Some of them never were for me. I have read your letter, the last part of the letter. Do you feel that you have met your mandate to reduce spending and taxes, in view of the figures that the Wall Street Journal had? They said spending this year is 24.1 percent of the GNP, compared to 21.9 in the '75 recession, and 22.5 in the last Carter year, the GNP, now, being 24.1 higher than either of the previous recessions. Well, of course, you have got to recognize that in the depth of this recession, there had been a bigger dip in the percentagewise, also in the gross national product. What I am counting on we are going to get that percentage down. We think that the percentage has been too high for a number of years of gross national product. But we are talking about a normal gross national product also. We have had a long period in which the GNP has been going down, and only just recently, in this last quarter, did it show any increase at all. The percentage that we are aiming at is to reduce the percentage of increase in government spending each year. And, when we took office, it was running at 17 percent a year, increasing. Now, remember, on the other hand, we have an obligation that I accepted during the campaign of one area where there would be increased spending. And that was to rectify the damage that has been done to our national security and national defense. And, many times in the campaign, I was asked by people in question-and-answer sessions, and sometimes by the press, if I found that I came down to choice of balancing the budget or doing what needed to be done for national defense, which side would I come down on? And I said every time, On the side of national defense. And, incidentally, to audiences, when that was asked, that answer always received applause, which indicated to me that the American people have been well aware that our defenses had been allowed to deteriorate. Were you aware that Ed Meese 2 said yesterday in a speech here that the conservatives' way has not worked, and that now, quote, We have to try something else. Does that mean that the administration or yourself was reconsidering supply-side economics?


And I think maybe he was talking about those same dissidents that you have been talking about there, and I'd like to see the whole framework or the manner in which it was asked or something. first of all, continued reduction in spending; at the same time, that for the economy's sake and to get it rolling again that we must also, as we can, reduce the percentage that government is taking in taxes from the people. Now, to that extent this is probably what Jack Kemp is relying on, that wherever it may come from, that this $99 billion now is coming from the private sector and going to government. You are certainly perceived as further to the center than Kemp is right now, or he is further to the right than you are, but You could not add the other, which is all important. It was made plain to us this year. We did not come in with the proposal to raise revenues. We came in with the proposal for more cutting of spending. And found out this time and crossing the aisle, Democrat and Republican we could not put together a coalition for the continued spending cuts unless we would agree to some added revenues. Now, when, over a 3 year period, those revenues turned out to be revenue increases $99 billion, $31 billion of which is money owed the Government not being collected and in that same 3 year period our tax cuts are going to bring in $406 3 billion to the people then I figured that the price was not too high in return for getting $280 billion in reduced outlays, $3 for every $1 of revenue. What is your opinion of the reported threat I do not know if it is a real threat or a reported threat that Republican National Committee campaign funds might be withheld from House candidates in November if they do not vote for this bill? Weft, I do not see that. I do not know that that is anything more than rumor. My own feeling is we I am going to do my best to campaign for Republicans and get Republicans in office here No matter how they vote on the tax bill? You and you go for the entire record. But there are large tax increases in the bill, although it is not entirely a tax bill although not on personal income. And I know you'd rather have what this cut pass. What was Larry's 4 word was we choked on it, I think.  But what is the rationale for cutting $17.5 billion from the Federal health and welfare programs?

Interview with Jeremiah O'Leary of the Washington Times on Federal Tax and Budget Reconciliation Legislation


Because, here again, people automatically transfer that into a reduction of care for those who really need it. What we see these as, these cuts, are based on our estimates of how we can continue to give the necessary care but eliminate the fat that has grown in the program. When we reformed welfare in California, we found out that in the Medicaid program, for example, the Medicaid patients were averaging several times as long in a hospital for an operation as private patients were for the same operation. I think some of it was that it was easier for a doctor to just leave them there and see them on his morning rounds than to have an office call or a house call or something. It was not they had no reason to get out. The average patient, you or I in a hospital, we know the price of the room, and the first thing we start asking is, How soon can I go home? Well, where they have no concern, they were willing to convalesce. It is that type of thing that we think will result from the tightening in the amount of money. Are you convinced that this reduction of 17.5 will not do harm or damage to any of the people who have need of these services? Will you veto I know you do not like to forecast vetoes, but strong signals, let us say the urgent supplemental bill that is coming down, even though it contains the CBI as sort of a hostage? Let me say, you. This does not come out until Monday. you almost answered the question yourself. In principle, I have told the Congress I am going to veto budget busting bills, if I have to do that in order to make them match this tax increase with the cuts in spending that are supposed to be attached to it. But I do refrain from announcing a veto of any specific bill until it arrives on my desk and I see it. We all know what it is like now. Do you think you can get the CBI out of another CBI separate bill out of the Senate later? I wish that the President of the United States had the power that most Governors have in their own States, which is the right of line item veto. I will see if I cannot arrange that. I was going to talk only about taxes, but I hope you let me allow me as I terminate here one question about the Middle East.


And first, I must congratulate you for your daughter's wedding. I know you are listening to your mom; I know you are a father, and you are having a daughter's wedding. You know something, I was emotional, and-because I was so happy and proud. And she is marrying a good guy, ENTITY. And we were out there on our ranch, which is a part of the world Laura and I love, and it was just a special evening, and it was great. You have given- we are going to Lebanon. You are giving Hizballah the choice of being terrorist organization or a political party. What do you think would prompt Hizballah to abandon its Why Hizballah claim the existence of legitimate concern for these weapons? I mean, it is hard for me to get inside Hizballah's head. I do know that they are destabilizing Lebanon. I do know that they were viewed at one time as the protectors against Israel, and now, in fact, they are turning against the Lebanese people themselves. And I do know that Lebanon's success is very important for peace in the Middle East. And so our position-the-my Government's position is to support the Siniora Government, is to beef up his army so that he can have a chance to respond to people who are acting outside the confines of government. And you know, Hizballah would not be- would be nothing without Iranian support. And Iranian is the crux of many of the problems in the Middle East, whether it be funding of Hizballah, funding of Hamas, or obviously, actions within the young democracy of Iraq. And so a lot of my trip is going to be to get people to focus not only on Lebanon and remember Lebanon, but also to remember that Iran causes a lot of the problems around the Middle East. We are going to touch that Iranian support and Syrian support to Hizballah. Many supporters of the U.S. policy in Lebanon criticize the lack of practical American support to the Siniora Government. That is what we are seeing right now. The USS Cole is now heading to the region, in what you call a-or previously mentioned, the support of an American ally. Does this mean the USS Cole is willing to offer this practical assistance? And that is what we are doing.

Interview With Lukman Ahmed of BBC Arabic


A couple years ago, I sent one of our top admirals to Lebanon to assess the needs of the military. And as well as I have been watching very carefully to assess the courage of the leadership, like Prime Minister Siniora. I am impressed by the Prime Minister. He is a good guy who cares deeply about the future of his country. And he needs a military that has got the practical equipment necessary to deal with elements in this society that are destabilizing. And as supporting the Lebanese military, that means they should go, or do you think would go, to disarm Hizballah? Well, of course, I do not see how you can have a society with Hizballah armed up the way they are. I mean, any time they feel like moving, they try to do it. In this case, though, they moved against the Lebanese people. They are not moving against any foreign country; they are moving against the Lebanese people. And it should send a signal to everybody that they are a destabilizing force. And-but the first step, of course, is to make sure that the Siniora Government has got the capacity to respond with a military that is effective, that can move point A to point B in a quick fashion, and that is got the capacity to get the job done. You are calling both Iran and Syria to halt their support to Hizballah. But in the absence of any direct contact with Iran and Syria, your administration- how do you think both countries should stop doing this? You are not negotiating with them. You are not exploring other means to have them halt their support. I mean, they know my position. Early on in my administration, we sent the word to the Syrians, with top administrative officials, that if you want better relations with the United States, stop supporting these extremist groups that are trying to stop the advance of free societies. So they know our position, the Syrians and the Iranians. If the Iranians want to have relations with us, they ought to verifiably suspend their enrichment, and then they will-they can visit with us and other nations involved with the-through the U.N. process. But they-both sides, both countries have made the decision to not take up offers.


