James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction with training & analysis

Research Story of the Week

The Democratic Presidential Candidates on WMD Proliferation and International Security

By Scott Parrish

Democratic party icon.

September 24, 2003

With the entry of retired General Wesley Clark into the field on September 17, 10 candidates now seek the 2004 Democratic Party nomination for president. The other nine are former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Reverend Al Sharpton, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Florida Senator Bob Graham, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, and former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun. Until a few months ago, foreign and security policy issues--with the partial exception of Iraq--did not loom large on the agenda of most of these candidates. Conventional wisdom held that President George W. Bush, fresh from victory in Iraq and still wearing the mantle of the "9/11 president," would be largely unassailable on these issues. Instead of futilely challenging Bush on this hostile terrain, Democratic candidates seemed likely to focus on assailing Bush's domestic policies, hammering on issues such as the stagnant economy, the rising cost of health care, and the ballooning federal budget deficit.

But the summer of 2003 proved to be a difficult one for the Bush administration overseas. Events related to Iraq--including a terrorist bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad, a steady stream of guerilla attacks on U.S. troops, and continuing failure to turn up any evidence of an active Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program--have taken some of the luster off Bush's foreign policy credentials. Although much could change before November 2004, the president now looks vulnerable on foreign policy. The 10 Democratic candidates have already adjusted their strategy, and in recent debates and public appearances, they have played up their foreign policy differences with the Bush administration and with each other. Foreign policy issues now look poised to play an important role in the Democratic presidential campaign. The entry of General Clark, who has extensive foreign policy credentials but no domestic policy experience, is emblematic of this shift.

For the moment, all other foreign policy issues are overshadowed by the question of how to proceed in Iraq. Nevertheless, WMD nonproliferation policy clearly ranks among the top challenges to the security of the United States, and is also a topic that is linked with the Iraq situation. Any credible candidate for the Democratic nomination will have to address nonproliferation policy in his or her campaign, and the newfound prominence of foreign policy issues in the Democratic campaign presents the opportunity to open a renewed national debate about nonproliferation policy. To that end, this report will outline the policy stances of the Democratic candidates on a range of nonproliferation issues, including preventive war, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, missile defense, cooperative threat reduction, homeland security against WMD terrorist attacks, and arms control.

Iraqi WMD and Preventive War

The threat posed by Iraqi WMD programs was one of the principal reasons President Bush cited to justify invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein. The war in Iraq served as the first practical application of a new doctrine of preventive war that Bush outlined in a June 2002 speech at West Point.[1] Bush has argued that the traditional strategy of deterrence may not be effective against rogue states and terrorists, making preventive strikes necessary in some cases. However, the failure so far to uncover any evidence that Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion has proven politically embarrassing for Bush and has led critics to question the utility of the preventive war doctrine. While the Democratic candidates all agree with Bush that rogue state WMD programs pose a threat to U.S. interests, they question the general wisdom of preventive war, and disagree with Bush to varying extents about how to deal with Iraq in particular.

One dividing line between the Democratic candidates on this issue is whether they supported the October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq. Congressman Gephardt and Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards all voted for this resolution. All of them now say that President Bush misled them and the country by failing to work harder to build a broad international consensus before attacking Iraq. Several have also expressed concern that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence about Iraqi WMD in order to bolster support for attacking Iraq. Senator Graham and Congressman Kucinich, by contrast, voted against the resolution. Graham contends that the Bush administration's efforts to remove Saddam Hussein reflect misplaced priorities. The former senator feels Saddam was not as dangerous as was Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and argues that the invasion and occupation of Iraq "has taken the focus off the war on terrorism, and therefore allowed al-Qaeda to regenerate."[2] These comments reflect a theme used by a number of the Democratic candidates who contend that the attack on Iraq has not lessened the threat of WMD and terrorism, but perhaps even increased it. Although they did not have a vote on the congressional resolution, Governor Dean, Reverend Sharpton, and former Senator Moseley Braun opposed the invasion of Iraq.

All of the Democratic candidates now believe that President Bush should "internationalize" the reconstruction of Iraq by attracting additional support from the United Nations and NATO. They also fault the president for not having a better plan to secure WMD in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Several have expressed concern that WMD may not have been found in Iraq because, as Dean put it, "they have already been stolen or transferred to others."[3]

On the larger principle of preventive war, even before the current difficulties in Iraq, the Democratic candidates expressed doubts about its effectiveness. Senator Edwards, for example, derided the policy as "a new doctrine that suggests a uniquely American right to use force wherever and whenever we decide it's appropriate," which he termed "distracting and damaging."[4] Governor Dean said that President Bush "undercuts our long-term national security interests and the established international order when he seeks to replace decades of bipartisan consensus on the use of American force with a new doctrine justifying preemptive attacks against other nation states."[5] Senator Graham argues that as a result of the preventive war doctrine, "We have now lost nearly all of the worldwide support we garnered after September 11, 2001 and our standing in the world is being questioned. This is not a way to achieve peace and security for all people."[6] Congressman Kucinich states flatly that "as president, I will repeal the preemptive war doctrine."[7] Reverend Sharpton says "it's a dangerous and traditionally un-American doctrine," while Moseley-Braun comments that "I believe this administration's claim of a right to start a war based not on aggression but on suspicion is dangerous and ought to be rejected by the American people."[8] General Clark has also indirectly criticized the preventive war doctrine, saying that his standard for attacking Iraq would have required "not only the capabilities to produce the weapons but the weapons, and then I think you'd need something more. I think you'd need the documents or the discussion that there was in fact a program to threaten the United States or its allies with those weapons in the immediate future."[9] Even Senator Lieberman, who was more supportive of the war against Iraq then the other Democratic candidates, has expressed opposition to the general doctrine of preventive war, saying, "I don't support the Bush administration's preemptive military policy."[10]

North Korea/Iran

As tensions have grown over the North Korean nuclear program, the Bush administration has taken a hard-line stance, refusing bilateral talks and insisting that the problem can be adequately addressed only in multilateral talks involving North Korea's neighbors--Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia. Administration officials have also virtually ruled out any concessions until North Korea agrees to total dismantling of its nuclear program. The Democratic candidates all agree that North Korea should not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. But they criticize the administration's approach as overly rigid, and also argue that the administration's nonproliferation priorities are misplaced, saying North Korea is a greater threat than Iraq and has received inadequate attention.

In a September 2003 speech, Senator Graham, for example, argued that "what we should have done is continue the policy of Bill Perry and Bill Clinton, which I think had real promise of containing North Korea."[11] Graham recommended that the administration "intensify the negotiations which were held in the last few weeks, to try to get a resolution." He even argued that the United States should consider doing "some things that we don't want to do" in order to achieve a negotiated settlement, such as "sign a non-aggression pact [with North Korea]...commit to some longer-term economic and energy support for North Korea."[12] Graham concluded that "if that's the price of getting North Korea to desist and dismantle its nuclear program, I think that's a price we should pay."[13] Governor Dean takes a similar stand, saying "that it is foolish to refuse to have bilateral discussions with the North Koreans." And while he insists that it would be unacceptable for North Korea to have nuclear weapons, Dean does not detail what sort of concessions he would be willing to make in order to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions.[14] Senator Kerry has also urged the administration to negotiate directly with North Korea, saying direct talks should have begun back in 2001 when Bush first took office.[15] Lieberman argues that inflexible Bush policies have "helped turn a difficult challenge on the Korean peninsula into a dangerous crisis" and urges the adoption of a policy of "negotiation and engagement."[16] General Clark, expressing concern that miscalculation might lead to war on the Korean peninsula, has also said "we need to be talking to the North Koreans."[17] Clark concludes that the United States should be "Not only working multi-laterally, but working bi-laterally with North Korea to turn off the tap on the nuclear weapons production and work so that regime doesn't feel compelled to either proliferate or strike out."[18]

On Iran, whose civilian nuclear power and research program is believed by many in the United States to conceal a covert nuclear weapons program, the Democratic candidates again advocate a strategy of engagement. Dean, for example, has said that the Iranian nuclear program is actually a bigger threat to the United States than was the Iraqi program, because "Iran, unlike Iraq, has the economic ability to pursue a nuclear weapons program and has directly financed terrorist groups."[19]

Missile Defense

Since taking office, the Bush administration has emphasized the importance of missile defense as a means of countering the threat posed to the United States by the proliferation of long-range ballistic missiles. In order to remove treaty constraints that the administration argued might hamper the development of effective missile defenses, President Bush took the dramatic step of withdrawing the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in December 2001. The administration has also announced plans to deploy an initial ground-based missile defense system in Alaska by 2005, and has increased funding for a wide array of other missile defense systems.

Most of the Democratic candidates are considerably less enthusiastic about the prospects for missile defense than is President Bush. While most do not oppose missile defense in principle, they would accord it less priority in the nonproliferation policy tool box. Dean, for example, specifically says on his web site that he would take $1 billon from the current missile defense budget and reallocate it to the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR, or Nunn-Lugar) program, which he describes as a "more urgent national priority."[20] With regard to specific missile defense systems, Dean has said that he "supports the boost-phase stuff, but I think the rest of it's got to be tested before we build it. We haven't gotten the right results yet."[21] Along these same lines, Senators Kerry, Graham, and Edwards have all voted in the Senate to require "real world" testing of any missile defense system components before they are deployed.[22]

At the other end of the spectrum, Congressman Kucinich takes a more categorical stand against missile defense, saying "our nation must abandon plans for a so-called missile shield," and "revive the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty."[23] Kucinich was one of a group of congressmen who sued President Bush in federal court, seeking to block the Bush administration's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Although the court dismissed the lawsuit, Kucinich still cites his position on his web site.[24]

Cooperative Threat Reduction

After initial doubts, the Bush administration has generally supported the concept of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which works to reduce the threat of WMD proliferation from the countries of the former Soviet Union. Following initial attempts in early 2001 to reduce the funding of these programs, since 9/11 the administration has recognized them as useful nonproliferation policy tools. The Democratic candidates, however, place greater priority on CTR programs than does the Bush administration and suggest higher levels of funding for them. In particular, the Democratic candidates argue that CTR can serve as a "preventive defense" against terrorist acquisition of WMD capabilities, and should be seen as a key part of the war against terrorism. And they often contrast this with what they view as Bush's excessive reliance on military pre-emption.

Senator Kerry, for example, has called for expanded international efforts to confront the problem of WMD proliferation. He argues that "the administration's approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is long on rhetoric but short on execution," and concludes, "It's time for the most determined, all-out effort ever initiated to secure the world's nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction."[25] Governor Dean also calls for an expansion of CTR efforts. In addition to proposing to transfer $1 billion from missile defense to CTR, Dean adds that "he agrees with numerous recommendations that $30 billion is needed over the next 8-10 years to adequately address this threat [of unsecured WMD materials and technology]."[26] In his standard stump speech, Dean often attacks Bush for spending money on "tax cuts for the wealthy" rather than "buying up additional Russian highly enriched uranium under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program."[27] Senator Lieberman's spokesman has said that "Senator Lieberman supports full funding of Cooperative Threat Reduction and all programs to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."[28] And Congressman Gephardt declared in a July 2003 speech that "rather than unilaterally pre-empting threats from arriving on our shores, I'll lead an administration and an alliance that will work to prevent threats from emerging in the first place by securing nuclear materials and facilities worldwide."[29]

Arms Control Treaties and Regimes

The Bush administration has widely been perceived by its critics as hostile to international treaties and regimes, including those in the arms control and nonproliferation area. As evidence, they cite the administration's decisions to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, refuse to agree to a verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and failure to seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Critics have also charged that the administration's policies are undermining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The administration responds that these particular treaties and agreements did not meet U.S. interests, and denies that its actions are undermining the NPT.

The democratic candidates generally attack the Bush administration's "unilateral approach" to foreign policy, and all argue that they would seek to rebuild the alliances and international coalitions that they believe Bush has strained. On nonproliferation, a number of the candidates have criticized the administration for walking away from negotiations on a verification protocol for the BWC. Dean, for example, said that "These treaties are not without flaws, but surely some could be ratified and others renegotiated. The answer is to work to rewrite them, and not to walk away from them."[30] Kerry has criticized the administration's failure to work for ratification of the CTBT--which continues to languish unratified in the Senate--as a step backward. "U.S. rejection of the treaty [CTBT] would undermine the credibility of U.S. leadership on non-proliferation," Kerry argues, and thus make it more difficult to prevent other countries like North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.[31] Congressman Kucinich argues that the United States must "abide by the principles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty...sign and enforce the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty...[and] revive the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty." Congressman Gephardt has condemned a "dangerous pattern" of refusing to participate in multilateral regimes and treaties.[32] On balance, then, all of the Democratic candidates would be more likely than the Bush administration to seek negotiated, multilateral solutions to nonproliferation challenges.

On arms control, a number of the democratic candidates have criticized Bush for his rejection of traditional arms control treaties. Although the Bush administration did negotiate a new arms control treaty with Russia (SORT), its lack of verification measures and failure to require the destruction of nuclear warheads removed from operational deployment have been criticized by the Democratic candidates. Kerry, for example, proposed an amendment during the SORT ratification debate that would have required Russia and the United States to exchange annual monitoring reports. Kerry's argument was motivated not by concerns that Russia would cheat on the treaty, but by fears that without transparency, the United States could not be certain about the security of Russian nuclear weapons removed from active deployment under the treaty's terms. "The treaty runs the risk of increasing the danger of nuclear theft by stockpiling thousands of warheads," Kerry argued. He also criticized the treaty for failing to require the dismantling of warheads removed from operational deployment, concluding, "If we are to make America safer, and we must, it will take more than cosmetic treaties that leave Russia's nuclear arsenal in place."[33] Congressman Gephardt has also criticized the SORT treaty, terming it "a treaty that doesn't eliminate nuclear weapons."[34] Again staking out a position to the left of his fellow Democratic candidates, Congressman Kucinich calls for much more sweeping arms control measures urging that the United States "take all nuclear weapons off alert" and "persist toward total, worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons."[35] Based on these comments, it appears that the Democratic candidates would all be more likely to return to traditional arms control agreements than the Bush administration.

New Nuclear Weapons

The Bush administration has proposed funding research and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, in particular "bunker-busters," designed to destroy deep underground facilities, and "mini-nukes," designed to hit targets that could not be reliably destroyed with conventional munitions. The administration argues that such systems are necessary to cope with the threat posed by "rogue states" and terrorists armed with WMD. Critics have argued that the development of such weapons will undermine the nonproliferation regime and actually encourage proliferation rather than deterring it. Administration proposals for funding the development of these weapons have been hotly debated in Congress, with the most vocal opposition coming from Democrats. In the most recent case, the Senate voted 53-41 on September 16, 2003, to fund research on new nuclear weapons, defeating a proposed amendment to the FY 2004 Energy and Water budget by Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) stripping funding from these projects.[36]

Curiously, none of the four current democratic senators running for president--Kerry, Graham, Lieberman, and Edwards--participated in that vote.[37] Perhaps they were too busy campaigning, or they calculated that the administration policy would win regardless of how they voted (in fact, their four votes, however cast, could not have changed the outcome). Not all of the Democratic candidates have taken clear stances on this issue. In the past, Lieberman has in some instances voted against proposals to terminate funding for the development of new nuclear weapons, but has supported others.[38] Edwards and Graham did not vote on any of the four major proposals affecting the funding of new nuclear weapons research during 2003.[39] Kerry did not vote on any of those proposals either, but in the September 4, 2003, debate among the Democratic candidates, he stated bluntly: "This president wants to build a new generation of nuclear weapons. I don't want another generation of usable nuclear weapons."[40] Congressman Gephardt voted to cut funding for new nuclear weapons in May 2003, as did Congressman Kucinich, who also states on his campaign web site that that United States should "stop the development of new nuclear weapons."[41] While Reverend Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun do not appear to have taken a position on this issue, support for new nuclear weapons would seem inconsistent with their other foreign policy positions. With the possible exception of Senator Lieberman, then, the United States would be less likely to develop new nuclear weapons if one of the Democratic candidates is elected in 2004.

Homeland Security

Aside from Iraq, Homeland Security is the issue related to nonproliferation that gets the most attention from the Democratic candidates. All of the candidates attack Bush on this issue, claiming that his actions do not match his rhetoric. They contend that while Bush wants political credit for making the United States more secure against terrorist attacks, including terrorist attacks with WMD, the administration is not supporting the funding needed to actually make the country safer.

Senator Graham, for example, said in a September 2003 speech that the newly created Department of Homeland Security is having difficulties getting off the ground, and that it "needs to have more White House support," and "significantly more money" to accomplish its mission effectively.[42] Graham noted that "first responders" in many U.S. cities and localities urgently need additional funding to purchase new equipment to cope with possible terrorist attacks, and lamented the state of U.S. seaports, likely points of entry for terrorists, which he said desperately need $5-10 billion in additional funds for security measures.[43] Governor Dean also often mentions inadequate funding for port security and first responders in his stump speech.[44] Edwards notes these shortcomings as well, but has also called for the formation of a new domestic intelligence agency to replace the FBI as the lead federal agency dealing with domestic counterterrorism.[45] Kerry and Lieberman, although their proposals differ in details, likewise call for additional spending on homeland security.[46] Gephardt also argues that while Bush belatedly supported the establishment of the Homeland Security Department, he "continues to withhold the funds needed for many critical security measures to be implemented effectively."[47] Kucinich, again setting himself apart from the other candidates with a different approach, proposes the creation of a Department of Peace, which would seek "nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make non-violence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control." It seems safe to assume that any of these candidates would spend more on homeland security than Bush has done to date, although one could debate just how effective the additional spending would be.

Conclusion

Overall, there is stark contrast between President Bush's current nonproliferation policies and the positions of the Democratic candidates. In general, the Democratic candidates are less inclined to unilateral and military solutions to nonproliferation challenges, and more inclined to negotiated solutions worked out in the framework of multilateral institutions. All of the Democrats would be likely to jettison the Bush declaratory doctrine of preventive war. The Democratic candidates would be more likely to try and revive the CTBT, re-invigorate the NPT Review Process, and negotiate denuclearization deals with North Korea and possibly Iran. They would also be less likely to pursue the development of new nuclear weapons. So whichever candidate wins the Democratic nomination, there will be a debate on nonproliferation policy in the fall 2004 general election campaign.

Despite their broad similarities, however, there are still a range of approaches in the Democratic camp. The hawkishness of Senator Lieberman and his firm support of the war against Iraq, for example, contrasts strongly with the calls by Congressman Kucinich for universal nuclear disarmament and the establishment of a Department of Peace. But if one focuses on those candidates currently regarded as most likely to win the nomination--Dean, Kerry, Clark, Gephardt, and Edwards--they are indeed clustered around a rather narrow range of nonproliferation policies. Any of them would place more emphasis on cooperative threat reduction and less on missile defense, while working more closely with allies and multinational institutions to address proliferation threats than does the Bush administration. This general approach represents the views of the "mainstream" Democratic foreign policy community, and will likely be promoted by whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee. Whether after 9/11 the American people find this approach more appealing than Bush's is a question that only the November 2004 election can resolve.

