Old subject....Saddam and WMD.
 

I found this to be very interesting. Please note this happened last night
on Hardball (Chris Matthews show). Here's a link to what I read.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/331qbked.asp

Before anyone screams that this is the Weekly Standard, the fact remains that this is exactly what was said.

Carl Levin is the second ranking democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"MATTHEWS: What came first do you believe, Senator? Their desire to go to war or the way they looked at the evidence?

LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to--look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."

What? So my mind starts going crazy. After much thought, I think he slipped and leaked classified information. There could be plenty of national security reasons to hide the evidence of Saddam actually possessing nukes. Not just capacity to make them, but the actual nukes themselves.

If a republican says this, I think it's easy to just dismiss as politics. But why on earth would a leading democrat say this unless he slipped and said something he was not supposed to say - as in giving up classified info? He would certainly have been privy to it as a ranking member on the Intelligence Committee.

Anyway, I just found this to be really.....shocking. I'm not running out and saying "SEE!!!! SEE!!!! I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!". Not at all. But I'd really like someone to explain this to me.

Did he vote to go to after Iraq?

He's on the intelligence committee. It could be that he's in as much denial as anybody, repeating the mantra that the evidence LOOKED valid so as to get over the fact that they completely mis-read the evidence. The thing is, there WAS evidence. It was just largely false or misinterpreted.

Did you read the link and all that Levin said? He was talking about the poor handling of the intelligence and how so much of it was wrong. So he clearly understands that a lot of what was presented was not correct. And then he says that. Just really took me off gaurd.

didja see Schumer saying that he was not "as convinced" as the President about the intelligence yet he went on and on about Saddam's threat to the US? and voted to go to war?

It's just changing history, the record, and reality- all part and parcel of todays senate dems.

Yup, many of them acted just as blindly as the Republicans. I sat and watched Powell show blury pictures of trucks with circles around them and thought, "How the hell is that enough evidence to go to war," while everyone in the Senate nodded and accepted it as proof. Why I was able to see through the BS and the people that mattered weren't, I'll never know.

If Saddam had nukes, not was buiding them, but had them, shouldn't we be really stressing figuring out where they went.....

I may have left the intel field a year or so ago, but the WMD mantra seemed to have gone away a long long time ago, if I recall, shortly after we took control of the area, to be replaced by the freeing Iraq and making Iraq free for democracy mantra....

That's certainly true, Name, and this is why I was so absolutely shocked about what Levin said.

Historical revisionism is hardly the province of just Dems.:rolleyes:

And why I'm so absolutely convinced that he's just covering his ass for voting to go to war.

Well, that's fine, but there are other ways to pull a CYA that make you look like less of a lunatic.

You could say "While much of the intelligence was false, there were many convincing and validated reports that led us to believe he was a danger." and leave it at that.

To say he actually had actual nukes? Either this man is a complete idiot or he slipped up in a big way by leaking something that was not meant for public (domestic or international) consumption.

Hmm, see, I don't see him as saying that. This may be a simply matter of poor wording. He said there was evidence he had nukes.

Go back to what he said earlier..."I believe the intelligence community. The intelligence community then provided some distorted intelligence on a lot of things. But, that's not what the issue is that I raise this weekend."

I think in the final quote, he was just coming back to that. He was drawing a distinction between two different screwups. One was the faulty evidence provided to the administration/congress. The other was the adinisrtation's willful spinning of that and other intelligence to their own end. I think his final quote would be more clearly worded as, "I'm not saying we didn't see evidence that Sadaam had nukes/nuclear capabilities, even if it was faulty. That's how I got suckered into agreeing with the whole war thing. But on top of that, the administration used intelligence in questionable and misleading ways." At least that's how I read it.

It is my belief that the people who followed what the administration said can't be solely blamed for the problems in Iraq. There was a trust there that was violated by our president. People voted to go to war because of what his administration said was going on in Iraq. Yes, there should have been questions asked and yes they rushed into it too quickly. But to blame the people who rallied behind the president for going to war is wrong. Bush wanted the support, he got it and now he's blaming his supporters.

The error lies with the Bush administration.

I agree with today's Post:

Source The emphasis in the quote is mine.

But didn't many of the calls to arms by Democrats come before Bush was even President.........?

Uhm, who? And why?

Well, for one, Clinton signed the joint resolution of congress to call for regime change in Iraq. Also, he did his sheare of "strikes" to hit those WMD facilities.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

Gosh, and that was without even looking hard. There are HUNDREDS of them. Sure not all of them were a call to arms, but clearly they were ALL on the WMD bandwagon
well before Bush got into office.

