Then and now: feelings about war

Colorado lawmakers - for the most part - stay the course on Iraq

M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News

Published December 5, 2005 at midnight

Text size

More Local News

WASHINGTON - If he could go back in time, knowing what he knows now, Rep. Tom Tancredo might have voted against the war in Iraq.

"I tell you, there have been many nights I laid awake thinking about that," Tancredo, R-Littleton, said last week, pondering his vote on a war powers resolution that began the march to battle.

Fear of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs weighed heavily on Tancredo and the five other Colorado Republicans who voted in October 2002 to give President Bush the authority to confront Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

It was a key reason - but hardly the only one - they and two Republican colleagues who joined the Congress in 2003 supported the Iraq invasion in March of that year.

Since then, the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has come up dry. More than 2,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. And members of Congress are currently involved in a fierce, partisan debate about what should happen next.

As the debate rages, the Rocky Mountain News asked the nine current and three former members of the Colorado congressional delegation to reflect on their statements leading up to the war, share the lessons learned and discuss the path forward.

With the exception of Tancredo, all stand by their decisions leading up to the invasion.

Nearly three years later, some of the so-called "hawks" said there were questions they wished they had asked, angles war planners should have considered and lessons that must be learned.

Meanwhile, the two Democrats who fiercely opposed the war - Reps. Diana DeGette, of Denver, and Mark Udall, of Eldorado Springs - join with their Republican colleagues in saying now is not the time for an immediate troop withdrawal.

"The whole issue of going to war . . . is a moral issue," DeGette said. "Do we just pull out now and leave the Iraqis to anarchy? Or do we try to stabilize that country and leave in an orderly manner?"

Here's what the lawmakers said in the past and are saying now about the war:

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Loveland, supported Iraq invasion

• Allard in late 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein is real and is growing . . . Iraq continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction and is attempting to acquire a nuclear capability. According to recent reports, it is estimated that if Iraq were to obtain fissile material, then Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months."

• Allard now: "That's all true . . . You notice the (2002) statement doesn't say that he has weapons of mass destruction, but that . . . we believed he was in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction. And I think that's true. He just wasn't far enough along where we could find anything."

• Lessons: Allard said he stands by his decision. "I do, because we held our losses to a minimum. I think it was a very successful operation going into Iraq the second time, and the fact that we're staying there is going to finish off that success. If we withdraw prematurely, it's all going to turn into failure. The terrorists will claim a victory, and it will lead to greater instability in the Middle East and a greater threat to the United States."

Former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Ignacio, supported Iraq invasion, with reservations

• Campbell in late 2002: "If we have to go it alone . . . it's not going to be done with B-2s and stealth bombers and so on. There has got to be a lot of ground forces, and I just don't think the American public is ready to see body bags come back - because they're going to."

• Campbell now: "We're getting body bags and that's what's generating more opposition to the war . . . I probably would have voted the same way, except I personally might have asked more questions about the long-range picture of what the goals were going in there. We all were duped by what seemed to be the most authentic intelligence available."

• Lessons: Campbell said he could have asked "for much more verifiable proof" of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and "a much clearer strategy of how we would extricate ourselves" from the occupation after combat.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Littleton, supported Iraq invasion, with reservations

• Tancredo in late 2002: "I am extremely concerned about it. There are several reasons. One has to do with our security as a result of having porous borders and what a war with Iraq would do to that whole situation. It would ratchet up the level of danger to the United States dramatically. There are all kinds of worries I have about civil liberties . . . That said, I think that if Iraq does have access to nuclear material, we have no choice."

• Tancredo now: "Given the fact that these (weapons of mass destruction) have not been found and perhaps were not there, we all wonder what we would have done in those circumstances had we known that. If I knew that was not the threat that had been posed to us . . . I think I would have voted no. I do not know right now that that (no vote) would have been the right vote because this thing hasn't played out."

