Get Involved!
2008 Elections
Iraq: Republican Candidates
Posted on Thursday October 25, 2007
|
|
 |
Former Mayor Rudolf Giuliani
You know, the question that Chris asked before, about whether or not we would have had to have gone to war in Iraq if we were energy independent and we didn't have to depend on Middle Eastern oil -- I mean, that is -- I think the answer is probably we should have and would have gone to war against Saddam Hussein anyway, but maybe not. And certainly, they'd have less leverage.
October 9, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Dearborn, MI
Gov. Mike Huckabee
We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy.
Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is a stake.
Senator McCain made a great point -- and let me make this clear: If there's anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I've got to say Senator McCain understands that word...
... because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don't even comprehend.
And on this issue, when he says we can't leave until we've left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there.
We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.
September 5, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Durham, NH
Rep. Duncan Hunter
On proposed strategies to resolve Iraq conflict…
Ladies and gentlemen, we can leave Iraq, and under my leadership, we will leave Iraq in victory. And let me tell you what I would propose.
The key to handing off the security apparatus in Iraq, now that we've stood up a free government -- and it is a free government. It's stumbling along, it's inept, but it's a free government. The key to a security handoff is to have a reliable Iraqi army.
Right now, we've got 131 battalions in the Iraqi army. We've trained them and we've equipped them, and we are moving them into the battle.
And my recommendation to the president, the Joint Chiefs and General Petraeus is to make sure that every one of those 131 battalions gets at least a three- or four-month combat tour in a contentious area. When they are battle-hardened, we can rotate them into the battle zone, rotate our America's heavy forces, Marines and Army, and bring them home.
That's the right way to leave Iraq, in victory.
September 27, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Baltimore, MD
Sen. John McCain
I'd just like to mention, I'm the only one on this stage that four years ago said this is a failed policy in Iraq, it's not going to work, its got to be changed. I was criticized by Republicans for my severe criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld.
I advocated the strategy that's succeeding, and thank God the American people are giving us a little window so we can let this thing succeed and not have happen, as the president of Iran recently said, the United States will leave Iraq and there will be vacuum and Iran will fill it.
That's what's at stake here.
October 9, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Dearborn, MI
Rep. Ron Paul
Regarding why we don’t have to stay in Iraq to fight Islamic terrorism:
Because our presence there makes extremism worse. We're more vulnerable to terrorism because we're over there occupying their country, and they resent it. We would resent it if China occupied our country. What if China came? They look different, they have a different religion, they're going to impose their religious values and their political values on us. We'd be furious, and yet we're over there, so we incite the radicals against us. After 9/11, we went into Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, we've occupied two countries now. They were already complaining that our support for countries like Saudi Arabia and our military presence in Saudi Arabia was one of the inciting reasons for them to come here. So we did exactly the opposite of what we were supposed to do. Now we're in worse shape.
Our military is run down. We've spent a half a trillion dollars. We've lost all these men and women. We've had 40,000 serious casualties. And all we can do is dig in our heels and say, "Well, we can't leave because there will be chaos." We've created chaos. The longer we stay the more chaos and the more expenses we're going to have.
October 12, 2007
Gov. Mitt Romney
I don't have a time frame that I've announced. What I've indicated is very consistent with what the president is speaking about and what we're hearing from Iraq right now, and that is that the surge is apparently working.
We're going to get a full report on that from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker very soon. But the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Brookings have come back with positive reports.
If the surge is working, then we're going to be able to start bringing back our troops levels slowly but surely, and play more of a support role over time. Ultimately, down the road, I would anticipate that we're not going to have a permanent presence in Iraq, and we'll be in a standby mode in surrounding nations.
But, of course, when we consider moving to a support role and bringing, at some stage, our troop levels back, we're going to be doing that from a position of strength because the surge has worked.
There's no question it's essential for America to show that we are committed to success in Iraq. Our men and women are the bravest and most patriotic in the world that are over there fighting. We deserve to give them the kind of support they need to make this mission successful.
… I think you're going to begin to see if the surge is working, and I think we're going to get that report very soon, that we're going to begin to slowly but surely pull back to a support role.
