Levin Gives Cheney Reason To Smirk
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.
How gullible do these politicians think we are? Is keeping American troops in a war zone the only way to “support” them? I can think of other ways of supporting them without putting them or keeping them in a war zone. No one advocates leaving “America’s fighting forces in harm’s way without the resources they need to defend themselves.” That’s a complete red herring. Similary, the question is not whether “to fund the troops.” The troops will be funded, provided salaries, training and other support whether they stay in the war zone or are safely back in the US. The issue is whether to fund the war. Given the illegal nature of the invasion and occupation, and given the lack of reasonably achievable US war aims, the answer to that questions is a no brainer.
As of a few months ago, I was seriously considering the intelligence of the average American. But as more troops come back from Iraq dead or seriously injurered, the small and generally conservative small towns these soldiers come from are finally beginning to question this illegal war. They aren’t getting the news from some media source, they’re getting it from those who have actually been there. Now people are waking up and more people are voicing opposition to this war.
They can also understand the difference between truly supporting the troops versus supporting ht e arms industry and other war profiteers. Cheney’s arguments are becoming very thin and he may soon realize that we the people aren’t as gullible as he hopes us to be.
This ill begotten war will end. My only hope is that it ends on George Bush’s watch.
Have not these people been put on notice already? How much more dense can they be? The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was ill conceived, opportunistic and strictly for the purposes of plunder and subjugation.
Carl Levin along with any others wishing to continue any further funding or occupation, on the back of flowery oration and twisting of words, will not and can not in any way justify the continued maintenance of this criminal activity. And, they shamelessly continue to request funding and support for what has already been deemed as War Crimes Against Humanity.
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk1vEuhBuEU
Support the troops by bring them home. And lets care for their injuries when they’re home.
As a long time Michigan supporter of Senator Levin, I was surprized and disappointed about his comments a couple of weeks ago too. I took the remarks as predictive (”The votes eventually will be there”) rather than as an expression of a changed substantive political position on the Senator’s part (don’t forget, Carl Levin sponsored the only meaningful amendment in the Senate to the 2002 Iraq War Authorization of Military Force resolution, and he voted against the AUMF when his amendment requiring UN Security Council approval of any invasion was rejected by his colleagues).
The timing of the statements were most puzzling, rather like a union bargaining chairman announcing that no matter what the pay rate was, there would be ratification without a strike. My own suspicion is that Senator Levin intends to try some other parliamentary line of attack - rather than funding cuts or funding tied to a withdrawal deadline - once the current impasse has been resolved one way or the other.
Comment on Ray McGovern’s article- Levin Gives Cheney Reason To Smirk.
Why did Sen Levin undercut Sen. Reid by saying,
We’re not going to cut off funding for the WAR. (Troops)
We should’nt cut off funding for the WAR.
We’re going to vote for a bill that funds the WAR, period.
We’re going to fund the WAR. We always have.
Who’s adgenda does Sen. Levin stand for with such strenght of commitment?
It looks to me like AIPAC and Israel are still calling the shots in the US. How tragic that is! I had always admired Senator Levin, but now I see my admiration was misplaced. He is no different than Bush and Cheney in supporting the “War”. This is not a war, after all, it is a failed occupation.
Cheney needs no reason to smirk - he is usually either smirking or sneering at the American people.
LET’S SEE IF THE BASS-TURD SMIRKS TOMORROW!!!
****************************************************
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 23, 2007
1:07 PM
CONTACT: Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Natalie Laber (202) 225-5871 (o); (202) 365-1040 (c)
Congressman Kucinich Will Hold Press Conference to Announce Introduction of Articles of Impeachment Relating To Vice President Richard Cheney
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will hold a news conference tomorrow afternoon to announce the introduction of articles of impeachment relating to the Vice President of the United States Richard B. Cheney.
Where: Cannon Terrace (intersection of Independence Avenue and New Jersey Avenue)
When: Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Time: 12 p.m.
Oh Brown I hope what you say it true.