• Lessons: "I tell you, there have been many nights I laid awake thinking about that. It's one of the reasons I had to go to Iraq (this year). If nothing else, it's in my own conscience. I voted to send them. They deserve to at least have me go see with my own eyes the consequences of my own actions, the vote. And there were bright spots and dark ones."

Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colorado Springs, supported Iraq invasion

• Hefley in late 2002: "You know the guy's a bad guy. We've had hearing after hearing . . . Bit by bit, I've become convinced that this guy, not only does he have bad stuff, but he has intent to use it. I hope we don't go to war, but this guy does need to be disarmed of these weapons of mass destruction."

• Hefley now: "Operating on the best evidence we had at that time, I think I'd say exactly the same thing today . . . Every intelligence agent in the world, I think, said they are there. We had evidence that he used them (in the past). The idea that the president lied about them to get us into the war, I think, is absolute nonsense."

• Lessons: "I feel bad that the troops, while we thought we were providing what they needed, we underestimated what they'd need in terms of body armor and up-armored vehicles."

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, opposed Iraq invasion

• DeGette in late 2002: "The president has failed to present clear and convincing evidence to Congress . . . No one I know has been given information that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States . . . We've (been) given no evidence that the Iraqi military has grown stronger since 1991. We've been given no evidence that Iraq intends to cross its borders. And we've been given no evidence that Iraq is close to acquiring nuclear weapons - merely that it would like to."

• DeGette now: "History has proven that statement completely accurate. I only wish all the members of Congress had looked at the administration's rationale for going to war - we might not be in this mess right now . . . I think some Democrats relied on the president and his administration's assurances that they had the evidence. One would think that when you're talking about going to war and putting the lives of young Americans on the line, you'd be damned sure what you were doing."

• Lessons: "What I've learned is that a war powers resolution is the most serious resolution Congress can consider because it puts our young men and women into harm's way, and it also affects sovereignty of other nations. I'd hope the lesson we learn about this is, Congress truly needs to exercise its independent judgment."

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, supported Iraq invasion

• Musgrave, as a candidate for Congress, in late 2002: "Saddam Hussein has systematically violated the U.N. resolutions with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He's buying time to build up his chemical, biological and nuclear capability. We know he's a danger to the entire world."

• Musgrave now: "I don't have any second thoughts . . . I think we're doing the right thing. I think most people that consider a monumental task such as what we're in now know it will take a long time. It's not without sacrifice. It's an arduous task."

• Lessons: "It would be good if the many reasons were out there, instead of just the discussion of weapons of mass destruction . . . Now is not the time to cower. Now is not the time to apologize for going after terrorists and trying to establish stability in the region."

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, opposed Iraq invasion

• Udall in late 2002: "Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. We learned in Vietnam you have to have a core goal and you have to know what you're trying to accomplish. I think we have a clear initial goal to ensure Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. A goal that's just (as) important: What do we do if Saddam Hussein is overthrown? The administration needs to do more to explain how do they plan to insert democratic institutions into Iraq? How long will it take? Are we committed to the five, 10 years many people think will be involved?"

• Udall now: "I wouldn't change anything in that statement."

• Lessons: "I haven't looked backwards that way. We're in a pickle here. We've got a series of bad choices . . . I think the best of the bad choices is to see our way clear to the goals, the initiatives we've put in place over this next year about infrastructure, training Iraqi forces and supporting this (new Iraqi) government."

Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Arvada, supported Iraq invasion

• Beauprez, as a new congressman, in early 2003: "It's a very real possibility that some crazed tyrant like Saddam Hussein, especially with biological weapons, could within hours seize control of so much of that part of the world, and thus cripple a great deal of the world's economy. Some will say it's all about oil, but crippling our economy does cripple our freedoms and thus our lifestyles, and that would be tragic."

• Beauprez now: "I think what we very much learned from 9/11 - and I believe the evidence is still overwhelmingly compelling - (was that) with this kind of an enemy, you don't wait until after they've struck. The 'weapon of mass destruction' is now on trial in Iraq. It was Saddam Hussein. It was the network he supported, the network he gave safe harbor to in Iraq."

