Hopelessly Compromised (II)

The NY Times editors tackle the latest Fitzgerald filings, and are more disingenuous than their reporters. 

Playing Hardball With Secrets 

For more than two years, Senate Republicans have dragged out an investigation into how the Bush administration came to use bogus intelligence on Iraq to justify a war. A year ago, Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, called it "a monumental waste of time" to consider whether the White House manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, the evidence has steadily mounted that President Bush and his team not only did that before the war, but kept right on doing it after the invasion. The most recent additions to this pile came yesterday, in reports by The New York Sun, The National Journal and other news organizations on documents from the case against Lewis Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney who is charged with lying about the unmasking of Valerie Wilson, a covert C.I.A. agent.

According to these papers, Mr. Libby testified that President Bush authorized him to tell reporters about classified intelligence on Iraq as part of an effort to discredit Mrs. Wilson's husband, Joseph Wilson, a retired diplomat who had cast doubt on the claim that Iraq tried to acquire uranium for nuclear bombs from Niger. The National Journal reported that Mr. Libby has also said that Mr. Cheney authorized him to leak classified information before the invasion to make the case for war.

Emphasis added throughout.  Regarding the "unmasking of... a covert C.I.A. agent", it is clear that Ms. Plame's status was classified, but does the Times actually know that she was "covert" as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?  A key open issue is whether she served abroad in the last five years [See Kleiman, York, or yours truly].  That is evidence currently being sought by the Libby defense team and withheld by Fitzgerald (if it exists), so the Times ought to break this scoop - if, in fact, they have any idea what they are talking about.  They sort of grasped this point in February 2005, but perhaps they have moved on.

On "President Bush authorized him to tell reporters... as part of an effort to discredit ... Joseph Wilson", a casual reader might infer that President Bush was specifically apprised of the motivation behind NIE disclosure.  In fact, the Fitzgerald filing does not address Bush's state of mind in approving the disclosure, nor was Libby privy to that conversation, which, per Libby's testimony, took place between Bush and Cheney.  In any event, if rebutting one's critics is a crime, all of Washington should be locked up.  Hmm, we're not afraid of Big Ideas... Well, let's press on:

Mr. Wilson was sent by the administration to Niger to check out the report that Iraq tried to buy uranium in the late 1990's. He concluded that it was bogus and said so in a Times Op-Ed article in July 2003. In response, the administration leaked word that Mr. Wilson's wife was a C.I.A. agent.

Wow.  The editors seem to have forgotten what Joe Wilson actually wrote, and what he actually reported.  I have more detail in this post, but the gist is, Wilson did not report that Iraq had not *tried* to buy uranium from Niger; in fact, he reported on a 1999 Iraqi approach which appeared to be exactly that.  He did report that he did not believe such a sale was consummated, which is a different matter.  One might expect the Times editors to be aware of this distinction.

As to their statement that "In response, the administration leaked word that Mr. Wilson's wife was a C.I.A. agent", let's note that Woodward received a Plame leak in mid-June 2003, prior to the Wilson op-ed.  Cause, effect, tedium.  Maybe they should mention those great Kristof columns.

The Times also pounds the table on the aluminum tubes, which, in a particular left-wing constellation, have replaced the Niger uranium as the shining star for the case that Saddam had nuclear aspirations:

According to The National Journal, that document said the State Department and the Energy Department had concluded that it also was not true that Iraq bought aluminum tubes to enrich uranium. During his State of the Union address in 2003, Mr. Bush said flatly that it was true.

Flatly?  No, he didn't.  Here we go from January 2003:

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. 

That is the sort of caveatted, carefully phrased statement that ought to infuriate any of the President's critics who trouble themselves to read it (We infer that the Times editors have not done so).  One might guess that the wording carefully reflected the dispute which was revealed in July 2003 with the partial declassification of the NIE.  Here we go with excerpts on the aluminum tubes:

Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotor - as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools - provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

And later, in the famous INR dissent:

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.

...In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.

The DOE thought the tubes were "poorly suited" for use in centrifuges; what the President's wordsmiths had written was that the tubes "were suitable" for such use, which was probably true.  Only the Times editors know what logical leap they undertook to get to "Mr. Bush said flatly that it was true" that "Iraq bought aluminum tubes to enrich uranium".

