Published January 5, 2008 by the New York Times

The following is a selected portion of the transcript of the Democratic presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., as transcribed by Federal News Service. For the complete transcipt, click here.

Participants
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)

Moderators
Charles Gibson, ABC-TV News Anchor
Scott Spradling, WMUR-TV News Anchor

MR. GIBSON: And so let me introduce them from left to right. We have with us former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Senator Hillary Clinton from New York. And again, for the first 45 minutes of this debate I will be posing questions in three rather broad categories. We'll do 15 minutes each, but with the hope that I can sort of stay out of the way to the extent possible and let the candidates discuss the issues among themselves. There are no lights to limit time limits, at least for this part of the debate, and -- but I will interrupt politely, I hope, if things seem to be going a little bit long. So let me start with what is generally agreed to be, I think, the greatest threat to the United States today and somewhat to my surprise has not been discussed as much in the presidential debates this year as I thought would be, and that is nuclear terrorism. And for some background, here's ABC's chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross.

BRIAN ROSS: (From videotape.) After more than six years of trying, the United States still does not have a reliable way to spot nuclear material that terrorists might smuggle into the country. Watch as ABC News twice did in demonstrations without being caught, and after six years of trying the United States has yet to capture the man who says it his religious duty to get nuclear weapons, Osama bin Laden. And in the last 18 months U.S. officials say his al Qaeda has regrouped using safe havens along the Pakistani border to train and dispatch hundreds of new recruits. And just as troubling, amidst all the turmoil in Pakistan, the influence of bin Laden continues to grow there, a country with many nuclear weapons. Charlie? (End of videotape.)

MR. GIBSON: Brian Ross there. Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is: How aggressively would you go after al Qaeda leadership there? And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after him whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?

SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our National Intelligence Estimates is that al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and so back in August I said we should work with the Pakistani government. First of all, they encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory.

What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the heads of the 9/11 commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.

Let me just add one thing, though, on the broader issue of nuclear proliferation. This is something that I've worked on since I've been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar, so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferant -- proliferation strategy -- something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and it would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

SEN. OBAMA: No, that -- that is not the same thing because here we have a situation where al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence to do so.

MR. GIBSON: Edwards, do you agree with him?

MR. EDWARDS: If I know what -- if I as president of the United States, know where Osama bin Laden is, I would go get him. Period. This man is the mastermind of a mass murder in the United States of America. He is public enemy number one, as al Qaeda is.

But I would add this has to be put in the bigger context of: What should America be doing over the long term to deal with this whole issue of nuclear proliferation? Because if you look at Pakistan, it's a perfect vehicle for actually thinking about this issue. Here's an unstable leader, Musharraf, in a country with a serious radical, violently radical element that could, under some circumstances, take over the government. If they did, they would have control of a nuclear weapon. They could either use it or they could turn it over to a terrorist organization to be used against America or some of our allies.

I think the bigger picture on this is, what do we do over the long term? Because what we're doing now is essentially an ad hoc, nation by nation, case by case basis of trying to control the spread of this nuclear technology. In the short term, that is exactly what we should do and what I would do as president of the United States. But A.Q. Khan, who developed the nuclear weapon for Pakistan, we know has already spread some of this technology to other places and I think this ad hoc policy does not work over the long term.

And what I believe we should be doing, over the long term, and what I will do as president of the United States, besides dealing with these short term threats -- which are very serious and should be taken seriously -- I, as president of the United States, want to do what some Republicans and some Democrats have said, which is to lead a long-term initiative, international initiative, to actually rid the world of nuclear weapons, because that is the only way to make the world safer and securer and to keep America safe.

MR. GIBSON: Well, you led me right up to the point of what you'd do if the Islamic radicals actually took control of the Pakistani government and therefore were in control of nuclear weapons, and then you went away from there. But I'll come back to that in a moment.

Governor Richardson.

GOV. RICHARDSON: In any foreign policy decision, I would use diplomacy first, in response to your question. And that basically means that the last thing we need in the Muslim world is another action like Iraq which is going to enflame the Muslim world in a horrendous way.

Now, here's what I would do. First, with Pakistan, here's an example of a country, a potentially failed nation-state with nuclear weapons. What a president must do is have a foreign policy of principles and realism. And the Bush foreign policy, with Musharraf, we get the worst of all worlds. We have a situation where he has not gone after al Qaeda in his own country, despite the fact that we've given him $11 billion. And he's also severely damaged the constitution. He's basically said that he is the supreme dictator. So we have the worst of all worlds.

What I would specifically do as president is I would ask Musharraf to step aside. There is a provision in the Pakistani constitution --

MR. GIBSON: Ask him to step aside?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, for a caretaker --

MR. GIBSON: And what -- (inaudible)?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Because we have the leverage to do that.

MR. GIBSON: Hasn't worked so far.

GOV. RICHARDSON: We have the leverage to do that, and I -- I would send a high-level envoy to ask him to step aside. There's a provision in the Pakistani constitution for a caretaker government of technocrats. This happened when a previous prime minister died. And I would make it unmistakably clear that he had to have elections.

Now, elections are scheduled tentatively for February. A broadly based government, it's what's best for the United States.

MR. GIBSON: I understand your point about diplomacy. But Senator Obama's postulate was, we have actionable intelligence, the Musharraf government won't move; do we, should we, go in to western Pakistan and essentially try to take him out?

GOV. RICHARDSON: If we have actionable intelligence that is real, and if Musharraf is incapable -- which he is, because here's a man who has not stood up for his democracy, he is virtually in a situation where he's losing control -- then you do take that action. However, Charlie, first you use diplomacy. And diplomacy is to try to get what is best for the United States. And that is, a democratic Pakistan with free and fair elections and a concerted effort on the part of Musharraf or whoever is in the leadership in Pakistan to go after terrorists in those safe havens, which they have not done.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think it's important to get back to your question, because obviously that's the most direct threat to the United States. We did take action similar to what has been described about 10 years ago based on what was thought to be actionable intelligence, sending in missiles to try to target bin Laden and his top leadership, who were thought to be at a certain meeting place. They were not taken out at the time. So we have to be very conscious of all the consequences.

Now, as far as I know, there are, like, five things, quickly, that we should be looking at.

Bin Laden has in large measure regrouped because we did not put in the troops and make the commitment to aggressively going after him inside Afghanistan when we had a chance. Therefore we need more NATO troops and a faster effort to train the Afghan army so that we do have the personnel and the technology, including the Predators, to be able to be on the spot at the time to try to move as quickly as possible.

Secondly, I think it's imperative that any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike inside Pakistan's territory be given the most careful consideration, and at some point probably when the missiles have been launched -- the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way because one of the problems is the inherent paranoia about India in the region in Pakistan, so that we've got to have a plan to try to make sure we don't ignite some kind of reaction before we even know whether the action we took with the missiles has worked.

Real quickly, thirdly, so far as we know right now, the nuclear technology is considered secure, but there isn't any guarantee, especially given the political turmoil going on inside Pakistan. I would work very hard to try to get Musharraf, who is the elected president -- these elections are about parliamentary positions. If you remove Musharraf and have elections, it's going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next. I would try to get Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and perhaps Great Britain so that there is some failsafe.

And just finally, I think that what we have to do with Musharraf and Afghanistan is to repair the failed policies of the Bush administration, and that's going to require intensive effort in the region. And Bill is right that we should be engaged in that diplomacy right away. But this is the forgotten front line in the war against terrorism because the Bush administration has walked away.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Charlie, I want us to just remember history. I want us to remember history. Years ago we backed the Shah of Iran, a dictator. We are paying for that policy today by having backed a tyrant who repressed his people -- unintended consequences.

A president has to act. I believe that we have to be on the side of the Pakistani people, not on the side of the dictator. And what we have today is an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aside, to move towards this caretaker government, but also to use the leverage of the assistance we've given him. Most of the assistance that we've given him -- $11 billion -- he hasn't used to go after terrorists. He's put it in military assistance for his fight against India; the money has been stolen. We get the worst of all worlds. If we stand on a foreign policy of principle, of human rights, along with protecting our security, that is the best direction for our foreign policy.

SEN. OBAMA: Let me just pick up on a couple things that have been said. I think people are in broad agreement here, but I think one of the things that's been left out is Iraq. And part of the reason that we neglected Afghanistan, part of the reason that we didn't go after bin Laden as aggressively as we should have is we were distracted by a war of choice, and that's the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn't that he went after those who attacked; it was that he went after those who didn't. And as a consequence, we have been bogged down, paid extraordinary -- an extraordinary price in blood and treasure, and we have fanned the anti-American sentiment that actually makes it more difficult for us to act in Pakistan.

Just one more point I want to make on this, Charlie: I think it is absolutely true that we have to, as much as possible, get Pakistan's agreement before we act, and that's always going to be the case.

MR. GIBSON: I want to --

SEN. OBAMA: But we have to make sure that we do not hesitate to act when it comes to al Qaeda because they are currently stronger than they were at any time since 2001, partly because we took our eye off the ball.

MR. GIBSON: I want to get to another question, and it really is the central one in my mind in nuclear terrorism. The next president of the United States may have to deal with a nuclear attack on an American city. I've read a lot about this in recent days. The best nuclear experts in the world say there's a 30 percent chance in the next 10 years. Some estimates are higher: Graham Allison at Harvard says it's over 50 percent.

Senator Sam Nunn, in 2005, who knows a lot about this, posed two questions that stick in my mind, and I want to put them to you here. On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after?

Senator?

SEN. OBAMA: Well --

MR. EDWARDS: Well --

SEN. CLINTON: Well --

MR. EDWARDS: You're asking me?

MR. GIBSON: Yes.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, let me say first, this is the very points I was making a few minutes ago. In the short term we're faced with very, very serious threats about the possibility of these nuclear weapons getting in the hands of a terrorist group or somebody who wants to attack the United States of America. The first thing is we have to immediately find out who's responsible and go after them, and that is the responsibility of the president of the United States because if someone has attacked us with a nuclear weapon, it means they have nuclear technology, it means they could have gotten another nuclear weapon into the United States that we're unaware of.

We have to find these people immediately and use every tool available to us to stop them.

Secondly, it is the responsibility of the United States -- and by the way, what I'm about to say doesn't just apply to a nuclear attack, it applies to this crisis that exists in Pakistan right now with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto -- it is the responsibility of the president, in times like this, to be a force for strength, principled strength, but also calmness. It is enormously important for the president of the United States not to take -- to react, and to react strongly, but to do it in a way that is calming for the American people and calming for the world, because it would be an enormous mistake for the president of the United States to take a terrible, dangerous situation where millions of Americans or thousands of Americans could have lost their lives, and to ratchet up the rhetoric and make it worse than it already is.

Q Let me come to the two Sam Nunn questions to you, Senator.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, as I said, I've already been working on this, and I think this is the most significant foreign policy issue that we confront. We would obviously have to retaliate against anybody who struck American soil, whether it was nuclear or not. It would be a much more profound issue if it were nuclear weapons.

That's why it's so important for us to rebuild the nuclear proliferation -- nonproliferation treaty that has fallen apart under this administration. We have not made a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries to give up nuclear technology.

We have not locked down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there right now. These are all things that we should be taking leadership on.

And part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just end the war in Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long-term threats and engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the long term.

MR. GIBSON: And I know, Senator Clinton, you've worked on this as well.

SEN. CLINTON: Yes, I have.

MR. GIBSON: But in terms of retaliation, this is not likely going to be a state that sets off a nuclear attack in a city, it's going to be a stateless group.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, the first -- the first part of your question was what would we wish we had done. And I have worked on this and passed legislation to move in the direction that I think we should go to have a very high level of commitment from the White House, including a person responsible in our government for marshaling our resources against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There has to be a better organizing effort to make sure that every part of the United States government is working together.

I don't think we've done what we need to do on homeland defense. You started that segment talking about the ease with which ABC smuggled things in to this country. We haven't done enough on port security. We have not made the kind of commitment that is necessary or protect us from this kind of importation.

But let me just add that when you look at where we are, the stateless terrorists will operate from somewhere. I mean, part of our message has to be there is no safe haven. If we can demonstrate that the people responsible for planning the nuclear attack on our country may not themselves be in a government or associated with a state, but have a haven within one, then every state in the world must know we will retaliate against those states.

There cannot be safe havens for stateless terrorists who are in these networks that are plotting to have the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the smuggling into our country or elsewhere of the kind of suitcase device that could cause such havoc.

So I think we have to be very, very clear. You know, deterrence worked during the Cold War in large measure because the United States made it clear to the Soviet Union that there would be massive retaliation. We have to make it clear to those states that would give safe haven to stateless terrorists that would launch a nuclear attack against America that they would also face very heavy retaliation.

MR. GIBSON: Final word, Governor.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Charlie, when I was secretary of Energy, that was one of my responsibilities, securing nuclear stockpiles, nuclear materials, mainly with the Soviet Union. And I went there many time; we made progress. But since then there's been a proliferation of loose nuclear weapons, mainly in the hands of terrorists, that could cross presumably a border, that could be smuggled in in a cargo ship with our very weak port security.

If I'm elected president, I will do two things. First, I will seek immediate negotiations with the Soviet Union and other nuclear states to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

But also a treaty on fissionable material, where you have verification, where you try to secure those loose nuclear weapons from states like North Korea and others that -- that could be drifting into the international community.

But most importantly, I think we have to realize that the challenges America faces internationally, they're -- they are transnational. They're stateless. This international terrorism is nuclear terrorism, it's environmental degradation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, making us less dependent on fossil fuels. Those are the transnational challenges that are going to require international cooperation.

And this president believes in unilateralism. This president believes in going military-first. This president believes in preemption. You discussed this in the Republican debate.

MR. GIBSON: I'm --

GOV. RICHARDSON: My foreign policy'd be different.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to -- I'm going to move on.

GOV. RICHARDSON: It'd be realism, human rights, and principles.