Transcript: Democratic Presidential Debate in Detroit
FDCH e-Media
Monday, October 27, 2003; 12:30 AM
SPEAKERS:
MODERATOR: Gwen Ifill, PBS
QUESTIONERS: Carl Cameron, Fox News Channel ,
Huel Perkins, Detroit WJBK TV Fox 2 News Anchor
 | |||||||||||||||||||
CANDIDATES: General Wesley Clark (Ret.)
Former Governor Howard Dean (VT)
U.S. Senator John Edwards (NC)
U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt (MO)
U.S. Senator John F. Kerry (MA)
U.S. REP. Dennis Kucinich (OH)
U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (CT)
Former U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun (IL)
The Reverand Al Sharpton
IFILL: Good evening from the majestic Fox Theatre. Built in 1928, this historic landmark is the largest and most exotic, eclectic, Hindu, Siamese, Byzantine theater of the golden age of the movie palace.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK (D-MI): Good evening, and welcome to tonight's Democratic debate, coming to you from the magnificent Fox Theatre in downtown Detroit.
I'm Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, chairperson of the institute's debate committee. The mission of this CBC Institute is to help prepare a new generation of African-American political leaders for public- and private-sector leadership roles and to inform the public about critical public policy issues.
Tonight we will hear the candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination explore some of the pressing issues that are of interest to all Americans. At this very pivotal time in our nation's history, the CBC Institute is proud to sponsor this discussion in my hometown, Detroit.
IFILL: Thank you, Congresswoman.
IFILL: Now let's meet the nine Democratic candidates:
The candidates' positions on the stage were drawn by representatives from each campaign.
Now, here is the format for our debate. Each candidate will be asked questions pertaining first to foreign policy and, in subsequent rounds, to domestic issues, with some focus on issues of importance to the Congressional Black Caucus.
Answers are limited to one minute each. We have green, yellow and red lights to help the candidates keep track of their time. And if an answer runs too long, candidates will hear this sound.
At the end of the program, each candidate will have one minute for a closing comment. We ask the audience to please limit applause during the question-and-answer portion of the debate.
CAMERON: Thank you very much, Gwen.
Governor, there was more violence this morning in Baghdad, a missile attack on the al-Rashid Hotel claimed the life of an American military colonel as well as injuring a number of others.
CAMERON: You opposed the war and now the $87 billion to fund its reconstruction and the stabilization of the region.
DEAN: I don't think service men and women do view my position as short of supporting the troops. I've made it very clear that we need to support our troops, unlike President Bush, who tried to cut their combat pay after they'd been over there and he'd doubled their tour of duty, unlike President Bush who tried to cut -- who successfully cut 164,000 veterans off their health-care benefits.
CAMERON: Senator Kerry, I want to direct the next question to you, in part because you voted for the Iraq resolution but have also opposed the $87 billion. To many, that speaks to an inconsistency that your candidacy has been criticized by, for having a difficult to explain position on the Iraq war.
KERRY: Not in the least. In fact, it is absolutely consistent, because what I voted for was to hold Saddam Hussein accountable but to do it right.
This president has done it wrong every step of the way. He promised that he would have a real coalition. He has a fraudulent coalition. He promised he would go through the United Nations and honor the inspections process. He did not. He promised he would go to war as a last resort, words that mean something to me as a veteran. He did not.
He broke every promise. He's done it wrong.
And he's even doing this wrong, because what he ought to be doing is internationalizing this effort -- going to the United Nations, asking the United Nations to take part in a larger way, which they would be willing to do if he was prepared to shift real authority to them.
You have to take the target off of American troops. You have to get rid of the sense of American occupation. And that's the only way to invite other countries to be part of this.
And finally, Joe Biden and I brought an amendment to ask Americans, and the wealthiest Americans, to share. He wouldn't allow that to happen. I'm not going to vote for him to continue to do it wrong.
IFILL: Next set of questions to Huel Perkins.
PERKINS: Gwen, thank you.
And I'd like to welcome all the candidates to Detroit.
Reverend Sharpton, thousands rallied yesterday in Washington against the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. You spoke to that crowd, saying that it was time to bring the U.S. troops home right now.
SHARPTON: First of all, my mother is from the South. One of the things I learned is you can't plant a watermelon seed and grow oranges.
You cannot get right out of wrong.
Bush was wrong to go in in the first place.
To delay coming out is not going to make it right.
We need to not get into another Vietnam, talking about withdrawing with honor. Mr. Bush put the honor of this nation aside when he deceived the public by putting us in harm's way with no weapons of mass destruction.
We need to go to the U.N., we need to say that we are working a multilateral commitment. And we need to show that we really love the troops by bringing the troops home.
PERKINS: General Clark, your campaign implies that your combat experience gives you a better understanding of the implications of war, but your political message is confusing.
You have not only praised the president that you now want to defeat but, according to the Arab Institute Voting Guide, in February of 2003, you said this, quote: "Saddam Hussein has these weapons, and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this, and the rest of the world has got to get with us," unquote.
But you have also so far refused to take a firm position on the president's request for more money. Can you tell us exactly where you do stand?
CLARK: I'd be happy to tell you where I stand. I think I've been very consistent from the beginning.
Right after 9/11, this administration determined to do bait and switch on the American public. President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn't have either one of them today.
I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now. It was an unnecessary war. There was no imminent threat.
On the other hand, just like Reverend Sharpton said, Bush got all our -- the president got all of our troops out there, got them poised, committed the United States to this thing. What he didn't do was he didn't use diplomacy. He didn't use leadership. He didn't bring the rest of the world with it. He should've. There was time to do it. There was no imminent threat. And there is no excuse for his failure of leadership.
You're right, I've been there, and I know that you don't start a military operation, if you know what you're doing, unless you know how you want it to end. This president didn't know how he wanted it to end. He doesn't know what he's doing today.
IFILL: Carl has a follow-up.
CAMERON: General, there is a long litany of comments from you, both in your time as a former television analyst and then over the course of the last several months. Are we to understand that what you're saying now is that those things you have said that were positive about the war was not what you meant?
CLARK: No, I always -- I'm a fair person, Carl. And when this administration's done something right, well, if they were Russians doing something right, Chinese doing something right, French doing something right or even Republicans doing something right...
CLARK: Now, this country was attacked on 9/11, and it was right that this administration went into Afghanistan. And I supported that war; so did 90 percent of the American people. That Taliban government should have been taken out.
But the failure of this administration was not to put the troops in to finish the job against Osama bin Laden. And you know why they didn't do it? They didn't do it because, all along, their plan was to save those troops to go after Saddam Hussein.
IFILL: Thank you, General.
Thank you, General.
My question now is for Congressman Gephardt, who actually has taken a position on this $87 billion reconstruction request.
You voted for it because you said you did not -- in a statement, you said it was a bad idea to send an ambiguous message to our troops or an uncertain message to our friends or enemies in Iraq.
GEPHARDT: I think we all try to do what we think is right. That's what I try to do. I thought the right thing to do, even though I want part of it to be alone and have a lot of other suggestions about where the money could come from, in the end you're presented in the Congress with a vote, up or down on the $87 billion. And I can't find it within myself to not vote for the money to support the troops, our young men and women who are over there protecting us, dodging bullets in a very tough and difficult situation. And so, I felt the right thing to do was to do that.
I agree with the view that this president has failed us, and I'm very sorry about that. He hasn't gotten us the international help that we need. He still hasn't gotten the troops and the money that should have been there from the beginning.
But let me make one other point. We've got some differences here in opinion about this war and the money. But I think it's an abomination for this administration and this president to call people who disagree with him, as sometimes we do, as lacking patriotism. I think the highest act of patriotism is saying what we believe.
IFILL: Carl?
CAMERON: Senator Lieberman, you've certainly not called the positions that your rivals have taken on the war and on the funding unpatriotic, but you have called it inconsistent. You've suggested that it's weak and that it sends a duplicitous message to the world.
You've heard a variety of opinions expressed by your rivals. Why are they wrong?
LIEBERMAN: I'm surprised to hear this variety again. You know, this is a test of leadership at a difficult moment in American history. I've said this before, I'll say it again. Howard Dean, Carol, Dennis, Al, we have a different point of view on whether we should have gone into Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but they've been clear and they've been consistent, and I respect them for that.
We're trying to replace a president who doesn't level with the American people, who's not consistent. And we're not going to do it unless we also level.
So I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say that they supported the war but then oppose the funding of the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized.
I've been over Wes Clark's record and statements on this so many times. I heard him tonight. He took six different positions on whether going to war was the right idea.
IFILL: I would like to give Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry, in that order, a chance to respond.
EDWARDS: Thank you.
Well, my view of leadership is standing up for what you believe in, Joe. I have stood up for what I believe in. I believe that Saddam was a threat that had to be dealt with; therefore I voted for the congressional resolution.
However, I said at the time that it was critical for us to have a plan for what would happen now. This president has no plan of any kind that I can see. Second, that we bring our friends and allies in and this become an international effort, not just an American occupation and an American effort.
Then the president of the United States comes to us and says, "I want $87 billion, trust me on this, I'll be back next year to ask for more and more money."
Here's my view, Joe: For me to vote yes on that would be to give this president a blank check, and I am not willing to give George Bush a blank check.
IFILL: Senator Kerry?
KERRY: Well, Joe, I have seared in me an experience which you don't have, and that's the experience of being one of those troops on the front lines when the policy has gone wrong.
And the way you best protect the troops is to guarantee that you put the troops in the safest, strongest position as fast as possible.
Our troops are today more exposed, are in greater danger, because this president didn't put together a real coalition, because this president's been unwilling to share the burden and the task. And I will tell you, the American people understand that.
The way you best protect -- this money could have been separated. There was a separate amount of money we could have given. Now they've got enough money for the next few months. Nothing we did in that vote puts them in jeopardy. What we did was vote to protect the security of the troops in the long run by making clear how we do this.
And, secondly, what happened to asking Americans to share the burden? Joe Biden and I had an amendment to ask the Americans who are getting $690 billion dollars of tax cut to give up $90 billion dollars and just get $600 over the next 10 years, and George Bush couldn't even say yes to that. Instead he's dumping this bill on our children and on the deficit.
IFILL: Very briefly I have to go to General Clark to have you respond to Senator Lieberman. General Clark?
CLARK: Thank you, Gwen.
Well, I wasn't in Congress. I wasn't able to vote on the $87 billion, but I want to make it very clear that I would not have voted on $87 billion. I want to commend John Edwards and John Kerry and those who voted against this resolution.
I didn't believe last year we should have given George Bush a blank check in Iraq. He said he was going to go to the U.N., instead he started a war. Now we're trying to give him another blank check. There's no telling what's going to happen.
CLARK: He still hasn't come forward with a strategy for how we're going to succeed on the ground in Iraq.
I think the best form of welfare for the troops is a winning strategy. And I think we ought to call on our commander in chief to produce it. And I think he ought to produce it before he gets one additional penny for that war.
IFILL: In the interest of getting everybody in on this debate, I'm going to go back to Paul Cameron for another question.
LIEBERMAN: Can I respond, please?
IFILL: Senator, you can respond in your next round.
LIEBERMAN: I'll respond real quickly. I'm sorry.
IFILL: OK. Very quickly.
LIEBERMAN: OK. I want to say obviously I respect John Kerry's military service to our country, but that's not what this is about. This is about the votes that he's cast that I believe are inconsistent.
