Get Involved!
2008 Elections
Iran: Republican Candidates
Posted on Thursday October 25, 2007
|
|
 |
Former Mayor Rudolf Giuliani
In response to legislation co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton that would require the president to come to Congress for any decision to go to attack a nuclear facility in Iran:
It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is, that it really is an exigent circumstance. It's desirable, it's safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress.
If you're really dealing with an exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.
…In any event, we've had 23 plots since September 11, where Islamic terrorists are planning to kill Americans, that we've had to stop.
So imminent attack is a possibility, and we should be ready for it.
…But on Iran -- on Iran, what she said was, she was asked would you take a strong position that Iran will not be allowed to become nuclear and that we would use a military option, if we had to. And she didn't answer the question.
Well, you've got to answer the question. The answer is: Yes, we would. Iran is a greater danger than Iraq. Iraq cannot be seen in a vacuum. And we have to be willing to use a military option to stop Iran from become nuclear.
If we're willing to do it, we have a much better chance of having sanctions for it.
October 9, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Dearborn, MI
Gov. Mike Huckabee
Do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?
A president has to whatever is necessary to protect the American people. If we think Iran is building nuclear capacity that could be used against us in any way, including selling some of the nuclear capacity to some other terrorist group, then, yes, we have a right...And I would do it in a heartbeat.
Without going to Congress?
…Well, if it's necessary to get it done because it's actionable right now, yes. If you have the time and the luxury of going to Congress, that's always better. But, Chris, the most important single thing is to make sure.
And if Congress say no, what do you do?
You do what's best for the American people and you suffer the consequences. But what you don't do is what you never do, is let the American people one day get hit with a nuclear device because you had politics going on in Washington, instead of the protection of the American people first.
October 9, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Dearborn, MI
Rep. Duncan Hunter
And with respect to Iran, Iran is walking down the path to build a nuclear device. They've got now about a thousand centrifuges. They claim they've got 3,000. At some point, we may have to preempt that target. If we do, it should be done, hopefully, with allies, but perhaps by the U.S. alone.
October 9, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Dearborn, MI
Sen. John McCain
We're dealing, of course, with hypotheticals. If the situation is that it requires immediate action to ensure the security of the United States of America, that's what you take your oath to do, when you're inaugurated as president of the United States.
If it's a long series of build-ups, where the threat becomes greater and greater, of course you want to go to Congress; of course you want to get approval, if this is an imminent threat to the security of the United States of America.
So it obviously depends on the scenario.
But I would, at minimum -- I would, at minimum, consult with the leaders of Congress because there may come a time when you need the approval of Congress. And I believe that this is a possibility that is, maybe, closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.
October 9, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Dearborn, MI
Rep. Ron Paul
Do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?
Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.
Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen in 220 years.
The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way. This is -- this is just war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It's a road to our financial disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while.
October 9, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Dearborn, MI
Gov. Mitt Romney
If he would need Congress’s authorization to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities:
You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...
But the key thing here is to make sure we don't have to use military action against Iran. That's what you hope to be able to do and that's why we're going to put a lot tougher sanctions on Iran -- economic sanctions, credit sanctions.
We're also going to have to get serious about treating Ahmadinejad like the rogue and bafoon that he is. And it was outrageous for the United Nations to invite him to come to this country. It was outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak at their university.
This is a person denied the Holocaust, a person who has spoken about genocide, is seeking the means to carry it out. And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual to have he control of launching a nuclear weapon.
And so we will take the action necessary to keep that from happening.
And I think each person on the stage, certainly in my case, I would make sure that we would take the action necessary to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
October 9, 2007
Transcript, Republican Presidential Debate, Dearborn, MI
Rep. Thomas Tancredo
Excerpts, on Mujahedin-e Kalq (MEK) in Iran:
Well, if you're a mullah in Iran, you definitely view them as a terrorist. They're not a terrorist threat to the United States. They pose absolutely no threat. In fact, they are a great asset. They are the ones who have brought to light almost everything we know about the nuclear capabilities...
Back in the 1970s, right around the time of the takeover of our embassy and that sort of thing, they were accused of launching attacks against Americans. They deny it, but whether it's true or not, it was more than twenty years ago and they metamorphosed into the most significant threat to the present regime in Iran that exists today. The head of the organization is a woman who is very charismatic, she believes in women's rights, she believes in Democracy in Iran...I do support their efforts. I understand that the US characterizes them as a terrorist organization, but what you have to understand is that they were identified as such only after the Clinton administration agreed to mollify the regime in Iran. They wanted to reach some kind of detente with Iran, with the mullahs. The mullahs had only one demand, and that was that we put the Mujahedin-e Kalq on the terrorist list and so it was done for political reasons, not because they posed any threat to the United States
Article, “An Interview With Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO),” Right Wing News
