Michele Bachmann on War & Peace Republican Representative (MN-6); 2011 GOP frontrunner

Leaving Iraq now invites in Iran as hegemon

A: The biggest mistake that Pres. Obama has made has been the decision he made regarding Iraq. He was essentially given on a silver platter victory in Iraq, and he's choosing intentionally to lose the peace.

We all know what is going to happen. We know that Iran is going to be the hegemon & try to come into Iraq and have the dominant influence. And then Iran will essentially have dominance from the Persian Gulf all the way to the Mediterranean, through its ally Syria.

We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon; they WILL use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map, and they've stated they will use it against the US. Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are an existential threat

BACHMANN: Pakistan has been the epicenter of dealing with terrorism. There are al-Qaeda training grounds there. And they also are one of the most violent, unstable nations that there is. We have to recognize that 15 of their nuclear sites are potentially penetrable by jihadists. Six attempts have already been made. This is more than an existential threat. We have to take this very seriously. The US has to be engaged. We have to recognize that the Chinese are doing everything that they can to be an influential party in Pakistan. We don't want to lose influence. At the same time, they do share intelligence data with us regarding Al Qaida. We need to demand more. The money that we are sending right now is primarily intelligence money to Pakistan. It is helping the US. Whatever our action is, it must ultimately be about helping the US and our security.

Stand up against Iran's genocidal maniac

A: This week, we saw potentially an international assassination attempt from Iran on American soil. That says something about Iran, that they disrespect the US so much, that they would attempt some sort of heinous act like that. Then we heard the reports that in Iraq, the 5,000 troops that were going to be left there won't even be granted immunity by Iraq. This is how disrespected the US is in the world today, and it's because of Pres. Obama's failed policies. He's taken his eyes off the number one issue in the world. That's an Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. That makes all of us in much danger. And the president of Iran is a genocidal maniac. We need to stand up against Iran. And as president, I will. We will be respected again in the world.

Q: The question though was about budget cuts. Is defense spending on the table?

A: Defense spending is on the table, but we cannot cut it by $500 billion.

It was wrong for US to go into Libya

BACHMANN: As devastating as our economy is with the policies of Barack Obama, I think that he has actually weakened us militarily and with the US presence globally.

Q: I didn't hear your answer with respect to Libya.

BACHMANN: Well, I believe that it was wrong for the president to go into Libya. His own secretary of defense, Gates, said that there was no American vital interest in Libya. If there is no vital interest, that doesn't even meet the threshold of the first test for military involvement. The other thing is, we didn't know who the rebel forces were in Libya. We don't know if the oil revenues will get in the hands of people who will have designs on radical Islam. These are very serious issues, and I think it was wrong for the president of the United States to go into Libya.

Iran is a state sponsor of terror; can't be a nuclear power

CAIN: I believe that our energy strategy is directly related to national security, as well as stopping Iran in their efforts. As the price of oil goes down, it puts an economic squeeze on Iran. There's more to foreign policy than bombs and bullets. There's bombs and bullets and economics.

BACHMANN: Iran is the central issue in the Middle East and their capacity to become a nuclear power. They're one of the four state sponsors of terror in the world. I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. I can't reveal classified information, but I can say this: As president of the United States, I will do everything to make sure that Iran does not become a nuclear power.

No vital US interests at stake in Libya

Santorum: We need to focus our military on OUR national security not UN or humanitarian efforts, the first being to defend our borders.

Bachmann: No. There is no vital US interest in Libya. Worse, we might be aiding terrorist groups by supporting the Libyan opposition.

Santorum: I would not go anywhere unless our national security was at stake. It seems clear that was not the case.

Stay the course in Afghanistan until victorious

President Bush did let the country know where we were at, and I give him a lot of credit because when he was getting all sorts of invective pointed against him, he stood against the world for what he knew to be right in dealing with terrorism.

Now in Afghanistan, we are making great progress. We have to win southern Afghanistan, then we have to go on and win eastern Afghanistan. I believe that we will be victorious, and we'll end it. I understand why people are frustrated. I completely understand. But I do trust General Petraeus in that effort and in what he is doing over there. And I think that they are doing what we need to do

Don't lead from behind; no US interest in Libya

BACHMANN: No, I don't believe it is. That isn't just my opinion. That was the opinion of our defense secretary. He could not identify a vital national American interest in Libya. Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. Obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind. We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. The president was not leading when it came to Libya. First of all, we were not attacked. We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest. We to this day don't yet know who the rebel forces are that we're helping. There are some reports that they may contain al Qaeda of North Africa. What possible vital American interests could we have to empower al Qaeda of North Africa and Libya? The president was absolutely wrong in his decision on Libya

Opposes US involvement in Libyan civil war

Michele Bachmann's position on Libya distinctly contrasts with Obama's position. Bachmann is against American involvement in the civil war in Libya. Her view is that no one really knows who the rebels in Libya are, nor how they intend to change Libya. She further explains that there are terrorist groups assisting the rebels Q: Would any of you have gone into Libya?

