Watch Clip

Well, the problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are currently underfunded. I want to increase early childhood education. And the notion that we should freeze that when there may be, for example, this Medicare subsidy I think doesn't make sense. Let me tell you another place where I'd like to look for some savings. We're currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close. less more

Watch Clip

-- it's well-known -- it's well-known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate, nor with the administration. I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoners, on -- on Guantanamo Bay, on a long -- on the way that the Iraq war was conducted. I have a long record, and the American people know me very well. less more

Watch Clip

All right. Let's go to another subject. Lead question. Two minutes to you, Senator McCain. Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam. (View cut data) What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?

Watch Clip

I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear, that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict. Our initial military success, we went into Baghdad and everybody celebrating, and then the war was very badly mishandled. I went to Iraq in 2003 and came back and said we've got to change the strategy. This strategy requires additional troops, it requires a fundamental change in strategy, and I fought for it. And finally we came up with a great general and a strategy that has succeeded. This strategy has succeeded, and we are winning in Iraq. And we will come home with victory and with honor. And that withdrawal is the result of every counterinsurgency that succeeds. And I want to tell you that now that we will succeed and our troops will come home, and not in defeat, that we will see a stable ally in the region and a fledgling democracy. The consequences of defeat would have been increased Iranian influence, it would have been increasing sectarian violence, it would have been a -- a wider war, which the United States of America might have had to come back. So there was a lot at stake there. And thanks to this great general, David Petraeus, and the troops who serve under him, they have succeeded, and we are winning in Iraq, and we will come home -- and we will come home as we have when we have won other wars and not in defeat. less more

Watch Clip

Two minutes for how you see the lessons of Iraq, Senator Obama.

Watch Clip

Well, this is an area where Senator McCain and I have a fundamental difference because, I think, the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place. Now, six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war, at a time when it was politically risky to do so, because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world and whether our intelligence was sound but also because we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan. We hadn't caught bin Laden. We hadn't put al Qaeda to rest. And as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. Now, Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment. And I wish I had been wrong, for the sake of the country, and they had been right. But that's not the case. We've spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be a trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded. And most importantly from a strategic, national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001. We took our eye off the ball and not to mention that we are still spending $10 billion a month, when they have a $79 billion surplus, at a time when we are in great distress here at home and we just talked about the fact that our budget is way overstretched, and we are borrowing money from overseas to try to finance just some of the basic functions of our government. (View cut data) So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not as president in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely, and we did not use our military wisely in Iraq. less more

Watch Clip

Do you agree with that lesson of Iraq?

Watch Clip

No, the next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That's the decision of the next president of the United States. Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program he said it exceeded our wildest expectations. But yet, after conceding that, he still says that he would oppose the surge if he had to decide that again today. Incredibly -- incredibly -- Senator Obama didn't go to Iraq for 900 days, and never asked for a meeting with General Petraeus. less more

Watch Clip

Look, the -- I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And as he explains and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that don't go through my subcommittee because they're done as a committee as a whole. (View cut data) But that's Senate inside baseball. Let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war. less more

Watch Clip

I'm afraid -- I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy, but the important -- I'd like to tell you, two 4ths of July ago I was in Baghdad. General Petraeus invited Senator Lindsey Graham and me to attend a ceremony where 688 brave young Americans whose enlistment had -- had expired were reenlisting to stay and fight for Iraqi freedom and American freedom. (View cut data) I was honored to be there. I was honored to speak to those troops. And you know, afterwards we spent a lot of time with them. And you know what they said to us? They said, "Let us win." They said, "Let us win. We don't want our kids coming back here." And this strategy and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq. less more

Watch Clip

They just passed an electoral -- an election law just in the last few days. There is social/economic progress, and a strategy -- a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you. They inform on the bad guys, and peace comes to the country, and prosperity. That's what's happening in Iraq, and it wasn't a tactic. It was a strategy -- less more

Watch Clip

And Senator Obama, who after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Watch Clip

