War at Forefront in Minn. Debate
2006-10-16
Source: Washington Post
email this
print this
del.icio.us
digg this
rss feedMinnesota Senate candidates Mark Kennedy (R) and Amy Klobuchar (D) battled over the war in Iraq, North Korea's nuclear ambitions and taxes yesterday as Kennedy faced downdrafts in a new poll, national GOP support and President Bush's approval ratings, in a snapshot of Republican troubles nationwide.
In a nationally televised debate on NBC's "Meet the Press," Kennedy, a three-term congressman, stood by his House vote to authorize the war in Iraq when read his statements in 2003 that "the trend" there was "very positive," in 2005 that "progress was clear," and in February that he expected significant troop withdrawals within a year because of U.S. success.
"You can't really play TiVo and rewind in the real world," said Kennedy, 59. "I stand by my vote. . . . We acted on the information we knew at the time and acted correctly."
Klobuchar, the Hennepin County attorney, cited recent comments by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) and former secretary of state James A. Baker III, who is co-chairing a congressionally mandated commission to study options for Iraq, arguing that even some Republicans believe it will soon be time to change course.
"We cannot, as Congressman Kennedy and the president are talking about, just stay the course indefinitely with more troops dying, over $300 billion spent," said Klobuchar, 46, county prosecutor since 1999. "You cannot solve a problem that you don't admit exists."
The exchange summarized Republicans' predicament 23 days before the Nov. 7 elections: forced onto the defensive in prosecuting an unpopular war.
"I think Kennedy did as good as he can do," said a national GOP campaign official who watched the 40-minute debate and who lamented its initial focus on the Iraq war. "It is just a tough issue to be talking about it in mid-October in a state like Minnesota," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of critiquing an ongoing campaign and candidate.
Click here to see the full article.
