NYT 15 page article on Iraqi nuclear snafu

[araina]

Has anyone read it yet? I don't have the time yet to go through 15 pages.

Here's the link though: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?pagewanted=1&hp&oref=login

[joseftu]

Just finished reading it. Damning indeed. The administration clearly, willingly, intentionally, misled the American public and the Congress.

We knew this already, but to have all the details laid out so powerfully is just the icing on the cake.

It was already quite clear that Bush was not going to be re-elected, but now I think we can also conclude that any future political aspirations for Colin Powell or Condi Rice are completely dead.

I don't feel particularly bad for Rice--she seemed to have accepted her role with relish--but I do feel that Powell is the truly tragic story. He had two very strong principles: supporting his superiors and being honest. Those principles conflicted, and he made the wrong choice. The torment that has caused him has been evident for a long time.

I know that many here will automatically dismiss this article ("<i>NY Times</i>, liberal bias, liars, blahblahblah"), but the facts just don't go away. The administration knew their evidence was flawed and faulty, they knew that they were trying to pull a con-job on the whole nation, and they just pushed ahead anyway. This was not a case of "group-think," because there was plenty of dissent, plenty of very clear warnings that the nuclear weapons argument was about a million miles from persuasive.

What I really don't quite understand is why. Cheney seems to be the mainspring of this whole fiasco. So what drove him?

[araina]

I know it wasn't a "group-think" failure...that was reported in the Carnegie report too.

Since you read it: could you share more on what intelligence was exactly presented to Congress?

I know that there were two versions of the same NIE that were released, one before and the other after the war.

The one released before the war, was the classified version that eliminated most of the dissents to the opinion that Iraq was a threat.

The one released after the war, the unclassified version presented those dissents and the opinions that suggested that Iraq wasn't really a threat.

What did the Congress get to see?

[joseftu]

You mean before the war? Or just recently?
Here's a good summary of what they got just before the vote to authorize the war
On Oct. 2, nine days before the Senate vote on the war resolution, the new National Intelligence Estimate was delivered to the Intelligence Committee. The most significant change from past estimates dealt with nuclear weapons; the new one agreed with Mr. Cheney that Iraq was in aggressive pursuit of the atomic bomb.
Asked when Mr. Cheney became aware of the disagreements over the tubes, Mr. Kellems, his spokesman, said, "The vice president knew about the debate at about the time of the National Intelligence Estimate."

Today, the Intelligence Committee's report makes clear, that 93-page estimate stands as one of the most flawed documents in the history of American intelligence. The committee concluded unanimously that most of the major findings in the estimate were wrong, unfounded or overblown.
But it's a pretty complicated timeline--and it seems that some of the dissent was presented to congress, too, before the war--although they were warned not to mention it publicly.

The administration set out to mislead--but Congress (and the press!)--including Senators Kerry and Edwards--definitely failed in their responsibility to probe and prevent the misleading.

[araina]

You mean before the war? Or just recently?
Here's a good summary of what they got just before the vote to authorize the war

But it's a pretty complicated timeline--and it seems that some of the dissent was presented to congress, too, before the war--although they were warned not to mention it publicly.

The administration set out to mislead--but Congress (and the press!)--including Senators Kerry and Edwards--definitely failed in their responsibility to probe and prevent the misleading.

There were 2 versions of the 2002 NIE that were released.

1. Came out 10 days before the vote in Congress to authorize force against Iraq. Predicted gloomy scenario, presented a scenario of unanimity amongst the intelligence agencies.

2. Came out in July 2003 and had dissenting opinions.

I am interested in finding out what version was released to Congress.

Following is an example of the language differences:

The July 2003 declassified excerpts contained forty
distinct caveats or conditions on the intelligence
judgments—including fifteen uses of the adverb
“probably”—that other publications and statements
usually dropped. For example, the declassified NIE
excerpts say, “We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed
production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin)
and VX.” The unclassified October 2002 version
released to the public before the war says, “Baghdad
has begun renewed production of chemical warfare
agents. . .” Cutting the phrase “we assess” changes the
statement from an opinion to a fact.



Source: http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3Chap2.pdf -->Pg. 3

There is more also.

[ravital]

I know that many here will automatically dismiss this article ("NY Times, liberal bias, liars, blahblahblah"), but the facts just don't go away.

