The Price of American Ignorance

[Wild Cobra]

Syria has it's own stockpiles of yellow-cake uranium and can produce chemical weapons, so why would they need Iraqi WMDs, especially given the short shelve-life of these weapons and the high costs associated to destroy them.

Sorry, I must have not explained things well enough. I thought it was common knowledge that we were conducting inspections, looking for this stuff.

Get it. He got rid of it so he wouldn't get caught red handed! According to General Sada, he shipped it when Syria had some disaster. He shipped out the stuff he didn't want to get caught with rather than food and supplies!

[Wild Cobra]

That all depends on which assessment your talking about, but this is what the DoE was saying...

Wikipedia

The wiki article is limited in the knowledge of the centrifuges, and limited to the DoE reports. Go back and read both links I supplied. One of the two links I supplied tells the different dimensions that the older centrifuge could handle, and that the tubes could be used in it. Still, the rocket size tubes would have to be cut in half. The diameter was close enough for the equipment.

Perfect disguise isn't it? Ship illegal components as something else? Don't we sometimes hear of cocaine being shipped a coffee?

Now I don't believe that is what happened, but hindsight is 20/20. The CIA had to consider worse case senarios. They may have even had real cause to believe this unlikely senario.

[Wild Cobra]

It's a commodity...

Correct. You first said it was an industrial byproduct!

Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, known to chemists as U3O8. When uranium ore comes out of the mine, it actually contains fairly little of the precious radioactive element.

Yes, and on two accounts. It isn't called yellowcake until it is at least 75%, but it is still technically an ore also. There are three natural occurring isotopes of uranium. U238 (~99.3%), U235 (~0.7%), and U234 (~0.006%). It is the lighter U235 and U234 that is used for nuclear bombs. The centrifuge separates the isotopes to some degree, but it takes several steps to do so. It is also done in a gaseous state (UF6), making the process very slow. Of course purification steps and changing it to a fluoride from an oxide is required before isotope separation can start.

This is the reason so much yellowcake is needed. The 500 tons he had was enough for several bombs, and another account had a finding of another 2000 tons of yellowcake in another location, but I didn't find that link.

Though some mines in Canada, the world's leading uranium producer, are now yielding ore that contains 20 percent uranium, lower purity levels are more typical. Ore that contains less than 1 percent uranium is not unusual.

I don't care what the out coming purity is from a mine. Saddam had the yellowcake form, at least 75% pure, and another 1.8 tons of enriched uranium!

Despite all the hubbub over Saddam Hussein's efforts to buy yellowcake, the stuff is by no means a rare commodity. Worldwide production is currently around 64,000 tons per year, and that's sure to rise as Central Asian nations like Kazakhstan begin to expand their uranium-mining industries. (By comparison, about 45,000 tons of tungsten, vital to the steel industry, is produced annually.) The compe ion has depressed yellowcake prices just a tad in recent months; a pound now costs about $10.90, down a dime from what it was trading for this spring.

Prices don't matter much. The whole point is he had yellowcake, enriched uranium, and plans to make bombs with it. Most uranium today is being used for nuclear reactors.

$10.90? I thought it was $113.00

[01Snake]

Dan getting slapped

[RandomGuy]

There were in fact training grounds in Iraq. There was in fact some communications. What people mix up is that Saddam had no connection to 9/11, so they try to say he had no Al-Qaeda connection...

Man, that was shameless.

No, there weren't training grounds for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
No, there was no Al-Qaeda connection with Saddam and never would have been.

What you play up as "connections" is the equivalent of seeing two mail clerks from Ford and GM having lunch and yelling for anti-trust action.

Saddam was a secular totalitarian dictator. Such men DO NOT let overly-religious nutjobs use their countries for bases of operation or supply them with anything more than promises, because they view such people as potential threats. His ONLY interest was in self-preservation, not helping Al-Qaeda in any meaningful way.

[RandomGuy]

Again, your point? If you listen to the explanation, they are the balance to the left. Their commentators are primarily conservative, and the news remains better centered than the mainstream. If you ever watch their news, at the end of a viewpoint, they do tell the opposing viewpoint!

"better centered"?

Fox is by pretty much any measure you care to look at, the LEAST centered of all the networks.

"telling the opposing viewpoint" is NOT a measure of good journalism. "Liberals disagree with this, because they like to eat puppies" is a continent away from providing meaningful context.

What you DON'T see is the most telling when it comes to Fox. The REAL editorializing comes in deciding what to cover and how much to cover it.

Fox makes ratings. It does that by appealing to emotional hot-button issues for conservatives. Entertainment at the expense of information.

