State of Michigan Archives: on War & Peace

Marcia Squier: Stop bombing countries that never attacked us

A: Stop bombing countries that never attacked us.

John James: The Iranian regime has blood on its hands

"Radical extremist governments like Iran's must not be allowed to become nuclear powers," James elaborates in a position paper his campaign provided.

John James: Iran nuclear treaty was a fatally flawed deal

John James (R): Yes. It was a fatally flawed deal.

Debbie Stabenow (D): No. "Now, our allies don't know if they can trust our word."

John James: Army veteran who flew Apache helicopters in Iraq

James helps to run his family's warehousing and logistics business in Detroit, a position he took up after returning from the Army.

Marcia Squier: No more profit-driven interventionist military strikes

A: Strongly support--no more profit-driven interventionist military strikes/wars.

Marcia Squier: Refuse donations from the military-industrial complex

A: I am a very anti war candidate. Pro peace. I would refuse any and all donations from the military industrial complex. Similarly to the Green party platform I want to reduce military spending. And thus reduce the refugee crisis.

Jack Bergman: Only use troops when it is absolutely necessary

I promise that I will only support the use of troops when it is absolutely necessary. When the threat requires the deployment of our military, I will ensure that our troops are trained and equipped to win decisively and return home to their families.

Marcia Squier: Immediate US cease-fire and weapons embargo on all countries

Marcia Squier: I believe that the U.S. needs an immediate cease-fire and weapons embargo on all countries, especially in the Middle East. Throughout history, our great nation has been a place of refuge for people displaced by war and acts of terror. There is a stark contrast this time, however. We are the ones supplying the Middle East with weapons while bombing them at the same time. We are exacerbating their reason for seeking refugee status in the first place. Therefore I support a 50% military budget cut.

Rep. Brenda Lawrence (Dem.): The stringent process that refugees go through to obtain that special status is very thorough and takes years. Talking points of refugees being terrorist is just more fear tactics.

John Kasich: We need more than Special Forces in Libya

Q [to Kasich]: Would you put ground troops in Libya?

KASICH: We absolutely have to be -- and not just with special forces. I mean, that's not going to work. We have to be there on the ground in significant numbers. We do have to include our Muslim Arab friends to work with us on that. And we have to be in the air. It should be a broad coalition, made up of the kinds of people that were involved when we defeated Saddam. Now, you've got to be on the ground and in the air both in Syria and Iraq. And at some point, we will have to deal with Libya. I am very concerned about ISIS getting their hands on the oilfields in Libya & being able to fund their operations. The fact is cool, calm, deliberate, effective, take care of the job, and then come home. That's what we need to do with our military foreign policy.

Marco Rubio: I've warned about ISIS in Libya for 2 years; US troops there

RUBIO: That's correct, and Libya.

Q: Because military commanders say the biggest ISIS threat to Europe now is coming from Libya, not Syria?

RUBIO: Correct.

Q: So if you're for putting more U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria, are you also ready to send U.S. ground troops on the ground in Libya?

RUBIO: Well, what I've argued from the very beginning is that in order to defeat ISIS, you must deny them operating spaces. Today that operating space has largely been based in Iraq and Syria, but I've been warning about the Libyan presence for the better part of two years. So they need to be targeted wherever they have an operating space. They can only be defeated if they are driven out and the territory is held by Sunni Arabs. But it will require a specific number of American special operators, in combination with an increase in air strikes.

Terri Lynn Land: No military action in Syrian civil war

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."

Gary Peters: Undecided on military intervention in Syria

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."

Terri Lynn Land: No military intervention in Syria

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.

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

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.

Duncan Hunter: No Congressional authorization needed to attack Iran’s nukes

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 president’s going to have to take that on his shoulders, he’s 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 it’s 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. They’ve got now about a thousand centrifuges; they claim they’ve 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.

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

A: I think the policy that we’re engaged in now is the right one. Clearly, to me, we didn’t go in with enough troops and we didn’t know what to expect when we got there. But now we’re 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.

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

A: No, no.

Q: What do you believe?

A: No, I didn’t 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 ‘81 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 there’s not question that he had had them in times past. And in my own estimation, there’s 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.

Fred Thompson: Ask Congress, even if not required, to attack Iran’s nukes

A: Yes, [at a minimum, I’d consult Congress]. Under the War Powers Act there’s 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 it’s legally required or not, because you’re 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, we’ve got to have the strong support of the American people over a protracted period of time.

John McCain: Congressional consultation before attacking Iran’s nukes

A: We’re dealing of course with hypotheticals. If the situation is that it requires immediate action to ensure the security of the United States of America, that’s what you take your oath to do when you’re inaugurated as president of the United States. If it’s 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.

Mike Huckabee: Attack Iran’s nukes even if Congress says no

: 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 it’s necessary to get it done because it’s actionable right now, yes. If you have the time and the luxury of going to Congress, that’s always better.

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

A: You do what’s 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.

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

A: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously, the president has to do what’s 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, we’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t 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 don’t have to use military action against Iran. And that’s why we’re 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.

Ron Paul: Mercantilist oil dependency was reason for war

A: Probably not, but that should not be a reason. That’s an old theory. It’s mercantilistic. It’s neocolonialism that you have to maintain your supply routes and your natural resources. But I think there’s 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.

Ron Paul: Congressional authorization needed to attack Iran’s nukes

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 don’t we just open up the Constitution & read it? You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if there’s an imminent attack on us, we’d never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the US is preposterous. There’s 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. It’s a road to disaster if we don’t read the Constitution once in a while.

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

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

Sam Brownback: Iraq war is about terrorism, not oil

A: I don’t 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 wasn’t about to trust that Saddam Hussein wasn’t going to mix terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. And we haven’t found the weapons of mass destruction, but that doesn’t 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. That’s what has been poorly done by the Bush administration--it hasn’t been well-handled politically. We’ve got to get a better bipartisan political solution--we can.

Debbie Stabenow: We are not in Iraq forever

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

BOUCHARD: We need to do everything we can to bring more stable and safe situation there. We can’t leave it in a vacuum.

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

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. I’ve been in Law Enforcement in 20 years. Protection is the most important job of government. She’s not done it.

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

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

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. I’ve been in Law Enforcement in 20 years. Protection is the most important job of government. She’s not done it.

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

Mike Bouchard: We cannot leave a vacuum in Iraq

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

BOUCHARD: We need to do everything we can to bring more stable and safe situation there. We can’t leave it in a vacuum.

Bret McAtee: They’re turning the American Republic into an empire