Another writer on Blue Mass Group highlighted Ed Markey’s swift and clear condemnation of Trump’s apparently thoughtless and dangerous escalation in Iran, when he unilaterally ordered the killing of Qasem Soleimani. I agree with Senator Markey’s remarks that the move was “a massive…dangerous escalation,” and that it puts US service members and civilians in the region at risk. I also agree with the many other Democrats in and out of Massachusetts, who similarly condemned this escalation. This includes Joe Kennedy’s immediate response, posted on twitter, “We shouldn’t have gone to war with Iraq then. We shouldn’t go to war with Iran now.”
I understand that Congressman Kennedy (for whom I volunteer) didn’t have to make a decision about the Iraq war in real time. (At the time, he was a year away from graduating college, after which he joined the Peace Corps.) But many, many Congressional Democrats did have to make a decision in real time. In my opinion, the majority of them made a better decision that Senator Markey, when they voted against it.
While a little over 96% of House Republicans voted in favor of the 2002 US invasion of Iraq, less than 40% of House Democrats supported it. In 2002, then-Congressman Ed Markey was one of 82 Democratic Representations who voted for the resolution (126 of his Democratic colleagues voted against it.)
In part because of this atypical vote, during the 2013 special election that made him a Senator, Ed Markey got a fair amount of negative attention for his support of the Iraq invasion. At that time, Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and Coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies, described Senator Markey’s foreign policy record as “…well to the right of the majority of Democrats, both in Massachusetts and nationally.” Professor Zunes also noted that in addition to being “among the right-wing minority of Democratic members of the House of Representatives…” who supported the US invasion of Iraq, that as of 2013, “[Ed Markey’s] belief in the legitimacy of the United States waging war against oil-rich Middle Eastern adversaries has not changed…”
It’s a concerning legacy for a progressive Democrat from Massachusetts.
Worth reading on the topic:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ed-markey-foreign-policy_b_3432160
Christopher says
I’m reminded of a line from The West Wing when Sam says to CJ, “Let’s leave aside the fact that you’re a little late to the party and celebrate that you arrived at all.” That’s the attitude I have toward a 17-year-old vote.
bob-gardner says
So you don’t care about Markey’s experience?
Christopher says
I do, and he certainly has experience worthy of re-election. Experience also means coming to better judgement the next time around.
bob-gardner says
As long we are sticking to the present, did either of these two candidates vote for the most recent defense authorization? That bill specifically authorized Trump to attack Iran. That was about two weeks ago.
Also, has either of these two candidates endorsed, or cosponsored HR2407, which would prohibit military aide to countries which imprison children?
doubleman says
Both opposed it. Markey was one of 8 Senators to vote against (Prez candidates voted against or didn’t vote). Great vote, especially as we can see now.
Kennedy was one of 48 to vote no on the reconsideration in the House. Great vote. It’s a shame the party can’t get its act together on things like this.
Both were also in the stark minorities opposing the previous NDAA (10 NOs in the Senate, 54 in the House).
Kennedy has not cosponsoed HR2407. Looks like only Pressley from the MA delegation has. I don’t know of an equivalent Senate bill.
Christopher says
My understanding is that there was no specific authorization, but a provision specifically prohibiting was stripped from the conference report.
jconway says
Correct. That is different from authorizing an attack. Trump still has to follow the War Powers Act and come back to Congress and Sen. Kaine and Speaker Pelosi are advancing resolutions to prevent him from pursuing further direct military action against Iran without coming back to Congress.
doubleman says
What’s the consequence if he doesn’t follow? Impeachment #2?
BKay says
Yes — According to the Hill (https://thehill.com/policy/defense/476979-rep-joe-kennedy-presses-for-immediate-war-authorization-repeal-vote-following), Speaker Pelosi has said that the House will vote on a “War Powers Resolution” mandating “that the administration’s miliatry hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days if no further congressional action is taken.”
That same article describes Congressman Kennedy’s support for the Speaker’s action on this, and also reports that Congressman Kennedy sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi further advocating for “an immediate debate and vote to repeal both the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs [authorizations for use of military force] which have long outlived their original intent and facilitated endless war across the region.”
