portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

imperialism & war | media criticism

All 5 Oregon Dems opposed the war!


Rep. John Murtha, bless him, did not originate Democratic opposition to the Iraq war. The whole mess started with the infamous "October resolution" rammed through the congress in October, 2002, with enormous pre-election pressure by corporate media and big $$$ campaign funding.

Corporate media wants you to believe that "the Democrats" were ALL for that war powers authorization -- but IN FACT DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE OPPOSED THE WAR POWERS AUTHORIZATION BY A MAJORITY OF 126-to-81. In the Senate, 21 Democrats (including WYDEN of Oregon and MURRAY of Washington) voted AGAINST the war powers authorization for Bush.
Nancy Pelosi (as House Democratic Whip in the 107th Congress) was opposed to the war when Murtha was a big supporter of it. She was leader of anti-war Democrats who rallied 126 Democratic Representatives AGAINST the infamous "October resolution" -- the joint congressional resolution that probably lost Kerry the election in 2004 because of his vote FOR it, when the other Senator from Massachusetts (Kennedy) joined with 20 other Democrats (and 1 Republican and 1 Independent) to vote AGAINST it. (That's assuming that Kerry did lose that election, which is doubtful.)

THE CORPORATE MEDIA LIE: corporate media wants you to believe that the ONLY Democratic Party is the Kerry/Hillary party. That way, the Democratic Party that really wants to represent YOU can be ignored. Whether you are a Dem or a anti-Dem, that distortion of reality works against all of us. DON'T BUY INTO CORPORATE MEDIA PROPAGANDA!

Corporate media presents the Democratic Leadership Council as the Democratic Party -- and that, like most of what you get from corporate media, is a BIG LIE!

Early this month (December, 2005) Nancy Pelosi - currently leader of the Democratic house caucus - endorsed Rep. John Murtha's proposal for US troop withdrawal from Iraq. Pelosi immediately encountered opposition from the DLC wing of the party, represented by the Number Two Democrat in the House, Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). Pelosi refused to bite the DLC bait that was intended to take attention off of Bush and the war by featuring a civil war among congressional Democrats. So, on December 15, Pelosi announced that Democrats would not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq. Pelosi could afford to be gracious, because the pro-war DLC campaign had proved to be still-born and without any popular support.

Clearly, no unified position was possible, despite DNC Chair Howard Dean backing what has become known as the Pelosi-Murtha (or Dean-Pelosi-Murtha) proposal. The reason that a unified position was, and is, impossible: the Democratic Leadership Council ("DLC"), the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. The DLC was formed back in the 90's to promote the idea that the only way that the Democrats could ever hope to regain the White House would be by copying Republican positions on such issues as welfare, warfare and international trade. The DLC has generally been credited with the nomination, election and re-election of Clinton -- as well as with the enactment of the so-called "free" trade agenda.

It has become clear that the DLC, if they can't run the party, are willing to destroy it!

David Siorota, (Center for American Progress), tells it like it is:

"The Democratic Leadership Council has really gone over the line. In today's Washington Post, their staffer Marshall Wittman - who used to be a Republican operative and top official at the Christian Coalition - said that Democrats who are pushing for an exit strategy from Iraq are "offering surrender." This [the DLC] is an organization that continues to say it wants to "help" Democrats - but as we can see, they aren't interested in anything like that."

The Post quoted quoted Sirota, as follows: "It is not surprising that a bunch of insulated elitists in the Washington establishment -- most of whom have never served in uniform -- would stab the Democratic Party in the back and attack the courage of people like Vietnam War hero Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi for their stand on Iraq."

Sirota continues in an update, as follows: "it's not that hard to understand. Wittman, like dishonest right-wing pundits/politicians, characterized a plan to withdraw from Iraq as "offering surrender." It is nothing of the sort - and characterizing it that way is disgusting and dishonest, especially from someone who now purports to speak, at least in part, for Democrats."

 link to www.davidsirota.com

DLC influence is waning! The DLC has never been weaker since its creation more than a decade ago. Populist Democrats are coming back stronger than ever!

