# Bewildered Bush-Bashers' Beastly Barrage of Backstabbing **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 7, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323 "2003-06-07T19:19:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/101 "2003-06-10T14:38:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > Let’s see, the alumimium rods have long been debunked as not in fact useful for nuclear purposes at all, Cite? > [@](#): > > I believe even before this damn fool war the Administration had to admit that. Cite? I think you’re incorrect, **Collounsbury** There was a report of an [Iraqi officer’s interview with the L A Times](http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-wmd8jun08,1,3600373.story) a couple of days ago that the aluminum tubes were purchased as part of a corrupt, money-making effort, rather than to aid in bomb-making. But, I cannot recall seeing that these tubes couldn’t have been so used. In fact, the implication of the interview is that such use was the excuse given for the purchase. Nor do I recall ever seeing any admission by the Administration that the tubes didn’t have potential nuclear use. > [@](#): > > He also shed new light on Iraq’s recent attempts to obtain 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes. The White House charged before the war that the scheme proved that Iraq was seeking to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded that the tubes were for artillery rockets. > > The officer said the case was mostly about corruption. “We did not need this many tubes” for artillery, he said. “Someone does this to steal the money.” I see nothing in this story about the White House admitting that the rods weren’t useful for nuclear purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/102 "2003-06-10T15:05:37Z")
Another piece of the puzzle suddenly snaps into place. GWB’s focus is on “weapons programs” rather than WMDs. Chalabi’s pals are now _inside Iraq_ and can pose as Iraqi whistleblowers. There’s the “proof” of the “weapons programs”. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/103 "2003-06-10T15:24:19Z")
Do your own fucking research idiot boy. I long ago tired of providing you with info you just ignore regardless. However, in re the usage of the tubes, you may search BBCX or Guardian for confirmation (as noted in your own fucking article) that the tubes did not stand up to claims of nuclear usage. Rather international inspectors found they were consistent were most approp. for the claimed usage, rocket tubing. The one point I may grant you is the Admin may not have had the balls to admit their tubing claims were bullshite. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Cite?Cite? > > I think you’re incorrect, **Collounsbury** There was a report of an [Iraqi officer’s interview with the L A Times](http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-wmd8jun08,1,3600373.story) a couple of days ago that the aluminum tubes were purchased as part of a corrupt, money-making effort, rather than to aid in bomb-making. But, I cannot recall seeing that these tubes couldn’t have been so used. In fact, the implication of the interview is that such use was the excuse given for the purchase. > > Nor do I recall ever seeing any admission by the Administration that the tubes didn’t have potential nuclear use.I see nothing in this story about the White House admitting that the rods weren’t useful for nuclear purposes. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/104 "2003-06-10T15:31:24Z")
On the other hand I know december will not do any real research, other than blog-spotting like a fucking idiot, so Full text: ElBaradei briefing 7 March 2003 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle\_east/2831553.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2831553.stm) Covers the tubes and advances the opinion there was no evidence of a restarted Iraqi nuc. program. For those too impatient to wade through the full text: Key points: Inspectors’ report 7 March 2003 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle\_east/2829359.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2829359.stm) I could go on, but the key is that for anyone who was not a yammering ideological idiot blinded by the Holy Propaganda, there was enough fucking support avail. before the war to question the assertions. Certainly December not having heard of this simply emphasizes the fact that our moron in quesiton only recalls what confirms his warped and impoverished world view. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/105 "2003-06-10T16:10:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*On the other hand I know december will not do any real research, other than blog-spotting like a fucking idiot, so > > Full text: ElBaradei briefing 7 March 2003 > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle\_east/2831553.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2831553.stm) > > Covers the tubes and advances the opinion there was no evidence of a restarted Iraqi nuc. program. > > For those too impatient to wade through the full text: > Key points: Inspectors’ report 7 March 2003 > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle\_east/2829359.stm\*\*](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2829359.stm**) Sorry, but this is a clear and shocking example of naivety, Collounsbury. By this I don’t mean your aluminium tube claim but the idea that December would accept the BBC as a reputable source. Come on Col, you must know by now that in December world that’s a pinko, anti-semitical organisation who do nothing but spin and smear. As such, I’d also like to present the [International Atomic Energy Agency’s](http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n002.shtml) report on the whole aluminium tube affair: > [@](#): > > the IAEA’s analysis to date indicates that the specifications of the aluminium tubes sought by Iraq in 2001 and 2002 appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets. While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for it. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/106 "2003-06-10T16:17:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I see nothing in this story about the White House admitting that the rods weren’t useful for nuclear purposes. \*\* Well, in a thread where the key issue is the credibility of the Bush Administration, isn’t it a little tautological to use that Administration’s own self-serving assertions as evidence of its credibility? By your logic, the proof works thus: The Bush Administration says it’s true, therefore It is true, therefore The Bush Administration is exonerated of lying and misrepresentation. I love what the [Department of State](http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/disarm/nuclear.htm) website has to say about the aluminum tubes: > [@](#): > > He [Saddam Hussein] is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed. These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. > > By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher. > > Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. > > Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq. > > **I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but this is an old army trooper. I can tell you a couple things.** > > First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don’t think so. > > Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including in the latest batch an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. > > Why would they continue refining the specifications? Why would they continuing refining the specification, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off? I particularly love the highlighted sentences, which effectively say, “Hey, i don’t know what the fuck i’m talking about in this highly technical and specialized field, so i’m just gonna blow some homespun wisdom up your ass.” The International Atomic Energy Agency addressed these issues specifically in its investigation. In his [February 14 update](http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n005.shtml), IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei said: > [@](#): > > The IAEA is continuing to follow up on acknowledged efforts by Iraq to import high strength aluminium tubes. As you will know, Iraq has declared these efforts to have been in connection with a programme to reverse engineer conventional rockets. The IAEA has verified that Iraq had indeed been manufacturing such rockets. However, we are still exploring whether the tubes were intended rather for the manufacture of centrifuges for uranium enrichment. In connection with this investigation, Iraq has been asked to explain the reasons for the tight tolerance specifications that it had requested from various suppliers. Iraq has provided documentation related to the project for reverse engineering and has committed itself to providing samples of tubes received from prospective suppliers. We will continue to investigate the matter further. Then, just under a month later, in the report linked to by Collounsbury (and also available at the [IAEA website](http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml), in case _some people_ don’t trust the BBC to reprint the transcript correctly), ElBaradei said: > [@](#): > > Aluminium tubes: The IAEA has conducted a thorough investigation of Iraq’s attempts to purchase large quantities of high-strength aluminium tubes. As previously reported, Iraq has maintained that these aluminium tubes were sought for rocket production. Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets. > > The Iraqi decision-making process with regard to the design of these rockets was well documented. Iraq has provided copies of design documents, procurement records, minutes of committee meetings and supporting data and samples. A thorough analysis of this information, together with information gathered from interviews with Iraqi personnel, has allowed the IAEA to develop a coherent picture of attempted purchases and intended usage of the 81mm aluminium tubes, \*\*as well as the rationale behind the changes in the tolerances. > > Drawing on this information, the IAEA has learned that the original tolerances for the 81mm tubes were set prior to 1987, and were based on physical measurements taken from a small number of imported rockets in Iraq’s possession. Initial attempts to reverse engineer the rockets met with little success. Tolerances were adjusted during the following years as part of ongoing efforts to revitalize the project and improve operational efficiency. The project languished for long periods during this time and became the subject of several committees, which resulted in specification and tolerance changes on each occasion.\*\* > > Based on available evidence, the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq’s efforts to import these aluminium tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges and, moreover, that it was **highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable re-design needed to use them in a revived centrifuge programme.** However, this issue will continue to be scrutinized and investigated. The first highlighted section directly addresses the State Department claims about the revised tolerances of the tubes, and outlines what seems to me to be a fairly reasonable explanation of the changes. The second highlighted part addresses the State Department claim that the tubes “can be adapted for centrifuge use.” There is really no contradiction between the two accounts. While the State Department asserts that such an adaptation could be done, the IAEA says that it is highly unlikely that Iraq would be able to do it. Just because a country with the resources and the expertise of the United States could adapt these rods for use in a centrifuge, does not mean that Iraq could do the same thing. The State Department conclusion seems a bit disingenuous as a result. None of this rules out completely the possibilty that Iraq was