Wyden's town hall on Iraq
Adrian Rosolie comments on his experience today attending Senator Ron Wyden's town hall on Iraq at Portland State University. Adrian has been interning this summer with the DPO and with Veterans in Action (where he helped organize the veterans' protest of Gordon Smith and Mitch McConnell.)
I just got back from attending the town hall a couple of hours ago, and to say the least it was interesting. As to be expected there was a unanimous crowd against the war and administration, though to varying degrees. The speakers included an Iraq veteran, a mother of a deployed soldier, and numerous Vietnam War veterans. It was nice to see a lot of concerned people in one place, however things started unraveling fairly shortly into the event. The obvious breaking point was the issue of impeachment, which many in the crowd supported.Sen. Wyden explained his reasoning for not pushing impeachment, an obvious one being that being in the Senate he can't initiate anything. He also feels that the time needed to invest in such proceedings wasn't worth it. However, he never said he was against the idea, though many in the audience jumped to that conclusion. (Wyden also said he would allow Bush et al. due process, which drew boo's)
Unfortunately things started getting fairly nasty, which in my opinion was uncalled for. Sen. Wyden has been against the war from the start, and is doing pretty much everything right in trying to end it. Additionally, I didn't see the point to sink to lows that the liberal/progressive community usually condemns. Obviously people are angry, but using the Bill O'Rielly code of conduct is not conducive to progress. Thankfully Terry Kirsch from Veterans In Action made this point when he took his turn to speak and things quieted down after that.
Anyway, if people want to stop this war as soon as possible, I encourage you to move outside of liberal comfort zones and engage the community at large. Point your anger where it'll be effective, and help keep people like Gordon Smith's feet to the fire. And finally, discourse is great, but volume is no real substitute for substance.
Discuss.
|
August 14, 2007 |
notable comment | Comments (108 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 14, 2007 8:46:03 PM
Wyden is the yellow strip in the middle of the road on many issues, but particularly on Iraq. Wyden has been a spectacular failure on holding this administration to account for the largest foreign policy catastrophe in our nations history, particularly since he should be LEADING the charge on that account since he has been on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Yeah he voted against the almost meaningless window-dressing 2002 AUMF, but he voted FOR the 2001 AUMF which gave away Congress' war-powers in its entirety and his spectacularly ineffectual, and near silent comportment, in the run-up to the invasion given his position in the Intelligence Committee is stunning.
I really hope we can get either Steve Novick or Jeff Merkley elected to the Senate so we can at least have one Democratic Senator represeting us.
Posted by: truffula | Aug 14, 2007 9:03:07 PM
things started getting fairly nasty
I was there the whole two hours and all I can say is "huh?" It was an angry, fed up, and frustrated room to be sure but people were generally respectful, certainly not "nasty." The mood and boisterousness of the crowd seemed to stay at about the same level throughout, with the exception of the 9/11 "truth" folks.
However, he never said he was against [impeachment]
He also never said he was for it. Several people spoke in favor of impeachment from the standpoint of defending the constitution (and balance of powers) and setting a good example both at home and abroad. The point was made, and applauded, that it would be better to try and not succeed than not to try at all.
allow Bush et al. due process, which drew boo's
It mostly drew comments like "but not for everybody else," in reference to the Senator's 2005 vote to suspend habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
I encourage you to move outside of liberal comfort zones and engage the community at large
This is an odd critique, given all the grassroots activist organizations mentioned by people who got up and spoke.
volume is no real substitute for substance.
Sure but in fact, the people who signed up to ask questions seemed to me to offer substance. YMMV.
There is no doubt that the Senator encountered a room full of upset and frustrated constituents. To his credit, he stood there right in front of us and listened to what we had to say. I just hope that his closing remarks about the founding fathers and democratic discourse were more than just platitudes and that he will take some of what people had to say to heart.
Posted by: colin maloney | Aug 14, 2007 9:06:07 PM
Apparently Wu is Wyden's US House Rep. I hope he's getting, or has been, on the phone to Wu tonight to let him know that a lot of us are restless on the Impeachment issue.
It's not a political issue at this point, it's got to be a Constitutional one.
Posted by: verasoie | Aug 14, 2007 9:17:13 PM
I was there too, and first of all, I have to say that I gained a lot of respect for Wyden for his commitment to these "Community Conversation" forums, as the idea of his counterpart, Smith, doing them is just laughable. And Wyden took lots of heat from the crowd, even though he has for the most part been an ally in trying to end this war.
Lestatdelc, I can't independently confirm the facts (or, rather, I'm not going to) but Wyden's comments conflict with yours own his conduct before the war began, as he said that he spoke out formally (i.e. in the Congressional Record) about how both premises for the war were false, namely: 1) any association between Saddam and Al Qaeda/9-11 and 2) the presence of nuclear weapons (WMD) in Iraq.
