|
Niki Tsongas on War & Peace
Democrat
|
|
Set a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) campaigned with Tsongas, touting her opposition to the war in Iraq. Tsongas supports setting a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Her opponent, Jim Ogonowski, has called the invasion of
Iraq a mistake but says a withdrawal of US forces would be “cowardly” until Iraq is stabilized.Tsongas’ latest advertisements emphasize her desire to bring US troops home from Iraq, and accuse Ogonowski of wanting to keep troops in Iraq “indefinitely.”
Source: Josh Kraushaar, Lowell Sun
, Oct 15, 2007
War costs $15 million an hour; time to change course
Tsongas’s new palm cards read, “This Tuesday, October 16th, the stakes are high: Change course in Iraq and here at home.” Her ads focus on her desire to end the war and her backing of the bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance
Program, which President Bush vetoed earlier this month. Tsongas told supporters the cost of the war had gone from $13 million to $15 million an hour during her campaign. “We have to change direction,” she said.
Source: Eric Moskowitz, Boston Globe
, Oct 15, 2007
Voted NO on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.
RESOLUTION Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of US Armed Forces in Libya, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.The House of Representatives makes the following statements of policy: - The US Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the US.
- The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon US national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.
- The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the US Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.
The President shall transmit a report describing in detail US security interests and objectives, and the activities of US Armed Forces, in Libya since March 19, 2011, including a description of the following:- The President's
justification for not seeking authorization by Congress for the use of military force in Libya.
- US political and military objectives regarding Libya, including the relationship between the intended objectives and the operational means being employed to achieve them.
- Changes in US political and military objectives following the assumption of command by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
- Differences between US political and military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO member states engaged in military activities.
- The specific commitments by the US to ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.
- The anticipated scope and duration of continued US military involvement in Libya.
- The costs of military, political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.
Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the US States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.
Reference: Resolution on Libya;
Bill HRes294
; vote number 11-HV410
on Jun 3, 2011
Voted YES on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan.
Congressional Summary:Directs the President, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan:- by no later than 30 days after this resolution is adopted; or
- if the President determines that it is not safe to remove them by such date, by no later than December 31, 2011.
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.
Reference: Resolution on Afghanistan;
Bill HConRes28
; vote number 11-HV193
on Mar 17, 2011
Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.
OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This vote is on referring the impeachment resolution to a Congressional Committee to decide further action (not on impeachment itself).Congressional Summary: Resolved, That President George W. Bush be impeached for committing the following abuses of power:
- Article I--Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign To Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq
- Article VI & VIII--Invading Iraq in Violation of H.J. Res. 114, the U.N. Charter and International Criminal Law
- Article X--Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
- Article XI--Establishment of Permanent US Military Bases in Iraq
- Article XII--Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
- Article XVII--Detaining Indefinitely and Without Charge Persons Both US Citizens and Foreign Captives
- Article XXIV--Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the
Fourth Amendment
- Article XXVI--Announcing the Intent To Violate Laws With Signing Statements, and Violating Those Laws
Proponents' arguments for voting YEA: Rep. Kucinich: Now is the time for this Congress to examine the actions that led us into this war, just as we must work to bring our troops home. This resolution is a very serious matter and I urge the Committee on Judiciary to investigate and carefully consider this resolution.Rep. Wasserman-Schultz: Impeachment is a lengthy process which would divide Congress and this nation even more deeply than we are divided right now. Referring this resolution to the House Judiciary Committee is the constitutionally appropriate process that should be pursued.
Rep. Ron Paul: I rise, reluctantly, in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
Reference: The Kucinich Privilege Resolution;
Bill H.RES.1258
; vote number 2008-401
on Jun 11, 2008
Page last updated: Feb 27, 2016