I think you’re incorrect, Collounsbury There was a report of an Iraqi officer’s interview with the L A Times 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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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 website has to say about the aluminum tubes:
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, IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei said:
Then, just under a month later, in the report linked to by Collounsbury (and also available at the IAEA website, in case some people don’t trust the BBC to reprint the transcript correctly), ElBaradei said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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?
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.
