Levin gives Cheney reason to smirk

BY RAY McGOVERN

Never before have I felt such irk from a Cheney smirk -- the one with which he confidently assured CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday's "Face the Nation" that the Democrats will continue to vote to fund the war without including serious restrictions.

Cheney referred approvingly to the fact that "Carl Levin, who's chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has indicated that they definitely do want to pass funding for the troops."

Cheney expressed confidence that the Democrats will "not leave America's fighting forces in harm's way without the resources they need to defend themselves." And yes, the vice president went on to reassure viewers, against all evidence to the contrary: "We are making progress."

The administration's main objective could hardly be clearer, even to mainstream pundits allergic to spelling it out. By waving the flag of patriotism, the White House is confident it can continue to intimidate enough Democrats to get the only thing it really wants: enough money to stave off defeat in Iraq until President George W. Bush and Cheney are safely out of office. That, of course, also explains the foredoomed "surge" in troop strength.

But how is it that Cheney can enlist the likes of Carl Levin in a policy built on the backs of American troops? Based on recent casualty rates, some 1,500 American troops already "in harm's way" will die, and several times that number will be wounded before Cheney and Bush leave office -- not to mention the ever mounting casualties among Iraqis.

Is Cheney exaggerating the support he sees in Levin? Apparently not. The senior senator from Michigan seems ready to provide additional funding for the war, no matter what. On April 8, right after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would cosponsor legislation cutting off all funding for combat troops after March 31, 2008, Levin undercut him by telling ABC's "This Week": "We're not going to vote to cut the funding, period. ... We're not going to cut off funding for the troops. We shouldn't cut off funding for the troops. ... We're going to vote for a bill that funds the troops, period. We're going to fund the troops. We always have."

Got that?

What would prompt Levin to undermine his own majority leader? Levin was challenged on that point last Sunday at the University of Michigan. He replied that cutting funding for the war is what Rush Limbaugh wants and would play into Bush's hands. The Democrats would probably lose a battle over funding and end up looking "really bad," added Levin.

Not very persuasive, senator -- not when more and more are getting killed in Iraq every day.

Levin may be concerned about things other than looking bad. Those taking part in last month's meeting of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington heard stern warnings from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni that America not show "weakness" on Iraq -- warnings that a U.S. troop withdrawal would make the neighborhood far more dangerous for Israel.

Federal Election Commission records show that Levin has received more money from pro-Israel political action committees than any other senator. But, given his distinguished record, it would seem appropriate to give him the benefit of the doubt. It seems less likely that he is influenced by the money than by his penchant to see little or no daylight between what he perceives to be Israel's interests and those of the United States.

This appears to be the kind of "passionate attachment" against which George Washington warned so strongly in his farewell address more than 200 years ago.

RAY McGOVERN was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is now on the steering group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Write to him in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St., Detroit 48226 or oped@freepress.com.

Copyright © 2007 Detroit Free Press Inc.

Tell us another one, Mr. Vice President: Sen. Carl Levin

Dick Cheney is still trying to link Iraq with Al Qaeda and 9/11.

By Carl Levin

CARL LEVIN, a Democratic senator from Michigan, is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

April 12, 2007

TO PARAPHRASE President Reagan, there he goes again.

On Rush Limbaugh's radio program last week, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke about Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi and stated: "He went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al Qaeda operations inside Iraq…. This is Al Qaeda operating in Iraq and, as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

It is incredible that more than four years after the invasion, the vice president is still trying to convince the public that Saddam Hussein's regime was connected to Al Qaeda and that Zarqawi's presence in Iraq was evidence of a connection.

While the vice president doesn't say directly that there was a tie between the two, his clear purpose is to blur the line between Al Qaeda — the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks — and the Iraqi dictator in order to justify the war in Iraq.

The problem is, that's simply not supported by the facts or by our intelligence community — and everyone except the vice president acknowledges it. In September, for example, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report that Hussein was "distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al Qaeda to provide material or operational support." And the CIA reported a year earlier, in October 2005, that the Iraqi regime "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates." As the Intelligence Committee report noted, the Iraqi intelligence service was actually trying to capture Zarqawi, who was in Baghdad under an alias. Is the vice president willfully ignoring what the rest of the government has concluded? Or does he have access to information he hasn't shared with us? If so, he should produce it.

The vice president has a clear, documented pattern of overstating and misstating information with regard to Iraq. He also, for instance, continued to claim that 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta may have met with an Iraqi agent in Prague — long after the intelligence community believed otherwise. Again, his obvious purpose is to link Hussein's regime with Sept. 11, even though the rest of the world has concluded that no such link exists.

The vice president has made so many outlandish statements that the country barely raised an eyebrow at his false statement last week. The public has stopped believing the words of a man who promised, before we invaded Iraq, that we would be "greeted as liberators" and reassured us nearly two years ago that the insurgency was in its "last throes."

But his comments continue to erode our credibility with the international community, which has already been severely damaged by our rush to war with Iraq with little international support. If, in the months ahead, we face a crisis over Iran's weapons programs and need to rally the international community, we may find that the world has little interest in trusting an administration that misstates facts.

By all accounts, Dick Cheney is one of the most powerful vice presidents in our history, if you define power as influence over policy. We need to ask ourselves: What does it mean for our country when the vice president's words lack credibility, but he still wields great power?

From Doug Feith's lips to your ears

April 05, 2007

From Doug Feith's lips to your ears.

Finally, a declassified version of the briefing slides (pdf) used by Feith's shop to illustrate the "mature, symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been made publicly available, courtesy of Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). The briefing was given to senior White House officials in the prelude to the Iraq War.

Levin also released a declassified version (pdf) of the Defense Department's Inspector General's report on Feith, which found that Feith's doings "inappropriate but legal."

Highlights soon.

Update: Highlights here.

-- Paul Kiel

Democrats Blame Iraqis for U.S. Induced Misery

Saturday November 25th 2006, 12:08 pm

Steny Hoyer, nicknamed “boy wonder,” is speaking tough to the besieged Iraqis.
Hoyer, as incoming House Majority Leader, wants the Iraqis to understand they only have themselves to blame for all the murder and misery in their country. “In the days ahead, the Iraqis must make the tough decisions and accept responsibility for their future,” said Hoyer during the weekly Democratic radio address. “And the Iraqis must know: Our commitment, while great, is not unending.”

“Once in power, Hoyer said, the Democrats hope to work with Republicans and the Bush administration to change direction in Iraq war plans,” reports ABC News.
Please note: Hoyer didn’t say the Democrats will end the “war” in Iraq. He said they will work with the Bush administration, that is to say the perfidious neocons.
All of this should be nothing new. Democrats have repeatedly expressed their approval of decimating Iraq and reducing it to a depleted uranium wasteland where, one day, the living will envy the dead. Last November, for instance, the Democrats voted their approval, by a 37 to 6 margin, for a Republican amendment in support of the neocon policy on the Iraq war. Not surprisingly, they also voted to support the illegal torture and internment of dirt farmers and hapless Muslims at Guantánamo.

“The passage of this measure was portrayed by Democrats and sections of the media as a rebuff to the Bush administration’s conduct of the war,” Patrick Martin wrote at the time. “It actually represents the watering-down of an already weak amendment offered by Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan containing the same language about a ’successful completion’ of the US ‘mission’ in Iraq,” in other words, some things never change, and you can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, even if you turn them upside down.

No difference in the lot. Take as an example Tom Lantos, pegged to take over the House International Relations Committee. “A Holocaust survivor and strong supporter of Israel, Lantos is a hardliner on the Middle East—he has supported going to war in Iraq, sealing Syria’s borders with Lebanon, and getting tough on Iran,” writes James Ridgeway for Mother Jones. It should be remembered, as well, that Lantos held the forum responsible for launching the propaganda blitz in preparation for the first Gulf War. Lantos “held a hearing that starred a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl known only as Nayirah, who tearfully testified about the brutality of the Iraqi soldiers who pillaged her country,” but after the war had commenced, it turned out this girl “was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. and had been recruited by the PR firm Hill and Knowlton to sell an Iraq intervention to the American public.”
Some things never change.

