Connolly Opposed Iraq War "from the beginning?"

By: Lowell
Published On: 4/12/2008 5:08:36 PM

OK, I'm really confused here. Gerry Connolly just sent out a mailer claiming he "opposed George Bush's war in Iraq from the beginning."  

That's odd, because I searched on Lexis-Nexis and Factiva and found absolutely nothing from Connolly opposing the war. However, in searching around, what I did find was this list of cities and counties that passed resolutions against the war. Note that for Virginia, the only two jurisdictions passing such resolutions were Alexandria and Charlottesville. Yet, as you can see here from April 2003, there had been a campaign underway in Fairfax County to try to get such a resolution passed. Hmmm...Gerry Connolly was a powerful member of the Fairfax County board back then, soon to become supervisor, so what happened?  

UPDATE: Ben has another interesting angle on this flier here.

UPDATE #2: Here's Connolly from the March 2003 edition of "The Democrat" ("The Newsletter of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee").  Apparently, this was the only public comment Connolly made on the war before deciding he was running for Congress.

The 2003 election cycle, however, is overshadowed by the impending war in Iraq. Northern Virginia politics will not be unaffected by such a war. Men and women in our neighborhoods have been called up to active duty. Terrorist threats and planning for heightened terror alerts preoccupy our local media coverage. For the first time since World War II anti-aircraft batteries ring the Capitol in Washington and none of us knows whether an already fragile economy might not tip back into recession with a steeply declining stock market and sharp spikes in the price of oil. The war threatens to crowd out our ability to air and debate local and state issues such as tax restructuring, school funding and transportation that so desperately need to be aired and debated this Fall.

As Democrats, we know how important it is to allow a full discussion about the merits of war in the Persian Gulf region. We remember from the Vietnam era how critical it is to respect the right to dissent. We understand that while the nation needs to protect its homeland security, we cannot sacrifice our constitutional liberties in the process. Whatever our own views on the war, we share common Democratic values about our country and its role in the world. As our election season commences we will strive to remind our community of those values and carry them forward into the electoral battleground this Fall. Good luck to us all and Godspeed.



Comments



Honesty Preferred (Lee Diamond - 4/12/2008 7:09:17 PM)
Generally speaking, it is nice not to have lying, conniving, selfish jerks in "public  service."   This Do Anything Say Anything Friend of Tom Davis gives all politicians a bad name.  Does not have an honorable bone in his body.


He's the best supervisor candidate we've had in fairfax (fuzed - 4/12/2008 7:32:27 PM)
But yeah, he's been profiting by the war, and said nothing before that I can remember.  


Man Fairfax Sucks (Lee Diamond - 4/12/2008 11:35:23 PM)
If a creepy, selfish, money grubbing jerk is the best Fairfax can produce then I am glad that I moved.

However, certainly Dana Kauffman is an honest guy.  I take extreme offense to you saying Connolly is the best at anything except standing on our heads while he rakes in campaign dollars, climbs the ladder, etc.



Nothing but a Hater (The Economist - 4/13/2008 11:22:24 AM)
Lee, a few months ago you were talking about mediation and making peace with the world and each other.

What happened?  did you go off your meds?



That was uncalled for. (Lowell - 4/13/2008 11:24:05 AM)
I am not going to allow people to come on this blog and make comments like that about friends of mine.  Get lost, troll.


This election is Ben's to lose (True Blue - 4/13/2008 1:14:18 AM)
If Leslie doesn't get the nomination, it will be because of her connection to Ben Tribbett.  


That's silly (Ron1 - 4/13/2008 1:40:17 AM)
Unless he's actually on her campaign's payroll, why should Leslie Byrne be held liable for what someone that supports her says or does?

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments in politics -- that a candidate has to denounce the musings of someone that is not officially affiliated with the campaign in any formal way (see: Reverend Wright controversy).

I also find it frankly silly to decide which candidate to support primarily based upon which candidate's supporters are more or less obnoxious or rude, but everyone is entitled to decide whom to vote for (or not) in whatever way they see fit.

I support Leslie in this race, and have put a little money where my mouth is. But for me, as in the Presidential race, it's based primarily on the war -- which candidate is most likely to exert leverage to help us end this atrocious war. By signing on to the Responsible Plan, in my view, Leslie Byrne has proven that she is that candidate.

I will say, I used to enjoy the NLS blog, but I will not surf there (or MyDD) anymore because of the types of posts that have been written during the Presidential campaign. I always found the unnecessary personal attack and gossip rag mentality annoying, but it was balanced out by good local coverage of races. I'll miss the latter, but that's the way it goes.

I have no idea if Connolly is really ahead in this race, and I am not very plugged in to Fairfax County politics, but there are two months until the primary. I would hope people would decide to work for their candidate of choice instead of trying to destroy the other one, but that seems unlikely at this point. The primary should be used to see which candidate has better ideas to serve the interests of the citizens of CD-11 -- again, I think that person is Leslie Byrne, but it's imperative that Gerry Connolly be strictly vetted so that, in the event that he wins, his actions in office can be very clearly compared to his rhetoric from now until June.



Sorry, should have elaborated more (True Blue - 4/13/2008 9:43:18 AM)
How many enemies in the FCDC do you think Ben has?

I suspect that Ben's support for Leslie may have a negative effect among the local party folks.  If so, that's an advantage for Connolly when it comes to organizing.  I can't help but wonder if Ben's chickens are finally coming home to roost.

Hopefully this won't cost Leslie the nomination: I like her a lot.



By that reasoning... (Lowell - 4/13/2008 9:45:32 AM)
...Harris Miller should have won the Democratic nomination for US Senate in the spring of 2006.  Gerry Connolly and many of his allies on the FCDC at the time were supporting Miller, if you recall.  Ben was supporting Jim Webb, as was most of the blogosphere.


Ron1 (Flipper - 4/13/2008 2:04:50 AM)
In your last comment you said:

I will say, I used to enjoy the NLS blog, but I will not surf there (or MyDD) anymore because of the types of posts that have been written during the Presidential campaign. I always found the unnecessary personal attack and gossip rag mentality annoying, but it was balanced out by good local coverage of races. I'll miss the latter, but that's the way it goes.

And you are excatly right - look at the personal attack on Jerry Conolly by Ben that James Martin has posted at the top of Raising Kaine.  People are tired of this crap.

So if people want to not support Leslie due to her support by Ben, so be it.  If candidates start losing support due to their support of or their relationship with Ben, perhaps other candidates moving forward will distance themselves from him.  



Connolly Wants To Have It Both Ways (AnonymousIsAWoman - 4/13/2008 11:50:11 AM)
He's an over cautious professional pol who sticks his finger to the wind before making a statement.  His comments from 2003 show a politician basically saying nothing.

He might have been against the war at that time but you certainly couldn't get a sense of that from his public statements.  He seemed to simply be saying everybody is entitled to his own opinion.  And he seemed to be trying to shift the attention back to local problems.

If he just wants to stay a county supervisor - even the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, it's a fair position to take because local county boards can side step national issues and be parochial.  Maybe they shouldn't be, but they can be because they don't directly control national affairs any more than any other voter.

But congressmen and women do.

His statements back then honestly appear to be attempts to play it safe and offend nobody.

It's clear that Leslie was willing to take risks and stand on principle.  She's a rational person who weighed the personal costs and did the right thing anyway.  That's what makes her a true leader.



What he should simply say (Lowell - 4/13/2008 11:56:31 AM)
is that he supported the war then (or was neutral, or whatever), but now opposes it.  That's my problem with him here, claiming he opposed the war since the beginning without providing any evidence whatsoever that this is true.  At least those of us who DID support getting rid of Saddam -- and, I would point out, that includes many Senate Democrats, including Hillary Clinton -- will admit it, and also admit that we should never have trusted the Bush Administration as far we could throw them...


I agree (Ron1 - 4/13/2008 1:45:08 PM)
I've made this clear a few times, but I was also a proponent of invading Iraq in 2002/2003 -- I bought the 'moral' argument that we owed the Iraqi people for helping foist Saddam on them in the first place, and I bought the WMD and international law/legitimacy arguments.

But I think it's important now to learn from what happened and not just attribute the disaster that has followed to the (spectacular) incompetence of the Bush regime. This endeavor, because it was built on lies and mendacity, was destined to fail no matter who was running the show. The entire neo-con doctrine needs to be forcefully repudiated and never again undertaken. Absent an immediate and present danger that can only be defused by pre-emptive military action (i.e. to prevent a nuclear first strike), the US should NEVER again invade another country unilaterally, absent an explicit UN mandate and a true, broad international coalition like the conditions before the first Gulf War. Invading a country to change its regime is illegal under international law, and we have signed treaties that proclaim that we will not do so.

I feel that I failed in my duty as a citizen back in those 'heady' days following our 'success' in Afghanistan, failed to properly question my government in its intentions and capacity to undertake this type of action. Many current progressives saw the world quite more clearly and understood much more deeply what was going on than I did then. I hold such people in the highest regard, and feel that they should be rewarded. Just as with Jim Webb (and Barack obama), this is why Leslie Byrne deserves to be elected to Congress.  



I agree. (Lowell - 4/13/2008 1:49:48 PM)
I failed as well, should have listened to my wife who warned me repeatedly that the invasion would be a disaster. Smart woman, a lot smarter than I am, apparently! :)


If I understand correctly ... (Ron1 - 4/13/2008 1:56:39 PM)
according to all my married friends (and my Dad), this is how it always works -- the wife is always right!  


Yeah, well it took me a while (Lowell - 4/13/2008 2:01:05 PM)
to figure that one out. :)


Lowell, why would Gerry "simply say ... he supported the war"? You did, he didn't. (Tom Counts - 4/13/2008 5:36:56 PM)
I have a HUGE problem with your early-on support of the war, although even though there was never a legitimate reason to send American troops to die in a immoral war of choice you do have a right to your opinion. But until now I have had high respect for your opinions because I really believed they were, however biased (yes, I admit that my opinions are often biased too) they may have been.

But you and I know Gerry well enough to know that he never supported the war, and I have to say "unlike you", either publicly or privately. I have no idea why you and Ben have such a personal vendetta against Gerry, but that's not really my problem in this context. When I first met you, and many months afterwards, I believed you to be an honestly biased progressive who was still willing to look at and analyze opposing views reasonably objectively and counter their positions with factual/provable points. I am very saddened to read your most recent rantings not unlike Ben's too frequently irrational comments. If either of you had any "provable" evidence about charges against Gerry I am sure you would have offered that evidence long ago.

You know that I have and always will support you even when we are in strong disagreement, but not on points that are so personally charged that you drift from your core principles of fairness and objectivity. Please, please return to what I know is your true belief in fair and objective discourse.

One more point and I'll get off my soapbox (for now): I agree with your chastising Lee about his language with respect to comment about Gerry, and you certainly know that I also count him as a close friend. But in that context I believe that you should apply the same standards/rules to your own comments that you - correctly - apply to others. That is, keep your comments reasonably civil and whenever you have very negative comments please produce very specific facts to support whatever harsh and accusatory conclusions you choose to reach.

I implore all RK posters to re-direct all that energy - and anger - toward the real enemies and Turn Virginia Blue.

Closing on a more positive note: "Together We Can". We can and will take back our great Commonwealth and Country if we can work together to accomplish this one simple and essential objective.

                         T.C.



The whole point here is that Gerry (Lowell - 4/13/2008 5:47:23 PM)
is claiming he opposed the war from the beginning, yet there's no EVIDENCE that he did.  That's all I'm getting at here, I don't really care that much what someone's position was on the war, as there are people I respect greatly who supported the war (e.g., John Edwards, John Kerry) and people I respect greatly who opposed it (e.g., Jim Webb).  The issue here with regard to the 11th CD is honesty, plain and simple.  If Gerry Connolly really opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, he should be able to back that up.  All I've seen so far is people trying to change the subject.


If Connelly Said He Opposed The War (Flipper - 4/13/2008 7:13:19 PM)
Why is it that he needs to produce evidence that he did not, especially to you, a Byrne supporter?  Seeing that there is no written evidence that he supported or did not support the war one way of the other, you are going to have to take his word for it and move on.  If the issue, as you have said, is "honesty, plain and simple" perhaps he is being honest but you are just unwilling to accept that.  He was a local elected official with no intent of running for higher office as far as I can see at that point in time so it is not surprising that he made no public statements on the matter.  

Beisdes, knowing the political envirement in Virginia when the war start in 2002, many local elected officials chose not to take a stand on the war, especially if they were against the war.      



Well, that's up to the voters to judge (Lowell - 4/13/2008 7:19:26 PM)
Obviously, Connolly's statement in and of itself is sufficient for you.  It may or may not be for most voters.


That is true....... (Flipper - 4/13/2008 7:35:35 PM)
it may or may not be for most voters, they will have to decide.  But unless the Byrne campaign can come up with a document showing he did support the war, I think most voters will come down where I am and accept his word for it.  


As to a "personal vendetta" (Lowell - 4/13/2008 6:24:08 PM)
This is politics, it's not "personal" against Gerry Connolly.  The bottom line for me in this race is that Leslie Byrne is by far and away the more progressive candidate of the two.  Also, Leslie Byrne was there for Jim Webb when it mattered, and that means a lot to me.  In contrast, Gerry Connolly has opposed to just about every candidate I've supported the past couple of years.

*Connolly supported Harris Miller (the pro-war candidate, by the way) vs. Jim Webb (the anti-war candidate), then did essentially nothing to help Webb against George Allen.

*One of Connolly's henchmen ("Thomas Paine Patriot") came on this blog and on NLS and repeatedly attacked me in ways that are unacceptable.  Connolly never condemned that behavior and certainly never told the individual to stop doing it.  

*Connolly opposed Charlie Hall for supervisor, which is perfectly fine. But in doing so, he accused Hall of being a closet Republican, which he knew was false, simply because Hall had met with Rep. Tom Davis.  

*Speaking of Tom Davis, one of my problems with Connolly is how close he is to Tom Davis, having met with him a heck of a lot more times than Charlie Hall ever did.

*On a related note, what did Connolly do for Chap Petersen against Jeannemarie in 2007?  That's right, NOTHING.  And that really bothers me, as it should ALL Democrats.

*Also in 2007, Connolly had a huge warchest and a huge lead in the polls, yet he didn't spend a penny to help out in crucial races like Janet Oleszek vs. Ken Cuccinelli.  Now, we're faced with the prospect of Cooch as our Attorney General.  Great...

*In addition, I strongly disagree with Connolly on the Metro to Dulles project, particularly his insistence on moving ahead with the no-bid deal to Bechtel and the "aerial option" in Tysons Corner.  

*I have seen no action on the "Cool Counties" initiative that I had praised Connolly for signing a year ago.  What ever happened with that?

*I believe Connolly is far too close to developers and other big-money interests.  In general, I don't like his style of governance.

*In this campaign, his first mailer claimed that he had opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.  I asked for evidence to that effect and have received none.  

I could go on and on here, but the bottom line is that in this 11th CD primary contest, I strongly support Leslie Byrne over Gerry Connolly. This one pretty much falls into the "no brainer" category for me (and for most of the netroots, by the way, which Gerry disdains).



Amen (Ben - 4/13/2008 6:25:49 PM)
n/t


Yep. Connolly is (Eric - 4/13/2008 1:42:33 PM)
basically saying that some people will support the war and some won't and it will effect some people in Fairfax.  Wow, way to go out on a limb Gerry.  Coming soon - Gerry predicts that the sun will rise AND it will fall during a full day.  And when it does, expect a mailer claiming great leadership and vision.