Let the impeachment process begin. I think we need it for so many reasons. Lets have a fair hearing, and then, let the people CHOOSE.
Ken
According to Scott Ritter,retired Iraqi weapons inspector and author of Target Iran, Israel is the prime mover behind America’s forthcoming attack on Iran. He indicates that Iran is simply next in line, after Iraq, on Israel’s hit list.Indeed, Israel wanted Iran hit before Iraq. Coming attractions include Syria and Egypt, possibly Saudi Arabia. Every politician in Washington interested in keeping his/her job or getting a better one is required to genuflect before the AIPAC assembled and vow to crush the uranium out of Iran and not to evacuate Iraq as long as there is one weed left living. Why then, one might ask, should Sen. Levin be any different than any other?
Josh is correct. How can we support the troops and leave them in a situation where they are caught in the middle of a civil war. As a Viet Nam veteran I know that most, if not all, of the GIs over there just wanted to go home. We didn’t give a flying F**K about the government’s desire to defeat communism. We just wanted to get back to the “World”. The only way to really support the troops is to end this occupation and bring them home.
If the Congress rejects the “emergency” spending bill and Bush says he has been forced to veto it (can’t have any artificial deadlines), Bush always has the option of continuing funding by taking money from the illegal space weaponry, illegal/immoral new nuclear weapons development, new “humane” land mines development, the militarization of the State Department (some embassies have more military spies than diplomats), the Arabic-language propaganda station, and more et ceteras than I can name.
In fact, Congress could phrase it in just those terms. “It is your choice, George. Fund the troops or fund your weapons of death and destruction.”
The only major funding for the troops that is necessary should be for purchasing a oneway ticket back to CONUS for every American kid who is in harm’s way.
A smaller allowance of funds should be appropriated for the purchase of good hemp rope with which to hang the traitors in Washington (by the neck until dead).
I think it’s not very helpful to single out Levin, although his gesture is irritating. There are plenty of Democrats who have this same basic inability to lead. It’s mostly because of citizen pressure that the Democrats have made as much noise about the war as they have. After the 2006 elections, they seemed intent on avoiding the issue as much as possible. McGovern may be right about AIPAC’s influence over Levin: it would explain his eagerness to blame Iraqis for not seizing the opportunities he says they’ve been given. But the truth is that aside from Kucinich, Maxine Waters, and a few others, the Democrats — Reid included — have been too timid to end this war quickly. It’s hardly reassuring to read (NYTimes today) that Obama proposes to increase the size of the military. Given that opposition to the war is so popular these days in the U.S. it seems the majority of the Democrats are testing the voter patience with their posturing.
. . . and recall Levin.
Clearly, like so many before him, Levin “got the call.”
NSA illegal wiretapping on… who, again, exactly? All those “sleeper cells” they haven’t found since, er, ever?
No. Six years is enough time to eliminate every American as a “person of interest.” Yet, still listening they are.
Levin did something bad, they know it. Here puppy…
Perhaps there should be a private foundation called “Flights Home for Peace” that gives airfare home to soldiers leaving Iraq regardless of whether or not the leaving is permitted.
Noisefactor - Yes, I think patience is being tested, and every day that goes by without real change the likelihood of ongoing suffering increases. That is how it seems to me. Maybe we need a third party in this country.
It is beyond my understanding to whom some of these politicians feel beholden. I reckon there is money involved somewhere, but money can only go so far. Soon, if things don’t start happening soon, the importance of money will likely diminish. It might be a good thing for money to diminish, but not if this is associated with a total lack of order.
I’m tired of the thought process that goes something like this: “Lets just wait this out and hope things get better all by themselves”. It ain’t going to happen. People need to demand changes for the better, and leadership that can achieve this needs to emerge.
It may be disruptive. It may involve difficulties. Feelings may be hurt. But if America is a democracy, then it is high time for the people to demand changes for the better. Otherwise, while we are “waiting it out”, or worse “being apathetic”, we will be left behind. That is how it seems to me.
