Well, you know, I think the most important thing I want to tell young people is that, regardless of your faith, those who build as opposed to those who destroy, I think, leave a lasting legacy, not only for themselves but also for their nations. And the impulse towards destruction as opposed to how can we study science and mathematics and restore the incredible scientific and knowledge, the output that came about during centuries of Islamic culture---- And you are seeing some countries, I think, that are making more investments in education. I think the importance of educating women has to be something that is emphasized; if you look at indicators of human development across the board, those where girls are getting a chance for an education end up being more economically productive. How to reconcile this with some of the traditional values and norms of Islam, that is not for me to dictate, but, certainly, I think it is something that can be accomplished, and I want to encourage that. When I met you on the campaign trail, you were telling me that you wanted to organize a Muslim summit. Do you still have that in mind? We will have a speech; we will have a roundtable discussion. It will give an opportunity, I think, for people around the world to engage in this discussion. It will be telecast in a wide variety of languages on our White House web site, whitehouse.gov. And my hope is, is that as a consequence you start seeing discussions not just at the Presidential level, but at every level of public life. And I hope I can spark some dialog and debate within the Muslim world, because I think there is a real struggle right now between those who believe that Islam is irreconcilable to modern life and those who believe that, actually, Islam has always been able to move side by side with progress. During this trip, you are going also to Germany and to France for the D-Day. How can you qualify the nature of the relationship between the French people and the American people, and also between the two Presidents? Well, I have had a wonderful relationship with President Sarkozy. And we had a wonderful visit when we were there the last time in Strasbourg. And this time I am sure we will have very productive bilateral relations. France is one of the most important countries in the world and helps to set trends in how we deal with everything from climate change to the global recession.


his willingness to stand very firm in the need to deal with Afghanistan; his encouragement of tough direct diplomacy with Iran. I think those are areas where he is shown excellent leadership. So I think the American people continue to love all things French and---- What do you love about France, if I may ask? Okay, we got the food. We have got the--we have got Paris. We have got the south of France, Provence, the wine. Did you go to Provence? You know, the--I have traveled through the south of France when I was in college. I have not been back for a long time. Just a serious question before the last one, because we do not have a lot of time. What do you expect from the French people, the French Government, about Afghanistan, precisely? Do you want them to have more troops? Well, I think we have put forward a framework, after having done a strategic review, of all the steps that need to be taken, not just militarily, but also diplomatically, as well as--in terms of development in Afghanistan. Our main goal is to have a Afghan Government that can deal with its security needs, but can assure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven. And if we can accomplish that, then we would love to get out of there as soon as possible. We have provided a lot of troops. We expect all our NATO partners to contribute to that. We also need agricultural specialists. We need gendarmes to help train the police. We need people who understand water systems and electrical systems. So there is more than enough work to do, and I am very pleased so far that the NATO community feels, I think, unified in the approach that we have put forward. You are loved by a lot of French people. They really see you as a model. What do you want again to say to the young people who are inspired by you and who are going through a very difficult time at this moment? Well, you know, I think that the main thing I always want to tell young people is that if they work hard and they are not constrained by the status quo, by what has happened before, then they can remake the world. Now, I think that they have to do it in a responsible way. I think--when I was young, certainly, I thought I could change the world overnight and that I did not have to necessarily make all the sacrifices needed to do it, so nothing comes easy.

Interview With Laurence Haim of Canal Plus Television


You have a budget deficit that is getting smaller, the trade deficit is shrinking, and yet even with a record stock market, virtually full employment, Americans are nervous. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, two-thirds of the American people say that we are either in a recession or headed toward a recession. Why the angst and why cannot your administration take get any of the credit for this good news? Well, we certainly try to explain to the American people that there are some that there is good news. There is been 49 consecutive months of job growth, which is the longest stretch in the history of the country. The budget deficit's down to 1.2 percent of GDP, which is extremely low. A couple of factors, I think, trouble Americans. One is that there is a lot of churning in the job market. In other words, if you are under 30, you are likely to have had seven jobs by the time you are 30. And older people like me take a look at that kind of volatility or some would call it excitement in the job market, and they wonder whether or not this job turnover is going to affect them. People want to know whether or not, one, the government's going to stay out of their business, and two, whether or not this is going to be good policy that'll enable them to have affordable and available health care. People are concerned about their pensions to a certain extent. There is still you know, we have transitioned from defined contribution or defined benefit to a defined contribution plan. And yet there are still some who are involved with defined, you know, benefits. So there is a variety of reasons why people are uncertain. But people, when they take a hard look at the statistics and the reality, they ought to, you know, I hope it brings them some comfort to know this economy is strong and it is setting all kinds of records. Speaking of the benefits, what did you think of the UAW's deal with GM, Chrysler also working on a deal? Should this be a blueprint for other industries? Well, from my perspective, I am glad they were able to settle the deal in an expeditious way. I appreciate the fact that GM and the UAW are able to come together quickly and come up with an agreement that satisfied both sides. Let me ask you about the record number of US exports.

Interview with Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's Closing Bell


Even with that number, you have got an increasing voice in Congress saying, 'Look, we do not think free trade is working.' It seems you cannot even control the Republicans in Congress. And what do you say to those people who are trying to put trade barriers in place? Well, I have long worried about protectionism and isolationism here in America. We have had periods of protectionism in our past and I am concerned about protectionist sentiment, because I believe that a world that welcomes US products and goods and services is beneficial for American farmers and manufacturers. In other words, if there is more customers for what we produce here in America, the better off the producers will be. It is also good for consumers that we have open markets. In other words, the more options the consumer has, the less inflationary our society can be. And I think it is good when consumers are able to have a variety of choices. And so I it is going to be very important for me to continue to explain the positive side of trade. In other words, people are getting work. There is a lot of people whose jobs depend upon exportation of goods and services. There are people whose jobs benefitted as a result of foreign capital coming into the country. I think about some of the automobile manufacturers in the South. But I understand why people are anxious about trade. People are saying, 'I may lose my job, or somebody else is going to get my job because of free trade.' And what is very important for people like me who believe in markets is one, to explain the economic benefits, but also to assure people that there is trade adjustment programs to help people retrain for better jobs that have got stability. Let me switch to housing. We have had a meltdown in housing. Oh, first of all, there is a lot of people who can afford the houses that they live in and they are going to be fine There is no question there are particularly some people on the margin that are going to have to that are defaulted on their loans, and that troubles me. It troubles me because I want people to be able to stay in their homes.


And the solution, it seems like to me, is not more government or more regulation, but to help people refinance their homes, is to I have some transparent policies as well as counseling polices that find people, identified people and encouraged them to go to refinance their homes, and to encourage the lenders to be, you know, refinancers. What happened, it seems like to me in the housing, again, I am not an expert, but there was a lot of incentive for people to, you know, buy homes. And so we had a huge supply of homes. And until the supply and demand gets back in balance, you are going to see some softness. There is not a nationwide phenomenon, there are parts of our country that are doing just fine in their real estate markets. And you know, we are paying close attention to it and we are going to make sure that government policy is not counterproductive but consumers can be helped to stay in their homes, for example, through FHA reform. So were the rate cuts enough or would you think to encourage more? Well, I knew you would try to suck me into the dialogue of monetary policy but you know full well that the Federal Reserve is independent from the president. I never send Ben Bernanke instructions, he does not expect me to send him instructions, nor do I publicly comment on what I would like to see done or monetary policy. I can talk about fiscal policy all day long and that is we will keep taxes low and make sure Congress does not overspend the people's money. Let us talk about that in particular, the health care coverage. You vetoed a plan last week to expand health care coverage for millions of low income children. First of all, the Democrats are misleading people when they say this is a plan to expand health care to millions of low income children. The plan that I vetoed would have expanded health care coverage to families making up to 80 something thousand dollars, in some cases. And which would have meant people would have been moving from private insurance to public care. I do support a program that helps poor children. But the program that I vetoed expanded health care, government health care. By the way, just so you know some of the facts I think will interest you. About a half million poor children under the program as it exists today do not get coverage. And so my first call to Congress is let us make sure they get coverage.


