What did I tell you back in APRIL about the Trailers? Doesn't anyone in
the Bush administration know their science or military history? Doesn't the
Bush Administration do a Ha Ha test on their informants stories? We got the
Yellow Cake from Africa Story wrong, we got "Trailers make Bioweapons" story
wrong. Does the US have any credibility left?

AGRES
(following Cut and Pasted from NYT)

Iraqi Trailers Said to Make Hydrogen, Not Biological Arms
By DOUGLAS JEHL


WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence
Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious
trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather
than to make biological weapons, government officials say.

The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from
the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A.
and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were for
making biological weapons.

That report had dismissed as a "cover story" claims by senior Iraqi
scientists that the trailers were used to make hydrogen for the weather
balloons that were then used in artillery practice.

A Defense Department official said the alternative views expressed by
members of the engineering team, not yet spelled out in a formal report, had
prompted the Defense Intelligence Agency to "pursue additional information"
to determine whether those Iraqi claims were indeed accurate.

Officials at the C.I.A. and the Defense Department said today that the two
intelligence agencies still stood by the May 28 finding, which President
Bush has cited as evidence that Iraq had a biological weapons program. The
engineering teams' findings, which officials from the Defense Department and
other agencies would discuss only on the condition of anonymity, add a new
layer to disputes within the intelligence community about the trailers found
by allied forces in Iraq in April and May.

The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take
part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2.
The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access
to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper
was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the
evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment.

But it had not previously been known that a majority of the Defense
Intelligence Agency's engineering team had come to disagree with the central
finding of the white paper: that the trailers were used for making
biological weapons.

"The team has decided that in their minds, there could be another use, for
inefficient hydrogen production, most likely for balloons," a Defense
Department official said.

The Defense Intelligence Agency's engineering teams had not concluded their
work in Iraq at the time the white paper was drafted, and so their views
were not taken into account at that time, the government officials said.
They said the engineering teams had discussed their findings in meetings in
Washington in June and again last month.

"We stand by the white paper," the Defense Department official said. "But
based on the assessment of the engineering team, it has caused us to pursue
additional information about possible alternative uses for the trailers."

A C.I.A. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the agency
was "continuing to gather more information about the labs, but we stand
behind the white paper."

Since the white paper was made public in May, new information suggesting
that the trailers might have been used for making hydrogen has come from
Iraqi officials interrogated by American military officers in Iraq, a
military officer said today. Those Iraqi officials have repeated the claims
of Iraqi scientists that the trailers were used to fill weather balloons,
said the officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Another government official from a different agency said the issue of the
trailers had prompted deep divisions within the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The official said members of the engineering team had been angry that the
agency issued the joint white paper with the C.I.A. before their own work
was completed.

The official said the question of how that had happened was being examined
by the defense agency's inspector general as part of a broader inquiry that
began in June.

A spokesman for the intelligence agency, Don Black, said he could not
comment on the work of the inspector general.

The Bush administration has said the two trailers are evidence that Saddam
Hussein was hiding a program for biological warfare. In the white paper made
public in May, it detailed its case even while conceding discrepancies in
the evidence and a lack of hard proof.

Senior administration officials have acknowledged that the United States has
found neither biological agents nor undisputed evidence that the trailers
were used to make such arms. They have said that intelligence analysts in
Washington and Baghdad reached their conclusion about the trailers after
analyzing, and rejecting, alternative theories of how they could have been
used.

That view, described as a consensus of opinion with the C.I.A. and the
Defense Intelligence Agency, was presented to the White House before it was
made public.

At that time, a senior official who examined the evidence in detail and
concluded that the trailers were used for biological weapons said, "The
experts who have crawled over this again and again can come up with no other
plausible legitimate use."

That official said the agencies had rejected the theory put forward by Iraqi
scientists who said one of the units was used to produce hydrogen.

Today, a Defense Department official said of Iraq, "There is not doubt in
our minds that they had mobile biological weapons trailers." But the
official said there was disagreement within the Defense Intelligence Agency
about whether those found so far were used to produce biological weapons or
hydrogen.

The engineering team that has come to believe the trailers were used to
produce hydrogen includes experts whose task was to assess the trailers from
a purely technical standpoint, as opposed to one based on other sources of
intelligence. Skeptical experts had previously cited a lack of equipment in
the trailers for steam sterilization, normally a prerequisite for any kind
of biological production.

Bush administration officials have said the most compelling information that
the trailers were used for making biological weapons has come from a human
source, an Iraqi scientist who described the trailers and what he said was
their weapon-making role to American experts months before the trailers were
discovered.

