Or just useful idiocy?

Senator Levin (who every day I'm reminded of his existence makes me ashamed to be from the State of Michigan), has been complaining that we haven't been sharing our intelligence with the "inspectors." Here's an example from a press release on January 9th.

If we prejudge the outcome of inspections or if we don't furnish the arms inspectors with targeted intelligence, we will not be able to obtain the international support, as represented by a U.N. authorization for the use of force, that is so highly desirable and advantageous to us. Forcibly disarming Iraq without international support would be perceived as a unilateral attack by the United States and a few allies. International support is critical to reducing the short term risks, such as a loss of regional cooperation with resulting increased probability of U.S. casualties, and reduced likelihood of international contributions in a post-conflict environment. International support is also important to reducing long term risks, such as a loss of international cooperation in connection with the war against al Qaeda and increased probability of terrorist attacks against us.

In summary, January 27th is the first interim report. It is not decision day as to whether to attack Iraq. We must not prejudge the outcome of the very inspections process that we worked so hard to put in place as being highly relevant to the question of whether we launch an attack on Iraq. We must share all the information we can on suspect sites. If we don't share our information with the U.N. inspectors or if we prejudge the outcome of these inspections, we will increase the likelihood that we will go to war and increase the risks short term and long term to our troops and our nation in doing so.

Just now, I was listening to the stench of crapweasels residing on the East River, and I heard the Iraqi ambassador whining about their innocence, and he said, "Even United States Senators claim that by withholding intelligence, they undermine the the mission of the inspectors."

Thanks a bunch, Carl.

Next to be heard: "Even the former President of the United States says his country should defer to the inspectors."

A great big, pungent "thank you" to Bill, too.

Rand, Carl Levin has been "our" senator for as long as I can remember, and I don't ever remember not reacting with disgust at seeing his name on the news or in the papers. Even when I was, say, twelve, I could smell the smugness right through the teevee screen.

It was bad enough when he went about his business as if Detroit was the whole of the state, but now he's outdoing himself by acting as a useful idiot for Saddam. It's a pity Engler didn't run against him last time out.