Earlier this morning, we headlined the somewhat outdated story “Enriched Uranium Found in Iraq.” But now we have an even more amazing bit of news. On Hardball with Chris Matthews on Monday night, Senator Carl Levin, the second ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Monday that it is “not in dispute” that “Saddam had nuclear weapons.”

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.

Gay Conservatives notes: “Levin must have lost his “talking points” flash cards before that “Hardball” interview. He’s gonna be in trouble.”

RHOG has a list of other items found in Iraq since the invasion.

Jay Tea also headlined the Uranium story last night, but no word yet from the Wizbang guys on this development.

Leather Penguin thinks it’s time to bury the “No WMD” meme. But JRied says the “No WMD” meme itself is bunk.

MiniPundit still thinks Bush lied, and cites a Bush 2002 quote that is more in line with Senator Levin than George Tenet.

In December 2002, Bush said that we didn’t know if Iraq had a nuclear weapons. Again, here’s what Tenet had to say: “We said Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon.” This is an out and out lie; Bush claimed that we didn’t know when, in fact, we did.

Others linking: Democrap, Homeland.

In some ways, this isn’t really new news. This is consistent with what Levin said back in 2002: “[Saddam] has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

And Robert Byrd, 2002: “We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”

And Jay Rockefeller, 2002: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

And Hillary Clinton, 2002: “intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.”

UPDATE: I just found an article in the WSJ from June 21, 2003, titled “Carl Levin’s Amnesia.” (Via: Old Powerline post).

[Senator Levin] wrote an opinion piece echoing what he said on “Meet the Press” a week earlier, and has been saying for two weeks now:

“While President Bush and other administration officials spoke with certainty about the imminent threat posed by Iraq’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction–and thus the urgent need to take military action to disarm Iraq–there is growing evidence that the intelligence on Iraq’s prohibited weapons was more ambiguous.

“Was there a shading of intelligence information to fit a particular administration policy? Did administration officials exaggerate or overstate the intelligence information to make a stronger case to the American public and the world for the need to end United Nations inspections for weapons of mass destruction and go to war against Iraq?”

The problem with Mr. Levin pointing a finger of accusation at the Bush administration is that he’s also pointing three fingers at himself. You see, Mr. Levin also serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and has for some time. Presumably, he knows something about Iraq’s weapons programs. So, when he repeatedly insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, was he “shading intelligence information” or did he “exaggerate or overstate . . . intelligence information?”

Likewise, in December’s issue of Commentary Magazine, Norman Podhoretz points out that this ground has been covered many times before. (Here’s an excerpt, but read the whole thing as it relates to Joe Wilson).

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

Powerline sums it up with this: “Podhoretz demolishes the canard that the Bush administration lied about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, not by offering new evidence, but by succinctly and persuasively laying out the facts that demonstrate the absurdity of the charge on which the Democratic Party has apparently decided to risk its fortunes.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says that’s what’s going on with the Republican calls to investigate an actual leak that, if proven true, is actually damaging to the national security of the United States. Democrats, on the other hand…

… well, Captain Ed nails it. 100%. Dead on. So I’ll just quote him rather than try to say it better. Read this post in its entirety.

All of this foolishness arises from a leak of a CIA employee’s name, who may or may not have been covert six or more years ago but has driven to Langley headquarters every day since then to perform analytical work — when she isn’t busy getting her husband plum assignments overseas so that he can launch political broadsides against the administration on his return. That has resulted in at least two Congressional investigations and a special prosecutor, none of which found any criminal problems except Libby’s stupidity in trying to lie his way through his grand jury testimony.

Now we have a leak of an ongoing CIA operation involving the detention and interrogation of enemy prisoners during wartime — and Reid considers a call for its investigation a PR stunt?

Scott Isaacs over at Microsoft has hit upon a plan to bring down Google.

For a novelty, I decided to order a Google license plate frame 2 from the Google store. The frame costs $1.20 shipped to your door. At first I felt guilty buying a product from Google. Imagine my delight when I saw my $1.20 frame cost google $2.67 to ship. That is a loss, ignoring overhead and product costs, of at least $1.47 a unit! Then I realized, I found the solution to all our Google competitive woes.

Last quarter, Google made $1.578 billion dollars in revenue and earned $381 million dollars. Now, we want Google to lose money so let’s do a little quick math. $381,000,000/1.47 = 259,183,674 license plate frames need to be purchased. So, I figure for a mere $311,020,408, you could have pushed Google into the red last quarter.

Though one does have to wonder why an MSN architect (and one of the inventors of DHTML) is buying a Google license plate frame. ;-)

In Richard Minter’s new book, Disinformation, he reveals that 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium has been found in Iraq. Also found: sarin, cyclosarin, chemical weapons and radioactive materials.

Jay Tea says it’s time for the anti-war crowd to sit down and shut up.

UPDATE: Senator Carl Levin, says it is “not in dispute” that Saddam had nukes. Transcript of Hardball here.

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.

Gay Conservatives notes: “Levin must have lost his “talking points” flash cards before that “Hardball” interview. He’s gonna be in trouble.”

RHOG has a list of other items found in Iraq since the invasion.

Others linking: Democrap, Homeland.

Carol Lin, CNN Anchor, referred Sunday to the two French Muslim boys that were electrocuted as African-Americans, presumably because they were black. Someone ought to tell her that just because you’re black doesn’t make you an American (for that matter, neither does it make you African, though likely these were boys were African-French).

LIN: Hard to say because it’s been 11 days since two African- American teenagers were killed, electrocuted during a police chase, which prompted all of this.

Carol should know by now that the proper term for the rioters is “undocumented dismantlers.” (Via MM) Or is it “Terrorist French Fries“?

On a side note, as hard as it is to believe, the rioters in France have ignored the curfew imposed by the government. The nerve.

It seems the bribes didn’t work either.

The Chicago Tribune seems to think that the government ought to be nice to the rioters, and not call them “scum.” Maybe they could negotiate a settlement where the rioters stop burning cars and firebombing subway stations if the government leaders will stop calling them mean names.

It would be an exaggeration to blame the riots that have swept France on a poor choice of words, but Nicolas Sarkozy, the country’s tough-talking interior minister, hardly helped when he characterized the young men responsible for the violence as la racaille.

The rough translation is “scum.”

The word is thoroughly offensive, and it personalized the antagonism between the government and the angry young men from immigrant neighborhoods who have been so enthusiastically attacking its authority for the last two weeks.

UPDATE: Looks like Taranto also caught the African American quote. Via the Pontificator: “African-American? No wonder the French police were after them. But why are the French Muslims upset?”

And Stuck on Stupid wonders: “Here’s a question that might cause Ms. Lin a few synaptic misfires: Is a person born in the U.S. of white South African immigrant parents, an African-American?”

UPDATE 11/14: Michelle noticed. :-)