"The CIA has concluded that these tubes were specifically manufactured for use in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. Many in the expert community both inside and outside government, however, do not agree with this conclusion. The vast majority of gas centrifuge experts in this country and abroad who are knowledgeable about this case reject the CIA's case and do not believe that the tubes are specifically designed for gas centrifuges. In addition, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have consistently expressed skepticism that the tubes are for centrifuges. In his February 7, 2003 report to the UN Security Council, Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's Director General, said: "Based on available evidence, the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq's efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges.
"All experts agree that after modification the tubes could be used as a rotor of a poor quality gas centrifuge. Complicating the realization of this design is that the wall of the tubes is unusually thick, and the tubes' diameter is not optimal for such a centrifuge. Many centrifuge experts believe that this design would not work as the basis of a centrifuge plant.
"On the other hand, the tubes' dimensions are consistent with a known Iraqi rocket program. ElBaradei moreover reported to the Security Council that extensive field investigation and document analysis failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these aluminum tubes for any project other than in rockets.
"After months of investigation, the administration has failed to prove its claim that the tubes are intended for use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge program. Despite being presented with evidence countering this claim, the administration persists in making misleading comments about the significance of the tubes."
A single "junior analyst" at the CIA claimed the tubes were for enrichment, while the Dept of Energy - who should know - said the tubes were unsuitable - and they told the adminstration.
When you claim something is certain when you know it is far less than that, you are lying.
Essentially, by floating your unsupported "Clintonoid" silliness, you are really just saying the president is an incompetent, an idiot - completely plausible, as long as it is also recognized that he and his administration have no regard for the truth.
“A single "junior analyst" at the CIA claimed the tubes were for enrichment”
There’s no support for that assertion. Nothing you posted even suggests that. The situation is that “the CIA” concluded “that these tubes were specifically manufactured for use in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium.” I don’t know why you keep repeating that unsupported assertion about “a single ‘junior analyst,’ ” unless it’s just that you hope people will believe it if you repeat it often enough.
As Michael Crichton wrote, “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
Further, the IAEA is a despicable pack of anti-Americans who couldn’t be trusted to give directions to a candy store. Therefore, this inane prattle about “many” and “the vast majority” is worse than puerile. It literally makes me nauseous that you are setting Mohamed ElBaradei up as proof of anything, much less these mad notions that Bush had some mysterious “desire” to invade Iraq.
All that said, the strongest rebuttal that these despicable reprobates could mount was, “not likely,” in the face of the fact that “all experts agree that after modification the tubes could be used as a rotor.” But that’s enough for you to conclude – and worse, proselytize – that Bush was “lying.”
In my view, your accusation that he was lying, on the basis of nothing whatsoever, constitutes lying.
“the Dept of Energy - who should know - said the tubes were unsuitable - and they told the adminstration.”
1. You have provided no support for that assertion.
2. Yes, the DOE should know; however, (a) do they? and (b) would they tell the truth if they did?
3. Even if they did tell the administration, they were merely one voice among many.
4. None of the best minds in any field are career bureaucrats. Anyone would be justified in regarding DOE scientists as second or third-tier.
“Essentially, by floating your unsupported "Clintonoid" silliness”
The fact that you are ignorant of the problem in the CIA doesn’t make it either unsupported or silly. I would suggest you spend less time on whatever whacko sites you’re getting this “Bush lied” lunacy from and more time trying to find out what’s really going on.
“you are really just saying the president is an incompetent, an idiot”
Are you already reduced to repeating talking points, even after they’ve been debunked? That’s pitiful.
I demonstrated in my last note that even people who are not “idiots” can be deceived. As, of course, every intelligent human being is aware. This is especially true when the deceivers are (a) expert, and (b) credible. Before you can again advance the argument that Bush having been deceived makes him “an incompetent, an idiot,” you must demonstrate that only incompetents and idiots can be deceived.
See, that’s how it works. If you make an assertion and someone shows it to be lunacy, you have to demonstrate that it’s not lunacy. Otherwise, just continuing to repeat it makes you a lunatic.