Adrian, good to hear from you, I met you at the Mitch McConnel protest (I was the young guy who showed up on the bike and took a while to join the efforts because I thought it was limited to vets but ultimately did anyway). As for today, I left after a bit over an hour, but my impression was that Wyden is indeed decided against impeachment, his mind is made up, and he was explaining why. Specifically, he believes that it'll take too damn long and the Dems won't be able to accomplish their legislative goals (one being healthcare reform, I can't remember the second that he mentioned). Of course, the fallacy here is that there's no way in hell the Dems will get anything done that Bush and the Repubs don't want done, as they are more than happy to filibuster or, that failing, veto anything the Dems squeak through Congress that they/he don't approve of. So, I see that as a lost cause.
Second, he said that they frankly don't have the votes, and again, this is a fallacious argument because it is well-documented that before Nixon's impeachment, the tide was against the idea UNTIL the impeachment process took place, which essentially means that the facts were exposed, and when all of the criminal activity was exposed to public consumption, the Republicans lined up in droves to drag Nixon out of the White House. For him to say that they can't impeach because they don't have the votes is like saying that someone can't be sentenced because no jury will convict, but BEFORE the trial. Of course they don't have the votes now, the facts have not been laid out, all we are basing our judgment on is speculation of impeachable offenses (well-grounded as they may be), not actual evidence of them as would be produced by an impeachment trial. It is worth noting that impeachment is a process, a trial, not an actual conviction.
Anyway, I came away feeling most of all like Wyden (and the rest of the Dems) wants to avoid impeachment because, as someone mentioned was stated on KPOJ this morning, the greatest risk is that it would imperil the great likelihood of the Dems winning the Presidency next year (I don't believe that political calculus one bit but they evidently do) while maintaining or even increasing the majority in Congress. I, rather, tend to believe that, as was stated, to ignore the perpetration of illegal activities by the President (and underlings) is a dereliction of duty, as they are sworn to uphold the Constitution, which compels them to defend it.
Finally, I have to believe that our best option is to work on our Reps, like Blumenauer and DeFazio, who I hope are more inclined to see the logic of the argument for impeachment (as a means of ending the war in Iraq, let alone a multitude of other offenses against our country).
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 14, 2007 9:29:12 PM
Ron Wyden is confident he'll never have to deal with impeachment in the Senate, and in many ways, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because of his lack of leadership in exercising his Constitutional duty to provide checks and balances, our only hope is that the People will lead. They didn't come today with torches and pitchforks. Instead they were armed with the truth and pugnacity. There were catcalls from the crowd to be sure. I was sitting in the front row, close enough to be spat upon as the senator narrowly missed stepping on my toes. So i didn't mind if i stepped on his toes as i shouted out:
"You need to call your congressman, Senator"
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 14, 2007 9:38:31 PM
Posted by: verasoie | Aug 14, 2007 9:17:13 PMLestatdelc, I can't independently confirm the facts (or, rather, I'm not going to) but Wyden's comments conflict with yours own his conduct before the war began, as he said that he spoke out formally (i.e. in the Congressional Record) about how both premises for the war were false, namely: 1) any association between Saddam and Al Qaeda/9-11 and 2) the presence of nuclear weapons (WMD) in Iraq.
Sorry but the record of a floor speech means next to nothing in regards to what I am talking about. How many appearances did he make on MTP speaking out about the looming invasion being BS?
Bob Graham to his credit was speaking out in the media.... Wyden? Not a peep that I saw. Where are his op-eds during the run up saying don't do this, the justifcatiosn are bogus?
Where are/were the media appearances on Meet The Press, Face the Nation, This Week, etc.? Where are the blistering op-eds in the Oregonian by him screaming not to do this?
Wyden did/does what he usually does. Keeps his head down and charts the "safe" course.
Posted by: phastphil | Aug 14, 2007 9:45:38 PM
By the time Barry Goldwater marched down to the White House and explained to Tricky Dicky that the jig was up we had the votes. The Watergate Hearing were winding down and impeachment proceedings had just begun. Please don't make up history!
Today we don't have the votes to impeach!
Why bother - let's just hang em by their testicles from the Washington Monument!
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 14, 2007 9:47:26 PM
(addendum)
Posted by: verasoie | Aug 14, 2007 9:17:13 PM...
Finally, I have to believe that our best option is to work on our Reps, like Blumenauer
Good luck with that one. Don't know about DeFazio but Blumenauer was so dismissive of the idea at the Mult Dems spaghetti dinner as to be literally shocking. Blumenauer, whose greatest electoral risk on this subject is to NOT impeach. Blumenauer has the safest Dem seat on the planet and yet he is four-square in the screw the Constitution and the idea of a coequal branch of government, I have been worked too hard by the fraudulent "partisanship is bad" and "look what happened to Gingrich" camp to realize he is spectacularly wrong on this. Deadly wrong given the cost to our troops and the Iraqi people, not to mention the unprecedented corrosive effect this is having on our military in general.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 14, 2007 10:11:44 PM
By the time Barry Goldwater marched down to the White House and explained to Tricky Dicky that the jig was up we had the votes. The Watergate Hearing were winding down and impeachment proceedings had just begun. Please don't make up history!