Since the Social Security battle and continuing through Katrina issues, Democrats have been scoring significant victories recently by rediscovering their populist roots.

Pelosi sums it up: "Not only did we take [Bush] down on [Social Security], but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'people like me,' " she said.

That's me alright, Nancy, I'm one of those 'people like me'!

See, recent article here at PIMC --

"Rep. Murtha's resolution to get U.S. troops out of Iraq" by George Bender

great post 18.Dec.2005 18:36


Thanks for the clarification!

Epiphany 18.Dec.2005 20:21

Catalina Eddie

I'll believe the democratic Party has changed its wicked ways when they run Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney. I refuse to ever again give my vote to the lesser of two lessers. I always vote, but I feel like a chump everytime.

Anyway, as somebody comented here a short time ago, so long as the gov't is controlled by the 1% with the wealth, we aren't going to see any real change.


Please 19.Dec.2005 00:48


Im calling bullshit on this one.

They may have all voted against the authorization but their record on FUNDING THE DAMN THING is
different. Either you not savy on how good politicans have become at lieing to citizens or you are intentionally blowing smoke yourself.

Status of support for the war in Iraq doesn't hinge on that one vote. Try looking at the appropriations
since that vote. Damn, they are still voting to give Bush the money he needs this year.

very true 19.Dec.2005 10:18


And they just cut another 30 billion out of social programs. As a lifelong democrat, I am totally disillusioned and looking to THE PEOPLE to stand up.

PLEASE - very misleading 19.Dec.2005 16:17

g.d. dem

Both the Senate and the House are solidly in the control of the Republican Party, as is the White House. The Republicans never let funding of the war get to a vote! For example, in the vote today, the only way to vote against war funding was to vote against aid for Katrina victims.

The Democrats - WHEN THEY CONTROLLED CONGRESS - did actually vote on funding for the Viet Nam war as such and THAT is what finally STOPPED THAT WAR! But you have to be running the Congress to do that!

It's like I can say to you idiots that you are nothing but sell-out cowards and crooks because the PEOPLE put the Republicans in office and you are part of the people - just like the Dems are part of the Congress - so YOU lying sacks of shit are responsible for the war, aren't you? Your big holier-than-the-Dems thing is just one big COP OUT! You know so much and your politics are so pure that you can sit around and post cynical disinformation on Indymedia and never make a positive suggestion or contribution to anything.

As for the 30 $billion$ cuts in social programs, that vote went down on almost straight party-lines - Democrats opposed to it.

Catalina Eddie 19.Dec.2005 16:44

g.d. dem

"I'll believe the democratic Party has changed its wicked ways when they run Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney."

This may come as a surprise to you -- but Dennis Kucinich IS the Democratic candidate for his congressional district in Ohio AND Cynthia McKinney IS the Democratic candidate for her congressioal district in Georgia. So the Democratic Party has run both of them SUCCESSFULLY for seats in the House of Representatives.

But it wasn't done by some "Dems" that you like to concede all the power to - NO, that was done by registered Democrats who do NOT believe, as you do, that none of it matters, because (your words), "we aren't going to see any real change." In the case of McKinney, after the big money Dems managed to get rid of her for a couple of years (through a primary election rigged against her) did McKinney say "Oh me, oh my, I am powerless against all that big money - I'll just post cynical bullshit at Indymedia"? NO NO NO NO NO she did not, she took her case to the people and asked them to take the Democratic Party back in their district AND THE PEOPLE SUPPORTED HER AND SHE IS NOW BACK IN THE CONGRESS!

The only way that we will ever see any progress is if people get over their stupid prejudices about the "wicked ways" of politicians that have taken all the power from the people and REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT THEY HAVE NO POWER.

If, Catalina Eddie, you want to accept your powerlessness - that's your decision.

But then, why, I wonder, do you bother to even post a comment at Indymedia? Why did you bother to even read my article?

Catalina Eddie says: "so long as the gov't is controlled by the 1% with the wealth"

Try it this way: So long as YOUR MIND is controlled by the 1% with the wealth, so long as you accept what they want you to believe - that they have all the power - for that long you will actually have no power whatsoever!

what?! 20.Dec.2005 02:28


"The Republicans never let funding of the war get to a vote!"

Now your just sound crazy! You know this information isn't secret right?

Just to pull one off the top of my head, one of the more infamous Senate 762,
with the title of "Appropriations for Operations in Iraq". I see how you could
get confused with such a difficult title! Lets see, looks like Wyden liked it,
well damn EVERY democrat voted for it. Ugh.

Then theres HR 1268 that at least Earl managed to vote against but every other
oregon Democrat voted for.

S. 762? Who's confused? 20.Dec.2005 07:14

g.d. dem

S. 762 is the "Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005". Accorrding to the Thomas website (Library of Congress), the last action on S. 762 was on April 12, 2005, when it was "read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works." I also searched on "Appropriations for Operations in Iraq" and there is no bill with that title. The ONLY bill that even includes those words in that order is H.R. 871 - also a very good example of how the Republicans prevent things from coming to a vote. H. R. 871 is the "War Funding Accountability Act" cosponsored by Peter DeFazio and 43 other Democrats in the House. The idea was "to establish reporting requirements relating to funds made available for military operations in Iraq" -- but, OF COURSE, the Republicans don't want accountability in such matters, so here's what happened:

"2/16/2005: Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned."

GET IT? Key phrase: "for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker"? That period of time is always NOT NOW AND NOT EVER, "as determined by the Speaker". No Democrat in the House can bring any issue to a vote, under the House rules as passed by the Republicans in January, when the 109th Congress convened. (The rules were different when the Democrats ran things: pretty much any member of the House could bring a bill to the floor for a vote.)

HR 1268 is a good example of how things are intertwined to prevent voting on specific issues. The title of HR 1268 is "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense . . . and Tsunami Relief". It was passed back last spring. Even without the tsunami thing, representatives never get a chance to separate out things like dental care for military dependents from the Iraq expenditures. You KNOW that don't you?

So, that's why I say that it's only if we get a Democratic Congress that there will be any opportunity to stop the Iraq war through a vote in the Congress. You could argue that the Democrats wouldn't do it anyway, but the fact is that a Democratic congress did just that back in the mid-70's -- put the Vietnam war expenditures to a vote -- and the war appropriations ended and the war stopped soon thereafter.

An even better example is how the Republicans just yesterday mixed the ANWR thing in with other "defense appropriations", including defense of New Orleans from the next hurricane.

According to Environment News Service --

< "House Passes Arctic Drilling With Defense Appropriations"

< WASHINGTON, DC, December 19, 2005 (ENS) - Today the House of Representatives passed legislation authorizing energy production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) by a vote of 308-106 as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

< The Arctic drilling provision is seen to complicate the appropriation of funds to support American troops at a time of war, and it does not belong there, opponents say. They see the vote as a political move to attach a highly controversial measure to a bill that is almost certain to pass.

< The provision was inserted at the last minute against the wishes of many members of Congress. Wilderness advocates are united in opposition to including Arctic drilling language in the Defense Appropriations bill.


< "New Orleans' Levees Will Be Rebuilt for Category 3 Hurricanes"

< WASHINGTON, DC, December 19, 2005 (ENS) - Federal Coordinator For Gulf Coast Rebuilding Donald Powell announced new actions Thursday that will strengthen the levees around New Orleans to keep out catastrophic floodwaters. The improvements are intended to address the main causes of the flooding during Hurricane Katrina that inundated 80 percent of the city.

< President George W. Bush's budget request, currently making its way through Congress, includes $1.6 billion for the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, part of which will be used to accomplish these improvements.

[Get it? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, defense appropriations act?]


Don't you understand that the Republicans put a lot of planning and money into preventing anything from coming to a clear and decisive vote on issues that have the attention of the people?

Because the Democrats still have a little say in the Senate, they can often - not always - force a vote in the Senate. But in the House? NOT NOW AND NOT EVER (until we get a Democrat-controlled Congress).

What was the vote on Social Security in the House? It wasn't, it never got to a vote, because a vote on that could only loose for the Republicans.

Why is it that Kucinich is warning us that the Social Security battle isn't over -- that the Republican Congress will be chipping away at it? Because the plan is to include little Social Security things in unrelated bills that threaten other programs like welfare or student aid. So, if a representative votes against weakening Social Security, it has to be at the expense of student aid -- get it?

Here's the game: Republicans put stuff in that is unrelated so they can use their huge $$$ and corporate media influence in the next election to say "Congressman So-And-So voted against rebuilding the levees in New Orleans!" or something like that. That way, by confusing people like you, Republicans keep control of the Congress and of the government.

Meanwhile, chances for reform of the two-party system and for independents like Nader get nowhere. Republicans LIKE the system the way it is. If you want to change it, you need a Democratic Congress.

BTW: how can you be pissed at the Democrats for running Kerry in 2004 - Kerry who voted FOR the October resolution - and still say that the Oregon Democrats who voted against it, somehow that vote didn't count? If the war had gone the other way, the Republicans would have made every one of those Democrats pay in the next election. So, the vote was a real vote on Iraq and a test of the judgment of those Oregon Democrats. I say they get credit for that -- and it's bullshit to try to blame them for the huge mess we are in, that was created by Republican congresses and a Republican president.

If EVERY Democrat voted against these appropriations bills, the appropriations would still pass because that's how big the Republican majorities are! All that would happen is that more Republicans would be elected to Congress because the issues are confused when they come to a vote -- first in the Congress and then, in November, in the elections. The vote on the October resolution was just before the 2002 election, and Democrats knew that they were taking a chance of losing because of their opposition to the war. It could even be that the Democrats, as a national party, actually did fail to take control of the House because of that vote. How can you say that it doesn't count?

smoke, smoke, smoke! 20.Dec.2005 10:57


Thats because it was in 2003. Here is a link


This is just how politicians get away with this shit. Confuse the facts.

FACT: Democracts have consistently voted to fund the war.

Just to bring it up to date, here a re a few just this year:

HR 1268: Everyone but Earl
$1.29 billion for Afghanistan Security Forces
$150 million for Pakistan and $100 million for Jordan to develop military training centers for the purpose of responding to current and future security threats in the Middle East

HR2863: Ron liked it! Oregons House all liked it!
$51.3 billion for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

Don't make me list them all, it won't be pretty!

The Facts 20.Dec.2005 13:27


DeFazio, Hooley, Walden, & Wu approve another $82 BILLION for WAR & Pork (May 5). See:  http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=2391

DeFazio, Hooley & Walden approve $491 BILLION for Defense Budget including ANOTHER $49 BILLION
for WAR (May 25). See:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01815:

Senate yeas 100-0 for WAR & Real ID (May 10) See:  http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0518-27.htm Also see:  http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0518-27.htm Also see:  link to www.senate.gov

Gimmick-loaded Defense Appropriations Act passes the Senate 97-0 (Oct. 7).
See:  http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler10212005.html

When will we stop referring to these Militarized Corporate Shills as "our" representatives?

Bison is in 2003 20.Dec.2005 15:26

g.d. dem

I guess I am supposed to apologize -- I am in 2005. Sorry.

Burro: don't rely on corporate media 20.Dec.2005 16:43

g.d. dem

Burro: maybe this is too complicated for you, too "nuanced" -- but my point to you is this: not just a few facts that appear to "prove" your position, but ALL THE FACTS and all of those in context.

Your CommonDreams link is actually to a San Francisco Chronicle article - so it isn't too difficult to understand that it's biased. When the article says:

"The legislation [HR 1268, the "REAL ID" act as passed in the House before the Congress voted on the done deal of the supplemental appropriations] was passed with little outcry and zero debate by both House and Senate just last week because lawmakers snuck it into a massive $82 billion military spending bill, and therefore no one was really paying much attention . . . "

When the S.F. Chronicle article says that, it omits the facts about party line votes and opposition by the overwhelming majority of Democrats, as well as that the bill had already been rammed through the House by the Republicans in control there before it was snuck into the spending bill (which included tsunami aid). Why were those facts omitted? Because the San Francisco Chronicle is owned by the Hearst family. You figure it out, Burro! But, please, don't take corporate media versions as gospel truth, even if you find them disguised as CommonDreams articles!

BTW: Who wasn't paying attention? Corporate media, including the Chronicle, that's who!

Burro: Yes, your facts are correct, as are the facts that I have cited. The thing is to get the truth and the WHOLE truth. What are the choices that were available to the representatives? Your own facts show that back in May, the $49 Billion for the war was buried in a $491 Billion package.

Your own sources (links) show exactly the points that I am making, for example:

CommonDreams link titled "the legislation" (HR 1268, "REAL ID" Act) takes me to --


which says that --

2/10/2005 2:29pm:
On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 195 - 229 (Roll no. 30).

That was the real vote -- the test to see if there was any chance of sending the bill back to committee. The test revealed this: Only one Republican voted against the bill itself, (Ron Paul, of course), also the one Independent, and then all the other 193 votes were Democrats. On the other side, the Republicans (except for Ron Paul) voted for the bill by voting against sending it back to the committee. So that vote showed that there were more than enough votes to enact the REAL ID regardless of what Democrats did or said! So, after that, the votes were all about positioning for the people back home, so as not to have to fight out of a hole in the next election.

Opposition to the REAL ID was on straight party lines. If you LIKE to see Democrats lining up to oppose things like the ID act, then you shouldn't ignore them when they do that: you should encourage them!

The final vote was on a slightly modified bill ("text of measure as introduced: CR H536-541") -- so some Democrats who had argued for some modifications decided to go on record as for that, and so there were only 161 votes against at that point.

2/10/2005 2:38pm:
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 261 - 161 (Roll no. 31).

DeFazio and Hooley - whose districts lie outside the Portland area - decided to go on record for it, because it could not be stopped and the Republicans could be counted on to throw it up at them with lots of $$$ and media power in the next election. So why hunt trouble, when the issue is moot anyway? Wu and Blumenauer, whose districts are strong Democratic areas, decided they could afford to stay on record as opposed to it.

You don't have to call "your" representatives "our representatives" -- but if you want to effectively oppose the war, you need to wise up enough to work on/with the representatives that actually have been elected and actually are in the Congress! The alternative is to concede a huge territory to the corporatists.

The fact is that there is a strong anti-war movement in the Democratic Party as well as outside it. There is even a tiny anti-war movement in the Republican Party. What do you propose in the current political battle -- that we abandon the biggest territory in the battlefield that is open to us to operate in, the Democratic Party? That we abandon it to Republican operatives?

Speaking for myself, I don't plan on conceding the Democratic Party OR ANYTHING ELSE to the fascist theocratic corporatists! So, wherever you are, whatever you are doing, STAND UP AND FIGHT. Don't concede the Democratic Party. Don't even concede the Republican Party. Don't concede the Congress. Don't concede the White House: never call Bush "the President"! Concede NOTHING!

I know we can count on you for that.

g.d. dem 20.Dec.2005 18:06


No more excuses. You are eminently qualified to be a member of Congress - with your game playing and avoidance of the facts (regardless of who is reporting them).

The game both you and Congress are playing:

"the votes were all about positioning for the people back home, so as not to have to fight out of a hole in the next election."

"DeFazio and Hooley - whose districts lie outside the Portland area - decided to go on record for it, because it could not be stopped and the Republicans could be counted on to throw it up at them with lots of $$$ and media power in the next election. So why hunt trouble, when the issue is moot anyway? Wu and Blumenauer, whose districts are strong Democratic areas, decided they could afford to stay on record as opposed to it."

You might call it "nuanced", I call it game playing, which certainly does not represent the wishes of we the people.

"Opposition to the REAL ID was on straight party lines." Huh? Senate yeas 100-0 for WAR & Real ID (May 10). Oh I forgot, our representatives we just being "nuanced" in VOTING FOR WAR AND REAL I.D.

