OnTheIssuesLogo

Mike Pompeo on War & Peace

 

 


OpEd: Supported Iraq war then & supports Iran war now

Rand Paul is vowing to do everything he can to stop Mike Pompeo from becoming secretary of state. The libertarian-leaning GOP senator said that Pompeo's earlier support for the Iraq war and defense of enhanced interrogation techniques--or "torture" in the view of Paul and many other senators--is disqualifying.

Paul serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the GOP enjoys just a one-seat advantage. With Paul opposed, Pompeo could receive an unfavorable committee verdict, which would be a serious black mark on Pompeo's nomination.

Pompeo's previous pushes for regime change in Iran and his hawkish world view are also at odds with Trump and therefore he should not be given the job, Paul argued. "I'm perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate for a war with Iran next," Paul said. "it goes against most of the things Pres. Trump campaigned on, that the unintended consequences of regime change in Iraq led to instability in the Middle East."

Source: Politico.com on 2018 Trump Administration , Mar 14, 2018

I opposed Iran deal; I'll gather clear-eyed info about it

Pompeo discussed how his transition would relate to specific policies areas such as the Iran nuclear deal and Russia. He said, "While as a Member of Congress I opposed the Iran deal, if confirmed, my role will change. It will be to drive the Agency to aggressively pursue collection operations and ensure analysts have the time, political space, and resources to make objective and methodologically sound judgments. If confirmed, I will present their judgments to policymakers. The same goes for Russia. It is a policy decision as to what to do with Russia, but I understand it will be essential that the Agency provide policymakers with accurate intelligence and clear-eyed analysis of Russian activities."
Source: Ballotpedia on 2017 Trump transition confirmation hearings , Jan 13, 2017

More resolve and less time-limit in Afghanistan

While I am pleased that the president has now finally announced his Afghanistan strategy and a troop level increase, it remains inexcusable that he took so long to do so. It is concerning too, that he has chosen not to provide the full level of resources and national commitment that our fighters on the ground deserve. The lack of decisive action--coupled with talk of exit ramps and the telegraphing of potential deadlines--serves to give aid and comfort to our enemies, to create at least some level of doubt as to our resolve.

It is time for the President to develop a strategy for success and make certain that our brave men and women in the field have the resources and support they need to execute that mission. Our enemy is not measured, but rather barbaric, ruthless and fully committed. If this war is necessary, then our response must be equal to that task and not limited in time and not fought with political correctness and restrictive rules of engagement driving policy and planning.

Source: Response to Pres. Obama's speech at West Point , Dec 1, 2009

Voted YES on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.

RESOLUTION Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of US Armed Forces in Libya, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.
    The House of Representatives makes the following statements of policy:
  1. The US Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the US.
  2. The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon US national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.
  3. The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the US Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.
The President shall transmit a report describing in detail US security interests and objectives, and the activities of US Armed Forces, in Libya since March 19, 2011, including a description of the following:
  1. The President's justification for not seeking authorization by Congress for the use of military force in Libya.
  2. US political and military objectives regarding Libya, including the relationship between the intended objectives and the operational means being employed to achieve them.
  3. Changes in US political and military objectives following the assumption of command by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
  4. Differences between US political and military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO member states engaged in military activities.
  5. The specific commitments by the US to ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.
  6. The anticipated scope and duration of continued US military involvement in Libya.
  7. The costs of military, political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.
Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the US States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.
Reference: Resolution on Libya; Bill HRes294 ; vote number 11-HV410 on Jun 3, 2011

Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan.

Congressional Summary:
    Directs the President, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan:
  1. by no later than 30 days after this resolution is adopted; or
  2. if the President determines that it is not safe to remove them by such date, by no later than December 31, 2011.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Kucinich, D-OH]:The American people oppose this war by a margin of two to one. Nearly 2/3 of Americans say the war isn't worth fighting. We are spending $100 billion per year on this war. There are those who are saying the war could last at least another 10 years. Are we willing to spend another $1 trillion on a war that doesn't have any exit plan, for which there is no timeframe to get out, no endgame, where we haven't defined our mission? The question is not whether we can afford to leave. The question is, can we afford to stay? And I submit we cannot afford to stay. The counterintelligence strategy of General Petraeus is an abysmal failure, and it needs to be called as such.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL]: This resolution would undermine the efforts of our military and our international partners in Afghanistan and would gravely harm our Nation's security. 3,000 people died on Sep. 11 because we walked away once from Afghanistan, thinking that it didn't matter who controlled that country. We were wrong then. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Completing our mission in Afghanistan is essential to keeping our homeland safe. This is about our vital national security interests. It is about doing what is necessary to ensure that al Qaeda and other extremists cannot reestablish safe havens such as the ones they had in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were planned against our Nation and our people. The enemy, indeed, is on the run. It is demoralized and divided. Let us not give up now.

Reference: Resolution on Afghanistan; Bill HConRes28 ; vote number 11-HV193 on Mar 17, 2011

Supports a continued presence in Afghanistan.

Pompeo supports the PVS survey question on Afghanistan

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 16% did so in the 2010 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'International Policy Issues: Do you support United States military action in Afghanistan?'

Source: Project Vote Smart 10-PVS-q17 on Nov 2, 2010

Boycott & sanctions against Iran for terrorism & nukes.

Pompeo signed Iran Threat Reduction Act

Source: H.R.1905 11-HR1905 on May 13, 2011

Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment.

Pompeo co-sponsored Resolution on Iran's nuclear program

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, that Congress--
  1. Reaffirms that the US Government has a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
  2. warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
  3. urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until a full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities;
  4. expresses that the window for diplomacy is closing;
  5. expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
  6. strongly supports US policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
  7. rejects any US policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.
Source: HRes568/SR41 12-HJR568 on Mar 1, 2012

Other candidates on War & Peace: Mike Pompeo on other issues:
2017 Trump Administration:
Pres.Trump
V.P.Pence
DOL:Acosta
USTR:Boustany
HUD:Carson
DOT:Chao
Edu.:DeVos
ODNI:Coats
DHS:Kelly
DOD:Mattis
SBA:McMahon
Treas.:Mnuchin
OMB:Mulvaney
DOE:Perry
CIA:Pompeo
HHS:Price
EPA:Pruitt
DOC:Ross
A.G.:Sessions
DVA:Shulkin
State:Tillerson
DOI:Zinke
Former Obama Administration:
Pres.Barack Obama
V.P.Joe Biden
State:John Kerry
HUD:Julian Castro
State:Hillary Clinton
Staff:Rahm Emanuel

Former Bush Administration:
Pres.George W. Bush
V.P.Dick Cheney
State:Colin Powell
State:Condi Rice

Former Clinton Administration:
Pres.Bill Clinton
V.P.Al Gore
HUD:Andrew Cuomo
Labor:Robert Reich
A.G.:Janet Reno
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty
Search for...





Page last updated: Sep 29, 2018