Gordon Smith explains his pre-2006 silence on the war (sort of)
Kari Chisholm
Here's the KATU coverage of the absurd "Democrats for Smith" ad and the blistering reaction against it.
Be sure to listen to the very end -- Gordon Smith says that he truly was against the war BEFORE the 2006 election... and offers up an explanation for his silence.
Does this explanation make any damn sense to you? Our troops are being gunned down and blown up - and he's worred about political perceptions?
Wow. This guy is a more craven political animal than I had realized.
And even now, he's playing politics with our troops' lives -- trying to have it both ways, saying he's against the war, while voting to continue it.
Senator, pay attention to your 5th grade civics lessons. The President can go to war send our troops around the world, but the Congress has the "power of the purse". Cut off the funding and bring them home. You have the power.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:21 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
He can't hear you Kari. He's out on the links checking out his new clubs. Hey, didn't Thuh Prezzident say that playing golf was demoralizing to the troops fighting for our freedom in Iran and Antarctica? Traitor! Appeaser! Elitist!
Jun 20, '08
He's exactly right. What's a few (or more than a few) more lives if it prevents his position from being used for partisan purposes.
1:05 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
Wow, that is a devastating piece. The passage in the middle is especially brutal (in that Harry Truman kind of way). With voiceover reading along, KATU offers this graphic:
The voiceover intones "Then in Nov 2006, Republicans were swept out of office, largely by Americans sick of the war. A month later, Sen. Smith did a public about face ..."
Ouch!
1:05 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
What a piece of work...
1:06 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
That graphic was supposed to look like this:
Senator Smith's War Record Oct 2002: voted to go to war Oct 2002 - Nov 2006: Voted EVERY time to support war -maintain troop levels -continue funding *Nov 2006: Republican swept out
Jun 20, '08
Of course you hold our Democratic representatives to the same standard, eh Kari? ;)
Jun 20, '08
It would have been nice if the report had also pointed out his continued voting for the war even after his "public about face". But still, it is pretty devastating.
1:34 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
Gordon Smith will say anything it takes to keep his office in the Russell Senate Building.
Million-dollar golf clubs look good there.
1:34 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
Hits like these and I believe our primary campaign are starting to have an impact. The Survey USA poll last month had him with a negative approve/disapprove rating for the first time ever.
Kudos to a mainstream media outlet, local tv no less, for actually calling a campaign on a claim. What is this? Are they actually starting to pay attention to politics?
2:40 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
Brian raises a good point. Too many Democrats have been vocally opposed to the war, but afraid to vote to cut off funding. They need to be held accountable as well. Fortunately, our Oregon Congress members have voted (someone correct me if I'm wrong) against continued funding.
3:36 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
I know that's just a hyperbolic statement on Kari's part to make his point, but c'mon, is anyone here really surprised?
Jun 20, '08
Bad news folks, "The Economist" (not exactly a bastion of conservative policy) has on its cover a photograph of an Iraqi man building a sitar beneath the headline "Iraq starts to fix itself". I know, it's really preliminary and all with the decline in violence that began when General Petraeus (a national treasure) took over like what -- a year and a half ago? Looks like you'll need some other red herring to distract America while the socialist agenda "goose-steps" into our private lives. Oh wait a minute, "it's the economy stupid" right? Well answer me this, with higher prices on just about everything, why can't a Democratic controlled congress pass a sensible energy policy? Why do the Chinese get to drill 70 miles off the coast of Florida and we don't? You can't begin to believe that Jeff Merkley is really going to help the D's in Congress put together something that will provably expand our resources and contribute to our security?
With kind regards,
GeoffLudt
3:45 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
GeoffLudt, not sure where you get your news, well I have an idea, but in any case it's widely acknowledged that China is not drilling off of Florida, including by Sen Martinez, the republican Senator from Florida. Nobody actually thinks the Chinese are drilling there...
Jun 20, '08
You keep harping about the war, but that will not throw Smitty out of office.
Kari, you are a day late and a dollar short. If you keep harping on the war, you may gain a few fringe Ds, but you won't gain many middle Ds, NAVs and Indies.
Why, because the war is going much better than in 2006. Hence the MSM blackout. Hence the Obama focus on other things.
And if you do want everybody's attention on the war, what is Merkley's advantage? "Jeff really did vote against the war while he was praising the troops and Bush"? or how about: "Steve Novick's criticism of Merkley's vote on the war resolution wasn't correct"?
What is Jeff's advantage on the war today and going forward? Was Jeff much different than Smitty in most voters eyes? Steve Novick didn't think so. Does Jeff have a better exit plan? If Jeff wants to base his campaign to remove Smitty based on this ad ("devastating piece", "especially brutal"), then Smitty wins due to more money to blur the subtle distinctions on this issue.
Jun 20, '08
Smith's fearing stating his alleged but nonpublic anti-war stance for "partisan purposes" seems pretty damned close to the Greenlick/Nolan explanation as to why Merkley voted for HR2 . . ."It was a partisan political trap." Surely Smith is full of it, but Merkley doesn't have the high ground his supporters think he does on this issue.
5:19 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
OK, that's funny.
When the leadership of your own party sets the trap, you don't get to complain about it, Gordon.
Jun 20, '08
Larry said, "...the war is going much better than in 2006. Hence the MSM blackout. Hence the Obama focus on other things."
This is funnier than Bill O'Reilly.
First of all, there is no "war"; it was an immoral and illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, whose sovereignty we have expropriated. Because of this, we are responsible under international law for the welfare of all those who are under our boot, and we have no right to make any decisions for them, including how long we stay.
Second, the Iraqi people and, secondarily, the American people, want us out of there even if the "war" is going as well as you seem to think it is. Unless you have contempt for democracy, you should at least take that into consideration.
Third, "the MSM blackout" is devoted to the unprincipled agreement between the two empire-loving parties that the problem is merely that we have to tweak the way the "war" is being waged rather than call attention to the war crimes that are being committed.
Fourth, Obama's position on the "war" and on militarism in general is almost identical to McCain's:
"Bomb Bomb Iran" is no different than "All options on the table for Iran"; both of them want to increase military spending; both of them want to keep (at least) tens of thousands of troops "in the area"; both of them want to continue to torture the Cuban and the Palestinian people, etc.
Obama is ignoring foreign policy because he doesn't want Democrats to realize how anti-progressive he really is.
You right-wing guys should be happy with the selection because, whichever of them wins, you get essentially what you want. Why be greedy?
Jun 20, '08
You think I am funnier than Bill O'Reilly.
First, second, third and fourth, I think you are loonier than Ralph Nader. Especially with this quote:
""Bomb Bomb Iran" is no different than "All options on the table for Iran"; both of them want to increase military spending; both of them want to keep (at least) tens of thousands of troops "in the area"; both of them want to continue to torture the Cuban and the Palestinian people, etc."
I missed it on Obama's website where he states he wants "to continue to torture the Cuban and the Palestinian people". But it does just sound like what he says in all his speeches about hope and change.
As for McCain, everybody on this site believes that McCain is all for torture, because he got tortured, so he wants revenge, right?
Let it be known that I am not a member of either of "the two empire-loving parties".
6:18 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
It only seems pretty damn close to it if you don't understand what Reps Greenlick and Nolan actually said - which is that HR2 was designed to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" measure. In fact, they were very explicit on that point.
Given your apparent miscomprehesion of what Reps Greenlick and Nolan said, it seems to me that your assertion here is tantamount to asserting that the Moon is made of green cheese despite what scientists think.
That said, Merkley's reasons for how he handled that resolution are philosophically identical to how then-Governor Mark Hatfield handled the infamous Governors Conference resolution in support of the Vietnam War.
Gov. Hatfield was prepared to vote in favor of the resolution provided it included an amendment, which he authored, so that in addition to expressing support for the War (which he steadfastly opposed) it would also express support for the troops. The amendment was rejected and he voted against the final product for that singular reason. Not because it lauded a War which he opposed, but rather because it didn't express any support for the troops sent there to be maimed, emotionally scarred and, for many, to die.
Jun 20, '08
Larry: Ralph will be pleased to hear that someone is thought to be loonier than him by right-wingers of whatever party.
The Palestinian people are literally being tortured as we speak, as well as slaughtered and ethnically cleansed, and McCain and Obama, as well as most of our non-representatives in Congress, are contributors to their destruction. Check out the recent AIPAC conference remarks if you doubt this.
The Cuban people have been figuratively tortured by U.S. policy makers for the past 50+ years, and Obama has promised to continue the blockade that makes that possible.
"Bomb Bomb Iran" and "All options on the table for Iran" are both meant to terrorize tens of millions of innocent people.
6:37 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
Evidently Iraq remains a significant enough issue that Gordon Smith wanted to make one of his first major ads focus on it, and evidently he considers the Democratic position on it in Oregon potent enough that he wants to put to voices identified as Democratic with past peace and anti-war credentials up giving him a testimonial on it.
The four representatives have forcefully given the lie to the claims in the ad about Smith.
But Jeff Merkley is not running the Iraq portion of his campaign primarily on response to the invasion, he is running it on his current and future commitment, of which Smith has made none. And yes, he does have a better , the so-called Responsible Plan (page contains full text pdf link) originally promulgated as a campaign platform by a number of House candidates around the country -- Jeff was the first Senate candidate to sign on (beating Steve Novick by a few minutes :-> ). This plan, while not perfect from my point of view, is strong. It has the advantages of coming with an already semi-organized group of supporters and of being substantially crafted by combining previous proposals made by current members of Congress, from whom it might also be expected that support would be forthcoming.
Jeff's co-sponsored plan is stronger than Barack Obama's, indicating that Jeff will form part of a necessary grouping to improve the Obama position after the election. It is phenomenally stronger than Gordon Smith's nothing, and tagging along after John McCain's militarism.
While I am critical of Senator Obama's stance on a number of peace and military issues, contrary to what Harry K. says, on Iran there is a huge difference between McCain's "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and Obama's "all options are on the table."
McCain treats military aggression as a joke (and a stale one at that, the Beach Boys rip-off was recorded as a novelty record almost 30 years ago during the embassy hostage crisis). He has a frame of mind on war that disqualifies him to be president. Even more important is what McCain has said is off the table: serious diplomacy with Iran.
By contrast, the best and strongest part of Barack Obama's approach to both Iran and Iraq is his commitment to intensive multi-lateral regional and international diplomacy including substantive direct engagement with Iran. Unlike Bush-McCain, he does not treat "diplomacy" as some weird kind of token, to be offered as a "reward" for compliance with U.S. dictats, but as an actual tool of conflict resolution, one that recognizes that the U.S. is not the only party with legitimate interests and provides a framework for negotiating resolutions to competing or conflicting interests.
In other words, a grown-up approach that understands that security is a collective international phenomenon that requires cooperation to minimize war and promote mutual support in development as the best way to secure peace.
The contrast to the juvenile, ineffective, failed bully-boy swagger evinced by Bush and McCain both ("mission accomplished," "I say, bring 'em on", "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran") could not be starker.
Obama's timetable on Iraq and his definition of withdrawal are inadequate. His approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan is deeply worrisome to me. His proposed expansion of the military should be rejected, and if he follows through with it, it will eviscerate his domestic agenda.
But the fact remains that an Obama presidency would represent a sea-change in attitudes toward engaging with the world, while John McCain proposes to continue George W. Bush's bizarre policies of isolationist aggression.
6:39 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
I made some sort of error that caused typepad to eat the words "exit strategy" after "he does have a better".
Jun 20, '08
Last I heard no one had passed a Declaration of War. So why is it being funded in the first place? Anyone and everyone in Congress who voted for any funding should be called to account for this misadventure. Of course Bush should be arrested. Might wanna ask Smith what he thinks of that idea.
TLG
Jun 21, '08
TLG: Many of us left-of-Democrat-libertarians agree with you, although most BO posters only believe in calling Republicans to account.
Chris Lowe: I agree with you 100% about McCain, who is a dangerous psychopath and probably continues to suffer from PTSD (and who was John Kerry's first choice as a running mate).
However, your claim that Obama's foreign policy is hugely different from McCain's seems to me to be electioneering propaganda. I hope you've read this IPA article: Background of Obama's Foreign Policy Group.
I recall that you commented favorably about the relative superiority of Obama's "realist" advisors over Clinton's advisors, but now the two campaigns have merged.
Here's what Bill Moyers has to say:
"...I think people who anticipate real change should feel betrayed. They're being sold this package of 'change' and 'innovation' and what they're getting is a warmed-over Clinton cabinet that does nothing to address fundamental problems haunting U.S. foreign policy, and will do nothing to reform U.S. grand strategy or redirect funds from empire building to building true security."
And here's what Stephen Zunes says:
"Earlier in his campaign, Obama's senior advisers included some of the more innovative and cutting-edge thinkers from the foreign policy establishment...Now, however, it appears he has surrounded himself with backers of failed foreign policies based upon contempt for international legal norms and military solutions to complex political problems."
Even for those of us who predicted it, the rightward movement of the entire Democratic establishment is a frightening sight.
Jun 21, '08
OK, so accuse me of not paying much attention to the media. Did I get this right that my TEE-vee just told me that Senator Gordon Smith was one of the first to oppose the war in Iraq? One of the first WHAT? I've seen potted plants who objected more. Who does he think he's kidding? Sorry kids, to find an independent minded Republican US Senator we have to look to history. Senator Smith is no Wayne Morse and he's no Mark Hatfield.
9:06 p.m.
Jun 21, '08
Thanks for the refs, Harry. I expect to write a column on some of this relatively soon. But at the end of the day I still say that Obama's commitment to diplomacy is a difference that makes a difference.
Jun 22, '08
Chris L said, "But at the end of the day I still say that Obama's commitment to diplomacy is a difference that makes a difference."
The end of the day is fast approaching. I see no commitment other than to hegemony and corporatism.
Jun 22, '08
"Senator, pay attention to your 5th grade civics lessons. The President can go to war."
Not according to the Constitution, which requires a declaration of war from Congress.
Fifth-grade civics indeed. Amazing how ignorant people are about this.
10:46 p.m.
Jun 22, '08
Pat, you're right. I should have said, "The President can move troops around the world..."
Jun 23, '08
In theory I'm right.
<h2>Unfortunately, In practical application you are correct.</h2>