Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

"Little points" from Mr. Albright that you glossed over in your own "opinion":

Many centrifuge experts believe that this design would not work as the basis of a centrifuge plant.

On the other hand, the tubes' dimensions are consistent with a known Iraqi rocket program. ElBaradei moreover reported to the Security Council that extensive field investigation and document analysis failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these aluminum tubes for any project other than in rockets.

After months of investigation, the administration has failed to prove its claim that the tubes are intended for use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge program. Despite being presented with evidence countering this claim, the administration persists in making misleading comments about the significance of the tubes.

For over a year and a half, an analyst at the CIA has been pushing the aluminum tube story, despite consistent disagreement by a wide range of experts in the United States and abroad. His opinion, however, obtained traction in the summer of 2002 with senior members of the Bush Administration, including the President.

The administration was forced to admit publicly that dissenters exist, particularly at the Department of Energy (DOE) and its national laboratories. This dissent is significant because the DOE has virtually the only expertise on gas centrifuges and nuclear weapons programs in the United States government.

Perhaps we will eventually learn that Iraq actually planned to hide a centrifuge purchase in a rocket procurement program. Such cleverness is well within Iraqi capabilities, although Iraq rarely chooses to build a poor product when it can build the same item significantly better in less time. Such a revelation, however, will not vindicate the CIA analysis, which is viewed as atrocious and deceptive by many experts on centrifuges and Iraqi rockets.

The CIA analysis has wasted the time of inspectors in Iraq while not leading to any progress on exposing Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program. Inspectors have had to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for evidence to prove or disprove the CIA analysis. Faced with overwhelming negative evidence from the inspectors, the proponents of this analysis have simply ignored the negative reports or act as if the CIA possesses secret information it cannot share. If the CIA has such secret evidence, it should share it rather than producing faulty technical analysis.

By ignoring technical evidence and pushing flawed analysis, the proponents of the CIA analysis undermine the credibility of the President, Secretary Powell, and the CIA. The attacks against those who disagree serve to show their defensiveness and a mean spirit.

This case serves to remind us that decision-makers are not above misusing technical and scientific analysis to bolster their political goals. The problem is that such a strategy denigrates the process of conducting impartial technical analysis and misleads the public.

You insist that Albright's conclusions are based on narrow technicalities. I challenge that the 43 Admins assertions are even more so, and what's worse, their technicalities are delivered as refuted falsehoods. When confronted with these falsehoods, the 43 Admin merely shrug their shoulders (much as you repeatedly do yourself) and sit content that the majority of the caring population really doesn't want to pay attention.

"probably", "Judgment call", "at all costs"? Here's another lovely catch-phrase for you, Growler:

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

If you wish to continue playing this game, please provide links in the future and try to refrain from quoting LA Times opinion pieces as if they were anything but propaganda themselves.

Yes, 'twas an opinion piece. Much the same as an uncountable Op-Ed pieces from the NYTimes that have been linked and discussed here. The fact that it was a published opinion (equally weighted as your own pompous stance) doesn't remove the fact that it was presented with facts and references. Instead of pseudo-plagiarizing the author in order to present the interpretation of the facts, I chose instead to reprint his words.

'Probably' is not good enough, and so they must be regarded as centrifuge components.

One would hope that you, if in the near future, find yourself in a court of law and accused of a crime that you insist you did not commit, the judge (for there was never a jury involved in THIS situation) would seek for better evidence than "probably" in order to end your existence. For what happened here is becoming more and more apparent as a Kangaroo Court that doctored the evidence and rendered a death penalty verdict.

If the 43 Administration has compelling, detailed evidence that it hasn't released, one must wonder why, when so many are calling its decision into question, it hasn't released it.

Keep building your wall; I'll keep watching.

Keep insisting that it's all above-board; I'll keep looking for the origins of the obvious flaws.

Keep complaining that I have no reason to question; I'll keep asking more and more or them.