I hope Representative Kucinich’s impeachment effort gains momentum. There seems to be cause and I want a serious discussion regarding the path forward. I hope others feel likewise.
Ken
The Democrats have been clearly signalling for quite some time that they have no intention of cutting off the funding for the Iraq war. I was trying to research when they were saying this, and I found examples dating from the interviews given immediately after election day in 2006. You remember all the “now the Democrats take power …lets talk to the new Speaker of the House” type of stories that ran the day after the election in Nov 2006? Well, Pelosi and Reid were both firmly on message that day that funding for the Iraq war had to be continued.
So, the only drama has been this. How on earth would the leaders of a party who’s membership firmly believes this war must end and end soon, how would the leaders of this party live up to their promise to make sure the war continued to be funded?
Everything you’ve seen is a part of that story. The leadership of the Democratic Party insists that this war continue, and that it will be funded at the full levels requested by Bush and the Pentagon, with some more $$ thrown in on top just to show how committed the Democrats are to fully backing this war.
The only thing of interest is how they try to smoke screen and wrap the $$ up in various BS plans to try to convince the membership of their party to support their push for more $$ for more war.
Maybe Reid got tired of taking the heat for this, so he arranged this little play-acting with Levin so Reid could be the one looking opposed to the war for a change. But its just BS. Remember the roles were different when Conrad suggested some of the war $$ be cut. Then it was Reid who ran to the microphones and made sure the message was clear that the war $$ was sacred and could not be touched.
If you want change, then voting for the Democrats was a waste of a vote. If you want change, you should have voted Green in 2006. If you want change, you should vote Green in 2008. Voting Democrat is just voting to continue the same policies … but with a different face on the leader to try to fool you into thinking something has changed.
Vote Green in 2008!
I will email Carl Levin within the next 5 minutes telling him we the people are against keeping our troops in harm’s way in Iraq. Won’t all of you join me and email Levin?
Now is the time for progressives to join in coalition with returning Iraq war vets and demand impeachment/purge of the criminal cabal from the White House. This leaves the path wide open for The People’s Revolution.
“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.”
If Ray McGovern is correct that Carl Levin can’t see the difference between Israel’s interests and those of the U.S., perhaps he and others who follow the same line of thinking would like to explain their rationale to not only U.S. troops but U.S. taxpayers as well.
To my knowledge, Israel never even signed a “peace treaty” with the United States. Has Israel ever done anything for the United States?
carl levin has struck me as sane so far. his amendment in 2002 would have returned the vote to the senate if the un dismissed it. what i don’t understand is why levin hasn’t separated himself from bush with the left wing. we know he wants the soldiers to be all right. we’re not so sure why he just doesn’t say bush is batshit crazy to veto what he claims he wants.
When Levin announced that he would vote for money for Iraq even without restrictions, I replied to his e-mail by calling him a hypocrite and I unsubscribed to his e-mails. He knows there is enough money through July and that the DOD can shift money from other accounts to keep the war going. He should have announced that loud and clear instead of “supporting the troops” which is best done by bring them home out of harm’s way.
When are the American people going to rise up and challenge AIPAC????? This is so chilling and completely anti-democratic–to have a rich, powerful lobbying organization calling the shots in such a way that so many of our young soldiers are being killed in a lost cause! Clearly, Carl Levin is just another politician who is getting AIPAC money and drinking their Kool Aid!! And, worst of all, I think this is simply terrible for Israel!!
When are the American people gonna realize that we have no real representation unless and until we get VERY involved in letting Congress know that if they continue to behave so dispicably, we’ll kick all their butts out and start fresh!!!!!
Where’s islamophobes like Bill Maher or Harper’s McArthur going to come about and link Saudi pressure on Levin in backing the proxy war that the US is fighting for them?