And they are -I truly believe that the Middle East is where the world ought to spend a lot of time, attention, and focus to help bring prosperity and peace, and that when people do pay attention closely, they will recognize the destabilizing influence that the Iranians and the Syrians are having. So what are the other means that you think you could take to have them stop their support? Well, you know, there are sanctions, of course. And we are doing that. The problem is, some folks just do not see the same-the threat that Iran poses in the Middle East, for example, as others do. We are going to the Palestinian and Israeli issue. And we know that you are going there to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of Israel, and you are the ENTITY who put the idea of the two-state solution. They call this anniversary as Nakba, or disaster. What do you say to them, ENTITY? I say to them that I care deeply about the Palestinian people and their future. They are going to have a choice to make, hopefully, and that choice is, here is what a state's going to look like, or do you want the kind of state that Hamas has brought you? And there needs to be a vision that people can see, that is clearly spelled out, with defined borders and the refugee issue settled and something on how to move forward on the holy sites, security discussions. You can accept that, or you can continue to follow or accept in your presence these extremists who murder innocent people. Is not it interesting that as the talks begin to emerge, there is more rockets flying into Israeli neighborhoods? Because they want to stop the advance of a Palestinian state. And so no, I got a good message for the people of the Palestinian Territories. In fact, I am going to carry on that message. I am given 30 seconds, so I hope if you could allow me to ask this question here. In your last meeting with Abu Mazen here in the White House, you stated, as I quote here, that I am confident we can achieve the definition of a state. Yes. Are you willing to tell me that before the end of your administration, there will be an agreement to be concluded, based on the assurance you get from the-both sides? We are going to work hard for that end. I understand that. And Abu Mazen was expressing frustrations with the process, and that is okay.


He is sending a message. He was not speaking necessarily to the American people. He was sending a message back home that he is frustrated, and he expects there to be more progress made to his liking. I understand that. That is what negotiations are all about. Abu Mazen and Olmert are, of course, necessary to get a good deal, but there is still-Tzipi Livni and Abu Ala are talking now. And the fundamental question is, when it gets down to it, will they be able to agree? They have closed the gap, closed the gap. Will they be able to agree at that last minute? And that is why Condi Rice and Hadley and others are going out there all the time to encourage them to get a deal done. It is in their interests. It is in the Israelis' interests that there be a state living side by side with them in peace, and it is in the Palestinians' interest. What they need is a state that responds to the will of the people. And the first step is to define what the state looks like.  And the agreement that you are trying to get it done, is it going to be a description of the state or the establishment of the state? No, it will be a description of the state. Remember, I told everybody earlier that there is got to be some roadmap obligations that have to be met. Everybody understands that. And the state cannot look like Swiss cheese. It has to be contiguous territories with defined borders-and the refugee issue concluded as well. And that is what we are going to get before the end of your administration-- ENTITY, it is very vital, as you say it always, that their cooperation to have stability in Iraq. Do you think that it-you consider one day that-talking direct to them to have them achieve that goal to-- But they know our position. We have had talks between our Embassy and their Embassy. They know, and they know that the Iraqi Government, along with the U.S. Government, wants them to stop sending their weapons from Iran into Iraq, all aiming to kill innocent people. That is what they are doing. But they absolutely know our position. And when we catch them doing it, they will be brought to justice. And we are catching them doing it right now.


Is that an accurate way of saying your name? ENTITY, will Ukraine be invited to participate in the Membership Action Plan at NATO summit? And how much, if it gets it, this invitation, how much time will be needed for Ukraine to enter NATO? Nine years as it is for Macedonia, or 5 years as it was for the Baltic States? ENTITY, first of all, it is -the decision will be made by NATO members at Bucharest. So when I come to your country, I will be saying that I believe that Ukraine benefits from not only the process to join NATO but eventually, hopefully, joining NATO. But that decision will not be made until we are all there in Romania. Secondly, it just depends on the country as to how long events will-the reforms take in order to get offered membership into NATO. And I believe it is in our collective interest that we offer a clear path forward. But it is very important for the people in your country to understand that the decision will not be made until after I leave Ukraine and make it to Romania. Are they still talking about the rainbow speech ? Were you there for that? I was giving a speech in the town square where Ceausescu had given his final speech. You remember that? I remember the rainbow most of all. Moldova is a country between NATO member Romania and possible future NATO member Ukraine. poverty, corruption, and Russian troops on its territory without its consent. Washington is currently involved in resolving a breakaway region, Transnistria. But my question is, what do you think the United States can do to help Moldova to become a democratic, independent state and not a failed state under Russian influence, a point of instability at the NATO border? First is to continue to make our intentions clear, and that is that we want to work to make sure Moldova, which is now an independent nation, has got sovereign borders and is treated like an independent nation. Secondly, we constantly advocate for good, clean, open government. Thirdly, we are a member of a 5-plus-2, which is the process by which, hopefully, the Transnistria issue would be solved. So our strategy is to work with the relevant parties and to promote, as you said, a independent, open, transparent, good-government Moldova.

Interview With Foreign Print Journalists


how do you see Croatia future in the NATO architecture in southeastern Europe, regarding its capability to host joint military bases, and primarily NATO forces, and the further development of its armed forces and its readiness to take part in NATO missions and contribute to the common security of the alliance? And how do you see the role of Croatia in promoting peace and stability in southeastern Europe, especially regarding the present situation relating to the establishment of independent Kosovo? Secondly, Croatia has served as a very good example, following a very dramatic moment, and that is the breakup of Yugoslavia. And your Government has made difficult decisions and made those decisions, first and foremost, on behalf of the people. But it turns out, many of the reform decisions, therefore, make it likely that Croatia will be invited into NATO. The question is, would people have predicted 15 years ago that we'd be having this kind of discussion about Croatia? And yet Croatia is a independent, sovereign nation, hopefully, soon to be invited to join NATO, which is a clear example of what is possible if people make the right decisions on behalf of their people. Part of being a part of NATO means commitment to a modern military. And Croatian troops, which have performed bravely in recent active theaters during this war against extremism, will benefit from being in NATO and benefit from serving side by side with other members of NATO. NATO membership would be a very positive thing for the people of Croatia. And I am really looking forward to going to your country. I hope I am coming with good news, but the decision will be made in this case before I go to Croatia. And they say it is one of the most beautiful coastlines in the entire world. Hope you are going to see that. Am I going to get to see the coastline? I do think Great Britain ought to be in NATO, yes. In a different field of operations, in Iraq, there is been a recent upsurge again in violence, which appears to have emanated in the area of Basra, which Britain used to control. Do you believe recent events there serve as a warning to those in your country and beyond who have counseled you to withdraw rapidly? My first reaction to watching the Iraqi Government respond forcefully-and to make it abundantly clear that-I think the exact-I cannot remember the exact words of the Prime Minister, but criminal elements, I know, were a part of his declaration-would be dealt with.


I thought that was a very positive moment in the development of a sovereign nation that is willing to take on elements that are-you know, that believe they are beyond the law. And secondly, we are helping, but it is important to know that the Iraqis are in the lead. This is a positive moment in the development of a nation that can govern itself and defend itself and sustain itself. We will provide oversight and, on occasion, support when asked. And one of the things I will be saying in the runup to the Petraeus-Crocker testimony is that we have made substantial gains, but it is still a fragile situation. Therefore, the decision about our troop levels will be based upon not politics or not who can scream the loudest, but based upon whether or not we can maintain the successes we have had. And I understand there is people here who want us to leave regardless of the situation, but that is not going to happen so long as I am the Commander in Chief. The British commitment was-first of all, you were there from day one, and you were there during the very heavy fighting. And the British commitment was to move to the airbase based upon success. And I am very grateful for the British friendship and alliance and the contributions. What do you think, ENTITY? So you flew all the way over here just for this interview? Oh, so guess what happened to me. I went down to Crawford-that is in Texas-and I went to an event for-to honor some of our soldiers' families. And a local doctor-I think it was a doctor-came and said, Would you mind meeting a group of people from Ukraine? And there we were in Waco, Texas, with, I think, maybe 20 or 30 health care specialists from Ukraine that were in my home State. And it was sure good to meet them. And how important is Ukraine's recognition of Kosovo in the U.S. point of view? Do you expect this step from the Ukrainian authorities in the nearest future? That is going to be up to the Ukranian authorities to make the decisions that they deem are necessary. We hope they will recognize Kosovo's independence, just like we have. It is supervised independence, of course, but we strongly supported that idea from the beginning and supported the U.N. plan that would help lead to a supervised independence and, at the same time, guarantee the minority rights within Kosovo.


