It is gone through the week during your trip to Wales. You got to go to Syria in some form or another. You have ruled out boots on the ground. And I am curious, have you only ruled them out simply for domestic political reasons? Or is there another reason you have ruled out American boots on the ground? Because your own-- your own guys have said, You cannot defeat ISIS with air strikes alone. Well, they are absolutely right about that. But you also cannot, over the long term or even the medium term, deal with this problem by having the United States serially occupy various countries all around the Middle East. We do not have the resources. It puts enormous strains on our military. And at some point, we leave. That is what happened with Iraq. so-- so we have got to have a more sustainable strategy, which means the boots on the ground have to be Iraqi. And-- and in Syria, the boots on the ground have to be Syrian. Well we have a Free Syrian ENTITY and a moderate opposition that we have steadily been working with but we have vetted. They have been on the defensive, not just from ISIL, but also from the Assad regime. And what-- you know, if you recall, at the West Point speech that I gave, I said, we need to put more resources into the moderate opposition in part because, unless we have people we can work with who are Sunni in these Sunni regions, then we are going to continue to have these problems. And so the-- the strategy both for Iraq and for Syria is that we will hunt down ISIL members and assets wherever they are. I will reserve the right to always protect the American people and go after folks who are trying to hurt us wherever they are. But in terms of controlling territory, we are going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with. The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that. I-- I got a somewhat snarky email from a-- from a casual viewer who said, The United States gives a lotta military aid to Saudi Arabia. It is about time they use it. What do you say to that?


Well, I think that it is absolutely true that we are going to need Sunni states to step up, not just Saudi Arabia, our partners like Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey. The dangers that are posed are-- are more directed at them right now than they are us. And that is part of the conversation that John Kerry's going to be having this week. I sent him there after we left-- the NATO meeting in Wales. And the good news is, I think, for the, perhaps the first time, you have absolute clarity that the problem for Sunni states in the region, many of whom are our allies, is not simply Iran. Sunni extremism, as represented by ISIL, is the biggest danger that they face right now. And with that understanding, it gives us the capacity for them to start getting more active and more involved. And by the way, some of that is military. But some of it is giving political support to Baghdad and strengthening relations with Shia leaders in Baghdad. Some of it is reaching out to the Sunni tribes in Iraq and identifying who we can work with, so that they can fight their own battles to free villages and regions that, you know, where they live. So they have got a big role to play. One of the things we have seen about ISIL is they are really good on social media. They--they understand how to -- message to disaffected youth throughout the Arab world and throughout the Sunni world what they are doing. And the question is, when are the moderate Sunni states and leadership going to work systematically to say, what ISIL represents is not Islam. It is an abortion-- a distortion-- an abomination of that-- that has, you know, somehow tied Islam to the kind of nihilistic thinking that any civilized nation should-- should eliminate. Did you-- did you see those messages they sent to you, naming you, when they-- when they-- when they beheaded those American journalists? They sent messages addressing you personally. Did you watch 'em? Did I-- I was-- I review-- as part of our overall counterterrorism effort, I review all the social media that many of these groups. And then these are-- this is not the first organization to deploy social media. This is increasingly the way that they are recruiting, particularly among foreign fighters. And we need a much more effective counter-narrative. And it cannot come from us.

Interview with Chuck Todd of NBC News Meet the Press


You know, when they address you like that and they behead an American, I mean, does it-- what-- how does that impact you? Well-- you know, when you-- it is not so much how it affects me personally. It is thinking about the parents of and family members-- of these folks who were affected. And you understand that, you know, the way to vindicate the love and concern that these families have, is to make sure we have got a good policy, a smart policy, that prevents these kinds of things from happening in the future. Assad essentially putting-- putting aside that priority that Assad must go, because ISIS is a more direct threat? You know, the reason we are in this situation is because Assad brutalized his people and specifically brutalized the Sunni population that is the majority in Syria. It is going to be hard for us to attract Sunnis to fight against ISIL in this area if they think that we are doing it on behalf of Assad. So, our attitude towards Assad continues to be that you know, through his actions, through using chemical weapons on his own people, dropping barrel bombs that killed innocent children that he-- he has foregone legitimacy. But when it comes to our policy and the coalition that we are putting together, our focus specifically is on ISIL. It is narrowly on ISIL. We will continue to look for opportunities, even as we are going after terrorists who could harm Americans and our friends and partners in the region. We will continue to look for opportunities to see if we can have any political resolution of the challenges in Syria. We are going to need that. But in order to do that, we have got to have a moderate Sunni opposition. Right now in Syria, you have got a choice, in the minds of a lotta people, between radical Sunni extremists or Assad. We have got and what we know is is that there are millions of decent, good Sunnis, many of whom have been displaced. They are in Turkey. They are in Jordan. Many of them are still in Syria although getting squeezed between these two extremes. And we have got to be able to reach to them, find a military and political structure that'll allow them to express themselves. Then maybe we can get the kinda political resolution that we need. I have got a few other topics. Obviously, it is something that Africa's trying to get its hands around.


Well, Americans should not be concerned about the prospects of contagion here in the United States, short term. Well, I am going to get to that. It is not an airborne disease, like the flu. You can only catch it through the transmission of bodily fluids where you have a strong public health infrastructure. Now, typically, there is one person who is identified, or a couple of people who are identified as having the virus. The problem that we have got is in, right now, a limited portion of western Africa, primarily Li-- especially in Liberia but also Sierra Leone, Guinea-- A part of Africa that economically had been booming. They are -- they are -- they are making some significant progress. But they-- they did not have a public health infrastructure. So now what we have is what should be a containable problem breaking loose because people are not being quarantined properly. So what I have said, and I said this two months ago to our National Security Team, is we have to make this a national security priority. We have to mobilize the international community, get resources in there. It is going to be a U.S. effort-- And we are going to have to get U.S. military assets just to set up, for example isola-- isolation units and-- and equipment there, to provide security for public health workers surging from around the world. If we do that, then it is still going to be months before this problem is controllable in Africa. But it should not reach our shores. If we do not make that effort now, and this spreads not just through Africa but other parts of the world, there is the prospect then that the virus mutates. And then it could be a serious danger to the United States. This is an example of where U.S. leadership is important in dealing with crisis. But it is also an argument for why when-- when I go before Congress, and I say, Let us give some public health aid to countries like Liberia, so that they can set up hospitals and nurses and vaccinations, et cetera, you know, sometimes, you know, the American public says, Why are we wasting money on them? Well, part of it is because, you know, when-- when we make those short-term investments now, it really pays of a lotta dividends in the future. Let me go to immigration.


You made a decision to delay any executive action until after the election. What do you tell the person that is going to get deported before the election that this decision was essentially made in your hopes of saving a democratic Senate? A couple of things that I want to say about immigration. The country's going to be better off if we have an immigration system that works, that has strong border security, that has streamlined our legal immigration system, so the best and the brightest who want to stay here and invest here and create jobs here can do so, that families can be unified, and that a system where the millions of people who are here, in many cases, for a decade or more, who have American kids, who are neighbors, often times are our friends, that they have a path to get legal by paying taxes and getting above board, paying a fine, learning English, if they have to. So the good news is we have bipartisan support for that. We have a Senate bill that would accomplish that. The House Republicans refuse to do that. And what I said to them was, If you do not act on something that is so common sense that you got labor, business, evangelicals, law enforcement, you have got folks across the board supporting it, then I am going to look for all the legal authorities I have to act. What we have now done is laid the groundwork for that. Jeh Johnson, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, has presented me preliminary, you know, ideas in terms of how we can take executive action. And what I have determined is I want to make sure we get it right. But the politics, I mean, it looks like election year politics. Not only do I want to make sure that the Ts are crossed and the Is are dotted, but here is the thing, and ENTITY, and I am being honest now, about the politics of it. This problem with unaccompanied children that we saw a couple weeks ago, where you had, from Central America, a surge of kids who were showing up at the border, got a lot of attention. And a lot of Americans started thinking, We have got this immigration crisis on our hands. Now, the fact of the matter is-- is that the number of people apprehended crossing our borders has plummeted over the course of the decade.


