State of Washington Archives: on War & Peace


Donald Trump: Take $1.5T in oil from Iraq to pay for US victims

Mr. Trump said that the United States should "take" $1.5 trillion worth of oil from Iraq to pay for the cost of the war and give $1 million to each of the families that lost someone in the effort-- sparking applause from the thousands gathered for the American Conservative Union's 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
Source: 2013 Conservative Political Action Conf. in Washington Times Mar 15, 2013

Bob Marshall: No US military in Libyan war without congressional consent

When the moderator asked the four about Obama's decision to involve the U.S. military in the Libyan uprising without congressional consent, Jackson, Marshall and Radtke quickly denounced it roundly.

Allen, however, didn't pounce on Obama. Instead, he recalled the gravity and anxiety of sending U.S. troops into Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes. "In my estimation, it's the most solemn decision a president has to make," Allen said. "I have made that decision as far as Iraq and Afghanistan."

"The concern I have is not whether we have a (congressional) authorization of force, it's whether or not our military is going to have the equipment, the armament, the up-to-date technology that is paramount as they're trying to protect our freedoms," he said. "I'm really worried about the military readiness of our country."

Source: 4-NBC Washington on 2012 Virginia Senate debate May 26, 2012

Jamie Radtke: No US military in Libyan war without congressional consent

When the moderator asked the four about Obama's decision to involve the U.S. military in the Libyan uprising without congressional consent, Jackson, Marshall and Radtke quickly denounced it roundly.

Allen, however, didn't pounce on Obama. Instead, he recalled the gravity and anxiety of sending U.S. troops into Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes. "In my estimation, it's the most solemn decision a president has to make," Allen said. "I have made that decision as far as Iraq and Afghanistan."

"The concern I have is not whether we have a (congressional) authorization of force, it's whether or not our military is going to have the equipment, the armament, the up-to-date technology that is paramount as they're trying to protect our freedoms," he said. "I'm really worried about the military readiness of our country."

Source: 4-NBC Washington on 2012 Virginia Senate debate May 26, 2012

Rob Sobhani: Decouple Iran from Palestine; free Iran then Palestine state

The solution to a Palestinian state--one that has been supported by Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama--must begin with decoupling Iran's theocratic regime from its proxies in Palestinian territories. Israel cannot live in peace next to a Palestinian state as long as the clerical regime pursues a nuclear weapons program, calls for the destruction of Israel, funds terrorist organizations such as Hamas and violates the basic freedoms of its own people on a daily basis.

The road map to a Palestinian state is simple. First, Washington must unequivocally support the aspirations of the Iranian people for a new beginning free of the clerics who have robbed them of life, liberty and economic prosperity. A democratic Iran at peace with Israel is a fundamental prerequisite for the creation of a Palestinian state. Second, a blueprint for rebuilding a new Palestinian state must be adopted. A Marshall Plan for Palestine can be led by Saudi Arabia.

Source: Column in The Washington Times Sep 23, 2011

Jim Gilmore: No timeline for withdrawal from Iraq

The two men differed on foreign policy: Warner said he favors the withdrawal of troops from Iraq but not on an “arbitrary timeline.” He said he has not completely agreed with either Obama or McCain on the issue, but clarified that he previously stated troop withdrawal should begin in January. Gilmore said there should be no timeline for troop withdrawal.
Source: 2008 VA Senate Debate in The Washington Times Sep 19, 2008

Jim Gilmore: Any kind of timetable in Iraq is not responsible

Gilmore said he would support pursuing the war in Iraq to completion. Warner said he would not set a timeline for troops to come home from Iraq. But Gilmore accused Warner of changing his stance from last year, when he said troops should start to leave i January 2009. Gilmore said the troops should stay as long as needed. “Any kind of timetable is not responsible,” he said. “This is not the way to be conducting foreign policy in Iraq.”
Source: 2008 VA Senate debate reported in Washington Post Sep 19, 2008

Mark Warner: Withdraw from Iraq but no arbitrary timeline

The two men differed on foreign policy: Warner said he favors the withdrawal of troops from Iraq but not on an “arbitrary timeline.” He said he has not completely agreed with either Obama or McCain on the issue, but clarified that he previously stated troop withdrawal should begin in January. Gilmore said there should be no timeline for troop withdrawal.
Source: 2008 VA Senate Debate in The Washington Times Sep 19, 2008

Mark Warner: Redeploy troops to Afghanistan; focus on Pakistan & Iran

Warner said the country is facing the need to redeploy troops to Afghanistan. He said Pakistan, along with Iran, is one of the most dangerous countries in the world because of its “potential threat.” He softened the statement after the debate and said Pakistan is “a potential flashpoint” in world affairs.
Source: 2008 VA Senate Debate in The Washington Times Sep 19, 2008

Mark Warner: No timetable to end war in Iraq

Gilmore said he would support pursuing the war in Iraq to completion. Warner said he would not set a timeline for troops to come home from Iraq. But Gilmore accused Warner of changing his stance from last year, when he said troops should start to leave i January 2009. Gilmore said the troops should stay as long as needed. “Any kind of timetable is not responsible,” he said. “This is not the way to be conducting foreign policy in Iraq.”
Source: 2008 VA Senate debate reported in Washington Post Sep 19, 2008

Barack Obama: Withdraw gradually and keep some troops in Iraq region

We must end this war in Iraq. I opposed this war from the beginning--in part because I believed that if we gave this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq, we would end up with the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today.

We shouldn’t be sending more troops to Iraq, we should be bringing them home. It’s time to find an end to this war. That’s why I have a plan that will begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq on May 1st of this year, with the goal of removing all of our combat forces from the country by March of 2008.

We have to make sure we’re not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that’s why this withdrawal would be gradual, and would keep some US troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

But above all, it’s a plan that recognizes a fact that just about everyone in the world understands except the White House--there is no military solution to this war.

Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007

Chuck Hagel: Soldiers in Iraq deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifice

The IAFF president said, “Our leaders squandered an opportunity to bring people together, to build consensus for a bipartisan effort to secure our homeland. Instead, we ended up with self-serving agenda that divided us.” That frames the one dominant issue for the election of 2008. That is this nation’s search for a consensus of purpose. That must include a bipartisan consensus of purpose. What America will be looking for is a government led by leaders who are honest, competent, and accountable -- who will focus on fixing America’s problems in a dignified and responsible way.

Americans deserve a country, and a government, worthy of them and their sacrifices. The sacrifices made by firefighters, by policemen, by teachers, and certainly our armed forces -- is all about interests greater than their own self-interest. That is who we are.

The brave young men fighting in Iraq deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifices.

Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007

Hillary Clinton: If Bush doesn’t end Iraq war, when I’m president, I will

[We need to] end the war in Iraq in the right way. The 2006 elections sent a strong message that we do not want our young men and women in uniform to be in the middle of a sectarian civil war, where they don’t know who is shooting at them, and they can figure out whose side they’re supposed to be on. We’re trying to introduce some rationality in this, in the Congress, trying to stop the escalation because I profoundly believe that putting more of our young men and women into harm’s way-- unless the Iraqis decide to defend themselves--we cannot end this war for them. If they’re not going to stand up and take responsibility, we should not lose another American life. We should end this escalation now.

I hope that the president will extricate us from Iraq before he leaves office. But let me assure you, if you doesn’t, when I’m president, I will.

Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007

Jim Gilmore: No pullout on a date certain; support the surge

We have to support these troops. You can’t have a policy like the Democrats are saying, where we pull out on a date certain. How do you send men & women into combat and say on the other hand “we’re only kidding, we’re gonna get out at a particular time?” You can’t have that. We have to stand behind our men and women. We cannot stand pat -- we have to move ahead in this area. The president is attempting to do that and I stand behind the surge
Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007

John McCain: War in Iraq has not gone well: dire but not hopeless

The war in Iraq has not gone well. American soldiers have fought well and sacrificed bravely there, as they always do. But we failed early on to recognize that we faced both an indigenous and foreign insurgency in Iraq, to make the necessary changes in our tactics and force levels to combat it, and to prevent a growing sectarian conflict that threatens to turn Iraq into a wasteland of chaos and almost unimaginable bloodshed, and potentially destabilize the entire Middle East. The situation has been correctly described as dire, but it is not hopeless. The probable consequences of our defeat there, which could include genocide and a wider Middle East war, require us to make every effort to prevent that nightmare scenario from occurring.

General Petraeus was ordered to Baghdad to execute a new strategy that realistically addresses the threats we face there, and he has been assured he will have the forces necessary to do so. It is long overdue. The hour is late. But we must try. We must.

Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007

John McCain: Al Qaeda may take over Iraqi oilwells

[If we withdraw from Iraq] Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would be strengthened and encouraged to attack us everywhere we are vulnerable, including here at home. Whatever your views at the outset of the war on whether war in Iraq was part of the war against terror, it is obvious that it has become so. Al Qaeda fighters are there in strength. Should they gain control over part of the country they very well might gain control over some of the oil revenues produced there, which would strengthen there ability to attack us elsewhere. Sectarian divisions in Iraq between Sunni, Shia and Kurd might grow so extreme that other countries in the region would feel compelled to intervene directly in the conflict to support one side or another, and the war could spread. These are sobering possibilities, and they should cause us to consider the situation and our responsibilities there soberly rather than use Iraq as an opportunity for partisan posturing.
Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007

Sam Brownback: Islamic fascists want US out and caliphate in

We must win the war on terrorism, period. There is no substitute for this. We are in a long term battle.

The name ‘war on terror’ is a misnomer. Terrorism is a tactic. It’s like a war on bombs. It doesn’t say who it is you’re fighting. We’re fighting against a group of people who are dedicated to our destruction. An Islamic fascist militarized definition of Islam.

It is not everybody, it is not a majority of people who practice Islam. But it is a dedicated force. They’re not only after us, they’re after moderate Muslim regimes in the region. They’re dedicated to our destruction.

it’s very clear--look on their website to see what they seek to do. They want to drive the US out of the Middle East and they want to establish an Islamic Caliphate, or an Islamic dictatorship. If you want to know what a caliphate looks like, look at Afghanistan under the Taliban, or the Sudan today, which is on its 2nd genocide.

We must win the war on terrorism. We must see it through. In Iraq, we must see it through

Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007

John Edwards: On voting for Iraq War: “I was wrong”

I was wrong. Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn’t make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

America’s leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country’s leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

Source: 2008 Speculation: Washington Post editorial, “Right Way” Nov 13, 2005

Dirk Kempthorne: Participate in military funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq

When a member of the Idaho National Guard is killed in Iraq, Kempthorne often participates in the funeral services, knowing that his remarks may be e-mailed back to Iraq the same day. This role has been thrust on Kempthorne by the heavy deployment of National Guard forces. Kempthorne calls his preparation for military funerals "the most somber and introspective moment" he experiences as governor, and he notes that not since the Civil War has there been such state identification with the military.
Source: Dan Balz in Washington Post, "Guard Deployments" Jul 19, 2005

E.J. Pipkin: Give the President the benefit of the doubt to fight terror

When the president of the US comes to you and says he or she needs to take action against terrorism, you need to give them the benefit of the doubt. You don’t play politics with that decision.
Source: MD Senate Debate, in Washington Post Oct 19, 2004

Chuck Hagel: US in “deep trouble” in Iraq

The fact is, we’re in trouble. We’re in deep trouble in Iraq. And I think we’re going to have to look at some recalibration of policy.
Source: Josh White, Washington Post Sep 20, 2004

John McCain: Looting, terrorism in Iraq a result of US mistakes

We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders. There was a number of things that we did. Most of it can be traced back to not having sufficient numbers of troops there.
Source: Josh White, Washington Post Sep 20, 2004

