"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:28:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:48:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:hnl4q39j78fr68gs6i7ek5ai47shf002u8@4ax. com...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:20:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Clinton and Bush both cooked intelligence. Example: Remember the
famous
metal tubes we found in Iraq? The ones Powell used as an example of
a
nuclear project underway? Our own scientists at Oak Ridge
Laboratory
examined samples of the metal and the tubes were absolutely NOT
suitable
for
the use claimed by the administration. Samples were sent to IAEA
scientists
in Vienna, who came to the exact same conclusion. Both groups said
the
tubes
matched the specs for a type of artillery whose plans Iraq had
probably
gotten from the Chinese.

Guess what? Two years after the scientists made their determination,
Bush
&
Powell still claimed those tubes were going to be used as part of a
nuclear
facility. Maybe the word "cooked" is wrong in this context. How
about
"ignored"?


Let's assume for a moment that the story you just told is completely
factual in all respects.

Are you saying that we went to war in Iraq because of a couple of
dubious metal tubes? Really? Everybody in DC except for two were
on
a hair trigger? Wow.

I never said we went to war over metal tubes. But, Bush and Powell
**DID**
mention the tubes as "proof" that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons
program. So, for the people who used the erroneous information, it was
one
of many reasons.


Since you assert that BOTH administrations cooked the intel, think
about this: They both fed bad intel from one or multiple agencies,
and they both were gullible enough to believe it. C'mon, you're a
conspiracy junkie, so that should play well for you.

From what I've read (in real books) so far, much of the intel given to
Bush
was as accurate as it could've been. Would you like to read a book
covering
our so-called "nonproliferation" efforts from the mid-1970s to the
present?
It will give you an excellent overview of why there are no simple
answers
with regard to intelligence efforts.


I got that covered, Doug. I merely took you to task over your simple,
knee-jerk liberal statement. As you are now asserting, there are no
simple answers.


And yet, 2-3 years after real scientists told the admin that the pipes
could
NOT be used for nuclear purposes, your president continued to use them
in
his speeches to "prove" the existence of a nuclear program.

Explain that, please.


This is getting old. As you know, the answer is "Neither one of us
can." As in, neither one of us knows *exactly* what transpired. So
we can't explain it. We can only guess.

Now go away.


No. The explanation is very simple, but just for entertainment, I want to
hear your version. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you have nothing.


You are correct, you can conclude that *you* have nothing.

Bye


I have nothing? But, you cannot explain why your president lied about those
tubes THREE YEARS after our own nuclear scientists made it clear that the
tubes could not have been used in a nuclear facility.

That's very interesting. You don't even have a theory?