And in terms of these unaccompanied children, we have actually systematically worked through the problem, so that the surge in June dropped in July, dropped further in August. But that is not the impression on people's minds. And what I want to do is, when I take executive action, I want to make sure that it is sustainable. But the public's not behind you, you are not taking it - That sounds a little bit like that you are concerned the public would not support what you did- what I am saying is that I am going to act because it is the right thing for the country. But it is going to be more sustainable and more effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration, what we have done on-- on unaccompanied children, and why it is necessary. And you know, the truth of the matter is that the politics did shift midsummer because of that problem. I want to spend some time, even as we are getting all our ducks in a row for the executive action, I also want to make sure that the public understands why we are doing this, why it is the right thing for the American people, why it is the right thing for the American economy. What is the rationale for this election? Three billion dollars, I would argue, is being decided to see if it is Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell that is in charge of gridlock in the Senate. I mean, we are talking either-- what is the difference between a two-seat Democratic majority and a two-seat Republican majority as far as your agenda is concerned? Well, I-- I will tell you what. And the American people need to know that. If you-- if you have got a Democratic Senate, that means bills are being introduced to raise the minimum wage. Is that on your desk? I will -- I will get to that. We care about that bill. We think it is important to make sure that issues like family leave and-- and family-friendly policies and-- and more effective childcare in place, so that-- so that folks are getting help, that-- young people are getting more assistance, when it comes to, paying for college educations, rebuilding our infrastructure, putting folks back to work on our roads, our bridges, all of which would boost our economy now and boost it into the future.


Now, it is true that if the House stays Republican, that it is unlikely that I get a lot of these bills to my desk. But it makes a big difference if we have got at least one branch in Congress that is presenting these ideas, making arguments. There is, I think, hopefully, an opportunity for us to do something like tax reform next year. But is that tax reform going to be just for folks at the top? Or is it going to be tax reform that closes some corporate loopholes and gives middle class folks a break? And-- you know-- I-- I know that, you know, given the gridlock that we have seen over the last couple years, it is easy to say that these midterms do not matter. But the fact of the matter is that, on every issue that is important to middle class Americans, overwhelmingly, we are seeing a majority prefer the Democratic option and us having a Democratic Senate that can present those issues and put them forward, just like they did on immigration, even if the House Republicans fail to act, means that we are debating the right stuff for the country. We are debating the things that are going to help us grow. This would not be Meet the Press if I did not have a chart with me. It will be bigger for the television. But immigration, overhauling the tax system, raising the minimum raise. You brought up these issues yourself. That was with a Democratic Senate. So that is why you look at this. And do you think your presidency is in bigger trouble than if you have a Republican Senate? And given the fact that the punditry overwhelmingly felt that this was going to-- You are overtly pointing at me. That-- that this was going to be a good year for Senate Republicans, because the seats that were up were in states that were tilting or significantly with-- with significant Republican majorities. If we-- if democrats hold the Senate, I think that should get Republicans to once again-- You think that sends a national message? I think what it does is-- is to-- to send a message to Republicans that people want to get stuff done. Their-- their strategy of just obstructing and saying no to every piece of legislation that might help middle class families, that might create ladders of opportunity, that that is an agenda that the American people reject. And that then gives us room, hopefully, to find some compromises.


I have -- I have said this before, ENTITY. You know, if you asked me back in August what I want for my birthday, I'd say, Give me a loyal opposition that has some common sense and is willing to work on some basic issues that did not used to be partisan issues. It did not use to be that building roads, bridges, improving our airports, improving our water systems, reducing traffic, those did not used to be partisan issues. They have become partisan issues, because you have got a small portion of the Republican party that is fixated simply on dismantling government or making sure that we do not get anything done around here. If that approach is rejected, then you possibly have two years where we can get a whole bunch of stuff done. And the good news is that despite all that obstruction, America's made progress. You have heard me speak on the stump about this, ENTITY. The fact of the matter is that on almost every economic index that you can think of, America's better off now than we were five years ago. Middle America's not feeling a boom. And-- and that shows that we have still got more work to do. But we have cut the deficit by more than half. We have made sure that manufacturing is stronger than it is been any time since the 1990s. We have got an auto industry that is booming. We have got a housing industry that is recovering. We have got people's 401s healthy again because of the rise in the stock market. We have never been better positioned for American leadership, economically as well as from a national security standpoint, as we are right now. The questions is, do we take advantage of that? And we can take advantage of it if we can just get the Republican Party to stop tilting toward the extreme, move back towards the center, and work with Democrats not on everything. We are going to disagree on many things, but on some basic things that we know would help the American people. Not surprisingly, I am getting a little bit of hot signs. So let me get you to this last question here. I have had former aides of yours, plenty of supporters of yours, say to me, He looks exhausted. You know, I actually feel, energized about the opportunities, that we have got There are days where I am not getting enough sleep, because we have got a lot on our plate.


You know, when you are , when you are ENTITY of the United States, you are not just dealing with the United States, as we saw during the NATO summit. If there is a problem in Ukraine, we are the ones who are expected to mobilize the world community to isolate Russia, put pressure, support Ukrainians, and to vindicate the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity and freedom that we stand for. If there is a problem in the Middle East, the expectation is that we create the coalitions to deal with a problem like ISIL. If there is an issue in Africa around Ebola we need to help mobilize that public health infrastructure. Do you need to rotate-- do you need to rotate some fresh ideas, some new people in here? But-- but having said all that, despite all those challenges, it is invigorating to see how much U.S. leadership is still appreciated and still expected. You know, you-- when I came back from Wales and I was reminded once again that not only is America the only indispensable nation. And our leadership is making a difference. And that gives you a lot of satisfaction. That keeps you getting up even if you have not gotten as much sleep as you want. I got to ask, so-- so during that vacation, you made the statement on Foley. Do you-- do you want that back? You know, it is always a challenge when you are supposed to be on vacation. And part of what I'd love is a vacation from-- I promise you, 2 1/2 years, I think that happens. Because the possibility of a jarring contrast given the world's news, is always-- there is always going to be some tough news somewhere-- is going to be there. But there is no doubt that-- after having talked to the families, where it was hard for me to hold back tears listening to the pain that they were going through, after the statement that I made, that you know, I should've anticipated the optics. You know, that is part of the job. And you know, I think everybody who knows me, including, I suspect, the press, understands that that you know, you take this stuff in. And-- and you care about it deeply. But part of this job is also the theatre of it.


ENTITY, I want to give you the first question and to point out that the attention you have given our Senator Herb Kohl in the last couple of days has raised his level of notoriety to a point that he has not known since he was elected. Now, I know you would not trade a vote, but is there anything that you and Senator Kohl mutually want in terms of legislation or other benefits for Wisconsin that you have an interest in? The main thing that Senator Kohl was concerned about-he was interested in two things, to be fair, and there was-in the national interest. One was to minimize the burden on middle class taxpayers. And when he looked at the whole package and saw that working families with incomes under $30,000 were held harmless and that working families with incomes of $50,000 and $60,000 were looking at a $33-a-year burden with the spending cuts, I think that really made a big difference to him. The other thing that he was interested in that I think is certainly as significant over the long run is he wanted a program that had some real economic growth incentives, that had some business help in it. And this program does a lot for small businesses. Over 90 percent of the small businesses in the country are eligible for a tax reduction if they reinvest more money in their businesses. It does more for research and development. It does more for revitalizing homebuilding and real estate. It does more across a whole range of issues. And then the third issue that he raised, which I certainly agree with him on, is that we need to bring this deficit down to zero. And in order to do that, we are going to have to cut more. But to do that, we have to reform the health care system. So the next issue is how to bring down health care costs so we can get this budget deficit down to zero and not just take $500 billion off of it. Have you convinced him, ENTITY, that these changes are enough to get his vote on this issue? I have worked hard on that. That is going to be up to him, not me, and I do not think I should speak for him. I think he has really done a good job here, and he has been very important in bringing a business, pro-jobs perspective to the whole debate. But we have got a $495, $496, $497-something in that range-billion dollar deficit reduction package.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


We are now going to have more cuts than tax increases in the package. The top 1.2 percent of the American people, of people with incomes over $200,000 will pay more than 75 percent of the burden now. ENTITY, you have not had quite as good a success with our Senator Boren, who, I think, like many people in Oklahoma are concerned that the spending cuts to come later- when we went through that in 1990, and they never came. Well, for one thing I am going to have a trust fund and all the money will have to be put into the deficit reduction package, both the spending cuts and the tax increases. What actually happened in 1990, Jim, to be completely accurate about it, is that the Congress adopted a plan based on the previous administration's rosy revenue estimates. And no one really thought the revenues would grow that much; so they did not . And then spending increased because the recession went on and more people were entitled to Medicare and Medicaid. And between those two things, they were in deep trouble. Now, let me just address the major objections Senator Boren has, because I think what he says is right, but it is not a good reason to vote against this program. What he says is that in order to take the deficit from where we are taking it down to zero, you have to do something about the entitlement programs, especially about Medicare and Medicaid. But the problem is if you do not reform the health care system, that is, if you do not fundamentally restructure the system of the way health care is insured against and the way the-cutting out a lot of the paperwork and a lot of the things that are more expensive in America than anywhere else that have nothing to do with health care, and you cut the medical expenses of the Federal Government, all in the world you are going to do is have a hidden tax on the private sector because the providers will do what they always do. They will pass their costs on to people that have insurance. So that, for example, the Daily Oklahoman would have its medical premiums go up more than otherwise would be the case because the Government's not paying the full cost of its health care. So I do not disagree that we have to do something about health care costs and entitlements.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


But the time to do that is in the context of a health care reform debate, which we are going to start as soon as we can get this budget out of the way. If we do not adopt the budget, we will never get there. Everybody who looks at it can see that this budget's a lot better deal than the one in 1990. We have got new business capital gains tax in there and all kinds of other incentives for small businesses to grow. Over 90 percent of the small businesses can get a tax reduction under this plan because of it. This is going to create some jobs, too. But you cannot solve all the problems of the world in this bill. That is my quarrel and dispute with Senator Boren. He is right, you have got to get the entitlements if you want to go to zero, but we are going to have to do it in two steps, not one. ENTITY, a lot of people are concerned with, out here, the fact that the spending reductions, the major ones, seem to come so late in the plan, and the tax increases come so early. Would not it be better to go back in and make another slash, even if this means delaying the budget a little bit? First of all, there are going to be more spending reductions all the way along. The House of Representatives has already approved $10 billion in spending reductions over and above what is in this budget, but working with me. I have encouraged them. The Vice President is going to have a reinventing Government report out sometime next month, which will provide a lot more savings. So we are just getting started on the spending reductions. And then as I said, we will be able to project a decade of spending controls in the health care area if we do health care reform. The problem is that no matter what you do with that, the budget we have now and the budget we are going to have next year-we are already preparing to cut more off next year right now. Still the big reductions in spending are those that aggregate up over time. That is, if I cut $10 billion this year and $10 billion next year, then that is $20 billion over this year's figure and then $30 billion and $40 billion. You see what I mean? So the spending cuts are always going to look bigger in the out-years because they compound one another. ENTITY, we are relaying some of our readers' questions.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


One of them was, how can the job market grow when small businesses are afraid new taxes and the health plan will put them out of business? Well, first of all, new taxes and the health plan will not put them out of business. We have tried to send a clear signal to the small business community that there will not be a tax problem here. But if they have to have a premium to cover their own employees, we will limit how much of their payroll it can be, and it will be phased in over a period of years. But let me flip it over to you on the other side. Seventy percent of the small businesses in America provide some health care coverage for their employees, and almost all of them pay much more than they should because we are the only country in the world that forces employers who cover their employees to subsidize employers who do not , and that is what happens. Everybody in this country gets health care, but if you do not have health insurance and you cannot pay for it, you get it too late when it is too expensive. You show up at the hospital; you get cared for, and then the providers, the doctors and the hospitals, in effect, raise their costs to everybody else. So you could argue that the small business community as a whole in this country is more hurt by the system we have than by the one we are moving to. Also, let me make one other point. We spend about 10 cents on the dollar more than any other country in the administrative costs of our health care system because we have 1,500 separate health insurance companies writing thousands of different policies, all with different rules and regulations, so that the cost of compliance is staggering, and then the Government aggravates it. So I think the small business community will wind up ahead on this. But we have tried to send some clear signals that we are not going to pop them with a big payroll tax, and I do think employers who do not provide anything for their employees should bear some responsibility through the private insurance system. But it ought to be limited and phased in so that nobody goes broke doing it. ENTITY, on Friday, last Friday we had a conversation with Roger Altman about your budget plan, and one of the questions we asked him was what the administration would have done differently to sell this plan. And he was very frank about it. And I am curious in terms of your strategy why you did not really start giving everybody the hard sell a lot earlier.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


You mean not in the Congress but in the country? Well, actually we did a lot of that, but we did not have our war room set up, and we were, frankly, just overwhelmed by the day-to-day news coverage of Republicans carping about taxes and unable to kind of break through about what the facts of the program were. I worked hard-for 2 months after I made my State of the Union Address I went out into the country once a week. I did my best to talk about the program. But we did not have the kind of organized disciplined effort we have had for the last few weeks in reaching out to local newspapers and television and radio stations and bringing in opinion leaders and doing all these things we are doing now. And I think we did lose control of the debate. Also, to be fair to them, to Roger Altman and the others, an issue like this tends to go through cycles. I told the people about it on February 17th, and they liked it. Then the sort of negative rhetoric took over. Now we are kind of coming back to reality, and all the surveys show we are bringing it back our way now. ENTITY, Alan Greenspan has been giving some subliminal signals about raising interest rates. Would not that sort of derail your plan for reducing the deficit if the interest rates went up? And are you worried about that? I do not think you should raise interest rates until there is real economic growth that brings on real inflation. I mean, there is no real inflation in this economy, and we can have growth without inflation. And I think we may be reading too much into his remarks. Have you talked to him directly about what he did mean since he made those remarks? No, but I talk to him fairly often, and I am scheduled to have another session with him pretty soon. I know him pretty well, and my read on what he said was if inflation warranted it, he might raise interest rates. But if you think about it, what we are trying to do in bringing the deficit down is to justify keeping the interest rates down even when there is economic growth because the Federal Government will be taking less capital away from the markets, and therefore, there will not be as much competition for it, and we ought to be able to keep lower interest rates. He has constantly and consistently supported the deficit reduction efforts of this administration in very explicit terms.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


So I would be surprised to see him raise interest rates when we are doing something to support the reverse. If we were having 4 or 5 percent growth and inflation was getting out of hand, I could understand it. ENTITY, obviously, in this part of the country it would have been more popular to cut spending first, raise revenue later. You used the early year forecast of the deficit to go back on your pledge for a middle class tax cut. Since, there have been other estimates, why have not you gone back to a cut spending first program? Well, first of all, we are cutting spending. We are cutting spending. This idea that we are raising taxes-taxes come in constant amounts, whether it is a fuel tax or an income tax. David Stockman, who pioneered Reagan's program in 1981, has now admitted in repeated interviews that they cut taxes twice as much as they meant to because they got into a bidding war with Congress, that there is no way to restore any kind of fairness to the Tax Code or reduce the deficit to zero unless there is a revenue component. So if I were to say, Okay, we will put these spending cuts in for a couple of years, and then we will raise taxes, all we would do by doing that is basically have a bigger deficit in the first years because we'd have the spending cuts but not the taxes, and we would have higher interest rates, and we'd have slower economic recovery. Let me just say, in the year that I am in now- which I am not even responsible for this budget until October the 1st-our deficit is going to be about $25 billion less than it was predicted to be when I became ENTITY. But to go back to the middle class tax argument, after the election but before I took office, the previous administration said, Oh, by the way, the deficit's going to be $165 billion bigger over the next 5 years. So I always in that campaign said I am not going to say read my lips because I have run a government long enough at the State level to know that sometimes circumstances can change on you. I have been very candid with the American people about that. I think most people with incomes of $50,000 a year do not think $33 a year is too much to pay. I think what most people have believed is, they have been told that they are going to be paying a fortune. Let me just finish this. I want to make this point.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


We have got opportunities to have even more fairness in the Tax Code if we are bringing down the deficit and we are opening up economic growth. But the most important thing now is to do something about the deficit. The truth is that all these people who say they want to cut spending now, what they really want is an accounting practice which still would have all the spending cuts come in the 3d, 4th, and 5th year of this budget cycle. What they are really saying is let us pass a bill that says it is going to cut spending later now before we raise taxes. They do not propose more spending cuts in these first years than I do, none of them do. And to go back to Senator Boren's bill, particularly the one he offered in the Senate did not have nearly as much support as the one I offered, because it did not have the kind of deficit reduction unless you did what he proposed to do, which was to take more out of Medicare for middle class people. And even then it was not going to happen for the 3d, 4th, or 5th year, most of it. So the people that say cut spending now are saying, We do not want to cut any more spending than Bill Clinton does right now, but we want to pass a bill that cuts spending in the 3d, 4th, and 5th year in health care without health care reform and then talk about whether we should tax the wealthiest Americans later. That is what they are really saying. Is there any chance that it will not pass in the Senate? I think most of those people are going to say, is this a better bill than we have ever had before and better than we had in 1990? And the answer to that will be, yes. Is this fairer to average Americans than the ones we have been considering? The answer to that will be, yes. Does this restore some economic growth incentives for small business, for new high-tech businesses, for housing, for real estate that we have not had in the Tax Code for 7 or 8 years? And the answer to that will be, yes. Does this bill lift the working poor out of poverty and encourage people to get off welfare, not with a Government program but by using the tax system to reward people who work, even at very low wages? The answer to that will be, yes.

Interview With Newspaper Editors


There has been a huge response since we announced this interview. Forty thousand questions have come in -- as you might imagine, most on the economy. How do you convince them that they are? They are not better off than they were before Lehman's collapsed, before the financial crisis, before this extraordinary recession that we are going through. I think that what we have seen is that we have been able to make steady progress to stabilize the economy. But the unemployment rate is still way too high, and that is why it is so critical for us to make sure that we are taking every action we can take to put people back to work. And the American Jobs Act, the bill that I put before Congress three weeks ago, puts construction workers back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges; it puts teachers back in the classroom teaching our kids; makes sure that veterans are getting a break if they come home and are looking for a job with a small business. It provides everybody a tax cut -- small businesses and middle-class families alike -- so that we have got more consumers out there with a little more confidence, a little more money in their pockets. You know, these are ideas that historically have been supported by Democrats and Republicans, and so -- As you might have heard in the last hour, the Republican leader in the House, Eric Cantor, said he is not going to schedule a clean bill. Well, look, what he needs to do is to tell us what exactly he is for, because what I have done is put forward what economists say can increase our growth by close to 2 percent and put 1.9 million people, ultimately, back to work. Now, if he is got other ideas, we are happy to look at those other ideas. But what I think the American people cannot abide by is us doing nothing. We cannot sit here and pretend that somehow, you know, Washington just cutting spending, in and of itself, is going to be putting people back to work. Well, he said he wants to pass the tax cuts and the trade bills. Well, we are going to be passing the trade bills. And I am pleased we are doing that because that actually will add jobs. You know, the trade bill not only is for Korea, but also Panama and Columbia. All these countries right now are able to sell into the United States. We have one of the most open markets in the world; theirs are still a little too closed.

Interview With George Stephanopoulos of ABC News


And as I have said before, I want -- I do not mind Kias and Hyundais sold here, as long as Chryslers and Fords are being sold in Korea as well. So I am glad that is an area of bipartisan agreement, but it is not enough by itself. There is more that we can do. In Virginia. in Virginia, but also some that I visited between Kentucky and Ohio, where both Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell hail from -- you know, those are projects that need to happen anyway. Why not do them now, at a time when we have got construction workers out of work, contractors are able to come in under budget, on time. This is the time to do it. We have a brand-new poll out at ABC -- it is just coming out later today -- showing that a majority of Americans, 55 percent, think you will be a one-term president. The -- because, you know, given the economy, there is no doubt that, you know, whatever happens on your watch, you have got -- You embraced that pretty quickly. And I think that at the end of the day, though, what people are going to say is, who is got a vision for the future that can actually help ordinary families recapture that American dream? When I ran in 2008, the basic idea was that, you know, ordinary folks who are working hard, you know, doing everything right, just were not getting ahead. Costs were going up -- everything from health care to college education. And you know, the whole approach of everything I have tried to do over the last three years is to say, what are those big changes that we have to make so that our kids are getting the best education, we have got the best infrastructure in the world, we have got the tools that allow us to succeed again? We actually got a great question on Twitter about 2008. It was from Gil Glover. If hope and change defined the 2008 campaign, what two words are going to make -- are going to define 2012? You know, I have not quite boiled it down to a bumper sticker yet, but I think what'll define 2012 is, you know, our vision for the future. You know, our vision for the future, right. Nobody's going to deny that we are not where we need to be, that the economy is not producing enough jobs that pay well and give people a leg up on life.


Now, there are going to be some folks who make the argument that if you just slash spending, eliminate regulations that prevent us from polluting our air, polluting our water or, you know, we bust labor unions, that that in and of itself is going to restore the American dream. I do not think most Americans believe that. I think they understand that we have got to invest in making sure we got the best education system possible; that we have got to invest in basic research; that part of what made us an economic superpower was we had the best technology, the best infrastructure, and that government has some role to play in that. And so the question's going to be, you know, which vision is more persuasive to the American people? He said you do not have the courage to lead. He called you a bystander in the Oval Office. And I want to get this right, because it -- what he ended up saying is that you have not brought people together; now you are going to divide them. What happened to State Senator Obama? When did he decide to become one of the dividers he spoke of so eloquently in 2004? Well, look, you know, if the guy's thinking about running for president, he is going to say a lot of stuff, and I think in the Republican primaries, saying nasty stuff about me is probably -- polls pretty well with -- But he basically says he did in New Jersey -- brought people together, which you have not been able to do in Washington -- in Washington. Well, I -- you know, I am not sure that folks in New Jersey necessarily would agree with that. I do not think that the American people would dispute that at every step of the way I have done everything I can to try to get the Republican Party to work with me to deal with what is the biggest crisis of our lifetimes, and each time all we have gotten from them is no. I think the -- you are not going to get too much dispute about that, whether the -- How is that going to change in the next term? Well, you know, the way it is going to change is because the American people are going to have a say about where we want to go. You know, they are going to have a decision to make. You know what?


President Obama wanted to reduce the deficit by not only cutting spending, as he is already done, but also by making sure that the most fortunate in our society are paying their fair share, that we are closing corporate loopholes that small businesses do not get; the Republicans have said no to that. Well, that is a contrast in approaches. And, you know, when you tick down which approach the American people generally prefer, they will say mine. Now, what they will say is, he has not been able to get it through Congress. And, you know, I am the first one to acknowledge that the relations between myself and the Republican Congress have not been good over the last several months, but it is not for a lack of effort. It has to do with the fact that, you know, they have made a decision to follow what is a pretty extreme approach to governance. You might have a new issue on your plate over the weekend. Bank of America announcing a $5 service fee for using your debit cards a lot of outrage, a lot of questions. These are the types of things government should get involved in and put a stop to. Can you put a stop to that? Well, what we did was we put a stop, through the Financial Reform Act, of them charging fees for credit cards. And the banks are saying that they need these charges. Well, what -- banks are saying is that rather than take a little bit less of a profit, rather than paying multi-million-dollar bonuses, let us treat our customers right. And this is exactly why we need this Consumer Finance Protection Bureau that we set up, that is ready to go, and what we need is confirmation of the person I have appointed, Richard Cordray, treasurer of Ohio. Back in Ohio, Republicans and Democrats both think he is terrific and he is fair. But this is exactly why we need somebody whose sole job it is to prevent this kind of stuff from happening. Can you stop this service charge? Well, you can stop it because -- if you say to the banks, you do not have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of profit, if your customers are being mistreated; that you have to treat them fairly and transparently. And my hope is, is that you are going to see a bunch of the banks who say to themselves, you know what, this is actually not good business practice.


by earning it, by lending to small businesses, by lending to consumers, by making sure that, you know, we are building the economy together. But, you know, without the kinds of protections that we are starting to see the Republicans try to roll back, we are going to continue to have these kinds of problems. And this is exactly the sort of stuff that folks are frustrated by. This, by the way, is an example of the contrasting visions that we have. If the Republican Party believes that we should do nothing to curb abuses on Wall Street, and roll back regulations put in place to prevent the next big financial crisis, well, I have got a big difference with them. And I think the American people are going to be on my side on that. Your White House has faced a lot of questions on Solyndra, the solar-panel company you paid a visit to back in 2010. You really held it up then as a model for jobs in clean energy. Do you regret that? No, I do not , because if you look at the overall portfolio of loan guarantees that have been provided, overall it is doing well. And what we always understood was that not every single business is going to succeed in clean energy. But if we want to compete with China, which is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into this space, if we want to compete with other countries that are heavily subsidizing the industries of the future, we have got to make sure that our guys here in the United States of America at least have a shot. And you were getting warnings not to back that company up, not to visit. I -- it went through the regular review process and people felt like this was a good bet. But the fact of the matter is, is that if we do not get behind clean energy, if we do not get behind advanced battery manufacturing, if we are not the ones who are creating the cars of the future, then we are not going to be able to make stuff here in the United States of America. And one of the most important things that I want to do over the next several years is restore a sense that America can manufacture, that we do not just purchase stuff from someplace else, that we are also exporting to other countries. Let me ask you about al-Qaida following the killing on Friday of Anwar Awlaki. Back in July, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that the strategic defeat of al-Qaida is within reach.


This week we approach the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. How close are we to that strategic defeat? You know, I think that we have done more in the last couple of years than anytime in the last 10 years to bring that about. Obviously the most prominent case was us getting bin Laden. But when you look at that entire leadership tier of al-Qaida, they have been decimated. And they are rapidly approaching the point where they just cannot replace trained, skilled operatives who could threaten -- Can they still plan an attack on our homeland? Well, you know, I think that given the nature of our open society, we are always going to be vulnerable to the possible terrorist attack. But for them to be able to mount something that is a big project with a lot of financing, that is very difficult for them to do now. But I think that we are in a position where over the next couple of years if we stay on it, that it is going to be very difficult for them to mount the kinds of spectacular attacks that we saw on 9/11. You gave a pretty passionate speech at the Human Rights Campaign Saturday night, and said that every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Is that possible without legal gay marriage? Well, you know, I think that it is certainly possible for us to make sure that, not only can they serve in our military, but we fully support them; that hospital visitation is available to gay and lesbian partners; that they are not discriminated against on the job -- being gay or lesbian is not a fireable offense -- that -- at minimum, that gays and lesbians have strong civil unions that provide the same kinds of protections -- You said you are struggling with it. What more do you need to know? Well, you know, I probably will not make news right now, George, but I think that there is no doubt that as I see friends, families, you know, children of gay couples who are thriving -- you know, that that has an impact on how I think about these issues. It is also one of the reasons that I made the decision for us not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which I believe violated the Constitution and, you know, is going to be decided in the courts probably in the next -- next few terms. You think you will change your mind before the election? You know, I am -- I am still working on it.


And you are not going to tell me how long it is going to take? Let me just finish up with a couple personal questions, because we got a lot of those on Yahoo as well. A lot of people want to know -- first of all, I should say, happy anniversary. And they want to know what is the best single piece of advice Michelle has given you. You know, that when all is said and done, the mark of success is, do you have children who are happy and healthy and able to go out there and function as responsible, loving people? You know, I -- I think, in this business -- as is true for a lot of professionals -- I think you love your kids, but you are -- always got these distractions and there are always things tugging at you, and Michelle very early on being that anchor that says, no, no, you know, if we have got a parent-teacher conference -- That steady drum beat from Michelle was exactly right. And it is -- it is part of the reason why, I think, not only are the kids doing well, but it provides me just a constant source of joy and sustenance. Four years is a long time in kids' years. They were pretty little during the last campaign. How do you protect them this time around, when everybody's saying all these bad things about you? I mean, partly because they do not watch -- they do not watch news -- -- although, you know, they are starting to read. They go on the Internet, right? They -- they are starting to go on the Internet. I think that the thing we worry about has less to do with them hearing folks say mean stuff about me, which -- You do not have to answer them. They -- they -- they do not -- they do not -- they know who their daddy is, and they are not worried about that. The thing I do worry about is trying to figure out that balance of making sure they have got space to make mistakes, be teenagers, et cetera. But obviously, they are not typical, in some ways. So they are still having sleepovers and they are still going to the mall and they are still going to movies -- but they have got this guy with a gun following them everywhere. We have been able to do it so far. Our Secret Service detail is terrific about it.


What greeting and message would you like to convey to the Chinese people prior to your visit to China? First, that the relationship between China and America is an important relationship. There is a lot of good that we are doing together, and there is a lot of areas where we may not have full agreement but, nevertheless, are able to discuss our disagreements in a very cordial way. And so I would tell the people of China you live in a great, massive country that is growing well and that we want to have good relations with you. This will be your third formal visit to China. What do you hope to achieve with this visit? Well, first of all, the visit is giving me a chance to further get to know the leadership. ENTITY Hu is a person who I enjoy visiting with. And the more you get to know a person, the better the easier it is to make good policy. Secondly, I am going to, of course, be going to China to represent the interests of my people. I will talk about the need for trade that is free and fair. I will talk about the currency, of course. I will talk about intellectual property rights that the ENTITY and I have discussed before. And then on the international front we will , of course I will confirm my one China, three-communique policy, that not only says that we do not support independence but as well, we will adhere to the Taiwan Relations Act. I think that is important for the Chinese leadership and the people of China to hear. We have also got an agenda to fight terrorism, fight narcotrafficking, as well as to work together to convince the leader of North Korea that the Korean Peninsula should be nuclear weapons-free. So we have got a broad agenda. It will keep us busy, but it is an important agenda, and the people of China must understand that when the United States and China works together, we can accomplish a lot. You brought up Taiwan. I remember in 2001 and 2003 you made strong statements regarding Taiwan and regarding the recent development, do you feel less concern about a cross-strait situation than you were in, like, 2003? Well, I am always concerned that one party or the other will do something unilaterally to change the status quo, which would then create, you know, a source of angst and anger. And therefore, I am constantly reiterating my position so that both sides clearly know the position of the United States.

Interview With Phoenix Television of Hong Kong


Are you optimistic about a peaceful resolution in the end? I have seen some yes, I am optimistic there will be a peaceful resolution. Secondly, I am optimistic because I have seen cross-straits discussion starting to take place. And I urge the parties to continue those discussions. I believe it is possible, through discussion and good will, to end up solving this issue in a peaceful way. You call U.S.-China relationship complicated. And we heard U.S. officials and experts have variously called China a threat, a partner, a competitor, and an opportunity. So how do you see China, and what is your plan to deal with China's emergence? Well, that is interesting all the different adjectives I guess kind of express a complicated relationship. I would say I think we have got a lot of issues to deal with, is the best way to describe it. And on issues on which we agree, we can make positive contributions and change. Issues we do not necessarily agree on, we can work through and do so in a frank way. And I repeat, I think we have a fantastic opportunity by working with China and other countries to make sure that the Korean Peninsula is nuclear weapons-free, which will lay a foundation for a peace in the region and the hemisphere, and that is important. You brought up North Korea. What other issues do you most seek China's support and cooperation? And what do you expect them to do? Well, first of all, on the United Nations Security Council we work on every issue together. And one way for us to be able to work together is just to share opinions on different issues. For example, I will bring up Iran. I want the ENTITY to understand how I think it is important for the free world and the peaceful world to work together to convince the Iranians not to develop a nuclear weapon. China has got influence. And therefore, it is in our interest that we share ideas and work together. I will also want to continue discussions on the economic front, because we have got a big trade imbalance with China, but we are making progress. The Chinese took a good first step on having a market currency; I believe they ought to do more. The ENTITY made a very strong statement in New York about intellectual property rights. We have reached a textile agreement, which is a very important signal to our folks who want to make sure that the ENTITY works for fair trade.


And with the trade balance as big as it is, you know, it is important for people here in America to be able to say to themselves, We hope it is fair. And I am going to continue to insist on fair trade as well. Finally, there is a couple of other areas we can work on, if you have got a second. We consume a lot of energy. China is consuming more energy. And we need to share information and share technologies so both of us can diversify away from hydrocarbons. My last question, in 1975 you visited China, when your father was U.S. Representative in Beijing. I know you spent your 29th birthday there Can you share with us some of the memories that made the deepest impression on you when you think of China? I think of how different China is today than it was in 1975. In 1975 first of all, I had a fantastic experience when I went there in 1975. The two impressions a couple of impressions. One, everybody was on bicycles; there were not many automobiles. I happened to be one of the people on bicycles. I rode all over the place in Beijing, which was fascinating. In other words, there was not much exposure to the West, and all of a sudden an American starts riding a bike amongst them, and it, frankly, surprised some people. And thirdly, I noticed there was uniformity in dress. People wore the same style clothes. And that is changed, which means there is a market; people are beginning to express their own individual desires and somebody is meeting those desires with a product. When I went to Shanghai right after September the 11th, 2001, I was it was mind-boggling to look at the fantastic buildings that had been built between the airport and the old town. So this is a country that has progressed a lot since 1975, which shows the vast potential of China. And it explains to people it should explain to people in America why it is important for our Government to have a good working relationship as complex as it is, but to have a good working relationship. And that is in the interest not only of our respective people but it is in the interest of the world. I wish you a very good trip to Asia and a successful visit to China.


It is nice to hear your voice. There is a new poll out today from Newsweek, and I am sorry to give you this bad news, but there is a new poll out today from Newsweek showing that your approval rating has dropped to 40 percent. And these polls seem to come out fairly frequently with results up and down. Why do you suppose you are down now, and do you pay much attention to these surveys? No, because, first of all, the polls are directly related to how much people know about the record of the administration. And all the surveys show that about-over 60 percent of the American people approve of the work of this administration if they know the facts. The frustrating thing is, and the frustrating thing in all these elections, is that people have so little way of getting the facts. If you look at this California election, it is a classic example. I mean, look at the Senate race. the assault weapons ban, a law requiring no tolerance for gun ownership-possession for children in school, the California desert bill. And she is being opposed by Michael Huffington, who never even lived in California until 1991, who bought a race in the Congress with his fortune and then, when he ran for the Senate, lost his own congressional district in the Republican primary and still looks like he has a chance to win because he can spend money to put things on the television that are not true. And the truth is, in a lot of these polls it depends on what information the voters have and how you ask the question. The only things that really count are these elections, but it is getting harder and harder and harder for voters to make good decisions if all they get is a constant barrage of negative information and they never get the facts. The truth is, we have got a 4-year low in unemployment; jobs are growing 5 times as fast under our administration as they did under the Bush administration. We are doing things for working people like the family leave law, immunizing all of our children under 2, expanding Head Start, lower cost college loans. We are moving this country in the right direction. And we are leading the world in moving toward peace and freedom and democracy. If people think about the record and understand the direction, they give us a lot of support. But you cannot blame people for not voting on what they do not know. ENTITY, let us get on to the subject of illegal immigration. We of course know that you are on record against Proposition 187 in this State.