Secondly, in some states, like six or seven states, the states use the money aimed for poor children, they spend more money on adults than they do on children. So my call to Congress was it you are truly for poor children, like I am, let us make sure the program answers that need, and let us not expand the federal role in health care. See, I believe that for some members, this was an important step toward the federalization of health care. Really fine people believe that the best health care policy is when the federal government runs it. I believe the best health care policy is to take care of those who cannot help themselves, like poor children, and encouraged those in the private sector. I am for private medicine. I want decisions to be being made between doctor and patient, not between people here in Washington, DC. And so the I am vetoing the bill, working hard to see that it is not overridden, the veto's sustained, and then I will be willing to work with the Democrats to focus the program on poor children. One Democrat and I do admit this was a Democrat, say look, all of a sudden you found fiscal discipline now and you veto this, but how come you signed the Farm Bill, you signed the Highway Bill and others, passed by Republican Congresses that substantially exceeded your initial target? Well, I would remind that person that over the course of my presidency, we have been able to reduce the federal deficit substantially. As I told you, it is down to 1.2 percent of GDP, which is historically low, very low. And I was able to do so working with the Congress, and at the same time, fight a war and make sure our kids had the support and troops equipment they needed. In other words, the fiscal policy of low taxes and setting fiscal priorities here in Washington has worked. And we are on our way to balancing this budget and it is going to be very important for Congress not to overspend nor raise taxes. What do you think of Senator Clinton's idea, the kid bond idea? It sounds similar, actually, to your idea of private accounts with Social Security. Well, my idea in Social Security was is that rather than putting your money into a trust that was not generating a rate of return that was fair, that you ought to be allowed to take some of your money and set it aside in a personal account.


In other words, it is setting aside a part of the portion of your contribution in the Social Security system, which I think is vastly different from what she proposed. I am not going to interject myself into the presidential campaign yet. You have more than a year left in your second term. What are your goals for the economy for the rest of your service here? Well, first is to keep taxes down and keep, you know, and to have good, wise fiscal policy. To work with Congress and say, 'Look, let us set priorities and meet those priorities,' and be willing to use the veto if they want to overspend, which the initial blush looks like they are going to try to do. One of the reasons why our third quarter growth was good was because of exports. In other words, when we export it means growth in our economy. Continue to work on energy policy that makes us less dependent on foreign sources of energy. And so I have got an important agenda that and win the war on terror and protect the homeland. By the way, one of the best economic measures we can do is make sure we do not get attacked again. As you know, the attacks of September the 11th crippled our economy for a short period of time. I would not say cripple's not the right word damaged our economy for a short period of time. And you know, and we will keep working night and day to make sure we protect the American people. So is Social Security off the table at this point or will you try to fix it in the remaining time? You know, I'd like to, but remember, I am the person that has laid this issue out in my State of the Union address and talked specifically about how to address Social Security. Whether or not Congress has got the will to step up and try to get something done, I do not know. I'd like very much for people of both parties to come in and say, 'You know, you gave us a good starting point, you gave us a good idea. Because Social Security and Medicare, the unfunded liabilities inherent in those programs, are two of the most significant fiscal challenges this country faces. I mean, this is a real problem for us that we have got to get done. Did you see the Republican candidate debate? What did you think? So you are trying to hoax me into saying yet brilliant question. No, that is not what I am looking for, ENTITY.


What did you think of Fred Thompson joining this... Did not watch, and you know, people are going to try to get me to comment on the primaries and I am not going to do it. I will tell you I believe that whomever we nominate will win the general election. Our candidates are going to be talking about being tough on these terrorists and keeping taxes low, and that is a winning message. I just tell people what is in their heart, you know. Let me ask you about oil, ENTITY. Why is it that we really have not seen a substantial energy plan? We all know that we have to be reliant on foreign oil, but should there me more incentives for hybrids, perhaps a gasoline tax, something? I think we have had a significant energy bill pass that is comprehensive in nature, that couples good conservation policy with diversification away from oil. One of the things that has taken place in our country that does not get much notice is the advent of ethanol. Right now, ethanol is mainly created through the use of corn. And we have a billion gallons of ethanol to eight billion gallons of ethanol on an annual basis, and we are spending a fair amount of taxpayers' money on research and development on cellulosic ethanol, which is a fancy word for using like wood chips to make ethanol or corn or stalks or switchgrass. The whole purpose is to incent people to develop the technologies that will enable us to get off of oil. You cannot get off oil overnight but you can diversify away from oil over time, and that is precisely what we are doing now in the most substantial ways of any administration in history. Secondly, we have got to figure out new ways to produce electricity. And I actually use old ways in a safe way to produce electricity where I am for clean you know, new nuke, new nuclear power plants, because I believe the engineering is safe, and I know that, you know, nuclear power is good for the environment. What can you tell us about the war? How is the war in Iraq going? The political progress is, you know, is spotty in that they are doing some good things and they need to do others. And I talked to Prime Minister Maliki today and encouraged him to work hard to see if he cannot get law out of his out of his parliament that will send a signal to the Iraqis that whether they be Shia, Sunni or Kurd this government is for everybody.


And in the meantime, however, there is reconciliation taking place at the grassroots level, at which people are people are coming together at the local government and providing services and taking federal monies being distributed throughout the country and using it for the embetterment of their people. It is in their interest that we succeed. You once said that Putin has a good heart. I said I looked in his eyes and saw his soul, that was my quote. I think President Putin is first of all, I am friendly with him. You can be friendly with people you do not agree with necessarily. One of my concerns about the Russian political scene is that there is got to be checks and balances and, to the extent that those are being reduced, I have expressed concerns. We we are working collaboratively on some issues, such as proliferation of materials, weapon nuclear materials. And we are working together to see if we cannot get Russia into the WTO. People are trading with Russia. It is in our interest that there be certain rules and the ability to, you know, have arbitration serve as a dispute resolution mechanism. And we have our differences with Russia as well. And finally, on Iran, should not we be opening up a dialogue? I mean, this conversation about the possibility of going into Iran, a lot of people say first we need to open up a dialogue with them and try to use diplomacy. I know the first thing that has to happen is the Iranians we are using diplomacy, but it is the it is diplomacy of nations coming together saying to Iran with one voice, 'Give up your weapons ambitions, and then you have a dialogue with the United States.' They know exactly what our position is, and they know what it takes to have a dialogue. My dialogue has been with the Iranian people, and I am going to try it again right here. The Iranian people have got to know that the that their government is isolating them, that their government's making decisions that are not in the interest of their country, and that this great country does not need to be standing alone in the world relative to the rest of the free world. This country is missing great opportunities through trade for people to embetter their life and the government if the government would change its polices toward development or gaining the know how on how to make a nuclear weapon it would be benefit the Iranian people. The United States respects Iran and respects the traditions and history of Iran and we respect the Iranian people.


ENTITY, thanks for giving us your time today as you prepare for the Madrid Summit. The administration has made it clear that it is prepared to accept only Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in the first round of NATO expansion, but several of our allies, and maybe even a majority in NATO, have said that they would also like to see Romania and Slovenia in that initial round. Since NATO decisions are taken by consensus, we have an effective veto over a broader expansion, but there is been criticism in Europe that we are being a bit heavyhanded, maybe the bigfoot approach to handling NATO affairs. Do you accept that? We consulted extensively with all of our allies. Secretary Albright went to Sintra in Portugal and said what our thoughts were and listened to their thoughts before we announced our position. I personally talked with President Chirac and Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Blair and others about this. We believe NATO would be well served by having more members on its southern flank. But we believe that these three countries are the only three that are clearly ready now, in terms of the stability of their democracy and their capacity to fulfill the military requirements of membership. Keep in mind, this is-NATO-there is a political component to this decision, and there should be, but NATO is also, first and foremost, a security alliance. And anybody who gets in as a full member must be able to meet the requirements of membership. Moreover, there are costs to be paid by the NATO members themselves that are significant to integrate new members because we have to operate in more countries. And for all these reasons, on the merits, the United States strongly believes that we should start with three. Now, let me also back up and just go through a little history here. In January of '94, when we recommended that NATO expand-and I did that in a speech in Belgium-there was some controversy about it among the Europeans. Interestingly enough, the French were strongly in favor of expansion, and we have been together on that. Now, what I think is important to do is to see this as an ongoing process so that-let us just take Romania, for example, a very important country, the second largest country in Central and Eastern Europe. Would it be a good thing if Romania were in NATO? Is it a good thing that Romania has chosen democracy and has resolved its problems with Hungary and now has two Hungarians in the Romanian Cabinet? This is a process that is been going on slightly less than a year.

Interview With David Gollust of the Voice of America


So I think to say-we love what the Romanians are doing; we applaud it. We want them to be a part of our shared future, and the door is still open to them in a very aggressive way. That is the message we want to get out there, it seems to me, and that we will continue to work with them to see whether they can sustain this for another couple of years. Are you going to be able to offer Romania, Slovenia, some of the other countries that will not be allowed in on the first round anything more than consolation? I mean, will there be any kind of specific information given about a timetable or modalities? Well, what I would hope is that all the allies would agree that we will take another look at this in 1999. As we complete the integration of the first members into NATO, we will take another look and see if we should not take some more members in then. There is something that has already happened to increase their stability. The agreement with Russia increases their security and, even more important, their involvement in the Partnership For Peace, which is now going to be folded into this Euro-Atlantic alliance. That is a big deal for all these countries. That has been the great untold and underappreciated story of NATO, the fact that we put together this Partnership For Peace. We do joint military exercises. They are involved with us in Bosnia. So these countries are going to continue to become more secure and more involved with NATO, no matter what happens, if they are getting a clear signal, too, that this is not the last decision on membership and that it is not the last decision for a long time, that within 2 years we are going to take another look at this. You have said many times that NATO expansion is not a process that is directed against Russia. But a number of countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, for instance, the Baltic States, are very concerned that at some point Russia might return to totalitarianism and empire building at some point. Are the concerns that they have, the Baltic States, for instance, valid on this? And can you or will you do anything to put them at ease? Well again, we have tried to put them at ease in two ways. One is with their involvement in the Partnership For Peace, and the second is with the clear understanding that the door to membership would remain open on a long-term basis. And let me make a third point.


The third is, when we made the agreement with Russia-the partnership with Russia is a clear signal that at least as long as this government is there and that President is there, they are not going to define their greatness in terms of their territorial dominance. Keep in mind, it was President Yeltsin that worked with us to withdraw the troops from the Baltics. So they got their-the Russian troops have left the Baltics in the tenure of my service here. So I think time is on our side, that we cannot resolve all issues today but we are moving in the right direction and we have to let a little time pass on some of these issues. And they will settle down and resolve themselves, I think, in a positive way. Could something bad happen to change the direction? After the Madrid Summit is over, of course, I think the focus will shift back here domestically to the Senate, which will have to approve the extension of U.S. defense commitments to new NATO countries. Are the American people prepared to accept U.S. commitments to defend Warsaw, for instance, as they have done to, say, Paris and London? And I think we can prevail on that because it is not just Warsaw; keep in mind you have-I mean, not just Paris and London. We have other smaller countries in NATO right now. Iceland is a member of NATO. So I think when you point out that no NATO country has ever been attacked, it makes it clear that actually the expansion of NATO reduces the likelihood of Americans having to go to war. It reduces the likelihood of Americans having to fight and die and also broadens the burdens of those who will help us in places like Bosnia. So for all those reasons, I think that we can persuade the American people and the United States Senate to do this. I also think, frankly, as a practical matter, it will be a little easier to make the case for three rather than five. And if the three work well and the costs are as we expect them to be, modest and affordable, I think it will make it a lot easier to sell in a couple of years if we are in a position where we can come back and argue to expand some more.


ENTITY, on Bosnia-of course, this was an issue at Denver a couple of weeks ago; it is going to be on the agenda again in Madrid- you have got a few days less than a year now to the planned withdrawal of the NATO-led peacekeepers, and there are reports that within the administration there is disagreement about the ideal of pulling out in the middle of next year. Is it worth keeping the withdrawal date if it means that Bosnia might lurch back to bloodshed? I think it is important that we keep the date in mind at the end of this mission, because this mission, just like the one before it, cannot go on forever. And I think-right now, I think it is better for us not to speculate about what happens after that. What I am concerned about is that there is all this rather frenetic looking at what happens next June, to the exclusion of looking at what happens today and tomorrow. That is, we would not even have to worry about this if every day between now and next year everyone involved gave a 100 percent effort to implementing the Dayton peace accords, to doing the economic reconstruction, to setting up the common institutions, to resolving the police and the local election issues, to dealing with the war crimes issues. And what the United States has tried to do is to get our allies there to focus on implementing Dayton in an aggressive way. And one of the things that came out of the Summit of the Eight was that each of the countries expressed some interest in being given, in effect, almost primary responsibility for each separate element of the Dayton accords. Then, as we get along toward the end of year, we could take another look and see whether-what is the security situation going to be next June, and how can we best take care of it? But I do not think that this particular mission at this level should continue. We cannot occupy this country forever. Could we conceivably leave with the very prominent war crimes suspects still at large? Well, we had a good arrest last week.


And I think that the problem, of course, with Dayton was-and this was an inevitable problem, but we were a part of it so we have to take responsibility-is that there was this agreement to set up a tribunal or to support the work of the tribunal with the explicit understanding that the work of then IFOR and its successor, SFOR, would not be used to go and do, in effect, police or military work to get these people, that they would only pick them up if they came in contact with them in the ordinary course of their business, which meant that Dayton left a gap. And so we are trying to figure out how we can accelerate that process consistent with the other obligations the parties assumed at Dayton. That was a big hole in Dayton. But even with that, that is still not an excuse for why the development aid is taking so long to get out. You know, are we supporting the local elections in every way we can? Have we all done everything we can to set up local police units that can maintain security? Are we doing everything we can to press disarmament instead of having an arms race of equality, which is not in anyone's interest? We do have an agreement in the parties now to set up common institutions. Are they going to be set up quickly enough so that the benefits of them will be felt by the Serbs and the Croats and the Muslims in time to keep them moving together and going together? I mean, these people butchered each other for 4 years; you have got to work real hard to give them common interest to live together and work together. And there is a difference in not going back to war, which I do not think any of them really want to do-the ordinary people, I mean-and having a vested interest in continuing to pursue the peace. We have done a good job, I think, of getting them to the point where they do not want to go back to the way it was. We have to do more to get them to try to build a better peace.


I want to thank Director Goss for his hospitality. It was such a pleasure to come out and see hundreds of folks who work here at the Central Intelligence Agency. I came for a couple of reasons. One, I wanted to assure the people here that their contribution was incredibly vital to the security of the United States and that, together, we have achieved a lot in securing this country. There is a lot of really incredibly bright, capable, hard-working, dedicated Americans who work in this building. So my first mission was to thank them. And the second thing was to explain that the reforms that we will be implementing through the good graces of Ambassador Negroponte, if confirmed by the Senate, will actually help the CIA do its job better. And I got a great reception. I want to thank you, again, Director, for your hospitality. We are making progress in the war on terror. And this country of ours will continue to do our duty, which is to find terrorists, bring them to justice through good intelligence and hard work and some brave souls, and at the same time, work to spread freedom and liberty around the world. I will answer a couple of questions. ENTITY, your CIA Director, Mr. Goss, said yesterday that he has to wear five hats now and that he was concerned there were some ambiguities in the new arrangement about his relationship with Mr. Negroponte and Secretary Rumsfeld. Do you feel there are such ambiguities, and will you move to-if there are, will you move to clear them up? And will this prevent-will this present a problem for the flow of intelligence in this time, this transition period? Porter and I have discussed this, of course, because I do not want there to be any interruption of intelligence coming to the White House, and there will not be. As a matter of fact, Porter Goss comes every morning with the CIA briefer to deliver the briefing. And that, of course, will go on. In other words, it is hard to implement reforms without somebody to be the reformer. Obviously, when his name gets up to the Senate, we hope there is a speedy confirmation. But one of the purposes of the whole process, ENTITY, is to make sure that information flows are smooth and that efforts are coordinated. The CIA is the Central Intelligence Agency; it is the center of the intelligence community.

Remarks at the Central Intelligence Agency and an Exchange With Reporters in Langley, Virginia


And the job of Ambassador Negroponte is to be-to take the information and make sure it is coordinated in its distribution to not only the White House but to key players in my administration. Obviously, one of the reasons I came here is because I know there is some uncertainty about what this reform means to the people of the CIA, and I wanted to assure them that the reforms will strengthen their efforts and make it easier for them to do their job, not harder. ENTITY, on Social Security reform, what is your judgment about where this process stands right now, with polls showing the public skeptical; some Republicans, like Senator Grassley, are seeming to back away from your proposal; and Democrats wanting to declare it dead. I am- know we are at the early stages of the process. I have only had nine trips around the country so far-or nine States on my trips. I have got a lot more work to do. Now, I do believe we are making progress on the first stage of getting anything complicated and difficult done in Washington, and that is to explain the problem. And the surveys I have seen, at least, say that the American people understand we have a problem. And I am going to continue going out to explain that to people, the nature of the problem. And the problem is, in 2018, the system starts losing money. In 2027, it is 200 billion in the hole, and it gets bigger every year thereafter. In other words, we cannot pay for the promises we have made. And my second phase of this explanation to the American people is to say to seniors who have retired or people near retirement, you do not have anything to worry about; you are going to get your check. I have got a lot of work to do on that, and I understand that. But we are making progress. People are beginning to say, We have a problem. The next phase, when people say we have a problem, is going to be, What are you going to do about it? And I am willing to put out some ideas about what to do about it. In my judgment, ultimately, I think politicians need to be worried about not being a part of the solution. And so I am looking forward to continue to make the case. As you know, ENTITY- you have followed me a lot-I like to get out amongst the people.


I get energized- I get energized by being with people, and I get energized when I think about taking on big problems, because that is why we got elected. The American people expect people to come together to solve problems. And I am looking forward to listening to Republicans and Democrats. I said, Put your ideas out there. There will be no political third rail when it comes to Social Security. Now is the time for good people of good will to come together and get the problem fixed. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said today that a consumption tax, maybe even a national sales tax, might spur greater economic growth. What do you think about that? I think that I am going to wait until the tax commission I put together, the reform commission headed by former Senator John Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana, former Senator Connie Mack, Republican of Florida, comes forward with some ideas. I told the American people I want to work to simplify the Tax Code and make it easier to understand, so people are spending less time filing paper, and I believe a simplified Tax Code will spur entrepreneurial activity. And so I am looking forward to what the commission has to say. You mentioned Usama bin Laden earlier this morning, and you have said several times that there is progress being made on the war on terrorism. But more than 3 years after September 11th, you still do not know where he is. How would you assess the adequacy of the intelligence you are getting on bin Laden, and do you expect that he is going to be found any time soon, even within your second term? If Al Qaida was structured like corporate America, you'd have a chairman of the board still in office, but many of the key operators would no longer be around. In other words, the executive vice presidents, the operating officers, the people responsible for certain aspects of the organization have been brought to justice- a lot of them have been. And we are- spend every day gathering information to locate Usama bin Laden and Zawahiri, obviously people like Zarqawi. We are not resting on our laurels. We have had great successes, and-but that does not mean that we should stop. And one of the reasons I came out here was to remind people that we have had great successes. I appreciate their successes- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh. I can go down the list. And it is a matter of time.


As far as I am concerned and as far as the CIA is concerned, it is a matter of time before we bring these people to justice. And I cannot thank the intelligence gatherers, the analysts, and the operators- I cannot thank them enough for the sacrifices they are making. ENTITY, on Iran, you spoke to Condoleezza Rice yesterday, we were told. What can you tell us about the pros and cons that you are weighing now as you reach a decision on going forward with the EU? Yes, let me just tell you how I see the state of action here. First, I am most appreciative that our friends in Europe agree with the United States that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, period-no ands, ifs, or buts. And I thought that was a very important statement from the leaders I met with. And by the way, Mr. Putin feels the same way. And to me that is a very-a positive start for achieving our common objective. First, you got to agree to the goal, and the goal is no weapon. Secondly, I have told our European friends who are handling the negotiations on behalf of the rest of the world that we want to help make sure the process goes forward. And we are looking at ways to help move the process forward. They are the ones who are not living up to international accords. They are the people that the whole world is saying, Do not develop a weapon. And so we are working with our friends to make sure not only the world hears that but that the negotiating strategy achieves the objective of pointing out where guilt needs to be as well as achieving the objective of no nuclear weapon. And I felt good about our visits. I did visit with Condi yesterday, and I am about to go visit with her again in the Oval Office to discuss not only this issue but other key issues, including Lebanon, where the message is loud and clear from the United States and France and many other nations that Syria must withdraw not only her troops but her secret service forces out of Lebanon now. And I look forward to talking to Condi about getting an amplification on her visit with our allies overseas. I look forward to not only hear their words; I want to hear about their body language. I want to hear about their enthusiasm for the project.


And we welcome you, ENTITY, to the voice of St. Louis, KMOX Radio. It is good to be on KMOX, and it is good to be coming back to St. Louis. I justify it because of the opposition policies of the Republican Party and all the special interest groups that have raised and spent far more money against us, attacking me and my policies and spreading disinformation to the American people. Let me say that all this time, ever since I have been in office, I have worked hard to pass a campaign finance reform bill, which would limit these kinds of contributions right across the board to both political parties and restore basically unfettered debate to the central position it ought to have in our political system. But I do not believe in unilateral disarmament. The money that I have raised will be used to try to make sure that the Democratic parties throughout the country in these fall elections and our candidates will at least have a fighting chance to talk about our record and the facts and what we have done here. If we could change the rules for everybody, that is what we ought to do. When I ran for ENTITY, I did not even take any PAC money. And I have worked very, very hard to pass campaign finance reform laws and lobby reform laws which will make the system better. But until I do, it would be a mistake for the Democrats to just lay down and not raise any money, letting the Republicans and a lot of their allied groups have all the money in the world when they already have greater access to a lot of things like a lot of other media outlets than we do. Would not you be setting a leadership example, though, if you were the first one to say, Look, these $15,000-a-table fundraisers basically are way out of hand. I have got to put an end to this ? Well, I am trying to put an end to it. All the Congress has to do is to send me the campaign finance reform bill, and we will put an end to this so-called soft money. I have been working for a year and a half to do it. But we have enough problems. The Republicans and the far right in this country have their own media networks. We do not have anything like that. They have extra-organized political action groups that we cannot match.

Interview With Kevin Horrigan and Charles Brennan of KMOX Radio, St. Louis, Missouri


And they have the Republican Party's fundraising apparatus, which has been strengthened by having had the White House for all but 4 years in the last 20 years. So we have real problems competing. I am more than happy to stop this. I have been out there fighting to stop it. All they have to do is to send me the campaign finance reform bill, and it'll be done. I'd like to emphasize that the things that are within my control, requirements and limits on my administration and what can be done with regard to lobbying, are stricter now than they have ever been in American history because of the things that I have done, that I can do on my own. But we ought to change it by the law, and we ought to change it for everyone. But if you look at the information they get, if you look at how much more negative the news reports are, how much more editorial they are, and how much less direct they are, if you look at how much of talk radio is just a constant unremitting drumbeat of negativism and cynicism, you cannot I do not think the American people are cynical, but you cannot blame them for responding that way. We, for example, we had a meeting the other day, and a group of people were told that under our budgets we were going to bring the deficit down 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was President. And some of them said, Well, I just do not believe you. We never hear that on the news. I just do not believe you. I have worked hard to do it. And we are going to we are bringing the deficit down. That is what bothers me. You know, I just got back from Normandy, celebrating the 50th anniversary of D-Day. And when I stood on Normandy beaches and when I saw all those rows of crosses there, it occurred to me that those people did not die so the American people could indulge themselves in the luxury of cynicism. America now has we have the strongest economic performance of any of the advanced countries in the world. We are bringing the deficit down at a very rapid rate. We are increasing our investment in education and training. We are seriously dealing with crime, with welfare reform, with health care for the first time in decades.


We have broken gridlock in the Congress; bills that languished around for 6 or 7 years like the Brady bill and the family and medical leave bill have passed. The economy in St. Louis is booming. You look at what we are coming to St. Louis to celebrate today, this Summer of Service. We have got 7,000 young Americans who are going to be earning money for their college education by working and making their communities safer all across this country; in the fall, 20,000 young Americans, doing community service work, earning money for an education, helping to solve problems. We have got a lot of serious problems, and frankly, we cannot afford this cynicism. Well, first of all, we are not sure that just the White House staff did that. There were lots of other people on that boat who were not members of the White House staff. And the George Washington is very, very upset by the press reports that those towels, which were obviously taken as souvenirs, were taken by all the White House staff. They never said that we stole anything. That is the kind of thing I am talking about. Someone in the White House personally reimbursed the George Washington for all of them, because they felt so bad. And the people who were running the aircraft carrier said that they were astonished that the White House staff was charged with taking all those things, that there were members of the press there, there were other people there on that carrier. They were not at all sure that White House staff had done that. But someone on my staff was so upset that anybody had done it that they reimbursed them entirely so that they did not lose a thing on it. But you know, I could give you a lot of examples a year ago there was a widely reported story that I kept airplane traffic waiting an hour in Los Angeles to get a haircut in an airport. It was not true at the time. And I told the press it was not true. They ran the story anyway. Then 4 weeks later when the FAA filed their official report, they said, No, there were no planes kept waiting. Now, I am not responsible for stories that are written that are not fully accurate or untrue, but it feeds into this cynicism.


Last year the Congress and the President, according to all nonpartisan reports, had the most productive year working together, getting things done for America, dealing with difficult issues, of any first year of a President since the end of World War II, except Dwight Eisenhower's first year and President Johnson's first year, which were about the same. And to be frank, we did it under more difficult circumstances, with tougher issues. I will bet you nobody in America knows that. Look at all the things you could have asked me about, and you just asked me that. Did you know that there were other people on that aircraft carrier? Did you know there were press people on the aircraft carrier? Did you know that the carrier had been fully reimbursed out of the private pocket of a White House staff member who was so upset about it? Why did not you know that? Because the press reporting it did not say so. I mean, part of the problem in this country today is that this is a good country with a lot of people working hard to get things done. And the American people are entitled to have some balanced and fair picture of what is going on. We have had 3.5 million new jobs come into this economy since I have been ENTITY, far more than in the previous 4 years combined. Most Americans do not even know it, because that is not the purpose of a lot of what is communicated to them. And I think that I have a very high responsibility. I do not mind you asking me whether I should set an example on campaign contributions, but there are a lot of other examples that need to be set in this country. And I think the people who communicate to the American people need to ask themselves, What are we telling the people? Are we telling them the whole truth? Do they know what is good as well as what is bad in this country? And when we make a mistake, then we fess up to it. I think that there is a lot of cynicism in this country. But frankly, I think there are a lot of vested interests that are promoting the cynicism. ENTITY, let us talk about that just a little bit. Today, or yesterday, the Republicans in the Senate asked you to disavow a remark that I believe Representative Fazio made about evangelical Christians. At the same time you have talked about extremists in the other party, the Republicans, that you say may be trying to launch a cultural war.


They are attacking you in very personal, derogatory, moralistic terms. Is this the state of political debate in America today, where we call each other names? Let me say, first of all, you have never found me criticizing evangelical Christians. I have welcomed the involvement in our political system of all people and especially people of faith. I have bent over backwards as a Governor and as a President to respect the religious convictions of all Americans. I have strong religious convictions myself. But that is very different, that is very different from what is going on when people come into the political system and they say that anybody that does not agree with them is godless, anyone who does not agree with them is not a good Christian, anyone who does not agree with them is fair game for any wild charge, no matter how false, for any kind of personal, demeaning attack. I do not suppose there is any public figure that is ever been subject to any more violent, personal attacks than I have, at least in modern history, anybody's who is been President. I deal with them. But I do not believe that it is the work of God. I do not believe that people should be criticized for their religious convictions. But neither do I believe that people can put on the mantle of religion and then justify anything they say or do. I think that is what Mr. Fazio was talking about. We do not need a cultural war in this country. We have never done very well when our politics has been devoted to dividing us along grounds of race, religion, creed, morality. We have got a lot of serious challenges in this country, and we need to pull together and face them. Should we have arguments about moral issues? Are you talking about folks like the Reverend Jerry Falwell, who through his infomercials is selling a videotape critical of you? Look at who he is talking to. Does he make full disclosure to the American people of the backgrounds of the people that he is interviewed that have made these scurrilous and false charges against me? Is that in a good Christian spirit? But I think it is very important that the Democrats be careful let me say this to make a clear distinction between tactics with which they do not agree and radical positions with which they do not agree, and the whole notion of evangelical Christians being involved in our politics. I think that evangelical Christians should be good citizens, should be involved in our politics.


They can be Republicans or Democrats; they can do whatever they want. But remember that Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple. He did not try to take over the job of the moneychangers. ENTITY, world financial markets today report a continued slide of the U.S. dollar against other world currencies. What can or should the United States Government do to halt this slide? Well, the Secretary of Treasury will have an announcement about it today. Let me say, just make one point about it. This is a development that is puzzling a lot of economists because our economy is performing so well. Our job growth is greater than any other of the advanced countries. Our unemployment rate is lower than any of the advanced countries, except Japan. In a funny way the currency values are running in the opposite direction of economic strength because Japan has a great trade surplus with us, as you know. If their economy is weak, no matter what they do, they cannot lower the trade surplus because they do not have the money to buy more American products if their own economy is weak. So in a funny way, the perception of a weak economy in Japan has driven the American dollar down against the Japanese yen because their trade surplus has continued to be high. The German economy, thank goodness, is coming back a little bit, and that is a good thing, but it strengthens the German mark. The American dollar is actually stronger against a lot of other currencies in the world than it was a year ago. I think it is important that we not overreact to this. But the Secretary of the Treasury will have a statement today which will demonstrate the course that we are taking. If I sense anything today, it seems like a frustration on your part about an inability or just for some reason, you have not gotten across to the American people the messages that you want to get across. Well, let me ask you something, I am coming to St. Louis to inaugurate the Metrolink, a Federal project which is good for St. Louis; to talk about the Summer of Service and the crime bill, the most important crime legislation in the history of the United States and the national service program which is going to have thousands of young people working to make our communities safer, all of those things initiatives under my administration, and you did not ask me about any of them.


So I am not frustrated about it exactly, but I tell you, I have determined that I am going to be aggressive about it. After I get off the radio today with you, Rush Limbaugh will have 3 hours to say whatever he wants. And I will not have any opportunity to respond. So all I am telling you is, I am going to be far more aggressive because the American people are entitled to know what is going on good in this country. When I go overseas I just got back from Europe, and the European press came up to me on several occasions members of the press in Europe would say, What is going on in your country? You have got things going well; you are nothing like they portray you; the things that are happening are positive. Members of the press in Europe said that to me repeatedly. I am going to be very nice about it, but I am going to be aggressive about it. Well, let me ask you a little something about health care, because I know this has been the number one, or at least in the top three in terms of issues for you. And you promised long ago to veto any bill that crossed your desk that did not promise 100 percent health care coverage in the United States. You said you'd veto that, any bill that did not insure every single living American. I said universal, we need to have universal coverage. That is what I said. Are you willing to compromise on this right now if it turns out to be a political reality that Congress cannot go for the full universal health care? Well, I think Congress will adopt universal health care. There may be some minor debates about exactly how to define that, but the real issue is, will Congress provide health insurance to all working Americans? Will they provide a mechanism to do it? I still think there is a good chance they will do it. Now, to go back to the first question you asked, there have been tens of millions of dollars in kind of disinformation spent to falsely characterize the approach that I wanted to take. I am very flexible and always have been about how we do it. But I do believe that it is not rational for the United States to be the only country in the world that cannot figure out how to guarantee health care coverage to middle class working Americans. And in fact, we are going in reverse. We are losing ground. We have got a smaller percentage of our people insured than we did 10 years ago.


Let me start by thanking both of you for sharing some time on what is obviously a very busy day. We are in the closing days of the campaign for the peace initiative in Northern Ireland, and suddenly there seems to be apprehension, a lot of opposition. You see some slippage in the public opinion polls, the critics saying that you see these people, terrorists, criminals, at rallies being hailed as heroes. Each of you, if you could share your thoughts on what you think of the tone of the campaign, and do you share that apprehension? And how do you counter the message of those who say, vote no? I think before we get a vote as important as this, there is bound to be a lot of apprehension, consideration by people, and it is right that they treat this seriously, because it affects their future. And one of the fascinating things is there has been very little debate in this referendum campaign about the institutional structure, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the relationship with the Republic of Ireland, because the thing has wrecked every attempt to have a peace agreement in Northern Ireland for the past 50, 60 years. Instead, people are worried, as you say, about things like prisoners. But as I say to people, when you look at the facts, these guys who were out on the platform the other day under day-release schemes, they were done years ago. The vast majority of prisoners will be out within a few years anyway. to have stability and prosperity and the chance to bring up your children with some prospect of staying in Northern Ireland and doing well, or to slip back into the ways that Northern Ireland knew for decade upon decade of division and bitterness and hatred? Well, is there some sort of trick here; can somebody have it both ways; can they be part of the political life of the country; and can they sort of condone violence? And I can tell you, at least from America's point of view, the answer to that is no. Anybody who resorts to violence will have no friends in the United States. I do not care what side they are on or what their heritage is or what their previous ties are. And I think I can speak for the overwhelming majority of Irish-Americans in both the Catholic and Protestant communities, that all we have ever wanted was a just peace. This peace embodies the principle of consent. It gives the Irish people of both traditions the right to chart their future in Northern Ireland and to make of it what they will.

Interview With Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom by John King of the Cable News Network in Weston-under-Lizard


I think, if it is embraced, you will see a big increase in involvement of Irish-Americans and other Americans eager to invest in Northern Ireland, eager to lift prosperity and to show people the benefits of peace. What is the downside risk of going forward? It is so much lower than the downside risk of blowing this opportunity. You, at one point, considered visiting at the end of this trip, going to Northern Ireland, to the Republic of Ireland, decided not, perhaps that it would be viewed as meddling. Now in the last 24 to 48 hours, you have decided to speak out again forcefully, publicly. And in your view, what role can you play in that process? And sir, what role do you think the people of Ireland will consider as they listen to the American President? Well, I decided to speak out because I think that the people of Northern Ireland know that I care a lot about the peace process, that the United States has been involved in it, that we have tried to not only I think it is important to point out not only has Mr. Adams, the Sinn Fein leader, been to the United States a lot, but I have spent far more time with Mr. Trimble and other leaders, Unionist leaders, than any American President ever has. I have tried to listen to both sides, to learn, to just encourage them to make their own peace and chart their own future. I just was afraid if I went there I can remember when people from outside used to come to my home State and try to influence elections. It never worked, because in the end voters instinctively know they have to live with the consequences of their decision. But if a journalist like you asks me a question about what I think the arguments are, I think that it is important for me to answer. And I hope that people on all sides of the issue will listen to what I have to say, because at least I have some experience here; I know something about this. I know something about what happened in Bosnia; I know something about what happened in the Middle East; I know something about people who are divided and the difference in peace and war, or peace and sort of purgatory with violence. And peace has unfailingly been better, in the toughest of circumstances. As to people who actually get a vote listen to him, your friend, why should they listen to him?


I think people do listen because people know the President is sincere, deeply committed, and actually knowledgeable about what has happened in Northern Ireland. And I can say, right from the time I became Prime Minister, but actually before that when the President visited Northern Ireland in 1995 I think it was, that his visit made a huge impact. Perhaps more than any other American President, people really feel that ENTITY both understands, knows, and people, they can also feel his willing them to do well. And I think people certainly will listen to that very much. As you look forward to this vote, take us back if you will. You have described this process as agonizingly difficult. In the last few hours, you had a series of transatlantic conversations yourselves. President, you were on the phone with Mr. Adams I believe twice, Mr. Trimble at least once, John Hume. Can you take us inside those conversations, pacing, raising your voice? You had people on each side that, Nevermind, I cannot do this. How did you keep it together, and how did you interrelate personally as you went through this process? Well, I do not think it was so much a question of raising our voice or obviously, these are conversations that you have with people at a particularly difficult moment, and you do not go right back over them the whole time. But I think in many ways what I found was tremendously useful in respect to the President's intervention was that people did and do respect his views on it, because, obviously in part, he is the President of the United States, but actually it is more to do with him personally, having shown commitment all the way through, having listened to all sides in the conflict, and therefore having some standing because of this own personal commitment, some credibility, if you like, to say to people, Look, the eyes of the world are upon us. Let us see if we can go for this thing and make it happen. This is not going to happen; it is going to collapse? I am afraid I thought that pretty regularly, at about hourly intervals. But in the end I mean, what always comes back home to me is we are 2 years off the year 2000; there is so much happening in the world, so many changes that I have seen in the last 10 or 15 years of my lifetime.


I cannot believe 2 years off the millennium that a place like Northern Ireland, which has got this extraordinary potential, where the people are tremendous people, as you know if you have been there, I cannot believe we cannot find a way to live with each other 2 years off the new millennium with all the changes in the world, with all the possibilities there are. So even though a lot of the time I was sitting there thinking, Can we really make this happen, I have a sort of inner optimism about it. And what was your message in those phone calls? You were probably half asleep as you started some of them. Well, first of all, I just when I talked to Prime Minister Blair or Prime Minister Ahern or George Mitchell, I was mostly listening. But when I talked to the parties, what I heard from them actually was very like what you are hearing from the general public now. It was sort of the darkness before the dawn. It was like, Okay, we made this deal, and oh, there is a few things down the road that we'd like to improve, but what they really needed was not me to talk about the specifics; what they really needed was for me to remind them of the big picture, that it was time to join hands and jump off the diving board together and get in the pool and swim to shore. And I say that not in a disrespectful way but in a respectful way. It is very hard, once you have been estranged from people for a long time, to overcome your fears and distrust. And as I have said repeatedly, I will never forget Prime Minister Rabin telling me before Israel signed the agreement with the PLO, that everybody was reluctant to do it, but you do not make peace with your friends. You have to make peace with those and then make them your friends, because of the estrangement of the past. That is what I want people to think about. Now, they are going to be at the vortex of something very, very big, if they can just liberate themselves it could change the past. They do not have to give up their traditions; they can value them. They have agreed to the principle of consent. They have set up a mechanism by which they can chart their own future. What remains is really just to take the leap of faith and realize that the risk of going forward is infinitesimal, tiny, compared to the risk of letting this opportunity slip away.


That is why we are so grateful for you to grant RFA your very first post-Vietnam interview. My name is Nguyen Bich, or you can call me just Bich for short. And I am the director of the Vietnamese service at Radio Free Asia. And sitting by me in our studio is Dan Sutherland, who is vice president for programming. So, ENTITY , my first question to you is, how do you feel? Do you feel you have accomplished your goal by this first trip ever made by a ENTITY of the United States to a reunified Vietnam? Yes, I think it was a very successful trip; first, because we were able to see and support the attempts that are being made there to recover the missing in action from the Vietnam conflict and to continue our cooperation with the Vietnamese Government in that regard. We also gave them several hundred thousand pages of documents to help them identify the some 300,000 people still missing who are Vietnamese. Then, I think it was important because we contributed, I believe, to the continuing economic progress of the country which I think will lead to more openness. And thirdly, I think it was important because I was able to speak on television to the country about the kind of future I hope we will share with Vietnam and the fact that I hope there will be more openness and more freedom in it. And I also had, finally, some very good discussions and some constructive disagreements with the leadership of Vietnam. Your speech at Hanoi University certainly was very impressive. And so I think that made a really big impression on the country. As this was your first trip to Vietnam, could you give us a general impression of the country, at least what you saw of it, and of the people? They were very warm and very welcoming and clearly interested in the trip. And the young people with whom I talked were clearly interested in having closer ties with America. So I felt very good about that. I also was interested in all the changes that are occurring in the northern part of the country. I think there is clearly a lot of new investment going on in Hanoi, a lot of new businesses coming out, a lot of changes there that I think will tend to make the south and the north perhaps less different in terms of the economic lives and maybe the political outlooks of the people at least in the cities. Now, the only village that I went to was the one where the search for the pilot was going on.

William J. Clinton Interview With Nguyen Bich and Dan Sutherland of Radio Free Asia International From Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska


People say that, in Vietnam, it is still some distance between the potential and realization. Do you get a feeling that the people are impatient for progress, especially among the young, or do you think, as the Government says, that they are pretty satisfied with the present pace of things? Well, I would say that they understand that the country is doing better, and they like that. After all, 60 percent of the country now is under 30. And I think they have a keen awareness that they have to make a lot of changes in order to keep creating jobs. I think they need 1.4 million new jobs every year. On the morning of my last day there, I had an amazing roundtable discussion with a number of young Vietnamese men and women who ranged in age from early twenties to midthirties, and who did everything from working for Cargill, the big international grain company, to running the Vietnam office of Saachi and Saachi, which is a big London advertising agencyexcuse me. Then there was one young man who had a job in the party and others who had other jobs. But what was interesting to me is, they were all thinking about the big questions, you know, how much personal freedom is needed in life, what kinds of decisions should be made by the individual, and what kind of decisions should be made by families or villages or the nation, the Government, and how much of the economy should be private and how much should be public. The man who runs the city government in Ho Chi Minh City was quite proud of the fact that they had done a remarkable job of creating jobs in the private sector, that he had downsized the government, that poverty had been reduced by 70 percent, and homelessness was reduced by 70 percent. So I think there are a lot of people there who have this feeling that if they go more to a private economy and they have more entrepreneurial spirit, that there will also be more personal freedom associated with it. I understand that the First Lady also had some strong words to recommend human rights at her talk in the morning of Sunday. She met with a group of women there. It was something she tries to do in every country in the world she visits. She is been speaking about that, especially as human rights affect women and young girls, ever since she went to the Beijing Women's Conference several years ago. Now, what is your reading of the progress so far made about the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreements?


Did you get any indication while you were there as to when the Vietnamese National Assembly might get to ratify that? I think they will ratify it pretty soon. I thinkI had the feeling they want to make absolutely sure that we are going to ratify it. And they understand that the timing is not good for ratification now, but I think as soon as we ratify it, they will. And then I think that we told them that we would be spending a couple million dollars a year over the next 3 years to help ensure the rapid and thorough implementation of the agreement. And we told them that we would like to have a high-level meeting, at least annually, to plot a joint economic strategy for the future, and they agreed to that. So my instinct is that they do want to get the maximum benefits out of this trade agreement. But then, what would be your impression as to when the U.S. Congress might ratify that? I think they will do it as soon as they have a chance, probably early next year. You know, I wish I could do it now, but I just do not know if it is practical. So I think that I do not think there is any shot that it will not be approved by the Congress. But Hanoi's sensitivity to this question is all too obvious. Did you make any headway in your talk with Secretary General Le Kha Phieu or Prime Minister Phan Van Khai on this front, or do you think the U.S. could work with Vietnam on this matter in a more open fashion? I had very open conversations with all of them, with the Prime Minister, with the Secretary General and ENTITY. And what I believe is that once they realize that we are not trying to tell Vietnam how to run every aspect of their lives and that we feel that we are going to be in a friendly relation, we have to be honest about our disagreements, and we have to say what we think human rights and religious rights and individual freedom have meant to our country. I think we will be in a dialog there, and I think that, plus the process of economic and social change which is going on in Vietnam will lead the country in a positive direction. That is what I believe. I think it will be very important for my successor to continue that dialog. I do not think we can drop human rights or religious freedom from our concerns anywhere in the world.


I would say this is one of the most exciting trips of my Presidency. Exciting because when we first got to Washington, Africa was parts of Africa were in turmoil; not much had been to arrest disease; there was not intense world focus on the continent. The second trip to Africa for me the fifth for Laura was a chance to herald courageous people in their efforts to deal with hopelessness. And what really made me happy was that the people of Africa have come to appreciate the generosity of the American people. I had a couple of goals. One was to encourage people to continue to make difficult choices democracy is hard work but also assure them that we'd stay with them if they made the right choices. Secondly, I wanted to highlight for the American people what the that great compassionate work is being done. And I will give you some Laura can share some anecdotes too. You know, in the hospital in Tanzania, to see a 3-year-old baby survive a mosquito bite when years earlier probably would not have was a very compelling moment for me. To have the little orphans in Rwanda put on such a cheerless a cheery face because somebody is trying to provide them love was inspiring to me. To watch their little guys play tee-ball all of whom were orphans against the little school and see how inspired they were. All of these programs are supported by the American taxpayer, and all of them matter. To hear the testimony of these kids and teachers in Liberia about how our aid has helped them regain confidence I do not know if you all were in there when the mother of three talked about her husband left her, she said, because she was illiterate, so he just left her with the three kids. And she is a part of this adult literacy program that USAID is helping with. She talked about being able to read, fill out bank checks, her deposit slips, then announced she wanted to go to college, and then announced she wanted to take Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's job. You heard me say a lot on the trip that we are on a mission of mercy, and that is what I think we are. And I think it is in our national interest to do it. I know that when you volunteer as an individual to help somebody who hurts, it helps you. Well, I believe the same when it comes to collective hearts of America. I mean, you saw the crowds, you saw the enthusiasm. Why do not you take credit for it?

Interview With Reporters Aboard Air Force One


Why do not you show what you have done for Africa? Well, it is not me, for starters. And you do not act out of the desire to enhance your own standing; that is not exactly why one is called into service. It does not matter about me. What matters is, are we saving people's lives? And so I am really pleased with it and had great meetings with the leaders. It seems like a couple of months ago that we went to Benin. And of course, Kikwete in Tanzania and Kagame in look, the other thing about the Rwanda stop and the Liberia stop is, these are societies that only recently have been ravished by unbelievable and unspeakable violence. And yet they are getting back on their feet. And it is hard work, and we will help them. That was what I told them. And these were five very strong leaders that we visited with. Which leads me to conclude this and Laura can share some thoughts America should not be dictating to these countries, America ought to be helping leaders make decisions. And that is what we are doing. And we go to Africa with a belief in the capacity of human beings to meet high standards. That is what I kept trying to say to you out there in code. We go with a positive sense about the capacity of leaders to rise to the challenge and meet certain basic criteria, such as honest government, investing in children, investing in health, and understanding that marketplace economics and trade is more powerful than accepting relief from countries. You talk about proud people. Okay, we will do a round-robin here. One of the things that we heard from people I guess they do consider the United States a democracy, a role model. Did they talk to you It never came up to us at all. They said they were very fascinated with the election, one group that I talked to. I'd just like to remind you what Kikwete said. is as good as this one. Now, I am not blowing my own horn and I am sure it was a screaming headline. Are you going to vote in the Texas primary? I think I will be in the Republican primary this year. It seemed like a good storyline at the time. Somebody must be putting something out there in the pool, and everybody starts chatting about it. People would mention it to us. If you asked them, yes, What do you think about Obama? Yes, they mentioned it to you all right.


I asked them I went out on the street, and two of the four people I asked about you know, I'd say, Obama McCain they like they volunteered, two of them   Look, my mind was not on U.S. politics on this trip; it is just not. It is on yours, not mine. I am focused on conducting foreign policy. We will be having roundtables, and you are going to be fascinated on the latest thing on politics, and I am going to be fascinated on trying to lay the foundation for lasting foreign policy that will make a significant difference to the United States. I am not going to be frustrated about it except every time. A question on that is this how, in the end, you would like this effort or this kind of effort, if this not specific one this is what your Presidency is ultimately about? But we have been a very active we have had a very active foreign policy, whether it be liberating people from tyranny in order to protect ourselves or liberating people from disease, we have been active and strong and bold. And we will let history judge the results. There is no such thing as short-term political history. I mean, short-term history of an administration forget political there is such thing as short-term political history because there is an end result, win or lose. There is no such thing as an accurate history of an administration until time has lapsed, unless you are doing little-bitty things. The other thing about one of the things I hope people, when they are able to take an objective look at an administration which I am not sure is possible, if you happen to have been living at the time of the administration; maybe you can, I do not think so is whether or not an administration makes decisions based upon certain fundamental principles from which it will not vary. And you have heard me say over and over again, freedom is universal, or to whom much is given, much is required. Those are fundamental principles on which one can have a foreign policy. And one of the great dangers for America is to become isolationist or protectionist. And the purpose of on trips like this is to remind people of the need not to become isolationist. And so it is I view this as this was a trip that heralded results. But it was also a trip that gives us an opportunity to explain over and over again the foundations of the foreign policy of the Bush administration. I have asked you twice.


That is off the record. No, that is on the record. I see a big microphone. I'd like to ask you about an issue they are raising back home, and it is not the '08 campaign. On FISA, I understand your position, but what I am unclear about is whether you are doing something to break the deadlock. Do you see yourself engaging with the other side, compromising? How do you compromise on something like granting liability for a telecommunications company? If we do not give liability protection to those who are helping us, they will not help us. And if they do not help us, there will be no program. What I am going to do is continue to remind people that unless they get this program done, we are going to be vulnerable to attack.  But I will just tell you, there is no compromise on whether or not these phone companies get liability protection. See, what the American people must understand is that without help from the phone companies, there is no program. And these companies are going to be subject to multibillion dollar lawsuits by trial lawyers, plaintiffs' attorneys. And it is going to drive them away from helping us, unless they get liability protection, prospective and retroactive. It is just so important for people to understand the dangers. If we do not have the capacity to listen to these terrorists, we are not going to be able to protect ourselves. They have got enough votes to pass the bill in the House. So yes, I am going to talk about it a lot and keep reminding the American I am glad you asked the question, because this will give everybody a chance to know the dangers of the course that some in the House have put us on. And I will keep talking about it. The American people understand that we need to be listening to the enemy. Kenya? I mean, are you going to send her back? the opposition. That is the dilemma; how you get two people to sit down at a table and work on what is best for Africa I mean, for Kenya. She was in the room with them. We got Frazer, who is plenty competent. I was going to say that, you know, the most effective way to get these issues resolved is for these leaders to feel pressure from their own people. And it is one thing for Kofi and Condi and people making phone calls, but Kenya is a society; it is got a for example, Kenya is the economic engine for East Africa.


I do not know if you saw all those ships in Dar es Salaam. Those were originally many of them were originally headed for Nairobi, interestingly enough. And I suspect these leaders are beginning to feel a lot of pressure internal. Secondly, they are actually hearing from African leaders about the dangers of allowing these kind of conflicts to not be nipped in the bud early, to be prevented from happening. We sent people over, and we will stay engaged. It is really up to the Kenyan society itself and the leaders there to get their leaders with them. Does not it seem to be that they are pressuring with violence? The way that they are pressuring, it seems to be with violence. No, no, no, you are missing it. You are talking about some of the splinter groups on some of the parties. There is a civil society, and it is a relatively sophisticated civil society that is exerting pressure, that is not resorting to violence. I get to ask a question. Will you be taking a nap on the way back? 15 a.m. You are going to go around the clock? I am actually promoting I have obviously got a nap on my mind. I was just trying to, like, plant the seed. I want to go back to Africa. You talked about Americans and their generosity Americans and their generosity what do you think that Americans think of your trip? I do not have any idea. What are you writing about it? I do not know what they think of it. I am focused on the trip. When I get home, I pick up a book and start reading it, and I am sound asleep shortly thereafter. Depends on what you all are showing. It is worthwhile to be supportive of a robust policy on the continent of Africa. It is worth our national security interest, and it is worth our interest to help people learn to read and write and save babies' lives from mosquito bites. That is what I hope they realize, and that is one of the main that is a critical reason to go on the trip. I would hope that the country never says, well, it is not worth it over there, what happens over there or it says, well, we have got to take care of our own first, exclusively. And my answer is, we can do both. And we do, do both. Do you have everything in place so that the next ENTITY, who might not look at Africa in the first 6 months everything is in place to continue?


So, we'd like to get down to business right away. Well, let me say I am appreciating your paper and its upholding of our country and the principles that involved and so forth very refreshing. it would seem that congratulations are in order over your efforts to bring about a Lebanon cease-fire. Secretary Shultz has said there is no timetable to pull out the marines, says that goes for the Navy as well. But it is right in line with the mission that took the whole multinational force there to be in a position to help preserve stability as a government of Lebanon reinstitutes its sovereignty over its own territory and the foreign forces get out. ENTITY, you said yesterday that the Saudis played an important part in the helping to bring the cease-fire about. Did they put pressure on Syria by threatening to withhold their bankrolling? I do not know of any pressure of that kind. But I do know that just as we had two ambassadors there who were back and forth working virtually around the clock, trying to bring the various parties together, they were most helpful in doing the same thing and, I think, have to be recognized for that. So, I would not know what persuasion was used or anything else, but finally we have the cease-fire. On October the 15th, Paul Laxalt and others will be forming the committee for your reelection. Can you say at this stage if you have made up your mind to run? If not, will you at least endorse Mr. Laxalt's committee? At least I would endorse what? Well, no, let me just say I do not think this is a time when I can make an answer of any kind to that question. First of all, I believe that campaigns are too long anyway. But I have said there is no way that I am going to make or announce a decision until the last possible moment that it could be done, because either way it is going to make things difficult. If you are not a candidate, you are a lameduck, and if you are a candidate, suddenly everything you try to accomplish is viewed as part of the political campaign. So, I know there is coming a day when I am going to have to make a statement, but not now. Have you discussed the possibilities yet with your family? Well, obviously this has come up in conversation. Will you endorse the committee that is being formed, though? Is it with your blessing?

