The third in a series on Tuesday's debate. We need to talk about these candidates and find the best one America. So, what's your opinion on what was said?

::::::::

Part 3: The Third Ten Minutes

Russert: Governor Richardson, would you negotiate with Iran without any conditions?

Bill Richardson: Yes, I would. And I'm the only one on this stage that has actually negotiated with a foreign country...

(Unknown): That's not true.

Richardson: And I want to just say to you that, in my judgment, we have to use diplomacy. And there is a redline. We cannot permit Iran to use nuclear weapons. And I do believe what you do is Ahmadinejad -- it's very difficult to deal with him. But there are moderate elements in Iraq. There are moderate clerics. There's students. There's a business community.

And I believe that we can achieve a compromise on the nuclear issue. In exchange for them having a nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear power, they don't develop nuclear weapons -- carrot and sticks, diplomatic initiatives, economic incentives.

The problem is we saber-rattle. And this resolution in the Senate saber-rattles. I was U.N. ambassador. I know this region. And I do believe that it's critically important that we talk to North Korea, that we talk to Syria, that we talk to Iran.

It's going to take skilled diplomacy. What we have in this administration is a policy of preemption, of saber-rattling, of leaking out potential targets in Iran. That's not going to get diplomacy started.

I believe its critical that if we're going to resolve the situation in the Middle East, if we're going to get Iraq to stop Iran's helping terrorists, we have to engage them vigorously, potentially also with sanctions. We need to get European allies who refuse generally to help us with sanctions, as well as Russia. What you saw recently is Russia and Iran embracing each other. That is not healthy.

Richardson effectively calls for us to overthrow the Iranian government by not talking with Ahmadinejad and instead empowering “moderate elements” in Iraq, moderate clerics, students, and a business community. All of these things from Iraq can take on Iran and we can go through another Iran-Iraq War?

Okay let’s assume he meant Iran and misspoke. You want us to advocate that people within Iran overthrow their government? That is what we did in Iraq and it proved ineffective. Why waste our time pursuing a tactic we cannot execute?

For all the experience you claim to have in the international community, you’re so far off on this. I appreciate you not wanting to saber-rattle, but in the grand scheme, you throwing Russia into this misses the point that Russia is allied with China under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which Iran recently gained observer status to, and Europe listens to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So when IAEA inspectors say they are years from having nuclear WMDs, they listen and do not act against nations proven to not be a threat.

Russert: Congressman Kucinich, your opinion of this resolution?

Dennis Kucinich: Well, first of all, we need to adamantly reject any kind of a move toward war with Iran.

There's no basis for it whatsoever. But we have to realize, Tim, that we have a number of enablers who happen to be Democrats who have said over the last year, with respect to Iran, all options are on the table. And when you say all options are on the table, you are licensing President Bush.

And I'm the only one up here on the stage who not only voted against the war in Iraq, voted against funding the war, but also led the effort against Bush's drive toward war.

The problem is: These policies of preemption license a war. Preemption, by virtue of international law, is illegal. Our president has already violated international law.

The war in Iraq is illegal. Even planning for the war against Iran is illegal. Tim, we're here in Philadelphia, the birthplace of democracy. I want to know when this democratic Congress is going to stand up for the Constitution and hold the president accountable with Article II, Section 4, an impeachment act.

I think that our democracy is in peril, and unless the Democrats and the Congress stand up for the Constitution, we are going to lose our country. We need to challenge him on this war, but we need to challenge him at his core, and the core is, there needs to be a separation of powers, a balance of powers.

Things are out of balance. It is time for us to stand up for the Constitution of the United States.

(Applause)

 

Finally, Dennis Kucinich is allowed to speak. Twenty two minutes later, the man that believes so many of our problems would be solved through impeachment gets to make or at least begin to make a case for impeachment. And why not make a case for impeachment? After all, this talk is nice but it is all talk. And thank you Dennis for bringing up international law, our Constitution, and specifically, Article II, Section 4.

Russert: I want to ask each of you the same question.

Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

Clinton: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

Russert: But you won't pledge?

Clinton: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

Russert: But, they may.

Clinton: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

(Laughter)

Tim Russert is not allowed to moderate another Democratic debate. If he wants to play this game with Republicans, fine. But these people have the potential to lead us out of darkness while Republicans do not. So please, Tim, ask Chris Matthews to fill in for you or maybe even ask Tom Brokaw to come out of retirement and moderate a debate.

Russert: Senator Edwards?

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.

Can’t argue with that. And I can’t argue with his complaint about talking about these countries in isolation. It must be realized that the Middle East and Asia is very connected and very much against America in many ways. How we deal with that in the future is what candidates should be talking about.

Williams: Senator Dodd?

Dodd: Well, listen, there's a deeper question here, because not only the pledge you make, but this audience and others here make a determination which of us here have the experience, the background here to manage the situation. It's a critical question.

As I at the outset of my -- the first question you gave me here, this is the most critical time in a generation in this country. The problem's not only the Middle East. What's going on in the Far East, as well as in Latin America and elsewhere.

And which of us here brings the background, the experience, the ability to make a difference on these issues, including the question of Iran.

I agree with Joe. I think the more immediate problem is Pakistan, the one that needs to be addressed. But certainly, bringing that experience together so that you're able to marshal the resources, put together the kind of team, and demonstrate as a result of what you've been able to accomplish over the years that you can actually handle this situation.

Results matter. Experience matters. Having the demonstrated ability to deal with these issues is critical.

So, certainly, I would make a pledge obviously to do everything we can to avoid this problem. But I would suggest to you, Tim, that the more immediate issue is the one exactly that Joe has identified here. Pakistan does pose a more serious issue for this country, and one that needs to be addressed.

That is what I did in Latin America when I negotiated the settlements in El Salvador and Nicaragua, going back 20 years ago, deeply involved in the process, working day after day with various elements to bring about the kind of results that today has reduced the threats of violence in that part of the world.

That's what's needed here, a leader that has the experience and the background to grapple with these issues.

It’s actually no more critical in any region of the world than before. These problems have always existed. Now, however, having seen what happens when an administration turns a stable nation into a quagmire and having seen situations like Abu Ghraib blow up in our nation’s face, we realize the next statesman or president has to be able to delicately handle all of the nuances in the world without leading us to war.

Williams: Governor Richardson?

Richardson: Well, I would make the pledge. It would be through diplomacy. And what we're also talking about is not just Pakistan. We're talking about enriched uranium, a loose nuclear weapon, nuclear materials, fissionable material throughout the world.

Even more of a threat than nuclear weapons is a loose nuclear weapons crossing the border. So what we need is an international agreement. But the key has to be diplomacy.

And I have -- in the fourth row, there's a man named Bill Barloon, who I rescued from an Iraqi prison in Abu Ghraib. And it's going to take leadership. It's going to take diplomacy. It's going to take negotiation.

I went head to head with Saddam Hussein and I brought two Americans out. Bill Barloon is one. And the greatest words I heard after I got him out was, "Thank you." And then I said, "I'm taking you home."

That's diplomacy. That means talking to the Irans, to the Syrias, to the -- North Korea. I've done it, all my life, as diplomat, as a U.N. ambassador, as a special envoy, as a hostage negotiator.

I've got the most international experience here, with all due respect. There's a lot of good international experience here. But I've gone head-to-head in North Korea, and we got back -- we got back six remains of our soldiers six months ago. We got the North Koreans to stop their nuclear reactor.

And so, I believe it's important that we have a leader, not just who can bring people together, but could resolve some of the thorniest problems we have.

Alright, let’s get to the bottom of this right now. Let’s determine right here, right now who exactly has the most international experience that is relevant to the job of being President of the United States of America and let's agree to move past this issue of international experience so we can talk real issues. From About.com:

-Hillary during the Clinton years in the White House was involved in many overseas trips and the hosting of dignitaries from around the world. She and daughter Chelsea made an unprecedented tour of Africa in 1997.

-Barack lived four years in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has visited many spots around the world vital to U.S. interests including Russia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Israel among others. His most high profile trip was an August 2006 visit to Africa where he brought his family to his father's birthplace in Kenya. Touching...

-John served on the Select Committee on Intelligence in the Senate. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Edwards, along with former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp, chair a task force on U.S.-Russia relations. In the Fall of 2006, he visited Uganda with the International Rescue Committee.

-Bill’s first professional job was working on congressional relations at the U.S. State Department. He later was a staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As a member of Congress he travelled extensively around the world, and played a key role shaping U.S. foreign policy as the U.N. ambassador. In 1995, he successfully negotiated with Saddam Hussein for the release of two American workers being held in Iraq. Similarly in 2006, he negotiated the release of an American journalist held in Sudan by President Omar Al-Bashir.

-Chris is a long serving member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with a special interest in Latin America. He lived in the Dominican Republic during his time in the Peace Corps, and now leads the Senate subcommittee which oversees that agency. In 1999, Dodd received the Edmund S. Muskie Distinguished Public Service Award for his foreign policy leadership.

-Joe is a long serving member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and serves as chair in the 110th Congress. He is considered one of the Democratic Party's leading voices on foreign policy. And his assignment on the Senate Judiciary Committee has given him experience on immigration, citizenship, and international narcotics regulation.

-Kucinich served as a congressional representative to at least one global climate treaty conference. His campaign Web site says he has "...hosted an international parliamentary session" and "...has been recognized for his advocacy of human rights in Burma, Nigeria and East Timor." In 2003, Kucinich won the Gandhi Peace Award.

Alright, so Richardson is the only one who has a record of specifically negotiating to free hostages. But he only has two success stories to tell. Does that bother anybody else here? I mean, how many instances did he have to go in and negotiate? Was his success rate really two out of all the times he negotiated?

Bill, Chris, and Joe seem to be the candidates most fit for foreign policy relations based on experience. But that’s saying that they possess the mindset and character to deal with people in today’s international world. What success they had in the 1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s may not be possible now when considering the shift in how the world views America as a result of the war in Iraq. Therefore, since all candidates have participated in the world and negotiated or held talks with international leaders, this should be deemed a moot point.

Richardson can cite his negotiating background as a strong reason to vote for him. But, he cannot argue that makes him better for working with the world and carrying out diplomacy.

All candidates have experience in the world so it’s not enough to say you have more experience. What is enough is letting the American how you will handle each little situation and each country which presents a conflict to America. That is why you must not refuse to deal in “hypotheticals.” We want to know what you will do as president so fill us in or drop out of the race. (This is specifically directed at Barack and Hillary.)

If it’s classified strategy, say it is. But don’t dodge. We don’t need another Bush administration that avoids being straight with the American people and gets us in another mess.

MORE TO COME ...

IN THE MEANTIME, LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF TUESDAY’S DEBATE

Authors Bio:
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for OpEdNews.com