Is it any wonder that Fox "News" viewers have the lowest educational level of any newscast?

[boutons_]

Cobra is ideological, knee-jerking shill for defending dubya and Repugs.

The best way to combat his repeated lies of picayune rat that don't add up to justification for invading Iraq is to repeat the overwhelming truths.

Cobra, with 30 posts, needs to go read the numerous threads where we've thoroughly exposed and destroyed all his points.

The overwhelmingly situation is that the Iraq was no imminent threat to the USA or anybody else, absolutely and certainly in comparison with the war already underway in Afghanistan, the Iraqi invasion was totally unjustified, and, as we've seen since April 03, totally undermanned, unplanned, and horribly executed in extreme incompetence.

[RandomGuy]

Your point? There was correct intelligence that tubes were bought. However, the size and strength were unknown for initial reports. It was later found out that they were the right size for rockets!

I'm going to wear out that smiley responding to your posts.

If the size and strength were "unknown" from initial reports, why then were those reports held up as "proof" of a nuclear program by the administration? Hmmm?

[RandomGuy]

Good ol' George Tennant [sic]. Now he even says it meant something else. Who believes him when his book is shown to be wrong in several other [ways].

Because you might find fault with minutae, does not make the thrust of his book wrong.

If he told you the sky was blue in his book would that make it wrong because you found some way to spin some of the details?

[RandomGuy]

[post deleted]

hit wrong button

[George Gervin's Afro]

Without getting into whether yellow cake is a commodity or industrial garbage I do know one thing. Bush's own scientists told him , prior to his usung the aluminum tubes as evidence, was that these tubes could not be used for nuclear weapons. They told him they were to small and they were more than likely to be used for artillery purposes..yet he ignored them and used them anyway... now the Bush apologists will justify this as bush needing to assume worst case scenerio at ude.. but i have always wondered if the case against Iraq was so solid and we had to invade the country immediately why use the yellow cake or aluminum tubes as proof? These instances were known to be suspect at best yet Bush used them..so again why did he use information that could be explained or refuted if the case was so strong? Wouldn't the responsible thing to do would be to use only the information you know that can be verified to convince the country they had to start a war?

let's take bush out of this equation. If any president knowingly used information that could not be verified to justify war I would assume we all would be in an uproar. Considering this president (not bush) told the country that he had a solid case to go to war..i think some of bretheren on the right are so defensive about bush they refuse toi view this whole situation objectively. I don't care if a president is a democrat or republican but if he/she led us to war on knowingly un-verifiable information i would want them impeached and prosecuted..

[Nbadan]

let's take bush out of this equation. If any president knowingly used information that could not be verified to justify war I would assume we all would be in an uproar. Considering this president (not bush) told the country that he had a solid case to go to war..i think some of bretheren on the right are so defensive about bush they refuse toi view this whole situation objectively. I don't care if a president is a democrat or republican but if he/she led us to war on knowingly un-verifiable information i would want them impeached and prosecuted..

Yipes, does that include F.D.R. and Woodrow Wilson?

[Nbadan]

Prices don't matter much. The whole point is he had yellowcake, enriched uranium, and plans to make bombs with it. Most uranium today is being used for nuclear reactors.

Yellowcake is not enriched uranium, it's just yellow-cake uranium ore. Enriching uranium requires many, many centrifuges which we have never found in Iraq.

[xrayzebra]

we've thoroughly exposed and destroyed all his points.

boutons the only thing you, dan, and RG and others have
exposed and destroyed is your credibility.

[Wild Cobra]

Cobra is ideological, knee-jerking shill for defending dubya and Repugs.

Are you always so quick to judge people? I've been debating such issues for years with people. I'm just new to this place.

The best way to combat his repeated lies of picayune rat that don't add up to justification for invading Iraq is to repeat the overwhelming truths.

Funny thing is there is no one single reason we went there. The combined evidence of several reason prompted us to go into Iraq. Even with some of the intelligence deemed wrong with 20-20 hindsight, it was assumed correct back then. Even by the Clinton administration.

Cobra, with 30 posts, needs to go read the numerous threads where we've thoroughly exposed and destroyed all his points.

Maybe you can direct me to some individual postings? It would take a pretty long time to read all the past material

The overwhelmingly situation is that the Iraq was no imminent threat to the USA or anybody else, absolutely and certainly in comparison with the war already underway in Afghanistan, the Iraqi invasion was totally unjustified, and, as we've seen since April 03, totally undermanned, unplanned, and horribly executed in extreme incompetence.

