President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 06, 2008 07:43 PM UTC

Udall hammers Schaffer on Iraq war

  • 31 Comments
  • by: Alan

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

When various liberal DC bombthrowers attacked Mark Udall on the Iraq war last year, absurdly lumping him with Joe Lieberman and branding him an “immoral coward” over a single vote, local observers scratched their heads and cried shame. “What the hell is this?” we asked. “Does this joker know anything about Mark Udall?”

As it happened, the only people who bought into the “Mark Udall is a warmonger” nonsense are the anarchists they’ll be cordoning off the Pepsi Center from in August. We know where Mark Udall stands on the Iraq war, which he opposed from the very beginning and is as dedicated as anyone to bringing to a responsible end.

And we know the alternative — as Udall’s camp drives home in today’s Denver Post:

Udall touts ’02 vote against “rush to war” in Schaffer dig

Votes against the 2002 Iraq war resolution — relatively rare as they were — have been political gold for those who cast them, and Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall plans to take that currency to the bank.

Udall used the release Thursday of a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report on the White House case for war to take a few swipes at his Republican opponent and telling voters that he had been right to oppose the war.

“Mark Udall used his independent judgment and sought out expert advice to see through the Bush administration’s manipulated intelligence and come to his own conclusions,” said Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo. She said Republican Bob Schaffer “simply rubber-stamped the Bush administration’s rush to war.”

Schaffer spokesman Dick Wadhams pointed out that the war resolution was bipartisan and said that even the United Nations believed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction. Since leaving Congress after three terms in 2003, Schaffer has said he doesn’t regret his vote authorizing force in Iraq…

It’s about as unambiguous a contrast as you’ll ever find.

Cross-posted at ProgressNowAction

Tweet
Share

Comments

31 thoughts on “Udall hammers Schaffer on Iraq war”

  1. When is he going to start taking the offensive instead of letting Udall and opponents frame the issues: forced abortions, Abramoff, now the Iraq War.

    Is Wadhams trying but the media isn’t paying attention, or isn’t he even trying? “Boulder Liberal” is a joke by now.

    Surely there’s SOME weakness Udall has that Schaffer can exploit. What will it be and when will Schaffer try to use it?

    1. Surely there’s SOME weakness Udall has that Schaffer can exploit. What will it be and when will Schaffer try to use it?

      I heard Udall is soft on slavery, maybe Schaffer could run with that.  

  2. I’m OK with the label.  It’s like being called a liberal or leftist.  What was that about reality having a liberal bias?  Maybe we’re the court jesters who hold up mirrors to show the subservient Bush dog underneath.  

    All three Democrats running in CD 2 have stated that if elected they will do the exact opposite of Udall and vote to withhold funding for the occupation.  If you want to see someone work relentlessly to end the occupation then either Joan FitzGerald or Jared Polis would be acceptable.

    What have you done to end the occupation today Mark?

    1. By throwing those labels around at people like Mark Udall you weaken the effectiveness of the attack and marginalize your view point. In short you are doing far more harm to your position than you are good. Your energy would be better spent not attacking your established allies.  

        1. How do you know that I’m not a paid troll to make peace seem like an extremist position to promote our corporate politician?  “By golly that Mark Udall is sure a moderate wanting to fund the occupation indefinitely when the extremists keep wanting to end the occupation.    How clever of him to use blog plants to solidify his position that funding endless wars is the moderate thing to do”.

          1. But for Colorado voters who have to chose between Udall and Schaffer, pointing out the left’s dismay over Udall helps. And it pushes Udall to do the right thing.

            1. .

              Douglas “Dayhorse” Campbell will be on the ballot for the General Election,

              the candidate of the American Constitution Party.  

              He is a Conservative who is not tainted by back room deals with the likes of Jack Abrahmoff.

              I’m not suggesting that I think he will win a majority of votes,

              but he presents an honorable alternative for people who want smaller government, lower federal taxes, and a return to Constitutional governance.

              ………..

              ps:

              If the federal government was ever shrunk down to just the powers enumerated for it in the Constitution,

              I think that state taxes would have to go up somewhat,

              because states would take responsibility for SOME, NOT ALL of the functions that the federal government would shed.

              .

          2. if he spent time getting our diplomatic efforts moving and initiating progressive actions to deal with these conflicting parties.  I want to believe in the man and have confidence that he is capable of basing decisions on the will of the people who elected him.

            I know it isn’t politically correct to discuss Udall’s support for Bush policies which is what they are but if he is going to climb the corporate ladder to bigger and better things then shouldn’t we expect better efforts from him and not be content with excuses that are at least four years old and as stale as the search for WMD?  Schaffer might be equally eager to support an indefinite occupation but we expect that from him.

