I mean, if you think about the countries that we are visiting, Brazil, a country that used to be under a dictatorship, transformed itself into a democracy, is now a growing economic giant not just in the region, but around the world . A center-left government, but one that embraces free enterprise and open markets and trade. Then I went to Chile, also once was under a dictatorship, has now transitioned to a full-fledged democracy. President Pinera perceived to be a center-right president, but he is also somebody who cares deeply about social inclusion and alleviating poverty inside his country. You come here to El Salvador, you have got President Funes, who was elected under the banner of the FMLN, a left-wing party, but is now operating in a very practical way. In some cases, it is causing him problems, both on the left and the right. And what I think that shows is that the entire region is much less interested in ideology, much less interested in left or right. It is interested in practical results. How can we solve problems to help kids get an education, help people support themselves and find a job, help businesses develop, help the entire region grow. And that is the kind of partnership that we want. You know, we still have specific programs that we are involved with here in El Salvador. You know, they received a millennium challenge grant that provides over $400 million to help this country develop. They are one of four countries that we have selected for a partnership for growth that will involve us working very closely with their economic team to find out what are the barriers to economic development in this country. So we still have, yes, very specific programs, but the overall context has changed, because we want to be seen as a partner to a region that is already growing, already vibrant, and that recognizes it is not coming hat in hand to the United States to solve problems. You know, Brazil, Chile, they are solving their own problems. In some ways, you know, they are doing some things that we should envy. And they are a leader in biofuels. You look at Chile, how they have managed fiscally. They have done a good job managing their budget, even through a recession.


And so this is a two-way street instead of a one-way street, and that basis of mutual respect, mutual interest, mutual trust, you know, that is what I think will forge a very strong relationship in the Americas, throughout the Americas, into the future. I want to ask you about immigration , immigration problems, and they are asking, when will it be enough, when will these types of attacks ? temporary protective status like Salvadorans have and legalize people ? Well, keep in mind that temporary protective status was targeted very specifically at people who were not just escaping economic challenges, but very real political challenges. And so that is not going to be the solution to the overall immigration problem. I am going to need some help. I can get the majority of Democrats to support it. I need some help from Republicans. But we are going to put forward, as I said in the State of the Union, our proposals, our plans for comprehensive immigration reform. I will make the argument to the American people once again as to why this is necessary. And in the meantime, I think one of the interesting things that we are seeing, despite some of this crazy legislation that has been introduced by people who I think are just trying to get attention, and is offensive, on the other hand you have seen some legislation, for example in Arizona, that was proposed and now is being pulled back because businesses are starting to recognize this is not good for business. And perhaps some of my Republican friends are going to start recognizing if they looked at the last census, that they are going to have a very hard time winning any elections if they continue to deliberately target anti-immigration sentiment. And so, using the bully pulpit, I want to be absolutely clear to the American people, we are a nation of immigrants. Most of us came from someplace else. And you know, there is a legitimate role to make sure that we have secure borders, that we have a strong process of legal immigration, that we are making sure that businesses are not exploiting undocumented workers. But ultimately, we are going to have to have a comprehensive approach that also includes taking those who are already in the United States, living in the shadows, and giving them a pathway towards a legal status. And we are going to we are going to continue to fight for that. He then met with you and now the ambassador, the U.S. ambassador has to Mexico. There was an agent who was murdered in Mexico.

Interview With Juan Carlos Lopez of Corriente Latina


Are you going to talk to Mueller? I am looking forward to it, actually. Do you have a date set? Do you have a date set, Mr. ENTITY? And I am looking forward to it. I do worry when I look at all of the things that you people do not report about, with what is happening. If you take a look at, you know, the five months' worth of missing texts that is a lot of missing texts. So you do sort of look at that and say, What is going on? You do look at certain texts where they talk about insurance policies or insurance where they say the kinds of things they are saying, you gotta be concerned. But I would love to do that, and I'd like to do it as soon as possible. When will you do it, Mr. ENTITY? Do you have a date set? Do you have a date set, Mr. ENTITY? I guess you are talking about two or three weeks, but I would love to do it. You know, again, it is I have to say subject to my lawyers and all of that but I would love to do it. Would you do it under oath, Mr. ENTITY? You mean like Hillary did it under who said that? I said that. Would you do it under oath? Oh you said it. You did say it. You say a lot. Did Hillary do it under oath? I have no idea, but I am not asking about I think you have an idea. Do not you have an idea? Do you not have an idea? Do you really not have an idea? I will give you an idea. She did not do it under oath. But I would do it under oath. Listen, but I would do it. And you know she did not do it under oath, right? She would do it under oath. If you did not know about Hillary, then you are not much of a ENTITY. ENTITY, you are going to do it under oath? To reach a higher standard, you would do it under oath? Oh, I would do it under oath. Do you trust the FBI? Well, what am I going to say? When you look at five months? This is a large-scale version of this. Well, McCabe got more than $500,000 from essentially Hillary Clinton. And is he investigating Hillary Clinton? Do you remember, did anybody hear many of my speeches when I talked about McCabe?

Interview with Reporters on Testifying Under Oath to Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III


He was the star of my speech. And I said a man who was more or less in charge of her the wife got $500,000 from Terry.  Do you regret having him as your acting FBI director, then? You know what, I keep out of it. I keep out of it. It is one of those things. But he was the star of many of my speeches. Because he got from $500,000 to $700,000, whatever the number was. And, you know, in Virginia Did you ask him who he voted for? In Virginia, you do not have to spend the money. So I never checked as to whether or not they spent the money on the campaign. How much of the money did he spend on the campaign, do you know she how much was it? Wait, how much of the money was spent? Did you ask who he voted for? Did you ask McCabe who he voted for? Did you ask him that? I do not know what is the big deal with that. Because I would ask you, Who did you vote for? But I do not remember that. I saw that this morning. I do not remember asking him that question. I do not remember asking him the question. I think it is also a very unimportant question, but I do not remember asking him that. Hey, chief, would you do me a favor? When we come back, when we come back, I want you to have a deal, OK? See if you could have a deal. We can use all the audio? Nice and, not you do not repeat, and this and that, just one nice piece. Do you believe Robert Mueller will be fair to you? I only repeat for the purposes of making sure you understand. One more quick one do you think Robert Mueller will be fair to you in this larger investigation? Are you concerned about it? Because here is what we will say, and everybody says: No collusion. How do you define collusion? You are going to define it for me, OK? But I can tell you, there is no collusion. I could not have cared less about Russians having to do with my campaign. I was a much better candidate than her. I was one of the greatest candidates. Nobody else would have beaten the Clinton machine, as crooked as it was. Someday you are going to say that.


ENTITY, it is nice to see you. It is nice to meet you. I welcome you here. And I thank you for the opportunity to talk to you about some of the decisions that I have made right here in this Oval Office. Actually, I want to tell the people of the Middle East that this is the place where big decisions are made. But here it comes to my mind that how hard it is on you, ENTITY, to take like-a big decision like war, for example-is it that easy to take a decision such like war-- And when I campaigned for office, I never really thought about the decision to put men and women in harm's way. Circumstances changed, of course, and I had to make some very difficult decisions about how to protect our homeland and take action necessary to- the actions that, I think, will yield the peace. And so whether it be in Afghanistan or Iraq, I was-I have made those decisions. And I will tell you, they are hard decisions, because I understand the consequences. One of the hardest things for me is to meet with a mother. I met with a mother yesterday in Pennsylvania who lost her son in combat. And you know, those can be very tearful and emotional moments, and I understand that. And my-the only thing I try to do is provide as much comfort as I can and to assure the mom, in this case, that I thought the decision was necessary for peace and necessary for our security, and that I valued the fact that her son would volunteer, and that I vowed to honor that sacrifice by achieving our objectives. Anyway, this is the room where I make the decisions. But would these moments-I mean, these emotional moments, would they make you reconsider or rethink about what is going on in our area now? As a matter of fact, I leave most of the meetings reassured that the loved one, in this case, fully understanding what we were doing. See, I believe that, one, it is noble to liberate 25 million people from a tyrant; two, that we cannot allow Iraq to be a safe haven for people who have sworn allegiance to those who have attacked us. In other words, I believe we must defeat the extremists there so we do not have to face them here at home. And three, I believe the spread of liberty will yield peace.

