Heres the Transcript (National security Vs Human Rights)

[iamthebandfanman]

a special present for those who think their canidate did not say that national security is more important than human rights...
remember, giving double speak and favoring both sides is NOT answering the question.

---------------------------
BLITZER: What is more important, human rights or national security?

DODD: Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. The security of the country is number one, obviously.

----------------------------
BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests.

-----------------------------
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...

-----------------------------
Senator Obama, is human rights more important than American national security?

OBAMA: The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf.

BLITZER: Because occasionally, they could clash.

OBAMA: They are complementary. And I think Pakistan is a great example.





Id post Edwards and Bidens responses but they were asked about the situation in pakistan , not the basic question of whether or not national security trumps human rights.
Also, kucinich tried to answer the question but they didnt let him speak to it and moved on.

[maddiejoan]

1. Which part of --

--"That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests."

don't you understand?

Do you need help with that?

[iamthebandfanman]

3. what part of double speak

dont you understand?


Yes national security is more important but....



just like obama.

they want it both ways so they can please EVERYONE.

well sorry, i dont listen to people who contradict themselves during the coarse of one question, no matter who they are.

[maddiejoan]

5. I don't buy your premise.

also --the question refers to the NATIONAL security of the country --not personal liberties.

I think you are confused.

It was a stupid question --and ALL the candidates basically answered it by saying "that's a stupid question".

Kudos to Dodd, Obama and Clinton for not falling for such a dumbfuck question.

National Security and Human Rights are NOT mutually exclusive. You've been listening to Bush too long. Snap out of it.

[iamthebandfanman]

7. no they didnt

because they werent all asked the same question.

maybe im confused, but you arent proving that you arent as well.


lets just agree to disagree.


i think they are lying corporate shills(minus kucinich) who WOULD put national security infront of basic human rights ....

you dont.

[grasswire]

2. is there a link to the whole transcript?

Thanks very much if you can provide it.

[iamthebandfanman]

4. heres what i was able to find

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html



enjoy :)

[Ravy]

6. Dodd was wrong. She agreed with Dodd.

The oath promises to do two things, he got one of them wrong.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[maddiejoan]

8. read it again.

Clinton agreed with Wolf Blitzer's statement to Dodd of "You say national security is more important than human rights."



The Wolf turns to Clinton sand says : " Senator Clinton, what do you say?"


She says she agrees with that -- BUT not to the exclusion of other interests.


Honestly --how is that NOT clear? How is that doublespeak??

[Ravy]

9. Because what she agreed with was dead wrong.

Dodd was wrong about the oath.

I like Hillary. I will support and vote for her enthusiastically if she is the nominee, but she is wrong on this. I hope she addresses this, as it is a primary difference between us and the neo-cons who want the presidency to trump all under the guise "Protecting Americans is job one".

[maddiejoan]

10. She didn't agree with Dodd's statement about the oath.

READ IT AGAIN.

she agreed with BLITZER'S statement back to Dodd.

[iamthebandfanman]

11. wow

so you think she was agreeing with Wolf BLEEEETZER that Dodd just said that?

not that she agreed with what dodd said?

is that what you are saying?

[maddiejoan]

17. Did I stutter?

If you can't understand what I said --small wonder you can't understand Hillary's response

[Ravy]

13. Here is what she agreed to:

"The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests."

The first obligation of the president is to protect and defend the *Constitution* of the United States of America. The constitution is not an "other" interest. National security is the "other" interest, as long as it doesn't interfere with the Constitution.

Like I said, I like her, but she has this part wrong.

[KittyWampus]

12. Ultimately they BOTH failed to reframe the question, to highlight the false choice the GOP makes

between securing the Constitution and our physical safety.

[Supersedeas]

18. Blitzer carry the GOP water -- no way, ya think?

[mmonk]

14. .

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775


Whether human rights is related to liberty in the context Wolf spoke is the question. Was he just speaking in relationship to how we treat the rest of the world? I thought it was a bad question designed to produce sound bites for republicans.

[iamthebandfanman]

15. thats a possibility

but even so,
why should we endorse stripping the human rights of ANYONE based on our own security?

and every question is designed to work against them... it IS the MSM we are talking about.... specially when the debate is sponsored by "Clean Coal" ... lol

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Jesus.

It was a stupid question in a nearly pointless debate during which we learned nothing we did not already know about the positions of the candidates on actual, specific issues, because people like Wolf Blitzer moderate debates with an eye towards getting the candidates to fuck up, not with an eye towards enlightenment about our government.

That is all.