In fact, what do we look back and wonder about our time in Vietnam? We didn't support our troops. If everyone had voted the way John Kerry did, the money wouldn't have been there to support our troops.
KERRY: That...
LIEBERMAN: Tough decision. $87 billion is a lot of money. $87 billion is a lot of money. It should have been less if George Bush had brought in our allies and had a plan.
But, in the end, if you want to be president, you got to make a choice. I didn't duck it. I didn't play politics. I voted to support our troops.
IFILL: OK. It's the moderator's privelege. We could go back and forth on this all night, but we really have a lot of ground to cover, so we would like to go back to the next question.
CAMERON: And we can assure you there'll be plenty of other bites at this apple.
KUCINICH: Excuse me a minute, you missed some of us this round.
MOSELEY BRAUN: Yes, two of us didn't get a chance to answer.
IFILL: And we're going to get to you as soon as everybody finished rebutting. But right now, it's to Carl.
CAMERON: Believe it or not, much of this has been in rebuttal action and not actual formulated questions, and that's where we're -- and you're coming up next.
MOSELEY BROWN: Well, just because nobody's mad at us...
CAMERON: Senator Edwards, the PATRIOT Act, a piece of legislation that you voted for, a piece of legislation that has been much criticized by virtually everybody on this stage, falls two years old today. There has been a tremendous amount of criticism of John Ashcroft and the Justice Department for its enforcement of that legislation, legislation that you authored.
EDWARDS: Well, I did.
First of all, I think Carol Moseley Braun and Dennis Kucinich should be heard. And I hope you're going to have questions for them, so I want to stand up for what they are saying.
... which I, along with almost the entire United States Senate voted for -- here's the reality of the PATRIOT Act. There are some provisions in the PATRIOT Act, most of which get no attention, which did good things, which updated the law, which allowed us to go after money laundering, which allowed information-sharing, some of the problems that existed before September 11th.
The problem with the PATRIOT Act and the reason we need to make changes is because it gave entirely too much discretion to an attorney general who does not deserve it. It's that simple.
CAMERON: But, Senator, wasn't the legislation written by the lawmakers providing that very latitude? Didn't you create that latitude in the legislation that you wrote?
EDWARDS: Yes, and the attorney general of the United States came before us and told us that he would not abuse his discretion. He has abused his discretion. He has consistently abused his discretion. We all know that now. These provisions need to be changed.
I want to add something to this, though, since you stopped me in mid-answer. I want to add something to this, because I think there's something more at stake here than the PATRIOT Act. I mean, the very liberties and freedoms that we're supposed to be fighting for are in danger every single day this administration is in office.
It's not just the PATRIOT Act. You know, they are -- they have a policy that allows them to arrest American citizens on American soil, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely. They never see a lawyer, they never see a judge. This is not the America that we believe in.
IFILL: Senator -- Huel Perkins, please?
PERKINS: Ambassador Braun, a memo from the secretary of defense questions whether we are actually winning the war on terror, questions our intelligence. CIA Director George Tenet now under fire, a Clinton appointee.
Whose head should roll here?
MOSELEY BRAUN: Well, I have been consistent from the beginning. I opposed this war, and I raised the question of how much it would cost the American people, even before our troops were committed there.
MOSELEY BRAUN: Having said that, I stand with the mothers of the young men and women who are there, and believe that, as Americans, we have to bring our troops home but we have to bring them home with honor. We blew the place up; we have to fix it back.
And at present, the United Nations and none of the -- happily, we're moving toward internationalizing the force, but even the United Nations won't put troops in the ground there because it's too dangerous.
I think we have to do what we can do to give our troops the support. Some of those young men and women are sitting out there in the desert without even basic supplies. It is an outrage the way we are treating our own service men and women in this effort.
And by the way, those who are injured, like Shoshanna Johnson, are not getting the kind of support they need when they come back home.
PERKINS: Congressman Kucinich, you have been consistent in your opposition to the war, but there are reports that you have also refused to sign the intelligence nondisclosure form, which means that you are not allowed to see all the information collected in secret by the CIA and FBI.
KUCINICH: Well, actually, I knew enough not to vote for the war without having to sit in on briefings that were totally phony.
I mean, those briefings are designed to mislead members of Congress, so I thought I'd spare the time and work on things that were a little bit more important.
I could tell you that I've actually presented a plan -- it's on my Web site at Kucinich.us -- it's an exit strategy to get the U.N. in and the U.S. out of Iraq.
And that involves three points: First, to have the U.N. handle the oil with no privitization of Iraqi oil.
And to have the U.N. handle the cause of new governance in Iraq on behalf of the Iraqi people until the Iraqi people can be self- determining.
Furthermore, you know, a number of us have opposed the war, but I'd have to say to Dr. Dean, you said in paid TV ads that only you opposed the war in Iraq, but that's not true.
Why forfeit the public trust? Why can't you just admit you made a mistake and take down the ad? I mean, you have Ambassador Braun, Mr. Sharpton, myself, we opposed the war. Why don't you take down those ads? They're not true.
IFILL: Governor Dean?
DEAN: Here's what the ad says, among other things: "130,000 troops in Iraq with no end in sight and a price tag that goes up daily. The best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war."
Now, that include -- that's those opponents who supported the war. Clearly, Ambassador Moseley Braun, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, Al Sharpton and myself opposed the war right from the beginning.
Despite Wes's statements to the contrary, he did support the resolution. He told Katrina Swett in New Hampshire that she should support the resolution. These other folks voted for the war, too.
So don't think my ad is inaccurate at all. I'm talking about the people who supported the war, with whom I disagree.
IFILL: OK, that is the end...
KUCINICH: That ad is a misrepresentation.
IFILL: OK, Congressman.
KUCINICH: And anyone who reads it would understand that's a fair characterization.
IFILL: You have made your point.
That's the end of round one. Now we're going to go to our second round of questions, also on the war on terror and foreign policy.
Carl?
CAMERON: General Clark, I suspect you're going to want to comment a little bit on the governor's remarks about the ad and your early support, as he's asserted it.
But your military service in general is considered a large part of the predicate for your candidacy. I wonder if you could take a moment and explain to us why, at the end of your time as the supreme allied commander of NATO, you were not re-upped and why such folks as Retired General Hugh Shelton have suggested you were effectively fired for what he called character and integrity issues.
CLARK: Well, thanks for the opportunity to talk about this.
We used to call charges like that "McCarthyism" when they came out in the 1950s.
Now, the simple truth is that Hugh Shelton is an old friend of mine; I've known him for 20 years. But we had a significant disagreement about policy.
CLARK: I believe there were 1.5 million Albanians there who were in danger of being thrown out of their homes and having their lives and property at risk.
Some people in the Pentagon disagreed with me. I went through the Pentagon and recommended we use diplomacy backed by the threat of force. I had the permission of the Pentagon to do that. I worked, I warned, I struggled to prevent a war. And when it finally came down to it, I had to fight it, lead it, and we won it.
But let me tell you two things. Number one, I stand up and fight for what I believe in. And nobody is going to see the United States on my watch humiliated in a military mission because we don't have the gumption to follow through on our requirements.
And number two, when you put American troops in harm's way, you better not do it without a plan and a strategy and the determination that you're going to prevail.
That's what I stood for. We were successful. I received two distinguished service medals, the Presidential Medal of Freedom for that kind of leadership.
IFILL: General...
CLARK: But if anybody knows, would you please let me know. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
IFILL: Carl, before you move on to your next question, I would really like to appeal to all of the candidates here tonight to try to stay something close to the time. That way, you'll all be heard.
CAMERON: Ambassador Braun, you've urged the current administration repeatedly to negotiate peace and to deal with other nations, and an opportunity for you, perhaps, to go back and clear the record over something in the past.
MOSELEY BRAUN: Well, when you consider -- thank you for the question.
When you consider that I have 20 years in public life and have a long record of advocating and fighting for human rights around the world -- I led the fight in the state of Illinois to withdraw our support of the apartheid regime in South Africa. I know a number of African leaders, as a result of my work over time.
As the only African-American in the United States Senate, it was not inappropriate for me to visit countries in Africa, including Nigeria. And as I did so...
... the State Department never had anything to say to me about any of my private travels.
But the -- specifically when you mention with regard to the late General Abacha, I went to his son's funeral. I did not make a PC judgment that it was inappropriate to go to that funeral.
But having said that, I must tell you that my human-rights record remains unblemished. My reputation and my record of integrity in office remains unscarred. And I am standing here before the American people offering my services, someone who knows her way around the world.
IFILL: Thank you, Ambassador.
PERKINS: Congressman Gephardt, here in metro Detroit, we have one of the largest concentrations of Arab-Americans in this country. By and large, they love America. They're willing to die for this country.
But at the same time, some of them will tell you they do not see the world as we see it. In fact, in the eyes of some, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist groups, they are freedom fighters or defenders.
GEPHARDT: I don't think you can negotiate with terrorists, people who have decided that violence is the way that they are going to settle their problems.
But let me say this to you. I think this administration has failed in getting at the root causes of terrorism. I think they're just dealing with the symptoms of terrorism, and I support those efforts. You've got to stop someone from doing harm to the United States if they're bound and determined to do it.
GEPHARDT: But we've got to get at the root causes. We've got to be a leader for peace in the Middle East. This administration walked away from the Middle East after this president came in office, said it wasn't our problem, we weren't going to really lead and do the things that we had been doing.
He walked away from a North Korean agreement that President Clinton got. I'm more worried about nuclear weapons coming to the terrorists from North Korea than I am Iraq.
He walked away from the Global Warming Treaty. He walked away from the International Criminal Court.
Let me say this, if we're going to defeat terrorism, we've got to engage in countries across the world. We've got to fight against poverty, we've got to fight against bad governance, and we've got to say to people that are supporting terrorists, "This behavior cannot stand."
We've got to stop the support for terrorism. We need peace in the world, not terrorism.
PERKINS: Senator Lieberman, in light of that, there are many who believe that peace in the world is impossible without some resolution of the Palestinian issue.
How far are you willing to go? How much are you willing to do to win the trust of the Palestinian people?
LIEBERMAN: Well, Huel, as you know, I was here in Detroit just a week ago to speak to the Arab-American Institute to stress what unites us. As I said, the hyphen between Arab-American and other ethnic Americans is in some places in the world a divider. Here it's a uniter. It should remind us we are all Americans and we are all children of the same god and children of the same father, Abraham. We are literally brothers and sisters. And it's in that spirit that I intend to approach as president the conflict in the Middle East.
It's a tragedy, people dying every day. It requires the kind of persistence of the president of the United States that Dick Gephardt has just spoken of, and that President Bush has not shown in now almost three years in office.
The solution here -- the only acceptable solution is quite clear: a two-state solution; peaceful, free Israel standing next to peaceful, free, independent Palestine. And that will come...
... that will come only if the United States remains involved. And first step must be an end to terrorism.
LIEBERMAN: Would I negotiate with Hamas and other terrorist groups? Not while they're terrorists. But, you know, as a matter of faith and policy, I believe that people are capable of change.
If they renounce terrorism -- as Yitzhak Rabin, the late prime minister of Israel said, you don't negotiate with your friends to achieve peace, you negotiate with those who have been your enemies.
IFILL: Thank you, Senator.
We are attempting to imagine each of you in the White House in the Oval Office, and in that spirit, Governor Dean, I have this question for you.
You have been unstintingly critical of this war, yet, with all due respect, you have commanded nothing more than the Vermont National Guard. You did not serve in the military.
DEAN: Well, first of all, I have as much foreign-policy experience as George W. Bush did when he got into office.
And Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
Secondly, the important part of what you do as president of the United States is to have very good people, which I do, talking to me about issues and defense and foreign policy, and to use judgment and patience.
In view of what is happening in Iraq today, I would submit to you that my foreign-policy experience might be more valuable in the White House today than the foreign-policy experience of many of the people who supported the Iraq war. Because I was, for some reason, listening to my folks, able to tell the president was not being candid to the American people when he sent our brothers and sisters and our sons and daughters to Iraq.
The truth is, the president tried to make us think that Al Qaida had something -- that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Three weeks ago he admitted there was no evidence for that. Now we've got 135,000 people over there, over 300 casualties and over 1,200 people wounded and injured because of that lack of patience and judgment.
IFILL: Thank you, Governor.
PERKINS: Congressman Kucinich...
... you have proposed changing the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of Peace, but in a world in which our enemies are willing to kill themselves to kill us, is it not better that we stand and fight? And is it not better that we wage that battle on foreign shores and not here in America?
KUCINICH: Well, first of all, my proposal was to create a separate, Cabinet-level position, a Department of Peace, which would work domestically to make nonviolence an organizing principal in our society.
KUCINICH: I visited with a Detroit community group that is talking about the problems of violence in urban areas. For example, over 300 people perished on the streets of Detroit in September. We have a problem with violence in our society that needs to be addressed.
And I think we could take up on the work of Dr. King and others who have worked to make nonviolence an organizing principal, through making sure that we address the problems of violence in the homes -- domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse -- violence in the communities, gangs, violence in our schools.
When we contrast that with the purpose of the Department of Defense, that's to provide military force. Now, I think that we have to have a commitment to work with the nations of the world to make war archaic so we won't need to send our men and women abroad in search of wars or to fight wars that they never should have had to fight in the first place.
IFILL: Thank you, Congressman.
PERKINS: Senator Edwards, there are seemingly bigger threats in the world right now from North Korea and from Iran, Iran with its program for nuclear weapons and North Korea with both its nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach American shores. We seem to be willing now to let third parties, other nations negotiate that right now.
But North Korea seems to be willing to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for food and money. Is that nuclear blackmail? Are you willing to accede to that? What is your plan for solving these very potentially dangerous situations?
EDWARDS: No, North Korea is the biggest proliferator in the planet, a proliferator of missile technology, potential proliferator of raw fissile material. And it is not blackmail. It has to do with a little bit of leadership and common sense.
This president has completely disengaged in North Korea. If you watch what happened, the Clinton administration was actually engaged, making progress. As soon as President Bush came into office and this administration took over, they disengaged.
EDWARDS: They had no policy. There's been an inconsistent policy. They alienated our friends in South Korea.
So the simple answer is this. We should sit at the table with the North Koreans. We should be willing to negotiate with the North Koreans. We should be tough. We should require that they stop their nuclear development program, nuclear weapons development program. We should have the absolute ability to verify that that has, in fact, occurred.
And we should be willing to do something in return. They need something from us.
But this is an enormous threat, not just to the American people but to the peace and security of the world. And this is a place where President Bush is failing the American people.
IFILL: Thank you, Senator.
CAMERON: Reverend Sharpton, quite recently, U.S. General Boykin stood in a church and characterized the war against terrorism as a battle between Christianity and Islam. As a public person who has not been afraid to bring politics to the pulpit, what's your reaction to that?
SHARPTON: Let me say three things, because I want to respond to some others as I get to your answer.
One, I think that it is very dangerous on the second anniversary of the PATRIOT Act to empower this attorney general in any way that can target people. Robert Kennedy, Jr. and labor leader Dennis Rivera and I went to jail over protesting the Navy bases in Vieques before the PATRIOT Act.
This administration wants to stifle and to stop dissent. And when we see, particularly when you are of color, rise to power -- this is a Congressional Black Caucus tonight -- when we see what they're doing to John Street, what they've tried to do to Kwame Kilpatrick here in Detroit...
Secondly, in the Middle East, it's not a question of terrorists. Who defines terrorists? Today's terrorist is tomorrow's friend.
We were the ones that worked with Saddam Hussein. The United States worked with bin Laden. I went in 2001 and met with Arafat at the insistence of the Israeli foreign minister. Would anyone here meet with Arafat, in terms of trying to get peace in the Middle East?
Let's put the hard questions out, Senator Lieberman. Would you meet with the head of the Palestinian Authority?
SHARPTON: In answer to your question, I think that Boykin's statement is wrong. This is not about one religion against another. It's about right versus wrong.
IFILL: Senator Lieberman, you've got 30 seconds to...
LIEBERMAN: Anytime I come after the Reverend Sharpton, I always want to say, "Amen, brother."
You know. But let me answer Al's question.
IFILL: Briefly, if you can.
LIEBERMAN: Yes, very quickly.
I visited the Middle East last December. I visited the Palestinians. I met with the soon-to-be, but unfortunately not-too- long-to-be, Prime Minister Abu Mazen, Mahmoud Abbas. I met with members of the cabinet.
I did not meet with Yasser Arafat. Do you know why? President Bill Clinton gave him an offer of Palestinian statehood, along with former Prime Minister Barak, that came that close to being enacted, but he turned against it and then facilitated violence.
I said before I would not hesitate as president to have the United States mediate between the Israelis and any Palestinian leader who really had declared their own war against terrorism.
Unfortunately, Arafat has not done that. In fact, he stopped Prime Minister Abbas and now Prime Minister Qureia from doing what they wanted to do, which was to take on the terrorists.
IFILL: Carl?
CAMERON: Senator Kerry, a question for you on troop strength. We have U.S. forces all over the world in a variety of hot spots; potential crisis in manpower.
What would you do to resolve that? Should there be an increase in call-ups, reserve and guard, reinstate the draft or pull them back?
KERRY: Well, let me just comment, first of all, if I can, on General Boykin.
General Boykin has confused the heck out of the White House on all this talk about the Almighty, when he talks about the Almighty, the president thinks he's talking about Cheney, Cheney thinks he's talking about Halliburton...
... Cheney thinks he's talking about Halliburton, and John Ashcroft thinks they're talking about him. So they don't know where to go.
... because what we've seen, what we've seen is a president who ran saying, "I'm going to have good advisers around me." Now, we had Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Powell. And look at the judgments they made.
IFILL: OK, that's the end of round two. We're now going to go to commercial break. When we come back, we will start talking about domestic issues. We'll be right back.
IFILL: Welcome back to the Motor City, Detroit, Michigan, for the Democratic presidential candidates' debate.
On stage are the nine people who want to be the Democratic nominee for president.
We're going to begin round three of questions, with the emphasis shifting to domestic issues. And Carl Cameron begins the questioning.
CAMERON: This one for you, Ambassador Braun, a question about jobs, manufacturing in particular. Here in Detroit, there's been a great loss of manufacturing jobs, a problem that most of the Democrats have complained about during the course of this campaign.
In the context of trade, Ambassador, it has been embraced by Republican and Democratic presidents alike, that those jobs that may go overseas as a consequence of trade can be replaced through job training. Apparently it isn't working.
So what's the solution? Should we pull back on our international trade deals?
MOSELEY BRAUN: I think the first thing we have to do is make certain that the globalization of trade does not create a race to the bottom, that creates the exploitation of workers abroad and the hemorrhaging of jobs here at home.
And in so doing, that's going to require a number of things. We need to take a look at the tax code and the way it works to impair the ability of people to manufacture.
But my big issue on manufacturing and what we can do to help is health-care reform. If we can take the burden...
CAMERON: Thank you, Ambassador.
Continuing on with trade, Congressman Gephardt, as the former House Democratic leader, perhaps amongst the entire tableau of candidates here, you're best known for your opposition to a variety of trade deals.
CAMERON: And for that, you've been branded by some of your opponents as a protectionist and an isolationist that would do damage to the U.S. economy as a consequence. Why is that unfair?
GEPHARDT: Well, it's not only unfair, it's dead wrong. I have a plan to get this economy moving again, to create jobs in this society and to get us into a place where we're creating jobs again, as we did in 1993 when I led the fight for the Clinton economic program.
We did it. Remember? 22 million new jobs in this country.
I've got a health-care plan to get everybody covered with health care.
I want to give manufacturing incentives to manufacturers to stay in the United States.
I want to raise the minimum wage, one of the smartest things we did during the Clinton administration.
And I've got ideas on energy and on pensions and on lots of important issues.
All the candidates now -- John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman -- now say they would never sign a treaty like NAFTA in China that doesn't have proper protections for labor and environment.
I was against those treaties when it counted. It's easy to say now that we shouldn't have done that, but when the treaties were in front of the Congress, they voted for them.
We need a new trade policy that's optimistic, that raises up standards in other countries. We've got to stop the exploitation of workers across this world. We need consumers, not just producers.
IFILL: Huel?
PERKINS: Senator Edwards, I don't know if you've had a chance to see the city of Detroit, but this city is a symbol of the promise and the problems facing this nation.
... and not find enough money to rebuild American cities?
PERKINS: Money for its schools, its roads, the urban areas.
What is your urban agenda? What are your priorities?
EDWARDS: Well, we've lost over a million jobs in urban America just last year alone. People are struggling and hurting.
I have a plan called -- I've written it down -- called Cities Rising. The idea is to first bring jobs to urban America. Let's create incentives for new businesses to start there, incentives for existing businesses to locate their plant and facilities there. And not just jobs -- good-paying jobs, with good benefits, with access to health care.
Second, to do something about the shame of having two public school systems in America, one for the haves and one for the have- nots.
We have a responsibility to do something about that. This president's never going to do anything about it.
What I want to do is this. First, lead a national initiative to pay teachers better. Second...
... give bonus pay to teachers who will teach in schools in less- advantaged areas. Give scholarships to young people who are willing to teach in these schools.
And last but not least, we need to empower people and create wealth for things like homeownership. People who live in urban areas deserve a decent place to live, in addition to health care and education.
PERKINS: Senator Lieberman, a famous talk-show host admits his addiction to prescription drugs.
He goes off for treatment.
There are addicts who have also admitted that they have a problem. They're behind bars right now.
... real or perceived, a disparity. But it seems that if you're rich and famous, you go to rehab, but if you're poor and unknown, you go to jail.
LIEBERMAN: This is a very important question, and it's time for a change on this.
Let's first acknowledge that there is a real problem here. This is not just rhetoric. Just this past week, I read in the newspapers of a study done in the state of Maryland that showed something like 90 percent of the people in Maryland jails for drug-related charges are African-American.
LIEBERMAN: Now, that's a miscarriage of justice. There's just no rationale as to why that number would be so much larger than the African-American population in the state of Maryland.
I believe in a system of justice. I believe, as I presume and I know everyone here does, that people have to be held accountable for crimes. But the system of justice must be fair.
Too many people are in jail today for nonviolent drug offenses. They are costing our country, their states, their families, their neighborhoods an enormous amount. We need to commit ourselves to turn this around and invest in rehabilitation, invest in some of the causes of crime like education, job training.
The fact is, when I am president, I am going to fix this problem. I am going to not have John Ashcroft at the Justice Department. I'm going to have an attorney general who will work to see that there is justice that is fair.
I say one final word, and it says it all. Reverend Jackson was in Connecticut some years ago, and he talked about this problem. And he said, you know, it costs more to keep a young African-American in jail than to send that same young man through Yale. That's what we ought to be doing.
IFILL: Thank you, Senator.
General Clark, this week you introduced your economic plan in which you said that you would save $2.3 trillion in 10 years by repealing part of President Bush's tax cuts and cutting waste.
CLARK: Well, I'm happy to talk about this. I think that what you've got right now in this country is a real absence of responsible government. This government has lost its bearings.
They came to office with no policies except tax cuts. And they were tax cuts for the wealthy. They said tax cuts would help us. They said tax cuts would bring us jobs; they didn't. They said they'd fix Social Security; they didn't.
CLARK: This government doesn't have a policy.
IFILL: But, General...
CLARK: ... and then we need to use them...
IFILL: Forgive me for interrupting, because I would really like for you to be more specific, in the time you have left, about exactly how you would do that.
CLARK: I'm going to give you that answer right now.
What you've got to do is you've got to put this country on a path to fiscal responsibility. That's why I gave the plan of recapturing $2.3 trillion.
I don't have a date to balance the budget, because I think it's important to use some of that money that's recaptured to meet America's urgent needs in education, health care and Social Security. That's what I'm going to do with that money. We're going to use it more wisely, more effectively and be more responsible than this administration's been.
IFILL: Carl?
CAMERON: Congressman Kucinich, when would you balance the budget?
And on tax cuts, there is a debate amongst you who are debating. Some would repeal all of the Bush tax cuts, others would repeal some but leave them in place. To repeal the Bush tax cuts, is that a tax hike on those who've seen a reduction?
KUCINICH: No, actually the tax cuts that go to people in the top brackets ought to be repealed and ought to be put into a fund to provide for universal college education, free tuition for the 12 million American students who are currently attending public colleges and universities.
Now, this administration, if it moves toward budget balancing, will inevitably balance it on the backs of the American people.
My economic strategy would be to fuel growth in the economy by having a full-employment economy, by working to rebuild our cities with a massive new WPA-type program.
KUCINICH: My economic program will include the cancellation of NAFTA and the WTO and return to bilateral trade, condition (ph) on workers' rights, human rights and the environment.
My economic program will address things like this: the sale of United States steel assets to foreign countries which are undermining our ability to defend our economy and to defend our national security.
IFILL: OK, Carl?
CAMERON: Reverend Sharpton, along the lines of budget politics, it's fairly evident that all of you up there would prefer to see the wealthiest Americans shoulder a greater part of the burden.
SHARPTON: First of all, I think that the average working family is already sharing their part of responsibility, Carl.
We are bearing our responsibilities.
In fact, it is on our backs that you are being able to do what you've been able to do. We've been the ones that have beared the brunt of the American economy. We just have not shared from the prosperity.
IFILL: Thank you, Reverend.
Huel?
PERKINS: Governor Dean, you may say "amen" if you feel so inclined.
DEAN: I am very sorry to have to speak after Brother Al. I was afraid this was going to happen.
(LAUGHTER)
PERKINS: But we are now facing the biggest budget deficit in history. You have promised that you would balance the budget by your second term.
Is Medicare on the table? Is Medicaid on the table?
DEAN: Medicare is not on the table.
DEAN: I'm a strong supporter of Medicare. It's a sound contract between the seniors of this country and Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The rest of our Social Security is not on the table. I'm a strong supporter of Social Security. And those programs need not be cut.
We can balance the budget. But if those programs are in trust funds and the trust funds are reasonably solvent -- Medicare until 2023, Social Security until about 2043 -- what you need to do is get rid of every dime of the Bush tax cuts.
Some up here say we should keep the middle-class tax cuts. What middle-class tax cuts? On the average, 60 percent of the people in this country got a $304 tax cut. One percent, which are rapidly writing $2,000 checks to George Bush, got a $26,300 tax cut.
And in the meantime, think of what's happened to your college tuition or your kids' college tuition. What about your property tax? Has that gone up more than $304 in the last 2 1/2 years?
IFILL: Excuse me just one moment. Did you say Medicaid was off the table, as well?
DEAN: I'm sorry, what?
IFILL: Did you say Medicaid was off the table, as well?
DEAN: Well, I plan to add $87 billion to Medicaid so we can have universal health insurance for everybody.
PERKINS: Senator Kerry, your plan to balance the budget?
KERRY: Well, let me just say that, last week in Iowa, Governor Dean said that entitlements were on the table. Now, if he just took Social Security and Medicare off the table, the question is, what entitlements are on the table? Veterans' pensions, food stamps, Medicaid, Social -- disability? He can't answer that question.
Now, I'm going to do exactly what Bill Clinton did. I'm going to cut the deficit in half in the first four years. Bill Clinton's plan was to balance the budget in 10 years, not the five Governor Dean says.
The reason we decided not to do it in five was because it required extraordinary cuts in the things we just talked about doing: investing in the city of Detroit, investing in our schools, investing in health care, making our economy move.
KERRY: When Governor Dean just said, "What middle-class tax cut," let me tell him what middle-class tax cut.
The Burnett (ph) family in Colfax, Iowa, earned $70,000. But under his plan, they are going to pay $2,178 more in taxes because they lose the child credit to raise their children, they pay a penalty for being married again because he puts it back, and they lose the 10 percent bracket, as everybody else here does. So you begin to be taxed at 15 percent, not 10 percent.
Those aren't Bush Republican cuts, those are the Democrat cuts that we worked hard to put in place to protect the middle class.
Bill Clinton protected the middle class; we grew the economy. If you liked Bill Clinton's economy for eight years, you're going to love John Kerry's for the first four years.
IFILL: Thank you, Senator Kerry.
And on that note, we are going to go for another commercial break, and we'll be right back with more of the debate.
IFILL: Welcome back to the Democratic presidential candidates' debate here in Detroit. We are in the historic Fox Theatre, which is celebrating its 75th year of operation, the perfect location for tonight's event.
We now enter round four of questions for the candidates. My first question, however, will go to Governor Dean, who feels like he's been knocked around a little bit. I just want to warn you, I'm calling this round "the conventional wisdom round."
Governor Dean, in your case, the rap on you, of course, is that -- is some of the things you've been hearing tonight, but including the fact that you were a small-time governor, that you are in favor of the war, but that you're -- you are against the war, but you're in favor of other things.
DEAN: Well, you know, George Bush the first called Bill Clinton a governor from a small, failed state. I welcome Senator Kerry's remarks.
If you're going to defend the president's tax cuts and you're going to defend the president's war, I frankly don't think we can beat George Bush by being "Bush lite." I think we've got to stand up for Democratic principles.
IFILL: And how do you expect to sell that notion on the road?
DEAN: How do I expect to sell that to the nation?
IFILL: Yes.
DEAN: Because I expect that when you stand up for what you believe in, people desperately want to have somebody who's not just going to tell them what they believe or what they ought to believe or what they think. What they really want is somebody who's going to stand up for Democratic Party principles.
I started out this campaign saying I was from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, which Paul Wellstone said. And I didn't meant that I was a big liberal, I was a big conservative, I was a big moderate. What I meant was, just like Paul Wellstone, I say what I think, and I don't care if 70 percent of the people in this country disagree with me, as long as I believe it's the right thing to do.
IFILL: The next person on our conventional wisdom round is Senator Kerry.
KERRY: Well, wait until you see my video, Kerry Gone Wild.
IFILL: I can't wait.
KERRY: Let me just come back quickly, if I can. What Governor Dean just said is incorrect on both counts.
Number one, I don't use the numbers of the administration. I use the Brookings Institute numbers. They are separate, completely independent and reliable.
Thirdly, with respect to the war and saying what you believe, we never heard Governor Dean ever say how he would deal with Iraq. I voted the way I think was correct to deal with the security of our country.
And we had a right as Americans to expect the president of the United States to do it properly. We have a right to expect him to make that coalition, to use the diplomacy.
I believe Americans want somebody who can defend the security of the United States. And this war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation. And the American people deserve somebody who can lead them to do it correctly and make us safer and stronger in the process.
IFILL: Thank you, Senator.
Congressman Gephardt, you've done this before. You ran for president in 1988. You got a lot of support from unions, a lot of whom seem to be hanging back. In fact, the Service Employees International Union appears to be flirting with Governor Dean.
GEPHARDT: No, I think my moment's arrived. I'm going to beat George Bush in November of 2004.
I'm going to win this race because I have the most experience, I think, of anybody on this stage. I've dealt with every issue that we've had to deal with. I've fought against the Republican ideas in 1994 of deep cuts in Medicare, big tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
GEPHARDT: I led the fight for the Clinton economic program in 1993. I'm proud of that. I'm proud I worked with the Congressional Black Caucus and the other members of our caucus to pass that economic plan. And it worked. It made America a better place. I'm proud of that.
And I'm proud that we have helped with that good economy. The poorest people in this country do better. They did better in the Clinton years than they've ever done. And incidentally, everybody did better when Bill Clinton was president.
I've said it before -- I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote for the Democrats.
IFILL: Thank you, Congressman.
GEPHARDT: One more word: Like father, like son, four years and this president is done.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, the rap on you, you're a one-term senator. You are a trial lawyer and, therefore, you're supposed to be compromised by that somehow. The expectations for you were so high in the beginning that you were on the cover of Newsweek magazine, yet in the latest Newsweek poll out today, you're in the bottom of the pack.
EDWARDS: First of all, nothing happened. I'm doing great in Iowa, moving up in New Hampshire, got a double-digit lead in the state of South Carolina.
I'm very proud of what's happening with my campaign -- first, because I have the most comprehensive plan on jobs, on the economy, on allowing all kids who are willing to work for it to go to college, to deal with the two public school systems we have in America, a real comprehensive health-care plan. I've written it down. I'm giving it out to voters all over the country, and they are responding.
More importantly, I am fighting for, in this campaign, the very people that I grew up with: people like my father, who worked in a mill all his life; people like the people that I fought for for 20 years in courtrooms against big corporations, against big insurance companies, against big drug companies.
EDWARDS: When I am president of the United States, I will continue the cause that has been the cause of my life, which is fighting for everything -- giving everything I have inside, to stand up for working people, to stand up for middle-class families and to keep them from being denied the opportunity that they're entitled to.
That's what I'll do as president of the United States. And that's the reason this campaign is going to work.
IFILL: Ambassador Braun, the last financial statements show that your campaign actually has very little money. You are the only woman in this race, yet your base of support seems to be at least thin. What is your break-out strategy?
MOSELEY BRAUN: Break-out strategy -- I think that we have a vibrant, robust campaign. I am very excited about putting this campaign effort together. We are doing very well in the polls, as you know, beating a number of candidates who have been out in the field for over a year and have 20 times the money we have. We've got a grassroots effort.
So if break-out strategy means working with people and talking to voters one-on-one, retail strategy, I am happy to do that. That's how I've always won elections. You know, my whole career has been a matter of bringing people together and building bridges and breaking down barriers.
And I've made history before when people said I couldn't win. And I intend to make history again and take the "men only" sign off the White House door.
Since I have another second, let me just tell a quick story. When I first ran for office, they told me, "Don't run, you can't possibly win. The blacks won't vote for you because you're not part of the Chicago machine. The whites won't vote for y