The news of this day is that Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, is investigating allegations that you suborned perjury by encouraging a 24-year-old woman, former White House intern, to lie under oath in a civil deposition about her having had an affair with you. I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. And I intend to cooperate with this inquiry. No improper relationship define what you mean by that. Well, I think you know what it means. It means that there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship. You had no sexual relationship with this young woman? We are doing our best to cooperate here, but we do not know much yet. What I am trying to do is to contain my natural impulses and get back to work. But I want to focus on the work at hand. Just for the record, to make sure I understand what your answer means, so there is no ambiguity about it You had no conversations with this young woman, Monica Lewinsky, about her testimony, possible testimony before in giving a taped deposition? I did not urge anyone to say anything that was untrue. I did not urge anyone to say anything that was untrue. That is my statement to you. Did you talk to her about it excuse me, I am sorry And beyond that, I think it is very important that we let the investigation take its course. I did not ask anyone to go in there and say something that is not true. What about your having another one of the allegations is that you may have asked or the allegation that is being investigated is that you asked your friend Vernon Jordan I absolutely did not do that. I can tell you I did not do that. I did not do that. He is in no way involved in trying to get anybody to say anything that is not true at my request. I did not do that. Now, I do not know what else to tell you. I do not even know all I know is what I have read here. I did not ask anybody not to tell the truth. I do not know what the basis of them is, other than just what you know. And I will be vigorous about it. But I have got to get back to the work of the country.

Interview With Jim Lehrer of the PBS News Hour


I was up past midnight with Prime Minister Netanyahu last night; I have got Mr. Arafat coming in; we have got action all over the world and a State of the Union to do. I will do my best to cooperate with this, just as I have through every other issue that is come up over the last several years. But I have got to get back to work. Would you acknowledge, though, ENTITY, this is very serious business, this charge against you that is been made? And I will cooperate in the inquiry of it. If it is not true, that means somebody made this up. Look, you know as much about this as I do right now. We will just have to look into it and cooperate. But meanwhile, I have got to go on with the work of the country. I got hired to help the rest of the American people. Speaking of the work of the country, other news today, the Pope is arriving in Cuba almost as we speak. Is the time come, maybe, for the United States to also bury some economic and political hatchets with Cuba? Well, I think that our previous policy, the one that we have had now and the one we have had through Republican and Democratic administrations, of keeping economic pressure on and denying the legitimacy of the Cuban Government, has been a good policy. I have made it clear from the day I got here that we would be prepared to respond to a substantial effort at political or economic opening by Cuba. And we have, as you know, a system for communicating with each other. Nothing would please me greater than to see a new openness there that would justify a response on our part, and I would like to work on it, and I think Mr. Castro knows that. I have tried to proceed in good faith here. Have you thought about doing something dramatic? I mean, this is your second term getting on an airplane and going down, or inviting him to come up here, something like that just like what the Pope is doing? I hope that we will have some real progress toward freedom and opening there, and I will work on it. But that is still mostly up to Mr. Castro. Why is it up to him? Well, because look what the Pope is saying. The Pope is saying, I hope you will release these political prisoners. You know, no American President getting on an airplane and going down there or having him come up here is going to deal with that.


I mean, the Cuban-American community I know a lot of people think they have been too hard on this, but they do have the point that there has been no discernible change in the climate of freedom there. And I hope that the Pope's visit will help to expand freedom, and I hope that after that we will be able to talk about it a little bit. The Pope, in fact, was interviewed on his plane a while ago by some reporters, and they asked him, What message would you give to the American people? And he said about the embargo and he said, To change, to change, to change. That would be his message to the American people. His Holiness is a very great man, and his position on this is identical to that, as far as I know, of every other European leader. Explain to Americans who do not follow the Cuban issue very carefully why Cuba is different, say, than China, a Communist country, North Korea, a Communist country, Vietnam we had a war with Vietnam, as we did with Korea and in some ways China as well. We have relations with them. I think Cuba is different, in no small measure, because of the historic legacy we have with them going back to the early sixties. I think it is different because it is the only Communist dictatorship in our hemisphere, a sort of blot on our neighborhood's commitment to freedom and openness. And a lot of Americans have suffered personal losses there of significant magnitude. And I think, as a practical matter, we probably think we can have a greater influence through economic sanctions in Cuba than we can in other places. Now, I have worked over the last 5 years in a number of different ways to explore other alternatives in dealing with this issue, and I would not shut the door on any other alternative. But I believe that our denial of legitimacy to the government and our economic pressure has at least made sure that others did not go down that path, and that now, I think, it is one of the reasons that every country in this hemisphere is a democracy and a market economy except for Cuba. I think a lot of people forget what the impact of our policy toward Cuba and what the highlighting of the Cubans' policies have done to change the governmental structures in other countries in our neighborhood. So I am hoping nobody in the world would be happier than me to see a change in Cuba and a change in our policy before I leave office.


But we have to have both; we just cannot have one without the other. You do not see anything happening anytime soon as a result of the Pope's visit? As you said a moment ago, you met with Mr. Netanyahu twice yesterday; you meet with Mr. Arafat tomorrow. First, on Netanyahu, what is it exactly you want him to do? Well, let us talk about what he wants. What we want is not nearly as important as what he wants, what the Palestinians want, what the other people in the Middle East want. What we want is a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. What I believe that he and his government want is an agreement to go to final status talks in the peace process under circumstances that they believe maximize their security. I think what the Palestinians want is an agreement that moves them toward self-determination under circumstances that maximize their ability to improve the lives of their people and the reach of their popular government. And we have been out there now for a year I mean another year, of course, 5 years since I have been President but since the Hebron withdrawal, we have been out there for a year in the Middle East looking around, listening, talking, watching the frustration, seeing the growing difficulties in the Middle East peace process. And we came up with an approach that we thought, in the ballpark, would satisfy both sides' objectives. We worked with Mr. Netanyahu yesterday exhaustively to try to narrow the differences. And we did not get them all eliminated, but we made some headway. And we are going to work with Mr. Arafat tomorrow to try to do that. And then we are going to try to see if there is some way we can put them together. And I am very hopeful, because I think it is not good for them to keep on fooling with this and not making progress. Why does it matter that much to an American President that these two men get together and make an agreement? Well, first of all, I think it matters in the Middle East because of our historic ties to Israel and the difficulty that it would cause us if there were another war in the region. Secondly, of course, we have major energy interests in the region; a big part of our economic recovery is having access to it. The third thing is we have a lot of friends in the region, beyond Israel, and if they all fall out with one another that is bad for America.


And of course, then if deprivation among the Palestinians leads to a rise of violence and leads to a rise of more militant Islamic fundamentalism in other countries throughout the region, then that could be a destabilizing fact that could really make things tough if not for me, then for my successors down the road and for the American people down the road in the 21st century. So you believe with those who say only America can make peace in the Middle East? I believe America is uniquely situated to help to broker a peace in the Middle East. I actually believe only the parties can make peace in the Middle East. I think only Israel and the Palestinians and Syria and Lebanon can join Jordan at that table; that is what I think. I think in the end we need to be very aggressive in stating what our views are; we need to fight hard to at least have our position taken seriously; but in the end, you know, they have to live with the consequences of what they do or do not do, all of them do. And they are going to have to make their own peace. The word around, as I am sure you know, is that you and Netanyahu really just do not like each other very much. It is certainly not true on my part. But we have had differences of opinion on occasion in approach to the peace process, and then there has been a little smattering in the press here, there, and yonder about those differences and whether they were personal in nature. But for me, they are not personal in nature. I enjoy him very much. I like being with him. I like working with him. We had a difficult, hard day yesterday. We had a long session in the morning, and then he worked with our team, including the Vice President, the Secretary of State, through much of the afternoon. Then after my dinner last night, I came back, and we worked again for a couple hours. So it is hard to do that if you do not like somebody. I really believe that he is an energetic man, and I think that within the limits of his political situation, I believe he is hoping to be able to make a peace and to get to the point where he and Mr. Arafat can negotiate that. But our job is to see, if you will, from a different perspective, the positions of both the Palestinians and the Israelis.


It is sort of like standing too close to an impressionist painting sometime there is lots of dots on the canvas and the people who are standing too close to it, even though they are painting the canvas, may get lost in the weeds, and then the people that are standing back can see the picture. So that is what I am trying to do. I have to keep backing the painters back, so they can see the whole picture, and then getting to the details and trying to help them ram it home. Because the one thing that I worry about is, you just sit there and have the same old conversation over and over again until the cows come home, and it is easy to do. So that is what I am trying to I am trying to broker this thing, be a catalyst, get the people together, and give an honest view of what the picture looks like from back here about what the two artists can live with.  they just do not want to do it. And I do not know what to say about that. But you are not going to give up on it? You know, if I do not make any progress, I will level with the American people and the rest of the world and tell them I am doing my best but I am not making any progress. But we were hitting it last night until late, and then we are getting ready now for Mr. Arafat to come, and we will hit it hard tomorrow. And that is all I know to tell you; we are just going to keep hitting it. On Asia, the Asia financial crisis, what business is it of the United States to save these failing Asian economies? Well, first of all, we cannot save the Asian economies if they will not take primary steps to help themselves, the way Mexico did. You remember, we loaned Mexico some money, and they paid back early with interest, and we made about $500 million because they took tough steps to restore economic growth and create jobs, raise incomes, and get their financial house in order. But in order to make it, they also need the backup of the International Monetary Fund and a plan designed to deal with the particular problems of each country, and then the U.S. and Japan and Germany and the rest of the Europeans to stand behind that to say, if necessary, we will put together a package to really restore confidence.


In most of these Asian economies, the problem is the financial system and people cannot pay back their loans or investors take their loans when their loans are repaid, investors take the money and go somewhere else. What is that got to do with America? Well, every day now in some of our newspapers you can see what is happening in the Asian stock markets and the Asian currency markets. When a country's currency drops, it does not have as much money in dollars, and therefore it cannot buy as many American exports. A big part of America's economic growth since 1993 has occurred from exports, a big part of that from exports to Asia. If the value of all their money goes down, they cannot keep buying our exports. And that hurts us. Also, if the value of their money goes down, everything they sell in other places in the world is all of a sudden much cheaper, so they can push us out of those markets. So if you want to just look at the plain, brutal, short-term economic interest, that is the short-term economic interest. If you want to look at the long run, we have got an interest in Asia in having stable democracies that are our partners, that work with us to help grow the region and grow with us over the long run to help shoulder burdens like climate change, cleaning up the environment, dealing with global disease, dealing with weapons of mass destruction, contributing to the efforts in Bosnia, ending the nuclear program in North Korea. All those things we depend on the Asian countries to be a part of. They can only do that if they are strong. So, we live in a world that is so interdependent that we need them to be strong if we are going to be strong. As you know, there is some Members of Congress who are saying what this really boils down to is welfare for international bankers that is what we are up to. How do you respond to that? That is going to get that seems to be growing particularly in the last few days. It bothers me a lot. That is, if a country like Indonesia gets money from the International Monetary Fund to deal with its financial problems, what are its financial problems? You have got to pay notes when they are coming due.


And if somebody made a foolish loan that they should not have made in the first place, that is an only 90-day loan on a building that is going to last for 20 years, for example, you hate to see them get their money back plus a profit at someone else's expense. On the other hand and let me say, we are sensitive to that. Secretary Rubin has done a very good job of trying to get these big banks to roll over their debt. They will actually get their interest back They do not need to just take the money and run. On the other hand, if you start saying, well, everybody is going to get half back of what they put in, that will actually speed the rate at which people take money out and reduce the rate at which people put money in; you do not rebuild confidence, and therefore the collapse is more costly. That is what bothers me. I mean, nobody likes the idea I do not think any American likes the idea that every single banker in one of these countries that made every bad loan will get paid back. And that, in fact, will not happen. But when you try to pay back most things to stabilize the situation, the reason you are doing it is not to give the people who made the loans their money back; the reason you are doing it is to send a signal to the world that business is back up and going, that you have to be more careful now, but you can trust this country now and you can invest. So I think I am convinced we are doing the right thing for our own economy. I am convinced we are doing the right thing for our values and our principles. And I hope I can persuade the Congress that we are. What can you tell us about where that thing stands, in terms of whether the inspectors are going to be allowed to do what they want to do, et cetera? Iraq does? Iraq open the sites that Mr. Butler believes that ought to be open. That is a problem for us because we believe that we have to do everything we can, as quickly as we can, to check for chemical and biological weapons stocks.


And as I told the American people the last time we had the standoff with Saddam, before he relented and let the inspectors go back, my concern is not to re-fight the Gulf war; my concern is to prepare our people for a new century, not only in positive ways like creating a big international financial framework that works for them, as that we just talked about, but also to make sure we have the tools to protect ourselves against chemical and biological weapons. So tonight I cannot rule out, or in, any options. But I can tell you I am very concerned about this, and I do not think the American people should lose sight of the issue. Saddam Hussein cannot say who, where, or when about these inspection teams. That has to be done by the professionals. And sooner or later, something is going to give here, and I am just very much hoping that we can reason with him before that happens. Now, Ambassador Richardson with the U.N. and others in the administration have said the military option just to pick up, just to continue your sentence the military option remains on the table. The Ambassador from Iraq to the U.N. was on our program recently, and he pretty much acknowledged that Iraq is banking on that not being real, that the U.S. alone is not going to go in there and take out some suspected anthrax facility, particularly if it is in the palace where Saddam Hussein lives, et cetera, et cetera. The United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We'd like to be partners with other people. You used the anthrax example. Think how many people can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax. And think about how it is not just a question of whether Saddam Hussein might put them on a Scud missile an anthrax head and send it to some city of people he wanted to destroy. Think about all the terrorists and drug runners and other bad actors that could just parade through Baghdad to pick up their stores if we do not take the strongest possible action. I far prefer the United Nations; I far prefer the inspectors. I have been far from triggerhappy on this thing. But if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. I have shown that I do not relish this sort of thing.


Every time it is discussed around here I said, you know, one of the great luxuries of being the world's only superpower for a while and it will not last forever, probably, but for a while is that there is always time enough to kill. And therefore, we have a moral responsibility to show restraint and to seek partnerships and alliances. And I have done that. But I do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren why we took a powder on what we think is a very serious biological and chemical weapons program, potentially, by a country that has already used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds, their own people. So you would order an air strike or whatever it would take to take out some facility if you could not get rid of it any other way? I am not ruling out, or in, any option. I was responding to what you said, that the Iraqi official thought we were just talking because we would not want to discomfit anyone or make them mad. This is a serious thing with me. And you imagine the capacity of these tiny amounts of biological agents to cause great harm; it is something we need to get after. And I do not understand why they are not for getting after it. What can they possibly get out of this? If he really cared about his people he is always talking about how bad his people have been hurt by these sanctions if he really cared about his people he'd open all these sites, let everybody go in and look at them If he is telling the truth, there is nothing there; and if he is not, he'd get it behind it one way or the other. And we could then he could say, Okay, what grounds does the United States have now for stopping the U.N. from lifting the sanctions? I have done everything I have been asked to do. And that would be a hard question for us, even though we have got reservations. We'd have a hard time answering that question. But would you go along with lifting the sanctions? Right now our position is, if he complies with all the United Nations sanctions the conditions of all U.N. resolutions leading to sanctions, that that is what we want Iraq to do. But what he wants is, he wants to have it both ways.


He wants to get the sanctions lifted because he thinks people want to do business with him, and he wants to be able to continue to pursue a weapons program that we think presents a danger to the region and maybe to the world and certainly to our own interests and values. So I just want him to think about it again before they wait all this 2 months. I want him to think about it and let these inspectors go back. Well, it has not worked out as fast as I'd hoped, but it actually is kind of working out the way I had hoped in the sense that the Dayton peace agreement is very much alive and well. And we have separated the troops I mean the forces and the people, and we have got some relocation going on, and we have collected a lot of the bad weapons and destroyed them. We are making some progress on the joint institutions and other things, and we are trying to get that country together. And I must say, I was very impressed on my recent trip there by the level of support for the United States and the international community in our presence there, the level of support for our staying there, and the level of commitment of so many people to genuine pursuit of peace. And I think we can make it in Bosnia. But if you had told me, on the other hand that is the down side. If you had told me, on the other hand, you can go there and stay a couple of years and there will not be any gunshots fired, and the only people you will lose will be in accidents of one kind or another, and you will have an increasing amount of harmony in the urbanized areas that you had not imagined you would get, and some of the other positive things that have happened, I think we'd all been very happy about that. So I am going to stay after this. That depends on how long it takes to achieve the mission. What I do think we should do, since it just invites recalcitrance on the part of any parties in Bosnia that do not want to do something that is in the Dayton peace agreement, if the Americans say, Well, we are leaving in a year, and then the Europeans say, We are going to leave as soon as they do, then the people who have to make changes say, Well, all I have got to do is hang around a year, and I will not have to make any changes at all. No more deadlines.


Because it the world community really has not done anything like this in a while not like this and it is very complicated. But on the other hand, at bottom, it is about people getting along together and working together and serving together as citizens. And I have been quite impressed by how much has been done. We have been talking now about all these foreign policy things and I was just if you were to go back through here, only the U.S. can keep peace in Bosnia; only the U.S. can make peace and make peace in the Middle East; only the U.S. can stabilize They have got to make the peace. Only the U.S. can help stabilize the economies of Asia; only the U.S. can stare down Saddam Hussein in Iraq. If there are going to be any coalitions, the U.S. has to organize them and make them work. Is this the role of the United States of America for the immediate future? Well, it is a big part of it. But it also is a part of our role to put together a broad coalition on the climate change treaty to deal with global warming. It is also our role to put together global efforts to stiffen our efforts against biological warfare, or to put together a global effort to support the International Monetary Fund and nations themselves in dealing with the Asian financial crisis. We live in a world that is interdependent in two or three ways. Number one, what happens in one country affects what happens in another one. We can see that. Number two, what happens on economic issues increasingly has a security impact, and vice versa. I will just give you the most blatant example is there is all these articles in the paper about all these countries, that their currency dropped and therefore they cannot buy jet airplanes for their air forces. And I just think that in this world, if you happen to be at the moment it is occurring, that this huge new world of interdependence is occurring and plus you have got all this interdependence at a citizen level with the Internet exploding and the information explosion. We are going to have all kinds of implications with the scientific explosions going on now. And we just happen to be, at this moment in history, the strongest and the wealthiest country around. It is a unique gift for our people. They have worked hard for it, but it is still a blessing.


And, you know, looking back over the last 5 years I just celebrated my 5th anniversary here I think that our administration has had good success in changing the role of Government, in changing the debate about Government from you know, the debate I heard for the 12 years before I got here was, the Government is the problem versus Government is the solution. Government is a catalyst; it is got to give people the tools to solve their own problems; it is got to be a good partner; it is got to empower neighborhoods and people. So we have got a smaller, more active Government, and yet we have invested more in education, more in science and technology, more in the environment. And it is working, and we have got good results. We have not been as successful in convincing people in very practical terms about the interdependence of foreign and domestic policy, of economic and security policy. The way it would come back to you would be this way, ENTITY. If there is a problem, like Asia has an economic problem, we are the folks that send the most money. You had a problem in Bosnia, Somalia, a military problem; we are the ones that send the most troops. That is how it translates in practice. Yes, but if you look at it if you look at there are some areas in the Bosnian peacekeeping operation, like civilian police, for example, where the Europeans have 9 times as many as we do. We put up more money. You look at the different allocations. If you look at what is going on in the United Nations, if the congressional position which is that we ought to have our U.N. dues lowered to 20 percent prevails, since a lot of really poor countries pay even less than their fair share of the world's GNP, we'd actually be getting off light compared to many, many other countries really light. So it is just not true that we always pay an unfair share, but it is true that we are called upon to bear the largest burden. If it helps us, I think we ought to do it. And if it is right and we can do it at an acceptable price, we ought to do it, whether or not we are sure it helps us. But it is hard to quarrel with the argument that we have been hurt by having 220-odd trade agreements in the last 5 years, when you look at what is happened, and a third of our growth coming out of trade.


It is hard to quarrel with the argument that we have been hurt by our leadership in Bosnia or the Middle East, in Northern Ireland or any of these other places. It is hard to quarrel with the fact that our efforts to work with other countries to deal with chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, to deal with climate change, to deal with global disease spread, those things are good for Americans right where they live. And we just simply do not have an option to say, Well, I am sorry, it looks bad in the newspaper today so I think I will check out of this old world. But it looked pretty good there for a couple of years, and we were getting a whole lot more than we were giving, so we liked that. We have got to be consistent, and we have got to realize that there is an interdependence within our country, on each other, and beyond our country. And I have been working on that. I have got to do more to persuade people. On a domestic issue, one that you have also been talking about a lot recently, in particular, but you have always talked about it and that is the racial divisions in this country. Where would you put that in terms of your own concerns and the concerns that you think the average American should have about their country right now as we sit here? Well, I think the average American should be concerned about it particularly as it relates to the racial disparities in the results we get in living and working and educating in America. I mean, if you look at the number of minorities who are in poor innercity schools, where the performance is lower than it should be; if you look at the number of people who either do not have jobs or are still underemployed, no matter how strong the economy is; if you look at the patterns of opportunity wherever there are differences, I think we should be concerned about that. And we do not have to have a fight over affirmative action every time. We can actually say, how are we going to make it possible for more people to live together, learn together, and serve together and work together at the same level of excellence? I think everybody should be concerned about it. I think everybody ought to be concerned about discrimination where it still exists and it still does.


And finally, you know, the Vice President gave a brilliant speech on Martin Luther King's Day, Monday, down in Atlanta, talking about how profoundly embedded in the human heart and culture and history the feelings of racial prejudice are. And I think it is really worth if we are going to be an interdependent country leading an interdependent world, then all this interdependence has got to work. And with all of our diversity, we have got to keep working on it hard. It is not just a question of education. You have got to really work at it all the time. Why are you having trouble getting some blunt talk started on this? I do not know we finally got some blunt talk going on affirmative action. But I would like to see some blunt talk. Well, we had some blunt talk on affirmative action. I do not think the whole debate ought to be about affirmative action. I mean, you know, look at what we have done, for example, with something that is supposed to have a civil rights impact that is largely economic, the Community Reinvestment Act. It passed in 1977, over 20 years ago. Now, the Community Reinvestment Act was set up to say to the bank regulators, Look, you guys go in and look at these banks and tell them, you have got to take some of your money and invest it in inner cities and neighborhoods and with people who otherwise would not get it so they have a chance to build homes, to build businesses, to create jobs, to build neighborhoods. In the 20-year history of the Community Reinvestment Act, 85 percent-plus of the money loaned out under it to poor inner-city neighborhoods has been loaned in the 5 years since I have been President. So I think there are things we can do to improve education, to improve job growth, to improve not just having jobs but also income and ownership among minorities, to create opportunities for service that will bring people together, that will also mean fewer racial discrimination claims that have to be dealt with by Government, and also I think will help to tame the savage heart that still lurks within so many of us. What should the American people think about their President right now? You are going into your the last 3 years of your administration; you got all this controversy today; you have got all kinds of things in the air.


I think they ought to, first of all, think that I came to office after the '92 election with a real theory of what I wanted to do to build America's bridge to the 21st century; that I wanted to strengthen our Union, and I wanted to broaden our set of opportunities, and I wanted to deepen our freedom, and I wanted to prepare for this modern world. I had an idea about changing the philosophy of Government, which I talked about earlier. opportunity, responsibility, and community. We had a plan for changing the economic policy of the country, the welfare policy of the country, the crime policy of the country, the policy helping people balance work and family, of integrating economic and other kinds of foreign policy. We had all these plans, and I think you'd have to say, on balance, it is working pretty good. So the first thing I would hope they say is, the President might be right about his philosophy of Government and the values and the principles that we ought to be looking to, and about this whole interdependence business because we do have the lowest unemployment rate, the lowest inflation rate in a generation, the lowest crime rate in a generation, the biggest drop in welfare ever, dropping rates of juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, and we are moving ahead in the world. The second thing I'd like for them to say is, we have still got some significant challenges out there before we are completely prepared for this new era. How are our parents going to be on Social Security and how are the baby boomers going to be on Social Security without bankrupting their kids? How can you do the most important work of society, raising children, and still be good at work? How do you deal with climate change and clean air, clean water, safe food, diseases spreading all this sort of stuff preserving the environment, growing the economy? Those are just three of the big changes out there. You know, in America we talk about diversity, and it is a real positive thing. We say we are going to get all these people together. In a world where the Internet can also give you information about how to make a terrorist bomb, and there is more and more diversity among religious and racial and ethnic hatreds, how can you make sure the world is about community, not conflict? And I do not think any serious person believes we have resolved all these questions.


So when I look at '98, yes, I want to balance the budget; yes, I have got this great child care initiative which deals with work and family; I have got a Medicare initiative and the Medicare commission, which deals with honoring our obligations to our parents. But we have still got a bunch of work to do. So the second thing I want them to say is, yes, he was right the first 5 years, and we are way ahead of where we were 5 years ago, but we have got a huge amount to do yet, a huge amount before we are really ready for the year 2000 and the 21st century. But on a more personal level, ENTITY, you are a week from your State of the Union Address, and here you are under investigation for a very, very serious crime allegation of a serious crime. I mean, what does that do to your ability to do all of these things that we have been talking about, whether it is the Middle East or whether it is child care reform or what? Well, I have got to do my best. But I have been living with this sort of thing for a long time. And my experience has been, unfortunately, sometimes when one charge dies, another one just lifts up to take its place. But I can tell you, whatever I feel about it, I owe it to the American people to put it in a little box and keep working for them. This job is not like other jobs in that sense. You do not get to take a vacation from your obligations to the whole country. You just have to remember why you ran, understand what is happening and why, and go back and hit it tomorrow. But going back to what we said at the beginning, what we were talking about, is not this one different than all the others? This one is not about a land deal in Arkansas, or it is not even about sex. It is about other things, about a serious matter. But all the others, a lot of them were about serious matters. All I can tell you is I will do my best to help them get to the bottom of it. I did not ask anybody to lie under oath. I did not do that. I did not do it. And we will just get to the bottom of it. And meanwhile, I have got to keep working at this. I cannot just ignore the fact that every day that passes is one more day that I do not have to do what I came here to do.


And I think the results that America has enjoyed indicates that is a pretty good argument for doing what I came here to do. Whatever the personal things may be, the polls show that people approve of your job as President, even though they may not have that high regard of you as a person. Hardly anyone has ever been subject to the level of attack I have. You know, it made a lot of people mad when I got elected President. And the better the country does, it seems like the madder some of them get. What is important here is what happens to the American people. I mean, there are sacrifices to being President, and in some periods of history the price is higher than others. I am just doing the best I can for my country. 15 eastern time. All of the cable news organizations have been full of this story all day. The newspapers are probably going to be full of it tomorrow, and the news may; this story is going to be there and be there and be there. The Paula Jones trial coming up in May, and you are going I am looking forward to that. Because I believe that the evidence will show what I have been saying, that I did not do what I was accused of doing. It is very difficult, you know one of the things that people learn is you can charge people with all kinds of things; it is almost impossible to prove your innocence. I think I will be able to do that. We are working hard at it. You are the President of the United States. You have got certainly you have got personal things that you want to prove or disprove, et cetera. But when does just the process become demeaning to the Presidency? I mean, somebody said in fact they said it on our program that this trial in May will be tabloid nirvana. I tried to spare the country that. That is the only reason that we asked the Supreme Court to affirm that, absent some terrible emergency, the President should not be subject to suits, so that he would not become a political target. They made a different decision. And they have made the decision that this was good for the country. So I am taking it and dealing with it the best I can. And the new thing you are going to be, you know, Pour it on; nothing is going to change ? I have got to go to work every day.


ENTITY, this is Jim Gardner from Philadelphia. ENTITY, I am sorry ENTITY, we were interested to hear your spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, this morning proclaim today that the country is, in fact, still in a recession. Until now you have said again and again that the country was technically not in a recession. What changed your mind? Well, I do not know about technically, but I think what we are trying to put the emphasis on is people are hurting. And some people can define it. Some areas will say, Hey, we are not in recession; we have got a certain amount of growth. Others will say, Tell us about it. We are in a serious recession. We are trying to help. And we have got to get this country doing better, to bring pressure on all of us, the administration and Congress, to do what we can to help. And we have done certain things that I think will. We have freed up $9.6 or $9.7 billion worth of Government spending. We are signing a jobs-intensive transportation bill that will kick it. And then, as you know, we are going to have some new initiatives at the State of the Union. You might argue technically, are we in recession or not? But when there is this kind of sluggishness and concern, definitions, heck with it; let us get on with the business at hand. ENTITY, many thousands of Philadelphians have been suffering at the hands of the economy for far too long, and many of them would feel that they have been abandoned by your administration and specifically by you. I would assume that you do not see it that way. But I can understand their frustration. For a person that is out of work the unemployment rate is not 6.9 percent or 6.8 percent nationally; it is 100 percent. So, I can understand the frustration and, you know, you have got to take the heat in this job. I do not think there is any quick and easy answers to this economy. There are certain things we can do and that I have tried to do in three separate State of the Union Messages. But for somebody that is hurting out there, Jim, I can understand their saying, Hey, the President is not doing enough. Congress is not doing enough. And I have to take the heat on that. I have got to take the responsibility.

Interview With Jim Gardner of WPVI - TV in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


But what I am trying to do is to lead this country out of this sluggishness to the best of my ability. And, as I say, we have got some proposals, and we are going to have more. The new ABC News/Washington Post poll, out this morning, says that 58 percent of the public think that you care more about serving the wealthy than you do about the middle class. I wonder, does this point to a failure of your economic policy or an inability of the administration to convey how it does feel? I think it is the latter and possibly the former, because people look at it and say, Hey, why cannot you get Congress to do what you want it to do? You did it in Desert Storm. The difference is I did not need Congress to move on Desert Storm, as you may well remember. So I think it is a combination of things. And I can understand when people are hurting that they feel that way, and a good thing happened on this polling, though. I vowed when the polls were sky-high not to live by the polls and saying I did not believe them. What we are trying to do is help people and get on with this trying to do what the Federal Government can do to help the recovery. It is not just Federal Government, I might say, but we have got a large role in it, and I want to see us be more effective. Russian President Yeltsin is saying that Ukraine and Byelorussia have agreed to destroy their nuclear weapons. But the Presidents of those two Republics are reportedly saying that they will not get rid of their nuclear weapons or the nuclear weapons on their soil unless Boris Yeltsin gets rid of his. And the President of the Islamic Republic of Kazakhstan is now saying that he wants to keep his nuclear arms. Secretary of State Baker is saying he has no more concern than normal. But are not Americans right to be concerned about nuclear stability in that part of the world? One of the things that we are trying to do in handling this peaceful evolution in the Soviet Union, in the Republics, is to be sure that the nuclear question is handled well. And one of the reasons I spend a fair amount of time on this question is because I think I owe it to the American people to use the best of our ability to see that this nuclear question is handled correctly. We are getting proper assurances from all about the safe disposal of and accounting for and control of nuclear weapons.


I have got a couple of opening comments, and we will go around the table a couple of times and answer your questions. First, I am really looking forward to my trip. We are involved with a lot of interesting initiatives that will help the world grow toward peace and freedom, and this trip will be an opportunity to not only to talk about American values but to talk with friends, allies, important parties about how working together we can achieve grand goals, the goals of peace, the goals of freedom, the goals of hope and prosperity. I start off in Poland. It is my second trip to Poland since I have been ENTITY. I am going to Krakow; I am going to Auschwitz. I am going to give a speech, which I am still working on right now, but it is a speech that reminds us that together we can achieve the big objective. It is a speech, really, to Europe that says that our common values are strong and that we welcome the emergence of countries like free countries like Poland, and as well as we must be reminded of the lessons of the past. I am going to Auschwitz to see firsthand one of the greatest lessons of the past, that there is evil in this world and that the only way to deal with the evil is together. And we did so in the past, and now there is you know, terrorism and killing of innocent people is evil, and we have got to work together to achieve the same objectives that were achieved in the past, and that is peace and freedom. And then I go on to St. Petersburg to not only honor the great city of St. Petersburg, their 300th anniversary, but also to have an important dialog with Vladimir Putin. It will be a dialog that will really show the world that in spite of our disagreements over what happened in Iraq, that our relationship is strong and that we can move together in positive ways. Then I go to the G-8. I know the press corps is going to be you know, they will be observing the G-8 as a great you know, will this turn into a meeting a confrontational meeting? It is an opportunity to talk with some who agreed with us on Iraq and some who did not , about how we move forward. And I have laid the groundwork for the trip by talking about some great goals that wealthy nations can achieve. One, of course, is to fight ENTITY in Africa.

Interview With Print Journalists


Another which is to enhance trade, so that people have a chance to rise out of poverty, and others address famine as well as to continue to keep our focus on dealing with those terrorists who would like to hold the world blackmail the world as well as to kill innocents, take innocent life. I then go from there to the Middle East. One, it says that I am committed to the peace process; that I look forward to working with the new Palestinian leadership as well as Ariel Sharon to make it clear to the world that we have as leaders, we have the intention of working together to achieve peace, that there is a commitment, a personal commitment, not just by me but a personal commitment by Prime Minister Abbas as well was Prime Minister Sharon, to work together to achieve peace; and that there are responsibilities that all of us have as leaders, not only responsibility to the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, not only the responsibility of the Israeli Prime Minister, but a responsibility for the leadership in the Arab world to fight terror, prevent killers from stopping the process from going forward. And so the first stop will be in Sharm el-Sheikh, in Egypt. I am really looking forward to the visit. President Mubarak has urged me, consistently urged me to come to Sharm el-Sheikh, and this is my chance to see this spectacular part of Egypt. And that is where I am going to meet with the Arab leaders, some of the Arab leaders, to talk about shared responsibility. I want them to hear from me firsthand the commitment of the United States of America to move toward peace in the Middle East. And I want them also to hear from me firsthand that I expect them to be partners in the process. And then I am going to go to Jordan. Of course, I will see the King of Jordan. I believe the King is going to be in Sharm el-Sheikh as well. And then I will have a bilateral meeting with the King. It will give me a chance to thank him for his strong support on the liberation of Iraq. I am sure he will want to talk about matters of trade with the United States, and I will be fully prepared to do so. And then I will meet with the Prime Minister of both the Palestinian Authority and of Israel, and I am looking forward to these meetings. I believe in the possibilities of peace. I trust the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority when he condemns terror.

Interview With Print Journalists


I believe that provides an opening for the United States and others to expend the necessary energies to move the process forward. I will remind them that I was the first President ever to stand up and say I am for two states, living side by side in peace. And I did so at the United Nations. I still have that vision. So I will talk to these two leaders about our mutual desire to move the process forward. And then I go to Qatar, where I will meet with General Franks and Jerry Bremer to talk about the reconstruction of Iraq. I will also meet with Amir of Qatar and then speak to our troops, and head home. Let me answer some questions. The trouble is that so many people still have suspicions; they are afraid. No, I understand your question. Oftentimes, we live in a processed world you know, people focus on the process and not results. Let us work together to achieve positive results. And I fully understand, for example, the Middle East it is a suspicious world. And until people see the emergence of a Palestinian state, there will be suspicions; until I can prove for the average Palestinian citizen, there will be suspicions. And so I fully understand the skepticism. I mean, after all, we are dealing in a world where there is a lot of heartbreak, a lot of death, a lot of sorrow, a lack of hope. I have got great confidence in what America stands for. I have said to our country and to the world many times that in order for there to be peace, there must be freedom. And I believe that a free Palestinian Authority and a free Palestinian people will yield to peace in that part of the world. Therefore, we are striving toward the development of such a state. And until people begin to see, however, the results of that vision, people will be skeptical. And the only thing I can do is to continue to speak out as clearly as I can about the values which motivate our foreign policy and motivate me personally and work hard to achieve results, tangible results. And when people see results, when the people see that the Iraqi people are more free and that their economy begins to develop, when people see that the Iraqi people have control of their own oil for the benefit of the Iraqi people, then some of the suspicions will be turned aside. I will never win the hearts of the terrorists, nor am I trying to, because the terrorists have got one thing in mind, murder to stop peace.

Interview With Print Journalists


And it stands in stark contrast to what I believe, which is freedom to bring peace. So, you know, there are some I would never try to win their hearts and minds over that are absolutely bent upon stopping not only what the United States is trying to do but a lot of other nations as well. I understand skepticism; I understand the attitudes of some; but I refuse to be stopped in my desire to rally the world toward achieving positive results for each individual. I have said many times that freedom and human dignity is not America's gift to the world; it is the Almighty God's gift to each and every individual. And I firmly believe that. And it is that principle which motivates my desire to see to it that the Palestinian mother or father can raise their child in a comfortable environment, knowing that their child can have a good education and the possibility of a peaceful life. And I feel the same way about the Israeli citizen who grows up, a child who grows up in an environment where they can go to the market with their mother or father and get blown away. We must stop that kind of violence and provide hope for people. So what do you think will happen if the rush for the settlements continue? And how would it affect your vision of having a Palestinian state with borders and with land, a viable Palestinian state? I believe a viable Palestinian state with the institutions necessary for democracy and freedom to prevail, the institutions bigger than the occupants of the offices which they hold, is very important to gain the confidence not only of the neighborhood, the confidence of the Israelis, the confidence of other Arab nations, but the confidence of the free world as well. So I believe the emergence of a Palestinian state is very important. I have consistently said that the Israelis are going to have to deal with the settlement issue and that there is a part of the process is going to be a focus on the settlements. I fully understand that settlement expansion is not in concert with the development of a state. And we will deal with that. And I will also remind everybody, however, that the process in order for the process to go forward, in order for there to be confidence of all parties, there must be an absolute determined effort to fight off terror, to not allow the few to destroy the process. I believe we can make progress, otherwise I would not be going. Well, since I am French, I will ask you a French question. Well, I will try to do it in American.

Interview With Print Journalists


A number of American high officials have repeatedly said that France would have to pay the price for its opposition to your policy in Iraq. So far, we did not see much as far as reprisals are concerned. Have you forgiven France? I look forward to working with France to achieve common objectives. People did not understand the decisions by the French leadership to thwart the desire for the American the American desire and the desire of others to work on security and freedom, security for our countries and freedom in Iraq. However, that is not going to influence my policy. Let us work together for a Europe which is whole, free, and at peace, a Europe in which countries are allowed to be friends of the United States and at the same time participate in institutions such as the European Union; that rivalry will end up weakening our efforts to jointly deal with issues like security and peace and ENTITY and trade. So, no, I will have a good discussion with Jacques Chirac, and I am looking forward to going to the G-8, not only talking to Jacques Chirac; I will talk with others who have not necessarily agreed with our Iraq policy. We have got a lot of work to do. And I have got work to do to convince the skeptics in France that the intentions of the United States are positive. And the French leadership has got work to do to convince the American people that they are concerned about the security of our country. And I will look forward to conducting that work with Jacques Chirac. ENTITY, please allow me in genuine Texan style to grab the bull by the horns. It is quite obvious that your personal relations with Mr. Putin are much more developed, much more warm than the relations between Russia and the United States. We need to get rid of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, I want you to know. Make sure the Russian people know that. And this difference between your personal relations and the relations between our countries creates negative feelings in the Russian public opinion and among Russian elites. And that is why I think it somehow hinders President Bush for his in his quest for further democratization and westernization of Russia. My question is, what do you want to undertake to upgrade the Russian-American relations to the same level as your personal relations with Mr. Putin, including, of course, the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which became in Russia, unfortunately, the litmus paper of our relations?

Interview With Print Journalists


And by the way, our Russian Jews are a little bit indignant that they are replaced by the American chicken. And we do not understand in Russia how the genuine American eagle can defeat an artificial American chicken. Well, first of all, at least we are arguing about chickens and not about whether or not we have got enough missiles pointed at each other. By the way, ENTITY, before you start answering my question, you can already do something in improving our relations. I brought two books. If you sign them, you will improve the relations. It is for my I am certainly not going to try to influence your story. Oh, no, no for my Presidential library, which has all the signed books and pictures of all American Presidents, beginning with Eisenhower and, of course, your highly esteemed father. First of all, Vladimir Putin and I do have a good relationship. And that is an important beginning in order to make sure the relationship is positive throughout our respective Governments. If we had a poisonous relationship, it would be awfully difficult to convince others in our Governments to work closely together. Secondly, I did take note that the Moscow Treaty was overwhelmingly approved by both Houses in the Duma. As a matter of fact, if you think back, people if you put this in historical context, this treaty is pretty darn good progress early in our respective administrations. In other words, Vladimir and I made the decision that we will work together to create better conditions and make the world a more peaceful place. One way to enhance relations between our Governments is to have a meaningful and real strategic dialog throughout our entire Government on key matters, so that the participants in both our Governments recognize that we are willing to not only share information but to deal with issues before they become problems and to work together in a collaborative way to show the world that we can handle and deal with some of the large issues, such as proliferation, for example. So therefore, we have got Spence Abraham, our Secretary of Energy, working very closely with his counterpart. Secretary Veneman has got a task force set up to work very Agriculture Secretary to work very closely with her counterpart not only on chickens, but on other issues dealing with our farm communities. This dialog, this kind of strategic framework was initiated at my request and I think at Vladimir's request as well. But Condi, when she went over to Russia, began the setting in place this capacity for our two Governments to relate on a variety of issues in a consistent way.

Interview With Print Journalists


Now, I agree with Vladimir, we need to get rid of Jackson-Vanik, and have talked to our some of the folks on the Hill to deal with this issue. And I would like to get rid of Jackson-Vanik. I think it is an important symbol to say to the Russian people, The past is over. Now we move forward in a positive relationship. What role, if any, you foresee for international organizations like the U.N. or NATO in the future, for instance, in the war against terrorism and any other international conflict? NATO I see a robust role for NATO, which says that NATO must reform herself. NATO has got to be a military collaboration that is modern, that can move quickly, that is got the newest weapons. I will speak to NATO when I go to Poland. It is part of my speech in Krakow. And it is I am a strong advocate of NATO. As you know, I, with Warsaw, talked about the expansion of NATO, which, thankfully, came to fruition and had been ratified the expansion has been ratified in our United States Senate, overwhelmingly so. NATO is now its vision is beyond the old days of when the Soviet Union posed a threat to Europe. NATO is now willing to take on new assignments, all aimed at creating the same conditions of the past, in other words, a peaceful and free world. And that is why NATO is now in Afghanistan. I welcome that. NATO will play a supportive role for Poland in Iraq. I want to thank the Polish people for their and the Government for sending, I believe, 8,000 or 9,000 troops to run a sector in Iraq. And NATO has agreed to help in that sector, help the Polish troops. I think that my point to you is NATO is becoming more modern, and a more modern NATO is going to be very useful for dealing with the true threats that we face in the 21st century. In terms of the United Nations, it is going to be important for all of us to work to keep the United Nations a strong and viable institution. And I think a useful dialog at some point in time will be how to make sure the United Nations has adapted to the threats we face. Obviously, it was a frustrating experience to have gone to the United Nations and spent a lot of time and a lot of debate on whether or not United Nations resolutions should be upheld. I believe in this world, when you say something, you'd better mean it.

Interview With Print Journalists


And I gave the speech, as you might remember, on September the 12th, 2002, in the United Nations, the day after the anniversary of the attacks on our country. And I said to the United Nations, You have passed resolution after resolution after resolution I think is said it 12 times and my point was, Do you mean it? And my answer in a rhetorical if that is a rhetorical question, my answer to you is, I hope they mean it, because I want the United Nations to be an effective body. However, its effectiveness is undermined when they say something and nothing happens. And therefore, we have got to, all of us who care about the United Nations, must figure out how to make it effective in the future. ENTITY, if you would permit me a couple of detailed questions. Do I need to write these down, because my memory is getting somewhat . I am getting that too. Sir, on the issue of Iraq, it looks like a messy situation. Are you worried about a lengthy American-British occupation of Iraq? Let me answer that one first. Then will you permit me the Palestinian question? And that you admitted you have got a flawed memory like I do. First of all, you made a broad statement, the security situation, as if all of Iraq is there is lawlessness in all of Iraq. A lot of Iraq is improving from the pre-war conditions, and that is important to know. And we are dealing with that. And we will deal with that for the sake of the Iraqi people, who want most first and foremost, to have a secure life, food on the table, lights in their house, running water, sewage that works. They want the conditions of life that everybody yearns for, which is a comfortable lifestyle so their families can be secure. And we are making progress on all fronts. I fully understand the degree of difficulty, and it is created by the fact that these people have been enslaved by a torturous ruler for many, many years. And therefore, I do not expect the conditions to improve automatically after 70 days. And it is going to take a while. And therefore, to answer your question I do not view it as an occupation, by the way. I view it as a group of nations. You said British and Americans. There are many, many nations who are involved in the contribution of help so that the Iraqi people are able to establish their own Government and have comfortable lives and can be a free society.

Interview With Print Journalists


And it is going to take a while. And I remind you that it is like the writing of the Constitution. America, after our revolution, did not write its Constitution overnight. As a matter of fact, it probably took, what, 11 years or so. We live in a world now where everything has to happen yesterday. He will not be correcting me much longer. Do not worry, he will be correcting me, but on TV. Anyway, 13 years, as my man corrected me. The process will take a while. I am in touch with Jerry Bremer. I mentioned to you that I will see him when I go over to Qatar. We get a report all the time. And we are making progress, slowly but surely. And that is and it makes sense, given the conditions. And so, therefore, our coalition of a lot of countries will stay the course, until such time as the Iraqi people the life is improved and the Iraqi people would be in a position to, you know, run themselves. Freedom is going to be a beautiful thing in this part of the world. It is a very powerful sentiment that I believe all people feel. And therefore, one of our ambitions and one of our values is to create the conditions necessary for the Iraqi people to run their own Government. And you will see over time here that they will be getting a group of people will be coming together to write a constitution. And you know, it'll be a constitution written by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis, and of the Iraqis. Now, look, I recognize there are some in the world who say Iraq cannot run themselves. I refuse to condemn people. I mean, They need a dictatorship in order for the country to survive. I do not believe that. It is just not in my makeup. That is just not what I think. I think people I think the Iraqi people are plenty competent about running themselves. It is just going to take a while to go from a society in which one person dominated and killed and murdered people in order to stay in power. I mean, we have discovered an unbelievable amount of graves. And by the way, we have discovered weapons manufacturing facilities that were condemned by the United Nations; biological laboratories described by our Secretary of State to the whole world, that were not supposed to be there, in direct violation of the U.N. resolution, have been discovered.

Interview With Print Journalists


Thanks for giving me a chance to say that, so the American press, in particular, could hear it off the record, of course. Sir, on the Palestinian issue, what if the government of Mr. Abbas really becomes unable no matter how much it puts up an effort to produce eliminating these operations, the suicide bombings what if he fails? Is this a failure of the peace process, of the roadmap? Would you then give it up? And then can you afford, really, sir, to pressure Mr. Ariel Sharon in a pre-reelection stage? Can you really do that? I do not know about listen, if I were afraid of making the decisions necessary, for political reasons, to move the process forward, I would not be going. I believe peace is possible, and I believe that I have a responsibilities, now that the conditions are such, to move the process forward. Well, there is a new Palestinian leader who is openly, firmly committed to fighting terror. And I believe he can be successful, particularly when the Arab world helps him. I believe the conditions are such that people are so sick and tired of a hopeless situation in that part of the world that together we can defeat the forces of terror and dismantle the forces of terror. That is not to say that a suicider could slip through, and it is possible, but we will not allow the evil designs of a few to stop the process that can provide such hope for a lot of people. So I believe, with the right effort and the right focus and the leadership, not only of the United States and Israel and the Palestinian Authority but the leadership of Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other nations of concern, Jordan, that we can defeat terror, the forces of terror that would like to stop the process. ENTITY, you mentioned today that you want to have commitment from the parties about the peace process. Do you want to have, like, concrete steps? Are you going to ask them for concrete steps, like what? And then in Sharm el-Sheikh, what do you want what do you look to get from the Arabs? And you are meeting with President Mubarak also.  Well, listen, President Mubarak and I have had a lot of meetings and a lot of conversations. And I am confident that he will bring up bilateral relations. As you know, we have got a very strong commitment to Egypt, particularly a funding commitment. And we want to look forward to a I will talk to him about economic reforms.

Interview With Print Journalists


And there is no telling what he will talk to me about. We have got such a good relationship that he does not need to pre-clear it with anybody. He can say what is on his mind. I will be glad to visit with him about it. Yes, I mean, first of all, we have a road-map which talks about specific things people need to do. The most constructive thing that the Arab nations can do is to stop funding terrorism to the extent that is to stop the funding of terrorism, make sure you get that right is the work to cut off monies to terrorists whose design it is to stop any peace process. To me, that is the most fundamental task. Secondly, as conditions improve, it would be very helpful if those in the neighborhood provide financial resources to help the economy of a new Palestinian state begin to grow. I recently met with the finance minister of the Palestinian Authority, was very impressed by his grasp of finances, by the fact that he believes that in order for there to be confidence amongst the Palestinians and confidence in the world that they have got to fight corruption. Listen, stories used to emerge out of the in the old days, of the Palestinian Authority that much of the aid went to enhance a few, as opposed to the people. And I do not stand for that, at least from American perspective. We are not going to let corrupt elites take aid that is supposed to go help the people. And so when the institutions evolve and confidence emerges that the develop aid will go to help the Palestinian people, which I want it to do, that will be a useful role for the Arab world. And I look forward to working with them on it. But the main thing is for them to see me and my commitment to the process. And it is one thing to read about it in stories; it is another thing to look a person in the eye and tell them, Let us work together. And that is what I am looking forward to doing. I have got very good relations with President Mubarak and Crown Prince Abdullah and the King of Jordan, Gulf Coast countries. I have worked very closely with them. And a lot of them ask me, Well, are you going to move forward now that there is a new Palestinian Authority, a leader of the Palestinian Authority, somebody that you see, the old leader of the Palestinian Authority is somebody who had a chance to lead and did not .

Interview With Print Journalists


He has been in power a long time, and the life of the Palestinian people have gotten worse, not better. I remember what happened at Camp David during the tenure of my predecessor. So I have always said, we need to be able to work with somebody who is committed to peace. And I believe the new Prime Minister is committed to peace. And therefore, I want to share that with the leaders. Sir, can you assure that the other party is committed without reservations?  It is a big problem to the Palestinians now. Well, there is a reservation, and there should be a reservation of all parties, and that is the reservation of security. In other words, people are not going to go forward with a process unless there is a full commitment to enhance the security of all people. And remember, terrorist killers not only affect the security of the Israelis; they affect the security of the Palestinian people. You cannot have a Palestinian state if people continue to blow up the process. And therefore, it is in all our interest to work together on security. And I am convinced that as the area becomes more secure, as the institutions necessary for a democracy to emerge, that we will have a positive partner in Israel. I believe that. I believe they want peace. Most Israelis understand two states, side by side in peace, is in their national interest. And so I think the ingredients for peace are very possible. And the conditions are to work together to stop the killers from stopping the process, and I share that condition too. And I suspect a lot of the Arab leaders share that condition as well, because they fully understand the consequences of terrorist groups of taking innocent life. Well, I take it back. Thirty years ago, the G-7 or G-8 summit was set up to coordinate the big powers They were set up to coordinate the big powers, the economic strategists. Or will it be everyone for himself, with the U.S. capitalizing on the slide of the dollar? It is very important that we do spend time talking about our respective economies. It is essential that the G-8 meeting remember why it was first started, because much of it many of the grand goals that we have, together, are very difficult to achieve if the economies, our respective economies, are not strong. You just heard me talk about a hopeful Palestinian state will require trade and commerce.

Interview With Print Journalists


And if the wealthier nations are not generating cashflow and the capacity to be able to trade with other countries, then it is going to be difficult to achieve our goals. And so, absolutely, I will tell them that here at home we are have got sound monetary and fiscal policies. After all, I just signed a tax bill yesterday that will cut the taxes by $350 billion, which will help energize growth here in America. I will reiterate our strong dollar policy. I will talk to listen to their plans and initiatives to reform their economies. I had a very good discussion with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan about economic matters. As a matter of fact, we want the European economies to be strong. It is more likely somebody in America will be able to find a job if our closest trading partners have got vibrant economies. So we need to spend a lot of time on this subject. And I will remind them that we have a great opportunity on the next round of the World Trade Organization to advance a free trade agenda, which I believe will make it more likely people in our respective countries can work. But it will make it more likely that nations will be able to rise out of poverty. And we will focus on the economy. You got rid of the policy that My whole family laughed when they heard that. You did not exactly answer the question. No, I answered it. You see what do you mean, did not exactly answer the question? You have got my answer on your tape machine. No, you have got my answer on the tape machine. It is an old trick they use in the American press corps too, You did not answer my question. What are you talking about? I spent 15 minutes answering your question. You might not like the answer but, nevertheless, I did answer it, absolutely answered it. And I loved the question. I look forward to working with the French. ENTITY, do you visualize Russia as a member of the World Trade Organization, and in the future, the member of the NATO? I think that the question on NATO is a question that will be answered over time, but first things first. Let us deal with the framework we have now set up, which is a great advance and a tribute to Vladimir Putin's leadership and our NATO leader's desire to have a unique relationship with Russia. In terms of the WTO, it is in our national interest that Russia join the WTO.

Interview With Print Journalists


And Russia is going to have to make some internal decisions as to whether or not they are willing to conform to the guidelines of the WTO. But we I strongly support Russia's admission in the WTO. Do you see the issue of restitution of Jewish property as a problem in Polish-American relations? You know, it has not made it to it has not made it to my desk. And so, therefore, if it is a problem, it is a problem that has not been brought to my attention. In other words, a lot of Polish Americans have yet to express themselves to the point where it has become an issue here in the White House. I think it is very important let me speak to the broader issue of Jewish relations around the world. It is very important for all of us to reject anti-Semitism wherever it is found, just like it is very important for us to reject those who condemn Islam. Our Nation is one that believes in freedom of religion, and we respect and tolerate people's religious faiths, no matter what their faith. And so my greater concern about Judaism and Europe is that society resist and thwart a culture which would tolerate any kind of antireligious fervor, anti-Semitism, or an anti-Islamic bent. In other words, one of the things I did I thought was most important was right after September 11th, went to a Islamic center here. I wanted to send a signal that the evil people who hijacked a great religion should not condemn that religion. In other words, Americans should not hold Islam accountable for the deaths. And so one of the things we believe here in America is religious tolerance. And I will continue to speak out on religious tolerances in a clear fashion. As I said, I am going to Auschwitz for a reason. I want to go I want to see Auschwitz. I have studied a lot of history. But I also want to send a clear signal that all of us must work together to make sure that kind of evil never happens again to anybody. At any rate, I am looking forward to going. I want to thank you all for your interest. What do you think about a third presidential term in the United States? I am only supportive of a second term these days.

Interview With Print Journalists


Okay, I'd like to go off the record. We will start with the older people first. Well, one of the things that we were all interested in is Secretary Rice going to Ira When did you decide about that, and what is that all about? Decided when it looked like that there was serious momentum on the legislative front, that she could help push the momentum by her very presence. So I cannot remember the exact moment; I would say it was maybe 10 days ago or something like that, when we were getting word that their budget moving, the deBa'ath law was on its it had gone through two readings, I think, before the holidays. So it seemed to make sense that she go sit down with the and the Presidency Council happened to meet yesterday, which was good. So she is going to go and sit down with the leaders and encourage them to continue making progress. By the way, I talk to the Prime Minister quite frequently on secure SVTS, which is a real-time feed from our Embassy in Baghdad to the Situation Room in the White House. I meet with Ryan Crocker and David General Petraeus weekly, and it is like a meeting. Yes, she will be back this evening; probably hold a press conference here this evening. The Saudis want to have a press conference with the Foreign Minister and Condi. Time and location because, you know, you do not want to set the time and have her not be back for it. But her intention is to get back here for dinner at the King's ranch. 40 a.m. or left the facility here at 6:40 a.m. And I presume it is , like, on the news, right? I have not seen the news.  It is to, first of all, be there. And secondly, is to there is a momentum; there is a political process that has been working that is with some of those laws coming to fruition. Her job is to be there, sitting down with them, explaining how much we appreciate what they have done, how they need to do more and keep moving the process. You know, we have been talking about these benchmarks for so long. Do you really feel like maybe now it is starting to turn a corner a bit, or is that too early to say? First of all, I think we have been talking about the benchmarks for how long? Almost a year now, is not it? It grows when people have confidence.

Interview With Journalists in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia


It grows when the grass-roots begins to agitate for change. Those are all the forces necessary to bring people together to get things done. This is we assume that democracy is a natural phenomenon for people out there. These are people that lived under tyranny. They lived in a society that was divided by a dictator. And they are beginning to form the habits of self-government, manifested in laws being passed. I am not going to predict, Steven Lee, about moving this forward. I can only assure you that we will continue to work the process as hard as we can. I reminded everybody last year, you know, people did focus on the benchmarks, and so do I. But I also reminded everybody last year that one way to determine whether or not a government is functioning is to look at their budgeting process and how they distribute revenues from central Government out to the Provinces, which is a key component of a federalized-type system. And the definition of federalism, by the way, has yet to be clearly defined in Iraq, and that is part of the issues they are working through. But it is a proper role between the state government central Government and the Provinces, and that is another piece of legislation that is part of the benchmark process. But nevertheless, even though they have not passed that, there is revenue sharing. Do they have an oil law yet? Are they sharing oil revenues that would be inherent under an oil law? I knew you were anxious to ask because you are waving your hand. Look, this is not like the White House press conferences. I never know when you are going to be shuffled out before I get a chance. Stand your ground, whatever you do. I just wanted to ask you if you could just clarify a little bit your statement this morning to OPEC. What specific action would you like them to take at their first meeting coming up February? I would like for them to realize that high energy prices affect the economies of consuming nations, and that if these economies weaken, those economies will eventually be buying fewer barrels of oil. What is happened is, is that demand for energy has outstripped new supply. And I fully understand how it affects the U.S. consumer. And my point to His Majesty is going to be, when consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline in other words, when it affects their families it could cause this economy to slow down. If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of oil purchased.


Now in our case, just so the American people know, most of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico. That is what I meant. Did you bring it up already? I brought it up with members of his administration and will do so with him tonight on the farm. Can you talk a little bit about your discussions with him so far and whether you have had a meeting of minds on any issues, whether it is Iran, Iraq I appreciate that. first, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I think what he really wanted to determine was how when I said, optimistic about a state being defined, why? So he is interested in the meetings, interested in the behind-the-scenes observations that I was able to share with him. He is part of my mission was to make it clear that one reason why the talks failed in the past is that there was not participation by the neighbors. And I thanked him, in front of the people assembled there, for sending his Foreign Minister to Annapolis, because the presence of Saudi at Annapolis inspired the Palestinians as well as sent a message to the Israelis Israeli population, for example. We did spend time on Iran. The interesting issue on Iran is the effect of the NIE. And I went over the NIE with him. I assured him that our intelligence services came to an independent judgment. I reminded him of what I said at my press conference when we got involved with that story. They were a threat, they are a threat, and they will be a threat if we do not work together to stop their enrichment. So we spent a fair amount of time on Iran. I have spent a fair amount of time on Iran in every stop. Many of the leaders in the region, many of the people I have spoken to, equate troubled times with no peace between the Palestinian and Israelis. It is the subject matter that, if you follow this subject, you know that this is on a lot of people's minds. And so they were they wanted to make sure that the efforts by the United States were real and how we conducted our policy wise. It is interesting; they were not all that interested in, okay, give me the negotiating points, or where are you, or what are the talking points on both sides, or where are we in the negotiations. They are interested in commitment and vision. I would like to share a universal concern I have heard on this trip, and that is, the United States will not welcome foreign capital or does not welcome foreign capital.


I heard it from entrepreneurs; I have heard it from government leaders. They are concerned about reinvestment of dollars back into the United States. And there is our visa policy concerns the leaders because they know full well that the best way these are pro-American leaders, and they know the best way to defeat some perceptions that may exist on the street is for their people to go see America firsthand, like colleges and business travel. And our visa policy is getting better in some fronts, but we have still got some work to do. So I came away with the distinct impression about a concern by government and citizen alike that the United States says, not welcome. And that troubles me because that is not the way our country is. On the NIE, did you were you, in effect, distancing yourself from the conclusions of the NIE, and these guys No, I was making it clear it was an independent judgment, because what they basically came to the conclusion of, is that he is trying you know, this is a way to make sure that all options are not on the table. So I defended our intelligence services, but made it clear that they are an independent agency, that they come to conclusions separate from what I may or may not want. And on the issue of Iran, did the question of a possible military strike either by the United States or Israel come up? I just made it clear that all options are on the table. But I'd like to solve this diplomatically and think we can and talked about making sure consistent messages emanated from all parts of the world to the Iranians. Related to that, this confrontation in the Straits with the Iranian gunboats, are the rules of engagement going to change on that? You have warned of serious consequences if they do it again. I said, If they destroy our ships, yes. If they destroy our ships, there will be serious consequences. I did not say, If they do it again. If they do it again, I do not know. What do you mean, If they do it again ?  Our captains I was briefed by the admiral in Bahrain about the rules of engagement. But I just was wondering whether the next time something like that is attempted by one of these Iranian boats, they might be fired on. It is going to be up to the captain to determine whether or not his vessel is in jeopardy. My only point is, they should not be doing it.


It was provocative in the first place, and our captain showed restraint. These are judgment calls, and there are clear rules of engagement. Our people operate under very strict rules in the Straits, and so should the Iranians. And they better be careful of and not be provocative and, you know, get out there and cause an incident, because there is going to be serious consequences. And what I said in my statement was, if they hit one of our ships, there are going to be serious consequences, and I meant it. Do you have any sense of what they were up to? Do you think they were playing some sort of game? I was briefed; I spent some time in Bahrain with you know, when I went over there for the breakfast with the troops, command briefed us, our security team, on what are the rules of engagement, you know, and how do they work, how does it react. This is one of these moments where there is no time to be spending a lot time on the phone trying to figure out what to do. And there is these are highly trained professionals who, I thought, dealt with it in a very professional way. It could be. IRGC or versus the military , but you know something? It is not going to matter to me one way or the other if they hit our ships, and the Iranian Government has got to understand that. We lost lives when one of those boats loaded with explosives attacked us called the USS Cole. In this case, it would be states it would be the actions of a state. Whoever made the is in control of these boats best be careful. You were suggesting that this could be could have been directed by the Revolutionary Guard? His question was, do we know the chain of command? There is several chains of command inside the it was a very perceptive comment by the lad, and it was there are separate military organizations, separate organizations inside Iran, and so we do not know. The IRGC could be is a player inside Iran. Do not write the story that I am predicting who made this decision, because I am telling you I cannot be any more plain about it I do not know. And my other was, it is not going to matter who made the decision. If they hit our ships, we will hold Iran responsible. Can we ask you on You can ask me anything you want. If I do not want to answer, I will say, I do not want to answer it. Are you in a good mood?


Dates put you in a good mood, right? I am in a great mood. Which kind of dates are you talking about? In your discussions with King Abdallah and other Gulf Arab leaders, were they in any way urging restraint? Were they in any way urging you restraint in your dealings with Iran? I told them that I want to solve this issue diplomatically. I explained to them the diplomacy we are going through. They need to make it clear to nations that do business with Iran that if we want to solve this diplomatically, there needs to be pressure on the regime so that some the hope is, is that somebody shows up and says, We are tired of being isolated, and we are tired of the economic deprivation that comes from our desire to enrich. I also explained to them why I support the Russian position. And for those of you who follow the White House and have listened carefully to what I have been saying, know full well that is been my position for quite a while. Because I said early on that I supported the Iranian desire for they said, every sovereign nation has the right for a civilian nuclear power. I said, the problem with you is, you have not honored the international agreements you being the Iranians. And secondly therefore, we cannot trust you with enrichment. But because I believe that you have a sovereign right for nuclear power, I support the Russian idea of providing you with enriched uranium and collecting the spent uranium, thereby undermining their position that they need to learn to enrich in order to have civilian nuclear power. And the danger with enrichment for civilian so-called civilian purposes is, is that that technology can be transferred easily to another covert military program. Knowledge is transferable, and so what I have explained to our friends in the region is the best way to stop any potential weapons program is I have also explained to them our position is, is that if they verifiably suspend their program, there is a way forward for dialogue through the P-3 process. What do you call what do we call that? Are you hogging this? I do not remember that. What did he say? Oh, he said there was concern about what the Israelis might do. Who? Bruce Riedel he used to work on the NSC said that he came back from a visit to Iran Can we ask you about let us go back on the economy.


You talked about the threat of the economy slowing down if consumers buy less oil, or can The price of energy can have an effect on economic growth. I was talking about they were asking me about what I am going to say to King Abdallah. And I am going to say, high energy prices can affect economic growth because it is painful for our consumers. My question is, you have talked about inheriting a recession when you came into office. You are a year away from leaving office. Do you think that your successor is going to wind up in the same boat? I have always said these are times of economic uncertainty, but I have confidence in the future immediate future because the underpinnings of our economy are good. Inflation core inflation is low; we have still got some. We have still got some issues, obviously, and one of them is the housing market. That is one of the things the leaders have been interested in, is my views on the economy. It is the R word. My position has not changed from 3 days ago, or whatever it was, when I commented on this. The fact that you are optimistic, that suggests does that mean that you are not going to suggest any change in your tax policy or And we will let you know if I decide one way or the other. ENTITY, I am wondering if you can talk a little bit about what you are hearing from Arab leaders Sorry, ENTITY, I have already answered that. I am used to it. About the Palestinian-Israeli issue, what kind of feedback are you hearing? I will be glad to tell you again. The first question in their mind is, one, why do I sound optimistic? Two, are we going to spend the time and effort to help move the process? I made it clear to them that in order for this to work, they have got to be supportive of the Palestinians and make it clear that Israel is an important part of the future of the Middle East. Do the Arab States recognize Israel? I mean, do they want to have they shown any sign that they want to improve relations with Israel? I think the fact that they sent major players in their administration to Annapolis was a sign. That answers your question. And they want to see a deal done, and they want progress because the issue frustrates them.


As I said earlier, Michael, this issue is kind of the touchstone in their mind for a lot of other problems in the Middle East; you solve this, then a lot of other problems go away. I hope they are right on that. I will be glad to go off the record and tell you why now. Sir, if I could just follow on that point. I noted that the King of Bahrain mentioned the peace process in his statement when he welcomed you. We have not heard similar statements. I understand that they sent their representatives. Do you think that many of the Arab leaders are still holding back a little bit; they want to see, perhaps, a little more progress towards a deal before they are willing to come out and start talking about things like recognition of Israel? First of all, after years of disappointment, those of us directly involved in the process have a lot of work to try to instill confidence in the people. And I think laying back is too strong a word, but I think wondering whether this can happen is the right way to put it, Steven Lee. They are willing to send a in the Saudis' case, their Foreign Minister to Annapolis. They are most interested we spent a lot of time on this subject in each stop because they are most interested in getting my point of view about how I think the process is going to unfold, what are the problems, what can the U.S. do to help, and will we be actively involved. They have this great hope that the United States involvement will cause the process to be more likely to move forward. I want to apologize for our tardiness. If you covered this, I apologize for that too. Which reminds me of the question, did you get what I mouthed to you there? What do you hope to get out of the King, or what do you hope to accomplish with this talk about our economy and the impact of high prices? Well, first of all is a realization that high energy prices can damage consuming economies. It can hurt the economy. And it has not it is been it is affected our families. Do not get me wrong; paying more for gasoline hurts some of the American families. And I will make that clear to him. But I also understand the dynamics behind the issue, and that is growing demand from U.S., but more particularly, China and India, relative to supply. Oil is a commodity; it is not something you just turn a tap.


I mean, it requires investment, exploration, a lot of capital. I talked to His Majesty early on in my Presidency in the hopes that they would explore for new fields; they have. They have increased their capacity. But in the meantime, demand has gone up quite substantially. Well, do you want him to open the spigot more? Do you want him to lower the prices? What does that mean? That is what I hope that OPEC, if possible, understands that if they could put more supply on the market, it would be helpful. But a lot of these economies are going a lot of these oil-producing countries are full out. I would follow up on that the security barrier what I was trying to get out of my question was the notion that if ENTITY You did not think of it until I said, Nice question. You were coming with this? And so I did not get a follow-up. I was not going to give you a follow-up in front of the cameras anyway. The question I had is, do you see a day someday when some President in the future will come and say to some Israeli leader and Palestinian leader that it is time for that wall to come down, not unlike Ronald Reagan's You know, I do not think in the short term that day will come. I meant barrier, is what I meant, the barrier you drove through Well, no, it is not, in all due respect to the questioner. It was your question; of course, it is the same question. What I meant to say was . Look, first of all, the state comes into being subject to the roadmap, which requires security measures being in place so that the Israeli population is comfortable that it is not going to have a state that harbors people that want to destroy them. The reason why you articulate a vision is to give people inside the Palestinian Territories, who do not want violence and who do not want to destroy Israel, a chance to be for something. This is how I answered the question. The wall is a was necessary, in the Israelis' minds, to protect themselves. It is that sense of security which I hope will give them a chance their politicians a chance to negotiate the deal. In other words, it is a series of security measures that will eventually cause a state to come into being. And whether or not the wall comes down or not, I cannot predict that to you, Steven Lee.