Retired Senator Ernest Hollings, who Griffith credits with encouraging his entry into the race, has on more than one occasion openly stated that the reason for the Iraq war was the security of Israel-

"With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel."
-The Charleston Post and Courier, May 2004

"But President Bush changed the policy of negotiations, confirming Israeli settlements, and invading Iraq to secure Israel by democratizing the Mideast."
-The Charleston Post and Courier, July 2004

On his campaign website (excerpted below), Griffith lists the various official reasons for the Iraq war and then alludes to ""psychological" factors", presumably a euphemism for Israel. Even at this late date, even with a solid majority now against the war, and even after his political inspiration Senator Hollings has bluntly stated that the war was launched for Israel, Griffith cannot openly acknowledge this, and indeed no other candidate in the race besides myself is likely to do so. This is indicative of a deep and genuine corrosion in American politics. At this writing some 2600 Americans have died in Iraq, thousands more have been maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars have been squandered, our nation's reputation sits at an all time low, and perhaps as many as a quarter of a million innocent people are now dead, and yet the actual reason for all of this, insofar as there is one, remains taboo. Regardless of what one may think about America's unquestioning support of Israel, whatever opinions one may hold regarding terrorism or Zionism or the Book of Genesis, refusal to publicly discuss something which has cost this country so much is unconscionable. I'm not singling Griff out on this, it's just the way things are. And it needs to change.

Griffith speculates "my guess is that at some point we will “declare victory” and start a withdrawal from Iraq". The shortcoming of this position is that Griffith isn't writing a letter to the editor, he's writing as a candidate for public office, an office wherein he would have his share of control over the war. We don't need to hear what he thinks will happen. We need to hear what he plans to do. Still, I'll admit that next to Bob's sit and spin on this subject, Griffith is comparatively strident.

I note Griffith's single point in his below letter is that we should raise taxes to pay for the war. And on his website Griffith frames every single issue in terms of the Republican's "national security" Fatherland drumbeat, in a sweeping attempt to out pro war our Republican opponent. So even though a preponderance of Americans are against war generally and the current one in particular, you basically have two official choices in the 4th district race- the Republican pro war candidate and the Democratic pro war candidate. Take your pick.

addendum:
(9/12/06)- Griffith a few days ago released his "Contract With Reality", the key point of which concerning the war is "We must expeditiously bring the Iraq War to its conclusion". He stops short of giving the war the ringing condemnation it certainly deserves, but he's now reasonably unequivocal about ending it. At least he has the clarity of hindsight and is willing to say so. Which is more than you can say about Inglis.

I think Griffith is clearly superior to Inglis on the issues, particularly the war. But we don't just need politicians with enough sense to end the current failed war. We need politicians who will keep us out of the next one. And if you think such politicians are going to come from either of the main parties, remember that neither the President nor either house of Congress appears to have had the slightest idea of what they were jumping into in Iraq.

from Griffith's website-

To the reader: Back in the fall of 2005 I wrote this letter to the editor of the Greenville News. Unfortunately it was never published, however many people, whom I shared it with, liked it a lot. In fact, a number of people resubmitted the same letter, but that didn't cut it either. A lot has happened since then, and my guess is that at some point we will “declare victory” and start a withdrawal from Iraq. I am still as perplexed as many as to how we arrived at the decision to invade. From my perspective the Administration did so for three reasons. They were to help stabilize our access to oil from the middle east, to try to install a democracy in a dangerous part of the world, and yes, I believe that those in power actually thought there were, or would be, WMD there, however shaky the evidence. Some suggest that there were some other “psychological” factors at work, perhaps so, I don't know. The only way to “sell” the invasion was WMD, so that became the justification (as far as I know, no one has ever proven the Downing Street Memo to be false, Google it and read it, if you don't know about it). The second reason, establishing a “toe hold” for democracy, was historically naïve, at least historically. Anyone interested may want to read Fareed Zakaria's book, The Future of Freedom, where the challenges of creating such a democracy in a mineral rich state with a history of sectarian violence is well noted (such democracies have been unsustainable). You all have heard about what happens to those who ignore the lessons of history. Any way, my unpublished letter follows.

Our “war time” status is often cited, sometimes too conveniently, as justification for any number of government policies and positions. Yet, the average American is little impacted by our being at war. Yes we all probably know a few people who are serving in our military, and some of us have loved ones serving, but most of us are at best only involved passively, if at all. On the other hand, there are 140,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq and 10,000 more in Afghanistan who are very intimately involved. In my view, the success of our democracy demands greater participation and sacrifice on the part of the rest of us. How can this be done? For one thing, we should immediately begin paying for as much of the cost of these conflicts (not only the current cost, but the anticipated costs of caring for the 40,000+ injured veterans as well) with current income, and not by adding to the national debt as we are now doing. As we all prosper from the unique opportunities offered by this country, we should all pay based on our ability to contribute. However this is done (income surtaxes, increased taxes on consumption, etc.), it should be set up as a temporary measure to cover only these costs while they exist. Taking such measures may temporarily slow the growth of our economy, but it will be far more fair to our children’s futures and greatly increase the appreciation for what it means to be “at war”.