George W. Bush Interview With Elie Nakouzi of Al Arabiya


And I believe the Middle East is plenty capable of being a part of the world where liberty flourishes. And so I leave those meetings saddened by the fact that a person has pain in her heart-and yesterday she had pain in her heart-but encouraged by the fact that her son died for a noble cause and a necessary cause. And that is exactly what she told me. Actually, I want to thank you again, ENTITY, for giving us the opportunity to talk for the first time to the Arab world, to address them with the big concerns. I know we have a great deal of questions. I know you have a very tight schedule-- I want to show you the Rose Garden, one of the most famous areas-- It is a great chance for me. I heard, ENTITY, also, that you are receiving an Iftaar-- in the White House, which is, of course, a Muslim ritual But I want to tell you- and I hope this does not bother you at all- that in the Islamic world, they think that ENTITY is an enemy of Islam-- that he wants to destroy their religion, what they believe in. Is that in any way true, ENTITY? One, that the radicals have done a good job of propagandizing. In other words, they have spread the word that this really is not peaceful people versus radical people or terrorists; this is really about the-America not liking Islam. Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That is what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives are not religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that-we had a person blow up our-blow up a Federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian. But that is not a Christian act, to kill innocent people. And I just simply do not subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women, and children-particularly Muslim men, women, and children in the Middle East-is an act of somebody who is a religious person. We are having an Iftaar dinner tonight- I say, we -it is my wife and I. This is the seventh one in the 7 years I have been the President.


It gives me a chance to say Ramadan Mubarak. The reason I do this is, I want people to understand about my country. In other words, I hope this message gets out of America. I want people to understand that one of the great freedoms in America is the right for people to worship any way they see fit. And the value-the most valuable thing I think about America is that-particularly if you are a religious person-you can be free to worship, and it is your choice to make. It is not the state's choice, and you should not be intimidated after you have made your choice. And that is a right that I jealously guard. Secondly, I want American citizens to see me hosting an Iftaar dinner. That is a strong message for the Americans. I want to remind your listeners that one of the first things I did after September the 11th is, I went to the local mosque. And I did because I wanted to send a message that those who came to kill Americans were young terrorists, and they do not reflect the views of the vast majority of peaceful people in the Middle East; and that our-precisely the message I was trying to send, the war is not a struggle against Muslims, the Muslim religion; it is a struggle of honorable, peaceful people throughout the world against the few who want to impose their vision. Actually, ENTITY, we are talking about these terrorists and what is going on in the world right now. Are you also a man of war, as some try to describe, ENTITY? I dream it will be- the last thing I want to be is a President during war. And I responded, after careful deliberation, in an attempt to make sure that-with a strategy of protecting ourselves. We cannot allow these people that attacked us to have safe haven. We must not give them an opportunity to strike us again. And therefore, it is important to keep the pressure on. On the other hand, the ultimate way for peace is for people to realize the great blessings of liberty. And what is interesting-and what has taken place ought to be hopeful to people in the Middle East- is that two young democracies have sprung up where people, when given a chance, voted. I believe the God that the Muslim prays to is the same God that I pray to. After all, we all came from Abraham. I believe in that universality.


And I believe a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman, and child is freedom; I really do. And I think people, if given a chance, will seize freedom. And it is liberty and free societies, not-they do not have to look like America-an Iraqi democracy is going to be Iraqi; it is going to reflect Iraqi traditions and Iraqi history. One, people can vote; people can express their opinion; people can be in a free press; people ought to be allowed to go to the town square and protest against their government without fear of reprisal. And when given that opportunity, 12 million Iraqis went to the polls. So excuse me, ENTITY, what you are trying to say is, sometimes a decision of war-you have to take a decision of war in order to achieve peace. And that is what happened in Iraq. I was very concerned about the dictator in Iraq. He was an enemy of the United States of America. He had ties to terrorists-I am not saying those who attacked us on September the 11th, but I am saying ties to terrorists. He had a lot of money that he was willing to spend on weapons of mass destruction. We did not find the weapons, but he certainly had the knowledge. And in my judgment, over time, he would have been able to develop those weapons, and they would have been-one thing the Middle East does not need is a nuclear arms race. Yes, we are going to discuss this. Well, this guy does not - the man, Saddam Hussein, had capability; but remember, there is also a human condition. I believe in human rights. I believe every life has value, whether it be an American life or a life of a person in the Middle East. And this brutal guy killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. And he was unbelievably brutal to neighbors and, as well, to Iraqis. And there is -liberation is a powerful-to me, liberating people is a powerful step toward peace. I wish we did not have to do this militarily. I gave diplomacy a lot of chance to work. He had the choice as to whether or not this issue would be resolved peacefully. And so I do not regret the decision. As a matter of fact, I feel it was the right decision to this day. And now the question is, will America keep its commitment to the millions of Iraqis who want this society to work?


And the answer to that is, yes, we will. And here, ENTITY, I would love to ask-I mean, for the Iraqis now, they know and they keep on listening to the news. Sometimes we tell them we want to withdraw the troops. And now we are talking about the partition of Iraq, which is very, very bad news for the Iraqis. I know you refused this. You want the unity of Iraq. But what if this Iraqi-what if, in the next administration, another President comes to the office and believes in the partition of Iraq? Well, first of all, an American President must understand that Iraq is a sovereign nation operating under its own Constitution. And I am very confident that the will of Iraq will prevail. And I know there is some noise out of here about partition. But most folks who follow this issue do not support partition, and they do not think it is a good idea. What Iraq is going to have to do is get the proper balance between the central Government and the Provinces, the very same thing we have been worried about here in America for years. What is the right road between the States and Washington? But that is what they are going to have to do in Iraq as well. And they are going to need the security situation such that they are able to have an honest political discourse. So our step one was to help them secure their neighborhoods-and it is working- and make sure these radicals, such as Al Qaida and some of these Shi'a groups, many of whom-which are criminal, are not able to have their way with this society. And now we will work toward helping these folks have the important discussion about what should be the role of Baghdad, or what should be the role of the Provincial governments. And when they get that right, when they get settled out, then I think you will see a much more unified country. And it is going to be very hard for an American President or any other outside country to dictate to the Iraqis, Here is what your government must look like, because the Iraqis will show over time that they are capable of making these decisions themselves, and they are making hard decisions right now, by the way. I know that your message, your deep message was-to the Arab world-was democracy, freedom, human rights.


And you have said too many times that the first message is democracy, is that you have rights, you people of the Middle East, to be free. Because all we hear now in Iraq is, let us achieve security; let us achieve stability. Is democracy in the Middle East on hold now, waiting for security first? I strongly believe in the freedom movement. It is ingrained in my soul. It comes from my belief that freedom is universal. And I believe freedom is ingrained in everybody's soul, and if just given a chance, they will reach for it. Now, in Iraq, in order for the Government to have breathing space, to be able to do the hard work of reconciliation so that the dreams of the average citizen in Iraq can be realized-which is a free society-there is got to be security. And so security is really a step, an important step, in the freedom movement. You cannot make the decisions if you are worried about getting blown up. And what the enemy wants to do, the enemy of a free Iraq, they want to create enough chaos and confusion inside Iraq that causes people to doubt. And they want, by the way, to kill enough innocent people that causes the American people to lose their patience and determination to help freedom movements. Not every freedom movement requires military action. But freedom movement does require U.S. commitment to helping reformers and just the average citizen realize the blessings of a free society. And so the freedom movement is the front and center of our foreign policy because I understand that the peace that we want-listen, we all want peace, except for those who are trying-- ENTITY, we have moved from the Oval Office to the beautiful garden, and here I would like to ask you question that go through the minds of the Arab world. Our world is going through very difficult days. Let me start with what people expect of me, which is Iran. ENTITY, have you made the decision to strike Iran, as some are saying, or trying to say that you will not leave your administration and office before you strike Iran militarily? I have made the commitment that I would continue to work with the world to speak with one voice to the Iranians, to the Iranian Government, that we will work in ways that we can to make it clear to you that you should not have the know-how on how to make a weapon, because one of the great threats to peace and the world would be if Iranians showed up with a nuclear weapon.


It would give them an opportunity to blackmail or threaten or possibly follow through with their stated objective, which is the destruction of Israel. I, of course, said all options are on the table, but I made a pledge to the American people, we will work diplomatically to solve the problem. And that is why you see us at the United Nations working with the EU countries and China and Russia to send that clear message, and that we are going to continue to impose sanctions and make it harder for the Iranian Government to operate in the world until they change their mind, until they come to a new way forward. I have said that if they suspend their nuclear program, we will be at the table. But they have so far refused to do that. I have also spoken to the Iranian people. And I want to make it clear to the people of Iran that the United States respects Iran, respects the people, respects the proud tradition, and that the Government of Iran has taken decisions that make it harder for them to live their lives. It is the decisions of the Government of Iran that have led to the isolation of the country. And that if this Government would only be responsible, would listen to the world, would not continue its weapons program-the idea of being able to have the capacity to make a weapon-then there is a better way forward for the Iranian people. But, ENTITY, is there a redline, either a timeline or redline- I hear from analysts that Iran wants today, or at least trying today to buy time in order for you to wait-to lose the time that you can make a big decision, such as going to war. Is there a ceiling that if negotiations would fail, a decision to go to war would be made? The Iranian regime must understand that I am dedicated to the proposition that they should not continue their desire to enrich, as will be people that follow me in office. This is not a party issue, an issue between one party or the other. When the Iranian President announces to the world that he is going to destroy an ally or announces to the world that he will end up defying the world-that-no matter who the President is, there is going to be a continued focus and effort to achieve this issue, to resolve this issue.


This issue, before I move to Iraq, which also, a lot of Iraqis are waiting for this-is there-there are some leaking to the press, and particularly the Arabic press-is it true that you have issued orders, ENTITY, to your senior generals in the American military to prepare for a major and precise strike that could happen during the end of January or February? I would call that empty propaganda. Evidently, there is a lot of gossip in parts of the country-world that try to scare people about me, personally, or my country or what we stand for. It is gossip; it is baseless gossip. ENTITY, we have talked about Iraq. And you have tried to give us a message to assure the Iraqi people-when we were in the garden together-that you do not believe in the partition or the division of Iraq. And this is a very controversial issue in Iraq. And it is scary to even some of the leadership in Iraq. Just to continue and follow up with that issue, did we reach what we reached because of American mistakes or because of Iraqi mistakes and the Iraqi Government? I think, first of all, the successes in Iraq have been really quite extraordinary. One, the people of Iraq no longer have to live under a dictatorship, a brutal dictatorship. Secondly, the Iraqi people wrote and ratified a modern Constitution. Thirdly, there is a Government that is in place that is beginning to take on the responsibilities of governing. For example, quite a few billions have been spent in the Provinces by the central Government. That does not get any focus, but there is a functioning Government; there is revenue sharing; there is money to the Provinces. But the biggest problem facing Iraq was because killers, bombers decided to murder innocent people in order to stop progress. So what I tell people is, is that the reason why there has not been smooth progress-and by the way, it is hard to transition from a dictatorship to a Iraqi democracy-but the main problem has been not the Iraqis or not the United States, but it is been the fact that people have murdered. For example, what I find appalling is that Al Qaida bombed a holy site, a Muslim holy site; that there have been bombs in markets where innocent people are shopping and young children get destroyed by Muslim-people who profess to be Muslims. Their hearts are so hardened that they are willing to kill innocent people. And so the task is to deny these people their ability to blow up the innocent.


And that is exactly what is happening because of Iraqi bravery and Iraqi forces and a commitment by the Government to deal with murderers. And the role of a state is to protect the innocent people from those murderers. And that is what you are seeing taking place in Iraq. But in the meantime, government is beginning to function better. First of all, the leaders never have had any practice with democracy, and they are learning to get along after years of tension and resentment. I support Prime Minister Maliki strongly, and I support the Presidency Council strongly. I just had President Talabani in to the Oval Office the other day. And the reason I do is because-I look for courage and commitment. And these leaders are courageous men, and they are committed to a free Iraq. But are things better-getting better over time? And what is important for the Iraqi people to know is that we are going to support them, is that they have got our help because we want them to succeed. We want them to realize their dreams. ENTITY, so the words that were said attributing to the White House or the American position about disappointment in Prime Minister Maliki is not true? You are not disappointed in Prime Minister Maliki and this Iraqi Government yet? I strongly support Prime Minister Maliki. One of the jobs that I have to continue to do is constantly repeat what-the position of my Government. And the position of my Government is that Prime Minister Maliki is a good man who is working hard, and we strongly support him. But it is not just Prime Minister Maliki that we support, we also support President Talabani or Vice President Al-Mahdi or Vice President Hashimi. We support those who are committed to peace and committed to the welfare of the Iraqi people. And we support those who are willing to take on these extremists, the few who are murdering innocent people in order to create chaos and confusion inside of Iraq. And I am proud of the courage of the Iraqi citizens. The Iraqis have been through a lot of bloodshed and violence, and yet they are still strong in their desire to achieve. ENTITY, let us move to Lebanon. And a lot of Lebanese are waiting. You have met with Mr. Sa'ad Hariri today, and they are all talking about the upcoming elections in Lebanon that could or could not happen. Does ENTITY have a specific, preferred candidate in Lebanon that you wanted to support for the Presidency of Lebanon?


Is there going to be elections in Lebanon that will take place? No, I have no specific candidate, and I told that to Sa'ad Hariri. I have a deep desire to help the Lebanese democracy succeed. I am deeply concerned about foreign interference into the Presidential election. I am concerned that neighboring countries will try to create instability so that this democracy does not succeed, just like I am deeply concerned that there is been murder on the streets of Beirut, including Sa'ad Hariri's dad, and that the international community must follow through in an expeditious way-must follow through quickly in holding-in having an international tribunal, so that those who murdered-so that the facts come out and those who murdered would be held to account. There is just too many parliamentarians who are trying to work for a peaceful Lebanon being assassinated. And we need to know who is doing that assassinations. And when they are found out, they need to be held to account; there needs to be a consequence. Thirdly, I told Sa'ad Hariri that I sent one of our top military men into Lebanon to help them modernize their armed forces. And the reason I felt comfortable doing that is because Prime Minister Siniora showed courage and had-as did the Lebanese forces when they went out to rout out some extremists who were causing chaos or trying to cause chaos in Lebanon. And yet it became apparent to me that this military was full of courageous people but did not have the modern equipment necessary to defend the country from extremists and/or extremists who had been funded from outside influence. Sa'ad Hariri shared with me the strategy of the March 14th coalition, and I was more than willing to listen. I assured him and I assure the Lebanese people that we want to help you succeed. ENTITY, are we able to say today, for example, to the Lebanese people-and we know that the United States is the most powerful constituency in Lebanon-can we say to the Lebanese people that you, specifically, ENTITY, will prevent any foreign interference in Lebanon that could be imposed from the outside and have a President that is being promoted by outside force? I think maybe that is a promise that I am not sure I could keep, because the one thing that we did was, we worked with France to pass a U.N. resolution to get Syria, Syrian presence, visible presence, out of Lebanon.


However, I suspect that there is still a lot of Syrian influence in Lebanon that is not helpful. And one way to make it clear to the Asad Government that we do not appreciate this is for the United States to-is to analyze the sanctions we have placed on the Government and think about other ways to continue to send a message and to work with our friends, particularly in Europe, to send the same message. The international community said we ought to have a tribunal. I am frustrated frankly by the pace at which the tribunal is lingering; it is not moving. There needs to be a definitive moment where the evidence is laid out, and if it is clear evidence-in other words, if somebody's guilty, they ought to be held to account so that murder is not-so that there is this clear signal that murder is not going to be accepted. The brave souls of Lebanon who are being killed-Sa'ad Hariri's dad was one, blown up, murdered. Because he supported democracy. Lebanese democracy is for freedom. And that ought to send a clear message to people throughout the world that it is so important for those of us who live in free societies to support brave people who are promoting liberty. This man wanted nothing more than the Lebanese mom to be able to raise her child in peace. And yet somebody ordered or somebody followed through with coldblooded murder to deny those dreams for the Lebanese people. And the same thing is happening in Iraq, and it is unacceptable behavior. And the United States is firm in its desire to help the average citizen in the Middle East live in peace. So we have common interests. And that is really what I want the people in the Middle East to hear, that each issue is an issue that is got difficult problems, but there is an interconnection. Extremists want to stop freedom, though. And we want you to live in peace. And we respect your religion, and we respect your humanity. And our desire for you is to realize your full potential, God-given potential. ENTITY, of course I cannot conclude this interview without asking the most important question, that is the issue of Palestine. Is ENTITY convinced, truly convinced inside, that it is possible yet to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine? Can we achieve the two states, living side by side, and not as two enemies but two friends?


I believe in my soul, in my heart, that not only is it necessary that there be two states living side by side in order to achieve peace, but it is possible. I am very optimistic we can achieve a two-state solution. First, Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas are committed to a two-state solution and are making progress. We have done a lot of dialog between the two men, and they are making progress. And they are making progress that-I believe-where the average Palestinian and average Israeli will begin to see what a vision looks like; in other words, something to work for, something that is more tangible than just a Rose Garden speech by the President or hopeful comments by others-something real. Secondly, that-you know, we are hosting a international conference that will be attended by interested parties-the Arab League, you know, important Arab League group will be there; a committee will be there from the Arab League. And it is an opportunity for there to be a serious-substantive discussions about the way forward and a two-state solution. A lot of it is going to be empower both parties, give them confidence to follow through on the vision. I also want you to know that I fully understand the two-state solution is a part of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and that our strategy is to get all concerned countries to the table; to get this comprehensive peace moving forward in a way that is tangible and real, so people can see it. In other words, I am not interested in just a photo opportunity, and I do not think anybody else is going to be interested in that. I really want to see if we can advance the progress. Step one was for there to be a commitment by Israel and the Palestinians to this peace. And step two is a commitment to the roadmap. In other words, nobody is going to want-have a state that becomes a launching pad for attack. The Palestinians-the average Palestinian does not want that, and surely the Abbas Government does not , and Israel cannot stand that. And so we have got-we got to work a lot with the Palestinians to help their security forces-and we are-and to help the President and the Prime Minister with economic aid, tangible economic aid so the average Palestinian can see a better life ahead, can realize there is something better than violence. And so I am very optimistic about it, about the prospects for peace. Steven told me that time is over, ENTITY.


Could you just- a few seconds, if you allow me. And since I wanted to go ask you that question when we, after-20 days after commemorating September 11th, I said, when I meet ENTITY, I am going to ask him a question. This massacre that happened on 9/11, it is very difficult for any Arab who lives in the Arab world that can imagine what happened to innocent American people on that day. I would like to know what was your reaction the first time when you heard that 15 Saudi Muslims were among the hijackers who committed this crime and this terrorist act? How did that affect your relationship with the Kingdom-which plays a major role in the region-and particularly Crown Prince Abdallah-now King Abdallah-who is a personal friend of yours? King Abdallah is a personal friend of mine, and I respect him. You know, I have seen murder before in my own country. I have seen evil people take innocent life. And when that is happened, I have not condemned everybody else around. I will give you an interesting story. I was in a community yesterday-a gunman came and killed five young Amish girls- this is last year. The Amish community, which is a religious community here in America, went and reached out to the wife and children of the gunman in compassion and love. It was a great act of compassion. And the reason I tell you that is, my reaction on September the 11th was, I vowed to find the killers-those who ordered the killing-and bring them to justice. On the other hand, never did it enter my heart and my mind to be embittered toward a group of people, innocent people, who had nothing to do with the murderer. In other words, I was focused on the individuals and their commanders, not citizens in the Middle East, of any country, particularly Saudi Arabia. In other words, my first reaction was not, look, the Saudis are bad people. My first reaction was, evil people came and killed, and we will react to protect ourselves. And we will react to protect ourselves in two ways. One is to work with concerned governments, including Saudi Arabia, to find those few that are willing to murder us. And those same murderers that came to the United States would very much like to murder the leaders in Saudi Arabia. And the long term-these people believe something.


There is an ideology behind their views, and the ideology basically is very different from one based upon freedom. Their ideology is, you cannot worship the way you see fit. And if you do not worship the way they want you to worship, you will be publicly beaten, or you will be killed, or you will be in prison. They do not believe, for example, young girls ought to be educated. I strongly disagree with that. I think one of the great potentials of the Middle East is women. And I certainly know, as a father, that I want my little girls to be-you know, have a good education, which they did. And I am confident other fathers want the same thing in the Middle East, even though we may not speak the same language or share the same religion. And so my reaction was-tough reaction to make sure we find those who ordered the killing and bring them to justice and to keep the pressure on them so they do not do it again-and I believe they want to do it again. But on the other hand, I have this sense of a possibility based upon something that is worked throughout the world, and that is, people being able to realize dreams through liberty. This is not the first time that societies have had to make choices. This is not the first time where people made the focused effort to become a free society. And it will not be the first time when a part of the world has gone from one that is been tense and full of unspeakable tragedy to one of peace. And that is where we are headed; we are headed to peace. And I cannot thank you enough for the opportunity to speak on a free channel to people throughout the Middle East. It is hard for me to believe that people cannot look at America and say, Wow, what a compassionate group of people -because we are. And yet I understand the images of my country have been distorted. And I understand people say things about me personally that simply are not true. And so I appreciate the chance to come and talk to you directly and to talk to your viewers directly about what is in my heart and about the fact that my country is a country of peace. ENTITY, on behalf of myself and Al Arabiya TV, I would like to thank you very much for this opportunity. You were very generous with us on time; I know you have a very hectic schedule.


Before you ask questions, I just want to say that I really have appreciated the stories you have done, because I think it is so important that it is sort of a balance thing, but I want to raise public awareness of this and awareness also with people with influence who can influence decisionmaking without throwing people into an unnecessary panic. Sandy was making fun of me today before you came in Sandy Berger was. He said, When you started talking about this 6 years ago, nobody around here people just did not they had not thought about it. I have been asking them to think about this for a long, long time. And of course, we had it more or less in the context of terrorism because we had the World Trade Center and all the other things to worry about. But actually, one of my first questions because we have heard so many rumors about how you got interested, and none of what has happened would have happened without your interest. Well, it was first of all, I spend a lot of time thinking about 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now. I think that is one of the things that Presidents are supposed to do and especially when things are changing so much. But we had keep in mind, we had the World Trade Center issue; we had the CIA killer; and then later you had the incident in the Tokyo subway and then Oklahoma City. We have had a lot of terrorist incidents, culminating in the bombing of our Embassies in Africa and what happened in Khobar, other things. One of the things that I have worried about from the beginning, with the breakdown of the Soviet Union before my time here, was how to help them deal with the aftermath of the massive nuclear system they have, and starting with the Nunn-Lugar funds, going all the way up to our threat reduction proposals in this year's budget you know, we tried to hire keep the scientists and the labs working and do joint projects of all kinds that would be constructive. But it was pretty obvious to me that, given the size of the Soviet biological and chemical programs and the fact that we know a lot of other nations are trying to develop chemical capacity and some biological capacity, that we had not only nuclear problems but we have a chemical and biological problem. And of course, the Vice President and others sort of sensitized me to this whole computer problem. We had the incident with the defense computers just a few months ago.

Interview With Judith Miller and William J. Broad of the New York Times


But before that, I kept reading about all these non in the line of national security all these computer hackers. I can do E-mail and a few other things, you know. But it struck me that we were going to have to find some way to try to deal with that, too, because of the defense implications, as well as the other possibilities. Hot Zone or Cobra Event ? Which one impressed you? Well, The Hot Zone was interesting to me because of the Ebola thing, because that was a fact book. But I thought The Cobra Event was interesting, especially when he said what his sources were, which seemed fairly credible to me. And then I read another book about a group of terrorists shutting down the telephone networks in the Northeast and the Midwest. I read so many things. But anyway, when I and a lot of times it is just for thrills, but a lot of times these people are not far off. You know, they sell books by imagining the future, and sometimes they are right; sometimes they are wrong. So I have gotten I do not want to sound I have gotten a lot of sort of solid, scientific input. I have also solicited opinions from people working on the genome project, for example, and about what the implications of that might be for dealing with biological warfare. And last year, we had a whole group of experts come in here and spend an extended amount of time with me and then follow up with the staff on biological issues in particular. So I have had a real interest in this, and I think we are about to get up to speed. But we just have to be prepared for it. I mean, it is if you look back through all of human history, people who are interested in gaining control or influence or advantage over others have brought to bear the force of arms. And what normally happens, from the beginning of history, is the arms work until a defense is erected, and then there is an equilibrium until there is a new offensive system developed, and then a defense comes up going all the way back to well, even before it, but castle moats which were overcome by catapults.


And so, basically, I think what has concerned me is that we, because we are moving from one big issue will there be a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union to now a whole lot of proliferation of issues, dealing with smaller scale nuclear issues, chemical and biological issues, missile technology, and of course, the related computer cyber-crime issue is that I just do not want the lag time between offense and defense to be any longer than is absolutely necessary. That, I think, is the challenge for us, is to try to before anything really tragic happens not only in the United States but anywhere else. We have had enough warning signs out there now, enough concrete evidence, and we need to close the door of the gap between the offense and defense. How worried should we be, and how we do not want to panic people. And research has seen some of these warning signs, and readers call, and they want to know, is this how worried should we be? Is it going be more serious in the future? I would say that if the issue is how probable is it in the very near-term an American city or community would be affected, I'd say you probably should not be too worried. But if the issue is, is it a near certainty that at some time in the future there will be some group, probably a terrorist group, that attempts to bring to bear either the use or the threat of a chemical or biological operation, I would say that is highly likely to happen sometime in the next few years. And therefore, I would say the appropriate response is not worry or panic but taking this issue very seriously, expecting all elected officials with any responsibility in this area to know everything they can, and to do everything we can both to erect all possible defenses and then to try to make sure we are doing everything we can to stop this. Now, we know right now we know that a lot of what we have done already has delayed WMD programs, some of which I cannot talk about, but slowed the development of WMD programs, of missile technology development that might deliver such weapons and other things. And we are doing everything we can to stop or slow down the ability of others, insofar as we know about it and can do something about it. And meanwhile, we are doing everything we can both to develop defenses and emergency responses. But I think we have got an enormous amount of work out there ahead of us, an enormous amount of work.


