Bob Schaffer just makes stuff up (telling omission edition)
| By Alan Franklin - Jul 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm EDT |
Fascinating debate today between Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer, ranging from energy policy to the war in Iraq. As you've doubtless read or saw on TV by now, both sides are pretty sure they won.
One very interesting thing got asserted at the beginning of this debate, however, trumpeted in a press release from the Schaffer campaign immediately afterward. From their release:
Wow, really? Because it was always my understanding that Udall voted against the Iraq war, a considerable point of pride for him in the disastrous years that have followed.
I was compelled to do some checking on this rather audacious claim from the Schaffer campaign. And what I found was pretty interesting, in a sleazeball (to use the Dick Wadhams term) disingenuous sort of way.
As it turns out, Schaffer was reading from the 107th Congress' HJR 118, a resolution that didn't pass. The one that did pass was HJR 114, which Schaffer voted for and Udall voted against (note Udall's bill was introduced in response). And there were some pretty big differences between the two bills--here's a Rocky Mountain News article from October of 2002 titled "Udall urges option - his bill would withhold Congress' OK to attack Iraq until diplomacy exhausted" you may find illuminating (no longer available online, retrieved from Lexis-Nexis):
So let's get this straight: Udall sponsored a bill that would have required the President to go back to the UN, wait for a new rigorous round of WMD inspections in Iraq, then and only in the event of failure being able to go back to Congress to secure another vote authorizing force?
Funny, I read this and feel pretty confident that if Udall's bill had passed instead of the one Schaffer voted for and Udall opposed, we would not be at war in Iraq today. It's tough to know for sure, but obviously Udall's bill had safeguards against war in it that the one Schaffer voted for lacked--understandable, since the whole point of the bill Schaffer voted for was to pave the way for war.
And to think, this is the bill Schaffer selectively read from at today's debate, hoping to play up somebody's "real record." You know, "exposing hypocrisy?"
Mission accomplished, Bob.
One very interesting thing got asserted at the beginning of this debate, however, trumpeted in a press release from the Schaffer campaign immediately afterward. From their release:
U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer exposed the hypocrisy of Congressman Mark Udall's (D-CO) record concerning the war in Iraq today at a debate in Parker sponsored by the Southeast Business Partnership and moderated by Channel 9's Adam Schrager.
"Boulder Liberal Mark Udall continues to hide from his votes on both the war and energy," said Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams. "The voters of Colorado deserve to know Boulder Liberal Mark Udall's real record."
When asked about why the United States went to war, Schaffer responded by reading excerpts from House Joint Resolution 118 introduced on October 7, 2002. The war resolution authorizing the use of force outlined Iraq's refusal to comply with the United Nations Security Council's call for the need to remove Saddam Hussein and Iraq's record as a state sponsor of terror.
Schaffer then asked the crowd to raise their hands if they agreed with the resolution. Udall supports sneered and chuckled until they were told the resolution was introduced by Congressman Udall. An audible gasp was heard from the crowd...
Wow, really? Because it was always my understanding that Udall voted against the Iraq war, a considerable point of pride for him in the disastrous years that have followed.
I was compelled to do some checking on this rather audacious claim from the Schaffer campaign. And what I found was pretty interesting, in a sleazeball (to use the Dick Wadhams term) disingenuous sort of way.
As it turns out, Schaffer was reading from the 107th Congress' HJR 118, a resolution that didn't pass. The one that did pass was HJR 114, which Schaffer voted for and Udall voted against (note Udall's bill was introduced in response). And there were some pretty big differences between the two bills--here's a Rocky Mountain News article from October of 2002 titled "Udall urges option - his bill would withhold Congress' OK to attack Iraq until diplomacy exhausted" you may find illuminating (no longer available online, retrieved from Lexis-Nexis):
Rep. Mark Udall has introduced an alternative war powers resolution that would withhold final congressional authorization for an attack on Iraq until all diplomatic means are exhausted.
The Boulder Democrat faces an uphill battle in the House, since most Republicans and some Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, already endorse a version that would give President Bush broader authority to reduce the threat of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in Iraq.
The White House-backed version requires the president to report to Congress and certify that he has exhausted diplomatic efforts, but Udall 's version would go further.
It would require Bush to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution, and seek to deploy a ``coercive inspection and disarmament program'' against Iraq, backed by a U.S.-led multinational force.
If those efforts failed, under Udall 's bill the president would have to return to Congress to ask for separate authorization to attack Iraq...
So let's get this straight: Udall sponsored a bill that would have required the President to go back to the UN, wait for a new rigorous round of WMD inspections in Iraq, then and only in the event of failure being able to go back to Congress to secure another vote authorizing force?
Funny, I read this and feel pretty confident that if Udall's bill had passed instead of the one Schaffer voted for and Udall opposed, we would not be at war in Iraq today. It's tough to know for sure, but obviously Udall's bill had safeguards against war in it that the one Schaffer voted for lacked--understandable, since the whole point of the bill Schaffer voted for was to pave the way for war.
And to think, this is the bill Schaffer selectively read from at today's debate, hoping to play up somebody's "real record." You know, "exposing hypocrisy?"
Mission accomplished, Bob.
Comments are closed for this post.
Schaffer tried to take credit for the Clinton years' prosperity, while blaming the Bush budget deficits on the Democrats. He failed to explain how his trickle down economics has failed to generate anywhere near enough tax revenue to balance the budget. He rejected any health care reform.
He snidely made reference to the fact that his friend and indicted neocon comrade (Tom Delay) is no longer in Washington.
He rightly acknowledged that the weak dollar has caused the oil price explosion, but failed to note that this has happened as a direct consequence of Bush administration policies.
It is clear in my mind that the reason he voted to go to war was to make money. He clearly does not care for human life. Neither forced abortions in the Marianas Island factories, nor innocent Iraqi dead, nor dead American soldiers will stop his greed for money or power. I was saddened that his work to procur illegal oil contracts in Kurdistan did not receive mention.