Yes, please don't, phastphil. The House began considering impeachment in February 1974. Impeachment hearings began in May 1974 and the House Judiciary committee voted on the three impeachment articles in July.
Goldwater and his buddies didn't tell Nixon to pack it up until August, after the "smoking gun" tape was ordered released by the Supreme Court, just a couple of days before Nixon resigned. At that time the impeachment hearings in the Judiciary committee were over, the next step was a vote in the full House, but it never got that far because Nixon resigned.
At the time the Judiciary committee began considering impeachment, nobody knew whether there were enough votes in the Senate to convict Nixon. As it was, a majority of the Republicans in the Judiciary committee voted against the impeachment articles.
So please, don't make up bad history. It's easy enough to check: www.watergate.info
Posted by: Jack Bog | Aug 14, 2007 10:15:13 PM
the greatest risk is that it would imperil the great likelihood of the Dems winning the Presidency next year
The greatest peril in this regard is named Hillary.
Posted by: BlueNote | Aug 14, 2007 10:24:00 PM
Does anybody else wonder whether the opinions of Oregon voters concerning Iraq (or impeachment) actually matter to Wyden or to any of the rest of the Oregon delegation?
Or is Al Gore correct when he writes in his new book that voter opinions are mostly irrelevant now that both parties have learned how to use cleverly targeted television commercials to manufacture sufficient voter support to win any election, regardless of the candidate or issues?
Gore's opinions are unpleasant, but the more I think about them the more I am convinced he is correct.
Posted by: Stumptown Scribe | Aug 15, 2007 12:36:32 AM
So, what happens if we impeach Bush? Hooray--then what? We are stuck with Cheney and a country that is already divided becomes even more so.
Bipartisanship on the Hill has literally killed political discourse to the point where we have stopped discussing legislation and now are more concerned if one side of the aisle has enough votes to filibuster and deny the other side of the aisle a political victory.
I was there at the Community Discussion today and I was disgusted by the lack of respect that was shown, by a group of older adults, to not only the Senator but the democratic process as a whole. Sure, be pissed off. I certainly am and hearing from the mother whose child is currently serving in Iraq or watching Lew Fredrick tear up when describing his friends being sent into the combat zone, sent chills down my spine.
But, please tell me how screaming cowardly from the back of the room to "Impeach" and "9/11 was an inside job" helps solve anything. You might as well stand in front of a mirror for two hours yelling because you will have the same effect.
If you want change, get involved. Not by shouting unanimous comments from the back or anonymously on blogs; but, take a stand for what you believe in and educate others so that we can take back the White House in '08 and have a true majority in the House where substantial legislation can get passed that will have a real affect on many people's lives both here in America and abroad.
Posted by: Jake | Aug 15, 2007 12:58:46 AM
Senator Wyden spoke intelligently today. He made the point that political capital is a finite resource. The audience at the town hall meeting made it abundantly clear that they want the Democrats to blow it all on impeachment.
Do the actions of Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez merit impeachment? Absolutely. Does that make it a good idea? Absolutely not. Let's be real progressives and concentrate on using our newfound legislative advantage to improve the lives of ordinary Americans. Impeachment will only stand in the way of our ability to do that.
Posted by: verasoie | Aug 15, 2007 1:07:22 AM
"Let's be real progressives and concentrate on using our newfound legislative advantage to improve the lives of ordinary Americans" per Jake.
That'll never happen so long as Bush is in office. If the Dems can ever get past a filibuster, he'll veto it.
Nothing will be accomplished towards that end (improving the lives of ordinary Americans), not withdrawing from Iraq, not reforming healthcare, investing in our infrastructure, NOTHING, until Bush is gone.
And even after that, they'll need to be close enough in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 1:10:38 AM
So, what happens if we impeach Bush? Hooray--then what? We are stuck with Cheney
Unless you impeach Cheney, as well. What, have you not been paying attention to people who have been making the case for this for a couple of years now or something?
At least three books that I know of appeared last year making the case for impeachment, one of which explicitly mentions Cheney in the title. Elizabeth Holtzman published her original article on impeachment in "The Nation" in 2005, if I remember correctly.
So spare me the faux handwringing over the thought of President Cheney. How is that different from the current situation, anyway?
There are fifteen more months left of the Bush presidency. In 15 months, we went from 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq. That's a lot of time for idle Bush hands to kill. That's plenty of time for another Supreme Court appointment, or starting a war with Iran, or just generally screwing things up in this country even more than he already has.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the Democrats wouldn't be any better at it.
And I'm not anonymous, "Stumptown Scribe".
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 1:24:54 AM
The audience at the town hall meeting made it abundantly clear that they want the Democrats to blow it all on impeachment.