I suppose you're a Monday Morning Quarterback too? Again, hindsight is twenty-twenty. You can delight in all you want of this form of cheating. Knowing the outcome would be like playing cards with others, but marking them so you know what is where. Consider this. For all the evidence they had suggesting Saddam was no threat, they had even more evidence suggesting he was.

If the size and strength were "unknown" from initial reports, why then were those reports held up as "proof" of a nuclear program by the administration? Hmmm?

Were they held up by the administration, or by the CIA? The president uses the evidence he recieves from others. I don't remember the qualifier "Proof" ever being used by the administration. Can you show me where they indicate proof?

If you go back and read those two links, you see the initial reports of the tubes indicate the correct grade of material, but no size. Late 2000 to early 2002 is the date of these reports where the CIA assessed Saddam was recons uting his nuclear program. Well before 9/11. This was already being focused on before 9/11 occurred now. Even in 2002, the CIA assessed that it yould take 25,000 centrifuges. By this point they know the length and diameter, and that 60,000 were ordered. Now page 6 of my first link, it refers to how Iraq could use the old centrifuges they already have. It says:

"Duralumin is an old aluminum alloy that is equivalent to 2000-series aluminum. The inner diameter was about three inches (78 millimeters) and had wall thickness of about 6.3 millimeters.8 Two-thousand-series aluminum is not as strong as 7000-series aluminum, but Iraq could replace the 2000-series aluminum in the Beams-design with 7000-series aluminum without a major impact on the centrifuge’s operation."

These 78mm ID tubes would have an OD of 90.6 mm. It would only take a bushing to make the 81mm tubes fit the old equipment if that 81mm is the OD, but wait... all you need is a larger diameter end cap to make it fit! The ID of these tubes was 74.4 mm, close to the 78 mm design. Try the impossible, and forget the 20/20 hindsight. This is only a theory, but if you completely look at all the pro's and con's, and open your mind, you can see there is reason to believe these tubes were for a centrifuge, even when other intelligence reports say they are for rockets after all. The report goes on to explain a different type of centrifuge available. On page 10, it states:

"The dimensions of Zippe-type centrifuges made with aluminum rotors are publicly available. The rotors typically had various diameters; the published diameters of the rotors are about 58, 70, 76, and 100 millimeters. The lengths varied but were proportional to the diameter. For example, the rotor tube with a diameter of 100 millimeters was less than 500 millimeters in length. A rotor with an outer diameter of 81 millimeters would have a length less than about 400 millimeters, requiring the tubes Iraq sought to be cut. When built in the former Soviet Union in the early 1950s, the rotors had a wall thickness of about 0.3 millimeter, although later designs used a wall thickness of about one millimeter, according to Zippe."

It looks like to me the 81 mm could be easily modified. All reports conclude they simply were rocket parts with 20/20 hindsight.

The latter reports starting Even if president Bush received and choose not to believe them, that is his prerogative. Even in August 2002, the CIA continued to have good rationale that these tubes were for centrifuges. This is when they released their first official report on the subject. See the second link I listed. Covert intelligence gathering is far from an exact science. There is rarely a clear set of facts, and the people involved must make their best assessments. None of us are perfect. Don't expect our president to be. Can you say with certainty why he disregarded it? Just because reasons are in conflict doesn't mean you ignore it. My belief is that there was plenty if overwhelming intelligence saying Saddam wanted nukes. This could not be ignored without good evidence to do so. Considering all the deception on Saddam's part prior to our invasion, we couldn't believe much that showed him on the correct side of anything.

Both the reports I linked show why the assessment was wrong, yet I use them. I do so because it does explain technical facts that I understand, and see how easily it is to use these tubes in a centrifuge. It would have been an ingenious idea for Saddam to do this. It could have been done, so to say with certainty it couldn't is a fools statement.

A couple more things. If you read Colin Powell's 2/5/03 speech, you see there is acknowledgement of other possibilities. Part of his remarks that day:

"Saddam Hussein already possesses two out of the three key components needed to build a nuclear bomb. He has a cadre of nuclear scientists with the expertise, and he has a bomb design.

Since 1998, his efforts to recons ute his nuclear program have been focused on acquiring the third and last component, sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion. To make the fissile material, he needs to develop an ability to enrich uranium.

Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. 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.

In 1999 and 2000, Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant. Iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War. This incident linked with the tubes is another indicator of Iraq's attempt to recons ute its nuclear weapons program.

Intercepted communications from mid-2000 through last summer show that Iraq front companies sought to buy machines that can be used to balance gas centrifuge rotors. One of these companies also had been involved in a failed effort in 2001 to smuggle aluminum tubes into Iraq."