And we would hope Ukraine would do the same thing. Romania is a U.S. ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Romanians are not met as allies on the United States territory. You are heading towards the visa issue, are not you? What Romania should do to enter in waiver visa program? And what do you recommend us, bilateral negotiations with the United States or negotiations through European Union? You better turn that thing up, because I am going to give you a whopper of an answer. Give me the news, I hope. Now, first of all, it is hard for me to justify to the citizens of Romania that they can serve alongside our troops in major theaters in the war against extremists and not be able to have-be treated like other members of the EU, as far as visa waiver, and I know that. And it is difficult for citizens to understand that. But we are still dealing with a-you know, it is-we are adjusting law based upon previous practice. And the law needed to change, reflecting the modern era, and it did change. Congress did change the capacity for-to have a new look at visa waiver. And my advice is for the Romanian Government to negotiate bilaterally with the United States in order to solve this problem. There are other countries in your neighborhood that are making good progress toward being granted visa waiver. And I would strongly urge your leaders to take a look at what they have done and then interface with our officials. And I will , of course, be talking of this with the President and the Prime Minister when I am there. ENTITY, Croatian NATO membership bid and steadfast support of your administration for that ambition was a centerpiece of the bilateral relations between Croatia and U.S.A. last 7 or 8 years. And will it now, if Croatia became a NATO member-and relations will be elevated to the higher level of allies-can we expect to see more importance will be attached to the economic cooperation, U.S. investment in Croatia in the future? Yes, our relationships tend not to be-they tend to be multidimensional and not just based upon one aspect or another. And I believe strongly in free trade and the movement of investment. And Croatia occupies a crucial part-a crucial space in an important part of the world. And of course, we want to enhance trade. A lot of Americans need to learn more about Croatia, although there are about a million Croatian Americans here.


Of course, those opportunities will be advantaged if the Government makes rational decisions on, for example, good investment laws. And therefore, the laws need to be transparent, the rule of law consistent, the Government obviously clean, so that the main risk for an invested currency is not government risk, it is the risk of the enterprise itself. And therefore, to answer your question, yes, of course, we want to have all kinds of different aspects of our relationship flourish with Croatia. But in terms of investing, it is going to be up to the Government to make decisions to make sure the investment climate is good. You mentioned in your preamble that it is important for NATO to honor its obligations to Afghanistan. In recent days, Nicolas Sarkozy, your new friend- -has promised another 1,000 troops for Afghanistan. Is there any sense that on that battlefield and indeed, beyond, France is now emerging as your greatest ally? I have always said that the relationship with the United Kingdom is a special relationship. And that relationship was never as special as it was during times of conflict, whether it be the relationship in the past between, like, Roosevelt and Churchill, or whether it be the current relationship, more modern relationship between Tony Blair and myself. And so your question, our greatest ally, it is going to be hard for any nation to trump Great Britain as our-United Kingdom as our greatest ally. Having said that, no question, the relationship is changing for the better, and President Sarkozy gets a lot of credit for that. I like him personally. He is a highly energetic, decisive person, who is not interested in creating divisions between-in the transatlantic alliance, but is interested in making sure that not only are bilateral relations are good, but the transatlantic alliance meets the threats. And his statement about commitment to-French troops to Afghanistan is a very important preamble to the NATO conference. When you combine our commitment, the Canadian commitment, the British commitment, and the French commitment of troops that will be in harm's way, it is a strong statement that NATO understands the threats, understands the challenges, and is willing to rise to them. I thought we said two questions apiece. In your opinion, what are the prospects for democracy in Russia, in Medvedev-- I have not met President Medvedev yet. I may have met him once, but I have not had a talk to him, President to President, obviously. I am looking forward to meeting him.


So I am going to go to Russia. I have been invited to Russia. President Putin has invited me to Russia. You are the first to hear it, so you can hustle out of here and put it on the wires. This is no longer off the record. 30 p.m.-3:15 p.m., President Putin has invited me to go to Sochi. And it is to discuss the strategic agreement, the crucial part of which is missile defense. Condi Rice and Bob Gates had a good visit with the President and counterparts on this very issue-and hopefully, that we can advance our dialogue, so at some point in time, we can reach an agreement on these important matters, proliferation matters. I know we have got agreement on Iran, and that is that Iran should not have the capacity to enrich, and that I supported the Russian efforts to convince the Iranians that they did not need to learn how to enrich, because he-Putin-was willing to provide enriched uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant. So there is an area where we will continue to have discussions. And I called President-elect Medvedev and reminded him-and congratulated him for getting elected and reminded him that-of some of the comments he made about rule law and transparency-and cannot remember exactly everything he said, but it sounded very progressive. And I said, we are listening very carefully to your words, and I appreciated your speech and looking forward to working with you to help accomplish those objectives. But I have yet to work with him, obviously, President to President. So check back in with me after I have had a couple of meetings with him. When are you going to Russia? We have not worked the details yet. In other words, there is an invitation out there, and this is really-the way to look at this is a follow-up to Condi and Bob Gates's meeting, which is good. Romania and other nations would hope that the United States would have good relations with Russia. And it is important that we have good relations with Russia; we can find common interests. On the other hand, there are areas where we have been able to be in a position where I have expressed my disagreements with President Putin on different matters related to their democracy. And my strategy all along is to keep relations such that he will actually listen to what I have to say.


Contrary to all the rhetoric that you are hearing from Russia, there is no excuse for not only Russian troops being massed along the borders of Ukraine, but also there is no excuse for the covert support and certainly the rhetorical support that you are seeing for these militias that are taking over government buildings and causing chaos. So it sounds like you are saying Vladimir Putin is trying to provoke a civil war. Well, what I am saying is that the Russians generally have not been respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The question now becomes whether or not this can be deescalated and resolved in a way that gives Ukrainians a chance to make their own decisions about their own lives. What I have said consistently is that each time Russia takes these kinds of steps that are designed to destabilize Ukraine and violate their sovereignty, that there are going to be consequences. Putin's decisions are not just bad for Ukraine. Over the long term, they are going to be bad for Russia. Now, we want to give diplomacy a chance as long as ultimately the decisions are being made by Ukrainians not by Russians, not by Americans, not by other European nations, but by Ukrainians themselves. I know you have thought a lot about this, ENTITY. In your mind, is there a line never mind the color is there a line in Eastern Europe or Ukraine that Vladimir Putin must not cross? Can you articulate that for the world and for the Russian government? I think the world understands very clearly that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has deep historical roots with Russia. None of us think that somehow Ukraine can ignore Russia, should be hostile towards Russia. Now, what we have said consistently is that we are not going to see a military resolution to this problem. But we do have a stake, as every country around the world has a stake, in upholding basic international norms and basic international rules. So what we are going to be doing is working closely with not just our European allies, but allies around the world and partners around the world, sending a strong message to Russia that there are consequences to this. And I think it is very important because we have not seen enough of this in some of the reporting. What Mr. Putin's been doing, he does out of sense of weakness, not strength.

Interview with Major Garrett of CBS's This Morning


The fact that he is willing to endanger his economy and lose all credibility around the world the way he has is indicative of the fact that Ukrainians are unsatisfied with a relationship in which you have got another country trying to dictate their foreign policy and their economy. What message do you think Vladimir Putin is trying to send you and the U.S. military by having a Russian fighter jet buzz a U.S. warship? Is he mocking you and the U.S. military? I have to tell you that everybody around the world understands the superiority of our military. And as commander in chief, I do not make decisions based on perceived signals. We make decisions very deliberately based on what is required for our security and for the security of our allies. The Russians understand that. They are not interested in any kind of military confrontation with us, understanding that our conventional forces are significantly superior to the Russians'. We do not need a war. What we do need is a recognition that countries like Ukraine can have relationships with a whole range of their neighbors. And it is not up to anybody, whether it is Russia or the United States or anybody else, to make decisions for them. But what I really want to know, Mr. Vice President, is the expectation even the optics of this will be viewed by some through the prism of 2016. That is going to be true whatever you do, the moment you declare whether you are a candidate or not. Does that change your ability to work on behalf of this president? ENTITY, how does this all filter through your daily life? I could not say I could not say it better myself. I have got somebody who I think will go down as one of the finest vice presidents in history. And he has been, as I said earlier, a great partner in everything that I do. I suspect that there may be other potential candidates for 2016 who have been great friends and allies. I know that we have got an extraordinary secretary of state who did great service for us and worked with me and Joe to help make the country safer. Whoever the Democratic standard bearer is is going to be continuing to focus on jobs, making sure that our kids are getting a great education, making sure that we are rebuilding prosperity from the middle class out in this country. And I am very much interested in making sure that some of the stuff that we have gotten started continues.


