Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Occhidiangela]

For 12 years, known programs were not dismantled to the UN Security Sanctions satisfaction.

After 1441, nothing changed.

Why would anyone conclude that the programs did not continue to exist when absence of their having been curtailed or dismantled, was not in compliance with a reasonably straightforward U.N. process?

If there was nothing to hide, why the shell game? Why the obstrucionism?

Now, that logic train and the rhetoric regarding "proof" are a good point of departure for a discussion of "what was the immediacy of threat," but I think there are some points being missed:

1. RL is not TV. Some things take a bit longer than others
2. At this point, it matters not, except insofar as the internal process in the US: was there or was there not fraudulent evidence presented to Congress? In 1441, the UN agreed about the fact of material breach, what was not agreed was what to do about it.
3. Had Congress not authorized force . . . we would not be having this discussion. So, it really does boil down to: what was presented to Congress that got support? Was it "overstatement of threat" or not, and was there fraud perpretrated. And what, in Prime Minister Blairs case, did the MI folks have for him that convinced him?

Beyond that, it is certainly "Overcome by Events."

My preferred outcome is someone calling to task the Congresses of the past 30 years and their relentless assault on the US intelligence community (erosion from within) that has emphasized machines and de emphasized people. Gee, many of those folks are gone, and the damage was done, and has been done, ages ago. No accountability for negligence.

Congress whines about an intelligence failure. The intelligence failure was right there on the floor of Congress, when they and, among others, WJ Clinton decided that with the Cold War over, there would be less of a need for Intelligence. Many of us at the time bellowed, in vain, pointing out that "When the world is changing, you need more intelligence, not less!"

And I can promise you that no one will hold Congress accountable. A pity, multiparty myopia. Or was it willful blindness?

The Oedipal Congress of the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's: poking out one's eyes to avoid seeing evil?

[kandrathe]

It could be a vast Machiavellian manuever meant to draw all the less than enthusiastic supporters out of the woodwork. Then, viola, here are all the WMD, and all the grousers have extreme amounts of egg products on their face. That would include all the Democratic challengers.

I just don't think anyone in the administration is sophisticated enough to pull that one off.

[Occhidiangela]

Given how much administrations depend on 'approval ratings' the need to wage the media war on this one suggests that your conclusion is correct.

[Growler]

Glossing over Colin Powel's presentation? I wasn't even thinking of it at all!  That thing was a joke and I have nothing but contempt for it.

Why? Do you have better facts, better reasoning, or just a cynical attitude?

I don't follow British domestic politics, can't comment on that.

[Growler]

Proof of a nuclear weapons program is easy to come up with. Off the top of my head, I recall Iraq was trying to purchase some precision machined aluminum tubes for use in centrifugal separators of uranium. That is proof of a program. What, you expected actual warheads? If so, you should pay closer attention to world affairs before commenting on them.

Note the underlined text. And your argument is?

It is not an argument, just a statement along the lines of "time will tell".

The longer that it takes the US to find these 'weapons', the existence of which they counted as "proven", the closer to being "proven" are the critics' claims that this was a war of regional control and profit and not one of "national defence" nor any other such contrivance. How you can call these arguments bogus on the basis of, well, ZERO material evidence boggles the mind. (Sorry, you didn't explicitly SAY bogus, it was "vacuous", my mistake, I'll save you the nit)

Burden of proof lies upon he who asserts the positive statements. The Bush administration spokesmen have made their case. The critics of the Bush administration have nothing but wild conspiracy theories, as if they believe in some "Illuminati Conspiracy" version of the world. I have no obligation to refute any old idea you may come up with, it is up to you or your sources to provide the evidence.

Whether or not these benefits to be derived from the war are legitimate or desirable as moral imperatives is certainly open to the realm of discussion and, while you may contend that the government's objectives were clear, it is certainly only on the basis of their having told you so and has nothing to do with any actual proof as to ulterior motives.

