of the aluminum tubes were not included in the assessments. INR's view that the Niger reporting was "highly dubious" also was not included in the assessments.

(U) Information provided to the Committee indicates that the December 17, 2002 assessment was passed to the President without INR or the DOE having an opportunity to review or comment on the draft. An INR analyst sent an e-mail to CIA asking, "Do you happen to know offhand if INR will get to review and clear the draft 'detailed analysis' of the declaration before it's issued in its capacity as a 'U.S.' position? We were not invited to review or clear on the draft preliminary 'U.S.' assessment, which subsequently went to POTUS, et al." A CIA analyst responded to the INR analyst that all agencies had been invited to participate in the analysis. The INR sent another e-mail noting that INR and DOE analysts had been able to review the declaration and make comments, but had left CIA prior to the preparation of the talking points for the NSC. He said INR and DOE analysts did not even know that such points were being prepared or provided to the NSC, but said the CIA was well aware of their positions and should have included them in the points. Although the INR analyst's concerns were passed to the CIA on December 23, 2002, their alternative views also were not included in the December 30, 2002 talking points.

(U) The INR analyst forwarded his e-mail comments to a DOE analyst who responded that "It is most disturbing that WINPAC is essentially directing foreign policy in this matter. There are some very strong points to be made in respect to Iraq's arrogant non-compliance with UN sanctions. However, when individuals attempt to convert those 'strong statements' into the 'knock out' punch, the Administration will ultimately look foolish - i.e. the tubes and Niger!"

G. Nuclear Conclusions

(U) Conclusion 27. After reviewing all of the intelligence provided by the Intelligence Community and additional information requested by the Committee, the Committee believes that the judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, was not supported by the intelligence. The Committee agrees with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) alternative view that the available intelligence "does not add up to a compelling case for reconstitution."

(U) Conclusion 28. The assessments in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding the timing of when Iraq had begun reconstituting its nuclear program are unclear and confusing.

(U) Conclusion 29. Numerous intelligence reports provided to the Committee showed that Iraq was trying to procure high-strength aluminum tubes. The Committee believes that the information available to the Intelligence Community indicated that these tubes were intended to be used for an Iraqi conventional rocket program and not a nuclear program.

(U) Conclusion 30. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) intelligence assessment on July 2, 2001 that the dimensions of the aluminum tubes "match those of a publicly available gas centrifuge design from the 1950s, known as the Zippe centrifuge" is incorrect. Similar information was repeated by the CIA in its assessments, including its input to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), and by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) over the next year and a half.

(U) Conclusion 31. The Intelligence Community's position in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that the composition and dimensions of the aluminum tubes exceeded the requirements for non nuclear applications, is incorrect.

Conclusion 32. The

intelligence report on Saddam Hussein's personal interest in

the aluminum tubes, if credible, did suggest that the tube procurement was a high priority, but it did not necessarily suggest that the high priority was Iraq's nuclear program.

(U) Conclusion 33. The suggestion in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iraq was paying excessively high costs for the aluminum tubes is incorrect. In addition, 7075-T6 aluminum is not considerably more expensive than other more readily available materials for rockets as alleged in the NIE.

(U) Conclusion 34. The National Ground Intelligence Center's (NGIC) analysis that the material composition of the tubes was unusual for rocket motor cases was incorrect, contradicted information the NGIC later provided to the Committee, and represented a serious lapse for the agency with primary responsibility for conventional ground forces intelligence analysis.