What Countries Do Candidates Fear Most?

The Top Presidential Contenders Answer Katie Couric's "Primary Questions"

(CBS)  For the series “Primary Questions: Character, Leadership & The Candidates,” CBS News anchor Katie Couric asked the 10 leading presidential candidates 10 questions designed to go beyond politics and show what really makes them tick.

For the fourth part of the special series "Primary Questions," Couric asked the candidates: “What country frightens you the most?"

In a new CBS News / New York Times poll, Iran was named most often by Americans asked what country they fear most, followed by Iraq and China. Two percent said the United States is its own worst enemy.

---

Check out the complete poll results.

---

Also, check out the candidates' full responses to the previous questions in our "Primary Questions" video library.

---

JOE BIDEN

Couric: What country frightens you the most in the world and why?

Biden: Short-term, Pakistan. It is the most complicated relationship we have and the most dangerous short-term relationship we have. Here you have a country that is in a very difficult moment. It has nuclear weapons. It not only has the nuclear warhead, it has the missiles. They can marry them very easily. Although they have a majority of moderate, middle-class people, there is a significant minority of extreme radical Islamists and a president who is actually acting right now as a dictator sitting on top of this power keg. And how we manage that relationship is significantly more consequential than anything [that] will happen in Iran.

You know, in Iran we're worried about next year. If, in fact, they're able to run 3,000 gas centrifuges simultaneously for one year, they get 26 kilograms of highly enriched uranium - enough to build a single bomb. Then they’re going figure out how to make it and so on. They already have it in Pakistan. And those missiles can reach the Mediterranean - those missiles can reach a lot of other places, and we've not managed the relationship well at all.

Couric: What would you do?

Biden: Well, first of all, I would try to correct what this administration did inadvertently, or advertently, to weaken the relationship. Musharraf was prepared to work with us…moving toward democracy, as well as taking on terrorists, as long as we were in Afghanistan, but we left Afghanistan, figuratively speaking. We took almost all the resources out of there we need. So, all of a sudden, Musharraf starts cutting deals with these folks in the northwest province because they're the same tribe as the Afghans, Pashtun. They have the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and he's looking over his shoulder saying, “Wait a minute. The big dog just left the pen. The small dog's not going to stick here. Why am I doing this?” That caused further radicalization, I think, in that province, and it was a Faustian bargain that couldn't be kept. In the meantime, we also have only a Musharraf policy. We don't have a Pakistani policy. We cast all our lot with Musharraf when, in fact, we should be simultaneously helping build democratic institutions in Iraq.

For example, I've been trying to push our economic aid toward building schools in Pakistan. There are 7,000 madrassas, these extreme schools built along the Afghan and Pakistani border. We are not…doing much for that middle class in Pakistan, dealing with their economic security and their long-term progress.

So I would really, fundamentally, change the relationship. And President Musharraf called me after he took over. He felt it was worth - I don't know why, but I guess he wondered what I'd do or say to explain his position to me…as did Mrs. Bhutto - called me, as well, and I made the same point to both of [them] that there's an absolute need for elections to be held, parliamentary elections to be held in January. Again, the point I was making earlier.

If you have no outlet for reasonable, middle-class, mainstream part of your population, I'm afraid what will happen over time in Pakistan is what happened in Iran with the shah. What happened? The shah clamped down on and took issue with not only the extremists in his country, but those people who were democrats with a small “D” who had nothing in common with the Ahmadinejads of the world.

But after a while, they all threw in league together to oust him, and what happens? The “bad guys” end up dominating. That's my worst-case scenario for dealing with Pakistan. So we need a Pakistani policy, and we need to get it right in Afghanistan. All these dots are connected. I mean, you know, when we threaten, we talk about World War III with Iran, and we talk about declaring their army a terrorist organization. Even if all that's true, all we do is feed the urban legend in the Muslim world that this is a war against Islam. All we do is take those people who are prepared to work with us like Karzai in Afghanistan, Musharraf in Pakistan, and put them in a position they have to distance themselves from us in order to be able to maintain their power. It's really counterproductive.


HILLARY CLINTON

Couric: What country frightens you the most, and what would you do about it as president?

Clinton: Well, right now I am most worried about Pakistan. I think Pakistan is very unstable. I believe President Musharraf has failed to deliver on either democracy or a rising standard of living for his people. You know, democracy has to be carefully nurtured, it has to be understood, and he hasn't done that. And, unfortunately, now he's a sort of basically one person rule, and [has] imprisoned his opposition and, basically, I think, turned his back on democracy.

Couric: What would you do about Pakistan?

Clinton: Well, I think we've missed a lot of opportunities. So, starting where we are now, I would put the United States firmly on the side of the Pakistani people and on behalf of those who are agitating for democracy and for rights. I mean, it's almost touching to see lawyers, well-dressed lawyers in the streets, protesting and demonstrating for Democracy, for the rule of law. I think the United States should be supporting those kinds of voices inside Pakistan, the non-governmental organizations that they are part of. I would continue to press President Musharraf to end emergency rule, to step down as the head of the military, to create conditions for free and fair elections, but I would always recognize the reality that we need to continue working with him and his government, and particularly his military, on our joint threat from Islamic extremists.

Couric: Don't you think the Bush administration thinks [it has] done those things?

Clinton: No, I don't … I'll give you a quick story. I was in Pakistan in January, and I met first with President Karzai, who complained about Pakistan and President Musharraf, that they were not helping him with all the cross border incursions by the Taliban, al Qaeda and their sympathizers. Later that evening, I met with President Musharraf in Pakistan. He began by complaining about President Karzai, that he wasn't getting enough support. I asked them both, "Would you accept a high level presidential envoy who would be in the region on an ongoing basis shuttling back and forth, working with both leaders?" They both said, "Yes." And I returned to Washington. I called the White House. I described my conversations, and I recommended as forcefully as I could that the president find someone. And I recommend that perhaps a retired military leader because both of them are military men. Nothing happened. You know, a week ago the White House sent a high level presidential envoy. I mean, they just haven't engaged in the hard work, the consistent, persistent work of diplomacy where both with our friends and allies, as well as with our adversaries, we don't leave the playing field. We don't pick up our marbles and go home because people say bad things about it or because it's complicated. We stay engaged, and I don't think we've done that anywhere in the world and I think we're paying a big price for it.


JOHN EDWARDS

Couric: What country scares you the most and what would you do about it?

Edwards: Scares me the most in terms of America and as being president? China. Because I think China presents huge challenges for America because of their size, because of their population, and because of their not paying attention to human rights, because of their support of dangerous regimes around the … world - Sudan, Iran, places that a China gets its fuel supply, its energy supply.

And … they're growing their military and we don't know everything about what they're doing. [They] do it very opaquely. And it was a huge economic challenge for America over the long term, so I think China I see as the biggest challenge for America.

Couric: What would you do about it? How would you engage that country?

Edwards: Well, it's a complex engagement. I mean, I think we need to put pressure on them economically, not allow them to continue to manipulate their currency, not allow them to continue to dump dangerous goods on American consumers, which I think they're doing today. I would ratchet up pressure on them diplomatically in terms of what they're doing around the world. I think they're enabling genocide in Sudan, in Darfur, with their economic policies with Sudan and Basheer ... those are the things I think that need to be done.


RUDY GIULIANI

Couric: What country … frightens you the most and what would you do about it?

Giuliani: Right now? Iran gives me the greatest concern because Iran is moving toward accepting the worst nightmare of the Cold War: nuclear weapons in the hands of an irresponsible regime. And there's no possible way you can come away from looking at the history of the regime in Iran going back to Ayatollah Khomeini and, now, the present regime without saying that, long term, this has been an irresponsible regime. [Iran is] probably the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, been responsible in the background for the murders of many people, taking of hostages. And then they're threatening the use of these weapons, which is something unheard of. Even when we go back to the Cold War with the Soviet Union and China, we didn't have these aggressive threats for the use of nuclear weapons, the talking about retaliatory use then. And we had mutually assured destruction. But … there was the fear during the Cold War that nuclear weapons were to get in the hands of an irresponsible regime. And we have an irresponsible regime, a state-sponsor of terrorism that now aggressively wants to become a nuclear power and tells us that they want to destroy Israel and kind of take us over, as well. So, I think we have to stop them from becoming a nuclear power.


MIKE HUCKABEE

Couric: What country frightens you the most and what would you do about it as president?

Huckabee: Probably Iran, and the reason being is that they have a leader right now whose rhetoric is not just inflammatory, but very threatening - to Israel, to the rest of the world. Iran has the capacity, because of its oil reserves, if it were to create a serious alliance with Russia, and then decide that maybe develop an axis with Venezuela and have that level of control over the oil economy, they could hold the world, virtually, hostage from both an energy standpoint and an economic standpoint. And it's one of the reasons that we have to accelerate our being completely non-foreign oil-dependent - the sooner, the better. We need to get to the place where we tell the Saudis, as well as the Iranians, that we need their oil about as much as we need their sand.

Couric: What about Pakistan? It was interesting, during the democratic debate last night, Joe Biden said, "Iran isn't our big enemy. You know, we're so worried about them getting a small amount of …"

Huckabee: Yeah.

Couric: "…uranium for nuclear weapons, where Pakistan has a ton and is completely unstable."

Huckabee: I gave a speech recently in Washington [in] which I talked about Pakistan extensively and the fact that if we have another terrorist attack, it's probably going to be postmarked Pakistan. That's where Osama Bin Laden is hiding in those caves. We've spent roughly $11 billion of U.S. money since 9/11 to combat terrorism in Pakistan. We can account for little of it as to how it's actually been used to fight terrorism. Musharraf has not necessarily been that effective in helping to weed out where terrorist hideouts are. We do have a problem, and Pakistan is a big part of it. And the instability of Pakistan could create a huge problem for not just that region, but for us, as well.

Couric: But Iran frightens you more?

Huckabee: Iran only because I think that at least, right now … Musharraf - though we could find some shortcomings - has not said that he would like to be able to annihilate any other country around him. And in Ahmadinejad, you do have somebody who has said he would, in fact, be happy to pull the trigger and annihilate an entire nation. That, that's a pretty serious position to take.


JOHN MCCAIN

Couric: What country in the world frightens you the most, and what would you do about it?

McCain: Probably now Iran is the greatest threat, but the greatest threat is radical Islamic extremism. And one of the reasons why it's such a great threat [is that] it spills over any international boundaries. It's in Denmark, it's in Germany, it's in Glasgow, Scotland, and it's trying to establish itself here in the United States of America, according to the director of the CIA. That's the great threat, that's the greatest force of evil that we have faced. And it's a long, hard struggle. They're making good use of cyberspace. We can win and we won't surrender, but it's going to be tough. We'll win.

Couric: As you well know, Senator, some have suggested that we've only inflamed those passions by invading Iraq and by continuing to be in Iraq, that it's really just helped Islamic fundamentalism and extremism blossom worldwide. So how do you deal with that enemy? First of all, do you agree with that assessment and what do you do to reduce or to calm the fires of this?

[kiskis1]

Sunday is the day targeted by GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul''s supporters for another fundraising push.



So, I''ll be sending my money in on Sunday for the simple reason Ron Paul is an honest man among charlatans and power seekers. And he gives me hope when it is in short supply.

It is also fun to think of what a Paul administration would do if the establishment allowed him to get that far.

Hope, truth and justice are in short supply in what is now the United States. When they are offered, they should be grabbed and protected like the rare treasures they have become. Ron Paul offers those things.

Certainly it is another David and Goliath struggle, and the Davids have rarely won since the original face-off. But, that is why we have hope.

[prinzowhales]

Personally, I''m more afraid of these idiots reaching the White House than I am of any of the countries mentioned. What kind of irrationality would lead so many of these people to say "Iran"? They''ve yet to substantiate the Administration claim that Iran is assisting the freedom fighters in Iraq...the Regime''s own NIE reveals no nuclear weapons program... obviously, the drive against Iran involves something else closer to these candidates'' pocketbooks--Israel.

The Demopublicans vote money to Israel, the money returns to the tele-tubby evangelists who are rabid Zio-Nazis and geriatric thugs likes Pat Robertson and, of course, the bought dogs on Capitol Hill, often through the nest of spies, AIPAC.

Just remember, on 9-11, five Mossad agents were captured by police after they were seen filming themselves celebrating with the smoking WTC towers in the background. They worked for a moving company whose owner quickly decamped for Israel after being questioned by authorities and later, on Israeli TV, one admitted that they were there to "document" the infamous attack--an attack carried out, as former President Cassiga of Itay said as a joint CIA-Mossad operation.

If you want to fight a war on terror you can look much closer to home than the mountains of Afghanistan--try 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...a known terrorist haunt.

[shingles1]

Kudos to Edwards for mentioning China, despite the fact that it''s not an immediate concern, but something to pay attention to down the line.

1. Their economy is expanding so fast (more than 10% per year) that in less time than most of us realize they are going to pass us and become the #1 economy in the world.
2. At some point when their economy is secure they''ll start spending huge quantities on defense.
3. They''ve been making business deals left and right in Asia, S. America, and Africa, and at some point some of these deals are going to collide with our interests.
4. A quarter of the world''s population is Chinese.

[shingles1]

"Democrats fear Pakistan, an ally. Republicans fear Iran, an enemy. Boy, that speaks volumes."

Only if you don''t know how to read.
It''s not the country of Pakistan that they fear, its the situation INSIDE Pakistan that they fear. In fact, it''s a nightmare scenario that EVERYBODY fears, both Republican and Democratic.

Pakistan already has nuclear bombs. Iran doesn''t.
Pakistan is filled to the gills with Islamic radicals allied with both the Taliban and Bin Laden - remember, the people who already attacked us on 9/11. The nightmare scenario is that the current Pakistani regime collapses and the nuclear weapons fall into Al Qaeda hands. If you think that''s something to laugh at then you''re the kind of American that bin Laden loves.

jackie0428, I think you''re right on Romney being the ultimate nominee -- he''s not my favorite and he''s far from ideal but he''s the only one who holds the Republican coalition together.

[infidel_us]

The country that frightens me the most
is the United States.
Posted by fuzzybear9 at 05:59 PM : Dec 13, 2007

What a bedwetting, crybaby lib! You are pathetic! Why don''t you go blow your nose and change your diaper. I''ll bet you get your a*ss kicked everyday at school. If you don''t, you should.

[ericmichael1]

Katie,

Not one candidate said Russia?

This is the nuclear wildcard of our planet. With a h-bomb stockpile to rival the United States'''', the most likely nation to lose nuclear fisson materials to terrorists, an oil power, an anti-American coalition builder, and with a rising dictatorship in Putin...

Can we think of any more frightening foe in our future?

You''re doing great, Katie... Keep up the good work.

Eric

[denn034]

Democrats fear Pakistan, an ally. Republicans fear Iran, an enemy. Boy, that speaks volumes.

[merlgrey]

reporter gets owned while interviewing ron paul supporter talking about our loss of freedoms when he finds out he is speaking to a judge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxTsgPTig0

[merlgrey]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=j_GADQv3vKs

NOTE: The complaints only started after the poll was cancelled.

''I paid my $33 for the dinner and vote. A $5 option was also offered to vote after the festivities. We patiently listened to the guest speaker support Fred Thompson and talk on the issues of water and budget problems in California. They then held a raffle, while all the "cheap" voters waited in the lobby. When they finally let them in, the room was flooded with Ron Paul supporters and the organizer notified us the poll was cancelled. I started the video after the initial announcement and pandemonium broke out. The sudden cancellation and an attempt to change the rules, understandably, upset quite a few people.''
A Short segment closer to the podium: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IcNK3zYc5ts (less)

[notblue]

NancyNaive walk any street in any city in America then head right over to Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. and walk their streets. If you come back alive let us all know if America and those hated christians are the most dangerous.

[hillaryin08]

Question for you libs

If the Republicans distance themselves from Bush in order win back the Congress and Presidency next year is that going to be ok with you?

[jackie0428]

Let there be no mistake: they are running a weak group of Democrats, and they are fighting among themselves so much that they will become even weaker. I have correctly predicted the nominees and the winners of the last 6 Presidential elections, and although predicting for 2008 is tough, I%u2019m going to now predict the race for next year. For Republicans, I see Mitt Romney getting the nomination. He%u2019s the best leader, best speaker, best debater, and most intelligent of the bunch. Rudy will burn out. Rudy has too many skeletons and a temper. Huckabee has too little name recognition and his last name is killing him; sounds too much like a hillbilly. Thompson is lazy and too slow. Ron Paul: you got to be kidding. For the Democrats, it%u2019s more a process of elimination: Obama? Sorry, but there is simply no way mostly-conservative America will nominate a black man named Barack Obama; not seeing this happen at all. Edwards? Too wimpy and whiny; he looks and talks weak. All the others are not well known and have incredibly small numbers. Clinton looks like the one who will stay on top. For the 11/08 general election, it will be Romney vs. Clinton. Look for a brutal summer next year of Hillary vs. Mitt. Because Hillary is a polarizing figure, and there are over 20 million Americans who have said they will not vote for her no matter what, I see Romney winning a very close one in the election, with about 5-to-10 more electoral votes than Hillary. The next President will be Mitt Romney.

[hwy71so]

MEXICO. THEN *CALIFORNIA*.

Posted by mudrose at 09:20 AM : Dec 13, 2007

You know that''s right. lol

[mudrose-2009]

MEXICO. THEN CALIFORNIA.

[daws711]

Why isn''t Ron Paul one of the candaidates being interviewed ??? CBS - wake up & take this guy seriously. You''re obviously not doing it now.

[bluestardad]

DONT BUY INTO THE HATE IRAN PROPAGANDA

IT IS ISRAELI GENERATED

AMERICA STAND UP FOR YOURSELF AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS!

IF YOU DONT YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET!

[realpatriot1]

I thought all the candidates handled the question well. Iran, China,Russia & Pakastan are all concerns.

Iran is a concern based upon its radical nature and the technical capability it may someday develop. Pakastan is a threat for the technical capability it already has and the potential for radicalization.

China is a concern based upon its economic and military clout but is also dependent upon a stable global economy with American prosperity needed to fuel their economy. China is a brutal dictatorship internally but is actually behaving more responsibally on a global scale than we are(investing in the developing world and keeping their troops at home).

Huckabee raised a major concern that I don''t believe everyone sees, the possibility of an Iranian-Russian-Venezuelan oil cartel holding the world economically hostage and the need to respond by developing alternative energy. That was probably the most visionary response.

[samthetvcat]

PS I read Obama''s answer again, and it''s pretty good after all (imo) :)

[samthetvcat]

pt 2

Granted, Colin Powell lost ALL credibility for causing the Iraq war to happen on false pretenses, but I felt like he kind of redeemed himself with this quote which breaks from the Repub pack. I think it''s easy to get lost in the heat of the competition and want to win - like yesterday I was all caught up in the ''electability polls'' until I saw that Nation piece about not losing sight of substance. Anybody else feel like the candidates might be doing something like that and are getting caught up in wanting to appear as ''tough'' or more ''tough'' than the next candidate?

More from Powell:

"I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there%u2014ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists."

[samthetvcat]

I liked Barack''s answer the best, but I was gooogling for an article of Colin Powells from a while back and found this piece from AARP where he talks about who he sees as a threat:

"I think we have to put terrorism in context. It''s the unknown about terrorism that''s so scary. It''s not an enemy you can see and attack and defend yourself easily against. And they can come and they can knock down buildings. They can kill some of our fellow citizens. But they can''t defeat us as a nation [unless] we start being so afraid that we...don''t want any Arabs or Muslims running around here, and we take counsel of our fears. We let terrorists scare us so badly that...we''re afraid to go here and we''re afraid to go there. And we''ve got to stay upright. [Terrorism] won''t be as serious as the 9,000 people who died of AIDS today or the 22,000 who were infected. So we can''t let terrorism take the place of the Soviet Union as the threat that keeps us all afraid. We can''t change our way of life or the openness of our society or the value system that we rest on, or else we''re doing their work for them.

We don''t want to see Iran with nuclear weapons. But it''s not the Soviet Union. It''s a country that has been trying for years to create a nuclear weapon. They haven''t been successful. They''re still trying, I think, and the international community has to put pressure on them."