Byron Dorgan Removes Nearly All Mention Of Iraq From His Website
I was poking around on North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan’s official website recently and noticed something odd: In his “issues” section there’s no mention of Iraq. In fact, combing through the issues and news areas, I couldn’t fine one single mention of Iraq anywhere on Dorgan’s site except for links to two brief releases.
This seems a bit odd given how the war in Iraq has dominated this nation’s politics for the last several years. What’s particularly interesting, however, is not so much what Dorgan doesn’t have about Iraq on his website but the Iraq-related content he’s taken down. For instance, check out this 1998 editorial that is no longer on Dorgan’s website but it still available to us via the archive of that site provided by Archive.org.
In it, Dorgan rails against Saddam Hussein calling him a war criminal and saying that he should be convicted as such by a UN-convened court. He notes Saddam’s war against Iran, invasion of Kuwait and “ethnic cleansing” operations within Iraq’s borders are reasons why he should put on trial.
As a staunch supporter of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, I applaud this op/ed from my Senator. But now that the Iraq war has become a partisan “beach ball” in Congress with many in Dorgan’s own party calling the war illegal, and accusing our President of being a war criminal himself for taking Saddam out, I wonder why Dorgan has sent this op/ed down the “memory hole” by removing it from his Congressional website where it was once posted. I also wonder why Dorgan has removed nearly all reference from the Iraq issues from his website.
What is he afraid of? Clearly he once held strong passionate opinions about Iraq. Has he been cowed by his fellow liberals to the point where he now feels like he must hide from the issue? Does he not feel like he should stand up on this issue and support the war he voted to authorize? The war a majority of his constituents support as well?
Or is his allegiance to his political party more important?



