Punishing the French

[ScottSolomon]

I have utter confidence that even if the proper evidence does not get found, someone will find something - or they may just say that all the weapons were moved to Syria.

I like the claims that a senior Iraqi unnamed scientist came out of the woodwork to tell the Americans that Iraq destroyed everything they had- and cleaned up all the evidence - just as the Americans were advancing.

Does this make sense? If you had a gun, and someone was breaking into your house, would you destroy your gun so that the invader would not punish you when he found it? this stupid breakdown in reasoning is really getting agravating. The right seems to peddle the stupidest stories to the masses and they are totally willing to believe without question.

All hail the God King.

[juju]

I have utter confidence that even if the proper evidence does not get found, someone will find something - or they may just say that all the weapons were moved to Syria.

It seems like you're just engineering a situation where you're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what happens. If they do find WMD, are you going to assume they were planted? I mean, that's certainly possible, but I think we should at least wait and see what happens before we start speculating.

[joemama]

Juju,

If the administration was trying to be credible - and dispel any notions of planted evidence or malfeasnce, they would allow the United Nations inspectors to verify and help find any WMDs that they discover. The fact that they are denying entry to the U.N. leaves me in doubt.

These are the same people that said that aluminum tubes imported into Iraq were used for gas centrifuge uranium enrichment - which turned out to be a lie. They said that they had documented proof that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa - which turned out to be a very poor forgery. They cited a dossier as proof of Iraq's weapons program - that turned out to be a plagarized term paper written 10 years ago. They strained to link AL- Qaeda to Saddam Hussein's regime - which was tenious at best.

It seems like you're just engineering a situation where you're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what happens

I am student of science. When a person makes a scientific claim, scientists maintain skepticism until the claim has been demonstrated to be valid, and other sceintists have verified the claim. The whole business of having an open and self-corrective scientific community makes maintaining a fraudulant claim almost impossible. In this open environment, truth is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of independent verififcation of initial claims.

The fact that the U.S. is going to exclude any international verification of WMDs found - takes any discoveries they make out of the realm of real, valid, verifiable proof, and makes them simply based upon faith that the government would not lie.

As you can see above, the govenrment certainly seems to have no problem using flassified documents, plagiarism, lies, and circumstantial evidence to pursue it's chosen course of action.

How can you think that blind faith is justified?

If they do find WMD, are you going to assume they were planted?

Without internaitonal verification, any discoveries are suspect.

If an administration lied to the world to start a war - then excluded the world from verifying any of the claims the administration made, how can you automatically assume that any discoveries are valid?

What is your burden of proof?

I think we should at least wait and see what happens before we start speculating

I agree, but without international oversight, I am going to have a hard time buying anything they find.

DId you know that the guy they picked to head the WMD search force is a very close friend of Condoleeza Rice? Is it really that far fetched to think that he might be a team player?

[Undertoad]

You could have answered Juju's question without projecting the hysterical opposite onto him.

Actually I guess you did answer Juju's question, just not directly.

BTW you're taking the side of the Iraqi Information Minister about the aluminum tubes.

[joemama]

I am taking the position of Mohamed El Baradei, the International Atomic Energy Association Director General regarding the aluminum tubes.

Here is a Wahington Post article about the subject. Most experts said that the aluminum tubes could not be used for unranium enrichment without massive reengineering, and that the technique would require advanced technology that Iraq did not possess.

The IAEA is very reliable. I tend to trust them far more than I trust the current administration.

[joemama]

My answer had the caveat that I would find any WMDS suspect without verification by an independent entity. If you prefer a one word answer, the answer is yes.

[xoxoxoBruce]

These are the same people that said that aluminum tubes imported into Iraq were used for gas centrifuge uranium enrichment - which turned out to be a lie. They said that they had documented proof that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa - which turned out to be a very poor forgery. They cited a dossier as proof of Iraq's weapons program - that turned out to be a plagarized term paper written 10 years ago. They strained to link AL- Qaeda to Saddam Hussein's regime - which was tenious at best.

Since these excuses have been proved to be suspect, I wonder if they were thrown up to protect valid intelligence sources? You know, like when the end justifies the means everyone will forget these subterfuges and the spy network won't be comprimised. Not sure. just a thought. Maybe just a hope.

