BACKGROUND:  When our senior senator, Paul Wellstone, first went to
Washington, it was just before Operation Desert Storm began.  Wellstone
was the long-shot underdog candidate for the U.S. Senate who, despite his
lack of money and political experience, managed unseated long-time
conservative Republican Senator and Plywood magnate, Rudy Boschwitz.
Wellstone was a history professor and a Liberal who was proud of his
activism and his opposition to the Vietnam war.  And when he arrived at
the capitol in 1991, he caused quite a stir by confronting then Vice
President Dan Quayle on the military buildup in the Persian Gulf.  He
further enraged right-wing militarists in D.C. with his first speech on
the floor of the Senate -- a passionate argument against going to war
with Iraq.

Since then, sadly, he has changed his views on the use of military force
against innocent people.  Some, like the editorialist I mention in my letter,
below, see this as a "maturing" of the Senator's views.  I tend to think
otherwise...


The Editor
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
425 Portland Ave.
Minneapolis, MN  55488

Dear Editor:

A recent editorial in your paper ("Old Dogs and New Tricks: Wellstone
Has Grown Up," 24 April) suggests that by supporting NATO militarism in
Yugoslavia, that Senator Wellstone has shown some sort of political
maturity.  Yet is it clear -- even to "ignorant" idealists who oppose
war in all its ugly forms -- that this is more a case of political
opportunism than Wellstone's ideological evolution.

One would think that a lame-duck like Wellstone (who has said he won't
seek another term in the U.S.  Senate) would use his position to express
principled, if unpopular, opposition to war with Yugoslavia -- as he did
8 years ago when he stood up to Bush and Quayle and denounced the U.S. 
government's war on Iraq.  One might be confused by this sudden
turnaround and Wellstone's claims that his support of NATO militarism
does not signify a change in his position.  In other words, the Senator
has sold out his anti-war credentials -- now and then.  So why the
change?

The answer, as it turns out, was printed in the very same issue of your
newspaper.  In a separate article, the Star-Tribune reported that
Wellstone has endorsed New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley's run for the
Presidency.  Obviously, the Senator sees a place for himself in a
future White House Administration.  But a Bradley victory is a
long-shot at best, so Wellstone has apparently hedged his bets by
falling in line with Clinton and Gore's war-mongering in both Iraq and
Yugoslavia.

This old dog has not learned a new trick -- it is a very old trick, an
example of political expediency at its lowest and most bloody.  If it
were at all possible, I would take back the two votes I cast for Wellstone.
I would rather have voted for an unabashed fascist like Rudy Boschwitz,
than a cowardly, two-faced one like Paul Wellstone.

	Sincerely,





	Timothy D. Fay