This broke around lunchtime and none of the commenters on the other threads bothered to pick it up.

See what the Boundary has to say about Merkley's remarks. Or don't. It really doesn't matter now that he's clarified his intent when he voted.

Oh wait. He did that on March 21, 2003 too (the day of the vote).

You can expect Jeff Merkley to do his homework and speak proudly of his findings.

The post is here.

Isn't that called 'letting him twist in the wind?'

I was surprised that Jeff waited so long to respond. Kinda reminds one of that Mass Senator who lost to the bozo chimp, eh? Is Jeff gonna get swift boated by Smith just like Kerry?

I think Steve did a good job stating his case with his own words in his own post. It shows he understands new media (wow, that's a 90's phrase!), he understands that his race is being waged for the hearts of the party influencers, and he is not afraid to speak to them in their own language and turf (BlueOregon).

I can't believe that Jeff did not respond right here in the BlueOregon community (either via comments in Steve's entry, or his own entry) within 30mins of Steve's post. To me, that shows that Jeff is: - not a fighter, much less a street fighter - clueless about the internet and those weblog thingies - not taking Steve seriously

Pick your favorite... any of the above means that Jeff will get blindsided... never seeing where that left hook came from!! (hint, it didn't come from the right side!)

Kari Chisholm, the Merkley operative, makes a number of good points in suggesting that Merkley's reaction to this flap about the resolution hardly demonstrates his cluelessness when it comes to politics and the web. Still, what this episode does demonstrate is that while Merkley may be an upgrade to Smith, he is no Steve Novick.

Novick has challenged Merkley to make a number of joint appearances so that they can demonstrate conclusively -- not via paid operatives, like Chisholm -- who the real street fighter is. I think any objective observer knows the answer. Novick is a rare breed in American politics: a brilliant man, beholden to no one, who feels compelled to fight with fire for the truth and the little guy. While the Merkleys of the world cast a lot of good votes and can even muster a legislative coup or two, they also make you yawn. Novick, by contrast, makes you want to stand up and pump your fist. Washington needs people like Steve, and now more than ever. He would shake things up that desperately need shaking.

I don't fault Chisholm for supporting Merkely -- after all, Jeff is paying her company for the support. But why would other Oregon Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, ignore the opportunity to elect such a unique and inspired fighter like Novick? Just picture him on the national news shows, speaking truth to power in a way that simply can't be ignored. If that image doesn't appeal to you, I suggest you consider what it is that turned you on about politics in the first place.

Harry, what do you mean, took so long to respond? Novick swore he never even brought it up. And you can't compare this to swift-boating. It wasn't even an attack, remember?

And Daniel, I'm not opposed to Novick, despite how polarized this particular issue made the race. But I'm also grounded enough to realize that Novick is not a character in a Frank Capra movie.

No, James, Novick is not a character in a Frank Capra movie. He's a guy who graduated from Harvard Law School, with honors, at the age of 21. He's a guy who has worked in Washington, D.C. for years -- he's breathed the air in that town, he knows its pulse. He wouldn't be depending on some script writer to bail him out unrealistically and romantically. He would get the job done the old fashioned way -- with knowledge of the issues, an excellent sense of humor, a great appreciation for human psychology and an IQ even bigger than, oh I don't know, Frank Capra's.

Maybe you're more grounded than I am, James. I'll concede that. But again, I'm a progressive. I'm allowed to dream. I haven't drunk the Kool Aid that must have been handed out during the Clinton years, suggesting that the best that progressives can do is fight back against the reactionaries and hope that, somehow, we can preserve the status quo (plus tinker a bit around the edges). I still believe, naively perhaps, in the possibility of real, honest-to-God change. And to implement that change, we need real, honest-to-God inspiring politicians -- not simply machine candidates whose best argument is "I've been effective and I'm not a Republican."

Yawn.

First of all, that resolution had nothing to do with honoring the troops, and anybody with an ounce of honesty in their soul knows that. It was about exploiting the troops' sacrifice for cheap political gain.

