Eldridge said he opposes the agreement, which aims to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from international economic sanctions: "I think the Iran deal is a bad deal for our country," Eldridge told The Associated Press. "Reaching this deal enables $100 billion or more to go to the largest state sponsor of terrorism. That's just not a good deal in my opinion."
Boozman and the other members of the state's all-GOP congressional delegation have criticized the deal. Eldridge said he didn't think the deal's verification measures are strong enough, and said he doesn't think the U.S. should negotiate the agreement without discussing Americans imprisoned in Iran.
There is no way Israel or the United States can accept a nuclear Iran. It would pose an immediate threat to Israel and all Americans in the region. It will also allow Iran's surrogate groups a new weapon with which to terrorize the world. We must stand steadfast in opposition to Iranian nuclear capability; furthermore, we must ensure Iran is prevented from even having the capacity to make such a weapon. No final agreement with Iran should allow it to maintain any sort of uranium enrichment capacity (including centrifuges) or heavy water reactor, and must require a stringent inspection regime.
A: Strongly Support.
A: Our foreign policy needs to be strong and firm. The first priority is safety and security, and that follows from being consistent and firm. The US cannot waffle back and forth.
Q: What does that mean specifically for Iran?
A: We should keep the current stringent sanctions because they appear to be working. Further military action is not currently needed.
A: As with Iran, our Syria policy is that the US needs to be consistent and firm. Getting involved in the Syria situation has not proven to provide any dividends. Any deeper US involvement would constitute an act of war. Patrolling by air, as we currently do, is ok; the current sanctions are ok; but consistency is the most important policy.
Swaney wants voters to know he thinks the Iraq war unnecessarily took the lives of many U.S. soldiers and cost the country trillions of dollars. "It did nothing to help Iraq or preserve our national security," Swaney said. "It was a war that was a waste, it was based on a lie and, as far as I'm concerned, those who served in the war served honorably and well. I have no problem with people who served in the war, but those who ordered the war and those who pushed us into that war are guilty or perpetrating a national disgrace. When I'm in office, I will do as much as I can to promote peaceful foreign policies."
Former NYC Mayor RUDY GIULIANI: You have to go where the evidence takes you. Profiling is perfectly legal and perfectly legitimate if you're following objective evidence. Unfortunately, a significant number of these attacks come about from this distorted Islamic extremist ideology. So you can't ignore it. You've got to go after it.
REP. TOM COTTON: The mayor makes the core point: that jihadists around the world don't attack us for the actions we take, they attack us for who we are. We are freedom's home, and we are freedom's defender. It didn't take Guantanamo Bay, it didn't take drones, to knock down those towers on 9-11. If we grounded every drone, if we close Guantanamo Bay, they'd find another pretext to attack us.
COTTON: The Iraq war wasn't just a noble war. I joined the army after 9/11, after the Iraq war was started. I joined in part because I wanted to go fight on the front lines. After the surge, I felt that we succeeded. And we have a generation of veterans whose accomplishments in Iraq we should celebrate; and now who are going to be leaders all around the country. We're going to make America a better place.
Q: Was it worth it to the lives that were lost there? Was it worth it with the trillions of dollars that we've spent there?
COTTON: I would say it was worth it, but it was also a little bit too soon to tell because there's nothing ever certain in human affairs. But if you look at the accomplishment of our troops in Iraq, they deposed an evil tyrant who was an aggressive international dictator. He had demonstrated the ability and the will to use weapons of mass destruction. Under those conditions, it was a just and noble war.
Q: Do you support increasing military assistance for Afghanistan?
Q: Should the US support the creation of a Palestinian state?
Q: Do you support increasing sanctions on Iran if it continues to defy United Nations mandates?
Q: Do you support the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?
Q: Do you support US involvement in free trade agreements?
Roberts said Slattery’s charges are inaccurate: “Since it’s not accurate and he knows it, it’s not responsible.”
Experts in national defense and foreign policy think Slattery makes a valid point, although they question a second charge that Roberts failed to inform the American people prior to the war in 2003 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Roberts stands by the committee’s work and its reforms of the intelligence network. “We had an egregious intelligence failure in the United States, and it was worldwide... and the reason now that my opponent even knows that there was bad intelligence and America knows it and everybody knows it... was because of the work that I led,” he said.
Roberts’ panel finished its work in June, long after interest faded and even 18 months after Democrats seized control of the Senate. Many think the committee dragged its feet.
|2016 Presidential contenders on War & Peace:|
2016 Third Party Candidates:
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
(We rely on your support!)