Walter Mondale on War & Peace

Fight war on terror without infringing civil liberties

Mondale said the war on terror is the top national priority, but he expressed concern about damage to civil liberties that could be committed in the name of fighting terror. "We can do everything we need to do within our existing system of justice," he said.
Source: Eric Black, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune Nov 1, 2002

Against authorizing use of force in Iraq

Mondale said he would have voted, as Wellstone did, against the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force with or without U.N. support.
Source: Eric Black, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune Nov 1, 2002

Opposed Vietnam War as a ?moral disaster?

In 1968, Mondale cochaired Hubert Humphrey's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. He urged Humphrey to support a bombing halt over North Vietnam, a position that Humphrey finally embraced in late September. The Democratic ticket then gained in the polls. Nixon's entrance into the White House gave Walter Mondale and other liberal Democrats an opportunity to reevaluate their views about the war and the "imperial presidency." In 1969, Mondale reversed his position on the Vietnam War. He called the war "a military, a political and a moral disaster" and declared that the US government could not impose a solution on Vietnam's essentially internal conflict. As a liberal, Mondale also feared that the war was draining financial resources that should be applied to domestic problems. In 1971 he voted for the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment to stop American military actions in Cambodia and to set a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Vietnam. In 1973 he cosponsored the War Powers Resolution.
Source: Senate Historical Office, Vice Presidents of the US Jan 1, 1997

Israel?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

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

  • Click here for definitions & background information on War & Peace.
  • Click here for policy papers on War & Peace.
  • Click here for SenateMatch answers by Walter Mondale.
  • Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on War & Peace in The Forum.
Other candidates on War & Peace: Walter Mondale on other issues:
MN Gubernatorial:
Tim Pawlenty
MN Senatorial:
Mark Dayton
Norm Coleman
Paul Wellstone
Rod Grams

George W. Bush
(Republican for President)
V.P.Dick Cheney
(Republican for V.P.)
Sen.John Kerry
(Democratic nominee for Pres.)
Sen.John Edwards
(Democratic nominee for V.P.)
Ralph Nader
(Reform nominee for Pres.)
Peter Camejo
(Reform nominee for V.P.)
David Cobb
(Green nominee for Pres.)
Michael Badnarik
(Libertarian nominee for Pres.)
Michael Peroutka
(Constitution nominee for Pres.)
2004 Senate Races:
(AK)Knowles v.Murkowski v.Sykes
(AR)Holt v.Lincoln
(AZ)McCain v.Starky
(CA)Boxer v.Jones v.Gray
(CO)Coors v.Salazar v.Randall v.Acosta
(CT)Dodd v.Orchulli
(FL)Castor v.Martinez
(GA)Isakson v.Majette v.Buckley
(IA)Grassley v.Small v.Northrop
(IL)Obama v.Keyes
(IN)Bayh v.Scott
(KY)Bunning v.Mongiardo
(LA)John v.Vitter
(MD)Mikulski v.Pipkin
(MO)Bond v.Farmer
(NC)Bowles v.Burr
(ND)Dorgan v.Liffrig
(NH)Granny D v.Gregg
(NV)Reid v.Ziser
(NY)Schumer v.Mills v.McReynolds
(OH)Fingerhut v.Voinovich
(OK)Carson v.Coburn
(OR)Wyden v.King
(PA)Hoeffel v.Specter
(SC)DeMint v.Tenenbaum
(SD)Daschle v.Thune
(UT)Bennett v.Van Dam
(VT)Leahy v.McMullen
(WA)Murray v.Nethercutt
(WI)Feingold v.Michels
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Other Senators
House of Representatives
SenateMatch (matching quiz)
Senate Votes (analysis)
House Votes