The Aluminum Tube Story

[andyfox]

According to an article in today's New York Times, senior administration officials repeatedly failed to disclose the doubts of America's leading nuclear scientists on their assertions that we had "irrefutable evidence" that thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum were destined for clandestine Iraqi urangium centrifuges. The administration overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes and minimized or rejected the strong doubts of the nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

Lest it be thought that I post this as an avowed anti-Bushman, the article also says that John Kerry, who has pledged that "I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence," had not read the National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 when the Senate voted to give the president broad authority to invade Iraq. Instead, he relied on a briefing from CIA director Tenet. Kerry said that the CIA report indicated "there is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Yet the report cited by Kerry said nothing about the tubes debate except that "some" analysts belived the tubes were "probably intended" for conventional arms.

And John Edwards, who served on the Intelligence Committee expressed no uncertainty about the principal evidence of Mr. Hussein's alleged nuclear program. "We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons," he said.

In January, 2003, White House officials who were helping to draft what would become Secretary Powell's speech to the Security Council sent word to the intelligence community that they believed "the nuclear case was weak." But rather than withdraw the nuclear card, the White House starting to cast about for new arguments and evidence to support it. For example, on January 28, 2003, President Bush cited International Atomic Energy Association findings from years past the confirmed that Hussein had had an "advanced" nuclear weapons program in the 1990s. He did not mention the agency's finding from the very day before that is had found no evidence of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

And when Powell made his case at the U.N., he made claims about the aluminum tubes that his own intelligence experts had told him two days before were not accurate.

All governments, no matter how open and free the society they govern, play fast and loose with the truth. Especially when they're going to war. The administration took CIA reports which said "suggested" or "could mean" and turned them into certainties when it suited its purposes. And the "opposition" Democrats, eager to not look wimpish in the post-9/11 environment, following along willingly.

[MMMMMM]

How much evidence do you need to know that John Gotti was a Mafia thug. If Saddam didn't have a nuke program right at that moment, he surely would have had one, "an advanced" one--again in the future.

Any inkling of Saddam's restarting his programs, or even being poised to restart sometime soon--should have been too much to tolerate.

If we wait for PROOF on such things, we wait too late.

I don't recall the administration offering "proof"--just evidence--some of it flawed. Yet ANY evidence--or even reasonable suspicion--should have been enough to warrant taking out Saddam and his thugs.

National security isn't a court of law; the stakes are too high: if we make an error it had better be on the side of caution. A "weak" case in matters of national security is a case too strong to ignore.

I do agree it appears the administration presented just one side of the matter. But even a fraction of what they presented, and the warnings from German intelligence (and from Putin?), should have been more than enough to justify removing Saddam's regime.

You may be upset that our government was less than completely unbiased in presentation, etc. Methinks you will never see the standards you would ideally like to see in this lifetime. Nobody, and certainly no governments are perfect. What matters most is how they stand relatively speaking, and what steps can be taken to make the future, and any future directions taken, better. Don't fall into the trap of disappointedly lumping all imperfect things together--some imperfect things are head and shoulders above others.

[wacki]

My favorite is how quickly people forget that 1 million people (in a country with 22 million) died under Saddams rule. And 4 million fled the country.

But there is a point to be made here. Bad intel is bad intel. Our country needs credibility, and we should have good intel. I'm not commenting on this article yet. I haven't finished it yet. It's going to be a pain analyzing it.


[ QUOTE ]
I do agree it appears the administration presented just one side of the matter. But even a fraction of what they presented, and the warnings from German intelligence (and from Putin?), should have been more than enough to justify removing Saddam's regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[sam h]

In addition to yet another piece of evidence in the now overwhelming case that the administration intentionally misrepresented the WMD threat in Iraq, the whole thing is also indicative of another disturbing pattern. This is that the Bush adminstration has shown an unbelievable obstinacy in rejecting the council of people who are experts in various fields when their opinions do not mesh well with their agenda.

A few other examples:

1) Ignoring the vast majority of scholars of democratization and the Middle East region who found the idea laughable of building a democracy in Iraq that would be a beacon to the rest of the region.

2) Ignoring state department insights into how to deal with the post-war scenario.

3) Ignoring military recommendations about troop levels necessary to secure the peace.

4) Passing off the recent negative intelligence assessment of the Iraq situation as just an "opinion."

5) Generally deriding the scientific community's insights into issues like global climate change.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
My favorite is how quickly people forget that 1 million people (in a country with 22 million) died under Saddams rule. And 4 million fled the country.


