another Iraq war resolution, another Yes vote, another weak excuse
Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM PDT
Part of what makes "better Democrats" actually better is that they avoid Republican traps, trickery and nonsense.
Five years ago today, March 21, 2003, Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley was faced with just such a trap as a member of the state House. On that occasion he cast a vote some might call craven, others simply stupid. Others, more charitably, might just say it was a mistake.
In any case, like Hillary Clinton, he still doesn't realize it.
Five years ago the Oregon House of Representatives passed the now-notorious HR2, setting forth the rationale for the Iraq war and then validating it. All but five Democrats in the chamber, including Jeff Merkley, voted Yes.
An analysis of the resolution, and the vote, below the jump, along with the full text of the resolution itself.
Here is the text of HR 2, passed by the Oregon House of Representatives on March 21, 2003.
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441;
and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq;
and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President′s cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power;
and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.
The resolution itself was "rubbish," as two of the five Democrats who voted against it proclaimed a few months ago. (The context and venue of this criticism were deeply ironic; I'll get into that later.)
Anyone who looks seriously at the resolution recognizes it for the rubbish it is. It was a blatant and transparent attempt to put Democrats in a bad future political position. The GOP calculation was this: if a Democrat votes against this bill, we'll say they don't support the troops; if a Democrat votes for it, we'll say you are a Bush-admiring war supporter. Either way, they've got you. It was a move right out of Karl Rove's playbook.
And Jeff Merkley went for it. Hook, line, and sinker.
Let's take this Republican turd and look at each paragraph in turn.
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441;
Uh-HUH.
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq;
And that was so recent that it represented a clear and present danger, how, exactly?
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now, therefore
Did it occur to Jeff Merkley, or any of the other Democrats who voted Yes, that the phrase "and the global economy" might have been the dead giveaway?
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President′s cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power;
EXCUSE ME? Are you f#cking kidding me? The courage of President George W. Bush?! How could you not choke on that? How would that ALONE not be enough to make you cast a No vote on this thing?
and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.
Here's the money quote right here. Merkley claimed that he voted for HR2 because it expressed support for the troops, because he felt the most important thing was to support the troops. He gave a floor speech that was long on waffling and very short (as in: zero) on actual opposition to the war.
I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. ...
... Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops. ....
That's very nice, Jeff. But if you really care about those young men and women, you don't cast even a SYMBOLIC vote in favor of sending them into harm's way unless you really believe there is no alternative. By your own words, even though that's not an anti-war speech, you express so much doubt. You weren't REALLY in favor of this invasion. Why, then, did you cast a vote in support of it?
Here's what I think. Jeff Merkley bought into the Republican framing of HR2. How else do we explain that even though it was a wholly symbolic and nonbinding resolution, and would create no benefit of any kind for America's armed services, he voted to support a stupid war that would put them in harm's way for no good reason, and which he was simultaneously expressing doubt about, even while paying them lip service? Because God forbid that any Republican anywhere could ever say at any time in the future that Jeff Merkley didn't support the troops, or had a chance to express his support, and did not take that chance.
But this vote raises a disturbing question: would Jeff Merkley vote for ANYTHING that threw in a few words at the end praising the troops?
Would Jeff Merkley have voted for the USA PATRIOT Act if it had contained language praising the troops? Would Jeff Merkley have voted for telecom immunity if the bill had said a few kind words about the troops? What won't Jeff Merkley vote for, if it also praises the troops?
Sometimes patriotism is more complicated than that misty feeling you get when you hear the Star-Spangled Banner played at the Olympics. Sometimes patriotism isn't a primitive feel-good kind of emotion. Sometimes patriotism requires the exercise of judgment, sometimes it requires you to get angry. Sometimes it requires you to step outside your comfort zone and say, "I love my country so much that I am willing to say or do something that doesn't seem very popular right now, because it is the right thing to do."
But the Republican brand of patriotism is a cheaper, easier, less demanding variety. In the Republican brand of patriotism, wearing an American flag pin on your lapel is the single most important way of expressing your love of country. The Republican brand of patriotism says that the President is always right (unless it's a Democrat) and political dissent is the equivalent of treason. The Republican brand of patriotism is about slapping a yellow ribbon magnet that says SUPPORT OUR TROOPS on your gas-guzzling SUV. Or, it turns out, it can also be about turning a horrific terrorist attack into the cover you need to launch a war your advisers have been itching for since your father was President. And it always pays lip service to supporting the troops, even though the Republican war and the Republican tax cuts combine to make it tough to provide enough money to the Veterans Administration to take proper care of them.
So HR2 was the kind of bill Republicans love. Suffused with their brand of jingoistic patriotism, wholly substance-free, the cheapest of cheap rhetoric. Remember what those two Democrats who voted against it said about it?
Anyone who looks seriously at the resolution recognizes it for the rubbish it is. It was a blatant and transparent attempt to put Democrats in a bad future political position. The GOP calculation was this: if a Democrat votes against this bill, we'll say they don't support the troops; if a Democrat votes for it, we'll say you are a Bush-admiring war supporter. Either way, they've got you. It was a move right out of Karl Rove's playbook.
And Jeff Merkley stepped right up and voted for it.
In short, Merkley got rolled. The Republican then-majority in the state House set a mildly clever trap, and Jeff Merkley strolled into it. He was faced with a purely symbolic vote, and he STILL GOT IT WRONG. Why should Oregonians trust him to get it right when the stakes are high and the pressure is even worse?
Legislators don't get line item vetoes. When you vote Yes on a bill, you don't have the privilege of picking and choosing between the clauses. You're all in. That floor speech was eerily reminiscent of one of President Bush's signing statements. "I really only mean to support portion X of this legislation." But just as it doesn't work for President Bush, it doesn't work for Jeff Merkley either.
Jeff Merkley voted for HR2. Our incumbent Republican Senator, Gordon Smith, voted for the Iraq war authorization in the US Senate. To be sure, these votes are not equivalent. Gordon Smith cast a high-stakes vote to grant authority to a President of his own party to send young Americans into harm's way, and he very predictably landed on the wrong side of that measure. Jeff Merkley was offered a lower-stakes choice, a purely symbolic one, but even so, and despite all his expressed doubts, he could not resist signing on to HR2.
Now for the irony I promised you earlier.
The other leading Democratic candidate in the May 20 primary, Steve Novick, has been crucified by Merkley supporters for saying of HR2, "You wouldn't have caught me voting for that," and accused of "smearing Jeff Merkley with GOP talking points" for pointing out that the Republicans would use Merkley's vote against him if given an opportunity to do so. In fact, that lovely quote I showed you twice above, about what "rubbish" HR2 was, and how it was "right out of Karl Rove's playbook," came from the highest profile example of such criticism.
But without intending to do so, they defeat their own argument. In the very context of criticizing Novick for saying "you wouldn't have caught me voting for that," they say
Steve Novick is a bright guy and a good campaigner. He can take apart a ridiculous Republican talking point like no one else. He really should know better.
Since you mention it, YES, Steve Novick did and does know better. And YES, instead of voting for HR2 Steve Novick would have taken it apart and held the individual parts up for inspection, much as I did above, except that he would have been far more pointed and detailed in his criticism. And then he would have called out HR2 for the bullsh#t exercise in false patriotism that it was, and voted no.
When the highly popular former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber endorsed Steve Novick recently, Kitzhaber said of Steve that he was a tough and fair fighter for progressive causes whose principal weapon is the truth.
Regrettably, even if Steve had been in the legislature to cast a No vote and speak out against HR2, that one additional voice would not have saved any lives or by itself done anything to mitigate the imminent catastrophe. But it would have been the truth, and the truth is often contagious. Sometimes all it takes is for one more brave person to speak the truth, to make others nearby feel that it might be safe to do so. The truth has always been the principal adversary of those who promoted this war. Our nation has suffered a truth shortage for far too long.
I support Steve Novick.
Permalink | 3 comments