NEOCON: First, because objections were aired almost immediately.
We have a pieced together record that shows objections but also shows that *the experts* had firm opinions.
On Aug. 17, 2001, weeks before the twin towers fell, the team published a secret Technical Intelligence Note, a detailed analysis that laid out its doubts about the tubes' suitability for centrifuges. ... Unlike Joe, experts at the international agency had worked with Zippe centrifuges, and they spent hours with him explaining why they believed his analysis was flawed. They pointed out errors in his calculations. They noted design discrepancies. They also sent reports challenging the centrifuge claim to American government experts through the embassy in Vienna, a senior official said.
Likewise, Britain's experts believed the tubes would need "substantial re-engineering" to work in centrifuges, according to Britain's review of its prewar intelligence. Their experts found it "paradoxical" that Iraq would order such finely crafted tubes only to radically rebuild each one for a centrifuge. Yes, it was theoretically possible, but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to "turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac."
Reading through the record, the only sensible conclusion a completely unbiased reader can get is that "Joe" didn't care for opinion from the experts, he was bound and determined to support his opinion with the flimsiest of evidence.
NEOCON: Second, because it was not the only source of the assessment that they were actively pursuing nukes.
But of course, there were forged documents and a false claim that they were trying to obtain yellow cake from Nigeria.
NEOCON: so it would make sense to try to get in tubes that were dual use, and could be altered for centrifuges.
If this was your plan, you would not have the built to such fine tolerances nor would you have them anodized. For one, it costs more, for another, it complicates processing.
Not credible.
You aren't "Joe" by any chance are you? Serious question.
The tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” -- Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national security adviser, asserted on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002.
Except, that is false and her own experts said so. Not credible.
Precisely how knowledge of the intelligence dispute traveled through the upper reaches of the administration is unclear. Ms. Rice knew about the debate before her Sept. 2002 CNN appearance
So, aware of the big debate, she still claims "only really suited for...". Not credible.
In March 2002 "He is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time," Cheney, on CNN
But no such conclusion could be made, unless one was only provided tightly filtered "evidence" in the form of opinion.
From April 2001 to September 2002, the agency wrote at least 15 reports on the tubes. Several senior C.I.A. officials insisted that those reports did describe at least in general terms the intelligence debate. But several Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department's dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate.
Since we know the facts behind the report now, it is more believable that the administration was sent cherry picked facts than it is to believe those with access to the reports would mischaracterize them. These people after all are willing - now - in the presence of the facts - to testify that the reports contained no dissenting opinion. Who lies when the facts are already known?
Bush administration apologists would like American's to believe that failure to correctly identify the threat, or total lack of threat, these aluminum tubes presented was merely an issue of "timing". Paraphrased, the apoligists would like us to believe "Better information came out, later. We later learned different facts".
NOT CREDIBLE.
Thinking back in time, Aluminum Tubes were BIG on the radar screen and their link to rocket use was well known. And it wasn't even even classified information. Powell, Rice and even Bush would have known this, since anyone at the time reading the newspaper or following TV would have known this.
On November 8 2002 the UN Security Council demanded of Iraq via Resolution 1441. Iraq responded with a 12,200 page document (the "CAFCD") on December 7.
On December 19th 2002 the International Atomic Energy Agency published its preliminary analysis of information relating to nuclear programs contained within the CAFCD:
It should be noted that, in the course of the meeting that took place in Baghdad on 19 November 2002, the Iraqi counterpart, referring to a number of published reports, acknowledged that Iraq had made several unsuccessful attempts since 1991 to import high-strength aluminum tubing, but stated that the tubing had been intended for the manufacture of 81-millimetre rockets and not for the enrichment of uranium. These attempts are not mentioned in the Iraqi declaration covering post-1991 activities, although the IAEA understands that it is referred to in the part of the declaration that deals with missiles.
IAEA Preliminary analysis of the CAFCD
iaea.org
The IAEC further goes on to state that all declarations made in the CAFCD are consistant with prior declarations.
In "IAEA UPDATE REPORT FOR THE SECURITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)", the IAEA confirms back then what is also known now to be fact:
Report: iaea.org
"51. The IAEA has conducted a series of inspections at sites involved in the production and storage of reverse engineered rockets, held discussions with and interviewed Iraq personnel, taken samples of aluminium tubes and begun a review of the documentation provided by Iraq relating to contracts with the traders.
52. As a result of these inspection efforts, it has been possible to confirm the existence of a programme for producing 81-millimetre rockets. The IAEA's analysis to date indicates that the specifications of the aluminium tubes recently sought by Iraq appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets."
The Bush administration and its apologists want to leave the impression that its is only due to *new* information that the key evidence supporting their prima facie case against Iraq has been destroyed.
But that's not credible.
The international nuclear community disputed the conclusions that "Joe" and the "Office of Special Plans" and Bush's speechwriters put together. Iraq's response to resolution 1441 was hugely public. The conclusions of the IAEA were published.
Bush apologists would have us believe that Rice / Cheney / Powell / Rumsfeld / Bush etc would not have reviewed the core evidence which Bush himself used to urge Congress to give him the authorization for war.
That is not credible.
In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Bush apologists would have us simply accept that Bush and his top advisors operated in a vacumn, and are not directly responsible for ensuring that only evidence that fit their goal met their eyes.
That is NOT credible.
Addendum - if you are wondering just how similar these tubes are to rocket tubes Iraq had used for many years -- fully known before Bush asked for and got authoriation to go to war, look at this table of comparison.
Source: CIA report on Iraq WMD, 2004
Table 4
Rocket Tube Dimensions
Iraqi Technical for year Drawing
Rocket Chamber/
Tube Characteristic
1989 1993 1997 2000
Outer Diameter 81.0 mm 81.0 +/- 0.2 mm 81.0 +/- 0.2 mm 81.0 + 0 / - 0.1
Inner Diameter 74.4 mm 74.4 + 0.1 – 0.3mm 74.4 + 0.1 – 0.3mm 74.4 + 0.1 / - 0
Final Length 868 mm 868 + 0.2/-0 mm 868 +/- 0.2/-0 mm 868 +/- 0.3 mm
Mass 1812g 1820 +/- 100g 1820 +/- 150g 1828 +/- 30g
Summary of the timeline:
Rockets known to be made out of 81mm tubes: Prior to 2001
Tubes inspected: June 2001
Exact nature of new tubes and major dispute over potential use: August 2001 a full year before Cheney uses issue to beat the war drum.
Sept 8 2002 Cheney "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon"
(Facts prove this not to be the case. There was no absolute certainty. If anything, the facts suggested absolute uncertainty)
IAEA confirms US own experts: December 2002, January 2003
Bush et al excuses: Not credible. |
