State of Michigan Archives: on War & Peace


Terri Lynn Land: No military action in Syrian civil war

Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land has so far declined to apologize for an email she sent asking supporters to sign a petition urging her opponent Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) to vote against military action in Syria. The reason critics are demanding an apology? Land, former Michigan secretary of state, also used the email to ask for donations.

The email outlined Land's position against Syria, but it was the large red button at the bottom labeled "DONATE NOW!" that has incited controversy. The email text:

"Gary Peters needs to vote 'No' on a bill authorizing US military involvement in this Syrian civil war. The president has failed to show how this internal conflict in Syria affects our national security, and his proposed military strategy has proved ineffective in the past. I want to be very clear--If I were in the Senate today, I would vote 'No' on a resolution authorizing military action in Syria."

Source: Huffington Post coverage of 2014 Michigan Senate debates Sep 10, 2013

Gary Peters: Undecided on military intervention in Syria

Terri Lynn Land sent a fundraising email telling conservatives to "stand up to the president" on Syria--an unusually partisan solicitation on an issue of national security that has divided the right. "The president has failed to show how this internal conflict in Syria affects our national security, and his proposed military strategy has proved ineffective in the past," she writes.

The email asks supporters to sign a petition urging her undecided Democratic rival, Rep. Gary Peters, to join her and vote "no."

Peters has kept his options open as he studies the issue. "As a former naval officer, I take the decision to use military force very seriously," he said in an earlier statement. "In the days ahead, I will review classified intelligence, speak with experts, and listen to the people I represent in Michigan before making a decision and casting my vote."

Source: AdWatch: Politico.com on 2014 Michigan Senate race Sep 5, 2013

Terri Lynn Land: No military intervention in Syria

Terri Lynn Land sent a fundraising email telling conservatives to "stand up to the president" on Syria--an unusually partisan solicitation on an issue of national security that has divided the right. "The president has failed to show how this internal conflict in Syria affects our national security, and his proposed military strategy has proved ineffective in the past," she writes.

The email asks supporters to sign a petition urging her undecided Democratic rival, Rep. Gary Peters, to join her and vote "no." At the end is a red "DONATE NOW!" button.

The Land campaign downplayed the request for money. "It was an email asking people to sign a petition urging Gary Peters to vote no on the war in Syria and happened to have a donation link like other emails we send to our email list," said a Land spokesperson. Land had reportedly avoided taking a firm position on Syria until Thursday, when she posted a note on her Facebook wall and created a splash page on her otherwise bare-bones web site.

Source: AdWatch: Politico.com on 2014 Michigan Senate race Sep 5, 2013

Jack Hoogendyk: Let Gen. Petraeus make decisions on troop strength in Iraq

Q: Do you support pre-emptive military strikes against countries deemed to be a threat to United States national security?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you support long-term use of National Guard troops to supplement the armed forces in assignments overseas?

A: Yes.

Q: Should the United States withdraw its troops from Iraq?

A: Undecided.

Q: Discuss your proposals for Iraq.

A: We should let General Petraeus take the lead on making decisions regarding troop strength.

Source: Michigan Congressional Election 2008 Political Courage Test Aug 1, 2008

Duncan Hunter: No Congressional authorization needed to attack Iranís nukes

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: It depends on one thing: the president does not need that if the target is fleeting. We live in this age of terrorists with high technology, and if you have a very narrow window to hit a target, if the presidentís going to have to take that on his shoulders, heís going to have to do it. He has the right to do that under the Constitution as the commander in chief of the military forces. If he has time, then certainly you want to go to Congress, as we did in Iraq, and get the approval of Congress. So itís a matter of whether or not the target is fleeting. And with respect to Iran, Iran is walking down the path to build a nuclear device. Theyíve got now about a thousand centrifuges; they claim theyíve got 3,000. At some point, we may have to pre-empt that target. If we do, it should be done hopefully with allies but perhaps by the U.S. alone.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Fred Thompson: Stabilizing Iraq, and not leaving, is the right policy

Q: Has the Bush policy toward Iraq been a good one?

A: I think the policy that weíre engaged in now is the right one. Clearly, to me, we didnít go in with enough troops and we didnít know what to expect when we got there. But now weíre showing signs of progress. I think we got to take advantage of the opportunities that we have there, to turn around and us to stabilize that place and not to have to leave with our tail between our legs. If we did that, it would make for a more dangerous USA.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Fred Thompson: Iraq certainly had WMDs in the past & would have nukes now

Q: We havenít been able to find the WMD. You said recently that you believed that there were such weapons in Iraq. Do you believe they were there right before we got in and they were moved out somewhere?

A: No, no.

Q: What do you believe?

A: No, I didnít say that. I was just stating what was obvious, and that is that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people, against the Kurds.

Q: Okay.

A: And of course, he had a nuclear reactor back in Ď81 when the Israelis bombed that. And the Iraqi Study Group reported that he had designs on reviving his nuclear program, which he had started once upon a time. So thereís not question that he had had them in times past. And in my own estimation, thereís no question that if left to his own devices, he and his son would still be running that place, attacking their neighbors and murdering their own people and developing a nuclear capability, especially in looking at what Iran is doing. And the whole place would be nuclearized.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Fred Thompson: Ask Congress, even if not required, to attack Iranís nukes

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: Yes, [at a minimum, Iíd consult Congress]. Under the War Powers Act thereís always a conflict as to the exact applicability of when an engagement lasts for a particular period of time and when the president must come before Congress. I would say that in any close call, you should go to Congress, whether itís legally required or not, because youíre going to need the American people, and Congress will help you. If they are voting for it or they support it, or leaders, especially in the opposite party, are convinced in looking at the evidence that this is the right thing to do, that will help you with the American people. In any conflict, weíve got to have the strong support of the American people over a protracted period of time.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

John McCain: Congressional consultation before attacking Iranís nukes

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: Weíre dealing of course with hypotheticals. If the situation is that it requires immediate action to ensure the security of the United States of America, thatís what you take your oath to do when youíre inaugurated as president of the United States. If itís a long series of build-ups, where the threat becomes greater and greater, of course you want to go to Congress; of course you want to get approval if this is an imminent threat to our security. So it obviously depends on the scenario, but I would, at minimum, consult with the leaders of Congress because there may become a time where you need the approval of Congress, and I believe that this is a possibility that is maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Mike Huckabee: Attack Iranís nukes even if Congress says no

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

: A president has to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people. If we think Iran is building nuclear capacity that could be used against us in any way, including selling some of the nuclear capacity to some other terrorist group, then yes, we have a right to do it. And I would do it in a heartbeat.

Q: Without going to Congress?

A: Well, if itís necessary to get it done because itís actionable right now, yes. If you have the time and the luxury of going to Congress, thatís always better.

Q: And if Congress says no, what do you do?

A: You do whatís best for the American people, and you suffer the consequences. What you never do is let the American people one day get hit with a nuclear device because you had politics going on in Washington instead of the protection of the American people first.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Mitt Romney: Let lawyers decide if authorization needed to attack Iran

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously, the president has to do whatís in the best interest of the US to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress.

Q: Did he need it?

A: You know, weíre going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didnít need to do, but certainly what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people in leadership of our government, as well as our friends around the world. But the key thing here is to make sure that we donít have to use military action against Iran. And thatís why weíre going to have to put a lot tougher sanctions on Iran, economic sanctions, credit sanctions, and treating Ahmadinejad like the rogue and the buffoon that he is.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Ron Paul: Mercantilist oil dependency was reason for war

Q: Would we have gone to war in Iraq if we werenít so dependent on Middle East oil?

A: Probably not, but that should not be a reason. Thatís an old theory. Itís mercantilistic. Itís neocolonialism that you have to maintain your supply routes and your natural resources. But I think thereís still a lot of those kind of people around. You know, we were told it was about oil and jobs when it first started in 1990, and this is just a continuation of that war.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Ron Paul: Congressional authorization needed to attack Iranís nukes

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do.

HUNTER: It depends on one thing: the president does not need that if the target is fleeting.

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going & talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why donít we just open up the Constitution & read it? Youíre not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if thereís an imminent attack on us, weíd never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the US is preposterous. Thereís no way.

HUNTER: Not an imminent attack a fleeting target.

PAUL: This is just continual war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war, not only in Iraq but into Iran, unconstitutionally. Itís a road to disaster if we donít read the Constitution once in a while.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Rudy Giuliani: Desirable but unneeded to ask Congress to attack Iran nukes

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is that it really is an exigent circumstance. Itís desirable. Itís safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress. If youíre really dealing with exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Sam Brownback: Iraq war is about terrorism, not oil

Q: Would we have gone to war in Iraq if we werenít so dependent on Middle East oil?

