The Honorable Senator Gordon Smith

Michelle Neumann

I have seen Senator Gordon Smith on television more times in the past four weeks than in the past four years! (And his new-found popularity clearly has not gone unnoticed here at BlueOregon.) His debut occurred days after the Democratic sweep in the mid-term elections, when he apparently suddenly realized he's up for re-election we're on the wrong track in Iraq. His floor speech stating that continued support for President Bush's Iraq policy "may even be criminal" was the sound bite heard 'round the world that day.

Recently, Senator Smith met with President Bush to discuss Bush's "troop surge" plan, which Smith opposes. In comments to the media after the meeting, however, Smith targeted Democrats, stating:

"It would be a dishonorable thing for the Congress to budget away the bullets at a time when their commander in chief had ordered them to hold their place in the battlefront," said Smith.

Smith accuses Democrats of something they are not doing - "budgeting away" bullets from troops in the field. Is that honorable? Smith slaps Democrats for the hypothetical possibility that they would not fully fund the surge, even though Smith himself said it "may be criminal" to continue to support Bush's Iraq policy. Is that honorable?

If Senator Smith wants to discuss honor, then by all means, let's discuss it. If only he would respond to my emails. Given that his office does not respond, I offer the following open letter to Senator Smith, exploring the important subject of the honor - or dishonor - of the federal government's actions, and in particular, Senator Smith's responsibility for those actions.

Dear Senator Smith:

I am pleased to see your renewed interest in ensuring that our government acts with honor. I have to admit, however, that your silence on this topic for the past six years leads me to question your sincerity. My cynicism may be curbed at bit, however, if you would let me know whether or not, in your honest opinion, the following actions of the federal government were honorable:

President Bush's unilateral implementation of his "troop surge" plan, rushed so as to evade Congressional input? So rushed, in fact, that logistical planning to support those troops could not be completed? (See the comments of Brigadier General Michael M. Brogan, USMC, who was a witness before the House Armed Services Committee this past Tuesday, January 16, 2007. He stated that the intended armored vehicles "will not arrive before" the "surge" troops arrive in Iraq.) President Bush did not "budget away" the troops' bullets - he just sent them to Iraq in advance of their bullets.

Honorable or dishonorable - underfunding the Veterans' Administration, amid windfall profits earned by Halliburton on no-bid contracts?

Honorable or dishonorable - indifference to Iraq war veterans forced to live in shelters or on the streets because they can't find jobs or can't get the medical treatment they need? (As an aside, Democratic Senator Jim Webb recently introduced the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007, which will provide the newest Veterans with educational benefits like those received by men and women who served in the three decades following World War II. Senator Smith, if your party supports the troops as much as it says it does, why didn't we have this bill years ago?)

Honorable or dishonorable:

The stop-loss program (otherwise known as the backdoor draft)? Requiring two, three, four tours of duty in Iraq? Calling grandfathers and grandmothers up for active duty?

Tax cuts during a time of war? Turning a budget surplus into the largest deficit in American history, greater than the deficit of all prior Administrations combined?

Giving yourself a raise, but refusing to give a raise to minimum-wage workers?

The abdication by the Republican Congress of its duty to perform oversight of the executive branch? The failure to demand accountability for the bad intelligence used as (at least the initial) justification for the war? The failure to anticipate the insurgency? The failure to maintain civil order after the initial invasion? The failure to pay for the reconstruction with oil revenues, as promised to Congress by Paul Wolfowitz? The failure to provide enough troops from the start? Rampant corruption in the reconstruction effort and zero accountability for lost billions? Failure to provide after years of occupation even the most basic infrastructure in Iraq? Failure to preserve and protect natural resources and cultural artifacts for the Iraqi people? Building an embassy complex in Iraq larger than the Vatican for who knows what reason?

The failure to demand an exit strategy, amid an unconscionable loss of life and an appalling cost to taxpayers?

No accountability for Abu Ghraib except for a handful of subordinates?