Sen. Wyden didn't have a clue how long the Senate trial for President Clinton lasted when he was asked about it. He'd been talking about it as if it was a process that went on and on and on.
As members of the audience knew, it lasted a month.
If holding the administration to account for things like torture, illegal wiretapping, and abuse of power is "blowing it" in your estimation, Jake, why bother voting for Democrats at all? They're supposed to be the party that supports things like civil rights, human rights, and the Constitution. If they're not going to say that what the administration is doing is wrong -- and I mean more than just wistfully saying those Republicans will be Republicans -- what makes them any different from the Republicans who won't admit that what the administration is doing is wrong?
They're supposed to STOP the administration from doing things that are wrong, not avert their eyes and hope it goes away. And if the only way to stop the administration from continuing its illegal course of action for another fifteen months is to impeach them, then that's what they need to do.
Posted by: phastphil | Aug 15, 2007 6:24:27 AM
"By the time Barry Goldwater marched down to the White House and explained to Tricky Dicky that the jig was up we had the votes."I stand by my statement. WE DONT' HAVE THE VOTES!. And, we never will. I don't care what evidence you present to the current Republican Senators there is not a one who will do what Goldwater did in 1974.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 15, 2007 6:42:29 AM
The audience at the town hall meeting made it abundantly clear that they want the Democrats to blow it all on impeachment.
Indeed. Wyden tried so hard to take impeachment off the table at the town hall. We were all instructed to limit our questions/comments to Iraq, a place that Wyden feels politically safe, where he's accumulated a very long list of failed amendments.
Do the actions of Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez merit impeachment? Absolutely. Does that make it a good idea? Absolutely not.
When impeachment is merited, its an imperative, not a merely an option.
Let's be real progressives and concentrate on using our newfound legislative advantage to improve the lives of ordinary Americans.
You and i have completely different ideas on what it means to be progressive. The first public comment yesterday came from Joe Walsh, a US Navy veteran. His question was pointed (at the senator especially): "Do you have any idea how angry so many of us are at the Democrats?!" Joe's question touched not only on the new majority (D) party, continuing to fund the fiasco but also Congress's criminal lack of oversight in not holding the Bush administration to account. Joe is among the many veterans who currently are protesting outside the local offices of Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who inexplicably is willing to give Bush, Cheney & Co. a pass on all their criminal, unconstitutional misdeeds.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 15, 2007 8:14:30 AM
Uh, folks... Not to get in the way of the lynchmob here, but Wyden's been pretty consistently against the war, including voting against the funding of the war earlier this year - and against the recent FISA bill.
As for opposition to the Bush agenda, well, according to CQ - in the last Congress, he voted against the Bush Administration more than any other Senator. More than Barbara Boxer, more than Russ Feingold, more than Frank Lautenberg, more than.... anybody. #1 against the Bush Administration.
But nevermind all that.
Posted by: BOHICA | Aug 15, 2007 8:15:16 AM
I was speaker #3, right after my friend Joe Walsh ("The lone vet") who asked the question, "Do you know how angry we are at the democrats?" That got a reaction from the crow for sure. Joe has the passion.
As I introduced my self as a Vietnam veteran (Joe is one also) I asked how many vets were in the room? Quite a number of hands went up. The Senator asked them to stand up over the applause of the crowd which none of them did. I came back with the rejoinder, "They don't have to stand up, they already did."
My question related to whether Sen. Wyden thought the invasion/occupation was in violation of the Constitution, specifically Article 6. I whipped out my pocket Constitution edition copy ala, Sen. Byrd, just because I like to read from it instead of relying on memory. He went on to answer that he argued this on the floor during the debate. Well that's nice but what has he done about it since then? If it was in violation of the Constitution then it still is and his first duty is to uphold his oath of office.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[
It seems there are too many members of the House and Senate that put politics and party above their sworn obligation. They don't seem to realize they can "multi task". Did the Congress come to a screeching halt during Watergate? During Monicagate? No. Committees met, floor debate continued and bills were passed.
Yes I know that the Senate is the "jury", so what? If he thought it was unconstitutional in 2003, has he changed his mind?
Jake- Senator Wyden spoke intelligently today. He made the point that political capital is a finite resource.
The available "cannon fodder units" are finite also. As are those available for classification as "collateral damage", although this administration is doing the best it can to to use them up. And this is one of the major reason for the Senator and others to stand up and stop this "obscenity of violence" and the murderers occupying the White House.
I encourage you to move outside of liberal comfort zones and engage the community at large.
Mighty bold statement. Do you have any idea what others are doing in the community at large? And just what is a "liberal comfort zone"? My zone is waking up each morning and asking myself, "what can I do today to stop the war/occupation?" Have I got a school to visit and teach the students about my experiences? Will I be handing out copies of the pocket Constitution on a street corner and explaining Article VI? Have I written a letter to the editor or my elected representative. Maybe I should go just go and pull weeds at the Peace Memorial Park as a stress reliever. Has my printer finished the job for my literature for Veterans For Peace Chapter 72's booth at the various street fairs we will be manning? Or maybe prepare for my workshop for this teach in.