A: I donít believe that in the least. What I voted for was the war on terrorism. And Afghanistan was where the Taliban was -- where al Qaeda was located; it was run by the Taliban. And we saw in Iraq what we thought was the mixture of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And it was in 2003, this was in close proximity to 2001, when we had the 9/11 crisis, and I wasnít about to trust that Saddam Hussein wasnít going to mix terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. And we havenít found the weapons of mass destruction, but that doesnít mean we leave. And I think the Bush administration has generally done well military, and I think the military has done a fabulous job. I think we have done poorly on the political side. Thatís what has been poorly done by the Bush administration--it hasnít been well-handled politically. Weíve got to get a better bipartisan political solution--we can.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Debbie Stabenow: We are not in Iraq forever

Q: Any limit on time for our involvement in Iraq?

STABENOW: Most challenging situation. Itís our job to give them everything they need. Iíve been to Iraq, met with Ministers. We are not there forever. The Iraqis need to shore up so our people can step back. Weíre doing excellent training of their people.

BOUCHARD: We need to do everything we can to bring more stable and safe situation there. We canít leave it in a vacuum.

Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids Oct 15, 2006

Debbie Stabenow: Iraq was a war of choice, not a necessity

Q: Do you support pre-emptive war?

BOUCHARD: I believe we need to take care of any threat--if we have actual intelligence, yes, we need to protect the US. My opponent has failed to protect America, she voted against missile defense. We need someone who will stand up to the plate. Iíve been in Law Enforcement in 20 years. Protection is the most important job of government. Sheís not done it.

STABENOW: I supported every defense budget and everything we need to do to protect our families. My opponent didnít answer the question -- which was about Iraq. I didnít vote to go to Iraq, because it was a war of choice, not a necessity. Iíve been to Iraq - they are brave soldiers who deserve more than a slogan - they need a strategy.

Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids, x-ref Bouchard Oct 15, 2006

Mike Bouchard: Pre-emptive war ok if we have actual intel

Q: Do you support pre-emptive war?

BOUCHARD: I believe we need to take care of any threat--if we have actual intelligence, yes, we need to protect the US. My opponent has failed to protect America, she voted against missile defense. We need someone who will stand up to the plate. Iíve been in Law Enforcement in 20 years. Protection is the most important job of government. Sheís not done it.

STABENOW: I supported every defense budget and everything we need to do to protect our families. My opponent didnít answer the question -- which was about Iraq. I didnít vote to go to Iraq, because it was a war of choice, not a necessity. Iíve been to Iraq - they are brave soldiers who deserve more than a slogan - they need a strategy.

Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids Oct 15, 2006

Mike Bouchard: We cannot leave a vacuum in Iraq

Q: Any limit on time for our involvement in Iraq?

STABENOW: Most challenging situation. Itís our job to give them everything they need. Iíve been to Iraq, met with Ministers. We are not there forever. The Iraqis need to shore up so our people can step back. Weíre doing excellent training of their people.

BOUCHARD: We need to do everything we can to bring more stable and safe situation there. We canít leave it in a vacuum.

Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids, x-ref Stabenow Oct 15, 2006

Bret McAtee: Theyíre turning the American Republic into an empire

Elected officialsí inebriated state has made them unable both to speak boldly against the turning of the American Republic into an empire, where perpetual war is waged for perpetual peace. We must realize that these politicians who are drunk with power are like any other drunkard. They will not stop with their erratic and drunken behavior until someone takes the bottle from them.
Source: Declaration of Candidacy For Michigan US Senate Jan 1, 2006

  • The above quotations are from State of Michigan Politicians: Archives.
  • Click here for definitions & background information on War & Peace.
  • Click here for other issues (main summary page).
2012 Presidential contenders on War & Peace:
  Democrats:
Pres.Barack Obama(IL)
V.P.Joe Biden(DE)

Republicans:
Gov.Mitt Romney(MA)
Rep.Paul Ryan(WI)
Third Parties:
Green: Dr.Jill Stein(MA)
Libertarian: Gov.Gary Johnson(NM)
Justice: Mayor Rocky Anderson(UT)
Constitution: Rep.Virgil Goode(VA)
Peace+Freedom: Roseanne Barr(HI)
Reform Party: André Barnett(NY)
AmericansElect: Gov.Buddy Roemer(LA)
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Dec 16, 2013