And a lot of this has to be done with great cooperation between the Federal Government we need cooperation of the private sector on the cyber issues, the computer issues. We need cooperation with local government on public health response issues, exposure if there appears to be an outbreak. We had all these sort of false alarms of anthrax in California how many? more than a dozen, I think, in the last month. So we need to be able to diagnose and to treat and also to manage those things. Does one of these threats worry you more than another, and does any one in particular keep you awake at night? Well, I have spent some late nights thinking a lot about this and reading a lot about it. I think in terms of offense versus defense, if you go back to where we started, the thing that I am most interested in and you will see we have allocated several hundred million dollars basically to research and to applied research the thing that I am most interested in is developing the ability to quickly contain biological agents. You know, it is just like for the people who went through Oklahoma City, nothing could be more horrible. The thing that bothers people about biological agents is that, unless they are properly diagnosed, contained, and treated, that it could spread. For example, we know that if all of us went to a rally on The Mall tomorrow with 10,000 people, and somebody flew a low-flying crop duster and sprayed us all with biological agents from, let us say 200 feet, that no matter how toxic it were, half of us would walk away, for reasons no one quite understands. You know, either we would not breathe it, or we'd have some miraculous resistance to it And the other half of us, somebody would have to diagnose in a hurry and then contain and treat. Otherwise, it would be kind of like the gift that keeps on giving, you know. And I do not mean that I am not trying to be macabre, but you asked me what keeps me awake at night, and that bothers me. And that is why the thing that I thought was most important about what we did last year, and what we learned a little bit from our defense scare even though it was on a computer issue, we had this defense issue, plus we were dealing with all this we'd studied for a year all this especially this biological issue is we had this work going on in 12 different places in the Government.


So we had to organize our efforts so that we could be accessible to local governments, so we could work with them to set up their own preventive mechanisms. And I have to tell you, it may be we may have to await it is a note I made to myself that we may have to have a perfect defense, I mean, instantaneous. We may have to depend upon the genome project, interestingly enough, because once the human genes' secrets are unlocked, then if you and I think we have been infected, they could take a blood sample, and there would be a computer program which would show us if we had, let us say, we had a variant of anthrax. Let us suppose some terrorist hired a genius scientist and a laboratory to take basic anthrax and put some variant in it that would be resistant to all known anthrax antidotes. And what you would want is to be able to take a blood sample, do an analysis, put it through a software program that had already been developed, and say, Okay, here is this is how the genes are different. And then presumably, not too long after we have developed this, they will already know, well, therefore, this is how you should how you should change the vaccine. And we know now I know this is kind of bewildering, but keep in mind this is actually good news because, if there were no genome project, if there were no rapid way to do quick analysis that would go right to the tiniest variant, we would be in trouble. And now these scientists are working on this, and we are actually a little bit ahead of the original predicted timetable on unlocking the secrets of the gene. And when that happens, one of the side benefits, I think, will be to be able to tell these things much more quickly. But meanwhile, we have got this plan. We are stockpiling the vaccines, and we are doing all this research which the Government has to fund, because obviously there is no market for it, right? It is not like there is no market for it, and I hope there never will be any market for it. But we have to pay, the Government has to pay for this research to develop new vaccines and to manage it along. And I think we will do I think we have got a very good increase in the budget, and I really think it will have broad bipartisan support. And targeting.


Yes, but I think to be fair, we are a good ways away from that. I think we need to worry far more about the fact that most of these groups we know, for example let us take something I can talk about because it is public record. We know Usama bin Ladin's network has made an effort to get chemical weapons. Well, we know they have made an effort to get chemical weapons; they may have made an effort to get biological weapons. We do not know that they have them. It is true if you take this thing out to sort of the science fiction conclusion, obviously the genome project itself carries the seeds of its own misuse. But right now I am absolutely convinced that the advantages dwarf the disadvantages in this area. Plus, which all the other advantages of it I mean, it is going to lead us to we will save countless lives because we will know in advance what predisposition people have, what problems they have the genome project would be the seminal event you know, when it is done, of the first part of the 21st century, there is no doubt about that. But to come back to your point, the only point I would make, whenever you ask me a question like that, I think it is best for you to remember the formulation that I started with, and it is interesting to think about the moat and the catapult, the spear and the shield anything. It is all a question of people who have money, organization, and an interest, whether it is political or financial or religious or whatever, in oppressing other people or holding them down, will always be looking for new offensive weapons. Our goal should always be, for the sake of the world as well as the security of the American people, to make sure not only that we can defend ourselves and counter-punch, if you will, but to develop with each new wave of technology to close the gap between offense and defense. And if we do that, I think that is the strategy that I hope will become at least an integral part of our national security strategy in the WMD area. ENTITY, in the interim we have a lot of Americans, more than 2 million Americans in uniform, being vaccinated against anthrax. The Secret Service told me I could not discuss that, and they have good reasons for not wanting me to do it.


But let me say, I am convinced that like any other vaccination, there may be some small rejection, but I think on balance it is a safe procedure. I have looked at the reports, and I think on balance, given the fact that we send so many of our men and women in uniform into places where they could be exposed, I think that they are better off being vaccinated. I do not believe that the threat in the United States is sufficient that I could recommend that to people, to the public at large. What about first responders or people in hospitals who might be exposed to smallpox, anthrax, plague, and things like that? The real answer there is, we have not reached a conclusion, but we are considering that. Because we have to work with the first responders, we have got the public health people looking into this and other people, and I think that that is a judgment that ought to be made primarily by people who are in the best position to make a professional judgment about it. We have heard about something else that is being considered that I think Bill wants to ask you about. As you may be aware, Secretary Cohen and people at the Pentagon are talking about trying to create a new position of commander in chief for the continental United States because of the terror threat. And it is moving through the system, and at some point it is going to come to you, probably sometime this summer. Are you inclined to create that kind of position for the military? Let me say, I think that we need to have an organized response, if you will, to what you might call homeland defense on CBW and cyber or computer terrorism issues. And now we have established a national coordinator on these issues in the White House. We have got this national domestic preparation office at the Justice Department. We have got a National Infrastructure Protection Center. We have got a joint task force on cyber defense already at DOD in response to what they went through before. So I want them to look at where we are and make some recommendations to me. I am not sure that that is what they are going to recommend, and I think that I should not give an answer to the question you ask until I see what the range of options are and what the range of recommendations is. Do you have a leaning one way or another? No, just except to say that it is very important that we outline every single responsibility that we have as a nation at the national level and that someone be responsible for it.


I want to know as I said, one of the things that we learned last year that I think was a legitimate criticism of what we have done in our administration is that we had 12 different places where these activities were going on, and they were not being properly coordinated and driven in the proper fashion. And we have tried to resolve this. And this is sort of the last big kind of organizational piece, as far as I know, that is yet to be resolved. Again, the American people this should not be a cause for alarm; this should be a cause for reassurance. They should want us to be wellorganized on these things because remember, for years and years, when I was a boy, we used to do all those they had all these fallout shelters, and every school had its drills and all that. I mean, I am older than you, so you would not remember this, but No, we did it. But you know, and we it was a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Thank God we never experienced it. And so what I want us to do is everything, within reason, we can to minimize our exposure and risks here, and that is how I am going to evaluate this Pentagon recommendation. Secretary Cohen, I think, is also real focused on this now. I have been very pleased with the priority he is given it. And I think that all these guys know that after their experience with the computer issue that all this tomorrow's threats may be very different from yesterday's, and we have got to be ready. What do you say to people, to skeptics who say all this is just Pentagon maneuvering, creating new bogeymen to scare us so they can whip up new budget authority? Even though we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and in the aggregate a few billion dollars, it is nowhere near as expensive as maintaining this sort of basic infrastructure of defense; the case of public health, the basic infrastructure of public health. I say to them, they should understand that we have intelligence and a lot of it is in the public arena, you all write about it about all the countries that are trying the countries and the groups that want chemical weapons, that want biological weapons, that are trying to get agents, precursor agents that you can use to develop chemicals or basic agents you can use to develop biological weapons.


