Posted on 01/07/2008 7:12:31 AM PST by PhilCollins
War divides Republican Senate hopefuls By John Patterson | Daily Herald Staff
SPRINGFIELD -- None of the three candidates vying for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination want to set a specific timetable for getting troops out of Iraq, but they differ on whether the war ever should have started or has been successful.
Neither Steve Sauerberg, a Willowbrook physician, nor Andy Martin, a Chicago Internet writer and lawyer, said he would have voted to send troops to Iraq.
"Knowing what we know now -- that Saddam Hussein did not have significant stockpiles of WMDs -- I would not have voted to authorize the use of force," said Sauerberg.
Martin's opposition was unconditional: "There's no way I would have ever voted for that. It was a folly."
In contrast, Mike Psak, a truck driver from Chicago, said he would have voted for the military action.
"Yes, I would have supported it, just like a majority of the Congress voted for it. From all indications from intelligence sources, going into Iraq was warranted," Psak said.
All three are vying next month for the GOP nod to face incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Springfield, who is unopposed in the primary. Durbin voted against the war in Iraq, which was approved 77-23 in October 2002. Then-U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, an Inverness Republican, voted yes.
Asked whether the military action has been successful, the Republican hopefuls also split.
Both Sauerberg and Psak said the military action in Iraq has been successful, with Psak being adamant.
"Yes, of course. Saddam Hussein was deposed, tried and executed. There is now a democratic government. And terrorist activity in Iraq is declining," Psak said.
Martin disagreed: "If you go back to 2003, the military venture has been a disaster." However, he said strategic changes made in 2007 have had success.
These issues highlighted the differences among the Republican candidates who otherwise agreed on several Iraq and military policy questions put to them by the Daily Herald.
All three said it would be a mistake to set a specific date for U.S. troops to be out of Iraq.
"I would like to bring the men and women home as soon as possible, but we cannot leave a bloodbath in our wake," said Martin.
"Giving our enemies in Iraq a withdrawal timeline will lead to the loss of more American lives and destabilize a region that needs stability. We need an exit strategy which will stabilize the economy and ensure the safety of Iraq and America," said Sauerberg.
Psak said the mission will be complete when the Iraqi government can secure its own country and the people there have a stake in its oil reserves.
The candidates also agreed U.S. forces should not be used to police turmoil around the world, generally saying such action should come only when U.S. interests are threatened.
Martin and Sauerberg agreed more should be spent on the military and care of soldiers, but neither would support a tax increase to do so, saying other spending should first be cut. Psak didn't know if more spending is needed and would support a tax increase only in times of war.
It sounds like I’ll be voting for him.
I’m voting Psak. I am also voting for Chris Lauzen to replace Hastert.
I’m gonna check him out. The other two are RINOs.
What IF??? Hindsight is always 20 20.
That sinking ship arguement about knowing what we now know about WMD is a tired, overused abuse of real historical fact.
Why debate “why the war was started”.
Simply ask Osama Bin Ladin.
He’ll be happy to tell us why he attacked America.
Exactly. If one of the Republican candidates states that he or she wouldn’t have gone into Iraq after 9/11 due to their not being obvious stockpiles of WMD, we should boot that ignoramus out of the party. There were a dozen or more reasons we had to go in there and take care of business. Only the MSM and Democrats believe otherwise, but they do not represent America or her ideals.
I’m Psak’s volunteer coordinator. If you want to volutneer for him, please e-mail me, via his website. If you want to host a fundraiser, please e-mail his fundraising chairman, Gary Karlin, via the site. We’d appreciate your help, so that Psak can win the primary and defeat Sen. Durbin.
I agree with your Iraq opinion. I was in the navy for 21 years, including six months near Baghdad. While I was in Iraq, I didn’t complain about the American presence in Iraq, and I rarely heard my co-workers complain about it. After I returned to the U.S., I’ve heard many people, who haven’t served in the military, complain about our presence in Iraq.
“Knowing what we know now...”
What a stupid comment and why this state will never have another republican congressman or senator in my lifetime.
Better odds that the Cubs will win the Series.
I think that IL will get another republican congressman, Ken Arnold of Gurnee, who hopes to defeat Melissa Bean. In 2004, she received 52%. In ‘06, she got 51%. In ‘08, she’ll probably lose.
“Knowing what we know now...”
We know now as we knew bwefore that Saddam did have WMD’s and used them aginst Kurds and Iranisns. What he did with those WMD, well, the burden of proof was on Saddam, not on us. That was the condition of the ceasefire in the GW II and of the 17 UNSC resolutions. For some people, like those candidates, history always starts from scratch every Monday.
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.