We need to recognize that Gordon Smith has been the benefactor of the benefit of the doubt in the extreme! I would say that any explanation of his sincerity died in the ’04 election, and his posturing in the Senate of ’05 and ’06 as the head in the President’s derrière! If you still think placating his support of this President, and the political game being played with the Iraqi War as being mature, or bipartisan, or whatever rationale you choose, you must be so detached from reality that you don’t care what he does!

Please read the bold bloody red writing on the wall; “Gordon Smith is for Gordon Smith, and could care less about Oregon, Oregonians, or anyone else, a Neo-Con!”

Debating Iraqi strategy in this piecemeal fashion gives control of the conversation back to Bush.

There is no point in a surge without a basic change in the tactics of how the troops are deployed, yet Bush has hijacked the entire conversation with this, let's face it, timid half-measure that we all know won't change anything. This whole thing is turning into a red herring, one seemingly destined to become an '08 campaign ad: "So-and-so didn't support the surge of '07 and caused us to lose in Iraq."

Do you not see when Mr. Rove is manipulating you? It's just b.s. detracting us from a serious, holistic discussion of reappraising our goals, means, and approach to this debacle.

Call Sen. Smith's phone numbers:

DC 1-202-224-3753 Portland 503-326-3386

Don't get sucked into the questions of funding, as "Sen. Smith doesn't support the surge but would fund it" will be the response.

Ask a specific question like "How would Sen. Smith vote on a sense of the Senate resolution about an escalation of troops in Iraq?" or "If the surge is done by longer deployments of troops already in Iraq, would Sen. Smith be willing to meet with the families of those troops to explain why he supports the longer deployments?" which take a yes or no answer.

The people I talked with when I called sounded very harried, and said "Will be glad to pass along your comments" as if that is what they had been saying all day.

There are a number of Republican Senators who are running for re-election in 2008, and vague "it would be a constitutional issue about refusing to fund troops already in the field" is not going to satisfy the families and friends who expected their loved one in the military to return home as scheduled.

Smith is no neo-con! He's a RINO and I hope he loses his seat for it. As for the war ~ get a clue about your own safety and freedom people!! Take your stinkin heads out of the sand and realize that Islamofacism is here to stay unless we win in Iraq. Have you stopped to think FOR ONE MINUTE about the chaos that will ensue if we pull out?

No, liberals NEVER think out the logical conclusions to their idiotic ideas.

What about Wyden and beloved reps like Blumenauer? They may posture and postulate, but they refuse to endorse the McGovern Ammendment to stop the funding, the only way to end the carnage, and they therefore end up at the same place as Smith. The "surge" is a hoax devised by both hegemonic parties to relieve themselves of responsibility for slaughter and torture until the next election cycle, at which time blame will be apportioned. A pox on both your houses.

Chaos is the one constant in Iraq. It matters little whether we are sacrificing lives and billions or not (so quit already). Iraq has never been about making this country safe. It has always been about their coveted oil resources. C'mon tycoons, forget Iraq, it's time to invade Venezuela.

If Iraq is only about stealing oil, why haven't we done so? There it is again, liberals not thinking out the simple conclusions to their own arguments.

No, liberals NEVER think out the logical conclusions to their idiotic ideas.

***Yeah, and don't forget the war planners who got us to this place.

I don't think too much about gordon's posturing, but given the lack of intelligence on the hill in regards to Iraqi character and what the best, most likely successful resolution of that people's problems in Iraq might be, what do you expect?

I read everybody's comments here for those venturing suggestions about what the results will be from either supporting or not supporting the surge rather than just addressing the moral right or wrong of U.S. troop presence and the significance of the surge to it. Pamela might be a scourge on this site, but she is willing to risk venturing an idea about what she believes the consequences will be.

You think those two groups, the shiite and sunni will just make nice once the yanks are gone? If not, sounds like trouble ahead to me. Probably won't be Russia invading this time, but it may very well take some kind of strongarm like saddam to keep the shiite and sunni from murdering each other in a way that may seem like chaos, even many people might be loathe to call it that. Bush's last gasp surge sounds more hopeful than promising. Gordon could be more realistic in his positioning. He should make up his mind.

Either he believes the U.S. troops should be out, or instead of simply sucking up to the bush line, he ventures a realistic rationale for retaining current numbers or bringing more in, based on reasons that suggest an understanding of the dynamic between the two key idealogical sectarian groups of Iraq; the shiite and the sunni, not forgetting the kurds of course.

The news page should put this latest equivocation on Page 1, and the editorial page, which has come out forcefully against a surge, should take the man DOWN.

Lots of things should have already taken the man down. The jerk voted to impeach Clinton against the wishes of a solid majority of Oregonians for God's sakes. He's a living, breathing political cartoon.

<h2>The problem is the state media continues to perpetuate the "Smith is a moderate" meme. Until they really start to hold his feet to fire for his actual voting record and not his pronouncements to the contrary, he'll get away with it.</h2>