Sen. Smith on Iraq Policy: "It Depends"

Having passed along comments yesterday from Sens. Hagel and Feingold on our future policy in Iraq, I suggested it might be a good time to check in with your own Senators to see how they will react to the suggestions that it's time to start planning an endgame. For me, that would be Gordon Smith (R) and Ron Wyden (D). Both are in Oregon now during the August recess, but if you want policy answers you really have to check in with their DC offices. So I did.

Wyden's Portland office was actually able to make some kind of statement as to his position on structured withdrawl: he's for it. If I may paraphrase the staffer, "Senator Wyden does generally support some kind of timetable for withdrawl, yes." (Disclaimer: I mentioned up front to the staffer that I was a Wyden voter, and I mention that to you now). That's rather vague and closer to what Hagel has said than Feingold, but if you suppose some kind of Congressional resolution seeking a drawdown timeframe, I'm fairly comfortable telling you that Wyden's office indicated that he would probably be in favor of it.

Gordon Smith's DC office was, shall we say, a little less forthcoming. I spoke to a staffer this morning, let him know I was a constituent without indicating my support or opposition for him (I voted against him in 2002), and read back Hagel's quote, asking if Smith supported the idea in that statement or backed the President's policy.

At first, the staffer was fairly direct: he noted that his own brother (the staffer's) was in Iraq, and the Senator supported the troops' staying "until the mission was done," and mentioned that the constitution in the process of being drafted was going to be an "amazing" step forward. I asked, "what constitutes 'done'?" That's when the verbal fidgeting began. I got Talking Point #35, "setting an artifical timetable will only embolden the insurgency." (At least he didn't use the word 'terrorists.') I started to offer Feingold's rebuttal that indefinite occupation and the lack of a plan was currently doing an awful lot of emboldening, but then begged off, saying I didn't want to get into a discussion about it; I just wanted to know Smith's position: does he support a structured withdrawl of troops beginning sometime in 2006, or does he support a continuation of Bush's policy on Iraq?

The answer? "It depends." The staffer tried to say that Bush has many different policies on Iraq (which probably wasn't meant to imply a scattershot and desperately short-term vision, even if that's how it sounded), and he couldn't go into which ones he agreed or disagreed with. So I boiled it down: "Let's just focus on one of them, then: does the Senator support more troops, the same number we have now, or fewer troops going into the future?

Can you guess the answer? "It depends." Then came out Bush waffle #48: "That's up to the generals to decide, how many troops they need." I noted that "the generals" had been fairly consistently asking for more troops, all the way back to General Shinseki before the war started. Again I asked, does the Senator believe we should have more troops, fewer troops, or what we have now? "It depends."

Smith's staffer wouldn't commit to begin pulling troops under any timeframe, and he wouldn't commit to support of Bush's current policy (which so far features no pullout plan), either. This is much the same toothless dodge he employed earlier this year on Bush's Social Security plan, refusing to make any statements on what he might or might not favor because "no plan has been presented."

Is Smith going to hide his views under a bushel all the way to 2008, refusing to commit to anything until he's been told what to say?

It depends.

Update, 11AM:
Over at BlueOregon, they're pointing out Smith's below-average SUSA poll showing among all Senators, and culling suggestions for a replacement.

--TJ

Comments

[carla]

Smith is in a tough spot. The Iraq war is hugely unpopular in Oregon...as is most of the GOP agenda. But if Smith doesn't tow the line with Bush he risks losing his ability to have access to the White House.

[Steve]

Please spell "withdrawal" correctly, or is it some sort of accent?

[Torrid]

it's the a key. It hurts to dig into that left corner there. After that first 'a' I couldn't convince my fingers to head back for the second one.

heh.