From your source:
Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, however.
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
Since uranium (or more centrifuges) would be necessary for an "expanding" nuclear program, it seems to follow that Iraq would seek uranium somewhere.Does “some of the key judgments” indicate more than one?
I would say so. Why did Fitzgerald change his wording?And how is it somehow better for the Administration than the claim of “a key judgment”?
Is Fitzgerald an administration apologist? I don't think it matters much, to be honest.