What They Said: Iraq

Between now and the elections, we'll post notable comments from politicians on their views of the future of US military involvement in Iraq. These will appear without any additional editorial comment except that which might appear in the source material. We make no claim on the accuracy of the quotes, and urge the reader to determine the difference between actual quotes and reporters' interpretation of quotes (Actual quotes generally have quotation marks) and likewise to be aware of the frequently appearing editorial ... indicating portions of a statement have been excised at that point.

The <...> appearing below are where we've deleted portions of the linked news story not pertinent to the comments, or beyond actual direct quotes. We encourage readers to click through to the links and "read the whole thing".

Our goal? An informed electorate.

Up first, some key House Democrats. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., on Friday called for a sharp reversal of course in Iraq.

The spiraling violence is "deeply disturbing," Skelton said in a conference call with reporters, during which he called for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq. Skelton, of Lexington, Mo., is likely to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee if Democrats gain control of the House in next month's congressional elections.

"Time is not on our side," Skelton said, noting that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. <...>
Skelton said he wanted some troops to be brought home while others were stationed near Iraq in case they were needed to quell increased bloodshed or to prevent a foreign invasion of Iraq.
<...>
Skelton was joined by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who would probably lead the House defense appropriations panel if the Democrats take a majority in the vote.
<...>
"We've lost the hearts and minds of the (Iraqi) people, and we've become caught in a civil war," Murtha said. Failures such as the inability to provide residents of Baghdad with more than 2 1/2 hours of electricity a day have hurt the U.S. image, he said.

"The big problem in the Middle East is Iran," Murtha said. "We went to the wrong place."

Rep. Tom Lanton, D-Calif., who might be tapped to lead the House International Relations Committee, said Democrats were "united in opposing global terrorism and in recognizing the brutal and fanatical nature of our enemy."

"But we are also united in the belief that our current course in Iraq is unsustainable and counterproductive," he said.

No one speaks more authoritatively for the Democrats on defense and national security issues than Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, both longtime members of the Armed Services Committee. If you want to know what Democratic gains in this midterm election would mean for national security policy, Levin and Reed can provide the answers.
<...>
On Iraq, the two Democrats harked back to the amendment that 39 senators supported during a debate earlier this year -- an amendment that called for a start on U.S. troop withdrawals within six months but set no numbers and specified no target date for ending the U.S. military presence.

Reed, who has made many trips to Iraq and returned just weeks ago from his most recent visit, described the "very, very difficult situation" he found there. "We have to begin to work toward redeployment without setting a timetable," he said. "We have to start laying out some red lines for the Iraqis . . . give them some clear goals we want them to achieve." They need to set plans for disarming militias, conducting elections at the provincial level and spending some of the funds being hoarded in Baghdad on better services for the people, he said.

The position they all oppose is that of President Bush, so here's his latest radio address:

Our goal in Iraq is clear and unchanging: Our goal is victory. What is changing are the tactics we use to achieve that goal. Our commanders on the ground are constantly adjusting their approach to stay ahead of the enemy, particularly in Baghdad. General Pete Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, recently put it this way: "From a military standpoint, every day is a reassessment day." We have a strategy that allows us to be flexible and to adapt to changing circumstances. We've changed the way we train the Iraqi security forces. We have changed the way we deliver reconstruction assistance in areas that have been cleared of terrorist influence. And we will continue to be flexible, and make every necessary change to prevail in this struggle.
<...>
There is one thing we will not do: We will not pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete. There are some in Washington who argue that retreating from Iraq would make us safer. I disagree. Retreating from Iraq would allow the terrorists to gain a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America. Retreating from Iraq would dishonor the men and women who have given their lives in that country, and mean their sacrifice has been in vain. And retreating from Iraq would embolden the terrorists, and make our country, our friends, and our allies more vulnerable to new attacks.

The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.

Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.

Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it.
<...>
In a statement issued Saturday night, a White House spokeswoman, Nicole Guillemard, said the Times’s account was “not accurate,” but did not specify what officials found to be inaccurate.

Do you know your candidate's views?