Seems the New York Times has an October surpriseof its own. This story is 15 WEB PAGES LONG. Jesus. I'm using the Reuters summary of the Times story below to give you some quotes:
It referred to remarks by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in September 2002 in which she said the tubes, a shipment of which were intercepted in Jordan in June 2001, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."
The paper said that before she made the remarks, "she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all."
It said the Energy Department experts believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets, as Iraq itself maintained.
"Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists," the Times said, citing Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell by name.
"They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.
"The result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq," the paper said.
A White House spokeswoman had no immediate comment....
The times story said the theory that the tubes were intended for a centrifuge was largely promoted by one analyst at the CIA, a relatively junior staffer who had a background in mechanical engineering and operating U.S. centrifuges.