Jim, there are a whole of bunch of things we got to answer. First of all, let's talk about this -- this troop funding issue, because John always brings this up. Senator McCain cut -- Senator McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable because he didn't believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable and was open-ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. (View cut data) We had a difference on the timetable. We didn't have a difference on whether or not we were going to be funding troops. We had a legitimate difference. And I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country, once we have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise? We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. Senator McCain in the rush to go into Iraq said, you know what; we've been successful in Afghanistan; there is nobody who can pose a threat to us there. This is at a time when bin Laden was still out. And now they've reconstituted themselves. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges, the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there. But we can't do it if we are not going to give Iraq back its country. Now, what I've said is, we should end this war responsibly; we should do it in phases. But in 16 months, we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put, provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda. And right now the commanders in Afghanistan as well as Admiral Mullen have acknowledged that we don't have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan because we still have more troops in Iraq than we did before the surge. less more

Watch Clip

And also General Petraeus said the same thing. Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus have one thing in common that I know of: they both said that Iraq is the central battleground. Now, General Petraeus has praised the successes, but he said those successes are fragile. And if we set a specific date for withdrawal -- and by the way, Senator Obama's original plan they would have been out last spring, before this surge ever had a chance to succeed. And I -- and I'm -- I'm -- understand why Senator Obama was surprised and said that the surge succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. Didn't exceed beyond mine -- less more

Watch Clip

Afghanistan. Lead -- a new lead question. Having resolved Iraq, we'll move to Afghanistan. (Laughter.) And it goes to you, Senator Obama, and it's -- it's -- it picks up on a point that's already been made. Do you think more troop -- more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan? How many, and when? less more

Watch Clip

Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now. And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better. We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing major offensive taking place -- al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. (View cut data) They are feeling emboldened. And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan. So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where in fact there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan. And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that -- Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front, the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though -- it's not just more troops. We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai. Number two, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years. Number three, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan across the border in the northwest regions and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens. And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe. less more

Watch Clip

First of all, I won't repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region, and the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the -- a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can't ignore those lessons of history. Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, "if you're going to aim a gun at somebody," George Schultz, our great secretary of State, told me once, "you better be prepared to pull the trigger." I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan, so I'm not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan. We've got to get the support of the people of -- of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan. Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government. Now, the new president of Pakistan, Qadari (sic/Zardari), has got his hands full. And this area on the border is not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great. I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes. And yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy -- the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq -- that's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan. And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people, and it's going to be tough. (View cut data) They've intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas. And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don't want that government to cooperate with us in combatting the Talipan -- Taliban and jihadist elements. So we've got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I'm confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops. And by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32 to 53,000, and there needs to be more. So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with them. And I guarantee you, I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them. less more

Watch Clip

Jim, let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant -- from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay. And she asked me, "Can you please make sure that another mother's not going through what I'm going through?" Now, the -- no U.S. soldier ever dies in vain, because they are carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided. And they've -- our troops have performed brilliantly. The question is for the next president -- are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe -- precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step. And the point that I originally made is that we took our eye off Afghanistan; we took our eye off the folks who perpetrated 9/11. They are still sending out videotapes. And Senator McCain, nobody's talking about defeat in Iraq, but, you know, I have to say that we are having enormous problems in Afghanistan because of that decision. And it is not true that you have consistently been concerned about what happened in Afghanistan. I mean, at -- at one point, while you were focused on Iraq, you said, well, we can muddle through Afghanistan. You don't muddle through the central front on terror. And you don't muddle through going after bin Laden. You don't muddle through stamping out the Taliban. I think that is something that we have to take seriously. And when I'm president, I will. (Cross talk.) less more

Watch Clip

You know, you might, you might think that with that kind of concern, that Senator Obama would have gone to Afghanistan particularly given his responsibilities as the subcommittee chairman. And by the way, when I'm subcommittee chairman, we take up the issues under my subcommittee. But the important thing is, the important thing is, I've visited Afghanistan and I've traveled to Waziristan and I've traveled to these places. And I know what our security requirements are and I know what our needs are. And so the point is that we will prevail in Afghanistan. But we need the new strategy and we need it to succeed. But the important thing is, if we suffer defeat in Iraq, which General Petraeus predicts we will if we adopted Senator Obama's set date for withdrawal, then that will have a calamitous effect on Afghanistan and American national security interest in the region. Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand, there's a connection between the two. less more