Turn Lantos upside down, he is a flaming neocon. “Paul George, the director of the California-based Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, an anti-war organization whose membership is drawn largely from Lantos’ district, believes that as chairman, Lantos could spell trouble for the Democrats plans to change course in Iraq. ‘I think he’s going to be a real problem for the Democrats if they are sincere about reversing Iraq policy as it now exists,’ he said. ‘As chair of the committee responsible for Iraq, I think he will be in a position and be willing to block any changes that are needed,’” Ridgeway concludes.
Poor pathetic Dennis Kucinich thinks he can cut funding and put an end to the Iraq occupation. “The Democrats made their choice, and we’re united behind Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and our entire leadership team, and we’re going to do everything we can to fulfill the hopes of the American people for a new direction in Iraq, and I am going to do my part to keep the debate going,” Kucinich told Joshua Scheer earlier this month.

How dismal. Kucinich backs Pelosi, who has said “Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party,” in other words, more of the same. “Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she said,” according to the Washington Post.

In short, the Democrats support a Tower of Babel approach to Iraq.

It is said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Israeli citizen Rahm Emanuel, who also acts as a representative from Illinois and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, are leading the charge to get the United States out of Iraq.
And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.

As an example of how Democrats can be flipped, consider the fact Pelosi, described as one of the most “liberal” Democrats in Congress, opposed the invasion and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. As Democratic whip, she managed to scrape together 26 Democratic votes against Bush’s unconstitutional “authorization” to invade Iraq, but she was ultimately taken down by the Democrat leader Richard A. Gephardt, yet another warmonger who, if we did not live in Bushzarro world, would be in the docket, dressed in orange, awaiting prosecution for war crimes.

Now, with the victory of the Democrats, we have a new Nancy Pelosi.

It’s not so much that Democrats are “lily-livered vacillators on Iraq,” as Robert Dreyfuss would have it, but rather most of them support the occupation. Most of them, as Dreyfuss correctly notes, “voted for the war (and for the Patriot Act), and their ranks are shot though with pro-war right-wingers, not to mention the revived neocon Joe Lieberman…. The Democrats must thunder from the pulpit, threatening to rain down hellfire, hail and brimstone on Republicans who want to stay the course—while scrutinizing every Pentagon budget request and holding investigative hearings into war crimes, abuses, cost overruns and mismanagement.”
Sorry, Bob. But it ain’t likely to happen.

More likely, the U.S. military will meander toward an embassy rooftop sort of withdrawal, à la Saigon. But not before it sows more chaos, murder, and heart ache in Iraq and, as the neocons plan, in Iran, Syria, and the rest of the neighborhood.

Johnson, McNamara, Nixon, General Westmoreland, the criminals behind “Operation Menu” (the illegal invasion of Cambodia, resulting in the ascendancy of Pol Pot and the murder of 1.2 million Cambodians), Operation Linebacker II (also known as the “Christmas bombings,” the indiscriminate bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong), and hundreds of others, no shortage of them Democrats (in fact, it can be claimed Vietnam was indeed a Democrat war), should have faced a tribunal for war crimes.

Instead, most of them were allowed to write their memoirs.

It will likely be the same with the current crop of war criminals and appeasers.
Steny Hoyer talks tough with the Iraqi government, installed by the neocons, and the Democrats, under the guidance of Nancy Pelosi, are allowed to do their thing and not reach a consensus on withdrawing from Iraq.

In the months ahead, the Pentagon will “Go Big,” with a nod and wink from Democrats, who will declare they are still working on a withdrawal plan, honest, and John McCain’s plan to send more troops, most recently spelled out an op-ed piece published in the Manchester Union Leader, will be adopted “to protect Americans from the threat posed by violent Islamic extremists,” even those created by the CIA.

Finally, as McCain admits, the “voters might not always agree with us, but when they see us act on principle, see us tackle the hardest problems and risk our personal ambitions, they will draw the right conclusion: that we are acting on their behalf, not just our own,” never mind at the end of this road is not only a rendezvous with madness, but bullet-stopper conscription, as a continuation of the “war” in Iraq will embolden the neocons to carry out their plan to shock and awe Iran, a demented plan likely to result in a wider conflagration, flaming oil tankers, oil prices at $200 or more per barrel, a precipitated fall of the dollar against other currencies, a crushing and unsustainable deficit, and a hollowing depression, naturally blamed on them damn Arabs, the root of all evil in the world.

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=673