Lindsey Graham: We need more troops for long haul, Iraq is like WWII

The administration has been stubborn about troops. We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people. We need to let the American people know this is just like World War II; we’re in it for the duration.
Source: Josh White, Washington Post Sep 20, 2004

Colin Powell: Rejects Kofi Annan’s assertion that Iraq war is illegal

Powell expressed disapproval of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s description of the war in Iraq as illegal. “We should all be gathering around the idea of helping the Iraqis, not getting into these kinds of side issues.” Powell said the Constitution gives the US the right to act in its own self-defense without U.N. approval, but argued that the Iraq war itself was justified by Saddam’s “material breach” of earlier U.N. resolutions. “What we did was totally consistent with international law.”
Source: David R. Sands, Washington Times Sep 16, 2004

George W. Bush: Request of $25 billion for war just the beginning

The White House asked Congress for an additional $25 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “While we do not know the precise costs for operations next year, recent developments on the ground and increased demands on our troops indicate the need to plan for contingencies. We must make sure there is no disruption in funding and resources for our troops.” The White House conceded yesterday that the $25 billion it is seeking is likely to be only the first installment.
Source: Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post May 10, 2004

Colin Powell: Contradicted Cheney and sought more UN involvement

Powell was often confounded by Cheney. In his 1995 memoir “My American Journey,” Powell wrote of Cheney, “He and I had never, in nearly four years, spent a single purely social hour together.”

For the first 16 months of the administration, Powell had been “in the refrigerator,” as he called his frequent isolation. [Finally, in Aug. 2002, Powell presented his case without Cheney present] and Bush asked, “What else can I do?” Powell offered, “You can still make a pitch for a coalition or UN action to do what needs to be done.“

[In response, Cheney said in a speech], ”There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with UN resolutions.“ Powell was astonished. It was a preemptive attack on what the president had agreed to 10 days earlier. Powell was accused of contradicting Cheney and of disloyalty. How can I be disloyal, he wondered, when I’m giving the president’s stated position?

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 20, 2004

Dick Cheney: Biggest threat comes from WMD and from Saddam

Cheney thought that the Clinton administration had failed in its response to terrorist acts, going back to the World Trade Center bombing, in 1993, and that there had been a pattern of weak responses: not enough response to the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa; none to the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.

After Sept. 11, it was clear to Cheney that the threat from terrorism had grown enormously. First, the standard of proof would have to be lowered-irrefutable smoking-gun evidence would not have to be required for the US to defend itself. Second, defense alone wasn’t enough. They needed an offense.

The most serious threat now facing the US was a nuclear weapon or a biological or chemical agent in the hands of a terrorist inside the country’s borders. And everything, in his view, had to be done to stop it. “The vice president, after 9/11, clearly saw Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace,” Bush said. “And was unwavering in his view that Saddam was a real danger.”

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 20, 2004

Dick Cheney: UN inspections would not reduce WMD threat

[In Aug. 2002, Cheney made a series of speeches]. “A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with UN resolutions,” Cheney said of Hussein. “On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow ‘back in the box.’ ”

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and] there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us,” including “an aggressive nuclear weapons program.“ Ten days earlier, the president himself had said only that Hussein ”desires“ these weapons. Neither Bush nor the CIA had made any assertion comparable to Cheney’s.

Cheney also said that these weapons in the hands of a ”murderous dictator“ are ”as great a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.“ These remarks, just short of a declaration of war, were widely interpreted as administration policy.

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 20, 2004

Dick Cheney: Contradicted Powell and sought to connect Saddam and 9/11

Powell thought that Cheney had the fever. The vice president kept looking for the connection between Hussein and Sept. 11. He saw in Cheney a sad transformation. The cool operator from the first Gulf War just would not let go. Cheney now had an unhealthy fixation. Nearly every conversation or reference came back to al Qaeda and trying to nail the connection with Iraq. He would often have an obscure piece of intelligence. Powell thought that Cheney took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact.

It was about the worst charge that Powell could make about the vice president. But there it was. Cheney would take an intercept and say it shows something was happening. No, no, no, Powell or another would say, it shows that somebody talked to somebody else who said something might be happening. A conversation would suggest something might be happening, and Cheney would convert that into a “We know.” Well, Powell concluded, we didn’t know. No one knew.

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 20, 2004

George W. Bush: $389M in 2002-2003 for CIA to overthrow Saddam

[The CIA] worked on a new Top Secret intelligence order for regime change in Iraq that Bush signed on Feb. 16, 2002. It directed the CIA to support the US military in overthrowing Hussein and granted authority to support opposition groups and conduct sabotage operations inside Iraq. The cost was set at $200 million a year for two years. After some disputes in Congress, the budget was cut to $189 million for the first year.

In March 2002, [CIA director George] Tenet met secretly with two Kurdish leaders who would be critical to covert action inside Iraq. Tenet had one message: The US was serious, the military and the CIA were coming. Bush meant what he said. It was a new era. Hussein was going down.

When Tenet took problems to Bush, the president asked, Well, what’s a solution? How do you take the next step? It was a new ethos for the intelligence business. Suddenly there seemed to be no penalty for taking risks and making mistakes.

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 19, 2004

George W. Bush: CIA report hedged on whether Saddam had WMD

The CIA had never declared categorically that it believed Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The Dec. 2000 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that Hussein “retained a small stockpile” of chemical warfare agents-not actual warheads perhaps 100 tons. This conclusion was drawn largely from accounting discrepancies between UN [reports of what had been destroyed].

A long NIE has a section called “Key Judgments” in which the intelligence analysts would try to give a bottom-line answer If the Key Judgments used words such as “maybe” or “probably,” the NIE would be “pablum.” The real and best answer was that Saddam probably had WMD, but that there was no proof and the case was circumstantial. [But the final] document said under the Key Judgments, without qualification, “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons.” No pablum. From that attention-getting assertion, the NIE makes muted but clear equivocations. In the end, the hedging and backing off telegraphed immense doubt.

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 19, 2004

George W. Bush: CIA chief told Bush “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMD

[On Dec. 21, 2002, CIA director George] Tenet went to the Oval Office to present “The Case” on WMD to the president, Cheney, Rice, & Andrew Card. [When the presentation was done], there was a look on the president’s face of, What’s this? And then a brief moment of silence. “Nice try,” Bush said. “I don’t think this is quite something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.” Bush turned to Tenet. “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we’ve got?“

Tenet rose up, threw him arms in the air. ”It’s a slam-dunk case!“ the director of central intelligence said. It was unusual for Tenet to be so certain. Cheney could think of no reason to question Tenet’s assertion. Bush said of Tenet’s reassurance -- ”That was very important.“

”Needs a lot more work,“ Bush told Card & Rice. ”Let’s get some people who’ve actually put together a case for a jury.“ The president told Tenet several times, ”Make sure no one stretches to make our case.“

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 19, 2004

Colin Powell: Invading Iraq means “owning” it, for better or worse

[Bush told Powell], “The inspections are not getting us there.” He had made up his mind that the US should go to war.

“You understand the consequences,” Powell said in a half question. For nearly six months, he had been hammering on this theme-that the US would be taking down a regime, would have to govern Iraq, and the ripple effect in the Middle East and the world could not be predicted. “You know that you’re going to be owning this place?” Powell said. An invasion would mean assuming the hopes, aspirations and all the troubles of Iraq. Powell wasn’t sure whether Bush had fully understood the meaning and consequences of total ownership.

But I think I have to do this, the president said, making it clear this was not a discussion, but the president informing one of his Cabinet members of his decision. The fork in the road had been reached and Bush had chosen war. In all the discussions, meetings, chats and back-and-forth, the president had never once asked Powell, Would you do this?

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 18, 2004

Condoleezza Rice: War stops Saddam from beating international community

Rice was the only member of his war cabinet whom Bush directly asked for a recommendation of whether to go to war. “Should we do this?,” he had asked her a few weeks before.

“Yes,” she said. “Because it isn’t American credibility on the line, it is the credibility of everybody that this gangster can yet again beat the international system.” As important as credibility was, she said, “Credibility should never drive you to do something you shouldn’t do.” But this was much bigger, she advised, something that should be done. “To let this threat in this part of the world play volleyball with the international community this way will come back to haunt us someday. That is the reason to do it.”

Other than Rice, Bush said he didn’t need to ask the principal advisers whether they thought he should go to war. He knew what Cheney thought, & he decided not to ask Powell or Rumsfeld. “I could tell what they thought,” the president recalled. “I didn’t need to ask them their opinion about Saddam Hussein.

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 18, 2004

Dick Cheney: Pre-war planning: once the war starts, Saddam is “toast”

“What is the chance of Saddam surviving this?” [Saudi ambassador] Prince Bandar asked. He believed Hussein was intent on killing everyone involved at a high level with the 1991 Persian Gulf War, including himself. Rumsfeld didn’t answer. “Saddam, this time, will be out, period?” Bandar asked skeptically.

Cheney replied, “Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.”

After Bandar had left, Rumsfeld voiced some concern about the “toast” remark. “What was that all about, Dick?”

“I didn’t want to leave any doubt in his mind what we’re planning to do,“ Cheney said.

[The next day, to Bush], Bandar said, ”People are not going to shed tears over Saddam Hussein, but if he’s attacked one more time by America and he stays in power after you’ve finished this, yes, everybody will follow his word.“ The problem would be if Hussein survived. The Saudis needed assurance that Hussein was going to be toast. Bush said, ”The message [from Cheney that] you’re taking is mine, Bandar.“

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 18, 2004

George W. Bush: US could not maintain Iraq inspection regime indefinitely

“How long does [UN Inspector Hans Blix] think I can do this [maintain a limited US military presence]?” Bush asked. “A year? I can’t. The United States can’t stay in this position while Saddam plays games with the inspectors.”

“You have to follow through on your threat,” Condoleezza Rice said. “If you’re going to carry out coercive diplomacy, you have to live with that decision.”

“He’s getting more confident, not less,” Bush said of Saddam Hussein. “He can manipulate the international system again. We’re not winning.

“Time is not on our side here,” Bush told Rice. “Probably going to have to, we’re going to have to go to war.”

In Rice’s mind, this was the moment the president decided the United States would go to war with Iraq. Military planning had been underway for more than a year even as Bush sought a diplomatic solution through the United Nations. He would continue those efforts, at least publicly, for 10 more weeks, but he had reached a point of no return.

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 18, 2004

John Kerry: Karl Rove: “Kerry gave green light to Bush on Iraq”

By early February 2004, White House political adviser Karl Rove could see that Iraq was turning into a potential negative. “The good news for us is that Dean is not the nominee,” Rove now argued. But Kerry had voted in favor of the resolution for war. Rove offered some readings from the Kerry record.

“Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability,” Rove quoted Kerry saying in October 1990. In 1998, Kerry said that Hussein was “pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction,” and in October 2002, he said, “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real. I am prepared to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.”

Kerry’s main response was that Bush did not press hard enough or long enough with the UN, that he did not plan for the aftermath, and was too eager to go to war when Hussein was isolated and weak. But Rove believed they had Kerry pretty cold on voting to give the president a green light for war and then backing off when he didn’t like the aftermath.

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 18, 2004

Dick Cheney: Saddam had intent to create WMD

“We know that Saddam Hussein had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction. And Saddam Hussein had something else -- he had a record of using weapons of mass destruction against his enemies and against his own people.”
Source: Dana Milbank, Washington Post Feb 8, 2004

George W. Bush: Saddam a “madman” who could make WMDs

Bush said the war in Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein could have made weapons of mass destruction. “Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I’m not just going to leave him in power and trust a madman. ”He’s a dangerous man. He had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum.“
Source: Dana Milbank, Washington Post Feb 8, 2004

Howard Dean: AdWatch: “My opponents voted for war”-negative but true

AD VIDEO: Head shots of Gephardt, Kerry & Edwards standing with President Bush and Republican Sen. Trent Lott.