More information on Congressman Kennedy’s leadership on this in the full article (link above).
bob-gardner says
I thought you were a teacher. You should know how double negatives work.
Christopher says
In grammar, not in politics!
jconway says
That is not what that bill did. This is a good breakdown of the reasons why this particular criticism is unfounded. I am fine with voting against the NDAA for other reasons, but it is dishonest to argue it gave Trump a blank check to attack Iran.
Ann says
It’s important to put Markey’s voting history into context. Back in 2002, he was only one of three MA House Members to vote yay on invading Iraq. The majority of MA Congressional Representatives (Seven) voted nay at the time. I’m interested in hearing how Markey explains the difference in his choices from then to now.
I agree with his current opinion and commend him for it, but the discrepancy is notable.
Christopher says
I can easily see different circumstances and set of facts leading to different votes.
jconway says
The facts were pretty plain as day that there was no reason to invade Iraq. From Brent Scowcroft to Scott Ritter, the actual experts who warned about the attack were sidelined or outed by the Bush administration. Bob Shrum is on record advising John Edwards to vote against his better judgment for the war since it was politically popular at the time. He later advised John Kerry to make the same mistake.
It is likely Markey, hoping to run statewide, made what was then considered the safe choice rather than the more ‘radical’ choice of following the facts and opposing the war. Bob Graham, no one’s idea of a raving liberal, was able to look at the intelligence and realize the case was weak. Max Cleland, who wanted to do the same thing, vote for it and was still shamefully compared to terrorists by his opponent and still lost. Paul Wellstone was willing to lose his seat rather than vote for a war he did not believe in. Markey could have shown better judgment and political courage at that time, and he did not. If he is going to say his three decades of experience justifies his re-election, voters should include his most consequential vote in their judgment. Ted Kennedy voted against it.
Ann says
Agreed. If Markey’s length of experience is a selling point to some people, then what he actually *did* during that time counts. Markey’s past votes matter as they help us see his beliefs, values, and priorities in action. The majority of the MA delegation did not make the mistake of voting for war in 2002.
Christopher says
So when will it be time to move on, when the only thing anyone can do to make up for a previous bad vote is to vote better when a similar opportunity presents itself? Markey does not have a time machine.
BKay says
I don’t think it’s about moving on or not. I think it’s about owning the totality of your history — the successes and the mistakes. I’d argue we all need to acknowledge both sides of our choices.
Christopher says
He’s not denying he voted the way he did, right?
jconway says
He’s taking credit for opposing the next war that would never have occurred has he voted against the last one.
Christopher says
I’m not at all convinced of the connection there. Some have been saber-rattling against Iran since the hostage crisis. Trump upending the nuclear deal brokered by Obama easily could have happened absent our 2002 invasion of Iraq.
jconway says
Iran did not seek a nuclear weapon until after the US invaded and occupied both of Its neighbors and called it part of the Axis of Evil. A region where Saddam is still in power is a far more safe and stable one for American interest, whether we like to admit it or not. He would have kept the Iranian nuclear program in check just as Israel kept his and Syria’s in check. There was a careful balance of power that unnecessary war permanently shattered leading to far more dead Iraqis, Arabs, Kurds, Shia, and Americans than not going to war at all.
Christopher says
I think Iraq was wrong war at the wrong time, but I can’t agree with your suggestion that keeping Saddam would have been good. I’m among those who wishes the Bush 41 coalition had kept pushing into Baghdad and deposed him the first time around. I thought Iran had been seeking a nuclear weapon for as long as I can remember.
jconway says
Re: Iran Nuclear Program
Their compliance with the NPT was not an issue until after the 2003 invasion. They explicitly sought nuclear weapons as a deterrence against an American invasion. They never credibly sought them before.
