President, I wanted to ask you, your visit to the region will not include the Maghreb Arab. Those countries actually played a very important role in the peace process in the past, and I think that they are willing to do it again. Only because I ran out of time. It is certainly not as a result of any lack of respect or understanding that the contribution of those-of that area would be a significant contribution to achieving peace. And I appreciate very much the leadership in the King of Morocco as well as President Bouteflika. I just-I do not want to make excuses, but I will. I have got to prepare the State of the Union Address. And so I am leaving for a lengthy period of time and need to get back home. And having said that, one of my great trips as a civilian-I guess you'd call me a civilian-non-President, nonpolitical fig-ure-was when I went to Morocco. I had the great pleasure of going to Marrakesh, for example. And I will never forget drinking crushed almond milk, and enjoyed the wonders of the desert and then was able to see snow-capped mountains shortly in the distance-in the short distance. And so it is -I threw snowballs in Morocco one time in the Atlas mountain range. So I had a wonderful experience there. Not to be kind of nostalgic, looking back, but-you know, it is interesting-for example, there are a lot of Moroccan Jews in Israel. Yes, and in Morocco, which provides the King an interesting opportunity to be a healer and a unifier. And I believe he is committed to that. So I view these three countries as important, and I am-wish I could have gone, but I was unable to do so. I want to ask you about the peace process. You voiced confidence that there might be a deal before the end of your second term. However, previous attempts to broker such a peace between Palestinians and Israelis have not succeeded. President Clinton, when he tried with Camp David, the intifada broke. And today, with the situation on the ground, with Syria and Iran not being fully engaged in the process, what makes you more confident that this might really go through? First of all, the Annapolis meeting was able to happen because of a lot of work we had done prior to the meeting with the parties.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


Step one is for there to be a recognition that the two-state solution was necessary for the security of both peoples. Secondly, leadership had to emerge on both sides that was committed to the two-state solution and leadership that was committed to recognizing that extremists are trying to undermine that solution and must be dealt with, particularly the Palestinian leadership. President Abbas understands that there are people, sometimes inspired by foreign government, that will do everything in their power to stop the advance of a democracy. He is committed to dealing with that. Sometimes you have got to make sure, though, that the commitment is coupled with the capacity to deal with it, and that is one of the concerns that we are helping them deal with. In other words, the Palestinian leadership as well as the Israeli leadership has to know that when they negotiate a vision, it will be supported by people in the region. One of the failures of the past is that people attempted to lay out a state- lay out the vision of a state, and yet there was not regional support, which made the political-the politics on the ground much more difficult for the leadership. And so I-those three issues have been addressed in the runup to Annapolis. Finally, this really is a leadership issue that we are talking about. The United States can help, and I will help, and the State Department under Condi Rice's leadership will help, and the National Security under Hadley's leadership will help. We will help them make hard decisions. But these decisions must be made by the leadership in order for there to be lasting peace. And when those decisions are made, they must be supported by the region. And so I think those ingredients are now in place, and I am optimistic that it will get done by the time I leave office, and more importantly, so is President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert. Now, what is going to happen is, is that there will be moments-there will be issues over settlements or Katyusha rocket attacks. These are going to be opportunities for those who do not want the vision to go forward to keep the process mired. We have a way to deal with that, and that is through a trilateral-the roadmap group to deal with these issues. My job is to remind people that laying out a substantive, real vision around which people of good faith can rally is instrumental to peace.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


Now, keep in mind, when we define the state, it will be implemented subject to the roadmap. That is why the roadmap-the trilateral committee on the roadmap is important. The entrepreneurial spirit, which is strong amongst the Palestinians, can be tapped into. It is hard to get capital to invest, however, unless there is certainty- or more certainty about security and a vision. And so we are working a three-pronged strategy, and I believe all three of those prongs have come together in such a way as to give me confidence this deal can be done by the time I leave office. President, allow me to communicate to you a Kuwaiti sort of question or hope or plea. Needless to say that Kuwait is a true ally of the United States. There is so much gratitude for the role the United States played in the liberation of Kuwait back in 1991. Kuwait was the only launching pad for Operation Iraqi Freedom. When push came to shove, we were true allies. Now, back in Kuwait, as your visit is approaching, the Kuwaitis are actually wondering if there will be an end to the four Kuwaiti detainees in Guantanamo. To be transferred back to-- To Kuwait. We will look at it. Our strategy, by the way, is to transfer as many Guantanamo detainees back to their countries of origin as possible, subject to the no torture agreement. I just will have to look into this. Okay, we will look into it. Well, some of the detainees are going to need to be tried in our court system. The crimes were such that we believe they ought to be brought to justice in a U.S. court system, which is-it is having a little trouble getting started because we have had a few court challenges for our court system. The whole purpose of the exercise was to send people home and try those who remain. And I just have to check on the four. That is very kind of you. Please. which is, also-I am here actually to reflect on some sort of a conspiratorial thinking back in the region. whose middle name is actually conspiracy -that everything seems to be going for the mullahs' regimes in Iran, over the past 20 years of the United States strategy.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


The United States had eliminated the northern ideological enemy of Iran, U.S.S.R.; the eastern sectarian enemy of Iran, Taliban regime; the old-time foe, Sad-dam Hussein, in the west, without having- for the Iranians to resume the 8-long war- 8-year-long war-and everything seems to be going their way. And yet, at the same time, here we are. As true allies, we want to have sort of a clear strategy of what exactly are we to adopt with our main ally, the United States of America-- I appreciate that. in terms of the confrontation of the threat for peace that is coming from Iran What you have just described is one way to look at it. I look- let me look at it a different way, that now on the Iranian borderst exists a democracy, with a Constitution that is the most modern Constitution written in the Middle East; a democracy that is beginning to grow in confidence; a democracy that will recognize the rights of all citizens within its border; a democracy that will be responsive to the people, which stands in stark contrast to the system of government in Tehran that is not a democracy; it is in many ways a theocracy. Secondly, there is a-within Iran, there is-I mean, Iraq, there is a different attitude of the Shi'a. There is a quietus school; there is a school that says religion definitely has a part in society, but religion is not going to run government, which is a-it is just an interesting way to view the neighborhood. Democracy takes a while to grow and flourish. Thirdly, Russia is very much engaged in the region. Russia has been helpful with Iran. Russia has supported the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Russia put forth an interesting proposal, which I have supported, that said, if you want to have a civilian nuclear program, you say your program is civilian in nature, there is no need for you to enrich because we will provide the fuel for you. In other words, Russia has basically taken that argument away from the Iranians that said, we are-have the sovereign right to have a civilian nuclear program, and they said, fine. This, by the way, I have said publicly. Of course they have a sovereign right to have a civilian nuclear program.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


The problem is, because this nation did not level with the IAEA, they are to be not trusted with the capacity to enrich, because once you learn to enrich, you could easily transfer that to a covert military program. And so I view the situation differently, and I will be-I am looking forward to talking to the Amir about it. What he will want to know is whether or not we take the Iranian threat seriously. That is what he is going to want to know. And as my first answer to the question was, it should be clear to you, I do. And secondly, he is going to want to know, do we have a strategy to deal with it? And I will be glad to lay out again the strategy to deal with it. And thirdly, he will want to know whether or not the United States is going to remain active in the region, will we be working with friends and allies on developing a security plan? And the answer to that question is, absolutely, we will be. That is one of the main purposes of the trip, to talk about U.S. commitment to the region.  they signed in 2004. And how true are the reports which are saying that the United States will abandon its base in Bahrain? They are not true. You are right about the conspiracy theory. He is asking whether we are going to pull the 5th Fleet out of Bahrain, and the answer is no. And if that is a concern of His Majesty, it will not take long for me to allay his concerns. As a matter of fact, I am looking forward to not only dealing with the Bahraini officials and His Majesty, of course, but to talk to our troops there in Bahrain. I am looking forward to thanking them for their service to the country, which ought to be a very powerful signal that the answer is no. Bahrain is a very hospitable place for our Navy and other Armed Forces, and that in itself is a-should be a signal to people that we view Bahrain as a stable, strong country, which is all part of tracking investment. You asked about how do you enhance trade. Well, one way you enhance trade is to make sure that capital is-capital looks for secure places. Capital does not like to invest and have a high-risk component based upon instability. So that in itself ought to-that signal in itself ought to facilitate division of a free trade agreement.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


Sir, you are talking about civilian nuclear, and you do not have any objection for that if it is going to be under the supervision of the international arena. DCC recently approached to have a civilian nuclear facility for water desalinization for power. What is your stand on that? First of all, desalinization requires an enormous amount of power. And the best power source for desalinization, to make it more economical, is nuclear power. Secondly, I believe if the world is serious about dealing with global warming, emissions, then the best way to deal with it is for us to power up through nuclear power. And so therefore, I am a advocate for nuclear power, with proper safeguards to make sure that untrustworthy nations, nations that will not subject themselves to IAEA scrutiny, are called to account. So I would support nuclear power for the sake of desalinization. Well, you are awash with oil. Why do you need nuclear power? Well, nuclear power is environmentally sound, and nuclear power is really the best way to deal with issues such as desalinization. If I were in the Middle East and worried about water, which is a valuable resource, I too would be looking for economic ways to desalinize the water. If I give you, then I have to go around again. You will visit Egypt, sir, which has recently deployed troops in Darfur-- You also signed a bill against Sudan, which it seems from my point of view again to affect the people-the Sudanese people, but not the Government. If Darfur would be part of your agenda when you meet with President Mubarak? First, I will thank him for sending troops. Secondly, I am going to correct you on the sanctions. The sanctions were aimed at individuals within the Sudanese regime, people that were obstructing the peace process-including a rebel leader. They were aimed at the elite and companies owned by the elite, as opposed to the Sudanese people. In order for there to be the peace that we all want-now, this is dealing with Darfur-and as you know, the situation is very complicated because we are not only dealing with Darfur, we are dealing with the north-south agreement as well-in order to-well, let me do north-south very quickly.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


We have been working with the southern leaders to get them to participate in the Government of Khartoum, so long as the Government of Khartoum is forthcoming with their agreements, such as the sharing of oil revenues. Secondly, we have insisted that both parties not be provocative when it comes to military incursions upon an ill-defined border. Thirdly, we are providing aid to the people of southern Sudan. And it is interesting; one of the really interesting things about America is, total strangers are going to help total strangers all the time. And there is a lot of church and faith-based groups involved in southern Sudan trying to improve the lot of people living there-in other words, the great humanitarian outreach that takes place. Darfur-in order for there to be the peace that we all want in Darfur, there has to be, one, a united rebel group willing to sit down at the table with Khartoum in good faith. And one of the reasons I put the sanctions on individuals in Sudan- we did have sanctions prior to that, general sanctions, but these ones you are referring to are targeted at folks-is because there was a lack of effort by the Government on truly trying to promote the peace process. I recognize, however, that there has to be a more united effort by the rebel groups. In other words, the rebel groups cannot take advantage of-continue to take advantage of this notion that they can do what they want without being serious about the peace. one, to the Government of Khartoum; and two, to the rebels. When we first got going in the process, by the way, there was three major rebel groups, which made it easier to convince people to come to the table. one, to get troops in there as quickly as possible to be able to help the folks who are living in these dispersed camps have a normal life. And the United States, by the way, when you talk about direct humanitarian aid, has provided more direct humanitarian aid than any country in the world by far because we care about the human condition, we care about people's lives. Secondly, that we support the U.N. efforts to get the rebels to the table. There was one attempt in Libya, as you know, recently, and our efforts are to support Jan Eliasson-he was the former Ambassador for Sweden here-as he works to bring cohesion so that there is a cohesive unit of rebels to negotiate with the Government.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


Canadians are very excited about your trip. When they watch you today sign your recovery bill into law, how concerned should they be that the Buy America clause is still there, even though you have given assurances international trade agreements will be respected. You know, I think that if you look at history, one of the most important things during a worldwide recession of the sort that we are seeing now is that each country does not resort to beggar thy neighbor policies, protectionist policies. They can end up further contracting world trade. And my administration is committed to making sure that even as we take steps to strengthen the U.S. economy that we are doing so in a way that actually over time will enhance the ability of trading partners, like Canada, to work within our boundaries. And my expectation is, is that where you have strong U.S. competitors who can sell products and services, that a lot of Governors and mayors are going to want to try to find U.S. equipment or services, but that we are going to abide by our World Trade Organization and NAFTA obligations just as we always have. You mentioned NAFTA. A year ago you were pretty critical of NAFTA. In fact, you even suggested at one point that the U.S. opt out if it could not renegotiate. Do you think that is the time now to be making that case, or is it something that is set aside now? As I said, I think there are a lot of sensitivities right now because of the huge decline in world trade. As I have said before, NAFTA, the basic framework of the agreement has environmental and labor protections as side agreements. My argument has always been that we might as well incorporate them into the full agreement so that they are fully enforceable. But what I have also said is that Canada is one of our most important trading partners. We rely on them heavily. There is $1.5 billion worth of trade going back and forth every day between the two countries, and that it is not in anybody's interests to see that trade diminish. Part of that trade involves the energy sector; a lot of oil and gas comes to the United States from Canada and even more in the future with oil sands development. Now, there are some in your country and Canada as well who feel the oil sands is dirty oil because of the extraction process. What do you think?

Interview With Peter Mansbridge of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation


Well, it what we know is that oil sands create a big creates a big carbon footprint. And so the dilemma that Canada faces, the United States faces, and China and the entire world faces is how do we obtain the energy that we need to grow our economies in a way that is not rapidly accelerating climate change. And that is one of the reasons why the stimulus bill that I will be signing today contains billions of dollars towards clean energy development. I think to the extent that Canada and the United States can collaborate on ways that we can sequester carbon, capture greenhouse gases before they are emitted into the atmosphere, that is going to be good for everybody. Because if we do not , then we are going to have a ceiling at some point in terms of our ability to expand our economies and maintain the standard of living that is so important, particularly when you have got countries like China and India that are obviously interested in catching up. So are you drawing a link, then, in terms of the future of tar sands oil coming into the U.S. contingent on a sense of a continental environment policy on cap and trade? Well, I think what I am suggesting is, is that no country in isolation is going to be able to solve this problem. So Canada, the United States, China, India, the European Union, all of us are going to have to work together in an effective way to figure out how do we balance the imperatives of economic growth with very real concerns about the effect we are having on our planet. And ultimately, I think this can be solved by technology. I think that it is possible for us to create a set of clean energy mechanisms that allow us to use things not just like oil sands, but also coal. The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we have our own homegrown problems in terms of dealing with a cheap energy source that creates a big carbon footprint. And so we are not going to be able to deal with any of these issues in isolation. The more that we can develop technologies that tap alternative sources of energy but also contain the environmental damage of fossil fuels, the better off we are going to be. I know you are looking at it as a global situation, in terms of global partners, but there are some who do argue that this is the time; if there was ever going to be a continental energy policy and a continental environmental policy, this would be it. Would you agree with that thinking?


Well, you know, I think one of the promising areas for not just for bilateral but also trilateral cooperation is around this issue. I met with President Calderon here in the United States, and Mexico actually has taken some of the boldest steps around the issues of alternative energy and carbon reductions of any country out there. And it is very rare for a country that is still involved in developing and trying to raise its standard of living to stay as focused on this issue as President Calderon's administration has. What I think that offers is the possibility of a template that we can create between Canada, the United States, and Mexico that is moving forcefully around these issues. But as I said, it is going to be important for us to make sure that countries like China and India, with enormous populations and huge energy needs, that they are brought into this process as well. As you know, Canada has been there from the beginning, since the fall of 2001 and has suffered extreme casualties in its combat missions there. And the Canadian Parliament has decided, out of combat by the year 2011. When you go to Ottawa, will you have any suggestions to Canada that it should reconsider what its role in Afghanistan is? Well, first of all, I think the Canadian contribution has been extraordinary, and for all the families who have borne the burden in Canada, I think we all have a heartfelt thanks. I am in the process of a strategic review of our approach in Afghanistan. Very soon we will be releasing some initial plans in terms of how we are going to approach the military side of the equation in Afghanistan. But I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means. We are going to have to use diplomacy; we are going to have to use development. And my hope is that in conversations that I have with Prime Minister Harper, that he and I end up seeing the importance of a comprehensive strategy and one that ultimately the people of Canada can support, as well as the people of the United States can support, because obviously, here as well, there are a lot of concerns about a conflict that has lasted quite a long time now and actually appears to be deteriorating at this point. But are you saying that you will or you will not ask Canada to remain in a combat role?


Well, I think, you know, we have got until 2011, according to the Canadian Legislature, and I think it is important for the Canadian Legislature and the people of Canada to get a sense that what they are doing is productive. So what I will be communicating is the approach that we intend to take. Obviously, I am going to be continuing to ask other countries to help think through how do we approach this very difficult problem. But I do not have a specific ask in my pocket that I intend to bring out in our meetings. Well, I think Afghanistan is still winnable in the sense of our ability to ensure that it is not a launching pad for attacks against North America. I think it is still possible for us to stamp out Al Qaida to make sure that extremism is not expanding but rather is contracting. I think all those goals are still possible, but I think that as a consequence of the war on Iraq, we took our eye off the ball. We have not been as focused as we need to be on all the various steps that are needed in order to deal with Afghanistan. If you have got narcotrafficking that is funding the Taliban, if there is a perception that there is no rule of law in Afghanistan, if we do not solve the issue of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, then we are probably not going to solve the problem. I am down to my last minute, a couple of quickies on Canada, your sense of the country. I mean, I think, as you may know, you carry Canada on your belt. You have been to Canada once. What is your sense of the country? Well, yes, I have been to Canada a couple of times. Most recently, it was to visit my brother-in-law's family who was from Burlington right outside of Toronto. Look, I think that Canada is one of the most impressive countries in the world, the way it has managed a diverse population, a vibrant economy. You know, the natural beauty of Canada is extraordinary. Obviously, there is enormous kinship between the United States and Canada, and the ties that bind our two countries together are things that are very important to us. And, you know, one of the things that I think has been striking about Canada is that in the midst of this enormous economic crisis, I think Canada has shown itself to be a pretty good manager of the financial system in the economy in ways that we have not always been here in the United States.