Taking a 5-week vacation immediately after receiving the August 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside the U.S."?

Failure to enact ethics reform after the Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff scandals, or even to enforce existing ethics rules?

Paying pundits like Armstrong Williams to shill for Administration policies such as social security "reform" without disclosing that they were being paid?

Leaking the name of an undercover CIA operative in order to intimidate those who would seek to hold the Administration accountable for its assertions to the American people?

Passing a bill written by credit card companies which prohibits Americans from declaring bankruptcy if they suffer catastrophic injury or illness and are not insured or otherwise able to pay their medical bills? (How many Bush family businesses took advantage of the availability of bankruptcy, I wonder?)

Allowing millions of children to go without health insurance (and therefore most likely without health care)?

Deliberately hiding from Congress the actual cost of the prescription drug bill - more than $500 billion?

Cutting federal funds for college education? (Was that a sneaky way to encourage enlistment?)

Soaring gas prices at the same time oil companies are reporting record profits in the billions of dollars per quarter?

Attempting to write discrimination into the Constitution?

Allowing groups of Americans to be vilified in order to exploit the worst in people and use that to hold on to power?

Showing disrespect for veterans who volunteered and served with honor, and denigrating their service, to score political points before an election? Insulting another Senator from the floor, in violation of Senate rules? (I'm sure that you personally, however, are above such conduct, Senator.)

The systematic erosion of Constitutional rights, starting with the Patriot Act and including Presidential signing statements, illegal wiretapping and the revocation of habeas corpus?

Covertly arresting and holding detainees, without access to counsel, without the availability of habeas relief, and without any evidence of guilt whatsoever, and sending them to other countries to be tortured (rendition)?

Questioning the patriotism of political opponents and accusing them of wanting the terrorists to win?

Elevating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, who on a job application bragged about his membership in a club whose sole purpose was to oppose the admission of women and minorities to Princeton?

The utter lack of response by the federal government to the devastation of the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricane Katrina?

Bringing the full power of the federal government to bear on an individual family matter already fully litigated in court for a decade?

Allowing political appointees associated with the oil industry to alter the conclusions in scientific reports on global warming? Refusing to honor international treaties we have signed?

Intimidating Grand Canyon National Park Service employees into adopting an official, tax-dollar supported position that the Grand Canyon is 6,000 years old?

All of these things happened on your watch, Senator Smith. Were these things honorable?

Excuse my impretinence, but where have you been - with your pronouncements on criminality and honor - for the past six years? If the mood of the country had not so profoundly shifted, and your re-election prospects consequently diminished, would you have come forward now as the self-appointed (and high-profile) watchdog of Congressional honor and dishonor? What, exactly, have you been waiting for?

As yet another case in point, a senior Pentagon official (Charles Stimson) recently called law firms terrorists for defending Guantanamo detainees. He even distributed a list of the firms and beseeched American corporations not to do business with them. Senator Smith, this is a Portland law firm he's talking about. Will you remain silent while our community is smeared by a rabid, sore-loser senior federal official - using the platform of his office? Will you remain silent while the fundamental ideals of our legal system are attacked in this manner? Where is your public statement demanding that Stimson be fired? I think we can all agree that Stimson's lame, tardy apology is unacceptable. This was no off-the-cuff remark. This was methodically planned and researched. Certainly you know that your silence is interpreted as tacit approval. Again, what, exactly, are you waiting for? Or do you hope to demonstrate your honor by continuing to sit on your hands?

I, for one, would be far more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you explained to your constituents why you failed to do anything during the past six years except mechanically rubber-stamp every bill and every statement of the Bush Administration, no matter how egregious, why you failed to defend the Constitution, why you put party loyalty above the good of the country and why you failed to take a stand against the war before the mid-term elections.

Senator Smith, you should explain your silence and inaction while our government acted dishonorably. You should accept responsibility for your role in it. It would be the honorable thing to do.

Very truly yours,

Michelle Neumann

By Michelle Neumann Jan. 23, 2007