Watch Clip

My reading of the threat from Iran is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it's an existential threat to the state of Israel. And it is a threat to the region, because the other countries in the region will feel a compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well. Now, we cannot allow a second Holocaust. Let's just make that very clear. But I have proposed for a long time -- and I've had conversation with foreign leaders about -- forming a league of democracies. Let's be clear and let's have some straight talk: the Russians are preventing significant action in the United Nations Security Council. I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people -- a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals. And they also control a lot of the world's economic power. We could impose significant, meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect. The Iranians have a lousy government, so therefore their economy is lousy even though they have significant oil revenues. So I am convinced that together we can, with the French, with the British, with the Germans and other countries -- democracies around the world, we can affect Iranian behavior. But have no doubt -- but have no doubt that the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight. And it is a threat not only in the region, but around the world. But I'd also like to point out the Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq, which are killing young Americans. There are special groups in Iran that are coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran. (View cut data) And there is the -- are the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative. So this is a serious threat. This is a serious threat to the security in the world, and I believe we can act, and we can act with our friends and allies and -- and reduce that threat as quickly as possible. But have no doubt about the ultimate result of them acquiring nuclear weapons. less more

Watch Clip

Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe that the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq to deal with Iran. And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away, and what we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah. They have funded Hamas. They have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon. So obviously our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Now, Senator McCain is absolutely right; we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game-changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set up an arms race in the Middle East. Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we're going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation from countries, like Russia and China, that are -- I think Senator McCain would agree -- not democracies but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. But we're also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran, and this is a major difference that I have with Senator McCain. This notion that by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran. It has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts at isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States. less more

Watch Clip

Well, first of all, I think that we are safer in some ways. Obviously we've poured billions of dollars into airport security. We have done some work in terms of securing potential targets. But we still have a long way to go. We've got to make sure that we're hardening our chemical sites. We haven't done enough in terms of transit. We haven't done enough in terms of ports. And the biggest threat that we face right now is not a nuclear missile coming over the skies; it's in a suitcase. This is why the issue of nuclear proliferation is so important. It is the -- the biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting a hands on nuclear weapons. And we, we are spending billions of dollars on missile defense. And I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons. But I also believe that when we are only spending a few hundred million dollars on nuclear proliferation, then we're making a mistake. The other thing that we have to focus on though is al Qaeda. They are now operating in 60 countries. (View cut data) We can't simply be focused on Iraq. We have to go to the root cause, and that is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's going to be critical. We are going to need more cooperation with our allies. And one last point I want to make. It is important for us to understand that the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference in terms of our capacity to get cooperation and root out terrorism. And one of the things that I intend to do as president is to restore America's standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago or even four years ago. And this is the greatest country on Earth. But because of some of the mistakes that have been made -- and I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security -- because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America's that shining beacon on a hill. less more

Watch Clip

But I -- but in the case of missile defense, Senator Obama said it had to be, quote, "proven." That wasn't proven when Ronald Reagan said we would do SDI, which is missile defense, and it was major -- a major factor in bringing about the end of the Cold War. We seem to come full circle again. Senator Obama still doesn't quite understand or doesn't get it that if we fail in Iraq, it encourages al Qaeda. They would establish a base in Iraq. The -- the consequences of defeat, which would result from his plan of withdrawal and according to date certain, regardless of conditions, according to our military leaders, according to every expert, would lead to possible defeat, loss of all the fragile sacrifice that we've made of American blood and treasure, which grieves us all. All of that would be lost if we followed Senator Obama's plan to have specific dates with withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground. MR. LEHRER. Do -- SEN. MCCAIN. And General Petraeus says we have had great success, but it's very fragile. And we can't do what Senator Obama wants to do. That is a central issue of our time, and I think Americans will judge very seriously as to whether that's the right path or the wrong path and who should be the next president of the United States. less more

Watch Clip

Oh, there's no doubt. Look, over the last eight years, this administration, along with Senator McCain, have been solely focused on Iraq. That has been their priority. That has been where all our resources have gone. In the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed. Al Qaeda is resurgent. In the meantime, we've got challenges, for example, with China, where we are borrowing billions of dollars -- they now hold a trillion dollars' worth of our debt. And they are active in countries like -- in regions like Latin America and Asia and Africa. They are -- the conspicuousness of their presence is only matched by our absence, because we've been focused on Iraq. We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens. Not to mention -- look at our economy. We are now spending 10 or -- billion dollars or more every month. And that means we can't provide health care to people who need it. We can't invest in science and technology, which will determine whether or not we are going to be competitive in the long term. There has never been a country on earth that saw its economy decline and yet maintained its military superiority. So this is a national security issue. We haven't adequately funded veterans' care. I sit on the Veterans Affairs Committee and we've got -- I meet veterans all across the country who are trying to figure out, how can I get disability payments? (View cut data) I've got post-traumatic stress disorder and yet I can't get treatment. So we have put all chips in right there, and nobody is talking about losing this war. What we are talking about is recognizing that the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face that's been missing over the last eight years. That sense is something that I want to restore. less more

Watch Clip

You both have sons who are in Iraq or on their way to Iraq. You, Governor Palin, have said that you would like to see a real clear plan for an exit strategy. What should that be, governor?

Watch Clip

I am very thankful that we do have a good plan. And the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq that has proven to work, I am thankful that that is part of the plan implemented under a great American hero, General Petraeus, and pushed hard by another great American, Senator John McCain. I know that the other ticket opposed this surge, in fact, even opposed funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama voted against funding troops there after promising that he would not do so. And Senator Biden, I respected you when you called him out on that. You said that his vote was political and you said it would cost lives. And Barack Obama at first said he would not do that. He turned around under political pressure and he voted against funding the troops. We do have a plan for withdrawal. We don't need early -- early withdrawal out of Iraq. We cannot afford to lose there or we're going to be no better off in the war in Afghanistan, either. We have got to win in Iraq. And with the surge that has worked, we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq. That's where we can be. We can start putting more troops in Afghanistan as we also work with our NATO allies who are there strengthening us. And we need to grow our military. We cannot afford to lose against al Qaeda and the Shi'a extremists who are still there, still fighting us. But we're getting closer and closer to victory, and it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq. less more

Watch Clip

Gwen, with all due respect, I didn't hear a plan. Barack Obama's offered a clear plan: shift responsibility to the Iraqis, over the next 16 months draw down our combat troops -- ironically, the same plan that Maliki, the -- the prime minister of Iraq, and George Bush are now negotiating. The only odd man out here, only one left out, is John McCain, number one. Number two, with regard to Barack Obama not, quote, "funding the troops," John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against funding the troops because the amendment he voted for -- voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops, and John said "I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there was a timeline." Barack Obama and I agree fully and completely on one thing: you've got to have a timeline to draw down the troops and shift responsibility to the Iraqis. We're spending $10 billion a month while the Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus. Barack says it's time for them to spend their own money, have the 400,000 military we've trained for them begin to take their own responsibility, and gradually, over six months -- 16 months, withdraw. John McCain -- this is a fundamental difference between us -- we will end this war. For John McCain, there is no end in sight to end this war. Fundamental difference: we will end this war. less more

Watch Clip

Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq, and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure, and it's not what our nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge, the surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the -- the surge works. We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also, in working with us, are knowing, again, that we're getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight. Now you said regarding Senator McCain's military policies there, Senator Biden, that you supported a lot of these things. In fact you said that you wanted to run -- you'd be honored to run with him on the ticket, and that's an indication, I think, of some of the support that you had, at least until you became the VP pick here. less more

Watch Clip

Well, they're both extremely, extremely dangerous. I always have focused -- as you know -- (chuckles) -- Gwen, I've 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'd both be game-changers. But look, here's what the fundamental problem I have with John's policy about terror and stability. 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 -- our security services have said -- it's 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 as well as their economic well-being. There have been 7,000 madrassas 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 actually are 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. less more

Watch Clip

Both are extremely dangerous, of course. And as for who termed that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was General 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 the central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that; I would believe Petraeus and that 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 is -- 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 ones that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions being met first. 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. less more