going to try to use these rods for nuclear purposes. The IAEA uses phrases like “failed to uncover any evidence”, and “highly unlikely.” But at least the IAEA based its conclusions on “extensive field investigation and document analysis” that placed the attempts to purchase the rods within the context of Iraq’s overall situation. The State Department, on the other hand, seems to have concluded that, just because it was theoretically possible to convert the tubes for nuclear usage, that’s what the Iraqis must have been planning all along. So, **december** , you are right in the sense that we will probably never be able to prove: a) that the Iraqis never intended to use the tubes for nuclear purposes b) that they did not have the ability to modify them for this purpose. However, it seems to me that those who argued (and still argue) that the tubes were to be used for nuclear purposes based their conclusions on little evidence and many presuppositions. Those who questioned the nuclear usage argument at least spent the time and effort to examine the situation on the ground and draw conclusions based on available evidence, rather than simply mangling the argument to fit their ideological predispositons. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/107 "2003-06-10T16:52:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > Well, in a thread where the key issue is the credibility of the Bush Administration, isn’t it a little tautological to use that Administration’s own self-serving assertions as evidence of its credibility? Actually, the intended key issue in _this_ thread was intended to be the multipicity of accusations against the Administration. However, the thread has wandered. BTW my point in mentioning the Administration’s position was to correct **Collounsbury’s** mis-statement to the contrary. > [@](#): > > None of this rules out completely the possibilty that Iraq was going to try to use these rods for nuclear purposes. The IAEA uses phrases like “failed to uncover any evidence”, and “highly unlikely.” But at least the IAEA based its conclusions on “extensive field investigation and document analysis” that placed the attempts to purchase the rods within the context of Iraq’s overall situation. The State Department, on the other hand, seems to have concluded that, just because it was theoretically possible to convert the tubes for nuclear usage, that’s what the Iraqis must have been planning all along. To quibble, I assume the US analysis was done by some qualified department and the results communicated to the State Dept. But, I think you have outlined the situation fairly. Based on \*\*Collounsbury’s]/b] cites and my cite, there seem to be at least 3 theories of why these tubes were purchased:[ol][li]The rocket program[_]The nuclear program[_]For graft[/ol][/li][quote] However, it seems to me that those who argued (and still argue) that the tubes were to be used for nuclear purposes based their conclusions on little evidence and many presuppositions. Those who questioned the nuclear usage argument at least spent the time and effort to examine the situation on the ground and draw conclusions based on available evidence, rather than simply mangling the argument to fit their ideological predispositons. [/QUOTE] Well, I don’t know whose arguments were based on what predispositions. Obviously the Iraqis were predisposed to deny that the tubes would be used to develop nuclear weapons. Did El Baradei have predispositions to believe or disbelieve Saddam? I have no evidence that he did. Did the US analysts have predispositions? I have no evidence that they did. In summary, I agree that there’s a good chance that these tubes would not have been used for nuclear purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/108 "2003-06-10T17:23:41Z")
**sailor** : Well thank you. We aim to please. **december** : Here I spend the better part of an afternoon refuting in detail your OP, criticizing Powell’s UN presentation, and so on, and that’s the only reply you can come up with? Man, what a lame response, even by your standards. You better watch out, dude – I think you might be running out of spin. > [@](#): > > - On preview, I note that **Mr. Svinlesha** has a sensible presentation of the other side of the argument. He says, “I have yet to see a single shred of evidence whatsoever that, even if Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons, it was prepared to use them against the people of the United States.” I’m don’t [sic] apologize for our war against Saddam. I’m proud of it.\* Well, to start with, at least you allow that the opposing view is “sensible.” I’ll grant you that, which is more than can be said for many of the more rabid pro-war posters I’ve read on these boards. I see no reason for you to apologize for the US war against Iraq, since it was not of your doing; nor can I understand how you could be proud of something that you did not participate in. Continuing: > [@](#): > > - **Mr. Svinlesha** makes a fair point, but it doesn’t convince me.\* 😃 Rest assured I have no illusions, good **december** , of ever managing to convince you of anything. That would require something more than a simple discussion on a message board – like, for example, a miracle. > [@](#): > > - It moves the burden of proof from Saddam to the war-makers. IMHO Iraq’s past bad deeds put the burden of proof on them to prove that they weren’t a threat. In fact, that was the gist of several UN resolutions, including the most recent #1441.