An impossible burden of proof. How the heck can anyone ever prove anything with regard to ulterior motives? You are right, we can't have a coherent discussion on this. But we can never have a discussion on anything else either if we can't agree to the same set of facts. If on a sunny day Bush said "the sky is blue today", would you discount it as a lie? You may pick and choose which facts you will accept, which to ignore, and which to make up based upon your emotional prejudices but I don't know how you expect such rhetorical methods to be persuasive.

[WarBlade]

Glossing over Colin Powel's presentation? I wasn't even thinking of it at all!  That thing was a joke and I have nothing but contempt for it.

Why? Do you have better facts, better reasoning, or just a cynical attitude?

Better facts? Any facts presented are entirely beside the point assuming the were any.
Better reasoning? What? I need to explain how big viewscreens spouting stuff like "Iraq: Failure to disarm," and all the other rubbish lost the target audience almost immediately? No thanks. Some people might get the picture, but if I have to explain how that presentation was barely above the level of insult, then I suspect you just won't get the point.
Cynical? Usually. I tend to question anything that sounds wrong, or at least nitpick until whatever story I'm being told looks straight.

[WarBlade]

Proof of a nuclear weapons program is easy to come up with.  Off the top of my head, I recall Iraq was trying to purchase some precision machined aluminum tubes for use in centrifugal separators of uranium.  That is proof of a program.  What, you expected actual warheads?  If so, you should pay closer attention to world affairs before commenting on them.

If proof is so easy to come up with, why do you then proceed to talk about machined tubes, which are common enough that they won't even rate as circumstantial evidence unless actually found to be used in a weapons application. It gets worse than that. They might even have some electrical cabling or aviation fuel!!! :o

And yes, people expect actual warheads or actual manufacturing equipment to qualify as proof. Anything less is just evidence.

Burden of proof lies upon he who asserts the positive statements.  The Bush administration spokesmen have made their case.  The critics of the Bush administration have nothing but wild conspiracy theories, as if they believe in some "Illuminati Conspiracy" version of the world.  I have no obligation to refute any old idea you may come up with, it is up to you or your sources to provide the evidence.

Curious. I don't believe I subscribe to any "Illuminati Conspiracy" theories, nor for that matter do 90% of Bush critics. Where are you getting this information from please?

[Growler]

So, in your mind, the reasons behind the war were sufficient to forgive the 43 Admin for any misdirection, smudging or outright hyperbole when it comes to the "selling features"?

Yes. I am a child of the media age, and yet old enough not to be swayed by hype. I got mad media skilz. If I want to be informed on an issue I do my own reading around it and make my own decisions. For example: never for a moment did I believe Iraq had nuclear weapons. I came to believe that it would relatively easy for him to simply buy one from North Korea someday, so intentions came to weigh more heavily than capabilities. Saddam's repeated failures to obtain materials for his nuclear weapons program were more than enough indictment for me.

This thread was started on 12 June. On 25 June CNN reports this:

June 25, 2003
The CIA has gained possession of critical parts of Iraqi nuclear technology, CNN reported. The parts and accompanying plans were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi, who said he had hidden them in his Baghdad garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel. Obeidi told CNN the parts were for a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium and that he was ordered to hide them so as to be ready to rebuild the bomb program in the future.

It is pretty clear that time is on the side of the Bush administration, as more facts are literally 'unearthed'.

I went back to the CNN link that Meat gave at the top of the thread and followed the related stories sidebar.
CNN story Frankly I don't see where the problem is. CNN couldn't come up with a Bush quote to support the premise behind the story.

this vomitous, fecal, pustulent discharge

This is poor rhetorical form on your part. Strong emotions get in the way of clear argumentation and persuasion when they reveal the naked bigotry of the author.

[Growler]

The whole "War for Oil" thing, pointing to Bush's ties to the oil industry, the allegations of ulterior motives, it all reeks of it.

Anyway I wasn't responding to your post so don't take it personally please.

[Growler]

Better facts? Any facts presented are entirely beside the point assuming the were any.

You lost me here. Its all about the facts.