Watch Clip

Okay. I'd like to just really quickly mention there too, that when you look back and you say that the Bush administration's policy on Afghanistan perhaps would be the same as McCain -- and that's not accurate. The surge principles, not the exact strategy, but the surge principles that have worked in Iraq need to be implemented in Afghanistan also. And that perhaps would be a difference with the Bush administration. Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment, an untrue comment, again, hurts our cause. That's not what we're doing there. We're fighting terrorists and we're securing democracy, and we're building schools for children there so that there is opportunity in that country also. There will be a big difference there. And we will win in Afghanistan also. less more

Watch Clip

I'll talk about both. With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen. The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge -- the surge principles used in Iraq will not -- let me say this again now. Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. Not Joe Biden; our commanding general in Afghanistan. He said we need more troops, we need government building, we need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan. Look, we have spent more money -- we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we've spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country. Let me say it again. Three weeks in Iraq; seven years -- seven years, or six and a half years, in Afghanistan. Now, that's number one. Number two, with regard to arms control and weapons, nuclear weapons require a nuclear arms control regime. John McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every Republican has supported. John McCain has opposed amending the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with an amendment to allow for inspections. John McCain has not been -- has not been the kind of supporter for dealing with and -- by the -- let me put it another way. My time's almost up. Barack Obama, first thing he did when he came to the United States Senate, new senator, reached across the aisle to my colleague Dick Lugar, a Republican, and said, "We've got to do something about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." They put together a piece of legislation that, in fact, was serious and real. Every major -- I shouldn't say every -- on the two, at least, that I named, I know that John McCain has been opposed to extending the arm control regime in the world. less more

Watch Clip

Well, our commanding general did say that. The fact of the matter is that -- again, I'll just put it in perspective. While Barack and I and Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar have been calling for more money to help in Afghanistan, more troops in Afghanistan, John McCain was saying two years ago, quote, "The reason we don't read about Afghanistan anymore in the paper, it's succeeded." Barack Obama was saying we need more troops there. Again, we spend in three weeks on combat missions in Iraq more than we spent in the entire time we have been in Afghanistan. That'll change in a Barack Obama administration. less more

Watch Clip

Senator, you have quite a record -- this is the next question here -- of being an interventionist. You have argued for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, initially in Iraq, in Pakistan, and now in Darfur, putting U.S. troops on the ground, boots on the ground. Is this something the American public has the stomach for? less more

Watch Clip

Well, I think the American public has a stomach for success. And my recommendations on Bosnia -- I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it, along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked. And look what we did in Bosnia. We took Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, being told by everyone -- I was told by everyone that this would mean that -- they've been fighting and killing each other for a thousand years, it could never work. There's a relatively stable government there now, as there is in Kosovo. With regard to Iraq, I indicated that it would be a mistake to go into -- I gave the president the power, I voted for the power, because he said he needed it not to go to war, but to keep the United States -- the U.N. in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted. From the -- I, along with Dick Lugar, before we went to war, said if we were to go to war without our allies, without the kind of support we needed, we'd be there for a decade, it would cost us tens of billions of dollars. John McCain said no, it was going to be okay. I don't have a stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It's within our capacity. We can lead NATO, if we're willing to take a hard stand. We can. I've been in those camps in Chad. I've seen the suffering. Thousands and tens of thousands of people have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act, and we should demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get those 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide. less more

Watch Clip

I beg to disagree with you again, here, on whether you supported Barack Obama or John McCain's strategies. Here again, you can say what you want to say a month out before people are asked to vote on this, but we listened to the debates. I think tomorrow morning, you know, the pundits are going to start doing the "who said what at what time" and we'll have proof of some of this. But again, John McCain, who knows how to win a war, who's been there and he's faced challenges and he knows what evil is and he knows what it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military. He knows to learn from the mistakes, from the blunders that we have seen in the war in Iraq, especially. He will know how to implement the strategies, working with our commanders, though, and listening to what they have to say, taking the politics out of these war issues. He'll know how to win a war. less more