But the timetable for that I hope will be as soon as possible. We all hope for that. We all hope for that. But the question of timetable will depend upon how successful the surge is.
And the key is, we don't start pulling back troops; we don't go into a support mode until we are successful with this surge and we are providing the security and the stability that we anticipate for this country.
People who are wiling to put their life on the line for American freedom are in a league of their own, and we owe them our respect. And the sacrifice they make is something we'll never forget.
The issue that I think -- Congressman Tancredo hit the nail on the head. This is not about broken pottery and it's also not about just getting out because we made a mistake. This is a global conflict going on, radical violent jihad. This effort ranges from Indonesia to Nigeria, and through Europe into America.
And this battlefield of Iraq is a place where we have to be successful because the consequences of what will happen on this global battlefield are enormous.
And that's why it's so important for us to be successful with the surge. And I agree, it looks successful. I certainly hope it's going to be fully successful. And as we are able to do that, we're going to see ourselves able to continue in our efforts to overwhelm jihad.
The key is this: We need a global strategy -- and on my Web site you'll see it -- a global strategy to help us overcome jihad globally because this is the threat which faces the entire civilized world.
…And assuming success, let's start bringing our troops back when they feel it's the right time to do so to make sure that we move to the support stage out of a posture of strength, and not of a posture of bowing to the Democrats.
The Democrats want to remove Al-Maliki. They want to remove the head of the government and withdraw; that's a policy for chaos.
September 5, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Durham, NH
Rep. Thomas Tancredo
But let me get back to a central point here, and that is why we're there and in fact, with whom we are at war.
The war is not actually in Iraq. The war is with radical Islam. That's who we are at war with.
And we have to understand it, Iraq is a battlefield in that war. And we -- in order for us to be successful there, a number of things are going to have to happen, and I think part -- when we talk about the disengagement, that is exactly what I believe has to happen.
We have to disengage as the police force in Iraq. But we cannot leave the country. We cannot leave because this is not a war that will end with our departure.
I wish that were the case. Wouldn't that be wonderful if that's all it would take, for us to say we'll withdraw all of our troops and we'll never have another thing to worry about?
But we were not attacked because we had troops in Saudi Arabia; I don't believe it. We were attacked because radical Islam wants to destroy the United States of America and any part of this world that they do not agree with.
September 5, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Durham, NH
Former Sen. Fred Thompson
I think the policy we're engaged in now is the right one. Clearly, to me, we didn't go in with enough troops and we didn't know what to expect when we got there. But now we're showing signs of progress.
I think we got to take advantage of the opportunities that we have there, now that we see a window of opportunity for things to turn around and us to stabilize that place and not have to leave with our tail between our legs.
If we did that, it would make for a more dangerous United States of America.
I think we've got to come to terms with the nature of the threat that our country faces. It is a global war; Islamic fascism has declared it upon us. They look at it as something that's been going on for a long, long time. They're perfectly willing for it to go on for a long time more, killing millions of innocent people in
the process.
They play by no rules and they are intent on bringing down Western civilization and the United States of America. So we have to understand what's necessary -- and the determination that we need to show to friend and foe alike that we'll do what's necessary to fight on any front that we have to fight on.
This is a front in a much broader war, and I think the young people that I talked to coming back from understand that. In fact, sometimes it's strange to me to think that the average 20-year-old serving us in Iraq knows more about what it takes for our national security than the average 20-year veteran on Capitol Hill.
Regarding what he believed about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the US invasion:
I was just stating what was obvious and that is that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people -- against the Kurds.
And of course, he had a nuclear reactors back -- I believe it was in '81 when the Israelis bombed that. And the Iraq Study Group reported that had designs on reviving his nuclear program which he had started once upon a time.
So, there's no question that he had had them in times passed, and in my own estimation, there's no question that if left to his own devices, he and his son would still be running that place, attacking their neighbors and murdering their own people and developing a nuclear capability -- especially in looking what Iran is doing as their next door neighbor and long-time adversary.
And the whole place would be nuclearized. Saudi Arabia would probably respond to that. Other Sunni nations would respond to it. And you'd have an entirely nuclearized part of the world that we don't have now. That would be extremely problematic for us from an oil standpoint as well as a global stability standpoint.
October 9, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Dearborn, MI