This is all politics all the time now folks. It’s all about who is going to get to blame who for the loss in Iraq. Neither side cares how many more dead and wounded there are until it ends because the only ones that will pay the price are the American military and the Iraqis that get killed and wounded. Them and the American taxpayer that will get billed for the mess. Bush is trying to ride out the clock until he gets out of office and the Dems are trying to figure out how to pin it on the Republicans without being accused of losing it by shorting the troops on funding.
It really is time for change in Washington. The question is will the American voters step up to the plate and vote for real change. One definition of insanity is to continue repeating the same actions over and over, each time expecting a different result. As long as the American voter continues to vote for the duopoly that controls Washington they should consider themselves charter members of the Asylum.
Lobo Gris
It’s simple! Bring them home and you don’t have to worry about supporting them there.
That is of course, if their is in reality, such a thing as a withdrawal.
With the permanent bases that have been built there and 100,000 mercenaries on the ground, the idea of withdrawal that keeps being handy to the American people is Orwellian.
And Of course the mainstream media continues to promote the deception without brothering
To look under the rug for the lie. But then again, that is their job.
Again I say. Their will be no withdrawal!The U.S. is there to stay.
They will just keep stalling until the American people except the reality of that.Or least come to the conclusion that have no choice but to accept it.
55% of your tax dollar, goes to the pentagon.That is big business my friends.
As an outsider, it is sad to see such a once great democracy as the United Stated States puitting the kaibash on free speech. Maybe if, in the land of the free, the media were allowed to show flag-draped coffins coming home as often as they are, the voices of protest would be shouting more loudly and be greater in number. Why isn’t the media in America protesting this basic freedom - isn’t this the very sort of important information your constitution writers thought the public had a right to know? Why aren’t the media barons challenging that law in your courts? Too busy sidling up to the Administration so they can “embed” journalists? Or too busy showing videos of crazed gunmen? Shame on them as much as shame on the politicians.
If the trends continue another 5-10 years, some of us will be looking at emmigrating back to Europe. Most reasonably sensible people go where the opportunity is best. America’s future is murky at this point, there are some very troubling signs. A country which doesn’t look out for its own people is a country on a one-way path.
When will we ever learn? The America Israel Public Affairs Committee and other pro-Israel lobbies worked hand-in-glove with the neocons to bring about the American invasion of Iraq, and much of Congress is bought and paid for by them. Levin is a shining example. He, along with scores of other Pavlovian Israeli tools must be replaced in Congress by men and women who hold America’s interests as primary. Only then may we disentangle from our disastrous Mid-East policies, and only then will be be able to help solve the Israel-Palestine mess by being even-handed and fair.
Thinking about what he said that bush is the commander in chief and that just for that reason we should do what he wants.Bush has already shown how incompetent he is.He fired people who were competent and he should be next.Makes you wonder if voting does make a difference.Tony
You would think that “doing what’s right” would be more important than “doing what looks good.” However, for an incumbant-dominated institution, morality suffers in the wake of expediency.
A chief reason our “new” congress is so out of touch with the urgency (and its accompanying expense!) felt here in the hinterlands is the pestilence of the gerrymander.
Hey,
This is what I think.
We need a better story. Better than hollywood (money can’t buy everything). Better than Rove (this shouldn’t be hard).
A story with substance that captures the people’s imagination and really matters. U Know?
Then we need leaders to emerge who will do the people’s will.
Just my 2 cents.
Ken
No wonder Cheney is smirking! Together with Carl Levin, he finds himself in the service of a now-seemingly invincible master.
Consider the question posed (and answered) in Ray McGovern’s article:
Q: “What would prompt Levin to undermine his own majority leader?
A. “Federal Election Commission records show that Levin has received more money from pro-Israel political action committees than any
other senator.”
