Right-wing radio talkers promoted Schaffer's distortion of Udall Iraq resolution

Summary: On their July 15 broadcast, radio hosts Mike Rosen of Newsradio 850 KOA, and Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman of 630 KHOW-AM promoted misinformation regarding U.S. Rep. Mark Udall's (D) 2002 resolution introduced in advance of the Iraq war. Caplis and Silverman allowed Udall's Republican U.S. Senate race opponent, Bob Schaffer, to mischaracterize the measure as one "to declare war on Iraq," and Rosen labeled as "laughable" Udall's spokeswoman's statement that the resolution would have withheld authorization for an attack "until all diplomatic means were exhausted."

On the July 15 broadcast of their 630 KHOW-AM show, co-hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman uncritically allowed Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer to mischaracterize a 2002 resolution that his opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall (D), introduced in advance of the Iraq War as one that Udall offered "to declare war on Iraq." Additionally, they did not challenge Schaffer's false claim -- made in comparing Udall's resolution to the one Congress adopted, H.J. Res. 114 -- that the "only difference between the two was that the use of force resolution didn't specify Iraq and Udall's still did."

Similarly, on his July 15 Newsradio 850 KOA broadcast, Mike Rosen read from a July 15 Rocky Mountain News article that quoted Udall spokesperson Taylor West as saying that Schaffer in a July 14 debate distorted a provision in Udall's resolution "to withhold congressional authorization for attacking Iraq until all diplomatic means were exhausted." Rosen labeled the statement "laughable" and misleadingly claimed, "To make it seem as if the point of the resolution was to force diplomatic, an attempt at a diplomatic resolution, is a gross distortion of the spirit of that resolution." In fact, as Colorado Media Matters noted, in differentiating his measure H.J. Res. 118 from the one later adopted, in an October 9, 2002, floor speech Udall stated "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."

Caplis and Rosen discussed Udall's resolution in the context of a July 14 debate between Udall and Schaffer. As Colorado Media Matters has noted, in its July 15 reporting on the debate, the News failed to report the content and context of Udall's resolution, which support the accuracy of West's reported characterization of it as "one to withhold congressional authorization for attacking Iraq until all diplomatic means were exhausted." Rosen read from the News article about the debate before making his remarks about Udall's resolution.

From the July 15 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: So Schaffer read directly from this resolution stating that Iraq had been a state sponsor of terrorism and failed to end its weapons of mass destruction program. I actually have a copy of this joint resolution in front of me, dated October 7th, 2002, to provide preliminary authorization for the use of force against Iraq, and it proceeds with a whole bunch of whereases -- I've cited this thing many times before on this program. And wrote a column listing the highlights of this joint resolution passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and noting that, of all of the whereases, the whereases that had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction greatly outnumbered the whereases that had to do with WMD.

It starts, "Whereas under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991, which effected a formal cease-fire following the Persian Gulf War, Iraq agreed to destroy or dismantle, under international supervision, its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs," so on and so forth. "Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the U.N. Security Council has reaffirmed Resolution 687" -- OK, I won't read the whole thing; you get the point of it. A whole series of whereases authorizing the use of force against Iraq, prospectively. So, Schaffer reads directly from this resolution explaining why he supported the use of force against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. And while he's reading it, he then asks in the audience, he asked for who -- he asked who -- excuse me -- he asked those who agree with it to raise their hands, and a lot of hands were raised among Bob Schaffer's supporters in the audience, and hisses -- hisses were offered instead by supporters of Mark Udall in the audience.

"He asked who agreed with it, drawing raised hands from his supporters and hisses from Udall's"; this is directly from Ed Sealover's account in the Rocky Mountain News. So, the Udall people are booing and hissing. Then Schaffer reveals that he was reading a resolution introduced by Mark Udall himself in 2002. And I've got the resolution in front of me, October 7, 2002, and the very first line on the printed version of this resolution is "Mr. Udall of Colorado introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the committee on international relations." There was a deafening silence followed by a gasp from the Udall supporters in the audience who had hissed the resolution and then were informed that their guy, Mark Udall, had actually introduced that resolution. Grand-slam home run by Bob Schaffer. A severe blow to the body of Mark Udall and his supporters.

[...]

ROSEN: And then in the Rocky story, the damage-control effort by Udall after Schaffer zinged him on his own resolution, Udall's resolution. It says, "Udall campaign spokeswoman Taylor West called the move a distortion of the record, saying the resolution was one to withhold congressional authorization for attacking Iraq until all diplomatic means were exhausted." That is laughable. That's a very minor element of the resolution, which was very forceful itself in laying out the case why Congress is authorizing military force against Saddam Hussein. To make it seem as if the point of the resolution was to force diplomatic, an attempt at a diplomatic resolution, is a gross distortion of the spirit of that resolution.