PEOPLE OF COLOR AGAINST THE WAR
Iraq Summer Teach-InAugust 18th, 2007
10 - 3 pm
St. Andrews Church, NE 8th and AlbertaFree Event. Lunch Provided.
War disproportionately affects people of color and poor communities.
War is built upon and reinforces racism in our communities.
Young people are coerced into fighting this war, stripped from our communities.
The war increases poverty - taking billions away from human needs to fight the war.WE WILL EDUCATE AND STRATEGIZE TO END THE WAR ON TERROR :
STOP ATTACKS ABROAD AND IN OUR COMMUNITIES.The Teach-In is a community space for us to learn more about how we feel the impact of the War in our lives, our families and our resources.There will be space to share stories of your experiences. Workshops will go more in-depth on how we can support our troops, what youth can do to combat militarization and how people of faith are standing against this war. Finally, we will focus on developing strategies to resist in our communities and how we build power to fight this Endless War.
Or am I ready for the weekly impeachment protest at Blumenauer's office (noon till 2PM every Thursday. Be there or be square). Or maybe its just talking with my nephew who got back from Afghanistan, as one combat vet to another, so I can have a better understanding of WTF is going on from the perspective of a present day soldier.
Am I comfortable in that "zone"? You betcha. Because if I wasn't doing all of that, my soul would rise up and smite me. My dreams would be very uncomfortable. My dereliction of duty to my fellow "brothers in arms" would weigh me down with guilt. I could not look at myself in the mirror.
40 years ago I swore an oath to "...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...". I don't remember being released from that oath. Maybe in some obscure piece of the US code that oath was negated with my discharge. In my "comfort zone" I still feel I am bound by it.
If only our elected representatives felt the same.
Posted by: Matt W. | Aug 15, 2007 8:26:36 AM
Stumptown scribe speaks for me. I was also at the town hall. I was actually afraid a riot was going to break out. The last time I saw such incivility was when Chris Hedges was literally bumrushed off the stage in Rockford, IL, where he was giving an anti-war commencement address. Do not become what you hate, Oregon. Your words were violent even if your actions weren't.
Posted by: trishka | Aug 15, 2007 8:40:31 AM
BOHICA, thank you for your post. i'm grateful that there are people like you doing what you're doing to end the war effort.
i did not attend the town hall meeting yesterday, but did attend one of senator wyden's town hall meetings held in my county last year. it sounds like the two events were very similar, in terms of audience participation and reaction.
(the difference being that the town hall meeting i attended was not set up to talk about the iraq war, but rather sen. wyden's healthcare reform legislation).
i remember coming away from the meeting feeling frustrated and befuddled by the crowd. i know that many of them felt frustrated and angry at senator wyden for not responding to the call for impeachment or the call to end the war - both of which i am of course in favor of.
but i thought it very unrealistic of people to expect senator wyden to tell them what they wanted to hear in that venue. it seemed to me that all it would take was one right-wing fundamentalist whackjob with a cellphone camera catching senator wyden on video saying he supported impeachment (or whatever strong inflammatory words people wanted from him) and the video would be on you-tube and then fox news within 24 hours and wyden would then get to spend the next however many weeks fighting a media mess a la kerry's bad joke about ending up in iraq.
like the poster above who expressed concern that wyden said he trusts the bush administration. well, what else can he say? he doesn't know that you aren't a political enemy, recording his answer in an attempt to use it against him.
i'm just saying. these town hall meetings that senator wyden does are a good thing - you don't see other senators going in front of their constituents in an unstructured Q&A format. and don't be unrealistic in your expectation of what you're going to hear from him at these meetings. i don't blame the guy for wanting to keep his job (don't most of us?) and he's going to be less effective if he spends his time cleaning up the political mess resulting from a mis-step at one of these meetings.
he's not going to tell us what we want to hear because the political risk is too great. and i for one do not hold that against him. it's the pragmatic way to approach it, i think.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 8:57:54 AM
"lynchmob", Kari? Give me a break. Next you'll be accusing people of anti-Americanism and Islamofascist sympathies.
And trishka, I am surprised that Wyden trusts the administration. The Bush administration is untrustworthy. There's no way a "political enemy" could use a lack of trust in an untrustworthy administration against Wyden.
I think saying that you trust Bush and Cheney is far more damning than saying that you don't. Given the record of the past six and a half years, you'd have to be an idiot to trust the Bush administration at this point.
