Today though he calls out Bob Schaffer for his thoroughly dishonest attack on Mark Udall's record on the Iraq War. Carroll spends his entire column defending 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.
Credit where credit is due, Vincent Carroll knows the truth and is using his profile column to set the record straight. Now the only question is, does Schaffer stop his lies? I wouldn't count on it.
1 comment:
Hi Steve,
I was just stopping by Steam Powered Opinions and thought you might be interested in some of the information we've been compiling on oil shale here at The Wilderness Society. As I'm sure you know, it's become a hot topic as of late, and Colorado (along with Utah and Wyoming) is at the center of the debate. I'd like to get the chance to talk with you about it personally a bit more, but in the meantime, check out our web content at: http://wilderness.org/OurIssues/ ...line_Prices.cfm
You can reach me at Andrew_Peters 'at' tws.org. I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
Post a Comment