issues2000

Topics in the News: War on Terror


John Bolton on War & Peace : Jul 13, 2013
Leaving Afghanistan is act of surrender in war on terror

Barack Obama's latest act of surrender in the war against terrorism comes in Afghanistan. Administration sources are leaking that Obama is considering withdrawing all American troops before Dec. 31, 2013, one year early, without leaving even a small, residual force in the country. Such a decision would simply accelerate an already badly misguided policy. Faster draw-downs in Afghanistan are bad enough but even worse is Obama's inability or unwillingness to see the inevitably broader adverse consequences.

According to polls, Americans are weary of the Afghan conflict, so Obama sees another chance to declare the war on terror over and also to score domestic political points. Americans are "war weary" about Afghanistan for specific reasons. As president, Obama has repeatedly insisted there was no rationale for a "war on terrorism" and that he will end the wars he inherited.

Click for John Bolton on other issues.   Source: AEI Scholars column: Staying in Afghanistan

Paul Ryan on War & Peace : Aug 11, 2012
Remain vigilant in global War on Terrorism

Although we have been successful in warding off another terrorist attack for nearly 10 years since September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda and its allies remain intent on killing innocent people and spreading an ideology of violence and hatred around the world. We must never lose sight of this grave threat to our American ideals, and I believe that we must remain vigilant in our defense of freedom and democracy, even as we face difficult challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on other fronts in the War on Terrorism.
Click for Paul Ryan on other issues.   Source: 2012 House campaign website, ryanforcongress.com, "Issues"

Jon Huntsman on War & Peace : Jan 7, 2012
Draw down to 10,000 troops in Afghanistan by 2013

Q: What is the earliest you think our 90,000 troops in Afghanistan should be brought home?

HUNTSMAN: We've been at the war on terror for 10 years now, we've been in Afghanistan. And I say we've got a lot to show for our efforts: The Taliban is no longer in power. We've run out al Qaeda, they're now in sanctuaries. We've had free elections. Osama bin Laden is no longer around. We have strengthened civil society. We've helped the military. We've helped the police. I believe it's time to come home. And I would say within the first year of my administration, which is to say the end of 2013, I would want to draw them down. I don't want to be nation building in Southwest Asia when this nation is in such need of repair. Afghanistan is not a counter insurgency. But we do have a counter-terror mission in Southwest Asia. And that would suppose leaving behind maybe 10,000 troops for intelligence gathering, for Special Forces rapid response capability and training.

Click for Jon Huntsman on other issues.   Source: WMUR 2012 GOP New Hampshire debate

Mitt Romney on Homeland Security : Nov 22, 2011
Donates to groups that support the military

Mitt was asked if his sons had enlisted, and if not, "How do they plan to support this war on terrorism?" Romney mentioned how he had donated to a variety of groups supporting the military, and said, "It's remarkable how we can show our support for our nation, and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I'd be a great president." The campaign team said the comment had been taken out of context. Nevertheless, it resonated negatively.
Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: An Inside Look, by R.B. Scott, p.161

Jon Huntsman on War & Peace : Sep 22, 2011
After 10 years, Americans are ready to exit Afghanistan

Q: [to Santorum]: If the security situation were to fall apart in Iraq in 2012 would you support sending US troops back to the region?

SANTORUM: I'm not for taking them out of the region. We want victory.

HUNTSMAN: The world is a better place when th US is strong. So guiding anything that we talk about from a foreign policy standpoint needs to be fixing our core. But, second of all, I believe that, you know, after 10 years of fighting the war on terror, people are ready to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. This country has given its all. What remains behind, some element to collect intelligence, special forces capability, and we're going to have to do that in every corner of the world. But we need to fix this core and get serious about what the rest of the 21st century holds for this country.

Click for Jon Huntsman on other issues.   Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL

Gary Johnson on Budget & Economy : Jul 21, 2011
Our debt is greatest threat to our national security

Q: How do you weigh the cost of fighting the war on terror against the exploding debt crisis?

Gingrich: The exploding debt crisis is because of exploding politician spending in Washington, not because of national security.

Santorum: The first priority of the federal government is to keep America safe. I would not cut defense--freeze it; cut waste; and then plow savings back into Defense.

Johnson: The debt is the greatest threat to national security we face today. Besides, we do not need 60,000 to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to protect ourselves. Nor do we need nation-building.