            Perlmutter voted against funding and he put his career on the line in an evenly balanced district.  Are we going to call Perlmutter a pinko commie anarchist because he hasn’t supported Bush Iraq policies like Udall does?

            Let’s be clear that Udall will continue to vote to fund this unnecessary and unfordable occupation regardless of the overwhelming desire of his constituents to end it.  Udall can play the macho Bin Laden Dead or Alive game or he can work for progressive solutions to restore balance and peace in our world.  I am disappointed in my representative from CD 2 because I expected better from him.  You can’t be disappointed if you didn’t first have hope.  I hope the guy gets a “Come to Jesus” about why we need to end this untenable situation.

    2. Sure any of the CD2 candidates are running far to the left of Udall on the war, that’s exactly in line with the electorate that they are running to.

      I’m no Udall fan but he made the right vote on the war when it counted. If he had been playing the pragmatic (Hillary) strategy he would have gone along with the ambiguous authorization vote. He stood his ground.

      Once the war is on, the center of power shifts back to the President. At that point, an anti-war member of Congress should feel a conflicting pull between a principled stand for immediate disengagement and the need for a coherent war policy – the Congress and the President acting in consistent manner.

      Given the initial war authorization (which was wrong), I agree with the Udall detractors that we should have withdrawn long, long ago.  Still Udall’s position is rational and moral. That it also happens to be politically expedient may make one suspicious, but it is fully defensible. It is truly mind boggling that portions of anti-war left would focus all their anger at the anti-war pragmatist and not on the affirmed warmongers.

      Electing Udall will be a far bigger contribution to the rapid close of the war than electing any of the CD2 candidates. The House is already pretty much where they are on this issue; the Senate is not even close. None of them would have a chance in a statewide race.  

  3. Better hit back fast and hard. But how? Problem is, Udall’s a strong candidate. So true about the capital that no vote holds. 2 elections in a row Wadhams has had really bad candidates to try to reshape. (Three if you count Thune. But Wadhams used the hysteria after 9/11 in that one).  At this point Dick better start sleazing. Nothing else in the bandolero.

  4. Schaffer spokesman Dick Wadhams pointed out that the war resolution was bipartisan and said that even the United Nations believed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction.

    Bob Schaffer: Trusts the United Nations Over His Gut



    How does that play with the black helicopter crowed (“Schaffer’s base”), Dick?

        1. Bob Schaffer: I don’t care if the intelligence was manufactured as long as it is manufactured by slave labor in the Marianas

          or maybe

          Bob Schaffer: equally fooled  (on WMD in Iraq, as board member overseeing a taxpayer fraud, on forced abortion in the Marianas)

      1. “My one and only regret is that so much emphasis was placed on the weapons of mass destruction, to the point where many perceived that was the single justification . . . I see my old friends in Congress. I constantly ask them: The information we had, (that) I had seen, was so overwhelming and corroborated. Where did it go? These specific mobile labs and armaments and equipment, where did it all go?”

        http://www.rockymountainnews.c…

        1. Check behind the vapor phase combustion. Maybe the happy workers of the Mariana Islands hid it from Bob, along with the forced abortions and sweatshops. It must be somewhere. Maybe it’s stashed with Schaffer’s alternative energy credentials. Or locked up tight where no one can find it, along with responsibility for the $3.7 million earmark that funded the fraudulent organization Schaffer oversaw. Tucked away in the Greenwood Bancorp vault? It can’t … it can’t be that they all lied to Bob.

        3. Seriously??? That’s Bob Schaffer’s “one and only” regret about the trillion-dollar, 4,000-death, 30,000 wounded (just counting American costs) Iraq war?

          You’d think if he could single out one regret, it would be that we went to war in the first place based on distorted intelligence on WMDs – not that WMDs were overemphasized.

          Is Schaffer saying that he would have supported this fiasco of a war in hindsight, even without the existence of WMDs? That is really scandalous.

  5. If he has Schaffer speak, he brings up additional things that hurt his campaign. Plus there is now a list of 5 or 6 questions that any reporter will start with. Any press event now will be very bad for Schaffer.

    If he does nothing, Udall gets to frame the debate and set the positioning for each of the them. And “Moderate Mark” will own the center doing this.

    All he’s left with is running ads and yelling at reporters. It will lose the election but causes him less pain today.

  6. In a street fight rule number 1 is get the opponent on the ground. Rule number 2 is keep kicking and pounding until the opponent loses the ability to respond.

    Udall should continue to hammer every weakness over and over and over again.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

100 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!