[1] The White House, "Remarks by the President at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York," June 1, 2002, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html>.
[2] Senator Bob Graham, "9/11 Two Years Later: Are We Any Safer?" speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY, September 11, 2003, <http://www.cfr.org/publication_print.php?id=6250>.
[3] Howard Dean, "Restoring American Leadership: A New Direction for American Foreign Policy," speech delivered before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY, June 25, 2003, <http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_cfr>.
[4] John Edwards, "Foreign Policy Address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies," Washington, DC, October 7, 2002, <http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=62>.
[5] Howard Dean, "Defending American Values, Protecting American Interests," speech at Drake University, Iowa, February 17, 2003, <http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_drake>.
[6] Moveon.org, "Candidate Inteviews," <http://www.moveon.org/pac/cands/all_interviews.html>.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] William Saletan, "The Worldview of General Wesley Clark," Slate, September 18, 2003; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, <http://www.web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>.
[10] "Interview with Senator Joe Lieberman," CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, August 3, 2003; cited in Council for a Livable World, "Presidential Candidates' Record on Council for a Livable World Issues," <http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_391.html>.
[11] Graham, "9/11 Two Years Later."
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Dean, "Restoring American Leadership."
[15] Ron Fournier, "Democrat Seeks White House Policy Shift before Vote for Iraq, Afghanistan Money," AP, September 8, 2004, in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, <http://www.web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>.
[16] Joseph I. Lieberman, "Crisis of Our Own Creation," Washington Post, January 8, 2003.
[17] General Wesley Clark, "NDN Speech," June 13, 2003, <http://www.women4clark.com/transcripts/ndnspeech.htm>.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Glenn Johnson, "A Foe of Iraq War Talks of Iran, N. Korea Threat," Boston Globe, April 10, 2003, p. A3; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, <http://www.web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>.
[20] Howard Dean, "Homeland Security," <http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_homelandsecurity>.
[21] Kent Faulk, "Dean Stumps at Alabama A&M," Birmingham News, September 16, 2003, <http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1063703841129160.xml>; cited in Council for a Livable World, "Presidential Candidates' Record."
[22] Council for a Livable World, "Presidential Candidates' Record."
[23] Dennis Kucinich, "Kucinich on the Issues: Nuclear Non-Proliferation," <http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_nuclearnp.htm>.
[24] Dennis Kucinich, "Kucinich on the Issues: Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty," <http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_antiballistic.htm>. Kucinich argued that the president does not have the constitutional authority to withdraw from treaties without congressional approval.
[25] John Kerry, "Foreign Policy Speech at Georgetown University," Washington, DC, January 23, 2003, <http://www. johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html>.
[26] Dean, "Homeland Security."
[27] Howard Dean, "Presentation to Doctors for Dean," San Francisco, CA, August 14, 2003.
[28] Matt Gobush, Director of Communications, Senator Lieberman (D-CT); cited in Council for a Livable World, "Presidential Candidates Record on Council for a Livable World Issues," <http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_391.html>.
[29] Richard Gephardt, "American Engagement and the War Against Terror," remarks before the San Francisco Bar Association, San Francisco, CA, July 22, 2003, <http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/8/155>.
[30] Dean, "Restoring American Leadership."
[31] John Kerry, "Supporting Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Measures, <http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/security_arms_control.html>.
[32] Gephardt, "American Engagement."
[33] John Kerry, "Supporting Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Measures."
[34] Council for a Livable World, "Presidential Candidates Record."
[35] Kucinich, "Kucinich on the Issues: Nuclear Non-Proliferation."
[36] Helen Dewar and Walter Pincus, "Senate Retains Research Funds for Nuclear Weapons," Washington Post, September 17, 2003, p. A6
[37] Ibid.
[38] Council for a Livable World, "Presidential Candidates' Record."
[39] Ibid.
[40] Federal Document Clearinghouse (FDCH), "Democratic Presidential Campaign Debate Sponsored by The Congressional Hispanic Caucus," September 4, 2003, Albuquerque, New Mexico; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>.
[41] Council for a Livable World, "Presidential Candidates' Record." Kucinich, "Kucinich on the Issues: Nuclear Non-Proliferation."
[42] Graham, "9/11 Two Years Later."
[43] Ibid.
[44] Dean, "Presentation to Doctors for Dean."
[45] John Edwards, "Foreign Policy Address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies," Washington, DC, October 7, 2002, <http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?pinter=1&id=62>.
[46] Council for a Livable World, "Presidential Candidates' Positions."
[47] Richard Gephardt, "If I Were President...a Renewed Commitment to Global Leadership," Foreign Policy, issue 135, (March/April 2003), <http://www. foreign policy.com/issue_marapr_2003/RGprint.html>.

Web Resources:

• Council on Foreign Relations, "Campaign 2004: Foreign Policy in the Presidential Election," <http://www.cfr.org/campaign/campaign2004.php>.

• Council for a Livable World, "Presidential Candidates Record on Council for a Livable World Issues," <http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_391.html>.