In 1996 when you won your congressional seat, you declared, "I believe that life begins at conception." Have you changed your mind on that?

No, no. Not at all. That's what I think. But we live in a pluralistic society and there are many different spiritual beliefs in this Congress.

If I were a pro-choice Democrat how could I trust you?

I think what I've been able to demonstrate to people is they see someone who wants to lead this nation, someone who has the capacity for growth and the ability to look at complex and even divisive issues anew, and that I've done that.

Let me ask you about another apparent inconsistency. On "Meet the Press," in arguing against the war, you argued that the way to remove Saddam Hussein from power "is continue to use sanctions which thwart his efforts to grow." But in the Progressive magazine last November, you wrote, "The time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children." How do you reconcile those two statements?

I probably should have used a modifier on "Meet the Press." I should have said smart sanctions. I would oppose some sanctions -- no military equipment, nothing for the nuclear industry; most people would agree with that. But I wouldn't want sanctions on dialysis equipment, on surgical instruments, on oxygen tents, on water-purification chemicals. I wouldn't want sanctions on nasal gastric tubes or on any kind of medical supplies or anything of use to the water.

Are there any conditions under which you would support military action against anyone?

There are two conditions. After an attack on our country or an imminent threat backed by incontrovertible evidence. Those would be my foundations of principle. But no such evidence exists in case of Iraq, and Iraq has not attacked our country.

You know, the day after attack there was a National Security Council meeting and, according to Bob Woodward in "Bush at War," in that meeting you had [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld saying, 'Let's go after Iraq.' That's on page 49 of his book. Check it out if you haven't read it already.

So this plan to go after Iraq has been on the boards for a long time.

But would those rules, those "foundations of principle," have permitted the U.S. to take action to stop the Nazis before Pearl Harbor? It would seem that President Kucinich wouldn't think we should take any action.

You're taking about a condition before the advent of the United Nations. Now that we live in a world where there's a structure and a United Nations charter, Hitler's activities would have been the subject of a Security Council action and the world community could have responded.

But it sure seems like the United Nations has a fairly high tolerance for genocide. Didn't the U.N. sit back during the reigns of terror in the Balkans, in Rwanda?

There have been, yes, and I think that an American president can set a standard for engagement throughout the world community. But I don't think it serves the purpose of this country to conduct its affairs unilaterally. And I don't think serves the interests of this country to have a unipolar worldview.

You continue to emphasize the United Nations as this beacon of hope and goodness. But there are serious substantive reasons to look askance at the U.N. Libya, Syria and the Sudan -- where there is still slavery -- have been given seats on the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

Well, then, let's look at the United States. The United States made an alliance with Saddam Hussein. We sold him biological and chemical weapons agents and then did not object when he gassed his own people. What kind of a president would I be? I'd be the kind of president to reassert America's moral authority by withdrawing this doctrine of unilateralism and of preemption and of first strike, and by working with the world community on matters of global security wherever those matters rear up. The United States, through working with other nations, can address these issues, but we shouldn't be expected to be the policeman of the world. And we -- if we want to retain any moral authority, we have to look at the consequences of our actions.

Recent Stories