[Alia]

(((very big smile!!!)))

...Alia

[spycatcher]

It was the "Jay Rockefeller Memorial WMD Evacuation"

[jwalsh07]

They were talking about the dreaded SUV, the lefts' most dreaded WMD.

[Peach]

I have been reminding everyone of this very thing for weeks now when there is a "no WMD" thread and am glad to see you have the evidence!

[George W. Bush]

If this is the vaunted WMD proof, I think it's time to give up.

Why do right-wing news sources continue to claim WMD when the Bush administration has disavowed such claims? How exactly do website operators get so much intel?

Just produce a thimble of sarin, a vial of anthrax, a marble of weapons-grade uranium, then we'll have something to talk about.

[satchmodog9]

So, did anyone bother finding out from these two where they hid them. That would have been a good place to start. I know some speculate Syria, but these two seem to have some answers. I would be interested to find out what happened to them.

[Steely Tom]

Personally, I think we're seeing The Mother of All Rope-a-Dopes. Or is it Rove-a-Dopes?

Rove is going for all the marbles. At some future date, massive, irrefutable proof will be presented in spectacular fashion. The goal is to crush the credibility of the MSM, destroy it beyond repair, and swing the balance of media power to the New Media for the 2008 election cycle.

I can think of no other reason for the Bush Administration's seeming reluctance to promote its side of the story.

(steely)

[Redbob]

"Liberal Democrats Rent, Republicans Own! New Stock Market Report - Limited Time Offer! The Coming Shock on Wall Street - Urgent Report Democrats Plotting Alito Filibuster?"

My question is, "What did the Iraqis know about Sam Alito, and when did they know it?"

[freeperfromnj]

I was listening to the Bachelor radio show last night and he had Steve Hays on. Hays did an article for some recent publication (I forgot the name - wasn't totally awake). Anyway, Hays said there are a bunch of documents confiscated by the US military that are in a heavily guarded warehouse in Iraq. In their discussion last night, they sent out a warning to Harry Reid to be careful where he treads because there is supposed to be evidence of WMD or intent to develop them. Also a purchase order for chemical suits and evidence of communication between Uday and the Taliban.

[rightinthemiddle]

What type of "modified vehicle" do Iraq war critics think Saddam's general was worried about? A souped-up 1967 Mustang?

___________

Post photos, please...mine's in media blasting

[AZRepublican]

Saddam's version of "evacuating" things :-)

[conservativecorner]

Saddam's Nukes?

Does Carl Levin know something the rest of us don't?
by Stephen F. Hayes

11/08/2005 7:25:00 PM



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."

Really? I'd like to see it. (The transcript is here and the video can be viewed on the Hardball main page, here.

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."

Here then, is the relevant portion

of Monday night's exchange:


MATTHEWS: Senator Levin, from what I can figure, our audience on HARDBALL is a pretty mixed bag of conservatives, liberals and middle-of- the-roaders. That shifts of course. But, there are a lot of people out there who have different views than you, or me, or anybody else on this war.

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.

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.

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 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.



Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

[UB355]

Save

[marty60]

Thanks to Rockefellers "HEADS UP TOUR"

[shield]

bttt

[Natural Law]

I think the info in WMDs is being "managed" for "our own good" like so many terror threats that do not get communicated. The paradox for the administration is to either state that WMDs never existed or to state that they did and that some slipped through their fingers (like OBL) and are in the hands of terrorists or sponsor states.

[Mo1]

And what, pray tell, do they think Saddam's colonel was referring to when he said, "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left"?

Oh ... just a guess on my part

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
The Vanguard ^ | June 18, 2004 | Rod D. Martin

[exit82]

I hate it when premature evacuation happens.

[nopardons]

bttt