CARROLL: Bogus attack on Udall

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published July 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

• 18 Comments
• Email
• Print

Rep. Mark Udall

Republican Bob Schaffer has spent the week suggesting that his opponent in the U.S. Senate race, Democrat Mark Udall, is a hypocrite because he sponsored a resolution in 2002 denouncing Saddam Hussein in the strongest terms, stipulating that he possessed a variety of terrible weapons and describing Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The resolution was even billed as a "preliminary authorization for the use of force against Iraq."

If you fail to look closely, you could easily conclude that the supposedly anti-war Udall was actually on the same page as the congressional majority that ultimately did authorize war - and that Udall's vote against their resolution amounted to splitting hairs.

That's rubbish. Schaffer should cut it out.

Udall has never been part of the "see-no-evil" faction of the Democratic left that downplayed Saddam's savagery or denied Iraq's role as a destabilizing force in the Middle East and beyond. He never doubted the tyrant's intentions regarding weapons of mass destruction, or mocked the U.S. goal of regime change.

But Udall did sincerely oppose the resolution that gave the president the green light to topple Saddam. That's a fact, and it's a big deal. Udall did so because he thought the measure gave the president an open-ended right to act whenever and however he liked, thus degrading the constitutional role of Congress, and because he thought it important for the U.S. to secure the support of the United Nations before acting. Otherwise, Udall worried, the U.S. would have a difficult time turning Iraq into a functioning republic.

Udall repeated these themes on the House floor, in public meetings and in correspondence. His own resolution was meant to further those goals, not to catapult us into Operation Iraqi Freedom.

After a Rocky editorial of October 2002 called for the House to support the use of force against Iraq, Udall wrote to me complaining about the "blank check" the resolution would give the president. "Because Saddam's use of chemical and biological weapons is a possibility and not a certainty (or even a likelihood, according to the objective analysis of the Central Intelligence Agency and the congressional testimony of military leaders)," Udall added, "we have to make a very careful decision about the kind of 'showdown' we want with Iraq. If the 'showdown' is to be a full-scale military invasion, followed by a military occupation requiring us to station troops in Iraq for many years, I have to count myself as a severe skeptic."

So far as "a military occupation requiring us to station troops in Iraq for many years," the skeptic has been vindicated.

Also vindicated, nearly six years later, is his fear that it "may be very difficult to pull back from a 'second front' in Iraq, regardless of how it affects our efforts elsewhere."

Udall told me this week that his opposition to the war resolution "may well have been the most important vote I will ever cast."

Agree with that assessment or not, his purpose at the time was clear - and it remains clear to this day, whatever distractions his opponent's campaign unleashes.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

• July 18, 2008

  2:14 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  bwforaccuracy writes:

  Nice try to deflect how Udall lost the debate. I encourage everyone to watch it on Your Show - 9 News Sunday morning or on the 9 News web site. Make your own judgment.

  With the resolution Udall authored, it was clear that he was trying to stand on both sides of the fence.

  As the old saying goes "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for everything".

  We need a Senator who is not afraid to lead. Heck the current Congress can not even pass one spending bill yet. What is mark doing to lead there? He must be studying the polls on what to say. Heck he even has to study where he lives. At least his wife Maggie Fox still is willing to admit she lives in Boulder in all her biographies at the Sierra Club and America Votes. Are they staying at separate addresses?

• July 18, 2008

  6:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

  Vincent? Where in your piece do you say Udall DID NOT sponsor that resolution? So, if he did, and you are not saying he didn't, is the claim correct?

  Another puff piece on Udall? What you're saying is he can't be trusted.

• July 18, 2008

  6:53 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  freethinker07 writes:

  I am a lifelong republican. You two are wrong about this. Congress did give away it's authority on declaring war. I supported the war and believe that some kind of action was necessary. I also believe that the fact that we didn't find any weapons doesn't mean that there weren't any. If we had done nothing, the world would be a worse place today.

  International politics is not a two sided like a boxing match. There are nuances. If we had declared war on Germany in 1939, WWII would have been shorter, cost fewer American lives, we would not have used the A-bomb, and millions of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals would not have died in the camps. Likewise, it was possible to support action against Saddam and disagree about the way it was done.

  I disagree with Udall on many issues but his position was clear and defensible. I will probably vote against Udall anyway. But Schaffer's attack is not fair.