Bush 41’s decision not to go to Baghdad was vindicated by 43’s quagmire. Bush 41’s own Secretary of Defense essentially predicted almost blow for blow what would unfold if we had gone all the way to Baghdad in 91. Everything he warned about came true in the second Iraq war. . It’s too bad that Dick Cheney would later change his mind.
jconway says
Most historians now would argue that the mistakes Bush 43 made in going to Baghdad vindicate Bush 41’s decision to hold the line after liberating Kuwait (an operation I would have supported btw). Bush 41’s own Secretary of Defense gave a prescient warning in a 1994 interview about everything that would happen, right down to the US being in the middle of a sectarian war, Iran rising at our expense in the region, and the removal of a buffer. Ironically, Dick Cheney was right in 1994 and wrong ten years later. Ed Markey was wrong to listen to him. He owns that vote, as do his supporters who cite his experience as a justification for supporting him over Kennedy and Liss-Pearson who did not.
The timetable on Iran is also incorrect, they only violated the NPT after the US led invasion of Iraq. I agree the JCPOA was working and Donald Trump’s arrogant decision to withdraw from it has brought us to this point. A war to disarm Iran would be exponentially more harmful than the war to disarm Iraq.
Christopher says
Are you referring to Liss-RIORDAN, the other Senate candidate? It’s easy to say now how you might have felt then, but as neither were in a position to vote on it back then I really don’t care what their views are. Remember, when I say experience I mean resume, not whether I agree with this vote or that vote. Experience sometimes means learning from mistakes and that’s a good thing.
BTW, remember when Ted Kennedy voted against the AUMF, which you and others cite as evidence that others had this figured out and are therefore somehow intellectually and morally superior? Turns out I just finished his biography The Last Lion, which mentions that Ted supported the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. He later regretted it and this weighed on him when voting on the 2002 AUMF. Therefore he also learned from his mistakes, the opportunity for which came from years of experience. If he were still alive and seeking Senate re-election would you hold Gulf of Tonkin against him?
jconway says
Very odd logic.
You cannot make this argument and then also insist that Markey’s votes and views are somehow irrelevant too. Either he has a resume, in which case is war vote is relevant, or that vote is irrelevant, in which case his resume is irrelevant. He is not allowed to cherry pick his record, we have to evaluate it warts and all.
Yet you would not vote for a more resumed Republican. You did not vote for the more experienced 41 or Dole over Bill Clinton, You did not vote for the more experienced McCain over Obama. You are a Democrat for a reason, and that is because you adhere to a set of values you find important. I think that values trump experience when it comes to questions of war and peace. I voted for the anti-war Obama over the pro-war McCain and pro-war Hillary. I do not regret that vote.
I do not hold his vote for Tonkin against him, since it happened before the Pentagon Papers were released and Americans could know that administrations would lie about issues of this magnitude and manipulate or suppress data to justify preordained conclusions. Ted gets a pass, boomers who should have known better do not.
Christopher says
I assumed it went without saying that I go with the most experienced Democrat. Once we bring Republicans into the equation we are talking about diametrically opposed ideologies, one of which I find increasingly scary and destructive. When we are only talking about Dems I rarely see enough issue-based daylight among them to matter, with the possible exception of a real DINO which nobody in this race is.
jconway says
Re: Iran Nuclear Program
Iranian compliance with the NPT was not an issue until after the 2003 invasion. They explicitly sought nuclear weapons as a deterrence against an American invasion. They never credibly sought them before.
Bush 41’s decision not to go to Baghdad was vindicated by 43’s quagmire. Bush 41’s own Secretary of Defense essentially predicted almost blow for blow what would unfold if we had gone all the way to Baghdad in 91. Everything he warned about came true in the second Iraq war. . It’s too bad that Richard B. Cheney would later change his mind.
jconway says
I said he’s learned from his mistakes, you were the one pushing back on the idea his original mistake mattered.
Christopher says
I don’t think it matters anymore – that’s my whole point.
jconway says
We simply disagree on that.
