[Marxism] Ray McGovern on Cheney & the Democrats

[Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>]

April 17, 2007
Is Cheney Right About the Democrats?
by Ray McGovern
The rhetoric over recent days and this morning makes it clear that  
Vice President Dick Cheney is still in charge of Iraq policy. He  
seems supremely confident that the Democrats can be intimidated into  
giving the White House the only thing it really wants – enough money  
to stave off defeat until President George W. Bush and Cheney are  
safely out of office. That, of course, is also what lies behind the  
"temporary surge" in troop strength.

Was Defense Secretary Robert Gates being naive or disingenuous on  
Jan. 11, when he appeared before the Senate Armed Forces Committee  
and addressed the "surge?"

"I don't think anybody has a definite idea about how long the surge  
would last. I think for most of us, in our minds, we're thinking of  
it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years."

I know Gates; he is not naive. And whatever the relative merits of  
positions on a policy issue, neither he nor anyone else in the small  
coterie of presidential advisers is likely to stand up to Cheney. The  
$64 question is whether the Democrats will. To me, that appears a  
long shot.

On CBS' Face the Nation yesterday, Cheney could barely suppress a  
smirk in expressing confidence that the Democrats in the end will  
cave in and, as he put it, "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."

While our corporate media remains allergic to analyzing the  
administration's true intentions, Democrats cannot fail to see the  
White House game for what it is. Will they be frightened into  
acquiescing in the certain deaths of 1,000 to 1,500 more American  
troops already "in harm's way," and the wounding of several times  
that number – not to mention the mounting casualties among Iraqis?

It appears they will.

While some Democrats in Congress have shown backbone since becoming  
the majority, key members like Senate Armed Services Committee Chair  
Carl Levin of Michigan seem willing to acquiesce in giving Cheney and  
Bush funding to continue 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 next March,  
Levin undercut Reid 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."

Do you want me to repeat that?

Levin is a smart fellow, but his progressive credentials have been  
tarnished by his caving in on funding for an unworkable National  
Missile Defense project, by his working out an unsavory compromise  
with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on depriving detainees of rights  
formerly guaranteed them by the U.S. Constitution, and now this.

What would prompt Levin to preempt his own majority leader? One  
possible explanation might be found in the chutzpah-laden admonitions  
coming from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister  
Tzipi Livni, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)  
cheerleaders for Cheney, who do not disguise their fervor for the  
U.S. continuing the war in Iraq. Their gratuitous warnings at last  
month's AIPAC meeting in Washington that U.S. politicians not show  
"weakness" on Iraq spring from their conviction that withdrawal of  
U.S. troops would make the neighborhood more dangerous for Israel.  
(Israeli politicians should have thought of that before goading Bush  
and Cheney into attacking Iraq in the first place.)

Levin has received more money from AIPAC than any other senator. It  
seems an open question whether he is influenced more by the money or  
by a penchant – akin to that of Republican "neoconservatives" – to  
see little or no daylight between what they perceive to be Israel's  
interests and those of the United States.

Perhaps there is a simpler explanation. If there is, Levin owes it to  
us. Yesterday he waffled some more, telling Fox News Sunday that, if  
the president vetoes a troop withdrawal date, Congress will try to  
approve a bill with "some very strong, clear, statement about the  
Iraqis needing to meet our benchmarks, and consequences if they don't."

Right. That is sure to work with Bush, Cheney, and Iraqi leaders, who  
continue to play senior U.S. officials like a violin. If that is the  
kind of cowardly "compromise" Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi  
accommodate to after talking with the president on Wednesday, let  
everyone know that they do so over the dead bodies of countless  
thousands more Americans and Iraqis.

No Give From Bush

President Bush was well-scripted for his White House East Room  
performance this morning, at which he used the bereaved spouses and  
children of fallen troops as a backdrop to repeat his familiar  
bromides for continued war in Iraq. The well-worn rhetorical  
flourishes were all there, relevant or not: two shameless allusions  
to Sept. 11 (as if that had anything to do with Iraq); the need to  
fight over there, "so that we don't have to face [the terrorists]  
where you live;" refusal to countenance "arbitrary dates" or an  
"artificial timetable" for "precipitous withdrawal."

There was no sign in the East Room of any White House intention to  
compromise on key points; rather, the lines are now clearly drawn.

Immediately after the president's presentation, Senate Majority  
Leader Harry Reid and two retired U.S. Army generals responded. The  
generals went on the offensive, showing the military strategy and  
tactics on Iraq, particularly the surge, to be misguided and  
counterproductive. Reid, however, was perceptively on the defensive.  
He gave pride of place to repeated assurances that "Congress is  
committed to fully funding the troops," adding that draft legislation  
gives the president $4.3 billion more than he even asked for. He then  
suggested, in a plaintive tone, said that the president "should  
listen to us." Fat chance.

Asked about Levin's unusual behavior, Reid finessed his answer,  
referring to the possibility of benchmarks and stressing that the  
president "is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it," even  
if he vetoes the first one. Reid added, "Senator Levin is one of my  
strong allies, one of my generals; I look to him for guidance and  
leadership.

A harbinger of Democratic cave-in on Wednesday, absent an immediate  
backbone transplant for Reid.

This piece originally appeared at TruthOut.org.



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism