 Deployment in Iraq/Department of Defense photo |
The Northwest congressional delegation looks to be split just about as the nation is - and just about as it is, politically. The new Bush Administration escalation - which is what it is, even if "augmentation" is the preferred Administration alternative to "surge" - has provided a clear new rundown of where the members stand.
Here's how the six senators and 16 representatives from the region break out, roughly in order along the spectrum of get-out-now to Bush-is-right, based on their statements in the last few days. (Omitted because we could find nothing comparable: Oregon Representative Darlene Hooley.)
The most trenchant pullout guys seem to be Washington Representatives Jay Inslee [1], Jim McDermott [2] and Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer [3], all early opponents of the Iraq war. Inslee was quoted as saying that rather than an escalation in Iraq, “we need a surge of congressional action to stop George Bush’s disastrous policies in Iraq.†And (to the Seattle Times): ""We have to take every step we can, including using the constitutional power of the purse, to deny the president the power to go off on this half-cocked escalation."
Blumenauer said Congress should quit serving as an "enabler" of the war.
As for McDermott, he responded to Bush thusly: "The President seems determined to make Iraq the Vietnam of the Mideast, no matter what top U.S. military commanders tell him behind the scenes, no matter what the American people tell him at the polls, and no matter what the Iraqi people tell the world every new and bloody day across Iraq."
Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio [4] is working similar territory, as he has for some time. A sample from his substantial remarks on Bush's announcement: "As I said a year ago, instead of an open-ended commitment, we should announce a timeline for bringing our troops home over the next six to 12 months. The Bush administration has always set timelines for political developments in Iraq, arguing they were necessary to focus the energy of Iraq's leaders and to force compromises. We need to do the same on the military side."
In his recent statements, Oregon Representative David Wu [5] seems fairly close to this stance too. As does Washington Representative Rick Larsen [6], who said escalation is a bad idea and that current policies let Iraqis "call the shots."
Democratic Senators Ron Wyden [7] and Patty Murray [8] have a stance just a little more nuanced. (Wyden voted against the Iraq war at the beginning.) Wyden has opposed the war generally, but also maintains that Iraqis won't take seriously the need to stabilize their own country until American troops start leaving. Neither he nor Murray sees the addition of new troops as helping. Murray said flatly she plans to vote for a (nonbinding) resolution against the rampup next week.
Washington Senator Maria Cantwell [9] offered what sounded like a more analytical view in her statement Wednesday: “The president’s statement tonight hangs our Iraq policy moving forward on 20,000 troops to stabilize Baghdad. Our strategy must be to significantly change the course by holding Iraqis to sooner timetables on taking security control, passing an oil law, and making the other political compromises necessary to ease disagreements among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.†No strongly-worded call on pullout, though some of the sense was there.
Washington Representative Norm Dicks [10] seems to be struggling over this. He too is a relatively recent convert to war criticism, and offers some acknowledgment of the theory behind Bush's actions. But he made clear he remains a skeptic and doubts the Iraqis will manage once American troops are gone: "They haven’t delivered on anything yet they said they’d do in terms of heavy lifting." And he told the Seattle Times, "This escalation is absolutely the wrong way to go. I have this gut instinct that this is the start of the end."
Washington Representative Brian Baird's [11] longish statement was clearly opposed to Bush's action, but he spet most of it in reflection about where the war has brought the country. He closed with this thoughtful idea: "If the President, the Congress, or the people themselves believe that Congress, as the directly elected representatives of the American people, have no voice in whether or not our country begins or remains at war, and whether or not our sons and daughters will be sent to die, then none of us, not the President or the Congress, has any business trying to bring a democracy to other nations because we have lost sight of how our own republic is supposed to function. That, in the long run, may be a much greater concern and threat than what happens in Iraq."
The other Washington Democratic representative, Adam Smith [12], sounded a more resigned tone after meeting with Bush and others at the White House: “After the meeting I considered the President’s argument and reviewed the available information, including the Iraq Study Group Report. In the end, even though I gave the President’s argument due consideration, I don’t find it persuasive. A troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.â€
Placing Oregon Senator Gordon Smith [13] on this list is tough, because his statements have bounced around from forum to forum - not necessarily contradictory, but with different tones.