|
Angus King on War & Peace
Independent Former ME Governor
|
|
Iran must accept long-term intrusive nuke inspection.
King signed demanding that Iran accept intrusive nuclear inspection
Excerpts from Letter from 85 Senators to President Obama We all hope that nuclear negotiations succeed in preventing Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapons capability. For diplomacy to succeed, however, we must couple our willingness to negotiate with a united and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime. We urge you to insist on the realization of these core principles with Iran:
- Iran has no inherent right to enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- Any agreement must dismantle Iran`s nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a path to a nuclear bomb.
- Iran has no reason to have an enrichment facility like Fordow, and that the regime must give up its heavy water reactor at Arak.
- Iran must submit to a long-term and intrusive inspection and verification regime.
- Iran must not be allowed during these negotiations to circumvent sanctions.
Iran must clearly understand the consequences of failing to reach an acceptable final agreement. We must signal unequivocally to Iran that rejecting negotiations and continuing its nuclear weapon program will lead to much more dramatic sanctions, including further limitations on Iran`s oil exports.Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, `Enforcing Iran Nuke Deal,` Jan. 25, 2017): More than anything else, the Iran nuclear deal must be kept because the alternative is a return to ever-heightening tensions and clamoring by hawks in both countries. From 2003 to 2014, years of unrelenting U.S. sanctions and confrontation, Iran went from 164 centrifuges to 19,000. The hostile approach generates a more expansive, less transparent Iranian nuclear program and increases the chances for another disastrous U.S. war in the Middle East. Let`s hope the Trump administration chooses not to go that route.
Source: Iran Nukes Letter 14LTR-NUKE on Mar 18, 2014
No military force against Iran without Congress approval.
King voted YEA the Iran War Powers Resolution
Axios.com summary: The House passed a symbolic war powers resolution directing President Trump to halt the use of military force against Iran unless he obtains approval from Congress.
The big picture: A classified briefing on the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani [by the US military] left Democrats and even some Republicans deeply skeptical, with many claiming that officials did not provide evidence that there was an `imminent` threat from Iran. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) said they will vote in favor of a similar resolution in the Senate [S J Res 68].
What opponents are saying: Former national security adviser and notorious Iran hawk John Bolton tweeted: `The 1973 War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Constitution allocated foreign affairs authority between the President and Congress. The Resolution should be repealed.` Pres. Trump quote tweeted
Bolton and added: `Smart analysis, I fully agree!`
What supporters are saying: Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was one of the few Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution, stating on the House floor: `Killing Soleimani was the right decision, but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision.` Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced legislation that would block funding for offensive military force against Iran without congressional authorization. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) is also seeking to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has been used repeatedly to justify war in the Middle East in the wake of 9/11. Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF in 2001, criticizing it as a `blank check.`
Legislative outcome: H Con Res 83 Passed House 224-194-13 on 1/9/20; S J Res 68 passed Senate 55-45-0 on 2/13/20. Vetoed 5/6; Senate veto override failed 5/7/20.
Source: Congressional vote 20-SCR33 on Jan 9, 2020
Sponsored resolution to repeal 2002 AUMF against Iraq.
King co-sponsored AUMF Repeal Act
Resolution excerpts:- Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 and 2002 currently remain valid law;
- Whereas, since 2014, U.S. military forces have operated in Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of supporting its efforts to combat ISIS;
- Whereas authorizations for the use of military force that are no longer necessary should have a clear political and legal ending:
- Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States [that]
- The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq is hereby repealed.
Politico.com in OPPOSITION, 3/25/21: Republicans who opposed repealing the 2002 authorization said that it should be replaced because Iraq is still home to terror groups that threaten the United States. Rep. Michael McCaul called for consultations with first in order to craft a replacement. `Real
AUMF reform requires Congress and the administration working together on actual text to replace the aging 2001 and 2002 AUMFs to provide authorities needed to keep the American people, and, most importantly, our deployed troops, safe from terrorists,` McCaul said.
Heritage Foundation in SUPPORT (1/6/20): There has been an open and vibrant debate about whether the 2001 AUMF covers ISIS, a terrorist organization that did not even exist when the 2001 statute was passed and has disavowed and formally broken away from al-Qaeda, the group that is covered by the 2001 AUMF. Yet both the Obama and Trump Administrations claim that the 2001 AUMF covers ISIS and associated forces. Congress has shied away from the much-needed debate about whether the 2002 Iraq AUMF is no longer necessary.
Legislative Outcome: Passed House 268-161-2 on H.R.256 on 6/17/2021 (rollcall 172; no vote on S.J.R.10 nor H.R.3261 in 2021)
Source: SJ10/H3261/H256 21-SJR10 on Jun 17, 2021
- Click here for definitions & background information
on War & Peace.
- Click here for a summary of all issue stances
of Angus King.
- Click here for a Wikipedia profile
of Angus King.
- Click here for a Ballotpedia profile
of Angus King.
- Click here for VoteMatch responses
by Angus King.
- Click here for issue positions of
other ME politicians.
- Click here for
ME primary archives.
- Click here for
ME secondary archives.
Other governors on War & Peace: |
Angus King on other issues: |
ME Gubernatorial: Janet Mills Paul LePage ME Senatorial: Betsy Sweet David Costello Demi Kouzounas Sara Gideon Susan Collins Susan Rice
|
Gubernatorial Debates 2023:
KY:
Incumbent Andy Beshear(D)
vs.State A.G. Daniel Cameron(R)
vs.Ambassador Kelly Craft(R)
vs.State Auditor Mike Harmon(R)
LA:
Incumbent John Bel Edwards(D,term-limited)
vs.Jeff Landry(R)
vs.Shawn Wilson(D)
vs.John Schroder(R)
vs.Sharon Hewitt(R)
MS:
Incumbent Tate Reeves(R)
vs.Bill Waller(R,withdrew)
vs.Brandon Presley(D)
Gubernatorial Debates 2024:
DE: Gov. John Carney (D, term-limited);
vs. Lt. Gov. Bethany Hall-Long (D)
vs. County Exec. Matt Meyer (D)
vs. State Rep.Mike Ramone (R)
IN: Gov. Eric Holcomb (R, term-limited);
vs. Sen. Mike Braun (R)
vs. Suzanne Crouch (R, lost May 7 primary)
vs. Eric Doden (R, lost May 7 primary)
vs. Attorney General Curtis Hill (R, lost May 7 primary)
vs. Jennifer McCormick (D)
MO: Gov. Mike Parson (R, term-limited):
vs. Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R)
vs. State Senator Bill Eigel (R)
vs. Lt.Gov. Mike Kehoe (R)
vs. House Minority Leader Crystal Quade (D)
MT: Gov. Greg Gianforte (R)
vs. Ryan Busse (D)
vs. State Rep. Tanner Smith (R, lost June 4 primary)
|
Gubernatorial Debates 2024 (continued):
NC: Gov. Roy Cooper (D, term-limited);
vs. Lt.Gov. Mark Robinson (R)
vs. Attorney General Josh Stein (D)
vs. Treasurer Dale Folwell (R, lost March 5 primary)
vs. Justice Michael Morgan (D, lost March 5 primary)
vs. State Senator Andy Wells (R,withdrew)
vs. Rep.Mark Walker (R, withdrew)
ND: Gov. Doug Burgum (R, retiring)
vs. State Rep. Rick Becker (R)
vs. U.S.Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R)
vs. State Sen.Merrill Piepkorn (D)
NH: Gov. Chris Sununu (R, retiring)
vs. U.S.Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R)
vs. Mayor Joyce Craig (D)
vs. Acting Gov.Chuck Morse (R)
vs. Exec.Councilor Cinde Warmington (D)
UT: Gov. Spencer Cox (R)
vs. State Rep. Phil Lyman (R)
vs. Minority Leader Brian King (D)
VT: Gov. Phil Scott (R)
vs. Lt.Gov.David Zuckerman (D, withdrew)
vs. Selectman Peter Duval (D)
vs. Commissioner Esther Charlestin (D)
WA: Gov. Jay Inslee (D, retiring);
vs. Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D)
vs. U.S.Rep.Dave Reichert (R)
vs. State Sen. Mark Mullet (D)
vs. County Chair Semi Bird (R)
vs. Hilary Franz (D, withdrew to run for U.S.Rep.)
WV: Gov. Jim Justice (R, term-limited)
vs. WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R)
vs. Huntington Mayor Steve Williams (D)
vs. WV State Auditor JB McCuskey (R, withdrew)
vs. WV Secretary of State Mac Warner (R, lost May 14 primary)
vs. State Del. Moore Capito (R, lost May 14 primary)
|
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Local Issues
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty
[Title9]
|
| |
Page last updated: May 28, 2025; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org