Via Crooks and Liars, Max Cleland gets hot at Cheney’s latest brown-nosing of AIPAC, with some added commentary from Nancy Pelosi.

Cheney’s coming on strong again precisely because he wants to thwart the new Democratic initiatives that seek a resolution to the war in Iraq. Yet once again, we learn that the administration’s strategy is completely based on reaction instead of action.

If Bin Laden says something is what he believes, then we must do the opposite of what he says he wants.

Clearly this puts us completely at the mercy of Bin Laden. For all he needs to do is say: “you’re chicken, you’ll never find us because we hide over the edge of that cliff in front of you.” And Cheney would insist we need to jump over that cliff to thwart him.

Reaction is not a strategy. Bin Laden’s propaganda is only propaganda. As is Cheney’s:

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument but as an assertion meant to close off argument.

Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. The most serious issue today for the whole world, he has said, is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. He calls it a destiny between infidelity and Islam. He said the whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, “The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.”

This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, “Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars.”

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a central front in that war and it’s where they’ve chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are fighting al Qaeda terrorists today in Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad who were responsible for numerous car bomb attacks. Iraq’s relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain.

Who has decided that Bin Laden will be the judge of wins and losses? Bin Laden says that. Cheney says that. Is it important that 2 out of 3 Americans think they’re both wrong? Why does Cheney ally his argument with Bin Laden’s while refuting 200 million American opinions? Why does he agree to grant Bin Laden that much power that he really does not have? Whose side is Cheney on?

Furthur, Cheney states about terrorists in Iraq: “They know it is a central front in that war and it’s where they’ve chosen to make a stand.”

He neglects to mention that they were not welcome in the part of Iraq Saddam controlled and would have been eliminated by him had they shown up when he controlled his army. It is the policies of Bush and Cheney that created a situation ripe for exploitation by terror groups. Now the Sunni Iraqis welcome the assistance of terrorists, because they faced marginalization by the Shia majority Bush and Cheney brought to power. If the Sunni Iraqis can gain a fair shake via the new government, they will as quickly end their alliance with terrorist groups.

Meanwhile, we learned via Seymour Hersh that Bush is quietly aiding Sunni terror groups to thwart the alliance of the Iraqi Shia government with the Iranian Shia government. So Bush is mirroring the errors of Ronald Reagan’s Iran Contra strategy of arming both sides in the conflict. With one key difference: now our troops are in the middle of the crossfire.

There is no doubt that terrorists are afoot in the world. That has been so throughout history. Cheney asserts they are more dangerous now because they use our modern technology, singling out the internet as example number one. He neglects to mention that the technologies, from nukes to lesser weapons, do not come from terrorist factories. Other than the simplest IEDs, they come from arms we produce and we supply. Not jus6t on black markets, but directly. Does he forget who armed Bin Laden? Does he forget that Reagan, via Oliver North, sold TOW missiles to Iran? Does he forget who supplied Saddam with the material for chemical and bioweapons?

Of course not. He and his longtime buddy Rumsfeld were part of the administrations providing all that. As the NRA likes to say: “guns don’t kill people; people kill people”. Modern technology is not the threat. It’s the people arming our enemies with modern weaponry that makes the threat grow large.

And let us not forget what else Cheney leaves out. In the same speech he uses for a Bin Laden quote, Bin Laden also offered the path to a truce. Why does Cheney ignore that? Because he chooses the path of permanent war instead of considering the possibility of a faster peace.

Two bullies, determined to outbully each other, both well-protected while hundreds of thousands die in their stead. Both deserve rebuke. Both deserve to know the beaks of vultures. Neither is allied with the interests of my family, nor yours.

Removing our troops from Iraq does not mean Al Qaeda has won anything. Indeed, it might mean that Iraq can win its independence from both groups of outsiders. And that we can return to aggressive pursuit of terror leaders like Bin Laden, to the proper disposal of global nuclear stockpiles, to limit the availability of the only WMD that threatens a significant number of our citizens.

But those aren’t options Cheney will choose. They make too much sense. As long as people provide funds and bodies for Bin Laden, he will use them to create more misery. Unfortunately the same is true of Cheney.