Oppose an artificial timetable for withdrawing from Iraq
McCaskill said to them she’s deeply concerned that we haven’t granted habeas corpus privileges to captured terrorists, which would allow them to sue us because they’re not getting high-speed Internet. She supports an artificial timetable for
withdrawing from Iraq. It’s not a question of politics. It’s not a question of people’s motives. It’s a question of what’s going to win this war. And positions of weakness are not going to do it.
Source: 2006 MO Senate Debate on NBC Meet The Press
Oct 8, 2006
Need to season the Iraqi army before leaving Iraq
The part of the mission that remains to be done, that requires large numbers of American troops, is finishing the seasoning of the Iraqi army and appropriately sizing it so they can defend themselves alone, or without large numbers of American troops.
We have to finish the mission, then we’ll be able to come home. What the national intelligence estimate said was that if we complete the mission in Iraq, it’s going to be a huge victory for us, and a huge setback for the terrorists.
Source: 2006 MO Senate Debate on NBC Meet The Press
Oct 8, 2006
Our troops must stay in Iraq until the job is done
Setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal means sending a notice to the terrorists that we’re going to quit. The level of sectarian violence can’t be sustained. The Maliki government needs to deal with it. What they’ve got to do is confront the
militia, they’ve got to use a classic counterinsurgency techniques, the sweep-hold-build techniques. They’ve got to make political democracy and economic reconstruction real on the ground to the Iraqis, and they got to hook up the sewers and the
require large numbers of American troops. We have to be there until the mission is done. I mean, as the national intelligence estimate said, if we complete this mission, it’s going to be a huge victory for us. If we don’t, it’s going to be a setback.
Would still have invaded Iraq knowing there were no weapons
Q: Knowing what you know today, that Saddam did not have the weapons of destruction that our intelligence agencies thought he had, would you still vote for the war? A: It was the only possible strategic choice. Saddam had been an organic threat in the
region for a long time. He represented a threat to us. That threat is now gone. He wanted them. He was trying to get rid of economic sanctions. We’d have another Iran there. That threat’s been removed.
Source: 2006 MO Senate Debate on NBC Meet The Press
Oct 8, 2006
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
Voting YEA on this amendment would establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Voting NAY would keep the current situation without a timetable. The amendment states:
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.
The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
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.
To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. Voting YES would: create Senate special committee to investigate war contracts, taking into consideration: bidding, methods of contracting, subcontracting, oversight procedures, allegations of wasteful practices, accountability and lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reference: Committee to Investigate War Contracts;
Bill S Amdt 2476 to S 1042
; vote number 2005-316
on Nov 10, 2005
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding.
Amendment to express the sense of the Senate on future requests for funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. A YES vote would:
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.
Reference: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act;
Bill S.AMDT.464 to H.R.1268
; vote number 2005-96
on Apr 20, 2005
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Fiscal 2004. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq. This includes:
$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.
Reference: FY04 Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan;
Bill S1689
; vote number 2003-400
on Oct 17, 2003
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo.
Vote on an amendment to the "Kosovo and Southwest Asia Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act" which would prohibit the use of funds for any invasion of Yugoslavia with U.S. ground forces except in time of war.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Istook, R-OK;
Bill HR 1664
; vote number 1999-119
on May 6, 1999
Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
Talent co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act
Declares it to be U.S. policy that:
Jerusalem remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected;
Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel;
the U.S. Embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
Makes specified amounts of such funds available until expended in FY 1996 and 1997 only for construction and other costs associated with relocating the U.S. Embassy Jerusalem.
Corresponding House bill is H.R.1595. Became Public Law No: 104-45.
Source: Bill sponsored by 77 Senators and 78 Reps 95-S1322 on Oct 13, 1995
