And these documents show the dates on which he was paid, which means those are the days on which you serve. I do not have -- Roger, I am sorry, I do not have an hour-by-hour itemization of everything he was doing 30 years ago. Are you able to make out any of the paid amounts? How much did he get? I cannot read the letters. And again, this is going to be put out in the email version, as well, and you are welcome to contact the Personnel Center. I am sure that they will be glad to help you, as well. You keep saying he served -- he fulfilled his duty, he met his requirements. No, he recalls performing his duties, both in Alabama and Texas. I said that in response to Elisabeth's question. Well, again, I do not have a minute-by-minute breakdown of every single thing he did throughout that time period. What did he do? You keep saying the word, serve. He met -- he served both in Alabama, and he served both in Texas. Did that period -- can you at least tell us the difference between inactive -- because it is not clear in these documents. No, I think that I will leave it to those who can explain these documents to do the explaining. That is why we put the statement from Mr. Lloyd, who was in the National Guard at the time; he was someone that had the expertise to explain to you what these points mean. And that is why we provided that statement. Obviously, the Personnel Center can tell you more about what everything means on these documents. We just received these late yesterday. But the one thing that these documents clearly show is that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties when he was in the National Guard. He met his requirements and he was honorably discharged because he fulfilled his duties. Just so I can be sure that I am interpreting this crystal-clearly -- you are not making any claim here that the President attended, showed up, drilled on these days? I am telling you that he did -- he does recall showing up and performing his duties. And you are paid for the days on which you serve. And that is what these documents reflect. We are going to stay on this topic, and then we will jump to other topics. It is your position that these documents specifically show that he served in Alabama during the period 1972, when he was supposed to be there. Do they specifically show that?


No, I think if you look at the documents, what they show are the days on which he was paid, the payroll records. And we previously said that the President recalls serving both in Alabama and in Texas. I am not interested in what he recalls. I am interested in whether these documents specifically show that he was in Alabama and served on the days during the latter part of 1972 -- And I just answered that question. You have not answered that question. No, I said -- no, I said, no, in response to your question, Keith. I said these documents show the days on which he was paid. That is what they show. So they show -- they show that he was paid on these days. Okay, but they do not show that he was in Alabama when he was supposed to be -- These are payroll records, and they reflect the fact that he was paid on the days on which he served. Do any of them show that he was paid on days that he served in the latter part of 1972 when he was in Alabama? I do not see any dates for that. It just kind of amazes me that some will now say they want more information, after the payroll records and the point summaries have all been released to show that he met his requirements and to show that he fulfilled his duties. But these documents do not show that. They do not show that he was in Alabama and served at that time. I do not even see any pay dates during that period. They show payments. No, they show pay dates during that fall of 1972 period. Okay, so then, do they specifically show that he served in Alabama during that time? They show payments in October; they show payments in November. You know, like I said, people call on us to release the records. We did not even know they still existed until just the other day. Now we have released the records, which document that the President fulfilled his duties. And now people are trying to move the goalpost even more. You said in Alabama that he had served equivalent duty. Can you describe what that was, and what -- why did he need to move to Alabama? Like I said, Greg, you are asking me to kind of break down hour-by-hour what he was doing during 1972 and 1973. What these documents show is that he was serving in the National Guard and he was paid for that service.

George W. Bush Press Briefing by Scott McClellan


And they show that he was serving in the National Guard and that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. Is that what he recalls? I'd have to go back and double-check, but he remembers serving during that period and performing his duties, both in Alabama and in Texas. And these are -- look, these are questions we addressed all during the campaign. The issue that came up recently was some were trying to make an outrageous, baseless accusation. If I recall, some were using the comment, deserter or AWOL. The President of the United States fulfilled his duties, he was honorably discharged. And now there are some that are not -- are clearly not interested in the facts. They are clearly more interested in twisting the facts to seek a partisan political advantage in the context of an election year. And that is just really unfortunate that some would stoop to such a level. ENTITY, what is it that took him to Alabama? that took him to Alabama? ENTITY, we all know people who tomorrow may not show up for work and will be paid. Well, again, when you are serving in the National Guard you are paid for the days on which you serve. I mean, it is specifically related to the service. Could you walk us through the sequence of events in the last few days that led to the production of these records? And did those efforts begin after or before the interview with -- The questions came up in the interview on Meet the Press, and the President made it very clear, some of what I am saying here. And he said, yes, I want all records out there. Back in the 2000 campaign, we went to the Texas Air National Guard to ask for records so that they could be released, and it was our understanding that the payroll records -- it was our impression at the time that the payroll records did not exist. Then after this weekend, after the interview, we contacted the National Guard here and asked them where would one go, if these records existed, to find them. And we were put in touch with the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. So we contacted the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. It was our understanding at that time that the Denver and St. Louis offices were already working to pull this information together at the time that we contacted them -- They could explain more about why they were doing that. Did you contact them on Monday, ENTITY? I believe it would have been probably Monday before we were able to reach them.


Who initiated the conversations? Anyway, so he contacted them and found out that there was, indeed, additional payroll records. And to our knowledge, this is all the records that exist that are relevant to this topic. The letter from Colonel Lloyd says that he assessed the records. Did -- there is no indication that he had any direct oversight of President Bush. That Lt. Colonel Lloyd, did he have any direct oversight over President Bush at the time he served? I think he could address those questions, in terms of what his role was at the time in the National Guard. But he was certainly someone that had the technical expertise to be able to explain what the point summaries mean, in terms of the numbers, and what they reflect. So that is what he did. And he stated -- he made some comments back during the 2000 campaign; I am sure you can go back and look at those, as well. Just to be clear, what he is saying today is that his assessment of the records is that the requirements were fulfilled. His own words are in his statements so I would refer you straight back to his words. When did Lloyd make this memorandum? I think we received it yesterday from him. Are you ready to take questions on a different subject? We are still on this topic, right? Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting? What was he doing after he was honorably discharged? We have already commented on some of his views relating back to that period the other day. And, obviously, this was a time period also when he was going to get his MBA at Harvard. But the President was certainly proud to serve in the National Guard. And would the White House consider those actions by Senator Kerry, that Jeff mentions fair game in the political season? Terry, I think -- I know that that is a way to try to draw us into a Democratic primary that is ongoing. Well, this is an important matter that some have chosen -- some have chosen to twist the facts. And I think that these documents clearly show that the President met his requirements and fulfilled his duties.


They can work out their differences. I think if you have questions to address to people that made certain accusations, you should direct them to those individuals. Because now, in light of these documents, this is new information that clearly shows otherwise to what they were suggesting. I will come back to you. We have a few in the back. I will come back to you, I promise. But let me try to get to everybody in the room. I promise I will come back to you. Ben I think had one, and then April. And did you have another one, Ron? The records show, between April 16, 1972 and October 28th there was no pay period, he was not paid. That was when he was in Alabama. Now, you said some of the payroll records were lost, but that you know he did not serve. I think it was for the fall period, when he -- and again, I'd have to go back and look at the exact dates of when he was in Alabama. But it was during the fall that he made a request to perform equivalent duty in Alabama again. That was still a period when he would be a member of the Texas Air National Guard. But I'd have to go back and double-check those exact dates that he was in Alabama. You would not be paid for equivalent duty. You are paid for serving. And equivalent duty is performing your duties for the Texas Air National Guard. But the summary sheets state that he did not perform service in the third quarter of -- These are not our summary sheets, these are the summary sheets from the Personnel Center in Colorado. payroll records were lost, but also, we know he did not perform service in that third quarter. You are paid for the days on which you serve. So when he was in Alabama during that quarter, he did not perform service -- Well, again, I am not sure that he was in Alabama during that whole period you are talking about. He requested -- I know that he requested to perform equivalent duty during that fall time period when he was in Alabama. You are going back further than that. He left in May, I believe -- I'd have to double-check the time period in which he was there. Is this cumulative, the sort of thing you do not have to perform every month, it is just a matter of, out of the course of a year, you get your 50 points?


You know, I am not -- there are people that have technical expertise in these matters. You can direct those questions to those individuals. I am sure that they would be glad to try to help you out. You keep saying this is a shame, and you are talking partisan politics, but do not you think the American public, as well, particularly the U.S. military, who has been tested right now with the fact that they went to war on faulty intelligence, possibly, and now finding out that their Commander-in-Chief possibly tried to avoid going to the Vietnam War -- do not you think that the American public is owed a little bit more than photo copies that we cannot see things of? Do not you think the military is owed a little bit more than just, he served ? April, I am really sorry that you phrased that question the way you did, some of it, when you were saying that they are owed more than the documents that show that he served during that time period. But would not someone know what he did? And the President -- we have previously said, going back to the 2000 campaign and even before that, that he recalls performing his duties, both in Alabama and in Texas, during the time period that some have questioned. So let us be very clear about that. Let us be very clear about the facts. Because the American people should have the facts, and the facts are right here in these documents. The facts are right here in these documents. We cannot see facts. April, I mentioned earlier that we were going to be putting this out on email, if we have not already, because it was sent to us in email form. You are also welcome to contact the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. I am sure that they will be glad to walk you through this. You are saying that this is political -- this is all politics and everything and people are obscuring in putting the facts up. But people are not able to stand up for the President. You cannot even tell us what kind of drills or what-have-you. What do you say to the U.S. military -- No, we addressed all those questions back during the 2000 campaign fully. The issue that came up recently was an outrageous, baseless accusation suggesting that the President did not serve and did not meet his requirements.


