The Dems know that Saddam had WMDs - but they still have to beat up Bush just because....well...um....uh....He's not a Dem

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."

(snip)

Levin also criticized the Bush administration for deciding to remove Saddam Hussein shortly after 9/11. It is a curious charge. On December 16, 2001, in an appearance on CNN, Levin himself called for regime change in Iraq. Levin would not say whether he supported making Hussein's Iraq the "next target" after Afghanistan, but he did say this:

"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he [Saddam Hussein] is in power."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/331qbked.asp

It's a losing proposition for the democrats to try this now. Their comments and votes are all part of the record, and they won't be allowed to run away from them. If they really try to do it, many inconvenient things will come back to bite them.

Are we discussing how the dems are completly set up to take back congress in 06? Im looking forward to it.

BTW--Iv read a lot of psychology on how cognitive dissonance plays a heavy role in how Conservative thought process works. I could pull some up for this thread.

I just want to know where the damn WMDs are.
The fact that both parties rushed to war, and now the reasons all have been revealed as lies, causes some cognitive dissonance for me.

Slip of the tongue, surely? I find it hard to credit that anyone believes SH had (as opposed to was trying to acquire) nukes... there's no way in hell an invasion would have been countenanced as lightly as it was* were Iraq a nuclear state. I assume he meant to say chemical/biological weapons, in which case his statement is innocuous and trivially true, at least without qualifiers on the 'had'.


* not seeking to imply that the decision was necessarily taken lightly, just that it would have been a completely different ballgame if SH had been in a position to start flinging nukes around when attacked.

Read the transcripts and decide for yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9969037/
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/16/le.00.html

I just want to know where the damn WMDs are.
The fact that both parties rushed to war, and now the reasons all have been revealed as lies, causes some cognitive dissonance for me.

All the reasons have not been revealed to be lies. Not even have the WMD been shown to be lies. It is convenient rhetoric for the left who voted for the war "before they voted against the war" but that is about it.

There were many reasons listed in the Congressional Resolution authorizing war and only 3 out of 17 were about WMD.

You can't just declare they were lies and that makes it true.

And if they were all lies then the Democrats are really easily duped. Just like with the No Child Left Behind Act that they got duped on?

Slip of the tongue, surely? I find it hard to credit that anyone believes SH had (as opposed to was trying to acquire) nukes... there's no way in hell an invasion would have been countenanced as lightly as it was* were Iraq a nuclear state. I assume he meant to say chemical/biological weapons, in which case his statement is innocuous and trivially true, at least without qualifiers on the 'had'.


* not seeking to imply that the decision was necessarily taken lightly, just that it would have been a completely different ballgame if SH had been in a position to start flinging nukes around when attacked.

Saddam Hussein very definitely was trying to acquire nukes.

It controverts everything that is KNOWN about him to assert otherwise.

And if you are interested in where the WMDs are, look next door in Syria. The Russians very probably helped them move them into Syria prior to the war.

And the French helped Iraqi war criminals escape.

Read the transcripts and decide for yourself:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/16/le.00.html

I rechecked the manuscript and it is Levin says the same thing.

...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.


Where they fell short, the administration fell short, was getting intelligence from the intelligence community about a link, alleged link between the people who attacked us, al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein.

Levin, and other democrat liars try to exploit this subtlety, not realizing that most people don't know about Iraq's intelligence officers meeting with "al Qaeda" officers. But the reality is that "al Qaeda" is not a specific group really (Muslim Terrorists that leftist Chris Matthews calls "foreign fighters"), it is just the ideology of Jihad taken to the extreme. Any Muslim can become "al Qaeda" anywhere at anytime; no forms to fill out, no membership fees.

Democrat's lying ability is enhanced by their general chutzpah, their contempt for the taxpayers, and protection provided by the media. For example, not only did Chris Matthews set up the interview with misinformation favorable to the democrat view, he apparently did not ask Levin followup question regarding his hypocritical point of view.

If a plague were to suddenly come forth and kill all the Democrats, do you know what would change?
Not a damn thing. We'd still have a war in Iraq, and there would still be no obvious reason for it that is not a lie.
The Democrats were the minority in two branches of government when war was declared, so it is fairly impossible to excuse all Republicans in this event by blaming Democrats. I know that's hard to understand for some people, but it's true nonetheless.
Also, redefining the criteria for something qualifying as a lie does not make the reasons why we went to war more true.
We need a third political party in this country to represent those of us who think the other two are hopelessly full of s**t.

If a plague were to suddenly come forth and kill all the Democrats, do you know what would change?
Not a damn thing. We'd still have a war in Iraq, and there would still be no obvious reason for it that is not a lie.


^ Complete And Utter Nonsense.