Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Occhidiangela]

Powell announces a new threat from an Iraqi airborne "drone"; the drone, patched together with tape and powered by a small engine with a wooden propeller, turns out to have a maximum range of five miles.

The administration trumpets alleged attempts by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger; the IAEA concludes that the incriminating documents were forged.

On March 7, Powell is back in the Security Council brandishing . . . aluminum tubes!: "There is new information . . . available to us . . . and the IAEA about a European country where Iraq was found shopping for these kinds of tubes . . . [tubes] more exact by a factor of 50 percent or more than those usually specified for rocket-motor casings." When I ask the State Department the name of the European country, I am informed that said country wishes to remain anonymous. (So did Nayirah al-Sabah.) When I inquire with the IAEA about the "new evidence," I am told that El Baradei's analysis, presented before Powell's declaration, is unchanged: "Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets."

Drones don't have to be multi million dollar toys, like US UAV's, to be effective. See the entire Soviet Army arsenal, or the AK 47 and Foxbat Mig-25 fighter, for examples. See also Mr McVeigh's bomb: crude but effective.

IAEA concludes, but can't prove. Did they prove who forged them? Conclusions versus proof, though on this one, I am willing to enough believe IAEA, even though it too is a political organization. Consider the agenda of the members.

I have made this point before: you don't buy the expensive stuff when the simple and effective stuff will do. The IAEA could not conclued one way or the other, note how it was worded. That also points out that the U.S. intel analysts could not prove one way or the other, in the unclsassified version at least, so they had to make a judgement call. (And therein lies the rub: was the 'judgement call' unduly influenced? That is the issue that appears to have any number of DC based intel analysts bitter, if one believes the media.)

However, you and Blade and Growler are all arguing from remarkably incomplete information, so each of you is also making a judgement call. :) Just like the intel analysts, just like the IAEA.

In that light, consider what influences your judgement call. :D