One of the things I wanted to ask you was I think that most Americans thought the job of being President was impossible when you took office, and I think things have changed, and they feel that you thrive on it. And I sort of wanted to ask you how you discipline yourself and how you plan your activities so that it will not overwhelm you? Well, maybe the 8 years as Governor gave me some advance training for this, because I do remember that when I first became Governor there was a period that I went through in which I thought the world had fallen on my head. And yet, I have to say hat I think that the Presidency-the nearest thing to it in the country is a governorship. You do not have a foreign policy, which does add some problems, but it is the same thing. And it used to be-if you will look back at earlier days, in which our Presidents were mainly found among the Governors. And I think that is a better training place than, for instance, serving in the legislature or something. You'd still recommend it? But the other thing- I have never felt better in my life, physically. I have a little gym upstairs that I get to every afternoon before the day is over. Tell me, would you recommend the job to a friend? He might not be a friend afterwards- -but, no, I have to say that for someone who really wants to do some things that he believes strongly in, this is the most fulfilling experience I have ever had in my life. Many times in the last 6 weeks you have been awakened from a deep sleep with a world crisis. How do you get the news'? Who brings it to you? Do you have to have coffee? Does Mrs. Reagan get up with you? No, I try to slip out without her, although-it is usually the phone. No, usually, just the bedside phone, that then-well, when we were-when it has happened-it happened at Atlanta, Georgia, when we were on that weekend there. And one of them was the phone, and, simply, it was Bud McFarlane asking could I come up in the living room and meet the Secretary of State there. So, I whispered that I was just going out in the living room for a little bit, hoping that she'd go back to sleep, and I put on a robe and went out there.

Interview With Garry Clifford and Patricia Ryan of People Magazine


Then the second incident down there, one of the stewards, he just slipped in, tiptoed in and touched me on the shoulder and whispered to me, and I slid out and did the same thing again. Do you need coffee or anything? And then, more recently at Camp David, it was phone calls, not in the middle of the night in this case. I cannot say that I pick it up with dread, because many times it is just a correction or some information on something or other. I wanted to ask you, do you think the American people are behind the commitment of troops for military action, and do you think-this is a more serious question-do you think that the number of casualties influences how they feel about something? This has to be the hardest thing in all of this job, and certainly in my life, and that is committing these splendid young men and women to tasks where you know there is that threat. I have never been so proud of anything as I am of the people in our Armed Forces. Well, it is working, and there is an esprit de corps, there is a pride out there among them. And this puts a lump in my throat. And then to-even one of them, to have a horrible accident or incident such as the one in Lebanon, there just is no way to make that easy. But the thing is to try and-well, first of all, I think many people jump to events-not People such thing as the grassroots. But press and political figures that-on the Grenada rescue mission-that immediately jumped to the conclusion that this was some kind of a warlike thing that everyone would be angry at. It was kind of interesting to see so many of them have to try to crawl back in off the end of the limb when they found out that the American people understood very well what we were doing and supported it. Now it is harder for them to understand Lebanon, because in Lebanon, they were not sent there to fight; that, hopefully, there would be no combat. We knew there was a risk because of the kind of violence that had been taking place in the streets over there for a long time. But the whole idea of the multinational force was in connection with our own peace proposal for the Middle East. Lebanon was stalling that, if you remember. Israel had crossed the border because PLO terrorist units were attacking villages across their northern border from Lebanon.


The Lebanon Government, as of several years ago, was virtually powerless in the face of what can only be termed warlords in their own country, of several factions, each with its own militia, fighting each other and fighting the Government. And you could not proceed with the peace mission until we resolved this problem. So, we sent a force in with the idea that-well, first of all, they'd gotten some 10,000 PLO out; now the idea was that both Israel and Syria get out, then a stabilizing force there while the Lebanese Government reformed and created a military force in which it could then take over jurisdiction of its own territory. And so our force there is there for that purpose. And there would not have been a shot fired by a marine or by our Navy or Air Force if they had not been shot at. And when that happened, I said wherever we send them, they are going to have the right to defend themselves and fire back. Your political godfather, or grandfather, if you will, Barry Goldwater, Senator Goldwater, is even calling for the boys to come back from Beirut. And I am wondering, how far are you willing to commit troops, or how far are you willing to escalate? That is up to the Syrians and to some of those rebel groups that are fighting the Lebanese military. And I am hopeful that after this last exchange that the Syrians will decide that they do not want to go on on that path. But, ENTITY, if they remain recalcitrant, if they remain-the Israelis have been bombing them and strafing them and have not really budged them. If they remain the same and they remain shooting at our reconnaissance flights and downing more fliers, what is the next step? Well, we are taking the next step right now. Don Rumsfeld1 is on his way back there, and we still are going to try for a political solution. We are going to try to negotiate with the Syrians and make them understand. But if they do not want to negotiate, if they find it in their best interests to be a thorn in your side, what do you do then? Well, that becomes a kind of a hypothetical question in which I almost have to wait and see what the circumstances are.


Actually, the Lebanese military-which we have helped to train and have equipped and which is a very good military force-is supposed to be resolving the situation for themselves as we try to maintain a little stability in Beirut while they can go forward and do this. Do you see a day, either in your own-in your next term, for instance, or in the very near future, where President Assad could be as, sort of, the dominant-the present day dominant force in the Arab world; where he could become something like what Anwar Sadat became to us? I mean, do you ever see that kind of relationship ever being able to develop? I do not see any reason why not. We have made great progress with the other Arab States, the more moderate states. I think that they are very ready for a negotiated settlement, continuing on with the Camp David accords and the U.N. resolutions. Syria is the big kid and the bad kid on the block, and the other Arab States have been trying, themselves, to persuade Syria to join in this effort and to withdraw. And now a new element has been introduced by Syria. They had not mentioned this before when earlier they said, oh, yes, they would get out, too. They now are not pretending that there is any assault on them or that they are in any danger and that is why they are staying there; they are now claiming that Lebanon properly is a part of a greater Syria. This is outright armed aggression now on their part, hoping to expand their territory at the expense of Lebanon and-they have even indicated-at the expense of Jordan. ENTITY, moving off of that People Magazine question, how did you assess the film The Day After? And do you think movies have a way of forming political opinion? It is not successful unless it has or evokes an emotional response. If the audience does not have an emotional experience, whether it is one of hating something or crying or having a lot of laughter, then you have got a failure out there. But apparently it has not had a lasting impact; I have not seen very much reference to it any more. And maybe one of the reasons was because it was--it was a horror film, showing you what I am sure all of us all knew, that a nuclear war is unthinkable, it is sheer horror, it must not happen. But it left you with no idea or solution, no suggestion as to what to do about it.


And I think that my own reaction to it was, look, if anything, if this can add to what we can say about the fact that there must not be a nuclear war, then maybe the people will understand why we are trying so desperately to get a reduction in those weapons worldwide. And I hope that if we start down the reduction road that the other side will see the common sense in eliminating them totally. Not since 1946 has there been such a suggestion, and that was made by this country. And even then, when we were the only ones, really, with a stock of such weapons, the Soviet Union refused. If Yuriy Andropov had been in the room with you watching the film that night, would you have said that very same thing to him? Yes, I would have told him that the only way there could be war is if they start it; we are not going to start a war. Do you have any second thoughts about calling the Soviet Union an evil empire? I think you called the Soviet Union that once. Do you have second thoughts about that? Do you wish you had not done it? I think that it was high time that we got some realism and got people thinking that for too long we have kind of viewed them as just a mirror image of ourselves, and that maybe we could appeal to their good nature. And we have gone through the experience in a number of years past of saying, well, if we cancel weapons systems, if we unilaterally disarm, maybe they will see that we are nice people, too, and they will disarm. So you see them as really a source of evil? Yes, because you have to look at the impact on what we were just talking about, with Lebanon. There they are with thousands of military advisers and technicians and so forth in Syria, have provided Syria with weapons that are not purely defense weapons-ground-to-ground missiles that can cover virtually every target from Syria in Israel. And they are the ones that seek, whether it is out of paranoia on their part-and, believe me, everyone's an enemy, and so they have to be aggressive-or whether it is the Marxist-Leninist theory, more than a theory-commitment-that was handed them, and that was that they must support uprisings wherever they take place in the world to bring about a one-world Communist state. Now, no Russian leader has ever refuted that.


As a matter of fact, he has not had time yet, but every Russian leader up to Andropov, at some time or other, has publicly restated his commitment to world conquest-world communizing. Let me ask you a question out of that. In the Jerusalem Post you were quoted-and I do not know if the quote was accurate-as saying that this generation might see Armageddon, that a lot of the Biblical prophecies are sort of being played out today, or could be. Do you believe that? I have never done that publicly. I have talked here, and then I wrote people, because some theologians quite some time ago were telling me, calling attention to the fact that theologians have been studying the ancient prophecies-What would portend the coming of Armageddon? -and have said that never, in the time between the prophecies up until now has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together. There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, and so forth, but never anything like this. And one of them, the first one who ever broached this to me-and I will not use his name; I do not have permission to. He probably would give it, but I am not going to ask-had held a meeting with the then head of the German Government, years ago when the war was over, and did not know that his hobby was theology. And he asked this theologian what did he think was the next great news event, worldwide. And the theologian, very wisely, said, Well, I think that you are asking that question in a case that you have had a thought along that line. It was about the prophecies and so forth. I have talked conversationally about that. You have mused on it. You have considered it. Not to the extent of throwing up my hands and saying, Well, it is all over. I think whichever generation and at whatever time, when the time comes, the generation that is there, I think will have to go on doing what they believe is right. To ask you a serious question which comes out of this, I see around-since my last visit here-many more signs that the government is worried about terrorism, that it is -. Do you, yourself, think about dying, think about the fear of the position you are in?


Well, you cannot help but be conscious, because the security measures are all so evident to you. But if you mean do I go around fearful and looking over my shoulder, no. I have confidence in the security people. Yes, and a touch of another. And I never second guess the security people. When they tell me they are going to do something or change some way of doing things that we are doing, I accept that that is . Is this something that you talk about, for instance, to Mrs. Reagan or your children? Yes, very much so, because I think it was harder for them when it did happen than it was for me, and much more difficult for her, especially to get over. It is a lot easier to worry about someone else than it is to worry about yourself, and so I know what must go through her mind when I set out on some expedition or some public appearance or something. Does your bullet-proof shirt or jacket or coat or whatever hang in the family quarters? Or do they keep it someplace else? They keep it. And they come, having it in hand, and they kind of come in flinching, because they know that I- What do you say? I do not accept it with good grace. What do you say, though, when they put it on you? But I also know that they would not be bringing it in unless they felt there was a reason for it. And I work so hard in that gym up there. And they say everybody out there in the audience will think I am getting fat. Did you cringe when you had to sign the order to have your own aides take a lie detector test? Have you ever taken one? But I did not sign an order for them to take it. This has been misconstrued, and I bless you for giving me a chance to explain it. We had a meeting that came up on national security-rules and regulations of the security of the information there. And it was a leak which could have cost some Americans their lives. And this is a criminal act when there is a violation of national security. And I called the Justice Department on this-I thought it was serious enough-and I said I want an investigation of how this happened, to guard against it in the future. Now, such an investigation, without my designating it as such-if it is a violation of national security, it is a criminal investigation.


If it is a criminal investigation, the FBI has the right to ask for lie detector tests. But, being a criminal investigation, the individual has the right to refuse them, and that is all. Well, have you ever taken one? I mean did they take them- I do not even know whether the FBI even asked for them or not. They determine that, and that is within the law. And then if somebody says no, they report that also in their investigating report that they asked and it was refused. ENTITY, who do you think the easiest Democrat would be to beat in 1984? If I answered that question I might be helping them to choose out of that octet they have got out there, and I am not going to help them in their choice. I have two questions that I would-not till Christmas. I'd like to ask two questions. What I was thinking, in this year of living dangerously, I wondered how in the world can you maintain the very obvious romance you have with Mrs. Reagan? I mean romance takes time, and it takes mood, and it takes not being harried. And what sort of special things do you do to maintain this togetherness in these tough times? We have always been very close, and there developed, as there would in 30-odd years, little things that kind of-traditional, or that have a meaning to us from times back. Can you cite any of them that-I mean, I think especially in your article in Parade, you showed how much you loved her and how much the romance continues and whatever. I just wondered if there is sort of small things you do to keep this touchingness together? Well, there are certain occasions when we leave notes for each other and things of that kind that we still do. Is there a special place you leave them, or Oh, no, it just depends on where-well, things like on the breakfast tray and, on certain occasions, cards-I always remember. Could I ask one more question for my mother, who you gave a story to last year, and we kept hearing from our readers about the peg-legged pig. Do you remember the story you told about the pig with the wooden leg? We thought that this has become a tradition for the magazine, and we wondered, do you have a good story to tell the readers and, indeed, my mother, who is now 84 this year-a very good story? Well, I cannot repeat that because I have done that story.


Infrastructure and the Democrats' budget resolution from someone who was with the President today. I am joined now by New York Democratic ENTITY. I am wondering just from what you saw today, what you heard from the President, were you happy or satisfied with what you heard from President Biden today in terms of his commitment to battling climate change and providing help to New York? Well, I think in the immediate sense, we have been able to help facilitate in working with President Biden as well as FEMA in getting one of the fastest ever disaster assistance approvals from FEMA so that we could help people on the ground and start helping people recover as quickly as possible. Now, when it comes to climate change, we have to do so much more, and the President's agenda, yes, is important. We must pass the Build Back Better Act, but it is not done until it is on the President's desk, and we also need to make sure that we are continuing to fund these priorities. Right now, reconciliation is really embattled and we have to make sure that we actually bring this legislation home with the Build Back Better Act and making sure that climate is protected, because the fossil fuel industry and the interests of the fossil fuel industry are very much doing their best to try to shape both this legislation and making sure that they are trying to pit it, and frankly, tank it compared to the Infrastructure Act as well. When one talks to experts on climate change and what, in order to respond effectively, what would need to be done, when you actually start to look at the full scope of all the aspects of life that would be impacted and need to be impacted, I mean, the production of how concrete is made, how steel is made, farming procedures, the electrical grid, it is a huge societal shift. Do you think Americans are ready for that or been kind of prepared for that? I think we absolutely are because the question is not if our entire world and our entire society is going to shift because of climate change, it is a matter of how it is going to shift. So basically, if we do nothing to address climate change, we are going to see the continued destruction of our supply chains. We are going to see our crops not be able to grow in the same way. We will see the continuation and proliferation of other future pandemics as well. And so that is how our life could change if we do nothing.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) CNN Interview on Texas Abortion Bill Transcript


It will change dramatically, but it could also change dramatically in a positive direction if we do something. We can create millions of union jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, shoring up our cities, our rural areas and our suburbs in order to prepare for the climate catastrophes that could come to our shores, but also draw down our carbon output in order to make sure that we prevent future calamities from happening as well. You are obviously from a more progressive wing in the Democratic party than President Biden, who got elected in part by pledging to work across party lines. And as you clearly know, the bipartisan infrastructure bill seems stall because Democratic moderates in the Senate are balking at the price tag of a separated but related budget resolution that is key to the House even taking up the infrastructure bill. Is this split among Democrats, what do you make of it? I mean, is it healthy in your view? Well, I certainly do not think it is healthy that ExxonMobil lobbyists are bragging about how many senators, Democrat and Republican, that they get to have on speed dial and enjoy exclusive access to shaping the contours of this quote, unquote bipartisan infrastructure bill. I think the role of dark money and the fossil fuel lobby is extremely unhealthy for our democracy. But the fact of the matter is, is that we have got the people on our side, and this is what we continue to say. They have money, these lobbyists and special interests have money, but we have got people. The Build Back Better Act has popular support, and even going above and beyond that, the Green New Deal has popular support even among Republicans and Independents. And so what people I think are united behind is the acknowledgement that climate change is human caused, that the burning of fossil fuels and the continued construction of fossil fuel infrastructure like what we are seeing with Line 3 in Minnesota must be confronted if we are going to create a better future for ourselves. And we can do it while creating millions of union jobs. President Biden was just asked this evening about one of the key moderate, or often referred to as moderate Democrats opposing the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package, Senator Joe Manchin. I just want to play for our viewers what he had to say. Do you trust President Biden to strike a deal with Senator Manchin or do you worry about President Biden striking a deal with Senator Manchin?