Don't hit me with experts say otherwise. Not a one would say it is impossible to use the tubes, just different levels of not likely.

I riddle you this? Where have the magnets and balancing machines ever been said to be wrong intelligence?

Why were tubes for rocket motors made to such high standards?

Common leftist tactics. Focus on a small number of weak points and pretend the other points don't exist. At least Powell acknowledges some people disagree.

The second report does a very good job of debunking the tubes by using tested rotational speeds. They used a 60,000 RPM and 90,000 RPM standard with mostly failures. Just because we use such speeds today doesn't mean that speed is required. The diameter to length ratio mentioned before would these speeds. As the gas enters one end, the separation occurs to an expected degree by the time it reaches the other end. If we double the tube length, we can run the centrifuge slower!

[Wild Cobra]

Yellowcake is not enriched uranium, it's just yellow-cake uranium ore. Enriching uranium requires many, many centrifuges which we have never found in Iraq.

Did I miss something, did someone say it was?

It is just a simple electro-chemical process to change the ore to a metal, or the UF6 form for centrufuge usage. Yes, the enrichment process takes either a centrifuge, or a plamsa mass sparation technique, even more costly today. You shoot uranium plasma through a curved path controlled by powerful magnets. The heavier uranium curves less than the lighter uranium and are separated by where they strike.

As for the centrifuges never being found? That is not proof they don't exist. We find centuries old buried treasure all the time, and Saddam is known for buring things in the vast desert sands in Iraq!

[xrayzebra]

Oh Dan, wild Cobra owns you. Lock, Stock and Barrel. He makes
you look like what you are: Ignorant!

[Nbadan]

I suppose you're a Monday Morning Quarterback too? Again, hindsight is twenty-twenty. You can delight in all you want of this form of cheating. Knowing the outcome would be like playing cards with others, but marking them so you know what is where. Consider this. For all the evidence they had suggesting Saddam was no threat, they had even more evidence suggesting he was.

The OSP under Dubya downplayed intelligence that didn't support the 'invade Iraq scenario'. PNAC came to Clinton and wanted to invade Iraq and topple Saddam, but Clinton wasn't interested. All this crap about 'Clinton would have done the same thing' is crap.

[Nbadan]

If you go back and read those two links, you see the initial reports of the tubes indicate the correct grade of material, but no size. Late 2000 to early 2002 is the date of these reports where the CIA assessed Saddam was recons uting his nuclear program. Well before 9/11. This was already being focused on before 9/11 occurred now. Even in 2002, the CIA assessed that it yould take 25,000 centrifuges. By this point they know the length and diameter, and that 60,000 were ordered. Now page 6 of my first link, it refers to how Iraq could use the old centrifuges they already have. It says:

Ummm..noo...

There were doubts within our own intelligence community in 01' that the tubing was 'dual-use' and likely intended for conventional weapons...

In fact, the intelligence community is deeply divided about the purpose of the tubing, with a significant number of experts knowledgeable about gas centrifuges dissenting from the CIA view. It appears that the New York Times stories represented only one side of this debate.

ISIS has learned that U.S. nuclear experts who dissent from the Administration's position are expected to remain silent. The President has said what he has said, end of story, one knowledgeable expert said.

Other U.S. intelligence and nuclear analysts, however, have challenged the conclusion that the tubes could only be intended for a gas centrifuge program. These analysts have concluded that the tubes are "dual-use" items that could have been intended for non-nuclear uses. Several government experts said that the tubes could be for conventional weapons programs, including artillery or anti-tank rockets. Thus, the dispute is whether enough evidence exists to state that the tubes were definitely ordered for the gas centrifuge program.

A September 13, 2002 New York Times article stated that although the CIA position appears to be the dominant view, some experts in the Department of Energy and the State Department questioned this conclusion. According to the New York Times report, the administration has shown great sensitivity about suggestions that intelligence experts differ over Iraq's intentions, because Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is the centerpiece of the argument for planning a military attack to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime.

Aluminum Tubing Is an Indicator of an Iraqi Gas Centrifuge Program: But Is the Tubing Specifically for Centrifuges? Updated October 9, 2002

[Nbadan]

Even in 2002, the CIA assessed that it yould take 25,000 centrifuges. By this point they know the length and diameter, and that 60,000 were ordered. Now page 6 of my first link, it refers to how Iraq could use the old centrifuges they already have. It says:

It's easy to claim stuff even Xray can do that, but can you source some of your stuff? because I can't...

I can source this though...