I need to explain how big viewscreens spouting stuff like "Iraq: Failure to disarm," and all the other rubbish lost the target audience almost immediately? No thanks. Some people might get the picture, but if I have to explain how that presentation was barely above the level of insult, then I suspect you just won't get the point.

Here you are criticizing the style not the substance of the presentation. I don't know why the format of the presentation should matter. Perhaps we should blame Microsoft for increasing international discord by inventing PowerPoint? There was a time I considered PowerPoint presentations insulting due to their early misuse, but I have had to learn to live with them. They are quite popular in business and gov't here in America. They can be used to inform but they are insulting when you feel you are being propagandized, lied to. If you know the facts on the screen are false that is legitimate, but otherwise how do you know you are being lied to? How can you tell?

So you haven't given a good reason yet.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Proof of a nuclear weapons program is easy to come up with. Off the top of my head, I recall Iraq was trying to purchase some precision machined aluminum tubes for use in centrifugal separators of uranium. That is proof of a program.

How about pulling it out of your ass? From the LA Times:

More than three weeks elapsed before The Washington Times (not the "liberal" media) took the trouble to straighten out the story, but by then the administration was well on its way to panicking the Congress into authorizing war. The day after the Bush-Blair confidence trick, the newspapers and talk shows were flooded (through the good offices of Michael Gordon and Judith Miller of The New York Times) with an administration leak about Iraq's attempt to buy special aluminum tubes, supposedly destined for its "six months away" nuclear program. Suddenly (along with the phantom IAEA report), aluminum tubes had brought the world to the brink of a nuclear Armageddon.

Not until December 8, when 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, did any expert point out publicly that the aluminum tubes were probably meant for conventional weapons. Not until January 9 did Mohammed El Baradei, head of the IAEA, essentially bury the aluminum tubes (and the Iraqi nuclear weapons program) by confirming Albright's supposition. But it was too late; Congress had long ago given Bush carte blanche to attack Iraq with its open-ended war resolution of October 11.

Propaganda success breeds contempt for the old-fashioned notion that politicians require the informed consent of the people before they go to war. The media bears much of the blame; it has been so painfully slow in refuting administration double talk that Karl Rove and Andrew Card can count on a fairly long interval between propaganda declaration and contradiction; or they can bet that the contradiction will be so muted as to be insignificant. Thus could the president brazenly include the discredited aluminum tubes in his State of the Union address.

Meanwhile, stories designed to frighten the public onto a war footing proliferate. Colin Powell tells the Security Council of a "poison factory" linked to al Qaeda in northern Iraq. Reporters visit a compound of crude structures and find nothing of the kind, so an unidentified State Department official responds by saying that "a 'poison factory' is a term of art."

Powell cites new "British intelligence" on Saddam's "spying" capabilities; British Channel 4 reveals that this new dossier is plagiarized from a journal article by a graduate student in California.

The administration raises its terrorist threat level to orange, causing widespread anxiety and duct-tape purchases (a handy placebo for a faltering economy); ABC News reports (at last, a rapid response) that the latest terror alert was largely based on "fabricated" information provided by a captured al Qaeda informant who subsequently failed a lie-detector test.

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."

....................

What, you expected actual warheads? If so, you should pay closer attention to world affairs before commenting on them.

You're a fine one to lecture on keeping up with the facts, bud... seeing as you pick and choose your "facts" from the plethora available to best make your case. Is it possible to shove your shoe further down your throat? I look forward to your reply.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

For example: never for a moment did I believe Iraq had nuclear weapons. I came to believe that it would relatively easy for him to simply buy one from North Korea someday, so intentions came to weigh more heavily than capabilities.

Ah. So that's the reason why you bomb the hell out of anyone who looks askance at America, but we'll "find a diplomatic solution" for the nations that actually will manufacture and sell a nuclear weapon. Yeah, that seems balanced on the whole. :blink:

This is poor rhetorical form on your part. Strong emotions get in the way of clear argumentation and persuasion when they reveal the naked bigotry of the author.

