What Countries Do Candidates Fear Most?

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

(CBS)  McCain: If we had succeeded in Iraq and used the right strategy, you and I would be talking of other things now. We had a lightning-like initial victory and then we screwed it up. And so, that is why we're in the situation we're in today. We all believed, including every intelligence agency on earth, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't, but that's hindsight. But the sanctions were failing. There was an oil-for-food scandal … a lot of things were happening. So we are where we are. Now, according to General Petraeus, it has become a central front in the battle. It has become a place where al Qaeda wants to establish itself. It has become and will become, if we leave according to a date for withdrawal, a center of al Qaeda activities who want to destroy everything we stand for and believe in. It's because of our failures in Iraq that we're having difficulties with Syria meddling in Lebanon. It's because of our failures in Iraq that the Iranians have been emboldened. It's because of our failures in Iraq that Jordan is under a terrific strain with 750,000 refugees. Look, when bad things happen, bad things happen.

Couric: Don't you find it ironic, though, that al Qaeda was public enemy No. 1 for the United States? The U.S. invades Iraq - and that really didn't have a connection with 9/11-and, suddenly, al Qaeda in Iraq is one of our biggest threats. Doesn't it strike you as slightly - and distressingly - ironic?

McCain: I'm distressed because we failed in Iraq because we didn't have the right strategy. We didn't use the right tactics, and we let it get out of hand. That's what I'm most distressed about because, for nearly four years, we sacrificed American blood and treasure, and we are where we are, in my view. And so, therefore, to say, well, we're going to set a date for withdrawal - or in the case of Senator Clinton, vote to cut off funding--in my view, would cause us to have a lot more problems. There would be chaos, genocide, and we'd be back.


BARACK OBAMA

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

Obama: I think Iran … poses a significant threat to stability in the Middle East and they don't pose an existential threat to the United States but could be profoundly destabilizing over the long term in terms of our energy supplies and so forth. And I have repeatedly said that the way I would handle it is to apply both carrots and sticks. Right now, all we do is rattle our sabers and threaten military action. We saw, just yesterday, Vice President Cheney indicate that they would do whatever it takes in a way that doesn't offer the Iranians any way to save face, anything, any concessions that somehow might make it more attractive to them to stand down. And so I think we have to talk to Iran directly. And when we talk to Iran directly - even if there are profound disagreements there - that will send a signal to the world that we are not simply seeking to impose our will without paying attention to what other countries think, but that we are, in fact, willing to listen and to learn. And that will help strengthen our ability to form alliances around the world to apply tough economic sanctions, to apply the sticks. And part of that conversation has to be to say to Iran, "If you stand down on the nuclear weapons issue, if you are willing to stand back from the aid you've been providing to terrorist organizations, then you will see concrete benefits in terms of your participation in the World Trade Organization or your ability to engage in economic growth over the long term." And that kind of dialogue has not taken place. This president has refused to do it. I think it's a profound mistake.

JFK once said, "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate." We are such a strong nation, and I think that if we have a strong president at the helm, we shouldn't ever be afraid to talk to our adversaries and tell them what we think and where we stand. Now, I know you asked about one, but I actually think the situation in Pakistan right now, in some ways, may be even more volatile. That's where Osama Bin Laden is and much of al Qaeda is hiding. We've got General Musharraf, who is in a weakened position. We have Benazir Bhutto, who's just gone back. There are a lot of divisions there, and they already possess a lot of nuclear weapons and so we've got to really do our best to strengthen the democratic impulses inside of Pakistan while at the same time insisting that they take seriously the al Qaeda operations inside Pakistan and at the same time that there are safeguards around those nuclear weapons and working with the Pakistan military to assure that those don't fall in the hands of terrorists. That is going to be a difficult and messy and complex task, but we will actually be aided in that process if we send a strong signal that we're getting out of Iraq. That is part of what has fanned anti-American sentiment inside Pakistan.


BILL RICHARDSON

Couric: What, in your view, is the most frightening country in the world and what would you do to change the situation?

Richardson: The most frightening country in the world is Iran, but what I would do is I would talk to Iran. I wouldn't isolate them the way this president wants to do. And I would approach Iran, not government to government - it would be people to people, students, other students and business leaders, culture exchanges. I would start with that, but this is an enormously powerful country with strategic interests that threatens us. They want to build nuclear weapons. They're hurting our soldiers in Iraq. The way to deal with them is not to threaten them and saber-rattle and have military options the way the Bush administration wants to do, but I would talk to them - people talking to each other. I'm a negotiator. I'm a diplomat. I've talked to all the bad people in the world in my life - the North Koreans, the Cubans, Sudan - and I've succeeded. I think it's a cultural understanding and finding common ground.


MITT ROMNEY

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

Romney: Well, there's more than one. Iran would probably be at the top of that list, North Korea another, Russia another, in different stages of disrepair, if you will, and threat. Iran is a nation which speaks of genocide and is rushing headlong to develop weapons that will allow them to carry it out, and that has to be frightening to the entire world. Iran speaks about giving nuclear material to other groups, not just nations, to other groups that would oppose the West. Iran welcomes individuals with bibs that say, "Death to Israel, death of America." This is a very frightening course and a nation which is [a] leading sponsor of terror in the world, speaking in the way they do, is a very frightening development.

What do you do? At this stage, you dramatically tighten economic and diplomatic sanctions. You make it very tough for Iran to do business around the world and to be accepted around the world. And that's not just with our friends, but it's also with well-meaning Arab nations that are also afraid of Iran. They need to put pressure on Iran and put pressure on people like the Chinese to get them to be tough on Iran. We're gonna have to tighten things in Iran dramatically. But, of course, military options have to [be] available to us. A nuclear Iran is not acceptable to the civilized world. Russia is a very different case. Russia appears to have a leader who is intent on the same path towards darkness that you saw in the past in Russian leaders, and that's of a great concern. Hopefully we'll see a change in course, but it's certainly not at the level of an Iran at this point.

Couric: Should the U.S. be more willing to negotiate with Iran?

Romney: Well, we certainly talk with other nations and we have negotiations and discussions with other nations. You don't dignify Ahmadinejad with a personal visit by the president of the United States. That's not who Ahmadinejad is, and it would be totally inappropriate to communicate to the people of Iran that the president of the United States is gonna sit down with Ahmadinejad. But do we …

Couric: So what do you do?

Romney: But do we talk? Of course, of course we talk, and we have diplomatic talks. We talk through third parties. We talk through business people. We talk at the diplomatic level and we find out what they want. But what they want is unacceptable to the world. What they want is the destruction of Israel. See, we talk about whether or not there will be a Palestinian state. We all agree there'll be a Palestinian state. There are a lot of nations like Iran that don't think there should be an Israeli state, and that's unacceptable. Iran fundamentally wants to see the destruction of Israel and the subjugation of people throughout the world. That is not something we can negotiate about. It's simply unacceptable.


FRED THOMPSON

Couric: What, in your view, is the most frightening country in the world and what would you do about it?

Thompson: Iran. I think that they have a zealotry among the mullahs there and their leaders that is not fully appreciated. … If you listen to their words, when they talk about the return of the 12th Imam and the fact that, you know, they don't seem to mind sacrificing the lives of many, many innocent people, including their own, to achieve their goal. They think the United States is the Great Satan, Israel is the little Satan, and we know what they've said about Israel.

They have been killing our people for a long time through Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, and you can't really deal with them like you can most any other enemy nation state that has their own, you know, nation state interest involved. Goodness knows our country's been trying to do it. Every president's been trying to do it for a long, long time and they're stymied because I think we don't fully understand the nature of their commitment and the way that they view us.

Now, they claim to have, I guess, 3,000 centrifuges, which you don't have to have many more and get 'em to work together in a way to produce the kind of enrichment that would go into a bomb. But they say they're well on their way to do that. I think they're probably right. You know, after Saddam, you can always consider the possibility that they're lying, that they don't really have what they say they [have] but, apparently, they do.

And I think that it poses a tremendous, tremendous danger, and we. of course. cannot take military action off the table, but if we have to go in that direction, it'll probably be looked upon as - or should be looked upon as - a failure of ours if we have to get down to the point of doing that. We have a lot of levers there, in terms of sanctions, in terms of supporting people inside the country of Iran. Their economy's in shambles. There are demonstrations going on all the time. They're suppressing their people. They're killing dissidents and students and things of that nature. So, some of that issue might be resolved for us. You never know what the end result of that scenario would be, either, but it would be better than the track we're on now.

No … the economy is in shambles, there's demonstrations going on all over the country. They are imprisoning and killing students who rise up and so forth. So, there are some good things that could happen there, I think, from our standpoint. We don't know exactly…where that scenario would lead, but it'd probably be much better than the one that we're on right now. So, we should assist that process, to make a long story short, and have communication with those people inside the country there to avoid having to reach that ultimate point in such a dangerous part of the world, which [is] sitting on all those oil reserves, and we're in the Gulf there with the presence. And so, it's a very, very difficult situation.

[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."