I mean, is there a deal that all Democrats will accept, including Manchin? Well, I think one of the interesting aspects of this situation is that it is not just Senator Manchin that has leverage. Frankly, the entire party also needs to quote, unquote, worry about that more moderate agenda in the House, because just as we have an extremely slim Senate margin, we also have a very slim House margin. And I, as well as many, many members of the progressive caucus, simply will not vote for Senator Manchin's infrastructure bill unless it is tied together with the Build Back Better Act so that we have an all of the above approach. So we are not saying it is either your bill or our bill, but that both of these bills must move forward together or neither will. And for the American people, that is the best case scenario, where we are able to address the needs of all communities, instead of just the needs of some communities that are represented by a very small sliver of that bipartisan group. I do not want to put you on the spot, but you mentioned fossil fuel industries. It reminded me of something you had tweeted actually when Senator Manchin voiced his opposition in an op-ed last week. You responded via Twitter. On September 2nd, you wrote, Manchin has weekly huddles w/ Exxon and is one of many senators who gives lobbyists their pen to write so-called 'bipartisan' fossil fuel bills. It is killing people. Sick of this 'bipartisan' corruption that masquerades as clear-eyed moderation. Fossil fuel corps & dark money is destroying our democracy, country, & planet. All day our community has been pulling bodies out of homes from the flood. And we are supposed to entertain lobbyist talking points about why we should abandoned people & do nothing? Are you suggesting that Senator Manchin is more interested in pleasing lobbyists than in saving lives from climate change? I think that in the year 2021, if any member of Congress, whether it is a member of the House or whether it is a member of the Senate, continues to aid the fossil fuel lobbyists in advancing their agenda over the consensus of science then they are disconnected from the reality on the ground. What we have been doing over the last four days, first responders in my community, have been pulling out bodies from apartments, basement apartments in New York City because of these flash floods.


And the idea that we are going to continue building fossil fuel infrastructure, that we are going to continue, even in my backyard, continue to try to build things like peaker plants, natural gas, fracking, pipelines for fracked gas, it is unconscionable. We know that the science is in and it says the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure will endanger people. We have the capacity to transition to clean and renewable energy and create millions of good union jobs in order to transition to both our infrastructure and our energy system, as well as our power grid. So I do believe that with all of that evidence that we have, with all of the opportunity that we have, economic opportunity that we have, if we continue to listen to the fossil fuel lobby and if we continue to allow them to have this infrastructure, have this influence in Washington, we are endangering our constituents, and we have to choose the science for once ahead of the lobbyist money. Do you support nuclear? Because there are a lot of people who will look at this issue and say the capabilities of transporting solar and wind power, I mean, our electrical grid needs to completely be altered and upgraded, but even then transporting it long distances and storing it, nuclear is the only answer, at least for in the short term. We have even addressed some of this issue, Senator Markey and I, in the drafting of the Green New Deal, which is that I do not think that There is no position in terms of whether we are pro or anti-nuclear. Can we get an energy mix that is constructed in a ten-year timeline in accordance with the IPCC results? And so it certainly does not rule out nuclear, but the issue is, is the construction, the timeline, and making sure that we can also focus on investments, for example, battery storage and energy storage in our power grid so that we are not completely reliant on continual generation, but that we can store energy in times when it is not available. Just lastly, I want to ask you about something that Texas Governor Greg Abbott just said. He was asked about the Texas abortion bill and why force a rape or incest victim survivor to carry a pregnancy to term? I want to play this for our viewers. I am wondering what you thought when you heard that? One, I do not know if he is familiar with a menstruating person's body.


In fact, I do know that he is not familiar with a female or a menstruating person's body, because if he did, he would know that you do not have six weeks, is that quote, unquote six weeks, and I am sorry we have to break down biology 101 on national television, but in case no one has informed him before in his life, six weeks pregnant means two weeks late for your period. And two weeks late on your period for any person, any person with a menstrual cycle can happen if you are stressed, if your diet changes, or for really no reason at all. So you do not have six weeks. The second area of this, when he talks about going after rapists and this language that he uses about getting rapists off the streets, the majority of people who are raped and who are sexually assaulted are assaulted by someone that they know. And these are not predators that are walking around the streets at night. And when something like that happens, it takes a very long time, first of all, for any victim to come forward. And second of all, when a victim comes forward, they do not necessarily want to bring their case into the carceral system. They do not want to retraumatize themselves by going to court. They do not necessarily all want to report a family friend to a police precinct, let alone in the immediate aftermath of the trauma of a sexual assault. And so while some victims do use that recourse and that is something that is completely available, and if that is part of their process, that is great, but this idea that we are going to quote, unquote end rape when the same type of frankly rape culture and the same type of misogynistic culture that informed this abortion law to begin with is also Those beliefs are held by the Governor himself and the Texas State Legislature, frankly, there are many people in power, as we know from the MeToo movement, that commits sexual assault, that help their friends cover up these crimes. And some of them even serve in the same state legislatures that are voting on just these anti-choice bills. And he speaks from such a place of deep ignorance. It is ignorance that is hurting people across this country. You said rape culture and misogynistic culture are behind this Texas bill to begin with. Could you just explain that, how you feel about that to people?


Well, we will see if we can put you on the hot seat here. How do you balance a cash award in this announcement today to one company with its potential negative job impact on a competitor? No, I disagree with that. For one thing, these awards are designed to develop defense technologies for commercial purposes. And they were the result of a competitive process. For those who were not picked, let me say we are coming back next year with over $500 million in new funds for these kinds of projects, and we will be doing more. But the reason it is important to do it this way is that we have all these defense technologies that need to be put to work in the commercial sector. And in terms of the award in San Diego, let me remind you that there are literally thousands of bridges in this country, thousands, that need repair and a lot of new ones that need to be built. So if this technology can be put to work in doing that, they should not be able to push anybody else with a genuinely competitive product out of the market, because there are so many thousands of bridges that need repair and cities and local governments and States are just beginning to face up to those responsibilities and because in the 1980's this country walked away from its infrastructure needs. So, I do not see that as a problem, particularly in this sector of the economy. You mentioned awards to Redondo Beach, Fullerton, I believe two others. Most of the awards, though, were out of State. We have 250,000 defense jobs that were lost here. What do you say to those people who need help? Most of the awards were out of State, but California got the lion's share of the awards, ran away with the contest, as well you would expect, because there are so many defense workers out of work and because there is so much technology capacity. So the State did very well on this first round, and I would expect that there will be more in the second, third, and fourth rounds. Keep in mind, this was just the first of four rounds between now and November, and then next year we will have another $500 million-plus to put in a whole new round of these projects. So I would say to them, I am going to fund as many of these projects as possible; I am working as hard as possible. I also would point out that in the San Diego area, two other things have been done which will help in the base closing and reorganization.

Interview With John Culea of KFMB-TV, San Diego


There will be a net gain of 5,200 jobs in the San Diego area, and we just released from export controls $37 billion worth of computer, supercomputer, and telecommunications equipment, which will open new markets and create many thousands of jobs in California; many of them will be in southern California. So I am moving as quickly as I can on this, and I hope that the Members of the Congress will all be as supportive as Congresswoman Lynn Schenk has been of this project, because if we had more folks like her who were willing to fund this project at higher levels, we can move even more quickly and help even more California working people. This being a Navy-Marine town, there is concern that our military be prepared for anything in the future. What can you say to that as far as defense conversion and our ability to be prepared for future contingencies? The head of naval research was here today with me, Admiral Pelaez. He made the point that in a very profound way, this program we announced will help to keep our defense strong, because we know that the defense budget's going to be reduced. This program will help to use the commercial research and development sector to keep the defense technology strong, even as we are using defense technologies to create jobs in the commercial sector. That is, by putting the two together, we will be able to get a bigger bang for our defense dollar. So that even though there will be some reduction in defense spending, we will be able to keep ahead of all of the other countries in the world and as far as we need to be on technology. Could you give us an idea of the control of this money in some defense contractors? Jobs have been cut, profits go up, and then bonuses are given to top executives. Well, first of all, let me explain what happens now. We have announced the projects that were worthy and that won the right to participate in this project. Now, what will happen is the group of people from our Government's side who work in this area will negotiate with each and every company to make sure that they put up their share of the money and to determine how they will spend this money. This money, in almost every case, is not an overwhelming amount of money for these companies. What this money will be necessary for is to actually invest in developing this new product and marketing it commercially. So there will not be much of an opportunity for a rakeoff here, otherwise the whole thing will collapse.


