Levin: Iraq had nuclear weapons

Josh · Post by **Josh** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:44 pm

Okay.

Something of a holy fuck moment, if it wasn't a verbal faux paus.
Hardball transcript

[quote]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.

I believe the intelligence community. The intelligence community then provided some distorted intelligence on a lot of things. But, thatÃ¢â‚¬Ëœs not what the issue is that I raise this weekend.

This is where the intelligence community was right and they ignored the intelligence community. Not where the intelligence community was wrong, which was plenty of times.

There are instance after instance after instance where the intelligence community was right or divided, where the administration, for reasons to, obvious to create an impression that they wanted the American people to believe, where they did not use what the intelligence community had found or decided.

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 toÃ¢â‚¬â€

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:38 pm

I think this is verbal fuckup. If Saddam had actual working instant sunshine making nukes, he could have waved them around and made everyone sit back for a more than a moment, Kim Il Jong sytle.

Has for myself. I saw plenty of circumstancal evidence that led me to believe there were chemical or biological weapons in the sand, but I saw nothing hardcore.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:41 pm

frigidmagi wrote:I think this is verbal fuckup. If Saddam had actual working instant sunshine making nukes, he could have waved them around and made everyone sit back for a more than a moment, Kim Il Jong sytle.

Has for myself. I saw plenty of circumstancal evidence that led me to believe there were chemical or biological weapons in the sand, but I saw nothing hardcore.

Well, there were. Gulf War and Iran/Iraq. But in the sand and past the use-by isn't terribly close to '45 minutes'.

And yes. Saddam would have whipped out a nuke the instant he realized there was no escape. It would have taken out an advancing unit or a group securing a town.

Josh · Post by **Josh** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:46 pm

I bear in mind that senators are chosen more for their hair than what's underneath it, but the statement itself is just so fucking odd.

Lord Stormbringer · Post by **Lord Stormbringer** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:33 pm

Petrosjko wrote:I bear in mind that senators are chosen more for their hair than what's underneath it, but the statement itself is just so fucking odd.

Levin's one of my Senators and as politicians go he (and the rest of his clan) are all right actually. If you look, what he said is actually pretty well thought out.

What he's basically said is what most of us know by now:

1) We had reason to believe that Saddam Hussien was pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

2) The link between Saddam and Osama remains unproven.

3) Bush mislead or misread that information.

Caz · Post by **Caz** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:02 pm

Either way, full of shit. Then again, after the whole Iraq intelligence fiasco I'm not sure I'll ever believe what comes out of an intelligence report again.

... If I did to begin with.

LibriumArcana.Games

Levin: Iraq had nuclear weapons

#1 Levin: Iraq had nuclear weapons

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6