Stephanopoulos, Blitzer failed to confront Smith on timing of his Iraq war reversal
SUMMARY: Discussing Sen. Gordon Smith's December 7 Senate
floor statement denouncing the war in Iraq, neither ABC's George Stephanopoulos
nor CNN's Wolf Blitzer challenged Smith on the timing of his statement, when it
had become clear long before
that no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq and that the
function of coalition troops had become essentially that of, in
Smith's words to Blitzer, "street cops in a sectarian civil war."
On the December 10 edition of ABC's This Week, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) explained to host George Stephanopoulos his emotional statement on the floor of the Senate, in which he denounced the Iraq war as the result of "turning on the news" on December 6 and "hearing that yet another 10 of our soldiers died the same way that several thousands have ... through roadside bombs." Similarly, on the December 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Smith told host Wolf Blitzer that he had changed his mind because he had believed that the war was about "taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy" but had now turned the United States into "street cops in a sectarian civil war." Asked why he had changed his position, Smith referred to "a number of books" he had recently read that "got me thinking and stirred up" and cited again "the news that 10 more of our fighting men and maybe -- a woman" who "were killed, again in another roadside bomb." Neither Stephanopoulos nor Blitzer challenged Smith to explain why he waited until after the November 7 midterm elections to denounce the war.
Additionally, neither asked Smith about the assertion by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) before the election that two Republican senators had told him that they planned to denounce the war after the election.
As Media Matters for America has documented, most of the media ignored ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper's October 6 weblog post, in which Tapper wrote that, according to Biden, "two other Senate Republicans" in addition to Sen. John Warner (R-VA) will "break with the White House Iraq strategy," but only after the election when "the need to protect the president will be nonexistent." Stephanopoulos was one of the few media figures who actually did take note of Biden's reported claim, mentioning it on the October 8 edition of ABC's This Week. On the November 5 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, Biden repeated the claim, saying that "[b]efore we left for the election cycle, two of my senior Republican colleagues contacted me, and said when we get back they wanted to join me in coming up with a bipartisan plan."
On December 7, Smith gave a Senate floor speech, in which he declared: "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."
But notwithstanding Stephanopoulos' recognition of Biden's statement, and notwithstanding the fact that more than 2,900 U.S. service members had already died in Iraq when Smith heard about the 10 on December 6, Stephanopoulos did not challenge Smith on the timing of his statement. He did not ask if Smith was one of those Republicans who reportedly decided before the election to denounce the war after November 7. While Stephanopoulos did say that "[c]ertainly, a lot of Republicans following the election feel more free to oppose President Bush," he also characterized Smith's reversal as "deeply personal" and reflecting "a dramatic change of heart."
From the December 10 edition of ABC's This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: That was clearly a deeply personal speech, and it showed a dramatic change of heart. What triggered it?
SMITH: Waking up the other morning and turning on the news, and hearing that yet another 10 of our soldiers died the same way that several thousands have --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Wednesday.
SMITH: --Wednesday, through roadside bombs -- and I went from steamed to boiled. And I felt I had to speak out because if we're going to be there, let's win; if we're not, let's -- let's at least fight the war on terror in a way that makes sense.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You said in that speech the current policy may be criminal.
[...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: You think it's time to leave?
SMITH: I believe that we have an ongoing interest in -- in the war on terror, and Iraq is one of the battlefields. But I believe we need to reposition ourselves in a way that allows us to take on the murderers and the weapons of war that come across the borders of Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Ultimately, we want the Iraqis to make the political decisions that will ultimately allow a government to emerge.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Biden, this seems like a watershed moment.
BIDEN: It is. Look, George, two incredible things happened: one, the election on November 7th; two, the Baker commission -- my friend here and others in the Republican Party, as well as Democratic Party. And what they're saying when you cut through it all: "Either figure out how we're going to have traded a dictator for stability or leave." And that's a gigantic shift.
Everyone from [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ], who says it a different way, to Joe Biden, to -- across the board, is saying: "We have one last shot to figure out how to deal with the chaos in Iraq." If we can't, you better get out. And my view is, if you can't deal with the chaos -- and I have a formula how I would propose doing that, it's not apart from the study group's recommendations -- but if you can't, you better disengage and contain.
[...]
FAREED ZAKARIA: The whole history of these troop surges, and we have done them, we did one in Baghdad three months ago, is that you suppress the violence. The bad guys go into hiding. The minute you leave, they come out again because the fundamental cause of the violence is the political discord between the Sunnis and Shias over who controls Iraq.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And that's the point that Senator Smith made, as well. Cokie -- the politics of this. Certainly, a lot of Republicans following the election feel more free to oppose President Bush. You heard Senator Smith have a position somewhat like Senator McCain's. What it makes me wonder is: Is Senator McCain going to be driven by the logic of his argument in one month, two month, three months, four months to be for getting out?
From the December 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Senator, a powerful emotional statement, I know, coming from your gut, coming from your heart. Why the about-face?
SMITH: Well, Wolf, if you have the privilege of representing one of the United States, and you have a voice and a vote, now is the time to speak up, and I felt duty-bound to say what was on my heart, and to describe how this war had mutated from one thing to another -- from taking out a tyrant and a terrorist and ridding him of weapons of mass destruction and establishing democracy to now being street cops in a sectarian civil war. That's not what I voted for. That is not what the American people are for.
BLITZER: So, you've concluded this is now a civil war in Iraq?
[...]
BLITZER: Was there one issue, one thing that happened that pushed you over to deliver this remarkable address on the Senate floor?
SMITH: Well, I've read a number of books recently that got me thinking and stirred up, and then I woke up Wednesday -- I believe it was -- to the news that 10 more of our fighting men and maybe -- a woman, I don't know -- but they were killed, again in another roadside bomb, and I -- I just simply hit the -- the end of the rope, if you will, and I felt I had to speak up because if these sacrifices are being made in pursuit of a policy that cannot succeed, then we need to admit it and readjust in a way that the American people and our soldiers find worth the sacrifice, and this is not.
BLITZER: You used the word "criminal" in that statement -- a very sharp, pointed word. If, in fact, some of the actions committed by the U.S. were criminal, who should be held accountable?
Now that the Republicans no longer have a complete stranglehold on our gov't... some of these cowards are able to speak out. The amount of coddling the Republicans receive daily by the 'press' is alarming (again shown in this piece).
Just as with Bush, the time for 'listening' and for speaking out has long passed. Only until these fakers are literally forced to play nice do they make some weak conciliatory moves. And the pundits have the gall to continually call the Democrats partisan? Please.
Gordon Smith is going to be the most prolific spending Senator to loose in '08 against a much less financed Democratic Candidate!!
I doubt any Democrat will need to spend evan half as much to win the seat. The biggest contest will be who get's to run. They don't beleive it yet, but by this time next year Gordon Smith is going to sound alot like a Retiring Senator from Oregon.
The lid will be coming off the sewer that has been Republican leadership in the Congress, and it will be uggggggggggly and poor Gordon will be fast running out of "um, uh's" when the election comes into focus!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
P.S. : for real progressive debate go to "blueoregon.com" !!
When he dropped the big one on Clinton. The big difference is, Lieberman did it in front of his collegues, not in a nearly empty chamber for the sole purpose of 'going on the record'.
Joe's rejection of Clinton then triggered a defection of other Democratic senators. One by one they jumped ship following Joe's lead.
I'm wondering what would have happened if Smith did this in the presence of his fellow Republicans, if he would have had the guts to do it.
I think it would have been pretty ugly.
of sticking with the Party Line- when one finally has to come clean, it involves either admitting lying (in case your party retains power) or publicly displaying your stupidity in how slowly you've realized the truth.
do we attack and belittle politicians when they come around to a more sensible position. They are still only politicians. IMHO we should accept the new voices joining in our chorus and move on. I believe a "thank you senator" followed by support and encouragement for him to share his new religion with his old colleagues would be nuch more fruitfull.
I believe a person, even a Republican politician, can have a genuine change of heart.
I've seen this described elsewhere as "a rat jumping off a sinking ship."
I'm not ready to condemn Smith for his change in position. I think the chips are still falling.
Hey RockyMountainJoe;
I'm wondering if the air up there is the problem(TABOR), or is it the homophobia of the local anti-gay evangelicals that overlook 6 yrs of playing coy and voting our civil liberties to the wind, marching in lock step with a pair of draft dodging liars to a war thats left our nation's reputation in the pale, our taxdollars pillaged, and our military on it's last leg?
Gordon has never been a moderate, or evan a conservative, he has voted strictly the Neo-Con mantra, now he would like everybody to forgive, forget, oh and by the way could I have your vote!!!
I called his office many, many times and along with a majority of Oregonians were left out in the cold!!! Vote for Gordon is a vote for the corporate interest, and it's that simple, a Senator for rent!
I stand with and for Ron Wyden, the Honorable Senator from Oregon.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
I am not advocating reelecting the guy. I have absolutely no knowledge of his voting record. I have met with Senator Allard's staff where I was met with smiles, coffee and a deaf ear. I've had Musgrave respond to my emails countless times with mindless drivel. I understand the frustration.
All I'm saying is if he wants to champion a more common sense line, let him have his say. Don't shut him up yet. He obviously has some support in your state or he wouldn't be in office. So let him 'lead' his supporters to a more reasoned awareness. They will listen to him when they would never even hear what we have to say. Then when he reverts back to his old insanity, that is the time to protest.
Oh yeah the air up here is crisp and clean. Maybe that's why we elected a democrat for governer and increased the control of both state houses. Red state my eye!!
Hey RockyMountainJoe;
The point is his support has been staunch Republicans, fueled by his ties to the Mormon Church, and a deception that he's is moderate. He speaks slow, and has a sweet long smile on his face, along with his book about his son's terrible suicide, he has managed to portray himself to be something he certainly is not, moderate.
We have endured two terms, that have included his support of a Neo-Con Single Party takeover of our Democracy. He is part of the Neo-Con atrosities as much as any Republican in the party thats not in the White House and was proud of it until the War went south.
That he has come in our of the "acid rain" only means he accepts it's raining and it's acid; the problem is he should have stood up years ago before the rain when we begged and pleaded with him to be moderate. He would placate, and stall until the last second before a vote, and the same result would be inevitable, Neo-Con!
Gordon's support is a given as his Red territory is blueing on him as we speak, and he's in to deep to dig out now, I say let his record bury him.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
P.S. ; I would like to see Bill Bradbury take another run at him, our innovative, and honest Sec.of State in Oregon.
Joe makes a fair point that we shouldn't immediately shout someone like Smith down when they speak out against the war, even if they held a different position previously. Such criticism amounts to a fallacious response. It also doesn't serve the purpose of those who oppose the war.
On the other hand, when Smith provides a questionable account of his conversion, it's reasonable to challenge him. (This issue is also relevant when comparing him to other candidates, e.g., in a future re-election bid.) Given some of Smith's statements mentioned above, I take this MMFA item in that context.
if some of that criticism was directed at me.
If so, I wasn't saying that a person should be condemned for changing their minds as time passes. Not at all, that's what thinking people do (though it's called "flip-flopping" by those with more "resolve").
My point was that if a person's change of opinion happens conveniently timed enough to warrant some scrutiny, they should get that scrutiny.
Otherwise we only encourage the already rampant (across the political spectrum) practice of "which way's the wind blowing" politics.
I was distinguishing attacking the substance of what Smith has said recently regarding the war vs. questioning his sincerity. I believe Joe was pointing out that it's possible to attack the messenger to the point of attacking the message. For example, if Smith had simply pointed out that the war is a mess, to respond with criticism of the timing of his epiphany would be fallacious and damaging to the cause of those who oppose the war.
However, my second point was that Smith did more than point out the war is a mess. He also made comments regarding his epiphany, e.g., that he "woke up" one morning and "simply hit the end of the rope." (Yeah...sure.) On that point, this MMFA item is perfectly warranted.
My comments weren't intended as a personal indictment. I was just trying to clarify the debate. I guess I failed the first time around. I hope my second attempt makes more sense.
can have an epiphiny (except Jim Jeffords and possibly David Brock)?
But the circumstances of Smith's epiphany seem suspect to me.
This thread seems to have gone down the road of how to analyze and judge the shift in the senator's epiphany, given his history, etc.
My intent wasn't at all about whether to judge him harshly, or cut him any slack. (Although, I think that's where MM stepped off.)
My intention was simply to suggest that perhaps we could get more mileage out of the situation by not getting in the way of his sharing his new religion (but only while he remains on track), to an audience that would never consider hearing the truth about Iraq from any of us.
I could care less about his motivation, I don't trust any politician's motive. In a nutshell, they all only have one motive, power.
I think we need to focus on the bigger task of educating the masses, again, not the main purpose of MM, I know.
This thread seems to have gone down the road of how to analyze and judge the shift in the senator's epiphany, given his history, etc.
This road wasn't a diversion. That was the point of the MMFA item. I understand your point and agree that's it's a fair one. However, it's actually the tangent.
was the fact he is so conservative that Wyden made no public appearances against him in his last election cycle? I thought they made a big scene out of being an almost perfect team for Oregon.
You're missing the point of MM's article (unless you're just bringing up a new topic.) The point that MM is making (from my reading) is that Smith may have already changed his mind before the election. If that's the case, then voters were essentially lied to when they went to the ballot. (What else is new?)
So the question that wasn't asked was Was Smith one of the Senators that approached Biden before the elections to say he was going to "flip flop?"