"Murray, Cantwell lose our trust"

Neal Starkman (Seattle P-I op-ed):

Sometimes good people do bad things.

On May 24, the U.S. Senate voted 80-14 to continue funding the Iraq occupation to the tune of $120 billion; among the ayes were the good Democratic senators from the state of Washington, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

Why did they vote that way? In 2007, it's beyond debate that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, that it had neither weapons of mass destruction nor any immediate means of acquiring them and that Saddam Hussein wanted nothing to do with al-Qaida (Saddam undoubtedly was more secular than George W. Bush is). Moreover, both Murray and Cantwell -- in particular Murray, who voted against the initial invasion -- have been antagonistic toward Bush's handling of the war. So why did they vote to continue it?

On her Web site, Murray says the bill in question "takes a step toward changing course in Iraq, forces the White House to acknowledge the will of the American people and the role of Congress, pressures Iraqis to stand up, and funds our troops." And, she points out, "the hard truth is that there are not enough Democrats to override a veto in the House or the Senate."

With all due respect -- I have voted for both senators -- Murray and Cantwell should be ashamed of themselves.

Despite Murray's claims, continuing to fund the war perpetuates the course in Iraq. It reassures the White House that it can ignore both the will of the American people and the role of Congress. It tells Iraqis the carnage will continue at least throughout the broiling summer. And does anyone honestly believe that if the funding were to suddenly stop, U.S. troops would remain in Iraq without food, without ammunition, without protection? Please.

That the lack of enough Democrats to override a veto was a reason for Democrats to vote for the bill points to one lamentable fact: Principle in the U.S. Senate is irrelevant.

If you can't vote your conscience on life-and-death issues, when can you vote it? Can any of you who cringe every time you hear about an American or Iraqi death there even imagine voting to continue this senseless war? What difference does it make that you don't have enough votes to override a veto? Where's the logic in voting for something you don't want because not enough people agree with you? What's to be gained?

How can we trust Murray or Cantwell anymore? Whom can we turn to if our allies vote against us? In Washington state, we're used to straighter talk and purer motives from our senators.

For years we have mollycoddled this evil, incompetent administration (and what a nasty combination that is). But sometimes, even politicians have to stop playing politics. Sometimes even politicians have to look themselves in the mirror and say, "What is right? What is just?"

It's an old political question: Do we elect people to represent our interests or to vote their conscience? In this case, we got neither.

Let Murray and Cantwell know how you feel. Maybe next time they'll stand up and be counted, rather than count and sit down. Maybe next time they'll do the right thing.