Amy Klobuchar on War & Peace DFL Sr Senator (MN); Democratic presidential contender

Require Congressional approval for war with Iran

KLOBUCHAR: The Congress has to have a check on this president. That's how the Constitution has been set up. And in particular, we're going to be having a vote on this coming up in the Senate, on the power of the president when it comes to declaring war. We're really focused right now on Iran, understandably, and some of the things this president has said and there's actually some bipartisan support for a resolution that he couldn't bring us into war with Iran without Congress approving it and with an authorization of military force. For me, especially when it comes to going to war, which you do not want to do unless you have a very good reason, you have to go to Congress.

I opposed Iraq War from the very beginning

V.P. Joe BIDEN: I said 13 years ago it was a mistake to trust that they weren't going to go to war, to stop what we thought to be Iraq's attempt to get a nuclear weapon.

Sen. Amy KLOBUCHAR: I wasn't in the Senate for that Iraq War vote, but I opposed that war from the very beginning. In my first campaign for Senate, I ran against a Republican who ran ads against me on it, but I stood my ground. When I got to the Senate, I pushed to bring our troops home. Then I have dealt with every issue, from Afghanistan to being part of an effort to improve the situation for our troops in a very big way with our education and with their jobs and also with their health care.

Trump is taking us pell-mell into war with Iran

V.P. Joe BIDEN: I was part of that deal to get the nuclear agreement with Iran, bringing together the rest of the world, including some of the folks who aren't friendly to us. And it was working. It was being held tightly. There was no movement on the part of the Iranian government to get closer to a nuclear weapon.

No Iranian nukes, via reinstating joint nuclear deal

Mayor Pete BUTTIGIEG: Ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons will be a priority,

KLOBUCHAR: I would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I think there are changes you can make to the agreement, some changes to the inspections, but overall, that is what we should do.

Q: How would you prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon?

KLOBUCHAR: I would start negotiations again [on the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal]. Because of the actions of Donald Trump, we are in a situation where Iran is starting to enrich uranium again in violation of the original agreement. So what I would do is negotiate. I would bring people together, just as President Obama did years ago, and I think that we can get this done. But you have to have a president that sees this as a number-one goal.

We need to start bringing troops home from Afghanistan

Keep the troops deployed abroad

EIGHT CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Michael Bennet; Joseph Biden, Jr.; Cory Booker; Peter Buttigieg; Seth Moulton; Tim Ryan; Eric Swalwell; Andrew Yang.

Other candidates have urged restraint, warning that allies in nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq still need American military support. Withdrawing all U.S. troops, they assert, could be a grave mistake and only make the situation worse.

Talking to enemies good if there's results; Trump has none

Klobuchar: You always have to talk to everyone when it is American security and the world's security at stake. But he keeps having these summits and meetings that really don't produce anything. what This is about is making sure that there are measurable results, that we have a plan when we go in there and we just haven't seen that.

Q: Would you accept North Korea as a nuclear power?

Klobuchar: No, I would not. What I am saying is you need to have steps and measures. Talk is good, but if all it is, is talk it doesn't produce anything for national security for America and international security for our allies.

Would not accept North Korea as nuclear power

KLOBUCHAR: No, I would not. What I am saying is you need to have steps and measures. You have dates and you have times and you have a focus and you have a plan. Talk is good, but if all it is, is talk it doesn't produce anything for national security for America and international security for our allies.

Require that Trump consult Congress before war with Iran

I would make sure that if there is any possibility of a conflict--and we're having this debate in Congress right now--that he comes to Congress for an authorization of military force. I would do that.

Supported regime change in Libya; supports Israeli military

• Klobuchar supported the U.S.-NATO-led regime change war in Libya in 2011, and her public statements suggest that her main condition for the U.S. use of military force anywhere is that U.S. allies also take part, as in Libya.
• In January 2019, Klobuchar was the only presidential candidate who voted for S.1, a bill to reauthorize U.S. military aid to Israel that also included an anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions provision to allow U.S. state and local governments to divest from companies that boycott Israel.
• She is the only Democratic presidential candidate in the Senate who did not cosponsor Sanders's Yemen War Powers bill in 2018, but she did cosponsor and vote for it in 2019.

Keep US military presence in Syria

2006: turn over governance of Iraq to the Iraqis

2007: Withdraw combat troops from Iraq on sensible timetable

After my election to the Senate, I wanted to do everything in my power to help end the war. In March 2007, I flew to Iraq; then I was tapped to give the national response to President Bush's weekly radio address. I spoke about our soldier's bravery and commitment but also about the need to withdraw our combat forces on a sensible timetable, train the Iraqi police, and transition to Iraqi governance.

In March 2007, I flew to Iraq; [then] I gave the national response to President Bush's weekly radio address. I spoke about the need to withdraw our combat forces on a sensible timetable, train the Iraqi police, and transition to Iraqi governance.

Work together with other countries to solve Iraq problem

KLOBUCHAR: As of Thanksgiving, we’re going to have been in this war longer than WWII. If together with other countries we were able to solve that situation, we can work with others to solve this one.

Iraq has devolved into a civil war; get US troops out

KENNEDY: We need to listen to the commanders in the field. If they say we need more troops, than I want to make sure they have more troops.

KLOBUCHAR: Iraq has devolved into a civil war. I believe it’s time to transition to Iraqi authority and let this government run its own country. The way you do this is not by adding more troops, or by saying that we’ll have the same number of troops in 2010. It’s by beginning to bring our troops home, or to redeploy them.

Solution in Iraq is diplomatic, not just military

Transition to Iraqi governance; no permanent military bases

KLOBUCHAR: I have never been one to say “Bring them all home tomorrow.” Despite my opposition to the war from the beginning, we have to be responsible about how we bring our troops home.

KENNEDY: She’s also come out against a bill funding body armor for our troops that a majority of Democrats join me in supporting.

KLOBUCHAR: Of course I support body armor for our troops, I support winning this war on terror by being smart. We need to transition to Iraqi governance, we need to send the clear message that they have to take control of their own government, and that means no permanent military bases. The congressman & I differ on this. This means not saying 2010 we’re going to have the same number of troops. We need to be more accountable for the help that we’re giving Iraq.

Bring the troops home in a responsible manner

KLOBUCHAR: The best way that we can protect our troops is to get this policy right, and I believe that that means changing course in Iraq. Clearly, at this late date in mid-October, we can’t bring a significant number home. We have to be reasonable. I have never been one to say “Bring them all home tomorrow.” I have never subscribed to one of those mandatory dates, because I understand that, despite my opposition to the war from the beginning, that we have to be responsible about how we bring our troops home.

Q: So you’re saying now that’s probably not doable. What about a “vast majority in 2007,” which is what you said also?

KLOBUCHAR: These predictions were built on the promises and the predictions of progress from this administration, and we simply haven’t seen that. So you have to be reasonable in what you’re going to do here.

Iraq war has cost $300B and fomented more terrorism

KENNEDY: Let’s talk about what the 16 agencies said. They said that we are clearly activating terrorists in Iraq, having taken the challenge to them. But they also said we have to prevail. If we don’t prevail, it will greatly mushroom this threat, let it grow in size, and come to face our future generations. They said that if we, if we lose, that’s what will happen; if we win, we will greatly degrade what’s happening on the other side.

Fight for accountability for the run-up to the Iraq war

Supported invading Afghanistan, but not Iraq

Whether it was their categorical (but false) assertions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or their repeated (but unsupported) claims of Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda, or their frequent (but untrue) assurances that America would go to war only with broad international support, or their constant (but divisive) attempts to “spin” the war by going after those who disagreed with them, the Bush-Cheney administration did not give honest information to the American people. This conduct has not only damaged America’s credibility throughout the world, but also undermined the American people’s confidence in our own government.

Iraq war needed moral compass of int’l cooperation

Fight for a clear plan to bring our troops home safely

Fight for accountability for the run-up to the Iraq war

No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq.

Sponsor`s introductory remarks: Sen. BIDEN: This bipartisan resolution opposes the President`s plan to escalate the war in Iraq. This resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, are against: deepening America`s military involvement in Iraq by escalating our troop presence. Just as important, it says what we and many of our colleagues are for: a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq. That`s the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

Excertps from resolution:
• Whereas the US strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress;
• Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our goal, and the best chance of success requires a change in current strategy;
• Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing, influence, and interests of the US in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world;
• Whereas more than 3,000 US military personnel have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 have been wounded in Iraq;
• Whereas on January 10, 2007, Pres. Bush announced his plan to deepen the US military involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 additional US combat forces to Iraq;
• Whereas an open-ended commitment of US forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises that are needed for violence to end and for stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;
• Resolved: That it is the sense of Congress that it is not in the national interest of the US to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the US military force presence in Iraq;
• the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq.

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.

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.

No military force against Iran without Congress approval.

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.

Sponsored resolution to repeal 2002 AUMF against Iraq.

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)