I have been writing about the race in my distirct, Pennsylvania's 5th, since right after incumbent Republican John "drill drill drill" Peterson announced his surprise retirement in January.
First, a few of the top-tier candidates (state lawmakers) opted out of running. Then the candidates started coming out of the woodwork: now 9 Republicans and 3 Democrats have qualified to get on the ballot.
All three of the Democrats now have informative websites up and each also has a presence here on DKos either directly or through representatives. Since I am not affiliated with any of the campaigns and since I am still trying to decide which of these candidates to vote for, as I know some other PA 5th-ers are as well, I'll keep writing about the race. Today I'll start off what may become a series by looking at each candidates' statements about Iraq. I'll use their websites and any other press coverage available. So, starting off alphabetically . . .
Bill Cahir recently improved his website, but it is not yet complete. The only issue he covers right now is Iraq. I think he started with this partly due to questions he has been receiving about past statements that made many here at DKos uncomfortable. (Kossack Daren has been diarying and commenting on behalf of Cahir here.) Cahir is the only Iraq veteran running from either party for this seat (I think he's the only veteran period). If he were elected, he would be only the second Iraq war vet elected to Congress, joining Patrick Murphy, another Pennsylvanian.
I'll start with the past troubling statements (from a January Lewistown Sentinel article no longer available on-line):
"The Democrats in Congress don’t have the votes to override the president on this issue. But we have to look at the fact that we now have a number of things going our way in Iraq," he said. "The surge (in U.S. military personnel) is going to run its course by July. The next president and the next congress will inherit Operation Iraqi Freedom."
"As a two-tour veteran, I think I have ideas on where to go next with that mission. As a Marine reservist, I’m not going to criticize the commander-in-chief — I support the mission.
"We need to capitalize on the security gains we’ve made (in Iraq), rather than any kind of a rapid withdrawal. We need to honor the alliances we’ve developed with the Sunni sheiks who are supporting us, and take a look at what the sensible policies are right now," Cahir said.
I'll excerpt from his website statement on Iraq, which I think clarifies the above:
I think we do need to get out of Iraq, because staying there for 100 years, or forever, would radicalize young men throughout the Middle East. Staying in place would cause more terrorism in that neighborhood and around the globe. Staying there, with no exit strategy, would be counterproductive, doing more harm than good.
The question is what to do next. It's already clear that the next president and the next Congress are going to inherit Operation Iraqi Freedom. There likely will be something like 140,000 American troops on Iraqi soil in January 2009.
. . snip . .
Our national interest, reducing the threat of terrorism, is best served by bringing our troops home. Even if the Iraqi government that we leave behind isn't perfect, and even if the threat of sectarian violence is high, we can't settle every dispute by keeping American personnel bogged down in tribal politics or Iraqi neighborhood and religious disputes. That will cause more problems than it solves.
Candor is a key leadership trait. The courage of our fighting men and women demands our honesty here at home. We need to tell the hard truth to ourselves: Historically, we have not been a colonial power in the Middle East. We do not seek to become one. And we do not have any special right to Iraqi oil. Worse yet, we have not deployed a force anywhere near the sufficient size to police all of the religious, economic and sectarian disputes in Iraq.
After five years of warfare, our best interests happen to coincide closely with our values. That means we must attempt to stabilize Iraq, and bring our military personnel home to their families, while working with our allies to promote the human and civil rights of all people throughout the region.
Ahh . . that's better. There's much more too - you should follow the link. I think he supports a slower, more cautious withdrawal than some here prefer, but a withdrawal nonetheless.
Mark McCracken has a nice, complete issues section on his website, including one page about Iraq. (Here at DKos, vmo1701 has been commenting on behalf of McCracken. No diaries here yet but he has been blogging over at Keystone Politics.)
McCracken's page on Iraq:
Whoever is elected the next President is going to have to set a policy to end the Iraq war. . . snip
A key player in financing the stabilization plan must be Saudi Arabia. The plan must include bringing home the majority of our military from Iraq as soon as possible. The Bush administration has spent almost three quarters of a trillion dollars ($750,000,000,000) on this war and the US military fatalities will soon exceed 4,000 deaths..
Clearly, McCraken thinks our resources can be better spent elsewhere. However, one public statement I've seen McCracken make was the following (as covered by the Centre Daily Times on January 27th - no longer available on-line):
He agreed with Cahir on Iraq. "You can’t just cut and run," McCracken said. "You can’t let that whole region fall apart over there."
Ack!! Nails on chalkboard. My advice to Mr. McCracken is to NEVER EVER use the phrase "cut and run," certainly not among Democrats. Hardly anyone has been advocating anything remotely close to a "cut and run" strategy, so that phrase just sets up a strawman.
Rick Vilello has short blurbs on many issues on his campaign website, including one on Iraq. (The good mayor himself made his DKos debut with a recommended diary last week, and long-time Kossack JSCram3254 is also writing on behalf of Vilello.)
Villello's diary here had one line about Iraq:
We need a Democrat who wants to end the war in Iraq and who wants to refocus on the war on terror and Osama bin Laden.
At his website, his entire statement on Iraq is:
We need to leave Iraq and refocus on the war on Terror. It is time for the Iraqis people to take charge of their own country, their own government and their own future in the world community. It is time to bring our soldiers home as heroes, they have accomplished their mission.
We are paying $12,000,000,000.00 dollars a month for a poorly planned and poorly executed war. The sooner we leave, the sooner the Iraqis will be held responsible for their own country. We can do better.
So there you have it. The short of it is, all 3 want us out of Iraq . . eventually. But all 3 definitely think we're wasting lives and resources there. You can guess what the Republican candidates are saying about Iraq.