The following is a full transcript of the Republican presidential debate sponsored by ABC News, Facebook, and ABC affiliate WMUR. The debate took place on January 5, 2008, at St. Anslem College in Manchester, New Hampshire.
GIBSON: Good evening. I am Charlie Gibson from ABC News. And along with our partners in tonight's debate, our station here in New Hampshire, WMUR, and the popular Facebook Web site, I welcome you to what is a unique occasion. This is going to be a chance to hear from all the leading presidential candidates in both parties in one night.
We have two debates -- the Republican debate, then the Democratic debate -- coming within moments of one another. And tonight we have one mission. That is to give voters a better idea of the candidates, their principles, their characters, their positions on the issues.
Now, we set some criteria for these debates which we felt were highly inclusive. The top four finishers in Iowa, plus any candidate with 5 percent support in an established New Hampshire or national poll. They only had to have 5 percent support in any one of eight polls.
Now, that resulted in invitations being issued yesterday to six Republicans -- Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson -- as well as four Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson -- all of whom will join us tonight.
GIBSON: Now, the candidates have debated often, and they have taken an awful lot of questions. So we have tried to fashion a format in which they will talk more to one another.
We're going to take the first 45 minutes of each debate, and for 15 minutes each, I will put three topics on the table and then, to the extent possible, sort of stay out of the way.
There are no lights that will limit the length the candidates can speak for that portion of the debate, but I will keep them move on, interrupting, I hope not impolitely.
It is my hope -- and I've expressed this to the candidates' camps -- that their discussion will be lively, informative, will point out the differences they have on the issues being discussed, and that they will talk to one another.
For the second half of each debate, I'll be joined by Scott Spradling. He's political director of WMUR, and we will have questions in a more traditional format.
GIBSON: We have an audience here at St. Anselm of about 500 people. And I've asked them to refrain from applause to keep the discussions going without interruption.
So with that, we will spend a few minutes getting ready for the first debate.
And I will turn things over, for the moment, to my colleagues Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos.
SAWYER: And good evening to you, Charlie.
It is so exciting just to see the high stakes arena where the candidates are about to appear. They're waiting off-stage. They'll be getting their microphones checked.
And George Stephanopoulos and I were talking about the human endurance that it takes to come to this pivotal moment.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Diane, these guys must be running on fumes right now. They have been going for 10, 15 days straight, on three, four hours of sleep a night.
Yet, because this debate is so important, only three days before New Hampshire, they have to be at the top of their game tonight.
SAWYER: And most of them had nine, 10 appearances already today.
But we have some news for you tonight. Some real caucus votes -- more caucus votes -- coming in from Wyoming.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's right.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney has had a big win today. There was a caucus on Wyoming. He won more than 70 percent of the votes, almost all of the delegate stake; a good moral victory for him after that loss in Iowa.
SAWYER: And we also have a brand new poll out tonight from our New Hampshire affiliate, WMUR, cosponsors of tonight's debate. So here's how it looks for these candidates as they poll tonight, as they gather.
For the Democrats, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are in a dead heat, tied at 33 percent each; John Edwards gaining a bit with 20 percent; and Bill Richardson in fourth with 4 percent.
Senator Obama, of course, gained some ground, moved up about 3 percent at this point in the story.
STEPHANOPOULOS: He did.
And on the Republican side, John McCain is moving up as well. He's now at 33 percent, leading by 6 points over Mitt Romney at 27 percent. Rudy Giuliani holding onto third place at 14 percent, ahead of Mike Huckabee at 11 percent, who, of course, won those caucuses in Iowa just this Thursday night.
SAWYER: And we want everybody out there to know that throughout the night we'll be checking in with our pros at ABC News standing by in the spin room, so named because the candidates' teams flood the room, trying to shape tomorrow's headlines.
And we also have the instant views of all Americans on Facebook, the popular Web site with more than 60 million active users. And Charlie's going to be using questions from the site tonight as well.
ABC's Bianna Golodryga at our Facebook command center.
Bianna?
GOLODRYGA: Good evening, Diane.
Already, more than 1 million people have activated the U.S. politics application on Facebook right now. We already know that there are hundreds of thousands of people taking part in debates. They're answering questions that we've thrown at them, real-time questions for them to answer.
And it's so easy. We invite all of you to participate throughout the evening as well.
Here's what you do. You go to abcnews.com, and you click on politics. Then click on the Facebook button, and you join the debate.
And while the presidential candidates debate on television, Americans can join the debate online and get real-time, behind-the- scenes updates from our reporters who are tracking all of the candidates live.
Diane, we will be updating this throughout the night, checking in with all of our debaters and getting back to you.
SAWYER: All right. A giant conversation taking place tonight.
And you should know, by the way, that we will not be using Facebook to declare winners or losers tonight. You and the voters of New Hampshire are going to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We did want to get a sense of what the voters of New Hampshire are thinking, so went out in the streets and the snowy hills and got a sense of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): National security is the issue that I'm most concerned about. That's going to affect my family and my children. Yes, I mean, security is everything to me.
(UNKNOWN): The rising cost of health care. I want to make sure that everyone is covered, but I want to come up with a good plan that works for everyone.
(UNKNOWN): I have no problem with the legal immigrants, but the illegals, I would just like to see the candidates expand more on it and be firm on it.
(UNKNOWN): Being a fisherman, I think that the fuel prices for a lot of working people is one of the major things that I'm concerned about.
(UNKNOWN): My son is in the military. He's done almost his four years in the Marines. I'd like to have somebody say a good plan on how to get us out of there, instead of just promises on what they could do or they should do.
(UNKNOWN): What are you going to do?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAWYER: And a reminder that tonight's debates are not just about policy, but the real lives of Americans.
So coming into the debates, what about Iowa? Let's review what happened there.
Former Governor Mike Huckabee ruled the day with 34 percent; a decisive win over Mitt Romney, who took 25 percent. Fred Thompson, John McCain tied for third with 13 percent each. And that was it for the Republicans.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And that shows, I mean, it gives us a good sense of what they have on the line tonight -- what the candidates have on the line tonight, Diane.
And I think because Mitt Romney came in second in Iowa, he's got the most on the line tonight. His whole strategy was predicated on winning in Iowa, winning here in New Hampshire.
And he's got one job to do tonight. That is, to stop John McCain, who has the momentum right now. He's going to try to paint McCain as a creature of Washington.
For McCain, he's got to remind people what they loved about him eight years ago. Remember...
SAWYER: He was the maverick, won big: 19 percentage points?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Won big. He beat George Bush big here eight years ago. Lost his mojo last year but it's coming back right now. He's going to emphasize national security.
For the winner in Iowa, Mike Huckabee, this is not a home field for him. Not a lot of social conservatives, evangelicals here, so he's just got to make no mistakes.
Rudy Giuliani has to get back in the game. He tried in New Hampshire but he fell back in November. He's got to do something big to make sure that Mike Huckabee doesn't pass him.
SAWYER: All right, George, thanks to you.
Well, it is time for the great debate to begin. Let's go to Charlie Gibson at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Charlie?
GIBSON: Thanks very much, Diane.
And we have been joined on the stage by the six leading Republican candidates for the Republican nomination for president. And I want to introduce them to you from left to right.
The positions in which they sit were drawn by lot, and so let me introduce them from left to right: Senator John McCain from the state of Arizona, former Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee, Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former Governor Mike Huckabee from Arkansas, and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani from the city of New York.
And, gentlemen, just at the risk of being repetitive, I hope you will take the questions posed in these first 45 minutes and I hope, to the extent we can, discuss them among yourselves.
GIBSON: This is not about me asking questions, as I told the national audience a few moments ago, but about you talking to one another, pointing up the differences between yourselves.
I hope you will think of this as sort of a semi-circular dining room table. We were a little chintzy on the food, but I hope you will look at it that way.
(LAUGHTER)
I thank you all for being here and I genuinely look forward to this, so let us begin. And I'll start the stop-watch.
President Bush said in his end-of-the-year news conference, "During the primaries and during the general election I suspect my name may come up a lot." So let's bring it up.
I want to start with foreign policy. Just to set some context, we've got a little background here from ABC's Jonathan Karl.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JONATHAN KARL, ABC CORRESPONDENT: When he was on the debate stage eight years ago...
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH, R-TX: If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation...
KARL: ... candidate George Bush promised a humble foreign policy.
After September 11, a new Bush doctrine: the United States would hit its enemies before they hit us.
KARL: Hence, the Iraq war.
On terrorism, President Bush told the world you're either with us or you're against us. With the second term, an even bolder vision.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: With the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: Sounding like Woodrow Wilson, the president vowed to push for democracy everywhere.
There are exceptions. Support for Musharraf in Pakistan, for example, and the nuclear deal offered to North Korea.
From the axis of evil to nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush policy has been bold but not exactly humble.
Charlie?
GIBSON: So, let me start with a general question: If you are the nominee, will you run on the Bush foreign policy record, or will you run away from it?
And, Governor Huckabee, let me start with you, because it was you who wrote that the Bush foreign policy reflects an arrogant bunker mentality.
HUCKABEE: And when I made those statements, I was speaking to the fact that there were times when we gave the world the impression that we were going to ignore what they thought or what they felt, and we were going to do whatever it is we wanted to do.
And the fact is, we're going to do what is best for the American people. And as president, I will always act in the best interest of our country.
But I'll always try to make sure that we're the strongest nation on Earth, the most powerful, the most prepared, but also the one that uses that strength in a very, very understanding way of making sure that when we use the strength we use it with full understanding of the implications of it.
Let me just finish the thought, Charlie, if I may.
There were times when the arrogance was reflected, for example, in the former defense secretary who, despite getting advice from the Defense Department that we would need 400,000 troops to be able to successfully bring stability to Iraq, insisted that we would only use 180,000 troops and we would go in with a light footprint.
HUCKABEE: And there was one particular statement that he made that I found especially troubling. He said, "We don't go to war with the army that we want; we go to war with the army that we have."
I felt that the proper way for us to approach this is we don't go to war with the army we have, we go to war with the army that we need, and we make sure that we have what we need before we go to war, including a clear definition of what we're going to do, irresistible force when we do it, and once we do it, we don't let the politicians interfere or interrupt the battlefield decisions of the commanders with blood on their boots and medals on their chest.
GIBSON: Senator Thompson?
THOMPSON: Well, I think that maybe the governor has rethought his comments that he made about an arrogant foreign policy, because it seems now what he's saying is that we were arrogant because we didn't go in with enough troops.
THOMPSON: I think that's kind of a different impression than the one that he originally sought to leave.
I don't think our foreign policy has been arrogant. Presidents are not perfect; policies are not perfect.
But the bottom line is, we are in a global war with radical Islam. They declared on us -- war on us a long, long time ago. We took note, really, for the first time on September 11 of 2001.
We must do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves.
We weren't considered to be arrogant in Afghanistan when we went in there and won that conflict.
I agree that we made a mistake in terms of going into Iraq as far as the number of troops are concerned. And I think a flawed strategy also. I think that's been rectified now. And I think we're on the -- on the way to prevailing there.
And because we are prevailing there, I think it's going to be for a safer United States of America.
GIBSON: Mayor Giuliani, would you run on the president's foreign policy record or away from it?
GIULIANI: I think you run on your foreign policy ideas, theories and policies, which I've laid out in articles.
And I think the president got the big decision of his presidency right: the big decision that he made on September 20th, 2001, when he put us on offense against Islamic terrorism. And I give him great credit for that. Because we had been dealing with Islamic terrorism incorrectly up until then. We had been on defense. We had been responding.
The president set a whole different mindset. It was: Let's anticipate, let's see if we can prevent another attack.
That led to Afghanistan, it led to Iraq, it's led to the Patriot Act, it's led to electronic surveillance, it's led to changing our intelligence services. All that is very, very good.
Mistakes have also been made. Mistakes were made particularly in the period of time after the capture of Saddam Hussein and, now, a year ago, when we got to the surge policy.
GIBSON: Well, let me bring up...
GIULIANI: And...
GIBSON: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
GIULIANI: ... if I may add, I think one of the things that would help answer some of the issues that have come up is, we should increase the size of our military.
Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It was called the peace dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases: very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military.
President Bush has never made up for that. Our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000. We need at least 10 more combat brigades. We need our Marines at 200,000. We need a 300-ship Navy.
This president should do it now. If I'm president, I'll do it immediately.
GIBSON: Let me just ratchet up the question slightly and ask you if you believe in the Bush doctrine.
Because in September 2002 -- up for years, our foreign policy has been based on the idea that we form alliances, international consensus. We attack -- retaliate if we're attacked.
But in 2002, the president said we have a right to a pre-emptive attack, that we can attack if this country feels threatened.
GIBSON: And on that basis, WMD, we went into Iraq. We've cited the threat of a nuclear Iran to leave the military option on the table.
Do you agree with the doctrine, Senator McCain, if you were president, or would you change it?
MCCAIN: I agree with the doctrine.
And I'd also like to give President Bush a little credit, as we have this discussion.
Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the United States of America. There hasn't been.
Now, maybe that's all by accident. But if there had been, I think it's very clear where the responsibility would have been placed. So I think we ought to give him credit for that.
We went through the greatest reorganization of government since the creation of the Defense Department and the creation of the Defense -- Department of Homeland Security.
And America is safer. America is not safe; America is safer.
MCCAIN: I'd like to give the president some credit for that.
Now, I strongly disagreed with the strategy employed by Secretary Rumsfeld.
And by the way, I'm the only one here that disagreed at the time, and I'm the only one at the time that said we've got to employ a new strategy and outlined what it was, which is the Petraeus strategy.
I said at the time I had no confidence in the then-secretary of defense.
But we are succeeding now in Iraq. And the fact is as we blame the president for the failed strategy, we should give him credit for changing the strategy and changing the leadership so that we now have I think one of the finest military leaders in American history in David Petraeus.
So, look, I think we've got enormous challenges ahead of us. I think the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists.
And the way, I'd like to give my friend the mayor for the great job that he did after 9/11 and the way that he and the president rallied this nation.
MCCAIN: But I know how to lead, I've been involved in these issues, and I know how to solve them.
GIBSON: Congressman Paul, let me ask you, do you agree with the Bush doctrine, or would you change it?
PAUL: Well, I certainly agreed with his foreign policy that he ran on and that we, as Republicans, won in year 2000. You know, the humble foreign policy, no nation building, don't be the policeman of the world.
And we were strongly critical of the policy of the Clinton administration that did the opposite and we fell short. Of course, the excuse is that 9/11 changed everything.
But the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change; this is huge. This is the first time we, as a nation, accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this.
And that all options are on the table to go after Iran?
This is not necessary. These are Third World nations. They're not capable.
But I think it's the misunderstanding or the disagreements that we've had in this debate along the campaign trail is the nature of the threat.
PAUL: I'm as concerned about the nature of the threat of terrorism as anybody, if not more so. But they don't attack us because we're free and prosperous.
And there all radicals in all elements, in all religions that will resort to violence. But if we don't understand that the reaction is, is because we invade their countries and occupy their countries, we have bases in their country -- and we haven't done it just since 9/11, but we have done that a long time.
I mean, it was the Air Force base in Saudi Arabia before 9/11 that was given as the excuse.
If we don't understand that, we can't win this war against terrorism.
GIBSON: You can break in here, Governor Romney.
ROMNEY: Well, unfortunately, Ron, you need a thorough understanding of what radical jihad is, what the movement is, what its intent is, where it flows from. And the fact is that it's trying to bring down not just us, but it's trying to bring down all moderate Islamic governments, Western governments around the world, as we just saw in Pakistan.
ROMNEY: But let's step back with regards to the president.
The president is not arrogant. The president does not subject -- or is not subject to a bunker mentality. The president has acted out of his desire to keep America safe.
And we owe him a debt of gratitude for keeping this country safe over the last six years.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: Let me continue with my own thoughts on the issue of do we follow his policy or create a new one.
He did the right thing in responding and reacting to the fact that we got attacked. And people now recognize: You attack America and there is a response.
But we're going to have to move our strategy from simply being a respond to military threat with military action to an effort that says we're going to use our military and nonmilitary resources -- nonmilitary resources -- combined with other nations who are our friends to help move the world of Islam toward modernity and moderation.
It's something that former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain spoke about. The new mission for NATO and for other nations is to help provide the rule of law, education that's not through madrassas, agricultural and economic policies that can be instilled in various Islamic countries, so the Muslims are able to reject the extreme and the terrorists.
ROMNEY: We can help them. Our military's going to be needed.
We do need -- I agree with what the mayor said -- we need to add to our military by at least 100,000 troops. But the answer is to move now to a second phase, a phase of helping Muslims become so strong they can reject the extreme.
THOMPSON: Charlie, is this subject still open?
GIBSON: Sure.
THOMPSON: Can we comment on that?
I served on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate. I was the floor manager for the Republicans on the homeland security bill, so I have a bit of a different vantage point than some of my colleagues on this.
The question had to do with preemption.
Preemption didn't just appear one day as a good idea. After the Cold War, we had one big enemy and one big weapon against us. When we, kind of, took a holiday from history in the 1990s and let our military slide and our intelligence capability slide, the world was changing. We now have multiple enemies. We now have terrorists and terrorist groups, Al Qaida, rogue nations in different stages of developing nuclear weapons.
THOMPSON: We must be prepared for the different kind of weaponry that we're facing. We could be attacked with a biological weapon and not even know it for a long period of time. This is a different world.
So, instead of mutual assured destruction, which we lived under for a long time, it's now a world where preemption has got to be an option under the right circumstances.
GIBSON: So you would keep the Bush policy?
THOMPSON: Things that happen on the other side of the world sometimes can affect us, such as perhaps Pakistan.
We should only go in where we should and where we're able to.
GIBSON: Let me...
GIULIANI: Charlie?
GIBSON: Yeah, go ahead.
GIULIANI: Just make one point.
Ron's analysis is really seriously flawed. The idea that the attack took place because of American foreign policy is precisely the reason I handed back a $10 million check to a Saudi prince who gave me the money at ground zero for the twin towers fund and then put out a press release saying America should change its foreign policy.
GIULIANI: It seems to me, if you don't face this squarely -- there's an Islamic, terrorism threat against us. It's an existential threat. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. It has to do with their ideas, their theories, the things that they have done and the way they've perverted their religion into a hatred of us.
And what's at stake are the things that are best about us: our freedom of religion, our freedom for women, our right to vote, our free economic system.
Our foreign policy is irrelevant -- totally irrelevant. If you read what they write, if you bother to listen to what they say, this comes out of their own perverted thinking.
PAUL: Charlie?
GIBSON: Go ahead.
PAUL: Let me try to explain so you can understand this better.
Try to visualize how we would react if they did that to us, if a country, say China, came that great distance across the ocean, and they say, "We want you to live like us. We want you to have our economic system. We want bases on your land. We want to protect our oil."
Even if we do that with good intentions -- even if the Chinese did that with good intentions, we would all be together and we'd be furious.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: Ron, you're reading their propaganda. You're reading their propaganda.
PAUL: What would you do if the Chinese...
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I'd read their writings.
PAUL: What would you do?
ROMNEY: I'd read what they write to one another. And that's why when someone like Sayyid Qutb lays out the philosophy of radical jihadism and says, "We want to kill..."
PAUL: And what you're saying...
ROMNEY: Let me complete.
Wants to kill Anwar Sadat, when there's the assassination of Anwar Sadat, it has nothing to do with us.
The reason -- why did they kill Madam Bhutto? It has nothing to do with us. This has to do with a battle that is going on within the world of Islam, of radical, violent jihadists trying to bring down all moderate Islamic people and nations and replace them with a religious caliphate.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: And we are doing our very best to help support the voices of moderation.
They tried it in the Philippines.
THOMPSON: Who have we invaded before 9/11?
PAUL: We were occupying...
THOMPSON: Occupying?
PAUL: We had an air base in Saudi Arabia.
THOMPSON: A base? (CROSSTALK)
PAUL: We have propped up -- how many governments have we propped up?
GIBSON: Just before we -- before we stop, Governor, I owe you a few seconds. Because you -- somebody said, no, Senator Thompson said we're not arrogant, we're not bunker mentality.
(CROSSTALK)
HUCKABEE: Well, and those words -- first of all, Governor Romney, you, yourself on "60 Minutes" said that we had left Iraq in a mess. You've also said that you weren't going to have this "my way or no way" philosophy.
And I've been attacked for using the words: a policy that had an arrogance and bunker mentality. I didn't say the president was. I supported the president in the war before you did. I supported the surge when you didn't.
I'm not a person who is out there taking cheap shots at the president. I worked really hard to get him elected.
But I'm not running for George Bush's third term. I want to be president of the United States on my own terms.
And I think it's important for us to recognize...
ROMNEY: Charlie, I get to respond to that.
HUCKABEE: Let me finish this. When Congressman...
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: ... I get a chance to respond.
(CROSSTALK)
HUCKABEE: The fact is when there is a serious threat to this country, it is not a threat because we happen to be peace-loving people. It's a threat because in the heart of the radical Islamic faith -- not all Islam, and that's what's very important.
This isn't an Islamic problem. This is a jihadist problem. This is an Islamo-fascism problem.
And if you read the writings of those who most influenced -- and Governor Romney mentioned Sayyid Qutb, executed in Egypt in 1966. He is one of the major philosophers behind this.
And the fact is, there is nothing about our attacking them that prompts this. They are prompted by the fact they believe that they must establish a worldwide caliphate that has nothing to do with us other than we live and breathe and their intention is to destroy us.
GIBSON: Very quickly. You after Governor Romney.
ROMNEY: A number of things.
I disagree with the governor writing in Foreign Affairs magazine that the president's administration suffers from an arrogant bunker mentality.
HUCKABEE: Did you read the article before you commented on it?
ROMNEY: I did read the article, the whole article. I read the entire article and I thought it was -- well, I won't make any further comments. It was not...
(CROSSTALK)
HUCKABEE: Before you commented on it?
ROMNEY: Before -- I got a copy of the article and read the article. And in the headline of the article, it said, "The Bush..."
MCCAIN: Did you read mine?
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: No, no, hold on.
John, no, I didn't. Sorry. But I read his.
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: And number two...
(UNKNOWN): What about mine?
ROMNEY: Number two -- number two, I did support the surge. It was Senator McCain, of all of us, who was out fighting for the surge. He right on that.
On the same day the president announced the surge, I also, having spoken that day with Fred Kagan, who's one of the brilliant theorists in this regard, I laid out my plan that I thought made sense -- actually even before the president's speech -- calling for additional troops. I called for a different number.
So I also supported the surge from the very beginning.
ROMNEY: But, look, you know, Governor, don't try and characterize my position. Of course, this war...
HUCKABEE: Which one?
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: You know, we're wise to talk about policies and not to make personal attacks.
HUCKABEE: Well, it's not a personal attack, Mitt, because you also supported a timed withdrawal. And Senator Pryor from my state...
Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.
