Did DeFazio poll influence Smith's vote on Iraq supplemental?

Michelle Neumann

On Tuesday, Sen. Gordon Smith voted with Senate Democrats to narrowly defeat an amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that would have stripped the bill of its troop withdrawal provisions. The vote was 48 to 50- with Smith and Hagel voting with the Democrats, and Enzi and Johnson not voting. Pryor voted in favor of the amendment.

I've been gearing up for the past two days for the call to Smith's staffer demanding to know why Smith voted against a timeline for withdrawal (or filibustered it again) after he publicly stated that continued support for Bush's Iraq policy may be immoral. Looks like for once I'm not going to have to make that call.

Did the DeFazio/Smith poll released by the DSCC earlier this week have any effect on Smith's vote, I wonder? Even if there's no current sign of a DeFazio run (or, unfortunately, any bona fide challenger on either side), the polling alone demonstrates the DSCC's focus on this race. Maybe that was enough to convince Smith to forego the usual say-one-thing-do-another shell game this time.

The Senate bill includes a binding provision requiring troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, and a non-binding provision requiring withdrawal of most forces by March of 2008. The House version mandates withdrawal by August 31, 2008.

The Senate could vote on the final bill as early as Wednesday. The bill would then go to conference committee. Given that both bills have some form of binding withdrawal provision, the final version that goes to Bush for signature will most certainly contain a timeline for withdrawal of troops.

Context and a good summary from McClatchy Newspapers via the Kansas City Star:

Since the war began in March 2003, 3,236 American servicemen and women have been killed and more than 23,000 have been wounded. The United States has spent almost $400 billion on the war.

Democrats also argue that voting to end most American military involvement in Iraq over the next year puts pressure on Iraqi leaders to speed their efforts to reach the political compromises necessary to stop sectarian violence and create a stable representative government.

Both House and Senate versions would provide all of the $103 billion the president requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would add about $20 billion for other items, mainly national security, health care for veterans and returning troops, and hurricane relief.

Both versions also would keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in 2008 and possibly beyond to fight terrorists, protect Americans and train Iraqis.

Here's the statement of purpose from the Cochran amendment that was defeated on Tuesday, which is just a bit on the inflammatory side:

To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Cochran thinks that partially non-binding language in a bill that hasn't been passed yet is jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I would argue that failing to develop any sort of strategic war plan, failing to exercise oversight, failing to properly and fully equip, train and deploy the troops, failing to acknowledge reality, failing to seek out and listen to competent advice, failing to learn the history and political dynamics of the region, failing to control rampant war profiteering, and failing to learn from mistakes over the past four years is jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

On Tuesday, Sen. Hagel accused President Bush of mismanaging the war with "an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam". Sen. Reid said that the President can swagger all he wants, but "we have 3,241 dead Americans." It's not all about you, George! Will he ever understand that? (No.)

Question for McConnell, Boehner, Lieberman and others who have been calling the troop withdrawal timeline some sort of "surrender" provision: If the surge is working, as you anxiously assert it is, then clearly we can and should bring the majority of the troops home sometime within the next 4 to 18 months, correct? Or, by trying to knock out the withdrawal provisions, are you trying to tell us that the surge, the "last chance" you begged us to give the President and that he demanded like an entitlement, is not, in fact, working? What part of last do you not understand?

Where has Cheney been? He was on hand in the Senate to break a tie if needed, according to the Washington Post.

By Michelle Neumann March 28, 2007