Heather Wilson: Naive & Simplistic (Redistrict Now!)

This is a guest blog by a New Mexican who goes by the name 'Land of Enchantment' that is cross-posted here by permission. It was posted originally as a diary at Daily Kos:

Congresswoman Heather Wilson (NM-01) - a member of the House Intelligence Committee - has criticized the Iraq Study Group report as disappointing, with some of its suggestions naive and simplistic, and others blindingly obvious.  I have not found any more specifics as to which parts she ascribes these various characterizations.

Of course, the basic idea that the whole business isn’t working hardly comes as news to anyone whose IQ is greater than their shoe size.  Houston Chronicle cartoonist Nick Anderson, for example, illustrates what should have been "blindingly obvious" long ago:

The plain spoken Russ Feingold has more sense in his little finger than Heather Wilson’s exhibited in her entire political career.  From the Detroit News:

"Maybe there are still people in Washington who need a study group to tell them that the policy in Iraq isn't working, but the American people are way ahead of this report."

An interesting question, and one I don’t know how to answer, is why Heather Wilson is perhaps the widest-quoted member of Congress about the report.  From the International Herald Tribune (the Paris-based NY Times affiliate via the AP), to Imus in the Morning, to NPR.  I’m guessing everyone’s going with AP coverage, as I’ve not found any statement on Wilson’s official website.  But NPR’s site carries quotes from sixteen members of the House & Senate sourced to AP.  So it might just be a case of tit-for-tat journalism, and Wilson gave the most pointedly critical quote.

Wilson’s been a "stay the course", rubber-stamp kind of Republican.  From the Albuquerque Tribune:

Now that she's had the electoral scare of her life, Donald Rumsfeld's out and President Bush is talking options, has Heather Wilson's view on Iraq changed?

No, and here's why.

"Elections are about choices between candidates. They don't change policy positions," the Albuquerque Republican said Tuesday after returning to the House for the postelection session of Congress.

We do know that Wilson hasn’t used the expressions "naive" and "simplistic" about policies in Iraq before.  Not about:

• The insurgency is in its "last throes"
• They’ll greet us as liberators, with candy and flowers
• "Mission Accomplished"
• The purple fingers show it’s all successful
• The war wouldn’t last more than 6 months, max
• Iraqi oil revenues would pay for reconstruction
• Trumped up "intelligence" on Saddam’s WMDs

Just two months ago, Wilson was profiled for the midterm election by the Albuquerque Tribune:

What is your stance on the Iraq War and how the U.S. should proceed?

The U.S. military has done an outstanding job defeating Saddam Hussein and helping the Iraqi people have the first free election in decades. All Americans, including me, want American troops to come home from Iraq. My opponent wanted to immediately withdraw all U.S. troops almost a year ago - before free elections, before the Iraqi Army was ready to provide security, before the establishment of a unity government, and before we killed the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even now, if we immediately retreat from Iraq, the terrorists will see it as a sign of weakness, and it will embolden them to commit more terrorist attacks.

I believe our troops should be reduced through an orderly transition to the Iraqi Army as Iraqis take more responsibility for governing and security in their own country. I also believe that decisions on troop withdrawal schedules should be driven by U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq, not politicians in Washington. The Iraqi Army is starting to stand on its own. We can't cut and run. We need to finish the job.

This looks like formulaic, simplistic pablum to me.  Look at all that’s happened since this statement was published on October 10.  It strikes me as a tad naive to assert that the Iraqi army’s "starting to stand on its own".  Even the most hawkish guy around, John McCain, says American troops shouldn’t be embedded with the Iraqi military due to "questionable loyalties" - just heard reported on MSNBC earlier this morning.

On the occasion of her vote for war authorization in 2002, Wilson said the following on the House Floor:

I am voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq because it possesses and is further developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver those weapons and because I believe that Iraq intends to use those weapons against Americans.

At that time, she stated that other reasons were not adequate to go to war: Having WMD without the intention to use them against the US, oppression and human rights atrocities against minorities in Iraq, or violations of sanctions.  Considering that she serves on the House Intelligence Committee, she was in a position to ask penetrating and skeptical questions about those WMD and Saddam’s intention to use them against the US.  She did not.

Since then? According to a Wilson press release of 11/18/05, things were going so well in Iraq that we could expect substantial troop reductions through out 2006.  Perhaps a bit "naive"?  (Again keeping in mind that she’s got an inside track on intelligence...)

I expect U.S. forces will continue to stay in Iraq through December's elections at roughly their current level.  But as I’ve said, if political and security progress continues on roughly the course we are on, American forces should be able to start being drawn down in significant numbers during the course of next year.  These redeployments should be based on conditions in the field.  As the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down.

Wilson also voted against benchmarks for success in Iraq.  From the DCCC:

In 2005, Wilson voted against an effort to require President Bush to submit a plan for success in Iraq, supply the military with adequate equipment and other resources to complete their mission, and provide veterans with adequate health care services. Had the plan passed, it would have required the president to outline benchmarks for success in Iraq - including the adoption of a constitution, free and fair elections, and a plan for economic development - that could be used to determine when Iraq is sufficiently stable to allow for the return home of American soldiers. The motion also noted that the lack of a clear strategy for success in Iraq could undermine the morale of U.S. troops.

TIME FOR REDISTRICTING
I think it’s time for a little redistricting in New Mexico.  We’ve got a Democratic Governor, and both chambers of the legislature are Democratic.  Election results this time around:

• NM-01 . . . . Rep - 50.2% . . .  Dem - 49.8%
• NM-02 . . . .  Rep - 60% . . . . . Dem - 40%
• NM-03 . . . . Rep - 25% . . . . . Dem - 75%

Statewide: Rep - 44% . . . . Dem - 56%

With those numbers statewide, there’s really no excuse for only one out of three seats to be held by a Democrat.  A little tinkering with the districts could make NM-02 65% Republican and NM-03 70% Democratic.  Which would add ten points of Democratic clout to NM-01, and settle the whole business to better match the electorate.

This is a classic case of Democratic votes being concentrated in a way that reduces Congressional representation.  Since the State Legislature has been Democratic in both Houses for as long as anyone can remember, and Democratic Governor Bill Richardson has just been re-elected to a second term, this could easily change.