Cranston, GOP Senate Candidates Support President on Libya Attack

Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston, who often opposes President Reagan’s foreign policy decisions, said Tuesday he supports the President’s decision to bomb Libya because it was based on proof that Libya is behind some terrorist attacks on Americans.

“Terrorism is as despicable as war and it must be stopped,” Cranston said in a statement released by his Washington office. “Failure to act after we had proof of Libyan terrorism would have given credence to the view that America lacks the will to stand up and fight against terrorism.

“We sought economic and diplomatic action against Libya but our European allies refused to cooperate. The United States then had to act alone. . . .”

The senator also found himself in agreement with the seven Republican contenders who want to get their party’s nomination to oppose him in November. All strongly supported Reagan’s action, as did Republican Sen. Pete Wilson, who spoke out on the matter Monday night.

A longtime supporter of a nuclear arms freeze and a leading opponent of Reagan’s desire to arm the contras fighting the Nicaraguan government, Cranston believes that the Libyan situation is special, according to his press secretary, Murray S. Flander.

“Alan has made it clear he is not a pacifist and that he is not against force when force is the only alternative,” Flander said. “His horror of terrorism is reflected by his willingness to support the use of force.”

However, Cranston was pessimistic about whether Monday’s attack on Libya would curtail terrorism.

“I hope and pray that the President has embarked America on a course of action that will succeed in quelling terrorism,” he said. “Unfortunately, we cannot expect that result soon. We must anticipate more violence. I deeply regret that Americans--including Capt. Paul Lorence of San Francisco--are missing in action and that Libyan civilians reportedly have been wounded and killed.”

Senate Candidates’ Views

Here is what the Republican U.S. Senate candidates had to say:

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich: “I strongly support President Reagan’s decision. . . . For too long our policy has been a defensive one.”

State Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia): “I think it will go down in history as how a democratic leader should protect his people.”

Rep. Bobbi Fiedler (R-Northridge): “I am strongly behind the President’s effort to try to stem the tide of terrorism. . . . I always hope it will not be necessary to repeat these actions but I feel confident that the President believes if (Libyan leader Moammar) Kadafi continues to represent a significant threat to the people of our country that he will act in a decisive way to prevent that threat from becoming a reality.”

Former commentator Bruce Herschensohn, long a proponent of retaliation against terrorists: “You either wage war against terrorism or you surrender to it. . . . I would hope that in the future every act of terrorism against a U.S. citizen is met quickly with a response.”

Economist Arthur Laffer, a supporter of economic incentives to create jobs, thinks that economic incentives might be useful in fighting terrorism: “I would have preferred that he (Reagan) have used bounties on bringing the people to justice and trial. . . . If you bring the guy into justice you get $2 million or $3 million. . . . But I love what the President did.”

Assemblyman Robert Naylor (R-Menlo Park): “The President responded with appropriate force. (If Libya responds) the President ought to consider a naval blockade.”

Rep. Ed Zschau (R-Los Altos): “This was a preemptive strike targeted on facilities that the Libyans have used to prepare for terrorist attacks. It was the right thing to do and I totally support it.”