Paul Wellstone’s name is invoked frequently on this site. And for good reason—his was a voice of clarity and vision in an increasingly cloudy world, particularly so after the 2000 election. Senator Wellstone had, what seemed at the time, a unique ability to see beyond the hysteria of the post-9/11 drumbeats for war, and saw what many of us also saw, that the course the Bush administration was taking us was dangerous. Few other public voices at the time were able to articulate this in the manner he could, and it will be to our nation’s everlasting regret that we didn’t listen to those who did.
In the fall of 2002, when the Congress of the United States was debating the War Powers Resolution, I wrote to Senator Wellstone urging him not to comply and to vote against the authorization. I received a reply from him that was probably a "canned" response to letters such as mine, but nonetheless provided evidence of how prescient his thinking was regarding the coming conflict. I’ve saved this response, and reading it again shows just how correct he was. Nearly everything he says is still true today.
Here is the letter I received. Judge for yourself.
October 8, 2002
Thank you for contacting me regarding US policy toward Iraq. I have been hearing from many Minnesotans about their concerns on this very important matter. I appreciate knowing your views.
From all that I have seen, I do not believe the Bush administration has yet made a case for taking preemptive unilateral military action against Iraq. Serious questions about the nature and urgency of the threat posed by Iraq, the range of possible U.S. policy responses, and the consequences of a possible US or allied military attack are still unanswered. Other questions remain about the impact of unilateral military action on our preeminent national security priority, the continuing war on terrorism, on our ongoing efforts to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, on efforts to calm the intensifying Middle East crisis, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and on the dangerous situation between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan.
Unfortunately, many of these questions remain unanswered. The Senate now has the President’s proposed draft resolution. It is clear he seeks an open-ended authorization for the use of military force, including, if he determines it is necessary, preemptively going it alone. I will oppose such a blank check for preemptive, unilateral action, and expect there will be alternative approaches debated here in the Senate.
We have worked very hard to develop an international coalition to help in the fight against terrorism. This fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks must remain our highest national security priority. Unilateral action would likely jeopardize the international cooperation in law enforcement, intelligence-gathering, financial surveillance, and diplomacy, which is essential to our success in the struggle against terrorism. Finally, any action we take with regard to Iraq must be consistent with international law and the framework of collective security developed over the last fifty years. Preemptive, go-it-alone military action stands outside the framework.
The primary focus of policy toward Iraq now should be on the verifiable disarmament of that country’s weapons of mass destruction. It is the goal that our allies support, including Britain. It is the goal most likely to be successful. It is the goal from which our strategy should flow. And it will be the goal of UN weapons inspectors. Maintaining this focus on disarmament will help strengthen and sustain international support, and enable us to be most effective in dealing with Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who has repressed his own people, attacked his neighbors, and remains an international outlaw. The United States should unite the world against him, and not give him the chance to unite forces against us. A broad coalition of nations, united to disarm Saddam Hussein, is most likely to succeed.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to stay in touch with me on matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Paul David Wellstone
United States Senator
I received this reply on October 8, 2002. Three days later, in one of his final acts in the Senate, Paul Wellstone cast his vote against the war resolution. Two weeks after that, he was gone. And eleven days after that, Norm Coleman was elected to his seat.
Paul was right then. He’s right today. If only we can convince those who have the ability to actually correct these wrongs to do so. If only they will find their voice.
If only . . . .