Oh, that must have been when Clinton's efforts were dismissed as an attempt to Wag the Dog.:rolleyes:

The Republicans were too damn busy looking at dress stains to bother with National Security issues.;):p

Hey, the Repubs have been saying that the libs are not patriots and only want to 'offer therapy and comfort' to the terrorists and evil people like Saddam- I know because I've had that **** flung at me since 9/11. Now you're telling me that we did call for action? Why on earth weren't those calls heeded?

Thanks, Scaeagles- made my day!

Certainly there was call for action. You will never find me critical of those calls. However, they have now completely changed their tune to make it sound as if the only reason they ever thought Saddam had WMD was because Bush lied to them. That is what is despicable.

And WB, while I can't claim it was wagging the dog whatsoever, it certainly does make sense that some would have suspicions raised as to firing missiles into Iraq the night before Monica was to testify. I, personally, do not subscribe to that, but do understand why some would.

But why were the calls ignored? Because of suspected dog-wagging? It's all well and fine to call them hypocrites now, but what of then? I personally think they are all a bunch of weasels, but considering how very much crap I've heard piled upon the heads of the liberally inclined, it surprises me how very much proof there is that the Dems did indeed try and do something about it.

Now, I wonder why they were unable to. Hmmm......

Talking and doing are two different things.

Rather difficult to do when Congress was under Republican control, and they were a tad bit obsessed about other matters. I personally am just happy that that finally all the crap about Dems not wanting to go after the bad guys has been disproved, even if it is only being mentioned in an affort to deflect attention away from the errors made by the current administration. For nearly four years I've been listening to Sean Hannity and his ilk spout on and on about how stupid and blind and trusting the Dems are. How we left the country unprepared. How unpatriotic we are. Blah blah blah. Now everyone is running around like little tattletale children, saying "But he said it too!"

We'll clean up the mess yet again when he's gone, but it's a doozy this time. Hoover had nothing on Bush.

Ignored? Who was commander in chief and has the authority to order the military to strike? Who wrote and passed the joint resolution of congress (calling for Saddam's ouster) that Clinton signed?

The whole "but he said it, too!" isn't what this is about. The issue is that Bush is being accused of manipulating intelligence to throw the country into war. People seem to have forgotten that Bush was saying nothing different than those in office before him.

The difference, as I see it, is that Bush chose to do something other than the occassional surgical strike and deal with what was perceived by everyone quoted (and many, many more) to be a problem. It's fine to disagree with going to war. I just think the current dem leadership wishes to revise the history of the situation, trying to make us believe that Bush was the only person to ever make such claims about Saddam.

Clinton Clinton Clinton. I'm in an echo chamber.

The Democrats may have said this in the past, however who is the person that lied and got us into this current mess? Bush. He's trying to blame the Democrats for this. This shows an incredible lack of integrity and his polls are proving that without a doubt. Lowest polls ever. Okay, let's compare him to Bubba: Bush's polls are lower than Clinton's during the whole Lewinsky thing.

It is completely relevant. "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied." I'm in an echo chamber.

One cannot say Bush lied without admitting that everyone in office or an appointed position that was in office prior to Bush lied as well.

AS far as lying and getting us into war? I don't think Bush was lying any more than I think Clinton or Albright or anyone else was lying.

What I do think, though, was that Bush had the political will and balls to do what was right. I think it was right. You do not. That's fine.

The Bush bashers want to avoid the reality of what was said and believed prior to when he was in office. Sorry, Iraq and Saddam is a problem that goes back at least to the Gulf War I. International relations go back farther than 5-6 years.

So accuse me of trying to blame everything on Clinton. The thing is, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm glad we're in Iraq and Saddam is gone. So I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely stating what the facts were. I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy of those that want to stand on their pulpits and call Bush a liar when the people they suuprt politically said the same or even more damning things about Saddam.

My view is that it is much easier now to pick out the contrarian voices that always exist and say "why didn't you listen to Bob?" Hindsight is 20/20 and clarifies a lot, and in any organization large enough you can always find people on any side of an issue.

I do think that there was selection bias in that once it was believed that Saddam Hussein had or was seriously persuing WMD it was more difficult for contrary evidence to be taken seriously. The same selection bias is now taking place in the opposite direction. Now that we know he either didn't have them, wasn't persuing them, or successfully hid them, it is increasingly difficult to give credence to any valid evidence that existed beforehand to the contrary. Obviously report X shouldn't have been given weight since it was wrong.

Personally, I think the war was justified in the face of any doubt about Saddam's nuclear ambitions and is only unjustified if it was known with certainty that Saddam did not have them and would not have them anytime soon.

Selection bias is a powerful force of self-deception, but it isn't often a sign of intentional fraud.

As usual, Alex's post is right on. Both sides are guilty of revisionism, and I agree that the real issue is whether the Bush administration knew there were no WMD at the time we went to war. I'm not going to listen to any more of the rhetoric, except as it pertains to that point. Anything else is just more of the same back and forth political sniping, which serves no purpose and detracts from the real issue.