Oregon Senator Gordon Smith dumps Bush

[FightingIrish]

One of Bush's biggest supporters in the Senate, Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon, made a startling declaration in a Senate speech yesterday. More startling than his abandonment of Bush's Iraq policy is the use of the word "criminal" in his statement. When the time comes to convict Bush in the Senate, I think we will have the votes.


"I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. So either we clear and hold and build or let's go home."


http://www.localnewscomesfirst.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1183&Itemid=2

[wryter2000]

1. Interesting

Before the election, some pundit or other predicted that if the Rs lost Congress the ones left would turn on Little Boots. I hope that turns out to be true.

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. I heard a couple of Dems say that Cons had told them

(privately) that they agreed with the Dems positions, but they couldn't (publicly) say anything about it until after the election.

[wryter2000]

8. I've heard a couple of rumblings

Barney Frank on AAR one day saying that the problem with the reasonable R's was they'd say one thing in private and then vote the opposite. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said the same thing in her video with the rubber stamp. Wouldn't it be pure heaven if the Congress stood as one person against him?

[LynneSin]

2. This is why we investigate first before we talk impeachment

We aren't going to do anything but waste alot of time if we don't have the votes to actually remove him from office. But with the proper investigation, we'll start getting some of the moderates like Smith on our side which will ensure that the impeachment is a success.

I want an investigation, but I want to leave impeachment 'off the table' until we know we have the votes lined up!

[AndyA]

4. I think there will be more than enough support for impeachment when all the dirty

little facts become known about what Bush, Cheney, and Company have been doing.

In addition to Iraq and the abuse of our troops, there are the Halliburton contracts, the lost money, the lack of accountability.

Then there's the super secret Energy Policy, led by Dick Cheney behind closed doors that resulted in the highest energy prices ever, and obscene profits for the oil companies. Coincidence? Not on your life.

Then there's the Scooter Libby deal. How much dirt does he have on Bush/Cheney, etc.? And will he use it to avoid being locked up for the rest of his life?

There's the outing of an active, undercover CIA Agent for political gain. Said agent undercover fighting the war on terror. If that isn't treasonous, I don't know what is.

We can include the torture of prisoners, against Geneva Conventions. That's a war crime.

Lying to the American people, the United Nations, and other countries.

Once Congress starts doing its job (for the first time in 6 years, I might add), they will uncover many things that will warrant further investigation. And those investigations will lead to the core of the Bush Administration, revealing the most corrupt Administration in the history of the United States of America. Violations of the Oath of Office, violations against the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, and abuse of the American people.

Impeachment? There's no question it will be on the table once these activities are looked into. And every member of Congress will have to support it, or risk losing everything. The American people spoke loud and clear in November: enough is enough!

[LynneSin]

6. It's the proverbial 'counting the chickens before they are hatched'

we need to 'hatch those chickens' first - exposed the lies & corruption not just to congress but to the people of this country and the rest of the world. Trust me, once everything exposed there will be no choice but to impeach and that will include all but the most hardcore republicans supporting the impeachment

[pat_k]

9. Members of the House have a duty to act. NOW.

Bush and Cheney are committing their war crimes and conducting their criminal surveillance program in plain sight.

Elected bodies, good government groups, and countless citizens have leveled the charges and have concluded that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to our Constitution.

The case is clear, complete, and compelling.

Each day that Members of the House refuse to act -- to dismiss those charges or accuse (i.e., introduces articles of impeachment, make the case, and call on their colleagues to move to impeach) they are derelict in their sworn duty to defend the Constitution.

Their Constitutional function is to ACCUSE and put the charges before the Senate for final judgment. Unless they dismiss the charges as baseless, the danger to the Constitution is real.

The oath is an individual oath.

Their duty and individual duty.

Each and every Member of the House is willfully turning a blind eye each day that they adhere to Pelosi's "off the table" pledge.

"Can't win, so don't fight" is a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2832600&mesg_id=2837018">DEADLY rationalization that the DC Dems have been invoking to justify their refusal to do what duty demands for decades.

No human being can predict the course of events until they are behind them. It is their place to BEGIN the process. It is not their place to predict an outcome in the Senate that no human being can know. It may never GET to the Senate.

Their oath is not an oath to win. It is not an oath to sit on their hands until the prognosticators who believe in their own omniscience tell them they will win. It is an oath to figh; to "support and defend".

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">Continuted. . .

[LynneSin]

10. They have a duty to investigate thoroughly

We prematurely screen impeachment we're gonna have a media war with the screeds calling the impeachment nothing more than revenge for 1998. We need a strong investigation to expose the lies & corruption to everyone so even the media has no choice but to support our cause. We need the votes lined up if we're to be successful

[pat_k]

13. We know ALL we need to know to impeach. In depth Congressional investgation can follow. . .

. . .or be conducted in parallel with impeachment.

No investigation can turn up ANYTHING more indefensible or compelling than the War crimes Bush and Cheney are committing in plain sight. Than their criminal surveillance program. Then shredding the principle of consent -- the SOLE moral principle on which our Constitution is founded -- with their public declarations of "unitary" power.

It is long past time for Members of the House to fulfill their oath by introducing articles of impeachment and making the case -- the case that has been clear, compelling, and COMPLETE for years.

[pat_k]

23. Nothing premature about it.

If fear of being called "bad names" trumps sworn duty, better let the men and women serving in Iraq know it. They are risking life and limb. Members of Congress take the same oath. Why would we expect less of them? Why would they expect less of themselves?

I probably can't say it better than this post from Senator:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2882573&mesg_id=2886048

[ieoeja]

11. Is he a moderate?

I don't know much about this guy. About all I know is what I just read here, "So either we clear and hold and build or let's go home."

He offers going home as just one option. The other option is to "clear" - bulldoze Baghdad - and hold and build. In other words he is saying the same thing about Iraq too many idiots have said about Vietnam, that we are only losing because we are letting politics get in the way of our troops.

[jefferson_dem]

17. He's got no choice but to "moderate" at this point. Smith is up in 2008

and he sits atop the list of potential Dem take-overs. I say...it's too fucking late, Gordy my boy! Where the fuck have you been for three years! You're done.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

5. I knew these

people could not really be that brain dead. After all some people with brains voted them in.

[OregonBlue]

7. At last. But will it be enough to get him re-elected in '08?

[grasswire]

12. not if I can help it

that goddam pea-packer will hear from me

[BlueIris]

24. I'm with you, there.

I've hated Gordo for years.

[David Zephyr]

14. Amazing how the November election has corrected the hubris of Republicans.

I only wish that Hillary Clinton could admit the same thing.

That would be something to hear.

[Doctor_J]

16. That and the fact that Gordy has to run in a blue state in 2008

this is a death-bed conversion. Check out the names he was calling anti-war people in 2003.

[David Zephyr]

19. Gordon Smith, Lincoln Chaffee is Thy Name.

It's a "death bed conversion" as you say TOJ.

[DemReadingDU]

15. evening kick

[LWolf]

18. Too late, Gordo.

I don't think this will save you in '08. :evilgrin:

[opihimoimoi]

21. Yup, too little too late...he backed Bush for 6 years...now he wants out? Too freakin late.

[eridani]

20. If we are really going to dump Bush--

--ship-jumping Republicans should take the lead. That's what got rid of Nixon after all.

[AtomicKitten]

22. they got to him: now he's saying that although crimininal, it's not illegal

Smith says 'criminal' comment 'metaphorical'
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Smith_says_criminal_comment_on_Iraq_1208.html

Brian Beutler
Published: Friday December 8, 2006

Though he referred to the war in Iraq and the deaths of American troops in that country as “criminal” in a speech on the Senate floor last night, Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) insists he did not mean the word to imply the conflict was a breach of either domestic or international law, RAW STORY has learned.

"Don't think of criminal in the sense that a law has been broken,” Smith spokesman R.C. Hammond told RAW STORY.

He went on to acknowledge that the use of the word was intended metaphorically. “It's absurd, it's an outrage that our troops keep getting sent are getting sent in to battle,” Hammond said. “In that sense it's criminal.”

The speech, delivered on Capitol Hill on Thursday evening, was roundly critical of the war—both its genesis and its conduct. Smith declared that he would not have supported sending troops to Iraq if he'd known about the intelligence failures that many critics say undercut the president's rationale for the invasion.

“I, for one,” said Smith, “am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore....I would have never voted for this conflict had I reason to believe that the intelligence we had was not accurate. It was not accurate, but that is history.”

[BlueIris]

25. Well, that didn't take long.

Then again, it never does.