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...
“Wrong.”
Once again you provide no support for your assertion that claims the aluminum tubes were only suitable for centrifuges came from a single analyst at the CIA. "Wrong," is it? Okay, where’s your support?
"You have provided no support for that assertion [that the Dept of Energy found the tubes unsuitable for rotor use and told the administration]."
Even a cursory reading of my last note shows that my arguments were that the DOE was at best merely one voice among many, that they are second and third-tier minds, and that their veracity is dubious.
“In addition, some in the CIA held a dissenting view - were they the anti-"Clintonoids," and if so, why were they disregarded?”
As you seem completely unfamiliar with the dynamics of such a situation, you’d do better to learn more before speaking.
“Yeah, I know, I know - the New York Times, like the IAEA, like Clinton and his "oids," is pure SATANIC evil.”
Pretty much, yes. Believe the NYT --> be deceived.
“And support for your notion that the … Bush administration had no clue that anyone had any idea that those tubes led anywhere other than a mushroom cloud…”
And in this note you sink to misrepresenting your opponent’s position. My goodness, not only are you arguing demonrat talking points, you’re doing it like a demonrat.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752183/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708458/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689181/posts
If I had time, I’d go further back to the posts from early in the Bush administration that specifically discuss the Clintonoid cabal in the CIA working to shaft Bush.
Of course, anyone who was interested in the truth could do that for himself.