And everybody knows now the world is full of hackers that seek to intrude on networks, that seek to insert bogus codes into programs, and all this sort of stuff. And it would be completely irresponsible for us not to allocate a substantial investment in trying to protect America from threats that will be, in all probability, as likely or more likely in the future than the threats we think we face today. That is why we started this conversation by saying, I do not want to say anything that will overly alarm anybody. I am not trying to stir up a lot of false threats. But if you look at just what the UNSCOM people in Iraq they say that they do not believe that the reporting in Iraq is consistent with what they believe the chemical capacity there is. If you look at the fact with regard to chemicals, with the Chemical Weapons Convention, if we can get it properly implemented, at least we will be able to track probably, that plus intelligence, large volumes of chemical stocks. But with biological stocks, a very small laboratory with the right materials to work with, you could develop supplies that could kill a large number of people. It simply is irresponsible for us not to both do the best we can with public health protections, do the best research we can on vaccines, stockpile what we know works, and then get out there and try to build a defense and an ability to interrupt and stop, with export controls and any other way we can, these developments. And it costs money. But to me, it is money well spent. And if there is never an incident, nobody would be happier than me 20 years from now if the same critics would be able to say, Oh, see, Clinton was a kook; nothing happened. I would be the happiest man on Earth. I would be the happiest man on Earth. If they could say, He overexaggerated it; nothing happened; all he did was make a bunch of jobs for scientists and build the Pentagon budget, I would be elated 20 years from now to be subject to that criticism because it would mean that nothing happened, and in no small measure because of the efforts we have made. Since we have so little time left, ENTITY, Russia How can you be sure since they violated the treaty that they signed banning biological weapons for 20 years, does it make sense to work with them now on biological projects? Are you certain that they are not doing biological research?


And what do you do? Let me say this. I think that the more we work with them and the more their scientists are working with us and the more successful we are in building a common endeavor, the more it will be in their interest to comply. The real danger in Russia, I think dangers are two. One is I will take one that is outside the CBW area so it does not look like I am waving the red flag here. When we started the space station you know, John Glenn went up and then we sent the first two components of the space station up it had been months since a lot of those Russian scientists had been paid. That is why it is very, very important, I think, to say we value this enormous infrastructure of scientific expertise they have in the space area, in the CBW area, and we want to work with them. This budget of mine would enable us to do joint work with 8,000 Russian scientists. That bothers me. The second thing that concerns me is that when Russia shed communism, they adopted a strategy which was widely lauded at the time in the United States and elsewhere, but they were actually when I went to Russia, and you remember right after my mother died I got on the plane, and I went to the Czech Republic and Russia that was, what, January of '94. Actually, at that time the Czech Republic was doing very well and was sort of the poster child of the new economy in the former Communist countries. But when I was there, Russia had actually privatized more property than the Czech Republic had. And this relates partly to the economic crisis, but when they did it, they did it without having had the benefit of an effective central bank, a securities and exchange commission, all these other things, so that you had money coming in and money flying out now. And one of the problems they have now is that it is not a totalitarian Government anymore; there are a lot of private companies all the private companies there by definition used to be part of the state, unless they are new businesses. And so one of the problems we are having is, even when they are trying to help us, is keeping up with what all these companies and their subsidiaries do. And that is been the tension that you have written a lot about and there is been a lot in the press about was there missile cooperation with Iran or not, and does that violate our understanding, and does that call for some action visa-vis Russia?


And part of the problem is just keeping up with this proliferation of companies and people that used to have some connection to the Soviet State, some connection to the defense apparatus. It is not a simple process, and it is not a perfect process, but I am absolutely convinced that this threat reduction initiative we have got can kind of intensify our efforts to work with them, as well as to really implement the Chemical Weapons Treaty and get some teeth in the Biological Weapons Convention. It may not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative. What do you do if the nightmare comes to pass, and some country hits us, hits us hard, with a biological weapon? What kind of response would you do? Well, first of all, if some country were thinking about doing that, I would certainly hope that they would not have the capacity to do it before we could stop them or interrupt them, if it was a that is, if you are talking about somebody lobbing a missile over here or something like that. I think if it happened, it would be an act of war, and there would be a very strong response. But I think we have demonstrated that. But I think the far more likely thing is somebody representing some interest maybe it could be a rogue state; maybe it could be a terrorist network walking around a city with a briefcase full of vials or in spray cans, you know. So what we have to do any country with any sense, if they wanted to attack us, would try to do it through a terrorist network, because if they did it with a missile we'd know who did it, and then they'd be sunk. Would you respond with nuclear weapons to a biological attack? Well, I never discuss the nuclear issue. But I think that we would have at least a proportionate, if not a disproportionate, response if someone committed an act of war against the United States. That is what we would do. And if somebody willfully murdered a lot of our civilians, there would be a very heavy price to pay. ENTITY, you have time for one more Did you have a chance to watch any of Senator Bumpers' presentation today? I watched that. He said he criticized the House managers for lacking compassion for your family. He described your family as a family that has been about as decimated as a family can get. The relationship between husband and wife, father and child, has been incredibly strained if not destroyed.


The first time it was about 35 degrees with a whipping wind, and the second time, I had a very good second nine holes. We were talking about your sleep or lack of same over in the Oval Office. You mentioned something about a nap. If I can take a nap, even 15 or 20 minutes in the middle of the day, it is really invigorating to me. On the days when I am a little short of sleep, I try to work it out so that I can sneak off and just lie down for 15 minutes, a half an hour, and it really makes all the difference in the world. We are in the Library now, where President Roosevelt made his fireside chats. Is this among your favorite rooms? I love this room. People who work around here can come in here and check out these books just like any other library. It is also a public room that is open to everyone who comes in the White House on a tour. So people get to see this wonderful library of America, great old portrait of George Washington, and as I was telling you a moment ago, the little-known anonymous design for the White House by Thomas Jefferson. He tried to become the architect of the White House anonymously, and his design was rejected in favor of this one. You were mentioning that certain Presidents dominate this house, as opposed to how they may be viewed in history. What did you mean by that? What I meant was most of the Presidents who are dominant here were very important Presidents, or all of them. a bedroom named for him, the room where he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, his statues and portraits everywhere. He put both of the round porches on the White House and changed the front to the back of the White House and the back to the front. Theodore Roosevelt built both the wings, and his portraits are everywhere and his vigor and youth. Franklin Roosevelt lived here longer than everyone else, but he has just a couple of portraits here in the house and a very modest presence, considering the fact that he was plainly the dominant personality in terms of the length of time that he dominated here. So it is just sort of interesting who dominates, because of the contributions they made to the house itself, I think. What are the chances that Bill Clinton can be one of those dominant Presidents in this house? I think this house is in good shape; I do not know that I can do anything to it that would improve it.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


I imagine that I will enjoy living here and that I will revere the responsibility about as much as anybody who is ever been here. How hard it is to do everything I want to do as quickly as I want to do it, that the pace of change, although they say we are keeping quite a brisk pace-the House of Representatives adopted the budget resolution and my jobs stimulus package last week in record time-but I still get frustrated. I have a hard time keeping up with everything and keeping it going forward. I am an impatient person by nature, and I want to do things. We have had a minimum so far of the kind of backbiting and factionalism and all that you hear about. What would you count as your biggest success so far? I think moving the economic program as quickly as possible and developing a big consensus for the idea that we need to make a serious attempt to both reduce the deficit and increase investments in jobs and education and technology. We have got to do both at the same time. I have been very worried that I would not be able to convince the American people or the Congress to do both at the same time because we have never done it before in the history of the country. But the competition we are in in the world and the problems we have had for the last 12 years absolutely require us to invest in our people and their jobs and to reduce the deficit at the same time, I believe. Now, it is my information, I want to check it with yours, that what you call the job stimulus part of your economic plan is in trouble in the Senate. One, you may not have the votes. Senator Byrd said this afternoon that he saw trouble on the horizon. Does that match your information? We plainly got the votes to pass it as it is or with very minor modifications. What most Americans do not know is that of the 100 Members of the Senate, if you have one more than 40 you can shut everything down. And you know, there is been some discussion that the Republicans may try to filibuster the stimulus program and may try to stop us from trying to create any new jobs. They have 43 Republican Senators, and they may be able to hold 41 of them. And if they do, you know, they can indefinitely postpone a vote. I would hate to see that happen, and I think it would not serve them well.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


The American people did not elect any of us to perpetuate the kind of partisan gridlock we have had for the last several years, and particularly to have a minority of one House do that. I do hear that. You know there is some argument around the edges among the more pro-deficit reduction Democrats that we should make some minor changes in the jobs stimulus program, but they are not great, I do not think. Two things strike me, not just about what you said but the way you said it. Correct me if I am wrong, it sounds to me like you are really worried about the possibility that it will be slowed if not stopped, the stimulus part. I think in the end we will pass it because, first of all, I think the public would just be outraged at the thought that we have a chance here to create haft a million new jobs and to do things that are good that need to be done and that it would be slowed up. I am just pointing out that if the minority in the Senate can get 40 votes plus one, they can stop anything from happening. And that is what happened when they tried to gut the motor voter bill last week. That would have really been a big-it is a major piece of political reform, makes it easier for all kinds of people to register and vote. And they were willing to pass the motor voter bill, which allowed people to register when they license their car but not allow people, low-income people, to register when they pick up their Medicaid or Social Security benefits or something else. I have seen it. I hope it will not , and we will do our best to avert it. ENTITY, let me come to what I and, I think, a lot of Americans perceive to be the gut of this. Do we really need this, what you call stimulus package now? Does not it or does it present a real threat to inflation and increasing the deficit? Why not either reduce it or call it off since the economy seems to be moving? Because we are not producing jobs and because it does not present a threat to inflation, nor does it present a threat to the deficit. I agreed over the next 5 years to reduce the deficit by 4 times as much as the stimulus package over and above the deficit reduction that I have proposed, $500 billion of deficit reduction. So, we have blown away the amount of the stimulus package over the next 4 years in extra deficit reduction. So, we are not adding to the deficit.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


Secondly, the financial markets have already discounted the prospects of this being inflationary. Third, and most important of all, unemployment in America is too high. Unemployment in all the rich countries except Japan is too high. We have to prove that we can generate jobs in America again. And there is no indication that we are doing that. Now, last month we had a lot of new jobs, but way, way over half of them were part-time jobs with no health care benefits and no security of lasting. So, we need this to create jobs. This program invests in community, invests in people and their education. ENTITY, I want to talk to you about Russia. Time for us to take a break. We will continue with conversation about Russia in just a moment. ENTITY, just right off the top of your head, what percentage of this day have you spent dealing with the problems in Russia? And let me ask a specific question. If I am a trying-to-do-right American, lost my job, trying to support my wife and kids, tell me why I should pay for spending foreign aid to help the Russians? Because it is in your interest. And let me tell you why it is in your interest. For one thing, America needs good customers for its products. And Russia, a free Russia with a free economy, would prefer to do business with America over any other country. And they prefer to buy our farm products and other products, and we have to look ahead. Every year we have to be looking ahead to find more and more markets for our products because as we get drawn into the global economy, we have got to sell more to other people to keep our incomes high. Secondly, we have a real interest in keeping Russia democratic and keeping them committed to reducing their nuclear arsenals. Because otherwise we have to turn right around and rebuild our defenses at very high levels, spend huge amounts of taxpayers' money on nuclear arsenals, raise our children in a more dangerous world, and divert needed resources which ought to be spent on education and training and investment here at home. So a safe, a democratic, a free market-oriented Russia is in the immediate economic interest of every working American and very much in the interest of those folks and their children over the long run. If we let Russia revert to a country which will never be able to do business with us, that is bad business.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


If it reverts to a nationalist, even if not a Communist, a highly nationalist nuclear power that forces us to spend more of our money keeping our guard higher, then that is money that will be diverted from the future of the working families and their children. What about the theory that whatever money we try to give to the Russians, it would be money down a black hole, just disappear because chaos and pandemonium axe hour by hour? First of all, we do not have enough money to, on our own, affect the course of events. Ultimately the Russian people will have to work out their own future. But there are some specific things we can do which will not hurt us; in fact, will help us, and which will send a clear signal to the forces of freedom and democracy and market economies in Russia that we and the rest of the West will help them. You know, for example, if we provide more food aid, that helps our farmers, and we can do it at relatively low cost to ourselves. If we can find a way to help to privatize more businesses and to make those work, that helps us. If we can find a way to help them run their energy business better so they do not lose as much of their oil or their gas in the pipeline, that helps them without hurting us. It gives us a market for our pipeline products. If we can find a way to help them convert their nuclear power plants that are built on the Chernobyl model to a different energy source, that could put a lot of our folks to work, put a lot of their people to work, and make them safer environmentally and economically. Now, over the long rim, they are going to have to do some things for themselves. They are going to have to get control of their rampant inflation. They are going to have to make sure that they can get out of the bureaucracies that do not work anymore, that clog up all reforms. They are going to have to make a lot of decisions themselves. But there axe some targeted, limited commitments we can make that, no matter what happens, will not hurt us very much and carry the potential of helping us a great deal while helping to keep good things alive in Russia. Now you have met with the Russian Foreign Minister this afternoon. Did you come out of that with increased confidence that Boris Yeltsin will survive? He is like all of us in public life; he is not perfect.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


I am not perfect; we all have our problems. But he is a genuinely courageous man, genuinely committed to freedom and democracy, genuinely committed to reform. And I think now he is more open perhaps than in the past at trying to work out some kind of accommodation with others who would negotiate with him to keep reform going, even though they may have some different ideas. Well, that is what I have to do here. I have to work with the Senate and the House, the Democrats and the Republicans. I think he is got to work on all that. But I think he is got a fair chance to survive. And I think not only the United States but I think the major Western countries ought to do what they can to be supportive of his elected Presidency now because he represents the ideals and the interests of our Nation and our way of life. ENTITY, correct me if I am wrong, but you have said a couple of times, I think, recently that Boris Yeltsin is the only democratically elected leader in Russia. I just want to go over that. If Boris Yeltsin is impeached because he is tried to suspend the constitution and Aleksandr Rutskoy, who has now broken with Yeltsin and is also committed to democratic reform, comes into power, would you, would the United States Government consider him a democratically elected leader and swing in behind him? First of all, it is true that he was elected on the ticket with Yeltsin. But when Yeltsin was elected, he won an overwhelming popular victory. If you go back and look at the distribution of votes, there is no question that that is what happened. I do not want to get into what might happen or what-if questions. The constitution under which these proceedings might take place was one that came in 1978 under the Communist government. Yeltsin and Rutskoy were elected together on a ticket. I think in the end the Russian people will resolve this one way or the other by what they do or do not do in the referendum in April. ENTITY, I would love to spend hours talking foreign policy. We have such a short time here. Let me try to do something reasonably brief, and that is mention some countries and potential problems out on the horizon and just have you respond briefly. Particularly if it is proven that Iranian-sponsored terrorists had anything to do with the World Trade Center bombing, would you be prepared to retaliate?

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


First, let us note that even as we speak, we were just given notice that another major arrest was made and someone brought to the United States from Egypt where the apprehension was made. I do not want to speculate about who was behind it until I know. Let me say that I am more concerned about the Iranian government maintaining its militance, perhaps supporting, in general, terrorists organizations or engaging in unsafe proliferation of weapons of mass destruction for its own use or for the benefit of others. I wish Iran would come into the family of nations. They could have an enormous positive impact on the future of the Middle East in ways that would benefit the economy and the future of the people of Iran. I am very troubled that instead of trying to contribute to alleviating a lot of the problems of the Islamic people to the region, they are seeming to take advantage of them. I hope that they will moderate their course. I asked the question, should it be proven they had anything to do with the World Trade, would you be prepared to retaliate? So far, you are on the record as not answering. I want to be on the record as not answering. I want to maintain all options in dealing with terrorists, but I want to be on the record as not answering because I do not want the inference to be there that I am accusing them of something that I have no earthly idea whether they did or not. Just before you came into office, you were quoted as saying words to the effect, well, if Saddam Hussein goes a certain way, I, Bill Clinton, could see relations getting better. Do you regret having said that, or is that a fair quotation? What I said was, I cannot conceive of the United States ever having any kind of normal relationship with Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein is there. I cannot conceive it. What I said was that I did not wish to demonize him; I want to judge him based on his conduct. And in that context, I will be very firm, and the United States will remain very tough on the proposition that he must fully comply with the United Nations requirements, which he has still not done, in order for us to favor any kind of relaxation of the restrictions now on him through the U.N. What used to be called the Balkans, what once was Yugoslavia,

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


is now referred to in shorthand as Bosnia You seem-and I say this respectfully, but I want to say it directly-you seem to have been all over the place in terms of policy toward Bosnia. One, tell us exactly what U.S. policy toward Bosnia is at the moment and what we can expect in the future. Well, first, let me respond to your general comment. And like most Americans, I am appalled by what has happened there; I am saddened; I am sickened. And I know that our ability to do anything about it is somewhat limited. I am convinced that anything we do would have to be done through the United Nations or through NATO or through some other collective action of nations. And I am limited also not only by what I think the United States can do or should do but by what our allies are willing to do. Now, against that background, we have done a number of things. We have been instrumental in tightening the embargo against Serbia. It is much tighter than it was when I took office. We have pushed for enforcement of the no-fly zone against the Serbians. I think we will get that in the United Nations sometime in the next couple of weeks. We have begun the airlift operation, which was initially criticized and is now universally recognized as having done an awful lot to alleviate severe human suffering and to meet profound needs. We have determined that we should support the Vance-Owen peace process to try to bring an end to hostilities there. But we have also been very clear that if the Bosnians will sign off under the Vance-Owen plan and the Croatians sign off on it, and the Serbs do not , that we think that we are going to have to look at some actions to try to give the Bosnians a means to at least defend themselves. I am very concerned about this. If the parties will good-faith agree to a peace process, then I would be willing to have the United States participate with other nations in trying to keep the peace in Bosnia. ENTITY, before I get away from foreign policy, very quickly-North Korea, nuclear proliferation: one of those things people's eyes glaze over. Important, of course, hut is it something that consumes a lot of your time? Well, it is caused me a lot of concern in the last few days.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


Just for the benefit of our viewers, the North Koreans have refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors to look into sites where they might be illegally producing nuclear weapons under the nonproliferation regime. And because they would not allow our inspectors in and because the United Nations continued to insist that they do so, the North Koreans have now given us notice that they are going to withdraw, which means they are going to put themselves outside the family of nations seeking to contain nuclear weapons. That would be a great mistake, and I hope they do not do it. It is deeply troubling to us and to the South Koreans. You know, Seoul, which is now a teeming city of well over 8 million people, is very close to the 38th parallel, very close to North Korea. And over the last few years, relations between those two nations have been warming, and people began to dream of reunification in the same way that it happened in Germany. I do not want to overreact to it. The North Koreans still have a couple of months to change their mind, and I hope and pray that they will change their mind and return to the family of nations committed to restraining nuclear proliferations. There is no easy transition to make to health care, but we need to move on. As I understand it-correct me if I am wrong-you are telling the American people that their health care coverage will be increased, that the deficit at the same time will be cut. The translation of that is that there is going to be yet another significant increase in taxes, is not it? And we are looking at the options to do it. If I might, let me try to describe the problem. And I know we do not have a lot of time, but let me be as brief as I can. The average person who has health insurance is pretty satisfied with the quality of health care, but terrified of losing the health care coverage. They are just afraid that either through higher deductibles, higher co-pay, or just outright loss of the insurance, or they had to change jobs but they have had somebody in their family that is sick, they will not be able to keep their health insurance. The average business is terrified about the cost of health care. We are spending 30 percent more than any other country and getting less for it. So more and more people lose their health insurance every year. And then there are a lot of people who do not even have access to health care.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


They never see doctors or dentists or go to a medical clinic. So we have got the most expensive health care system in the world. For the people that can afford it and stay with it, you get to choose your doctor, choose your providers of all kinds, and it is good stuff. But millions of people live with insecurity, and the cost of it is really breaking the economy. In order to this cost problem and the security problem, you know, to tell people you can still choose your doctor but you are never going to have to worry about losing your health insurance, you have to find a way to pay, to cover everybody who does not now have health insurance, and to stop the loss of coverage for people that have it. That costs money. But if you do it, that permits you to cut out literally tens of billions of dollars of excess paperwork and administrative cost, stop a lot of other things that are driving up costs in the system. And you literally save, between now and the end of this decade, hundreds of billions of dollars, of both private dollars and taxpayer dollars. So the issue is, how do we make people secure so you can still pick your doctor; you are never going to lose your health insurance, you are always going to have it, no matter whether you change jobs or lose your job; you are always going to have access to health care. How do we do that? Bring the cost down, and do it within a time that is acceptable. How are you going to pay for that? We are looking for a lot of different options, but the last thing I think we ought to do, the last place we ought to look, is to ask the employers and the employees of America who are paying too much for their health care right now to pay more to solve this short-term problem. But the dilemma is this, quite simply-100 percent of the people who studied this problem say this-you may have to pay some more in the short run or find some more money in the short run, but over the long run it is going to save a massive amount of money. I can do more to save money on the Government deficit and to free up money in the private sector by bringing health costs in line with inflation and solving this problem than any other single thing I do.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


What we are trying to find a way to do is to cover all the people who do not have coverage and to guarantee the security to the working people who are afraid of losing it without raising their taxes. And we are looking for ways to do it. We have got 400 people, including doctors, nurses, health economists, experts from all over America working on this, and they have done good work. I think we have got a chance. And I have got another month to do it. ENTITY, at your news conference yesterday, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you got a little testy when you were asked about gays in the military, respect for you in the military. Am I wrong about that? I thought it was an unusually worded question, but that is all part of it. No, I do not mind talking about it. Let me say, I talk on a regular basis with General Powell. I have met with the Joint Chiefs. I have a whole schedule of things that I am working through now to continue to work with the military. This is a very difficult time for them. Well, is it correct that you have reversed your position? Nothing I said yesterday is in any way inconsistent with anything I have ever said before about this. First, let us review this issue. The Joint Chiefs agree that they should stop asking enlistees whether or not they are gay. So they have already said, we will not ask you to lie, and we will not use your forms against you. I agree and everybody else agrees that any kind of improper sexual conduct should be grounds for dismissal or other appropriate discipline. There is a very limited argument here, which is if you do not do anything wrong but you do acknowledge that you are gay, should you be able to stay in the military and, if so, should you be able to do anything anyone else can do? Would you consider any restrictions on duty assignments? And the answer is, I am waiting for the report of the Secretary of Defense made in conjunction with the Joint Chiefs. I think they are divided among themselves on this issue. Other nations which admit gays into the military, some of them have no differences in duty assignments, and some do. What I said was, if they made a recommendation to me, would I review it and consider it? I mean, I asked them to study this. I cannot refuse then to get the results of the study and act like my mind's made up.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


This is not an area where I have expertise. I have to listen to what people say. I will consider the arguments. I have a presumption against any discrimination based on status alone, but I will listen to any report filed. ENTITY, time is running out on us here. I want to give you an opportunity on this program before this tremendous audience to indicate who your choice on the Supreme Court is going to be. This is a great opportunity for you to do it. I want to give you an opportunity. I must tell you I have not reached a final decision. The problems in Russia and just the stuff I have been doing on the economy have kept me from spending quite as much time on it as I would have. But Justice White, to his everlasting credit, gave me his letter now for his resignation in June, and his successor cannot take office until October, so he gave us some time. I love the Constitution of the United States, and I believe in the Supreme Court as an institution. I used to teach constitutional law. There will be few things that I will do in this job that I will take more seriously, few responsibilities I will cherish more. And I will try to appoint someone that I think has the potential of being a magnificent Justice, someone who will be a defender of the Constitution, but someone who has good values and common sense and who understands the real life experiences of Americans as well as the law. Let us talk about this for a moment. That is right. If you think about it, it is been a long time. President Johnson put Thurgood Marshall on the Court, and I just went to his funeral. If you are not going to reveal who it is going to be-I will give you another opportunity to do that-tell us in what directions you hope to take the Court? I mean, you make an appointee hoping that he will at least bump the Court in some other direction. Let us talk philosophically about the Court. Well, there was a lot of talk, as you know, during the last 12 years when the Republicans held The White House, about trying to move the Court in a sort of a rightward direction. Indeed, the political platforms of the Republicans were repeatedly filled with litmus tests and specific requirements and everything, and pushing the Court to the right. In fact, as has always been the experience with Presidents, some of the appointees did, in fact, move to the right. You know, they had different views.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News


I would like to put someone on the Court who would make sure that there was a certain balance in the debate, that there was a real feeling for the rights of ordinary Americans under the Constitution, but that also someone who was hard-headed, who understood that the criminal law had to be enforced, that you did not want to over-legalize the country. I'd also like to put someone on there who was a very cogent and powerful arguer and who could show respect for the other Justices, who could be a good colleague, and who could engage people in honest dialog. I mean, I think the Supreme Court is no different, really, in that sense from a lot of other units. I cannot help but believe that when they are all talking together and working together and honestly trying to pick each other's brains, that they are not only free to act on their own convictions but they will learn from one another and maybe make better decisions. During the campaign, you campaigned as one who would be a President tough on crime. You talked about wanting to appoint a Justice with a big heart. What do you mean big heart ? Does that mean trouble for prosecutors and law enforcement officers? As a matter of fact, I think-there may be differences about capital punishment, for example. I have supported capital punishment, and I still do. And I would not necessarily make that a litmus test, because there is a big majority on the Supreme Court that support capital punishment. So whatever my appointee turns out to do on that, it will not change the majority. The majority agree with me on that issue. I mean, we need an administration that takes an aggressive approach to the crime issue. But we need to be smarter about it. I mean, we cannot talk tough on crime and make sentences tougher and refuse to pass the Brady bill and make people wait 7 days before criminals can buy handguns. We ought to take automatic weapons out of the hands of kids in the streets of our cities. If we are really going to be tough on crime, we ought to be not only tough in the traditional ways but also to change the environment some. ENTITY, it is my unfortunate duty now to ask the tough questions you do not want to hear. Number one, do you have a favorite in the Oscar race for the Academy Awards? Have you seen these movies? Which one do you favor? I have not seen them all, so I cannot say. The ones I have seen I enjoyed.

Interview With Dan Rather of CBS News