The Exchange; Interview with Joe Lieberman on his Presidential Candidacy

From New Hampshire Public Radio I'm Laura Conaway and this is the exchange. I've had one lesson life changes from group to group our time time and that's going to be required to defeat a president who has broken his promises. To see the American people time and time again yielded to special interest and ideological extremists. I'm going to work unite our country. And then make our future. As safe and good as we all want it. As one newspaper put it Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman has become feisty on the Democratic campaign trail. Last month when rival Howard Dean said America wasn't any safer after Saddam Hussein's capture Lieberman replied that Dean was in his own spider hole of denial. And this week Lieberman lashed out at candidates who'd eliminate all of President Bush's tax cuts. That said Lieberman is not how Democrats get elected. In fact Lieberman calls for more middle class tax cuts as part of his economic plan a plan that also promises

to reignite American innovation. Lieberman's health plan will cover the most americans for the least. Plus he says and reduce the medical error rate by 50 percent. Big promises are what elections are all about of course. But today on the exchange we'll dig into the details. How can a president really spur innovation or reduce medical errors. For that matter. Senator Lieberman is here to talk specifics on this race's top three issues that voters say they care about. The economy health care and terrorism. We'll also get his perspective on the campaign itself how it's been going here in New Hampshire and elsewhere. And we want to hear from you. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 1 800 8 9 2 9 HPR. Senator Lieberman. Nice to see you. Thanks for coming back. Good to be back. First scope of campaign questions how is it going living in Manchester. You actually moved to Manchester. That's right. I mean first we made a decision we're going to start this campaign in New Hampshire first in the nation primary. Second. Very clear from my visits here that people take it seriously

here. Their minds are open. They look at the candidates it is serious. We're talking about the leader of our country and the future of our country and then once we decide that we are going to be here a lot we said well let's just you know let's take an apartment. I have a little kitchen of our own. Bring some clothes and pots and pans up and it's working out great. My wife is here a good part of the time. One of our kids at one of our granddaughters are actually both two of the three granddaughters are coming up this weekend and it's a home away from home. Well this is my third New Hampshire presidential primary as a journalist and I think you're the first person to actually move to New Hampshire. Senator you have been campaigning a lot here forgoing the Iowa caucuses moving to Manchester. Why do you suppose you're still down in the polls. You know fourth or fifth. Yeah we're moving up. I mean and the ones that I've seen it's it's fourth and and rising. And here's the point. I'm saying what I believe and I find that voters minds are very open you've seen some movement

in the polling lately. People are taking a second look at Howard Dean who surged to a lead there taking a second look at all of us and I find the crowds at my town hall meetings my house parties are getting bigger. I'm offering the voters here in New Hampshire an America choice. I don't think we're going to beat George Bush's polarizing extreme administration by offering more polarization and more and just anger. I want to offer a different way a third way a better way and that is to say you don't have to choose between having a president who's strong on security and so in a socially progressive candidate you can have a president who can do both. You don't have to just have the president is strong on values and Democrats will be better for the economy. You can have both and I'm the one who offers both and that's why I think we're getting a great reaction not just from Democrats but from independents here in New Hampshire who I am convinced will play a critical role in how the primary comes out. I got more than 200 independents in New Hampshire who supported John McCain

in 2000 are continuing to fight against George Bush by supporting me this year and that gives me a lot of hope. You sent out a news release yesterday Senator Lieberman that said you were going to unveil a new proposal on the exchange today. Now what is that about here you go right here live and in color on the exchange with you Laura. I I find you know I listen to people and of course I look and watch myself and people are worried about the privacy of their own personal information and also concerned about how open governmental information is. And the Bush administration has it upside down. They keep private information that's public that we ought to know. Energy Task Force information about September 11th and they don't help us keep private Our private and personal information I want to turn that around and I'm offering a proposal here to do that on private information. There's an amazing amount of theft of identity theft of credit cards Social Security numbers. Twenty five

thousand people are victimized in this country every day. It's been a big issue before but by identifying identity theft there was a guy arrested in Boston awhile ago for stealing the identities of 12 men with the same name. And I want to double the penalties for identity theft as the Federal Trade Commission to vigorously go after companies that put people's credit reports together and and then don't respond when they make a mistake and people complain to them when it comes to public information. Whether it's George Bush concealing public information or Howard Dean refusing to open up his records as governor of Vermont that that's not right. The information belongs to the public. When I'm in the Oval Office it's not going to be any more secret task forces. I'm going to post a fully searchable database on government contracts. Taxpayers have a right to know where the money goes so we don't have Halliburton type scandals and I'm going to issue open government report cards for every federal agency I've got a really long and

detailed list of specific proposals to protect financial information safeguard Social Security numbers etc. etc. which will post them on our Web site and give people an opportunity to see. But that's the point. Governmental information belongs to the public unless it's really personal or are classified national security and private information. In an age of computers and technology we've got to give people the right to protect it like we have the don't call list. We've got to begin to give people the right to say don't give out my medical information don't give out my my personal shopping information. I don't I don't want to be bothered. And I want to help the federal government to set up that kind of system. Now why do you think that this is an issue that will really resonate with voters. It's not something that's really talked about that much on the campaign trail. And that's I always have felt that campaigns are about new ideas public services about seeing problems listening. I find it when you ask

people what are you worried about what do you want me to do as president. I don't want you to think they raise privacy every day. But but when you start to talk about things people are agitated about this because they know that their information is being held in computers somewhere and they worry. They also get bombarded by stuff in the mail and they worry that their private medical information can be sold and distributed. And that's not right. America the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court really does give each and every one of us a right to privacy harder to maintain in an age of information technology. But what we're going to find a way and I'm going to have the federal government when I'm president lead the way to protect privacy. This is the exchange on HPI. I'm Laura Conaway. Today my guest Joe Lieberman Connecticut Senator and Democratic presidential candidate. He's been in the U.S. Senate for three terms. He was also Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 presidential election. Senator Lieberman began his political career in Connecticut State Senate and he's also served as his

state's attorney general. And this is our third interview with Senator Lieberman So today we're going to focus on the three biggest issues voters say they care about in this campaign the economy health care and terrorism. We'll take them in that order. Join us 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 1 800 8 9 to HPR. If you want details. I want to ask questions about how Joe Lieberman would approach any of these issues. Join us with a phone call 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 and Senator Levin let's tackle the economy first. That's so often what elections are all about right. You said under the Bush administration America's economic performance has deteriorated I'm quoting from you. But as you know in the past couple of months economic growth has been picking up stocks are doing well. I read some the other day that said analysts think manufacturing is picking up so maybe George Bush's economic policies aren't so terrible. No they are. Look I'm encouraged by the numbers that are beginning to pick up but we've got to ask two questions. One is have those numbers on the stock market

been translated down to the lives of average Americans middle class people working their way up into the middle class. The answer I hear here in New Hampshire is known at least not yet. People are still worried about job security. Three million people lost their jobs most of them haven't gotten them back. They are worried about the future health insurance premiums. Child care costs college tuitions are rising high. The middle class is squeezed. That incidentally is why I'm fighting to protect the middle class tax cuts over the last three years and add a new one of my own. But the Bush economics has been the most fiscally irresponsible in the modern history of this country. And what do I mean by that. He's leaving us with a burden that future generations will have on their backs. And it is the largest debt in our nation's history. $374 billion in the last fiscal year. And what does that mean. It means number one that every dollar left over and a Social Security trust fund after the benefits are paid is eaten up to pay for the federal government IOUs are there just as

the Baby Boomers come on to look for their Social Security. Secondly there is interest on the debt. Last year American taxpayers paid $332 billion interest payments on the debt that comes out to about thirty one hundred dollars for every tax paying household a year for what it doesn't pay for a health care education Homeland Security veteran's benefits anything you can say if government services doesn't pay for government services and it's going to skyrocket in the years ahead. So we're hurting and we need to get back to fiscal responsibility we need to make the kinds of investments the president has made because it gave so much aid and tax cuts to people who don't need them. What am I talking about. Health insurance which we'll get to education veterans benefits et cetera. So but if the economy if just the raw numbers the GDP numbers that keep coming. Right. If they keep going up. Could it be possible that tax revenues will increase as businesses make more money and that the deficit will go down.

It could be. And let's hope it does. But what I'm saying is what this president did presumably to help the economy grow was extremely irresponsible and wasteful because he's put he gave money away it's the old trickle down. I mean earlier in the air on point President Bush said he and advocating his tax cut for this year said it's going to cost seven hundred and fifty billion dollars over the next 10 years and it'll create a million and a half jobs. That's half a million dollars a job. And why. Because you're giving money to people who don't need it. I want to give money to the middle class taxpayers and I want to give them to small businesses and startup businesses which actually create the jobs. And of course I want to invest in education and innovation that's the way to create more jobs and lifetime training for our workers so his program has been very wasteful the bang we've gotten has been for many too many bucks and you sort of leading into the next question I wanted to ask you how does a president create jobs.

I mean we're told that it's really the private economy that does. You touched on a couple of things I want to touch on one of them spur innovation. How does government spur innovation without getting into the role of sort of picking economic winners and losers which in our capitalist society we try to live for. Sure. Let me step back and make two general statements. First we've learned some things and I'm you know a Clinton Democrat. This is the approach we've followed that worked so well in the 90s. Government doesn't create jobs. The private sector does. But government can create an environment in which the private sector has the confidence to invest. Number one by being fiscally responsible and then government can can help the private sector invest and create jobs. But the kind of tax incentives for business investment and job creation I've talked about but also by investing in innovation. How do you do it. First by giving up permanent R&D research and development tax credit to businesses to do the research that leads to the new ideas that when matched up with capital creates new businesses new jobs and sometimes whole new industries like the facts the

cell phone and everything else. Broadband that's now biotech that's now coming along. The second is and people lose sight of this. Investing in education the better public school system we have the better college and graduate schools the better students were turning out who will not only fill the high skilled jobs but will come up with the bright ideas that will create the new industries. Finally we've got to invest in innovation as a government. I've recommended programs of investment in new energy technologies new health care systems treatments and cures for illnesses that exist now. Why. Because those bright ideas that come out of the universities and the laboratories and the private companies they are the ones that we have to nurture to create the new industries that will create the new jobs of the future that will grow and protect the American middle class. So you know just a quick story Laura. I went to a business out in Illinois awhile ago and it's been having trouble trading and world markets and at one point the CEO said to me you know I've got to tell you

Joe I'm a Republican but I got a message for the Republican president when I go out to trade and world markets I feel like it's me and my workers competing against a foreign company the foreign workers in a foreign government. And I say because we're all working together. I said George Bush this man said to me where's my government. And he's absolutely right. I want to create a new relationship partnership between the government the businesses and the workers. That's the way we're going to compete create millions of new jobs here I set a goal. You can find the details on my web site. Ten million new jobs in the first four years of my presidency we can do it. We've done a billion in the first four years that's pretty ambitious. It's ambitious but it's realistic when you think back to the 90s under Bill Clinton 22 million new jobs created in the eight years. So it's kind of a modest goal to create 10 million for you as you touched earlier on trade issues. And I do want to get into those as part of your economic strategy but the phone lines are full. So let's go to them. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 is our number on the exchange

to your new hometown Manchester Senator Lieberman. Kevin is calling from there. Hi Kevin you're on the air. Welcome. Good morning. Hi Kevin. Good morning. I just have a question. I obviously want a Democratic president good next ministration. And I can't find much on the surface that distinguishes the candidates. I was hoping that you could help illustrate some differences between you and John Edwards in the area the economy. I appreciate the time. And Kevin if I could elaborate on your point you don't have to name a bunch of specific names but just in general how your your plan differs from the other Democrats because Kevin's right there are a lot of similarities there on economics particularly. I've said that in this campaign the clearest choice is between Howard Dean and me and we're having a good healthy debate about that on economics and on some other stuff. And the choice in some ways is whether we want to go back to where the Democratic Party in the government was before

Bill Clinton in 92 which I believe Howard Dean does and some central questions are whether we want to build on what worked under Clinton and take it forward and what do I mean Howard Dean has said he'd be for repealing all the Bush tax cuts. I don't agree with that. I want to repeal the ones on the highest income. I want to close corporate tax loopholes but I want to protect the middle class tax cuts which have given about $2000 a year extra in the pockets of average family of four in Manchester in what in a reduced marital tax penalty increased child tax credit and just plain lower tax bracket. I don't want to I want to keep the tax cuts for businesses small businesses accelerated depreciation etc. that will help us create growth and jobs so 1 1 difference we have with Dean and with Gephardt is I want to keep some of those tax cuts actually want to add on them. Secondly the aforementioned two and most of the other candidates are going back to a protectionist approach to the trade problem to raise walls of protection. CLINTON

I think very successfully argued that our policy ought to be to lower trade barriers abroad so we can sell products made here at home in New Hampshire. Let's let's talk facts. One out of five jobs one study I saw in this state are dependent on trade. If we built walls of protectionism those jobs will be jeopardized thousands of them. So I want to be aggressive about promoting American products abroad work with manufacturers and businesses to rebuild competitive industries and manufacturing here in this country. But contrary to George Bush get real tough on foreign countries that don't play by the by the rules of fair trade. And I think that combination is the way to grow. And it's quite different from some of the other Democratic candidates probably if I just respond to that caller Kevin with John Edwards. There are fewer differences as it happens although John does take a very strong protectionist point of view. And I think that would cost a lot more jobs than than it would save here where we can't put a wall around us. We've got to get pulled

together get tough and compete with the rest of the world we've done it before. We had a you know New Hampshire Connecticut used to have textile mills all over here. Thousands of people working. They went out. In that case they went self down to states like North Carolina out on it. Exactly. But then we pulled together and we created whole new industries here more jobs and actually better jobs that existed in textiles and with the right leadership and cooperation we could do it again. I'm sure you have heard though from hurting workers on the campaign trail including mill workers in Berlin for example that open trade hurts. My argument is unfair trade hurts but open trade. Bottom line net effect does not hurt. It creates many more jobs. It doesn't mean that every individual gains. It means that the net effect is positive. And when some people are in businesses that have been hurt by global competition fair competition then it's the obligation of our government I'm very strong on this and my Senate career and I would be as president

give those people a helping hand give them decent payments if they lose their jobs and really focus in on them and train them with governmental support for new jobs and then create in partnership with the private sector new and better jobs that they can fill even NAFTA which is very controversial. NAFTA's helped create a lot of jobs here in New Hampshire particularly trade with Canada a net effect of NAFTA at the end of the eight Clinton years and six and after it was in effect 900000 net new jobs. Even allowing for the jobs that might have been lost as a result and after we got to build on that let's go to heartline Vermont. David joins us. Hello David and you're on the air with Senator Lieberman Hi. Hi Senator Lieberman. Good morning David. Hi. I'm actually a resident of New Hampshire but I'm over here working. And I grew up in Connecticut and Waterford Connecticut. Good for you. Beautiful town. It is nice. I have two questions. One I'd like to say that it seems that in our present income tax system is in a perpetual state

of flux it's always changing and it's always an issue and it always seems to me to be pitting one group against another. How would you feel about either a flat tax for my choice or a national sales tax. And I have one other question and that is you stated if it was up to Howard Dean that Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Right. I have to agree with that. And I'm also very happy to see Saddam's gone. How about the UN what would you say about if the U.N. was in charge. And my content would be that Saddam would still be in power to it. Would you please address that effectiveness or the ineffectiveness of the U.N.. David we really have versus you know what we're running up to a break in about two minutes so I would like to have the senator address just the economic issue the sales tax or the income flat tax. And then later on the problem we're going to talk about terrorism is so fine I'll do this real briefly you know

I've looked at different times in my public service career now going over three decades so I didn't I didn't get dropped into this presidential race. I don't know where I have a record. I have experience. I know I know what I believe is right. I've looked at the National Sales Tax occasionally I've looked at the flat tax and I always come back to that the progressive income tax as we have it is is the best that we can do. It's it's fair it could be fair. That's why I'm proposing more middle class tax cuts it's a greater effect a greater proportion of the cost of federal government is paid today by the middle class and a smaller proportion is paid by the highest income and corporations. That's not fair. And that's why I'm proposing more middle class tax cuts. I'd leave 2700 dollars every year in the bank accounts of the average family of four in New Hampshire. Then Howard Dean for instance or Dick Gephardt would say that's tax reform. To me that's the best kind of tax reform we can have at this point. So in terms of sales tax national sales tax and national income

flat tax you've looked at it and I've looked at it and I just never feel that it's intriguing. But I never feel that it's that it's going to end up better and I was way with the national sales tax that what's going to happen is that it will be a national sales tax but it will end up on top of everything else and the taxpayers will end up paying more and the flat tax has a surface appeal. Steve Forbes ran on it here. I remember a while ago and I think the voters cast their judgment on that in that primary. All right coming up we will move on to Senator Lieberman's health care policy. Then we'll talk about terrorism. Stay with us. This is the exchange on an HPR. How are you doing. Doing good. More with Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman coming up in just a minute on the exchange on New Hampshire Public Radio. And coming up at 10:00 this morning on the Diane Rehm Show it's the weekly news roundup. At New Hampshire Public Radio we get support from our contributing listeners like Trisha Mitchell of Warner support also comes from the Mac company

construction managers offices in Keene Bedford New Hampshire and Wells Maine and that melon company is rebuilding the Chesham Medical Center in Keene and from southern New Hampshire University offering graduate and undergraduate programs in early childhood elementary and secondary education. As an 8 you dot edu. This is New Hampshire Public Radio. This is the exchange. I'm Laura Conaway mundane exchange the youth vote. We'll look at those young Americans who will cast ballots for the first time this presidential election. That's Monday in the exchange. Right now we're talking with Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman. He's a U.S. senator from Connecticut in his third term. He was Al Gore's running mate four years ago in the presidential election. He began his political career in the state Senate in Connecticut.

And he's also served as his state's attorney general. And today since it's our third interview with him we're focusing on the big three issues of this presidential primary campaign the economy health care and terrorism. Of course we want your calls 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 1 800 8 9 2 and HPR up Senator Lieberman. I want to talk about health care with you. As I understand your plan it's based on expansion big expansion of some current health care current health care programs. Instead of going you know all the way to universal health care how come you've decided to take that approach. Let me describe the problem for us real briefly. Forty three million Americans without health insurance. Outrageous. Nine million children. Scandalous without health insurance. Two million more. At least then when George Bush became president he's done nothing about it. So now the question is the other problem. Millions and millions more who have health insurance. I meet him every day here in New Hampshire and there they are choked choking on the increase in insurance premiums over the last couple of years. It's the

greatest pressure today on the American middle class. Beyond anything else. So what are we going to do about it. Bush has done nothing. Some of my Democratic opponents want to kind of do it all quickly. Government control. It's not going to happen. And this is such an urgent problem. I want to deal with it with a public private partnership. I want to expand an idea that works the health insurance pools that federal employees including members of Congress get our insurance from I want to create a national health insurance pool and that will create lower rates because it's bigger volume. I'm going to do something that we do in the federal employee plan. We're going to limit insurance company profit 2 percent. And as it goes on we may see that that's too generous because it's such a big pool and people will be able to buy into that. Those who don't have insurance now those who work for small businesses 50 or less and have insurance but it's cost too much self employed and unemployed. I want a promise that nobody is going to lose their health insurance if they lose their job. And you've got to make it fair have a system of subsidies for

working poor. So I've said 200 percent up to 200 percent of poverty each one of the nine million kids in America get it get this health care for nothing. On the day they're born automatically zero to twenty twenty five I say and I'm building here and an idea from the American Academy of Pediatrics because young adults think they're not going to get sick. Right. And they stay out of the health care system and they get out of college and they get off their parents plans they're uncovered and then it costs the rest of us you want to get them in the system. So what I mean with this every kid if a family has a plan at their work site and it's a good plan or keep their child in that if they think they can cover the child better and cheaper and the national health insurance pool they will do that subsidy up to 200 percent for individuals up to 185 percent and then a declining scale going to pay for it by repealing those high income Bush tax cuts. I'm real proud of this plan. And expert independent expert I guess you said it earlier said that we

would we would cover a large number of people the largest number at the lowest per person cost. And we got to do it. I was struck going through this by the statement that the plan would limit health insurer profits by 2 percent. Now how does the how is that going to go over. The government saying to an industry your profits can only be X percent. Well it's usually we don't like to have price controls in this country and I don't like the price controls because I believe in the market. But we've got a system here. This is profit controls. And the interesting thing to say and I must say myself when I started to put this plan together I didn't realize this. The federal employee health insurance pools. Members of Congress get their insurance from now have a 2 percent profit limit on insurance companies and they may gripe but they say they offer plans under the pool. Why is it so bad. Because it's so big and this national pool will be even bigger. It'll give coverage for prescription drug benefits and I don't think we're going to have any problem they may gripe

getting them into it and having them live with that limit on their profits. Let's go to Hampton now and talk to Anthony. Hi Anthony. You're on the exchange. Go ahead. Good morning. Senator Lieberman it's a pleasure to speak with you. Thank you Anthony. Good morning to you. Right. I would like to know how your health plan is going to affect people who already have a health plan. And secondly the Bush administration did pass a drug prescription benefit for people like Medicare. What do you think of it. Would you change it. Will you keep it. And finally President Clinton was very big on medical change a lot of talk no action blesh at least pass something. What will you do to implement your plan. Thank you very much. Thanks Anthony. Anthony three big questions. I'll try to answer them quickly for people who currently have insurance self-employed employed by a small business 50 or less.

They will have an option now to buy into this national health insurance pool. I will guarantee you that the cost will be less than people are paying now so this will take some of the pressure up the middle class. Rising insurance. Second on the drug benefit. I so much wanted to support a bill providing drug benefits under Medicare to seniors because I know how urgent a problem it is I got an 89 year old mom every time I talked to her almost she says Son What Have You Done. What have you done for me right. Exactly. We passed a good bill bipartisan in the Senate in June. It wasn't perfect. Matter of fact I believe I was the only one of the Democratic presidential candidates to support it. But it was good. It was a step forward. I figured if it was good enough for Teddy Kennedy was good enough for me. I got to the house and they really screwed it up. Scuse my language. Why they ended up passing a plan that I voted against. That actually takes existing drug and drug benefits away from people who

have them today then it gives where Medicaid benefits beneficiaries will get a worse drug benefit plan. Under his plan for the poor and the poor that they have now. A lot of retirees who have drug benefits under their health care plan from their employers will get less than they have now under this plan. And the bill put in $12 billion for HMO to subsidize them getting rid of Medicare. I think this is something for the government to do that we can do better. Also this is one of the more outrageous things and clearly the lobbyists for the drug companies got this. This bill prohibits Medicare from negotiating directly nationally with drug companies for the lowest possible price on prescription drugs. Now that's just outrageous and unfair. So I voted against it. Here's the good news Anthony. Most of the big parts of this bill don't go into effect until 2006. So when I get to be president in 2005 I'm going to fix it. Last point in a really important point you've got to be practical here because the the the health

insurance crisis is now and it's hurting people. And what I really like about my my plan and my reform plan is not just that it works. It can get passed. I think one of the things I'm going to bring to Washington. We haven't had it certainly in these last three years is a willingness to work across party lines to get things done. This public private partnership idea of mine will appeal not just to Democrats but to Republicans. And therefore we're actually going to get some affordable health insurance to millions of Americans who don't have it. Now do you think that Democrats in general were scarred by that Clinton experience with health care Oh sure and then I put it another way learn some lessons. I mean you can't try to do everything at once because often you end up doing nothing. And this is a real problem and I got to pick up priorities I'd go right to the nine million children help them deal with the crisis of the unemployed and then build it out. And the idea I think is is sellable and workable and ultimately that's what's going to

deliver better health care to millions of people who don't have it or can't afford it today. Senator Joe Lieberman Connecticut senator Democratic presidential candidate is the guest today in the exchange. I'm Laura Conaway. Let's hear from you. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 1 800 892 2 HPR to any exchange or third interview with Senator Lieberman. So we're focusing on the economy health care and terrorism. Again we want to hear from you. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7. Senator Lieberman I want to turn to foreign policy and terrorism now that's clearly a huge issue on the minds of voters everywhere. You gave a speech a few months ago called a safer nation tomorrow and beyond. How do you Joe Lieberman as a president make this nation safer. Right. The first thing to say is that the threat of terrorism is real and ongoing and it's probably going to be the most significant threat to our security in the generation ahead. Mixed with the fear of the spread of weapons of mass destruction

and the possibility that terrorists will get their hands on a book. The president is the Commander in Chief we've got that constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense and it means different things today. I want to say first that I bring experience. I've been a member of the Armed Services Committee for 10 years. I've worked at keeping our military strong. I wrote together with a few other members of Congress the Homeland Security Department. Bill why. Because one of the reasons I think September 11th happened is that we were disorganized. And I want to get us organized to raise our guard. I fought hard against the Bush administration's priorities to get better funding for Homeland Security local police firefighters et cetera. So I got some experience as I come into this. Let's talk about the war on terrorism. It's got to start with strength. We have to stay strong in a dangerous world and know when to use our strength when it comes to al Qaeda the terrorists. We've got to do everything we can to capture and or kill them. The war in Afghanistan was the most direct success and that I believe overthrowing Saddam

Hussein though it wasn't the first reason we did it will now help in undercutting the terrorists cause. Because he was working with them. Today we've got to stay the course and defeat the terrorists who are in there shooting at Americans blowing up U.N. buildings and Red Cross buildings and Shia Muslim mosque me just jump in for a second though. I think Colin Powell said just this week that there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq. I overheard the statement I want to go back and look at it and here's what I'm saying. Two things One is we know because he bragged about it that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East that were not only attacking and killing Israelis but over history have attacked and killed Americans and others. Secondly there is a trail a lot of which that is now public that shows repeated meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda through the 90s. I want to be real clear about this because none of this that I saw convinced me in a way that I feel that I can say conclusively that for instance

the Iraqis were supporting the September 11th attack against us. But I would I couldn't conclude that they were not involved with with al Qaeda because there are all these contacts so there's smoke there and I don't think we should dismiss the possibility that there there might have been fire. So number one you got to go after the terrorists and defeat them. Secondly you need a different kind of battle to be won and that is the war for the hearts and minds of the majority in the Islamic world who are obviously not al Qaeda not terrorists. There are people like you and me who are living desperately poor lives usually in despotic countries. And we've got to provide an alternative to al Qaeda for them for a better life. I have proposed. I want to lead as president an international Marshall Plan for the Muslim world and in Iraq. Ironically now unexpectedly we have an opportunity to build a stable democratizing modernizing Arab Islamic country which

will be a model for an a different way than al Qaeda. Finally we do have to raise our guard here at home our ports our chemical plants our nuclear power plants remain inadequately protected as Warren Rudman has told us clearly in our intelligence service which is the first line of defense against terrorism still by this president has not been adequately reformed or adequately supported. Those are the kinds of things I'd do. Lots and lots of questions that that flow out of that. I'm struck by the international Marshall Plan for the Islamic world after World War II it was clear that Europe needed a Marshall Plan because it had been decimated in a war. How would an Islamic country receive such a plan. You know hi I'm here from the United States I'm here to help you you know especially a proud country like Saudi Arabia will thanks we don't need your help. You know we fine. Yeah. We have to say particularly to our allies and sometimes those are not our allies. We want to try to make them friends like the

Iranians whose people are very pro-American. The government is not. You've got to get on the right side of history here. You can't continue to suppress your people. You can't continue to keep your economy stagnant have a very small group of extremely wealthy people at the top in a growing population at the bottom that's poor and not expect that radicalism is going to flourish under you and ultimately threaten your existence your regime. So we've got to make partnerships here. We've got to outreach to the Islamic world and convince try first to convince the leadership there that if they don't change that begins in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and other countries that they're the first targets of al Qaeda and the terrorists and then to work with them to change it. Frankly if they can't then to go out and work with the people to do the kinds of things we did in the former Soviet Union to work with the people to create a reform movement and to work with non-governmental organizations to provide a better life for the people there so that they

don't have to turn to fanaticism and they don't answer all the desperate problems of their daily lives with a simple answer. Hate America. Kill Americans. That's not good for us obviously but it's also no answer to the pain that they live with every day. 1 800 8 9 2 6 4 7 7 is our number in the exchange to Newmarket and Nita Hello Anita. Go ahead you're on the air. Hello. Hello. Good morning. Good morning. One question for you which is below the belt. It's probably illegal to even get if you were applying for a job. All right I'm going to have to ask it because I am a registered Democrat. I would love to vote for you. But this is a serious problem. I know I have a funny accent but I actually am an American citizen born and bred and have lived here a lot of Americans talk differently as you I know but everyone says I speak funny anyway. You speak English very well.

How would you deal diplomatically with the Middle East if you became president of this huge country and very powerful country when your religion ties you directly to Israel and support of Israel. Fair question. I'm glad you asked it. Look this is the question in a different form that John F. Kennedy answered in 1960. First Roman Catholic president people asked are you going to be more loyal to the Vatican or to the United States of America. And Kennedy said something that I would echo today he said that when he took the oath of office as a senator it was pretty much the same one he took. He looked forward to taking as president he swore a loyalty on the Bible incidentally to the United States of America to execute the offices the responsibilities associated with the office of Senator or President. And he said he had done it with a fullness of conscience and commitment as a senator would do the same as president of course I will do that too.

I'm running for president as an American who happens to be Jewish not the other way around. I understand. I love this country and deeply profoundly loyal to it. Secondly I am and I'm convinced the American people are going to judge me that way the most tolerant fair people in the world that's what I found in 2005 and again this year they're too smart and sensible to do otherwise in the world and in the Middle East particularly I'm convinced that I'm going to be judged not based on my face but on my policies. And I offer as Exhibit A to justify that contention George W. Bush most disliked distrusted president of the United States around the world in a long time not because of his religion but because of his policies. I have spent a lot of time traveling in the Middle East visiting with leaders on all sides Israel and all pretty much all of the Arab countries. I have always been greeted with great respect as an American senator. I've always been able to communicate my

interest and commitment to making life better for all the people in the Middle East as an as a fundamental American foreign policy goals stability in the Middle East advancement of peace between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. And I have no doubt I have a confidence inside myself that I would do more and better at this. With all respect in any of the other candidates running and I got to tell you I actually believe that a lot of people in the Arab world who I know and have built friendships with over the years share that feeling. I just give you one last word. Maybe I'm going too far. I had a four hour meeting with the head of one of the Arab nations about a year ago and he wanted to talk for the first hour about the similarities between Islam and Judaism he said to me when I walked in. You're a religious man. I know that about you. I am a religious man. You and I are going to get on well together. We're going to trust each other because we we believe in the same God and God bless him he was right.

Thanks for the question Anita let's go to north and talk to Linda. Go ahead Linda go ahead. Hello. Senator Lieberman it's good to talk with you. So many questions as you and I wish we had time to go into a real heavy intellectual debate about all these important issues. So many of them in this country and foreign policy being number one with many of us who have relatives in the military who are you know you hear that almost 500 dead now in Iraq. Can God knows how many thousands wounded but no limbs and eyes and things that have gone on in Sir I heard the report on the news last night from the Carnegie Center about how there were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States of America which did not call for a imminent war that Bush did. And yet you supported this and you continue to support this even though there are

many people in this country who as time goes on are going to realize how stupid it was to pre emptive lead go to war with a country that really wasn't responsible for September 11. Yeah I saw the down again. I saw the carnage can speak to that said that there was you know no weapons of mass destruction kind of undercutting the rationale for going to war. Thanks for the question. Look the decision to go to war was somber and serious one and I respect people who disagreed with my judgment. I frankly have less respect for people who waffled on it because it's a very serious decision. I made my decision long before George Bush became president. John McCain and I Bob Kerrey some Republicans put in a bill in 1998 after Saddam Hussein kicked out the inspectors U.N. inspectors the first time and we said we've got to change the regime in Baghdad. This guy Saddam Hussein is a ticking time bomb that's going to go off if

we don't stop him and kill a lot of Americans and a lot of other people he's brutalizing his own people. He's a terrible dictator. Since the war this year we found mass graves with over three hundred thousand bodies. He has a plan. He wants to dominate the Arab world. That will be terrible for the Arab world and terrible for the rest of the world including America. He had weapons of mass destruction. There's no question about that. He used them against the Kurds and the Iranians in the 90s. He told the United Nations unless for some bizarre reason he was lying. Exactly how much chemical and biological nuclear weapons that he had capable of killing tens of millions of people. The United Nations Hans Blix France Germany everybody else who opposed the war against Iraq Saddam this year all said yes he has an account for his weapons of mass destruction so we assume he still has them. We don't think we should go to war we think the inspection but we think there should be. Look we haven't found him yet. Maybe there was a failure of

intelligence here. Where are they. I don't know. We know he had them earlier. But I want to say this. They even pulled out some inspection teams recently. I was troubled by that. The world is safer with Saddam Hussein gone. And I don't know how anybody could say otherwise. The fact is that the Iraqi people now have a chance for a better life for your life. They're not going to be brutalized and tortured and suppressed. The neighbors are now going to be free assuming we stabilize Iraq and don't cut and run. The fear of invasion we're going to create a stable democratizing modernizing country in the middle of the Arab and Islamic world that will be a model of a different path a different way than than gone fanatical and terrorist ways. So I I believe and I knew when I took this position last fall that it was going to create controversy in the Democratic presidential primaries. But you know when you're running for president you got to do what you think is right not what's politically popular and I believe that history will show

that those that the decision to go in and I got to be real direct about just the lives that were lost they're heartbreaking have provided safety and security for coming generations of Americans and saved millions of lives that Saddam would have taken of his own people his neighbors and Americans. Let's go to Concord next. Eric is up. Hello Eric. You're on the air. Hello. Good morning Senator. Good morning Eric. My question is with regard to the southern states that would be would need to be one in order to carry the election and that you were on the ticket in 2000 and you know Al Gore was not able to carry that required seven states. And I'd like to know what has changed in how you plan to win those southern states. That question is very important because I've said to my fellow Democrats we've got to think about electability here we all want to defeat George Bush. You're not going to feed the extremes of George Bush with other extremes. We've got to have a candidate

like myself who can take the president on on defense security and values where it's supposed to be strong and I believe I can take him on and defeat him on those. But then really go out and defeat him on his failed economic policies which have cost us so many jobs and security. And on his socially regressive right wing programs and this is a message that I think can win a lot of places around the country. This is my campaign and I'm I'm doing what I think is right and the people in the south particularly want to hear about strength on security and strength and values that's been my whole record. But they're also hurting economically the middle class is being stressed there and I think we've got to go back to the Democratic Party of Truman and Kennedy and Clinton which was strong on security strong on jobs and socially progressive. And that's the unique combination that I offer of all the nine candidates and I think that's why President Bush apparently said to one foreign leader talking about the election of

2004 that the most formidable opponent that the Democrats could nominate against them was me. And this is what did you say to this party a couple of months ago reporter in the Australian press. And this is one position that I do agree with George Bush is probably the only one who will not do. Senator Levin thank you very much. I really appreciate your time Laura. Great to be with you. Good exchange. Connecticut Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman. He is a U.S. senator in his third term running again in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary. I want to remind you that this Wednesday January 14th the exchange is holding a special 10:00 a.m. simulcast with the stations of Iowa Public Radio and South Carolina Public Radio. Our topic will be first in the nation. We'll look at how these three races are shaping up how they might affect races in the rest of the country. So again that's a special simulcast with New Hampshire Iowa and South Carolina next Wednesday January 14th at 10:00 a.m. on HPR. The exchange is a production of HPR produced by

Rebecca Kauffman Keith shields and frankly our engineer today was Ty Fraley. And I'm Laura can I