Gingrich: We spend less on defense today as percentage of GDP than at any time since Pearl Harbor.

Santorum: The first priority of the federal government is to keep America safe. I would not cut defense--freeze it; cut waste; and then plow savings back into Defense.

Gingrich: Controlling the border and defending America are job #1 under the Constitution.

Click for Gary Johnson on other issues.   Source: 2011 Republican primary debate on Twitter.com

Newt Gingrich on Homeland Security : Jul 21, 2011
Defense as percentage of GDP is lowest since WWII

Q: How do you weigh the cost of fighting the war on terror against the exploding debt crisis?

Gingrich: The exploding debt crisis is because of exploding politician spending in Washington, not because of national security.

Santorum: The first priority of the federal government is to keep America safe. I would not cut defense--freeze it; cut waste; and then plow savings back into Defense.

Johnson: The debt is the greatest threat to national security we face today. Besides, we do not need 60,000 to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to protect ourselves. Nor do we need nation-building.

Gingrich: We spend less on defense today as percentage of GDP than at any time since Pearl Harbor.

Santorum: The first priority of the federal government is to keep America safe. I would not cut defense--freeze it; cut waste; and then plow savings back into Defense.

Gingrich: Controlling the border and defending America are job #1 under the Constitution.

Click for Newt Gingrich on other issues.   Source: 2011 Republican primary debate on Twitter.com

Jesse Ventura on Homeland Security : Apr 4, 2011
End the phony war on terror to end al Qaeda

In 2008, The Rand Corporation came out with a major study titled "How Terrorist Groups End," looking at data on all such between 1968 and 2006.

Their findings apparently weren't too heartening to our policy-makers, if they bothered to read the study. The whole war on terror notion needs to be rethought, according to Rand, because in simple terms "countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military forces."

If the government follows Rand on other matters, why not give them due consideration on this? Supposedly this is their job and they're the experts.

It's time to end these "phony wars on terror" and get down to the serious business of rebuilding our own democracy from the ground up.

Click for Jesse Ventura on other issues.   Source: 63 Documents, by Gov. Jesse Ventura, p.295-296

Rick Perry on Homeland Security : Nov 15, 2010
Unsettled policy on Guantanamo signals weakness to enemies

Almost a full decade after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Washington still has not settled on a policy for detaining and, if necessary, prosecuting enemies captured in the War on Terror. President Obama naively campaigned as if terrorism should be handled as a law enforcement matter, and in November 2009 Attorney General Holder held a major press conference to announce that Guantanamo Bay would be shuttered and that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would face a civilian trial in Manhattan. Both plans have crumbled in the face of public and congressional opposition, and to this day the administration refuses to decide what to do. Washington's paralysis on the seminal issue of our time--dealing with terrorists whose mission is to kill as many American as possible--signals weakness to our enemies.
Click for Rick Perry on other issues.   Source: Fed Up!, by Gov. Rick Perry, p.132

Sarah Palin on War & Peace : Feb 6, 2010
Palin Plan on terrorism: We win, they lose

Q: We know the Obama plan; what's the Palin plan when it comes to the war on terror?

A: When it comes to national security, as I ratchet down the message on national security, it's easy to just kind of sum it up by repeating Ronald Reagan when he talked about the Cold War. And we can apply this now to our war on terrorism, you know. Bottom line, we win, they lose. We do all that we can to win.

Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: 2010 Tea Party Convention Q&A

Sarah Palin on War & Peace : Nov 17, 2009
Responsibility to complete mission until we win

Today our sons and daughters are fighting in distant countries to protect our freedom and to nurture freedom for others. I understand that many Americans are war-weary, but we do have a responsibility to complete our missions in those countries so that we can keep our homeland safe. America must remain the strongest nation in the world I order to remain free. And our goal in the War on Terror must be the same as Reagan's: "We won. They lost."
Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: Going Rogue, by Sarah Palin, p.393

Rahm Emanuel on Homeland Security : Jan 5, 2009
We cannot win the War on Terror without more troops

From Iran to North Korea to the Arab street, America can't stop the emergence of new nuclear states, contain loose nukes, or disrupt Al Qaeda all on its own.

If we are to win the war that we have, we must rebuild the army we need. Our friend Paul Begala's motto has become "It Takes a Battalion"--and he's right. We cannot fight and win a long war without more troops. When George Bush ran for president in 2000, he complained that the military had been hollowed out. That wasn't true then, but it is true now. Under Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon engaged in a drawn-out debate about military transformation but gave short shrift to the basic needs of the soldiers, the heart and soul of our military might. The army doesn't have enough troops, the National Guard and the Reserves are exhausted to the breaking point, and the soldiers we send into battle don't always get the equipment they need to survive.

Click for Rahm Emanuel on other issues.   Source: The Plan, by Rahm Emanuel, p.150

Rahm Emanuel on Homeland Security : Jan 5, 2009
Universal civilian service for all young Americans

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton launched AmeriCorps, which has given more than 400,000 young people the chance to serve their country.

By asking every young American to serve, universal civilian service will strengthen America in three vital ways.

First. it will provide real, lasting security benefits. We shouldn't kid ourselves--the war on terror won't be over anytime soon.

Second, universal civilian service may be just what we need to save the volunteer army and AVOID a draft.

Third, and most important, universal service will give young people a chance early in their lives to look past differences of race, class, creed, and region, and to see themselves and one another first and foremost as Americans. We are the most diverse nation on earth. To lead the world in this century, we must take the most of that great strength, not let our differences become a burden.

Click for Rahm Emanuel on other issues.   Source: The Plan, by Rahm Emanuel, p. 58-60

Mike Huckabee on Energy & Oil : Nov 18, 2008
Oil has not just shaped our foreign policy; it's deformed it

The war on terror is intimately linked to our national energy needs. We can't free others from repressive regimes until we free ourselves from dependence on imported oil. We have dillydallied for over thirty years in toothless talk about "energy independence" and ending our dependence on foreign oil, but have done nothing to actually change our enslavement to the Saudis and other oil producers. Oil has not just shaped our foreign policy, it has deformed it. We ought to treat Saudi Arabia the same way we treat Sweden, and that requires us to be energy independent. These folks have had us over a barrel--literally--for far too long. We should explore, conserve, and pursue all avenues of alternative energy--nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, biodiesel, and biomass.
Click for Mike Huckabee on other issues.   Source: Do The Right Thing, by Mike Huckabee, p. 13

Mike Huckabee on Homeland Security : Nov 18, 2008
Islamo-fascists hate us & want to destroy our way of life

Then there's the war on terror. A Democrat president won't fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it demands. As unbelievable as it sounds, Democrats still don't understand how viscerally, obsessively, and fanatically the Islamo-fascists hate us, and how determined they are to kill us and destroy our Judeo-Christian culture and civilization. We can put it very simply: the Islamo-fascists want to destroy our way of life and kill us. Period. The conflict in Iraq is just one battle in this generational, ideological war on terror, as Korea and Vietnam were battles during the Cold War. The Democrats are quick to criticize the war in Iraq, but they're criticizing tactics in this one battle without offering any overall strategy for winning the broader war.
Click for Mike Huckabee on other issues.   Source: Do The Right Thing, by Mike Huckabee, p. 11-12

Joe Biden on Homeland Security : Oct 2, 2008
Greatest security threat is from al Qaeda in Pakistan

Q: What’s the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Pakistan?

BIDEN: Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be destabilizing, but they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that’s able to be deployed. John continues to tell us that the central war on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it’s going to come from al Qaeda in the hills of Pakistan. We need to support that democracy by helping them with their economic well-being.

PALIN: Both are extremely dangerous. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the Gen. Petraeus and al Qaeda, and it’s probably the only thing that they’re ever going to agree on. An armed, nuclear Iran is so extremely dangerous. Israel is in jeopardy when we’re dealing with Iran. Others who are dangerous dictators are ones that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions. And that goes beyond naivete and poor judgment.

Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: 2008 Vice Presidential debate against Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin on Homeland Security : Oct 2, 2008
Terrorists in Iraq are the biggest threat to Americans today

Q: What’s the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Pakistan?

PALIN: Both are extremely dangerous. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the Gen. Petraeus and al Qaeda, and it’s probably the only thing that they’re ever going to agree on. An armed, nuclear Iran is so extremely dangerous. Israel is in jeopardy when we’re dealing with Iran. Others who are dangerous dictators are ones that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions. And that goes beyond naivete and poor judgment.

BIDEN: Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be destabilizing, but they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that’s able to be deployed. John continues to tell us that the central war on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it’s going to come from al Qaeda in the hills of Pakistan. We need to support that democracy by helping them with their economic well-being

Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: 2008 Vice Presidential debate against Joe Biden

Sarah Palin on War & Peace : Sep 24, 2008
Surge needed in Afghanistan; we cannot afford to lose

Q: Why support a surge in Afghanistan?

A: Because we can’t afford to lose in Afghanistan, as we cannot afford to lose in Iraq, either, these central fronts on the war on terror. And I asked President Karzai, “Is that what you are seeking, also? That strategy that has worked in Iraq that John McCain had pushed for, more troops? A counterinsurgency strategy?” And he said, “yes.” And he also showed great appreciation for what America and American troops are providing in his country.

Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric

Sarah Palin on War & Peace : Sep 17, 2008
Retreat is defeat in Iraq

Q: Why do we need to win in Iraq? Why is losing not an option?

A: Retreat is not an option. Retreat is defeat in Iraq. Al Qaeda, they’re acknowledging even that Iraq is the central front on the War on Terror and the violent Islamic extremists who hate America would love that stronghold to be built in Iraq. If we were to lose there, we’re not going to be any better off when we fight in Afghanistan either, nor the other areas where terrorist cells are growing across our world.

Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: 2008 Fox News interview on “Hannity & Colmes”

Barack Obama on Foreign Policy : Jul 22, 2008
Chairs European subcommittee; could hold Afghanistan hearing

Q: If you believe Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror, why didn’t you hold a single hearing as chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the fighting force there?

A: Actually, the subcommittee that I chair is the European subcommittee. And any issues related to Afghanistan were always dealt with in the full committee, precisely because it’s so important. That’s not a matter that you would deal with in a subcommittee setting.

Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric

Jesse Ventura on Civil Rights : Apr 1, 2008
We're losing our rights to the so-called War on Terror

We're losing our constitutional rights because of the so-called "war on terror." It reminds me of that line from the movie "Full Metal Jacket": "Guess they'd rather be alive than free--poor dumb bastards!" Not me--once America is no longer what our country has stood for since 1776. We've gone backwards. When you look at how religious fanatics and corporate America are teaming up, we today are on the brink of fascism.
Click for Jesse Ventura on other issues.   Source: Don`t Start the Revolution, by Jesse Ventura, p. 2

Jesse Ventura on War & Peace : Apr 1, 2008
200,000 contractors: Iraq is most privatized war in history

When America entered WWII, FDR said: "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the US as a result of this world disaster." Today , a whole lot of people are cashing in on the "war on terror."

Iraq is the most privatized war in American history. There are as many as 200,000 private contractors over there--a number greater than our 160,000 military troops! You might call it "rent-an-Army." Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old company, was ready to roll when the war began. They've since been found to have wasted millions of our dollars in overbilling and shoddy services. It's amazing, but these companies have zero accountability. Only ONE of those 100,000 contractors has been accused of any violations, or been indicted for any crimes.

Click for Jesse Ventura on other issues.   Source: Don`t Start the Revolution, by Jesse Ventura, p.261

Mike Huckabee on Homeland Security : Feb 24, 2008
Use everything at president’s disposal to keep US safe

Q: Congress would not pass a reauthorization of the controversial surveillance policy the administration says are necessary to protect the American people in the war on terrorism. Congress says it offered a temporary extension. The administration said no

A: I think it is important to have very thorough surveillance capabilities, but they also need to be monitored by Congress. With technology being what it is today, we have new tools that have never been available before, things that our founding fathers never envisioned when the Bill of Rights was crafted. And so it is uncharted territory. Two things we need to remember--one, the first job of the president is to keep this country safe. He should use everything at his disposal to do so. But it is also the job of Congress to make sure that the executive branch does not overstep its boundaries in terms of power. That is why we have the balance of power. And I think there is a healthy tension that was designed into our system.

Click for Mike Huckabee on other issues.   Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series with John King

Mike Huckabee on War & Peace : Jan 28, 2008
We are making progress in Iraq, Afghanistan, & war on terror

Difficult as it has been, we are making progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. All Americans should take pride in the accomplishments of our warriors, under the superb leadership of General Petraeus. We need--and must provide for--the strongest and most effective military in the world, to protect ourselves and our key allies. In addition, here on the homefront, we must continue our vigilance in the war on terror--and insist on the best possible care for veterans, their spouses and their dependents.
Click for Mike Huckabee on other issues.   Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address

Mitt Romney on Abortion : Dec 11, 2007
2004: Became pro-life during stem cell controversy

Like most other top GOP contenders, Romney supports the vigorous prosecution of the war on terror, including the establishment of a democracy in Iraq. And perhaps most important, from a conservative perspective, Romney calls himself staunchly pro-life.

Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: Meet the Next President, by Bill Sammon, p. 2

Hillary Clinton on War & Peace : Nov 11, 2007
Called war on terror “Bush’s war” but has played active role

[After 9/11], Clinton called for punishment for those responsible, the hijackers, and their ilk and vowed that any country that chose to harbor terrorists and “in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.”

Bush apparently liked what he heard. He echoed her language and issued an almost identical threat, eight days later, in his address to Congress.

On the campaign trail, and especially in television debates, Clinton is at pains to frame the so-called war on terror as “Bush’s war,” but she’s had an active part in it. It isn’t as if her 9/11 speech was an exception. Clinton supported Bush’s invasion and bombardment of Afghanistan. She voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, which gave the government new unconstitutional tools of search and seizure even as federal agents were sweeping thousands of innocent civilians off the streets of US cities, notably in New York.

Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.   Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 18-19

Mitt Romney on Homeland Security : Sep 5, 2007
Apologized for comparing public service to military service

Q: I don’t think you fully understand how offended my wife and I were, and probably the rest of the people who have sons, daughters, husbands and wives serving in the war on terror to compare your son’s attempts to get you elected to my son’s service in Iraq. I know you apologized a couple of days later after a firestorm started, but it was wrong, and you never should have said it.

A: Well, there is no comparison, of course. There’s no question but that the honor that we have for men and women who serve in our armed forces is a place of honor we will never forget and nothing compares to it. People who are willing 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.

Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News

Joe Biden on War & Peace : Jul 31, 2007
Bush invaded Iraq as the weakest of the Axis of Evil

The Bush neo-cons identified the biggest threats--North Korea, Iran, & Iraq. Toppling the Taliban had been a nice start for the Neo-cons, but they thought the way to handle the world’s malcontents and to avoid war was to take out one of the “axis of evil leaders in a way that made the others quake. They wanted to leverage our nation’s awesome military power in a way that sent a strong message: enable terrorists and we’ll wipe you out. You’re either with us, Bush liked to say of his ”war on terror,“ or you’re against us.

I thought this approach was flawed. The facts showed that terrorist groups didn’t base their training camps in countries with strong governments or dictators; they found safe haven in failed states & grew stronger in the vacuum of power.

There was a lot of noise about overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Of the three Axis of Evil countries, Iraq was the country that could put up the least military resistance, and I believed Cheney & Rumsfeld were pushing the president toward an invasion

Click for Joe Biden on other issues.   Source: Promises to Keep, by Joe Biden, p.330-331

Mitt Romney on Homeland Security : Dec 1, 2006
FBI wiretaps and spying on immigrants OK

On the War on Terror: In September 2005, he suggested that the FBI wiretap mosques and spy on new Muslim immigrants.
Click for Mitt Romney on other issues.   Source: CivilLiberty.about.com profile of Romney

Newt Gingrich on War & Peace : Dec 1, 2006
War on terror is transformational, and will take many years

Pres. Bush told us the truth: It will be a hard campaign, a long war, and we will suffer setbacks on occasion. Transformational wars always take time, and always mean overcoming setbacks: It took Washington from 1776 to 1783 to win the Revolutionary War. It took Lincoln four years to finally hit on a winning strategy to win the Civil War. And the Cold War lasted more than 40 years until the Soviet Empire collapsed. We have risen to the challenge before and we can do so again. So too can we win this war.
Click for Newt Gingrich on other issues.   Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org

Sarah Palin on War & Peace : Oct 22, 2006
I support President Bush’s efforts to stop terrorism

Q: This year saw the biggest wartime call-up of Alaska National Guard troops ever. Combined with deployments of active-duty forces, thousands of Alaskans are now serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere overseas. What’s your view of the Iraq war, and do you support Pres. Bush’s “war on terror”?

A: I support President Bush’s efforts to stop terrorism by taking the fight to the terrorists. In the Iraq war, I would like to see the president develop an exit strategy to get our troops home

Click for Sarah Palin on other issues.   Source: Anchorage Daily News: 2006 gubernatorial candidate profile

Barack Obama on Energy & Oil : Jun 14, 2006
3-way win: economy, environment, & stop funding terror

Progressives are the folks who believe in energy independence for America. We believe that we can harness homegrown alternative fuels and spur the production of fuel-efficient hybrid cars, and break our dependence on the world’s most dangerous regions. We understand that we get a three-for: We can save our economy, our environment, and stop funding both sides of the war on terror if we actually get serious about doing something about energy. We understand that.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.   Source: Annual 2006 Take Back America Conference

Condoleezza Rice on Homeland Security : Oct 11, 2005
Pushed for globality of Global War on Terror

In the days after the 9/11 attack, Bush channeled his policy, and our national anger and resolve, to the task of combating terrorism and the nations that sponsor it all over the world--rejecting the narrower mission of just rounding up and punishing the particular al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. According to Newsweek, Rice helped the president respond this way to the terror attacks: “Rice instantly saw that the War on Terror was global.” Colin Powell said, “the initial knee-jerk reaction after 9/11 was to go after al Qaeda.” But Rice encouraged the president to focus on state sponsorship of terrorism as well. When Bush used the phrase “Axis of Evil” in his State of the Union address, it was an echo of what Rice had been telling him since the week of 9/11.
Click for Condoleezza Rice on other issues.   Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p.126

Condoleezza Rice on Homeland Security : Oct 11, 2005
To win global war on terror we must win the war of ideas

In 2002, Rice began to speak of “a balance of power that favors freedom,” an interesting merger of the language of the geopolitical strategy and the objectives of a morally based foreign policy. In a June 2003 speech, Rice laid out the case for a freedom focus most elegantly: “To win the War on Terror, we must also win a war of ideas by appealing to the decent hopes of people throughout the world...giving them cause to hope for a better life and brighter future... and reason to reject the false and destructive comforts of bitterness, grievance and hate.“ Terror, she said, ”thrives in the airless space where new ideas, new hopes, and new aspirations are forbidden. Terror lives when freedom dies. True peace will come only when the world is safer, better, and freer.“
Click for Condoleezza Rice on other issues.   Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p.127

Condoleezza Rice on War & Peace : Mar 28, 2004
War on terror will be a long and comprehensive war

Q: Is al Qaeda more dangerous today than it was on September 11th?

A: Al Qaeda is not more dangerous today than it was on September 11th, but you don’t have to make that choice. Al Qaeda is dangerous. And we’re going to have to pursue them and we’re going to have to defeat them. This is going to be a long war. It is a comprehensive war. It is not going to be enough to win in Afghanistan, to even kill bin Laden and to return to law enforcement.

Q: So capturing or killing al Zawahiri doesn’t end this war?

A: That will not end this war. What will end this war is a sustained effort, over a long time, in which the US mobilizes all of its military means, its law enforcement means, its means of taking away economic support -- takes all of those measures and pursues them on a daily basis; and in which we are not, as a country, afraid to go after them where they live. We are not going to be able to sit back here and fight this war on the defense.

Click for Condoleezza Rice on other issues.   Source: Interview on “60 Minutes” with Ed Bradley

Condoleezza Rice on War & Peace : Mar 28, 2004
War on terror is broad and hence includes Saddam

Q: The decision to go to war with Iraq: Given the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found and there’s no proof that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 or al Qaeda, the country is split about why we’re even in Iraq and if we’re fighting the right war.

A: The war on terrorism is a broad war, not a narrow war. And Iraq--the most dangerous regime in the world’s most dangerous region in the Middle East--is a big reason, or was, under Saddam Hussein a big reason for instability in the region, for threats to the US; he was firing at our aircraft practically every day as we tried to keep his forces under control; he had used weapons of mass destruction; he had the intent & was still developing the capability to do so. Saddam Hussein’s regime was very dangerous. And now that Iraq has been liberated and that Iraq has a chance to be a stable democracy, the world is a lot safer and the war on terrorism is well-served by the victory in Iraq.

Click for Condoleezza Rice on other issues.   Source: Interview on “60 Minutes” with Ed Bradley

Jeb Bush on War & Peace : Mar 2, 2004
God grants liberty only to ready to defend it

Last month, we welcomed home almost 2,000 soldiers of the Florida National Guard from the war on terror. Some won't make it home. It has been said, "God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to defend it." Because of the thousands who continue the fight, America will always be free.

We must acknowledge the great debt we owe patriots like [our lost soldiers]. We should honor their service by ensuring that our actions, both in and out of this chamber, are worthy of their sacrifice. We must serve this state as honorably and effectively as they serve this country. I believe we are on the right path.

Click for Jeb Bush on other issues.   Source: 2004 State of the State speech to the Florida Legislature

Condoleezza Rice on War & Peace : Jun 1, 2003
Supported large-scale war on terror over limited war

Because of Rice’s extraordinary tight-lippedness, even her own National Security Council senior directors confessed themselves unable to predict whether she would align herself with Rumsfeld’s big-victory or Powell’s small-war point of view. But with every passing day after September 11, she seemed to edge closer and closer to Rumsfeld. She resisted Powell’s plan for a Middle East speech in September, protected Bush’s with-us-or-with-the-terrorists language against outraged would-be editors in the State Department, opposed the postponement of the war beyond Ramadan, and urged that fighting begin in Afghanistan as soon as the military was ready-rather than after the State Department completed its negotiations.

She was notably less eager than Powell to ingratiate herself with Arab opinion. In November, Rice threw in her lot with the Rumsfeld factions against the Powell faction. She remained exceedingly cautious. But in her careful way, she was decisive.

Click for Condoleezza Rice on other issues.   Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p.199-200

Condoleezza Rice on War & Peace : Oct 16, 2001
War on Terror is not a war against Islam

Q: Post-Sept. 11th, while Arab governments support the US, the public in the Arab & Muslim world do not.

A: We have very good relations with a number of governments in the Middle East. But we care very much also about the people of the Middle East. We think that the US is a place in which religious tolerance and a belief that all people should live together in peace is a message that would resonate with populations in the region. We’re trying to do a better job in getting that message out to people We want it to be very clear that the war on terrorism is not a war against Islam. Islam is a religion that respects innocent human life. So we cannot believe that Islam would countenance the kind of destruction that we saw on September 11th.

We are concerned about the economic opportunity for people in the Middle East. We believe that the policies that the US is pursuing are good for the Middle East as a whole-populations that are Arab, as well as the population of Israel.

Click for Condoleezza Rice on other issues.   Source: National Security Advisor Interview with Al Jazeera TV

  • Additional quotations related to War on Terror issues can be found under War & Peace.
  • Click here for definitions & background information on War & Peace.
Candidates on War & Peace:
Incumbents:
Pres.Barack Obama
V.P.Joe Biden
Secy.John Kerry
Secy.Chuck Hagel

 Related issues:
Afghanistan
American Exceptionalism
Arab Spring
Armed Forces Personnel
Gays in Military
Iranian Nukes
Iraq
Israel & Palestine
North Korea
Nuclear Energy & Weapons
SDI Missile Defense
Syria
Veterans
WMD

2016 Presidential contenders:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg(I-NYC)
Amb.John Bolton(R-MD)
Gov.Jeb Bush(R-FL)
Dr.Ben Carson(T-MD)
Gov.Chris Christie(R-NJ)
Secy.Hillary Clinton(D-NY)
Sen.Ted Cruz(T-TX)
Gov.Andrew Cuomo(D-NY)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel(D-IL)
Gov.Bobby Jindal(R-LA)
Gov.Nikk Haley(R-SC)
Rep.Peter King(R-NY)
Gov.Martin O`Malley(D-MD)
Gov.Deval Patrick(D-MA)
Sen.Rand Paul(R-KY)
Sen.Rob Portman(R-OH)
Sen.Marco Rubio(R-FL)
Gov.Jesse Ventura(I-MN)
2012 Presidential:
Rep.Michele Bachmann(T-MN)
Rep.Newt Gingrich(R-GA)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(R-AR)
Gov.Jon Huntsman(R-UT)
Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Gov.Sarah Palin(R-AK)
Rep.Ron Paul(R-TX)
Gov.Rick Perry(R-TX)
Gov.Mitt Romney(R-MA)
Rep.Paul Ryan(R-WI)
Sen.Rick Santorum(R-PA)
Donald Trump(I-NY)
Please consider volunteering for OnTheIssues!
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 06, 2014