George Allen on War & Peace
Republican Jr Senator (VA)
More troops to Iraq
Q: Would you be in favor of putting more American troops in Iraq?
ALLEN: We're going to need to do what it takes to succeed.
Q: Including more troops?
ALLEN: That is actually happening right now. If you look at the troop levels in Iraq, they are
higher than they were several months ago. Moreover, they have been concentrated in the Baghdad area, so the troops are going to where they're needed. But every single week you see more and more Iraqis and their military taking control, with the US in a
Q: Mr. Webb, should we increase American troop levels in Iraq?
WEBB: We don't have the troops. We've got people now in the Army pulling their third and sometimes their fourth tours into Iraq. We're burning out our people.
It's a double strategic mouse trap--first, it was going to burn out our conventional forces, and second, that we have gotten so engaged in fighting the Sunni insurgency that we have allowed the Shia to get more power inside Iraq.
Source: VA Senate debate on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, p. 5
Sep 17, 2006
Vote for Iraq War to support Bush by showing unity & resolve
Q: Webb says he became disillusioned with Allen when he personally warned the senator of the perils of invading Iraq. "The only thing I got out of him was, basically, "You're asking me to be disloyal to the president." Is that what you said to
ALLEN: I was supporting our efforts of our administration. It was bipartisan support for this resolution, because I thought we needed to show unity of resolve so that
Saddam Hussein would see how resolved and how unified were the US as well as the UN, and would actually comply with the weapons inspections.
Q: So in fact you cast that vote out of loyalty to
ALLEN: No, it's loyalty to this country, and making sure that our country is unified in this effort to disarm Saddam Hussein. That was the point.
Source: VA Senate debate on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, p. 3
Sep 17, 2006
We have created a freer and more just Iraq
Q: Have we created a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq?
ALLEN: What we have created and helped create in Iraq is indeed, I think, a much freer and more just society than what they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein, who was paying families
$35,000 to send their sons and daughters on these suicide missions, killing people in Israel. They do have freedom of religion in their constitution where rights are not enhanced nor diminished on account of religious beliefs. They do have the right of
women and men to express themselves without fear of retribution. They do have a judicial system that they're trying to put together. It is a fledgling representative democracy. It is like an infant. We're trying to help them learn normal things,
like procurement and budgets. Because all the decisions previously were centrally decided by Baghdad, by Saddam Hussein, and there wasn't any decision-making or discretion at the provincial level.
Source: VA Senate debate on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, p. 7
Sep 17, 2006
No second guessing; stand by Iraq war vote despite no WMDs
Q: If the CIA said in 2003, "Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction," would you still have voted to go to war?
ALLEN: You can't say, "Gosh," five years later-my opponent's campaign's about second-guessing.
Q: If you knew Saddam did not have
WMDs, was it still worth going to war?
ALLEN: I stand by my vote, and the vote was based on the evidence & information before us. We had a choice whether to listen to the critics and do nothing, and then have this world more dangerous if we were right.
Source: VA Senate debate on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, p. 2
Sep 17, 2006
No second-guessing how Iraqi $300B could be better spent
Q: Could the $300 billion we spent on Iraq have been better spent in other aspects of the war on terror: homeland security, port security, securing Afghanistan?
ALLEN: We have spent money on all those things. In homeland security, we just passed a
port security bill this past week.
Q: But my question is $300 billion in Iraq. Could it have been better spent?
ALLEN: We made a decision. You got to stand by your decision and you can't be constantly second-guessing, Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Source: VA Senate debate on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, p. 8
Sep 17, 2006
Keep US forces in Iraq in remote bases for force protection
Q: What about permanent bases in Iraq?
ALLEN: I have no interest for us to be permanently in Iraq.
Q: Would you vote against them?
ALLEN: I have voted against permanent US bases.
WEBB: Would you vote against these four large bases in the remote
areas of Iraq?
ALLEN: The four bases are a consolidation for force protection.
WEBB: How long are we going to be in these bases?
ALLEN: No longer than necessary.
WEBB: If our conventional mission is done in the cities of Iraq, we should be
getting our conventional forces out of Iraq. Not into the remote areas of Iraq.
ALLEN: It's important for force protection. It's important to have the military options, whether it's ground forces or air forces.
WEBB: As long as the US conventional
forces are in Iraq there will not be peace in the Middle East.
ALLEN: No, that's not the point. The Iraqis will ultimately take over these bases.
WEBB: Iraqis can build their own bases. You're not protecting forces if you're sitting in one area.
Source: VA Senate debate on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, p. 9
Sep 17, 2006
Stay the course: no retreat; fight al Qaeda in Iraq
Q: "Stay the course." What does that mean? How do you define victory in Iraq, and can it be won militarily?
ALLEN: Military and security aspects of it are absolutely essential. The people of Iraq voted last year three times, 70 percent turnout, walking
like slow-moving targets to vote. And they do want a free and just society there.
Q: But what is staying the course?
ALLEN: Staying the course is meaning that we don't tuck tail and run, that we don't retreat, that we don't surrender.
This is a central battle front in the war on terror, and it's not just the president or the vice president or me saying that, that's what al-Qaeda says, because al-Qaeda's designs and their goals are to have an
Islamic caliphate from Indonesia to Spain, with the capital being in Iraq, an oil-rich area. And we cannot allow Iraq, where al-Qaeda was and is now, we cannot allow them to have that haven for terrorist activity.
Source: VA Senate debate on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, p. 4
Sep 17, 2006
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
Voting YEA on this amendment would establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Voting NAY would keep the current situation without a timetable. The amendment states:
- The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
- The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
- Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.
Opponents of the Resolution say:
- This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
- The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the
American people at home.
- Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.
Supporters of the Resolution say:
Reference: Kerry Amendment to National Defense Authorization Act;
Bill S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766
; vote number 2006-181
on Jun 22, 2006
- Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
- One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
- In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
- Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
- Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.
Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.
To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. Voting YES would: create Senate special committee to investigate war contracts, taking into consideration: bidding, methods of contracting, subcontracting, oversight procedures, allegations of wasteful practices, accountability and lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reference: Committee to Investigate War Contracts;
Bill S Amdt 2476 to S 1042
; vote number 2005-316
on Nov 10, 2005
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding.
Amendment to express the sense of the Senate on future requests for funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. A YES vote would:
Reference: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act;
Bill S.AMDT.464 to H.R.1268
; vote number 2005-96
on Apr 20, 2005
- Request all future funding for ongoing military operations overseas, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, be included in the President's annual fiscal year budget proposal
- Call for the President to submit to Congress by Sept. 1, 2005, an amendment to his annual fiscal budget, that details estimated costs for ongoing military operations overseas.
- Ask that all future funding requests for ongoing military operations overseas appear in the appropriation bills in which such expenditures are normally included.
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Fiscal 2004. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq. This includes:
Reference: FY04 Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan;
; vote number 2003-400
on Oct 17, 2003
- $5.1 billion for security
- $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
- $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
- $1.3 billion for veterans medical care
- $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress.
; vote number 2002-237
on Oct 11, 2002
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.
Allen 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.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR255 on Oct 4, 2001
- 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.