Watch Clip

God forbid that it would ever happen. It would be a national tragedy of historic proportions, if it were to happen. But if it did, I would carry out Barack Obama's policies: his policies of reinstating the middle class, making sure that they get a fair break; making sure that they have access to affordable health insurance; making sure they get serious tax breaks; making sure that we can help their children to get to college; making sure we have an energy policy that leads us in the direction of -- not only toward independence and a cleaner environment, but an energy policy that creates 5 million new jobs; a foreign policy that ends this war in Iraq; a foreign policy that goes after the one mission the American public gave the president after 9/11, to get and capture or kill bin Laden and to eliminate al Qaeda; a policy that would, in fact, engage our allies in making sure that we knew we were acting on the same page and not dictating, and a policy that would reject the Bush doctrine of preemption and regime change and replace it with a doctrine of prevention and cooperation. And ladies and gentlemen, this is the biggest-ticket item that we have in this election. This is the most important election you will ever, ever have voted in, any of you, since 1932, and where such stark differences -- I would follow through on Barack's policies because in essence I agree with every major initiative he is suggesting. less more

Watch Clip

All you got to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington and go to Katy's (sp) Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me, where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years. And then ask them whether there's a single major initiative that John McCain differs with the president on: on taxes, on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on the whole question of how to help education, on the dealing with health care. Look, the people in my neighborhood, they get it. They get it. And they know they've been getting the short end of the stick. So walk with me in my neighborhood. Go back to my old neighborhood in Claymont, an old steel town, or go up to Scranton with me. These people know the middle class has gotten the short end, the wealthy have done very well, corporate America's been rewarded. It's time we change it. Barack Obama will change it. less more

Watch Clip

Well, I thank you for that question because there's no doubt, and history shows us, that nations that are strong militarily over time have to have a strong economy, as well. And that is one of the challenges that America faces. But having said that, America -- and we'll hear a lot of criticism and have heard a lot of criticism about America and our national security policy and -- and all that, and much of that criticism is justified. But the fact is, America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world. My friends, we have gone to all four corners of the Earth and shed American blood, in defense, usually, of somebody else's freedom and our own. So we are peacemakers, and we're peacekeepers. But the challenge is -- is to know when the United States of America can beneficially affect the outcome of a -- of a crisis, when to go in and when not, when American military power is worth the expenditure of our most precious treasure. And that question has -- can only be answered with someone with the knowledge and the experience and the judgment -- the judgment to know when our national security is not only at risk but where the United States of America can make a difference in preventing genocide, in preventing the spread of terrorism, in doing the things that the United States has done, not always well, but we've done because we're a nation of good. And I convinced that my record, going back to my opposition from sending the Marines to Lebanon, to supporting our efforts in Kosovo and Bosnia and the first Gulf War -- and my judgment, I think, is something that I'm -- a record that I'm willing to stand on. Senator Obama was wrong about Iraq and the surge, he was wrong about Russia when they committed aggression against Georgia. And in his short career, he does not understand our national security challenges. We don't have time for on-the-job training, my friend. less more

Watch Clip

Well, you know, Senator McCain, in the last debate and today again, suggested that I don't understand. It's true; there are some things I don't understand. I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 while Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us. That was Senator McCain's judgment, and it was the wrong judgment. When Senator McCain was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy; we'd be greeted as liberators. That was the wrong judgment. And it's been costly to us. So one of the difficulties with Iraq is that it has put an enormous strain first of all on our troops, obviously -- and they have performed heroically and honorably, and we owe them an extraordinary debt of gratitude -- but it's also put an enormous strain on our budget. We've spent, so far, close to $700 billion. And if we continue on the path that we're on, as Senator McCain is suggesting, it's going to go well over $1 trillion. We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus, $79 billion. And we need that $10 billion a month here in the United States, to put people back to work, to do all these wonderful things that Senator McCain suggested we should be doing but has not yet explained how he would pay for. Now, Senator McCain and I do agree, this is the greatest nation on earth. We are a force of good in the world. But there has never been a nation in the history of the world that saw its economy decline and maintained its military superiority. And the strains that have been placed on our alliances, around the world, and the respect that's been diminished over the last eight years has constrained us being able to act on something like the genocide in Darfur, because we don't have the resources or the allies to do everything that we should be doing. That's going to change when I'm president. But we can't change it unless we fundamentally change Senator McCain's and George Bush's foreign policy. It has not worked for America. less more

