Presidential candidate Fred Thompshon was interviewed by CNN’s Chief National Correspondent John King today. Transcript follows…

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I want to start with an issue inthe news today, the reports of a new bin Laden videotape to come out, this on the sixth anniversary of 9/11.

To what degree should the American people hold the president of the United States responsible for the fact that bin Laden is still at large six years later?

FRED THOMPSON (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think bin Laden is more of a symbolism than he is anything else. I think he shows and demonstrates to people once again that we’re in a global war.

Bin Laden being in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan is not as important

as the fact that there’s probably al Qaeda operatives inside the United States

of America. I think the latest National Intelligence Estimate indicates that

they are alive and strong and trying to get their hands on weapons of mass

destruction.

Iraq is very important, but it is only part of the bigger global effort. And

it is one that bin Laden and people like him are heading up. And we surely need

to catch him. And we surely need to deal with him.

But if he disappeared tomorrow, we would still have this problem. If Iraq

disappeared tomorrow, we would still have this problem.

KING: But, if he is still at large, and there are al Qaeda operatives in the

United States that we should be worried about, are those who said Iraq was a

diversion, that, even if it was the right thing to do, it should have waited

until bin Laden was caught, or at least al Qaeda was further damaged and

decapitated, are they right?

THOMPSON: It’s not an either/or situation. Sometimes, you don’t have a

choice. Saddam Hussein was on the cusp of having defeated the United Nations

and the free world and the United States. He had certainly had weapons of mass

destruction and had the capability of reviving his nuclear program. In light of

what Iran is doing today with their nuclear program, he certainly would have

gotten back on the stick and gotten there again, I think.

KING: But, at that moment in time, Senator, there was no global terrorism

emanating from Iraq. So, even if you thought it was a good idea to get him,

there are those who say, get bin Laden first, kill al Qaeda first. Then get him.

THOMPSON: You are not served up these issues one at a time. They come when

they come, and you have to — you have to deal with them. Some might say, stop

efforts in other parts of the world and concentrate on Iraq. We don’t have that

luxury.

There is, you know, a debate still raging over the interconnectedness of it. I

mean, Saddam was a supporter of terrorism for a long time as far as I was

concerned. But when he was where he was in that part of the world, sitting on

top of all of those oil reserves and threatening allies and massacring his own

people and having his renegade sons bringing young girls off the street to the

palace and — against their will and things like that, you know, that situation

presented itself.

And if we had not done what we did, we would be faced with that problem today,

we would have the same problem we have got with — plus with Saddam, I think,

with a nuclear capability — or well on the way to it.

KING: You talk in your speeches about how the American people more than

anything need to know your core principles and how you would prioritize. If you

were commander-in-chief tomorrow, how would prioritize those choices now in

terms of going after al Qaeda, dealing with the situation you are dealing with

in Iraq, and other issues around the world that are part of that equation?

THOMPSON: Well, you are talking about one priority, and that is dealing with

global terrorism, and the strategy and the tactics to do that. Obviously there

is a lot of parts to that. We have to rebuild our military. It has stretched

entirely too thin — the Marines even more than the Army, as far as Iraq is

concerned.

We have got to revive our intelligence capabilities, which fell into disrepair.

We took a holiday from history in the ’90s and reduced all of those

capabilities. We have got to bring those back again.

We have got to rejuvenate our alliances with our friends and understand that

this is a fight, the forces of civilization against the forces of evil and

anarchy. We have got to do things at home.

We have got a court system here that draws no distinction between the average

criminal and a terrorist operative that is caught inside the United States. We

wind up sometimes giving them more information than we get from them in the

judicial process, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal and the habeas corpus

attempts that they make and so forth, tying up our court system.

We still have raging debates as to whether to — how to draw the line in terms

of proper surveillance when al Qaeda is involved outside the country. All of

those things have to be dealt with, plus the fact that some of the traditional

threats are still there.

Russia has become more activist, of course. China is engaged in a substantial

military buildup and has several hundred missiles pointed at Taiwan, and are

building a Navy that — or Navy capabilities that apparently are designed to

take Taiwan before we can even get there.

And capabilities that hit us where it hurts the most, in our high tech

satellite-related kinds of capabilities. We have already demonstrated what they

can do there. So you know, it is — I hope it is not overly pessimistic to

point out the truth, and that is that we are going to have to do some different

things better and all together.

The source of our optimism is not the world we see around us, it is our believe

that we can recognize these things and do something about them. And I believe

we can. But we are going to have to rearrange our priorities in many respects.

One of them has to do with resources and how we allocate those resources.

KING: You have the word unity emblazoned on the side of your bus here, and you

bemoan in your speeches that the country is so divided over the Iraq War, that

it makes it hard to look forward, to have a strategy going forward.

The Democrats are certainly partisan when it comes to the war, but how

responsible — how much responsibility do the Republicans bear for that divide

in the country, given the campaigns they ran against the Democrats in 2000, 2002

— 2002 and 2004 especially, and again in 2006, saying the Democrats are soft

and weak?

THOMPSON: You know, it would take a long time to properly assess

responsibility of this back-and-forth that has been going on for some time.

But I think the thing that a fellow running for president needs to think about,

he is going to be president of all the people. No one president can

satisfactorily address these problems. No one political party can.

They have been too big. They have been too ingrained. I’m talking about not

only matters of national security, but I’m talking about economic issues in

terms of spending the Social Security surplus at a time when we are — the Baby

Boomers are starting to retire.

What the demographics are doing to us and the deficits we are going to be

facing in the future along the same tracks that we are traveling now. We can’t

solve that problem while we are demagoging each other on the airwaves and

hitting each other with 30-second commercials.

But it is only going to happen when the American people insist that it happens.

And that is one of the good things about presidential elections. You know, you

get to send the message. And I’m hopeful they will send a message that they

want someone who will talk frankly about where we are, regardless of the

partisan situation, and the need for us to come together on some basic principles.

And the first one being that there are some endemic, big problems out there

that are right around the corner that we need to address before they hit us.

You know, we could be out of office and so forth and our kids could — our

grandkids are going to have to take care of. That is not right. We are better

than that. We need a president who will say that.

KING: In your town hall meeting just now, a gentleman got up and asked you

what you thought the government’s role was in dealing with what he called

deviancy, homosexuality. And you said your view as a president would be, the

government has a very limited role, that the government should not favor

anybody, nor discriminate against anybody.

What is your personal view? Is homosexuality deviant behavior?

THOMPSON: I’m not going to pass judgment on several million of my

fellow citizens. I think that anybody that knows me knows how I feel about, you

know,

the importance of the family, the importance of marriage, the importance of a

traditional marriage, and that sort of thing. It’s the thing that my parents

wanted for me. It’s the thing that I want for my children.

But it goes back to the unity that we were talking about, I guess. As

president of the United States, one should not go out of their way to castigate

or pass judgment publicly on a large segment of people that you are saying to,

I’m now your president, work with me. I don’t think that is right. And I won’t

do that.

KING: Let me ask you lastly, you mentioned China. You did work with the

administration on China policy, with a focus more on the military buildup and

what the United States should do about that.

I want to ask you more broadly about your thoughts on China. You are

a parent of two young children. The country has just been besieged with these

headlines in recent weeks about these toys, lead paint coming in, toothpaste

coming in, all sorts of products coming in that are clearly below the safety

threshold of what the American people think they should be getting when they go

to the marketplace.

THOMPSON: Exactly, exactly.

KING: What is the role of our government in dealing with that? And has the

administration been too cozy, too friendly with China in the economic

relationship, and not had a safety barrier up?

THOMPSON: Well, I have always been of two views about China. I have always

thought we ought to trade with China. I have seen nothing wrong with the

average working people in this country being able to buy stuff for their kids

that were less expensive than other stuff that they could get. I think it is,

overall, good.

But we have been lax for many years in terms of selling them high technology

and things that they could use for purposes they shouldn’t be using it, just for

business reasons, for economic reasons. And that has been wrong.

I’m wondering now whether or not some of that business and this laxative

liberalization that I fought against when I was there is pouring over into other

areas. We have got to crack down on these Chinese companies. We have got to

make sure that our own companies are demanding the right things from these

companies also.

And we have got to hold the Chinese government ultimately responsible. The

oldest trick in the book for the Chinese government, when one of their companies

get caught selling high technology or materials that can be used in weapons of

mass destruction to a dangerous nation, is that, well, you know, we will

certainly do

something about that. We had no idea this was going on.

The Chinese government knows everything that is going on in that country. And

they ultimately have to be held responsible. And there are plenty of levers to

pull on that. But there is no doubt we are becoming more and more economically

interdependent.

They, the second-leading creditor, the United States. They hold a lot of our

debt. So — and we have more and more factories and companies going over to

China. And we need to understand while economic activity and trade and so forth

is a good thing, we have got to protect our people. And we have got to

understand they are engaged in a big, big military buildup.

And we don’t know what the purpose of that is. So we can’t go into this with

blinders on. It is an additional challenge that is not going to be tomorrow or

the next day, but certainly will be there in the years to come.

KING: I’m out of time, Senator, but if I could take 30 seconds to ask you,

what it is like riding around in a bus with the news on upfront, and a changing

table and…

(LAUGHTER)

THOMPSON: Reminds me of home.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Senator, thank you very much.

THOMPSON: Thank you very much.