Over at the Schaffer v Udall blog, Ben DeGrow has done a good job laying out the most recent partisan smear against Bob Schaffer from mainstream media:
http://schaffervudall.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-documents-refute-naked.html

The attack basically says that by Schaffer visiting the Kurdish region in Iraq to research a potential oil deal there for his employer, Schaffer was somehow violating US policy or acting against the interest of the US and Iraq.

DeGrow points out a few subsequent articles which show the attack to be erroneous as well as discussing how two of the "big names" leading the attack, former high-level diplomats, are now Democratic activists and at least one works with the Obama campaign.

More remarkable than the support of DeGrow, who is a Schaffer supporter, is this PoliticsWest entry by Denver Post reporter Mike Riley who has demonstrated by prior writings that he's no friend of Schaffer's.

Riley's article, which does the sort of quality homework I wish he had done on the Schaffer/CNMI story, makes two important points:

First, it seems that the government's current claims that it tried to dissuade companies from making energy deals in the Kurdish region in Iraq are not supported by at least one document between a State Department official in Iraq and the management of another oil company working on that sort of deal.

Second, Riley stands up for Alex Cranberg's (Schaffer's former employer at Aspect Energy) assertion that the Kurdish government in Iraq was going to do exploration deals with foreign companies in any case, quoting Cranberg: "Americans need to decide whether they think it is in the best interest of our country for American and other western companies to hold these leases or the Arabs, Chinese and Russians - because those are the alternatives. The Kurds are key allies of the US, and have fought with our country's forces throughout this conflict. Kurdistan is the one part of Iraq where there have been no US casualties, to my knowledge. We should be sending more than bullets to Iraq; we should be investing and creating a strong civilian economy so that fighting is not necessary."

It's also important to note that Bob Schaffer did NOT, as reported in the Grand Junction Sentinel article, negotiate the deal. He was there doing research and introducing the company to the local government. The deal materialized a year later and Schaffer was not part of negotiating its terms.

After being pretty rough on Riley in some of my recent writing, I'd like to thank him for bringing some balance to a story and to his work. His note on this attack on Schaffer is very balanced...in fact it's so balanced it wouldn't surprise me to see left-wing activists attack it...since they're used to such liberal-leaning purity from the Denver Post. Again, thanks to Mike Riley for having the backbone to dig for the truth in this story.

It's disappointing but not too surprising that the entire Udall campaign has been about making up smears against Schaffer. There are substantial differences between Schaffer and Udall on policy questions and on their careers in Congress which offer the opportunity for real debate. But Udall's career is so undistinguished and his policies so far to the left of the average Coloradoan outside of Boulder that the Udall campaign feels they have no choice but to focus all their energy on smears and personal attacks against Schaffer.

In a year this bad for Republicans, it might work, but I hope that Colorado voters are smart enough to see through the chaff of smear attacks to the real questions of policy and capability, in which case Schaffer is the obviously better candidate.

Here's just one article which discusses Udall's role in keeping our energy prices high, an issue which Schaffer should focus on intensely:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/5885419.html