“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.