[/ QUOTE ]


I love how quickly war supporters change the topic when bad intel is brought up. /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif Nobody was arguing about Iraq being better off without Saddam. But how many countries with brutal dictatorships are you ready to invade? That wasn't the reason for war and that's not a reason the American people would support.


By the logic presented by yourself and M we should have clobbered North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and a few others for good measure quite a while ago. All of those nations have more advanced nuclear plans and have been leaking information to highly unstable recipients.

Sorry guys, you are flip-flopping on the reason for this war. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif These kinds of mixed messages can be devastating, as I'm sure you know.

NT

[wacki]

No, we are not. Iraq is low hanging fruit. The people who live there know the taste of freedom, it is still in their memory. This is not the case in Iran and North Korea. If we go in there, massive casualties. There are also many other reasons. But I will explain later, I have a project that needs to get done by 8 AM.

Under utilitarian philosophy, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are three completely different situations. If I could choose disarming either Iran or North Korea, I would pick Iran. More on that later.

And by the way, for humanitarian reasons, I am for going into the Sudan and stopping the genocide. I tend to think in pragmatic terms, not absolute ideology.

I may change my mind based on new information (as everyone should), but I DO NOT FLIP FLOP BECAUSE OF CONVENIENCE!

[wacki]

I wasn't trying to change topic. My point was that he is a dangerous madman.

Also, I agree with you when it comes to intel. The US needs credibility!

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq is low hanging fruit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plucking it is proving a bit costly, though, no?

[ QUOTE ]
The people who live there know the taste of freedom, it is still in their memory.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are they remembering? The monarchy of King Faisal?

[ QUOTE ]
Under utilitarian philosophy, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are three completely different situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

But under a strategic foreign policy, the three situations, as well as many other concerns, are understood not to be independent of each other. Thus, the cost of picking some low hanging fruit might have other ramifications outside of the fruit-picking activity itself.

I agree with you about Iran. Kim Jung Il doesn't want to rock the boat, just to keep his little oppressive kingdom. He wants the nukes purely for their value as a deterrent.

[wacki]

Glad you agree, with Iran.

Will argue later on rest of points... have work to do.

[GWB]

From now on we must submit to a "Global Test" of evidence review. Only if France says we can believe a piece of evidence, can we believe it.

This will make out war against terror work SO much better.

[ACPlayer]

YOu continue to miss the point.

Lying to the people who elect you is inexcusable. If there was a case to be made based on possible, eventual, perhaps, maybe future threats -- then that case should be made to the public and to the world.

The war was justified on a deliberate misinterpreation of UN resolutions, was based on deliberate lies about the weapons made to the world (see the Powell UN speech for just one example, other abound) and to us.

So, either we were lied to (I believe this to be the case) or the Bush administration has an incompetent decision making process. You can pick your choice.

Kerry and Edwards were kibitzer's not decision makers - there is a huge difference.

[ACPlayer]

Is this administration still fighting the war on terror? Where?

[vulturesrow]

Iraq, Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, Phillipines to just to name a few.

[vulturesrow]

Andy,

This story actually appeared in the Washington Post a while back. I actually watched an interview of Condi Rice this weekend and she addressed this question. As you know she is very well spoken and intelligent. She didnt deny that their was some dispute over the use of those tubes. She basically said that as an administration it was better to err on the side of caution. I dont see anything wrong with this.

[ACPlayer]

Maybe Afghanistan, though I suggest that at this point the only war in Afghanistan is to make sure that Karzai gets alected mayor of Kabul again.

[ACPlayer]

but the war on terror is coming at us from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine and Pakistan and not from any of the countries you mentioned (except perhaps Afghanistan -- see my other response).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
She basically said that as an administration it was better to err on the side of caution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another way to say "err on the side of caution" is "err on the side of going to war." In some situations that might be the cautious approach. I'm not convinced that Iraq is one of them.

[vulturesrow]

The only one of those that you could say that about might be the Phillipines. As for the ones you mentioned, Saudi seems to be coming around on the terrorism issue, especially given that they have begun to reap what they have sown. I agree with you on Pakistan and Egypt, but the those are very tricky political situations but we do need to figure out how to apply more pressure there. I also think it would be a very poor move given the dynamics of the Palestine issue it would be a very bad thing for us to move into Palestine with any sort of force. The Israelis need to be our proxy there. I would say though that most Palestinian terrorism is directed against Israel. To say that their are no terrorists coming from the Horn of Africa is foolish. But we have made big inroads there. Anyhow in answer to your question to your rhetorical question, we are still fighting terrorism. A lot of stuff goes on in the shadows and wont ever be on the nightly news or in the newspapers.

[ACPlayer]

A lot of stuff goes on in the shadows and wont ever be on the nightly news or in the newspapers.

I remember once MMMMMMM telling me something like if I only had access to the information that he has access to the I too would see the error of my ways.

Is this a technique common to all of you neo-con supportors -- referring to some special knowledge you guys have access to.

[vulturesrow]

I never said I had special access to information that you dont. If I implied that, my apologies. Do you think it is unreasonable to assume that the US is engaging in clandestine operations against terrorism?

[ACPlayer]

... I am sure we are doing the clandestine and the money trail thing.

However, think how much better off we would be if we were not wasting resources in Iraq --- which has been absolutely shown to have no connection to 9/11 or anyother terrorism against us.

[MMMMMM]

I don't believe we were lied to, I believe we were spun to. And yes I do consider that to be a difference.

Also, given the concurrence of most major intelligence agencies around the world, I do think it was a reasonable conclusion that Iraq posed a "growing and gathering threat". I for one don't care to wait until a threat becomes "imminent" or until we are 100% certain, because the stakes are so high.

[andyfox]

I don't see going to war as erring on the side of caution. Caution would be making sure of one's facts, not distorting the facts to suit one's preconceptions.

The evidence continues to build up that the administration had decided to go to war long before with Iraq well before 9/11. There was no case to be made for connecting Hussein with 9/11 so a case had to be made that he was a threat to us. A nuclear threat would be the most dangerous threat, so the evidence was tilted and distorted to make the case.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is not unusual or even remarkable. It happens all the time. S.O.P. (and S.O.B.). From Truman's case for aid to Greece and Turkey, to several administration's justifications for intervention in Vietnam, to our actions in Central America under Reagan, to name just a few examples, our leaders play fast and loose with the facts in order to scare us when they want to commit troops and/or spend money. And when the opposition party, Democrat or Republican, doesn't want to appear soft, it goes along for the ride without doing its homework.

The case that Hussein posed a threat to us was full of holes.

[andyfox]

The evidence seems clear to me that Iraq posed a lessening and diminishing threat. The way it "defended" itself in the wake of our invasion is prima facie evidence. For months Hussein saw us threatening war and making the case for war and yet he was unable to do anything about it. And there was evidence that the nuclear "threat" was a lot of nothing. Yet the president chose to use reports from the I.A.E.A that were years old, instead of the report he had on his desk the day before that contradicted what he wanted to say.

Again, I'm not taking partisan position here. Kerry's lack of diligence is also manifest.

[MMMMMM]

"The case that Hussein posed a threat to us was full of holes."

Considering Saddam's history, and the potentially catastrophic consequences if he were to someday provide WMD to terrorists, I would argue that your statement above actually supports forcible regime change. Why? Because the burden of proof should have been on Saddam, not on us--and because we cannot afford to take the chance of being attacked wih WMD's.

In other words, due to long history, Saddam isn't innocent until proven guilty, he's guilty until proven innocent. And he did precious little to try to show cooperation or his present innocence with U.N. weapons inspectors--in fact he tried every trick in the book to impede them, as par for the course. It was only when invasion looked imminent that he finally relented and allowed them unfettered access.

So the case being full of holes actually works both ways, Andy. Saddam should have had to cooperate 100% with inspectors and provide evidence of the destruction of unaccounted-for WMDs--of which he did neither. And Saddam's regime was archivist in the extreme--even right down to the prisoners they had tortured and executed. So it is reasonable to expect that Saddam would have had archived the destruction of the previously unaccounted for WMDs, had it taken place unilaterally as he claimed (which unaccounted for quantity, though a small percentage of Iraq's total WMDs, was nonetheless in ample quantity to cause immense damage and loss of life).

In matters of dealing with dictators, especially those who have shown hostility towards us; and in matters of national security: we cannot afford to take the "innocent until proven guilty" approach of civil law. Rather the only pragmatic approach is to consider them guilty until proven otherwise--and if they have been actively working towards acquiring WMDs, such as Saddam long did, to consider them dangerous until proven otherwise as well.

[tolbiny]

"It was only when invasion looked imminent that he finally relented and allowed them unfettered access."

So why invade at that point? A brinkmanship thactic as apparently working, and the invading force could have been poised to invade for a fair amount of time. Being willing to invade doesn't mean that you actually have to invade.

Also you haven't addressed the central issue- not the validity of the war, but the tactics used by the administration in justifying the war to the public. These are our brothers and sisters fighting, and our taxes paying for the war, i think we derserve more than just "spin" in a situation as important as this.

[andyfox]

The burden of proof to the American people should have been evidence that showed Hussein posed a threat to us. A president has no right to send over 100,000 of us into a war on trumped up evidence. And a United States senator has no right to vote to give the president that power without reading the intelligence reports, instad of relying on a political appointee to feed him the information the administration wanted him fed.

I agree with President Bush that the most serious thing he can possibly do in his job is to put our soldiers in harm's way. To do it when the evidence that he cited was full of holes is not acceptable.

[MMMMMM]

In this instance, I believe the correct application of the burden of proof works not as you think it does.

Given Saddam's history, a degree of uncertainty as to his WMD programs just prior to the war makes a case FOR invasion--not a case against it.

[andyfox]

Uncertainty never makes a case for invasion. The administration was very careful in getting the facts straight in the case of Afghanistan/Osama bin Laden. This was a situation where we were actually attacked. They played fast and loose in the case of Iraq where they were uncertain and where there was only suspicion. The difference was that there was a predisposition on the part of key members of the administration to attack Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"It was only when invasion looked imminent that he finally relented and allowed them unfettered access."

So why invade at that point? A brinkmanship thactic as apparently working, and the invading force could have been poised to invade for a fair amount of time. Being willing to invade doesn't mean that you actually have to invade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam's brinksmanship was costly to us over many years. What were we going to do at that last point--keep an army poised ready to invade for a couple years (and at immense cost)? And then whenever we would have finally left, Saddam would have free rein to pursue his WMD dreams to whatever degree he thought he could get away with?

No, enough BS is finally enough. Fifteen years of BS is too much. If the SOB will only cooperate when staring down the barrel of a gun, it's time to put him out of his misery--and out of the Iraqi people's misery, too.


[ QUOTE ]
Also you haven't addressed the central issue- not the validity of the war, but the tactics used by the administration in justifying the war to the public. These are our brothers and sisters fighting, and our taxes paying for the war, i think we derserve more than just "spin" in a situation as important as this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I did address this elsewhere in the thread.

[MMMMMM]

"Uncertainty never makes a case for invasion."

Where, pray tell, did you derive this? A simple thought-experiment with various war-game scenarios should quickly show you the flaws in that precept. Remove the word 'never' and you have a substantially different precept. Keep the word 'never' and you have a fatally flawed strategy.


"The administration was very careful in getting the facts straight in the case of Afghanistan/Osama bin Laden. This was a situation where we were actually attacked. They played fast and loose in the case of Iraq where they were uncertain and where there was only suspicion."

Again, reasonable suspicion alone would have been enough, IMO. Also, there was more than mere suspicion although there was not proof.


"The difference was that there was a predisposition on the part of key members of the administration to attack Iraq."

As there should have been.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"Uncertainty never makes a case for invasion."

Where, pray tell, did you derive this? A simple thought-experiment with various war-game scenarios should quickly show you the flaws in that precept. Remove the word 'never' and you have a substantially different precept. Keep the word 'never' and you have a fatally flawed strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This basically sums up the dichotomy that exists and that has existed in the debates about the legitimacy of preemption in general and Iraq in particular.

If you believe there's a 20% chance that a country has WMDs along with 100% chance that the country in question will try and produce WMDs or fund such development that if developed will devastate your society and that country has given every indication that they will have no problems utilizing such weapons against you, then perhaps its time to do yourself a favor and get rid of the regime that runs that country if you can. You can substitute another number besides 20% since I pulled it out of my ass if you like but I think it's worth looking at the situation in those terms IMO. George Tenet stated that WMDs in Iraq were a "slam dunk" before the war according to Woodward.

The other side of the debate seems to demand 100% certainty that the WMDs existed at the very least.

[MMMMMM]

It is very worthwhile to think about these things in such terms, IMO.

It is ludicrous insist on a precept demanding 100% certainty before undertaking pre-emption in all cases. Even Andy (;-)) should be able to see why by plugging extreme numbers into the formula. Say there is a 95% certainty (W) of WMDs in a hostile regime and also a 95% certainty that if that regime possesses them they will be used (U) against us at some point in the future. Assign a value of loss (L) of the entire state of California if they are used against us by that regime. Clearly in the above scenario, Andy would favor pre-emption if it could be accomplished without catastrophic loss of American life, would he not? /images/graemlins/smile.gif And if he wouldn't, then increase the hypothetical loss (L) factor, and raise both chances of occurrence to 99%, or 99.99%, until he does;-)

Now of course Iraq would not have scored a 99.99% on both. However the example shows why Andy's precept of demanding 100% certainty is inherently and fatally flawed. And it would not take such extreme examples to conceive a scenario where pre-emption might be the wisest choice. Considering the potential magnitude of catastrophic loss, a figure much lower than 95%, or much lower even than your proffered figure of 20% chance of occurrence, might easily be sufficient to point towards pre-emption.

There are also other factors to be considered too of course. I am just arguing here against the overly simple precept set forth by Mr. Fox as a baseline from which all else must spring. If one sets a false premise then everything else is on unstable ground as well--and may sometimes be fatally flawed.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe there's a 20% chance that a country has WMDs along with 100% chance that the country in question will try and produce WMDs or fund such development that if developed will devastate your society and that country has given every indication that they will have no problems utilizing such weapons against you, then perhaps its time to do yourself a favor and get rid of the regime that runs that country if you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but let's add a few more variables. Let's say there are three countries that you think are pursuing WMDs and you have a finite amount of resources to expend in dealing with these threats, enumerated both in "hard resources" such as troops and funds and "soft resources" like political capital among your own populace and among other world powers whose help you will need in the end to win the war against terror.

Now say that one of these countries will be far easier to deal with militarily than the other two, but it also represents the smallest immediate threat. How big does the threat have to be, and how small the resources allocated to dealing with it, to make an invasion optimal?

If the threat was miniscule and the resouce expenditure huge, surely an invasion would be a dubious strategy. If, on the other hand, the threat was imminent and you could do it on the cheap, then invasion would make a great deal of sense.

I supported the war, largely because I thought this second scenario was the one at work. Clearly this was not the case. What bothers me is that a great deal of information has come to light that indicates that the administration should have known this, or that they did know it to some degree yet proceeded to convince the American people otherwise.

[ACPlayer]

I don't believe we were lied to, I believe we were spun to.

Occaisonally I have thought that there may be a modicum of intelligence behind your writing. Well, that thought is well and truly banished with this particular gem.

I do think it was a reasonable conclusion that Iraq posed a "growing and gathering threat".

Growing and gathering from a two bit despot under house arrest for 10 plus years. Right!!

The true statement along these lines could be "Iraq posed a possibly, conceivable, future, maybe or not, threat no greater than that of any other despot around the world"

Another true statement, that was obvious to those with their eyes and ears and minds open was that Iraq had no connection to 9/11 whatsoever.

They hoaxed you and you are not smart enough to do something about it. Shame on you!

[elwoodblues]

This assumes that war is the only/best way to rid yourself of such a threat. I don't buy into that premise.

[MMMMMM]

Well I can see a major diference between spin and lying, especially in this case. I would question the powers of discernment of anyone who cannot see at least some difference here.

As for whatever degree of threat Iraq potentially posed, I would consider it greater than the threat of a comparably armed dictator with no history of war or enmity with us.

[meow_meow]

There is a difference between collecting "bad intel" as you suggest, and deliberately ignoring intelligence and/or misrepresenting it, as the neo-cons did.
The first is unfortunate, the second is irresponsible and should be the purview of despots, not democratically elected governments.

[andyfox]

"Even Andy (;-)) should . . ."

At first this bothered me, even with the /images/graemlins/wink.gif. But then I remembered how badly I botched the Monty Hall question, and how I was taken by the pattern-mapping thread. And I realized that an "Even Andy . . ." statement makes eminent sense.

In any event, there is no such thing as 100% certainty. For the sake of argument, I would have accepted 50%. What we had was 10%, if that, spun to make it look like it was 100%.

[andyfox]

"a great deal of information has come to light that indicates that the administration should have known this, or that they did know it to some degree yet proceeded to convince the American people otherwise."

Bingo. But I've seen this time and time again in the past forty years.

[MMMMMM]

By the "Even Andy(;-))" I meant more that you tended towards overly idealistic, non-pragmatic positions, rather than that that you were incapable of following the reasoning involved.

Your current statement of the 50%, 10% and 100% makes much more sense. I was just arguing that requiring 100% (or very close to it) as a fixed baseline is a flawed way to appoach the problem.