People called on us to release records that might be available to show that he, indeed -- that he, indeed, did meet his requirements and serve and fulfill his duties. These records document that the President fulfilled his duties. Now people are wanting to go further than that. And these are the records that reflect his service. You can detail your job. You can detail what you do as Press Secretary -- During the 2000 campaign, we talked about this issue fully. You are now going to a different issue. Let me be very clear here about this. There are some that made some very outrageous accusations about the President's time in the National Guard. There was a call for us to release payroll records. The payroll records have been released, as they just came to our attention and we shared them with you very quickly. The point summaries showing that he met his requirements have been released. Those were records that were -- that some called on us to release. We did not know that some of these records previously existed. Obviously, if they had, we would have been glad to share them with everybody at the time. Now, there may be some out there that are not interested in the facts. And those people clearly are simply more interested in trying to seek a partisan political advantage in election year, then the facts. I do not really have a question that goes to the politics of this. I just want to ask a question about a contradiction, and a question about a specific record. After all of the things you repeated here, you cannot explain this contradiction, the fact that his payroll records indicate he was paid for a period of time for fulfilling service, and yet his commanding officers at that time wrote that he was not observed. Can you or can you not explain that contradiction? If you are talking about the question that Terry brought up, I said I would glad to go back and look at the document that he is referencing. You know the document he is referencing. No, I have not -- I have not seen the document he is referencing. You are talking about quotes -- you are talking about quotes from individuals. And we said for years, going back four years ago, that the President recalls serving and performing his duties. I understand that, but his commanders do not recall it. And, in fact, they say, that he was not observed. So can you explain the contradiction, or cannot you?


I have seen some different comments he is -- no, I have seen some different comments made over the recent time period. I have not seen any different -- different comments from Brigadier General Turnipseed, not from his Ellington commanders, who said he was not observed. Can you explain the contradiction? Look, I cannot speak for those individuals. I can speak for the President of the United States. And I can speak for the fact that the documents that -- as far as we know, all the documents that are available relevant to this issue demonstrate that the President fulfilled his duties. Are you suggesting these documents do not reflect that? Here is the second point, the President said to Tim Russert, very specifically, on Sunday, that he would be willing to provide pay stub records and tax return records to corroborate -- And we addressed this situation previously. It is the second time you have asked this question. Right, and I will ask it until we maybe get something -- which is to corroborate these payroll records that are coming from one source. Will he request that all the records are released, from Denver and from St. Louis, to prove that he actually received money, not just that they say he did? Just out of curiosity, how much money does a person get paid for each day's service, and is there any evidence that George W. Bush might not have accepted the money, might have turned it down? Oh, Connie, you'd have to go back and ask at the time what the pay was. Again, it shows the dates on which he was paid. And I think this goes into some of the amounts here on these papers. Am I wrong in reading document five that he did not perform any days of service between April 16 and October 28 -- Yes, we have been through this. You have them right in front of you. I am not disputing these documents. In fact, I am saying that these documents demonstrate that the President fulfilled his duties. Which of these dates refers to days he served in Alabama? If you look at the fall time period, that was a time period that he was in Alabama. Again, Keith asked this question earlier, and asked if it shows exactly where he was serving when he was paid. I said, what these documents show is that he was paid for the days on which he was -- served. These are the payroll records that reflect the days on which he served.


On what date did he come back, did he return from Alabama? I think we have been through some of these issues previously. I do not know the exact date off the top of my head. We will be glad to look back and try to get you that information. The relevant issue that was brought up by some recently was whether or not the President had served. The documents clearly show that the President served and met his requirements and fulfilled his duties. ENTITY, could you just tell us, are these all the documents you got, you received, here at the White House, from Colorado, or have you kept some in reserve? No, these -- -- do you expect any additional documents from St. Louis or from Colorado? Well, as always, I said that we would -- if there is additional information that comes to our attention, we will make sure to get you that information. This is the information that we understand is available from the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. And that is all that they sent you, this is the extent of all the documents? Yes, this is what they sent us. And we just put it in our own email and sent it out for you all. ENTITY, Dan Bartlett told the Associated Press, in June of 2000, that he traveled to the Air Reserve Personnel Center and reviewed President Bush's military file. He said, I have read it, and there is nothing earth-shattering. Did he see these documents when he reviewed the file? Did he see any other documents when he reviewed the file? Well, that is a broad question about other documents. All the relevant documents relating to his service have been released -- So has Dan Bartlett ever seen these documents? And as I said yesterday, everything that we had we released in 2004 -- I mean, 2000, at the time, or during the 2000 campaign. There may be documents that were in that file -- No, this is the first time this information has come to our attention. So Dan Bartlett did not see these documents -- Again, I think I have answered this question up here, and I have answered it back for you. I have got one more -- Do you have this topic, this topic? We are off this topic. I was trying to talk to ENTITY earlier, but he did not want me to talk. I was trying to get an answer, but you did not want to talk. Tell us what you told -- Tell us what you told the FBI about the --


They are on you, my friend, not me. the outing, if you will, of Valerie Plame? Wendell, the President has made it clear that he wants to get to the bottom of this investigation. The leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. The President directed everybody at the White House to cooperate fully in the investigation. I, obviously, want to do my part to cooperate. And if there is something that can help those who are leading this investigation get to the bottom of it, I am more than happy to share that information with them. But if you have specific questions relating to an ongoing investigation, those questions are best directed to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is the one that is overseeing this matter. I want to do everything I can, if there is anything I can do, to help that investigation move forward so that we can get to the bottom of this. But there is no legal prohibition on you talking with us about what you told them. So if you would, tell us what questions they asked you, and tell us what answers you gave them. But I think that it is best for me to refer those questions to the Justice Department. Obviously, if they think it is helpful to the investigation to share that information, I am sure that they would. But I am going to do my part to cooperate fully in this investigation. And I am glad to do it. In doing that part, did you have information about how it was that Ms. Plame's job with the CIA became known -- I really -- I appreciate that you are asking these questions. I appreciate that you want to know this information, as well. We want to be as helpful as we can to those who are leading that investigation. That includes me personally, as well. If there is information that they feel is helpful to share publicly, I am sure that the people at the Department of Justice would. But I am just not going to answers those questions from this podium. Those questions are best directed to the Department of Justice, because I want to help them move forward in this investigation. ENTITY, I have a follow-up on that. You said last year that you spoke with the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, and that he was not the leaker, and he did not authorize the leak. Do you stand by that statement? Russell, we have addressed all these issues previously.


And I think if you have got questions related to the investigation, I would suggest you direct those questions to the Department of Justice. The Vice President took Supreme Court Justice Scalia on a duck hunting trip to Louisiana while the Vice President had a case pending before the Supreme Court. Does the President see this as appropriate behavior, taking a Supreme Court Justice to a duck hunting trip while he has a case pending? And does he believe that Justice Scalia should recuse himself from that energy task force case? I think that you need to direct those questions to the Vice President's office. I am asking the President's view. I am not familiar with the specifics. Can I go to the major international story appearing all over the globe? Pakistan now admits that Pakistani scientists are the source of spreading nuclear knowledge to several countries. And, also, Musharraf is blaming the United States for not providing him the proof. And yesterday, at the Woodrow Wilson Center of Energy -- speaking and she said that President Bush should stop now supporting dictatorships, dictators in Pakistan, but stop supporting -- and she said that U.S., including President Bush was misled by Musharraf all along, including today, on the spread of nuclear weapons or nuclear technology. Does President believe now that he is satisfied with Musharraf's speeches or what Musharraf told President Bush? We certainly value the assurances that President Musharraf provided. I think I have already talked about this. It is a very high priority for this administration. In a post-September 11th world it is important that we do everything we can to stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That is why the President launched the proliferation security initiative to work with other nations to interdict shipments of weapons of mass destruction, and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That is why the President is working closely with other nations to stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And I think that if you look at some of the actions that have been taken in Pakistan, it demonstrates that he is committed to the assurances he provided us. The results are that a network has been broken up, a network of proliferation has been broken up. We are still looking at a number of other areas to continue to make sure we are doing everything to stop further proliferation efforts. The President looks forward to talking more about this very issue tomorrow.