Santorum: We need to focus our military on OUR national security not UN or humanitarian efforts, the first being to defend our borders.

Bachmann: No. There is no vital US interest in Libya. Worse, we might be aiding terrorist groups by supporting the Libyan opposition.

Santorum: I would not go anywhere unless our national security was at stake. It seems clear that was not the case.

Voted YES on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.

The House of Representatives makes the following statements of policy:
1. The US Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the US.
2. The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon US national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.
3. 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.

1. The President's justification for not seeking authorization by Congress for the use of military force in Libya.
2. US political and military objectives regarding Libya, including the relationship between the intended objectives and the operational means being employed to achieve them.
3. Changes in US political and military objectives following the assumption of command by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
4. Differences between US political and military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO member states engaged in military activities.
5. The specific commitments by the US to ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.
6. The anticipated scope and duration of continued US military involvement in Libya.
7. The costs of military, political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.

Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan.

Directs the President, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan:
1. by no later than 30 days after this resolution is adopted; or
2. 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.

Voted NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.

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

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.

Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq. This bill does not walk away from the Iraqi people. It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and reconstruction aid. Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of our military commanders.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This legislation embraces surrender and defeat. This legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President as commander in chief. Opponents express concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal, and about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field. The enemy we face in Iraq view this bill as a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world.

Boycott & sanctions against Iran for terrorism & nukes.

• Declares that it is US policy to deny Iran the ability to support acts of foreign terrorist organizations and develop unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles.
• Urges the President to initiate diplomatic efforts to expand the multilateral sanctions regime regarding Iran.
• Directs the President to impose specified sanctions on a person who knowingly makes specified investments with respect to Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources; or exports to any items that would contribute to Iran's ability to acquire or develop chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, or acquire or develop destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons.
• Defines sanctions to include: prohibitions on loans from US financial institutions; prohibitions on foreign exchange; prohibitions on property transactions; and export and procurement sanctions.
• States that a determination to impose sanctions under this Act shall not be reviewable in any court.
• Authorizes financial and political assistance to entities that support democracy in Iran.
• Imposes visa, property, and financial sanctions on persons identified as officials of the government of Iran, security services, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
• Directs the President to develop a National Strategy to Counter Iran.
• Requires a report on the Central Bank of Iran's activities to facilitate Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear missile capacities, and promote terrorism.
• Terminates the provisions of this Act when Iran:
  1. has dismantled its efforts to develop or acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;
  2. no longer provides support for acts of international terrorism; and
  3. poses no threat to US national security, interests, or allies.

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.

Intervene in Iraq to protect persecuted Christians.

Congressional Summary:

Calling for urgent international intervention on behalf of Iraqi civilians facing a dire humanitarian crisis in the Nineveh Plain region of Iraq.

Whereas recent extremist attacks have had a particularly severe effect on ethnic and religious minority communities in the region;
• Whereas the UN Security Council on July22, 2014 denounced the persecution of Iraqi Christians, including Yazidis and Mandeans;
• Whereas reports indicate that some 150,000 Iraqi people in the Nineveh Plain region are now facing ethnic and religious cleansing and have been targeted for retribution by ISIS;
• Resolved that Congress--
• Condemns the religious bigotry, property destruction, and violent attacks on, and intimidation of, Iraqi civilians by armed extremists.
• Calls upon the government of Iraq to protect the safety and constitutional rights of all Iraqi citizens.
• Calls on the President, Secretary of State, and the Permanent Representative to the UN to implement a humanitarian intervention to protect civilians, stabilize the security situation in the Nineveh Plain region of Iraq, and facilitate humanitarian assistance in the Kurdistan region to help absorb the influx of refugees.

Argument in opposition: (by The Christian Post)

ISIS has asked minorities to flee, convert to Islam, or be killed. H.Con. Res. 110 makes it a priority to protect Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and create safe havens for them. Yazidis are viewed by the ISIS as "devil worshipers."

Argument in opposition: (by Baltimore Nonviolence Center, July 26, 2014)

[We're seeking] action to keep us from sliding back to war in Iraq. On July 25, the House passed H. Con. Res. 105, the proposal to keep U.S. troops out of Iraq, by an overwhelming vote of 370-40. By passing the Iraq War Powers Resolution, Congress made clear that they stand with the American public, who do not want to go back to war in Iraq.

Work with Iraqi government to fight ISIL.

Congressional Summary:

RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the current situation in Iraq and the urgent need to protect religious minorities from persecution from the Sunni Islamist insurgent and terrorist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) as it expands its control over areas in northwestern Iraq.