Oh Sweet Gods Of Irony

I've been waiting, rather patiently in fact, to see if anyone would notice something peculiar in Jeff Krauss' refusal to sign the Bozeman Anti- Iraqi-War proposal.  It's rather telling that no one, 'til now, has.  Let's go to the tape:

Bozeman Mayor Jeff Krauss said Wednesday that he would not sign the resolution because he did not agree with it, making it one of the rare occasions when he has declined to sign a resolution the commission has voted to support.

"This is one I feel like taking a stand on," Krauss said.

Fair enough, except ...

Krauss said he opposed the resolution for two reasons: he considered it inappropriate for the city to be discussing a federal issue; and U.S. troops' perseverance in Iraq is saving lives.

Wait, what?  He's refusing to sign because it's inappropriate for local politicians to discuss but his refusal is based (in part) on the belief that what we're doing is for the best and he takes a stand to defend that?  (Just for the dim among you {Hi Dave} he is a local politician  refusing to sign as a message about how he won't support the wrong message.)

Imagine my head spinning in Exorcist-like fashion.

Jeff, I like you, and agree with one of your points.  More to the facts, I agree that nothing done at the local level ... any local level ... will change the hard-headed-hearted policy of the Commander in Chimp.  But, Dude, even you've gotta see how silly the irony of your stand looks at this point.

Comments

[jeff]

I don't see the fatal flaw you see. It looks weird in the Chronicle's shorthand summary, but it's easier to say this way. "I disagreed and refused to sign as a matter of conscience." Let those who are proud to sign it, sign it. That's really only one reason, wulfgar. My reasons of conscience are my own.

Read my speech on Missoulapolis instead of relying on the Chronicle's shorthand, and you may see the same contradiction, or you may see how I tried to answer the Jimmy Cliff (Viet Nam, Viet Nam, Viet Nam, Viet Nam) negativity, as well as give my reasons for voting no. However, that wasn't a discussion for not signing. That was a discussion about what was happening that night, the public input and the vote on the resolution.

I did have a second reason for not signing, however. I also don't think the action taken was legal, occuring after the rules of procedure end the meeting at ten pm. I saw my signature as ratifying an action I didn't think was legally taken. I'm not making a case of it. I won't ask the new commission to ratify, for example or ask the city attorney for an opinion. I don't want to waste any more city time on it.

But I don't want my name on the resolution.

Does sending out the petition with a notation that the Mayor refused to sign damage it's message? The delegation does know me, so maybe. I hope they do think enough of me to wonder why. But I didn't know there would be such a notation when I told the clerk, "get the others who would be proud to sign it, to sign it".

[colby natale]

Rob, didn't you read the last paragraph in my post at Netroots?

If Krauss really thinks that a city government has no place in federal issues, then how does a Mayor have authority to speak to the effectiveness of U.S. troops in Iraq?

I did catch the irony, perhaps I just didn't elaborate enough...