• Lessons: Beauprez said President Bush could have explained the purpose and objectives of the Iraq war better. "In hindsight, maybe he could have explained it better then. He certainly could have explained it better since then . . . The most significant lesson is we created a massive amount of vulnerability by dismantling our intelligence system. The real lesson is we really have to have extremely good intelligence. That means boots on the ground."

Former Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Grand Junction, supported Iraq invasion

• McInnis in late 2002, comparing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to suspects he once faced as a cop: "There is a gun pointed right at us, and I'm going to do something about it . . . The suspect I'm approaching, I know he has killed people. I know he has a lethal weapon. He has his hand in his pocket. How long do we wait?"

• McInnis now: "It's like when I was a police officer: You always lived in fear of showing up at a scene (and meeting) somebody pointing a gun at you, somebody who had had a record, somebody who had sworn they were going to kill the first cop they ran into. And you show up at the scene, and they pull out the weapon (and) they aim it at you. You shoot them first, and then you find out there are no bullets in his gun. There are always those people who show up on the sidelines and say . . . you should have known this gun was unloaded. And they conveniently ignore the history of the person that you've, you know, engaged with. And that's exactly what has gone on here now."

• Lessons: McInnis said he would have taken a "tougher line against the United Nations" to enforce its resolutions and also considered trade threats or other ways to pressure allies to "join our team."

Former Rep. Bob Schaffer, R-Fort Collins, supported Iraq invasion

• Schaffer in late 2002: "The classified information just verified what's blatantly obvious to begin with and reinforced every argument the president and secretary of defense have made . . . Biological agents? There's no question . . . It's beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein has the capacity and the intention to kill massive numbers of Americans. Anyone in Congress who doesn't understand this is simply not paying attention."

• Schaffer now: "No credible American leader who was sincere about containing an aggressive Saddam Hussein would have come to any other conclusion. Even without 9/11, I think it's highly likely we would have seen a continuation of the (1991) Gulf War in Iraq during the current president's term in office."

• Lessons: "My one and only regret is that so much emphasis was placed on the weapons of mass destruction, to the point where many perceived that was the single justification . . . I see my old friends in Congress. I constantly ask them: The information we had, (that) I had seen, was so overwhelming and corroborated. Where did it go? These specific mobile labs and armaments and equipment, where did it all go?"

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Denver, as Colorado attorney general in 2003 supported Iraq invasion

• Salazar, as a Senate candidate, in late 2004: "The president of the United States made a very persuasive case to the American public, and my view is that if there's a gun that's pointed at one of my children, I think we ought to take action. And essentially that was the presentation that was made by the president to the American people."

• Salazar now: "There's no question there was flawed intelligence that was presented to the American people and to the United Nations . . . We need to make sure when we're making a decision on war that we have the very best intelligence available to us."

• Lessons: One lesson, Salazar said, is that when the United States builds a coalition for military efforts that it "needs to be much more than an illusion, it needs to be a fact."

Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa, as a state legislator in 2003 supported Iraq invasion

• John Salazar, from his 2004 congressional campaign Web site: "America should never go to war based on inaccurate information . . . In Iraq, (I believe) that we need to move forward from where we are today and complete a mission that we as Americans can be proud of. We must work with international partners to do what is best for the Iraqi people."

• Salazar now: "I think all of us know there was inaccurate information given. Had I been in Congress back then, having been given the same information most members would have been given, I probably would have voted the same way they did (to give the president the power to go to war) . . . If we were to immediately pull out now, that country would immediately go into a civil war. We have a responsibility to finish what we started."

• Lessons: "I guess we've got to learn to think a little more with our minds instead of our hearts. (Before the Iraq war), 9/11 was fresh on people's minds . . . They were thinking about terrorists attacking the United States again."

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News