democracynow--2020-02-07--Laurie Garrett: World Can't Let Racist Attitudes Impact Handling of Coronavirus Outbreak

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
The Chinese doctor who warned the Chinese government about a possible coronavirus outbreak has died after contracting the virus while working at Wuhan Central Hospital .
He was a 34-year-old ophthalmologist .
His name , Dr. Li Wenliang .
Warned his fellow medical workers about coronavirus December 30th .
He was then investigated by police , accused of , quote , “ making false comments.
” His death has sparked a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the hashtag “ We want freedom of speech ” went viral on Chinese social media Thursday .
The death toll from the coronavirus has now topped 630 people in China , with 31,000 confirmed cases of infection worldwide .
The central Chinese government has ordered officials in Wuhan , the epicenter of the outbreak , to round up and quarantine all infected residents .
Residents are being ordered to report family members who show symptoms of the virus to authorities .
Meanwhile , at least 61 people have now tested positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s quarantined off the coast of Japan .
At least eight of those diagnosed with the virus are Americans .
The ship has thousands of people on board , including 428 Americans .
All passengers are being forced to stay in their rooms .
We turn now to Part 2 of our conversation with Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Laurie Garrett , author of several books , including Ebola : Story of an Outbreak and The Coming Plague : Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance , as well as Betrayal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Health .
I spoke to her on Monday , days before the whistleblower doctor died .
She talked about him , as well as her reporting from China during the SARS outbreak 17 years ago .
I asked her about what ’ s happening now .
LAURIE GARRETT : You know , this is really hard , Amy , because China is doing things that really no other nation on Earth could do .
It ’ s a combination of an authoritarian government and , you know , tremendous infrastructure .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight days .
It ’ s admitting patients today .
I witnessed them building hospitals in the provincial areas in six days , seven days .
And I ’ m not talking about a slapdash little shed .
It ’ s a real , sophisticated , you know , negative air pressure hospital .
But the measures they ’ re having to resort to are so extreme .
You know , basically , 100 million people in the nation right at this moment are in some form of shutdown or lockdown .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pounds of food all over the country in mass convoys to the locked-down population .
I mean , Wuhan is 11 million people .
And Beijing is essentially under a de facto quarantine .
LAURIE GARRETT : But yeah , you can ’ t go through usual train stations , airports , any of that .
In some places , those are completely shut down .
In others , you will have to go through a whole set of fever checks and questions and so on , by people in the spacesuits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not it ’ s safe for you to move on .
Are you a potential disease carrier ?
And if you are driving , you ’ ll be stopped every roughly 10 miles , and you ’ ll have to get out of your vehicle .
Your vehicle will be disinfected with sprays .
And you will have to go through yet another fever check .
So , it wasn ’ t uncommon during SARS , and I ’ m hearing the same thing from colleagues there now , to have myself go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a day .
Just almost every building would require it , whatever you were doing .
And the scale of this , I just can ’ t underscore enough .
There ’ s no other nation on Earth that could do this right now .
We certainly couldn ’ t .
Nor would we .
Can you imagine how many days it would take just to get approval for a piece of land to build a hospital on in the United States ?
Here in New York City , we ’ d be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years from now .
To build a high-end hospital in eight days , there ’ s no other country .
Forget it .
We should be watching what they ’ re having to go through , and thinking , “ Well , what will we do if it comes here ?
Where ’ s our resources ?
” You know , it ’ s a harder thing to fight an epidemic in a democracy .
It ’ s a harder thing to fight when the internet can just scream all kinds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locking people up in China for going on Weibo and telling the truth .
And they ’ re still locking people up .
Anybody who ’ s giving information — for example , some of you may , if you ’ re following this , you ’ ve seen these horrible pictures of people who ’ ve died and are — their body is just sitting on the sidewalk .
They ’ re in a hallway .
They ’ ve careened with their car , died trying to get to a hospital and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re just sitting there in the car .
And no one comes because they ’ re afraid to touch these bodies .
If you social media , tweet those images in the United States , that ’ s OK .
But in China , that could get you in prison , it it ’ s tracked that you ’ re the one that ’ s been posting those images .
So , what ’ s happening now is that there ’ s almost a lockdown of information , on top of everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say what is the appropriate way that Americans should be looking at this right now , because we ’ re at that danger moment in the United States between sort of being disease voyeurs , watching what ’ s unfolding overseas , with some strange interest , versus going into panic because we think it ’ s coming to us .
And we ’ re in an election year .
We ’ re in — with a government that has pared back its own ability to respond , and with a public that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at their telephones .
You put all this together , we have a recipe for a possible really severe overreaction , that would include , you know , clamping down on Chinese-descendant people inside the United States , that could include all sorts of measures that would be hideous .
And meanwhile , just the fear of something that ’ s actually thousands of miles away has made us run out of masks .
And I challenge your viewers to go out and find a face mask right now , an appropriate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dust mask , not a construction mask , but one that ’ s actually designed to block viruses .
LAURIE GARRETT : Well , it won ’ t help to tell you , because now on social media everybody ’ s advertising , quote , N95 masks , and they ’ re just dust masks .
So , it ’ s doesn ’ t matter what — everybody ’ s lying .
People are making huge profits .
There ’ s hoarding of masks all over the world .
The fact is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work — they ’ re medical face masks — are not made in the United States .
They may be distributed by a U.S. company , but they ’ re made in ?
Fill in the blank .
China and the Philippines , for the most part .
And we go down the list of things , and we can see there ’ s already panic buying .
You ’ re hard-pressed to find medically designed latex gloves right now in drugstores anywhere in the United States .
Amazon ’ s out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point where Amazon.com can ’ t fill it , well , then , you know , you ’ re in real trouble .
LAURIE GARRETT : Well , they covered up .
