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.