Interview With Cynthia Louie and Fred Wayne of KCBS Radio, San Francisco, California


That whole issue is causing so many ill feelings; there is anger on both sides. What can you tell us about the threat that California could lose Federal funding if that initiative passes, one, and as a second part, what commitment can you make to our listeners about what the Federal Government might be able to do to help with the problem of illegal immigration? Well, first of all, let us try to- let me try to talk some sense about this issue. The people of California do have a problem with illegal immigration, which is more severe when the economy is in trouble. But since I became President, I have been trying to help you solve it. I mean, from the day I got in office I knew I had a mess in immigration on my hands, and I started trying to fix it 21 months ago. What have we done? We have almost doubled the border guards in San Diego, along the border down there. We have almost doubled the number of illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes we are sending back out of the country. We are giving money to California for the first time to help deal with the cost of imprisonment. I have asked Congress to appropriate literally hundreds of millions of dollars to help you deal with the cost of education and health care. We have increased funding to California to deal with immigration by one-third, even though we are reducing Federal spending overall for the first time in 25 years. So we are moving to deal with this problem. We are also looking at ways that we can be tougher on incentives for employers not to hire illegal aliens and how we can keep up with the records. So I think the people of California should want more done. I think the Federal Government should do more. I have been in the forefront of doing that, working with Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, and others. I simply do not agree that 187 is the right way to go because, first of all, nearly everybody thinks it is unconstitutional. Secondly, it will be directed primarily against children. If you kick children out of the health clinics, you may run the risk of causing health problems for the general California population. If you say kids have got to be kicked out of school, you turn the teachers into police officers and you say, We are going to put more kids on the street. Well, we have got too many kids on the street in America and California today already. It is liable to raise the crime rate and cause all kinds of problems.


The much anticipated Beijing Olympic Games will be opening in Beijing in just about a week's time. And you will be attending the opening ceremonies on August the 8th. And the Chinese people are very much looking forward to your visit. So at this moment, what are your expectations for the Beijing Games? And what kind of messages will you bring to the Chinese people? First message to the Chinese people is, I respect the Chinese people, respect the history, tradition. And I am coming as the President of a friend, and I am coming as a sportsman. And I am looking forward to the competition. I am looking forward to seeing-I think I am going to go to the U.S.-Chinese basketball game. I understand Yao Ming is back on the court, and it will be an interesting challenge for the U.S. team. It will be exciting for me to see the athletes compete and to watch the Chinese fans respond, in this case, to the basketball game. A lot of my family is coming as well. You are under a kind of pressure from politicians here in Washington who call on you not to go to Beijing. So out of what consideration did you make such a decision? Well, first of all, I am under pressure from politicians on a lot of fronts. I mean, this is not the only issue that I get pressured on. And Presidents need to make their decision based upon what is best, not what is political. And I think it is best for U.S.-China's relations that I go. I know it is important for me to send a clear signal to the Chinese people that we respect them. I tell people that, of course, we have got differences with China on issues. They have got differences with us on issues. But the best way to conduct our diplomacy and conduct our relations is out of mutual respect. And it is much more likely a Chinese leader will listen to my concerns if he knows I respect the people of China. I am going to have a dinner with President Hu Jintao, who I like. I respect the man a lot. And do we agree on everything? But do we agree to have good, cordial relations and work hard to make our relationship unique and strong? On the agenda of your visit to Beijing, you will be attending the opening ceremony of the new U.S. Embassy in Beijing? And the new Chinese Embassy was just opened in Washington. Yes, I know it. I attended the opening ceremony.

Interview With Fuqing Yang of CCTV in China


That is what I hear. You know, I.M. Pei is a famous architect who did the Chinese building. So it just shows 30 years of a relationship that grows. And I found it very interesting, somebody said, Well, what does that mean? Well, first of all, we would not be opening new Embassies or celebrating a 30th anniversary of relationship if, one, the relationships were not important and the relationships were not good. I mean, if the relationships were terrible, no one would be celebrating anything. But it is interesting that both countries are opening new Embassies in the same month. Today is July and August-but in the same couple of weeks. And guess who is going to join me? And he was the man that introduced me to China in the first place, in 1975. Yes, I was born in '46. My brother-see, my sister was 18 during the time. And I explored around Beijing on a bicycle. And you also paid three visits in your capacity as the President of the United States to China. And in a sense, you bear witness to the changes in China too. So yes, how would you elaborate on the changes in the past 30 years, since this year also marks the 30th anniversary of China's opening up and reform? And everybody was on bicycle, truly. Masses of people, me included, riding along on our bike. Everybody wore the same clothes, except for me. People-I can remember going to a department store, and nobody had seen a westerner. And I would go with my mother and my sister. It was like we were, like, from a different planet. It seems like more automobiles than bicycles. And people are used to a relationship between the West and China. One of the first-I think the first graduation speech I ever gave as President was to Notre Dame, and they were honoring the honors graduates in the sciences. And many of the people there were Chinese citizens, young Chinese students, girls and boys, got their degrees at the Notre Dame University. It was just-just shows how different things are after 30 years. So there is also, like, China and the United States are going to celebrate 30 years of diplomatic relations in January 2009. How would you evaluate the developments between our two countries in the diplomatic field in the last 30 years? And particularly, during two of your administrations, if you can give us a self-assessment?


For example, the strategic dialogue on economics that Secretary Paulson is leading, that is very unique. And so he goes to China, and the Chinese leaders come here. And our Cabinet-many of our Cabinet works with their counterparts. We have dealt with some tough problems in a way that is cordial and respectful. And I told somebody the other day that it is amazing that the United States now has very good relations with China, South Korea, and Japan and the ASEAN countries, all at the same time. And I think that is positive for the region. If North Korea were to end up with a nuclear weapon, it would be very destabilizing and very troubling for all of us. So we decided to work together, sit around the table as five parties, saying the same thing to the North Koreans. You mentioned the six-party talks. Also, six-party talks are high on your agenda during your administration for the last couple of years. With the demolition of the Yongbyon facility, the cooling tower, specifically, it makes some tangible progress, probably gave momentum before the talks. What kind of messages, if you want to say, to the six-party talks? Well, first of all, I value our partners. The only way to solve this peacefully is for us to work together to send a common message. I thank the Chinese Government for their leadership on this issue. I firmly believe multilateral diplomacy can work this issue better than bilateral diplomacy; secondly, that we are at a very critical moment now for the North Korean Government to make a decision as to whether or not they are going to verify what they said they would do. It is one thing to say it, but I think it is going to be very important for them to understand that we expect them to show us. That is perfect verification; everybody saw it. And if they make the decisions that we are comfortable with, then we move the process forward. And I certainly hope they make the right decision. I am looking forward to going to Beijing. I bet I have one.


As ENTITY approaches his first anniversary in the White House, some of the public's enthusiasm for his ambitious agenda at home and abroad is on the wane. While he helped avert a worldwide financial collapse and may well achieve his goal of health- care reform during his first year in office, the U.S. economy is still very weak with double-digit unemployment. And his approval ratings are at the lowest point of his presidency. This past week before he left for Europe to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, we sat down with the ENTITY in the Map Room at the White House for a wide-ranging discussion, much of it focused on his decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Was that the most difficult decision of your presidency so far? Because when you go to Walter Reed and you travel to Dover and you visit Arlington and you see the sacrifices that young men and women and their families are making, there is nothing more profound. And it is a solemn obligation on the part of me as commander in chief to get those decisions right. I do not make this decision lightly. In your West Point speech, you seemed very analytical, detached, not emotional. The tone seemed to be, I have studied the situation very hard, it is a real mess, the options are not very good, but we need to go ahead and do this. You know, that was actually probably the most emotional speech that I have made in terms of how I felt about it, because I was looking out over a group of cadets, some of whom are going to be deployed in Afghanistan, and potentially some might not come back. There is not a speech that I have made that hit me in the gut as much as that speech. And one of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war. There was a tendency to say, we can go in, we can kick some tail, this is some glorious exercise, when in fact this is a tough business. And most of the people in your party do not believe this is a war worth fighting. If I was worrying about what polled well, there are a whole bunch of things we would not have done this year. Do you feel like you have staked your presidency on it? There are a whole bunch of things that I have staked my presidency on, right, that are tough and entail some risks, there are no guarantees, but that I am confident we have addressed in the best possible way.

Barack Obama Interview With Steve Kroft on CBS' 60 Minutes


The West Point speech was greeted with a great deal of confusion. I disagree with that statement. Forty million people watched it, and I think a whole bunch of people understood what we intend to do. Well, it raised a lot of questions. I think that what you may be referring to is the fact that, on the one hand, I said, we are going to be sending in additional troops now. On the other hand, by July 2011, we are going to move into a transition phase where we are drawing our troops down. First of all, that is something that we executed over the last two years in Iraq, so I think the American people are familiar with the idea of a surge. In terms of the rationale for doing it, we do not have an Afghan military right now, a security force, that can stabilize the country. If we are effective over the next two years, that then frees us up to transition into a place where we can start drawing down. Now, the other point of confusion I think that at least the press has identified is this notion of, well, what happens on July of 2011? And what I have said is that we then start transitioning into a drawdown phase. How many U.S. troops are coming out, how quickly, will be determined by conditions on the ground. So if the situation is not going well in July of 2011, you could decide -- and I am not making light of this -- to send home the band and a couple of Civil Affairs units and nonessential units and keep as many combat people on the ground as are necessary to perform the mission? Well, look, as commander in chief, obviously I reserve the option to do what I think is going to be best for the American people at that point in time and our national security. But we will know, I think, by the end of December 2010 whether or not the approach that General McChrystal has discussed in terms of securing population centers is meeting its objectives. And if the approach that is been recommended does not work, then, yes, we are going to be changing approaches. And the answer is that, in the absence of a deadline, the message we are sending to the Afghans is, it is business as usual, this is an open-ended commitment.


And very frankly, there are, I think, elements in Afghanistan, who would be perfectly satisfied to make Afghanistan a permanent protectorate of the United States, in which they carry no burden, in which we are paying for a military in Afghanistan that preserves their security and their prerogatives. That is not what the American people signed on for when they went into Afghanistan in 2001. They signed up to go after al Qaeda. The main reason we are doing this is al Qaeda. Because according to your government's own estimates, there are maybe fewer than 100 al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, that the rest are in Pakistan and the tribal territories. What you have here between the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan is the epicenter of violent extremism directed against the West and directed against the United States. This is the heart of it. It is from here that you see attacks launched, not just against the United States, but against London, against Bali, against a whole host of countries. And half of this territory is in Afghanistan. Half of this territory is in Afghanistan, half of it is in Pakistan. Ultimately, in order for us to eradicate the problem, to really go after al Qaeda in an effective way, we are going to need more cooperation from Pakistan. You are a student of history. The British lost the Revolutionary War, and the Americans lost the Vietnam War, in spite of the fact that they won almost all of the major battles. They lost it because it got to be too expensive, it was too far away, and not enough people cared about it. Are not you facing some of those same problems right now? I think what is true is that if we have an open-ended commitment in a place like Afghanistan, with no clear benchmarks for what success means, that the American people, who have just gone through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, who have already endured eight years of war, at some point are going to say, enough, and rightly so. In Afghanistan, I mean, you can make the argument that it is not even really a country, that it is a collection of tribes, and it is run really by a very corrupt government, some of whose major figures are alleged to be involved in the drug business, including the brother of ENTITY. How are you going to deal with this? How are you going to do this?


Look, ENTITY, I mean, the reason I laugh is because this is really hard, and there is not a question you ask that I have not asked in meetings and that I do not ask myself. I do not have the luxury of choosing between the ideal and what exists on the ground. I have to make decisions based on how, given where we are right now, how do we get to the best possible place. Okay, let us change the subject. We can talk about Afghanistan some more. While the economy is showing signs of growth and job losses may finally be bottoming out, the unemployment rate is still at 10 percent. This past week, he outlined a new jobs program built around tax breaks for small businesses, more infrastructure projects for local and state governments and cash rebates for people to make their homes more energy efficient. What I am interested in is a targeted jobs package that can help to boost what is already taking place. The ENTITY hopes to subsidize the job program and pay down some of the deficit with the billions of dollars being returned to the government under the TARP program. Some Wall Street banks have now recovered to the point where they can not only afford to pay back the loans, but once again hand out huge bonuses to their employees. At three of the biggest banks, they are expected to total $30 billion. That is roughly what it will cost the government to finance the surge in Afghanistan. I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you know, fat-cat bankers on Wall Street. The only ones that are going to be paying out these fat bonuses are the ones that have now paid back that TARP money and are -- Do you think that is why they paid it back so quickly? I think, in some cases, that was a motivation, which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still do not get it. They do not get it. They are still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks? You know, you guys are drawing down 10 , $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it is gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem, and we have got 10 percent unemployment? Do you think that they have made some of these bonuses based, in part, on the generosity and policies of the United States government to help put the financial system back on its feet? I think there is no doubt about it.


And what is most frustrating me right now is you have got these same banks, who benefited from taxpayer assistance, who are fighting tooth and nail with their lobbyists up on Capitol Hill, fighting against financial regulatory reform. Well, everything appears to take long in Congress. We can talk about health care when you want. This is democracy in action. You mentioned Congress and health care. You ran for office based on the fact that you were going to try and reform the system. You wanted to change the status quo in Washington. Then you came in and you turned over your top priority, health care, to the Congress. Five hundred thirty-five -- well, you laid out what you wanted, and you set the guidelines -- and then stood back and turned it over to 535 people, who produced a 2,000-page bill that is -- Well, I have not read it so -- Not very many people have read it. I have not met anybody who is read it. Seven presidents have tried to reform a health-care system that everyone acknowledges is broken. Seven presidents have failed, up until this point. We are now that close to having a bill that does all the things that I said and most experts said needed to be done when we started this process. It is not only deficit-neutral but will actually bring down the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Do you think it is going to pass before Christmas in the Senate? I think it is going to pass out of the Senate before Christmas. Are you going to be involved in that process? At that point, we thought the interview was over, and then our executive producer suggested one more question. By now, you must know that -- It is really a shame that I had to go through a whole 60 Minutes interview without talking about the gate crashers. Can you share that with us? I think that what I know is what everybody knows, which is that these people should not have gotten through the gate. Were you unhappy with your social secretary? I was unhappy with everybody who was involved in the process. Now, I do not think that, from a policy perspective, this was the most important thing or even the fifth or sixth most important thing that happened this week, although it got the most news. Were you angry when you found out about it?


Let us start right on Israel. Your administration has described Prime Minister Netanyahu's plans to address Congress tomorrow on Iran as destructive. Well, first of all, I think it is important to realize the depth of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Under my administration, billions of dollars have gone to support Israel's security, including the Iron Dome program that has protected them from missiles fired along their borders. That is the estimation of the Netanyahu government. So we need to make clear from the outset how strong our alliance with Israel is. The second point is that we actually share a goal, which is making sure Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. That is something that I committed to when I was still a senator. It is a solemn pledge I made before I was elected president and everything that I have done over the course of the last several years in relation to Iran has been in pursuit of that policy. And what it boils down to is what is the best way to ensure that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks that the best way to do that is either through doubling down on more sanctions or through military action, ensuring that Iran has absolutely no enrichment capabilities whatsoever. And there is no expert on Iran or nuclear proliferation around the world that seriously thinks that Iran is going to respond to additional sanctions by eliminating its nuclear program. What we have said from the start is by organizing a strong sanctions regime, what we can do is bring Iran to the table. we are able to create what we call a breakout period, a timeline where we know if they were to try to get a nuclear weapon it would take them a certain amount of time. And the deal that we are trying to negotiate is to make sure that there is at least a year between us seeing them try to get a nuclear weapon and them actually being able to obtain one. And as long as we have got that one-year breakout capacity, that ensures us that we can take military action to stop them if they were stop it. Now, we are still in the midst of negotiations. What I have said consistently is, we should let these negotiations play out. Double digit years? If we have got that and we have got a way of verifying that, there is no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they do not have a nuclear weapon. Now, Iran may not agree to the rigorous inspection demands that we are insisting on.

