Posted on 10/20/2006 2:18:37 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper
SAN ANTONIO — In a debate telecast statewide, Republican U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison repeated her call Thursday for the United States to maintain its commitment to stabilizing Iraq rather than "cutting and running because times are rough."
Hutchison, a senator for more than 13 years, also said she would not have voted for the United States to invade the country in 2003 if she'd known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky Democratic challenger says Texas needs fresh leadership.
Scott Lanier Jameson Libertarian says labeling enemies incites challenge.
Responding to a reporter's question, Hutchison said: "If I had known then what I know now about the weapons of mass destruction, which was a key reason I voted to go in there, I would not vote to go into Iraq the way we did.
"And I have to say I don't think the president would have asked for that vote either," Hutchison said, saying President Bush was "trying to make sure that America was not hit with another 9/11, with a weapon of mass destruction."
Democrat Barbara Ann Radnofsky seized on Hutchison's reflection, suggesting that Hutchison was among senators who failed to read intelligence information that would have illuminated the likelihood that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
"What a telling, telling comment from my colleague," said Radnofsky, who favors setting a timetable for taking U.S. troops out of Iraq.
Hutchison said it would be irresponsible to withdraw because Iraq has become "a terrorist breeding ground." Referring to Radnofsky, she added: "This is a very big point of difference between us."
The hourlong debate was historic from its start because this year marks the first time two women represent the major parties in a Texas U.S. Senate race. The pair met for the first time Thursday in the lobby of KLRN-TV, where the debate co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Texas was taped shortly before being broadcast statewide on public TV stations and C-SPAN.
The two were joined by Scott Lanier Jameson, 40, the Libertarian nominee who closed with a plea to voters to consider all Libertarian candidates.
Jameson expressed discomfort with the U.S. government labeling other nations such as Iran as enemies.
"It makes us sound like we're developing a checklist of who we're going to take on next," he said. "It's almost as if we're challenging them."
Hutchison, who has been the front-runner, fell into no outright gaffes in the nine-question event, with the only surprise being her hindsight on Iraq.
She and Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer making her first bid for elective office, vigorously spelled out differences they have aired during the campaign.
Radnofsky criticized Hutchison for voting to build what she dubbed an impractical 700-mile fence along stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border. She said that, unlike Hutchison, she favors revising a law creating a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens so the government can negotiate lower drug prices with manufacturers.
Hutchison defended an immigration proposal she has outlined with Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, that envisions the government establishing a more secure border before launching a system requiring illegal immigrants to leave the United States and apply at out-of-country centers for permission to return to work here. She called it a "starting point" toward compromise in Congress.
Jameson said that if a wall is going to be built, it should be around flood-prone New Orleans.
Hutchison, 63, filled the Senate seat long held by Lloyd Bentsen in 1993. She won election to her first full term a year later.
The former state treasurer and Texas House member has frequently said her dream is to serve as Texas governor, although she has passed up chances to run, including last year when she yielded to Gov. Rick Perry, who is seeking re-election next month.
Hutchison said last month that she decided to seek one more term only because of her seniority on the Appropriations Committee and within the Republican Party ranks.
"I've been able to do many things for Texas that would be hard to accomplish as a junior member," Hutchison said. "But this is certainly going to be my last term."
Hutchison conceded that she has backed off on a pledge in the early 1990s to serve no more than two terms, but said she still supports amending the Constitution to hold all senators to limits.
"I want to do what I think is best for Texas," she said.
Radnofsky, 50, left her partner position at Vinson & Elkins to campaign. Eclipsed by Hutchison in fundraising, she's tried to make up for the gulf by enlisting volunteers, having a frequently updated Web site and stressing a 40-page comparison of her positions on issues to what she considers Hutchison's poor record.
Radnofsky, who wore a purple blouse, said: "What this country needs for Texas is leadership that's new and fresh, that stands about 5-foot-9 and looks good in purple."
Well Young Scholar how long do you think it would have taken to put the WMD pieces together? Clearly there was the will and there was the infrastructure and the wealth. How long can any nation seriously deter a nation without taking any credible action? Oil for food demonstrated the folly of "pretend" deterence. As for building democracy, we did it in Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Phillepeans and to a certain extent Taiwan - it took a long time and a lot of money. We failed in South Vietnam and are on the verge of failing in Iraq. I believe we are safer for our efforts. I don't fear Germany, Japan, South Korea and others will build and distribute WMD. I think it is more likely in places where thugs maintain power through murder and torture. I'd also hate to see a world where terrorism always trumps democracy because good men chose to do nothing or don't want to spend more than 3 years doing it. The world has grown just too small for me to ignore the murders and rapes in a neighbor's house. WMD may yet thin the heard and make that small world much bigger in the future...not that it's any of our business. ;-)
Too bad there weren't others he should have cleared out of DC. All the X-42 bunch should have been sent packing. That was one weakness I saw at the start. Get the bags out and throw the garbage into the dumpster.
Another reason why the LP will never win anything higher than dog catcher.
Out of here for today.
If you kindly re-read the thread, the poster gave a valid explanation of this.
See ya later....VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
I know there were other reasons, but in my opinion, only the threat of a nuclear or other large-scale WMD attack was enough to justify the invasion. The other reasons had merit, but I don't think they were compelling enough on their own to make such a war worth the costs (which is the same thing Senator Hutchison is saying).
She is wrong on that one!!!
How does SHE knows there are NONE???
That's hard to say, and given what we believed at the time, there certainly were good reasons to invade.
As for building democracy, it has become a useful goal when we've been involved in countries for other reasons (for instance, Germany or Japan), but on its own I doubt many would consider it a good reason for significant military operations in a country. Since we're in Iraq already, we should ceratinly make every effort to promote a stable government, but the goal of a stable government wouldn't have alone provided a sufficient reason to enter the country in the first place.
I read every post made by the poster before making mine. If you think the explanation is valid that's your opinion. We differ.
You never vote for the person who represents your views less than another candidate on the same ballot unless you're somewhat mentally handicapped or don't care about logic whatsoever.
Politicis 101. Get what you can get. And try to get more the next time.
Politics for retards. Vote for someone you don't like because it will teach the good guys to get better.
Dangerous way to think about things.
Your response is sickening to me. KBH and GWB relied on intelligence from the CIA. Tell me which party raped this agency (starting with Frank Church) and which party infested their philosophy - ala State Dept? Tell me which party has done everything they could to tie the hands of the intellegent agencies and continue to do that to this day? Don't dare spew this crap without understanding how we got to this point!D~
That's an opinion. Not the only one but an opinion.
Agreed. I just think it's a more traditionally conservative position than that taken by many neoconservatives.
Yes you could be right but then i'm not sure there is a real consensus on what IS conservative and what isn't. Also something to consider, conservative ideals of 50 - 100 years ago just might have to be altered in a world where biological WMD can be concealed in a shaving kit and transported to our shores in less than a day. And yes, I'll acknowledge that I could just be worrying too much too. :-)
I'm still gonna hold my nose and take some anti-nausea pills and vote republican.
I'm not taking a chance that KBH could lose - I'm voting for her. If it makes you feel better, just vote straight republican. That way you can feel like you're just voting for the party and not an individual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.