IRAQ VET MISTREATED AT, "PEACE, " PROTEST
One of the shameful and disgusting memories of the Vietnam era was the treatment of our troops when they returned home. Many were spit upon, verbally abused and some were even physically assaulted by gangs of anti - war activists all in a form of protest against the Vietnam War. These actions were then and are still now inexcusable and this nation pledged NEVER to allow our service men and women to be demonized and mistreated again. That is until the peaceniks have once again shown their anti -war face in opposition to United States presence in Iraq.
Sean Hannity has been documenting on his radio and television program the story of Army Cpl. Joshua Sparling. Cpl. Sparling was severely wounded in battle in Iraq causing extensive damage to his leg and has been in Walter Reed Hospital in Washington since returning to the United States to recover from his wounds. Cpl. Sparling had been trying to save his leg and has experienced numerous surgeries and skin grafts to accomplish this all in the hopes of returning to his Unit and continue the fight that he sacrificed for and whole heartedly believes in. Unfortunately the Cpl. lost his battle to save his leg and in December it was amputated and he is now going through the rehabilitation process and being fitted with a prostheses.
Last weekend Cpl. Sparling left Walter Reed and went to the Washington Mall to meet the anti - war protesters and attempt to express to them his feelings about his duty and his support for the war. At one point he did have the opportunity to address a group who was meeting just off the Mall and had a cordial response though they disagreed with Sparling's beliefs and conviction.
Afterward he went to the Mall and joined a large group of soldiers and Iraq supporters who were peacefully expressing their opposition to the anti -war protest. When Sparling was discovered to be a wounded Iraq veteran is when the trouble began.
Many of the, "peace, " protesters began taunting him with the Vietnam era chants of , "baby killer, " and actually making fun of and telling him he , "got what he deserved, " in reference to the loss of his legs. The peaceniks then began raising the rhetoric to the point that several spat at Cpl. Sparling with one actually hitting the veteran and several had to be held back by park police because they were threatening to as they put it, "take out, " Cpl Sparling and three in particular stated that they would, "get him, " when the police were not there to protect him.
So is this the anti - war crowds idea of, "supporting the troops, " while being against the war ? This again shows the hypocrisy of those who claim support for the troops while condemning their mission. One goes hand in hand with the other. Those at the anit - war rally only expressed what they truly feel about out soldiers with their actions toward Cpl. Sparling as they protest the war and the very men and women that are making tremendous sacrifice to protect their freedom to protest as well as defending our other liberties.
An entire generation of American service men and women were treated like criminals and returned home to scorn rather than gratitude for their service and sacrifice. We swore it would never happen again, yet here we are at war and once again many are leaving our troops hanging out to dry. The Senate is poised to vote for a useless resolution that does nothing but express to the troops that our elected officials do not support them and emboldens the enemy into believing that if they continue to kill our brave men and women the United States will run rather than stand. The truly criminal act is not the mission that our soldiers are so bravely and successfully fulfilling nor their loyalty and belief in their duty, but rather the blatant and continual rhetoric and actions of elected officials especially those on the left, the anti - war crowd and the vocal leftists who are pursuing an agenda that is bringing retribution to our troops and undermining their mission and their moral.
Cpl Sparling and the thousand of heroes who wear the uniform in service to this nation deserve better. They deserve our praise, our thanks and our complete and determined support in what they do, their sacrifice and their voluntary and loyal commitment to their duty, this country and freedom! Thank you Cpl. Sparling for your service and sacrifice. Though I do not abide in any way the actions of those who attacked you at the Mall or the Senators who do not support you, I offer this apology as a grateful American for their crude and cruel treatment of you. There is NO excuse nor any reason for it. And to you and all of our bravest and finest thank you for your service, sacrifice and commitment to the cause of freedom both here at home and abroad.
Ken Taylor
Sean Hannity has been documenting on his radio and television program the story of Army Cpl. Joshua Sparling. Cpl. Sparling was severely wounded in battle in Iraq causing extensive damage to his leg and has been in Walter Reed Hospital in Washington since returning to the United States to recover from his wounds. Cpl. Sparling had been trying to save his leg and has experienced numerous surgeries and skin grafts to accomplish this all in the hopes of returning to his Unit and continue the fight that he sacrificed for and whole heartedly believes in. Unfortunately the Cpl. lost his battle to save his leg and in December it was amputated and he is now going through the rehabilitation process and being fitted with a prostheses.
Last weekend Cpl. Sparling left Walter Reed and went to the Washington Mall to meet the anti - war protesters and attempt to express to them his feelings about his duty and his support for the war. At one point he did have the opportunity to address a group who was meeting just off the Mall and had a cordial response though they disagreed with Sparling's beliefs and conviction.
Afterward he went to the Mall and joined a large group of soldiers and Iraq supporters who were peacefully expressing their opposition to the anti -war protest. When Sparling was discovered to be a wounded Iraq veteran is when the trouble began.
Many of the, "peace, " protesters began taunting him with the Vietnam era chants of , "baby killer, " and actually making fun of and telling him he , "got what he deserved, " in reference to the loss of his legs. The peaceniks then began raising the rhetoric to the point that several spat at Cpl. Sparling with one actually hitting the veteran and several had to be held back by park police because they were threatening to as they put it, "take out, " Cpl Sparling and three in particular stated that they would, "get him, " when the police were not there to protect him.
So is this the anti - war crowds idea of, "supporting the troops, " while being against the war ? This again shows the hypocrisy of those who claim support for the troops while condemning their mission. One goes hand in hand with the other. Those at the anit - war rally only expressed what they truly feel about out soldiers with their actions toward Cpl. Sparling as they protest the war and the very men and women that are making tremendous sacrifice to protect their freedom to protest as well as defending our other liberties.
An entire generation of American service men and women were treated like criminals and returned home to scorn rather than gratitude for their service and sacrifice. We swore it would never happen again, yet here we are at war and once again many are leaving our troops hanging out to dry. The Senate is poised to vote for a useless resolution that does nothing but express to the troops that our elected officials do not support them and emboldens the enemy into believing that if they continue to kill our brave men and women the United States will run rather than stand. The truly criminal act is not the mission that our soldiers are so bravely and successfully fulfilling nor their loyalty and belief in their duty, but rather the blatant and continual rhetoric and actions of elected officials especially those on the left, the anti - war crowd and the vocal leftists who are pursuing an agenda that is bringing retribution to our troops and undermining their mission and their moral.
Cpl Sparling and the thousand of heroes who wear the uniform in service to this nation deserve better. They deserve our praise, our thanks and our complete and determined support in what they do, their sacrifice and their voluntary and loyal commitment to their duty, this country and freedom! Thank you Cpl. Sparling for your service and sacrifice. Though I do not abide in any way the actions of those who attacked you at the Mall or the Senators who do not support you, I offer this apology as a grateful American for their crude and cruel treatment of you. There is NO excuse nor any reason for it. And to you and all of our bravest and finest thank you for your service, sacrifice and commitment to the cause of freedom both here at home and abroad.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:14 AM
13 Comments:
I am making the first comment on this post in a pre-response to those on the left who will try to blame the disgusting actions against Cpl. Sparling on President Bush. The President had no part nor any responsibility in the sick and cruel treatment of Sparling nor in the weak non support resolutions against the troops by the Senate.
Their actions in undermining and not supporting the troops while fabricating this lame idea that you can support the troops while not supporting what they do is their responsibility alone.
Regardless of where one stands on the war the troops and their mission deserve and even demands our full support for their sacrifice and their call to duty.
This disgusts me.
I still swear if I ever witness anyone spitting on a Troop in MY presence I expect my family to have bail money ready!
I respect people's right to protest but NOT at the expense of our Troops who are thier to counter-protest!
There are some people on this earth that just need to be slapped.
I know what's comming Mudkitty "Start with me right"?
The first amendment is a guarantee
of protection of offensive speech. Inoffensive, and unoffensive speech doesn't need first amendment protection.
Aren't you glad you have the right to be offended? Otherwise, how would the rightwing raise funds?
A lot of your right wing speech offends me.
Spitting on someone, no matter who it is, or who did the spitting, falls under the catagory of asault.
Well Ken, I for one, do believe it! These people will stop at nothing. I will post a true story tomorrow of Jane Hanoi Fonda being thrown out of a restaurant in Texas. Not everyone is willing to put up with these traitors.
Blessings, and keep up the great work.
By the way, I've realized I haven't linked your blog to my sidebar and I offer my apologies. I went to click on your link and it wasn't there. This will be fixed as soon as I get back from running a few errands.
