Video: Carl “The Hammer” Levin calls for “action” against Syria
posted at 11:02 am on March 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I only glanced at the transcript the other day when Red State blogged this, figuring what he meant was diplomatic “action,” dialogue, a regional conference, yadda. Nope. Watch the clip — he’s asking explicitly for a military plan. In fact, he’s not even asking: “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.”
Carl Levin? Mr. “Cut and Jog”?
What he’s really doing here is almost the mirror image of the GOP challenging Democrats to cut funding for the war. He knows Bush doesn’t have the political capital to widen the theater by hitting Syria, so he gets to play pretend hawk and grandstand about what needs to be done to protect our boys without worrying that he’ll have to answer for it. The irony is, he’s right: the only ways to starve the jihadis would be either to seal the border or to put some hurt on Assad. But where do we find enough troops to do that? We don’t. Which is precisely his point.
Exit question: At this juncture, what’s the difference between Bush and Levin?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Those damned chicken-doves.
JackM on March 1, 2007 at 11:10 AM
What a douche.
Mortis on March 1, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Can’t we kill them off by peaceful means?
Wander on March 1, 2007 at 11:13 AM
You’ve got to be kidding me!
I’d love to hear Hillary!’s take on her esteemed colleague’s sentiments.
flipflop on March 1, 2007 at 11:16 AM
If we had gone into Iraq sooner as the President wanted to we would have gotten the weapons that were moved to Syria.
I am so sick of listening to these liberal morons in the Senate and House.
George on March 1, 2007 at 11:21 AM
OK… get this…
WE DO NOT NEED TO INVADE TO USE MILITARY POWER!!!
There is a little ole historical thing called the punitive raid.
Princes or countries would cross the border, hack and burn, and basicaly pillage to make the point that it HURT to mess with them… they didn’t need the troops to hold the country.
With modern air power and our overwhelming superiority on the battlefeild… we hit the regimes where it hurts…
Knock down bridges, refineries, and major strategic economic resouces… cross the border with a couple of armor divisions and take out major military assets…
Then LEAVE!!! Don’t try to rebuild… don’t play nice… just go in… kick ASS… then leave…
It will eventualy leave a power vacuum which will be replaced by somthing else… if its worse??? do it again…
We are playing to their strengths in Iraq, not our own.
Romeo13 on March 1, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Levin is a member of the party that wishes to surrender and Bush is a member of the party with a few people still willing to stand up to terrorism. Bush called down the thunder already, Levin couldn’t muster a sneeze.
Hening on March 1, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I agree romeo13.
There’s it way too much PC’ness in war making.
csdeven on March 1, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Romeo13 for President!
soulsirkus on March 1, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Romeo’s correct, but we shouldn’t hit economic assets, the libs will whine and complain that we’re only hurting the Syrian population. Hit the military assets, and make sure they get the message to quit pi**ing around in Iraq.
dalewalt on March 1, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Nope, ya gotta hit the civilian assets as well. THEY are the ones who will get tired, and change their government.
Thats part of the problem today, we do NOT wage war on countries, but on governments… so the people of that country have NO FEAR!
If the Islamic world needs a boogeyman to keep them in check… then lets by dam be the GREAT SATAN!!!!
Romeo13 on March 1, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Unfortunately maybe just intensions.
Hoodlumman on March 1, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Unfortunately, I’m agreeing with Levin (and Romeo13) here. “Military Action” doesn’t need to be a full out invasion and regime change. We could easily use our massive air power to take out strategic installations, and kick ass.
Agreed. If we need to, we blow them up, again. Look at al-Gaddafi. He thought we couldn’t find him, if he sat in a tent in like the parking lot of Walmart Libya. Reagan blew up his tent. Simple, but got the message across.
amerpundit on March 1, 2007 at 12:02 PM
CALL THEIR BLUFF!!
This will be like an Iraq thing ‘Go into Iraq! Go into Iraq! (starting to ramp up) What are you doing? (going into Iraq) Why did he do that?’
That being said, CALL THEIR BLUFF!!!
- The Cat
MirCat on March 1, 2007 at 12:05 PM
The difference: Bush wants to defeat the enemy; Levin wants to defeat Bush. But the Dems are having to stake out so many disparate positions to achieve strategic political advantage, I don’t see how their strategy can keep from collapsing under the weight of having to be in so many places at once. As I once said about Hillary, they’re not triangulating positions, they’re having to dodecahedronate them. I’m sure Levin is already getting Kosflack for “wanting to expand the war to Syria…”
As nauseating as the Defeat-At-All-Costs Party is, I still couldn’t help noticing – “Tonight, on CSPAN Committee Smackdown: Senator CombOver vs. DNI CombOver!”
eeyore on March 1, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Exit question: At this juncture, what’s the difference between Bush and Levin?
Ah, Levin has a comb over and Bush doesn’t? What do I win???
Babs on March 1, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Greg Valentine wants his nickname back.
benrand on March 1, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Romeo13’s plan.
There is recent historical support that this kind of thing works.
Look what Clinton did when he began bombing Serbia. Bombed bridges, communications systems, and power grids. Made life very uncomfortable for the average Serb. So when they had enough, they overthrew their dictator “Slobo”, and handed him over to the U.N.
I too think that low risk (cruise missile) strategic airstrikes against Syria may have an impact. However, it is gonna stir up a hornets nest in the Muslim world. I think we need to begin a very public campaign of warning Syria of the consequences first. Get some traction for actually doing this thing.
paulsur on March 1, 2007 at 12:26 PM
To answer Sen. Levin’s retorical question “Does the military have a plan to stop the weapons from coming into9 Iraq from Syria?”
Yes, Senator, that plan is to bomb the f’in border back to the stone age… Wanna vote for that?
Babs on March 1, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Israel does this all the time to Pals in Gaza. Of course letting them know that “it hurts” when you mess with the big dog is wasted on the Pals. They want to get hurt–heck–they want to die. I was so rooting for a bombs away on Hamas assets in Damascus during the Lebanon time-waste this past summer. Assad is a wuss, though, and I think a few well placed strikes would have a salutary effect on his world-view.
smellthecoffee on March 1, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Actualy, not really… The Moslem and especialy Arabic cultures are very revenge oriented. If you simply point out that “here is evidence”… and IMMEDIATLY don’t talk, but take an action, then will will understand, and in many cases respect it.
The Jihadists do not have moral equivalency, they are very black and white in their outlook (somthing the West just can’t get their heads around). One of the reasons the Islamic, and espicialy Arabic, worlds think we are morally bankrupt is that we WON’T use the power we’ve got… so their is no respect there.
If you don’t either fear, or respect, your enemy, there is no reason NOT to fight them.
Romeo13 on March 1, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Good one Babs.
His hair part is about a half inch above his ear now. I think when he is completely bald he will resort to combing over his ear hairs.
fogw on March 1, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Im confused.. is the same moron that thinks/wants us to redeploy to the moon or some such… Gawd I hate liberals!!
Viper1 on March 1, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Yeah right Carl, what do you recommend, a five minute verbal lashing . . . I’ll bet that would rally get their attention. What a joke.
rplat on March 1, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I’m so sick of people saying “we don’t have enough troops” to do this or that. Of course we do. We have 2.6 million in the military and 1.4 million on active duty. We can, if we want, to do just about anything we want. Quit using the excuse that we don’t have enough soldiers.
Capitalist Infidel on March 1, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Now that Levin’s on board….bombs away!
Gaddafi was not heard from from the time Reagan dropped a couple bombs on him until the first Gulf War when he opened his piehole against the US. He did get the message, until he thought the US was otherwise occupied.
Even then the drive by media was against the US, and Gaddfi didn’t mind using those idiots. I recall the media trumpeting that a child had been killed in the bombing (supposedly), and they were busy reporting how great Gaddafi was when he announced he was immediately adopting that child.
91Veteran on March 1, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Romeo13
I like your approach.
Kick their ASS then LEAVE.
The problem is,, is that I think Bush is trying to fight a politically correct war.
I wish he would just “pull the trigger” in Iraq and be done with it.
GForce on March 1, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Carl “The Hammer” Levin. Hilarious historical reference!
PRCalDude on March 1, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Every time Democrats, like Levin, sense we will militarily attack a nation (this time Iran), they suddenly decide that country is not a threat and another one is.
Before the Democrats sensed we would actually attack Iraq, they were clamoring for us to overthrow Saddam Hussein. When we attacked Iraq, they claimed Iran and North Korea were the real threats and we should have attacked them. Now that we are on the verge of doing something about Iran militarily, they suddenly claim Iran is not a threat and even want to pass a law forbidding President Bush from attacking it. Now they are saying Syria is a threat.
It is a charage masking their unwillingness ever to go to war against any hostile country.
januarius on March 1, 2007 at 2:15 PM
It’s been the Democrats’ strategy since the war began to undermine the current battles our troops are engaged in while using the “not there, over here” gimmick to create the perception that they aren’t complete terrorist sympathizers.
It’s similar to how they were crying about “not enough troops” right up to the day Bush agreed to a surge, then the rats were nowhere to be seen. If we went to Darfur or any other in vogue “places where we aren’t but should be”, they would change their tune and be in complete opposition, especially if any troops are killed there. The exception would be if Bush wanted to send troops to kill Christians in the Balkans.
Perchant on March 1, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Another classic is they don’t have enought equiptment, then they have too much (Arkin).
right2bright on March 1, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Don’t forget that Levin may actually vote for attacking Syria before he votes against it. I think it’s a great idea, one we should also use against Iran. Shock and awe time folks, call their bluff before they get nukes. They’re never gonna like us but we can sure make them respect us. BTW, the only way you’re going to get the Syrian population to force a change in Syria or Iran is to go after their infastructure and economic targets. Thanks Mr. Levin, carpetbombing it is.
Buzzy on March 1, 2007 at 2:57 PM
If this putz and his ilk had not been against our troops and country. Iran and Syria would not be feeling so bold now.
abinitioadinfinitum on March 1, 2007 at 3:57 PM
“Exit question: At this juncture, what’s the difference between Bush and Levin?”
Bush means it, Levin doesn’t.
Levin in 1999:
Levin in 2007:
TexasRainmaker on March 1, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Who cares what dems say on national security? They have no credibility on the issue. Just once i’d like to see this idiot Levin without those freakin’ Ichabod Crane glasses soldered to the end of his nose. Does he wear them 24 hours a day?
forged rite on March 1, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Thy will be done!
We may not have many spare troops but we can make them hurt so bad from the air they’ll wish for American troops.
Actually if Assad knew in his heart of hearts that the B1s were on the way he would sell out Iran in a less than his next trembly heartbeat.
Syria is still the key to Iran, be it by force or by collusion.
Speakup on March 1, 2007 at 6:37 PM
No Senator douchbag. We have no plans to take any real action against Syria for committing acts of war aginst us by providing direct support to terrorists in and out of Iraq that are killing our troops. Your party has so politicized the war that Bush has lost his resolve and is now too afraid and weak to do anything. Yes our troops are paying the price but there’s nothing we can do.
Besides even if we did have some plans to take action against Syria there’s no way we would reveal that here in an open forum just so you and your comrades can take that story and run to the press with it to further your sabatoge against Bush and perputatue his image as a crusading warmonger only after oil. Or would you vote for it first and then if it wasn’t over in 24 hours accuse us of having lied to you about them suppling arms to terrorists in the first place?
mwe67 on March 1, 2007 at 6:52 PM
It seems Allah says “enough troops,” because he won’t advocate the Americans’ use of their most destructive weaponry against Syria. Because I have few such scruples or restraints, I offer that it’s quite feasible for the U.S. to take Syria out of the picture.
Kralizec on March 1, 2007 at 7:39 PM
The Cat said it, CALL THEIR BLUFF.
Levin wants to see some “shock and awe”???
Then let our war machine ROCK. Pick a country Levin. Which one do you want?
He reminds me of the character Mel Brooks played in “Blazing Saddles”. The Governor.(Can’t remember his name)
Playing with a paddle-ball he complains, “Why do I always get a warped one?!?”
Talon on March 1, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I didn’t want to watch that clip, I really didn’t, but after I did, I think I am worthy of asking the question……..
“OK, Ms, Levin, we will deal with Syria, but will you allow us to win?
PinkyBigglesworth on March 2, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Point 1: Levin has no business demanding to see a military plan against Syria, because the Congress has no power to micromange war-fighting. That is the sole responsibility of the President.
Point 2: Under the War Powers Act, the President may engage Syria at any time and in any fashion, but is required to notify Congress. Congress may then approve or disapprove it by passing a joint resolution. In the event that both Houses of Congress disaprove, the President would then be required to withdraw subject to section 1544 (50 USC 1544).
Point 3: Congress is free to take Sen. Levin’s position to heard and authorize military force against Syria. Not likely, but possible.
georgej on March 2, 2007 at 3:12 AM
Comment pages: