Iraqi: Tubes Weren't for Nuclear Bombs (AP article)

[huckleberry]

This "Iraqi" is the guy who buried the tubes under his rose bush!

VIENNA, Austria (AP)--A key Iraqi scientist recently told the CIA that high-strength aluminum tubes bought by Baghdad weren't meant for nuclear bomb production, as President Bush suggested in his State of the Union address, two experts on Iraq's nuclear program say.

Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, who headed a uranium-enrichment unit vital to Iraq's pre-1991 bomb plans, ``also said that since '91 they hadn't resurrected a nuclear weapon program,'' according to ex-Iraq inspector David Albright, an American physicist who acted as go-between for Obeidi to talk to U.S. authorities a few weeks ago.

Obeidi, now in Kuwait, made headlines last month when he dug up enrichment-centrifuge parts and documents he had buried in his Baghdad backyard, and gave them to the Americans. In CIA interviews, he said he hid them on orders from Iraqi leaders in 1991, during the Gulf War, for eventual use in rebuilding the bomb program, which was dismantled by U.N. inspectors after the 1991 conflict.

The White House said last month Obeidi's account was evidence of the ousted Baghdad regime's bomb ambitions. But U.S. officials did not, at the same time, report that the scientist had contradicted assertions that the program had already been revived and the tubes were part of it.


more at -
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V9135.AP-Iraq-Aluminum-T.html

[Ponderer]

1. Then why the fuck was he hiding the tubes in the first place?

This makes no sense at all.

[indictrichardperle]

3. uh

a lie is a lie is a lie, if experts determined beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the aluminum tubes were not for Uranium Enrichment, then you done been LIED to.

[Ponderer]

4. But then why would the guy hide these tubes?

He had to have some incentive to hide them.

And here's the other problem. How the hell are we supposed to know what these tubes were intended to be used for?

I can easily say that I bought a shotgun to go hunting, when I really wanted to shoot my wife.

Experts haven't determined anything. They simply said that these tubes were inadequate. However, that's not surprising at all considering Iraq is not a world superpower or anything.

However, this brings me to my second analogy. If I tried to buy a gun on the black market so I could shoot my wife and I find out later that its defective, I still tried to buy the gun and my intentions were nowhere near noble.

[indictrichardperle]

5. Maybe they were for conventional arms

and the draconian sanctions wouldnt allow them ?

Who gives a shit, if we knew for a fact they werent for WMD purposes, and then LIED like hell about it.......its , umm "not good", it sort of fits a pattern of Lying to start an illegal war, a war where our troops continue to be killed daily. :mad:

[Ponderer]

7. Why would Saddam need convential arms?

The guy's a bloody tyrant. Of course, sanctions are going to prohibit such items. There's no need for Iraq to be purchasing aluminum tubes when half his country is starving. Also, you seem to imply that convential arms don't kill people too.

All this further proves is that Saddam was no benevolent leader and definitely had intentions of building up his army again, which would not have been a good thing.

[Star]

14. Saddam was allowed to have weapons

for his own defense. He was also allowed to have missiles, as long as they couldn't travel far enough to reach Israel.

He already had an Army, for the same reason. Its not conventional weapons that were the problem, it's biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Big difference.

[Ponderer]

22. What idiot came up with that idea? I think Bush I

The US (specifically Bush I) and its allies cause more problems than they solve sometimes with these loopholes.

Would we let a convict carry a gun? Probably not. Then why did Bush allow this? I think it was so he could have an excuse to start another war.

I'm attacking Bush on this, just from a different angle.

[sandnsea]

38. Protection from Iran

For a long time the plan was to keep Iran and Iraq equally armed so neither one could completely control the Middle East. That's how we got in this mess in the 80s, arming those two countries. Regardless, an unarmed Iraq still could have meant Iran could invade Iraq in the 90s, which wasn't wanted either. So Iraq was allowed to have weapons.

[ward919]

34. You forget Iraq was a sovereign nation. that was attacked by Israel

unprovoked in 1986. Any nation has a right to weapons to defend itsself.

[Trek234]

43. "Why would Saddam need convential arms?"

Most ignorant question of the year.

[toska]

25. Tubes = Spare missle parts

One of the articles I read several months ago mentioned that the tubes were the exact size needed to be spare parts for one of their allowed missle systems.

Sorry that I can't remember where it was from.

[htuttle]

8. Oh, fer cryin out loud...

Why did he hide the 'centrifuge parts'? Well, we do know that he was paid a fair amount of money as a reward for digging them up for us, right? In any US city, if the police announce on the news that they are looking for someone, etc... they often get a whole lot of kooks, hoaxes, etc they have to filter out.

If you offer a huge reward for information, you're going to get a lot of people who give you a whole lot of nothing for the reward, right?

Regarding the aluminum tubes/shotgun analogy:

When the UN atomic inspectors were told about the 'aluminum tubes', they said, "They are going to use THOSE for centrifuges? Let them try!" Apparently, they were completely unsuitable for use in a uranium centrifuge. Completely wrong dimensions, etc...

To use your analogy, what we are being told, in effect, is that they wanted to use a spork to kill their wife -- while it's almost possible to use a spork for such a thing, it's completely unsuitable for the task.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

11. ya got any idea how pricey such tubes might be?

it doesn't take much speculation to arrive at a number of motivations for stashing even marginally valuable stuff in such an environment...

[Star]

17. Not hiding the tubes

I don't see anything in the article that says Obeidi was hiding the tubes. He had buried centrifuge parts and documents, and gave information about the tubes.

[MidwestTransplant]

36. They were meant for missiles. Didn't want the inspectors to take them.

Pretty much every expert I have seen acknowledges that the strength of the tubes weren't sufficient for a centrofuge.

[Trek234]

42. Such an american view

Yes, I am sure local bought and payed for by Saddam garbage service will just come for it and pick it up, then take it to the also bought and payed for garbage dump.

If you can think outside of your american box for a minute realize that not all nations have garbage service to do things FOR you. In many it is common to bury trash near your residence.

[indictrichardperle]

2. Scientists and Engineers

debunked that OSP horseshit months ago.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8367

Here is VIPS latest interview, where the aluminum tubes fraud, and much more are discussed. Im sure, there is an impeachable offense on just about every speech and address * , Sneering Dick, Condi and Rummy made.

[Wonk]

6. Wasn't aluminum tubes under a rose bush. Those were centrifuge parts.

Try not to get the two stories confused.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/



"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
-- GWB, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002

http://westchesterweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:25141




The vast bulk of the scientific opinion - including the view of the Energy Department, which has the task of making US nukes - is that these tubes were for the containers of explosives used in multiple rocket launchers.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/196/oped/The_dirty_route_to_war+.shtml


http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/07/17_march.html

[Ponderer]

9. Again, why does he need explosives used in multiple rocket launchers?

These links being provided only raise more questions and do not prove that Iraq was not pursuing WMD.

[htuttle]

12. And you haven't proved you aren't still beating your wife, Sir

There is no need to prove that Iraq was not pursuing WMD.

There IS a need to prove that they HAD sanctioned weapons in such quantities as to pose a threat to the United States.

That need has not been met.

[Ponderer]

18. OK, you do make a point

Personally, I believe that Iraq was pursuing WMD. I do not believe they had it though since they're a piece of shit third world country.

I reckon you're saying that they had to have WMD to pose a threat to the US. That may be adequate justification to oppose this war, but I still believe something had to be done to compel Saddam Hussein from getting too belligerent.

[htuttle]

27. But that's not enough

The United Nations did not accept 'keeping Saddam Hussein from getting too belligerent' as an adequate justification for war.

The United Nations is the accepted, legal, global authority for determining whether the use of military force is criminal or not.

One of the justifications that is allowed BY the United Nations is the use of military force is under Article 51, which essentially boils down to self-defense, or 'pre-emption' in self-defense. Pre-emption means that an attack on your country is imminent, and you basically counter-attack right before they attack you. That is acceptable.

However, attacking another country because they might turn out to be a threat sometime in the future is NOT acceptable, and is criminal and deserving of sanction, according to the UN.

It's no use arguing the philosophical aspects of the United Nations Charter -- it's a legal document, and we signed it (and wrote much of it, btw), so the law is the law. We can try to change the law, but we shouldn't break it. At least that's what the law would say.

According to Article VI of the US Consitution, treaties signed by a President and ratified by Congress carry the full force of law, on a level with legislation passed by Congress, and the Constitution itself.

Therefore, the law says that some sort of action must be taken against the party who acted illegally, ie., the United States, and more specifically, the Bush administration.

To not act would mean a return to international barbarism, unchecked by any pretense of the rule of law, not to mention the complete loss of trust the rest of the world will have in our ability to keep our promises (which is what a treaty is, after all).

[Ponderer]

31. The UN does not have that role

The UN plays an advisory role in international politics.

What about all the wars in the Cold War and Kosovo/Bosnia that did not have the UN's backing?

[htuttle]

35. Actually, it has far more than an advisory role

It's just that the US gets away with a lot of shit, because we have a veto on the Security Council (and could probably count on the UK, and their veto, backing our voting positions up).

We've engaged in a number of illegal wars, and actually have a couple of international legal judgments against us that we've basically been ignoring (like the fine we're supposed to pay for mining Nicaragua's harbors).

In Kosovo/Bosnia, I believe the United Nations appointed NATO to perform the peacekeeping role (for part of it, but not sure if for all of it).

Here's a brief rundown of the last 50 years:
Korean War: Legal
Vietnam War: Illegal. Gulf of Tonkin under which Article 51 was invoked was faked.
Panama: Illegal
Nicaraguan Contras/Bay of Pigs/Various Latin American Coups: Illegal, illegal, illegal
Grenada: Illegal
Gulf War 1: Marginal. Kuwait supposedly asked for our help under Article 51. At least they tried....
Afghanistan: It was sort of legal. Afghanistan was already in the midst of a civil war. The United States basically came into the existing war on the side of the United Nations recognized government of President Rabbani against the Taliban.
Iraq: Illegal

[MASSAFRA]

30. Alright

The aluminum tubes could not be use to enrich uranium, and this was know last year. Even though the Bush minions appeared on TV yelling at the tops of their lungs that they could only be used for this purpose.
There is no proof of WMD or a program to produce them (chemical, biological or nuclear).
There is no proof that Iraq had anything to do with the events of 9-11.
Since there was no threat to the United States from Iraq what was the reason for a pre-emptive war (an invasion)?
Saddam was not a nice guy. There are a lot of people out there that can be classified as "bad".
To bring democracy to the people of Iraq. What about outer counties, are we going to attack Cuba, China, North Korea ect. ect.
The United States used an immentent threat from Iraq as a pre-tense to invade another country. This is similar to the ploy used by Hitler to invade Poland. Germany winning the invasion did not make them right. The German people did not care much since they had won.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

32. "...they're a piece of shit third world country..."...nice attitude there

[ze_dscherman]

45. Mind your language

Thinking and saying
"They're a piece of shit third world country."
is exactly what has brought the U.S. into the mess they are in.

Have you ever wondered why all these countries would seek for nuclear weapons that only make military sense as deterrent?
Could they feel in danger of countries that look down on them as piece of shit third world (or arab) countries?

And anyhow, Iraq has not been third world, at least not before all these wars.

[FubarFly]

13. To use in multiple rocket launchers. Duh.

No one said Saddam was a good man. We are just pointing out that he wasn't trying to reconstitute a NUCLEAR weapons program. And shrub used this evidence to say that he did. Capiche?

[Ponderer]

15. Convential weapons kill people too

This doesn't seem to be as black and white as some people want to make it out to be.

[FubarFly]

19. No one is trying to disagree with that assertion.

However, it is off topic.

[NYC]

21. Do you remember the long war with Iran?

Iraq had reason to have weapons. I suppose every country has reason.

You say the articles do not prove that Saddam H. didn't have WMD. But they also don't prove that he did.

[LiberalFighter]

37. One of the main points of bush* statements

Is that Saddam/Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction.

That is a different from HAS.

Just like Saddam/Iraq has a program for WMD only means they have plans but haven't initiated the step needed to begin construction.

They may have done research but the question to ask is when did they do the research... how much of it was completed... and more importantly when did it stop and why.

[hang a left]

10. thank you

for pointing that out, I was just gonna post

[caledesi]

29. Yes, Scott Ritter FRIED Wolfie on this "discovery"...

[dArKeR]

40. There's no way those could have been buried in the ground for 10 years

Those are the one's the Iraqi Nuclear head buried in his back yard, right? Look how shinny they are.

Anyway, I did see the report of the one's he had buried and they were just as shinny. Impossible. No oxidation-reduction after 10 years in the ground! Wake up media whores.

http://darker0darker.tripod.com/

[dArKeR]

41. Second Bush statement on Iraq debunked - TGM better title

A key Iraqi scientist recently told the CIA high-strength aluminum tubes bought by Iraq weren't meant for nuclear bomb production, as U.S. President George W. Bush suggested in his State of the Union address, two experts on Iraq's nuclear program said.

Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, who headed a uranium-enrichment unit vital to Iraq's pre-1991 bomb plans, "also said that since '91 they hadn't resurrected a nuclear weapon program," said former weapons inspector David Albright, a U.S. physicist who acted as go-between for Obeidi to talk with U.S. authorities a few weeks ago.

http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030717.wbush717/BNStory/International/

http://darker0darker.tripod.com/

[Trek234]

44. Hmmm

"Impossible. No oxidation-reduction after 10 years in the ground! "

Impossible depending on what it is composed of. Looks metalic - and if it is some metals do not visibly change much if at all over 10 years in the ground.

Not that I believe the evil centrifuge story.

[Yentatelaventa]

16. Well that settles it

The only thing better would be a signed statement by Saddam admitting the tubes were innocent.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

23. I'd prefer a signed statement by Smirko admitting that he's been lying

...a signed statement, sorta like a plea-bargain agreement...

[NYC]

26. What a happy thought.

Thank you. :hi:

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

20. This is news?

The existence of the tubes was known about by the inspectors in Iraq just before the U.S. Invasion. They said they could not be used for nuclear weapons.

[NYC]

24. Yes, these are the same tubes again.

I recycle newspapers. Bush & Co. recycle news.

[caledesi]

28. This a joke....

The case of the aluminum tubes is significant because President Bush identified it during a speech last year as evidence of Iraq's nuclear weapons program and used it to rally the public and several U.N. countries in supporting the war. But Albright said many officials in the intelligence community knew the tubes weren't meant to build a nuclear weapon.

"The CIA has concluded that these tubes were specifically manufactured for use in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium," Albright said. "Many in the expert community both inside and outside government, however, do not agree with this conclusion. The vast majority of gas centrifuge experts in this country and abroad who are knowledgeable about this case reject the CIA's case and do not believe that the tubes are specifically designed for gas centrifuges. In addition, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have consistently expressed skepticism that the tubes are for centrifuges."

"After months of investigation, the administration has failed to prove its claim that the tubes are intended for use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge program," Albright added. "Despite being presented with evidence countering this claim, the administration persists in making misleading comments about the significance of the tubes."

Albright said he tried to voice his concerns about the intelligence information to White House officials last year, but was rebuffed and told to keep quiet.

More: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold6.html

F*cking liars. All of them and people are dying every day, for what? For what?

[Star]

33. For the New World Order

unfortunately.

[revcarol]

39. For your info, a Republican SENATOR said the tubes proved the case

about nuclear weapons on the Senate floor today!!('bout dropped ;my teeth!!) As did those canvas covered mobile weapons labs...and the "many" centrifuges(Wasn't there just one under that rose bush?)...he failed to mention the balsa wood drones, though.

They are sooooo sick, those repugs.