Speaking of Oak Ridge
America’s in perennial pursuit of ideologies: Warfare waged with galactic levels of baggage & bullshit bolstered by:
opinions lightly adopted but firmly held . . . forged from a combination of ignorance, dishonesty, and fashion
— Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom
For instance:
You’ve probably heard of yellowcake: How about uranium hexafluoride?
Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? Never mind this story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot. How so?
How I’d love to live in a world where you’d ask not out of party-line pursuits — but because it’s on the trail to the truth.
When you make up your mind on lickety-split perception alone: In what parallel universe does that qualify as critical thinking? Ann Baker’s article beautifully captures what critical thinking is and is not:
Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.
My surgical specificity in this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone.
Trillion Dollar Tube
To take a story this complex and convoluted and boil its essence down to a few minutes was no small feat:
Imagine what I did with 160
“There is no skimming over the surface of a subject with [Hamilton]. He must sink to the bottom to see what foundation it rests on.”
— Major William Pierce (Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton)
Wouldn’t it be absurd to share that quote if my clip contained nothing but trite talking points? Some circles are not burdened by squaring their walk with their talk. They seem to think that advertising virtue equates to embodying it.
D.O.E’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of “rough indication.” And since the entire point of testing should be to replicate the conditions of centrifuges, one would think that the full-blown testing would be performed before the N.I.E. was completed.
Out of 31 tubes in subsequent testing, only one was successfully spun to 90,000 RPM for 65 minutes — which the C.I.A. seized on as evidence in their favor.
One D.O.E. analyst offered a superb analogy of that contorted conclusion: “Running your car up to 6,500 RPM briefly does not prove that you can run your car at 6,500 RPM cross country. It just doesn’t. Your car’s not going to make it.”
In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, these guys were playing horseshoes with centrifuge physics . . .
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
One of Sowell’s Finest of Followers:
As any proper scientist can explain to you, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence OR mathematical certainty
Well, since I interviewed a world-renowned nuclear scientist (on a topic you have yet to even acknowledge): Perhaps we should discuss what HE said:
Instead of “any proper scientist” as the arbiter of truth?
If only you’d laid it all out exactly as I like it — then I’d abide by the principles I preach
Is that how it works?
That’s about the size of it. I guess I figured that if you didn’t understand something — you’d try this on for size, but I’m old-fashioned that way:
Einstein borrowed from the one below:
The worth of man lies not in the truth which he possesses, or believes that he possesses, but in the honest endeavor which he puts forth to secure that truth; for not by the possession of, but by the search after, truth, are his powers enlarged, wherein, alone, consists his ever-increasing perfection. Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.
— Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
As in — not this:
I tend to believe Thomas Sowell. He is brilliant and has worked at a think tank for about 40 years. Sources matter! Yours is from a concerned citizen.
That — is “possession”: Fostering content, indolence, pride, and far worse.
This concerned citizen interviewed a world-renowned nuclear scientist, corresponded with the key physicist who wrote extensively on the tubes, along with correspondence with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR):
Powell’s very own intelligence agency that he conveniently ignored.
INR stuck to its old-fashioned ways by agreeing with DOE:
Ya know, the actual experts!
The road to reality is blocked by detours designed to keep you going in circles. Purveyors of poppycock reroute you with narratives that avoid detail like Black Death. The way out is to start with an inconsistency or two that’s narrow in scope — and take the trail where it leads. To ascertain the truth on any topic: If you’ve got something concrete to go on — that’s your point of entry. By all means, keep the door open in every direction. But by nailing down the definitive first, it paves a clearer path to all the rest.
This country does the exact opposite on everything — lumping it all together and never even approaching where you should have started in the first place:
This chart is misleading in several respects . . . Beams centrifuge never actually worked . . . We can infer . . .
Sounds pretty sloppy to me . . .
Perhaps we should have a conversation to clear up what all this means on issues that have eroded reason beyond recognition?
Never mind this . . .
Not to mention this
Speaking of sleight of hand . . .
The administration had its hands on 60,000 tubes, and yet not one of them was presented by Powell at the U.N. According to HUBRIS, they scrapped the idea of displaying a tube — since Powell would be holding up the one piece of evidence that was most in dispute.
— Richard W. Memmer: Prologue
There was even talk of Powell holding up one of the tubes for dramatic effect. But a veteran communications strategist in the room balked. “If you do that, it will be on the front page of every paper the next day,” noted Anna Perez, Condoleezza Rice’s chief of communications.
“Do you really want to do that?” Perez had a feel for these things; she had worked for Walt Disney, Chevron, and a top Hollywood talent agency.
This would, she thought, be an awkward visual. Powell would be holding up the one piece of evidence that was most in dispute. Everybody would focus on that. The idea was scrapped.
Think about that!
You’ve got 60,000 of ’em:
But rather than put a single sample of your hard evidence on display for all the world to see . . .
You put it a PowerPoint?
And it just makes me laugh that they tossed that tape measure in there for effect (particularly because it’s the wall thickness that’s of paramount importance). The sheer sloppiness of it all — it’s just pathetic. I’ll put my presentations in COM 101 against this crap any day. But strictly speaking — purely on the principles of persuasive speech:
Since their goal was to manipulate the masses — she was spot-on by concealing what they displayed.
Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate and there never was.
They just made it up:
Red Team Paper: Nevertheless, by September 2001, the matter had more or less been settled. There was no serious debate within the intelligence community. One stubborn WINPAC analyst does not constitute a debate.
Richard W. Memmer: Then 9/11 happened — and whad’ya know, the tubes were resurrected.
— Act I
“Compared to What?”
Contrast Sowell’s loose language of “various nations‘ intelligence agencies” (and anything he said on the subject) — with the specificity of mine:
Speaking of Common Sense:
Oh, How Birds of a Feather Flock Together!
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
And this one . . .
Associated Press, October 3rd, 2004: Rice said she learned of objections by the Energy Department only after making her 2002 comments.
Richard W. Memmer: Are we to believe that the National Security Advisor of the United States was unaware of an intelligence dispute of this magnitude that had been going on for well over a year?
One Congressional investigator went so far as to call it a holy war. And doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that she didn’t bother consulting the D.OE. before serving up images of a nuclear detonation?
— Act II
Holy War
Mr. Sowell:
Could you tell me why the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) — got an equal say on the aluminum tubes for the NIE vote?
An agency that does imagery analysis of the Earth . . .
Same for NSA and other agencies that had no expertise in centrifuge physics. And why wasn’t JAEIC allowed to weigh in?
What’s JAEIC? Allow me:
DAVID ALBRIGHT (RWM): An alternative method to resolve this conflict would have been for the DCI to ask for the judgment of the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee (JAEIC for short) which is officially part of the [National Intelligence Estimate] process.
JAEIC has been a standing DCI technical intelligence committee for several decades.
WASHINGTON POST (April 1st, 2005): The CIA refused to convene the government’s authoritative forum for resolving technical disputes about nuclear weapons. JAEIC proposed twice — in the spring and summer of 2002 — to assess all the evidence.
The CIA’s front office replied that the CIA was not ready to discuss its position.
RICHARD W. MEMMER: For a year and a half the C.I.A. was ready enough to shovel its certitude to the White House. Turner was ready enough to arrogantly dismiss the conclusions of all the world’s top centrifuge scientists.
And yet somehow the C.I.A. was never ready enough to openly debate the issue.
DAVID ALBRIGHT (RWM): This polarized debate was formalized, but not resolved, in October 2002 with the NIE. In this process, roughly ten intelligence agencies each had one vote, which pitted one agency against the other in a drive for a majority, vote.
RICHARD W. MEMMER: Only DOE and INR dissented. The CIA won a majority vote with agencies that had no business being involved in the discussion — which is where Colin Powell’s empty assertion of “most U.S. experts” came from. What does satellite surveillance and phone tapping have to do with centrifuge science?
Even the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency got an equal say on the aluminum tubes — an agency that does imagery analysis of the Earth.
Take note of how this trite & trendy language is strikingly in sync with Sowell’s:
CIA is not the all knowing God of the Bible. The CIA could do everything 100% correct but still not know everything.
There’s another reason why they wouldn’t know everything: Nuclear scientists don’t work there — they work at the Department of Energy.
And that — is what this is all about:
You’d know that had you watched Trillion Dollar Tube instead of trying to educate me on things you know nothing about. Engineering the NIE vote paints the picture all the more, but my surgical specificity in this clip puts this lie in its place in less than 5 minutes. Just a few minutes of your life to open your eyes on lies you’ve spent decades spreading.
Trillion Dollar Tube
Note:
I modified the Intelligence Community image below by overlaying CIA on top of Director of National Intelligence — to show how the IC effectively operated pre-9/11 and before DCI took center stage.
And that — is how the CIA rigged the NIE with the majority-rules vote I explained above.
INR (Powell’s very own intel agency):
Backed DOE (the only real experts on this issue). They were outvoted by totally unqualified agencies (under pressure from CIA).
If that doesn’t raise any eyebrows, what would?
The A-Team
Expert, amateur, or anything in between:
If you’re following the facts — seems like you’d take the trail to the most obvious place it would go: To see what two of the foremost experts on the planet had to say . . .
Dr. Wood and the late Dr. Zippe talking tubes:
Half the country took the word of professional know-it-alls over nuclear scientists. And when your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:
Shrewd!
Preach Responsibility and Take None!
You can’t seem to comprehend that I don’t care what damage the truth inflicts upon politicians of any brand. I have this crazy idea that across-the-board accountability is always in the best interests of the nation.
As for my frustration — I have this thing about people who regurgitate nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that counters their baseless beliefs.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
I defy you to find a single instance of anyone on the Right even attempting to make an argument on the dimensions, material, and quantity of the tubes. You’ll be lucky to find them mentioned at all. You think it’s just a coincidence that all the “arguments” on the Right just happen to follow the same pattern:
Conveniently leaving out the marquee claim on a mushroom cloud?
That — all by itself, speaks volumes:
To anyone who thinks world-altering wars are more important than whining about websites that expose painfully obvious lies, anyway.
“And now, even now” . . .
The cat . . . TOTALLY out of the BAG!