But parsing aside, the Times theme is that the aluminum tubes (not, any more, the 16 Words and the Niger uranium) were what crystallized the case for war.  In fact, even the NIE dissenters believed that Saddam had nuclear aspirations; they simply did not believe that the tubes were proof of it.

UPDATE:  Lots more on the faux aluminum tubes controversy from Seixon.  We especially like this [But was this publicly available in October 2002?  I want to believe!  And per the Times, the CIA did release an unclassified version of the NIE on Oct 4, 2002.]:

[Folks promoting this new controversy] always makes news out of things that aren’t, simply by fooling the reader into believing that it is news in some way. All of this is quite simple to show, and I will.

...[The attack theme is that] Bush would be severely damaged if the public knew that the president might have been made aware of the aluminum tubes dissenting opinions? I see. Well, that’s quite odd, since the public unclassified intelligence assessment on Iraq was released in October 2002 containing the following passage:

Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.

In other words, anyone with eyesight and a knack for reading comprehension in the United States could have seen that some intelligence specialists thought the tubes were intended for conventional weapons.

UNRELENTING:  The Times editors assert that "Mr. Wilson was sent by the administration to Niger".  Really?  Per the Wilson account, he was sent by "officials at the Central Intelligence Agency"; per George Tenet, Wilson was sent by "CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative"; per Robert Novak,

The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge.

We could go on - Andrea Mitchell and Reuters used, on July 8, language similar to Novak's July 14 column, and the SSCI report from July 2004 told a similar story.

My point - "Administration official" normally denotes someone whose career in the Executive Branch ebbs and flows with the political tides of new elections.  For example, Tenet and his top aides at the CIA are political appointees who could properly have been described as "Administration officials".

The Wilson trip was arranged by CIA careerists who would, in an honest editorial, be described as "government officials". 

I have no doubt that the Times editors deal with these sourcing issues on a daily basis and are fully capable of distinguishing between "government" and "Administration" officials, so it is hard to believe this mistake is accidental.  As an example, look at their big James Risen story from Dec 16 2005 which broke the NSA warrantless eavesdropping.  Here is the lead:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Just sayin'.

Comments

[Cecil Turner]

The Times also pounds the table on the aluminum tubes . . .

Yeah, and you gotta love the way they cite the caveat, but leave out the main finding:

Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

In any event, if rebutting one's critics is a crime, all of Washington should be locked up. Hmm, not a bad idea...

Yes, and Wilson wasn't just a "critic." He was actively spreading disinformation about a go-to-war decision, in a fashion guaranteed to resonate in enemy propaganda releases, whilst a shooting war was ongoing. It may be impossible to quantify the effect that this and similar stories have on friendly troops' morale and enemy willingness to fight, but there's little doubt the effect exists. Discrediting Wilson wasn't just "not criminal" . . . it was a duty. Great post.

[MayBee]

Hmm, we're not afraid of Big Ideas... Well, let's press on

TM, have I ever told you how much I adore your writing?

[boris]

Isn't it funny that evidence of threat from a dangerous tyrant in time of war has to be beyond reasonable doubt ... but simply asserting the threat exists is an impeachable lie based on the dubious logic that a scintilla of doubt if proof of Saddam's innocence and Bush's crime.

The odious swarm of trolls and moonbats can hardly be blamed for their blinkered beliefs with the execrable Times demented drek printed and distributed country wide.

[not the senator]

So we find out today that Bush personally authorized leaking sensitive intelligence information for political reasons.

Explain to me again how we can trust that this President has not used his NSA program, that has no oversight, to wiretap Americans for political reasons?

[MayBee]

Was it not the NY Times that ran 2 election-eve dual-use nuclear weapon materials on the loose in Iraq because Bush didn't protect the stockpiles stories?

So now, we are to believe Iraq had dual use weapons, under IAEA seal, and we must PANIC that they are gone...but those aluminum tubes, they mean nothing and the fact they mean nothing meant Saddam had no nuclear ambitions. Yes? No?

[Jim E.]

"a fashion guaranteed to resonate in enemy propaganda releases, whilst a shooting war was ongoing. It may be impossible to quantify the effect that this and similar stories have on friendly troops' morale and enemy willingness to fight, but there's little doubt the effect exists."

Same is true of WF Buckley, Zinni, Wilkerson, Tom Clancy, Eaton, Thatcher, and Fukuyama, I presume? All their words are "guarenteed" to resonate with the enemy, right? I realize the comment was primarily meant as an anti-Wilson diatribe, but it is written in such a broad-brush style as to pretty much label any critique of the war as somehow unAmerican. (Then again, Cecil is probably nodding his head at that and thinking there's nothing broad-bush about it, and that critiques shouldn't take place at all.)

Hmmmmm. How about Bush saying "Bring it on"? Unlike the others listed above, there's probably no American the "enemy" listens to more than Bush. That doozy of a line was directly spoken to the enemy troops, unlike pretty much any statement by a mainstream antiwar critic. By the hallowed Cecil Turner standard, Bush's statement was clearly the worst, as he was specifically urging the enemy to fight as hard as possible. Of that, there can be little doubt.

[Jake - but not the one]

TM, I think you can parse these words two ways

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Your way (as I understand your posts)- high-strengh aluminum tubes. Such tubes have nuclear weapons production as one potential use.

The other way - high-strength aluminum tubes specifically purchased for nuclear weapons production.

Now I don't know which way the President intended. I do think those words could be read either way by honest people.

Jake

[max]

The NYT - once again showing its Quisling stripes.

The NYT thinks it is (and hopes our enemies recognize it as) a Quisling vis-a-vis the United States, but actually since at least Walter Duranty, it has been ready to betray all mankind other than its preening self for the slightest perceived advantage in any partisan struggle.

[boris]

read either way by

While the tubes themselves might be used for other purposes, the specs they were built to had only one purpose. Nuclear.

Honest people would be honest about that point.

[Wonderland]

Tom writes:

"The DOE thought the tubes were "poorly suited" for use in centrifuges; what the President's wordsmiths had written was that the tubes "were suitable" for such use, which was probably true."

Parse away, Tom, but this is an idiotic statement. I mean, this is kind of is-is nonsense that so many of you rightly decried in the '90s. Now, "poorly suited" actually means "suitable." It's no wonder well over half of people think the Administration was dishonest is making its case for war.

You also make a big deal over critics' emphasis on the aluminum tubes issues rather than the 16 words/uranium issue. As if one or the other was a smoking gun of dishonesty. You're missing the meta-criticism here: That the nuclear case against Saddam was always pretty weak; that it was, for many people, the lynchpin in supporting the war (smoking guns and mushroom clouds and all); that the two main pieces of evidence for the program -- Niger uranium and aluminum tubes -- were dubious at best; and that the Administration knew it was dubious, and didn't care. They knew the nuclear case was weak, but parsed and massaged and, yes, misled in order to have the war they wanted. You know perfectly well the impression they meant to create, and it was most certainly not that there were serious doubts about the Saddam's nuclear capabilities.

And, in any event, now that we know how decrepit Saddam's nuclear program really was, isn't all this evidence of gross negligence on the part of the Administration? I mean, due diligence and all. Everything they said about Saddam's nuclear program turned out to be baloney. Shouldn't they have done more fact-finding beforehand, especially given that they KNEW about the evidentiary doubts PRIOR to the war?

And if all this doesn't make you rub your eyes in disbelief, doesn't the fact that after the invasion, they leaked selected portions of the NIE that supported their case, while supressing those that casted doubt, make the original dishonesty and subsequent coverup clear as day?

[Daddy]

A Mark Twain paraphrase is called for right about here: "It is wrong of the New York Times to have commented on the Fitzgerald Filings without having read some of it."

[boris]

"poorly suited" actually means "suitable."

As opposed to "unsuited".

Aluminum tubes are unsuited to uranium production unless they are carefully constructed, at which point, depending on other factors, they become either "well suited" or "poorly suited".

Maybe Saddam was just testing the ban to see if he could get aluminum tubes built to spec. Mox nix because those specs were not allowed.

[Semanticleo]

The problem with the NYT is similar to that
of Bush Admin. Credibility so trashed that
most question even the most simple assumptions, such as: 'the sun rises in
the east'.

[Cecil Turner]

Same is true of WF Buckley, Zinni, Wilkerson, Tom Clancy, Eaton, Thatcher, and Fukuyama, I presume?

Did they make a false claim of US intelligence in order to discredit the Administration in wartime? If so, then it certainly does. (Of course, the relative play they get in the press is the main determinant of harm.)

