The caller to my talk show identified himself as a doctor from Minnesota, and he launched into an attack on the war against terrorism, alleging among other things that the American action in Afghanistan had killed 20,000 innocents and would lead to the starvation of hundreds of thousands.
When I pressed him for a source for these outlandish claims, he dodged and weaved and – typical of such types – kept repeating his bad stats. He only paused when I pointed out that even Minnesota's Paul Wellstone, the most liberal member of the United States Senate, had voted for the resolution authorizing force.
Paul Wellstone doesn't support the war, he snarled back. Just ask him.
Perhaps I had missed something, so I had my producer call Wellstone's office and extend an invitation to him to join me on my radio program. Wellstone declined, not surprisingly, as he never goes in anywhere near a tough question. A staffer assured my producer, however, that Wellstone supported the war.
To be on the safe side, I checked Wellstone's website And there, I found the classic "dog that didn't bark." Wellstone is a prolific press-release releaser. In the six months since the attacks on America, Wellstone has pumped out more than 70 such bulletins, on a variety of subjects including the president's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, the status of national guardsman called to active duty, the anthrax attack and airline security. There are scores of press releases on subjects unrelated to the war.
But there is nothing on the war itself. Zero. Zip.
Which raises the question: Just what does Paul Wellstone think about the war in Afghanistan? Was the U.S. justified in attacking? Is it justified in staying? Has the U.S. military behaved admirably and responsibly? Will he support deployment there for as long as it takes to destroy al-Qaida?
And what about the looming conflict with Iraq? Will Wellstone support a unilateral strike against Saddam? How about if Britain is with us? What about ground troops? Does he need to see evidence of a Saddam-al-Qaida tie, or does he know enough already to support such a move?
These are the first questions on the minds of Americans, but Wellstone has said nothing about these subjects – and he won't do interviews. He has time to attack the president's tax cut – he wants it rolled back – and to express dismay with tossing the ABM Treaty overboard, but what's he got to say about the "Axis of Evil"? Good choice of words, Paul? Or was the president acting like the unilateral cowboy that sets your friends on the left to wringing their hands?
Here's what I think. Wellstone's from the far left of his Party, the reflexively anti-use-of-force, U.N.-worshipping, we-need-the-French wing of the Dems traumatized by Vietnam and forever suspicious of American involvement abroad. He is comfortable attacking paramilitary death squads in Columbia (which he and Barbara Boxer were doing the week prior to 9-11), but he hasn't found the time to issue a printed smack-down to Saddam since the world changed. In fact, read through the entire Wellstone opus of the past half-year and you will be struck by an almost nostalgic sense of '60s speak.
I'm surprised his site isn't tie-dyed.
Which, of course, is exactly why Wellstone should have to go come November. Minnesotans remember, but others might not, that Wellstone promised not once, but twice – in 1996 and 1990 – to limit his time in the Senate to two terms. He casually broke that pledge in January, and he's in the hunt for a third term. The broken promise has hurt him, but not mortally. Not yet, at least. But the looming menace of terrorism may end his political career.
Will the stylish pose of academic-turned-populist be enough in a time of war? Tolerating a gadfly in dot-com boom times is one thing, but what about now? Former Mayor of St. Paul Norm Coleman is counting on a new seriousness among Minnesotans. Perhaps he's also counting on some tough questions being posed of the perennial poser in the Green Bus. The media in Minnesota is pretty far from the center of American political discourse, but you'd think some reporter might think a member of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee should have to answer a few basic questions.
And, of course, the invitation to appear on my show is still open. But I am beginning to think the crazy caller who got me thinking had at least one thing right. And for that reason, I don't expect Paul Wellstone to be doing any extended interviews any time soon.
Related offer:
In 'The Embarrassed Believer,' Hugh Hewitt is reviving the Christian witness in an age of unbelief. Autographed copies are now available in WND's online store!