Edwards: What I will do is take all the responsible steps that can be taken to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Note that this answer is a carbon copy of the answer Hillary gave seconds ago. And Russert did not press Edwards for an elaboration.
Obama: I think all of us are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons, and so we could potentially short circuit this.
(Laughter)
But I think there is a larger point at stake, Tim, and that is, we have been governed by fear for the last six years. And this president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. We are seeing the Republican nominees do the same thing.
And it is very important for us to draw a clear line and say, "We are not going to be governed by fear. We will take threats seriously. We will take action to make sure that the United States is secure."
As president of the United States, I will do everything in my power to keep us safe.
But what we cannot continue to do is operate as if we are the weakest nation in the world instead of the strongest one, because that's not who we are and that's not what America has been about, historically. And it is starting to warp our domestic policies, as well.
We haven't even talked about civil liberties and the impact of that politics of fear -- what that has done to us, in terms of undermining basic civil liberties in this country, what it has done in terms of our reputation around the world.
In the most smart aleck way (and with a demeanor evocative of Dubya really), Obama exposed the flaw in the debate here. The NBC moderating team of Russert and Williams approached the issue of Iran in the totally wrong way because of course the Democrats are not going to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Republicans wouldn’t. No statesman would. Instead, what should have been asked is this: Is Iran an imminent threat and why?
It’s interesting that Obama chooses to talk about the “politics of fear” here mainly because I do not know what Obama plans to do to change it. It’s great that he raises the issue but he hasn’t done anything to help Americans gain back civil liberties. He isn’t talking about repealing the PATRIOT Act. And he certainly isn’t speaking out about the politics of fear in regards to Iran because he is afraid to take a stance on what to do with the perceived Iran threat.
Russert: Senator Biden, would you pledge to the American people that Iran would not build a nuclear bomb on your watch?
Biden: I would pledge to keep us safe. If you told me, Tim -- and this is not -- this is complicated stuff; we talk about this in isolation. The fact of the matter is, the Iranians may get 2.6 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium.
But the Pakistanis have hundreds -- thousands of kilograms of highly-enriched uranium. If by attacking Iran to stop them from getting 2.6 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium, the government in Pakistan falls, who has missiles already deployed with nuclear weapons on them that can already reach Israel, already reach India, then that's a bad bargain.
Presidents make wise decisions informed not by a vacuum in which they operate, but by the situation they find themselves in the world.
I will do all in my power to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but I will never take my eye off the ball. What is the greatest threat to the United States of America: 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Tehran or an out-of-control Pakistan? It's not close.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
