But if we're going to revisit the Iraq War Resolution, I have an idea: perhaps Senator Smith could start by explaining what the hell he was talking about in the fall of 2002.

This will be a formidable challenge for Smith. He probably didn't know himself what he was talking about. Either he was like the Manchurian Candidate programmed to say what Bush and Rove had him programmed to say, or he was just saying what he thought a majority of potential voters would fall for.

By the time Blue Oregon and similar web sites get through exposing Smith and his record, he should be ashamed to appear in public anywhere in Oregon, but I doubt that he is that much in touch with reality. He lives in his own world which is probably more of a cocoon.

This http://www.tsweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=775&Itemid=86 has my earlier take on Smith's December 7th speech.

YES YES YES - rescind the war authorization. Then cancel all funding effective February 1, 2007. Those generals may not be so efficient without their paychecks! Then authorize funding for 1 way flights back to the US for every US citizen in Iraq, but all tickets must be used by April 1, 2007 or they become void. Offer US airlines a 1000% profit premium to get our troops out of Iraq, just like the Dunkirk evacuation. Heros are welcome to stay behind and join Bruce Willis for a long swim back.

But I suspect that the real world will be all about "statements of position" and "wa wa wa wa" and "we oppose the war but support our troops" and "operation whatever" and "let's reduce troop strength by 10% by 2025".

All crap.

Stop the war NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Bush has already stated he will not listen to Congress on Iraq, no matter what they do. He must be impeached and removed from power. He doesn't understand about checks and balances, and should not be the leader of a democracy, much less spreading it in other countries.

Then we need to follow the Kucinich 12 point plan for reconciliation with the Iraq, starting with reparations, and allowing the Iraqis to do their own reconstruction.

Kucinich for President Volunteer Organizing Site
DK2008.us

There's a debate going on right now in WA State between a couple of state legislators and the DC delegation about the wisdom of moving forward with impeachment. It's an interesting exchange, though I personally find the DC crew's arguments compelling.

Either way, Sen. Smith's 2002 statements hyping the war are some of the worst around. I challenge you, please, to show me Members of Congress's statements from the 2002 war debate that are more egregious.

Does anyone have transcripts of Smith's pre-war speeches supporting the invasion of Iraq? He has deleted the press releases for that period from his official web site.

Why revisit the resolution? Just cut funding. The Dems won in '06 because they ran on an anti-war platform, so when are they going to cut funding and bring the troops home?

It's pretty simple really: forget all these non-binding discussions and revisited resolutions and cut the freakin' funding.

Or was all that pre-election bluster just more empty rhetoric from lying politicos.

I trust it was the latter.

So, I'm going to ask for the old-timers to pipe in here (Russell? Anyone?) for some historical perspective, because I wasn't yet alive then, or at least, certainly not paying any attention to the news:

It has been mentioned that the images of helicopters evacuating from the rooftop of the American embassy in Saigon are "permanently etched into the American consciousness," and that this is one of the reasons why our elected representatives may be a bit hesitant to just completely cut funding for the war and bail.

Can somebody give me some perspective on what happened to end the Vietnam War, exactly what it looked like from back home, what kind of timeframe it took place during, and why this may be scaring Congress away from getting out of Iraq ASAP now that the Dems have the ability to potentially de-fund the war and thus effectively end it?

I know the basic history of the war, what I'm looking for is the American public's reaction, and what this means for Iraq.

Further, what is the worst-case scenario for Iraq, should a full-scale withdrawal/evacuation of U.S. troops take place? Saddam's obviously not going to return to power. It's not our country. What is the worst case scenario there?

Historical knowledge is important, but in the case of politicians history is just something from which they pick cherries to make the points that concern them now with an eye to the future. They do this with the hope that members of their audience will be more ignorant of history than they are.

Smith made much of being a student of history yet he learned nothing of Britain's disastrous experience in Iraq after the First World War. To justify his vote for war in October 2002 he claimed he was given faulty intelligence, but on several occasions during the preceding weeks the evidence coming from Hanx Blix and Scott Ritter of the UNMOVIC team was that finding WMDs was more and more unlikely. Senator Bob Graham of Florida (see his book "Why Intelligence Matters") and other senators got the same intelligence Smith was given but they were more astute and of independent minds and didn't buy it. Apparently, short term history wasn't of much help to Smith either.

It has been mentioned that the images of helicopters evacuating from the rooftop of the American embassy in Saigon are "permanently etched into the American consciousness," and that this is one of the reasons why our elected representatives may be a bit hesitant to just completely cut funding for the war and bail.

Many people recall scenes from the last days of American forces in Vietnam. At the same time they have managed to forget the 58,000 men and women who were killed and the many tens of thousands who returned home physically and emotionally shattered. And around three out of four Americans and their politicians sent the next generation off to another chamber of war horrors.

Smith appears not to have learned from history that insurgencies come to an end after occupying empire forces leave. Witness the French from Algeria and American forces from Vietnam. The departures were followed by a period of chaos, but life is reasonably normal in Algeria and Vietnam now - something that certainly can't be said of Iraq. We are even negotiating trade agreements with Vietnam.

Bill, thanks for your response.

You said:

"Smith appears not to have learned from history that insurgencies come to an end after occupying empire forces leave. Witness the French from Algeria and American forces from Vietnam. The departures were followed by a period of chaos, but life is reasonably normal in Algeria and Vietnam now - something that certainly can't be said of Iraq. We are even negotiating trade agreements with Vietnam."

I would agree completely, and in fact, that was kind of the direct that I was heading towards. I think we need to get out of Iraq, and let the Iraqis sort out their own future for themselves.

Who knows -- maybe they'll come up with something good in the end.

Garlynn:

My source for recalling the insurgencies and their subsequent histories in Algeria and Vietnam was William Roe Polk when he and co-author George McGovern spoke recently on C-span. You will probably appreciate their book, "Out of Iraq: A practical plan for withdrawal now." They also had an essay based on their book in the November 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine that you can get on line at http://www.harpers.org/TheWayOutOfWar.html.

yeah, and

direct

should read

direction

Further, thanks, Bill, for the link. I particularly enjoy the following quote:

When a driver is on the wrong road and headed for an abyss, it is a bad idea to “stay the course.”

...and the proof of the wisdom of this quote is here:

We cannot prevent the reconstitution of an Iraqi army, but we should not, as we are currently doing, actually encourage this at a cost of billions to the American taxpayer. If at all possible, we should encourage Iraq to transfer what soldiers it has already recruited for its army into a national reconstruction corps modeled on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

So yes, I agree that we need to withdraw from Iraq ASAP, I was just trying to find some way to combat the nervousness on the part of politicians who don't currently support that strategy.

And, I agree that impeaching Bush & Cheney should be an integral part of the strategy. Has the Oregon Legislature thought about bringing up a bill to bring the articles of Impeachment before the House?

Sure go after Smith, but I keep wondering why you folks, the "progressives," are not also going after the Democrats. Senator Wyden has also been voting for war supplementals, as have Oregon Reps. DeFazio and Hooley. Are you reluctant to go after Democrats because they are good on domestic issues? They you are willing to sacrifice Iraqis for domestic policy.

The only practical way to stop the Iraq war and get us out is to vote against the war funding supplemental, which will be coming up for a vote this month. Any legislator who votes FOR the supplemental should have an independent opponent loyal to the peace movement in the next election.

It looks like a majority of the Democrats will vote for the supplemental, after using it as a Christmas tree by hanging all their unrelated wants on it as amendments. Then they'll use the amendments as an excuse to vote for the bill -- "I just had to vote for more aid to Katrina victims!" -- as Rep. Peter DeFazio did last March.