"Cheney's world view, which so dominated the Bush years and dishonored our nation, gained a little traction last week -- enough to persuade me to address it head-on here tonight," Levin said.What a guy, plying the airwaves to make sure the "torture" gift keeps on giving for the Dems. Wonder if Pelosi still considers it a gift, though? She pulled a Nixon and ran off to China last time the fur flew so unless she wants another vacation it would seem a big no. We will soon see if her "no further comment" policy remains in effect.
It's possible Levin is trying to reframe the debate to save her rear, ie, "Cheney only wanted waterboarded to get phony intel linking AQ and Iraq so he could get their greasy oil". It's the Larry Wilkerson route (although he's hit a few potholes) and is designed to take the debate off terrorists and back on "Bush lied" and "Cheney is evil" where the Dems feel more at home.
But if Levin is really really really interested in demonizing those in government who wondered aloud whether Saddam might be the man behind the curtain he could start by subpoenaing the Secretary of State and asking her why she said--on September 11th--that Saddam would have to be "dealt with" (hard to find now on the web) and that nations would have to be "with us or against us". Golly, that would have been before Bush officially lied, too.
Or maybe Levin could depose his colleagues and ask for explanations about what happened to the links they once talked about so morbidly when Clinton was being impeached. Or maybe he could depose himself, specifically about this statement:
Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq...which comes from his own Phase II Senate report That would be must-see TV!
This is tired old stuff but as long as the Dems keep dredging it back up it deserves to be challenged because they are literally trying to re-write history to wipe the GOP off the map. For instance, the Zarqawi debate is considered over by the left--as in Bush lied--but what about the Jordanians, who provided info on his comings/goings? Is Levin willing to call them liars, too? Is Pelosi?
And what of another guy named Abu? Old news but he's proof that Iraq was not beyond using proxies to attack American interests. Here are some other connections. They're out there, just a bit circumstantial. But if someone was going to set up a proxy network...
The bottom line is whether Cheney is lying about the effectiveness of EIT as Levin charges. First off, the public should wonder how Levin was able to view the very documents the CIA won't release to Cheney. Second, the public should demand to see the docs because then and only then will it become apparent who's telling the truth. If it turns out Cheney's bluffing or generalizing it would strongly suggest he was going after links between Iraq and AQ because that's where the WMD threat would have come from. But that's not what he's been saying in interviews.
Maybe he can't admit they got suckered and thought Iraq was involved, which might be a little problematic from a political point of view and would surely elevate Obama's 'superior judgment' into the stratosphere. But if Cheney's lying we need to know. Only the docs can tell. If he's not Levin and crew should receive no quarter.
Whether he's lying or not doesn't change the big Democrat lie, ie--that it's crazy to think a man who wanted the White House turned into dust might have actually tried to do it. Saddam was all about retribution and Arab pride. Apparently the left never truly believed the hype about him during the Clinton years, seeing Iraq as a convenient distraction when the Republicans were wrapping the dress around Clinton's neck. That changed fast with the transition.
Maybe they never really believed somebody would act on it. The real proof lies with the Clintons, who've never fully discarded or debunked it themselves. Whether that's the truth or something designed to protect their legacies (they have a lot of harsh rhetoric on tape) is hard to say, but should there be any truth commissions they should be among the first witnesses called to set the table.