Americans find key component to Iraqi nuclear program

[irishmick79]

You guys must be getting soft. This has been reported hours ago by CNN, and I thought that there would be an intense discussion brewing already among the denziens of SD.net.

Anyways, the Central Intelligence Agency now has in it's posseession (apparently) a centrifuge that the Iraqis developed, and and later hid, designed to help them build a nuclear weapon. The Iraqis apparently weren't as focused on developing their weapons programs as Republicans would have us believe, but it certainly does seem like the Iraqi government went to great lengths to decieve the rest of the international community, and to cover up the true extent of their weapons programs.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

How long before the claims of "planting evidence" come forth?
This discovery comes as no surprise, only the timing. I was expecting more time to be needed.


I'm waiting for "Itz the jooz"

[Balrog]

Depends on how many radical anti-war/bush people come forth

Well, at least we're getting some evidence

[Hamel]

We'll see if this equipment was used for what warmongers are saying it was used for. It may be yet another load of BS from the administration, just like everything before it.

[phongn]

We'll see if this equipment was used for what warmongers are saying it was used for. It may be yet another load of BS from the administration, just like everything before it.

Hamel, there aren't many uses for a gas centrifuge, IIRC, other than for enrichment of nuclear material. Anyone else know if there's other uses?

[Perinquus]

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:26 pm

How long before the claims of "planting evidence" come forth?

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:38 pm

We'll see if this equipment was used for what warmongers are saying it was used for. It may be yet another load of BS from the administration, just like everything before it.

12 minutes.

(I grant you, not exactly an accusation of planting, but certainly of misrepresenting, which is the next best thing.)

[weemadando]

Strange, despite listening to BBC World, ABC NewsRadio and watching Le Journal today I haven't seen or heard squat diddly about this.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Some things a man hates being right about.
Like "This is REALY going to hurt."

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

MSNBC, and CNN are both running it.
I'm lazy and go to The Drudge Report.

[phongn]

Strange, despite listening to BBC World, ABC NewsRadio and watching Le Journal today I haven't seen or heard squat diddly about this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3021612.stm

[phongn]

Here's Google News's list of articles on the subject.

[TheDarkling]

The scientist had been hiding the materiel since 1991, this isn't proof of Saddam having an active WMD program only that he had one in 91, yes it does show that instead of destroying the stuff he hid it but since he hasn't used it again it indicates that he abandoned plans to reuse that equipment.

This WMD angle is getting desperate, they should just say "hey we freed some people and waxed a bad guy" and then do something similar in Africa to prove it wasn't about oil.

[weemadando]

So, according to the man who handed them in, these "components and documents related to Iraq's nuclear programme" have been buried in his garden since the start of the first Gulf War in '91?

And this is evidence of an ongoing programme HOW?

Particularly seeing as the CIA spokesman said: "He was holding these, awaiting the order to restart the nuclear programme, and it never came,"

---

The documents cache interests me, but reports are VERY vague and thus far, IMO unsubstantiated by either statements or physical evidence.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

yes it does show that instead of destroying the stuff he hid it but since he hasn't used it again it indicates that he abandoned plans to reuse that equipment.

Of course he had plans to. That's why he hid it. He would have started the program as soon as it was safe to do so; that was his goal in ending the inspections--so that he could resume work in building a WMD arsenal.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hamel, there aren't many uses for a gas centrifuge, IIRC, other than for enrichment of nuclear material. Anyone else know if there's other uses?

If there's another use I've also never heard of it other then uranium enrichment. Enriched uranium has a rather narrow list of uses as well.

[Drewcifer]

Everything I've read about Iraq's nuclear weapons program was that it all ended in '91.

[Perinquus]

Everything I've read about Iraq's nuclear weapons program was that it all ended in '91.

Then why wasn't that equipment either turned over, or why wasn't proof of its destruction given to the U.N. weapons inspectors. Saddam was obligated to do these things under the treaty which ended the First Gulf War. It was his responsibility to cooperate. Even if he hadn't done anything with this equipment since '91, the fact remains that it's just the type of thing he quite simply was not supposed to have. And as long as he did have it, he always had the option of restarting his nuclear program. That's not an option he was supposed to be allowed to have. Why didn't he cooperate and turn it over?

[Drewcifer]

Then why wasn't that equipment either turned over, or why wasn't proof of its destruction given to the U.N. weapons inspectors...Why didn't he cooperate and turn it over?

I personally don't know, but I would guess that:

A) He just plain old didn't want to. An ace up his sleeve, so to speak, for later use.

B) Any Iraqi scientist having any knowledge of their nuclear program was made fully aware that his or her life (and extended family's) depended on their keeping things very, very secret. If knowledge had slipped out to the world at large then, we would have probably seen U.S. tanks in Baghdad in '91.

Too, iirc, the program ended in '91 because many of the facilities were destroyed.

[Drewcifer]

Edit:

Too, iirc, the program ended in '91 because many of the facilities were destroyed...

...by Coalition bombing.

[Sea Skimmer]

Edit:

Too, iirc, the program ended in '91 because many of the facilities were destroyed...

...by Coalition bombing.

The first strike on the main Iraqi nuclear research installation involved no less then forty F-16's. However smoke screens combine with huge berms made target ID impossible so only two planes dropped. A few days later ten F-117's make a surprise attack and leveled every building.

However when UN inspectors first arrived it was clear that the rubble had been bulldozed and dispersed, then piled back together. We can't be sure of what the Iraqi's removed from the debris and its things like that that caused the inspections to fail. The Iraqis where not suppose to simply open up the country for the UN to look around, they where suppose to actively provide information and direct the inspectors to the sites, which would then be destroyed under UN supervision. That was another part of the deal, nothing was to be destroyed without first being viewed by inspectors. Neither happened, leaving a few hundred people to search some 4000 sites.

[weemadando]

Everything I've read about Iraq's nuclear weapons program was that it all ended in '91.

Then why wasn't that equipment either turned over, or why wasn't proof of its destruction given to the U.N. weapons inspectors. Saddam was obligated to do these things under the treaty which ended the First Gulf War. It was his responsibility to cooperate. Even if he hadn't done anything with this equipment since '91, the fact remains that it's just the type of thing he quite simply was not supposed to have. And as long as he did have it, he always had the option of restarting his nuclear program. That's not an option he was supposed to be allowed to have. Why didn't he cooperate and turn it over?

I'm just putting it out there - but maybe, just maybe - this stash of stuff was "forgotten". Records of where it was hidden destroyed in the bombing, or those who had hidden it killed... Maybe everyone had genuinely forgotten its existance with the exception of one Saddam loyalist who now turns it over in exchange for asylum and a nice condo somewhere.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm just putting it out there - but maybe, just maybe - this stash of stuff was "forgotten". Records of where it was hidden destroyed in the bombing, or those who had hidden it killed... Maybe everyone had genuinely forgotten its existance with the exception of one Saddam loyalist who now turns it over in exchange for asylum and a nice condo somewhere.

It is certainly possibul. However such a device is a fair sized and very important and expensive piece of equipment, I doubt there would be just one set of records. Anyway, the UN did find out about several catches of equipment buried from that research lab earlier so clearly some other people did remember or records existed.

[Vympel]

This isn't evidence, and they've admitted it themselves. There was absolutely no evidence in 02-03 that Iraq had restarted working on such weapons, that Iraq could build such weapons (witness the falsified uranium report from Niger) with the sanctions regime in place. In short, the imminent threat from Iraq has still not been shown to exist- and without showing such an imminent threat, not a single person in any position of power would've been able to seriously advocate going to war with Iraq (as one hawkish commentator put it: "we are not in the business of militarily liberating all the world's oppressed")

Assembled, the components would not be useful in making much uranium. Hundreds of centrifuges are necessary to make enough to construct a nuclear weapon in such programs (so says Fox News, anyway- I was doing my daily propaganda check).

[NecronLord]

I'm still waiting for Blair's '45 minute capability'. Hot dang building a nuke in 45 minutes from buried parts and delivering it is pretty impressive. Why isn't this guy working for us (the west) yet?

[Vympel]

I'm still waiting for Blair's '45 minute capability'. Hot dang building a nuke in 45 minutes from buried parts and delivering it is pretty impressive. Why isn't this guy working for us (the west) yet?

He's getting absolutely cooked for that- the British press is a lot less cowardlly than the American mainstream press.

''American journalism: Objectivity and reverence''
Printed on Thursday, June 26, 2003 @ 00:05:28 CDT

By Matthew Riemer
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – A June 6th conversation on the National Public Radio news show On the Media between host Brooke Gladstone and guests Bill Falk and Jeremy O'Grady, executive editors of the American and British editions of The Week, highlighted important differences between American and British journalism, and, more importantly, the sad state of affairs currently being experienced by the American version of the discipline.

Jeremy O'Grady, representing Britain's edition of The Week, remarked that American journalists display a reverence for the government and are often afraid to question the official line, while British journalists are more skeptical and irreverent. As an instructive case in point, O'Grady pointed to a piece by New York Times columnist Judith Miller that was essentially sanctioned by the Pentagon: a flimsy article, based entirely on anonymous sources and Pentagon hearsay, seemingly printed to keep the hopes alive of those who believe that huge stores of WMD are still going to be unearthed in Iraq and to artificially buoy the validity of the Bush administration's rhetoric. To O'Grady, such a story reeked of professional coziness the likes of which a Brit would never endure.

American journalism also seems to believe in a theoretical yet attainable state of objectivity and strictly segregated formats governing the presentation of opinion and fact -- that, in a way, journalism is more of a science that can be practiced very exactly, not a profession of inherent bias. The Brit is less afraid of opinion and more naturally embraces slant and agendas as part and parcel of the journalistic, historical process surrounding the recounting of events.

