Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/331qbked.asp" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/331qbked.asp</a> >>DOES SENATOR CARL LEVIN believe that Saddam Hussein had nukes? Levin, the second ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is leading the charge against the White House for manipulating intelligence on Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and connections to al Qaeda. He has been dogged and ruthless, focusing his criticism on two areas of the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq: the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. Levin claims that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in both areas to frighten the American public into supporting a war of choice. Which is why Levin's latest claim is so startling. On Monday, Levin appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC and made the following declaration: "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."<<
Originally Posted By itsme <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68865-P-1&Refresh=1109114841" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68865-P-1&Refresh=1109114841</a>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's try and derail the thread, eh? Here is a LONG article, and I will only post the last two paragraphs, you should read the entire article to see where he gets the conclusion that I am posting below.... <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html" target="_blank">http://www.commentarymagazine. com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html</a> >>But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Wilson—who has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted, the more they keep being repeated—is himself an excellent candidate for criminal prosecution. And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq—the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy—have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.<<
Originally Posted By TomSawyer He said some other interesting stuff during that interview. MATTHEWS: Senator Levin, is it your view after all these months that this administration, particularly the group called the Iraq group within the White House, misused intelligence to get us into the war with Iraq? SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: It was my view long before these recent months, but this recent material that we were able to get declassified is just further evidence of that fact MATTHEWS: Can you give some examples, would you point to the aluminum tubes issue or the Niger trip or the chemical biological argument? We‘ll run through the examples you have of where it was misused, the intelligence. LEVIN: All right. The security adviser to the president, Condi Rice said, we know the aluminum tubes can only be used to enrich uranium. That was not true. There was a debate on that issue inside the intelligence community. They could be used for other purposes. As it turned out, were not used for enriching uranium. We have President Bush say, and this is what the document that I just released this weekend addresses. President Bush said that Saddam has provided biological and chemical training to al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, his own Defense Intelligence Agency, according to this recent document, which we just got declassified, said that the individual that they were relying on, is it‘s more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. So a year before the president makes the statement that Saddam Hussein is training al Qaeda in the use of biological and chemical weapons, his own Defense Intelligence Agency said that the source for that is most likely lying to us. Then we have other statements, of course. We had Secretary Powell who says that they have, that the Iraqis have seven mobile biological factories. That was highly disputed inside the intelligence community. Of course, you have the vice president making statement after statement after statement about all of those items. He was saying that it was pretty well confirmed, his words, that there was a meeting in Prague between the Iraqi secret police and the lead hijacker, Mr. Atta, Mohammed Atta. As a matter of fact, it was not pretty well confirmed. It was very dubious at all times, it was very dubious. But even in March of 2003 when we were going to war, the CIA had concluded that that meeting probably did not happen. Yet you have the vice president of the United States, for even a year after that, still saying, we have evidence that there was a meeting. Well yes, there was evidence, but the intelligence community did not believe that that evidence was accurate. <snip> MATTHEWS: I just wondered, analytically, how would you best describe the manner in which the vice president and his people and others in the administration looked at this intel? That you‘ve just described. What was it, selective use? Was it a skewed use of it? Was it a worst-case scenario? Was it deliberate lying? LEVIN: I think they ignored the intelligence that did not support their decision to go to war, basically. They were looking for those snippets of intelligence that would support their decision to go to war. That is basically what their signal was.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder How 'bout that election last night? You know, the one where all the props were gonna pass? Don't tell us the counterattack is to post this kind of dross.
Originally Posted By itsme >>Let's try and derail the thread, eh? ----- Fascinating after starting how many threads about the props that today you have no comment. Why take this one serious, if it was found to be wrong you would have no comment.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer He posted to an editorial that referred to that quote. I just went to the transcript from the show itself - you know, the primary source. I do thank DB for posting this so I had a chance to see how Levin explained how the White House lied. I wouldn't have bothered if I hadn't been wanting to see the quote myself.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>He said some other interesting stuff during that interview.<< You're ruining the intent of this thread, Tom.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I'm so starry eyed I can't see straight. Of course, I couldn't before, either.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh, Tom. Information in context is so much less... interesting... than information distorted by being taken out of context. Kind of like the pre-war intelligence. As Levin says, there's evidence and then there's evidence: "Well yes, there was evidence, but the intelligence community did not believe that that evidence was accurate." Plus, once again, a misleading title to the thread. The trifecta!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It is funny, though. Levin slams the Bush administration's lack of intelligence data during the interview, and they take one quote where he says there was evidence for nuclear weapons. Suddenly he's a supporter of the Bush Administration and the reason we went to war. This is why you HAVE to go to primary sources instead of letting other people interpret the news for you. It's too easy to take things out of context and twist them with some selective editing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This is why you HAVE to go to primary sources instead of letting other people interpret the news for you. It's too easy to take things out of context and twist them with some selective editing.<< So what you're saying is, letting other people interpret the news for you, easy to take.