"So is this the anti - war crowds idea of, "supporting the troops, " while being against the war ?" Also, Is this how one acts who is supposedly for peace?
I used to live in San Francisco and I have seen things get ugly at anti-war protests, the most recent being in 2003. Peace-loving anti-war liberals love the excuse of a protest rally to commit serious vandalism and take out their aggressions wherever possible.
Back in the early 1970s, they used such a protest to have their own Kristalnacht-by-day on Market Street with lots of looting thrown in for good measure.
On Powell Street, I watched one protester throw a brick at a police horse that was teathered with some others, striking it in the leg.
"Frankly, I don't believe it. I went with my whole family to the march last weekend in San Francisco, and among thousands of marchers, and quite a few veterans, there wasn't a single ugly moment either reported on the news..."
Maybe not in San Fran...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9iodh1HNIQ
Nah, not ugly at all!!! Give me a break. H/T Chickenhawk Express. Watch the entire thing before you come back with any talk about not being ugly.
“And if I might ask, how is it that you ‘support the troops?’"
I take my orders from my/the CINC, that would be President Bush. Is that support? Don’t try to look down your nose on me. I have dealt with people cursing at me and even trying to pick fights just because I was in uniform.
You're not having a William Arkin-moment are you, Vern?
Be honest, you don't "support" anyone, service person or otherwise, who doesn't agree with the President.
Be honest, you don't "support" anyone, service person or otherwise, who doesn't disagree with the President.
And please explain to us how exactly peace protestors are for peace?
Do you "support the troops" that, in growing numbers, are speaking out against this war as well?
You referring to this? Or this?
wow! I watched the video and I have to say that is ten minutes that I'll never get back but I wish I could. What the hell do you expectfrom a marching group of people protesting war? They are riled up and mad about the engagement in Iraq.
Did you think that they would all be wordless golems just marching in a circle? No, there are some of them who are madder and there are reasons for it. You don't know those people. The majority were just trying to show that they didn't support the war. A few engaged the peace protesters and they are the one's you use a a template for everyoe who supports peace. I did see the vet and he wasn't rude, cursing or anything untoward.
Face the facts, a lot of Americans do not want their country at war. You have your ideology and they have theirs. I doubt that he was spit. Wouldn't that be ALL over the news? There would be such a hue and cry it would be everywhere. I think he is just trying to paing peace supporters as hateful people. Stick with what you know I suppose...
liberaltreehugger, I suppose none of us can ever know for certain (unless something else comes to light). I thought we had put those days of spitting on soldiers behind us. But this isn't the first time that I've heard of a soldier being spat upon, because of the current war. Nor the second....
When I read pieces like William Arkin of the Washington Post and his attitude toward the military...or that one kid who wrote the LA Times article, saying he doesn't support the troops and neither do a number of others who are against the war, I think it's more than "just the bad apples in a crowd".
I have saved to file, a few protest signs that are hateful toward the military.
And this is not to say that most of those out protesting aren't peaceful citizens. But I do think not think of them as peace protestors, when they do not think of the consequences of a withdrawal. And that's really what they are advocating for: Not peace, but surrender. Because peace will not happen, simply because we pulled out of Iraq. I think more suffering will be the result.
One other thing in regards to the protestors, is, that they are unfortunately aligned to some of the most radical groups out there. You have all sorts of fringe groups that come out to play. Those "normal" citizens have my sympathies, that they have to share the stage with the communists, conspiracy whackos, and other groups with their own political agendas.
David Albright http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/al_tubes.html
President of the Institute for Science and International Security - Bogus evidence
The CIA's Aluminum Tubes' Assessment: Is the Nuclear Case Going Down the Tubes?
By David Albright
The Institute for Science and International Security
March 10, 2003, Rev. 1
The Bush administration has tried to make the case that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program that is close to fruition, and Iraq poses an imminent nuclear threat. Because people generally fear nuclear weapons far more than other weapons of mass destruction, proving that Iraq is close to producing nuclear weapons can be a powerful inducement to support war. Critical to the administration's case about Iraqi nuclear weapons has been attempted Iraqi procurements of high-strength aluminum tubes.
The CIA has concluded that these tubes were specifically manufactured for use in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. 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 (IAEA) inspectors have consistently expressed skepticism that the tubes are for centrifuges. In his February 7, 2003 report to the UN Security Council, Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's Director General, said: "Based on available evidence, the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq's efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges."
