About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

LA Times claimed Obama was "less than definitive" on human rights vs. national security, but omitted his specific statements

November 16, 2007 5:07 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

46 Comments

In a November 16 article on the Democratic presidential debate the previous night, Los Angeles Times staff writers Mark Z. Barabak and Scott Martelle reported that while discussing "the upheaval in Pakistan," Gov. Bill Richardson (NM) "stated that human rights sometimes must take precedence over national security in formulating the nation's foreign policy." The article then asserted that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "was less than definitive" about his stance on the relationship between national security and human rights, quoting him as saying, "The concepts are not contradictory. ... They are complementary." The Times did not offer any further explanation as to why Obama "was less than definitive" on the issue. In reality, during the debate, Obama elaborated on his answer, saying that "Pakistan's democracy would strengthen our battle against extremists" and that "we've got to understand that, if we simply prop up anti-democratic practices, that that feeds the sense that America is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks. And that's going to make us less safe. That's something I intend to change as president."

From the November 16 Los Angeles Times article:

The candidates were not all asked the same questions, so direct comparisons were not always possible.

Still, differences emerged. Discussing the upheaval in Pakistan, Richardson stated that human rights sometimes must take precedence over national security in formulating the nation's foreign policy. [Sen. Hillary Rodham] Clinton [NY] disagreed, along with [Sens. Joseph R.] Biden [DE] and [Chris] Dodd [CT]. "Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe," is the higher priority, Dodd said.

Obama again was less than definitive. "The concepts are not contradictory," he said. " ... They are complementary."

In contrast with earlier debates, the discussion was not dominated by the war in Iraq. The first question on the subject came about 45 minutes into the session, when the candidates were asked whether the Bush administration's "surge" policy was working. Richardson and Kucinich said it was not.

From the November 15 Democratic presidential debate hosted by CNN:

BLITZER: 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.

Look, we paid $10 billion over the last seven years, and we had two goals: deal with terrorism and restore democracy. And we've gotten neither. And Joe and Bill are exactly right on this. Pakistan's democracy would strengthen our battle against extremists. The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we're going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there's going to be in the Middle East.

We keep on making this mistake. As president, I will do everything that is required to make sure that nuclear weapons don't fall into the hands of extremists, especially going after Al Qaeda in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But we've got to understand that, if we simply prop up anti-democratic practices, that that feeds the sense that America is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks. And that's going to make us less safe. That's something I intend to change as president.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 5:15 pm ET)
         

      All this necessary elaboration, nuance, explanation, yada, yada.......why not just answer the question forcefully and directly instead of all of that?  Whew.

      At least many of the Democrats answered it correctly with national security.....except Richardson, who scared me with his answer. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (November 16, 2007 5:48 pm ET)
           

        All this necessary elaboration, nuance, explanation, yada, yada.......why not just answer the question forcefully and directly instead of all of that?

        Ha! That was good Tommy!

        Obama is an intelligent guy, but I think he's so cerebral that he does get carried away at time.

        I agree with you about Richardson. Wow what is with this guy? I had more respect & a much higher opinion of him before he decided to run for President. I don't want to sound too insulting here, but the guy often comes off as a boob.

        PLEASE don't anyone choose him for VP!!!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 5:56 pm ET)
             

          Of course keeping the country safe is the higher priority, as Dodd says perfectly, and many agreed with him. 

          It is in the President's oath, the Constitution - preservation of the security of the Nation from enemies, foreign and domestic, is the foremost reason for our government's existence.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dogrun81 (November 16, 2007 7:22 pm ET)
               

            I know everybody throws in Ben Franklin's quote about trading liberty for security, but it is something worth thinking about.

            While all the complaints we heard about wiretapping were complete crap, I agree in principle that we can't just trample on human rights needlessly. But it's a catch-22 because without security you won't have your rights anyway.

            Of course Obama didn't address the issue at all.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by justicetruthus8276 (November 16, 2007 5:54 pm ET)
           

        Tommy -

        It seems that more and more MMFA has less and less to complain about in the liberal MSM.  Honestly, MMFAs whiny little tantrums are almost becoming a parody of themselves.

        Thanks for dealing with this - you have a lot more patience than I do.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by greekfurnace (November 16, 2007 6:09 pm ET)
             

          You guys having a beer later? Compare notes? I love it :)

          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (November 17, 2007 11:02 pm ET)
             

          I would say your posts are pure unintentional satire but really they are just wingnut snivelling and stupidity.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 5:22 pm ET)
         

      Stupid question.

      Without human rights there is no such thing as national security.

      Oppressed people are desparate and dangersous people. That's all the comment Wolf's question deserved.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 5:23 pm ET)
           

        Ahh, if you don't have national security, you can kiss your human rights good-bye.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 5:27 pm ET)
             

          Screw that. Give me liberty or give me death.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 5:41 pm ET)
               

            If you're a homosexual teenager and our national security is now Iran's, then death would be it.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 5:45 pm ET)
                 

              Ridiculous non-response, Tommy.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 5:48 pm ET)
                   

                It most certainly is not.  If national security is somehow secondary to you, or not priority #1, then if it's compromised to the extent that we lose it, well, where we end up, and under what rule will make our human rights as expendable as they are in some countrys that routinely hang teenagers.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by greekfurnace (November 16, 2007 5:53 pm ET)
                     

                  Tom - this is a common response from the right side of the aisle... that is, "National security is important!" Well, to that I say, "duh".

                  It's a matter of how well our Nat'l Security is monitored and safeguarded... the Republicans think invading Iraq and, quite possibly, Iran is a good choice... etc, etc, etc... I really don't think (save Roundhouse's excited answer above) that anyone around here thinks that Nat'l Security isn't important. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 5:57 pm ET)
                       

                    Greek, The question wasn't whether one was important or not, it went to which was priority#1.....it's not about Iraq, or Iran, or Bush, or anyone else.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by greekfurnace (November 16, 2007 6:03 pm ET)
                         

                      Well, that's where it seemed you were heading with Roundhouse - the classic "Try living in Iran if you don't think Nat'l security is important!" Any nuance out the window...

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 6:12 pm ET)
                           

                        You can dismiss what I said as something so ridiculous as "try living in Iran", or it's not nuanced enough.......whatever.  The point is if a country does not put it's citizens safety above all else, then there is nothing else to worry about, much less human rights.

                        Round is on the far fringes with his opinion. I am not arguing it anymore, it is his opinion and we, and even clear thinking Democratic candidates, don't agree. 

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 6:17 pm ET)
                             

                          No. I am nestled in the values that make America worth defending.

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by greekfurnace (November 16, 2007 6:23 pm ET)
                             

                          You made the claim that it's a no-brainer... I think Obama was saying - Hey, they're both important... You think it's a no-brainer - Nat'l security #1.  That's fine... What about equally important?

                          The question is a little dumb.  Soundbite crap.  You can't have one without the other... But, essentially, I do think that Roundhouse has a point... What the hell is the point of nat'l security, if our human rights are lost in the bargain...at the hands of those who are supposed to be protecting us? Blitzter asked the question in wimpy way... Obama should've been more direct - but, his answer is valid.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 6:30 pm ET)
                               

                            Greek, With all due respect, Round is disingenuoulsy turning this into an either/or question.  It was not.  Obviously both are vitally important, but the question was one of priority, not pick one at the expense of the other. It may have been a silly question, but the answer was not hard, not for many of the candidates, and not for me. 

                            Without national security, nothing else matters - and that includes tax cuts, or abortion rights, or education, and yes, even human rights.  You can't possibly disagree with that? 

                            Round knows that, but he is just being dishonest by framing it his way.  

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by greekfurnace (November 16, 2007 6:36 pm ET)
                                 

                              After reviewing the comments...You may be right. But, personally - I believe the best answer is that they are equally important... you can't have one without the other and I think Obama tried to express that sentiment. Having to choose is dumb. Nuff said. Thanks :) 

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 6:53 pm ET)
                                   

                                Truly? You think I might be being disengenuous?

                                I may not be interpreting with fullness and clarity the points we all are making. But I guarantee you that I am being as honest as I am able.

                                Report Abuse
                            • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 6:44 pm ET)
                                 

                              What a hoot.

                              So placing them in order of importance so that one trumps the other at crunch time isn't an either/or situation? Blitzer did mention that the two may clash. That would indicate that when push comes to shove he (Blitzer) thinks it's an either/or dilema.

                              But I guess I am just being disengenuous and you should know better than anyone what it takes to be so. That's one criticism I'll take to heart from an expert like yourself.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 6:51 pm ET)
                                   

                                Well, even if they have to clash and you need to pick one over another, then the obvious answer is national security. 

                                Because you have yet to address how if we don't have that, then we still may be able to have human rights?  Or in other words, if our national security is compromised, what is left? Why won't you answer that specifically?

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 7:31 pm ET)
                                     

                                  While I cannot imagine a scenario in which our national security is jeopardized in the long term such that our human rights would need be suspended; I would not want to be in a country that foregoes our rights as people. Such a country is capable terrible, terrible things.

                                  So, to my mind the answer is not a no brainer. Our brains should be fully engaged when weighing the worth of security vs. humanity.

                                  Report Abuse
                            • Author by roundhouse (November 18, 2007 6:30 am ET)
                                 

                              "Greek, With all due respect, Round is disingenuoulsy turning this into an either/or question." -T

                              No Tommy, Wolf made this an either/or question. Screw you for lying about me. This is the exchange: "BLITZER: Senator Obama, is human rights more important than American national security?"

                              "Round knows that, but he is just being dishonest by framing it his way." -T

                              Again, screw you. You're such a dishonest little cheeseball who has to lie and use weasel words in your desparate 'win at all cost' arguments.

                              I didn't make this personal, you did. You always do when your points aren't strong.

                              Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 6:12 pm ET)
                           

                        Thanks.

                        That's where I thought he was headed. I may have had it coming. Sorta. I feel silly for that patriotism questioning GOP play I made. It was to show how disgusting that type of lumping dissenters with traitors truly is.

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 5:59 pm ET)
                       

                    Human rights always come first.

                    People first precludes unnecessary war.

                    People first summons fierce instincts of protection.

                    People first, human rights is all that we really have that we can say is worth keeping secure.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by greekfurnace (November 16, 2007 6:08 pm ET)
                         

                      I agree with you.  But, I do think the question is a complex one.  Chicken or the egg... I would say, you're right. Human rights should always be paramount, Nat'l security to protect said rights...

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 6:28 pm ET)
                           

                        It is complex. No simple answers to be sure.

                        It's just that giving primacy to human rights is an example of how my worldview is informed by my values.

                        Some, usually cons, have a value system that places security above human rights. It's just one of those contrasts that I have no problem with making stark.

                        I'm very proud of my bleeding heart liberalism.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by greekfurnace (November 16, 2007 6:47 pm ET)
                             

                          Which is all fine. Obama talks about Pakistan - which is valid - but, honestly, my mind went directly to how our gov't has (likely) infringed upon our rights in the name of Nat'l Security.  It's so easy... Musharraf declares martial law - in the name of Nat'l Security... it's too easy to abuse human rights and say it's for security. 

                          Ol' Ben put it best - He who gives up freedom from safety deserves neither (or whatever variant of that saying you choose). That's a certain level of 'reason' and logic, I think, has been lost for some time in this country and in political discourse.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by greekfurnace (November 16, 2007 6:49 pm ET)
                               

                            sorry... "...freedom FOR safety". I'm not sure what 'freedom from safety' means ;-)

                            Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 18, 2007 2:05 am ET)
             

          Tommy, are you saying that Iran has a low level of national security?

          Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (November 16, 2007 5:28 pm ET)
           

        I agree.  It was a stupid question and I think Obama handled it very well.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 5:33 pm ET)
             

          It may have been a disingenuous question, but the answer was a no-brainer.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 5:34 pm ET)
             

          Yes, he did very well. The two are not mutually exclusive. They are indeed complimentary as he said.

          You cannot have one without the other and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is frankly, un-American.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 5:39 pm ET)
               

            Ridiculous.

            Tell your un-American silliness to Dodd, Clinton and Biden.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 5:44 pm ET)
                 

              This is America. Human rights are enshrined in our Constitution in many forms. If you can't get with that I'm sorry America is not the place for you.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (November 16, 2007 5:46 pm ET)
                   

                The question was about one priority vs. another, not either or. It's not a hard one.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 5:54 pm ET)
                     

                  "Is human rights more important than national security?"

                  Alright, maybe it is a matter of priorities. But the President takes an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. They do not take an oath to make Tommy and Roundhouse feel safer.

                  Human rights is what the Constitution protects because without rights security is hollow.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (November 16, 2007 6:07 pm ET)
         

      So many cons would forsake the values that makes us good for the things that make us feel safe. It's a sickness.

      Torture, pre-emptive war, warrantless wiretapping are all violations of human rights. These things they don't make us safer, they make some feel safer. It's sick.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (November 17, 2007 12:07 pm ET)
           

        So as we continue to place security above human rights we will continue to torture. We will continue to launch shock and awe campaigns of death. We will continue to render citizens to black sights. We will continue to make war profitible for industry.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (November 16, 2007 7:28 pm ET)
         

      Obama was dead on correct on this one.  Think about it for a second.  You NEED to have one in order to effectively achieve the other.

       

      Take the extreme examples - '

      most security, least human rights:  I nominate N. Korea.  They have the 4th largest army in the world.  Their human rights abuses aren't well documented, because the people are so oppressed.  

      least security, most human rights:  How about Switzerland?  Home to the Geneva Convention, Red Cross, etc.  I'll bet their army's not so big, they hardly ever fight!

       

      Now think about that again.  Which of those countries would you rather live in?  They are not mutually exclusive.  Switzerland has security PRECISELY because they have human rights.  Would you agree that the quality of life in Switzerland is better than that in N. Korea?

       

      The reason the United States is the greatest nation on Earth, and has been for at least 100 years, is because we have both.  Well... at least we had both until a few years ago... 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 17, 2007 2:16 am ET)
           

        Good points. And with the Repubs history of blurred friend/enemies lists (one usually becomes the other) you 'd be hard pressed to find many links with the Swiss, but the Korean Connection is pretty interesting.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.