Watch Clip

Well, let me just follow up, my friends. If we had done what Senator Obama wanted done in Iraq, and that was set a date for withdrawal, which General Petraeus and our chief of -- chairman (and/in ?) our Joint Chiefs of Staff have said would be a very dangerous course to take for America, then we would have had a wider war. We would have been back -- Iranian influence would have increased, al Qaeda would have reestablished a base. There was a lot at stake there, my friends. And I can tell you right now that Senator Obama would have brought our troops home in defeat. I'll bring them home with victory and with honor. And that is a fundamental difference. The United States of America, Tom, is the greatest force for good, as I said. And we must do whatever we can to prevent genocide, whatever we can to prevent these terrible calamities that we have said never again. But it also has to be tempered with our ability to beneficially affect the situation. That requires a cool hand at the tiller. This requires a person who understands what our -- the limits of our capability are. We went in to Somalia as a peacemaking organization. We ended up trying to be -- excuse me, as peacekeeping organization. We ended up trying to be peacemakers, and we ended up having to withdraw in humiliation. In Lebanon I stood up to President Reagan, my hero, and said if we send Marines in there, how can we possibly beneficially affect this situation and said we shouldn't. Unfortunately, almost 300 brave young Marines were killed. So you have to temper your decisions with the ability to beneficially affect the situation and realize you're sending America's most precious asset, American blood, into harm's way. And again, I know those situations. I've been in them all my life. And I can tell you right now the security of your young men and women who are serving in the military are my first priority, right after our nation's security. And I may have to make those tough decisions. But I won't take them lightly. And I understand that we have to say, "Never again" to a Holocaust and "Never again" to Rwanda. But we also better be darn sure we don't leave and -- and make the situation worse, thereby exacerbating our reputation and our ability to address crises in other parts of the world. less more

Watch Clip

Well, Katie, it's a terrific question. And we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda. So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there. They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course because that's the central front on terrorism. They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the Defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region, and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism. But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars, and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants. What I have said is we're going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants. And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority. less more

Watch Clip

Well, Katie, thank you. You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say, walk softly -- talk softly but carry a big stick. Senator Obama likes to talk loudly. In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable. You know, if you are, if you are a country and you're trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do anything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion. When you announce that you're going to launch an attack into another country, it's pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan. It turns public opinion against us. Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out, with the Afghan freedom fighters, drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. And then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in; al Qaeda. And we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan War. Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical, because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and al Qaeda and other extremist organizations. And we have to get their support. Now, General Petraeus had a strategy, the same strategy, very different because of the conditions and the situation, but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is, to get the support of the people. We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and get the support of the people and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others, and by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary, use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick. less more

Watch Clip

I'll be very brief. We are going to have to make the Iraqi government start taking more responsibility, withdraw our troops in a responsible way, over time, because we're going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan. General McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan right now, is desperate for more help, because our bases and outposts are now targets for more aggressive Afghan -- Taliban offensives. We're also going to have to work with the Karzai government, and when I met with President Karzai, I was very clear that you are going to have to do better by your people in order for us to gain the popular support that's necessary. I don't think he has to be a dictator. We -- we want a democracy in Afghanistan. But we have to have a government that is responsive to the Afghan people, and frankly it's just not responsive right now. less more

Watch Clip

General Petraeus has just taken over a position of responsibility, where he has the command and will really set the tone for the strategy and tactics that are using -- I've had conversations with him. It is the same overall strategy. Of course we have to do some things tactically, some of which Senator Obama is -- is correct on. We have to double the size of the Afghan army. We have to have a streamlined NATO command structure. We have to do a lot of things. We have to work much more closely with the Pakistanis. But most importantly, we have to have the same strategy which Senator Obama said wouldn't work, couldn't work -- still fails to admit that he was wrong about Iraq. He -- he still will not admit that he was wrong about the strategy of the surge in Iraq. And -- and that's the same kind of strategy of go out and secure and hold and allow people to live normal lives. And once they feel secure, then they lead normal social/economic/political lives, the same thing that's happening in Iraq today. So I have confidence that General Petraeus, working with the Pakistanis, working with the Afghans, doing the same job that he did in Iraq, will again. We will succeed and we will bring our troops home with honor and victory, and not in defeat. less more

Watch Clip

Well, the resurgence of Russia is one of the central issues that we're going to have to deal with in the next presidency. And for the most part, I agree with Senator McCain on many of the steps that have to be taken. But we can't just provide moral support. We've got to provide moral support to the Poles and Estonia and Latvia and all the nations that were former Soviet satellites, but we've also got to provide them with financial and concrete assistance to help rebuild their economies. Georgia in particular is now -- (inaudible) -- of enormous economic challenges. And some say that that's what Putin intended in the first place. The other thing we have to do, though, is we've got to see around the corners. We've got to anticipate some of these problems ahead of time. You know, back in April, I put out a statement saying that the situation in Georgia was unsustainable because you had Russian peacekeepers in these territories that were under dispute. And you knew that if the Russians themselves were trying to obtain some of these territories or push back against Georgia, that that was not a stable situation. So part of the job of the next commander in chief in keeping all of you safe is making sure that we can see some of the 21st-century challenges and anticipate them before they happen. We haven't been doing enough of that. We tend to be reactive; that's what we've been doing over the last eight years. And that has actually made us more safe. That's part of what happened in Afghanistan, where we rushed into Iraq. And Senator McCain and President Bush suggested that it wasn't that important to catch bin Laden right now and that we could muddle through, and that has cost us dearly. We've got to be much more strategic if we're going to be able to deal with all the challenges that we face out there. And one last point I want to make about Russia, energy is going to be key in dealing with Russia. If we can reduce our energy consumption, that reduces the amount of petro-dollars that they have the -- to make mischief around the world. That will strengthen us and weaken them when it comes to issues like Georgia. less more

Watch Clip

Okay. But it's -- it's very clear that I have disagreed with the Bush administration. I have disagreed with leaders of my own party. I got the scars to prove it. Whether it be bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time; whether it be opposition to spending and earmarks; whether it be the issue of torture; whether it be the conduct of the war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed; whether it be on fighting the pharmaceutical companies on Medicare -- on prescription drugs, importation; whether it be fighting for an HMO patients bill of rights; whether it be the establishment of the 9/11 commission, I have a long record of reform and fighting through on the floor of the United States Senate. less more

Watch Clip

Let me just say categorically I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies. Whenever you get a large rally of 10(,000), 15(,000), 20,000 people, you're going to have some fringe peoples. You know -- you know that. And -- and I've -- and we've always said that that's not appropriate. But to somehow say that that group of young women who said "Military Wives for McCain" are somehow saying anything derogatory about you but are anything -- and those veterans that wear those hats that say World War II, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq -- I'm not going to stand for people saying that the people come -- that come to my rallies are anything but the most dedicated, patriotic men and women that -- that are in this nation, and -- and they're great citizens. And I'm not going to stand for somebody saying that because someone yelled something at a rally -- there's a lot of things that have been yelled at your rallies, Senator Obama, that I'm not happy about either, in fact, some T-shirts that are very unacceptable. less more

Watch Clip

Oh, I think that Joe Biden is qualified in many respects, but I do point out that he's been wrong on many foreign policy and national security issues, which is supposed to be his strength. He voted against the first Gulf War. He voted against it, and obviously we had to take Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait or it would have threatened the Middle Eastern oil supply. In Iraq, he had this cockamamie idea about dividing Iraq into three countries. We're seeing Iraq united as Iraqis. It's tough, hard -- but we're seeing them -- we're now about to have an agreement for status of forces in Iraq coming up. There are several issues in which, frankly, Joe Biden and I openly and honestly disagreed on national security policy. And he's been wrong on a number of the major ones. But again, I want to come back to -- you know, notice, every time, Senator Obama says, "We need to spend more. We need to spend more. That's the answer." Why do we always have to spend more? Why can't we have transparency, accountability, reform of these agencies of government? Maybe that's why he's asked for 860 -- sought and proposed $860 billion worth of new spending and -- and wants to raise people's taxes in a time of incredible challenge and difficulty and heartache for the American families. less more