All experts agree that after modification the tubes could be used as a rotor of a poor quality gas centrifuge. Complicating the realization of this design is that the wall of the tubes is unusually thick, and the tubes' diameter is not optimal for such a centrifuge. Many centrifuge experts believe that this design would not work as the basis of a centrifuge plant.
On the other hand, the tubes' dimensions are consistent with a known Iraqi rocket program. ElBaradei moreover reported to the Security Council that extensive field investigation and document analysis failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these aluminum tubes for any project other than in rockets.
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. Despite being presented with evidence countering this claim, the administration persists in making misleading comments about the significance of the tubes.
So Far, No Evidence of a Nuclear Weapons Program
The administration's case has been further weakened because the UN Security Council inspectors have so far found no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. This result comes after extensive IAEA assessments of information from UN member states and many investigations in Iraq.
In addition, former members of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program who have escaped Iraq disagree among themselves about the existence of a nuclear weapons program. Some posit that Iraq's nuclear weapons program continues; some say the program ended after 1991. None of these Iraqis have any direct knowledge of any current banned nuclear programs. They appear to all carry political baggage and biases about going to war or overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and these biases seem to drive their judgments about nuclear issues, rendering their statements about current Iraqi nuclear activities suspect.
The Bush administration has tried to use recent Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger as evidence of a secret nuclear weapons program, but this information has been widely discounted. One person who heard a classified briefing on Iraq in late 2002 said that there was laughter in the room when the uranium evidence was presented. One of ElBaradei's most dramatic findings, revealed on March 7, was that the documents which form the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Niger and Iraq are not authentic.
Iraq's attempts to acquire a magnet production plant are likewise ambiguous. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003 that this plant would produce magnets with a mass of 20 to 30 grams. He added: "That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War." One US official said that because the pieces are so small, many end uses are possible, making it impossible to link the attempted acquisition to an Iraqi centrifuge program.
Clinging to the Aluminum Tubes
With such weak evidence, the administration clings to the aluminum tubes. The tubes were featured in President George W. Bush's State of the Union address in late January and Secretary Colin Powell's Security Council address in early February.
Yet, the administration has offered few public details about its case or the tubes. It typically restates its views, never answering any technical criticisms of its claims. But publics and other governments need to know the truth, in particular the technical evidence underpinning the administration's conclusion. A critical question is whether the Bush Administration has deliberately misled the public and other governments in playing a "nuclear card" that it knew would strengthen public support for war.
For over a year and a half, an analyst at the CIA has been pushing the aluminum tube story, despite consistent disagreement by a wide range of experts in the United States and abroad. His opinion, however, obtained traction in the summer of 2002 with senior members of the Bush Administration, including the President.
The administration was forced to admit publicly that dissenters exist, particularly at the Department of Energy (DOE) and its national laboratories. This dissent is significant because the DOE has virtually the only expertise on gas centrifuges and nuclear weapons programs in the United States government.
However, administration officials try to minimize the number and significance of the dissenters or unfairly attack them. For example, when Secretary Powell mentioned the dissent in his Security Council speech, he said: "Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher." Not surprisingly, an effort by those at the Energy Department to change Powell's comments before his appearance was rebuffed by the administration.
The disagreement boils down to whether the tubes are specifically for centrifuges or are more likely for use in rockets. The original CIA analysis from over a year ago posited that the tubes could be used only for centrifuges and appeared not to realize that the tubes could also be used for rockets.
The Case Against the Administration's Claim
Determining the truth against this background is difficult. I first learned of this case a year and a half ago when I was asked for information about past Iraqi procurements. My reaction at the time was that the disagreement reflected the typical in-fighting between US experts that often afflicts the intelligence community. I was frankly surprised when the administration latched onto one side of this debate in September 2002. My surprise became concern when I was told that this dispute had not been mediated by a competent, impartial technical committee, as it should have been according to accepted practice. I became dismayed when a knowledgeable government scientist told me that the administration could say anything it wanted about the tubes while government scientists who disagreed were expected to remain quiet.
As a result, I sought to gather a wide range of additional information about the tubes and conducted a range of interviews with government officials, centrifuge experts, and rocket manufacturing specialists. A comparison of this information to the administration's data is not complete, because the administration has refused to release technical details of its investigation.
Based on available information, the most important characteristics of the tubes are assembled in a table, which compares two old, aluminum-rotor centrifuges with a conventional rocket Iraq possesses. The first centrifuge is an early Zippe-type centrifuge from the 1950s and 1960s, although Iraq never built such a centrifuge using an aluminum rotor. Iraq copied 1970s-era Zippe-type centrifuge designs in the late 1980s, focusing first on rotors made from the more advanced material maraging steel, and later on carbon fiber, an even more advanced material. These materials are used instead of aluminum because they result in centrifuges that have over four times the ability to enrich uranium than similar centrifuges made with aluminum rotors. The other centrifuge in the table is the antiquated US Beams centrifuge from the 1940s or 1950s that Iraq pursued in the late 1980s, but abandoned early in its centrifuge effort in favor of more advanced centrifuge designs.
Some of the characteristics of the tubes are compatible with a centrifuge use, but all of the characteristics fit a use in a rocket that Iraq was producing indigenously. This rocket was based on reverse-engineering a helicopter-launched rocket, large quantities of which Iraq had imported from Italy in the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq war and converted into surface-to-surface rockets. The tubes' length, wall thickness, and diameter in particular are consistent with a use in this rocket. Although these tubes could be used as a centrifuge rotor if they were cut, the resulting tube would result in a poor quality centrifuge. Its relatively small diameter and thick walls could create new and potentially significant problems that the Iraqis would need to overcome. An IAEA team of centrifuge experts, quoted by ElBaradei in his report to the Security Council, went further, concluding that "it was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use [the tubes] in a revived centrifuge" program. In addition, no one has ever built large numbers of Beams' centrifuges or produced significant amounts of enriched uranium in a cascade of such machines. An inevitable conclusion is that the CIA analysis tried to design a centrifuge around the tubes rather than determine the use of the tubes from their characteristics.
The centrifuge design being posited by the CIA has a capacity to enrich uranium that is far below the level Iraq has already demonstrated with different centrifuges. As a result, Iraq would need to build thousands more centrifuges than if it used one of its proven designs. This approach would cause significant delays in building a centrifuge plant and require the procurement of a huge number of other items. Given the number of procurements and the time to test a new centrifuge design and build a plant, Iraq would have to assume its program would be discovered before it was able to produce significant quantities of highly enriched uranium. Given Iraq's need for both speed and secrecy, its choice of such a strategy would be odd to say the least.
Powell's Case
In his address to the Security Council on February 5, 2003, Powell stated that in investigating different batches of tubes that Iraq ordered, there was a "progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including in the latest batch an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces."
An anodized layer is a thin protective coating placed on aluminum that makes the aluminum more resistant to corrosion. However, bare aluminum without any coating is resistant to corrosion by uranium hexafluoride, the process gas in a centrifuge. There are no industrial centrifuges in the world that use anodized rotors. A well known unclassified fact is that anodization is not necessary for a centrifuge. However, anodization is a common practice in military and commercial equipment to protect against weather and the environment. For example, bicycle handlebars are anodized.
The tubes Iraq acquired in the 1980s for use in its program to indigenously produce a reverse-engineered Italian rocket were not anodized. Most of these tubes did corrode during years of storage. When Iraq started to look for a new supply of tubes in 2000, it decided to order anodized tubes to account for uncertain storage conditions. As a result, anodized aluminum tubes are consistent with a rocket use and not a centrifuge purpose.
Powell's statement on improving specifications and tolerances is also not compelling.1 The Italian rocket and the reverse-engineered Iraqi rocket have different specifications and tolerances. However, the specifications and tolerances of the two rocket designs are consistent with each other, according to a US expert.
A German rocket expert interviewed for this effort who had extensive experience with Iraqi conventional armaments, centrifuge, and missile programs in the 1980s said that these types of rockets often have precise specifications and tolerances. He added that there are even US systems with similar specifications and tolerances, contrary to administration claims. In addition, experts said that the higher levels of specifications mentioned by Powell were likely the result of earlier specifications and tolerances not being sufficient to make the reverse-engineered rockets. The conclusion of these experts is that the more exacting tolerances of the tubes ordered by Iraq are not far in excess of tolerances used in rockets.
This conclusion was echoed in ElBaradei's report which traced the history of Iraq's attempts to build rockets from aluminum tubes from prior to 1987 until today. "Initial attempts to reverse engineer the rockets met with little success," he said. According to ElBaradei, the tolerances were adjusted during later years as part of an effort to revitalize the program and improve the rocket's operational efficiency. In addition, the program languished for long periods and was studied by several Iraqi committees, each of which changed the specifications and tolerances of the tubes, he said.
In addition, past Iraqi behavior on setting tolerances of parts undermines confidence in drawing conclusions about these tubes. In many cases, Iraqi scientists and technicians had difficulty determining adequate tolerances of components. As a result, they would over-specify the tolerances of components.
Thus, dimensions of an object are a much better indicator of an end use than the object's tolerances. For example, the tolerance of a soda can is relatively precise, but that fact does not indicate the end use of the can.
Other Arguments
The administration has leaked several other arguments for its case to the media. These arguments and rebuttals include:
The CIA said that the procurements were highly secret, despite Iraq being able to buy the tubes on the open market. In fact, Iraq could not buy the tubes on the open market. Iraq has been forbidden to possess high-strength aluminum regardless of its use unless such an order was approved by the United Nations and subject to monitoring, an impossibility after the inspectors left Iraq in 1998. But these orders were not that secret, according to a US expert. The Iraqi trading company charged with ordering the tubes often sent facsimiles from its Baghdad office to many foreign companies, including the exact dimensions and tolerances in its request. Facsimiles are easy for intelligence agencies to intercept. This method is very different from Iraq's well documented highly clandestine procurement techniques. Click here for more information about Iraqi procurement.
The CIA said the Iraqis were planning to pay a "super price" for the tubes. In fact, the Iraqis were not planning on paying an exorbitant price for these tubes. One expert said that Iraq was expecting to pay prices in line with those it was paying for other illicit procurements. In particular, Iraq planned to pay prices consistent with those it paid during the Iran/Iraq war for similar tubes. In addition, increasing the tubes' tolerances did not add lead to a "super price," according to one expert.
The CIA said senior Iraqi officials were involved, signifying a nuclear end-use of the tubes. In fact, according to a US expert, the head of the monitoring organization for biological, chemical, nuclear, and missiles was involved in these purchases. But his involvement or that of other officials does not prove a nuclear end-use for the tubes.
Conclusion
Perhaps we will eventually learn that Iraq actually planned to hide a centrifuge purchase in a rocket procurement program. Such cleverness is well within Iraqi capabilities, although Iraq rarely chooses to build a poor product when it can build the same item significantly better in less time. Such a revelation, however, will not vindicate the CIA analysis, which is viewed as atrocious and deceptive by many experts on centrifuges and Iraqi rockets.
The CIA analysis has wasted the time of inspectors in Iraq while not leading to any progress on exposing Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program. Inspectors have had to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for evidence to prove or disprove the CIA analysis. Faced with overwhelming negative evidence from the inspectors, the proponents of this analysis have simply ignored the negative reports or act as if the CIA possesses secret information it cannot share. If the CIA has such secret evidence, it should share it rather than producing faulty technical analysis.
By ignoring technical evidence and pushing flawed analysis, the proponents of the CIA analysis undermine the credibility of the President, Secretary Powell, and the CIA. The attacks against those who disagree serve to show their defensiveness and a mean spirit.
This case serves to remind us that decision-makers are not above misusing technical and scientific analysis to bolster their political goals. The problem is that such a strategy denigrates the process of conducting impartial technical analysis and misleads the public.
1In this case, the specification refers to a dimension of the tube, such as its length or wall thickness. The tolerance refers to how precise that dimension must be achieved during manufacturing. For example, a wall thickness could be given as 3.0 mm + 0.1 mm. This means that the wall thickness must be between 2.9 mm and 3.1 mm everywhere on the tube.
supra shoes, hollister, coach outlet, ralph lauren, lancel, juicy couture outlet, pandora charms, swarovski crystal, hollister, converse, hollister, thomas sabo, swarovski, nike air max, marc jacobs, baseball bats, converse outlet, karen millen, pandora jewelry, montre pas cher, replica watches, links of london, timberland boots, pandora charms, gucci, vans, oakley, louboutin, juicy couture outlet, toms shoes, ray ban, iphone 6 cases, nike air max, wedding dresses
ninest123 07.21
Post a Comment
<< Home