Very true. I tend to lose patience over time while hitting my head against a brick wall. However, I also call a spade a spade.

It's obvious that this side of the issue won't be happy until we're shown the "proof" that was promised by the 43 Admin to both the Congress and the UN. It's equally obvious that your side of the issue doesn't give any creedence to the facts that "truth" HAS been called into question and so-called "proof" HAS been refuted. Your precious aluminum tubes and "secret report that turned out to be a plagarized student thesis" won't deter you from that point of view.

Enjoy your wall-building. When the foundation falls out from underneath it, I'll be the one grinning at you from the other side of the crater.

[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

[kandrathe]

Although, Nico, you too may be surprised to find yourself in a hole, if they ever do find them. For me, I'm not sure, so I'm going to wait to see what evidence is revealed. My instinct is that due to what Iraq revealed to UNSCOM in 1996-7, that it does not make sense that they would have illegally, and clandestinely destroyed their programs, after stonewalling and intimidating the weapons inspectors, forcing them to leave Iraq.

And, as I'm sure you are, the longer it takes to produce them, the more skeptical I will be of their validity. I will want to know much more about how they were found, how they were hidden, etc. There needs to be credibility, and it is looking like the UN will be the only way to achieve that. But so far, I've been, and am unwilling to argue about a topic that has no way of determining right or wrong, just opinions and speculation. This topic has plenty of opportunity for heat, without much prospect for light.

For me, only time will tell. I wish it was sooner than later, however.

One insight that I have: The US was/is very unhappy with the UNMOVIC team under Hans Blix. If you look at US published signal, satellite and observed intelligence that the US conclusion was that the UNMOVIC team was compromised. My feeling is that the US became suspicious of Hans Blix, and his team, and so the US will prefer to wait until Hans Blix is replaced and the UNMOVIC house cleaned here in the near future. If they feel that UNMOVIC is again an impartial and effective weapons inspection team, they will be allowed to resume their prior role.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

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.

Absolutely. In fact, far more succinctly put than what I attempted. My point wasn't in fact to argue that it was obvious the 43 Admin was lying, but that there was sufficient reasons and questions and doubts to investigate (and far more openly than a Republican closed-door session) the allegations. It's those that seek to simply "pshaw" this issue aside that are the reasons for my inclusion of any commentary here.

If it is shown that the 43 Admin made their decisions and provided their case to Congress and the UN as they knew it to be, as they took as the truth, and NOT as they decided to spin-doctor it in order to achieve the justifications for a decision already made... then I shall be enormously relieved.

I'll also eat my shorts. ;)

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Although, Nico, you too may be surprised to find yourself in a hole, if they ever do find them. For me, I'm not sure, so I'm going to wait to see what evidence is revealed.

Surprised, yes. But I'm willing to stand in that hole, arms spread and head high and say to everyone standing above me: "Well, you were right; I was wrong". Far from being scared to be proven wrong, I'm far more worried about being proven right.

And, as I'm sure you are, the longer it takes to produce them, the more skeptical I will be of their validity. I will want to know much more about how they were found, how they were hidden, etc. There needs to be credibility, and it is looking like the UN will be the only way to achieve that. But so far, I've been, and am unwilling to argue about a topic that has no way of determining right or wrong, just opinions and speculation. This topic has plenty of opportunity for heat, without much prospect for light.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations, like all situations involving the nature of nations, where we will never really know the truth. We will scrabble at it, we will be misled in both directions of the debate... but I truly doubt the TRUTH will ever be known in its entirety. Perhaps when my daughter graduates in 15 or so years. It seems to take about that length of time to declassify most documents, apparently. However, such things shouldn't deter anyone from questioning Authority and its proclivity towards dodgy decisions.

In a nation that values truth, justice and the American way, consistently canonizing the authors of a 200 year old document, one would think that the bravery of the Woodwards and Bernsteins wouldn't have been lost in as little as a few decades.

