Posted on 11/05/2006 6:48:12 PM PST by Maelstorm
As the war rolls on in Iraq, the global war on terror has become a campaign issue for the 2006 congressional midterm elections.
The issue was tested during the Democratic Primary in Connecticut held in August, political analysts report. Political newcomer Ned Lamont defeated incumbent U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, the party’s vice presidential candidate in 2000 and a presidential contender in 2004. Lamont ran as an anti-war candidate against Lieberman, who supported the President’s decision to invade Iraq.
Chris Wakim, the Republican candidate for the 1st Congressional District, supports President Bush’s position in Iraq and the War on Terror. The voting record of Rep. Alan Mollohan, the Democratic incumbent, indicates that he was for regime change in Iraq during the Clinton administration, before he voted against invading Iraq during the Bush administration. Wakim graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1980 and served 11 years in the Army and achieved the rank of captain before being honorably discharged for injuries received in the line of duty, according to his campaign Web site, chriswakim.com.
Wakim supports the invasion of Iraq. “Our men and women in uniform are doing an amazing job of keeping the war on terror overseas and away from our cities and homes,” he said. “If the front line of terrorism is in Iraq, then we should be there, fighting to put an end to these evildoers with all the force the United States military can bring to bear on the terrorists.”
Mollohan voted in favor of sending troops to the Persian Gulf in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. During the subsequent years of the Clinton administration, United Nations economic sanctions were put in place, but to ill effect because, many said, Iraq remained a threat under Saddam Hussein’s rule. In 1998, President Clinton supported House Resolution 612 that reaffirmed “that it should be U.S. policy to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” “As a graduate of West Point and an 11-year veteran of the U.S. Army Infantry, I know exactly what it means when our soldiers are put in harm’s way thousands of miles from their families,” Wakim told The Dominion Post. “I can also say from experience that the mission that they are tasked with is both honorable and essential to the safety and security of us and our families.”
Prior to being elected to Congress in 1982, Mollohan was in the U.S. Army Reserves from 1970-1983, attaining the rank of captain.
“My service in the Army and the Army Reserves does not affect my view of the war in Iraq,” Mollohan told The Dominion Post. “My view is based solely on the justifications given for going to war in Iraq. Before one commits American men and women to war, one must have decided that an imminent threat to the national security interests of the country exists.”
Wakim said it is important to define the war on terror. “The first thing we need to do is stop calling it President Bush’s war on terror and realize the war on terror is a struggle between individuals that believe in freedom and individuals in this world who want to kill us for believing that way,” he said. “When it comes to fighting terrorism, yes, I absolutely believe we should fight terrorism, and I certainly believe that we should fight them on their turf rather than Lower Manhattan or here in West Virginia.”
Mollohan said there should be a comprehensive approach to the war on terror. This multi-faceted approach would involve “a military initiative in Afghanistan, with sufficient troop strength to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida, stabilize the country and capture Osama Bin Laden and an appropriate intelligence operation that provides American leadership with accurate information regarding al-Qaida’s activities and intentions.”
He wants more “funding to secure America’s homeland, including immigration controls and protection of terror-sensitive systems, such as all modes of transportation.”
Mollohan said the war in Iraq is an unnecessary diversion from the war on terror. “The invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change has diverted the military and siphoned off billions of dollars that are not now available for homeland security investments or for prosecuting the war against al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden,” he said.
With all due respect, it has not.
The last poll I saw he was within 10 points. Do you have more recent polling data?
http://constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.php
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