Posted by: trishka | Aug 15, 2007 9:01:40 AM
darrel, i'm not saying he does or doesn't trust the administration. i'm saying that is a question that, coming from a complete stranger, could be a loaded gun politically, in the hands of the right-wing noise machine.
if we on the left had a noise-machine to rival the right's, then it would be politically dangerous to answer the way he did. but we don't, and there it is.
what i'm saying is: don't read too much into his answer as being indicative of what he really feels/thinks/believes. the answer he gave is one that is calculated to be the least dangerous to him. and again, i don't hold that against him.
it's the reality of the world we live in. he has to have his guard up at all times. he lets it down more than most, or any other senator, by even having these town hall meetings at all.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 15, 2007 9:01:44 AM
Uh, folks... Not to get in the way of the lynchmob here, but Wyden's been pretty consistently against the war
Anybody who thinks this discussion is akin to a lynching or that yesterday's town hall was particularly nasty or filled with conduct uncalled for will need to develop a thicker hide if they are going to survive this political season of discontent.
I don't know if Wyden is simply out of touch with his constituents on the topic of impeachment or maybe he thought his anti-war cred would have been enough to get a pass on his reluctance to hold Bush, Cheney & Co. to account.
I was there, front and center, for the "Community Conversation." Wyden needs to be given credit for taking the heat. Add that with the light of justice emanating not from mobs with torches and pitchforks but rather from citizens speaking truth to authority and who knows... our "senior" senator may eventually grow a spine on this issue.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 15, 2007 9:03:36 AM
It seems to me that the crux here is the question of what's more important - defending and preserving the Constitution or gaining power. Count me in with those most concerned with the former.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 15, 2007 9:09:39 AM
As much as I think Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, etc. deserve impeachment, I can't bring myself to advocate it. In my view, impeachment proceedings would serve only to energize the Republicans and would make it much more difficult to accomplish anything worthwhile with our narrow majorities in Congress. I feel we need to focus our energies on whipping the Republican Party like a rented mule in all of the various electoral venues available to us for 2008 and beyond, as a safeguard against this kind of thing ever happening again.
Posted by: BOHICA | Aug 15, 2007 9:11:13 AM
David Sarasohn has a pretty good take on the whole mess. I know Jessica and she is a pistol.
Posted by: Steve Buel | Aug 15, 2007 9:17:09 AM
Wyden is a pretty good Senator. They pretty much all get corrupted by the power (similar to our own legislature in Oregon). He has hung in about as well as you can ask. However there are times that the issues are clearly larger than political considerations (hopefully that would always be the case, but I would love to win the lottery this week also) and impeachment and the war are two such issues.
One thing that doesn't seem to come up in political circles much is the conduct of the war. I read the recent article in The Nation where 50 vets told about how the war was being conducted. I was literally sick to my stomach when I was done reading. Every American should read it. Where are our political leaders condemning this?
Posted by: truffula | Aug 15, 2007 9:19:07 AM
he's not going to tell us what we want to hear because the political risk is too great.
I don't want him to tell me what I want to hear, I want him to hear what his constituents have to say, and pay attention to it. This attitude that the concerns and desires of constituents are all well and good but that the Senator knows better and that politics trumps it all is incredibly condescending. More than one speaker yesterday said they felt that this country is in a crisis (the war, an executive branch accountable to nobody, mistaken funding priorities), to loud applause each time.
Senator Ron Wyden may have a more impressive job title than I do but that doesn't mean he understands the world any better than I do or that he has any better grasp on the constitution or on morality than any other person in that hall yesterday. One way that the Senator is diffferent from me is the impact he could have should he choose to be a leader on these issues. I think what many people were saying yesterday is that just voting the right way when the chance comes along, or sitting as a juror should an impeachment trial happen his way, is not enough. Oregonians have led before, we could again.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 15, 2007 9:20:03 AM
The clean, pure anger that led a vast majority of Americans to support an invasion of Iraq is now motivating a small minority to excoriate one of the staunchest anti-war senators as "yellow strip" of moderartion and a Bush stooge.
Righteous indignation may feel the same as clear insight, but it rarely is.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 9:29:40 AM
trishka, what's less dangerous to him? Saying that he trusts the Bush administration that has lied about everything from the way Pat Tillman died to secret prisons to Abu Ghraib to WMDs in Iraq? Or saying that they're untrustworthy because of those (and many other) lies? If Wyden's not going to tell his constituents the truth at his town meetings, they're pretty much a sham, aren't they?
As a man once said: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...I won't get fooled again.
Posted by: trishka | Aug 15, 2007 9:38:14 AM
darrel, as far as danger goes, the right-wing noise machine can make a huge mess for politicians who say anything that they can grab onto and twist to their advantage.
i'd much rather senator wyden pick his battles wisely, and not open himself up to a political scandal because it makes me, a lefty, feel personally better about him.
theres a middle ground between senator wyden being bluntly honest and the meetings being a sham.
i'm just saying, take them for what they're worth, and understand that anything senator wyden says needs to be translated through the lens of political survival.
don't get me wrong, i would like to see more leadership from wyden on this as well. but - i came away from the one town hall meeting i attended with a better opinion of him than i had when i went in. he's not the dream senator, but we could do a lot worse, even within the democratic party.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 9:41:45 AM
The clean, pure anger that led a vast majority of Americans to support an invasion of Iraq is now motivating a small minority to excoriate one of the staunchest anti-war senators as "yellow strip" of moderartion and a Bush stooge.
What a crock, Jeff. The two groups have nothing to do with each other.
There was no "clean, pure anger" supporting a war with Iraq. Afghanistan, maybe, but the Iraq war was more of a marketing operation than an angry response. And 60% of the Democrats in Congress -- including Wyden -- voted against it.
The Democrats should have hit the ground running in January with a plan to end the war. They had years in the wilderness to prepare. But they haven't done it and they're still working off of the White House's timeline.
It sort of makes you wonder if they're actually serious about it or if, maybe, they trust the administration to do the right thing if they can only prod them the right way.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 15, 2007 9:48:41 AM
In my view, impeachment proceedings would serve only to energize the Republicans and would make it much more difficult to accomplish anything...
Stephanie, that was well addressed at the forum. Bringing up amendments which fail to pass or passing legislation which is either vetoed or ignored by this criminal administration cannot be pointed to as accomplishments.
As for energizing the GOP or alienating the rest of the country, one fellow laid this dawg to rest. We won't have to wait for history to judge us. If we progressives stand up and condemn Bush's abuses by bringing about impeachment, we will be known as the ones who "defended the Constitution."
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 10:00:01 AM
trishka, my question to Wyden had nothing to do with me "feeling better" about him. It had to do with how he intends to approach the next fifteen months of the Bush administration.
For instance, during the meeting Wyden repeatedly touted the Petraeus report as possibly shifting the ground under Republican support for the war when it's released next month. Now, a skeptic such as myself might think that there's a good possibility that the report will have as much veracity as the rest of the progress reports on Iraq that the administration has pushed the past four years, particularly in light of the military-sponsored trip a couple of weeks ago by Michael O'Hanlon and Bill Kristol and others that said everything was going great, militarily.
If Wyden himself was a skeptic, he might not have mentioned the report, but he brought it up several times. Wyden told me that he's the Verifier, but how is he going to verify the results of that report either way?
As we parted, he said that he was going to be working in September to beat back the FISA bill and I replied that Bush has already stated that he was going to push for further authority than he'd gotten last month. A bright-eyed young woman defended Wyden and told me that of course that's what Bush would do. But that's sort of my point. That is what Bush would do. You can expect the administration to lie and break the rules at every opportunity. Saying that you trust them at this point just makes no sense.
Posted by: trishka | Aug 15, 2007 10:05:12 AM
darrel, i'm going to say this one more time and then drop it.
just because he SAID he trusts them to you, a complete stranger whom he has no idea whether is friend or foe, doesn't mean he really does.
it just means that he is not going to answer in the negative, no matter what he truly thinks or believes, because the risk of having it come back to bite him in the arse in the form of the right-wing noise machine.
and if that's a lie, then it's a lie i can live with. it's about picking one's battles.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 15, 2007 10:08:02 AM
Unless you impeach Cheney, as well. What, have you not been paying attention to people who have been making the case for this for a couple of years now or something? etcetera
Well said,Darrel.
On Wyden and the war: He was for it before he was against it. And like all senators and almost all representatives in Congress he went along with Israel's war crimes in southern Lebanon which is now littered with tens of thousands of unexploded cluster bombs.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 15, 2007 10:11:02 AM
motivating a small minority to excoriate one of the staunchest anti-war senators
Jeff, don't let a "small minority" blind you to what the majority was saying. Most of those who took to the mic yesterday and defied the "rules" by addressing impeachment didn't question Wyden's war record. (We were all given a two page list of his votes.) They did however take the senator to task for not only his stance on impeachment, but his obfuscation as well.
Wyden admitted that "they are way over the line," yet won't support the constitutional checks and balance required by the oath he took. How can he (under pressure) maintain that the Iraq war is illegal and yet not push to bring the criminals to justice? Oh, he sought cover, and this blog even bought the line he had an "open mind" when it comes to impeachment. Maybe he's just clever by half, believing it will never reach the Senate. Certainly, he isn't helping.
Call you congressman, Senator Wyden!
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 10:15:27 AM
Energy task force, warnings about terrorist attacks in 2001, Iraqi WMDs and ties to al Qaeda, the cost of the war in Iraq, civilian casualties in Afghanistan, civilian casualties in Iraq, the death of Pat Tillman, torture, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, wiretapping of American citizens, the response to Hurricane Katrina, progress in the Iraq war, the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity, the political motivations behind the firings of US Attorneys.
That's just a partial list of the things that the administration has lied about.
If Wyden can't openly call that record untrustworthy, what does it take?
Posted by: JTT | Aug 15, 2007 10:26:10 AM
Personally, I would much rather have my Senator addressing the crisis in health care rather than wasting time on impeachment (something that he can't initiate as a member of the Senate...nor is it going to happen). Wyden can also fight and vote against the war, but...I hate to say it...we won't be pulling out of Iraq until Bush has left office.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 15, 2007 10:36:01 AM
Jeff, don't let a "small minority" blind you to what the majority was saying. Most of those who took to the mic yesterday and defied the "rules" by addressing impeachment didn't question Wyden's war record. (We were all given a two page list of his votes.) They did however take the senator to task for not only his stance on impeachment, but his obfuscation as well.
Thom, there may have been an outraged majority at that meeting, but I'm talking about the country. I won't mince words about the crap Darrell and others have been posting here, though--it's politically inept and offensive. This issue, like everything else, isn't black and white. It requires building consensus among other voters and not dismissively attacking allies. If you can't work with your friends, what the hell do you expect to accomplish?
It's politics--if you actually want to change things, you need to do more than offer histrionic displays of outrage.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 15, 2007 10:37:23 AM
we won't be pulling out of Iraq until Bush has left office.
Then let's hasten his departure. And if you want us to stop wasting our time on impeachment, then jump on board and let's git'er done. Wyden can't initiate impeachment, and neither can i. But he can advocate for it (or he could shirk his duty). Gonzo has got to go. Cheney has got to go. Bush has got to go. Go to jail, directly to jail. Do not pass K-Street.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 15, 2007 10:39:08 AM
I suppose I should be even clearer: Wyden isn't the problem. You want to stop the war and impeach Bush, you need to move the people who are actually preventing it: Republicans. Talk to Smith and Walden.
(Also, what do you expect a Senator to do about impeachment, anyway? If you are so outraged, talk to members of the House, where the process actually begins.)
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 15, 2007 10:56:23 AM
My representative is Blumenauer, not Walden. Blumenauer is preventing impeachment. I'm talking to him, but he isn't listening. I'll be at his office tomorrow and every Thursday (noon to 2pm) until he does. [729 NE Oregon St.]
what do you expect a Senator to do
I expect a Senator to do his duty. Wyden should have had Gonzales locked up weeks ago. Is he even calling for Gonzo's impeachment? That would be a fantastic baby-step in the right direction. Oh, ya. And i expect Wyden to call his congressman!
Posted by: colin maloney | Aug 15, 2007 11:09:41 AM
Thom is right, it's the House that needs to initiate the Impeachment process, and the Oregon Democratic Delegation is NOT helping matters. Wu, Hooley, DeFazio and Blumenauer have all tried to "keep it off the table" so to speak. Smith and Walden aren't going to come around, but I expect our Dems to push forward with Impeachment.
A health care bill, JTT, that's more than just a corporate giveaway won't pass through the Oval Office until we get a Democrat there. We're NOT going to pass much in the way of meaningful legislation until Bush is gone, so let's Impeach him. Maybe you'd like the "symbolism" of a vetoed piece of health care legislation, but I'd rather see them Impeach the Criminal in Chief.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 15, 2007 11:12:31 AM
Well, it's good to know that you dismiss my views as "crap", Jeff. Thanks for the open mind.
I wanted to ask Wyden that question because I sincerely thought that he would say "no". How could anyone in their right mind trust the Bush administration to do the right thing at this point? They have years of mendacity and stretching every law to the breaking point and beyond behind them. Wyden put a hold on one of the guys who created the torture policies at the CIA to prevent him from getting permanently confirmed. If I was in Wyden's position, I'd view every move that the administration takes with suspicion.
That's why I asked him my question. Because I wanted to make the point, very civilly as I shook his hand and gave him my business card, that if he didn't trust the administration to do the right thing that impeachment would be the better option. Instead, he told me -- either because he believes it or because he was lying to me from five feet away -- that he believes in "trust but verify". And I have to ask, on what basis does the Bush administration deserve any iota of trust at this point?
So go ahead, call that crap. Your opinion of me is irrelevant.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 15, 2007 11:33:59 AM
Posted by: Jake | Aug 15, 2007 12:58:46 AMSenator Wyden spoke intelligently today. He made the point that political capital is a finite resource
That latter sentence certainly calls into question the former. As to the latter I say bullshit. Standing up and showing your an invertebrate generates more capital. Keeping your powder eternally dry leaches your "political capital" away. If Wyden honestly believes what you claim and said this, then he is an even bigger fool than I intimated up-thread.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 14, 2007 8:05:57 PM
It's really no wonder he's against impeachment. He trusts Bush and Cheney. That's what he told me this afternoon.
My own take on the meeting.
After the Q&A period was cut off due to time, I asked Sen. Wyden before he left whether he trusted the Bush administration. He said yes, although he thinks verification is needed.
To me, after all of the obvious lies that have been perpetrated by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, and practically everyone on down in the administration, that seems incredibly naive. Six and a half years of constant lying to the American people and Congress should have given Wyden an idea that he should be suspicious of anything they say and any proposal they put forth. At the meeting, he repeatedly mentioned the Petraeus report, as if it was likely to be any more accurate than previous progress reports from Iraq.
It's just insane.