Last week, PolitickerAZ.com sent out a questionaire asking the Republican candidates in the 5th Congressional District about their takes on some key questions currently facing Congress and the nation.

The first installment ran on Friday, where the candidates expressed their views on how the Iraq War should be handled.

Read Part 1.

In the second installment, the candidates discuss the question of Iran, and how they favor expanding educational benefits for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again it must be noted that former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert chose not to participate in this questionnaire. 

QUESTION:

What actions, if any, should be taken to check Iran's regional influence and/or nuclear program? Would you support engagement with Iran, Syria, North Korea or other foes, and if so, must there be preconditions? What would those preconditions (if any) be?

Laura Knaperek:

Iran's unstable regime is a threat to the international community. All means of sanctions and other peaceful persuasions should be used by the international community to stop the further proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran. Unilateral military action, on the part of the U.S. must be a last resort after all other attempts for peaceful solutions have been unsuccessful.

The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (HR 1400) and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006 (HR 105) are two examples of proactive measures that I would support.

Jim Ogsbury:

Islamic extremists represent a dire and continuing threat to our nation.  Iran’s despotic leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the elimination of Israel and the United States.  There is incontrovertible evidence that Iran has played a significant role in arming and training the Shiite militia for operations against the United States. 

As a member of Congress, I would support: (1) economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran, (2) economic sanctions against American businesses that invest in Iran, (3) encouragement of pro-democracy forces inside Iran, (4) continued championship of our regional allies, especially Israel, and 5) development and deployment of an effective missile defense system.   

With respect to the diplomatic engagement of rogue states, it is important to first note that it is wholly inappropriate for individual Members of Congress to pursue their own foreign policies.  In world affairs, the United States must speak with one very powerful voice.  I would expect to support the diplomatic efforts of the McCain Administration, based on an informed analysis of geopolitical realities.

That said, I fully recognize that the threats posed by Iran, Syria and North Korea are most grave and that we must pursue a policy designed to defuse those threats.  Negotiation, however, is a tactic – not a policy. Whether negotiations are appropriate depend on a complex matrix of factors that will be different for each country and individuated for different global actors. We engaged with Libya, for example, only after that country had been persuaded by external conditions (including the overthrow of Saddam Hussein) to enter meaningful negotiations for abandonment of its nuclear weapons program.  There is no one-size-fits-all suite of preconditions for diplomatic engagement. 

Susan Bitter Smith:

We must be cognizant of threats from any number of rogue states and the serious national security challenges that are ever present due to the increase in global terrorism. We must not be afraid to engage in the wake of real threats to the security of  our nation.  The United States must grow and maintain a strong, modern and technology enabled military force.  In order to protect us from the potential nuclear threat from  Iran, North Korea, or others we must have development and deployment of national missile defenses that will reduce the possibility of missile attacks from current or future adversarial nations.

Mark Anderson:

I do not support any military response to the problem of Iran. Our military is already overstressed. We need to focus on the work in Iraq and bring that to completion. Syria and North Korea are not threats to the United States. We should continue to exert pressure through international organizations to encourage them to join the 21st Century.

QUESTION:

Do you support the Post-9/11 GI Bill currently being considered in Congress?

*Note: The Post-9/11 GI Bill is the common name of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Rep. Harry Mitchell, who the winner of the CD5 Republican primary will face in the general election. An alternative bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention and Readjustment through Educations Act, was introduced by Sen. John McCain. However, both can be labeled a "Post-9/11 GI Bill." 

Jim Ogsbury:

Supporting our brave troops and honored veterans is one of the most important things Congress can do.  That is why I would proudly support H.R. 5944, the “Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention and Readjustment through Education Act.”  This is the House version of a Senate bill sponsored by Senator McCain.                                 

Congressional Democrats supported a different GI bill, but failed to cut spending to pay for it.  Instead of cutting money out of the bloated farm bill, Congressional Democrats pushed through a tax increase that will chiefly hit small businesses owners. 

Susan Bitter Smith:

No, the current legislation that is being considered  is opposed by the Pentagon and only modifies the system for veterans who have served for segmented  periods of time after 9-11 and does not provide real useable benefits for all members of the military. Real reform is necessary and I would look more to the reforms being proposed by Republican Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in HR 5684 which should include more flexibility and time for the use of educational benefits as well as the potential to transfer benefits to an appropriate family member.

Mark Anderson:

I am very concerned that our veterans need better support when they return come from conflicts. Many veterans have a difficult time re-adjusting to their lives and families. They deal with post-traumatic stress disorder and other health issues related to their service along with transferring military training and skills into the job market. I would support legislation allocating funds to improve services for returning veterans as well as paying for their college education. 

Laura Knaperek:

Yes, I support Senator McCain’s bill SB 2938.  It accomplishes the goal of retention, recruitment and re-establishment by including: an immediate increase in education benefits for active duty personnel to $1500 a month, and increases benefits to $2000 a month after 12 or more years of service.  It also offers additional benefits to members of the Reserve and National Guard and allows for benefits to be transferred to dependents, it also allows the funds to be used to pay previous student loan debts.