Post #45

Subject: A genuine change-of-heart… or a search for political cover?

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

* * *

From CNN [drumroll]:

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

As the Iraq war clearly worsens, some U.S. Senators who voted for the war have now come out against it. One of them is now deeply, deeply frustrated about the current course, and is out blasting the Bush administration's strategy. Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon had this to say late last week about Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And joining us now, Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.

Senator, a powerful, emotional statement I know, coming from your gut, coming from your heart. Why the about face?

SEN. GORDON SMITH (R), OREGON: Wolf, if you have the privilege of representing one of the United States and you have a voice and a vote, now is the time to speak up.

[Uuummm, a vote, yes – does that mean you, Mr. Smith, will not vote any more funds for this God-foresaken mess? After all, Congress controls the purse. Will you not vote to pay to send 30,000 more American targets? Or are you just looking for a campaign slogan?]

And I felt duty bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another, from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy, to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.

[That “establishing democracy” part is what should have given you pause, Mr. Smith, to begin with – establishing democracy is NOT a military objective. Removing Saddam and the threat of WMD are military objectives. We have won. Why we continue to have sitting ducks in Iraq is beyond me – actually, I have a pretty good idea, but my Mama taught me not to speak ill of the mentally deficient. :p]

BLITZER: So you've concluded this is now a civil war in Iraq?

SMITH: I have concluded that. You know, this is a fight, when you get right down to the root of it, between Sunnis and Shias that goes back a millennia of time over who is the rightful successor to the Prophet Mohammed. That is not our fault. That is not our fight and that's not something we can fix.

And I felt I had to speak out, because if these sacrifices are being made in pursuit of a policy that cannot succeed, then we need to admit it and readjust in a way that the American people and our soldiers find worth the sacrifice. And this is not.

[You are so right, Mr. Smith. We have won the Iraq War militarily. But we cannot succeed military with what is a political problem.]

BLITZER: So let me repeat the question. Who should be held accountable for what you believe has now become -- and I'll just use the word fiasco or disaster or some word along those lines?

SMITH: Well, I think all of us with positions of responsibility are accountable. But, clearly, I can't be quiet anymore. I'm leveling this charge at no one man or woman, but I am clearly saying that the American people will and should hold us accountable.

So if you've got something to say, now is the time to say it. Either let's fight the war intelligently for an objective that is obtainable, or let's admit it and figure out how to preserve the lives of our soldiers.

[The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle – George W. Bush will get the blame. And he should. Oh, History will harshly judge neo-cons, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. A special paragraph will be reserved for those who first supported this mess, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. However, those who have a genuine change-of-heart get a footnote. We’ll see, Mr. Smith, just how genuine you are – you’ve used your voice, now use your vote,]

BLITZER: Because morally speaking, if you do conclude it's futile right now and that a year from now it's not going to make any difference what the U.S. does, that the situation is still going to be a sectarian civil war -- your words -- is it moral to keep U.S. men and women in harm's way, let another thousand or so Americans die over the next year if it's simply going to wind up exactly, if not worse, than it is right now?

SMITH: It is not right to do that. Let me also add, though, that we have an ongoing interest in prosecuting the war on terror, a fight from which we can retreat only at the peril of our own nation.

There are ways to reposition on the borders of Iraq to take on terrorist jihadists from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. And these are the people that we want to fight. That is our fight, and ultimately, that is a very important fight for our country for our sake, not just for Iraq's.

[Yes, the War on Terror is our fight; the Iraq War is not. Glad to have you on board.]

BLITZER: Knowing what you know now -- and obviously with hindsight we're all a lot smarter -- if you had to do it over again knowing that no WMD in Iraq, no al Qaeda connection, knowing 3,000 Americans were going to be killed, $400 billion spent, $2 billion a week, would you have voted for that resolution...

SMITH: No.

BLITZER: ... to support this war?

SMITH: As I said in my floor statement, had I known there were no WMD there, I would not have voted for it. But I do want to add that I believe it's a good thing that we removed Saddam Hussein. I think there would have been other ways to do that without the cost in life and treasure that our current approach has led us to. … [T]hat the time is now to rethink this and reposition the American war against terrorism.