*tips helm*

[Growler]

First some perspective on why this is important: Iraq had a viable bomb design and capability to build it but lacked only the fissile material. (Senate testimony , House testimony) There was no margin of error for making 'most probable use' judgement calls about questionable materials, they had to be prevented from making their own bomb grade uranium at all costs.

High tensile strength aluminum tubes are on the General Restricted List of items only because of their potential use in constructing gas centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. The suitability for use in a centrifuge of the particular tubes Iraq tried to acquire is most thoroughly evaluated by David Albright here: The CIA's Aluminum Tubes' Assessment: Is the Nuclear Case Going Down the Tubes? by David Albright. and here: Aluminum Tubing Is an Indicator of an Iraqi Gas Centrifuge Program: But Is the Tubing Specifically for Centrifuges?

The first Albright link has a helpful table at the end comparing the characteristics of the tubes in question and their suitability for use as centrifuge components or missile tubes. Clearly, they seem better suited for missile tubes but Albright's own evaluation has all of the properties compatible with use in a centrifuge as well, with the exception of the anodization. One point he makes is this:

An inevitable conclusion is that the CIA analysis tried to design a centrifuge around the tubes rather than determine the use of the tubes from their characteristics.

But if I were an Iraqi engineer working on a clandestine nuke program that is exactly what I would do, design a centrifuge that would work with materials that are less suspicious and more readily available. Anodization may be unnecessary, but given Iraq's difficulties in concealing the program the tubes could well be stored for years before being used, or spend much time in transport, and the consequent oxidation of the surface of the tubes would ruin them. The design of a centrifuge using these tubes would probably be inefficient, but Mr. Albright has this to say in his other piece on the tubes:

If Iraq used a supply of low enriched uranium that it acquired illicitly or diverted from a safeguarded stock in Iraq at the Tuwaitha nuclear site, it would need far fewer centrifuges or it could make a given amount of weapon-grade uranium significantly faster.

...with the corollary also that inefficient centrifuge designs become more practical if the input material is already partially enriched.

Mr. Albright's conclusion that the tubes were probably missile tubes is purely based on narrow technical grounds and fails to take into account engineering ingenuity evidenced by Iraqis previously in even having a nuclear program to begin with, nor Saddam's political will to retain the program at all costs. The aluminum tubes cannot be ruled out as centrifuge components and it would be irresponsible to proceed as if they could be so ruled out. 'Probably' is not good enough, and so they must be regarded as centrifuge components.

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.

[Vandiablo]

(Just gonna take these words at face value, out of context, because I didn't feel like reading nine pages...)

So that's the reason why you bomb the hell out of anyone who looks askance at America,

But... when did we start bombing the Belgians?? Did I miss it? :P

[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.

[Occhidiangela]

Doubts as to reasonability are moot. They are also a standard in a court of law, which is an artificial environment. International geopolitics is "jungle rules." (Sad but true, though the progress toward a greater amount of rule of law is there, thanks to the support of nations like . . . The United States and its European allies.)

Let's consider the International Law of the Sea, a rather complex series of agreements and protocols that are continually under assault by one party or another who want to finesse a line here and there for economic advantage.

Who and what enforces the International Law of the Sea? Well, the Freedom of the Seas has been enforced by the Royal Navy, then the US Navy, for about 300 years. A clear case of Might makes Right in action, for the benifit of international law.

A few years back, the Canadian Navy "pulled over" a Spanish fishing vessel. Did you read the Spanish side of that event at the time? You might, or might not, be surprised at how the characterization of that incident in Spain was different from what the press on this side of the Atlantic wrote about it.

"Reasonable doubt" and "beyond reasonable doubt" are standards well tried in contexts where the law is pretty well defined: within the finite context of a sovereign nation. Outside that box, you are playing a different game, called "politics," rather than the game called "justice."

Now, is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" a good standard to try to achieve politically? Hell yes. Is it necessary? No, but when one can't do it, one must accept that the political advantages down stream will contain a great deal of risk, and or "downside."