The United States would like NATO to play a larger role in Iraq, but the NATO Secretary General says Afghanistan must come first. Is this going to cause a delay in turning Iraq back to the Iraqis? Is what going to cause a delay? First of all, we are continuing to move forward on the transition of sovereignty to the Iraqi people, based on the time line that was set out in the November 15th agreement. Obviously, NATO was playing an important role in Afghanistan, and they have talked about expanding that role. And we appreciate the efforts of NATO in Afghanistan. The President met very recently with the U.N. Secretary General, and they had a good discussion about Afghanistan. They also had a good discussion about Iraq. And those are issues that we are continuing to look at and continuing to discuss with NATO. Actually, I have addressed this issue, I think, over the last few days or last week, at least. But we are working closely with the Iraqi leaders and other Iraqis to move forward on the June 30th time line for transferring sovereignty. It is important that we continue to move forward in a timely manner to transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. They are assuming more and more responsibility for their future. And we look forward to continuing to work with them to help make -- help meet that time line. What is he doing tomorrow, exactly? Well, he is going to be giving a speech on -- that will focus on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Obviously in a post-September 11th world, it is a high priority to confront the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. There are shadowy networks that exist that seek to spread weapons of mass destruction. There are stateless regimes that seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. There are individuals who provide technology and know-how to rogue states. And that is why we have taken a number of steps to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, through some of the initiatives I mentioned earlier, as well as working individually with different nations around the world.


Eight trips to this region for you since September 2d six, I believe, for you, Give me a sense of the biggest change you have seen over the past 6 or 7 weeks in this area. I mean, the storm hit; it was an overwhelming moment for a lot of people. And then they are beginning to realize, people the local people are beginning to realize there is hope; there is a chance to rebuild lives. And a lot of people care about them. I have seen some infrastructure change. And it is a remarkable spirit here in this part of the world. I mean, people say, Look, we are going to rebuild our lives, and they have realized a lot of people from around the country want to help them. And as you see the progress, you also see how much remains to be done. Well, I am worried about the schools. I am really interested in that. But I am also proud that so many people have gone to school, so many parents have put their kids in school wherever they are, if they are in Houston or Fort Worth or Baton Rouge or wherever, and I think that is really important. So much more visibility on your part, ENTITY, following Hurricane Rita and, as I mentioned, the eight trips to this region, as compared to what was seen as a slow and inefficient Federal response after Hurricane Katrina. Is this one of those situations where you are trying to get a second chance to make a first impression? I do my job as best I can. One of the things that we do is we respond to crises. And as I told the people, if I did not respond well enough, we are going to learn the lessons. If there is any mistakes made at the Federal level, I, of course, accept responsibility for them. On the other hand, there is a lot of good that is taken place, a lot of people are working hard. We had chopper drivers pulling people off roofs. We had, you know, people working long hours to save lives, and the story will unfold. I mean, the facts of the story will come out over time, and the important thing is for Federal, State, and local governments to adjust and to respond.

Interview With Matt Lauer of NBC's Today Show in Covington, Louisiana


I talked to a prominent Democrat in Louisiana who has said that this type of appearance, while it is great to see you guys rolling up your sleeves and grabbing a hammer and helping with this piece of wall here, that it is a photo op, and they want to see a plan on paper, your plan to rebuild this region. Do you have that kind of a plan? Well, Matt, you see, I do not think Washington ought to dictate to New Orleans how to rebuild. I guess we have a different philosophy than whoever the prominent Democrat was you spoke to. Last night Laura and I had dinner with Mayor Nagin and a group of distinguished New Orleans citizens from all walks of life. And my message to them was, We will support the plan that you develop. The point is, is that it comes from the local folks. And I recognize there is an attitude in Washington that says, We know better than the local people. Some Democrats complain that there was wording taken out of that loan package, a forgiveness clause that has traditionally been included in loan packages in the past. Would you ask Congress to go back into that legislation and reinstate the forgiveness clause? I think Congress what Congress said was is that the previous loans were limited to a relatively small amount of money. These loans are much greater loans, and that what Congress has said is, You will have 5 years to repay, plus an additional 5 years to repay. And so I think it is a kind of package that Congress was comfortable with giving, and I was happy to sign it. You are quoting a lot of Democrats today, Matt. She said that we are not asking the people of Iraq to pay back the money we are spending there. Why are we asking the people of the gulf coast, requiring them to pay back this money? How would you respond to that? Well, the people of Iraq are paying a heavy price for terrorism. A lot of people are dying, Matt. These people are working hard to establish democracy, and they are paying a serious price. Look, I understand there are a lot of politics. One of the things that I suggested was we keep the politics out of New Orleans and Mississippi as we all work together to rebuild these communities. And we have got people here who volunteered their time, from all over the country, and they did not say, you know, I am a Democrat, and I am going to work here, or, I am a Republican, and I am going to come and work here.


And the reason why Laura and I are here is because we want to encourage other Americans to help somebody find shelter or help somebody find food or to continue to express the incredible compassion that the country saw when displaced persons moved from this part of the world and are scattered around the country. So in other words, if someone says to you, Okay, you are moving a wall today, and it is a photo op, but if that inspires someone else in another community to move a wall and grab a hammer, then that is mission accomplished? And also, this gives us a chance to thank the people who do this all the time, not just in a crisis situation but who volunteer with Habitat in their towns wherever they are across the country or volunteer in a million other ways working in schools or other ways. I understand there is a lot of politics, and you keep talking about this politician or that politician. I think our job is to elevate this whole process out of normal politics. I mean, is not it inevitable it will be bogged down in politics? It depends on who asks the questions, I guess. I think most Americans are not interested in this kind of politics. And the amazing thing about Katrina and Rita is that there has been a fantastic response by people from all walks of life that have welcomed a neighbor and said, Brother, what can I do to help you? Or, How can I show you love? And I applaud the Today show and Habitat for Humanity and your partners in being a part of a larger picture of helping people rebuild their lives. While I have you here and while you do not have a hammer in your hand, can I ask you well, you have it in your belt about some things going on in Washington? A lot of criticism coming for your nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, from conservatives, people like Trent Lott and Pat Buchanan and George Will and Bill Kristol. Were you taken off-guard a little bit, caught by surprise by the amount of criticism you are getting for Judge Miers? Well, you know, I made a decision to put somebody on the Court who had not been a part of what they call the judicial monastery. In other words I listened, by the way, to people in the Senate who suggested, Why do not you get somebody from the outside. And I figured that people are going to kind of question whether or not it made sense to bring somebody from outside the court.


I would remind those, one, that Harriet is an extraordinary, accomplished woman who has done a lot. As a matter of fact, she has consistently ranked as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States, that she has broken the glass ceiling. She has served as a great example. And that just because she has not served on the bench does not mean that she cannot be a great Supreme Court Justice. But you know, conservatives are worried about what is going to happen when she gets on the bench, and they are worried about what is going to happen in the future. are feeling let down by you, and they are thinking they have supported you for so long and when an issue that is so important to them comes up, that you let them down. How would you answer that? My answer is Harriet Miers is going to be confirmed, and people will get to see why I put her on the bench. You said she is the most qualified candidate for the job As I told you. would you agree with that? You had pushed for a woman to be a nominee. And I know Harriet well. I know how many times she is broken the glass ceiling, herself. She is a role model for young women around our country. Not only that, she is very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to wherever she goes, but certainly to the Supreme Court she will be really excellent. Some are suggesting there is a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge Miers. How do you feel about that? I think she is so accomplished, and I know I think people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things. She was the first woman managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm. My attitude, Matt, is when people get to know her, they will see why I picked her. In the confirmation hearings alone, they will see that she what she is like. I think the Washington Times has a story this morning that said they had about 27 Republican Senators have serious questions about Judge Miers or about Harriet Miers I was going to say kind of getting ahead of myself here. I mean, the person I know is not the kind of person that is going to change her philosophy. And her philosophy is, is that she is not going to legislate from the bench.


So I told the American people when I campaigned for President the type of judge I will pick. I picked that type of person in John Roberts, and I picked that type of person in Harriet Miers. Your political guru, Karl Rove, is set to or scheduled to testify before a grand jury for the fourth time this coming week, it seems, looking into the leak of a CIA agent's name. You have said if someone on your staff had anything to do with that leak, you will take care of that person. Has Karl Rove looked you in the eye, ENTITY, and said, I, in no way, bent or broke the rules or the law when it comes to this case ? Matt, I have also consistently said I am not going to talk about the case. It is under review, so I am not going to talk about it. Thank you for asking, but on the other hand, the special prosecutor has made it clear and made it clear that he does not want anybody speculating or talking about the case, so I am not going to talk about it. But does it worry you that they seem to have such an interest in Mr. Rove? I am not going to talk about the case. I have been asked this a lot; my answer is consistent. The special prosecutor is conducting a very serious investigation. He is doing it in a very dignified way, by the way, and we will see what he says. Got a big date coming up in Iraq this coming week, on the 15th, a vote on the referendum on the constitution there. And what are you expecting to happen in the days leading up to that vote? I expect violence, because there is a group of terrorists and killers who want to try to stop the advance of democracy in Iraq. We had a remarkable achievement last January when millions of people voted. They now have a chance to vote on a constitution that will help unify the country. And then they will have a chance to vote, if the constitution passes, on a permanent government. And so what you are seeing is the unfolding of a dual-track strategy. On the one hand, democracy is advancing, much to the amazement of a lot of people, particularly people in the region. And on the other hand, we are working to train Iraqi troops so they can provide the security for a democracy to move forward. I am going to let you get back to work in a second.