AD AUDIO: NARRATOR: Where did the Washington Democrats stand on the war? Dick Gephardt wrote the resolution to authorize war. John Kerry and John Edwards both voted for the war. Then Dick Gephardt voted to spend another $87 billion on Iraq. Howard Dean has a different view.

DEAN: I opposed the war in Iraq, and I’m against spending another $87 billion there. Our party and our country need new leadership.

ANALYSIS: While Dean has used the war issue hundreds of times, his decision to target three opponents with a negative ad is unusual for Iowa, which has a tradition of positive campaigning. It suggests he is also worried about Kerry and Edwards, who trail Dean in Iowa, gaining momentum. The ad is factually accurate, but while Dean says he opposes the president’s $87 billion budget for Iraq, he does not favor a quick pullout and therefore would have to spend some of that money.

Source: Ad-Watch of Iowa market, Washington Post, p. A06 Jan 14, 2004

Hillary Clinton: Agrees with Newt Gingrich that Iraq policy is a mess

Newt Gingrich said the administration has failed “to put the Iraqis at the center of this equation. The key to defeating the bad guys is having enough good guys who are Iraqis,” he said. The administration did not send enough Iraqi Americans there after the war, Gingrich said.

Hillary Clinton, who recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, said she agreed with Gingrich. She blamed the administration for “miscalculation” and “inept planning” in Iraq. “I do think we need more troops” in Iraq, Clinton said. She said she believes in giving the chief executive the authority to wage war, as her husband did in Bosnia and Kosovo. “But I regret the way the president has used the authority.” Clinton dismissed complaints that she should not have criticized President Bush while in Iraq and blamed a “right-wing apparatus.” Clinton said she was merely responding to questions from U.S. troops. “I’m not going to lie to an American soldier,” she said on CBS.

Source: Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, Page A07 Dec 8, 2003

Newt Gingrich: Iraq policy is a mess

Newt Gingrich said yesterday that the Bush administration has gone “off a cliff” in postwar Iraq and that “the White House has to get a grip on this.” In a blunt critique by a leading Republican, Gingrich said the administration has failed “to put the Iraqis at the center of this equation. The key to defeating the bad guys is having enough good guys who are Iraqis,” he said. The administration did not send enough Iraqi Americans there after the war, Gingrich said. On the main online site of the US occupying authority, he added, “up until last week you didn’t see a single Iraqi on that Web page, ”and now there is only one.“

The White House Chief of Staff defended the administration’s policy. ”I think things are going very well in a very tough situation in Iraq. Newt Gingrich is not all-knowing,“ he said.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,NY), who recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, said she agreed with Gingrich. She blamed the administration for ”miscalculation“ and ”inept planning“ in Iraq.

Source: Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, Page A07 Dec 8, 2003

Howard Dean: Israeli security fence cannot be permanent

Dean described himself as optimistic about the chances of a peace agreement in the Middle East, based on US support for separate Israeli and Palestinian states, despite the current fighting and diplomatic stalemate. He repeated his earlier promise that if elected, he would send former President Bill Clinton as his personal envoy to the Middle East.

In response to an audience question about the security fence under construction to separate Israel and Israeli settlements from Palestinian territory, Dean struggled. “The Israelis have a right to defend themselves,” he said, “but this is a very sad story,” blocking even casual contact between the two peoples. “The course of the wall,” extending into disputed territory, “is a concern,” he said, “as I have told the Israeli leadership. But this is a short-term tactic for defense against terror. The wall cannot be permanent.”

Source: David S. Broder, Washington Post, Page A5 Oct 19, 2003

Wesley Clark: Would probably have voted yes on Iraq war authorization

Clark said that he “probably” would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war. Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Lieberman Kerry, both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush’s stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. “I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited,” Clark said.
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A5 Sep 19, 2003

Wesley Clark: Yes to Iraqi $87B if Bush makes exit strategy

Clark said that if he were in Congress, he would vote against Bush’s request for $87 billion for operations and reconstruction in Iraq unless the president details a specific strategy to eventually withdraw US troops. Clark said he wants more troops in Iraq, but was unsure who best can provide them-the US, Iraqis or other countries.
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A5 Sep 19, 2003

George W. Bush: Afghanistan was a “different type of war”

In October 2001, some war cabinet members read a news analysis in the NY Times: “Could Afghanistan become another Vietnam? Is the US facing another stalemate on the other side of the world? Premature the questions may be, three weeks after the fighting began. Unreasonable they are not.”

Bush expressed his pique at the media. “They don’t get it,” the president said. “How many times do you have to tell them it’s going to be a different type of war? And they don’t believe it. They’re looking for the conventional approach. That’s not what they’re going to see here. I’ve talked about patience. It’s amazing how quickly people forget what you say, at least here in Washington.“ The quagmire stories made little sense to him. They had a good plan. They had agreed to it. ”Why would we start second-guessing it this early into the plan?“

In a later interview, Bush recalled dealing with ”the scenario where we may need to put 55,000 troops in there“ [if the original Northern Alliance plan had failed].

Source: Bush At War, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Nov 18, 2002

George W. Bush: Afghanistan model-successful plan first-used for Iraq

His blueprint for decision making in any war against Iraq, Bush told me, could be found in the story of the first months of the war in Afghanistan and the largely invisible CIA covert war against terrorism worldwide. It was all there if it was pieced together-what he had learned, how he had settled into the presidency, his focus on large goals, how he made decisions, why he provoked his war cabinet and pressured people for action.

At first, this remark seemed to suggest he was leaning toward an attack on Iraq. Earlier, however, he had said, “I’m the kind of person that wants to make sure that all risk is assessed. But a president is constantly analyzing, making decisions based upon risk taken relative to what can be achieved.” What he wanted to achieve seemed clear: He wanted Saddam Hussein out.

Bush added that he had not yet seen a successful plan for Iraq, he said. He had to be careful and patient. “A president,” he added, “likes to have a military plan that will be successful.”