Matching Scarborough’s record:
The only time Hannity ever uttered the words “aluminum tubes” was in defense of Condoleezza Rice over the cartoon of her nursing the tubes:
Clearly the image was racist, but I would think that her record of titanic deception would be of more concern. Hannity’s co-host Alan Colmes brought up the tubes 9 times between January 29th, 2003 and December 12th, 2005 (8 of which were in Hannity’s presence).
In each instance Hannity ignored the inquiry or deflected attention elsewhere. But what did Colmes expect with generic statements like: “We were misled about aluminum tubes.”?
— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV
[Bill O’Reilly]: A passionate observer shares his way of preserving one of our most cherished freedoms — to pursue the truth, no matter how tough the issue, through honest, open, and unflinching discussion.”
— Parade
“Parade” — how fitting!
Explained in Part 3 of Between Sowell’s Words and Mine — Which Ones Strike You as Glib? It’s complicated, but only because human nature goes out of its way to obfuscate the obvious.
On that note:
[The O’Reilly Factor is] a one-hour program that runs 5 days a week — and yet in its entire history, O’Reilly has never even uttered the words “aluminum tubes.”
It just doesn’t register with the likes of O’Reilly that what Clinton and Cohen thought is entirely irrelevant to the tubes — but smugly circulating invalid arguments is the way of the world now.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV
How do I know the numbers on O’Reilly and the rest?
I had access — to everything:
On this story:
10 pages of reading trumps 10,000 hours of TV — cable clans & broadcast to boot.
And that’s a fact — I did the math. Who cares about 10 pages when “you can’t believe everything you read”? Same standard to snub someone who’s read 10,000 — on world-altering affairs you snicker at. And I noticed “you can’t believe everything you read” only applies to words you don’t like. This isn’t guesswork, shooting from the hip, or hyperbole: I know, for an absolute fact — that O’Reilly never even uttered the words “aluminum tubes” on his show.
In another lifetime, we could acknowledge those things — and operate somewhere in the realm of sanity. Or at least agree on math — and I know the numbers! These professional know-it-alls breathlessly bitch about issues on a daily basis: And yet somehow on a matter of war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11 — they just forgot to mention the marquee evidence Powell presented to sell it? And the second a guest brought up the tubes, O’Reilly instantly shut down the discussion.
Red Light District
Citing outdated and generic claims from Democrats is an emotional response to outright reject opposing arguments in a wholesale manner.
THAT . . . is the epitome of spin — to engineer an illusion — to make you believe that something meaningless has substance.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV
Just what would it take for “O’Reilly never even uttered the words ‘aluminum tubes‘” to register as something worthy of consideration? This “passionate observer . . . pursuing the truth, no matter how tough the issue, through honest, open, and unflinching discussion”: Not only flagrantly failed to follow up on the issue — but he also went out of his way to obfuscate it even further in the clip that follows.
Somehow this purveyor of virtue managed to miss this while allowing the document to be deceitfully cited by another guest.
Then there’s this charade on the other side:
And Chris Matthews wasn’t any better. While the tubes were casually mentioned on HARDBALL over 40 times, not once were the dimensions discussed in any detail.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV
Equally disturbing is how Matthews absolved Colin Powell because he liked him:
Hardball — Give me a break!
DAVID CORN: Blame Colin Powell for believing that and still giving that speech. And now he’s seen as a wise man and the president courts him, networks court him, and we pay a lot of attention. But he knew when he took the job that he was there to be a front for these guys — and he served dutifully as that front.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think he knew that? . . . I still think he. . . I’m gonna defend him because I like him. He was a military guy thinking his job was to salute.
— Talking HUBRIS: March 22, 2013
The Good Soldier
Mr. Matthews, with that attitude you have no business hosting a show called HARDBALL. The Secretary is essential to the entire charade, and yet you give Powell a pass because of your — fondness for him?
Coddling Colin Powell is precisely the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act III
But Lawrence O’Donnell takes the cake in his 2011 interview of Condoleezza Rice — where he just fired off empty rhetoric that made for another pointless interview.
Mr. O’Donnell, you had NINE years of exhaustively-detailed material to work from — and the media’s history of failed interviews from which to recognize what doesn’t deliver answers.
And yet you didn’t ask a single question of substance.
In addition to interviewing world-renowned nuclear scientist, Dr. Houston Wood, I also corresponded with David Albright (the physicist above who wrote extensively on the tubes) — as well as Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Greg Thielmann said the following in 2013:
It will be up to Iraqis to debate whether their country now has a brighter future than it otherwise would have had without foreign invasion and occupation in the first decade of the new century. But it is uniquely incumbent on Americans to understand who and what were responsible for an enterprise that proved so costly in terms of U.S. lives lost, money spent, international reputation tarnished, and a campaign against al Qaeda diverted.
America just casually moved on . . .
I didn’t — as I knew then what few know now:
The immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong, understanding why, and looking to learn from it. And that not doing so — increasingly compounds the consequences of no accountability.
Look around!
You think the end justifies the means — I say your means make damn sure it will never end. I took a look-see for what others have said along those lines. Mine’s minor league compared to this:
