“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.
Wrong.
"You have provided no support for that assertion [that the Dept of Energy found the tubes unsuitable for rotor use and told the administration]."
Wrong again - it's been widely reported, it's not in the least controversial.
Here it is again:
"In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.
"Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
"But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
"The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government."
In addition, some in the CIA held a dissenting view - were they the anti-"Clintonoids," and if so, why were they disregarded?
Yeah, I know, I know - the New York Times, like the IAEA, like Clinton and his "oids," is pure SATANIC evil.
And support for your notion that the ever-honest but apparently immensely trusting and gullible Bush administration had no clue that anyone had any idea that those tubes led anywhere other than a mushroom cloud, all based on the say so of embedded and evil SATANIC "Clintonoids"?
Why, you've got D*ck...