Christopher says
My feeling is after several cycles the statute of limitations simply runs out. Following the AUMF vote Markey was re-elected in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012; then elected to the Senate in 2013 and 2014. His constituents had several opportunities to register their displeasure and they haven’t so now by reaction is, “Objection, Your Honor – asked and answered!”
jconway says
That’s hardly valid evidence. He ran against fellow war supporters in his 2014 Senate run and it’s hardly like those other elections were truly competitive. This is actually our first opportunity where we have two choices who opposed the war to choose from instead of Ed Markey.
Christopher says
Too late. If there were a market for an anti-war candidate earlier surely one would have emerged. Kennedy wasn’t even in Congress in 2002 so there’s really nothing to compare anyway.
jconway says
Markey has generated two credible challengers now. That we are even discussing this vote now is precisely because of this primary, so your argument makes little sense. .Voters finally have an opportunity to punish him for this mistake.
SomervilleTom says
@Voters finally have an opportunity to punish him for this mistake:
This is the essence of what separates you and me in this race.
In my view, choosing the person most able to face and accomplish the issues and challenges of the next six years is FAR more important than finally punishing somebody for a mistake made nearly two decades ago.
I think Ed Markey, as imperfect as his history is, is FAR more able to do what needs to be done beginning in January of 2021 than Joe Kennedy III.
jconway says
The stakes couldn’t be lower in this race which is why both campaigns and their advocates are exaggerating and distorting the differences. It’s laughable to see committed socialists on twitter follow their heroine AOC in backing a neoliberal on trade and the Iraq War because he happened to co-sponsor her bill on climate change that has no chance of becoming law. It’s a little cult like.
Conversely, Kennedy is running a Seinfeld esque campaign about nothing, other than his focus on immigration justice, I don’t see anything new he is really bringing to the table. He has not laid out the economic agenda he once proposed in the Prospect that would be very powerful and he ducked his first debate.
Shannon Liss Riordon has the most Warren-esque background as a political outsider who used what capital she had to found a cooperative business and advocate for labor. I’m interested to hear more from her. If this were a ranked choice election as it should be, we would not need to bash one another to make an informed choice.
SomervilleTom says
Ranked choice voting will apparently be on the ballot this fall.
I don’t intend to bash you at all, I just disagree with you about this primary.
Christopher says
It will be on the ballot in November, but will not actually apply to any voting this year.
Christopher says
I know this thread is getting a little stale, but todays PoliticoMA email included a comment by Markey that I thought was relevant:
SomervilleTom says
It’s too bad that JKIII wasn’t in Congress in 2006 when the Democrats regained the majority after the 2003 invasion.
I remember that under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, that leadership explicitly chose to NOT investigate or otherwise pursue anybody in the administration of George W. Bush for war crimes, even though compelling evidence had been widely published showing that they happened and were ordered at least from Richard Cheney and likely even the Oval Office.
I don’t remember the posture of Ed Markey or the rest of the Massachusetts delegation. I know that Barney Frank (who was my representative at the time) reversed his promises during the campaign and joined with Ms. Pelosi in saying that America needed to “move on”.
Just as with the abuses of the current administration, when such abuses occur and Congress refuses to do anything about them, they become part of normal and accepted practice for future administrations.
America did absolutely NOTHING about the following flagrantly illegal acts of presidential administrations:
– Tonkin Gulf resolution and subsequent escalation of a war in Indonesia
– Widespread bombing of Cambodia and Laos
– Selling arms to an officially-designated terrorist nation
– Supporting and conducting a war in Central America after that war had been explicitly declared illegal by Congress
– Formal and explicit policies of kidnapping, abuse, torture, and murder
As much as I would like to see Donald Trump, his entire cabinet, and most of his administration prosecuted for a long list of similar crimes, the fact that he above abuses were ignored makes such prosecution much less likely to be undertaken and much less likely to succeed if initiated.
We are reaping the harvest we have sown since the 1960s.
jconway says
It’s ridiculous Congress has absconded so much of its authority. It’s why I find the “I regret being lied to” line to be so stale. The experts could see through the lack of necessity for action and the overly optimistic picture of victory. I know Markey will not make the same mistake twice, neither will his opponents.