I have learned that President Mubarak sent you, recently, two important messages. I do not know, I mean, the contents of these messages, but I assume that of course it be linked by the situation in Iraq and Palestine. I would like to ask, in the beginning, one general question about how do you look at this vision of the Middle East. Well, first of all, I communicate with President Mubarak a lot, because I value his judgment, and we have got a frank relationship where if he thinks things are going badly, he will tell me. In other words, he does not gloss over. I think that things in the Middle East for the United States are difficult right now. I think they are difficult because people do not really understand our intentions. I think they are difficult because some people ascribe bad values and bad motives to the American people and the American Government. Our intentions are to work for free societies and peaceful societies. Our intentions are to protect our own security, on the one hand, but also enable people to live in peace. Obviously, our reputation has been damaged severely by the terrible and horrible acts, inhumane acts that were conducted on Iraqi prisoners. Today I cannot tell you how sorry I am to them and their families for the humiliation. I do not think a lot of people understand that, so I have got to do a better job of explaining to people that we are for a lot of things that most people who live in the Middle East want. We want people to have a living. We want people to send their kids to schools that work. We want there to be a Palestinian state at peace with its neighbors. We want people to have a chance to participate in the process. But I'd say right now times are tough for the United States and the Middle East. Iraq, the Israeli-Arab issue, the so-called greater Middle East, and bilateral-which one do you choose of them, ENTITY? Whatever you want to do, sir. Okay, I will shoot for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many Arabs feel that after the letter of assurances you gave to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, any future Palestinian state would exist on less than half what the partition plan offered them in '47. How do you reconcile this with a moral concept of justice? One, that any final status would be negotiated by the parties-that would be the Israelis and the Palestinians-not the United States. We will not prejudge final status.

George W. Bush Interview With Al-Ahram International


Secondly, I made it clear that I supported what the Prime Minister had done, because I think it is a great opportunity for the establishment of a Palestinian state. I am the first President ever to have articulated the vision of a Palestinian state. I am writing here, and I wanted to appreciate that very highly. Well, I will tell you, and I am somewhat amazed, sir, that the debate has already started about what the end results are going to look like, when we have not even really begun yet to establish a state. I think the focus ought to be on putting the institutions in place for a Palestinian state that is peaceful and prosperous to emerge. I think it is very important for reform-minded Palestinians to step up and ask the world for help in order to build the security apparatus needed for a state to grow; ask for education help; ask for help to stimulate the entrepreneurial class so businesses will grow. In other words, when there is a state that is up and running and prosperous and has the confidence of Egypt and Israel and America and the EU and the rest of the world, it'll be much easier for these final- these tricky issues to be solved between the two parties. And so now is the time not to be arguing over what the world will look like down the road. We ought to be arguing about what the world can look like this year. The United States is firmly committed to the roadmap. I am sending a letter to the-I announced today I am going to send a letter to the Palestinian Prime Minister explaining that I am committed to the road-map, committed to two states living side by side in peace, but also reminding him it is now time to step up and show leadership, show leadership against the terrorists and show leadership in putting the institutions in place for a state to emerge. The right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland and to be provided with compensation is legally assured in several U.N. resolutions. The United States has also traditionally supported the right of refugees to return in recent major conflicts. How would you then justify making the Palestinian refugees an exception for accepted international laws under human rights conventions? My comment, again, was this, that-and the right of refugees is a final status issue. And that is to be negotiated on between the Palestinians and the Israelis. When I said what has changed and what will change is when there is a Palestinian state to which Palestinians can go.


And my point was, was that when a state is set up and the institutions are in place and people have a chance to make a living and it is peaceful, the entrepreneurial class is growing, small businesses, people are participating in the political process, that that is going to change the dynamic on the ground. The rights of-you know, the rights of Palestinians to return to Israel will be negotiated, but what I am telling you is when a state emerges, it'll change the dynamic. And that is all I said in my comment. Again, I will repeat to you, people want to focus on the future, when I think we ought to be focused right now on the right now, which is what is necessary to put a Palestinian state in place so people can have a chance to live in a hopeful society. And I am frustrated, I must tell you, a little bit, because I think that there needs to be better leadership in saying, What can we do to help the Palestinian people develop a state? And there needs to be a new constitution, it seems like to me. And some of these reforms stalled. Heck, we have been talking about them for about 2 years, unfortunately, but now is an opportunity. And I think Prime Minister Sharon created an interesting dynamic, I really do, and that is withdrawal from the West Bank. You know, it was not all that long ago if an Israeli Prime Minister stood up and said, We are out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, people would have said, That is fantastic. And so the Prime Minister makes the decision to get out and, of course, his own party rejects it, which speaks to-it speaks to his leadership, in my judgment, that he is willing to do what he thinks is right, in face of political opposition. But do you really agree that pragmatic realities mean annexation of other lands? Do you agree on that, I mean, that pragmatic realities which, I mean, being said repeatedly here in the States, pragmatic realities-pragmatic realities... You mean, with the conditions on the ground? Does it mean annexation of other people's land? I think what it means is, I think you are going to see over time with the emergence of a Palestinian state that the West Bank will be occupied by Palestinians. And to the extent to what the final border looks like is up for negotiations.


Again, we very much appreciate the fact that you were the first U.S. President to call for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. But in all the recent proposals that are being circulated, including the latest disengagement plan, we did not see any specific timetable. What happened to your pledge to create a Palestinian state by 2005? Well, 2005 may be hard, since 2005 is right around the corner. When I laid out the date of 2005, I believe it was around the time I went to Aqaba, Jordan. It was a very meaningful moment, where former Prime Minister Abu Mazen, myself, Prime Minister Sharon, and His Majesty, the King of Jordan, stood up and pledged to work together. But we hit a bump in the road-violence, as well as Abu Mazen was replaced, which changed the dynamic. I do not want to make any excuses, but nevertheless I think the timetable of 2005 is not as realistic as it was 2 years ago. Nevertheless, I do think we ought to push hard as fast as possible to get a state in place. And I repeat to you, sir, that part of my frustrations were alleviated with the Quartet making the statement it made the other day-the Quartet being the EU, Russia, United Nations, and the United States, working together. But there is a certain sense of responsibility that falls upon the Palestinians, reform-minded Palestinians to step up and say, Yes, we accept these institutions necessary for a peaceful state to emerge. Egypt has got, in my judgment, an important role to play to help make sure there is security in Gaza as the civil structure is put in place and as the Government structure is put in place. And President Mubarak, I think, is willing to assume that responsibility over time. I do not want to put him on a timetable, but I do believe he is committed to helping bring security to that part of the world. It is in Egypt's interest that there be security. You know, ENTITY, we did our best, I mean, getting all the factions together in Cairo, Egypt, to try to convince them to have one single opinion and that we are ready for training the police and security guards. President Mubarak has been a leader on the issue of security.


As you say, he is convened a very important meeting to make it clear that in order for there to be a peaceful evolution of a state, there has to be security, and that he is willing to train police. Egypt plays a mighty important role. And it is a great country, and it should play an important role. You have said, ENTITY, in recent statements that the assurances you gave to Sharon did not differ from what was being discussed and what we mentioned now and previous final status talks. Why were these proposals absent from your recent letters? Look, I want to assure you once again that I understand the sensitivity of these final status issues. But they will be negotiated, not between the United States and the parties; they are negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Government of a new state. It is what I told my friend President Mubarak. I just told that to His Majesty, the King of Jordan. And I will explain that consistent position of mine. People-I think some people are trying to read something into what I said or did not say. This is an opportunity that we cannot let go by. There is a lot of argument about final status issues, and they are very important issues, do not get me wrong. You have praised Sharon's proposal to withdraw from Gaza, which is an idea that does not represent more than one percent of--Palestine. Would you accept guarantee for granting Palestinians similar letter of assurances stating that any annexation of West Bank territory has to be minimal and that Israel has to pull out from nearly the entire West Bank, according to Security Resolution 242 and 338? No, I will write-I will say the exact same thing in a letter to the Palestinians that I have said publicly today, that I believe an opportunity exists, and it is essential that the Palestinian Authority find reform-minded leaders who are willing to step up and lead. You have repeatedly-repeatedly stated that Israel had the right to defend itself. But do you believe that by building walls and settlements and by assassinating Palestinian leaders, Israel is enhancing security and helping and reassuring peace talks? I think that any country has a right to defend herself. And you are looking at a President who is now in the process of defending my country against terrorist attacks. It is very difficult for the President of the United States to condemn anybody for defending themselves. My problem with the wall was not the security aspect of the wall.


My problem with the wall was that at one point in time, it looked like it was trying to prejudge any final status, and that I hope-my hope is, at one point in time, the wall is unnecessary. The hope is, is that a peaceful Palestinian state, that-I keep saying that, but I think it is possible-but a peaceful Palestinian state must be a state in which youngsters are well educated and have a chance to make a living and have a chance to- parents have a chance to realize-raise their children in a peaceful setting. And I think that a peaceful Palestinian state will eventually change the dynamics on that which exists on the ground today. I thank you very much for your patience. I will move to the other topic, Iraq. You said yesterday that you first learned of the abuses of Abu Ghraib and other prison-and other prisons in Iraq generally. Why has it taken so long to adopt serious measures against those directly responsible and their commanders? First of all, I learned about the fact that there was an investigation going on. I did not know the extent of the abuse. And there was a report done as a result of those investigations, and what you are hearing here in America is, why did not I see the report? That is one of the questions I am asking, because I first saw about the pictures on television screens. But one of the things you have got to understand about our country is that, one, we reject this kind of treatment of people. We will investigate, and there is a procedure in the military that is necessary to make sure that the guilty are truly guilty. It is very important for the Commander in Chief not to prejudge. Your viewers have got to know that here in America, in our system, the judicial process will be fully transparent, and you are beginning to see the transparency. The press corps wants to know different questions, and those questions need to be answered. Tomorrow our Secretary of Defense, in whom I have got confidence and believe in, will go up and testify at the United States Senate. So you will see the process evolve as to-and the truth come out as to why the military needed to take the time necessary to fully investigate these horrible, horrible acts. And I repeat to you, sir, I am sorry for the humiliation suffered by those individuals. It makes me sick to my stomach to see that happen. I will tell you what else I am sorry about.


