October 2:
Senator Biden and Governor Palin debated one another on Thursday evening. According to polling taken immediately after the debate, both candidates did "better than expected." These two vice presidential candidates answered a variety of questions on different issues, including, the U.S. economy, energy, immigration, health care, and foreign policy. With respect to foreign policy, both Biden and Palin addressed a question specific to Iran. Senator Biden's answer focused upon the dangers posed by Pakistan's actual possession of nuclear weapons as well as the importance of helping the people of the region with economic and political development. Governor Palin's answer focused upon the importance of Israel to the U.S. and a portrayal of President Ahmadinejad as Iran's dictator who "is not sane or stable" when he issues various sorts of statements. The AIC holds that peace is best served by a focus upon the facts, the logical arrangment of those facts, and the rational conclusions drawn from them
The importance of good questions and answers is an important aspect of the AIC's emphasis upon dialogue. In this debate, both candidates addressed the American people in hopes of demonstrating their respective approaches to Iran, Iraq, Israel and other foreign policy issues that will be problematic for the next administration.
We are interested in hearing from you. Please send us your comments so that we might better understand how their answers were understood by you.
DEBATE TRANSCRIPT ON QUESTION PERTAINING TO IRAN
Ifill: Let's move to Iran and Pakistan. I'm curious about what you think starting with you Sen. Biden. What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan? Explain why.
BIDEN: Well, they're both extremely dangerous. I always am focused, as you know Gwen, I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack on Pakistan. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than - they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed. So they're both very dangerous. They both would be game changers.
But look, here's what the fundamental problem I have with John's policy about terror instability. John continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it's going to come as our security services have said, it is going to come from al Qaeda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where they live. That's where they are. That's where it will come from. And right now that resides in Pakistan, a stable government needs to be established. We need to support that democracy by helping them not only with their military but with their governance and their economic well-being.
There have been 7,000 madrasses built along that border. We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we're actually able to take on terrorism and by the way, that's where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actionable intelligence.
IFILL: Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat?
PALIN: Both are extremely dangerous, of course. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the Gen. Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that. I would believe Petraeus and the leader of al Qaeda.
An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy of course when we're dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel as he termed it, a stinking corpse, a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, the Castro brothers, others who are dangerous dictators are one that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions being met first.
And an issue like that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment. A statement that he made like that is downright dangerous because leaders like Ahmadinejad who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.
3 Comments
The debate was helpful to see the differences between the candidates; however, while the two may have come out equally well according to public opinion, only Biden seemed to make actual sense. Palin's folksy performance made little sense for the whole debate. Of course, presidential debates are about much more than the presentation of a logical foreign policy argument, but she simply engaged in character assassination. Biden made his pro-Israeli stance clear and there seems to be no real differences in the importance placed upon the Israeli-American relationship by the two candidates. The United States has had a long and important relationship with Israel. Biden clarified the importance he places in this relatioship. Palin, for her part, seemed to be trying to increase the levels of fear and anxiety in the listening audience. Too many times have politicians sought to demonize leaders of foreign states. This is no substitute for a smart and wise foreign policy based upon interest and the true natures of the countries involved.
I was rather disappointed as to Senator Biden's response to the question quoted above. He seems to have fallen prey to the neoconservative characterization of "Madrassah", as a terrorist training center.
Governor Palin on the other hand seemed to evasively dodge a majority of the questions on foreign policy and the economy. Masking insufficient answers with phrases like "doggone it" and "say it ain't so Joe", a tactic that clearly was meant to appeal to the masses and draw attention away from the actual sub par answers.
Senator Biden's response reflects a much better understanding of what is actually transpiring in the Middle East and more broadly within the region. The fact that Governor Palin fails to recognize the merits of direct negotiations with Iran demonstrates a jaded perception of international affairs, which has failed to yield any constructive outcome. In addition, direct negotiation with Iran does not necessarily imply that the President of the United States would meet directly with President Ahmadinejad or another top profile Iranian official. It just means that the US would be able to negotiate with Iran without intermediaries which would allow us to better express our concerns and reconcile our differences.