Late 2001

Energy Department analysts publish a classified report disputing the theory that the 7075-T6 aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were intended to be used as rotors in a “Zippe-type” gas centrifuge. The report emphasizes that Zippe centrifuges are not suited for the production of nuclear bombs but rather had been designed for use in laboratory experiment. The Energy Department’s experts also say that Iraq would need up to 16,000 of such centrifuges working in concert to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, which they note would be a challenge for even the most advanced centrifuge plants. [New York Times, 10/3/2004]

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz secretly meets with Francis Brooke, the Iraqi National Congress’ lobbyist, and Khidir Hamza, the former chief of Iraq’s nuclear program. Wolfowitz asks Hamza if he thinks the aluminum tubes (see July 2001) could be used in centrifuges. Hamza—who has never built a centrifuge and who is considered an unreliable source by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (see July 30, 2002) —looks at the tubes’ specifications and concludes that the tubes are adaptable. Wolfowitz disseminates Hamza’s assessment to several of his neoconservative colleagues who have posts in the administration. [Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pp. 281]

(Early Summer 2002)

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice learns that Department of Energy scientists disagree (see August 17, 2001) with the CIA’s assessment (see July 2001-2003) that a shipment of aluminum tubes intercepted on their way to Iraq (see July 2001) were to be used in a uranium enrichment program. She is informed that they believe “the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets.” [New York Times, 10/3/2004 Sources: Unnamed Bush administration officials]

August 1, 2002

The CIA publishes its first detailed paper outlining its assessment that the aluminum tubes (see July 2001) were intended for use in a uranium enrichment program. The one-page report, led “Iraq: Expanding WMD Capabilities Pose Growing Threat,” argues that the tubes’ “exceedingly stringent tolerances, high cost, and the secrecy surrounding procurement attempts, indicated that the tubes were destined for Iraq’s gas centrifuge program,” according to a later Senate Intelligence investigation. [US Congress, 7/7/2004] The CIA has already published about 10 less detailed intelligence assessments expressing this view, which the Department of Energy’s top centrifuge physicists disputed in their own detailed 8-page report more than a year before (see August 17, 2001).

(1:00 a.m.) September 8, 2002

Judith Miller (traitor !) and Michael Gordon of the New York Times report in a front page story that Iraq is trying to obtain materials to build a nuclear weapon. Citing unnamed senior administration officials, they break the story of the aluminum tubes that were confiscated in Jordan in July 2001 (see July 2001) and write that both “American intelligence experts” and top officials believe the tubes were meant to be used as centrifuge rotors in a nuclear enrichment program. “In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium,” reports the newspaper. “The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq’s nuclear program… .” Officials are cited in the article warning that the US must not wait for more evidence before taking action to disarm Iraq because the first sign of a “smoking gun” may be a mushroom cloud. [New York Times, 9/8/2002]

(The “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” analogy was conceived by presidential speech writer Michael Gerson a few days earlier; see September 4, 2002 for details.) What Gordon and Miller’s sources did not tell them, and what they neglected to find out on their own, was that the country’s top nuclear experts do not believe the tubes are suitable for rotors (see, e.g., (July 2001-March 2003), August 17, 2001, and Late 2001). For example, Houston G. Wood III, a retired Oak Ridge physicist, filed a report with the US government more than a year before (see August 17, 2001) concluding that the tubes were not meant for centrifuges. When he reads the New York Times story, he is shocked. In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation more than a year later, he will recount his initial reaction: “My first thought was, ‘This must be some new tubes,’ you know. And then… and then when I realized that these were the tubes that I had been looking at a year before, I was just… I was… I was just shocked. I couldn’t believe that, you know, here we were, saying that these tubes were, you know, the same tubes that I’d come to the conclusion a year before were not valid for centrifuges, and here they’re saying they are. So, er… that was a real surprise.” [Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 10/27/2003]

In subsequent stories about the tubes, the Times will note that there is a debate, however these reports will appear in the back pages of the newspaper (see, e.g., September 13, 2002). [New York Times, 5/26/2004]

[Nbadan]

Even in August 2002, the CIA continued to have good rationale that these tubes were for centrifuges.

..and they had good rationale to believe that these tubes were likely for artillary, but adminstration talking-heads and the NY Times (Judith Miller) all down-played it.