\* Nice try. I won’t be as categorical as some of the other respondents have been with regard to this point, although in essence I agree with **wring** and **xeno**. But I understand your position as well, and I think there is some merit to the argument that Iraq ought to have “shared” the burden of proof, if that is possible. But the gist of my previous post doesn’t really focus on Iraq, as you may have noticed; it focuses on the rhetorical tricks employed by administration officials in the run-up to the war, techniques used to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and to counteract reasonable objections to the pro-war stance. Basically, to simplify a bit, I’m arguing that even if one claims Iraq must also “prove its innocence” to a certain extent, the fact is that in the face of the US propaganda machine they never got a fair trial in the court of public opinion to begin with. How could the Iraqi regime prove its innocence (with regard to “WMDs”) when, as is obvious to any reasonable person, the US government employed slander, innuendo, exaggerations, half-truths, and out-right lies to prosecute its case, exploiting as well the full weight of a right-wing media to spin, distort, and otherwise misconstrue the facts and ignore unpleasant truths? The Iraqi government was forced to respond to an unrelenting barrage of the most outrageous charges – such as, for example, its alleged possession of “unmanned drone aircraft,” or its purchase of uranium from Niger – and at the same time, every protestation of innocence was scoffed at. Even absence of evidence was presented as proof – proof that the Iraqis were “hiding” “WMDs” from UN inspectors. Thus, Colin Powell cites the Taji inspection, which failed to produce _any evidence of Iraqi noncompliance whatsoever_, as proof of an advanced Iraqi effort to conceal their so-called “WMD” stocks. Having presented satellite photos of what he claimed to a be a chemical weapons dump, he then goes on to accuse the Iraqis of “sanitizing” the site before the unscheduled arrival of a team of UN inspectors: > [@](#): > > \*\* Now look at the picture on the right. You are now looking at two of those sanitized bunkers. The signature vehicles are gone, the tents are gone, it’s been cleaned up, and it was done on the 22nd of December, as the U.N. inspection team is arriving, and you can see the inspection vehicles arriving in the lower portion of the picture on the right. > > _The bunkers are clean when the inspectors get there. They found nothing._ > > This sequence of events raises the worrisome suspicion that Iraq had been tipped off to the forthcoming inspections at Taji (ph). As it did throughout the 1990s, we know that Iraq today is actively using its considerable intelligence capabilities to hide its illicit activities. From our sources, we know that inspectors are under constant surveillance by an army of Iraqi intelligence operatives. Iraq is relentlessly attempting to tap all of their communications, both voice and electronics.\*\* For Powell, apparently, the absence of “WMDs” at the bunkers does not imply that maybe, just maybe, intelligence had misinterpreted the activity at the dump; no, no, not at all – it serves as proof that the Iraqis are also deceiving the inspection teams. But note well that Powell has not offered hard evidence; as he says himself, he has merely raised a “worrisome suspicion.” How is one to respond to these sorts of accusations? Even in the absence of “WMDs,” Powell sees “WMDs.” (It may be remembered that after Powell’s presentation, the Iraqi government did debunk this particular piece of evidence, pointing out that the dates on the satellite photos were wrong. Into the memory hole _that_ goes; after all, nobody can believe a word they say, anyway, while Powell’s credibility is, of course, impeachable). So, in a nutshell, my point has little or nothing to do with shifting the burden of proof; on the contrary, I am asserting the existence of a smear campaign against Iraq on the part of the Bush administration, one that Iraq had virtually no chance to counter. At the same time, every attempt on the part of Iraq to meet the demands of the UN was met with contempt, and declared “not good enough;” I do not believe that they had failed to fulfill a single one of their obligations under 1441 before the start of the war, and had agreed to every single US demand. When it was discovered that some of their missiles were in violation of 1441, they immediately began to dismantle them. They had granted inspectors completely unfettered access not only to their weapons dumps, but even to the various presidential palaces, an act equivalent to the US government granting a team of Iraqis free reign to inspect the basement of the White House, the Congress, and the Pentagon for incriminating evidence. And finally, after balking on allowing scientists to be interviewed outside the country, they finally even acquiesced to that demand as well. On top of that they provided thousands and thousands of pages of documentation on their so-called “WMD” programs. Incredibly, all of this was framed by US officials as evidence of Iraqi non-compliance and dismissed. One final point: in your OP, you cite the UNSCOM report made by Hans Blix as evidence that “everyone knew” that Iraq possessed “WMDs;” are you not aware that Blix recently avowed that his report could not be construed as that sort or proof, or as an acceptable pretext to war? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323/109 "2003-06-10T18:27:17Z")
P.S. **mhendo** : Excellent post on the aluminum tubes; thanks for the info (and the time you put into researching and presenting it). I would like to link your presentation to the point I am trying to make as well: in this case, the ambiguity surrounding the purpose of the aluminum tubes allows for several reasonable interpretations regarding their use. But it is significant that State exploits precisely this uncertainty to argue that the tubes are almost certainly intended for use in centrifuges, and against other interpretations, _despite the fact that they have no real evidence that this is the case_, only innuendo and deprecating questions. Practically any piece of intelligence can be spun in a similar manner, because by its very nature, all intelligence information is always subject to interpretation. Propaganda is merely the art of exploiting ambiguity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bewildered-bush-bashers-beastly-barrage-of-backstabbing/180323.md?page=5)