Carl Levin is my least favorite US Senator; other Senators, like John Kerry and Chris Dodd, may have equally bad records of working at all times against the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States and taking the side of our enemies in every argument, but nobody else works as hard at it as Levin. If the New York Times was a Senator, it would be Carl Levin.
So I’m still reeling at the news that at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Sen. Levin called for more aggressive action against Iran and Syria’s meddling in Iraq, including openly advocating military action against Syria:
It’s more than just – we’re trying to close down the Iranian border area too. The problem is that these weapons are coming from a state which is – doesn’t recognize Israel either, just like Iran doesn’t. We’ve got to try to stop weapons coming into Iraq from any source that are killing our troops. I agree with the comments about trying to stop them coming in from Iran, I think we have to try stop them that are going to the Sunni insurgents as well as to the Shia. I was just wondering, does the military have a plan to, if necessary, to go into Syria to go to the source of any weapons coming from Syria? That are going to Sunni insurgents? That are killing our troops? … I think we ought to take action on all fronts including Syria and any other source of weapons coming in, obviously Iran is the focus – but it shouldn’t be the sole focus.
Levin also conceded that U.S. troops are needed in Iraq for “a counter-terrorism purpose” against Al Qaeda. Amazing.
The video of Levin’s comments on Syria is here.
Worse than Senator Bobby KKK Byrd?
Oh, yes. Byrd is mainly a danger to the taxpayer’s wallet. Levin is far more insidious.
Jeez, Greg, what is it about “working at all times against the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States and taking the side of our enemies” you don’t understand?
When does Levin’s treason hearing start, Crank? Seriously. I mean, that is what your hyperbole boils down to.
I’ll go one up on Furious: if Levin actually said this horseshit about taking military action against Syria, then he’s my least favorite Senator.
He should be your favorite now, Crank. Why the negative words about him?
Whaddya mean “if”? Watch the video.
I don’t have a chance to watch the video right now, but I actually was watching CSPAN in a waiting room at about the time of that exchange, and I remember it more like Levin was trying to put these guys testifying in a box. I’ll re-watch later and reevealuate.
Whaddya mean “if”?
I agree with Furious. I think he’s “trying to make a point” more than advocate invading Syria.
But if you think he means this, what’s your objection then? Isn’t this what you want? Shouldn’t you be cheering for Levin, glad to have such a committed hawk on your side?
I still haven’t re-watched the video, but the way I heard Levin the first time was trying to get the guys testifying to admit that weapons from syria and elsewhere should be just as much of a concern as the hyped up threat from Iran.
It sounded like Levin’s point was sticking a finger in the dyke on the Iran side still allows weapons to pour in everywhere else. No borders are sealed, and there are countless caches of weapons already IN Iraq.
I am cheering for Levin, if he meant what he said. If Furious is right, that would be more typical Levin, always concerned about any problem except the one at hand, as an excuse to solve none of them.