Claire supports a more active role for our nation in stopping Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran's efforts to develop atomic arms pose grave risks to US interests in the Middle East, threatening international peace and security. We need to hold
Iran's current leadership accountable for its threatening behavior. Claire favors the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would tighten sanctions on foreign companies that invest in Iran's energy sector, and aid Iran's pro-democracy forces.
The greatest threats to our safety are weapons of mass destruction. Iran may now be close to producing a nuclear bomb. Iran's nuclear capability can still be prevented.
Unchecked, it will create a domino effect that will be felt throughout the Middle East. An immediate and complete moratorium on their enrichment processes is needed. And it must be non-negotiable.
Source: New York Times Election Profiles
Oct 8, 2006
Talk to North Korea to renounce nuclear program
The spread of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons must be stopped. Claire says there must be no uncertainty about that goal. North Korea has been stockpiling nuclear weapons without so much as a glance from the current administration.
We cannot allow them to go any further. We must talk to the North Koreans if we are ever to get them to renounce their weapons and allow a verification system to assure their compliance.
Source: New York Times Election Profiles
Oct 8, 2006
Need to change course in Iraq
Iraq is a mess. We can either stay the course or we can change course. Obviously, even the leader of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Warner, probably the most respected Republican on the Iraq war in Washington, has now come back from Iraq & said, "You
know what? This is a mess and we need to re-examine what we're doing here." This is Truman's Senate seat. When he was in the Senate, during the war, he asked questions about war profiteering and he was called brave. In this climate right now, they would
war, where we are losing lives every day and innocent Iraqi lives; and then our effort worldwide to begin to be effective against terror. Terrorist cells are popping up. We're creating more terrorists around the world with this failed policy in Iraq.
Redeploy our troops in Iraq to Afghanistan to find bin Laden
As a daughter of rural Missouri, we have a saying, "If you're in a hole, you need to quit digging." We have now trained 300,000 Iraqi troops. We have a civil war. This idea that we're creating a democracy that's going to be our ally in the war on terror?
We have a government that's reinstituted Saddam Hussein's laws to put journalists in prison. We need to listen to our military, and over a two-year framework, give or take, time period that they say, we need to move-Afghanistan, we need troops in
of dependence; we are not breeding a democracy. The elected leaders of Iraq have come out in favor of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that invaded our ally. I know that the NATO command would take our troops in Afghanistan. They need more.
Define a plan for success in Iraq with a clear exit strategy
I am deeply concerned that this Administration doesn't seem to have a plan for success in Iraq. President Bush said it might be up to other 'Presidents' to deal with Iraq, which makes me believe he thinks we could be there another ten years.
I will push the Administration to be more honest with the American people and demand a clear exit strategy. The sooner we train Iraqi troops to defend their nation's security, the sooner we will can bring home our young men and women.
Source: Campaign website, www.ClaireOnline.com, "Issues"
May 2, 2006
Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months.
Vote to transition the missions of US Forces in Iraq to a more limited set of missions as specified by the President on September 13, 2007: S.AMDT.3875 amends S.AMDT.3874 and underlying bill H.R.2764:
The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].
Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"
Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure
Training Iraqi security forces
Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety
Targeted operations against members of al-Qaida.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. McCAIN: "This year, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military has made significant gains under the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since [2003]. Improvised explosive device blasts now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004.
"Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. We are succeeding under the new strategy.
"Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake."
Reference: Safe Redeployment Of US Troops From Iraq Amendment;
Bill S.AMDT.3875 to H.R.2764
; vote number 2007-437
on Dec 18, 2007
Voted NO on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.
Vote on a "Sense of the Senate" amendment, S.Amdt. 3017, to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act), that finds:
that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;
that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;
to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;
that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text].
That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BIDEN. I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. [The same was done with the Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002]. Given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.
Begins the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all US combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting US and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. Such redeployment shall be implemented as part of a diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community in order to bring stability to Iraq.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.
Reference: US Policy in Iraq Resolution;
Bill S.J.Res.9
; vote number 2007-075
on Mar 15, 2007