The six-page report that was made public in May, "Iraqi Mobile Biological
Warfare Agent Production Plants," called discovery of the trailers "the
strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare
program."

Senior administration officials have said repeatedly that the White House
has not put pressure on the intelligence community in any way on the content
of its white paper, or on the timing of its release.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your message, but how about
putting "OT" in your topic line?

Thanks,
noah

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:14:37 GMT, "AGRES" wrote:

What did I tell you back in APRIL about the Trailers? Doesn't anyone in
the Bush administration know their science or military history? Doesn't the
Bush Administration do a Ha Ha test on their informants stories? We got the
Yellow Cake from Africa Story wrong, we got "Trailers make Bioweapons" story
wrong. Does the US have any credibility left?

AGRES
(following Cut and Pasted from NYT)

Iraqi Trailers Said to Make Hydrogen, Not Biological Arms
By DOUGLAS JEHL


WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence
Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious
trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather
than to make biological weapons, government officials say.

The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from
the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A.
and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were for
making biological weapons.

That report had dismissed as a "cover story" claims by senior Iraqi
scientists that the trailers were used to make hydrogen for the weather
balloons that were then used in artillery practice.

A Defense Department official said the alternative views expressed by
members of the engineering team, not yet spelled out in a formal report, had
prompted the Defense Intelligence Agency to "pursue additional information"
to determine whether those Iraqi claims were indeed accurate.

Officials at the C.I.A. and the Defense Department said today that the two
intelligence agencies still stood by the May 28 finding, which President
Bush has cited as evidence that Iraq had a biological weapons program. The
engineering teams' findings, which officials from the Defense Department and
other agencies would discuss only on the condition of anonymity, add a new
layer to disputes within the intelligence community about the trailers found
by allied forces in Iraq in April and May.

The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take
part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2.
The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access
to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper
was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the
evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment.

But it had not previously been known that a majority of the Defense
Intelligence Agency's engineering team had come to disagree with the central
finding of the white paper: that the trailers were used for making
biological weapons.

"The team has decided that in their minds, there could be another use, for
inefficient hydrogen production, most likely for balloons," a Defense
Department official said.

The Defense Intelligence Agency's engineering teams had not concluded their
work in Iraq at the time the white paper was drafted, and so their views
were not taken into account at that time, the government officials said.
They said the engineering teams had discussed their findings in meetings in
Washington in June and again last month.

"We stand by the white paper," the Defense Department official said. "But
based on the assessment of the engineering team, it has caused us to pursue
additional information about possible alternative uses for the trailers."

A C.I.A. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the agency
was "continuing to gather more information about the labs, but we stand
behind the white paper."

Since the white paper was made public in May, new information suggesting
that the trailers might have been used for making hydrogen has come from
Iraqi officials interrogated by American military officers in Iraq, a
military officer said today. Those Iraqi officials have repeated the claims
of Iraqi scientists that the trailers were used to fill weather balloons,
said the officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Another government official from a different agency said the issue of the
trailers had prompted deep divisions within the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The official said members of the engineering team had been angry that the
agency issued the joint white paper with the C.I.A. before their own work
was completed.

The official said the question of how that had happened was being examined
by the defense agency's inspector general as part of a broader inquiry that
began in June.

A spokesman for the intelligence agency, Don Black, said he could not
comment on the work of the inspector general.

The Bush administration has said the two trailers are evidence that Saddam
Hussein was hiding a program for biological warfare. In the white paper made
public in May, it detailed its case even while conceding discrepancies in
the evidence and a lack of hard proof.

Senior administration officials have acknowledged that the United States has
found neither biological agents nor undisputed evidence that the trailers
were used to make such arms. They have said that intelligence analysts in
Washington and Baghdad reached their conclusion about the trailers after
analyzing, and rejecting, alternative theories of how they could have been
used.

That view, described as a consensus of opinion with the C.I.A. and the
Defense Intelligence Agency, was presented to the White House before it was
made public.

At that time, a senior official who examined the evidence in detail and
concluded that the trailers were used for biological weapons said, "The
experts who have crawled over this again and again can come up with no other
plausible legitimate use."

That official said the agencies had rejected the theory put forward by Iraqi
scientists who said one of the units was used to produce hydrogen.

Today, a Defense Department official said of Iraq, "There is not doubt in
our minds that they had mobile biological weapons trailers." But the
official said there was disagreement within the Defense Intelligence Agency
about whether those found so far were used to produce biological weapons or
hydrogen.

The engineering team that has come to believe the trailers were used to
produce hydrogen includes experts whose task was to assess the trailers from
a purely technical standpoint, as opposed to one based on other sources of
intelligence. Skeptical experts had previously cited a lack of equipment in
the trailers for steam sterilization, normally a prerequisite for any kind
of biological production.

Bush administration officials have said the most compelling information that
the trailers were used for making biological weapons has come from a human
source, an Iraqi scientist who described the trailers and what he said was
their weapon-making role to American experts months before the trailers were
discovered.

The six-page report that was made public in May, "Iraqi Mobile Biological
Warfare Agent Production Plants," called discovery of the trailers "the
strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare
program."

Senior administration officials have said repeatedly that the White House
has not put pressure on the intelligence community in any way on the content
of its white paper, or on the timing of its release.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:14:37 GMT, "AGRES" wrote:

What did I tell you back in APRIL about the Trailers? Doesn't anyone in
the Bush administration know their science or military history? Doesn't the
Bush Administration do a Ha Ha test on their informants stories? We got the
Yellow Cake from Africa Story wrong, we got "Trailers make Bioweapons" story
wrong. Does the US have any credibility left?

AGRES
You're right. They never had any WMD. They were making hydrogen. In fact,
General Motors was trying to figure out how to steal the stuff from them to help
power the new hydrogen powered cars.

Now, maybe you can help with this: My 5.7L Mercruiser sterndrive has seen seven
seasons and 350 hours, all in the
Chesapeake Bay. About 3 years ago I removed the exhaust manifolds and risers,
had them burned and magna-fluxed (no problems) and returned them to service. I'm
thinking that I may need to be pre-emptive here. The end of this season may be a
good time to replace them.

Questions. Are any brands better than others in terms of holding up to salt
water? Some are advertized as 'ceramic lined'. Is this a big advantage? Are
stainless steel manifolds and risers worth the increased cost? Where would be a
good place to order parts from?

Thanks for any help you can provide. I remain, respectfully,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:37:04 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:14:37 GMT, "AGRES" wrote:

What did I tell you back in APRIL about the Trailers? Doesn't anyone in
the Bush administration know their science or military history? Doesn't the
Bush Administration do a Ha Ha test on their informants stories? We got the
Yellow Cake from Africa Story wrong, we got "Trailers make Bioweapons" story
wrong. Does the US have any credibility left?

AGRES
You're right. They never had any WMD. They were making hydrogen. In fact,
General Motors was trying to figure out how to steal the stuff from them to help
power the new hydrogen powered cars.

Now, maybe you can help with this: My 5.7L Mercruiser sterndrive has seen seven
seasons and 350 hours, all in the
Chesapeake Bay. About 3 years ago I removed the exhaust manifolds and risers,
had them burned and magna-fluxed (no problems) and returned them to service. I'm
thinking that I may need to be pre-emptive here. The end of this season may be a
good time to replace them.

Questions. Are any brands better than others in terms of holding up to salt
water? Some are advertized as 'ceramic lined'. Is this a big advantage? Are
stainless steel manifolds and risers worth the increased cost? Where would be a
good place to order parts from?

Thanks for any help you can provide. I remain, respectfully,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

)
noah

You're right. They never had any WMD.

That's not right. Bushco had very accurate knowledge that Hussein produced WMD
up through 1997, and had not produced anything since.

(Bushco also knew darm well that the chemical and biological weapons all had
effective shelf lives of 36 months or less.)

JohnH wrote:


Questions. Are any brands better than others in terms of holding up to salt
water? Some are advertized as 'ceramic lined'. Is this a big advantage?

Can't say, no experience with this in marine environment. The new ceramic lined
small combustion equipment seems to be remarkably trouble free in the industrial
environment. They've been working on ceramic liners for internal combustion engines
for years and not gotten the bugs out to my knowledge (derived largely from sitting
around having a couple beers with some diesel engineers).


Are
stainless steel manifolds and risers worth the increased cost?

If properly installed, yes. If the installation has flaws, then stainless isn't a
magic cure.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:19:13 -0400, DSK wrote:

JohnH wrote:


Questions. Are any brands better than others in terms of holding up to salt
water? Some are advertized as 'ceramic lined'. Is this a big advantage?

Can't say, no experience with this in marine environment. The new ceramic lined
small combustion equipment seems to be remarkably trouble free in the industrial
environment. They've been working on ceramic liners for internal combustion engines
for years and not gotten the bugs out to my knowledge (derived largely from sitting
around having a couple beers with some diesel engineers).


Are
stainless steel manifolds and risers worth the increased cost?

If properly installed, yes. If the installation has flaws, then stainless isn't a
magic cure.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Thanks for the input, Doug. It is appreciated.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD