Talk:Iraqi aluminum tubes

Moved from main article

Maybe this info can be rewritten and added to a subsection of the main article. Its appears to belong in the article on "prewar inteligence" or on Rice herself, or belongs here as a discussion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

However, there are still some questions as to whether Ms. Rice was aware of these dissenting opinions. In a Senate review of pre-Iraq war intelligence in 2004, in the conclusion section concerning Iraq's nuclear capabilities, the following statement is made:

Conclusion 42. The Director of Central Intelligence was not aware of the views of all intelligence agencies on the aluminum tubes prior to September 2002 and, as a result, could only have passed the Central Intelligence Agency's view along to the President until that time. p. 56

And, also revealed in the review, the CIA's view was that "the tubes were probably intended for an Iraqi uranium enrichment centrifuge program" and that they “have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program.” p. 5

However, it is still in question as to whether or not Rice was only aware of the CIA's views. Though even this remains a shaky claim, as Rice's position was that of national security adviser, who's primary goal is serving on the National Security Council. Of course, at this time, the intelligence adviser to the National Security Council would, again, have been the Director of Central Intellgience Mr. Tenet, who was the director of the CIA at the time. Thus, the Council was likely only exposed to the CIA view just as had happened to Mr. Bush.

In any case, the aluminum tubes claim continues to be controversial, and it may never be entirely clear whether or not the Administration purposely misled in its claims.

I think this text should be included somewhere; subsection or not. I think it is worth letting the reader know of this information. Informing the reader of what Rice said and what the dissenting opinion of various other intelligence agencies at the time easily causes the reader to automatically assume that Rice deliberately misled the American people. But with this context, it is demonstrated that the situation is not quite this simple and is more complicated. If it can be reduced a bit to be a tad less POV, I think it's a totally appropriate addition.

Unless anyone objects, I think I found a solution. I simply took the removed text, changed it a bit for a more unbiased sounding account, and added it to the section about the Congressional Review, renaming the section from "Congessional Hearing" to "Congessional Hearing/Continuing Controversy." I think this keeps the article organized while still informing the reader of some vital information to the ongoing debate over aluminum tubes.

No objections at all. I think it looks great. I moved it to "Continuing Controversy" as its own heading, since the "Hearing" section is getting long. The new version of Adobe reader for Firefox works great. I can cut and past whole sections of pdf documents that I couldn't do just a few months ago.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

See the comment below. The CIA accurately reported to Congress that the Aluminum Tubes may have had other uses. The CIA had a majority view that the uses for enrichment were probably their intended purpose but the minority view that their primary use might be rocket bodies. What I don't know is if anyone in any of the other agencies said they couldn't be used for enrichment. All the information seems to be speculation that Iraq didn't have the capability to use them, rather than scientifically ruling them out. For example, the Tube O.D. was not the right size for equipment that Iraq had purchased in the 1980's. That doesn't rule out the tubes being used for enrichment but someone might conclude they were not useful to IRaq.--Tbeatty 20:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A rename would be sensible

This article perhaps should be renamed to something like Aluminum tubes (Iraq) or Aluminum tubes and atomic weapons in Iraq or something like this; the title as it stands now is misleading, since it does not tell you what the article is about. It rather suggests that it is about the technology of aluminum tubes as such (whether or not such a subject deserves an article on its own). Instead, it is about a particular piece of evidence that has to do with invasion of Iraq, and this should be reflected in the title. 131.111.8.97 00:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. John Broughton 18:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tbeatty 03:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Adding rename template, although what it should be renamed as I have not figured out, or else I would have moved it.--Bedford (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I too would like a rename, although perhaps for slightly different reasons. The metal in question is 'aluminium', not 'aluminum'; this latter is an American parochialism not shared by the rest of the English-speaking world, and it is merely a question of pronunciation. The etymological development of the word has occurred in isolation in the USA, and given that the article is in fact a discussion of the events surrounding the correct usage of technical items I think it would be best if those items were referred to by their correct names. BlackMarlin (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the conclusion needs some rewrite

I think it's clear that there was dissenting views in the CIA about the intended use (although like all the other agencies), the centrifuge use couldn't be ruled out. The report to congress shows the dissenting view of the intended use.

Also it seems some of the rest of the article confuses "intended use" with "possible use." I believe all the agencies agreed that these tubes could be made to enrich uranium. The discrepancy and controversy is whether they were intended for this purpose. --Tbeatty 03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing controversy

this section could use some work. the last line in this section is redundant. but the section leaves the reader stratching his/her head. it needs to be expanded and made more readable.Anthonymendoza 15:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to the Editors

You know why Wikipedia is awesome? You know why the authors of wikipedia are awesome? You know why you guys and gals who worked on this article are awesome?

Because a sap like me can be sitting somewhere out there in the world, get to thinking for a moment about "aluminum tubes," and go to wikipedia and type in "aluminum tubes," and find this article. Someone even went to the trouble to redirect "aluminum tubes" to "Iraqi aluminum tubes order."

So, thank you all very much. You're making the world a better place. 66.188.6.131 05:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tenet's Comments

In early 2001, Iraq had been caught trying to clandestinely procure sixty thousand high-strength aluminum tubes manufactured to extraordinary tight tolerances. The tubes were seized in the Middle East. The Iraqi agent tried in vain to get the tubes released, claiming they were to be used in Lebanon to make race car components. Whatever their intended use, under UN sanctions, Saddam was prohibited from acquiring the tubes for any purpose. All agencies agreed that these tubes could be modified to make centrifuge rotors used in a nuclear program. CIA analysts believed that these tubes were intended for the enrichment of uranium. Others thought they were intended to make rockets. To test the theory, CIA brought together a “red team” of highly experienced experts from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory—people who had actually built centrifuges. Their assessment was that the tubes were more suited for nuclear use than for anything else. The Department of Energy’s representative at the NFIB delivered his agency’s assessment that the tubes were probably not part of a nuclear program. He was not a technical expert, however, and, despite being given several opportunities, he was unable to explain the basis of his department’s view in anything approaching a convincing manner.

This would seem to cast some doubt on the conclusion from the DOE's study as the authors of the study were saying one thing and the DOE overseer was saying something contradictory. Thoughts? Hempbilly 14:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraqi aluminum tubes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205194352/http://abqtrib.com/news/2006/sep/11/wilson-i-probed-iraq-proof/ to http://abqtrib.com/news/2006/sep/11/wilson-i-probed-iraq-proof/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Iraqi aluminum tubes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020023106/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912223357/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/fox.htm to http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/fox.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930043217/https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html to https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101115185028/http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm to http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930152450/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec3.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930043217/https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html to https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)