| I saw him today at a press conference where he spoke the words I chose as a title for this post. While nothing about him was different, there was still something not quite the same as every other time I'd heard him speak. Even though I took notes and listened carefully to what he said, it wasn't until after the press conference that it dawned on me what was different.
What happened is that an older woman standing next to me walked forward to shake Mr. Rothman's hand. I couldn't catch her words, but I did hear him say, "I'm so sorry. It shouldn't have taken so long." Then I noted that the words printed on her t-shirt were the name and date a family member had been killed in Iraq.
That's when I found what was different about Mr. Rothman. His statement was what I have come to expect - a logical progression leading up to a irrefutable conclusion. The tone, though, was not that of a disaffected logician. It was the tone of man so deeply betrayed that he is beyond the ability to rage at it.
His case was simple. He had not lightly given the President authorization to use force against Iraq. It was given with the understanding that Saddam had agents actively working inside the United States to deploy nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons. He decided it was less risky for America to take the fight to Saddam - to depose him and help set up a democratic government.
It has been almost three years since that vote. In that time, 2,200 American soldiers have been killed and thousands more wounded. The death total for Iraqis reaches over a hundred thousand. Yet we have helped Iraqis elect a government and we have trained over 200,000 Iraqis to defend their country. The objectives approved by Congress have been accomplished.
Yet the violence continues. As the Congressman points out, though, the US Army has gone from a liberating force to an irritant. 80% of Iraqis want the American Army out of their country and 45% of them believe violence against our soldiers is justified. We are no longer part of the solution. We are now a part - a big part - of the problem.
When asked if he fears that chaos will descend on Iraq if the "stabilizing" presence of the US military leaves, he responded with characteristic thoughtfulness. "It may be bad for a while. But it won't get better with us there. Right now, we are blamed for every bad thing that happens. If we are gone, then it becomes the responsibility of the Iraqi people - Sunni, Shia, and Kurd - to determine if they want to live together in peace as one united country."
"We can't afford to continue," the Congressman said. Referring to the track record of the Bush Administration, he said, "Every prediction we were told about Iraq has been false. The President has zero credibility on this issue."
He also pointed out that our military cannot find sufficient volunteers to retain staff levels. Our military suppliers can't meet production quotas. Our military is in trouble and must be rebuilt - and quickly. That cannot happen while they are deployed in Iraq.
"Within six months, we must have the majority of our forces back on our soil. It will be necessary to maintain a small rapid-action force in neighboring countries to ensure no foreign power tries to invade Iraq. But it is time to bring them home."
The Congressman pointed out that new threats are emerging. Our military must be able to defend our borders (including our ports). We must be able to respond to the global war against terrorist networks and to counter-balance Iran as it seeks nuclear weapons.
We've met our moral obligations and the objectives of Congress. We've gone from solution to problem. Our resources are needed elsewhere. Three good reasons for calling for our troops' return.
The most poignant, however, was when Congressman Rothman reviewed our military history. It took us a little over three and a half years to win World War 2. Our involvement in Korea was only slightly more than three years. We are only weeks away from that milestone in Iraq.
Even so, the Congressman's reply to my question on other forms of aid reveals that he still feels we have some obligation to the fledgling Iraqi republic. "We should continue to use our diplomatic resources and international allies and aid to help them rebuild," he said. "But we can't allow ourselves to continue to be their bogey-man."
The best reason for leaving, though, was when the Congressman gave his apology to the woman I spoke of earlier. Most politicians would have spoken loudly enough for reporters to hear or would have posed for pictures with her. Mr. Rothman, however, turned his back to the reporters and almost whispered to her. If I had not been standing right beside her, I wouldn't have heard him speak at all.
That apology, I believe, was heart-felt. It came from a man who had set aside his personal misgivings in the hope that his country, his government, and his President would not let him down. The difference in his voice, I believe, was that betrayal coming through. It wasn't a brash, angry betrayal, but a hurtful sense that his faith in the President had led him to make a decision that hurt the people he is supposed to protect.
Yet there wasn't any sense of shifting the blame. Rothman's apology - both the words he chose and the manner in which it was given (he actually turned his back to the reporters)- showed me that he accepts the consequences of his decision to give Congressional approval to the invasion of Iraq. Yes, he will say he honestly was misled. Yet he will still say that it was his hand that cast the vote.
But to accept that and do nothing is to compound the injury. So, Mr. Rothman apologizes softly, and moves to make right what has become so wrong.
That, my friends, is character. |
