Chip Cravaack on War & Peace
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Kucinich, D-OH]:The American people oppose this war by a margin of two to one. Nearly 2/3 of Americans say the war isn't worth fighting. We are spending $100 billion per year on this war. There are those who are saying the war could last at least another 10 years. Are we willing to spend another $1 trillion on a war that doesn't have any exit plan, for which there is no timeframe to get out, no endgame, where we haven't defined our mission? The question is not whether we can afford to leave. The question is, can we afford to stay? And I submit we cannot afford to stay. The counterintelligence strategy of General Petraeus is an abysmal failure, and it needs to be called as such.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL]: This resolution would undermine the efforts of our military and our international partners in Afghanistan and would gravely harm our Nation's security. 3,000 people died on Sep. 11 because we walked away once from Afghanistan, thinking that it didn't matter who controlled that country. We were wrong then. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Completing our mission in Afghanistan is essential to keeping our homeland safe. This is about our vital national security interests. It is about doing what is necessary to ensure that al Qaeda and other extremists cannot reestablish safe havens such as the ones they had in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were planned against our Nation and our people. The enemy, indeed, is on the run. It is demoralized and divided. Let us not give up now.
Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 16% did so in the 2010 races.
Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'International Policy Issues: Do you support United States military action in Afghanistan?'
Opponent's Comments (Robert Naiman on Huffington Post, Dec. 13, 2011):This bill would restore as policy the "Cooties Doctrine" of the early Bush Administration--US officials can't meet with officials of the adversary, because our officials might get contaminated. It seems highly doubtful that the provision is constitutional, since it tries to micromanage the executive branch in its conduct of foreign affairs. But putting the legal issuesaside, isn't the logic of this provision completely counter to the argument that we voted for in Nov. 2008: that it's ok--indeed, it is wise, prudent, and preferable--for the US to be able to talk to its adversaries?
Result: Bill passed the House on Dec. 15, 2011, by a vote of 410-11 (rollcall vote #927). Referred to Senate, where there was no vote before adjournment.
|2012 Governor, House and Senate candidates on War & Peace:||Chip Cravaack on other issues:|
Retiring to run for other office:
Running for President:
Running for Mayor:
Running for Governor:
Running for Senate:
Lost Primary 2012:
Office 508 CHOB, Wash., DC 20515