Countries Reveal Most-Feared Countries
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 do you fear the most?" See their answers on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric tonight at 6:30 p.m. EDT.
Check out the candidates' full responses to the previous questions in our "Primary Questions" video library.
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.
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.
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 (PH). But…those are the things I think that need to be done.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 talk 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.
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.
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. So …
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.