|
Debbie Stabenow on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator; previously Representative (MI-8)
|
|
We are not in Iraq forever
Q: Any limit on time for our involvement in Iraq?STABENOW: Most challenging situation. It’s our job to give them everything they need. I’ve been to Iraq, met with Ministers. We are not there forever.
The Iraqis need to shore up so our people can step back. We’re doing excellent training of their people.
BOUCHARD: We need to do everything we can to bring more stable and safe situation there. We can’t leave it in a vacuum.
Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids
, Oct 15, 2006
Iraq was a war of choice, not a necessity
Q: Do you support pre-emptive war?BOUCHARD: I believe we need to take care of any threat--if we have actual intelligence, yes, we need to protect the US. My opponent has failed to protect America, she voted against missile defense.
We need someone who will stand up to the plate. I’ve been in Law Enforcement in 20 years. Protection is the most important job of government. She’s not done it.
STABENOW: I supported every defense budget and everything we need to do to protect our families. My opponent didn’t answer the question -- which was about Iraq.
I didn’t vote to go to Iraq, because it was a war of choice, not a necessity. I’ve been to Iraq - they are brave soldiers who deserve more than a slogan - they need a strategy.
Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids, x-ref Bouchard
, Oct 15, 2006
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.
Stabenow co-sponsored the Resolution on bigotry against Sikh Americans:
Title: Condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
Summary: Declares that, in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected.
- Condemns bigotry and acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans, including Sikh-Americans.
- Calls upon local and Federal law enforcement authorities to: (1) work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans; and (2) prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR255 on Oct 4, 2001
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq.
Stabenow co-sponsored opposing 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.
Source: Bipartisan Resolution on Iraq (S.CON.RES.2 ) 07-SCR2 on Jan 17, 2007
Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment.
Stabenow co-sponsored Resolution on Iran's nuclear program
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;
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, that Congress--- Reaffirms that the US Government has a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
- warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
- urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until a full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities;
- expresses that the window for diplomacy is closing;
- expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
- strongly supports US policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
- rejects any US policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.
Source: HRes568/SR41 12-SJR41 on May 24, 2012
Iran must accept long-term intrusive nuke inspection.
Stabenow signed demanding that Iran accept intrusive nuclear 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.
Iran must clearly understand the consequences of failing to reach an acceptable final agreement. We must signal unequivocally to Iran that rejecting negotiations and continuing its nuclear weapon program will lead to much more dramatic sanctions, including further limitations on Iran`s oil exports.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.
Source: Iran Nukes Letter 14LTR-NUKE on Mar 18, 2014
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran.
Stabenow co-sponsored requiring Congress' approval before military action in Iran
RESOLUTION Affirming that any offensive military action taken against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress.- WHEREAS article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States vests in Congress all power to declare war:
- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.
Sen. DURBIN. `We are now more than halfway through our fifth year in this war in Iraq. We find ourselves stuck as an occupier in a Middle East civil war. Thousands of our sons & daughters have been killed or injured. The total financial cost may be well over $1 trillion--money, I might add, that this administration has borrowed against our children`s future.`America`s reputation internationally has been severely damaged and critical military, diplomatic, and intelligence resources have been diverted from the war in Afghanistan--a war
I supported, and a country this administration has increasingly neglected. And now, after so many errors, so many lives, and so much damage, this administration is again raising the prospect of yet another war in the Middle East--this time a war with Iran.
`I fear this administration has learned nothing from the colossal error, colossal misjudgment in the invasion of Iraq. Let me be clear: I am gravely concerned about Iran`s activities in the region and its nuclear agenda. But any offensive action against Iran must be approved by Congress.
`Recent statements by this administration give me concern that this administration is considering just this--an offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress. Both Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney have made public remarks about Iran that suggest an administration readying for military aggression. We know Cheney`s historic views on fundamental checks and balances in our constitution. They are disturbing.`
Source: Resolution on Iran (S.RES.356) 2007-SR356 on Oct 25, 2007
Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program.
Stabenow signed Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act
Expresses the sense of Congress that:- 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;
- US concerns regarding Iran are strictly the result of that government`s actions; and
- 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:- support international diplomatic efforts to end Iran`s uranium enrichment program and its nuclear weapons program;
- 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;
- impose sanctions
on the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian financial institution engaged in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups; and
- 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.
Source: S.908&HR.2194 2009-S908 on Apr 30, 2009
No military force against Iran without Congress approval.
Stabenow voted YEA the Iran War Powers Resolution
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.
Source: Congressional vote 20-SCR33 on Jan 9, 2020
|
Other candidates on War & Peace: |
Debbie Stabenow on other issues: |
MI Gubernatorial: Dick Posthumus Garrett Soldano James Craig Tudor Dixon MI Senatorial: Elissa Slotkin Gary Peters James Craig John James Leslie Love Marcia Squier Mike Rogers Peter Meijer
MI politicians
MI Archives
|
Senate races 2024:
AZ:
Kyrsten Sinema(I,incumbent)
vs.Ruben Gallego(D)
vs.Kari Lake(R)
vs.Mark Lamb(R)
CA:
Laphonza Butler(D,retiring)
vs.Adam Schiff(D nominee)
vs.Steve Garvey(R nominee)
vs.Gail Lightfoot(L)
vs.Barbara Lee(D, lost primary)
vs.Katie Porter(D, lost primary)
CT:
Chris Murphy(D,incumbent)
vs.John Flynn(R)
vs.Robert Hyde(R)
DE:
Tom Carper(D,retiring)
vs.Eric Hansen(R)
vs.Michael Katz(I)
vs.Lisa Blunt Rochester(D)
FL:
Rick Scott(R,incumbent)
vs.Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D)
HI:
Mazie Hirono(D,incumbent)
vs.Bob McDermott(R)
IN:
Mike Braun(R,retiring)
vs.Jim Banks(R nominee)
vs.Valerie McCray(D nominee)
vs.Marc Carmichael(D, lost primary)
MA:
Elizabeth Warren(D,incumbent)
vs.Shiva Ayyadurai(R)
vs.John Deaton(R)
MD:
Ben Cardin(D,retiring)
vs.Larry Hogan(R)
vs.Robin Ficker(R)
vs.Angela Alsobrooks(D)
vs.David Trone(D)
ME:
Angus King(I,incumbent)
vs.Demi Kouzounas(R)
vs.David Costello(D)
MI:
Debbie Stabenow(D,retiring)
vs.Leslie Love(D)
vs.Peter Meijer(R)
vs.James Craig(R)
vs.Mike Rogers(R)
vs.Elissa Slotkin(D)
MN:
Amy Klobuchar(DFL,incumbent)
vs.Royce White(R)
vs.Steve Carlson(DFL)
MO:
Josh Hawley(R,incumbent)
vs.Karla May(D)
vs.Lucas Kunce(D)
MS:
Roger Wicker(R,incumbent)
vs.Dan Eubanks(R)
vs.Ty Pinkins(D)
MT:
Jon Tester(D,incumbent)
vs.Tim Sheehy(R)
vs.Brad Johnson(R,lost primary)
ND:
Kevin Cramer(R,incumbent)
vs.Katrina Christiansen(D)
|
NE:
Peter Ricketts(R,incumbent,2-year seat)
vs.Preston Love(D)
Deb Fischer(D,incumbent,6-year seat)
vs.Dan Osborn(I)
NJ:
Bob Menendez(I,incumbent)
vs.Andy Kim(D)
vs.Curtis Bashaw(R)
vs.Tammy Murphy(D,withdrew)
NM:
Martin Heinrich(D,incumbent)
vs.Nella Domenici(R)
NV:
Jacky Rosen(D,incumbent)
vs.Jim Marchant (R)
vs.Sam Brown(R)
NY:
Kirsten Gillibrand(D,incumbent)
vs.Mike Sapraicone(R)
vs.Josh Eisen(R,withdrew May 1)
OH:
Sherrod Brown(D,incumbent)
vs.Bernie Moreno(R nominee)
vs.Frank LaRose(R, lost primary)
vs.Matt Dolan(R, lost primary)
PA:
Bob Casey(D,incumbent)
vs.David McCormick(R)
RI:
Sheldon Whitehouse(D,incumbent)
vs.Patricia Morgan(R)
vs.Allen Waters(R,withdrew)
TN:
Marsha Blackburn(R,incumbent)
vs.Gloria Johnson(D)
vs.Marquita Bradshaw(D)
TX:
Ted Cruz(R,incumbent)
vs.Colin Allred(D)
vs.Roland Gutierrez(D,lost primary)
vs.Carl Sherman(D,lost primary)
UT:
Mitt Romney(R,retiring)
vs.John Curtis(R)
vs.Trent Staggs(R)
vs.Brad Wilson(R)
vs.Caroline Gleich(D)
VA:
Tim Kaine(D,incumbent)
vs.Scott Parkinson(R)
VT:
Bernie Sanders(I,incumbent)
vs.Gerald Malloy(R)
WA:
Maria Cantwell(D,incumbent)
vs.Raul Garcia(R)
WI:
Tammy Baldwin(D,incumbent)
vs.Eric Hovde(R)
vs.Phil Anderson(L)
WV:
Joe Manchin III(D,retiring)
vs.Don Blankenship(D)
vs.Jim Justice(R)
vs.Alex Mooney(R)
vs.Glenn Elliott(D)
WY:
John Barrasso(R,incumbent)
vs.Reid Rasner(R)
vs.Scott Morrow(D)
|
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare
Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings
|
[Title9]
|
Page last updated: Sep 08, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org