Excerpts from a single comment responding to multiple inquiries at yet another Blue Oregon post on Sen. Wyden’s Town Hall on Iraq.
One commenter asked me why I thought Wyden hadn’t been active enough in ending the war. After all he’s voted against it whenever he got the chance, didn’t he?
Every time I have to do some research to bolster my point is going to mean picking at Wyden’s record. I think some people might prefer that it would be enough for me to state my opinion that I don’t think Wyden’s been active enough in opposing the war, and you could disagree with me about how active he actually has been, but if you really want to challenge my opinion, I’ll do some research.
Wyden doesn’t have his news releases from 2002 online, but his 2003 news releases with Iraq in the title consist solely of items related to wasteful spending on Iraq reconstruction projects. So far as I can tell, there’s nothing there in something like 130 news releases expressing opposition to the war. He “SPEAKS OUT AGAINST ENERGY BILL” and he “urges BPA to Stop Rate Increase for Power Customers by Settling NW Utility Lawsuits” — both good things — but nothing in that first year calling for an end to the war.
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 will have to wait for another day.
Or, take a look at the timeline he distributed at the meeting Tuesday. What’s the first item on there about directly ending the war? April 8, 2006. Three years after the war began. Prior to that, he’d voted to prohibit excessive deployments, examine the Iraq intelligence, reqire the president to submit reports on his plans, investigate contracts (again), and call for 2006 to be the Year of Iraqi Sovereignty (and to set a timetable, although not mandating any dates), and not to establish permanent bases.
He didn’t introduce any of the items he voted on in those first three years. He didn’t co-sponsor any of the amendments he voted on in 2003, 2004 or 2005. There’s a hell of a big gap in the items between June 23, 2004 and November 10, 2005. Seventeen months with nothing. And that’s Wyden’s own timeline.
So yeah, I think a more active opposition to the war may have been called for, particularly since the senator — as a member of the intelligence committee who voted against the Iraq AUMF — presumably knew that there was no credible evidence that Iraq had been a threat to the United States.
And Blue Oregon czar Kari Chisolm tried several times to say that Wyden’s response was just a joke.
Let me get this straight, Kari.
Your contention is that Wyden was being sarcastic when he was telling me that he was my representative in Washington and that he was protecting my interests? That he didn’t really mean what he was saying?
That he was, in effect, telling me that he was not my representative in Washington and that he was not protecting my interests.
Frankly, I liked him better when he was just wrongly trusting the Bush administration. You make it sound like he actively despises the people who elected him senator.
Kari knows Wyden better than I do. Tuesday was the first time I’d ever spoken to him. I should probably defer to Kari’s superior knowledge of the man in judging just how contemptuous he is of his constituents.
But I’d rather give Wyden the benefit of the doubt. “Doveryai no proveryai” as the Russians say.