Pre-emptive strike, Joe? :cool:

I could tell you why the most likely scenario is that the weapons have been smuggled to Syria, either shortly before or in the first days of the invasion.

I could tell you why we're not going to act in Syria in the near future.

I could remind you that Chirac, Schroeder, Nancy Peolsi, Tom Daschle, Bill Clinton, the idiot he married, and so many other Bush-Cheney detractors, all of them, all were equally convinced of the threat before the war, yet somehow only Bush/Cheney are liars.

I could remind you that actual truth transcends partisan truth.

I could list how many times in recent years the NYT has gotten something wrong, either by honest mistake or intentional fabrication.

But I think the wisest course of action would be to let this thread be a Blue Room.

Enjoy yourselves.

[joseftu]

Pre-emptive strike, Joe? :cool:I have permission. I speak French! :)

(And I'm glad you're not going to remind us of any of those things. Ahh praeteritio! Seems to be a popular figure these days! ;))

[ravital]

I have permission. I speak French! :)

(And I'm glad you're not going to remind us of any of those things. Ahh praeteritio! Seems to be a popular figure these days! ;))
I am going to remind you that the ledger is open and the hand is recording.

And at the moment you'll least want to hear it :)

[Coot]

Well, this thread certainly brings to mind Pirandello ;)

[el scorcho]

i'm going to love seeing how the Bush Administration and/or Bush loyalists spin this article. i've never understood the argument that Kerry had as much intelligence knowledge as Bush did, as i've always thought that it was Bush that parceled out the intelligence information for everyone else to digest.

[ethics]

I doubt anyone will "spin" this article. But I will wait for more information on this and countering reasons. Centrists tend to go to the guts and find out if something is a great source or not.

Many of us here, were equally hard on the post war planning by the Bush administration. If this turns out true, as in the sources NYT used pan out, then it's very very damning for Bush administration, but I doubt real Bush loyalists will give you the victory you seek, just like the Bush haters, I presume.

[el scorcho]

'spinning' the article could involve something as little as diverting the argument to the statement "We, along with coalition forces, have removed an evil, murderous despot from the region, and in doing so have saved millions of Iraqis." the bush administration have used three or so arguments for proceeding with the war, all of which have been either proven misleading or grossly inaccurate.

and you're right, there was no semblence of post war or exit strategy for the administration, and they should be faulted on that. using a pre-emptive tactic against a paper tiger, however, is where i'm more deeply disturbed.

[ShinyTop]

I am one poster on this board who advocated early and often than Bush lied. Best scenario was that he allowed his desire for proof to color the evidence he was receiving.

That said I often said I hoped the democrats would nominate anybody I could support over Bush. Then nominated one of the two or three people that would be more harmful than a lying Bush, the others being Dean or H. Clinton. While I am not surprised by the revelations I also want to see more proof but even then will forgo to gloating as the truth only saddens me more even though it may support my position that began last summer.

[efuseakay]

NYTimes: "We Should Have Trusted Saddam"

LOL Such a long article and no mention of their pet Richard Clarke, probably because he thought a military invasion was the only way to find out about Saddam's WMD program.

Few people know that Richard Clarke said UN inspections wouldn't work. A military invasion was the only way he thought we could be sure Saddam destroyed his WMD's.

A PLAN FOR SADDAM Iraq News, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/11/981111-in.htm

"Newsweek, Nov 16, explained US decision making prior to Iraq's Oct 31 decision to suspend UNSCOM monitoring, "Maintaining sanctions is at the heart of the new US strategy . . . The blueprint was developed last spring by the National Security Council, in response to a plea from national security adviser Sandy Berger. During last February's standoff, a frustrated Berger called one senior official, Richard Clarke, in the middle of the night and complained, astonishing (given all the war talk), that 'we have no strategy on Iraq.' . . . After an extensive study, an ad hoc group pulled together by Clarke concluded-in papers so sensitive they were never circulated below the deputy cabinet level-that, short of invasion, the United States had no good military options on Iraq.
Airstrikes were not going to topple Saddam or force him to give the United Nations unfettered access. And UN inspections were overrated: it was simply not feasible to track down all of Saddam's biochemical stash." "

After reading this NYT hit piece, it reminded me of an older article from the Washington Post...

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/prewar.htm

Oh, and anyone remember this?

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49199-2003Oct31.html

Barstow shows up with an interesting group here (Hersh, Woodward, Pincus, etc.) which seems to overlap with Joe Wilson and Ray McGovern's anti-intelligence lobby crowd:

http://www.ire.org/training/pastconferences/dc03/expectedspeakers.html

See tape 083 listed in this pdf file catalog, covering one of the conference lectures, evidently:

http://www.ire.org/store/tapes/DC2003.pdf

083 - Covering intelligence agencies

James Bamford, Walter Pincus

! 1 Audiotape - IRE03-083

! 1 Audio CD - IRE03-083C

Bamford recently wrote a muckraking expose of the NSA in the spirit of Philip Agee and Victor Marchetti's anti-CIA books.

t would interesting to do a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" on these folks:

NY TIMES

By DAVID BARSTOW
This article was reported by David Barstow, William J. Broad and Jeff Gerth, and was written by Mr. Barstow.

WASH POST
Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus
Staff writers Glenn Kessler, Dana Priest and Richard Morin and staff researchers Lucy Shackelford, Madonna Lebling and Robert Thomason contributed to this report.

Ah, but don't mind me... I misplaced my tinfoil hat... There really is no conspiracy in the media... nope... they are all playing fair and only reporting facts...

:whistle:

[araina]

Barstow turned up at the same conference with a FBI agent, a DoJ rep, a DC metro cop..along with 50 other people. Hmm...so?

As to Clarke: in 1998, where are you going with it? Maybe there is a piece of paper in the Pentagon which outlines a plan for war with Russia. Does it mean that Russia ought to be invaded next week?

[cdw]

So, is there a link to the report?

[araina]

So, is there a link to the report?

Which report?

[cdw]

Oh, I'm sorry...I thought this article was a recap of some commission report or something. You mean it is just....whatever? A recap of information from annonymous people...supposition or something?

[araina]

Oh, I'm sorry...I thought this article was a recap of some commission report or something. You mean it is just....whatever? A recap of information from annonymous people...supposition or something?
No...no commission report.

I still haven't read the article. I am starting now. It's something important enough for Rice to go on TV and make multiple appearances today.

Apparently charges of intelligence disclosures being incomplete.

[cdw]

Oh. I thought you posted the whole thing. You didn't read it? lol, well, alrighty then! I would imagine anyone would be out there making appearances if 'it' came out in a major publication right before the election, regardless of what party it had to do with, no? So, this is just a recap of the sources who do not wish to give their names and interpreted by the reporter(s) of the NYT?
Lemme know if there is anything new in there or if it's the same stuff thats been out there for god knows how long. Thanks.

[araina]

Oh. I thought you posted the whole thing. You didn't read it? lol, well, alrighty then! I would imagine anyone would be out there making appearances if 'it' came out in a major publication right before the election, regardless of what party it had to do with, no? So, this is just a recap of the sources who do not wish to give their names and interpreted by the reporter(s) of the NYT?
Lemme know if there is anything new in there or if it's the same stuff thats been out there for god knows how long. Thanks.

It's the old nuclear tubes story and it's 15 pages long. I didn't want to sit down and read it in pieces.

[Stiofán]

Oh, I'm sorry...I thought this article was a recap of some commission report or something. You mean it is just....whatever? A recap of information from annonymous people...supposition or something?

Yeah, here's your source.

according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.

[cdw]

Oh, THAT story. The one about the dual use of the tubes but it really was only for one use but they made them better than needed for the original use because they didn't know enough to store them inside? And I guess Bush really knew all this but he didn't put it out there and there was a disagreement and that wasn't stated? Ahhh. Didn't they write about this when it happened or right after the war and stuff? Wonder what's new that it took 15 pages right before the election? God this stuff is all so confusing.
:)

[efuseakay]

This is just your regular, run-of-the-mill attempt by the media to influence the election by bringing up old information.

This is more important IMO:

http://iht.com/articles/540722.html

Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.

The whole article is rather compelling... and it is also a NYT piece... but it sure wasn't given 15 pages... :whistle:

[araina]

This is just your regular, run-of-the-mill attempt by the media to influence the election by bringing up old information.

This is more important IMO:

http://iht.com/articles/540722.html



The whole article is rather compelling... and it is also a NYT piece... but it sure wasn't given 15 pages... :whistle:

If you actually read the 15 pages, the DoE experts contend that there was no "snap of fingers" which could reinstate the nuclear program.

The reason they are getting 15 pages now is because nobody listened to them before the war when Dark Lord Cheney was making his doom laden predictions of imminent threats.

[joseftu]

And it was actually three pages--not 15. Online pages are extremely small! ;)

But it was a long and detailed story, and brings out the evidence (not gathered before) that Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell actually did know they were misleading the public and the Congress. There really wasn't any "disagreement"--every reliable expert said the same thing, except one lame guy named "Joe" (no, it wasn't me!). The administration ignored the experts, didn't even mention them, even lumped them in with the Iraqis (!!), and based everything on Joe.

[ravital]

The reason they are getting 15 pages now is because nobody listened to them before the war when Dark Lord Cheney was making his doom laden predictions of imminent threats.
"Dark Lord" Cheney? Really, you can do better than quote Justin.

http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif

[Praeteritio... where art thou?]

[cdw]

I was wondering why just Cheney was picked out too, lol.

And, I KNEW it was all JOE'S fault! It's ALWAYS some joe that wrecks everything!

[joseftu]

[Praeteritio... where art thou?]"Dark Lord Cheney" isn't praeteritio...it's epitheton! ;) (Or if you just said, "the Dark Lord" and left out the "Cheney," it would be antonomasia--aka periphrasis).

OK, Cyd, I'll admit it. It was me. I'm the Joe at the root of all evil!

[ravital]

"Dark Lord Cheney" isn't praeteritio...it's epitheton! ;)
I'm aware of that, I was just noting my inability to stay away from a thread I said I would not revist. Still, the situation warranted a reluctant return.

I would love to discuss praeteritio, but I won't :cool:

[joseftu]

Ravital--my favorite sophist!
:)

[efuseakay]

If you actually read the 15 pages, the DoE experts contend that there was no "snap of fingers" which could reinstate the nuclear program.

The reason they are getting 15 pages now is because nobody listened to them before the war when Dark Lord Cheney was making his doom laden predictions of imminent threats.

So do we listen to our intel, or one of Saddam's scientists?

[araina]

So do we listen to our intel, or one of Saddam's scientists?

I guess I'll take my chances with the DoE guys:

At the Energy Department, those examining the tubes included scientists who had spent decades designing and working on centrifuges, and intelligence officers steeped in the tricky business of tracking the nuclear ambitions of America's enemies. They included Dr. Jon A. Kreykes, head of Oak Ridge's national security advanced technology group; Dr. Duane F. Starr, an expert on nuclear proliferation threats; and Dr. Edward Von Halle, a retired Oak Ridge nuclear expert. Dr. Houston G. Wood III, a professor of engineering at the University of Virginia who had helped design the 40-foot American centrifuge, advised the team and consulted with Dr. Zippe.

On questions about nuclear centrifuges, this was unambiguously the A-Team of the intelligence community, many experts say.

On Aug. 17, 2001, weeks before the twin towers fell, the team published a secret Technical Intelligence Note, a detailed analysis that laid out its doubts about the tubes' suitability for centrifuges.

[efuseakay]

I guess I'll take my chances with the DoE guys:

Well, Saddam didn't have the luxury of getting whatever he wanted... he did have to make due with what he could get his hands on...

I am not saying the DoE guys don't know what they are talking about, but only the Iraqi scientist knew what was really going on in Iraq...

Look at it this way... if you were out of toilet paper, but didn't realize until it was too late, what would you do? Use the newspaper you were reading? Sure, Charmine would be best, but the newspaper, while not exactly suitable, would pretty much do the job anyway... ;)

[ShinyTop]

The link showed the posts to be over a year old. I also am not comfortable with carrying on from another location. Quoting yourself is fine but not others, especially since I do not think all are members here and able to respond. IMHO

[Advocat]

If anyone would like to present fresh discussion on the topic, please feel free. The purpose of the forum is to allow members to discuss items and issues with other GA members, not to lift discussion wholesale from other sites, particularly when the discussion involves people who are not present on this site.

[deltat2000]

The link showed the posts to be over a year old. I also am not comfortable with carrying on from another location. Quoting yourself is fine but not others, especially since I do not think all are members here and able to respond. IMHOI am still of the belief that wmd did exist in Iraq prior to our beginning the war, where they are today no one knows....but I do know this..

France supplied Guidance Systems

Russia supplied rocket engines

Canada supplied electronics ...the company name is "Thales" in Canada....another front for CF Thompson

And weren't those weapons transfers in violation of all the UN sanctions?

And Justin's resident weapons expert, who can provide absolutely no valid source for his post is supposed to be the resident weapons expert and his "opinions" are taken as the gospel truth!

Even though my post contain a multitude of varied sources from around the world...his are taken as gospel....just because he claims to know so.......

Sounds like bs to me!

And during the Clinton years, Thales opened 4 or 5 divisions here in the US.

And then we have his resident weapons inspector, who by the way claimed to be the "missle expert" tell us that "Most of those sales were never known to anyone but to the people who looked at the arms trades done with Iraq to verify Iraq disarmament. This included looking at pre-1991 trades, to verify that Iraq had declared all they had acquired. To verify for example that Iraq had indeed 819 Scud missiles, it was necessary to go back to the first trades that took place between 1980 and 1988, including looking into the bank exchanges, airway bills etc.
When UNSCOM verified Iraq FFCD, they discovered many trades that were (and still are not openly known). The agreement by then was to remove every country names from the released files. The info that was of interest for UNSCR and the whole world was not who did the trade but what were the items and where they were to destroy them or monitor them."

Then the UN proceeds to play word games....saying that because the missile engines came thru another country...that the engines trades weren't illegal....

[ethics]

Deltat,

I, as well as others, can appreciate you taking the time to put this together, but please understand that ANY post done on a said forum become copyrights of that forum, unless you have exclusive rights from the owner of the site AND the poster.

I would not appreciate it if someone quoted my post here at BBR without my permission and/or my knowledge.

[deltat2000]

Deltat,

I, as well as others, can appreciate you taking the time to put this together, but please understand that ANY post done on a said forum become copyrights of that forum, unless you have exclusive rights from the owner of the site AND the poster.

I would not appreciate it if someone quoted my post here at BBR without my permission and/or my knowledge.Then lets move on with what I can post.....


http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/nd98/nd98orlovpotter.html
Qoute
Russian guidance components found in the Tigris River near Baghdadbetween December 16 and 30, a team of Iraqi scuba divers were directed by UNSCOM to dredge the Tigris River near Baghdad. They pulled out more than 200 additional missile instruments and components. These parts, many bearing clearly identifiable serial numbers in Cyrillic script, included gas pressure regulators, accelerometers, GIMBAL position indicators, and gyroscopes. (1) These items, like those recovered earlier in Jordan, had come from dismantled Russian submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SS-N-18s) designed to deliver nuclear warheads to targets more than 4,000 miles away. .
End Quote:

What did Saddam intend these components to be used for.....New Years fireworks....

Oh.....and who brokered the deal between Saddam and the Russia.....Wi'am Gharbiya, a 30-year-old Palestinian-Jordanian businessman.

Qoute:
In the early summer of 1993, Gharbiya signed a contract with Karama, a key Iraqi aerospace and defense firm that wanted a supply of Scud gyro potentiometers (devices that indicate the gyroscope's position by sensing its electrical signals). The agreement came soon after Hussein Kamel ordered Iraqi engineers to produce a new and more accurate missile. (3) Less than two weeks before he left for Moscow, Gharbiya was paid through a $1.76 million account that Iraq had established at the Ittihad Bank in Amman, Jordan.
End Quote:

So everyone says Saddams weapons were destroyed after 1991.....that he did not re-constitute his weapons programs......yet missile components where found in the Tigris River that were bought and imported into Iraq after 1995......

Missile components that would enable Iraq to launch nuclear warheads with a 4,000 mile range......remember...those components came out of Russian missle subs being scraped by Moscow....

Question.....does anyone think Saddam was just going to use conventional warheads on these missles?......And if his target was just Isreal, or Iran.....why the 4,000 mile range?

Just a side note.....CF Thompson continued to ship thru third world countries in their attempt to hide the origin of the equipment right up to 1998...
http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/europe/Central_Europe/france/98.08.24-Thomson-CSF%20Behind%20Illegal%20Arms%20Shipment%20to%20Ethiopia.htm l