I realize the comment was primarily meant as an anti-Wilson diatribe, but it is written in such a broad-brush style as to pretty much label any critique of the war as somehow unAmerican.

Again, classifying Wilson's disinformation as mere "critique" is not on.

By the hallowed Cecil Turner standard, Bush's statement was clearly the worst, as he was specifically urging the enemy to fight as hard as possible. Of that, there can be little doubt.

By the clueless Jim E. standard, the Nazis must've been utter dunces at propaganda, because they tended to think the bring it on type stuff fairly effective, along with discredit enemy leader stuff.

[Specter]

Wonderland,

You know - I just can't seem to reconcile the idea that MSM like the NYT publishes non-truths and you don't take them to task for it. It doesn't make sense. First off - if the President declassified a document - whether it be the whole document or portions of it - it is not a leak. It is a disclosure. There is a huge difference between the two words. Do you think Rocky knows the difference? But I digress.

Secondly they make the claim that Val was tied into the declass/disclosure process, when that was not what was said in Fitz's filing. Yet you seem to believe it even though the actual filing is in the public realm.

And that's why so many people seem to be against Bush in the polls - because people like you and the NYT keep telling them what to believe. You can't have it both ways.

[BumperStickerist]

Also, regarding Saddam and the aluminum tubes, there's the 'Gee, that's a really bad idea' angle to consider.

Was it a *really* *bad* idea for Saddam to import potential dual-use high tech items like aluminum tubes while under UN sanctions and facing possible Bush-led US military action?

Apparently so.

.

[lemondloulou54]

Tommy, Get with the program. Libby and his team and you can cry till you are all blue in your faces, but Libby is not charged with leaking the identity of a covert agent. He's charged with lying during the VP investigation to Federal agents and to lying during his grand jury testimony.

In a fist fight between a Wall Street broker's son and a doorman's son, I put my money on the doorman's son, particularly when it's the doorman's son who gets to decide which playground they are going to fight in.

Honestly, Tom, Victoria Toensing is SO O. J. Simpson case. . .Your talking points are getting tedious.

[Sue]

Mr. E.,

pretty much label any critique of the war as somehow unAmerican

So Wilson's lies were just a critique of the war?

[Seixon]

For a complete take-down of "uranium tubes in Niger", look no further.

[Semanticleo]

"The multiplying villainies of nature do swarm upon him." (Macbeth)

[Specter]

Man the trolls are out from under the bridge early today.

"who's that trip, trip, trapping across my bridge?"

[Wonderland]

Specter:

"if the President declassified a document - whether it be the whole document or portions of it - it is not a leak. It is a disclosure. There is a huge difference between the two words.

Again, this is legalistic nonsense. I understand that the President didn't break the law, since apparently he can declassify at will. But "disclosure" is when you declassify a document through normal channels, and then disseminate to the press or post it on the White House website. Like what was done later on.

"Leaking" is when you personally authorize a staff member to speak to a favored reporter on double-secret background, in a secret location, using a misleading identifier ("former Hill staffer"). If that's not a "leak," nothing is. And you can't ignore or spin the fact that but for that leak, the leaked information would ahve remained secret until it was released, via normal channels, some weeks later.

I mean, it may present any legal problems for the President, but it reeks of foul play, dishonesty, and hypocrisy.

[James Stephenson]

"Bring it on," the President spoke those words and bet every enlisted man in the militay said "hell yes."

Jim E thinks that was mistake, Bush was trying to goad the opposition into making a fatal mistake, namely attacking the U.S. Military head on. And in every instance of exchange of fire from the foreign insurgent against American troops has led to a bunch of dead terrorists. Remember that attack of 20+ insurgents on a convoy only to be repelled by 7 American Soldiers led by a Woman. Oh the irony, you have the advantage, superior numbers (in normal fights that equals wins, not only do you lose, you lose to a woman. That must have been tough for the Islamist ego right there. And I imagine that is one of the reasons they stopped bringing it on.

I keep waiting for them to try and stage a Tet Offensive. That will be the end of the Insurgency as we know it.

I say, "Bring it on Insurgency, Like men, bring it on."

[Wonderland]

I meant, in final sentence above, "...may not present any legal problems..."

Sorry.

[MayBee]

Al Qaqaa

..the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was secretly renewing its pursuit of nuclear arms. He ordered his weapons inspectors to conduct an inventory, and publicly reported their findings to the Security Council on Jan. 9, 2003.