I am sorry that the truth about our soldiers in Iraq becomes obscured. In other words, we have got fantastic citizens in Iraq, good kids, good soldiers, men and women who are working every day to make Iraqi citizens' lives better. And there are a thousand acts of kindness that take place every day of these great Americans who really do care about the citizens in Iraq. It is an awful, awful period for the American people, just like it is awful for the Iraqi citizens to see that on their TV screens. Again, sir, do you feel like you need to apologize to the Iraqis and the Arab world after you said that, I am sorry ? Well, I am sorry for the prisoners. I think it is humiliating, and it is, again-what the Arab world must understand is a couple of things. One, under a dictatorship, these- this would not be transparent. In other words, if there was torture under a dictator, we would never know the truth. In a democracy, you will know the truth, and justice will be done. And that is what people need to know. How much control are you ready to cede to the United Nations and the future Iraqi Government? Well, I think the Iraqi Government wants the sovereignty. And I think that is the proper-the proper relationship is for the Iraqi-the sovereignty to be passed to the Iraqi Government with help from coalition as well as the United Nations. I will tell you, a very good role for the United Nations is to help set up the elections that will take place in January of 2005. And the United Nations Security Council resolution is important, because it says to members of the world, please participate in helping this Government grow. But the sovereignty-Iraqi people want to run the Government themselves. That is not to say they do not want help. Of course they want help. But they want to run their Government. Frankly, you hear frustrations about America there in Iraq. And I can understand that, because the Iraq-nobody wants their Government run for them. The people of Iraq want to run their own Government, and that is what will happen. How long do you think the United States will stay in Iraq? A recent Gallup Poll showed that 71 percent of Iraqis considered the United States an occupying power. Does this disappoint you?


I mean, if I were an Iraqi and I saw people-was asked, am I happy that somebody is running my Government for me, which basically is what the question implies, the answer would be, No, we want to run our Government ourselves. And that is why we are transferring sovereignty. I will tell you, however, the Iraqi people understand that America needs to be around for a while to help make sure that the killers-the foreign fighters who are there, disgruntled former Saddamists- do not wreak havoc. And they are-and they need help right now, until security-Iraqi security forces are efficient, are formed in a way that will be able to be responsive to the dangers of these few people. It is essential that there be a secure environment as Iraq emerges from this period of tyranny, and they want our help there. They also want the reconstruction aid. I mean, there is some wonderful things that have happened in Iraq, which of course do not get mentioned very often. For example, I will tell you an interesting thing that is happened, is that the currency, the old currency was replaced by a new currency in about a 6- or 7-month period of time. And yet, it was done without a lot of arbitrage, a lot of counterfeiting, theft. There was no theft, and the currency is stable, which is a remarkable feat, when you think about it. The oil production, which is Iraqi oil production, it is not American, it is -Iraq owns the oil-it is up to about 2 1/2 million barrels a day. And then we had this period of fighting, where elements in society decided to fight because they saw freedom coming and they wanted to try and stop it, is what they are trying to do. And we took them on and are defeating them. What is happening now is that big projects are starting back up again because the security situation is a little better, and big companies are moving in with these reconstruction projects. It will start back up, and Iraq will be better for it. Yes. Do you care to share the details of that meeting with us? I did have the honor of welcoming a group of women to the Oval Office. I was told ahead of time that some members of the delegation did not want to come in the Oval Office because they did not want to get their picture taken, because they were afraid, not of American reaction but of reaction back home.


I met with those ladies later. The door opened to the Oval Office, and the first woman that walked in looked at me, and she burst out in tears and said, You are my liberator. It touched my heart. And I, of course-I held her in my arms and tears came to my eyes as she cried out of joy. She said, Thank you, ENTITY. You liberated us. I said, No, the American people helped liberate you. We had about six of us in our office. These were people that were obviously somewhat taken aback that they were in with the President of the United States. And yet, when they were with me, it was deeply emotional. It touched my heart. I still remember it clearly today. It made me very joyous inside to think that people who had been enslaved to tyranny, fearful of torture, probably had friends in mass graves, would be so thankful for the chance to live in peace. And I will tell you what is really important for the people-those people, those women, and I think about them all the time, is for me to never show any weakness in the face of the dangers in Iraq. In other words, those killers want us to leave. But my attitude is, having met with these women, if we leave, they will be in jeopardy. And I have an obligation, no matter how difficult it gets, to stay strong on behalf of those women and their chance to raise their children in freedom. The other day I had the Olympic Committee from Iraq come, two members of the Olympic Committee. I love sports, for starters, and the head of the women's Olympic committee came. And she told me about her 2-year-old son and 1-year-old son. She had quit the Olympic team because she did not want to run for one of Saddam's sons, for fear of her life, and yet she was so grateful for the freedom she has. I met with Fulbright Scholars, young Iraqis that are here studying in the United States. I met with doctors from Iraq who are getting new training, all of whom are desperate for there to be a free society so they can live in peace, and that is why we share the same goal. On greater Middle East, ENTITY, has your vision on the greater Middle East initiative changed at all in light of recent reactions from Arab and European countries? What will be presented to the G-8 leaders in their meeting next month?


My vision for the greater Middle East reforms were strengthened by the Alexandria Library Conference. You might have heard of that. I saw the spirit of that conference. There are people in the Middle East who understand the need for reforms. Now, when I talk about reforms, I fully understand the pace of reform will be different from country to country. I am as strong today on reforms in the greater Middle East as I have ever been. I fully understand criticism. I mean, I get criticized all the time in my job. I think the job of a leader is to have a vision, a vision that is hopeful and optimistic and one based upon certain principles, a principle like rule of law, a principle like human dignity by empowering individuals to make decisions in the political process, a principle that every person deserves respect, a principle that says that a peaceful society is more likely to be one that is a free society. And therefore, I will not abandon those principles, no matter how significant the pressure. Why does your administration insist on imposing sanctions against Syria? Because they will not fight terror, and they will not join us in fighting terror. We have asked them to do some things, and they have not responded. And Congress passed a law saying that if Syria will not join-for example, booting out a Hezbollah office out of Damascus-that the President has the right to put sanctions on. I have yet to impose a sanction yet, but the bill enables me to do so. And we have talked to the Syrian leader very clearly, and these are not -these are reasonable requests, and thus far, he has not heeded them. And that is why, if I make the decision to put on sanctions, it will be because he has not been a full partner in the war against terror. That would create another-more problems in the area. I mean, there is no need to harbor people who are expressing hatred. And if the world would join together to rout out terrorist organizations who want to kill innocent people, it would be a heck of a lot better off. We have got Muslims killing Muslims in Iraq. There are Muslims who will kill an innocent Muslim for the sake of trying to create fear. What they are trying to do is they are trying to shake our will, our collective will. For those of us who love freedom, they were trying to say, Well, do not work for freedom. Leave us alone so we can kill other people.


ENTITY, Senator Paul Laxalt, your old friend, said that early on in your administration, not long after the assassination attempt, that he told you he thought that the Lord saved you out there on the sidewalk, not so much to save the economy but to save the world, and that what he meant by that-to reach some sort of an arms control agreement with the Soviets. And he said you did not disagree with that. Now, you have recently in the speech at Glassboro said that you are firmly committed to an arms reduction. I was just wondering, the Soviets have made a proposal now for deep reduction in offensive weapons in return for some restraint on deployment of the space-based defense. Can you accept that in principle? Well, almost all of them in principle-there have been, you know, like the figures and so forth, talking of the weapons. I think because of the mix that each of us sees, we have chosen a different way to go-with what we call the triad-than they have. They have placed more reliance on the intercontinental. Now, we are still in the process of studying their latest proposal. But I am encouraged because-not only this one but the first proposals that they began making-it is , to my knowledge, the first time that the Soviets have ever proposed actually reducing the number of weapons. Well, you may be able to accept that in principle, then-that proposal? Yes, but do not pin me down on this, because, as I say, we are still studying this and- The other thing is just what kind of priority do you give-I mean, how high a priority do you give on arms control or arms reduction? Would it be possible, for example, to raise the level of the Geneva talks from ambassadorial level to the level of foreign minister to accelerate the progress there? But whatever way is necessary to get an agreement, we will do. Eventually, of course, it has to come back to the top. And, therefore, if the General Secretary and I could in a forthcoming summit arrive at some agreements there, and then hand it over to our negotiators to put it down on paper and work out the details-but we agreed, as you say, in principle, then, on all the major elements-that would probably help shortcut it, instead of waiting for something to come back to us and then having to go through it, dotting every i and so forth.

