2008 Democratic primary debate, sponsored by Facebook, Jan. 5, 2008: on Homeland Security
Barack Obama:
Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy
I’ve worked on nuclear proliferation in the Senate, to improve interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. It is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration has ignored, and has made us
less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and 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.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate
Jan 6, 2008
Barack Obama:
FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it
Clinton took direct aim at Obama and connects fairly solidly: “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it.” Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot Act during his run for the Senate. She’s
relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to “repeal the Patriot Act” or replace it with a “new, carefully crafted proposal.” When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though,
Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support the
Patriot Act’s reauthorization. In March 2006, Obama both voted for cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report.Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate
Jan 5, 2008
Barack Obama:
Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion
Q: You stand by your statement that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Isn’t that essentially the Bush doctrine?
We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis?A: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, 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 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 do to that.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate
Jan 6, 2006
Barack Obama:
Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
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 Non-Proliferation
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. 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.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate
Jan 6, 2006
Bill Richardson:
Seek immediate negotiations with the Soviet Union on nuclear
There has 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. 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 could be drifting into the international community. We have to realize that the challenges the US faces internationally, they’re transnational. They’re stateless. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Making us less dependent on fossil
fuels. Those are the transnational challenges that require international cooperation. Bush believes in unilateralism, going military first, and preemption. My foreign policy would be different. There would be realism, human rights, and principles.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate
Jan 6, 2006
Hillary Clinton:
Marshal resources against proliferation of nuclear weapons
We should 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 government is working together. I don’t think we’ve done what we need to do on homeland defense. We haven’t done enough on port security. We have not made the kind of commitment necessary to protect us.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate
Jan 6, 2006
Hillary Clinton:
There is no safe haven for the terrorists
The stateless terrorists will operate from somewhere. 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 be smuggling into our country or elsewhere the kind of suitcase device that could cause such havoc. Deterrence worked during the Cold War in large measure because the US 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 a very heavy retaliation.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate
Jan 6, 2006
John Edwards:
Ad-hoc proliferation policy does not work over the long-term
On the issue of nuclear proliferation: 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 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.
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, I want to lead a long-term international initiative to actually rid the world of nuclear weapons, because that is the only way to make the world safer and secure and to keep America safe.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate
Jan 6, 2006
John Edwards:
Serious threats about terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons
In the short term, we’re faced with 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 US. The first thing is we have to immediately find out who’s responsible
and go after them. That is the responsibility of the president. We have to find these people immediately and use every tool available to us to stop them. 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 not 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 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.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate
Jan 6, 2006
Page last updated: Dec 01, 2018