In fact, in the October 9, 2002, floor speech, Udall proposed his resolution -- which also took the form of an amendment -- as an alternative to the one Congress later adopted:

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.

Caplis and Silverman interviewed Schaffer and Udall during separate segments of their July 15 broadcast. In the earlier segment, Caplis allowed Schaffer to distort the relationship between Udall's resolution and the one Congress passed by claiming that "[t]he only difference between the two was that the use of force resolution didn't specify Iraq and Udall's still did." In fact, the adopted resolution, H.J. Res. 114, specified Iraq both in its title -- "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" -- and in its provisions.

Caplis and Silverman did not question Udall about his resolution when he when he appeared on the show later in the broadcast, but Udall corrected Schaffer's distortion, noting that the website ColoradoPols.com "has a good summary of the resolution."

From the July 15 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:

CAPLIS: According to the papers there was a pretty dramatic moment yesterday during the debate when you quoted from a resolution and asked the crowd who agreed with it. In the 30 seconds we have left, can you describe that moment for us?

SCHAFFER: Well, yeah, the question was about why we're in Iraq. And what I did was read the bill that Mark Udall introduced to declare war on Iraq. And he introduced his bill three days before the real resolution passed, the use of force resolution. The only difference between the two was the use of force resolution didn't specify Iraq, and Udall's still did. So I quoted it, and it was interesting, because Udall's support for declaring war in Iraq was something that appealed to my part of the audience, but Udall's supporters didn't like it at all. But it helped answer the question, and it showed that, you know, those who once believed that Saddam was a real threat was a bipartisan representation of the U.S. House, including Udall.

CAPLIS: Right; and hey, really appreciate your time today, my friend; thank you.

SCHAFFER: Thank you.

SILVERMAN: Thanks a lot, Congressman.

CAPLIS: Thank you, Congressman Bob Schaffer; I expect and hope will be our next U.S. Senator. But Mark Udall will join us in a second. Disagree with Mark on the fundamental issues of the day but like him, and we always enjoy our conversations.

[...]

CAPLIS: You were on the show with us before the "surge," and my question now would be, looking back, looking back, you know, in retrospect, at that point in time we were in at crossroads where Senator Obama wanted us out. And under the plan he introduced at that time, and supported at that time, America would not have embarked on the surge and would have had all combat troops out of Iraq by April of this year. John McCain favored the surge; the surge went forward; obviously I think it's been a success. But bottom line is you; you're the guy running for Senate. In retrospect, do you think the surge was a good idea, or should we have followed Senator Obama's plan and pulled all of our combat troops out by the April that just passed?

UDALL: Well, Dan, let me answer your question if I could come back to the debate on Iraq yesterday, because I wanted to talk about what happened there as well. But look, when the surge was announced I opposed it, because I didn't think it would lead to a permanent solution. And I still don't think it would lead to a permanent solution; we're back at where we were in 2004. There is some good news out of Iraq, but I think the important question is how we move forward. And this is a real contrast between Congressman Schaffer and myself. He wants an open-ended commitment; he agrees with President Bush. I agree with those who in a bipartisan fashion have said, "Look, let's responsibly exit. Let's bring our troops home. Let's focus on the central front on the war on terror, which is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And let's finally hunt down Osama Bin Laden."

UDALL: That's the success that I want to see, and that's the course of action. We can't stay in Iraq in an open-ended fashion in some -- now look, yesterday there was an interesting moment when Congressman Schaffer read a portion of a bill I introduced and then implied that somehow I was eager to take us to war. And that's just simply not true; it was stunt. And what I wanted to do at the time was say, "Congressman, why don't you read the entire resolution?" And Dan and Craig, I'd urge you guys to put it on your website. ColoradoPols has a good summary of the resolution, and what I was calling for was to use all diplomatic means and then to come back to the Congress. And Bob, frankly, pulled that tactic yesterday to dodge his own record. If he'd voted for what I proposed, we wouldn't be in this situation. We wouldn't be spending $2.5 billion a week, we wouldn't have lost 4,000 Americans, and we wouldn't be facing a shortfall here at home when we need to invest in our own domestic needs, whether it's responding to the foreclosure crisis or working to bring new energy sources to the marketplace. So, that's the true story, and Bob filibustered yesterday on a couple of the questions; and I've gotta tell you that, there are enough people who filibuster in the Senate; I'm goin' over there to get somethin' done.

CAPLIS: Congressman, if I can follow up briefly. With all due respect, I'm not sure you got to my precise question, which is: Do you really think we would have been better off not pursuing the surge as you recommended and being out of Iraq by April of this year?

—E.B. & J.F.B.