The Essential Gordon Smith
Of all the convoluted explanations for Gordon Smith's about-face on Iraq, the part at 1:00 where he explains that he woke up on a Wednesday and then..uh..ten more of our..uh..fighting men..and..uh..maybe a woman..i don't know...
Memo to pollster: a canned story about the candidate's reaction to the news only works if he's well-briefed or he actually watches the news.
Sidenote to pollster: We're fine -- he's flipped 6 times since this "courageous" speech to an empty US Senate chamber...we can go any way we want w/the TV spots.
[Editor's note: The above video comes from The Accountability Project.]
|
March 6, 2007 |
Kelly Steele | Comments (25 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Dan Carol | Mar 6, 2007 1:29:13 PM
As a going away present for Neel Pender, why don't folks call Gordon Smith's office today and urge him to take a public position AGAINST any presidential pardon for Scooter Libby.
Here are your talking points:
Lying is wrong. Especially when you are coverng up a treacherous political act which undermines our national security.
202-224-3121. Ask for Gordo.
Posted by: anon | Mar 6, 2007 1:57:06 PM
Aren't we all going to look and feel silly a year from now, after Bush's recent surge and refocused diplomatic efforts have actually worked, and Iraq's government has reconciled, the fighting has abated, and the troops are starting to come home.
Bush's poll numbers will have rebounded somewhat and the Iraq war won't look like such a disaster after all.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 6, 2007 2:19:11 PM
Yes, yes we will anon. And I will also feel stupid at that time a year from now, for ever saying that it was impossible for me to become the top soprano of the Houston Grand Opera, debuting in Gerswhin's Porgy and Bess...as Bess.
By the way, you can't even call it "wishful thinking" if there doesn't appear to be any of the latter going on inside...
Posted by: Samuel John Klein | Mar 6, 2007 2:21:00 PM
Aren't we all going to look and feel silly a year from now, after Bush's recent surge and refocused diplomatic efforts have actually worked, and Iraq's government has reconciled, the fighting has abated, and the troops are starting to come home.
Whereas if you support the current policy you can just look foolish and silly right now.
If anything the current administration does in Iraq brings about any positive chance it will only be because eventually, when one tries everything else, they'll resort to doing what they should have been doing all along.
And if the troops start coming home in the next year, it will because a Democrat finally managed to make a Republican do the right thing, either that, or someone made if profitable. It's all about the $$$, remember.
Posted by: BlueNote | Mar 6, 2007 2:43:58 PM
As my mother says, if you can't say something good about a person, don't say anything at all. So my comment about Gordo is . . .
Earl B. will be a fresh voice in the US Senate for Oregon. He understands the critical distinction and balance between local issues (aka "PORK") and the need to make laws that benefit the entire country and move us ahead as a society. I would like Earl to be more outspoken in favor of a single payer health care system modeled on the expansion of Medicare, but I recognize that the wackos are out there waiting to scream "Socialized Medicine" so I excuse Earl from taking a hit on this issue too early in the campaign.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Mar 6, 2007 3:12:54 PM
Posted by: BlueNote | Mar 6, 2007 2:43:58 PM
I don't think Earl is going to leave Ways and Means. Don't get me wrong, ˆ like Earl, and were he to run against Smith, I would support his efforts to win. But I don't see it happening. I think we need a smart fighter to take on Smith. Someone with who will call Smith on his BS and can demonstrate the mind and political agility we need to address real problems facing real people. Someone who is smart on policy, and can articulate it in ways that people can understand. Someone who is not a traditional politician (not that I am saying Earl B. is)
Posted by: anon | Mar 6, 2007 5:22:45 PM
If anything the current administration does in Iraq brings about any positive change it will only be because eventually, when one tries everything else, they'll resort to doing what they should have been doing all along.
And if the troops start coming home in the next year, it will because a Democrat finally managed to make a Republican do the right thing.
Well I would hope that if things look a lot better in Iraq a year from now, and if Bush and Republicans look better as a result, that somehow Democrats get credit for this. I wouldn't count on this automatically happening, however.
Despite the way things may appear today, it is not a slam dunk 100% certainty that Iraq will be in as bad a shape or worse than it is today. But it seems like a lot of Democrats are not only assuming, but counting on everything in Iraq being just as bad or worse than today, in order to maintain momentum and public support for the elections in 2008.
All I'm saying is that there is a better chance than most of you think that things will indeed improve a lot in Iraq over the next 12 months, troops will come home, Bush will look good, Smith will look better, and the elections in 2008 won't have much to do with Iraq. It won't be the defining issue in the 2008 elections. It will be old news.
We shouldn't prepare to fight the same war in 2008 that we fought and won in 2006. We should prepare to fight the war we will be fighting then - which probably won't or might not have anything to do with Iraq.
I guarantee you that the 2008 elections will not be a carbon copy of 2006. The same messages and tactics that worked in 2006 are not necessarily going to work in 2008. A year and a half is a long time from now.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Mar 6, 2007 5:41:47 PM
But it seems like a lot of Democrats are not only assuming, but counting on everything in Iraq being just as bad or worse than today, in order to maintain momentum and public support for the elections in 2008.
Anon:
Can you one single elected Democratic official - county, state, or federal level - that has advocated, wished, or said they hoped Iraqi would remain the same or worse in order to maintain some sort of "momentum" towards 2008?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Thanks for the deep thoughts.
Posted by: anon | Mar 6, 2007 6:12:12 PM
"Can you one single elected Democratic official - county, state, or federal level - that has advocated, wished, or said they hoped Iraqi would remain the same or worse in order to maintain some sort of "momentum" towards 2008?"
No, but I could rattle off the names of a few dozen lefty and progressive activists and organizers, and Blue Oregon commenters, who by their words and actions seem to be doing exactly that.
"Thanks for the deep thoughts."
You're welcome. :)
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Mar 6, 2007 6:20:39 PM
No, but I could rattle off the names of a few dozen lefty and progressive activists and organizers, and Blue Oregon commenters, who by their words and actions seem to be doing exactly that.
Name them.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Mar 6, 2007 6:25:06 PM
Posted by: anon | Mar 6, 2007 5:22:45 PM
I for one would reconsider being an atheist if Bush and crew could turn the biggest foreign policy disaster in our nations history (invading Iraq) into a "win". Hell, I would say Bush would deserve the Nobel prize.
But coming from a military family (non serving presently however), I have to say that gambling with the lives of our military personal on fraudulent wars which have destroyed our position in the world (not to mention destroying our military's relationship with our civilian government for not holding this administration to account) is something I take serious. Deadly serious. Flushing our nation's position in the world, our military, and our moral standing down the toilet, while simultaneously making new and more numerous enemies which will be gunning for my family for generations, in order to "secure" Iraqi oil is completely unacceptable.
Do I hope for a miracle that things turn out great in Iraq in the next few months? Of course. I have been hoping for the miracle since the day we invaded. But it will be truly miraculous to have it occur now. That does not mean I, nor anyone else who is vociferously against this war, wants or hopes for continued or greater disaster. The exact opposite actually. I hope I am wrong. But so far I have not been, and I take no pleasure in saying that at all. Furthermore, I find it offensive when people such as yourself suggest that I (and others in my party) hope military families ose the lives of a family member in order to win an election.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Mar 6, 2007 6:27:11 PM
Posted by: anon | Mar 6, 2007 6:12:12 PMNo, but I could rattle off the names of a few dozen lefty and progressive activists and organizers, and Blue Oregon commenters, who by their words and actions seem to be doing exactly that.
I call bullshit. Give us names and examples then.
Posted by: anon | Mar 6, 2007 7:26:20 PM
I call bullshit. Give us names and examples then.
For starters, the people at The Accountability Project who created this video making fun of Sen Smith. The underlying assumption is that this kind of video is going to be the vote winner in November 2008 that it may be now. IMHO, this is the kind of red meat video that the already converted love, but it's not the kind of video that's going to persuade swing voters.
Second, all the people saying we should impeach Bush, or vote to cut off all funding for troops in Iraq right now this minute, and think this is a majority vote winning stance to take, either now or in the fall in 2008.
Third, Steve Novick: "Smith is going to lose in 2008. Not everyone knows that yet."
Hey I hope Smith loses in 2008, I think he is vulnerable, and I hope a great Democratic candidate challenges him, and I think there is a good chance we could knock of Smith. All I'm saying is that it's probably not going to be the kind of cakewalk some people imply, and his votes on Iraq probably aren't going to be the focus of the election campaign.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 6, 2007 9:00:05 PM
Anon, that's bullshit and you know it.
You're not naming names. You're calling out unnamed "people" who want Gordon Smith to lose.
And your statement - that we are "counting on everything in Iraq being just as bad or worse than today, in order to maintain momentum and public support for the elections in 2008" - is offensive and horrible.
In 2006, there were 821 American military fatalities in Iraq. To suggest that anyone out there wants another 1642 American servicemembers to die in 2007 and 2008 -- merely to win another election -- well, that's just offensive.
Do you really think anyone would trade 1642 lives for a US Senate election?
If Gordon Smith could snap his fingers and end the war instantly today - and bring all the troops home - heck, even I'd vote for him.
It's this kind of anonymous and offensive crap that sometimes makes running a blog a chore, not a joy.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 6, 2007 9:08:58 PM
Aren't we all going to look and feel silly a year from now, after Bush's recent surge and refocused diplomatic efforts have actually worked, and Iraq's government has reconciled, the fighting has abated, and the troops are starting to come home.
I wonder how Cheney has been feeling these last almost four years after the Iraqis have greeted our troops with IEDs instead of the sweets and flowers Cheney promised. Instead of welcoming our troops as liberators, the latest polls have most Iraqis asking us to get the hell out of the hell Bush and company created.
PS to Blue Oregon: Set up a thread for a year from now to take another look at Samuel John Klein's take on the surge.
Posted by: anon | Mar 6, 2007 10:25:55 PM
"To suggest that anyone out there wants another 1642 American servicemembers to die in 2007 and 2008 -- merely to win another election -- well, that's just offensive."
That's not what I said, it's not what I suggested or implied, and that's not what I meant. I know no one wants anyone to die.
I'm sorry if you or anyone else took my comments above to suggest this. I honestly have a hard time seeing how you or anyone could think that I meant that somepeople wanted people to keep dying in Iraq.
What I did mean and suggest is that it might be possible to imagine that the whole Iraq war might not be as unpopular in the fall of 2008 as it is now. So therefore, counting on it still being as unpopular might be risky as a political strategy.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 7, 2007 10:21:46 AM
What I did mean and suggest is that it might be possible to imagine that the whole Iraq war might not be as unpopular in the fall of 2008 as it is now. So therefore, counting on it still being as unpopular might be risky as a political strategy.
It's "possible to imagine" anything, especially if you're drinking Kool-Aid distributed by the White House, right-wing talk show hosts and Fox News. It would be approaching the miraculous if there is a lessening of unpopularity towards the war in Iraq given the history of past insurgencies (Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.) and the continuing increasing of violence in Iraq. To get back to Smith, it is probably a good bet that his imagination and Kool-Aid from the White House helped him to vote for this misbegotten and illegal war. Of course, there was also the factor that he owed Bush for appearing at a fundraiser for his last election. Trouble is, tens of thousands of American military personnel have paid in blood for that vote to go to war, not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Mar 7, 2007 11:56:28 AM
Posted by: anon | Mar 6, 2007 10:25:55 PMThat's not what I said, it's not what I suggested or implied, and that's not what I meant. I know no one wants anyone to die.
Bullshit again.
That is EXACTLY what you said and implied. You said you could name dozens of people that advocated, wished, or said they hoped Iraqi would remain the same or worse for election purposes.
None of the people you try to list want, wish or hope for Iraq to remain the same or get worse.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 7, 2007 1:22:54 PM
From anon: No, but I could rattle off the names of a few dozen lefty and progressive activists and organizers, and Blue Oregon commenters, who by their words and actions seem to be doing exactly that. That is, hope or remain as bad in 2008.
Even if anon's statement were true, which it appears not to be, you would have to be a bigot to tar the entire anti-war movement and opponents of Smith with such a scraggly brush.
Posted by: Anon-by-choice-but-you-can-look-at-my-IP | Mar 7, 2007 2:06:00 PM
Anon,
Don't you EVER come back here again with your point of view that diverges from the Official Dogma.
If you ever do come back here, we will tear down as many Straw Men as we can create.
We have here a regular crowd quite happy with the point of view that we enjoy. And we are also quite happy with our political strategy, and we don't need your different thoughts on our strategy for 2006 or 2008, thank you very much.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 7, 2007 8:30:11 PM
anon-by-choice-etc: I presume you were being sarcastic about not posting on Blue Oregon anything "that diverges from the Official Dogma." If I'm wrong, my apologies.
This is a web site that attracts people of generally progressive inclination just as other sites, clubs and other groupings of people attract people that share similar or other views. That conforms very much to human nature. The problem some of us have comes from would-be critics who come up with off-the-wall and absurd comments. See, for example, the quote from anon that I took exception to earlier today. To be kind anon's remark was sophomoric and an insult to the intelligence of the grown ups who visit this site. A few years ago an acquaintance of mine was at a rotary, chamber of commerce or similar meeting that hosted Gordon Smith. Someone in the audience asked a fair question but one that was embarrassing to Smith. The audience immediately turned on the questioner and encouraged him to get the hell out of the room - for, presumably, not going along with "Official Dogma."
Posted by: lin qiao | Mar 8, 2007 8:09:42 AM
It's stuff like this video that explains Smith's attempt to deflect attention by blathering on about cigarette taxes, and The Oregonian's diligent effort to assist Smith's whitewash campaign. Why don't they just publish their re-election endorsement of him now and get it over with?
Posted by: anon | Mar 8, 2007 4:15:19 PM
"Bullshit again.