• July 18, 2008

  6:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  angka writes:

  Thanks, Vince. Everyone knows you are a conservative with no reason to help Udall, the simple fact is this was a totally dishonest and hypocritical attack by a desperate Republican candidate.

• July 18, 2008

  7:35 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  FlyfishDude52 writes:

  I could repeat freethinker cause I agree. More importantly udall is against energy reform (no coal plants, no oil exploration or drilling, no nukes, no wind, no nothing). In this issue you have to stand for something. We need more domestic energy production & all I hear from the dems is "no we can't do that."

• July 18, 2008

  8:04 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  HolierThanThou writes:

  Al Gore says we can do that: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

• July 18, 2008

  8:34 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  JohnSWren writes:

  “Everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue." S. I. Hayakawa

• July 18, 2008

  8:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  HolierThanThou writes:

  Bob Schaffer is attempting to draw attention away from two serious things that are wrong with him:

  1. He works for an multi-national oil prospector, Aspect Energy, that needs US military presence in Iraq to subsidize security for their oil prospects in Kurdistan. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.a...

  2. Bob Schaffer accepted bribes from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who bought Schaffer's influence in Congress so that slavery-level working conditions in US territories in the South Pacific would remain covered up. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8872607

  In the first case, even the Bush administration has a stated policy that new oil prospects should be delayed until the Iraqi government has time to work out an equitable distribution plan for those petrodollars.

  As a traditionally frugal conservative, I have no problem with oil companies prospecting where ever they like. The problem is that they need to pay their own way including the costs of securing their prospecting and production.

  Bob Schaffer is a corporate socialist. He believes that his boss, Aspect Energy LLC, is entitled to free security arrangements at cost to US taxpayers and lives and blood of our military people. The USA cannot afford to be in the mercenary business for corporate socialists like Bob Schaffer.

  The second case merely supports Bob Schaffer's open declaration of war on middle-class working Americans. His anti-unionism and support for wage slavery is legendary. But Jack Abrahmoff took him into uncharted waters by making Bob Schaffer a supporter of forced abortions. This is what happened to women in the factories of the Mariana Island protectorate when they got pregnant without permission or were raped by their bosses.

  Personally, I find it mind-boggling and disgusting that anyone could enjoy a vacation that includes complementary parasailing while indentured servant women are working a few hundred feet away in brutal conditions.

  Taken together, these things prove that Bob Schaffer has no conscience and no intention of serving the American people. He's in the race solely for the love of the power and for the power of money.

• July 18, 2008

  9:46 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  JohnHKennedy writes:

  THE MOST IMPORTANT (NON)VOTE UDALL
  HAS MADE IS HIS FAILURE To CALL FOR
  IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

  Udall talks about the "blank check" given to Bush But Does Nothing About It.

  Udall is a charter member of the "see no evil" Right Wing Of The Democratic Party.

  Udall and the rest of the House Democrats have given Bush nearly everything he wanted for the Iraq War, all the funding, the spying on Americans, torture, everything.

  Bush commits over 800+ signing statements stating he refuses to obey the Federal laws just passed by Congress. Isn't that a violation of Bush's oath and a felony(800+ times)? Bush admitted to violating the FISA law. Wasn't that a felony? How about the treasonous outing of Plame, the CIA agent? At least a felony? There is enough public evidence to impeach and convict a hundred Nixons, but Udall denies it.

  Udall is unquestionably a charter member of the "see no evil" Right Wing Of The Democrats.

  Bush's actions have effectively neutered the power of Congress as a law making body but Udall does nothing to rectify the situation. Doesn't that make Udall just as "go along to get along" as the rest of the Bush appeasing Democrats in the House.

  Udall is adept at ducking any public discussion of his continued funding of the Iraq War. Udall avoids any discussion of holding Bush and Cheney accountable like it was radioactive. Udall claims that his opposition to impeachment hearings is just a "difference of opinion".

  Given that the public is well aware of the hundreds of violations of the Constitution and the separation of powers, one would think Udall would be willing to ask for impeachment hearings just to clear the air, settle the question once and for all. But no, he avoids the discussion entirely.

  Udall did vote against the authorization for the Iraq War but has done nothing since to end what was essentially the murder of 4,100 US Soldiers for the Bush/Cheney WMD Lies in their Iraq War For Oil.

  It is telling of how far to the right Udall is willing to go to win a promotion to the Senate if well known Republicans are getting behind him.