Here's something that's been really bugging me for a long time. It's something that should have top priority in all discussions of House and Senate votes. Yet, it is not, as far as I know, even being mentioned. It's not campaign finance reform. It's something even more glaring, and it gives you and all the other politically-astute people the opportunity to make excuses for our fucked representatives:

"it was snuck into the spending bill (which included tsunami aid) ... "The Arctic drilling provision is seen to complicate the appropriation of funds to support American troops at a time of war, and it does not belong there, opponents say." ... "the only way to vote against war funding was to vote against aid for Katrina victims."

If these wimp-ass dems had any balls, they would vote against war funding -- even with aid for Katrina victims attached! This would tell the republicans and the American people that they are sick and tired of this business of attaching together two totally unrelated bills! But, of course, the dems pull the same shit on the republicans when they have the chance.

As long as you and Congress are willing to play this game, the interests of the American people will keep getting lost in the shuffle.

Here comes my wingnut conspiracy!!! 20.Dec.2005 19:06


g.d. dem is good at this talking in circles and presenting half truths....maybe TOO GOOD.
Maybe g.d. dem is a pro!

Seriously, give it up. You are wrong. Anyone can look at the congressional record and see it.
The Democrats have consistently voted to fund the war. If you disagree, prove it.
Facts. Where are they, no more lies.

I've posted several bills that funded the war in Iraq ranging from 2002- to just a few months ago.
That took me all of 5 min. to find. Burro has taken it a step further with more details.

As far as apologizing, don't bother I don't expect it from the Democratic party anymore. There
too busy being irrate because we won't blindly support them.

War is a game 21.Dec.2005 01:10

g.d. dem

War is a game, a deadly serious game. Politics is an extension of war by other means. OF COURSE, it's a game. A deadly serious game. Ask your friend who lost an arm in Iraq.

But to think that all those in the game are on the same side, and on the same page in opposition to the interests of the American people, is ignorant nonsense. If the Republicans are successful in their drive for a one-party corporatist state, THEN the impression you have will be only too true. Until then, we can still watch the game of politics and apply whatever say-so we have to influence the results. After all, democratic politics - to the extent that we still have that - IS designed to be played by EVERYBODY.

You don't like the way politics is played. But you present no alternative whatsoever! You accuse me and the Congress of making politics be the way it is -- which is absurd because the Congress is solidly Republican, as you know. But, again, what is your alternative -- to throw out the Democrats? Do you really believe that would stop the war or change the way politics is done? Or is your alternative to make the g.d. dem shut up? And that would accomplish what, exactly? You make no sense whatsoever.

As long as Bison and Burro continue to talk fantasy to the American people, treating them as incapable of understanding what is really happening, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP PLAYING THAT GAME, "the interests of the American people will keep getting lost in the shuffle."

Enuff is enuff.

Over and out.

here, if you look through this little tube, 21.Dec.2005 15:37

you can't see all the shit all over the walls


The beginning was in 2003.

The October resolution was in October, 2002 21.Dec.2005 18:26

g.d. dem

Sorry I have to return to this comment string, but the last comment by "you can't see all the shit all over the walls" demands some clarification.


The comment goes on to say: <'SINCE THE BEGINNING'! The beginning was in 2003.>

As we know, planning and preparation for the attack on Iraq began BEFORE 2003. Congress became involved when Bush sought a war authorization act, specifically to authorize use of ground forces against Iraq. That was the "October resolution" of October, 2002. That is exactly why I say that Oregon's five Democrats in the Congress were all opposed to the Iraq thing "FROM THE BEGINNING". That is, from before 2003.

Remember.... 03.Jan.2006 23:30

Chuck Despres papagrande45@yahoo.com

After 9/11, however, there were only TWO members of Congress who voted against granting Bush extraordinary executive authority in pursuing the so-called "war on terror".

They are Representative Barbara Lee and Senator Paul Wellstone (deceased). Remember their solo votes of DISSENT in their respective Bodies?


Their dissent is worth remembering