During the following weeks, the I.A.E.A. repeatedly drew public attention to the explosives. In New York on Feb. 14, nine days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented his arms case to the Security Council, Dr. ElBaradei reported that the agency had found no sign of new atom endeavors but "has continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX."

A European diplomat reported that Jacques Baute, head of the arms agency's Iraq nuclear inspection team, warned officials at the United States mission in Vienna about the danger of the nuclear sites and materials once under I.A.E.A. supervision, including Al Qaqaa.

But apparently, little was done. A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether troops ever returned.
----
NYTimes says: IAEA warnings and seals important. Nuclear weapons sites important. Dual use nuclear equipment important. Aluminum tubes? Makes the whole nuclear ambitions claim a lie lie lie.

[boris]

it reeks of foul play, dishonesty, and hypocrisy.

Everything Bush and Cheney does has that effect on moonbats.

[Mark Buehner]

"So we find out today that Bush personally authorized leaking sensitive intelligence information for political reasons. "

No, its not leaking when it comes from the president. Its declassifying and disclosing and he has that authority. And how do you seperate the political from policy? Wilson began using 'sensitive information' (as you put it) in the NYT in a _political_ effort to derail the war. Bush responded to this because he believed the information he had shouldnt be twisted and lied about by Joe Wilson when the security of the nation was on the line. He had ample legitimate reason.

"Explain to me again how we can trust that this President has not used his NSA program, that has no oversight, to wiretap Americans for political reasons? "

Explain to me how we can trust a president not to use his CIC authority to bomb Toronto or round up some small town in Idaho for genetic research. Its constitutional authority. The president can do a lot worse things then listen to your phone calls if the mood strikes him, but it doesnt keep us up at night.

[Sue]

Seixon

Great job.

[Sue]

If that's not a "leak," nothing is. And you can't ignore or spin the fact that but for that leak, the leaked information would ahve remained secret until it was released, via normal channels, some weeks later.

How does this tie in with Plame?

[Foo Bar]

One might guess that the wording carefully reflected the dispute

Are you saying that it should have been clear to someone hearing or reading this sentence

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

that there was dissent among intelligence agencies about what the tubes were most likely intended for?

"Carefully reflected the dispute"?? How about "carefully constructed to maximize alarmist effect while avoiding outright inconsistency with the NIE"?

[maryrose]

The deposing of Saddam was justified and necessary. His military was shooting at our planes. Just because the NYT is against President Bush and the Iraq war and obviously doesn't understand when and how it it is necessary to to declassify information {witness the recent NSA leaking kerfuffle} DOES NOT PERMIT them to lie in their reportage on their front page in order tp propagandize against the war and LIE to their readers. THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED YELLOW JOURNALISM.

[Specter]

Wonderland,

Nice job dogding the issue. Just like all Murtha/kerryites it's cut and run when you are asked a simple question. It is not a leak. Sorry - the President has the authority to declassify. He has the authority to authorize a person to tell the media about it. Not a leak - especially as compared to Rocky and the NSA stuff.

But the question was how can you condone the lying that the NYT does? You scream and yell that Bush lied - and you try to use bogus poll numbers to back that up - poll numbers generated in large part because MSM does not present the truth. What brand of honesty do you actually believe in?

[blaster]

re: Aluminum tubes

It isn't "just" the President and cherry pickers who think that those aluminum tubes were suitable for use in nuclear programs - that type of aluminum, in ANY form, is a controlled material by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and is BY DEFINITION dual use.

It was a violation of the UN sanctions regime for Iraq to purchase it without an approval process.

They knew that, that is why they purchased it covertly.

Somehow none of that gets into the story. Oh, sure, Iraq claimed it was for some other purpose. After they got caught redhanded subverting the sanctions.

[TM]

Was it not the NY Times that ran 2 election-eve dual-use nuclear weapon materials on the loose in Iraq because Bush didn't protect the stockpiles stories?

Oh, you have a Dark Heart, remembering their hype of the nuclear threat on election eve. I bet I steal that for an update.

From Jake:

Now I don't know which way the President intended. I do think those words could be read either way by honest people.

Well, fair enough, but... some of the honest people are taking the next step of saying that (a) Bush meant a specific thing, and (b) that specific thing was a lie.

That logical train won't run on time if the underlying sentence is ambiguous.

Now, if critics wn't to whack Bush for being vague, or donfusing, or if they want to explain that they were misled, well, go for it (we always enjoy hearing prominent Dems explaiing their inability to grasp basic points).

But to blame Bush for lying when the meaning is not clear is not accurate.

From Wonderland:

You're missing the meta-criticism here: That the nuclear case against Saddam was always pretty weak; that it was, for many people, the lynchpin in supporting the war (smoking guns and mushroom clouds and all); that the two main pieces of evidence for the program -- Niger uranium and aluminum tubes -- were dubious at best; and that the Administration knew it was dubious, and didn't care.

You seem to be missing the meta-response, which is that, per the NIE, neither the uranium nor the aluminum were central to the evaluation of Saddam as a long term nuclear threat.

If the Adminstration "didn't care" about a couple of illustrative details, it was because they were illustrative, not central.

And as I recall, Duelfer confirmed the obvious about Saddam's long term aspirations (although I also recall nuclear was a gleam in his eye, but bio and chem were more urgent, after he wriggled out from the sanctions).

[blaster]

Just in case you think its "Bush"-wa - from the NSG guidelines:

2.C. MATERIALS

2.C.1. Aluminium alloys having both of the following characteristics:

a. 'Capable of' an ultimate tensile strength of 460 MPa or more at 293 K (20 °C); and

b. In the form of tubes or cylindrical solid forms (including forgings) with an outside diameter of more than 75 mm.
Technical Note: In Item 2.C.1. the phrase 'capable of' encompasses aluminium alloys before or after heat treatment.

http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/PDF/infcirc254r6p2-050223.pdf

Without appropriate license, it was already illegal for them to purchase those tubes, whether under sanctions or not.

[TM]

From FooBar:

"Carefully reflected the dispute"?? How about "carefully constructed to maximize alarmist effect while avoiding outright inconsistency with the NIE"?

LOL. Well, my post was also carefully constructed. I think we are both saying that the speech was written to provide CYA with respect to the intel dispute. I, however, can still hope to cash the big checks as a Rep spinmeister some day.

Your talking points are getting tedious.

But "Bush Lied" will never grow old.

[David Cohen]

The dispute over the significance of the aluminum tubes was public, and debated publicly, before the war began. In fact, Colin Powell referred specifically to the dispute in his presentation to the Security Council:

He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.

These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes.

First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?

The high tolerance aluminum tubes are only part of the story. We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines; both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium.

Ignoring for the moment that they were these tubes were banned under the UN sanctions, and assuming that they weren't meant for centrifuges, are we really comforted by the idea of Iraqi multiple rocket launchers?

[Jim E.]

Cecil,
Your links didn't work for me, so perhaps I'm missing the joke. But did you validate Bush's "Bring it on" statement by appealing to the Nazi party? Is there some relevant corallary to Godwin's law for such an argument? Cuz this is a new one. (And BTW, who is the singular "enemy leader" in our current war? I think the Pentagon would like to know, too.)

James S. wrote: "Jim E thinks that was mistake"

Actually, Ari Fleischer, in his memoir, also acknowledged that Bush stepped into it with that line. So I stand with Ari F on this one! (Excuse me while I get the vomit out of my mouth.)

Let's review: Cecil is using the Nazi party to validate Bush's idiotic statements (unless, again, the non-working links show something contrary to Cecil's words), and James S. is similarly using the Vietnam War (as if that was a successful U.S. war) as a way to bolster what is happening in Iraq. (That James S. would think we won Vietnam is not surprising considering he thinks the enemy in Iraq is no longer bringing it on.)

Well, far be it from me to stand in the way of such, er, unique *cough* pro-Bush sentiment. Carry on.

[Semanticleo]

TM

Add to the tedium; My BushLove compels me to enable all his behaviors, requiring accountability only of those
who maliciously persecute my childlike President.

[boris]

(Excuse me while I get the vomit out of my mouth.)

Yes please do, the smell is pretty bad. You might want to wipe it off your keyboard too.

[Foo Bar]

Well, my post was also carefully constructed.

I disagree. The "One might guess that the wording carefully reflected the dispute..." sentence does not conform to your typically high standards, in my opinion. Which of the Webster's definitions of reflect were you using there? Surely not "mirror" or "show", because the wording did not indicate in any way the existence of a dispute.

[boris]

indicate in any way the existence of a dispute

There is no dispute that the tubes were suitable and illegal.

[Wonderland]

Tom writes:

"You seem to be missing the meta-response, which is that, per the NIE, neither the uranium nor the aluminum were central to the evaluation of Saddam as a long term nuclear threat."

Perhaps not. But that's not what we were told. The Administration used the Niger and aluminum tubes anecdotes to create the misimpression that Saddam was a short term nuclear threat -- and that the need to invade was urgent. For Christmas sake, Tom, the smoking gun was going to be a mushroom cloud!

To ignore this "product roll-out" technique is to memory-erase the entire run-up to the war. (Three hyphenated words in one sentence -- I'm on fire.) The Administration successfully convinced most Americans that Saddam was an urgent nuclear threat by peddling anecdotal evidence (Niger, aluminum tubes) that they KNEW to be, at best, questionable. And they presented that questionable evidence in such a way as to make it seem that it was, in fact, unquestionable. It was dishonest.

[boris]

misimpression that Saddam was a short term nuclear threat

Since I didn't get that misimpression I can call that a lie and accuse you of being a dishonest hypocrite and reeking like a rotten fish.

So there.

[j.west]

Referring to the “poorly suited” comment concerning the aluminum tubes, perhaps someone in the MSM braintrust could explore the suitability of the other use claimed for the tubes.

Detractors hold up the story that these tubes were meant for reverse engineered Hydra/Medusa rocket motors. These are short range rockets designed for use in helicopters, but conceivably could be used for ground launched Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MRLS). They have a burn time of approximately 1.8 seconds, so the range is severely limited.

Trouble with this theory is that the expected survival time of an Iraqi helicopter (if any existed) in a conflict with the U.S. was less than 1.8 seconds. Used with a ground based MRLS, firing one would lead to a smoke trail that screams “kill me here”. The point being – this was an extremely ineffective weapon for the circumstances.

No one has asked the question: “Why would Saddam violate the sanctions trying to acquire aluminum tubes for an ineffective weapon system when purchasing the complete rocket was fully allowed?”

Even Bush’s most vocal critics who have any understanding of technical aspects of the tubes have not claimed the tubes could not be used for centrifuges. They simply point to the rocket use as the “more likely” end product. I think that even a cursory investigation of the facts would lead to a more reasoned conclusion.

[Jill]

Get your heads out of the sand! What this proves is what war opponents have been saying since before the start of the war---the administration manipulated and cherry-picked the intelligence in order to make a case to go to war. Stupidity and fear go only so far and those who continue to believe this administration are hurting America.

[TM]

Foo Bar - re my "carefully constructed" post - I opened my defense of the President's speech with this:

That is the sort of caveatted, carefully phrased statement that ought to infuriate any of the President's critics who trouble themselves to read it.

And later I referred to the President's wordsmiths, and the need to parse his speech. Did you really not pick up on my meaning, which was that the White House was aware of and danced around this dispute?

I guess you are claiming that "reflect" ought to mean something like "deliver both sides". What I meant, and I am pretty sure it was obvious in context, was that the careful phrasing reflected a desire to be cute with their presentation.

[Rick Ballard]

"I think that even a cursory investigation of the facts would lead to a more reasoned conclusion."

But that conclusion would be contra-Saddam - the current NYT/Lefty conflation is pro-Saddam. No left thinking Saddam apologist has any utility for reason to begin with.

Surely, you can agree that the pro-Saddam position is inherently more just than the contra-Saddam position. If you can't you haven't been joining in the 2 minute daily Bushhate exercises as you should. Your block commissar will be calling on you shortly.

[David Cohen]

The short-term v. long-term dispute was over 18 months v. 4 years. Hmm, 4 years from 2002. Yeah, no sense worrying about that.

[Preemptive flamer response: Yes, I realize that 4 years turned out to be woefully pessimistic. But the general intelligence failure over Iraq's WMDs is a different issue from claimed misuse of the intelligence we had. Learning that our intelligence was bad, of course, increases the case for war retrospectively.]

[Semanticleo]

"Did you really not pick up on my meaning, which was that the White House was aware of and danced around this dispute?"

Perhaps if you were as unequivocal as Glenn Reynolds you wouldn't need suspenders AND
a belt to hold up your trousers.