If they wanted to honor the troops, they could have simply said so without tying that vote to loaded partisan political statements. Instead they USED the troops to put democrats who opposed the war over a barrel. That's not honoring them, Jeff, that's exploiting them, and the decent thing to do was to not participate in that exploitation but rather to expose it for what it was. That wold have been the best way to honor the sacrifice of the troops. Merkley chose the cheap, easy and expedient way out. Just vote for it.

The fact that Merkley has not "lowered" himself to respond to democratic primary voters' concerns directly suggest he could be the type of play-it-safe, over-consulted establishment Democrat who has dissapointed us all so many times before.

"Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley says he has no regrets about his 2003 vote on an Iraq war resolution"

I was kind of jesting yesterday about Merkley and signing statements but now we have it out the horse's mouth. Merkley embraces the M.O. of voting one way but believing/saying something else. I hope that November '08 gives blue Oregonians a choice other than politicians as usual.

That ellipsis is convenient because the paragraph between

That's because Kari is trying to obfuscate an inconvenient truth. And when that fails, you can flat out lie. Rhis morning in his weekly KPOJ interview, the chief editor of "the biggest blog in Oregon" said (with a "straight" face - if that's even possible on the radio) that the GOP "got all the Democrats to vote for [George W. Bush's courage]"

Kari knows well that 5 legislators had the courage to do what Speaker Merkley did not. They were able to express their support for the troops without falling for Karen Minnis's trap.

Who posted this thread?

One of the problems with people saying they supported the troops at the beginning of the war was that people on both sides of the debate - anti-war and pro-war - were saying the same thing: "We support the troops." The words were the same, but the meanings had to be different. Unfortunately, very few defined what they meant. It was a good bet to assume that the pro-war crowd meant helping get them on aircraft to fly to the war zone in the Middle East, but they didn't seem to care that the troops were going in insufficient numbers under incompetent leadership and without sufficient supplies and equipment - including armor for their bodies and vehicles. Some support!! With supporters like that who needs enemies?

What did the anti-war crowd mean when they said, "We support the troops"? Not much, because in this war and as in all previous wars the mass of people feel compelled to make gestures of support because they are intimidated by the mob. And so, like the pro-war gang they essentially went along with the troops walking up aircraft gangways that would inevitably mean thousands of them would return on another flight in caskets or medi-vac planes.

If the troops understood they were participating in an illegal war, they should have refused to climb on board those flights to Iraq and the anti-war people should then have shouted, "We support you." If the troops didn't realize they were participating in an illegal war, those against the war should have told the troops so and let them know that those opposed to the war would support them if and when they got around to refusing to fight in an illegal war as the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles required them to do.

With the troops hearing both sides shout, "We support the troops" the more thoughtful among them must have wondered what the hell America was saying.

Merkley's vote for the Republican's resolution was unfortunate, but it is not grounds for condemning him or dismissing his abilities. Every legislator [probably even Joanne Bowman and Dennis Kucinich] have cast votes based on political calculus. Merkley's vote is a problem for running against Smith in this election cycle in particular. In the strange and sordid world of politics in general, it's a minor smudge.

It makes the Novick campaign look desperate for advantage to condemn Merkely for assenting to the R-majority's good-wishes-to-the-embarking-troops resolution.

Again, I'd expect better from Novick; he has plenty to recommend him without this petty BS. Not a good sign that he's echoing the R's, either.

Tom, you're exactly right. This vote shouldn't be THE ISSUE for this primary race or the general election. It may be indicative of a minor lapse in judgment or self-worth, but it does not make Merkley a gun-toting, warhawk neo-con.

However, I still think that he is less electable than Novick. What a lot of us on this site (because of our hatred for Smith) forget is that Gordon Smith is incredibly good at campaigning. The guy is smooth, poised, and can really bring in the support. No offense to Speaker Merkley, who has done great things in the House and is obviously very intelligent, but he comes off as kind of plastic. It's the same weakness shared by Congressman David Wu. When they speak in front of a crowd or go out to meet people, they come across as very fake, and a little sleazy because of it.

Personally, I want a Senator who speaks his mind, doesn't talk in soundbites and will stand up for things he believes in, regardless of the consequences for his image.

Thanks Tom, for your most "civil" post. This is what should have been emphasized a while back when the HR2 tempest was blown out of proportion early on here at BlueO. (injected into the debate, perhaps defensibly, by Merkley supporters... not the Speaker himself)

House Res 2 could be simply a small negative notch in the Beltway candidate's campaign. (if it's handled well) Or the Democrats can do what they're good at... squandering resources and snatching defeat.

tom and east bank thom, that's exactly what i've posted here a couple of times - that i see this as a negative in the merkley column, but not something that has the magnitude to be a dealbreaker.

in a weird way, it looks to me like the merkley supporters are blowing this up to be bigger than, in my mind, it is.

I can't imagine why it took so long for credible Democratic candidates to jump into the race against Smith, seeing the support they're getting. It will be ironic if demands for perfectly unblemished hands from our side results in re-electing those whose hands are absolutely filthy.

Is that the goal here? To remain the pious opposition party forever? Or does anyone actually want to change something? I have to wonder.

Kari: What's wrong with putting your name on everything you post? You've chided us for not doing that.

Seems like we have two viable candidates to replace Gordo. This excites me. I would sure love to see a "youtube" discussion by each candidate on their current views of a number of significant national issues. How about it Blue Oregon. Let's showcase both candidates. Can we move forward?

Jake, Let's return to events of 2007, OK?

You said:

That is what may bother folks about this post. You use ellipses to skip over the second sentence in the article, which read:

The nonbinding House resolution, approved as the U.S. launched its invasion of Iraq, voiced support for U.S. troops, but also praised "the courage of President George W. Bush" and supported "the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein." <<

In our local paper today is an AP article I have already discussed with a staffer at the local congressional office. Gen. Casey is concerned about the National Guard's wider role in Iraq and the strain on families, personal lives, careers.

On the other hand, Sen. McCain is quoted as saying notions about the Guard are obsolete. He says the distinctions between Guard and active duty which were " once so clear" are now "virtually undetectable".

Steve Novick prides himself on being the most outspoken candidate for US Senate. Here is his chance to prove he cares about more than a vote on a 2003 resolution.

Does Steve share McCain's view or Gen. Casey's view? Or doesn't that matter because Jeff should be so ashamed of a 2003 vote that nothing else matters?

This whole debate about the 2003 resolution is not something most people are going to be aware of. Those working multiple jobs, those with health, work and family concerns, those who believe other subjects are more interesting than politics are probably unaware of this topic--even though it has been printed in newspaper(s) and discussed on blogs. Anyone who ignores that reality has never seen a friend in a store or somewhere else and asked "did you see that TV ad (or read that newspaper article) about..." only to be cut off with "sorry, haven't had the time--too busy".

Activists may be more interested in Measures 49 and 50 (which we vote on in 2007) than a primary next year.

Anyone who reads BO often knows there are those who have great faith in political consultants and others who don't. To the extent this debate is still raging in September, it risks looking like a consultant's ploy.

One would think a very bright consultant running for public office would be interested in being quoted on the news of the day, not just on an opponent's voting record.

If the troops were withdrawn starting tomorrow and everyone who had ever said the slightest good word about Bush or any of his politics was banished from political life, there would still be a lot of disabled vets, veterans like the Sherwood police chief who discover their old job isn't really there when they return from active duty, veterans who find their housing or their family life disrupted.

Does Steve want to be the candidate who shows he cares about those veterans? Or is he someone who acts like he belongs to a debating society and by golly everyone had better agree with him on a legislative vote from 2003?

Steve is obviously proud of his work on the Bruggere campaign. But although "I fought a war" was a large part of that campaign, Tom Bruggere himself had a blank and puzzled look on his face when asked after a speech about the details of veterans legislation.

Care for veterans is even more important now, and there are more family, friends, and employers of those Oregonians who are deployed or have been on active duty than most politicians realize.

I am related to or friends with more veterans (back generations) than anyone here can possibly imagine. I was a Democratic national convention delegate for a US Senator who authored one of the most important pieces of veterans legislation during our adult lives.

If Steve and his campaign think none of that matters because we should all tell Jeff he made the wrong decision on a House Resolution in 2003, then they can forget about my vote.

Does Steve even know anyone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or previous wars?

LT - those are interesting questions. have you emailed novick directly to ask him for answers, or have you just posted them here hoping he reads regularly and will post a response?

if you do email him or otherwise get in touch with him, please let us know what his response to your questions is. i would like to know. i'm not holding my breath for a post here on BO from him on the subject matter, though.

There is absolutely no one on this thread that didn't already know the substance of the second paragraph

Just curious, Kari. What special tool did you use as chief editor of Blue0 to determine exactly who read this thread and what their knowledge base was. Share with us little guys.

By the way... still waiting for the correction/retraction... and the chocolates...

If Steve and his campaign think none of [those other important policy issues] matters because we should all tell Jeff he made the wrong decision on a House Resolution in 2003, then they can forget about my vote.

I think Steve, and those of us who support him, aren't pointing out the 2003 resolution because it, in itself, matters all that much. It's being raised because it might be indicative of how Merkley will act if elected to Congress, and that's concerning. The tactics of Oregon's GOP on that resolution were pretty transparent and amatuerish. In DC, those same things are going to happen, but they'll be much better executed and harder to deal with.

I think everyone looking honestly at this issue knows that Merkley voted for this resolution to innoculate himself against future attacks that he didn't support the troops. Which brings up the legitimate question: What else would Merkley vote for in order to avoid taking a political hit?

It's not the 2003 resolution that's important, it's what that resolution tells us about the candidate that's important. I would love to see Merkley say that in retrospect, it was a mistake to vote for the resolution because of the poison clauses it contained, and that he's learned from his mistake and will never fall into such a trap again. But of course, no consultant would ever let him say that.

Kari,

My apologies for confusing your gender based on your name. I looked around for pictures of you as you suggested but found none (but I'll take your word for it!). Anyway, forgive my mistaken assumption.

My embarrassing screw-up does, however, allow me to make a separate point. What bothers me about Merkley's conduct is less that he voted the way he did in 2003 but that he has refused to apologize for that vote. Every politician makes mistakes, but the ones I like are the ones who are uncomfortable enough about spinning half truths that they admit their mistakes. Just contrast the way Edwards and Clinton presently discuss their 2003 Iraq War votes if you want another example.

To those who are offended that Novick supporters are turning this into "Resolution-Gate" (my term, nobody else's), allow me to remind you of the following: Novick has suggested that he and Merkley make a ton of joint appearances where they each make their respective cases against Smith, rather than debating each other, and let the people decide which of the two has the more impressive approach to winning next November. Should Merkley take Novick up on that invitation, any hint of intra-party negativity would go away. The best man would win, and everyone could unify behind the winner.

If, however, Merkley doesn't accept the challenge and tries to turn this primary into business as usual, the fear is that Merkley would be hiding behind his contacts in government and in websites like this one (see the advertisement prominently placed at the top right of the site) and turn this into an attempt to win based on having the superior "machine." In my view, while that approach could theoretically be successful in the primary, it would surely result in the Democrats losing the General Election. Smith has a lot more money as well as the "machine" advantages of incumbency. To beat him, the Dems need to show that they have a candidate with a better combo of passion, intelligence, command of public policy issues, courage, integrity, inherent likeability, and judgment. If the candidate who best fits the bill is Merkley, than he ought to win. He certainly has nothing in my book to disqualify himself from taking his shot. But let's find out who the best candidate is by having those joint appearances start early and often. Spin from paid operatives, advertisements in web sites, and endorsements from politicians merely sidetrack us all from the task at hand.

And please, if Merkley takes a position and Novick is asked about it (or vice versa), don't call it "going negative" if Novick answers the question honestly. The issue raised by this thread isn't what Novick and/or his supporters think of Merkley's vote. It's what Merkley -- four years after the war started -- thinks of his vote and why. Surely, Novick should have to defend his own positions, and I think we all know he's ready and willing to do so.

Kari,

Thanks for the clarification on the "paid ad" point.

And by the way, to show you that I am pro-Novick rather than anti-Merkley, I must confess that while Novick was at the U. of Oregon, Merkley and I were at Stanford. As a fellow Cardinal, I'm happy to see that Merkley has done well for himself and for the people of Oregon. Novick is amazing, but that doesn't make Merkley horse meat.

The issue here isn't Novick versus Merkley. It's Novick versus Smith and Merkley versus Smith. Somehow, the Democrats in Oregon have to make sure those bouts begin in a very, very public way. My shots at Merkley are meant to get him to stop being a Clintonesque weeny on the Iraq Resolution ("weeny" is a term we Cardinal reserve for the lowest of the low -- Berkeley students) and accept responsibility like a mensch. Whoever wins this primary will need to claim the moral high ground and must not represent "business as usual." If this election is about "business as usual," Smith wins no matter whom he faces.

Take care. And thanks for helping to keep Oregon blue.

Huh?

Since when is Kari not pronounced like Carey?

Or is it a gender thing? All the female Kari's I ever knew pronounced their name the same as Carey... (as in Drew Kari.)

And the men who have a last name Kari also pronounced it Carey, not Car-ee.

I never met a male first name Kari, but if it is pronounced Car-ee, then I will have to remember that.

Maybe next to your photo, you could provide a audio file with the correct pronounciation, in your own voice even.

Harry (rhymes with the female Kari)

I don't buy it!

The text of the Resolution is below.

Jeff Merkley suffers HILLARY'S AFFLICTION, no regret at having cast this vote.

The Resolution, 2003 HR-2 enhanced the fraud which launched the War, making us all party to an international war crime and violation of our treaties. The premise was pretext.

The Website I use to track the Iraq deaths says 3732 Americans (including one of my family) are dead as a result, as of today. It always lags, so we know the toll is higher. God knows how many Iraqis and others, and the wounded and the Trillon Dollars, just because those elected, who watched the Bush Administration's incredible marketing campaign in the fall of 2002 and early 2003 were afraid to stand in the road and say, "Bullshit".

72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session

Enrolled

House Resolution 2

Sponsored by Representative KROPF; Representatives KNOPP, RICHARDSON

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.

Adopted by House March 21, 2003

Chief Clerk of House

Speaker of House

Dear Daniel, As someone who once attended a Cal/Berkley game as part of a group of high school students (visiting a big college campus for a choir competition if memory serves), I hate to say it but you are missing the point.

Suppose every Oregonian says "Novick is right about the 2003 resolution and Merkley is wrong and should admit it". How does that help veterans and their families? Or is this more about winning debate points than anything else? If Steve were a Senator, would he be working hard to make sure all the Dole / Shalala Comm. findings on care for veterans were being implemented? Or would he just be telling us he is standing up for us but doesn't want to answer questions?

My concern is that the debate over the 2003 resolution drowns out all other issues. If the Novick campaign slogan is "vote Novick because Merkley was wrong to vote yes on that 2003 resolution" do you really believe that will get Steve the nomination?

It seems to me the comments above about grasping at straws and backing himself out on a limb are more accurate.

But then, what do I know. I've only been a volunteer for 30 years.

Kari, thanks for the primer on the intertubes. Though it didn't really tell me anything new regarding the workings of the web, it did shed some insight as to the inner workings of you mind (eg. links = food). You seem to be assuming that everyone obeys you when you say "read the rest." Some people read just what you pass off as "in the news" and go immediately to comment. So you see, it was kind of silly for you to claim that "There is absolutely no one on this thread that didn't already know the substance of the [paragraph you left out of your erstwhile anonymous post]."

on a less controversial note (i hope), congratulations on your forthcoming baby. I hear the average weight loss soon after pregnancy is 10-15 lbs // i keed, i keed... becuz i loves the Blue0!

I want to associate myself with John Bradach's comment, especially his last remark.

There's an issue of trust here, and Kari needs to 'splainify a bit more and correct the record. It would be kind to call it disingenuous that when Blue0's chief cook was called out for cooking the books by cutting out the very language which has the potential to harm his candidate... namely that Jeff Merkley voted 'aye' on a measure which acknowledged the "courage" of George W. Bush... This is the very verbiage that's at the heart of the present controversy! To erase those 8 1/2 words ("We acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush") even in this follow-up to a chain of want-to-be pro-Merkley threads... it does indeed cast a shadow on the neutrality of Blue0.

And then to have Kari insinuate that he wasn't even the author of this post. ("Thom, please don't make the mistake of assuming that I write all the "in the news" items here at BlueOregon. I don't. This isn't my blog." - Kari "It-wasn't-me" Chisholm) Stephanie V apologized to Kari for pete's-sake! It wasn't until colin maloney busted Kari with some sort of {meta} what-do-I-know. Only to have Mandate's main man come back with this: "Um, folks... Yes, I did write this entry. I didn't say that I didn't."

And what about letting the misperception linger that "all of the Democrats" in the House got duped by Minnis & Co. into voting for a measure that (and again h/t to Travis's uncle for bringing this to my attention. I bristled, sure, when i heard of the "Bush courage" part of HRes 2. I realized it was a GOP trap, so i didn't even read the entire "resolution" which Kari called "a meaningless, throwaway vote [to support the troops and...]" so I hereby award him a Master of Understatement degree. MUuuu...!) So now, also to read the friggin' whereas'es:

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...

Kari... Bossman... Don't be a Hillary. Don't be a Merkley. Admit your mistakes, so we can MoveOn.org.

Kari, if that's supposed to give the impression that you're being fair and balanced, you fail. Thanks though for the blogging tips. I could use a good editor.

If possible, address any of my concerns above.

But get some sleep first. You'll be needing it.

LT,

I believe I speak for Jeff Merkley in saying that it is sad even to be reminded of Cal/Stanford football games because we used to pound the Weenies on a regular basis and now Stanford football has become an absolute joke, whereas the Weenies are excellent. I've got an "S" helmet on my TV so I don't have to say how sick that makes me.

"Resolution-Gate" would be anything but a key issue in the campaign -- unless Merkley wants to make it one. His vote on the resolution was unfortunate -- and for someone like me who has loathed this war from the very beginning, that resolution is depressing to read -- but all experienced legislators have made unfortunate votes. It comes with the territory. What matters is that years later, when Merkley is looking his electorate in the eyes and his unfortunate votes get exposed, does he have the integrity to come clean and talk straight; that is, does he feel compelled to be a "business as usual" politician who never admits mistakes or a guy who prides himself on straight talk?

You seem to think that what matters most is which politician has the best positions on the various and sundry issues that affect Oregon and America. Often I'd agree with you, but not in this primary race. I suspect that their positions on issues are, in the aggregate, pretty similar. But there may be other dramatic differences that are likely to determine which of the two men is best able to move the country in a progressive direction.

Example? Look at Reagan. His views on the issues didn't differ dramatically from a number of other Republicans, but he had special communication skills that enabled him to be incredibly effective as a spokesman for right wing causes. He came across as extremely honest and gutsy -- incredibly real, not "processed" -- and that meant a lot to moderate Democrats and Republicans alike.

I'm not suggesting Novick is a Democratic Reagan. But he scores off the charts on the honesty and courage meters; no one is more authentic or less of a sell-out. I would love to say the same about Merkley (two political heroes are better than one!) but "Resolution Gate" -- not so much the vote, but the way he is handling it today -- would suggest that my hopes may be be dashed. The last thing Oregon needs is another machine candidate whose positions on the issues that matter (like the War) are based on poll numbers and consultants' opinions. Please, re-read that Resolution. If you hate that war as much as I do, you'll find it ugly.

Finally, one more point about Novick. What makes Novick who is he more than anything else is his sense of humor. The "hook" thing gets old for some, but it's totally Novick. Most of us can't begin to relate to what that guy has gone through in life, but he's handled things seamlessly because he laughs off this whole "handicap" thing. And with his sense of humor, his integrity, and his command of the issues, he has figured out a way to virtually inoculate himself from being disliked by anyone who comes across his path.

That skill set is what enables him to get away with being so honest and so seemingly courageous -- for when you go through life wrapped in Teflon you don't especially need courage. I've always thought that Novick, like Reagan before him, goes life wrapped in Teflon. And that is the measure of a politician who has the potential to be truly great. If the progressive voters of Oregon reject him, they would be doing their country, and their world, a grave disservice.

I am still learning about Merkley and Novick and have not decided who I will support yet.

It seems though that the 2003 Resolution was an opportunity lost for Merkley to show courage and judgment by at least making a statement against the decision to go to war. This could have been done in connection with a "yes" vote on the resolution. From the article, it sounds like he didn't explain his vote that way at all. If I am missing something, someone please enlighten me.

When did Merkley and Novick first go on record publicly against the war? That is something that they should be disclosing to all of us.

In any event, I don't think this is as bad as how Hillary and others voted to authorize the war itself. However, it certainly would have been a feather in Merkley's cap had he taken a strong stand against it early.

I am a voter who will be casting a vote to replace Gordon Smith in the U.S. Senate based primarily on his poor judgment in supporting the war in Iraq. As such, I will be looking primarily for the candidate who showed the best judgment earliest and made it known most often.

Also, can someone please explain Merkley working for the Pentagon in the Reagan administration? The article wasn't real clear on that. Was he a private contractor, DOD employee in a nonpartisan position or what??

Thanks for the info. lest. It would be great if copies of the floor speech were made available to the voting public. It doesn't sound like a strong statement against the invasion. If he made other speeches or writings about it, those should be made public too.

We need to determine at what point both candidates publicly stated that the war was wrong. If it was only recently, then we may have to put them both in the Hillary-like finger to the political wind category as opposed to the Barack-like courageous foresight and sound judgment category.

Go ahead Mr. Merkley and Mr. Novick. Give it your best shot with as much detail as possible please. We are all waiting to hear.

Kevin, please provide us with specific sources where we can read this for ourselves. Thanks.

The fraud was obvious before Colin Powell held up the vial at the U.N.

I repeat.

I don't buy it!

The text of the Resolution is below.

Jeff Merkley suffers HILLARY'S AFFLICTION, no regret at having cast this vote.

The Resolution, 2003 HR-2 enhanced the fraud which launched the War, making us all party to an international war crime and violation of our treaties. The premise was pretext.

The Website I use to track the Iraq deaths says 3732 Americans (including one of my family) are dead as a result, as of today. It always lags, so we know the toll is higher. God knows how many Iraqis and others, and the wounded and the Trillon Dollars, just because those elected, who watched the Bush Administration's incredible marketing campaign in the fall of 2002 and early 2003 were afraid to stand in the road and say, "Bullshit".

72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session

Enrolled

House Resolution 2

Sponsored by Representative KROPF; Representatives KNOPP, RICHARDSON

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.

Adopted by House March 21, 2003

Chief Clerk of House

Speaker of House

Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction

On what basis did Merkley support this premise? Is he falling now in line behind the other Democrats in saying he was duped?

I am not very impressed by his signing statement / floor speech either. "I am not persuaded that the war [in Iraq] is the best strategy to fight terrorism." I assume Merkley has finally come to the conclusion that invading Iraq wasn't the best way to fight global terrorism. When did he finally come to this startling conclusion?

I am remembering that Bush demanded Saddam document his disarmament, and Saddam produce 50,000 pages. As near as I can tell, Bush did not have them read before he pulled the trigger that killed so many.

It makes me wretch each time I read the Merkley Resolution, "Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President's cabinet ***."