“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other;
or else he will hold to one, and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:24)
The “two masters” whose interests are at odds over policy in Iraq, between whom Levin must choose (he cannot serve both), are:
1. The United State, its best statesmen and its best interests.
2. International Zionism, and its current White House lackeys.
Carl Levin is merely serving one master. No marvel. This servitude -by many other Senators- has been on-going, since the Balfour Declaration…
Consider this assertion, widely discredited as “anti-semitic” (a devil term used very effectively to quell any discussion about Zionism or its goals), by Senator J. William Fullbright (then-Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). He made it during an appearance on the CBS program “Face the Nation”, on October 7, 1973:
“I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out foreign policy (in the Middle East) not approved by the Jews… terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built-up on congressmen… I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get Congress to do anything they don’t approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the Congress through influential Jewish people in the country.”
One may slur Fullbright and his assertion. And many, many do.
Others may be asking: Same shit ? Different day ?
All I’m saying is…..
I’m going to do my part, and I want things to get better for everyone. For all. All of the people.
For this to happen, I think we need to work together. Simple as that.
Ken
Sure, lets fund more death and destruction and have even more wars. Its patriotic! What kind of people are we that love to kill, maim, torture and destroy so casually? Why not add another million lives to our body count and see whether we are loved as no others on the planet?
Why am I not surprised?
Why is it that routes of all US foreign policy misdemeanors link to one and only one spot; Israel.
What sort of a hold may a tiny minority of less than 1% have on a great powerful nation like the US that will lead it by the nose?
The answer is probably when the US public opinion will revolt against this destructive influence.
It is only then that the US may be claim to be the true leader of the FREE world.
Hey Brown (or anyone else):
Do you know a way to download Kucinich’s Resolution (I think it is HR 333) which apparently is Articles of Impeachment against one Mr. Dick Cheney (current VP)?
Ken
I found it:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110ZzbYJk::
Note: The link above is for the Library of Congress’s document website (THOMAS). I mention this because it may be necessary to search and find the actual link to the resolution rather than using the one I posted.
Ken
As usual, Ray McGovern offers important insights into the illegal Iraq occupation and how best to fight it. Clearly, Sen. Levin is in fact undermining the central point raised by Sen. Reid: The war is unwinnable in military terms. Further US military action only increases the carnage–adding to the stacks of 3,300 uniformed US troops, an estimated 800 US-paid “contractor” mercenaries, and the roughly 600,000 Iraqi dead.
However, I believe it is a mistake to focus on the power of the independent Israeli influence on US policy. First, the interests of US militarists coincide with those of Israel’s hard-liners, but the US is firmly in command. Israel thus serves as a very useful “pit bull” carrying out US objectives with US-supplied weapons and bullets, while the US can maintain that Israel is merely acting on its own. Israel’s use of the weapons in aggressive wars, against civilian populations (eg., the cluster bombs rained down on southern Lebanon in the closing moments of Israel’s recent war), and the employment of torture violate US restrictions on military aid to Israel. In this context, Israel’s role as the US pit-bull in the region provides American administrations with a thin veneer of “plausible deniability.” (
Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar, in their new book “Perilous Power,” along with other pieces by Chomsky, thoroughly debunk the notion that the Israeli lobby has significant power other than through its intersection with the interests of the US empire as a whole.)
Second, the US has an even more deeply-rooted and uncritical relationship with the medieval, totalitarian regime of Saudi Arabia. The US relationship with Israel’s right-wing rulers is one of convenience, while the dependence on Saudi Arabia for control of the oil spigot–thus exerting control over Europe, China, and other economic rivals–is utterly inviolate.
Third, the one-dimensional focus on the power of the Israeli lobby, torn from the context of Israel’s role in serving US objectives, is likely only to alienate many American Jews who fear a return of anti-Semitism on a major scale. (I’m afraid, for example, that Ray McGovern’s comments may be ruthlessly distorted by the Israeli hawks into a version of Pat Buchanan-style accusations of Jews having “dual loyalties.) The vast majority of American Jews are both anti-Iraqi War and showing growing signs of alienation from the horrors committed against civilians by rightist Israeli governments. Let’s build on this foundation of agreement to join in fighting the US Empire rather than engage in an endlessly-divisive debate over the power of the Israeli lobby.
Roger Bybee, Milwaukee, WI