The "Up for Reelection in 2008/Change of Heart on Iraq" Caucus Grows

by Jonathan Singer, Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 12:27:27 PM EST

It was earlier this month that Senator Gordon Smith, the only Republican to win a statewide election in Oregon in the last dozen years and who is up for reelection in 2008, took to the Senate floor to decry America's policy towards Iraq, saying the war may be "criminal." The ensuing weekend Smith went on national television and called the war "deeply immoral". Now, according to Brady Averill of the Star Tribune, what I like to call the "Up for Reelection in 2008/Change of Heart on Iraq" Caucus appears to be growing by one.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said today after a two-day trip to Iraq that he would not support an increase in the number of soldiers in Baghdad.
He said he would "stand against" any effort to send a surge of more troops to Baghdad unless there's a clear vision that it will help end sectarian violence in the city.
[...]
The senator repeated earlier statements about the need for sectarian violence to end in Iraq. Iraqis have to move quickly to solve the sectarian "slaughter" that's going on, he said. "They have to move forward with reconciliation." For the United States to have any success in Iraq, the bloodletting has to stop, Coleman said.
He suggested the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks within a timeframe, such as moving the Iraqi military to the frontlines. If those benchmarks aren't met, he said U.S. troops should accelerate pulling back - but not withdrawing from the country - and repositioning within Iraq.

Certainly the slow trickle of Republican members of Congress openly opposing the President's policy towards Iraq is a good first step, perhaps leading to a change in the tenor of the debate within the elite media about Iraq. But in terms of tangible effects of these moves by Sens. Smith and Coleman, who is also up for reelection in 2008 in a state in which Republicans have had at least some difficulty in federal statewide elections in recent years, there are few.

The American people are already way ahead of Washington on the issue of Iraq, with somewhere between 50 percent and 70 percent of Americans favoring withdrawal of American troops on a timeline, depending on the wording of the question (link and link). Now it's time for our elected officials in Congress to catch up -- and merely making speeches without following up with votes and legislation is meaningless.

If the supposed change of heart on the part of Sen. Smith and, to a lesser degree, Sen. Coleman are at all real, then they will, in the opening hours of the 110th Congress, at the least sign on as co-sponsors of the Levin-Reed amendment, which calls for the beginning of withdrawal within four to six months, if memory serves correctly. Anything short of that is merely empty rhetoric and, realistically, a de facto endorsement of George W. Bush's Iraq policy (failing to actively oppose at this point effectively amounts to tacit support). And the absence of such a move by either Sen. Smith or Sen. Coleman will be held against them every day of their reelection bids.

Tags: Iraq, Senate 2008 (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Why wait?

What is the four to six months wait for. More people to die?

by ruthhmiller 2006-12-20 12:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why wait?

Wait for it--there's some more cash-green goodness to be squeezed out of all that complete immorality, first.

by ogre 2006-12-20 01:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Only 11% support troop surge

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/arti cle_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=100352315 4

This is at the heart of John McCain's toiletward nose dive.

by stevehigh 2006-12-20 12:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

The Long War on Terror

The Long War on Terror. This is the President's meme. It's nonsense, of course, but this is the very meme he is using not only to escalate the war, but to increase the size of the military. It holds even less credibility than the paranoia of communism and the decades-long Cold War, but it's the only way the military-industrial complex can continue to press for huge military budgets. And keep the citizenry in fear.

by lemonyellow 2006-12-20 01:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Norm Coleman

has never made a sincere statement in his life. Don't count on this one being any different.

by Mullibok 2006-12-20 02:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Smith Isn't Real

Nobody I know in Oregon think's Gordon Smith's recantation is real.

Even the knee-jerk conservative columnist for the Oregonian, David Reinhard, thinks Smith is just making the right sounds to get re-elected in '08 (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian /david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editoria l/1166055959155080.xml&coll=7)

...

But didn't Oregon's Republican senator call the war "criminal" and "absurd"? Didn't he urge a "pullout" according to The Washington Post? Didn't he say that if he knew then what he knows now, he wouldn't have voted for the war? Hasn't Smith hopped aboard the anti-war bandwagon?

So you might gather if all you heard were a few sound bites from the speech or read some press accounts. But not if you actually read Smith's speech. And not if you've had a chance to talk to him.

Smith wasn't saying anything that war supporters haven't been thinking for months. The fact is there's almost nothing in his speech that anyone who wants the United States to succeed in Iraq would dispute.

...

But didn't Oregon's Republican senator call the war "criminal" and "absurd"? Didn't he urge a "pullout" according to The Washington Post? Didn't he say that if he knew then what he knows now, he wouldn't have voted for the war? Hasn't Smith hopped aboard the anti-war bandwagon?

So you might gather if all you heard were a few sound bites from the speech or read some press accounts. But not if you actually read Smith's speech. And not if you've had a chance to talk to him.

Smith wasn't saying anything that war supporters haven't been thinking for months. The fact is there's almost nothing in his speech that anyone who wants the United States to succeed in Iraq would dispute.

...

Even after his cri de coeur -- cry from the heart -- Smith seems closer to John McCain's views than those of John Murtha or Wayne Morse. Unlike McCain, he's not particularly interested in a big U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad. He thinks this "crutch" would keep Iraqis from taking the steps they need to take control of their country. But he still wants to fight terrorists in Iraq. He favors repositioning U.S. troops to areas along the Syrian and Iraqi border to interdict jihadists, weaponry and funding.

Smith's just providing cover for the war supporters who know that they've got to distance themselves from Bush in order to keep their positions in two years. Don't look to your own expectations in what he said. Look to what his supporters think he said.

by darrelplant 2006-12-20 02:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

These Guys Are Liars

These Republican Senators are nothing more than liars, pure and simple. They're pulling a Chafee-act like you oppose the President, until the cameras aren't rolling and the pressure is on.

Chafee would have won reelection if he was smart enough to oppose The Military Commissions Act of 2006 all the way to where he could block the bill from passing. But he chose to buckle to the Prez. These guys will too.

by djtyg 2006-12-21 01:19AM | 0 recs