There has been a misrepresentation, posted prominently on this site last week, that Congressman Joe Sestak (PA-7) has not agreed to support the Iraq supplemental funding bill being pushed by the House Democratic Leadership, supposedly because he opposed setting a "date certain" for withdrawal.

Four points, with the details below the flip:

1. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING could be further from the truth.
   
2. If you read the comments of the posts that furthered this misrepresentation, you will see that Sestak's standing has been damaged with some readers by this falsehood.
   
3. Readers interested in furthering the Democratic cause, or just ending the war in Iraq, might be concerned about how this fratricide came about - and how to keep our aim truer in the future.
   
4. And just so you don't miss it - Joe Sestak will be on Meet the Press on Sunday. If you care about his Iraq position, please watch and hear it from him directly.
   

The first post that I encountered that raised my eyebrows (and my hackles, since I know Joe Sestak), was made by Matt Stoller on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 04:41:20 PM EST, and he titled it "List of Blue Dog Saboteurs." Which list in the preface he describes as "here's a list of Blue Dogs that don't want to vote for this bill because it has a certain date for withdrawal."

Incredibly, Joe Sestak was included on that list.

First, Joe Sestak is not a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, and has not shown any signs of thinking or legislating like a Blue Dog - with the exception that he - gasp - is willing to talk to Republicans in our district.

Stoller corrected that appellation in an update, but left Sestak on the list as opposing the supplemental funding bill.

Second - and most importantly - Joe Sestak CAMPAIGNED on setting a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq. He probably mentioned it in every campaign statement he made in 2006! So to someone from around here, the notion that he would oppose the supplemental on the grounds that it sets a date certain is patently ridiculous - laughable, even, except for the damage it might do to his tough re-election bid in 2008. (Thanks, Matt.)

For those not from around here, just the fact that Sestak introduced his own bill on February 7, 2007:

"To enhance the national security interests of the United States both at home and abroad by setting a deliberate timetable for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq by December 31, 2007, and for other purposes,"

might suggest to one that even if Sestak is opposing the supplemental, his reason would NOT be the "date certain" - unless it is because that date is too far in the future.

More likely, a) he hadn't had a chance to read the supplemental bill yet, and b) he was still hoping to negotiate some points in the final bill, which clearly is not as aggressive on exiting Iraq as his own position. On either case, in this constituent's opinion it is perfectly respectable - in fact admirable - to defer announcing unqualified support for the bill. (Really - I thought we wanted our reps to read bills first? And what was that whole thing about removing the clause to prevent Bush from launching an attack on Iran? Unimportant to some here, I guess.)

Let's be clear on another point, too, in case it's escaped anyone: Sestak is NOT on the appropriations committee. He doesn't get a vote until the bill comes to the floor and is debated. Much can happen to it in the meantime.

As a constituent, campaign volunteer, and local Democratic Party volunteer juggling a few hats, I am MORE than happy with Sestak's position as of last week. I know the man and trust him to do the right thing. It's disgusting to me that the blogosphere would attack him without even considering the FACTS, or, apparently, how he is regarded in his own district.

So, let's take a look at how this occurred. In his post on the 14th, "List of Blue Dog Saboteurs", Stoller says he received his information "From a source close to the House Democratic caucus." Well, either his source a) isn't very close to that caucus, b) deliberately lied about Sestak, or c) didn't bother to check his own suppositions before passing them on to Stoller, who dutifully did not sanity check the list before posting it, with these denigrating words:

It's sad to see some freshmen we supported on the list.  Joe Sestak, Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Arcuri had some online support from the progressive netroots.

Oh, yeah? Joe Sestak is a GREAT representative, who has authored one of, if not the most aggressive proposal for getting out of Iraq - yet Stoller comments that it is "sad" that the netroots supported Sestak??? Based on an unverified report from a single, unidentified source - which turns out to be FALSE!

Stoller later posted an "update" on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 05:59:28 PM EST (Iraq: Democrats Moving in the Right Direction), which he subsequently updated with this statement from Sestak,

"Although I am disappointed there is not one fixed date certain by the end of the year to redeploy out of Iraq, as my legislation proposes, in order to permit a change in strategy to where the Iraqis as well as Iranians and Syrians have an incentive to work for stablity, I am pleased we are moving in the right direction for an end date to this War, so we can enhance our security around the world."

This quote mentions Sestak's own bill, but Stoller somehow took from that, "He sounds more liberal than Blue Dog here, but he's still equivocating." As I posted in that thread - EQUIVOCATING? Sestak has been very clear from the beginning of his campaign, where he stands on the Iraq war and getting our troops out of that quagmire. It's obvious to anyone who has paid attention, that Sestak will support the supplemental if he can in good conscience - which will depend on what is in it, but it won't be a "date certain" that prevents him from supporting it.

Well I am sorry that this has turned out to be a longer post than I intended, and probably not as well organized as it should be. I already had a full plate this weekend but could not let this issue go unaddressed.

Now I turn to the readership of this blog: what do you think about the use of single, unverified, "inside sources", without confirmation of the facts, that take our representatives to task? Should we as readers just be more careful of what we see posted here, or should the posters be more careful of their "sources"? Or both?

And please, please note: I mean this in a general sense. This is a challenge to the inaccuracy of a particular post, and the causes for it - not on the author. I have had strong differences with Matt Stoller before, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. Please think about this situation in the general sense - but of course, if Stoller's posts had hurt your opinion of Joe Sestak, please revisit your assessment with this new information.

And finally, please don't miss Joe on Meet the Press on Sunday. From an email I received:

NBC is planning on devoting the entire show to the 4th Anniversary of the Iraq War, and has asked Joe to share his perspective and insight.

Joe will be the only sitting Member of Congress on the panel.  Other panel members will be:  Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas); Former Representative Tom Andrews (D- Maine) who is now National Director of Win Without War; and Richard Perle of the American Enterprise Institute.

And from an article in the Delco Times today, which I just saw, and updates Joe's position explicitly on the supplemental, or at least the "date certain" part of it:

As the Iraq war enters its fifth year, the House's highest-ranking former military officer, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, will appear this weekend on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert to discuss America's future involvement in the country.

Sestak, whose 31-year Navy career has earned him a leadership role in shaping the Democrats' war policy, has introduced legislation that would redeploy almost all 142,000 U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

The House is expected to debate a $124-million spending bill next week that would tie the troop withdrawal to the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks set forth in January by President Bush.

If those goals aren't met, the troops could be pulled out of the war-torn nation by as early as Dec. 31, 2007. Even if the Iraqi government meets some or all of the benchmarks, the bill calls for redeploying the troops by August 2008 at the latest, said Sestak, D-7, of Edgmont.

"This is acceptable because it has a date certain," said Sestak, who called the bill a "good step toward an exit strategy."

Listen to what Joe says. Read the bill he submitted. Talk to those of us who live in this district and had to deal with "Crazy Curt" as our so-called representative until Admiral Joe Sestak came along.

Then decide if you are "sad" that the netroots supported Joe Sestak in 2006.