That is EXACTLY what you said and implied. You said you could name dozens of people that advocated, wished, or said they hoped Iraqi would remain the same or worse for election purposes.
None of the people you try to list want, wish or hope for Iraq to remain the same or get worse.
Damn, you got me. Ok, I admit it. I'm guilty of exaggeration, and also of letting people put words in my mouth by responding to stupid questions phrased in a gotcha manner. Also, you're right, I really did think that all of you are secretly hoping that more people die in Iraq over the next couple years and the situation gets worse.
But now you have enlightened me and I take it all back. I know saying I'm sorry won't begin to make up for this, but I'll do whatever I can to try to make up for it.
Anon,
Don't you EVER come back here again with your point of view that diverges from the Official Dogma.
Ok, if that is what the group decides my punishment to be, I will banish myself from this site and never comment on here again! See ya!
Posted by: anon | Jan 10, 2008 11:30:42 AM
COMMENTARY
The Surge Worked
By JOHN MCCAIN and JOE LIEBERMAN
Wall Street Journal
January 10, 2008; Page A15
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992665423979631.html
It was exactly one year ago tonight, in a televised address to the nation, that President George W. Bush announced his fateful decision to change course in Iraq, and to send five additional U.S. combat brigades there as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy and under the command of a new general, David Petraeus.
At the time of its announcement, the so-called surge was met with deep skepticism by many Americans -- and understandably so.
After years of mismanagement of the war, many people had grave doubts about whether success in Iraq was possible. In Congress, opposition to the surge from antiwar members was swift and severe. They insisted that Iraq was already "lost," and that there was nothing left to do but accept our defeat and retreat.
In fact, they could not have been more wrong. And had we heeded their calls for retreat, Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran.
Instead, conditions in that country have been utterly transformed from those of a year ago, as a consequence of the surge. Whereas, a year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq was entrenched in Anbar province and Baghdad, now the forces of Islamist extremism are facing their single greatest and most humiliating defeat since the loss of Afghanistan in 2001. Thanks to the surge, the Sunni Arabs who once constituted the insurgency's core of support in Iraq have been empowered to rise up against the suicide bombers and fanatics in their midst -- prompting Osama bin Laden to call them "traitors."
As al Qaeda has been beaten back, violence across the country has dropped dramatically. The number of car bombings, sectarian murders and suicide attacks has been slashed. American casualties have also fallen sharply, decreasing in each of the past four months.
These gains are thrilling but not yet permanent. Political progress has been slow. And although al Qaeda and the other extremists in Iraq have been dealt a critical blow, they will strike back at the Iraqi people and us if we give them the chance, as our generals on the ground continue to warn us.
The question we face, on the first anniversary of the surge, is no longer whether the president's decision a year ago was the right one, or if the counterinsurgency strategy developed by Gen. Petraeus is working. It is.
The question now is where we go from here to sustain the progress we have achieved -- and in particular, how soon can more of our troops come home, based on the success of the surge.
Gen. Petraeus has already announced that five "surge" brigades will be withdrawn by mid-July. The process is now underway. The Pentagon has also announced that it is conducting a series of internal reviews to examine whether and when additional troops can be withdrawn -- with Gen. Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Central Command each asked to offer their own analysis. As the president awaits these recommendations, it is important for the rest of us to keep some realities in mind.
First, it is unknown whether the security gains we have achieved with the surge can be sustained -- and deepened -- after we have drawn down to 15 brigades. Until we know with certainty that we can keep al Qaeda on the run with 15 brigades, it would be a mistake to commit ourselves preemptively to a drawdown below that number.
As the surge should have taught us by now, troop numbers matter in Iraq. We should adjust those numbers based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders in Iraq -- first and foremost, Gen. Petraeus, who above all others has proven that he knows how to steer this war to a successful outcome.
Every American should feel a debt of gratitude to Gen. Petraeus and the great American troops fighting under him for us. This gratitude is due not simply for the extraordinary progress they have accomplished in Iraq, but for what they have taught us about ourselves.
If the mismanagement of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2006 exposed our government's capacity for incompetence, Gen. Petraeus' leadership this past year, and the conduct of the troops under his command, have reminded us of our capacity for the wisdom, the courage and the leadership that has always rallied our nation to greatness.
As Americans, we have repeatedly done what others said was impossible. Gen. Petraeus and his troops are doing that again in Iraq today.
The war for Iraq is not over. The gains we have made can be lost. But thanks to the courage of our troops, the skill and intellect of their battlefield commander, and the steadfastness of our commander in chief, we have at last begun to see the contours of what must remain our objective in this long, hard and absolutely necessary war -- victory.
Mr. McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona. Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992665423979631.html
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 6, 2007 1:06:36 PM
Damn that's a good video.