I am looking forward to our state dinner. It is a chance for me to, on a personal level, repay the favor of my friend Aleksander for his great hospitality to Laura and me when we visited he and Jolanta there in Warsaw. Secondly, it is a chance to say to our country and the world how important our relations are with Poland. We really think respect the Polish people. We have got great numbers of Polish Americans who still love the motherland. And it is going to be a wonderful occasion to build on a great relationship, make it even better. We will discuss a lot of topics. We will talk about the war on terror. Poland has been a great friend and supporter, member of the coalition on the war against terror. We have got troops in the on ships off the Indian Ocean. We have got engineers in Bagram, shared intelligence. I am confident he will want to talk about NATO expansion. Perhaps I will leave that for a question. But all in all, we have got great relations, and I look forward to having a good conversation with a leader I respect. And I respect Aleksander Kwasniewski. Why do not we start with you, sir. ENTITY, about your talks with President Kwasniewski next week, Poland has been viewed by your administration as one of the most successful examples of democratic transformation. However, the current Polish Government is taking some steps and adopting some laws which would obviously limit independence of media and central bank, which are the pillars of democracy. So are you going to raise these issues with the ENTITY? Well, first of all, I have got faith that a democracy will work. And I am confident that the Polish Government and the Polish people will come up with the right answers to issues relating to any law. I will of course, if he asks my opinion, I will remind him that an independent media is a very important part of democracy. It is one of the pillars of democracy. I value our media, as an aside, saying that of course to pander to the people here that cover me on a daily basis. But I do value a free and open media, and I think it is an incredibly important part. We value the progress that Poland has made and the example Poland has set in a neighborhood that was a pretty tough neighborhood for awhile. And I was most impressed, when I went to Warsaw, to see the spirit of the people and the optimism.

Interview With Polish Journalists


I understand the country is going through tough times, but all countries go through tough times. ENTITY, you are taking Aleksander Kwasniewski it was your decision to go to Troy, Michigan, to meet with Polish Americans. What is the reason for that meeting, and if you could tell us, what is your message to Polish Americans? Well, first of all, the message to Polish Americans is, I respect and honor the Polish traditions and Polish heritage. Actually, there was a even in my own State of Texas, there is a community or two that Polish Americans have settled in Texas and still retains many of the great traditions and heritages. It also reminds people that even though they have got a Polish heritage and embraced Polish traditions, they are Americans. It is a great part of the American experience. We envelop and welcome people from all walks of life. That in itself is an important statement to constantly make in our country. It reminds people of the strength of the country. I have decided to go to Troy, Michigan, because it is going to be a I hope it is a fun trip for Aleksander. I mean, I think it is important I understand what a state dinner is like. They arrive on the South Lawn. I try to wear a tuxedo as little as possible, I want you to know. And he is going to see a big, enthusiastic crowd. It will give him a chance to say some things. And I think that is important to provide him a forum, so that he can not only be seen in a tuxedo but be seen speaking his mind about whatever issue he wants to talk about to an American audience that is made up of people from his homeland that have now settled in our country. To me, it helps complete the state dinner aspect of the trip. ENTITY, I talked to Mr. Kwasniewski just before yesterday. He looks good, in good shape. He told me that one of the topics he would like to touch on is the recent financial scandals in the U.S., because they are a kind of backlash on Central Europe, and the recovery is difficult.  Yes, I will explain to him we are doing things, and I will be glad to lay out the initiative I talked about and have been talking about, by the way, since March February and March and then the speech I gave in New York. And of course, our House has acted the House of Representatives acted, and the Senate has acted.

Interview With Polish Journalists


And if he looks at what I proposed and what the Senate has proposed and what the House proposed, there is not much difference. And in other words, the point is that a bill will come out that will hold people accountable for accounting error accounting fraud and, as we go forward, hopefully set an example make it clear to people, there will be a consequence if they continue to do that. There are markets three things affect our markets, I will explain to Aleksander. One of course is confidence and the numbers, and we are addressing that. Secondly is the war on terror. And the American people know that we are doing everything we can to protect the homeland and run down these killers wherever they try to hide. And that is all they are, by the way, just nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers. And thirdly, the corporate sector the profits are beginning to improve, but the price-earnings multiples in other words, the price of a share relative to its earnings was very high, and the market is adjusting. So all three of those factors are important. And obviously we that is not the whole picture of our economy, and that is what Aleksander has got to understand. The market reflects part of it, but our unemployment rate is looks like it is steady. As a matter of fact, it had a drop, and it is level. In other words, the recovery is beginning to show some strength. So therefore, what I am going to ask him is to look at the entire picture. Finally, we have got good monetary policy and good fiscal policy here in Washington, and that in itself is part of long-term recovery. And so he will hear a man who is recognizes that we are making some progress. We have got to do more, but I am pleased to report to him that I think things are going to get better. The foundation for long-term growth has been is in place. ENTITY, I wanted to ask you a question about the war against terrorism. The Europeans seem to less and less support the war against terrorism. And I wonder if you could explain to us, why do you think it is happening, and if you are ready to go alone on this next phase of the war, whatever the phase is? No, I do not feel that the support from Europe is lessening.

Interview With Polish Journalists


As a matter of fact, I have just come from a G- 8 meeting in Canada where, to a person, they were very supportive of our war on terror, because the Europeans recognize that the terrorists could strike them just as easy as they could strike us. We have still got great intelligence sharing amongst our nations. We have got good police action. We have hauled in we being the coalition has hauled in that means arrest 2,400, more than 2,400 terrorists. So we are picking them off, one by one. This is a different kind of war. I use every chance I get, when I speak to the American people, to explain why this is different. And so as opposed to destroying lines of tanks or shooting down airplanes, success is measured by one by one, one person at a time. And the European leaders understand that, and they have been very supportive. They still I think we have got about 8,000 troops in Afghanistan we do, in the Afghan theater, and there is another 8,000 troops from other nations there as well. I will continue to communicate and consult with our friends and allies as to every stage of the war, as the battlefront shifts. By the way, the battlefront is not shifting out of Afghanistan. We have got a lot of work to do there. And of course we will need to continue to have deliberations with our friends and allies, and we will have them for future theaters and different operations. We talk to them all the time. Speaking of war, ENTITY, Poland is going to buy new fighter planes  I have got a suggestion for them. However, President Kwasniewski just 2 days ago you kind of was kind of complaining that maybe the American offer is not meeting enough expectations. He is negotiating in public.  Fabulous product. And we will work with our friends to make you know, to compete on an above-board basis, totally above-board. And you know, we hope the Polish Government picks quality. If they do, they will, of course, come our way. But that is up to the Government. Aleksander will be and the Government of Poland will you know, we will respect the process and respect the country and appreciate it is a tough decision and hope they make the right decision as far as we are concerned. ENTITY, do you think that the NATO will play as important role for the United States in the present century as it played in the previous century?

Interview With Polish Journalists


NATO served as kind of a bulwark in defense against Russian tanks storming across the European Continent. I witnessed the fact that not only have we got good relations with Russia, but the very same trip that I when I went to Moscow to sign this treaty that literally redefined our relationship from one of distrust and like it was during the cold war, to a new relationship, shortly thereafter we went to Italy and welcomed a new relationship between NATO and Russia. So the whole relationship has changed for the better. NATO has and I think it is going to be very hard very important to work that relationship with Russia, to allow for the the new relationship to develop and mature. And I think it will in a very positive way. The new relationship the new role of NATO is really needs to adjust to the new realities of the 21st century, and that is how to best fight the war on terror. And that means a different configuration of the use of our forces and the use of assets. Our forces need to be lighter and quicker to strike, and elite units need to be prepared to move at a moment's notice. The enemy has changed, and the battlefield, the nature of the battlefield has changed. And I think NATO is very relevant, and we will be an active and engaged partner in NATO. Let me just I will ask myself, Well, ENTITY, do you think we ought to expand? I gave a very important speech in Warsaw. It is interesting I hope the people in the world that are interested in our opinion on subjects noted that the speech was in Warsaw. And the speech was about a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace. And I talked about the expansion of NATO, and I said that I am interested more rather than less. And at the same time, I urged the applicant countries to take nothing for granted, to work very hard up until the last minute to show those of us in NATO that they will be willing and active and capable partners. And I look forward to our meeting in Prague. I fully understand the position of the Polish Government. I have had long discussions with Aleksander on the subject of NATO expansion, and I think people know that I am forward-leaning, depending if the member countries, you know, meet their MAP requirements. I want to go back to the finances and the limit. There is an attempt in Poland to limit independence of central bank, so it would be more be manipulated more by Government, so Government would have more influence over central bank.