Bill Falk observed: "Here when you enter into the New York Times or the Washington Post, it's entering into a cathedral. Journalists -- particularly the commentators and the named journalists are the high priests of the profession, and we worship the truth, and there's this sense that in our country that the truth is a quantifiable, objective deity that you can put borders around and say well this is the truth and that's opinion."

Such observations touch upon just a few of the characteristics that make-up a larger social and cultural phenomenon that acts as a kind of "default setting" for American journalism -- those foundational, philosophical and moral beliefs that are used to divine what has come to be perceived by a majority as the "truth" or "objectivity."

This "default setting" is best defined by simply stating its most common, and largely tacit, assumptions.


Democracy and capitalism are the ultimate realizations of political and economic systems. This is arguably the bedrock of American journalism. This belief commonly manifests itself in the distrust and marginalization of any person or country that is neither and a hyper-reverence for anything that is.
The United States is the rightful enforcer of global order. The fact that the U.S. wanders the globe establishing a military presence essentially anywhere it wishes, policing and disciplining small countries that commit the smallest offence, and consistently offending the sovereignty and cultural identity of host nations is never questioned on its face. It is allowable to debate "how" this process should proceed, but never its very existence or legal or political basis.
The world needs to be helped by the U.S. This assumption is quite nuanced because the real meaning is not that those under duress need emotional and material aid to get back on their feet again (charity, assistance) but that much of the world is a "failure," and because of this the U.S. is compelled, though reluctantly, to straighten them out. So this "help" isn't the giving of food to a poor country (of course, this is done, but only along with subsidies) but instead is the overthrow of a government seen undesirable by Washington. Such a philosophy is perfectly captured by Henry Kissinger's comments regarding Chile, "I don't see why we should have to stand by and let a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." Very rarely do corporate journalists ask, "What right do we have to be there in the first place?"
The process known innocuously as "globalization" (really, in economic terms, a kind of global and fully deregulated, free-market capitalism) is at once beneficial, in fact needed by the communities of the world, and an egalitarian system of modernization. To argue that "globalization" is a class sensitive benefactor -- enriching the rich and weakening the poor -- or to question its legitimacy or long-term economical soundness is anathema to American media. Of course, to challenge globalization is essentially to challenge capitalism.
America knows best. Regardless of who is involved, how distant the land or the people, or the actual stake the American people have in a given "crisis" or "situation," the United States government is the sole, most reputable, and most complete source of enlightenment on the subject. This assumption is highlighted by both the American media's and American people's general distrust, if not open contempt, for virtually all foreign governments and foreign media. (This is also partially caused by the overt rise in nationalism over the past two years.)
Imperialism is a thing of the past and no longer exists even in a hybridized form. This is perhaps the most laughable of all the assumptions that one must be so careful not to disrupt in polite conversation.
These attributes saturate current American journalism and are the reason many journalists, news agencies, and people around the world take the American media less and less seriously and strongly question its impartiality -- especially when American commentators and journalists speak so profoundly of the truth and objectivity while throwing around supposed facts from the Pentagon or State Department so carelessly.

Later in the interview, O'Grady remarked that "But I don't think it's objectivity versus commentary, though I think that distinction does exist within the press, but I don't think it's the relevant distinction here. I think it's much more reverence versus irreverence, in fact. I think there's a -- there's an irreverent tradition here where there is much more likelihood that a journalist will not take the official line."

Regarding WMD he said, "...there were quite a lot of facts which could have been uncovered with greater diligence, I suspect. Now what happened I think in the mainstream of reporting over here, and by all accounts your side of the pond as well, was that there wasn't much attempt to highlight the dubious nature of these facts which is not part of commentary but part of the reporting of facts as facts. What I perceive to be the difference is an attitude of mind towards the reporting of facts -- reverence versus irreverence."

These comments begin to explain the situation with American journalism: objectivity has become reverence. It's as if an unspoken rule is that any decent journalist should just accept what the United States government public relations branch tells them and that to openly or conspicuously question what one is being told crosses into "advocacy journalism" -- even when what one is being told is absolute nonsense. This, combined with a dogmatic view of "the truth" and the paranoia surrounding the concept of "opinion," has led to the phenomenon of American news outlets sincerely believing they are fair, balanced, and objective without interjecting any spin or bias, when, in fact, they are bastions of advocacy, selectivity, and slant. As a complement to this, it's a frequently employed technique to label counter arguments or views as "opinion."

In this light, then, there is a strong parallel with Washington's foreign policy, as both American journalism and foreign policy seem to exude a distinct air of infallibility accompanied by an even more marked contempt for the opinions of organizations and individuals who conceptualize and think differently.

With each botched story the American media runs in its attempt to titillate and scare viewers -- from dozens of misleading reports about WMD to the Jessica Lynch rescue fiasco -- the further down the drain the reputation and credibility of American journalism will continue to plunge.