The coup-coup in Pakistan figured prominently in last night’s Democratic presidential debate. Obama questioned the premise of a silly question implying you have to back Musharraf or see people die in New York, saying healthy political expression in a democracy deflates the motives behind terrorism. Dodd said we should continue backing Musharraf, Hillary hedged, the others said the U.S. should place conditions on aid to Pakistan.

The candidates generally seemed to be against Guantanamo, very different from the tenor of Republican debates. Trade with China got a large chunk of time, India was never mentioned. A Muslim from Nevada worried about profiling, and Kucinich told him he was owed an apology.

One questioner located Pakistan in the Middle East, but the candidates generally seemed up on their Pakistani crisis. It was a far cry from the pre-presidency Dubya interview when he had no idea who led Pakistan.

KHALIL KHAN: I’m an American citizen and have been profiled all the time at the airport. Since 9/11, hundreds of thousands Americans have been profiled. And you know that it is like harassment. And my question is that, that our civil liberties have been taken away from us. What you are going to do to protect Americans from this kind of harassment?

MS. MALVEAUX: Senator Edwards, we’d like you to take that. You obviously voted for the Patriot Act, which gives the government extended powers of surveillance. What do you say to people like Mr. Khan, who say he’s been abused by that power?

MR. EDWARDS: I say he’s right, he’s right, and this administration has done more than abuse the Patriot Act. And the Patriot Act needs to be dramatically changed, by the way. (Cheers, applause.)

But in addition to that, the racial profiling that you’re describing has to be stopped, and it will be stopped when I’m president of the United States. And we’re going to take the steps that need to be taken to restore America’s moral leadership in the world, and that means a whole group of things: stopping the profiling, stopping the illegal — and I use that term intentionally — the illegal spying on the American people that this president has been engaged in — (cheers, applause) — closing Guantanamo, which I think is a national embarrassment — (cheers, applause) — no more secret prisons, no more rendition.

And it’s just absolutely amazing to me that there’s actually an open discussion in the United States of America about what kind of torture will be tolerated. I’ll tell you what kind of torture will be tolerated when I’m president of the United States, no torture will be tolerated when I’m president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

MR. EDWARDS: We’re going to restore our respect in the world.

MR. BLITZER: Congressman Kucinich, I believe you’re the only person on this stage who had a chance to vote on the Patriot Act right after 9/11, who voted against it right away.

REP. KUCINICH: That’s because I read it. (Laughter, cheers.)

MR. BLITZER: Now, here’s the question, here’s the question. (Continued cheers.) Here’s the question: Congressman, do you feel, as you’ve felt on other issues, that those who voted for the Patriot Act — and there are several here on this stage — bear a responsibility for the way this individual, this American citizen, is being treated when he goes through an airport?

REP. KUCINICH: I — you’re owed an apology. You really are. And every American should be able to present themselves without having to be further scrutinized based on ethnic identity.

But let’s go back to the point that you made here. The time — you know, the president of the United States is called upon to make the right decision at the right time. And you’ve seen here tonight people who voted for the war, voted to fund the war, and now they have a different position; people who voted for the Patriot Act, now they have a different position; people who voted for China trade, now they have a different position; people who voted for Yucca Mountain, now they had a different position. Just imagine what it will be like to have a president of the United States who’s right the first time. Just imagine. (Cheers, applause.)

And — and I don’t think — I don’t think that the first questioner’s question was really answered, about what are you going to do about this president, and for that matter the vice president, because they’re out of control and the Congress isn’t doing anything. (Applause.) I –

MR. BLITZER: Thank you. Thank you, Congressman.

REP. KUCINICH: It’s called impeachment, and you don’t wait. You do it now. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BLITZER: All right.

REP. KUCINICH: You don’t wait. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BLITZER: Suzanne got — Suzanne has another question.

REP. KUCINICH: Now. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BLITZER: But I want –

REP. KUCINICH: Impeach them now.

MR. BLITZER: — Senator Biden to go ahead and respond because you voted for the Patriot Act.

SEN. BIDEN: You know, let’s — facts are a funny thing; they get in the way. (Laughter.) You know what I mean?

There is nothing in the Patriot Act that allows profiling. Let’s get that straight.

Nothing in the Patriot Act allows profiling, number one. You’re profiled illegally. I have voted against and worked with legislation with many people on this stage to stop profiling. That’s number one. It did not. It’s not because of the Patriot Act. It’s a convenient thing to talk about, number one.

Number two, you know, when we had a chance to close down Guantanamo, I voted against funding Guantanamo. Other folks up here voted for funding it, including the two leading candidates. I voted to not build the new $36 million part. I called for closing it three years ago.

And so folks, this — but this is not about who was right when, it’s what’s your plan now? What are you going to do now? (Applause.) …

SEN. BIDEN: Who among us understands what to do about Pakistan? … I have 35 years of experience…

MS. BROWN: Senator Biden, a question on Pakistan. As you know, in the past few weeks Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf has declared a state of emergency there. He’s dismissed several Supreme Court justices. He has recently placed opposition leader Benazir Bhutto under house arrest twice now and imprisoned numerous other dissenters.

And I know you spoke with Musharraf last week. And you, along with several others on this stage, assert that the U.S. should maintain its current level of financial support for Pakistan. And my question is, is it your view that there are times when the security of the United States is more important than the way a key ally like Musharraf disregards freedom and disregards democracy?

SEN. BIDEN: First of all, I do not think we should maintain the same aid we’re giving. I have made it clear to Musharraf personally, when he called me, and I’ve spoken personally to Bhutto — before, I might add, the president spoke to either one of them — I spoke to them and I indicated very clearly two things.

One, if he did not take off his uniform, if he did not hold fair and free elections by the middle of January, I would, on the floor of the Senate, move to take away the aid we’re giving with regard to F- 16s and P-3s, because that’s the biggest leverage you have on him within his military. He is not a sole player. He has to keep his military happy as well. I would use that leverage.

Secondly, I’ve indicated that what we should do is move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy. Unlike anyone else, within five days of this happening I laid out a detailed plan. The president hasn’t. No one on this stage has. No one else has — a detailed plan as president how I would proceed with Iraq. And you have to move from military aid to giving to the middle class there. The middle class is overwhelmingly the majority. They get no connection with the United States. We have to significantly increase our economic aid relative to education, relative to NGOs, relative to all those things that make a difference in the lives of ordinary people over there, and not be doing it through the military side.

MR. BLITZER: All right, thank you.

SEN. BIDEN: I know there’s more to say, Campbell. I appreciate you asking me the question and I’m sorry I answered it. I know you’re not supposed to answer questions, based on what I’ve heard. (Laughter.)

MR. 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?

GOV. 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.

MR. BLITZER: All right.

GOV. 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 –

MR. BLITZER: But –

GOV. 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.)

MR. 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?

GOV. 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 –

MR. BLITZER: All right. All right.

GOV. RICHARDSON: — human rights. (Applause.)

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

GOV. RICHARDSON: That’s why we are strong.

MR. BLITZER: Go ahead, Senator.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, I think first of all, we have some basic goals that we need to be focused on with respect to Pakistan. One is to make sure that the extremists in northwest Pakistan are under control. Second, that we provide support for the democratic reformers. Third is that — Senator Biden just spoke about, to make sure these elections take place in January. And fourth, we need to make certain that the nuclear weapons are under control.

Now, this leads to a bigger question. I think Pakistan is the living, breathing example that America’s ad hoc policy of dealing with the spread of nuclear weapons, while it’s absolutely required in today’s world given what’s happening with Iran, given what we see today in Pakistan and the incredible fragility of the administration in Pakistan and the presence of extraordinary extremist elements within Pakistan, that this is the living, breathing example –

MR. BLITZER: All right.

MR. EDWARDS: — of a policy that will not work over the long term.

I’m about to finish. What we have to do, what America needs to do and what I will do as president of the United States is to lead a long-term international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

It is the only way we’re going to keep the world secure and keep America secure. (Applause.)

MR. BLITZER: All right. Everybody’s going to have a chance.

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

SEN. OBAMA: The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf.

MR. BLITZER: Because occasionally they could clash.

SEN. OBAMA: They — they — they — they — they are complementary, and I think Pakistan is a great example. Look, we paid $10 billion over the last seven years, and we 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 — that’s going to make us less safe. That’s something I intend to change as president. (Applause.)

MR. : Wolf –

MR. BLITZER: Hold on. Hold on one second. Hold on. Senator Dodd –

MR. : I do not agree with (it ?).

MR. BLITZER: Senator Dodd, I want you to weigh in. What’s more important when they clash, human rights versus national security?

SEN. DODD: Well, first of all, I hope — maybe other people find it as ironic as I do to have President Bush urging the Turks not to invade the Kurdish areas of Iraq and lecturing Musharraf about restoring the constitution. This is an administration that has stepped all over our own Constitution in the process. (Applause.)

And this isn’t — elections are — there’s an expression in Spanish that says elections –

MR. BLITZER: So what’s more important, human rights or national security?

SEN. DODD: Well, obviously national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20th –

SEN. BIDEN (?): That’s right.

SEN. DODD: — 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, yes, all right?

MR. BLITZER: All right. Okay, thank you.

SEN. DODD: Now secondly, this doesn’t mean — elections are only one note, as they say, in the tune of democracy here. Be careful what you wish for. If they were totally free elections in many of these countries we’re talking about today, the Islamic jihad or the Islamic Brotherhood would win 85 percent of the vote. That’s not a great outcome for us at this point here.

MR. BLITZER: All right.

SEN. DODD: So we need to have a sense of balance about this here.

I disagree with those who suggest here that we ought to condition Musharraf’s actions regarding some of these issues on aid and assistance here.

There’s only one way in Afghanistan; it’s through Pakistan. The generals in the military control the nuclear weaponry here. We need to move and remind Musharraf that there are obligations he needs to fulfill. Be careful here about –

MR. BLITZER: (Inaudible) — you answered. You answered the question, Senator.

SEN. DODD: Let me finish Musharraf, because literally, then you have to do what you say you’re going to do. And if he doesn’t do what he’s suggesting, then you have to terminate that relationship, and that puts this country in a very, very dangerous position.

MR. BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights.

Senator Clinton, what do you say?

SEN. CLINTON: I agree with that completely. I mean 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.

And there’s absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States. That’s what’s so tragic about this situation. After 9/11, President Bush had a chance to chart a different course, both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, and could have been very clear about what our expectations were. We are now in a bind, and it is partly — not completely, but partly — a result of the failed policies of the Bush administration.

So, where we are today means that we have to say to President Musharraf: Look, this is not in your interest either. This is not in the interest of the United States. It is not in your interest to either stay in power or stay alive. We have to figure out how we’re going to navigate this.

When I was meet ing with him earlier this year, I asked him if he would accept a high-level presidential envoy to begin to negotiate some of these issues.

He said, yes, I got back; I called the White House; I asked them to send such a high-level envoy. They did not do it; they’re going to send one now.

So I mean, you’ve got to stay on top of this and you have to manage it all the time. That requires presidential attention. We haven’t had that, and part of the reason is obvious now. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

John Roberts.

REP. KUCINICH: Hello? Hello?

MR. BLITZER: Stand by. Stand by.

John Roberts, go ahead.

You’re going to have a chance…

REP. KUCINICH: Also, when you talked about Pakistan you didn’t get a chance to me on that question, but I want to point something out to you, Wolf. You cannot look at Pakistan and the destabilization that’s occurring in many Muslim nations without understanding the role that our aggression against Iraq has played in contributing to that destabilization. (Applause.) …

Frank Perconte is a student here.

Frank, what is your question?

FRANK PERCONTE: Whether it’s the continuing violence in Iraq, or if it’s a potential confrontation with Iran, or even the emerging instability in Pakistan, nothing seems to be getting any better in the Middle East…