I mean , this is typical , what I ’ ve seen every time in China , every outbreak I ’ ve been in there , is that — you know , outsiders don ’ t understand .
China really has two governments that run in parallel .
One is the official government , with people with titles , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other is the party , the Communist Party .
And one trumps the other , and that ’ s the Communist Party .
And it ’ s essentially kind of a shadow government , in the sense that not everybody knows who the party official is in charge of X , Y or Z .
But the mode of the party is to always strive for stability .
And that ’ s the most common word in the Chinese political lexicon , you know , “ stability , ” “ stability.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nothing can upset the order of society .
Well , what ’ s upsetting to order of society more than an epidemic ?
And so the initial response of party officials whenever there ’ s an outbreak is to stifle it as quickly as possible and stifle all news and information about it and spend as much time arresting , as I wrote about several weeks ago when this was first starting , that they were spending more energy arresting people for talking about this epidemic — almost all of them healthcare workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were in dealing with it and confronting it .
So , by the time they actually put out honest numbers and actually start telling the world the true toll , we ’ re several weeks in , and we have a huge problem on our hands .
And then , now they ’ re just racing to keep up .
The Hong Kong University has a spectacular team of epidemiology statisticians , who ’ ve been through SARS , been through bird flu , on and on down there , and they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reports through a variety of means .
And they ’ ve shown the underreporting rate is pretty consistently by more than 50 % — in fact , considerably more — so that they say this currently reported toll total of about 17,000-and-change cases in mainland China , actually , that ’ s the number it probably was about 10 days ago .
And the true number at this moment is significantly larger .
LAURIE GARRETT : Yeah , I ’ m not sure I would go as far as he did in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But he ’ s right about all the rest of it .
We ’ re not going to get out of this by waving political sticks at each other .
The virus doesn ’ t know the race , the politics , the religion of the human it infects , nor does it give a darn .
It ’ s only we who aid and abet , and we ’ ve seen this in one kind of epidemic after another , the worst case one being HIV .
It is we humans who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by carrying out our own discriminatory , racist , bigoted attitudes towards other humans rather than tackling the virus .
AMY GOODMAN : Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Laurie Garrett .
I spoke to her earlier this week .
To see Part 1 of our conversation , go to democracynow.org .
When we come back , “ Deported to Danger : United States Deportation Policies Expose Salvadorans to Death and Abuse.
” Stay with us .
AMY GOODMAN : “ Buffalo Soldier ” by Bob Marley & The Wailers .
This week would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. The Chinese doctor who warned the Chinese government about a possible coronavirus outbreak has died after contracting the virus while working at Wuhan Central Hospital. He was a 34-year-old ophthalmologist. His name, Dr. Li Wenliang. Warned his fellow medical workers about coronavirus December 30th. He was then investigated by police, accused of, quote, “making false comments.” His death has sparked a wave of anger and outrage in China, where the hashtag “We want freedom of speech” went viral on Chinese social media Thursday.
The death toll from the coronavirus has now topped 630 people in China, with 31,000 confirmed cases of infection worldwide. The central Chinese government has ordered officials in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, to round up and quarantine all infected residents. Residents are being ordered to report family members who show symptoms of the virus to authorities. Meanwhile, at least 61 people have now tested positive for coronavirus on a cruise ship that’s quarantined off the coast of Japan. At least eight of those diagnosed with the virus are Americans. The ship has thousands of people on board, including 428 Americans. All passengers are being forced to stay in their rooms.
We turn now to Part 2 of our conversation with Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Laurie Garrett, author of several books, including Ebola: Story of an Outbreak and The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance, as well as Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health. I spoke to her on Monday, days before the whistleblower doctor died. She talked about him, as well as her reporting from China during the SARS outbreak 17 years ago. I asked her about what’s happening now.
LAURIE GARRETT: You know, this is really hard, Amy, because China is doing things that really no other nation on Earth could do. It’s a combination of an authoritarian government and, you know, tremendous infrastructure. They built a thousand-bed hospital in Wuhan in eight days. It’s admitting patients today. I witnessed them building hospitals in the provincial areas in six days, seven days. And I’m not talking about a slapdash little shed. It’s a real, sophisticated, you know, negative air pressure hospital. But the measures they’re having to resort to are so extreme. You know, basically, 100 million people in the nation right at this moment are in some form of shutdown or lockdown. They have to move hundreds of billions of pounds of food all over the country in mass convoys to the locked-down population. I mean, Wuhan is 11 million people. And Beijing is essentially under a de facto quarantine.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain how it is. I mean, we’ve seen movies with plagues. But how — actually what does it look like? You can’t drive outside. You’re met by men with guns?
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, they don’t point guns at you.
AMY GOODMAN: They cut down the public transportation system.
LAURIE GARRETT: But yeah, you can’t go through usual train stations, airports, any of that. In some places, those are completely shut down. In others, you will have to go through a whole set of fever checks and questions and so on, by people in the spacesuits, the PPEs, to determine whether or not it’s safe for you to move on. Are you a potential disease carrier? And if you are driving, you’ll be stopped every roughly 10 miles, and you’ll have to get out of your vehicle. Your vehicle will be disinfected with sprays. And you will have to go through yet another fever check. So, it wasn’t uncommon during SARS, and I’m hearing the same thing from colleagues there now, to have myself go through a dozen to 20 fever checks a day. Just almost every building would require it, whatever you were doing.
And the scale of this, I just can’t underscore enough. There’s no other nation on Earth that could do this right now. We certainly couldn’t. Nor would we. Can you imagine how many days it would take just to get approval for a piece of land to build a hospital on in the United States? Here in New York City, we’d be bickering on it, you know, two years from now. To build a high-end hospital in eight days, there’s no other country. Forget it. We should be watching what they’re having to go through, and thinking, “Well, what will we do if it comes here? Where’s our resources?” You know, it’s a harder thing to fight an epidemic in a democracy. It’s a harder thing to fight when the internet can just scream all kinds of lies, whereas they’ve been locking people up in China for going on Weibo and telling the truth. And they’re still locking people up.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain what that truth is.
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, for example, there’s a young doctor who’s an ophthalmologist in Wuhan who was one of the first to spot that there was a new kind of pneumonia afoot. And he thought it looked a lot like SARS. He went on social media, on Weibo. He put out his analysis of it, and they immediately arrested him, and he was thrown in prison. He was recently released from prison. He went back to treat patients. And he’s come down with the coronavirus and is now fighting for his life.
Anybody who’s giving information — for example, some of you may, if you’re following this, you’ve seen these horrible pictures of people who’ve died and are — their body is just sitting on the sidewalk. They’re in a hallway. They’ve careened with their car, died trying to get to a hospital and smashed into a tree, and they’re just sitting there in the car. And no one comes because they’re afraid to touch these bodies. If you social media, tweet those images in the United States, that’s OK. But in China, that could get you in prison, it it’s tracked that you’re the one that’s been posting those images. So, what’s happening now is that there’s almost a lockdown of information, on top of everything else.
So, let me just say what is the appropriate way that Americans should be looking at this right now, because we’re at that danger moment in the United States between sort of being disease voyeurs, watching what’s unfolding overseas, with some strange interest, versus going into panic because we think it’s coming to us. And we’re in an election year. We’re in — with a government that has pared back its own ability to respond, and with a public that is very panic prone and addicted to looking at their telephones. You put all this together, we have a recipe for a possible really severe overreaction, that would include, you know, clamping down on Chinese-descendant people inside the United States, that could include all sorts of measures that would be hideous. And meanwhile, just the fear of something that’s actually thousands of miles away has made us run out of masks. And I challenge your viewers to go out and find a face mask right now, an appropriate one, an actual medical, not a dust mask, not a construction mask, but one that’s actually designed to block viruses.
AMY GOODMAN: What are they called, the ones that are designed to block viruses?
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, it won’t help to tell you, because now on social media everybody’s advertising, quote, N95 masks, and they’re just dust masks. So, it’s doesn’t matter what — everybody’s lying. People are making huge profits. There’s hoarding of masks all over the world. The fact is, almost all the face masks that work — they’re medical face masks — are not made in the United States. They may be distributed by a U.S. company, but they’re made in? Fill in the blank. China and the Philippines, for the most part. And we go down the list of things, and we can see there’s already panic buying. You’re hard-pressed to find medically designed latex gloves right now in drugstores anywhere in the United States. Amazon’s out of masks. So, if you hit the point where Amazon.com can’t fill it, well, then, you know, you’re in real trouble.
AMY GOODMAN: How does the coronavirus relate to the flu? And that goes to the flu vaccine and what’s happening. I mean, I think there is a push to develop a coronavirus vaccine, right?
LAURIE GARRETT: Yeah, but we won’t have one anytime soon.
AMY GOODMAN: So, how does the flu and the toll it’s taking, let’s say just in the United States, and then around the world, compare?
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, certainly the numbers of people who every year get the flu dwarfs anything — any epidemic. So, you could use that, and people always do, as a red herring to say, “So why are we so worried about this other epidemic? it’s trivial compared to the flu, blah, blah, blah.”
Well, there’s two big things to think about with flu right now. One is, yeah, why do we keep having this high death rate from flu? I mean, that’s an indication that the American people are not listening to public health. They’re not getting vaccinated. They’re not taking precautions, and they sort of have a lackadaisical attitude towards it until they get really sick. So, that shows the level of the struggle for the public health system.
But also, you don’t want to get the flu right now and have it be mistaken for coronavirus. And since both have respiratory symptoms and high fever, that would be a problem. So this is all the more reason you should get vaccinated and reduce your chances of getting the flu and being misdiagnosed or having your real coronavirus missed because they thought it was the flu.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that China is now making up for lost time? What would you say are China’s biggest mistakes they’ve made so far? And what about what they’re doing now?
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, they covered up. I mean, this is typical, what I’ve seen every time in China, every outbreak I’ve been in there, is that — you know, outsiders don’t understand. China really has two governments that run in parallel. One is the official government, with people with titles, you know, minister of whatever. And the other is the party, the Communist Party. And one trumps the other, and that’s the Communist Party. And it’s essentially kind of a shadow government, in the sense that not everybody knows who the party official is in charge of X, Y or Z. But the mode of the party is to always strive for stability. And that’s the most common word in the Chinese political lexicon, you know, “stability,” “stability.” So nothing can rock the boat. Nothing can upset the order of society.
Well, what’s upsetting to order of society more than an epidemic? And so the initial response of party officials whenever there’s an outbreak is to stifle it as quickly as possible and stifle all news and information about it and spend as much time arresting, as I wrote about several weeks ago when this was first starting, that they were spending more energy arresting people for talking about this epidemic — almost all of them healthcare workers, by the way — than they were in dealing with it and confronting it. So, by the time they actually put out honest numbers and actually start telling the world the true toll, we’re several weeks in, and we have a huge problem on our hands. And then, now they’re just racing to keep up. The Hong Kong University has a spectacular team of epidemiology statisticians, who’ve been through SARS, been through bird flu, on and on down there, and they’ve been analyzing the numbers of cases and reports through a variety of means. And they’ve shown the underreporting rate is pretty consistently by more than 50% — in fact, considerably more — so that they say this currently reported toll total of about 17,000-and-change cases in mainland China, actually, that’s the number it probably was about 10 days ago. And the true number at this moment is significantly larger.
AMY GOODMAN: So, where do you see this going? How do you see this playing out? And maybe base it on what you saw. What happened with SARS?
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, when you ask, “Why did SARS end?” you know, you get different answers. In China, one of the most common responses is to say, “Because the weather changed,” as if the virus somehow was related to cold weather, and that as summer approached and it got hotter, the virus disappeared. That makes no sense to me biologically at all. It may make sense in terms of surfaces. Certain cooler surfaces may harbor virus longer than a hot surface. But other than that, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
What I observed was that China basically stopped it by doing a massive fever and quarantine program across the entire nation. So it was brought to a stop by a level of vigorous and robust action. But, you see, they’re doing the same thing now. And as I mentioned before, it’s all based on fever checks, and we now know this virus can spread from people who don’t have fevers. So, they’re building a policy that biologically is flawed, won’t work. So, when people ask me, “Where is this all going?” I say, “Look, this is much worse than SARS.” It is not as terrifically dangerous as a virulent flu epidemic. But it’s far more dangerous than anything we’ve seen on our horizon since the arrival of HIV.
AMY GOODMAN: I’m looking at the secretary general of World Health Organization’s comments. He said, “The speed with which China detected the outbreak, isolated the virus, sequenced the genome and shared it with WHO and the world are very impressive, and beyond words. So is China’s commitment to transparency and to supporting other countries. … [T]he only way we will defeat this outbreak is for all countries to work together in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation. We are all in this together, and we can only stop it together. This is the time for facts, not fear. This is the time for science, not rumours. This is the time for solidarity, not stigma. Thank you.”
LAURIE GARRETT: Yeah, I’m not sure I would go as far as he did in praising China for its early response. But he’s right about all the rest of it. We’re not going to get out of this by waving political sticks at each other. The virus doesn’t know the race, the politics, the religion of the human it infects, nor does it give a darn. It’s only we who aid and abet, and we’ve seen this in one kind of epidemic after another, the worst case one being HIV. It is we humans who aid and abet the spread of disease by carrying out our own discriminatory, racist, bigoted attitudes towards other humans rather than tackling the virus.
AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Laurie Garrett. I spoke to her earlier this week. To see Part 1 of our conversation, go to democracynow.org.
When we come back, “Deported to Danger: United States Deportation Policies Expose Salvadorans to Death and Abuse.” Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Buffalo Soldier” by Bob Marley & The Wailers. This week would have been Bob Marley’s 75th birthday.


democracynow--2020-02-07--Risk of Nuclear War Rises as U.S. Deploys a New Nuclear Weapon for the First Time Since the Cold War

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : As the nation focused on President Trump ’ s impeachment trial , a major story recently broke about a new development in U.S. nuclear weapons policy that received little attention .
The Federation of American Scientists revealed in late January the U.S. Navy had for the first time deployed a submarine armed with a low-yield Trident nuclear warhead .
The USS Tennessee deployed from Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia in late 2019 , armed with a warhead which is estimated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of the atomic bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima .
The deployment is facing criticism at home and abroad .
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons , ICAN , called the news “ an alarming development that heightens the risk of nuclear war.
” On Capitol Hill , House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith said , quote , “ This destabilizing deployment further increases the potential for miscalculation during a crisis.
” Smith also criticized the Pentagon for its inability and unwillingness to answer congressional questions about the weapon over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov responded by saying , quote , “ This reflects the fact that the United States is actually lowering the nuclear threshold and that they are conceding the possibility of them waging a limited nuclear war and winning this war .
This is extremely alarming , ” he said .
We ’ re joined now William Arkin , longtime reporter who focuses on military and nuclear policy .
He broke the story about the deployment of the new low-yield nuclear weapon in an article he co-wrote for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote the cover story for Newsweek , which is headlined “ With a New Weapon in Donald Trump ’ s Hands , the Iran Crisis Risks Going Nuclear.
” He ’ s the author of many books , including Top Secret America : The Rise of the New American Security State .
Bill Arkin , it ’ s great to have you back .
WILLIAM ARKIN : Thanks for having me on , Amy .
AMY GOODMAN : So , to say the least , this has been an explosive week of news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news , which has hardly gone reported , is — should really be one of the top news stories of these last weeks .
WILLIAM ARKIN : Well , during the very time when the Iran crisis was at its highest , the United States , last December , deployed a new nuclear weapon , the first new nuclear weapon to be deployed , Amy , since the end of the Cold War .
So here we have not just a momentous occasion , but a weapon which is intended explicitly to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usable against Russia and China , but to be more usable against Iran and North Korea , as well .
It seemed to me that looking more deeply at this weapon , looking more deeply at the doctrines behind it , and then , really , what surprised me in my reporting , looking more at Donald Trump and the role that he might play in the future , was a story that was just as important , if not more important , than what was going on in the political world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what this — what does it mean , “ low-yield ” nuclear weapon ?
WILLIAM ARKIN : Well , “ low-yield ” is actually a little bit wrong .
The United States actually possesses nuclear weapons with even smaller yields than five to six kilotons , which is what this is estimated at .
That ’ s 5,000 to 6,000 tons .
And so , that would be — if you thought of it in Manhattan terms , it would be probably something on the order of 20 square city blocks obliterated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to say “ low-yield ” is , of course , a little bit wrong .
But it is the lowest-yield missile warhead available to the strategic nuclear forces .
And the real reason behind deploying a Trident warhead with this low-yield weapon was that the United States , the nuclear planners , felt that they didn ’ t have a prompt and assured capability to threaten Russia or threaten other adversaries — “ prompt ” meaning that it would be quickly delivered , 30 minutes , or even , if a submarine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes , and “ assured ” meaning that it isn ’ t a bomber or an airplane that has to penetrate enemy air defenses in order to get to the target .
So , those two things , prompt and assured , is what they really wanted .
And putting a warhead on the missiles on the submarines allowed them both covert deployments as well as getting close to the target .
AMY GOODMAN : So , talk about what this means between the United States and Russia .
WILLIAM ARKIN : Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think it really doesn ’ t change very much .
The Russians can denounce the Trident warhead , but the reality is that they have 2,000 of their own small nuclear weapons of this sort opposite Europe .
And one of the justifications for the deployment of this new nuclear weapon , Amy , was that the Russians in fact had , if you will , a numerical advantage against NATO , and there was a desire to have a more “ usable ” nuclear weapon in order to eliminate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is certainly tense , but it ’ s not really what this weapon is about .
What this weapon is about is having a more usable nuclear weapon against countries like Iran and North Korea , where in fact a shocking first use of nuclear weapons , a preemptive use of nuclear weapons , would be used to either stop a war or to destroy a very important target , say , for instance , if there were a missile on a launchpad ready to strike at that United States .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who ’ s now vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , said the U.S. already has military capabilities to respond to Russian deployment of nuclear weapons .
AMY GOODMAN : Bill Arkin , if you could respond ?
WILLIAM ARKIN : Options .
That ’ s what they ’ re always saying , “ options.
” They need better options to do this , better options to do that .
You have to look at this new weapon and say , “ In its most basic terms , what does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t already have ?
” And those two things that I already mentioned : a prompt capability , being able to strike at a target in 15 minutes or less , and , second , an assured capability — that is , a missile that ’ s able to penetrate any enemy air defenses .
That makes it a particularly dangerous weapon in the hands of the current president , because I ’ ve heard from many people , more than I expected in my reporting , that they were concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , might be more prone to accept the use of nuclear weapons as one of options when he was presented with a long list of options .
One senior officer said to me , “ We ’ re afraid that if we present Donald Trump with a hundred options of what to do in a certain crisis , and only one of them is a nuclear option , that he might go down the list and choose the one that is the most catastrophic.
” And that officer said , “ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military , I ’ ve never thought before that I had to think of the personality of the president in presenting military options.
” AMY GOODMAN : So let ’ s talk about Iran now and what this means for Iran .
WILLIAM ARKIN : Well , the deployment , it happened very quickly .
The decision was made in February 2018 .
The Trident warhead was already on the production line for the strategic submarines .
So , at the end of the run of these warheads , they made about 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variety , because the production line was already operating and hot .
So it happened very quickly .
Ironically , it happened at the very time that the House of Representatives was debating whether or not the weapon should even be deployed .
And by the time that was finished and President Trump had signed the defense appropriations bill on 20th of December , the weapon had already been in the field .
So , it shows really a disconnect , as well , in the congressional debate between what ’ s actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that they ’ re talking about .
AMY GOODMAN : And , of course , for this to have been passed , you know , the House isn ’ t the Senate .
The House is controlled by Democrats , so the Democrats passed this .
WILLIAM ARKIN : That ’ s correct .
But in the end , the Senate turned down the House recommendation that the weapon not be deployed .
And really , the tragedy here is that all of this occurred while the Tennessee was being loaded with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was being prepared to go out on a new patrol , while the Tennessee actually went out into the Atlantic Ocean .
AMY GOODMAN : So , talk again about Iran , exactly .
WILLIAM ARKIN : So , Iran is important because in June , when the drone was shot down , the president declined to retaliate militarily .
And I think he got a lot of criticism from his party , from his wing , that he had made the wrong decision , that the United States should have retaliated against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .
And I think , in the end , when it came to the killing of Qassem Soleimani , the head of the Quds Force , in Baghdad , killed on the 2nd of January , that strike , people have told me , specifically was approved by Donald Trump , enthusiastically pushed by Donald Trump , because it kind of erased the mistake of him not retaliating in June .
At the same time , the United States was also increasing the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were flown to Qatar .
The USS Abraham Lincoln was sailed into the region .
And there was a general buildup of defensive forces in places like Kuwait , Bahrain , the UAE , Saudi Arabia .
At this very moment when U.S.-Iranian relations are at such a deep , I think , divide and at a time also when Iran is free — and it ’ s not clear that they will , but free — to continue to pursue the development of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons , I think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit of a creation of an argument that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction and that the United States is going to have to take action against that .
And you ’ ve seen now from the president a number of very blunt statements that have said , “ We will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
” That ’ s not necessarily what anyone I ’ m talking to in the military is focusing their attention on .
They ’ re much more concerned about Iran in Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s role in Iraq .
But in terms of war planning , I think at the highest levels within the U.S. government there ’ s a general consensus about Iran as being still one of the “ axis of evil , ” still being in pursuit of nuclear weapons .
And the Trump administration , particularly if it ’ s re-elected , is going to make Iran , I think , the centerpiece of a new defense strategy .
AMY GOODMAN : And , of course , it is President Trump that set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the Iran nuclear accord and decimating it .
WILLIAM ARKIN : Yes , that and also the second decision that was made , which was designating the Quds Force as a foreign terrorist organization .
This , ironically , in kind of the bureaucracy of terrorism , triggered a number of decisions and a number of actions , one of which was , with foreign terrorist organizations , the U.S. military then begins the process of targeting their leadership .
And that ’ s what resulted in their starting to track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So it seems to me that we have these two separate tracks kind of converging at the same time : a foreign terrorist organization designation , on the one hand , and weapons of mass destruction , on the other .
AMY GOODMAN : The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently advanced the Doomsday Clock 20 seconds closer to midnight , the clock a symbolic timekeeper that tracks the likelihood of nuclear war and other existential threats .
It now stands closer to catastrophe than at any time since its creation in 1947 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Irish president , former U.N. human rights chief , speaking last month as the clock was set to 100 seconds to midnight .
AMY GOODMAN : Former Irish President Mary Robinson .
The significance of the Doomsday Clock , Bill ?
WILLIAM ARKIN : I think the real significance is the lack of public interaction and public activism on the question of nuclear weapons .
Really , that ’ s the missing ingredient today , Amy .
We have a situation where the United States and Russia are engaged in multi-hundreds of billions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at a time when the United States is at a high level of crisis with Iran and North Korea .
And where is the public ?
Where is the public ?
And where is the anti-nuclear movement ?
And where even is any candidate speaking up about this subject ?
AMY GOODMAN : Well , speaking of the anti-nuclear movement , the nuclear-armed submarine we ’ re talking about was deployed from Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia .
This is the same base where seven Catholic peace activists were recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a misdemeanor charge for breaking into the base on the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King ’ s birth [ sic ] , on April 4th , 2018 .
This is Plowshares activist Martha Hennessy , the granddaughter of Dorothy Day .
It was actually the anniversary of his assassination .
But this is Martha Hennessy , the granddaughter of Dorothy Day , speaking after she was convicted .
AMY GOODMAN : Martha Hennessy is the granddaughter of the Catholic Worker founder Dorothy Day , one of the seven who were found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base .
So , Bill , in this last comment , if you can talk about the significance of their action ?
And also , when you say “ low-yield ” nuclear weapon , it must calm people .
But this is a third of the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima ?
WILLIAM ARKIN : So , “ low-yield ” is merely the title .
It ’ s like saying that a Hummer is a small truck .
I think that what ’ s important for people to take away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a new usable nuclear weapon , what the military itself considers to be more usable .
That ’ s the change .
And it ’ s also a weapon that can be stealthily and covertly deployed in the oceans .
And that ’ s a change .
And we do it at a time when , at least against Russia and North Korea and Iran , the United States is engaged in nuclear brinksmanship , at a time when it seems to me that the Congress is out to lunch , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement in the United States , a mass movement , that could take up arms against this .
AMY GOODMAN : And the significance of Martha Hennessy , Liz McAlister , the peace activist and widow of Phil Berrigan , and others getting convicted on their protest at the base ?
WILLIAM ARKIN : I started writing about nuclear weapons in 1981 , when Ronald Reagan became president .
I believe that ’ s about the time when we met .
And then we had marches in which hundreds of thousands of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and around the world .
And today we have nothing of the sort .
So , yes , it ’ s important that these peace workers continue to do their work and continue to do their important attention operations and exercises , their own , if you will , actions against nuclear weapons .
But it ’ s not enough .
The public has to be more engaged .
And I believe that the Democratic Party candidates for president need to speak up and say something about nuclear weapons , as well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a debate tonight in New Hampshire .
We ’ ll see if that question is raised .
William Arkin , longtime reporter who ’ s focused on military and nuclear policy , author of many books , including Top Secret America : The Rise of the New American Security State .
And we will link to your articles and your cover story in Newsweek magazine .
This is Democracy Now !
We ’ ll be back in a minute looking at the coronavirus .
Over 31,000 people worldwide have been infected .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: As the nation focused on President Trump’s impeachment trial, a major story recently broke about a new development in U.S. nuclear weapons policy that received little attention. The Federation of American Scientists revealed in late January the U.S. Navy had for the first time deployed a submarine armed with a low-yield Trident nuclear warhead. The USS Tennessee deployed from Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia in late 2019, armed with a warhead which is estimated to have about a third of the explosive power of the atomic bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima.
The deployment is facing criticism at home and abroad. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, called the news “an alarming development that heightens the risk of nuclear war.” On Capitol Hill, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith said, quote, “This destabilizing deployment further increases the potential for miscalculation during a crisis.” Smith also criticized the Pentagon for its inability and unwillingness to answer congressional questions about the weapon over the past few months. Meanwhile, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov responded by saying, quote, “This reflects the fact that the United States is actually lowering the nuclear threshold and that they are conceding the possibility of them waging a limited nuclear war and winning this war. This is extremely alarming,” he said.
We’re joined now William Arkin, longtime reporter who focuses on military and nuclear policy. He broke the story about the deployment of the new low-yield nuclear weapon in an article he co-wrote for the Federation of American Scientists. He also wrote the cover story for Newsweek, which is headlined “With a New Weapon in Donald Trump’s Hands, the Iran Crisis Risks Going Nuclear.” He’s the author of many books, including Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State.
Bill Arkin, it’s great to have you back.
WILLIAM ARKIN: Thanks for having me on, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: So, to say the least, this has been an explosive week of news in Washington, D.C., and your news, which has hardly gone reported, is — should really be one of the top news stories of these last weeks.
WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, during the very time when the Iran crisis was at its highest, the United States, last December, deployed a new nuclear weapon, the first new nuclear weapon to be deployed, Amy, since the end of the Cold War. So here we have not just a momentous occasion, but a weapon which is intended explicitly to be more usable — and not just more usable against Russia and China, but to be more usable against Iran and North Korea, as well. It seemed to me that looking more deeply at this weapon, looking more deeply at the doctrines behind it, and then, really, what surprised me in my reporting, looking more at Donald Trump and the role that he might play in the future, was a story that was just as important, if not more important, than what was going on in the political world.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about what this — what does it mean, “low-yield” nuclear weapon?
WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, “low-yield” is actually a little bit wrong. The United States actually possesses nuclear weapons with even smaller yields than five to six kilotons, which is what this is estimated at. That’s 5,000 to 6,000 tons. And so, that would be — if you thought of it in Manhattan terms, it would be probably something on the order of 20 square city blocks obliterated and radiation coming from that area. So, to say “low-yield” is, of course, a little bit wrong. But it is the lowest-yield missile warhead available to the strategic nuclear forces.
And the real reason behind deploying a Trident warhead with this low-yield weapon was that the United States, the nuclear planners, felt that they didn’t have a prompt and assured capability to threaten Russia or threaten other adversaries — “prompt” meaning that it would be quickly delivered, 30 minutes, or even, if a submarine is close, as low as 15 minutes, and “assured” meaning that it isn’t a bomber or an airplane that has to penetrate enemy air defenses in order to get to the target. So, those two things, prompt and assured, is what they really wanted. And putting a warhead on the missiles on the submarines allowed them both covert deployments as well as getting close to the target.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about what this means between the United States and Russia.
WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, between the United States and Russia, I think it really doesn’t change very much. The Russians can denounce the Trident warhead, but the reality is that they have 2,000 of their own small nuclear weapons of this sort opposite Europe. And one of the justifications for the deployment of this new nuclear weapon, Amy, was that the Russians in fact had, if you will, a numerical advantage against NATO, and there was a desire to have a more “usable” nuclear weapon in order to eliminate that advantage. I think the U.S.-Russian situation is certainly tense, but it’s not really what this weapon is about. What this weapon is about is having a more usable nuclear weapon against countries like Iran and North Korea, where in fact a shocking first use of nuclear weapons, a preemptive use of nuclear weapons, would be used to either stop a war or to destroy a very important target, say, for instance, if there were a missile on a launchpad ready to strike at that United States.
AMY GOODMAN: In 2017, General John Hyten, who’s now vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. already has military capabilities to respond to Russian deployment of nuclear weapons.
GEN. JOHN HYTEN: The plans that we have right now — one of the things that surprised me most when I took command on November 3rd was the flexible options that are in all our options today. So we actually have very flexible options in our plans. So, if something bad happens in the world and there’s a response and I’m on the phone with the secretary of defense and the president and the entire staff, which is the attorney general, secretary of state and everybody, I actually have a series of very flexible options, from conventional all the way up to large-scale nuke, that I can advise the president on to give him options on what he would want to do.
AMY GOODMAN: Bill Arkin, if you could respond?
WILLIAM ARKIN: Options. That’s what they’re always saying, “options.” They need better options to do this, better options to do that. You have to look at this new weapon and say, “In its most basic terms, what does it give the United States that it doesn’t already have?” And those two things that I already mentioned: a prompt capability, being able to strike at a target in 15 minutes or less, and, second, an assured capability — that is, a missile that’s able to penetrate any enemy air defenses.
That makes it a particularly dangerous weapon in the hands of the current president, because I’ve heard from many people, more than I expected in my reporting, that they were concerned that Donald Trump, in his own way, might be more prone to accept the use of nuclear weapons as one of options when he was presented with a long list of options. One senior officer said to me, “We’re afraid that if we present Donald Trump with a hundred options of what to do in a certain crisis, and only one of them is a nuclear option, that he might go down the list and choose the one that is the most catastrophic.” And that officer said, “In 35 years of my being in the military, I’ve never thought before that I had to think of the personality of the president in presenting military options.”
AMY GOODMAN: So let’s talk about Iran now and what this means for Iran.
WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, the deployment, it happened very quickly. The decision was made in February 2018. The Trident warhead was already on the production line for the strategic submarines. So, at the end of the run of these warheads, they made about 50 new ones that were of the low-yield variety, because the production line was already operating and hot. So it happened very quickly. Ironically, it happened at the very time that the House of Representatives was debating whether or not the weapon should even be deployed. And by the time that was finished and President Trump had signed the defense appropriations bill on 20th of December, the weapon had already been in the field. So, it shows really a disconnect, as well, in the congressional debate between what’s actually happening on the ground and what it is that they’re talking about.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, for this to have been passed, you know, the House isn’t the Senate. The House is controlled by Democrats, so the Democrats passed this.
WILLIAM ARKIN: That’s correct. But in the end, the Senate turned down the House recommendation that the weapon not be deployed. And really, the tragedy here is that all of this occurred while the Tennessee was being loaded with a new missile, while the Tennessee was being prepared to go out on a new patrol, while the Tennessee actually went out into the Atlantic Ocean.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk again about Iran, exactly.
WILLIAM ARKIN: So, Iran is important because in June, when the drone was shot down, the president declined to retaliate militarily. And I think he got a lot of criticism from his party, from his wing, that he had made the wrong decision, that the United States should have retaliated against Iran. I think that stuck with Donald Trump. And I think, in the end, when it came to the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, in Baghdad, killed on the 2nd of January, that strike, people have told me, specifically was approved by Donald Trump, enthusiastically pushed by Donald Trump, because it kind of erased the mistake of him not retaliating in June.
At the same time, the United States was also increasing the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, in the Iran area. B-52 bombers were flown to Qatar. The USS Abraham Lincoln was sailed into the region. And there was a general buildup of defensive forces in places like Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia.
At this very moment when U.S.-Iranian relations are at such a deep, I think, divide and at a time also when Iran is free — and it’s not clear that they will, but free — to continue to pursue the development of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons, I think that we see maybe the beginning of a little bit of a creation of an argument that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction and that the United States is going to have to take action against that. And you’ve seen now from the president a number of very blunt statements that have said, “We will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.” That’s not necessarily what anyone I’m talking to in the military is focusing their attention on. They’re much more concerned about Iran in Syria, Iran in Yemen, Iran’s role in Iraq. But in terms of war planning, I think at the highest levels within the U.S. government there’s a general consensus about Iran as being still one of the “axis of evil,” still being in pursuit of nuclear weapons. And the Trump administration, particularly if it’s re-elected, is going to make Iran, I think, the centerpiece of a new defense strategy.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, it is President Trump that set that situation up by pulling the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear accord and decimating it.
WILLIAM ARKIN: Yes, that and also the second decision that was made, which was designating the Quds Force as a foreign terrorist organization. This, ironically, in kind of the bureaucracy of terrorism, triggered a number of decisions and a number of actions, one of which was, with foreign terrorist organizations, the U.S. military then begins the process of targeting their leadership. And that’s what resulted in their starting to track Qassem Soleimani and then ultimately killing him. So it seems to me that we have these two separate tracks kind of converging at the same time: a foreign terrorist organization designation, on the one hand, and weapons of mass destruction, on the other.
