In Daniel Millstone's excellent piece on the Iraq War positions of NY-13 Democratic primary contender Michael McMahon, the latter, a sitting member of the City Council, is quoted as saying this:

With regard to various city council resolutions on the War, I do not believe that the City Council, which has some very difficult issues to face, is best prepared to spend its time working on these issues. In my time in the Council, I have worked very hard on issues that affect the working men and women of my district and the City.

Now, one might argue that the Iraq War does indeed directly affect a district with 45,046 civilian veterans in the last census. One might further argue that the cost of the Iraq War in the Thirteenth District, $1.8B to date, with $462.7M online for FY 2008 and FY 2009 also coming from the district, is indeed a matter of interest.

Of course, as McMahon implies, resolutions by the City Council, even if passed by the bushel, do not in and of themselves carry much weight in the national legislature except as a debatably effective tool of persuasion. That would be an entirely fair point to make. However, a quick review of McMahon's record reveals that he has indeed sponsored and voted for such appellative resolutions, including some that should make Democrats cringe.

For example, McMahon sponsored Res. 1086-2005, which calls for the Congress to pass a constitutional amendment criminalizing flag-burning.

He also sponsored Res 0769-2003, which expresses

[...]the unwavering support of the Council of the City of New York for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces serving in the current war against Iraq; and further honoring and recognizing, with deepest appreciation, the commitment, service and valor of our military personnel, and together with their families, fervently hoping for their safe return.

He voted against Res 0549-2002, which "Oppose[s] the Congressional Resolution allowing President George W. Bush to unilaterally declare war against Iraq", one of seventeen Council members to vote no.

Very commendably, he sponsored a resolution, Res. 0835-2005,

calling upon the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate to enact legislation increasing the amount of the “military death gratuity” from approximately $12,000 to $100,000, and urging the President of the United States to sign such legislation into law.

...which unfortunately is worth all of a bucket of warm spit in effecting a Congressional Act. That, of course, was McMahon's stated reasoning for not voting for various resolutions calling for an end to the war.

There's a picture that emerges here, and it's really quite clear: if Mike McMahon is truly opposed to resolutions that express the opinion of the council on matters beyond its immediate purview, then that opposition is selective at best, given that he's sponsored several such resolutions and voted for, or against, others. One can be of divided mind about the merits of these resolutions, as the council's own record of burying them in committee itself shows.

But if McMahon has the time to sponsor a resolution banning flag-burning, he also has the time to vote Yea on resolutions calling for an end to the war. That he hasn't done so indicates that he's, at best, ambivalent about the foreign-policy disaster that is the War in Iraq.