[Nbadan]

April 11, 2001

US officials in the Department of Energy (DOE) respond to an intelligence report released the previous day (see April 10, 2001) which contended that the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq (see July 2001) are destined for use as centrifuge rotors in a uranium enrichment program. The Energy Department argues that the tubes are too narrow, too heavy, and too long to be used in a gas centrifuge. Furthermore, “the tubes’ specifications suggest a centrifuge design quite different from any Iraq is known to have.” The officials also note that there is no evidence that Iraq is seeking to acquire other materials that would be needed to construct a centrifuge. And if the Iraqis intend to use the tubes for uranium enrichment, the officials ask, why are they making no effort to conceal their interest in acquiring the tubes? “[T]he manner in which the procurement is being handled (multiple procurement agents, quotes obtained from multiple suppliers in diverse locations, and price haggling) seems to better match our expectations for a conventional Iraqi military buy than a major purchase for a clandestine weapons-of-mass destruction program,” the report notes. [US Congress, 7/7/2004; ][New York Times, 10/3/2004]

The DOE therefore concludes that “while the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production.” The agency considers it more plausible that the tubes are meant to serve as rocket casings. Notwithstanding, the DOE concedes that it has “not identified an Iraq-specific, military, or other noncentrifuge application that precisely matches the tube specifications.” [US Congress, 7/7/2004] The DOE will identify a possible specific conventional military application for the tubes the following month (see May 9, 2001).

[Jamtas#2]

I really hope you realize that the whole liberal vs conservative thing just buys into the whole process of control...
Liberals have a natural enemy in the neo-cons who are greedy and working to destroy them
Conservatives have the immoral liberals who want to tell them how to think and spend their money.
As long as you are focusing on the "enemy" the politicians can do what they want.

[Wild Cobra]

The OSP under Dubya downplayed intelligence that didn't support the 'invade Iraq scenario'. PNAC came to Clinton and wanted to invade Iraq and topple Saddam, but Clinton wasn't interested. All this crap about 'Clinton would have done the same thing' is crap.

You can ASS-u-ME anything you want about what president Bush did with who's opinion. The facts are, he had more conflicting information than anyone can fully comprehend, and he had a decision to make. I understand the 'downplaying' because of mitigating factors you seem to conveniently ignore. I agree, in the end, the tubes were most likely for rockets only. Still, we don't know for certain. You cannot take into account singular facts that support the rocket theory. Saddam has proven to be not only a tyrant, but very good at the art of deception. The initial theory of the tubes were never dismissed because of Saddam's M.O. and the fact these tubes could have been used as centrifuges!

As for president Clinton. Yes, he is just one big pussy. He signs a commitment to replace the Hussein regime, then does nothing.

Ummm..noo...

There were doubts within our own intelligence community in 01' that the tubing was 'dual-use' and likely intended for conventional weapons...

Aluminum Tubing Is an Indicator of an Iraqi Gas Centrifuge Program: But Is the Tubing Specifically for Centrifuges? Updated October 9, 2002

I had a year wrong via typo. I'm not perfect. It should have been late 2000 to early 2001. The '01 intel that starts to disagree with the initial assessments was after "early 2001".

[QUOTE=Nbadan]It's easy to claim stuff even Xray can do that, but can you source some of your stuff? because I can't...

I can source this though...

Late 2001
I have linked several items to date within my sentences. Unless you modified your browser setup to fixed colors, the links appear underlined and a different color. Maybe you are referring to my own additions as an expert myself in some technical aspects.

This link you supply from isis-online cherry picks information, like we all do. It also uses misleading changes of the exact context. Now when it refers to NY Times material, I start laughing. That stuff has to bee error checked on a regular basis.

..and they had good rationale to believe that these tubes were likely for artillary, but adminstration talking-heads and the NY Times (Judith Miller) all down-played it.

The only rational they had to conclude they were rocket parts is that they were the right material and the right size. You just won't accept the idea that this could be an intentional deception ordering them as rocket parts, to try to avoid problems. If they did not far exceed the tolerances of the rocket part tubing, there would be no reason to believe they were for centrifuges. Why pay so much extra money for specifications not needed? The specifications were proper for centrifuge parts!

I made an incorrect assessment myself earlier. I stated the tubes could be run at a lower speed in response to the speed tests not working well. Although this still applies true, the tests were done without balancing the tubes, as is! Now any good designer will order the material to the tolerances the Iraqi's did, and the fact they could run them to failure just a little past the 90,000 RPM is a good sign that if the tubes were balanced, continuous 24/7 operation would not be a problem at high speed.

Who needs a rocket that can be spun at 90,000 RPM?

Now the Global Security link is the same material I also have, but haven't fully sifted through yet. It will be easier to refer to in from the PDF file I will list below.

You say I don't source my material? Please explain considering I have. I linked two good sources that try to make my opposite argument, being able to pick out points that confirm the possibility that the tubes were for centrifuges.

If you need separate 'linkies' rather than how I normally embed them in my text, here are the ones I used on the subject in past threads:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38581
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/220331.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/171214.shtml
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...iraqreport.pdf
http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...bes12-5-03.pdf
http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/artic...inum_tubes.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030205-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada

Consider this too. I point out reasons why it is easy to conclude the tubes were for centrifuges and I agree there is not solid facts. You take on the idiotic position of making something factual that cannot be shown except in hindsight, and it is still unresolved. Put yourself in their shoes, then, with their complete assessments at hand. Without the 20/20 hindsight.

Now how about the using this as a replacement source for your Global Security link:
REPORT ON THE US. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY’S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ Ordered Reported on July 7,2004 SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE .

It is the official report. Being from the official archive, it is far less likely to be altered. I will refer to the PDF file page numbers as I list quotes from it.

Page 33:

Analysts discounted the UN's findings as the result of the inspectors relative inexperience in the face of Iraqi denial and deception. Similarly, when International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors returned to Iraq in late 2002, one of their key lines of work was to investigate Iraq’s claims that aluminum tubes it was trying to procure were intended for artillery rockets. The IAEA found that Iraq’s claims that the aluminum tubes were intended for artillery rockets was completely consistent with the evidence on the ground in Iraq. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) responded to the IAEA’s analysis by producing intelligence reports which rejected the IAEA’s conclusions. Without giving many details of the IAEA’s findings, CIA’S analysis suggested that the IAEA was being fooled by Iraq, and reiterated CIA’S assessment that the tubes were to be used in uranium centrifuges.

Starting page 101:

(U) One day after the CIA published its assessment, the DOE published their own analysis of the aluminum tube procurement. The DOE paper provided a more detailed analysis of the aluminum tubes and their applicability to a uranium centrifuge enrichment program. The assessment said:

Based on the reported specifications, the tubes could be used to manufacture gas centrifuge rotor cylinders for uranium enrichment. However, our analysis indicates that the specified tube diameter, which is half that of the centrifuge machine Iraq successfully tested in 1990, is only marginally large enough for practical centrifuge applications, and other specifications are not consistent with a gas centrifuge end use. Moreover, the quan y being sought suggests preparations for large-scale production of centrifuge machines, for which we have not seen related procurement efforts -and the tubes’ specifications suggest a centrifuge design quite different from any Iraq is known to have. Thus, we assess that this procurement activity more likely supports a different application. Regardless of end use, the delivery of aluminum tubes with the reported specifications to Iraq would be prohibited under Annex I11 of UNSCR 687 and 707. (U) DOE’S assessment concluded that: While the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production. For example, the tube specifications and quan y appear to be generally consistent with their use as launch tubes for man-held anti-armor rockets or as tactical rocket casings. Also, the manner in which the procurement is being handled (multiple procurement agents, quotes obtained from multiple suppliers in diverse locations, and price haggling) seems to better match our expectations for a conventional Iraqi military buy than a major purchase for a clandestine weapons-of-mass destruction program. However, we have not identified an Iraq-specific, military, or other non centrifuge application that precisely matches the tube specifications.

From page 103:

A /----/ intelligence assessment disseminated on July 2, 2001 said /--------/ personnel had inspected the tubes /---------/ and said, “The tubes are constructed from high-strength aluminum (7075-T6) and are manufactured to the tight tolerances necessary for gas centrifuges. The dimensions of the tubes match those of a publicly available gas centrifuge design from the 195Os, known as the Zippe centrifuge.” The assessment concluded that “the specifications for the tubes fix exceed any known conventional weapons application, including rocket motor casings for 81-mm multiple rocket launchers.”

The last sentence is very important. If you combine this with all the later know evidence, you find the tube dimensions are the same as previously ordered tubes for the making of rockets. However, the specifications far exceed the previous orders, and necessities for rocket parts.

Now this is important to consider, from page 104:

On August 2, 2001, the DIA produced an internal background paper outlining the brewing debate within the IC about the intended and likely end use for the aluminum tubes. The paper briefly discussed the assessments from both the CIA and the DOE on the intended purpose of the tubes and noted that “DIA analysts found the CIA WINPAC presentation to be very compelling.” The paper pointed to WINPAC research which indicated that “The tubes have specifications very similar to the gas centrifuge rotor described in the German scientist, Gernot Zippe’s publications: the material was 7075-T6 aluminum with an outer diameter of 74.2-81.9-mm, an inner diameter of 68.6-76.3-mm, a wall thickness of 2.8-mm,13 a length of 279.4-381-mm and a tolerance of 0.1-mm.”

The 81 mm tubes do fit this criteria!

Regarding the tubes’ utility in a gas centrifuge program, the DOE assessed that the tubes could have been used to manufacture centrifuge rotors, but were not well suited for that purpose. Several accounts, especially when you find them by a NY Times journalist, rewords the stories to imply the tubes could not be for a centrifuge. I challenge you to show me any official intelligence analysis that states they cannot be used for a centrifuge rather than they are unlikely for a centrifuge.

How about this from page 105:

DOE concluded that “a gas centrifuge application is credible but unlikely and a rocket production application is the more likely end-use for these tubes.”

and

Iraq: Procuring Possible Nuclear-Related Gas Centrifuge Equipment. The MID was prepared by a DIA Iraq nuclear analyst and an analyst from the NGIC, the IC agency responsible for conventional ground weapons systems assessments. The MID assessed that “Although alternative uses for the tubes are possible, such as rocket motor cases or rocket launch tubes, the specifications are consistent with earlier Iraqi gas centrifuge rotor designs.” In a box led “Conventional Military Uses Unlikely for Aluminum Tubes” the paper said, “Although 7075-T6 aluminum could be an acceptable metal for small rocket motor bodies, the 3.3-mm wall thickness and overall weight would make these particular tubes poor choices for rocket motor bodies. The thickness is roughly twice that of known small rocket motor bodies, and the 0.1-mmetal thickness tolerance along the 900-mm length is excessive for both rocket motor bodies and rocket launch tubes.”

Page 106:

In September 2002, DIA published an assessment of Iraq ’s Reemerging Nuclear Weapons Program, which included an assessment of the tubes potential use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge enrichment program. The assessment noted that “Alternative uses for the tubes, such as rocket motor cases or launch tubes, are possible. However, this is less likely because the specifications are consistent with late-1980s Iraqi gas centrifuge rotor designs.”

Page 108-109:

The IC assessment that the tubes were intended for Iraq’s nuclear weapons program centered on several factors outlined in the NIE and outlined previously in the CIA’s analysis of the tubes:

(1) Saddam Hussein had a personal interest in the procurement of the aluminum tubes, suggesting that the acquisition efforts had a high national priority.

(2) The composition, dimensions, and extremely tight manufacturing tolerances of the tubes far exceed the requirements for non nuclear applications but make them suitable for use as rotors in gas centrifuges.

(3) Iraqi agents agreed to pay up to /-------------/ for each 7075-T6 aluminum tube. Their willingness to pay such costs suggests the tubes are intended for a special project of-national interest.
(4) Iraq has insisted that the tubes be shipped through such intermediary countries as /--------------------------------------------/ in an attempt to conceal the ultimate end user; such activity is consistent with Iraq’s prewar nuclear procurement strategy but are more robust than post-war denial and deception (D&D) efforts.

(5) Procurement agents have shown unusual persistence in seeking numerous foreign sources for the tubes, often breaking with Iraq’s traditionally cautious approach to potential vendors.

(6) An aluminum tube built to the Iraqi specifications for the tubes seized /----------/ was successfully spun in a laboratory setting to 60,000 rpm (1000Hz). This test was performed without balancing the tube; a critical step required for full speed operation, but still provided a rough indication that the tube is suitable as a centrifuge rotor.

(7) The dimensions of the tubes /----------------/ are similar to those used in the Zippe and Beams-type gas centrifuges. The inner diameter of the seized tubes -74.4 mm -nearly matches the tube size used by Zippe and is described in detail in his unclassified report on centrifuge development. The length and wall thickness of the seized tubes are similar to Iraq’s prewar Beams design.

(8) Iraq performed internal pressure tests to induce a hoop-stress level similar to that obtained by an operating rotor.

I can go on and on, I am less than ¼ through this report at this point. The PDF file is 524 pages.


Enough for now. Too much typing.

[Nbadan]

You can ASS-u-ME anything you want about what president Bush did with who's opinion. The facts are, he had more conflicting information than anyone can fully comprehend, and he had a decision to make. I understand the 'downplaying' because of mitigating factors you seem to conveniently ignore. I agree, in the end, the tubes were most likely for rockets only. Still, we don't know for certain. You cannot take into account singular facts that support the rocket theory. Saddam has proven to be not only a tyrant, but very good at the art of deception. The initial theory of the tubes were never dismissed because of Saddam's M.O. and the fact these tubes could have been used as centrifuges!

I'll take into account that the CIA was inflitrated by Rove and Cheney's OSP goons led by Douglas Feith, and the DoE was saying in 01 that these centrifuges were operationally obsolete.