I am just curious about one other subject, and you have spoken about this recently, this whole issue of a possible worldwide pandemic, this avian flu. You know, 60 people have died in Asia so far. They are worried that if this comes here, there are, by some estimates this could claim millions of lives around the world. After Hurricane Katrina, there are some people in this country who are worried. They are not sure who is in charge, who do I turn to, who is going to handle a major catastrophe in this country? Are you confident that this administration has a plan in place to handle something like that? I am confident that we are working to identify the possible outbreak of avian flu, contain it to where the outbreak takes place, and strategize how to deal with it if it ever were to come to the United States. Who would take the lead in that? It is a really interesting question, and it is one that I raised that has created a little bit of consternation among some. I have said that there may be a catastrophic event such that the Federal Government has got the it is only the Federal Government that has got the capacity to move in quickly with a lot of resources, which would require law changes. For example, the military cannot become police without a special proclamation. And so we are planning all this out. We are in the midst of, one, identifying that there may be a problem, and, two, what to do about it. When I have a plan that I am comfortable with, of course I will talk to the American people about it. Your husband has been through an awful lot Our country has been through an awful lot. What toll have you seen this take, personally, on him? Not only you know, we had 9/11 in the first term, and now we have got Iraq, and we have got Katrina, and we have got Rita. What toll have you seen this take? He is about to drop on the spot. He is got big, broad shoulders. There is a lot, but there is a lot on the American people too, and their response has been so terrific. You know, we can face challenges, and they are tough, and this is very tough down here. The number of people, the huge number of people that are displaced, that have lost everything, but you know, people are rebuilding their lives, and other people want to help them, and that is what I see.


Big trip to the Middle East-what are your objectives, and why now? Now because I believe that it is possible to advance the Annapolis agenda; now because I believe this is going to be an-that it will be a chance to be effective on my trip. one, the vision of two states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace; two, to convince our friends and allies in the region that it is in their interest to support the peace process; and three is to remind people that the United States is committed to helping secure the region, that we have a active presence in the Middle East, and that presence is not going to wane. It is a-that we are committed to helping people realize-deal with the threats and the problems of the 21st century. What can you do personally to press both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, to reach an agreement this year? Well, first of all, the agreement-they must decide they want to reach agreement. In other words-and so the first thing I can do is to make sure there is a sincere desire on the parts of President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert to achieve an agreement. And it is to give them confidence and to encourage them to come up with the-what a state will look like, the-define that state so that people there in the region can have hope that this kind of a long-time conflict will finally come to an end. And the first step is the definition of a state. I can hold hands when there needs to be-hold hands. And so I am - I will go to encourage them to stay focused on the big picture. There is going to be all kinds of distractions, and people will be trying to throw up roadblocks, and people will be trying to cause these gentlemen to-not to-to lose sight of what is possible. And my job is to help them keep a vision on what is possible. Do you still believe that the-your vision of a Palestinian state can be achieved before you leave office? I think the outlines, the definition of a state can be achieved. The implementation of a state will be subject to a roadmap. In other words, there is a lot of work that has to be done. Palestinian security forces have to be reformed-which we are helping with, by the way. The entrepreneurial class of people has to be encouraged with new capital. The institutions of government need to be strengthened.

Interview With Hisham Bourar of Alhurra Television


And so the state will come into being, subject to-but the first step is to-here is what a state will look like. And I believe we can get that done by the time I leave office. Will you be asking Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, to normalize relations with Israel? I will be reminding the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, that in order for this to be successful, in order for this process to work, there has to be strong support for both the Palestinians and the Israelis in the neighborhood. And that is why the Annapolis conference-another reason it was an important conference, because in that room were the-my friend, the King of Saudi Arabia, kindly sent his Foreign Minister to that Annapolis meeting. And so both sides are going to need to know that they will have support from the neighborhood. Do you feel that the last NIE report makes it difficult for you to convince these countries that Iran still poses a threat to national security? I am sure this subject will come up, and I will remind them that the NIE said that, one, Iran had a military covert program. They suspended the program. I will also remind them that a regime that once had a program could easily start the program up again, and that the key ingredients to having a weapons program is, one, the capacity to enrich uranium; secondly, the ability to take that uranium and make a bomb; and thirdly, the ability to deliver the uranium-the bomb by rockets. As you know, they say they had-only for civilian purposes, they are learning to enrich. Well, if you can learn to enrich for civilian purposes, you can easily transfer that knowledge for military purposes. And my other message will be, we have got a strategy to deal with it, and that is to prevent them from learning how to enrich. And I will explain to them the different types of sanctions and international efforts we are making and how they can help as well. Do they help or undermine your position toward Syria? But President Asad must understand that if he wants better relations with the United States-and frankly better relations in the region-the first thing he is got to do is stop interfering in the Lebanese Presidential process. And I would hope that those representatives sent that message to President Asad. I do not know how he interprets these meetings, but one thing he cannot be mistaken about is the position of the U.S. Government, the White House.


And our position is, is that you can have better relations, a better way forward with the United States, but you have got to get out of Lebanon, in terms of the Presidential elections, and stop harboring Hamas, stop letting suiciders go into Iraq. Speaking of Lebanon, what could the United States do to break the current stalemate which left the country without a President? We are making it awfully clear to-publicly and privately-that the-Sleiman, who was selected by the- by a lot of the players there inside Lebanon, is the right choice; if that is what they want, that is who we support-and that the obstacle to that Presidency going forward is Syria. So I will be spending some time there in the Middle East discussing this very subject because a free Lebanon is in the interests of everybody in the region. And there is a lot of common ground with the U.S. position, and there-like the Saudis and other nations agree that we ought to have a free Lebanon, free of Syrian influence. How do you think people in the Middle East will remember you? I hope they remember me as the guy who was willing to fight extremists who murdered the innocent to achieve political objectives and, at the same time, had great faith in the people, the average citizen of the Middle East, to self-govern; that the Middle East has got a fantastic future, and that I admire the great traditions of the Middle East and believe that the average man can succeed mightily; that societies are best served when they respond to the will of people, and that we must reject the extremists who have a different view of that, the people who only prey on hopelessness. That is what I would hope. I would hope that they would say, ENTITY respects my religion and has great love for the human being and believes in human dignity. I know my image can be different at times. I had to make some tough choices on war and peace. On the other hand, I hope people are now beginning to see the emergence of a free Iraq, based upon a modern Constitution, is part of my vision for achieving peace that we all want.


ENTITY, what are your expectations in front of the first trip to the united Germany? You will have a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate; the Wall has come down. Well, first of all, let me say it is an incredible personal honor for me to be able to go as the first ENTITY to a united Germany. One of the formative political images of my childhood was seeing President Kennedy stand there in Berlin at the Wall and give his speech. So, for all of us in America, it is been a source of great joy to see the Wall come down and to see what is happening now in Germany. My message will be that we have torn down the walls, but now we have to build the bridges. We have to unite Europe, and we have to move forward on security issues, on economic issues to make a better world. What will be the significance of the remaining troops in Germany for the future? I think it is a statement that the United States puts great importance on our relationships with Europe, with NATO, and with Germany, especially, and that we have a common security future with NATO. One of the great successes, I think, of the last year has been the Partnership For Peace, the establishment of cooperative relationships between NATO and now 21 other countries, 19 from the former Communist bloc and Sweden and Finland. So this is a very exciting time, I think, and the United States, as long as Europe wants to be our partner, should maintain that partnership and should stay in Europe. Let me return to Germany. Is Germany still the most important ally of the United States? Germany is a critically important ally, always has been, certainly since the end of the Second World War. And I think that if you look to the future, the kinds of things we have to work together on, the way our interests tend to converge and the way we see the world, the relationship I have enjoyed with Chancellor Kohl, all the things we work together on, Russian aid, international peacekeeping, a whole range of issues, trying to find a solution in Bosnia, the German people and the American people and their Governments need to work very, very closely together, not only for the wellbeing of Europe but indeed for the entire world. America is the last remaining world power, and there is more aid necessary than first expected to build up the East. Is the United States willing to increase their contributions for the East, because Germany and Europe, they have spent billions of dollars?

Interview With Klaus Walther of ZDF German Television


I think we should do more, and we will. There is a limit to how much we can do. We have been very active in Russia and in other republics of the former Soviet Union. And we are trying to maintain a very vigorous international defense posture as a superpower in the cause of peace. And of course, that costs a lot of money. But I do believe in Central and Eastern Europe, we should be more active, and we will be. There are limits to what we can do, but we will be more active. Talking about peace, does it bother you that the old powers in the former Eastern bloc countries are getting back into power again? Well, it depends on what they do. And the changes that a lot of those former Communist countries are going through are quite painful. And I think it is only predictable that from time to time the election results will vary, depending upon the mood of the people, the level of personal security they feel, the level of results being achieved. And as long as there is a continued commitment to openness and democracy and human rights and to working with the West, I do not think we can be deterred from our policies by particular elections. After all, you know, none of us always agree with the outcome of every election in our own countries. ENTITY, your administration started to solve a lot of international crises through the United Nations. The strategy failed, obviously, in Bosnia. When is U.S. unilateral action in the future appropriate or necessary? First of all, I do not know that it has failed in Bosnia; it has not yet succeeded. It has stabilized a lot of the country. So I think the United Nations, the United States working with the U.N. and working through NATO has done a lot there to improve the situation. And of course, we hope that the contact group will come up with a map that will result in a peace settlement. If you ask me the question, will the United States continue to work through the United Nations, the answer to that is yes, wherever we can. But we must be in a position to act alone when our own vital interests are at stake. That is what we did, for example, when I received proof that there had been an attempt to assassinate former President Bush in Iraq. But I would not give up on the U.N. yet or on multilateral efforts. I also think you are going to see variations of that.


Look at Rwanda, where the French got, in effect, permission of the U.N. to lead in an area where they had an historic interest and historic ties. So I think we will be finding new ways for international cooperation for quite some years yet. Talking about United Nations, would you support Germany to be a member on the Security Council? I have been publicly supportive of that for almost 3 years now. You talked about NATO, ENTITY. How do you envision NATO's future? There is no more threat coming from the East, and how do you envision NATO's future? Well, right now what we are doing is using NATO to try to build a united Europe from a security point of view and to be available to take actions in Europe out of NATO's area. That is really the significance of what has happened in Bosnia, where the NATO planes have been involved in enforcing the nofly zone and trying to enforce the safe area, where NATO planes can be called in if needed to try to preserve agreements and make sure both sides adhere to them. And I do not think there is any question that NATO has made a contribution to the progress that has been made in Bosnia. And the NATO Partnership For Peace is the most important thing we have done in the last several years, because it gives us the chance to have a united Europe, the chance, really, for the first time since nation states were in existence in Europe. So that is what I see. I think NATO should be working on integrating Europe from a security point of view; toward looking toward expanding its membership to other countries as appropriate; and toward the use of coordinated action, military capacity, outside its area of membership but within Europe. ENTITY, today Mr. Arafat is visiting the Gaza Strip. Is this a milestone in the development in the Middle East? Yes, it is a very important trip because it symbolizes what has happened, which is that the Palestinians are beginning to have control over their own lives and affairs. It is a tribute to the courage of the Israelis and the Palestinians and to their leaders, to Mr. Arafat and to Prime Minister Rabin. And it is also a tribute to the peace process in which the United States, as you know, has been very actively involved. The only way to settle the problems in the Middle East is to continue the peace process. I saw King Hussein just last week. We are in close touch with President Asad. We are working with Lebanon.


I am really looking forward to going to Bogota. I have to start by asking you this. You are arriving to Bogota when ENTITY President Uribe is facing a deep crisis because of we have got a political scandal. Does this affect the support, the confidence that you have always expressed to him? As a matter of fact, I have been very impressed by how he is handled this latest issue. President Uribe is a very strong leader; he is committed to justice; he believes in fairness; and he is a man who has proven he can get things done. And so my confidence in the President is very high. And I am looking forward to expressing that confidence about to not only the people of Colombia but also to the people in my Congress. ENTITY, $4 billion invested in Plan Colombia, but the drug keeps coming to the United States, and the leader of the guerrillas remains at large. Why do you support a second phase of the same Plan Colombia? First of all, we have had a lot of successes in working together. I recognize there is still a lot of drogas coming here. Part of that has to do with, we still use drugs, and we have got to do a better job of convincing people to stop using drugs. But we have also stopped a lot of drugs from coming. And therefore, I can argue to the Congress and the people that there has been a lot of notable successes. And the truth of the matter is, Colombia has changed to the better as a result of the Plan Colombia. ENTITY, public opinion in Colombia, as well as in the U.S. Congress, is divided about the free trade agreement. Will you be ready to reopen those negotiations in order to make it pass? No, I do not think we want to reopen the negotiations. We have had good, strong negotiations between our respective parties. Obviously, if there is some fine-tuning necessary but we have negotiated good agreements, and I am going to have to work hard with our Congress, and the ENTITY is going to have to work hard to convince the people of Colombia that trade is fair. And if I were a farmer in Colombia or a small-business person in Colombia, I'd want to be in a position to be able to sell my products into a large market like the United States. And these trade fights are always tough, and I want to make sure, though, that we work to have a world that trades freely and fairly, because it is the best way to eliminate poverty.

Interview With Natalia Orozco of RCN TV of Colombia


Are you concerned about the influence that President Chavez is gaining in the region? As many experts have said, is your trip also an answer to that? No, my trip is a chance to tell the people of Colombia and Uruguay and Brazil and Guatemala and Mexico that the United States cares deeply about the human condition. My budget this year has got or last year has $1.6 billion of bilateral assistance. Much of that money is spent on social justice programs, programs like education and health care. You know, oftentimes, people really do not understand the United States, and my trip is to really explain to people that we believe in education for all; we believe in human rights and human dignity; we believe in prosperity. And the people of this country have been very generous in their help and support to people. But are you concerned about the influence of Mr. Chavez in the region? Each country is going to have to make up their own mind about the systems of government. To the extent that people feel like they can nationalize companies, I think is a mistake. I am very much in favor of open systems, free press, the right for people to assemble and express their mind. My trip, however, is all aimed at explaining to the people of South and Latin America that good foreign policy for the United States is to promote a prosperous and peaceful neighborhood. ENTITY, today, have you the feeling that the policy applies to Cuba has done any good for the Cubans in the island? I think the worse thing that is happened for the Cuban people on the island is the fact that they are not free. And my position is, it is important for people to be free, and that if there is a transition to a new way in Cuba, it is got to be decided by the Cuban people. They should be allowed to freely assemble; they should be allowed to speak their minds; there ought to be strong rule of law. My position has been, and will continue to be, that a free Cuba is what is necessary for the people of Cuba. Do you think President Uribe should achieve the humanitarian exchange, or should he insist in the military rescue? I trust President Uribe's judgment. And my message is not to President Uribe; my message is to the FARC, and that is to give up these hostages. You are making it clear to the world the kind of people you are when you take innocent life and hold them hostage. And it is very sad for the families here in America.


ENTITY, you met and exceeded your first 100 days' goal of 100 shots in arms; I have got two of them in here. Is vaccination still your number one priority in the next hundred days? Yes, but there are close seconds that we are going to have - that are going to be announced in a couple of days. We have another 50 million that have been put in arms, so it will be 250 million. And one of the things I focused on when I got elected, I said I had two overwhelming needs; one, to get the American public vaccinated, and we had to go out and get an awful lot of vaccinators as well as vaccine to get 600 million doses of it, and we got that, a lot of it, done. And to get people back to work, because, you know, we lost millions of jobs - 22 million, I think it was 22 million jobs. And they are directly related to the vaccine - not to - to ENTITY. So, what I am continuing to do is making sure we get people back to work and change the circumstance where we get to the far point, where we have at least 70 percent of the American public vaccinated, and my goal is by July the 4. And I think we can do that. We are close to 59 percent getting one shot, so I think we are getting very close. You are coming up against something we have never seen before in any vaccination program or any public health program, which is a partisan resistance to vaccination. This is in addition to other hesitancies that other populations have. But there is a partisan resistance, and that is among people, many of whom fail what is a basic mental competency test -- who is the president of the United States? How are you going to convince them to get the vaccine? All this stuff about vaccine hesitancy; the truth of the matter is more and more and more people are getting the vaccine. And so, I have never believed that there would be a large percentage of Americans who would not get the vaccine. But what is the best way - you know, you used to do local politics a hundred years ago - what happens? When your neighbor gets a vaccine, your next-door-neighbor gets it, you say, well, maybe I should get it.

Interview with Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC


And no matter what your position was, when you see people in a position where you can easily get the vaccine, you do not have to go way out of your way. That is why you see I was on doing some meetings with folks who are providing for example and the governor of Maine, a Republican, is saying, if you want to get a free hunting license, come get a vaccine. And people are showing up across the board. So, the idea, I have never believed that at the end of the day, there would be any large percentage of Americans who would not get the vaccine. I have a question from my Telemundo colleague, Vanessa Hauc, who wonders, what do you say to people who worry that their immigration status is a reason not to get the vaccine? They should get the vaccine. They should get the vaccine. And there will not be any interactions with government that occur because they get the vaccine? What I have said is that it is one thing for people who are in country here to have, if they show up for a doctor's appointment, they show up to drop their child off at school, et cetera, we should lay off those people. We should, and that is why I introduced a comprehensive immigration bill. There is 11 million undocumented people in the United States, the vast majority of whom overstayed their visas. We should move about getting that taken care of, making sure there is a pathway to earn citizenship and get underway. They should not be in a position that, if they are trying to save their lives or their health and they do what is needed to be done to make people around them safe as well, they should not be penalized for that. You just had a meeting with the Big Four; the speaker of the House, minority leader of the House, majority leader of the Senate, minority leader of the Senate, and it had that external signal, which is always a good sign, which is that it went into overtime, it went much longer than people outside the room were expecting. But they do seem to be drawing a red line, as Mitch McConnell called it, on any taxes, any taxes to pay for an infrastructure bill, and you have some serious tax increases in your infrastructure bill. Well, look, there was a red line saying they would not do anything on anything, quite frankly. he had 100 percent of Republican senators lined up against your infrastructure bill. I understand that.


That is - but I think we can have a deal. And there are ways in which we can pay for this without just putting the entire burden on working class and middle-class people. For example, there is a situation where there is an estimation of somewhere between $700 billion and a one-trillion-three-hundred billion dollars, if we hire up more IRS agents and we go after those folks who are avoiding taxes at the top end. And that is - I mean, these are serious - this is not pie in the sky - these are serious, serious experts and liberals, conservatives, et cetera. So, let us say it is somewhere in between; that is one trillion dollars. I am confident they would go for that. I am confident, for example, something that is not in the, that two-trillion-dollar tax cut for which nothing was paid for, and it ended up being - increasing the debt. That is not in it. I did not know what it was; I never had any money, so I did not know what it was. But for example, if you have a capital gain, you are a wealthy person, you are about to cash-in, you bought a million-dollars' worth of stock, now it is worth it is worth one-million-five-hundred-thousand, you are going to cash it in, and god forbid, on the way to cash it in, you figure being hit by a truck and you die, that gets left to your son or daughter; they pay none of the capital gains you would have had to pay. That raises billions and billions of dollars. Mitch McConnell said that he is not willing to reopen anything that was in the Trump tax cut. Did you have an exploration of possible revenue with them, actual pay-fors I did not get into that. I got into what constitutes infrastructure. I want to get a bipartisan deal on as much as we can get a bipartisan deal on. And that means roads, bridges, broadband, all infrastructure. But I am not giving up on the fact that we have, you know, two million women who are not able to go back to work because all the daycare centers are closed. They are out of business. And so, they cannot go back to work. I am not going to give up on a whole range of things that go to the question of productivity, of increasing jobs, increasing employment, increasing revenues. I am not willing to give up on that.


So we are going to fight those out. So I want to know, what can we agree on? And let us see if we can get an agreement to kickstart this. And then fight over what is left and see if I can get it done without Republicans, if need be. You were trying to make a deal today in a room with Kevin McCarthy, where what he was doing before he came up here was expelling Liz Cheney from his leadership group for saying things like, the election is over, as she said last night on the House floor. And Kevin McCarthy is the same person who supported Liz Cheney just weeks ago. How can you accept whatever someone like Kevin McCarthy says today as something that you are actually going to legislate a few weeks from now or months from now? If a man looks me in the eye, gives me his word that something's going to happen, I take it unless he breaks it. He may have broken his word to somebody else, but to me, has he made that deal - we are nowhere near having made a deal. We agree that we should try to get a bipartisan agreement. But the Liz Cheney/McCarthy thing is above my pay grade. I mean, I have enough trouble figuring out my own party all the time, let alone the Republicans. Are you shocked that there is just, at this point, one member on the Republican side of the House who was willing to stand up last night and say things like, the election is over, and if you do not believe in the outcomes in our courts, you are an anti-constitutionalist on the Republican side. That is what her fight is on the Republican side of the House of Representatives. I think I heard Kevin McCarthy say today ENTITY a duly elected ENTITY. This is the experience I had working with you in the Senate. I have to let the audience in on this. We have known each other 25 years, and when we were working together in the Senate, what I always saw is you take the most positive things someone says in your direction and try to work with that tomorrow. And you try to ignore anything that is not part of what you are trying to work with tomorrow. Is that the way you are doing this job? As Pat Moynihan once said to me, Joe, I am not sure you are Irish. You do not hold a grudge. Look, it is too important to the American people. I do not want to sound - I will just say what I believe.


It is too important to the American people for me not to continue to reach out to get things done with people that I agree and disagree with. I mean, I ended up making a deal with Jesse Helms for the lord's sake on funding the United Nations. I did not have to give up anything, but I worked on it and worked on it. But if I had said, because Jesse Helms has done all these other things, I am never going to deal with him - it is just not the way it works. I do not - look, I believe - how can I say it? My mother used to give me - I believe in redemption for myself as well. But look, ENTITY, I have - I once had a doctor who was - had worked on me because I had had an aneurism 20 some years ago. Well, I am, because I know the American people. Not once in our history did they give up. And I just - I have faith. I have faith, and we just got to keep pushing it. Let me ask you about the second most powerful Joe in Washington - Joe Manchin, who has become a visitor to this White House, and he is not there with the Democrats even on everything that is proposed. He is not there 100 percent on your infrastructure bill. He is trying to work with Republicans to bring Republicans along into something that could be a compromise. What about S.1., the voting rights, voting access bill that the Senate Rules Committee considered yesterday? So important that the majority leader and minority leader went to the Rules Committee and - to testify about and talk about that bill. That bill looks like there will be zero Republican votes in the Senate for that bill. That bill also does not fit any reconciliation rule. That bill cannot get through without 60 votes or without an adjustment to the cloture rule, which Joe Manchin would have to agree to. Does Joe Manchin see this road in front of him and what that means for voting rights in America? I have not had - I have not had that discussion with Joe. I have been meeting with a lot of Republicans, a lot of, quote, bipartisan groups have been coming to see me on everything from my - the overall bill, the families bill that I have and the caregivers bill, as well as the infrastructure bill. We were at the same place.


I do not know - I cannot say that you asked me, but other serious folks in your business asked me the same kind of questions when we were trying to do the American Rescue Plan . Well, it passed by one vote, even though up to the time that vote took place there were a number of people saying, I am not going to do it. But look, ENTITY, I have - this is going to sound naive. I have faith in the American people. The American people overwhelmingly support what I am doing. We have got 78 percent of the American people, if I am not mistaken in the last major poll done, showing that they support my - what I am talking about, this gigantic effort to try to build back and build back better. You had an enormous number of American people supporting the last bill that passed. And look what is happened - 1.5 million new jobs, 1.5 million new jobs. You had all that money in there for ENTITY. We have now got - we have 250 million people will have gotten shots. And so, I just think with all I - what I have to do is just keep moving forward. Just keep moving forward, and the more we move, the more I demonstrate what we have done is working and is right, the more likelihood I will have to get it - look, for example, you know, we used to be, back in the old days, when I first got to the Senate, we used to invest in research and development, the things of the future. We invested more money than any - a higher percentage of our GDP than any nation in the world. What do we think is going to happen if we stand still for god's sake? What do we think is going to happen if more corporate American does not invest in research and development instead of buying back their own stock? What do - I mean, so, I think this is a matter - this is a bit of - as my grandfather, Finnegan, might say, this is a bit of an epiphany that is going on here where people are beginning to look and say, whoa, whoa. And I have met with either on the - almost all on a telephone and/or on Skype, with I think now 40-some world leaders. Are we really back in the game?


It is great to be with you. You concluded the summit. Were there any sticking points that either you or your government did not achieve? And the intentions here were to deepen and broaden what is already an excellent relationship between the GCC countries and the United States. Obviously, we have a whole range of bilateral security arrangements with the various GCC countries. We have consulted and worked with them on a range of regional challenges. But I thought the time was ripe for us to be able to come together as a group, to talk face-to-face about a wide range of these issues, and then to put forward very specific plans in terms of how we can address them. So the joint statement that we issued I think reflected the wide range of topics that were discussed. We discussed the important security assurances that I had delivered publicly in venues like the United Nations and had discussed privately, but I think it was important for them, at a time when there is so much chaos in the region, for the GCC members to hear that the United States is committed, if they are subject to external attack or the threat of attack, to work with the GCC to deter such attacks and to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the GCC countries. We also talked about the joint work that we have to do to counter violent extremism in a whole range of areas, from ending the financing of terrorist organizations to improving intelligence, to what kinds of capabilities-for example, maritime security or cyber security-that are needed. And some of these areas are ones where it is better if we do them together in integrated fashion. And we discussed Iran and why it is my firm belief that Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon and that the best way to achieve it is if we are able to accomplish a verifiable deal. But what I wanted to emphasize, because I think there is been concerns in the region about Iran's destabilizing activities, is that even if we get a deal on the nuclear issue we are still concerned with some of those activities by not only Iran and the Quds Force and the IRGC, but also proxies like Hezbollah. And so I reaffirmed with them the interest in working to strengthen their defenses, strengthen our joint positions, and then hopefully we will be in a position of strength in terms of expressing to the Iranians a desire for good relations, but also a insistence that they stop with some of those activities.

Interview with Nadia Bilbassy-Charters of Al Arabiya News Channel


And the best part about it was there was a very frank and honest conversation, the kind that you can only have when you are face to face. I am going to pin you down on a few of the points that you just mentioned. When you said that you would use military power to protect your ally, what does that mean? Well, look, I think that we have seen in the past what happened in Kuwait when Saddam Hussein invaded. I think it is U.S. policy that in the Gulf, because of the wide range of interests and the deep friendship and security relations that we have with those countries, that if there was an external threat, our military would be working with the GCC, and hopefully a broad range of other international actors, to prevent that kind of violation of the basic norms of international behavior. I think that there are concerns among some of the GCC members in how do we deal with not the traditional conventional threats, but asymmetric threats-terrorist activity, or the financing of violent activities in various countries' borders. And part of the point that I made to them is that those kinds of asymmetric threats are best dealt with through increasing capacity of training special forces, improving the interdiction of arms flowing in, better intelligence cooperation. So some of the issues that we discussed had to do with very traditional military issues. And we will be extending additional exercises, as I said, trying to help them evaluate where various GCC members are weaker and where they are stronger in their defense capabilities on, let us say, ballistic missile defense, for example. But some of these are less traditional issues that have to be addressed-how do we identify potential terrorist activity that may be taking place? How do we distinguish that from legitimate political activities that are taking place? I think those are issues that we will continue to work on. And the goal here is not that we have solved all these problems- in one day-and-a-half summit, but rather that we created a framework, a set of intentions, and now we have a series of steps that we are going to have to take through our foreign ministers, our defense ministers, and they will be reporting back to us so that when we meet again next year we will be able to see the progress that is been made. But in this case, why cannot you give them a written agreement to reinforce the Eisenhower understanding? Congress approval.


congressional approval, and it is not necessary in this situation in order for us to be able to accomplish the goals that we wanted to meet. As you know, as you mentioned, it is a great concern about Iran's activities-in Lebanon, in Syria, in Yemen, and all of these Arab countries. And it is equal to kind of the worry from the nuclear threat for most Arab countries. Yet, the security arrangement that you have talked about does not address this. Well, actually it does, in the sense that when we talk about the need for us to have joint capabilities to address destabilizing activities and conflicts in the region, some of those are directly related to the concerns surrounding Iran. Can you give me an example? Well, a very good example is making sure that Iran is not pouring in arms to Houthis inside of Yemen. And the Houthis have their own indigenous history inside of Yemen. But if the IRGC is sending significant weapons into Yemen right on the Saudi border, that becomes then a source of concern. And part of our goal here is to make sure that we are able to identify these problems, to highlight them, and then to deter them. And that was a major topic of discussion throughout the summit. Keep in mind that the United States has been very clear that a nuclear-armed Iran would be potentially even more reckless and dangerous. And so it is in everyone's interest to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and that we provide a pathway for Iran to engage in positive behavior-in commerce, in trade, in education, in scientific exchange. That is the path that we hope they take. But I have been very clear that just because we are able to resolve the nuclear issue does not negate the very real problems that we have had with their past state sponsorship of terrorism, with the potential for mischief in the region. And that is something that we will continue to address- So will we see an increased military-U.S. military presence in the area of the Gulf, for example, on the Red Sea, around the Red Sea? And we have thousands of ships-or thousands of troops. We have the Fifth Fleet. Our military assets in the region are very significant and ready to respond to a whole range of contingencies. And in addition, the GCC countries have significant capabilities, as well. One of the things that we discussed was that the issue is not necessarily if we have enough military hardware, but are we using it properly?


Are we coordinating it properly? Are we identifying the right tools for the specific challenges that we have today? On the deal with Iran, some say it is a political gamble to have this deal because 10 to 15 years is a short period. And if they are going to use this money from the sanction relief to better the life of the Iranian people, it is kind of a wishful strategy. How do you respond to that? No, but I mean the money they are going to have- -imposition of costs on Iran. So when they receive money, they are going to have to do things just to shore up their economy, which has collapsed drastically during the course of my administration and the international sanctions that we have imposed. So what is true is that we cannot simply trust the Iranians to abide by a deal. And so part of what we did during this summit was to lay out the unprecedented steps to verify and inspect and monitor nuclear activity inside of Iran. And under the framework that we are now trying to memorialize, Iran would be subject to the kinds of inspections that have never been put in place before. So we are confident that we can cut off the four pathways to Iran getting a nuclear weapon. And that verification process does not extend simply 10 years, or 15 years; it extends for a very, very long period of time. The first phase-for 10 years-they would be severely restricted in their activities around any kind of nuclear power. In the subsequent decade, they would still be under the inspections regime that we are discussing, but they would be able to do more around peaceful nuclear power. And so they would have to, essentially, earn-re-earn the trust of the international community around these issues. The alternative is to not have any idea what is taking place inside of Iran. And that, I think, is a much more dangerous situation for everyone in the region. Let me just ask you this. Often you talk about Iran with admiration and you always praise the Iranian people. But somehow it is perceived in the region that you are putting down the Sunni Arabs, that somehow you link them to extremists. And I just want you to correct this, if this is the case, because that is the impression. I think that would be a mistaken impression so Al-Arabiya is going to have to do a better job delivering my message. Our closest friends in the region are the Gulf countries, and that relationship dates back for decades now.


And when I have spoken directly to the Iranian people, essentially what I have said to them is, you have the opportunity to restore traditions that would allow you to be a full-fledged and admired member of the international community. I want to encourage that. But I have been extraordinarily critical of the Iranian regime's ideology and the approach that they have taken to international affairs, as well as how they have dealt with their own people. Daesh. Daesh and previously al Qaeda that lead to a dead-end. And that is as significant a danger as any that are faced by the GCC countries. If that continues, then that can end up being a cancer that eats away at the great nation states and traditions inside of the Gulf. And I think we have to be honest about that, and I have had very straightforward conversations about that. This is something that all the GCC members agree-which is why part of our emphasis during this summit was not just weapons and strategies. It was also how do we encourage entrepreneurship- through things like the Global Entrepreneurship Forum that we have initiated? How do we use social media so that we are reaching young people with a positive message that is as effective and as rapid as the use that ISIL is making of social media, that Daesh is making of social media? So these are also part of the cooperation that we want to try to bring about over the coming year. Talking of young leadership, you met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman here. What is your assessment of the young leadership of Saudi Arabia? And also you met the King himself. This is a new transition in the Kingdom. Well, obviously, we have extraordinary respect for His Majesty and his leadership. I had a great relationship with King Abdullah, who is deeply missed. And Mohammed bin Nayef has been a partner with us on counterterrorism work and security work for a very long time. So we have great admiration for him. This is the first time that we had had a chance to work closely with the Deputy Crown Prince, and I think he struck us as extremely knowledgeable, very smart, I think wise beyond his years. And throughout the Gulf, what you are seeing I think is more young leadership moving into positions of authority and decision-making. When I came in, I was a relatively young man, as President. I have got some gray hair.


But the world moves so quickly now and is so sophisticated, and there is so much information that is having to be processed, that for us to be able to see that next generation move in, in an effective and decisive way I think will ultimately be very good for a region of the world that is young. And we have to be able to speak and reach to those young people, and to adapt to the new circumstances of today's world. My time is running out, but I want to ask you about Syria and Iraq, quickly. It might haunt you for years to come-200,000 dead; 9 million people displaced; the worse humanitarian crisis in the 21st century. Are we going to see the end of all bloodshed before you leave office, ENTITY? Because the situation in Syria is heartbreaking, but it is extremely complex. And I am haunted by the hardships and the deaths. But when the analogy is used of Rwanda it presumes that some sort of swift U.S. intervention would have prevented these problems. You have a civil war in a country that arises out of long-standing grievances. It was not something that was triggered by the United States; it was not something that could have been stopped by the United States. And one of the things that I have said in this summit-and I was very blunt-is that all too often, I think in the Middle East region, people attribute everything to the United States. They look to the U.S. for leadership. if something-if we did something, then why did not the United States meddle in our affairs. If we do not do something, then, well, why is not the United States doing something. And I was very frank with the GCC leaders. I said, look, we are partners; we can do these things together. But the United States ultimately can only work through Arab countries who are also working on their own behalf to deal with these issues. And part of our goal here is to build capacity. This is why in Iraq, for example, I have been fully prepared to support a legitimate, constitutionally appropriate Iraqi government. But what I have said is we will work through the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military and we will support them. And in Syria, our efforts have to be as part of a broader international coalition, and ultimately a military solution is not going to be the solution.


If the United States simply sent in troops into Syria-our military is very effective, and for a short period of time, we potentially could come down on the side of the opposition against Assad. But in terms of governance, in terms of keeping the peace, in terms of working through some of the sectarian issues that have plagued that country as well as the region for such a long time, those would still be there. And so we are prepared to work not just with the GCC, but with countries like Turkey-which has a very powerful military, are right on the border. They have got 2 million people who they have very generously, I think, accepted from Syria.   Sure but, forgive me, ENTITY, when people rise and they demand their rights, they look up to the United States. They do not look to any other country. And especially after President Assad used chemical weapons, people felt they have been let down. The civil war did not start from day one. They felt that you could have done something in the beginning and you did not . But if you look at the history of the process, essentially what they are arguing is that we should have invaded Syria and overthrown the Syrian regime-which, by the way, would be a violation of international law, and undoubtedly we would then be criticized for that, as well. And so what I think we have tried to do is be very clear about principles, what we believe in. With respect to the chemical weapons issue, my principle was that chemical weapons should not be used. People may criticize us for not having launched missiles against Assad after chemical weapons had been used, but keep in mind why we did not . We did not because they got rid of their chemical weapons. And that, in fact, was very important. It did not solve barrel bombs. It did not solve the incredible hardships that all the Syrian people are going through. But to solve those larger problems, that requires the kind of international work in which we are obviously a very significant part and a very significant partner-and my Secretary of State, John Kerry, has been tireless in trying to arrive at a diplomatic solution to this problem.


Part of the problem we also have is that on the other side inside of Syria, we have extremists who may be opposed to Assad but also deeply opposed to the United States, are deeply opposed to the GCC countries; are interested in establishing a very destructive order and have engaged in the same kinds of brutality and violence that we do not want to see deeply entrenched. What I am optimistic about is that the GCC countries represent stability and also I think an awareness of the need for us to be able to move together and create the framework so that young people-instead of being attracted to violence, or not being able to go to school, or being victims in the crossfire of civil war-are able to live peacefully. And I think they also understand the need for us to move beyond the sectarianism that is being fanned by extremists who just want power and use that as an excuse. You are the second President I am interviewing who is leaving office without realizing the vision of a Palestinian state. You had serious efforts in the first and second administration. Yet we receive-we reached a dead-end. Who is responsible for that? On the one hand, I am a deep and strong supporter of Israel, and the connection between the United States and Israel is obviously powerful. And Israel has legitimate security concerns. And what is also true is I am deeply committed to a Palestinian state. You know, in my visits to places like Ramallah, when I talk to young Palestinian students and I hear their sense that their world is shut off because of their circumstances in the West Bank, or when I hear some of the heartbreaking stories in Gaza, the only solution to me over the long term is a two-state solution. And we worked very hard, but, frankly, the politics inside of Israel and the politics among the Palestinians, as well, made it very difficult for each side to trust each other enough to make that leap. And what I think at this point, realistically, we can do is to try to rebuild trust-not through a big overarching deal, which I do not think is probably possible in the next year, given the makeup of the Netanyahu government, given the challenges I think that exist for President Abbas-but if we can start building some trust around, for example, relieving the humanitarian suffering inside of Gaza and helping the ordinary people in Gaza to recover from the devastation that happened last year


We start with a very basic question. Are you preparing the country to go back to war? I am preparing the country to make sure that we deal with a threat from ISIL. Keep in mind that this is something that we know how to do. We have been dealing with terrorist threats for quite some time. This administration has systematically dismantled Al Qaeda in the FATA. We just yesterday announced the fact that we had taken out the top leader of Al-Shabaab the terrorist-- organization in Somalia. ISIL poses a broader threat because of its territorial ambitions in Iraq and Syria. But the good news is coming back from the most recent NATO meeting is the entire international community understands that this is something that has to be dealt with. So what I have done over the last several months is, first and foremost, make sure that we got eyes on the problem, that we shifted resources, intelligence, reconnaissance. We did an assessment on the ground. The second step was to make sure that we protected American personnel, our embassies, our consulates. That included taking air strikes to ensure that towns like Erbil were not overrun, critical infrastructure, like the Mosul Dam was protected, and that we were able to engage in key humanitarian assistance programs that have saved thousands of lives. The next phase is now to start going on some offense. We have to get an Iraqi government in place. And I will then meet with congressional leaders on Tuesday. On Wednesday, I will make a speech and describe what our game plan's going to be going forward. But this is not going to be an announcement about U.S. ground troops. This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war. What this is is similar to the kinds of counterterrorism campaigns that we have been engaging in consistently over the last five, six, seven years. And the good news is is that because of American leadership, we have I believe, a broad-based coalition internationally and regionally to be able to deal with the problem. What are you asking of the American people on Wednesday? You say you are giving a speech. That is the type of thing, I assume, you are preparing the country for something. What are you asking of them? What do you want--what do you want the American people to receive? Well more than that, I just want the American people to understand the nature of the threat and how we are going to deal with it and to have confidence that we will be able to deal with it.

Interview with Chuck Todd of NBC News Meet the Press


You realize you are giving that speech the day before the 13th anniversary of 9/11. And I--I want everybody to understand that we have not seen any immediate intelligence about threats to the homeland from ISIL. That is not what this is about. What it is about is an organization that, if allowed to control significant amounts of territory, to amass more resources, more arms to attract more foreign fighters, including from areas like Europe, who have Europeans who have visas and then can travel to the United States unimpeded, that over time, that can be a serious threat to the homeland. In-- in the more immediate term, it is an imm-- it is a threat to friends, partners in the region and is causing all kinds of hardship. And we have seen the savagery not just in terms of how they dealt with the two Americans that had been taken hostage but the killing of thousands of innocents in-- in Iraq thousands of innocents in Syria, the kidnapping of women the complete disruption of entire villages. So what I am going to be ask-- asking the American people to understand is, number one, this is a serious threat. Number two, we have the capacity to deal with it. Here is how we are going to deal with it. I am going to be asking Congress to make sure that they understand and support what our plan is. And it is going to require some resources, I suspect, above what we are currently doing in the region-- This is asking Congress for a vote, an authorization of your strategy. This is not a what-- what does that mean? Well, I-- I-- I am confident that I have the authorization that I need to protect the American people. And I am always going to do what is necessary to protect the American people. But I do think it is important for Congress to understand what the plan is, to have buy in, to debate it. And that is why we have been consulting with Congress throughout. And this speech will allow Congress, I think, to understand very clearly and very specifically what it is that we are doing but also what we are not doing. We are not looking at sending in 100,000 American troops. We are going to be as part of an international coalition, carrying out air strikes in support of work on the ground by Iraqi troops, Kurdish troops.


We are going to be helping to put together a plan for them, so that they can start retaking territory that ISIL had taken over. We are going to have to work with our regional partners to attract back Sunni tribes that may have felt that they had no connection to a Baghdad government that was ignoring their grievances. And what I want people to understand, though, is that over the course of months, we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum of ISIL. We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities. We are going to shrink the territory that they control. And ultimately we are going to defeat 'em. Long way, long way from when you described them as a JV team. Keep-- keep-- keep in mind I was not specifically referring to ISIL. I have said that, regionally, there were a whole series of organizations that were focused primarily locally. Were not focused on homeland, because I think a lot of us, when we think about terrorism, the model is Osama bin Laden and 9/11. You do not believe these people-- And I was very specific at that time. What I said was, not every regional terrorist organization is automatically a threat to us that would call for a major offensive. But what is absolutely clear in ISIL, which started as Al Qaeda in Iraq and arose out of the U.S. invasion there and was contained because of the enormous efforts of our troops there then shifted to Syria, has metastasized, has grown. But keep in mind that we anticipated some of these problems in the speech that I gave at West Point you know, several months ago, where I specifically said, our goal should not be to think that we can occupy every country where there is a terrorist organization. Our goal has to be to partner more effectively with governments that are committed to-- pushing back against the kind of extremism that ISIL represents. And that is going to require us to do things a little bit differently. We are going to have to train the military there more capably. We have got to do more effective diplomatic work to eliminate the the schism between Sunni and Shia that has been fueling so much of the violence in Syria, in Iraq. And so we put together a plan that is compatible with the kind of work that we are doing now. You have not said the word, Syria, so far in our conversation. Obviously, if you are going to defeat ISIS, you have used very much stronger language.