:00:03. > :00:13.to end the bloodshed. Those are the headlines, now it is
:00:13. > :00:14.
:00:14. > :00:19.time for HARDtalk. Can the Republican Party find a
:00:19. > :00:22.presidential candidate capable of turfing Barack Obama out of office?
:00:22. > :00:25.The battle to win the Republican nomination is proving to be
:00:26. > :00:29.protracted and brutal, and right now the main beneficiary appears to
:00:29. > :00:32.be the man currently occupying the White House. I speak to Senator
:00:32. > :00:35.John McCain, the Republican candidate who ran against Obama and
:00:35. > :00:38.lost four years ago. Is the struggle to find a convincing
:00:38. > :00:48.presidential nominee indicative of a Republican party that has lost
:00:48. > :01:22.
:01:22. > :01:27.Senator John McCain, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you, I am happy to
:01:27. > :01:33.be here, and our relationship goes all the way back to the year 2000.
:01:33. > :01:40.You haven't aged a bit. (LAUGHTER). That is the first untruth you have
:01:40. > :01:45.told. To quote the esteemed political science professor, the
:01:45. > :01:51.Republican Party is making its nomination progress a big mess. Do
:01:51. > :01:55.you agree? I do, to a significant degree. I think we have had too
:01:55. > :02:00.many debates. The purpose of debates is for the candidates to
:02:00. > :02:04.give their views on the issues and their positions. If they differ,
:02:04. > :02:09.then there would be a conversation. There were exceptions to that, but
:02:09. > :02:17.generally speaking it was about issues. Now it is about who can
:02:17. > :02:21.launch the toughest attack on the other. That is not educational or
:02:21. > :02:26.informational, but it also drives up the unfavourable image of all of
:02:26. > :02:30.them. Let's talk about the man who you have endorsed for the
:02:30. > :02:34.nomination, Mitt Romney. I learned that he has already spent more on
:02:34. > :02:39.attack ads than you did in the whole of your presidential campaign
:02:39. > :02:44.in 2008. Why is that? I think one reason is, thanks to the worst
:02:45. > :02:49.decision in history by the United States Supreme Court, they have
:02:49. > :02:52.unleashed a tidal wave of money, special interest money in this
:02:52. > :02:57.campaign - you may have seen... Shaw, that he has the choice of
:02:57. > :03:02.being positive or negative, but Mitt Romney, he thinks he can only
:03:02. > :03:07.win the Republican nomination by being extremely brutal and negative.
:03:07. > :03:12.Because the sad truth of American politics is that negative ads add
:03:12. > :03:15.at numbers. That is the reality of American politics. The day that
:03:15. > :03:23.they don't move numbers will be the day that politicians stop using
:03:23. > :03:33.them. I have learned a new acronym, that his baby I - anyone but Mitt
:03:33. > :03:41.
:03:41. > :03:46.Romney. ABI - anyone but Romney. Why is he not connecting with
:03:46. > :03:50.Republican voters? I think he is connecting, he got 50% of the vote
:03:50. > :03:57.in Florida, the first really diverse, heavily populated state.
:03:57. > :04:01.He did extremely well in New Hampshire. He did very badly in
:04:01. > :04:05.some places, his performance was worse than when he ran against you
:04:05. > :04:11.in 2008. I think as far as percentage of the vote, it is much
:04:11. > :04:16.higher than it was in 2008. All I can tell you is that I know that is
:04:16. > :04:21.a certain segment of the Republican Party, not a large segment, but a
:04:21. > :04:25.segment of the Republican Party, that does not believe he is
:04:25. > :04:31."conservative" enough. The thing that is entertaining about that is
:04:31. > :04:41.that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum engaged in this obscene
:04:41. > :04:43.
:04:43. > :04:46.practice of earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars - according to
:04:46. > :04:51.my colleagues, that is a gateway to corruption, and they are calling
:04:51. > :04:55.him Conservative? But this use of political money, that is a problem.
:04:55. > :05:00.Mitt Romney has more political money in his campaign than anyone
:05:00. > :05:07.else, he is the only candidate who is a real-time millionaire who only
:05:07. > :05:11.pays 13% tax. Earmarking is the taxpayer's money. This is his own
:05:11. > :05:15.money. Sure, but if you are making the money argument in support of
:05:15. > :05:22.Mitt Romney It seems to me you have to address this issue that the
:05:22. > :05:26.American public has scene that this is a man who it is unbelievably
:05:26. > :05:29.wealthy, but he stores a lot on his own cash in the Cayman Islands and
:05:29. > :05:36.Switzerland. Some of the investments that he has made did
:05:36. > :05:41.put the money there, but he has never done that directly. The fact
:05:41. > :05:46.is that this is the background of the human who is going to lead the
:05:46. > :05:51.country, that is why I endorsed him. Looking back at your own experience,
:05:51. > :05:55.do believe that it is very difficult to actually win the
:05:55. > :06:01.Republican nomination and maintained policies, policy
:06:01. > :06:05.positions, that can appeal to the wider, general American electorate?
:06:05. > :06:11.I will have to take a trip down memory lane, but George W Bush was
:06:11. > :06:18.able to do it twice. He is a conservative and he was elected and
:06:18. > :06:22.re-elected for the presidency. Ronald Reagan was elected. Today is
:06:23. > :06:27.changing, changing fast. It is becoming more dominated by the
:06:27. > :06:36.social Conservatives. I don't think so, I think Mitt Romney proved in
:06:36. > :06:44.Florida there is a very large number of Republicans her art
:06:44. > :06:53.centrist to Conservative -- who are. He is in favour of lower taxes,
:06:53. > :07:00.less government, less regulation... You said of Mitt Romney, you
:07:00. > :07:05.clearly and adamantly said, this gite is "a phoney and a thief".
:07:05. > :07:10.(LAUGHTER). You know, if you look back at President Reagan and then
:07:10. > :07:13.George Bush and their campaigns, tough things are said. Sure, but
:07:13. > :07:20.you called him a phoney. Many Republicans think he is a phoney
:07:20. > :07:25.now. Frankly, that is the rhetoric of a heated campaign. 99% of the
:07:26. > :07:29.dialogue we had was respectful. Nobody worked harder for me then
:07:29. > :07:37.Mitt Romney during my nomination. What we are seeing right now, and
:07:37. > :07:41.I'm thinking of the recent success of Rick Santorum that these "values
:07:41. > :07:48.issues" are rising to the top of the debate. Issues concerning gay
:07:48. > :07:53.marriage, abortion, issues where, again, Mitt Romney appears to be
:07:53. > :07:59.neutral. Those issues stay in the debate, but please do not be under
:07:59. > :08:02.the illusion of what American people care about, they care about
:08:02. > :08:08.the job when the economy. For there may be discussions about those
:08:08. > :08:12.issues which may attract a certain Electric, but in poll after poll,
:08:12. > :08:19.90% of the American people say the number one issue is jobs in the
:08:20. > :08:25.economy. That is why I think Mitt Romney has the best opportunity to
:08:25. > :08:30.be our nominee. Do you now regret making Sarah Palin your vice
:08:30. > :08:34.presidential running mate? Did it open the doors to a whole bunch of
:08:34. > :08:41.social Conservatives and who now appear to be influential in your
:08:41. > :08:45.party? Let me just say that facts are stubborn things. The fact is
:08:45. > :08:50.that before I picked Sarah Palin we were running behind. After she gave
:08:50. > :08:57.her speech we were ahead. We stayed ahead until the day the stock
:08:57. > :09:05.market went down 700 points. We went from three points up-7 points
:09:05. > :09:10.down. Sarah Palin gave us a momentum thamentum tha person could
:09:10. > :09:17.have achieved. She has been trashed by the media, she has been
:09:17. > :09:24.assaulted, continuously, by the media. She defeated Joe by done, a
:09:24. > :09:28.United States senator in the still very much admired and
:09:28. > :09:33.appreciated by our party. I feel the passion in that answer, but it
:09:33. > :09:39.didn't directly address my question. Do you regret? Of course not, of
:09:39. > :09:45.course not. I don't know why you should. You appear to be out of
:09:45. > :09:50.sync with Sarah Palin's brand of republicanism. She says that the
:09:50. > :09:59.Republican establishment, to use her phrase, is trying to "crush"
:09:59. > :10:04.Newt Gingrich. After all, she is her own person. I believe that she
:10:04. > :10:09.stands up for the things she believes in. On almost everything
:10:09. > :10:14.we agree, but sometimes we disagree, that's all. You know, the myth is
:10:14. > :10:18.being conveyed out there that somehow she was harmful to our
:10:18. > :10:24.chances of winning the 2008 election. That is not substantiated
:10:24. > :10:28.by the facts. Let's talk about the economy because you said that is
:10:28. > :10:32.what Americans really want to talk about. Yes, yes. What Americans
:10:32. > :10:37.have seen in the last few weeks is, at last, some real signs of good
:10:37. > :10:42.news. In January they almost 250,000 new jobs created,
:10:42. > :10:48.unemployment down to 8.3%. Good news, and is it not the case that
:10:48. > :10:53.this could help Barack Obama and make the Republican case much more
:10:53. > :10:58.difficult? It depends on the trends, obviously. When you talk about the
:10:58. > :11:03.economy, I don't care who is elected. I think we will make the
:11:03. > :11:11.argument that this has been the longest and the weakest recovery in
:11:11. > :11:16.the history since the Great Depression. If we passed a stimulus
:11:16. > :11:21.package... We are now five trillion dollars more in debt than we were
:11:21. > :11:25.when he came into office. We have fundamental differences of opinion.
:11:25. > :11:31.He believes that government creates jobs, we believe business creates
:11:31. > :11:36.jobs. One real specific difference now is on tax, the Democrats are
:11:36. > :11:41.pushing to extend the payroll tax deductions, the Republicans say
:11:41. > :11:46.that can't happen unless there are some cuts in entitlement at the
:11:47. > :11:51.same time to square the Budget. The Republicans also seem to be the
:11:51. > :11:55.party that is determined to maintain tax cuts for the richest
:11:55. > :11:59.Americans. It seems a difficult place for your party to be.
:11:59. > :12:03.Opposing tax cuts for the working class and the middle class,
:12:03. > :12:07.favouring them for the rich. Yes, I think that is conventional wisdom
:12:07. > :12:13.that you articulated, but the facts are that we would like to pay for
:12:13. > :12:17.these tax cuts. We think the government is big enough of
:12:17. > :12:21.reducing the size of government, not entitlements, but government so
:12:22. > :12:29.that we are not increasing the national debt and we are not taking
:12:29. > :12:35.money out of the social security trust fund. Otherwise that money
:12:35. > :12:40.would be going into that trust fund, which everyone knows is going broke.
:12:40. > :12:43.The most basic question about overseas is this - you know Mitt
:12:43. > :12:49.Romney can win the White House. If the Republican Party does not
:12:49. > :12:52.select him, and one can only suspect they might be a surprise
:12:52. > :13:02.new candidate, there ye, there y the Republicans cannot win?
:13:02. > :13:06.believe it will be much harder. Mitt Romney I that ties, or is
:13:06. > :13:10.slightly behind, depended on what poll you look at... I have to
:13:10. > :13:13.believe the polling data. Are you saying they can't win? No, I am
:13:13. > :13:17.saying it would be much more difficult according to the polling
:13:17. > :13:22.data, which is well known. It is much more difficult, but not
:13:22. > :13:27.impossible. Would you support Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum? Shaw, I
:13:27. > :13:32.would support the nominee of my party. Let's move on to national
:13:32. > :13:36.security issues. You have been very critical of Obama in recent months
:13:36. > :13:43.on a host of national security challenges facing the United States.
:13:43. > :13:47.It seems to me from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya, Barack has
:13:47. > :13:52.pursued strategies that have the support of a clear majority of the
:13:52. > :13:54.American people. And I am clear that there are other times in this
:13:54. > :13:58.country's history and your country's history when people have
:13:58. > :14:05.stood up for what they know is right, even though it is not
:14:05. > :14:09.happening. The American people are glad we are out of Iraq. We had a
:14:09. > :14:11.president once called Harry Truman, everybody wanted out of Korea, but
:14:11. > :14:15.we stayed and the world is a better place for having made that
:14:15. > :14:18.sacrifice and the stubbornness on the part of Harry Truman. The fact
:14:18. > :14:22.is that the President said in his campaign that he would get out of
:14:22. > :14:27.Iraq. We are out of Iraq. Do you know what the situation is there?
:14:27. > :14:33.It is unravelling. Everybody knows we should have left a residual
:14:33. > :14:37.force of some 20,000 and that is what Connolly's a Rice said that we
:14:37. > :14:42.had contemplated. I know that from being there that the Iraqi people
:14:42. > :14:49.would have agreed to that. I know that because I was there.
:14:49. > :14:53.Afghanistan, for example, you have clearly been deeply critical of the
:14:53. > :14:56.Defence Secretary... Are you suggesting that if combat forces
:14:56. > :15:06.stay there indefinitely that somehow Afghanistan's problems
:15:06. > :15:11.
:15:11. > :15:16.The President overruled his military advisers when he
:15:17. > :15:21.accelerated the withdrawal. He overruled his advisers when he sent
:15:21. > :15:27.30,000 in the initial build up. He is over rolling his military
:15:27. > :15:34.advisers when he is making the decision to come out in 2013. These
:15:34. > :15:39.are the people that the President a point. He has no knowledge or
:15:39. > :15:45.experience on these issues. He is has blamed this on a regular basis.
:15:45. > :15:50.The its talk about Syria. As we speak, more people are dying in
:15:50. > :15:55.Syria. The UN Secretary General has talked about the brutality that has
:15:55. > :16:00.been inflicted on the people by the Assad regime. You have suggested
:16:00. > :16:04.the US should be looking at different options in response. You
:16:04. > :16:10.have alluded to the bombing of Syrian have rebels. Do you think
:16:10. > :16:14.that would help resolve this situation? Do you know what the
:16:14. > :16:20.Iranians are doing? They are bringing up weapons and artillery
:16:20. > :16:25.that are killing serious but the Iranians themselves have come into
:16:25. > :16:30.Syria while the bloodshed is going on. What is the US during?
:16:30. > :16:35.should be examining all of the options, with other coh other co
:16:35. > :16:44.including Turkey, on how we can help these people stop this
:16:44. > :16:54.massacre. The US arms to be sent... That is an option that cannot be
:16:54. > :16:57.
:16:57. > :17:04.taken off the table. There is no UN sanction on going into Syria like
:17:04. > :17:09.there was with Libya. It is China and Russia that have vetoed this.
:17:09. > :17:17.Shall we let China and Russia determined whether we will allow
:17:17. > :17:22.the massacre of innocent women and children? The Arab League is taking
:17:22. > :17:27.a stance. Turkey is important. We need to have a coalition of the
:17:27. > :17:37.willing. Our Secretary of State has suggested that. We need to give
:17:37. > :17:45.them technical help. There is many things we can do. The fundamental
:17:45. > :17:49.answer is - the US is not a nation that stands by and watches the
:17:49. > :17:56.massacre of innocent people. understand but it seems to me that
:17:56. > :18:02.on a range of points you are envisaging another round of US
:18:02. > :18:07.intervention. Let's ta. Let's taran. You say they may be doing things
:18:07. > :18:13.inside Syria. The US President faces a difficult and big decision
:18:13. > :18:19.on Iran, which may have to be taken this year. Is it your few the time
:18:19. > :18:23.has come for the US to take military action in Iran? No. I
:18:23. > :18:32.agree with the President who says that and Iran with nuclear weapons
:18:32. > :18:36.is unacceptable. This brings us back to the Republican race. All of
:18:36. > :18:42.the candidates have suggested that President Obama has not been strong
:18:42. > :18:48.enough in his language and its approach to Iran. Of course. When
:18:48. > :18:54.Rick Santorum said the other day... Let me finish. In 2009, in June,
:18:54. > :18:59.there was an election in Tehran. 500,000 people were demonstrating
:19:00. > :19:05.in the streets. Men and women were bleeding to death in the streets.
:19:05. > :19:10.The people were asking, President Obama, are you with us? He did not
:19:10. > :19:16.give them a word of encouragement. I do not think he would agree with
:19:16. > :19:23.that. It is a fact. You know full well that the White House denies
:19:23. > :19:27.that. They do not deny that. The fact is they did not. The point is,
:19:27. > :19:32.what would the world expect from a Republican administration. These
:19:32. > :19:39.are the words of Rick Santorum. He said, we have to take their nuclear
:19:39. > :19:46.facility out. To prevent a wider war. Is that the sort of mine said
:19:46. > :19:50.we should expect? That is one impression. President Obama has
:19:50. > :19:54.said it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Then when the
:19:54. > :20:00.EU reach a point when decisions have to be made? Will those
:20:00. > :20:05.decisions be made by the government itself and the Israelis for us and
:20:05. > :20:09.the Israelis? The censures have hurt them but not deterred them on
:20:09. > :20:17.the course they are on -- the sanctions. A final thought which
:20:17. > :20:22.wraps up the debate about this international challenge. You have
:20:22. > :20:28.made a stand against the Obama administration's plan to cut
:20:28. > :20:34.military spending by half a trillion dollars. You have said
:20:34. > :20:38.that will endanger US interest. Is it not also dangerous to go on
:20:38. > :20:44.spending on the military in a way that stacks up a completely
:20:44. > :20:48.unaffordable debt for your grandchildren? They are saving
:20:48. > :20:55.efficiencies that can be activated. I have proposed many of those. We
:20:55. > :21:05.are working to the just some of the reductions that the previous
:21:05. > :21:09.secretary of defence ordered, which we are an acting. You have
:21:09. > :21:16.suggested some changes but the significant changes that President
:21:16. > :21:21.Obama has proposed, losing 100,000 ground troops, freezing a whole
:21:21. > :21:25.bunch of warships, closing some of the military bases, these are seen
:21:25. > :21:30.to be a recognition that the world is changing and the threats have
:21:30. > :21:35.changed. The US military has to change as well. There was a line
:21:35. > :21:41.about the lessons of history. After the World War II we were never
:21:41. > :21:46.going to have another war. Then the Korean War. Then the Vietnam War.
:21:46. > :21:56.We were never going to have to commit two wars. Then we had Desert
:21:56. > :22:00.
:22:00. > :22:05.Storm. Every time we have believed that we have paid the price for not
:22:05. > :22:10.having military capabilities. I am not ready for the renewed emphasis
:22:10. > :22:16.on the Asia-Pacific region, which is very expensive. If we are truly
:22:16. > :22:22.interested in a strengthening our position in Asia and the Pacific,
:22:22. > :22:27.we have an expensive force. I will tell you now I have travelled the
:22:27. > :22:33.world. I have talked two leaders around the world and in the Middle
:22:34. > :22:38.East. They say they believe America it is weakening. That is their view.
:22:38. > :22:44.I do not think that is necessarily the case but leading from behind is
:22:44. > :22:49.not something the US should ever do. Who is going to lead from in front?
:22:49. > :22:54.It is interesting you put it that way. I do not think that few of
:22:54. > :23:00.America is necessarily the case. You have had a long career, with
:23:00. > :23:05.the ups and downs. You have tried to be at the centre of debates on
:23:05. > :23:15.how America should behave in the world. When the EU look at the US
:23:15. > :23:21.
:23:21. > :23:24.today, do you except America has to change -- when you look. If this
:23:24. > :23:29.means we would withdraw the Fortress America, I do not agree.
:23:29. > :23:37.Every time we have tried that one, as we did before World War II, we
:23:37. > :23:45.paid a heavy price. Maybe it means not trying to police the world.
:23:45. > :23:50.think what the US has to recognise in the 21st century is we have seen
:23:50. > :23:55.the rise of China and India as other superpowers. China especially.
:23:55. > :24:04.We will no longer be the dominant world power that we were for a long
:24:04. > :24:08.time following World War II. That does not mean isolationism, and by
:24:08. > :24:14.the where there is a strong amounts of that in my own party, and it
:24:14. > :24:24.does not mean withdrawal. It means the use of military power but also
:24:24. > :24:24.
:24:24. > :24:31.understanding that we have a relationship in the world which is