Richardson: Our strength as a nation is our values -- equality, freedom, democracy, human rights.

[MH1]

From last night's debate:

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=8361435

BLITZER: Well, let me bring in Governor Richardson.

Governor Richardson, you've suggested cutting off military aid to Pakistan, so long as the Pakistani leader doesn't take these steps to restore the constitution, take off his military uniform, end the national state of emergency and have free and fair elections. But some are worried, including the opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto -- I spoke with her earlier this week -- that cutting off military aid to the Pakistan military could undermine U.S. national security.

This is a country that has nuclear weapons. It has a strong Taliban presence, an al Qaeda presence. Are you worried at all that as bad as President Musharraf might be, it could get a whole lot worse over there?

RICHARDSON: Well, of course, I'm worried. But what happened with our Pakistan policy, we got our principles wrong. We forgot our principles, our principles that we said to Musharraf, you know, Musharraf, security is more important than human rights. If I'm president, it's the other way around -- (applause) -- democracy and human rights.

What I would do is, yes, I would condition the assistance to Musharraf. We give him $10 billion. 60 percent of that is to his military. I would say, President Musharraf, unless you restore the constitution, unless you have elections in January, unless you end the state of emergency, unless you allow Benazir Bhutto to run as a candidate, unless you put the supreme court back.

And something else we've forgotten: He is supposed to go after terrorists on his border, and he has done a very weak job of doing that. (Scattered applause.) And you know, I would condition the assistance.

BLITZER: All right.

RICHARDSON: But here is another point -- no, but here's another point. Pakistani -- in Pakistan -- in the politics of Pakistan, Islamic parties get maybe 15 percent of the vote. I mean, so this threat that, oh, revolutionary elements are going to overtake him -- if he has a fair election, and you take his party and Benazir Bhutto's party and you get the military --

BLITZER: But --

RICHARDSON: -- I believe that moderate forces can win. So if we're on the side of democracy and human rights and we're on the side of Musharraf having elections, then U.S. interests are preserved and the Pakistani people have a democracy. (Applause.)

BLITZER: Let me just be precise because I want to make sure we all -- I heard you correctly. What you're saying, Governor, is that human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?

RICHARDSON: Yes, because I believe we -- (applause) -- we need to find ways to say to the world that, you know, it's not just about what Halliburton wants in Iraq, it's also about our -- (cheers, applause) -- values of freedom, equality. Our strength is not just military and economic. Our strength as a nation is our values -- equality, freedom, democracy --

BLITZER: All right. All right.

RICHARDSON: -- human rights. (Applause.)

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, I want you to weigh in.

RICHARDSON: That's why we are strong.

[rudeboy666]

1. True but

there are special cases where national security is paramount (although these should be a rare and tragic cases).

We still live in a dangerous world.

Don't get me wrong, Richardson is generally correct (and should be applauded). However, special cases require a different response.

[Adelante]

2. I absolutely agree philosophically with Richardson on this

However, as it was coupled with national security in the debate last night, the first obligation of a president is to protect the nation, so I'm not sure he did himself as much good with it as he could have with first making the declarative statement. He is absolutely right as the long term approach, it is what will best protect the nation, and I was thrilled when he said all of this, I was applauding.

[unpossibles]

3. It is more important

if we end up becoming that which we are "protected" against - a theocratic police state - then what is the point ultimately?

[MH1]

4. Exactly.

I was disappointed in those that unhesitatingly put "national security" first.

(Oh, and there is a reason why I keep putting "national security" in quotes.)

[MH1]

5. Wow

I'll bet if Obama or Edwards said this it would be getting more attention.

We're our own worst enemy.