stretch to make these tubes work as centrifuge rotors. Those analysts in the majority were electronics, map, and military types. Even "Joe" the CIA engr originating this debacle, did not work on rotors, but on the platform to which the rotars were attached. The tubes were too long, had too small a diameter, walls were too thick, And contrary to that was peddled by Powell, anodization was not afactor supporting "tubes for centrifuge use", but rather anodization was not only unnecessary -ie gas is not corrosive to aluminum- but likely would have to be removed as it reacts with the gas in a negative way. And aluminum as rotor material was decades outdated, with even Saddam having designs for carbon based tubes.
Posted by erich at November 18, 2005 11:00 AMCyber sarge, THE INSPECTORS IN IRAQ debunked it. They were on the ground, before the war and found No WMD's
Posted by goose1 at November 18, 2005 11:11 AMYou can’t point out one because none existed prior to the invasion. No matter how many blogs, reporters, or “unnamed sources” claim to have debunked the claim of WMDs, none was able to put that thought in a report. Also there were 22 other reasons to toss Saddam out of office, are they also invalid and did the President lie about those as well? … Deceptions tend to fade when brought out into the light of truth. ...Posted by Cilly Sarge
In the first place, there is only one real WMD: nuclear, and that was debunked in the un by the IAEA before Powell gave his speech. Chemical and / or biological weapons are simply not a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Nuclear weapons annihilated the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Chemical and biological weapons could not have done it.
Here is a more comprehensive list of the lies and misstatements the Bush government made to sell the war: Bush's myriad lies [pdf]. I think we all remember his famous claim to have read a IAEA report that stated that Saddam was six months away from having nuclear weapons. That report did not exist. We all remember National Security Advisor Rice stating we were under the threat of a nuclear cloud. That threat did not exist. When Bush was called on the fraudulent IAEA report, he claimed there was one in 1991 that stated so. Actually, that was also a fraudulent claim.
I wish you would itemize your 22 reasons, because America and even the Bush government deals with worse tyrants today among them Islam Karimov, dictator of Uzbekistan famous for boiling dissidents alive, tyrants in Africa that still sell their people into slavery. Neither you nor Bush has ever uttered one word condemning his "allies in the war on terra."
You say, Deceptions tend to fade when brought out into the light of truth, and that is Bush's trouble. The more that enters the light, the more his lies, misstatements, disinformation, and war mongering propaganda become obvious.
Will Bush administration officials and bitter-enders like yourself defend Bush to the last breath? Of course. There are still people today that defend the lying crook, Nixon. People like you love to hate more than they love their freedoms and love their country. If Bush declared a dictatorship, you and Bush administration officials would cheer.
"In September 2002, DIA published an assessment of Iraq's Reemerging Nuclear Weapons Program, which included an assessment of the tubes potential use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge enrichment program. The assessment noted that 'Alternative uses for the tubes, such as rocket motor cases or launch tubes, are possible. However, this is less likely because the specifications are consistent with late-1980s Iraqi gas centrifuge rotor designs.'"
What a hoot.
"Less likely because"?! How exactly is that bit of logic supposed to work?
The 2000-2 tube specifications were exactly consistent with the specifications of the tubes used by Iraq in 1987-9 for combustion chambers of reverse-engineered rockets. That is, the tubes' characteristics were almost identical to tubes that we know for a fact were previously used in short-range 81 mm. Iraqi rockets.
By contrast, the tubes' specifications were "consistent with late-1980s Iraqi gas centrifuge designs" only in the sense that it was not impossible to use those tubes for gas centrifuges if (and only if) major modifications on multiple fronts were made to them, modifications moreover which the IAEA judged "it was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved" (El Baradei's UNSC update of 7 Mar. 2003).
The reality was almost the exact reverse of the tortured and dishonest logic of the DIA claim. As David Albright has written:
“Some of the characteristics of the tubes are compatible with a centrifuge use, but all of the characteristics fit a use in a rocket that Iraq was known to have produced or planned to produce indigenously." ("Iraq's Aluminum Tubes: Separating Fact from Fiction", p. 13)
This corresponds to this broader point made by the IAEA:
"The IAEA officials said they could not totally disregard the scenario that the tubes could be used in a centrifuge, but there were many inconsistencies with that scenario, while the theory that the tubes were being used for rockets was completely consistent with the evidence in Iraq." (SSCI, p. 118)
(all emphases added)
Posted by KM at November 19, 2005 10:57 AM