Interview With Eleanor Cliff, Jack Nelson, and Joel Havemann of the Los Angeles Times


The previous efforts at arms-which have literally only been a kind of legitimizing of a continued arms increase-I have been critical of those. That was why I spoke as harshly as I did about a couple of those stories. Is it your highest priority for a second term? I think that this could be as important a thing for the world at large. If anything is to remove this menace-for the world to sit here with the MAD policy, as it is called-and it is mad, even though it means mutual assured destruction. The idea that we are going to base our hopes for peace on each being able to destroy the other and, therefore, hoping that no one will suddenly go mad and push the button. ENTITY, I would like to see if I cannot get you to be a little more specific on what it is you do not like about the latest Soviet offer. Is it the level of reductions? Is it the link to the ABM treaty? Can you tell us what is- It is things of that kind that have to be ironed out, that are not specific, and that we might, in some instance, find ourselves in disagreement. We have announced our willingness several times of changed figures to approximate theirs in which we are willing to buy any substantial reduction as long as we both are aiming eventually at the total elimination. So, you do have problems in all of those three areas-with the link to the ABM treaty? I mean, that is a crucial part of their latest offer. As I say, we are still studying those things. And I am waiting for some of the people who are dealing with the exact terms-for us to get together and sit down and see what our positions really are. As a matter of principle, is some sort of hold-down on SDI, some sort of delay in the deployment of the SDI-is that acceptable as part of the package? We know that this has been of great concern to them-the SDI. with the idea of making it possible for us mutually to depend more on defensive systems than on just the threat of overpowering offensive systems. And we have some ideas about that, too, which we think will be forthcoming when we start responding to their latest proposal. I just want to ask you, on a sort of a lighter


You have been mostly silent on the subject of the Middle East peace process for months if not more. You are not interested, you are pessimistic, you felt burnt the last time around. What accounts for the silence, and where do you think this is headed? The silence on my part is a direct result of my secretary of state, John Kerry, engaging in some of the most vigorous, active diplomacy that we have seen on this issue in many years. And John is not doing that by accident. He is doing it because as an administration we think that it is in the interest of the Israelis and the Palestinians, but also in the interest of the United States and the world to arrive at a framework for negotiations that can actually bring about a two-state solution that provides Israel the security it needs peace with its neighbors at a time when the neighborhood has gotten more volatile, and gives Palestinians the dignity of a state. I think John has done an extraordinary job, but these are really difficult negotiations. I am very appreciative that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas have taken them very seriously. And you are keeping up to date on all of this? John reports to me almost weekly about progress and occasionally asks for direction. It does not serve anybody's purposes for me to be popping off in the press about it. In fact, part of what both the Israelis and the Palestinians and us agreed to at the beginning of these negotiations was that we would not be characterizing them publicly until we were able to report on success or until the negotiations actually broke down. We are coming to a point, though, over the next couple of months where the parties are going to have to make some decisions about how they move forward. And my hope and expectation is, despite the incredible political challenges, that both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Abbas are able to reach past their differences and arrive at a framework that can move us to peace. We are running out of time. We are running out of possibilities. If we do not succeed now and I know I am raising those stakes but if we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance. He has also suggested strongly that there might be a third intifada down the road and that if this peace process does not work, Israel itself could be facing international isolation and boycott. Do you agree with this assessment? And, obviously, this is a conflict that has gone on for decades. And humanity has a way of muddling through, even in difficult circumstances.

Interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg's View


So you never know how things play themselves out. But John Kerry, somebody who has been a fierce advocate and defender on behalf of Israel for decades now, I think he has been simply stating what observers inside of Israel and outside of Israel recognize, which is that with each successive year, the window is closing for a peace deal that both the Israelis can accept and the Palestinians can accept in part because of changes in demographics; in part because of what is been happening with settlements; in part because Abbas is getting older, and I think nobody would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue. We do not know what a successor to Abbas will look like. I believe that President Abbas is sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist, to recognize Israel's legitimate security needs, to shun violence, to resolve these issues in a diplomatic fashion that meets the concerns of the people of Israel. And I think that this is a rare quality not just within the Palestinian territories, but in the Middle East generally. For us not to seize that opportunity would be a mistake. And I think John is referring to that fact. What we know is that it gets harder by the day. What we also know is that Israel has become more isolated internationally. We had to stand up in the Security Council in ways that 20 years ago would have involved far more European support, far more support from other parts of the world when it comes to Israel's position. And that is a reflection of a genuine sense on the part of a lot of countries out there that this issue continues to fester, is not getting resolved, and that nobody is willing to take the leap to bring it to closure. In that kind of environment, where you have got a partner on the other side who is prepared to negotiate seriously, who does not engage in some of the wild rhetoric that so often you see in the Arab world when it comes to Israel, who has shown himself committed to maintaining order within the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority and to cooperate with Israelis around their security concerns for us to not seize this moment I think would be a great mistake. With permanent borders? And has an opportunity also to take advantage of a potential realignment of interests in the region, as many of the Arab countries see a common threat in Iran.


The only reason that that potential realignment is not, and potential cooperation is not, more explicit is because of the Palestinian issue. I want to come to Iran in a moment, but two questions about two leaders you are going to be dealing with pretty intensively. Abu Mazen all these things you say are true, but he is also the leader of a weak, corrupt and divided Palestinian entity that is already structurally semi-powerless. Do you think he could deliver anything more than a framework agreement? Is this the guy who can lead the Palestinian people to say, OK, no more claims against Israel, permanent peace, permanent recognition? What is lost by testing it? If in fact a framework for negotiations is arrived at, the core principles around which the negotiations are going to proceed is arrived at I have no doubt that there are going to be factions within the Palestinian community that will vigorously object in the same way that there are going to be those within Israel who are going to vigorously object. That for all that we have seen over the last several decades, all the mistrust that is been built up, the Palestinians would still prefer peace. They would still prefer a country of their own that allows them to find a job, send their kids to school, travel overseas, go back and forth to work without feeling as if they are restricted or constrained as a people. So I actually think that the voices for peace within the Palestinian community will be stronger with a framework agreement and that Abu Mazen's position will be strengthened with a framework for negotiations. There would still be huge questions about what happens in Gaza, but I actually think Hamas would be greatly damaged by the prospect of real peace. And the key question, the legitimate question for Israel, would be making sure that their core security needs are still met as a framework for negotiations led to an actual peace deal. And part of what John Kerry has done has been to dig into Israel's security needs with the help of General John Allen, the former commander in Afghanistan. And they have developed, based on conversations with the Israeli Defense Forces about their defense needs, they have come up with a plan for how you would deal with the Jordan Valley, how you would deal with potential threats to Israel that are unprecedented in detail, unprecedented in scope. And as long as those security needs were met, then testing Abbas ends up being the right thing to do.


My impression watching your relationship with Netanyahu over the years is that you admire his intelligence and you admire his political skill, but you also get frustrated by an inability or unwillingness on his part to spend political capital in terms of risking coalition partnerships in order to embrace what he says he accepts, a two-state solution. When he comes to Washington, how hard are you going to push him out of his comfort zone? And I take him at his word when he says that he sees the necessity of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think he genuinely believes that. I also think that politics in Israel around this issue are very difficult. You have the chaos that is been swirling around the Middle East. People look at what is happening in Syria. They look at what is happening in Lebanon. Obviously, they look at what is happening in Gaza. And understandably a lot of people ask themselves, Can we afford to have potential chaos at our borders, so close to our cities? So he is dealing with all of that, and I get that. What I have said to him privately is the same thing that I say publicly, which is the situation will not improve or resolve itself. And for Bibi to seize the moment in a way that perhaps only he can, precisely because of the political tradition that he comes out of and the credibility he has with the right inside of Israel, for him to seize this moment is perhaps the greatest gift he could give to future generations of Israelis. And as somebody who occupies a fairly tough job himself, I am always sympathetic to somebody else's politics. I have not yet heard, however, a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Nobody has presented me a credible scenario. The only thing that I have heard is, We will just keep on doing what we are doing, and deal with problems as they arise. And we will build settlements where we can. And where there are problems in the West Bank, we will deal with them forcefully. We will cooperate or co-opt the Palestinian Authority. And yet, at no point do you ever see an actual resolution to the problem. It is maintenance of a chronic situation. And my assessment, which is shared by a number of Israeli observers, I think, is there comes a point where you cannot manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices.