On KNUS, Andrews did not challenge Schaffer falsehoods about Udall's record

Summary: Discussing the Colorado U.S. Senate race on KNUS 710 AM's Backbone Radio, host John Andrews failed to challenge his guest, Republican candidate Bob Schaffer, when Schaffer misrepresented Democratic opponent U.S. Rep. Mark Udall's record on a bill to establish a Department of Peace and a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

On the March 30 broadcast of KNUS 710 AM's Backbone Radio, host John Andrews allowed Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer to misrepresent the record of his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall (Eldorado Springs), claiming falsely that "Udall is a backer" of a bill "to create a Department of Peace." In fact, as the Rocky Mountain News reported after an anti-Udall television advertisement made the same claim in December 2007, Udall had been a co-sponsor of a Department of Peace bill introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), but, according to Udall's campaign manager, "withdrew his sponsorship after becoming 'uncomfortable' with some of the details of the bill, including the $8 billion price tag."

Later in the interview, Schaffer misrepresented a resolution that Udall introduced in October 2002 as one "calling for a declaration of war in Iraq." In fact, Udall's "Preliminary Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002," H.J. Res. 118, required as conditions for authorizing force that the president submit to Congress a determination "that use of force is necessary" and that Congress approve that determination in a subsequent joint resolution.

Andrews and Schaffer were discussing an assertion Schaffer had made that in the Senate campaign, as Andrews later put it, "Udall is gonna position himself again and again out of the mainstream."

From the March 30 broadcast of KNUS 710 AM's Backbone Radio:

ANDREWS: I think Mr. and Mrs. Working Colorado Family agree with those kinds of common sense, limited government, individual liberty, traditional values positions. That's why I think it's fair to say "conservative" equals "mainstream." And just to finish your previous thought about how Udall is gonna position himself again and again out of the mainstream.

SCHAFFER: Well, he has, for example, his co-sponsorship of the Dennis Kucinich bill -- the bill Kucinich introduces every year to create a Department of Peace, a new bureaucracy in Washington that would move about $8 billion from the Department of Defense over to the Department of Peace, presumably -- yeah, Mark Udall is a backer of this. This moves funds away from soldiers and toward meditators, I suppose, or mediators, or whatever -- peace studies and so on. You know, only in Boulder does that make a lot of sense to voters.

Schaffer's criticism echoed the theme of an anti-Udall TV ad aired by Common Sense Issues Inc. (CSI), which, according to a December 3, 2007, Denver Post article, "is a 'qualified nonprofit' associated with veteran Republican operative Patrick Davis. Before opening a political consulting firm in Colorado Springs, Davis was the western regional director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and then the NRSC's national political director."

But contrary to Schaffer's contention that "Udall is a backer of" H.R. 808, a measure Kucinich introduced on February 5, 2007, "[t]o establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence," Udall co-sponsored neither that bill nor its predecessor in the 109th Congress, H.R. 3760. Udall did co-sponsor the bill when Kucinich introduced it in the 108th Congress as H.R. 1673, but withdrew his co-sponsorship on March 17, 2004. According to the December 4, 2007, News article reporting on the two CSI attack ads:

The first ad shows two men talking over breakfast. One man refers to Udall as a "Boulder liberal" and derides a Department of Peace proposal introduced in 2001.

A woman's voice then states, "radical Islam wants Americans dead ... what part of dead doesn't he (Udall) understand?"

[...]

Udall campaign spokesman Mike Melanson called both ads false and misleading.

Melanson said Udall at one time was one of 44 sponsors of the Department of Peace bill. He withdrew his sponsorship after becoming "uncomfortable" with some of the details of the bill, including the $8 billion price tag, Melanson said.

Later in the broadcast, Schaffer falsely asserted that "three days before Congress passed" the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) in October 2002, "Mark Udall introduced his own resolution calling for a declaration of war":

ANDREWS: What sort of voting record does your opponent, Udall, the Democrat, have on some of these cut-and-run proposals that Democrats have put up since they took power?

SCHAFFER: Well, he's favored them. However, it's very difficult to figure out where Mark Udall is on the war in Iraq. You know, three days before the Congress passed the resolution back in 2002 that gave President Bush the authority to pursue radical jihadists wherever they may be -- whether that's Iraq or elsewhere -- Mark Udall introduced his own resolution calling for a declaration of war in Iraq, and laid out -- almost identical to the president -- the reasons and the justification for an invasion in Iraq. Yet three days later, he, when it was somebody else's resolution, he voted no, and then has stated his opposition to our involvement in Iraq. However, Udall has voted for the funding -- billion-dollar supplemental last year, another $60 million --

ANDREWS: Is this evidence of his trying to get cover, trying to be in the center with you, Bob?

SCHAFFER: Oh, absolutely.

Rather than "calling for a declaration of war," the resolution Udall introduced on October 7, 2002, conditioned any future congressional authorization of the use of force on the president making a determination that the "use of force is necessary":

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Preliminary Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE- The President, subject to subsection (b), is authorized to use United States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate--

(1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or

(2) in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program or its prohibited ballistic missile program.

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a)--

(1) the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(A) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or

(B) the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program or prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1); and

(2) Congress shall approve the determination of the President referred to in paragraph (1) in a joint resolution enacted after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution. [emphases added]

In an October 9, 2002, floor speech, Udall explained how his own resolution -- which he also offered as an amendment -- differed from the one Congress later adopted. Udall stated that "new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to our national security" would be necessary to convince him that it was necessary to go to war against Iraq without the support of the United Nations, and that the United States might do so "as a last resort" after the president had "come to Congress for a separate authorization":

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

Like many of my colleagues, I have struggled with the question of whether to give the President the broad authority to take our Nation into a full-scale war with Iraq. I have also struggled with the question of how to support the President's objectives and also keep faith with my oath to uphold the Constitution.

I continue to have grave reservations about acting unilaterally, acting without evidence of an imminent threat and acting without considering the consequences for the war on terrorism or without a commitment to rebuilding a post-war Iraq. In my opinion, the resolution we are considering today would give the President authority to act without adequately addressing these crucial questions.

Congress has a solemn responsibility to join with the President in determining whether any path to war will be short or long, who will be on that path with us and ultimately what kind of war we intend to wage. This resolution does not allow Congress to answer these important questions. Instead, the resolution gives that power to one man, the President, and represents a dangerous erosion of congressional power and responsibility. That is why it should be defeated unless it is amended.

Absent new evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to our national security, I believe we should only go to war against Iraq as a part of a broad international coalition authorized by the United Nations. This is important not only to secure the peace and manage the costly and difficult nation building that must follow but also to avoid compromising our efforts to combat global terrorism, particularly in the Islamic world.

As a last resort, it may be necessary for American military forces to act without the support of the United Nations Security Council. But before we do so, I believe the President should come to Congress for a separate authorization. That is what the amendment I offered to the Committee on Rules called for.

My amendment was based on a resolution I introduced, House Joint Resolution 118, which would ensure that Congress, not the President, makes this awesome decision. Regrettably, my amendment was not made in order; so I am glad that tomorrow I will have the opportunity to vote for the Spratt amendment, which I believe is more consistent with the Constitution than the underlying resolution we are being asked to support.

Congress needs to know whether the United Nations is with us or on the sidelines before we launch a military invasion of Iraq on our own. Not having this information beforehand, with all of the implications it poses for our global war on terrorism, and the consequences for our security in this region, is simply irresponsible, in my view.

Do not misunderstand. I have no illusions about the duplicity of Saddam Hussein or the depths of his cruelty. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous tyrant and a threat to peace, and I fully support the goal of disarming him. I do not believe in a policy of appeasement towards Saddam Hussein. But I believe that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is only part of the job we face. We have to remove Saddam Hussein's threat in the context of broader security goals, including crippling al Qaeda and sustaining and building the important global relationships we need for the war against terrorism and for solving other critical global problems.

My father, Morris Udall, who was serving in Congress in 1964, came to regret his support for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution when it became clear that it was being used as a substitute for the constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war. I fear that this Congress, a generation later, is poised to make a similar mistake. To avoid that, we need to reject this resolution.

—E.B. & J.F.B.