Brian Greenspun on exactly who should be sorry for getting us into this terrible war

Sunday, Feb. 18, 2007 | 7:32 a.m.

"Love means never having to say you're sorry."

If you are over 40 years old or have a penchant for old cinematic reruns, you will recall this famous line from the Ali McGraw-Ryan O'Neal tear-jerker, "Love Story."

It was way back in 1970 when the movie was made, based on Erich Segal's novel by the same name. The timing is significant because it was at the height of the Vietnam War, when this country was torn apart by generation gaps, truth gaps, civilian-soldier gaps and every other kind of divide that could come between and among Americans.

It was a time of tremendous soul-searching about the role of the military in the United States, the rightness of our cause in a faraway war, the finger-pointing at our governmental leaders for getting us into such a mess and the blame game for what turned out to be more than 50,000 American deaths in Southeast Asia.

"Love Story" had nothing to do with the tragedy of Vietnam. It was, however, a sappy escape for millions of Americans who made it a box office hit contrary to expert opinion.

I bring this up because it seems like we are in the middle of another soap opera while real tragedy is taking place halfway around the world. This country is in the throes of a substantial debate about the war in Iraq and whether or not our country should escalate, maintain a status quo, cut and run, strategically retreat or any number of a dozen other scenarios in the face of a war gone bad and an insurgency gone much worse. Does "deja vu all over again" mean anything?

We have some serious decision-making to deal with at all levels of government and across the country. We also have a 2008 presidential election race in full swing. That provides us both the potential to debate serious solutions and their consequences, and the likelihood that we will fall prey to the silliness and superficiality of a political season that started far too early and promises to have all of us exhausted months before the actual election.

And that brings me back to never having to say, "I'm sorry."

Last week the publisher of that other newspaper that is delivered with the Las Vegas Sun predicted that if Iraq were still the hot topic in 2008, the Democratic candidate for president would be Barack Obama. That may be true, but the reason Sherm gave for victory makes no sense because, if he is right, the American electorate, 37 years after "Love Story," hasn't learned a thing.

I have a bias. I really like Sen. Hillary Clinton and would love to see my friend be the Democratic candidate for the White House. Having said that, I could be comfortable with a number of the people who are seeking that office. But what makes me very uncomfortable is this hue and cry from what I thought was the ultra-liberal wing of the Democratic Party that demands, as a requirement for electability, an apology for voting for the Iraq war.

It wasn't until the Review-Journal's publisher predicted that without an apology from Hillary, Obama would be the candidate, that I discovered that either the Neanderthal Right was in full agreement with the Far Left or that Sherm was just trying to confuse and confound - something he has become particularly adept at lately. Hence, the soap opera.

Here's a news flash! If any senator in the United States Senate voted to give President George W. Bush the authority to go to war if all else failed in his quest to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, he or she made the right call. It would be derelict - in the face of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein - to vote any other way.

The fact of the matter is that almost every American felt the same way after 9/11, based on what we had all been told were the facts by President George W. Bush. Are we all to apologize for wanting to stop a nuclear holocaust?

If Hillary were to say that she is sorry for voting to protect the people of the United States, based on the facts as she believed them to be, even I would be skeptical of her qualifications to be president. The most we can ask of our elected representatives is that they make the best and most informed judgment at that time. To expect the accuracy of hindsight to figure into those decisions is just plain foolish. And to expect apologies for doing what they thought was right - when it turns out wrong - is to expect political pandering.

Haven't we had enough of a president pandering to his base in this country?

If Sherm and the hand-wringers on the Left want an apology for this botched-up war in Iraq, they need look no further than the White House, because that is where all the blame lies.

I, too, was in favor of stopping Saddam from having and using weapons of mass destruction - as I am with regard to Iran, North Korea and any other country with bad intentions. If I were in the Senate I also would have voted to give the authority to President Bush to use force, if necessary.

What I wouldn't have done, though, and I am certain Sen. Clinton and her colleagues would not have done, is vote for the combination of arrogance and incompetence that have defined this president's handling of the war.

President Bush has asked for, and our men and women in uniform have given, every bit of bravery and determination they have. It is not their competence that has been called into question. They have done all they have been expected to do and more.

And if Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Green members and Neanderthals at newspapers can't understand the difference between what our soldiers have done and what our elected leaders have done to them, then there should be apologies.

First, the people who reelected President Bush in 2004 so he could continue digging us deeper into the hole in Iraq owe an apology. Next, the newspapers and other media that abdicated their responsibility to tell people the truth about the conduct of the war and the prospects for success if President Bush continued to "stay the course" owe a sincere apology. And, finally, those in and out of public office who were too timid to speak out for fear of being called unpatriotic or worse owe each other an apology.

I am exhausted from all those mea culpas.

But, the people who do not need to say, "I'm sorry," are those who voted their consciences based on the information they had at the time. That includes Hillary Clinton and most of the Senate of the United States.

They are, and I defy anyone to prove differently, people who love their country. And, we all know that love means ...

archive