Interview With Jeff Mason of Reuters


They may not agree to the low levels of enrichment capabilities they would have to maintain to ensure that their breakout is at least a year. But if they do agree to it, it would be far more effective in controlling their nuclear program than any military action we could take, any military action Israel could take and far more effective than sanctions will be. And we know that because during the period in which we applied sanctions for over a decade, Iran went from about 300 or a couple of hundred centrifuges to tens of thousands of centrifuges in response to sanctions. Let us talk a little bit specifically about the prime minister. Susan Rice said that what he has done by accepting the invitation to speak was destructive to the fabric of the relationship. You know, I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is sincere about his concerns with respect to Iran. And given Iran's record and given the extraordinarily disruptive and dangerous activities of this regime in the region, it is understandable why Israel is very concerned about Iran. But what we have consistently said is we have to stay focused on our ultimate goal, which is preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Now, as a matter of policy, we think it is a mistake for the prime minister of any country to come to speak before Congress a few weeks before they are about to have an election. It makes it look like we are taking sides. But aside from that, what about that is destructive? I am answering your question, Jeff. And the concern is, not only does it look like it politicizes the relationship but what is also a problem is when the topic of the prime minister's speech is an area where the executive branch the U.S. president and his team have a disagreement with the other side. I think those who offered the invitation and some of the commentators who have said this is the right thing to do, it is worth asking them whether, when George W. Bush had initiated the war in Iraq and Democrats were controlling Congress, if they had invited let us say the president of France to appear before Congress to criticize or to air those disagreements, I think most people would say, well, that would not be the right thing to do. I guarantee you that some of the same commentators who are cheerleading now would have suggested that it was the wrong thing to do. And our focus should be,'How do we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

Interview With Jeff Mason of Reuters


Now keep in mind the prime minister, when we signed up for this interim deal that would essentially freeze Iran's program, roll back its highly enriched uranium, its 20 percent highly enriched uranium and so reduce the possibility that Iran might breakout while we were engaged in these negotiations, when we first announced this interim a deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to result in Iran getting 50 billion dollars worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true. It has turned out that, in fact, during this period we have seen Iran not advance its program. In many ways, it is rolled back elements of its program. And we have got more insight into what they are doing with more vigorous inspections than even the supporters of an interim deal suggested. is there actually going to be a deal? Can Iran accept the terms that we are laying out? If in fact Iran can accept terms that would ensure a one year breakout period for ten years or longer and during that period we know Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon we have inspectors on the ground that give us assurances that they are not creating a covert program why would we not take that deal when we know the alternatives, whether through sanctions or military actions, will not result in as much assurance that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon? There is no good reason for us not to let the negotiations play themselves out. Then we will show, here - here is the deal that is been negotiated, does it make sense? And I am confident that if, in fact, a deal is arrived at, then it is going to be a deal that is most likely to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. You obviously disagree about that. If the prime minister wins reelection, would you be able to work with him? We are working with him now on a whole range of issues. Would you meet with him? As I have said before, the only reason that we did not meet with him this time is a general policy we do not meet with somebody two weeks before an election. I have met with Prime Minister Netanyahu more than any other world leader. And given the strong relationship between the United States and Israel, I would expect that to continue. Is it fair to say you are angry with him? I think that it is important for every country in its relationship with the United States to recognize that the U.S. has a process of making policy.

Interview With Jeff Mason of Reuters


And although we have separation of powers, ultimately, the interaction with foreign governments runs through the executive branch. Have Israel's actions been disruptive to the ability to get this deal? I think that in the meantime negotiators are going full speed ahead. Ultimately, what is been remarkable is the international unity we have been able to maintain in saying to Iran, you have to show the world that you are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. You can have very modest enrichment capabilities for peaceful use, so long as there is a vigorous enough inspection process that we have assurances that you are not obtaining breakout capacity. And the biggest challenge right now to getting a deal is for Iran to recognize this is its path in order to ultimately re-enter into the community of nations. Have your communications with the Supreme Leader helped in this? You know, I would say that most of the work has been done directly between the negotiators and Secretary Kerry, Foreign Minister Zarif of Iran, the expert teams that have worked together along with our P5+1 partners. They have done the lion's share of the work. I think it is been important for us to send a clear signal to all parties inside of Iran that we are not the aggressors here. We are looking to resolve this diplomatically if we can. But given the history of Iran engaging in covert programs, given the history of Iranian sponsorship of terrorism in the region and around the world, given the rhetoric that is come out from the Iranian regime including anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements, it is important for them to understand that they have a high threshold that they have to meet in terms of proof and convincing the world that they are prepared to not pursue a nuclear program. If they do that, and we have ways of measuring that, very concrete ways, if they do that, that is the best path for us to take. What we should not do is to try to jettison the talks, undermine the talks. I am less concerned, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu's commentary than I am with Congress taking actions that might undermine the talks before they are complete. And what I have said to members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, is there will be plenty of time for us to reapply sanctions, strengthen sanctions, to take a whole range of other measures, if in fact we do not have a deal.

Interview With Jeff Mason of Reuters


But what we should not do is pre-judge the deal and initiate sanctions that might allow Iran to walk away and claim that the United States is the one that has eliminated the path to diplomacy. How would you judge, what is your assessment of the percentage likelihood now of this happening. You have said before less than 50 percent. But I think in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators. And they have got their own politics inside of Iran. It is more likely that we could get a deal now than perhaps three or five months ago. We are running short of time. So I am going to ask you about Russia. A top opponent of President Putin was gunned down last week. What does this say about Vladimir Putin's Russia and do you believe that the Kremlin was not involved? What I have called for is a full investigation and, hopefully, an independent investigation of what happened. Whether that can occur inside today's Russia is not clear. The individual involved is somebody that I actually met with back in 2009. This is an indication of a climate at least inside of Russia in which civil society, independent journalists, people trying to communicate on the Internet, have felt increasingly threatened, constrained, and increasingly the only information that the Russian public is able to get is through state-controlled media outlets It is part of what has allowed, I think, Russia to engage in the sort of aggression that it is has against Ukraine. I have no idea at this point exactly what happened. What I do know is more broadly the fact that free - freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of information, basic civil rights and civil liberties inside of Russia are in much worse shape now than they were four or five, ten years ago. Let me ask you about another area of the world, China. Are you concerned about how hard China is making it for U.S. tech companies to do business there? This is something that I have raised directly with President Xi, and my entire foreign policy team as well as people like Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker have raised with them. They have got a couple of laws that are working their way through the system that would essentially force all foreign companies, including U.S. companies, to turn over to the Chinese government mechanisms where they could snoop and keep track of all the users of those services. And as you might imagine, tech companies are not going to be willing to do that.

Interview With Jeff Mason of Reuters


Those kinds of restrictive practices I think would, ironically, hurt the Chinese economy over the long term because I do not think there is any U.S. or European firm, any international firm, that could credibly get away with that wholesale turning over of data, personal data, over to a government. And so we have made very clear to them that this is something they are going to have to change if they expect to do business with the United States. Let me close with a lightning round of yes or no questions. How soon do you think we will have a decision from the State Department and ultimately the White House - weeks, months or not before the end of your administration? I think it will happen before the end of my administration. O.K. and on Cuba, do you expect to have relations, diplomatic relations restored between Cuba and the United States before the Panama summit? My hope is that we will be able to open an embassy, and that some of the initial groundwork will have been laid. Keep in mind that our expectation has never been that we would achieve full normalization immediately. There is a lot of work that still has to be done. But we are going down a path in which we can open up our relations to Cuba in a way that ultimately will prompt more change in Cuba. And we are already seeing it. The very fact that since our announcement, the Cuban government has begun to discuss ways in which they are going to reorganize their economy to accommodate for possible foreign investment, that is already forcing a series of changes that promises to open up more opportunities for entrepreneurs, more transparency in terms of what is happening in their economy, and that is always been the premise of this policy. That after 50 years of a policy that did not work, we need to try something new that encourages and ultimately I think forces the Cuban government to engage in a modern economy. And that will create more space for freedom for the Cuban people. The Supreme Court is seeing arguments on the Burwell v. King this week. Your administration has said it does not have a Plan B. This should be a pretty straightforward case of statutory interpretation. If you look at the law, if you look at the testimony of those who were involved in the law, including some of the opponents of the law, the understanding was that people who joined the federal exchange were going to be able to access tax credits. Just like if they went to a state exchange.

Interview With Jeff Mason of Reuters


We really appreciate it. Before we begin today, there was a terrible tragedy in France with this plane. The French people are requesting assistance from the American people. Is there anything you wanted to say about it, sir? Well, obviously, we are heartbroken by the news, although we do not yet know exactly what happened. Anytime there is an aviation problem, I think all of us are concerned. The United States wants to provide every assistance possible in investigating what is happened. Obviously, until we know all the facts, I cannot comment too much on the specifics. But I am sure that those families who are waiting to find out what happened are going through a very difficult time right now, and my thoughts and prayers are with them. I am sure they will appreciate that very much, sir. Tomorrow we are leaving for the Middle East. What do you want to achieve with this trip? Well, we are going to be traveling to Saudi Arabia; I will be having discussions with King Abdallah. And then we will travel to Cairo, in which I am delivering on a promise I made during the campaign to provide a framework, a speech of how I think we can remake relations between the United States and countries in the Muslim world. Now, I think it is very important to understand that one speech is not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East. What I want to do is to create a better dialog so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what is happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. You are always speaking about dialog. How can you do that with the young people who sometimes are very tempted by extremists? Does you--as, you know, kind of a new ENTITY, what do you want to tell them, the young people?

Interview With Laurence Haim of Canal Plus Television