The DOE S Office of Intelligence and State Department s INR believed that the tubes were intended for a conventional rocket program and probably not a nuclear use. The DOE did agree, however, that for other reasons addressed later in this report, that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. Both the DOE and INR included extensive text boxes in the NIE outlining their analysis of the tubes. The NGIC, the IC agency responsible for conventional ground weapons systems, did not attend the NIE coordination meeting, although the agency s analysis was cited in the NIE in support of the assessment that the tubes were highly unlikely to be intended for a rocket program.

Congess had access to the classified NIE report which DID contain the contrary view about the tubes. Additionally, as I quoted before, “most agencies” believed Iraq was trying to rebuild its nuclear program. Therefore, the politicians accepted the majority view from the intelligence community.

Note this passage from the article:

“The White House paper today also repeated the charges that Mr. Hussein’s government was trying to develop mobile laboratories that could be used to make biological weapons.”

Where did this information come from? We now know the mobile labs intel came from ‘Curveball’ an intel source that the White House had been warned was unrealiable.

And here’s this from Kevin Drum:

The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said they were “irrefutable evidence” of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address.

What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery rockets. The State Department concurred. Link. Both of these dissents were omitted from the CIA’s declassified National Intelligence Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. They were subsequently made public after the war, on July 18, 2003.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php

Face it, JWG, that Miller article is a text book example of how the administration lied and tried to mislead the American public. Miller didn’t even bother to contact any of the agency the administration refers to. None. She just publishes straight, anonymous officials from within the administration who lie and mislead. You ask what would have happened if the CIA had been right and the administration had ignored them. How is that there was no time to verify or somehow reconcile the two assessments? The err on the side of caution argument depends entirely on there being some urgency to the situation, as in, there’s no time to reconicle these different assessments, Hussein could strike at any moment and we have to act now. But that wasn’t the case as it?

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.

Therefore, the DOE had investigated information about the tubes before Sep 2002. They didn’t agree (correctly) with the other agencies, but they certainly left some wiggle room by calling the nuclear use “credible.”

Again, I think it’s clear that the administration prefered to downplay the (correct) assessment that Iraq was not a nuclear threat. I’m left to wonder, however, if Iraq had been a threat…how would we have viewed the administration if it had ignored the CIA and DIA analyses after a nuclear attack? Would everyone have been satisfied with Bush claiming the DOE dismissed the aluminum tubes while ignoring the other agencies? (Also note that the DOE supported the assessment that “reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.) (October 2002 NIE)”)

I m left to wonder, however, if Iraq had been a threat& how would we have viewed the administration if it had ignored the CIA and DIA analyses after a nuclear attack?

I think we all know the answer to that question. The Senate Report in question would be held up along with the August 2001 PDB as “PROOF BUSH KNEW!!!”

*crickets chirp*

(I never tire of quoting of this passage.)

Here is the NYT article. Please read it and tell me if you still think “the administration” was trying to cover up disagreements within the intelligence community:

Although the C.I.A. position appears to be the dominant view, officials said some experts had questioned whether Iraq might not be seeking the tubes for other purposes, specifically, to build multiple-launch rocket systems.

This is from the same article that is referenced in the Senate report you quote. Knowing what we do today, there is definitely room to argue that the threat was exaggerated. However, there was certainly public discussion about dissenting opinions.

Why would someone enter into a public discussion with someone* who has proven himself to be incapable of honest discourse?

Well, Dean would know, what with him cozying up to Joe Wilson and all.

 A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said,  . . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments. The contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16,2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.

(I never tire of quoting of this passage.)

So Pedro, when the person you are supposed to be debating is capable of such profound and obvious lies, lies motivated to cover up previous lies BTW, what solid ground is there upon which you can establish a reasonable discussion? When someone is willing to lie like this, why would they stop lying when confronted with the truth? Dean would simply be refuting lie after lie until the segment was up. Lord knows Russert would never call Mehlman on his lies, he’d be too worried about appearing “partisan.” Would you get on television to discuss a topic with a professional serial liar under these conditions? The cards are stacked against you when you know that the supposed moderator, in this case Russert, would just sit there and let obvious lies stand.

But look, Mehlman was on TV once again lying to the American people about why and how we went to war and you don’t give a shit. All you got is “Dean is a coward”? I don’t like to throw around the word “unpatriotic” so I’ll just say, damn man, that’s some piss poor citizenship you’re practicing there. It’s truly astounding how much bullshit you guys are able to swallow.

Why would someone enter into a public discussion with someone* who has proven himself to be incapable of honest discourse?