Jeff Sessions on War & Peace Republican Jr Senator (AL)

Pleased with the success of the surge

On the Iraq war, Sessions said he “could not be more proud and pleased with the success of the surge and the progress in the last two years.”

“I think if we can continue this progress in Iraq and it emerges as a strong and decent country that’s independent and stable, it would be a very positive development for the Middle East,“ said Sessions, who has visited U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and neighboring countries multiple times as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Figures said she was not in a position to visit Iraq or Afghanistan. ”I was against the war from the beginning,“ she said. She said no weapons of mass destruction were found. ”Iraq was not responsible for 9/11,“ she said.

Withdrawal timetable tells enemy when to prepare an attack

Sessions said he hopes the US can withdraw “as soon as we possibly can. That’s my goal.” He said announcing a withdrawal timetable would be a “mistake--clearly not sound policy. It just tells our enemy when they should be prepared to attack.”

Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months.

• The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].
• Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
• No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"

1. Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure
2. Training Iraqi security forces
3. Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. McCAIN: "This year, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military has made significant gains under the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since [2003]. Improvised explosive device blasts now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004.

"Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. We are succeeding under the new strategy.

"Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake."

Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.

• that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;
• that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;
• to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;
• that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text]. That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BIDEN. I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. [The same was done with the Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002]. Given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.

Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.

1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
• The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
• Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.

Supporters of the Resolution say:
• Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
• One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
• In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
• Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
• Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.

Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted NO on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding.

• Request all future funding for ongoing military operations overseas, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, be included in the President's annual fiscal year budget proposal
• Call for the President to submit to Congress by Sept. 1, 2005, an amendment to his annual fiscal budget, that details estimated costs for ongoing military operations overseas.
• Ask that all future funding requests for ongoing military operations overseas appear in the appropriation bills in which such expenditures are normally included.

Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.

• $5.1 billion for security
• $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
• $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
• $1.3 billion for veterans medical care
• $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.

Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo.

Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo.

Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment.

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear program of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• Whereas, since at least the late 1980s, Iran has engaged in a sustained pattern of illicit and deceptive activities to acquire nuclear capability;
• Whereas the UN Security Council has adopted multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities by Iran, particularly possible military dimensions;
• Whereas, in Nov. 2011, the IAEA issued an extensive report that documents "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme";
• Whereas top leaders of Iran have repeatedly threatened the existence of the State of Israel;
• Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984;
• Whereas Iran has provided weapons, training, & funding to terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias in Iraq;
• Whereas Iran had forged a "secret deal" with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al Qaeda fighters and funding through Iranian territory;

1. Reaffirms that the US Government has a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
2. warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
3. urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until a full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities;
4. expresses that the window for diplomacy is closing;
5. expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
6. strongly supports US policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
7. rejects any US policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

Sponsored shutting down Iranian foreign reserves.

Congressional Summary:Prohibits US-based correspondent accounts or a payable-through accounts by a foreign financial institution that knowingly:

• conducted or facilitated a significant transaction on behalf of the Central Bank of Iran, or another Iranian financial institution, or a person involved in the energy, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors of Iran
• Authorizes sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Arguments for and against bill: (New York Times, May 8, 2013): Seeking to escalate pressure on Iran, a bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation that would deny the Iranian government access to its foreign exchange reserves, estimated to be worth as much as $100 billion. The legislation would be the first major new sanction confronting Iran since its inconclusive round of negotiations last month on its disputed nuclear program.

Sponsors of the legislation contend that Iran is not bargaining in good faith while it continues to enrich uranium. Part of the reason, they say, is that Iran has been able to work around the worst effects of the sanctions by tapping its foreign currency reserves overseas, which are largely beyond the reach of current restrictions. "Closing the foreign currency loophole in our sanctions policy is critical in our efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability," the sponsors said.

Critics said the new legislation risked further alienating Iranians who suspect that the sanctions' true purpose is not to pressure Iran in the nuclear negotiations, but to cause an economic implosion that would lead to regime change. "When we've cemented a sanctions escalation path, we're creating a trajectory toward actual confrontation," said the founder of the National Iranian American Council, a Washington group that opposes sanctions. Some Iranian leaders, he said, see the sanctions "as a train that can only go in one direction and has no brakes."

Iran must accept long-term intrusive nuke 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.

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.

Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program.

Expresses the sense of Congress that:
1. diplomatic efforts to address Iran's illicit nuclear efforts, unconventional and ballistic missile development programs, and support for international terrorism are more likely to be effective if the President is empowered with explicit authority to impose additional sanctions on the government of Iran;
2. US concerns regarding Iran are strictly the result of that government's actions; and
3. the people of the United States have feelings of friendship for the people of Iran and regret that developments in recent decades have created impediments to that friendship.

States that it should be US policy to:
1. support international diplomatic efforts to end Iran's uranium enrichment program and its nuclear weapons program;
2. encourage foreign governments to direct state-owned and private entities to cease all investment in, and support of, Iran's energy sector and all exports of refined petroleum products to Iran;
3. impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian financial institution engaged in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups; and
4. work with allies to protect the international financial system from deceptive and illicit practices by Iranian financial institutions involved in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups.

• Amends the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to direct the President to impose sanctions if a person has made an investment of $20 million or more (or any combination of investments of at least $5 million which in the aggregate equals or exceeds $20 million in any 12-month period) that directly and significantly contributed to Iran's ability to develop its petroleum resources. (Under current law the sanction thresholds are $40 million, $10 million, and $40 million, respectively.)
• Establishes additional sanctions prohibiting specified foreign exchange, banking, and property transactions.
• Includes refined petroleum resources.

Click here for definitions & background information on War & Peace. Click here for a summary of all issue stances of Jeff Sessions. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Jeff Sessions. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Jeff Sessions. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Jeff Sessions. Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by Jeff Sessions. Click here for issue positions of other AL politicians. Click here for AL primary archives. Click here for AL secondary archives.
Other governors on War & Peace:			Jeff Sessions on other issues:
AL Gubernatorial: Chris Countryman David Carrington Kay Ivey Parker Griffith Robert Bentley Stacy Lee George Tommy Battle Walt Maddox AL Senatorial: Doug Jones Luther Strange Marcus Bowman Richard Shelby Ron Crumpton Roy Moore	Gubernatorial Debates 2019: KY: Bevin(R) vs.Goforth(R) vs.Adkins(D) vs.Beshear(D) vs.Edelen(D) LA: Edwards(D) vs.Abraham(R) MS: Bryant(R) vs.Foster(R) vs.Hood(D) vs.Reeves(R) Gubernatorial Debates 2018: AK: Walker(i) vs.Dunleavy(D) vs.Chenault(R) vs.Huggins(R) vs.Begich(D) vs.Treadwell(D) AL: Ivey(R) vs.Countryman(D) vs.Battle (R) vs.Maddox (R) vs.George(R) vs.Carrington(R) AR: Hutchinson(R) vs.Henderson(D) vs.West(L) AZ: Ducey(R) vs. Garcia (D) vs.Farley(D) CA: Newsom(D) vs.Chiang(D) vs.Villaraigosa(D) vs.Eastin (D) vs.Hadley (R) vs.Cox (R) vs.Istvan (I) vs.Allen(R) vs.La Riva(P) CO: Johnston(D) vs.Mitchell(R) vs.Kennedy (D) vs.Robinson (R) vs.Barlock(R) vs.Lynne(R) vs.Polis(D) vs.Coffman(R) vs.Brauchler(R,A.G.) vs.Stapleton(R) CT: Malloy(D) vs.Lamont(D) vs.Stefanowski(R) vs.Srinivasan(R) vs.David Walker (R) vs.Lumaj(R) vs.Visconti(R) vs.Lauretti(R) vs.Drew(D) FL: Gillum(D) vs.Graham(D) vs.Putnam(R) vs.Levine(D) vs.DeSantis(R) GA: Kemp(R) vs.Cagle(R) vs.Hill(R) vs.Abrams(D) vs.Levine(D) HI: Ige(D) vs.Hanabusa(D) vs.Tupola(R) vs.Carroll(R) vs.McDermott(R) IA: Reynolds(R) vs.Leopold(D) vs.Boulton(D) vs.McGuire(D) vs.Glasson(D) vs.Hubbell(D) vs.Porter(L) vs.Battaglia(L) ID: Little(R) vs.Fulcher(R) vs.Labrador(R) vs.Ahlquist(R) vs.Minton(D) vs.Jordan(D) IL: Rauner(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Pawar(D) vs.Daniel Biss (D) vs.Pritzker(D) vs.Ives(R) KS: Brewer(D) vs.Hartman (R)	Gubernatorial Debates 2018:(continued) vs.Colyer(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Orman(I) vs.Kelly(D) MA: Baker(R) &Polito(R,Lt.Gov.) vs.Warren (D) vs.Massie (R) MD: Hogan(R) vs.Ross (D) vs.Cummings(D) vs.Madaleno(D) vs.Jealous(D) vs.Quinn(L) vs.Schlakman(G) ME: Mayhew(R) vs.Mills(D) vs.Boyle(D) vs.Thibodeau(R) vs.Moody(D) vs.Capron(I) vs.Caron(I) MI: Whitmer(R) vs.El-Sayed(D) vs.Walz (D) vs.Schuette(R) vs.Calley(R) vs.Tatar(L) MN: vs.Smith(D) vs.Coleman(D) vs.Murphy(D) vs.Otto(D) vs.Liebling (DFL) vs.Walz (DFL) vs.Dean (R) vs.Pawlenty(R) vs.Johnson(R) vs.Swanson(D) MO: Greitens(R) vs.Parson(R) NE: Ricketts(R) vs.Krist(D) NH: Sununu(R) vs.Jarvis(L) vs.Marchand (D) vs.Kelly (D) NM: Lujan-Grisham(D) vs.Pearce(R) vs.Cervantes(D) vs.Apodaca(D) vs.Jarvis(L) NV: Fisher (R) vs.Sisolak(D) vs.Laxalt(R) vs.Schwartz(R) NY: Cuomo(D) vs.Nixon(D) vs.Hawkins(G) vs.Molinaro(R) OH: DeWine(R) vs.Husted(R,Lt.Gov.) vs.Kucinich(D) vs.Sutton(D,Lt.Gov) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Renacci (R) vs.Pillich (D) vs.Schiavoni(D) vs.Whaley(D) vs.Cordray(D) OK: Stitt(R) vs.Cornett(R) vs.Edmondson(D) vs.Richardson(R) vs.Johnson(D) vs.Powell(L) vs.Maldonado(L) OR: Brown(D) vs.Inman(D) vs.Buehler(R) PA: Wolf(D) vs.Fetterman(D,Lt.Gov.) vs.Wagner(R) vs.Barletta(R) vs.Krawchuk(L) RI: Raimondo(D) vs.Brown(D) vs.Fung(R) vs.Morgan(R) SC: McMaster(R) vs.McGill(R) vs.Pope(R) vs.Templeton(R) vs.Smith(D) vs.Warren(D) vs.Bryant(R) SD: Noem(R) vs.Jackley(R) vs.Sutton(D) TN: Green(R) vs.Dean(D) vs.Black(R) vs.Lee(R) TX: Abbott(R) vs.Glass(L) vs.White(D) vs.Valdez(D) VT: Scott(R) vs.Moody(R) vs.Hallquist(D) vs.Stern(D) WI: Walker(R) vs.Harlow(D) vs.Vinehout(D) vs.Evers(D) vs.Roys(D) vs.Anderson(L) WY: Throne(D) vs.Dahlin(R) vs.Gordon(R) vs.Rammell(R)	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 Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-224-3149 Mailing Address: Senate Office SR-326, Washington, DC 20510