Gordon Smith Files

Senator Gordon Smith voted for cloture on a resolution condemning the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales.

Impact: The vote would have ended debate and allowed the resolution an up or down vote. 60 votes were needed, the Yea's got only 53. Smith along with 6 of his colleagues went against party and supported cloture. Had the resolution gone to the floor, it would have put every Republican in the Senate on record either supporting Gonzales or calling for his resignation, and would most likely have passed.

Guts: 5. Smith puts his vote where his mouth is. He's already gone on record calling for the AG to resign. On the other hand there must have been an expectation the vote would not pass (two prominent Democrats, Obama and Dodd, did not bother to show). Smith would have been more put to the test if there were 59 other Senators voting with him.

Iraq Benchmarks - Actuals

Congress passed a new bill authorizing extra spending on military operations in Iraq, and it's been signed into law. They have not changed at all from the previous version I reviewed here, and it includes the get-out-of-jail-free card for Bush pushed by Sen. Warner.

The benchmarks, from HR 2206, Title 1 section 1314 (b) 1.

There are two noteworthy processes included in the legislation.

One, it requires the Comptroller General to review the benchmarks in parallel with the President. That position is currently held by David M. Walker. He (and the GAO) are independent of the President, he works for Congress and there is at least the potential for an interesting comparison of his answers to the President's.

Second, is this provision in section 1314 (d) :

(d) Redeployment of U.S. Forces From Iraq- The President of the United States, in respecting the sovereign rights of the nation of Iraq, shall direct the orderly redeployment of elements of U.S. forces from Iraq, if the components of the Iraqi government, acting in strict accordance with their respective powers given by the Iraqi Constitution, reach a consensus as recited in a resolution, directing a redeployment of U.S. forces.

That seems like a straightforward requirement that we withdraw or disengage if the Iraqi parliament passes a bill asking us to. I think that is more likely then Congress passing a withdrawal bill.

Gordon Smith supported it. My thoughts on the bill haven't changed, I give credit to Wyden for opposing it.

Gordon Smith Files

Two Iraq votes to add to Smith's record.

First, a vote against cutting off funding for Iraq operations after 3/31/2008.

Impact: If passed it would have been a big step towards actually ending the occupation. No one expected that though. Too many conservative Democrats, and too little trust in Bush to manage the withdrawal or aftermath. So the vote was in essence a platform for Democratic presidential candidates to go on record opposing the war.

Guts: Zero. Smith played the dead fish*.

Second, an alternative funding measure intended to tie Iraq reconstruction funds to benchmarks. Only John Warner amended it so that Bush could arbitrarily ignore it:

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

(a) LIMITATION.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the ``Economic Support Fund'' and available for Iraq may be obligated or expended unless and until the President of the United States certifies in the report outlined in subsection (2)(b)(1) above and makes a further certification in the report outlined in subsection (2)(b)(4) above that Iraq is making progress on each of the benchmarks set forth in Section 2 above.

(b) WAIVER AUTHORITY.--The President may waive the requirements of this section if he submits to Congress a written certification setting forth a detailed justification for the waiver, which shall include a detailed report describing the actions being taken by the Unites States to bring the Iraqi government into compliance with the benchmarks set forth in Section 2 above, The certification shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex,

Impact: Benchmarks are one of the strategies intended to improve Iraq. The concept is that by tying the performance of the Iraq government to reconstruction funds, the Iraqis will 'stand up'. If that sounds like someone using an analogy to cover up ill-conceived strategy, give yourself a cigar. With respect to Warner giving Bush an escape clause, really, was that necessary? Like Bush wasn't going to put that in a signing statement? Who says appeasement is a dirty word? Sadly, Smith voted for the amendment.

Guts: -10. A bill only a dead and rotting fish could love.

Not a good day for Smith

*Dead fish is a term coined by Bill Fleckenstein to describe stock analysts who just go with the flow. I think it quite accurately describes the Republican congress of the Bush years.

Gordon Smith Files

Gordon Smith voted to approve a military spending bill that included a schedule for withdrawing troops. The vote was essentially party line, with Hagel being the only other cross over.

Impact: The bill is likely to be vetoed by the president, so it is just another round in a long negotiation. However none of the New England Republicans supported it, I'd guess there was a lot of pressure to tie this up. Had McCain voted and Hagel and Smith stayed in line the bill would not have passed. So long as the bill was stuck in congress Bush could hold to a maximalist line. As soon as he signs a veto he's on record denying funds to troops, and the maximalist line becomes unsustainable. In short troops will likely come home sooner then they would had the vote failed.

Guts: I'd give this 7 out of 10. Going against party is offset by the prospects of a 2008 re-election campaign, and the fact that the bill included funding for a subsidy program that greatly benefits rural (and Red) Oregon. Seems like a good example of putting the interests of voters ahead of party, and doing the right thing at the same time.