Source: Bush At War, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Nov 18, 2002

Colin Powell: Favored containment over invasion in both Iraq wars

In early August, Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to President Bush’s father, had declared that an attack on Iraq could turn the Middle East into a “cauldron and thus destroy the war on terrorism.” Blunt talk, but Powell basically agreed. Virtually all the Iraq discussions had been about war plans -- how to attack, when, with what force levels, military strike scenario this and military strike scenario that. It was clear to him now that the context was being lost.

During the first Persian Gulf War, Powell had played the role of reluctant warrior, arguing to the first President Bush, perhaps too mildly, that containing Iraq might work, that war might not be necessary. But as the principal military adviser, he hadn’t pressed his arguments that forcefully because they were less military than political. Now as secretary of state, his account was politics. He decided he had to come down very hard, state his convictions and conclusions so there would be no doubt as to where he stood

Source: Bush At War, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Nov 17, 2002

Colin Powell: War cabinet split: Rumsfeld & Cheney hawks; Powell dove

Powell joked privately that he had been put in the “icebox” -- to be used only when needed. In early October 2001, Powell said, “I’m in the icebox again,” [regarding speaking out on the Iraq war]. Maybe because he was pushing to release a white paper detailing evidence against Osama bin Laden.

One of Powell’s greatest difficulties was that he was more or less supposed to pretend in public that the sharp differences in the war cabinet did not exist. The president would not tolerate public discord. Powell was also held in check by his own code -- a soldier obeys.

Bush might order, Go get the guns! Get my horses! -- all the Texas, Alamo macho that made Powell uncomfortable. But he believed and hoped that the president knew better, that he would see the go-it-alone approach did not stand further analysis.

The ghosts in the machine in Powell’s view were Rumsfeld and Cheney. Too often they went for the guns and the horses.

Source: Bush At War, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Nov 17, 2002

Colin Powell: Predicted Iraq war would suck the oxygen from War on Terror

[Meeting with Bush in August 2002,] Powell said the president had to consider what a military operation against Iraq would do in the Arab world. The entire region could be destabilized -- friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan could be put in jeopardy or overthrown. Anger and frustration at America abounded.

War would suck the oxygen out of just about everything else the US was doing, not only in the war on terrorism, but also in all other diplomatic, defense and intelligence relationships, Powell said. The economic implications could be staggering, potentially driving the supply and price of oil in directions that were as-yet unimagined.

Following victory, the day-after implications were giant. What of the image of an American general running an Arab country for some length of time? he asked. A General MacArthur in Baghdad? This would be a big event within Iraq, the region and the world. How long would it last? No one could know. How would success be defined?

Source: Bush At War, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Nov 17, 2002

Dick Cheney: UN made itself irrelevant by irresoluteness on Iraq

“I think the speech at the UN ought to be about Iraq,” Cheney said, but the UN ought to be made the issue. It should be challenged and criticized. “Tell them it’s not about us. It’s about you. You are not important.” The UN was not enforcing more than a decade of resolutions ordering Hussein to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and allow weapons inspectors inside Iraq. The UN was running the risk of becoming irrelevant and would be the loser if it did not do what was necessary.

Rice agreed. The UN had become too much like the post-World War I League of Nations-a debating society with no teeth. They all agreed that the president should not go to the UN to ask for a declaration of war.

Cheney argued that to ask for a new resolution would put them back in the soup of the UN process-hopeless, endless & irresolute. All the president should say is that Hussein is bad, has willfully violated, ignored and stomped on the UN resolutions of the past, and the US reserves its right to act unilaterally.

Source: Bush At War, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Nov 17, 2002

Barney Frank: Avoid using anti-terrorism power for political purposes

The [Administration’s anti-terrorism] proposals have sparked opposition from a wide array of civil liberties groups-including liberals as well as conservative libertarians-and there were abundant signs yesterday that many lawmakers are also uneasy. People familiar with Leahy’s thinking for, example, say the Vermont lawmaker is concerned that the bill would permit the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without any meaningful judicial review and would greatly enhance government surveillance powers in all areas of law enforcement, not just those that relate to terrorism.

Leahy is also said to have reservations about the sharing of information among law enforcement and intelligence agencies, fearing that it could be abused for political purposes.

The last concern is shared by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who yesterday recalled the “savage campaign of defamation waged by J. Edgar Hoover as head of the FBI against Dr. Martin Luther King.”

Source: John Lancaster and Walter Pincus, Washington Post, p. A5 Nov 25, 2001

Bob Barr: Don’t rush to make new anti-terrorism laws

Skeptical members of Congress complained that Ashcroft is trying to force the anti-terrorism package through Congress without giving lawmakers time to adequately digest proposals that could have serious, unforeseen consequences for rights that Americans now take for granted.

“Why is it necessary to rush this through?” asked Rep. Robert Barr. “Does it have anything to do with the fact that the department has [unsuccessfully] sought many of these authorities on numerous other occasions, and now seeks to take advantage of what is obviously an emergency situation to obtain authorities that it has been unable to obtain previously?“

Ashcroft said the administration wants Congress to act now on its ”modest set of proposals“ in light of what he said was the very real possibility that terrorists are planning additional attacks.”Each day that so passes is a day that terrorists have an advantage,“ Ashcroft said. ”We are today sending our troops into the modern field of battle with antique weapons.

Source: John Lancaster and Walter Pincus, Washington Post, p. A5 Nov 25, 2001

John Ashcroft: Push anti-terrorism laws despite Congressional skepticism

Ashcroft wants Congress to act now on its “modest set of proposals” in light of what he said was the very real possibility that terrorists are planning additional attacks. [Some Members wanted more] time to adequately digest proposals that could have serious, unforeseen consequences for rights that Americans now take for granted.

The administration’s bill would make it easier for law enforcement agencies to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists by expanding wiretap authority from single phone lines to multiple modes of communication linked to a suspect, such as cell phones and e-mail. It would also expand the definition of terrorists to include those who “lend support” to terrorist organizations, and it would allow immigration officials to “detain and remove” them. It would permit law enforcement agencies to share information-including grand jury testimony-with intelligence agencies, and it would let law enforcement officials not only freeze terrorists’ assets but also seize them.

Source: John Lancaster and Walter Pincus, Washington Post, p. A5 Nov 25, 2001

Patrick Leahy: Caution about applying anti-terrorism laws to others

The [Administration’s anti-terrorism] proposals have sparked opposition from a wide array of civil liberties groups-including liberals as well as conservative libertarians-and there were abundant signs yesterday that many lawmakers are also uneasy. People familiar with Leahy’s thinking for, example, say the Vermont lawmaker is concerned that the bill would permit the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without any meaningful judicial review and would greatly enhance government surveillance powers in all areas of law enforcement, not just those that relate to terrorism.

Leahy is also said to have reservations about the sharing of information among law enforcement and intelligence agencies, fearing that it could be abused for political purposes.

The last concern is shared by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who yesterday recalled the “savage campaign of defamation waged by J. Edgar Hoover as head of the FBI against Dr. Martin Luther King.”

Source: John Lancaster and Walter Pincus, Washington Post, p. A5 Nov 25, 2001

Bill Clinton: Legal ban on assassinations doesn’t apply to bin Laden

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hinted that the government has evidence showing there was state sponsorship of last week’s attacks. He said that the campaign against terrorism “will not be quick and it will not be easy” and that the goal is “to drain the swamp they live in.” He added: “We have a choice, either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live, and we chose the latter.”

Rumsfeld said the legal ban on government-sponsored assassinations restricts what the government can do in its pursuit of bin Laden, who is described as the prime suspect in the attacks. But former president Bill Clinton, in an interview with NBC News, said the ban should pose no hurdle. The ban applies only to heads of state, not terrorists, he said. “I can assure you we’ve been trying to get Osama bin Laden for the last several years.”

Source: Dan Balz and Alan Sipress, Washington Post, p. A1 Nov 19, 2001

Donald Rumsfeld: Legal ban on assassinations limits pursuit of bin Laden

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hinted that the government has evidence showing there was state sponsorship of last week’s attacks. He said that the campaign against terrorism “will not be quick and it will not be easy” and that the goal is “to drain the swamp they live in.” He added: “We have a choice, either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live, and we chose the latter.”

Rumsfeld said the legal ban on government-sponsored assassinations restricts what the government can do in its pursuit of bin Laden, who is described as the prime suspect in the attacks. But former president Bill Clinton, in an interview with NBC News, said the ban should pose no hurdle. The ban applies only to heads of state, not terrorists, he said. “I can assure you we’ve been trying to get Osama bin Laden for the last several years.”

Source: Dan Balz and Alan Sipress, Washington Post, p. A1 Nov 19, 2001

Colin Powell: Support Iraqi opposition while maintaining sanctions

A State Department official said yesterday that the administration is seeking to develop a policy that combines support for the Iraqi opposition with maintaining the economic sanctions that were imposed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Colin Powell said he had not determined whether it would be realistic ultimately to remove Hussein by funding opposition groups. “Iraq is a problem for its own people,” Powell said. He said his focus would remain on Hussein’s refusal to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors. “I think we have to keep reminding everybody that this is an arms control problem,” Powell said.

The US had provided covert aid to opposition groups in the years after the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. But those efforts came to a tumultuous end when Hussein’s military rolled into the US-protected “safe area” of northern Iraq, routing the opposition. Opposition organizations can now draw from $4 million set aside by Congress for gathering information inside Iraq.

Source: Alan Sipress, Washington Post, p. A1 Feb 2, 2001

George W. Bush: $4M for Iraqi opposition to work inside Iraq

The Bush administration has given Iraqi opposition groups permission to resume their activities inside Iraq with American funding, marking the first substantial move by Bush to confront Saddam Hussein. By giving the go-ahead this week to a program with the benign-sounding purpose of “collection of informational materials in Iraq,” Bush officials moved beyond the policy of the Clinton administration, which harbored deep reservations about the Iraqi opposition.

The decision allows the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella organization for groups opposed to Hussein’s government, to draw from $4 million set aside by Congress for gathering information relating to Iraqi war crimes, military operations and other internal developments. Some of the money has already been used by the INC for logistics and training outside Iraq. But this week’s decision frees up funding for opposition operations inside the country for the first time since the US cut off similar financial support five years ago

Source: Alan Sipress, Washington Post, p. A1 Feb 2, 2001

John Hagelin: “Coherence-creation” via meditation would reduce stress

We propose the immediate deployment in Yugoslavia of a “coherence-creating” group--approximately 7000 experts in Transcendental Meditation. Such a group would reduce stress and tension in the Kosovo region and create a coherent and harmonious environment throughout Yugoslavia that would compel Milosevic to adopt a peaceful solution. This “coherence-creating” strategy has been successfully employed many times to reduce international conflict, crime, and violence.
Source: Announcement in The Washington Post Apr 7, 1999

Dick Cheney: Gulf War results: stable Arabs; secure Israel; confident US

The situation from the standpoint of our allies in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, is that they have been saved and Kuwait has been liberated, not just by US forces but by coalition forces as well. And an international coalition that involved the governments that represent a majority of the Arab world, fighting alongside US forces, was a very significant development.

Saddam Hussein’s offensive military capability, his capacity to threaten his neighbors, has been virtually eliminated. This is a very significant development.

Israel, I think, from a military standpoint is more secure today than she’s been at any time in the recent past because of the elimination of Iraq’s offensive military threat. A very significant development.

I think would-be aggressors, not only in the Middle East but elsewhere around the world, have to pause and reflect before they contemplate the possibility that aggression is a course that holds rewards for them. A significant development.

Source: Speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Apr 29, 1991

Dick Cheney: Critical of Israeli policy which opposes US interests

Throughout his decade-long congressional career. Cheney has been unafraid to criticize Israeli policies he deemed detrimental to US interests.