[Undertoad]

And where did ElBaradei get his information? When Iraq itself claimed it was using those tubes for reverse engineering rockets, he thought that was plausible. When it turned out the specifications for the tubes was higher than that the US specifies for its own rockets, and was increasing in precision, ElBaradei scrambled for another explanation.

Forgotten was the fact that they were illegal in the first place.

[joemama]

Undertoad,

The aluminum tubes fell under the bounds of dual use items and were not automatically illegal. I had not seen any articles where El Baradei rescinded his reservations about the aluminum tubes. Do you have a link?

When Iraq itself claimed it was using those tubes for reverse engineering rockets, he thought that was plausible.

They were not reverse engineering rockets, they were making rockets. They required massive modifications in order to be used in a gas centrifuge.

hen it turned out the specifications for the tubes was higher than that the US specifies for its own rockets

The specifications of the tubes was part of the reason why the U.N. though the Iraqi explanation was the more likely usage of the tubes. The tubes were too thin and not reinforced to a sufficent degree to be used for a gas centrifuge. They would have required additional mateiral and milling capabilities that Iraq did not have in order to modify them fir ilicit use.

If you have some proof, I will change my position, but barring thatm I will still maintain my position vis-a-vis the tubes.

[Undertoad]

here is one article noting how ElB. was still hanging with the reverse-engineering theory in late January.

You sure know a lot about milling aluminum tubes for centrifuge usage.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
When it turned out the specifications for the tubes was higher than that the US specifies for its own rockets, and was increasing in precision, ElBaradei scrambled for another explanation.

ElBaradei did not scramble for another explanation - except if you believe everything that right wing American extremists say. Even Tony Blair's government was more in agreement with ElBaradei in a report issued at the start of 2003.

Why were specification tolerances tighter? I do that on everything I reverse engineer. Only after a working model do we experiment and learn where tolerances can be relaxed.

Get a grip UT. Those aluminum tubes are part of a big campagin by the George Jr admininstration to claim Iraq was running a nuclear weapons program. At what point do you finally admit that the administration was lying? Even the George Jr administration quit trying to claim that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. When are you going to admit that the Geroge Jr administration will lie? This is not an honest administration. They even lied about all those Iraqis who would welcome us with open arms.

Of course the George Jr administration lied repeatedly about those aluminum tubes. Desparate to prove Iraq was running a nuclear program. Desperate for some viable fiction to prove it. They were so desperate to create lies then. They will also be desperate to create a phoney WMD program, if necessary. Why keep UN weapons inspectors out? No UN make "lies if necessary" just so much easier.

[Undertoad]

Tom, you don't have to help the reverse-engineering theory along, it was discarded.

Meanwhile, I'm taking wagers on WMD, and if anyone wants to offer odds I think it would be appropriate considering your levels of certainty. How about 3 to 1 on finding something that 90% of the public agrees is non-planted WMD?

[That Guy]

I think Blix will definitely require physical sight of whatever the US "finds." I also think he'll be the first to say that they originated in an Iowan warehouse facility, as he is the current expert.

[ScottSolomon]

was still hanging with the reverse-engineering theory in late January

Did you read the article? El Baradei said that he thought the aluminum tubes were consistent with attempts to reverse engineer rockets. The report I read - by an engineer with the Federatin of American Scientists - described what Iraq had - what they needed to make a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment system, and what they needed to make rockets. His conclusion was that it would have been nearly impossible for Iraq to use the tubes for uranium enrichment. Then, about a month later I read the Washington Post article.

Note: Your article - which is entirely consistent with my original claim - was written in January. My article was written in March. SInce El Baradei does not change his tune in either article, I don't see how this porves me wrong.

The whole point is, Bush knew what El Bardei said. Bush knew what the scientific community said. Bush knew that they were not lying or playing politics. Bush then claimed in his state of the union address that the tubes were partial proof that Iraq had a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

I can't think of a more blatant lie.

As I said before, I have no doubt that we will find some WMDs. The problem is, I have a hard time believing anything this administration says.

There is an old Texas saying: Fool me once, shame one...shame on, you. Fool me twice... fool me, can't get fooled again.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Fool me once, shame one...shame on, you. Fool me twice... fool me, can't get fooled again.

Say What????