Gordon Smith joins the insurgency

This week, I am deeply disappointed in Sen. Gordon Smith. He, along with 40 other Republicans, voted to transfer control of the U.S. Senate to the Democratic Party. Thirty-eight Democrats were only too happy to play along, knowing that this was a huge victory for them.

Oh, that’s not really what the vote was about. The 79-19 vote was a “compromise” on the Democrats’ attempts to put a timeline on withdrawal from Iraq. But this was no compromise — it was capitulation to the far-left, anti-war, MoveOn.org, Cindy Sheehan crowd.

Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s some key text:

Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.

Does that sound so bad? Not in a perfect world. But in essence, the Senate told President Bush that he better whip them Iraqi whippersnappers into shape in the next year so our troops can come home. It's kind of like me telling my 3-year-old that she needs to start using the potty instead of a diaper, and it has to happen by her fourth birthday or I'll just stop changing diapers. Eventually she will grow out of diapers, but not by virtue of any outside pressure or incentives. Withdrawing as the diaper changer, just like withdrawing from Iraq, might eventually have the desired effect, but in the meantime things are going to be even messier. And the long-term effects could be troubling.

Eventually, the Iraqi Army will be able to "[take] the lead for the security" of its country. But pushing, prodding, wishing and hoping by the United States Senate will not make it come more quickly, and telling the president that it has to happen in 2006 is the best news the terrorists have had in months. We might as well send them an engraved invitation to the demise of the Iraq's democracy, dated Dec. 31, 2006.

The "sense of the senate" (which has no sense, apparently) also states that U.S. forces should not stay in Iraq "any longer than required and the people of Iraq should be so advised." (The Democratic version said forces should not stay "indefinitely," and no one, including the Iraqi people, said they should stay "indefinitely" or "longer than required"; staying until the job is done is an entirely different thing.) But really, "required" is a silly term, because Democrats increasingly are already saying forces are not required and should come home today.

It goes on:

the Administration should tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in Iraq, within the schedule they set for themselves.

Oh, that's rich. Dear members of your fledgling democracy — hurry up and agree.

Then there are the "reports," coming every three months until all troops are home. These are unclassified reports which, again, are like me writing a report to my wife to tell her what I've done to get my child potty-trained. Even more maddening, however, is that my spousal report has to say when I estimate we'll be free of diaper bills, with an explanation of any delays.

The reports are requested to include:

A schedule for meeting such conditions [for withdrawal], an assessment of the extent to which such conditions have been met, information regarding variables that could alter that schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule.

Democrats included this requirement for the reports, which would have been even more disastrous:

A campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.

A schedule for meeting conditions of withdrawal? Dear Mr. Zarqawi, if you could just slow down the bombing for the next year or so, we promise we'll run away and you can have the country all to yourself.

Even more maddening is Majority Leader Bill Frist's comments yesterday about the subject:

The Republicans in this body are 100% behind the President as Commander in Chief. We will not cut and run. The amendments were crafted as a cut and run, and it sends the wrong signal to our troops, to Al Qaeda. The letter we crafted was intended to address the cut and run approach generated by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). The Administration reports to us on a regular basis about the progress of the war and their plans. Our amendment was crafted to thwart the cut and run strategy of the Democrats.

Bull. I'm not surprised that Sen. Ron Wyden would join this vote, but Sen. Smith should know better. This vote is a slap in the face of the Iraqi people, our nation's troops, and the American people who put a Republican majority in congress.