Interview With Members of the Editorial Board of the New York Post in New York City


That would be getting into the area of commenting that I still do not think I should. Do you see it within the next month or so, perhaps? Well, I have not set any specific date, and so I will not hazard one. You had a rather historic meeting of prayer with Cardinal Cooke yesterday. How did you find that very brave man? He expressed his interest in so much that is going on in the world and some of the things that we are trying to do. But also we were so grateful for the opportunity to see him and have this meeting with him. They had arranged a little prayer service in his chapel, but not with him present. But we then went to his room, and he concluded the service before our visit with the final prayer. Senator D'Amato of New York and many others have been very forceful in their language calling for Mr. Watt to resign. What are your views about that? Well, first of all, I think Mr. Watt has done a very capable job as Secretary of Interior. I think we have to point out with all of this that it was an unfortunate remark. He has apologized not only to me, but he is apologized to the people on the Commission for that. But I think in all fairness we have to recognize that, yes, it was a very improper thing to say, but it certainly was not said in the sense of any bitterness or bigotry or prejudice. If I thought he was bigoted or prejudiced, he would not be a part of our administration. It was an attempt at lightness that, as we all have to admit, fell very fiat. So, I think that we have to recognize that, hope it will not be repeated. Do you think it'd be possible for him to continue in office? Do you think it would be possible for him to continue in office? Well, I think that is a decision that he, himself, would have to make, whether he feels that he has made it questionable as to whether he can be effective or not. You have no plans, ENTITY, to ask him to leave, then? I accepted his apology. If we could turn to your speech at the United Nations today, which is very calm and very measured. Had you, while you were preparing the speech, had any indication or signal of any sort that your proposals might be agreeable to the Soviets?


What I said today I have thought for some time the things that needed saying, both with regard to the United Nations and to their approach to these matters. I just feel very deeply that if and when I remarked about governments starting wars, that if the representatives of the Soviet Union and ourselves sat down at those tables, those negotiating tables, with the conviction in our minds that there must not be a war, then there will not be a war, and there could almost instantly be a reduction in those terrible and dangerous arms, those weapons. I am certain that the Russian people do not want a war, and I know our people do not . And I just do are they willing to come to the table with that idea in mind, instead of an idea as to how they can preserve some margin of superiority for themselves. heard, ENTITY, has there been the slightest signal of the overall regret expressed by some segments of the Soviet leadership, which there has been, small as it may be. Have you regarded that as any kind of genuine signal? No, because I do not think it is come from the kind of people that normally would give the signals. But it is an indication there of, certainly, recognition on the part of some, as you say, that this was as terrible a deed as we have said it was. And I just think the world is owed an apology plus a statement to the effect that they are going to join the rest of us in cooperating to see that such a thing can never happen again. And that could be aided and abetted also if they would recognize some responsibility in compensation for the families of the victims. ENTITY, do you think there may be some sort of a high-level political dispute going on in the Kremlin, that the statements by these lower level officials, which were just referred to, may represent and in fact there is not unanimity in there on what happened? I would not hazard a guess on that. But I do say that there is evidence that is a little different than what we usually expect, because usually the official reply comes out with unanimous support over there, and that is it, and that is the story everyone tells. They were not heard for quite a while. In fact, there was such a difference in the stories that it just further added to the evidence of how deliberate and despicable this act was. Most people are tending to forget that their first statement was that they just did not know anything about it. It just disappeared from their radar.


And then when the evidence was presented that it had been shot down and that they were responsible for that, suddenly they come up with a new story about spy plane and so forth. No one's mentioned this yet, but is not that a pretty hardthe idea of errora pretty hard thing to believe, when that plane is one on a regular schedule, that at least every week is flying that same route and at the same time of day? Are your plans firm for Manila? If there would be any reason to change it, it would be domestic, because there is a probability we had planned that trip with the idea that Congress would not be in session, that it would have gone home. And now it makes you wonder, how can you be in two places at once? The First Lady had expressed second thoughts, misgivings about that particular trip, given the recent events, the recent, tragic events. Well, let me just say and I sympathize with her very deeply, but since a previous experience that we had ,I should not use the expression she is a little gun shy. No, but she does feel a legitimate concern and in many places where I have to appear. ENTITY, just to come back to your speech to the U.N. today and your three proposals, I was struck let me not talk for everyone, because we have not all talked about it but it struck me as being rather generous towards the negotiating position, in the view that they have constantly said no, and you say, Well, all right, now, we will count the aircraft, and we will not count the missiles in the Far East. So that would reduce the total number to which we are responding in Western Europe. Ah, but we reserve the right to place in other areas to counter what other threats might be involved in their disposition in other areas of their missiles. Yes, and you go very far towards meeting the Soviet position over the Pershings, which they have been making the most noise about. Maybe that was a restatement of something that was always in our mind. The original concept of what was going in NATO in INF was going to be a mix of Pershings and cruise missiles. And at one time, there was a Russian voice raised that, well, they might listen to cruise missiles but not Pershings at all.


Well, this in a way today was a restatement that, no, there will still be a mix, but we are willing that if they agree to reductions, that means that our original figure must be reduced. That reduction will be in both Pershings and cruise missiles. But as I said in the remarks, I'd like to see it on the zero-zero basis. Well, now we want any reduction that can be achieved is going to be better than what threatens us now and threatens our allies in Europe. And so, that is what we are going to continue to strive for, is to the lowest possible point that they will come, and we will meet them on an equal and a verifiable basis. ENTITY, you have been at the U.N and there have been reports out of your administration that you and some of your senior aides feel that there is a double standard operating for example, being quick to condemn Israel for its invasion of Lebanon but not condemning the Soviet downing of the airliner or the Libyan invasion of Chad. Well, no, I have noticed that many times they on many votes have been able to marshal a majority of votes their way and not on ours. What I was trying to point out was again the something happens to the whole concept of the U.N. if we find the U.N., like the world, beginning to divide up into blocs. The ideal was supposed to be that every nation would be there as an individual and seeking the same thing, the things that are called for in the charter of the U.N. And there has been evidence of the other, of kind of taking sides or bloc voting, and I was just trying to call their attention back to the original purpose. I will tell you, may I say something else about that, too? It is time that all of us recognize that maybe we are not as civilized as we were when I was a young man growing up. By that I mean that it was taken for granted for years and years, the days prior to World War II, that all the rules of warfare were aimed at limiting warfare to warriors and providing protection and neutrality for civilians. And without quite realizing it is happened, we are in a world today where not only are the civilians fair game, but the most potent weapons systems, the nuclear weapons, are definitely aimed at the destruction of civilians.


So I know that we only have half an hour, and I want to make sure that everybody has time for questions. So I am not going to make an opening statement; I just made a long one in the auditorium, and I will just open it up and maybe if you want, we will just go around the room. And we will start with you, Wafa. I am sure that the Palestinians are overwhelmed by some of the things that you have said regarding the Palestinian issue, specifically about the settlements. We have not heard a U.S. President, or any U.S. official before, saying the United States does not recognize the legitimacy of settlements. However, the Palestinians want to see--want you to show them how different you are from other Presidents. Are there measures that the United States will take in order to ensure that settlement expansion is---- I think you pressed play instead of record; you are getting somebody's interview on that. Anyway, so if the Israelis do not stop the settlements as specified in phase one of the roadmap, are there measures that you plan to take in order to enforce that? Well, I think it is premature for me to go beyond the principles that I have laid out in the speech, and let me explain why. Prime Minister Netanyahu has only been in office now for a month, month and a half. I am still in the process of consulting with Arab States throughout the region. And so I think it is very important for all the parties to listen, to take measure of what they can do, how far they are willing to go, before I make any reactions or prejudge what direction the negotiations should go in. This is a difficult issue across the board. I do not think we should underestimate the difficulties; passions are very high on both sides; the politics are very difficult on both sides. But one of the things that I committed to during my campaign was that I would not wait until my sixth or seventh or eighth year in office, or if I only get 4, my third or fourth year in office, but that I was going to start right away. I have assigned a special envoy, George Mitchell, who is traveling back and forth between all the various interested parties. And we have set out some clear parameters in terms of how we are going to approach the problem.

Interview With Foreign Journalists in Cairo