Cheney noted that he has tried to listen to all sides involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. During one month, he met with [leaders of Israel, Jordan, & Egypt]. Cheney vows to “argue as persuasively as I know how” with his former colleagues on Capitol Hill to adopt a “more balanced policy” in terms of improving relations with Arab nations.

Source: Scott Farris, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, p.8 Jul 2, 1989

Dick Cheney: Supports balance in supplying arms to both Israel & Arabs

Cheney vows to “argue as persuasively as I know how” with his former colleagues on Capitol Hill to adopt a “more balanced policy” in terms of improving relations with Arab nations. Cheney agreed that congressional opposition to US arms sales to friendly Arab states has hurt American interests in the region. “I think the United States does have a role to play in the area that does involve providing our Arab friends as well as our Israeli friends with the equipment they need in order to provide for their defense,“ Cheney said. Such Arab nations as Saudi Arabia have been ”loyal friends“ of the United States, Cheney said, adding that he understood how frustration with Congress led the Saudis to purchase vast quantities of weapons from Great Britain. ”That’s not in anybody’s interest,“ Cheney said. ”So I think we need to have a balanced policy that works to advance our interests with all parties, at least.“
Source: Scott Farris, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, p.8 Jul 2, 1989

Dick Cheney: Supported 1986 Libya bombing

Cheney supported the Reagan administration’s bombing of Libya in 1986, saying at the time that he hoped Colonel Qaddafi “has learned his lesson” about the danger of sponsoring terrorist acts. But Cheney has also been willing to criticize Reagan administration foreign policy initiatives-or the lack of them-in the region.
Source: Scott Farris, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, p.8 Jul 2, 1989

Dick Cheney: Israel: Displeased with 1982 invasion of Lebanon

Following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, Cheney said he was “disappointed that the administration has not been somewhat tougher on Israel. I think we should have expressed our displeasure in no uncertain terms. ” He argued then that Israel had faced no security danger that would have provoked such an attack. “Literally thousands of innocent people have been killed or injured. I find that difficult to accept,” he said then.
Source: Scott Farris, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, p.8 Jul 2, 1989

Dick Cheney: Outraged that Israel spied on US in 1980s

Cheney expressed outrage at the Jonathan Pollard spy case, saying it demonstrated that Israel had waged a deliberate and successful spy campaign against the US. “I consider it an unfriendly act,” Cheney said in 1987, adding that Israel had betrayed its unique bond with the US. “They, on the one hand, plead for a special relationship with the US-a special relationship that has existed for nearly 40 years now. On the other hand, [they] run a major intelligence operation against us,” Cheney said.
Source: Scott Farris, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, p.8 Jul 2, 1989

Dick Cheney: Mideast peace process must include Palestinian statehood

On the question of an independent Palestinian state, Cheney had supported leaving that question to be negotiated between the major parties involved. In July 1982, however, Cheney said, “Any resolution in this conflict which has lasted for more than 30 years must include the formation of a Palestinian state. But I am frankly not optimistic about any resolution in the near future. ”

Cheney, whose prognosis then has proven to be correct, is scarcely less pessimistic about the Middle East seven years later. “You’re talking about animosities that go back centuries,” Cheney said recently in Wyoming. “It’s not an area where you can anticipate that overnight there’s going to be some solution and everybody’s going to say, ‘Great, peace has arrived.’ This requires tough, hard, day-to-day efforts to maintain momentum for peaceful resolution of the conflicts in that part of the world. You cannot expect, given the track record, any quick and easy results.”

Source: Scott Farris, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, p.8 Jul 2, 1989

Walter Mondale: Israe's "Land for Peace" needs Arab "Peace for Land"

The peace process should not attempt to achieve too much too soon. It should not try to decide questions of final status even before direct negotiations between Israel and its Arab partners begin. Nor should the peace process become hostage to an international conference, before it is clear that the Soviets will work for peace and not simply create more problems. One of the difficulties of the “land for peace” formula is that, other than Sadat, no Arab leader has ever offered “peace for land.”
Source: Symposium at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Apr 17, 1988

Walter Mondale: Israel is a strategic ally and committed friend

    It is important that the next American administration be able to work on the peace process in partnership with an Israeli government that is united and clear about the direction it wants to go. The uprising in the territories can help create an Israeli consensus only if two conditions are met:
  1. Israel must have an Arab partner, capable of delivering true peace.
  2. Israel must feel absolutely secure in American support and the idea that while the US may offer its advice, it will never pressure Israel to pursue a course not of its own choosing.
Washington must show that it is actively engaged in the process of moving the regional parties closer together so that a negotiation becomes possible. US policy must be based on the idea that Israel is not a client state but a strategic ally and committed friend. Moreover, US policy should encourage Palestinians to take part in the process by reminding them that Washington is committed to working for “the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
Source: Symposium at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Apr 17, 1988

  • The above quotations are from State of Washington Politicians: Archives.
  • Click here for definitions & background information on War & Peace.
  • Click here for other issues (main summary page).
2016 Presidential contenders on War & Peace:
  Democrats:
Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY)
V.P.Joe Biden(DE)
Gov.Andrew Cuomo(NY)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel(IL)
Gov.Martin O`Malley(MD)

Republicans:
Amb.John Bolton(MD)
Gov.Jeb Bush(FL)
Dr.Ben Carson(MD)
Gov.Chris Christie(NJ)
Sen.Ted Cruz(TX)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
Gov.Jon Huntsman(UT)
Gov.Bobby Jindal(LA)
Rep.Peter King(NY)
Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
Sen.Rand Paul(KY)
Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
Sen.Rob Portman(OH)
Secy.Condi Rice(CA)
Sen.Marco Rubio(FL)
Rep.Paul Ryan(WI)
Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
2016 Third Party Candidates:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg(I-NYC)
Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Donald Trump(NY)
Gov.Jesse Ventura(I-MN)
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Mar 29, 2014