  THE MOST IMPORTANT (NON)VOTE UDALL HAS MADE IS HIS FAILURE To CALL FOR
  IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. History (and the Liberal Democratic Base) will remember that fact.

  Come on Mark, show us your pledge as a Congressman to protect our Constitution meant something to you. Our Constitution is the contract that binds all of us as a Nation. It deserves your unqualified protection. Show us we can take seriously your upcoming Oath Of Office as a Senator to Protect Our Constitution.

  Stand up for Our Constitution. Protect Our Rights and Freedoms. If you don't I won't vote for you.

  John H Kennedy, Denver, 43 yr Democratic voter
  Impeach Colorado Coalition http://ImpeachCO.com
  
  ..

  ..

• July 18, 2008

  10:04 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  FlyfishDude52 writes:

  Wow! I just viewed your ImpeachCO website and am much impressed with how every statement is laden with half-truths and innuendo in order to support your case. I agree, you've got to get rid of Udall. We need someone who supports issues a bit closer to reality.

  Quoting nancy pelosi, in any idiom, is not a quotient for credibility.

  I am happy that you are able exercise your 1st Ammendment Rights, once again. Freedom comes with a price attached. Not the whining and grovelling ACLU B$ trying to undermine the constitution at the same time rhetorically speaking that they are attempting to support it.

• July 18, 2008

  10:11 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jacka writes:

  Boulder County liberal Mark Udall sponsored a federal "employee free choice" bill (EFCA). Udall's "free choice" bill allows Big Unions to force an open ballot on those they are attempting to Unionize.

  That takes away your right to a private and secret ballot.

  YES on Amendment 47 for real employee free choice for all Coloradans.

  YES on 47 allows you to accept or reject forced unionism, forced union dues and forced union fees.

• July 18, 2008

  10:22 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  WestminsterJ writes:

  jacka- yes, "Big Unions" are a terrible threat to this country.

• July 18, 2008

  12:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  HankRearden writes:

  You people are idiots. Freeze in the dark. I'm done.

• July 18, 2008

  12:34 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Faux_Noise writes:

  "the "see-no-evil" faction of the Democratic left that downplayed Saddam's savagery or denied Iraq's role as a destabilizing force in the Middle East"

  Even in a mostly accurate column, Vince can't resist the pathetic strwman attack.

  Who on the Democratic left said Hussein was not a savage? What was Iraq destabilizing? All terrorism related activities in Iraq prior to the war were directed against Israel.

  I don't remember being told the invasion was to protect Israel, or to revenge the gassing of the Kurds. It was about ties to global terrorism and weapons of mass ditruction, neither of which existed.

  Opposing the war is not an endrosement of Saddam, and implying so is weak debating. Still, I expect nothing less from Vince, along with his habitual jealous attacks on the Post.

• July 18, 2008

  1:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  temurlan writes:

  Who turned out the lights?!!!

  Why is it suddenly so cold in here? BRRRRRR!

  LOL

• July 18, 2008

  2:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  AndyB588 writes:

  Thanks for trying to bring the discussion back to the issues,, and the issues should be based on FACTS, not lies about what the other guy supposidly stands for. If you want to know what a canidate stands for listen to the CANIDATE, not his opposition. So far Schaffer doesnt stand for much other than he knows how to lie about Udall.

  And Udall lost the debate? How is this measured? Do you mean that Schaffers team got alot more conservative supporters (who obviously don't have to work on a Monday morning) there to cheer on his performance? It's easy to get a crowd of morrons to cheer for Education, Cutting Taxes and Loving Puppies! Who doesn't love puppies?? But talking about the borring details and what really needs done.. vs pandering to the masses is a different thing.

• July 20, 2008

  12:24 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  YellowCatRedCat writes:

  Vince, you just earned some major respect in my book. Thanks.

• July 21, 2008

  5:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mytwosense writes:

  A surprising column from Mr. Carroll. Glad to see he has at least some sense of objectivity and an ability to call out a fellow conservative for lying through his teeth.

  Sweatshop Shaffer is obviously getting desperate, but then, who really expected any integrity from this war profiteer and grafter?

Featured

• Through Your Lens

  

  Submit your photos or see the Editor's Choice slide show here.

• Rocky Multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.

• Holiday Lights

  

  Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.

• Holiday Gift Guide

  

  Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?

• Mount Crushmore

  

  Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.

• Bronco Dean's rant

  

  Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.

• Broncos Video

  

  Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.

• Calendar wallpaper

  

  Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman