In two weeks the United States will hold its first major election since
the devastating terrorists attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, making the fight against terrorism one of this election year’s biggest talking points.
The year-and-a-half-old war in Iraq has cost the United States about $120 billion, according to factcheck.org, and has taken more than 1,000 American lives, making it one of the most controversial topics in this year’s election.
While both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have focused strongly in their presidential debates on their stances toward the war in Iraq and the broader war on terrorism, U.S. congressional candidates have had fewer opportunities to weigh in on the important issues.
U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives candidates interviewed by the Emerald had different ideas about how
to keep America safe from terrorists. Some saw the war in Iraq as a pro-active step to fighting terrorism, taking the fight to those who support terrorism and moving
the battle away from U.S. shores. Others saw the war as a distraction from the fight against terrorists, who have the proven
desire and capability to kill Americans
at home.
U.S. House of Representatives
Republican candidate Jim Feldkamp, who is challenging incumbent Rep. Peter DeFazio, said he supports President Bush’s decision after Sept. 11 to attack terrorists like war enemies, instead of pursuing them like criminals.
“We’ve switched the game to playing offense,” Feldkamp said.
Feldkamp said the United States knew Saddam Hussein had contact with known international terrorists, paid the families of Hamas suicide bombers, conducted research and development of weapons of mass destruction and violated 12 United Nations resolutions.
“Once we provide stability and democracy in Iraq, it’s going to reform the whole Middle East,” Feldkamp said. “It’s good that we’re establishing a democracy in Iraq and hunting the terrorists wherever they go … I think in 20 years you’re going to see this was just a fabulous opportunity we took advantage of.”
Feldkamp did say it would have been helpful if the United States would have consulted former Soviet states to learn how to establish a democracy in a region where it’s not a tradition.
“If that’s a complaint, it’s a very minor one in the scheme of things,”
Feldkamp said.
Like Feldkamp, DeFazio approved of the war in Afghanistan, but his opinions differed on the war in Iraq.
DeFazio said the war was a distraction from the fight against international terrorists who have the desire and ability to hurt Americans on their own soil. DeFazio said Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and, in fact, had an adversarial relationship with al-Qaida.
“I think it was a tremendous
mistake (distracting) ourselves from rebuilding Afghanistan and capturing Osama dead or alive … ,” DeFazio said. “The U.S. should have focused on those who have the capability of delivering devastating attacks, and that certainly wasn’t Saddam Hussein.”
DeFazio said Bush is spending $10 billion on a “Star Wars fantasy” in Alaska, but with less than half of that amount we could secure our borders. Terrorist attacks won’t come with a nuclear-tipped missile, but with a weapon in a cargo container, he said. Americans have the technology to scan all trucks and vehicles coming into the United States for radiological devices and other weapons, but Bush has claimed there is no money for them, DeFazio said.
U.S. Senate
Republican Al King, who is challenging Sen. Ron Wyden for his seat in the U.S. Senate, said he supports Bush “100 percent” for his decision to go to war, saying the only chance we have against “suicidal maniacs” is to take the fight to them.
“There is no negotiation in those kinds of circumstances; they’re going to kill you,” King said.
King said he supported the war in Iraq because establishing a democracy in the country will give the United States an outpost in that part of the world. The war also takes the fight against terrorists away from U.S. shores. However, he said we should train the Iraqi police and military quickly and leave the country as soon as possible.
King stressed the need to spend more money securing America’s borders, emphasizing that halting the flow of illegal aliens into this country will also allow the United States to prevent terrorists from entering.
“If we control illegal immigration, we’re also going to control the
flow of terrorism into this country,” he said.
Wyden, in an e-mail statement, wrote that Americans don’t need to give up their civil liberties to help combat terrorism at home.
“Following the September 11
attacks, I passed a law creating
a centralized database of suspected terrorists so that law enforcement
at the federal, state and local
levels can now work together to track suspected terrorists,” he wrote.
Wyden wrote that he did not vote to authorize the war in Iraq because he didn’t see the country as an imminent threat to the United States based on U.S. intelligence assessments.
“I thought a unilateral and unprovoked attack could actually make us less safe by breeding broader resentment to the U.S. in the Middle East,” Wyden wrote. “Now that our troops are committed, however, I believe we must fully support our troops.”

[email protected]