AMY GOODMAN: The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently advanced the Doomsday Clock 20 seconds closer to midnight, the clock a symbolic timekeeper that tracks the likelihood of nuclear war and other existential threats. It now stands closer to catastrophe than at any time since its creation in 1947. This is Mary Robinson, former Irish president, former U.N. human rights chief, speaking last month as the clock was set to 100 seconds to midnight.
MARY ROBINSON: The Doomsday Clock is a globally recognized indicator of the vulnerability of our existence. It’s a striking metaphor for the precarious state of the world, but, most frighteningly, as we have just heard, it’s a metaphor backed by rigorous scientific scrutiny. This is no mere analogy. We are now 100 seconds to midnight, and the world needs to wake up. Our planet faces two simultaneous existential threats: the climate crisis and nuclear weapons.
AMY GOODMAN: Former Irish President Mary Robinson. The significance of the Doomsday Clock, Bill?
WILLIAM ARKIN: I think the real significance is the lack of public interaction and public activism on the question of nuclear weapons. Really, that’s the missing ingredient today, Amy. We have a situation where the United States and Russia are engaged in multi-hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of nuclear modernization, at a time when the United States is at a high level of crisis with Iran and North Korea. And where is the public? Where is the public? And where is the anti-nuclear movement? And where even is any candidate speaking up about this subject?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, speaking of the anti-nuclear movement, the nuclear-armed submarine we’re talking about was deployed from Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia. This is the same base where seven Catholic peace activists were recently found guilty on three felony counts and a misdemeanor charge for breaking into the base on the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s birth [sic], on April 4th, 2018. This is Plowshares activist Martha Hennessy, the granddaughter of Dorothy Day. It was actually the anniversary of his assassination. But this is Martha Hennessy, the granddaughter of Dorothy Day, speaking after she was convicted.
MARTHA HENNESSY: The weapons are still there. The treaties are being knocked down one after the next. But we are called to keep trying. And we will do this together. And we have no other choice. Thank you so much.
AMY GOODMAN: Martha Hennessy is the granddaughter of the Catholic Worker founder Dorothy Day, one of the seven who were found guilty when they went onto that nuclear base. So, Bill, in this last comment, if you can talk about the significance of their action? And also, when you say “low-yield” nuclear weapon, it must calm people. But this is a third of the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima?
WILLIAM ARKIN: So, “low-yield” is merely the title. It’s like saying that a Hummer is a small truck. I think that what’s important for people to take away from this development is that the United States has a new usable nuclear weapon, what the military itself considers to be more usable. That’s the change. And it’s also a weapon that can be stealthily and covertly deployed in the oceans. And that’s a change. And we do it at a time when, at least against Russia and North Korea and Iran, the United States is engaged in nuclear brinksmanship, at a time when it seems to me that the Congress is out to lunch, and there isn’t really an anti-nuclear movement in the United States, a mass movement, that could take up arms against this.
AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of Martha Hennessy, Liz McAlister, the peace activist and widow of Phil Berrigan, and others getting convicted on their protest at the base?
WILLIAM ARKIN: I started writing about nuclear weapons in 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president. I believe that’s about the time when we met. And then we had marches in which hundreds of thousands of people were in Central Park and in Europe and around the world. And today we have nothing of the sort. So, yes, it’s important that these peace workers continue to do their work and continue to do their important attention operations and exercises, their own, if you will, actions against nuclear weapons. But it’s not enough. The public has to be more engaged. And I believe that the Democratic Party candidates for president need to speak up and say something about nuclear weapons, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, there is a debate tonight in New Hampshire. We’ll see if that question is raised. William Arkin, longtime reporter who’s focused on military and nuclear policy, author of many books, including Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State. And we will link to your articles and your cover story in Newsweek magazine.
This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute looking at the coronavirus. Over 31,000 people worldwide have been infected.


democracynow--2020-02-07--Headlines for February  7, 2020

Headlines for February  7, 2020

In election news , Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez is calling for a recanvass of some of the voting precincts in Iowa , as the latest caucus results show Senator Bernie Sanders and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg virtually tied , with 100 % of the results now reported .
Sanders is still leading in the popular vote , but Buttigieg maintains a 10th of a percentage point advantage in what ’ s known as the “ state delegate equivalent ” race .
But The New York Times is calling even these results into question , after its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa Democratic Party were “ riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws.
” On Thursday , Sanders declared victory .
This is Sanders responding to a reporter ’ s question in New Hampshire .
Sen. Bernie Sanders : “ Because I got 6,000 more votes .
And from where I come , when you get 6,000 more votes , that ’ s generally regarded to be the winner.
” Latest polls show Sanders is leading in New Hampshire , where seven Democratic presidential candidates will take the stage for a debate tonight ahead of @ @ @ @

In election news, Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez is calling for a recanvass of some of the voting precincts in Iowa, as the latest caucus results show Senator Bernie Sanders and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg virtually tied, with 100% of the results now reported. Sanders is still leading in the popular vote, but Buttigieg maintains a 10th of a percentage point advantage in what’s known as the “state delegate equivalent” race.
But The New York Times is calling even these results into question, after its investigation found the results released by the Iowa Democratic Party were “riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws.” On Thursday, Sanders declared victory. This is Sanders responding to a reporter’s question in New Hampshire.
Reporter: “Mayor Pete’s been declaring a win for days now. Why should people believe your victory speech over his?”
Sen. Bernie Sanders: “Because I got 6,000 more votes. And from where I come, when you get 6,000 more votes, that’s generally regarded to be the winner.”
Latest polls show Sanders is leading in New Hampshire, where seven Democratic presidential candidates will take the stage for a debate tonight ahead of the primary Tuesday.