War divides Republican Senate hopefuls

SPRINGFIELD -- None of the three candidates vying for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination want to set a specific timetable for getting troops out of Iraq, but they differ on whether the war ever should have started or has been successful.

Neither Steve Sauerberg, a Willowbrook physician, nor Andy Martin, a Chicago Internet writer and lawyer, said he would have voted to send troops to Iraq.

"Knowing what we know now -- that Saddam Hussein did not have significant stockpiles of WMDs -- I would not have voted to authorize the use of force," said Sauerberg.

Martin's opposition was unconditional: "There's no way I would have ever voted for that. It was a folly."

In contrast, Mike Psak, a truck driver from Chicago, said he would have voted for the military action.

"Yes, I would have supported it, just like a majority of the Congress voted for it. From all indications from intelligence sources, going into Iraq was warranted," Psak said.

All three are vying next month for the GOP nod to face incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Springfield, who is unopposed in the primary. Durbin voted against the war in Iraq, which was approved 77-23 in October 2002. Then-U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, an Inverness Republican, voted yes.

Asked whether the military action has been successful, the Republican hopefuls also split.

Both Sauerberg and Psak said the military action in Iraq has been successful, with Psak being adamant.

"Yes, of course. Saddam Hussein was deposed, tried and executed. There is now a democratic government. And terrorist activity in Iraq is declining," Psak said.

Martin disagreed: "If you go back to 2003, the military venture has been a disaster." However, he said strategic changes made in 2007 have had success.

These issues highlighted the differences among the Republican candidates who otherwise agreed on several Iraq and military policy questions put to them by the Daily Herald.

All three said it would be a mistake to set a specific date for U.S. troops to be out of Iraq.

"I would like to bring the men and women home as soon as possible, but we cannot leave a bloodbath in our wake," said Martin.

"Giving our enemies in Iraq a withdrawal timeline will lead to the loss of more American lives and destabilize a region that needs stability. We need an exit strategy which will stabilize the economy and ensure the safety of Iraq and America," said Sauerberg.

Psak said the mission will be complete when the Iraqi government can secure its own country and the people there have a stake in its oil reserves.

The candidates also agreed U.S. forces should not be used to police turmoil around the world, generally saying such action should come only when U.S. interests are threatened.

Martin and Sauerberg agreed more should be spent on the military and care of soldiers, but neither would support a tax increase to do so, saying other spending should first be cut. Psak didn't know if more spending is needed and would support a tax increase only in times of war.