Interview With Polish Journalists


In the current situation, what is your feeling about this? Well, first of all, I do not know all the facts about how the Polish democracy is handling this particular situation. I can tell you, however, from my experience, that a central bank should be independent. And the independence of our central bank gives Chairman Greenspan and the other Governors of the Federal Reserve great credibility in our country, to know that decisions are being made apart from politics. And our central bank is a part of is a very important part of our has been and will continue to be a very important part of the economic vitality of our country. It also gives investors who look at our country great confidence to know that the monetary supplies be not based upon politics, but the decisions on monetary supplies will be based upon the vision of some very wise people. I think, when people look at how capital moves into countries, the independence of a central bank is an important part of attracting capital. And Poland needs to attract capital investment. If anybody were to ask me my advice on the central bank, that is what I would give. I'd like to ask you about different subject. According to the latest polls, you are the most popular foreign politician leader in Poland. I usually say I do not believe in polls, but I may have to change my mind. Well, how high is it? Would you be willing to visit Poland again? Why do not you go to Poland? I do not know what to say. I appreciate that. Are you willing to spend a vacation in Poland? I do not know if my mother could stand that. But listen, when I vacation, just kind of know about me, I like to be with my family, and I like to be in Texas. I just recently went to Maine. I'd love to go to Maine, too, to be with my mother and dad. But my favorite vacation spot is my own ranch in the State I love. And I like to get out and fool around on the land, and it does not matter how hot it is or how cold it is. How hot it is and cold it is matters to those who have to follow me. These poor souls Crawford in August. That is my idea of vacation. Although I must say, I had a great time up with Mother and Dad this weekend, and I love to be around them as well. But this August, I am going to go down to Texas and actually work out of Texas.

Interview With Polish Journalists


After all, we are getting into the political season here in America. We have got our elections in November of 2002. ENTITY, we talk a lot about how September 11th changed the world, changed America. Has it changed you? I do not think a single event can change anybody's basic values. It obviously changed the fact that I knew that my time as the ENTITY would be dedicated to winning the war on terror and protecting our homeland. This is I keep telling people this it is just a different type of war, because much of the movement of the enemy is invisible to the American people and/or to the world. The killers on September the 11th had been in our country for a period of time. It was hard to tell that they were part of this unbelievably evil plot. And it we are concerned that another group are here or somewhere, not only here but in other countries in Europe. And so the task is an all-consuming task of protecting our homeland and making sure we do everything we can here to find out if anybody is here and who they are and disrupt their plans and, at the same time, hunt down their leaders. The wars of the past had known battlefields, and it was clear that such-and-such had to happen. This is a hunt for individuals. We are chasing down one person at a time. They were foolishly collected up at one point in time in the Shahi-Kot Mountains, and it was a tough chore. But our brave soldiers, along with coalition soldiers, were able to go in and score great success at bringing them to justice, as I like to put it. They are wise to our ways. They realize we are a heck of a lot tougher than they thought. They assumed America was a weak country, that we did not really believe anything. And so I realized after 9/11, after I got over the grief, along with everybody else in our country, that this was a long, very important struggle. And the struggle goes beyond just fighting an Al Qaida-type network. I have deep concerns about the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction, and so should you, so should anybody who loves freedom, because there are nations in the world developing these weapons who hate freedom, leaders hate freedom. And what we cannot allow happen is these nations to develop these weapons and then blackmail us and/or use them. We will have a judgment will have missed history's call to freedom.

Interview With Polish Journalists


And so I realize that this war is going to consume a lot of my time. On the other hand, these members of the press know that I am optimistic person who truly believes that we can achieve some positive things out of the evil done to the country and to the world. So when I talk to our friends, like Aleksander and others, I remind them of this call. We are leaders in a significant moment in history, and we cannot blink, and we cannot we must be determined and focused to achieve this important objective, which is peace for our children, is what we are really fighting for, civilization. ENTITY, you always said that you are supporter of removing the trade barriers. Why do you think there are so many of them still exist? And it is easier to mollify constituencies with protectionist rhetoric. Poland suffers from protectionist policies in parts of Europe, as you know. I am a strong believer in free trade. I will exercise that diligently to open up markets. On the other hand, I have an obligation to enforce law. And so I recently said that the I listened to an International Trade Commission ruling on steel. The ITC ruled that excessive steel imports were affecting our industry in a negative way. I put a temporary measure in place, which exempted, by the way, Poland. And that was a chance for the steel industry, our own steel industry, to get on its feet. But nevertheless, as I reminded members of the European Union, this only represents a very small portion of the $2 trillion of trade we have each year. But protectionism, for some, is a viable economic remedy. And in my judgment, protectionism would be bad for the world and bad for our country. We are opening up we sent our man to Doha to commit to the next round of the World Trade Organization. And unlike Seattle, where it all fell apart, we were able to we being those of us in the world who support free trade were able to move the process farther down the line. And I will continue to work for free trade. It is in our Nation's interests and the world's interests that we trade. It is in the developing world's interest that there be trade. And our country is we have got what is called AGOA, agreement with the African countries. I am working on a free trade agreement with Central Americans. I'd like to see a free trade agreement from Canada all the way down to Argentina.

Interview With Polish Journalists


We have just got to convince our respective people that trade is in their interests. There is another ENTITY you have such a good relationship; it is ENTITY Putin. But there is this feeling also this is in cost of some human rights, human rights in Chechnya, press freedom in Russia it is overlooked now and probably some freedom of some other Russian republics. Do not you worry that this close relationship is putting your raising other problems? No, a close relationship with Putin allows me to make the case that, on media freedom, for example as a matter of fact, on my last trip there, I urged him to interface with media entrepreneurs from America to understand how free press actually works, something that they are not very used to in Russia. And I do push Vladimir Putin on the need to have open media and open his media. And secondly, in terms of Chechnya, I am constantly talking to Vladimir Putin about relations with Chechnya and understanding and supporting minority rights. The other issue that is very important, to which we do not turn a blind eye, and which I am deeply concerned, not only about minority rights, is proliferation, matters of proliferation. I think we are making some progress there. The immediate concern was proliferation to Iran, and I brought that up with Vladimir every time I visited with him. It is a very important issue that he understand that an armed Iran could be very dangerous to his own country, much less to our friends the Israelis or America, itself. And we have had some very important exchanges on that. 10 billion from the U.S., $10 billion from Europe over 10 years to help secure some weapons stockpiles. Vladimir is very interested in working with us to decommission some of his nuclear submarines to make Russia and the world more safe. In other words, my only point to you is, is that by being closer to Russia, we are able to deal more directly with some of the thorny issues that could separate us and could in fact make the West less likely to deal with Russia. And we have got another issues at home here that has upset a lot of our people, and that is chickens. Fortunately, we are arguing over chickens and not over war, over chickens and not over missiles, like we used to. But a lot of people here feel like there was a commitment made to let U.S. chickens into Russia. And they started moving into Russia, and all of a sudden they stopped moving into Russia.

Interview With Polish Journalists


And so I have been so whether it be trade or minority rights or press, our relations are such that we are able to bring those up in a very frank and forthright way and yet still moved a very important relationship forward. Look, friends do not always agree, but friends are more likely to be able to work things out than enemies. As a matter of fact, in the old days, if there was a disagreement between enemies, that could lead to war. What solution do you see to the crisis, and what compromise do you expect from both sides? First, I do believe that we can achieve a vision of two states living side by side, at peace with each other. And that is the vision, and that is what all policy must aim toward. It starts with understanding that it is going to be impossible to achieve that vision if terrorists are allowed to have a free run and blow up the process. An incredibly important step toward the vision of two states living side by side is for the international community, including the Arab world, to work with us to develop the institutions necessary for the emergence of a Palestinian state that will be transparent; it will respect rule of law; it will have a constitution that will allow for a sharing-of-power arrangement; that will have institutions that outlast are far more important than any single one person And we are in the process of working toward that end. Colin Powell will be meeting with what the call the Quad in New York. Foreign Ministers from the Arab world will be coming as well, later on, to work on the step-by-step process toward the emergence of a Palestinian state. And I repeat, that requires a constitution, a judiciary, transparency when it comes to financial conditions. Something just ground to a halt. That thing had, what do we call it, a skidding halt. Sounded like it needs some new tires. Anyway, the international community wants to help with aid, but they are not going to help with aid if it is going to be stolen. Let us put it very bluntly. So we are working to get these institutions in place. Obviously as security improves, Israel is going to have to, as I said, pull her troops back to September of 2001 2000 levels. They are going to have to deal with the settlements. In other words, all parties have got responsibilities.

Interview With Polish Journalists


As we are walking towards your office I have to think you are going to miss this short commute. I am, it is one of the biggest benefits of being president that you really do not think about until you get here. I have never had to travel more than thirty seconds from home to office, and it is because of that that I have been able to maintain, you know, really a family life that has nurtured and sustained me during this time. How long did it take for the White House to feel like home though? You know, it, it took shorter, I think, for us, just because when you have got little kids, and you are tucking them in ? When you open a door and they are in their pajamas and they are , you know, wrestling with you and asking you, you know, to read to them and stuff, you know it starts feeling like home pretty quick. It feels even more like home now because you have all these memories that were formed watching your kids grow up. You know you talk about the kids, and I know you all were pretty, a little bit apprehensive coming into the White House, they were young. Was it a good experience for them? You know, you do not know how it would have turned out if they'd grown up in Chicago instead, and a more normal environment. We were concerned mostly about whether they'd develop an attitude, right? And they are, you know, sweet, kind, funny, smart, respectful people, and they treat everybody with respect. That is not just the biases of a parent. You know, we feel pretty good when we hear back from friends, cause they still have sleepovers and they go to other folks houses and when the parents say, oh you know, Malia, she is just so sweet, or Sasha helped to pick up the dishes, what is it that you are doing to ? They never complain about it? You know, they complained about Secret Service as they became teenagers, and Secret Service has done the very best job they could accommodating them, so it has not restricted any of their activities, but as you might imagine, if you are a teenager having a couple of people with microphones ? and guns always following you around, that could grate on them.

Interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News' This Week


But you know, they have handled it with grace and I give Michelle most of the credit for how well they have done, but I also just think they are graceful, good young, young women. This part of the White House is so iconic. It--it does not matter what time of day it is, in some ways I feel more attached to this walk even than the Oval Office. I believe it. There is something about these steps and thinking about everybody who is walked here and all the business that is been done here. And business gets done on this walk. And even when you go up this ramp, and you think about FDR wheeling himself up, you know, got a little cigarette holder in his mouth, and it, that, that awe that you feel, that reverence that you feel for the place never entirely leaves. Well that is one of the things I was going ask you, because I know you kept in touch with people by reading those letters every day. How did you keep in touch with the presidency? I, more than anything, obviously the presidency is the people, and it is been interesting the emotions in the last few months. What you realize is that you may never have the team that is together in the same way, under the same pressures, and the attachments that you make to folks from your chief of staff down to ? We had a farewell dinner for some of my senior staff, and generally everybody likes to talk about how cool I was. I had trouble getting through just a few remarks, because not only do you appreciate the sacrifices they have made and the hours they have kept and the soccer games they missed and the birthday parties, but I also had a lot of young people who came in here, and this probably, you know, echoes with you, in your own experience, you were young when you got here. It did not feel like it when I left. Yeah, but you know, now suddenly you got members of your team who were 23, 24. They have met their wives here, or their husbands here. And you have a lot of eight year people. Yeah, and you, and they start bringing in their kids, who you think should be babies and now are in second grade or something, and you have watched them grow up.


So I think what ends up happening is you end up maintaining those networks and those contacts, but the concentrated interactions and experience that you have here, I do not think, I do not expect you can duplicate anyplace else. We are about to walk into the Oval, and I was just wondering, the big gut-check decisions, did you make them in there or up in the Treaty Room at home? I think I made them on this walk sometimes. You know, there are times where I'd say the Oval Office, you use to gather the facts. The decisions you probably make late at night, or at least I do, I am kind of a night owl, up there. But there are some times where you think you have made a decision, but during that walk, where you are announcing the decision, you have just got to make sure that, you are prepared to live with it, because as you know George, a lot of these decisions are not-- the outcomes are uncertain. As you said, it is very busy, newsy day here, that shooting down in Fort Lauderdale this afternoon. Do we know enough now to know if it was an act of terror? As a general rule, until I have got all the information, George, I do not wanna comment on it other than just to say how heartbroken we are for the families who've been affected. These kinds of tragedies have happened too often during the eight years that I have been president. The pain, the grief, the shock that they must be going through is enormous. I have asked me staff to reach out to the mayor down there and make sure that coordination between the state and local officials is what it should be. But I think we will find out over the next 24 hours exactly how this happened and what motivated this individual. And also just a few minutes ago, this intelligence report came out on the Russian activities, declassified version. Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign. We further assess that Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-Elect Trump. President Putin was trying to elect Trump? Number one, the Russians sought to interfere with the election process-- that the cyber hacking that took place by the Russians was part of that campaign, and that they had a clear preference in terms of outcomes. What-- what I have repeatedly said is that you know, our intelligence communities spend a lot of time and effort gathering a lot of strands and a lot of data.


You are saying high confidence here-- The-- this time they have got high confidence, and having seen some of the underlying sources and information that they are basing this on I stand fully behind the-- the report. What does that tell you about what President Putin is trying to do right now? And I-- I think back to 2012 when Mitt Romney talked about Russia being the number one geostrategic threat, you kinda dismissed him in the second debate-- Did you underestimate Vladimir Putin? You know, I do not think I underestimated him, but I think that I underestimated the degree to which, in this new information age, it is possible for misinformation for cyber hacking and so forth to have an impact on our open societies, our open systems, to insinuate themselves into our democratic practices in ways that I think are accelerating. And so part of the reason that I ordered this report was not simply to re-litigate what happened over the last several months, but rather to make sure that we understand this is something that Putin has been doing for quite some time in Europe, initially in the former satellite states where there are a lot of Russian speakers, but increasingly in Western democracies. There are gonna be elections coming up among our NATO allies that we have to pay attention to. I anticipate that this kind of thing can happen again here. And so in addition to the report assessing what exactly happened, what we have also done is to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security and our intelligence teams are working with the various folks who run our elections. And one of the things that I have urged the president-elect to do is to develop a strong working relationship with the intelligence community and I think it is important that Congress, on a bipartisan basis, work with the next administration looking forward to make sure that this kind of influence is minimized-- He-- he met with the intelligence leaders this afternoon. He talked about Russia and China and-- and other countries. They made no assessment on whether this affected the outcome of the election. He said very clearly it had no effect on the outcome. What do you think? You know, I think there are a lot of factors going into an election. I think the bottom line is-- is that Donald Trump is gonna be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America.


And it is not necessarily profitable to sort of try to untangle all the different factors that went into it. The issue here is you have I think the-- the clear example of how, if we are not vigilant foreign countries can have an impact on the political debate in the United States in ways that might not have been true 10, 20, 30 years ago in-- in part because of the way news is transmitted and in part because so many people are skeptical of mainstream news organizations that-- everything's true and everything's false. In that kind of environment, where there is so much skepticism about information that is coming in, we are gonna have to spend a lot more time thinking about how do we protect our democratic process and as I have been saying for years, we are gonna have to spend a lot more time on cyber security. That is one of the reasons why I'd ordered a commission-- But bottom line, this time Vladimir Putin got what he wanted. And it could be another country in the future. It could be another election where you know, the-- the alignments between Republicans and Democrats are different than they were this time and-and--who a foreign country prefers. And that is why I hope that this does not continue to be viewed purely through a partisan lens. I think there are Republicans as well as Democrats who are concerned about this. And the-- the two things we need to do, George-- number one, we have to spend a lot more time, energy, resources on cyber security. That was one of the key recommendations of this commissions that I got a report from just a few weeks ago. And the second thing we have to do is to make sure that all of us think about how we approach our elections and our democracy not only to secure them from vote tampering, but also to make sure that we understand when propaganda is being churned through the system. And-- and one of the things I-- I will be honest with you, George. One of the things that I am concerned about is the degree to which we have seen a lot of commentary lately where there were, there are Republicans or pundits or cable commentators who seemed to have more confidence in Vladimir Putin than fellow Americans because those fellow Americans were Democrats. Does that include the president-elect? Well, what I will say is that--and I said this right after the election--we have to remind ourselves we are on the same team.


Vladimir Putin's not on our team. If we get to a point where people in this country feel more affinity with a leader who is an adversary and view the United States and our way of life as a threat to him, then we are gonna have bigger problems than just cyber hacking. You-- you have talked to the president-elect Trump now several times over the course of this transition. What have you tried to impress on him about the job? He has been open to suggestions, and the main thing that I have tried to transmit is that there is a different between governing and campaigning, so that what he has to appreciate is as soon as you walk into this office after you have been sworn in, you are now in charge of the largest organization on Earth. You cannot manage it the way you would manage a family business. You cannot manage it the way you would manage a Senate office. And so you have to have a strong team around you. You have to have respect for institutions and the process to make good decisions because you are inherently reliant on other folks. So when I talked to him about-- our intelligence agencies, what I have said to him is-- is that there are gonna be times where you have got raw intelligence that comes in and in my experience, over eight years, the intelligence community is pretty good about saying, Look, we cannot say for certain what this means. But there are gonna be times where the only way you can make a good decision is if you have confidence that the process is working, and the people that you put in charge are giving you their very best assessments . How has he impressed you? Do you like him? You know, I have enjoyed the conversations that we have had. He is somebody who I think is not lacking in confidence, which is I think-- Some say that about you too. Well, that is what I was saying. It-- it is -- it is probably a prerequisite for the job, or at least you have to have enough craziness to think that you can do the job. I-- I think that he has not spent a lot of time sweating the details of, you know, all the policies that-- Does that worry you? I think it depends on how he approaches it. If he-- if it gives him fresh eyes, then that can be valuable.


But it also requires you knowing what you do not know and putting in place people who do have the kinds of experience and background and-- and knowledge that can inform good decision making. And look, I-- I-- I think it is fair to say that he and I are-- are sort of opposites in some ways. Voters often do that, do not they? But so-- so let us say I am on the-- the policy wonk end of the spectrum. As much as I can dive into a briefing book and really work to-- to master various subjects that come before my desk, I am still not an expert on a huge amount of the stuff that we work on. But I do make sure that I have got people who are experts that are helping me make the best decisions possible. And if you do not have good people, and you do not have a good process and you do not have, at some level, the basic reverence for this office, and an understanding of the-- the incredible responsibilities and obligations, then, I think you can get into trouble. You are also not much of a tweeter. He was on a tirade this morning, sent out a lot of tweets early this morning. Clearly, according to him and his people, he is gonna keep on doing it when he is sitting there behind that desk. On the one hand information is--is moving quick, and-- I-- I-- or-- or the way in which people consume information is changing so fast. Clearly this worked for him, and it gives him a direct connection to a lot of the people that voted for him. I have said to him, and I think others have said to him that the day that he is the President of the United States, there are world capitals and financial markets and people all around the world who take really seriously what he says, and in a way that is just not true before you are actually sworn in as president. People take seriously what you say as well. And during the campaign-- many of your speeches you say, All the progress we have made in the last eight years go out the window if we do not win.


I think that the-- the risk to all the progress we have made was at stake in the election because not just the president-elect but a lot of members of Congress, including now the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader, have said that their principal agenda was to undo a lot of this progress. But as I have been talking about over the last several days when it comes to health care, the gains that we have made are there. Twenty million people have health insurance that did not have it before. The rise in health care costs since Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act was passed, have been at their lowest rate in 50 years. Those savings have extended the Medicare trust fund by 11 years. So we-- we have got-- we have got a baseline of facts. So it is true theoretically that all that progress can be undone, and suddenly 20 million people or more do not have health insurance. But as I think Republicans now are recognizing that is -- may not be what the American people, including even Trump voters, are looking for. And my hope is that the president-elect, members of Congress from both parties look at, Where have we objectively made progress, where things are working better? Do not undo things just because I did them. I do not have pride of authorship. I said today in a forum on health care if the Republicans can come up with a system that insures more people cheaper, better I will be the first one-- And I can tell by your smile you do not think they can do it? Well, I am skeptical that they can do it mainly because for seven years now, including when we first tried to pass health care, I said to 'em, Okay, if-- if this does not work tell me what does. In this room I remember having meetings with Republican senators who initially had been trying to engage but saw that the politics of 'no' were growing inside the Republican Party. And I remember having a conversation in the Oval Office with one of those senators who was-- was starting to get a little sheepish about what compromises might-- garner his support. And finally I asked him, Is there any changes I could make that would get you to support this? And he said, Probably not, ENTITY, which was a nice change in terms of just candor. But what-- what that means then is, is that now the burden is to take a look.


All right, if-- if-- if-- if you think that we have overregulated in the environmental space what I can show you is that we have tripled the amount of wind power in this country, increased by tenfold the amount of solar power. We are producing as much oil and gas as we have ever produced. Gas is at two bucks a gallon. If you think you got a better idea in terms of how to approach this that is not gonna result in more pollution, and more asthma, and more illness then put your ideas out there. But do not just oppose things because, This was Obama's agenda. Well, that is what is happening at the moment. But you know, the American people-- are-- are both anxious for change. We are in a time of-- of flux. You know, the-- the globe is shrinking, the inform age-- information age is-- is bringing a lot of changes. People are anxious about their future and their children's futures. But they do not want folks to be reckless and they do not want this town to just be tit-for-tat. And-- you know, one of the gratifying things, I think, about the end of my presidency-- even though admittedly-- my successor ran against a lot of what we stood for, is when you look at the individual issues and the progress that we have made on a lot of those issues, we got the support of a pretty decent majority. Even on health care what you have seen is a lot of stories surfacing lately about people who said, Well, I voted for Trump but I do not think he is really gonna take away my health care-- If in fact the Republicans make some modifications, some of which I may have been seeking previously, but they would not cooperate because they did not wanna-- make the system work, and re-label it as Trumpcare, I am fine with that. Because what I am thinking about are the millions of people, many of whom write me very personal letters-- Dear ENTITY, I did not vote for you. I was against Obamacare. And then my son who did not have health insurance signed up and we just found out that he had an illness. And thankfully he is now covered, otherwise he might not have gotten treatment and I might have lost my house.


Dear ENTITY, You know, my husband got hooked on opioids and thank God we have coverage and were able to access substance abuse. He is clean now, he is gone back to work. You have people around the country who are benefitting from the steps that we have taken and as long as they continue to get helped, then at least I will know in my own mind that the work we did here had a lasting impact. You have often said that your toughest day in office was the day of the Newtown shootings. Toughest decision was early in my presidency when I ordered 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. As somebody who had run to end a large troop presence overseas. Now, I had said from the start that I thought Iraq was a mistake, that we should have stayed focused on Afghanistan. I think it was the right decision because the Taliban at that point had gotten a lot of momentum before I'd gotten into office, partly because we had not been paying attention as much as we needed to to Afghanistan. And since that time we have been able to build up the Afghan security forces and stabilize it. But that was the first time in which I looked out at a crowd of West Point graduates and knew that some of those might not come back because of-- because of that decision-- How disappointing --then how disappointing is it to you that even though it is far fewer, there would still be troops in Afghanistan, still be troops in Iraq as you leave? Well, one of the things that I have learned, and I think we have all learned, is that we are not going to get the kind of decisive, permanent victories in this fight against terrorism that we would get from fighting another country. We are not going to get that MacArthur/Emperor moment, because by definition, even after decimating Al Qaeda in the Fata, even after taking out bin Laden there is still people there who have both the--the interest and the capacity if we do not maintain vigilance to strike against the United States. And these are still countries that are fragile enough that we are gonna have to partner with them in some way. But what we have done, I think, is build a model from a lot of hard lessons in Afghanistan and Iraq-- but in other places around the world, where we are working with them in an advisory capacity. It still puts burden on some troops of ours who are there as advisors and facilitators.


But we do not have this huge footprint, we are less likely to be targeted as, you know, occupiers. And if you look at the current Mosul campaign again-- against ISIL, for example the-- the few thousand troops that we have there to support that effort allows the Iraqi military to move forward in an effective way. Now, would they do it as fast as if we had 50,000 or 100,000 Marines in there? But it does give us the ability to make sure that we are strengthening those folk who are interested in building up their countries rather than destroying them, and doing so in a way that is sustainable and does not put a constant burden on the amazing men and women that we have got in uniform. What has to be a disappointment on the home front is that-- it looks like the Democratic Party got pretty hollowed out on your watch, about 1,000 seats lost in the Congress, Senate, governors, state houses. Is that on you? I take some responsibility on that. I-- I think that some of it was circumstances. If you look at-- what happened, I came in in the middle of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And unlike FDR who waited-- well, did not take office until about three years into the Great Depression, it was happening just as I was elected. I think we did a really good job in saving this economy and putting us back on the track of growth. But what that meant is in 2010 there were a lot of folks who were still out of work. There were a lot of folks who had lost their homes or saw their home values plummet, their 401k's plummet. And we were just at the beginnings of a recovery. And the, you know, whoever is president at that point is gonna get hit and his party's gonna get hit. That then means that suddenly you have got a redistricting in which a lot of state legislatures are now Republican. They draw lines that give a huge structural advantage in subsequent elections. So-- so some of this was circumstances. But what I think that what is also true is that partly because my docket was really full here, so I could not be both chief organizer of the Democratic Party and function as Commander-in-Chief and President of the United States. We did not begin what I think needs to happen over the long haul, and that is rebuild the Democratic Party at the ground level.


Well, I think that it is something that I have an interest in. As-- as you know, George, my entire career, I started as a community organizer. Every one of my campaigns was premised on getting new people involved. And if there is a theme in my public career it is that if ordinary people get involved then good things happen. So I want to see the Democratic Party move in that direction. And what that means is that we are not just micro-targeting to eke out presidential victories; it means that we are showing up in places where right now we are not winning a lot. And if you look at sort of how politics has divided itself here in this country, the big divide right now is between urban areas, which have become increasingly Democratic, and rural or exurban areas that feel as if they are being ignored. if Democrats are not showing up in those places, even if you-- even if you are not gonna win right away but if you are not in there at least making an argument that, Hey, you know what? It is the Democrats who are trying to raise your minimum wage. It is the Democrats who are trying to make sure you got health care or that your health care costs are not killing ya. It is Democrats who were making sure that your kids are not drinking polluted water. It is Democrats who are trying to reign in the banks if they engage in excesses so that you do not end up having a problem. they are all looking down on you, they do not care about you. They are just trying to help out their various special interest constituencies, that argument ends up being successful. And so we have got to do a better job of showing up. And I was able to do that when I was the candidate. But I have not-- I have not seen or-- or presided over that kind of systematic outreach that I think needs to happen. He used it. Clare Booth Luce, the diplomat, former Congresswoman goes to him in 1962. He asks her, What is on your mind? She says, The greater the man, the easier it is to describe him in a single sentence. And she said to him, What is your sentence? I do not care what history thinks. I'd like to think that-- maybe the sentence is-- President Obama believed deeply in this democracy and the American people.


Because-- as I reflect back on what is worked for me in this office it is been that I have -- I have gotten people who maybe did not believe in the process to get engaged. Ironically, I have even gotten the other side that maybe did not believe in the process to get engaged. I, you know, I-- I-- I am -- I gather I am the-- the father of the Tea Party. I-- I invigorated the grassroots in the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. So, you know, I-- if-- health care got done because there were a lot of people out there who are not professional politicians, but are citizens, who pushed for it even when the politics was hard. But did you succeed on your own terms? Back in the campaign you talked about Ronald Reagan changing the trajectory of the country, setting on a fundamentally different path. Do you think you did that? I think I did in the sense that there is a whole generation coming up behind us that was engaged, inspired, worked for change during the course of my presidency, saw what was possible. And when you look at what they believe in, when they, you look at how they value diversity, how they believe in science, how they care about the environment, how they believe in, you know, everybody getting a fair shot, how they believe in not discriminating against people for sexual orientation and you know, their belief that we have to work with other countries to create a more peaceful world and-- and to alleviate poverty, that is the majority of-- of an entire generation that is coming up behind us. Well, you know, they came out to vote for me. The next phase and this is part of what I am interested in doing after I get out of the presidency is to make sure that I am working with that next generation so that they understand you cannot just rely on inspiration. You have to be involved during midterm elections, you have to care about what happens at a school board level. You have to be involved in terms of what is happening in your local neighborhood and what issues are there. So-- so I think that there is gonna be a lot of work to do in order to consolidate the transformations that I was interested in. I think if you look at surveys and attitudes among young people, you see it. I imagine you think the presidency's something you get better at over time?


And what put this in my mind was reading Bob Gates' memoir. And he talks about being in the meetings with you and talking about the raid on Osama bin Laden, saying, Maybe he is getting too cautious; he is been there too long. I believe in term limits for presidents because I think that there is no doubt I am a better president now than I was when I start. In fact, I-- I would argue that I-- I am the best president I have ever been over the last year or-- or two. And sustaining the energy and focus involved in doing a good job I think starts to-- starts to gets tougher the longer you do it. And-- and I think we have done a pretty good job staying in touch with the American people. But at a certain point you cannot help but lose some feel for what is on the ground because you are not on the ground and-- and-- So-- so that tells me that there is-- there-- there is a utility in the democracy refreshing itself on an ongoing basis. And-- and that is part of what I tried to describe to my team and supporters after the election, there was a lot of disappointment. You know, I--what I have said to them is, Look, we-- we ran our leg of the race and we did a darn good job. I can document-- in fact, this past week we are -- we have put out memos from every agency showing what did we do. We-- we feel some pride about it. And-- and I can honestly say, George-- and I do not think there is a lot of dispute for this. You-- you can argue that we did not get everything done that we wanted to get done, but I can make a really strong argument, and I think prove, that by almost every measure the country's better off now than when I started. And so just to finish the thought, what that means then is that if we started here and we are now here, just like I described in health care, yeah, somebody comes in, they got new ideas, maybe ideas that are completely opposite of my ideas. Maybe some of it goes, maybe some of that progress goes back. Maybe they think of some things we did not think of, and so in some other areas-- we can learn something.


But that just gives sort of the democracy an opportunity to test ideas, for those who lost to catch their breath, regain energy, reenergize themselves and then get back in the arena, and then we will make some more progress in the future. One-- one possible big exception: In the first line of your biography it is probably going to be first African-American president. The heart of your promise when you first burst on the national scene, bringing everyone together. And you look now and most African-Americans think we have gone backwards on race relations over the last eight years. What do you say to that? I-- I am absolutely convinced that race relations on the whole are actually better now than they were 20 years-- But we have greater awareness of where we are falling short than we used to. Let us just take the example of-- community police relations. I mean, the truth of the matter is that-- that the problem of police shootings and reactions in the community-- George, you and I are about the same age. I-- I think you remember what happened in Los Angeles after Rodney King, I think you remember what-- the divisions that happened after the O.J. trial. I think you -- the-- the notion that somehow any of that is new is not the case. What is true, though, is now we have got a bunch of videos that whatever side of the issue you are on, raises the temperature on these issues and makes people really focused and-- and-- and-- and trying to figure out, What exactly is this? And that is an example of something that it is not as if that is the first time that a hate crime has taken place in this country. Hate crimes have been taking place for hundreds of years in this country, but it is there on video. And the-- the-- the sort of seeing cruelty and callousness of that sort from young people is heartbreaking. And so naturally if you see a video like that you are gonna say to yourself, My God, this is horrible, and-- and rightfully so. But that allows us then to talk about how-- how-- how do we break free from those kinds of attitudes? And I think that we are in a position to continue to make progress, but it is gonna require us to both recognize what the problems are, also recognize the-- the-- the progress we have made


During the course of my presidency crime has been the lowest it is been probably since the '60s. But you would not know it if you were watching TV or looking at the internet, and you certainly would not know it, listening to this past campaign. But overall in the country this is a much safer place than it used to be. But if you ask the average person they'd tell ya, Naw, it is much more dangerous, despite the fact that violent crime has dropped precipitously. And so we have to recognize we have got some big problems on race, just like we got still big problems on crime, just like we got big problems on just about everything. But we also have to make sure that we have -- draw confidence from the progress that we have made, 'cause otherwise, you get into this cycle of cynicism. And you are also-- and I warn young people that I interact with about this-- you get into unrealistic expectations where you think that, Oh, we are gonna eliminate racism like that. I have one final question. I have a very strong memory of your inaugural. In that moment you are walking out of the Capitol, you see them all for the first time and you kind of pause and take it all in. Do you remember what you were thinking and feeling at that moment? The first inauguration I was thinking to myself, Let us make sure I do not screw this up. JFK gave probably the greatest inauguration speech ever that first time, but I guarantee you when he first walked out there he was thinking, Goodness gracious this is-- this is-- this is big and I better be up to the task. You turned around-- --I was walking out and I decided, You know what? Let me turn back and-- and remember this. And-- and what I remember thinking at that point, having gone through both the ups and downs of my first four years, and seeing the sea of people was, What a remarkable country this is and how lucky am I that-- that we live in a place where the son of a single mom, not born into any kind of fame or fortune, in a pretty remote state somehow can end up be in a position to-- to make a difference. And at that moment, just a little under two weeks from now, when President-elect Trump finishes the oath, power passes from you to him, what emotion will you be left with?


ENTITY, do you think it is a good idea for Prime Minister Netanyahu to sit down with Yasser Arafat personally and try to work out the problems between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Well, I think it is a good idea for him to sit down with me. And we are looking forward to it. We will be able to-we will answer your questions later. I think we should wait until after we have a chance to visit to answer questions. Has there been any progress in determining who was responsible for the terrorist action in Saudi Arabia? Well, I got an update yesterday. I do not know how to-I do not want to answer your question specifically. I feel confident that the investigation is being handled in the proper way and it is progressing. If it is state-sponsored, though, is there going to be U.S. retaliation if you can conclude that a state was responsible for this action? Let me-let us do the investigation first. Prime Minister, are you bringing the President information about Palestinian violations of the accord, sir? Prime Minister, do you think there are any Syrian links to the bombing in Saudi Arabia? Well, I thought that the President's suggestion of first investigating and then declaring may be not that frequent among political leaders, but I think it is wise. It is a wise suggestion in which I will follow. Do you have any evidence of Syrian involvement? We will answer more later. ENTITY, Secretary Perry seems to be getting a pretty tough grilling right now up on the Hill. Do you still have confidence in Secretary Perry? That is why I appointed General Downing to look at it all, to get the facts, and to evaluate the security situation there and elsewhere where our people might be at risk. And we will do a good job of that. But I think the American people recognize that, on balance, our military people have done a good job and that he is been quite a good and effective Defense Secretary. I have full confidence in him. And I believe that every fairminded person, when they look at his record, will feel the same way. Let us get everyone in first. Let me, first of all, say I am delighted to have the Prime Minister here. I have looked forward to having a chance to have this conversation. And I think that I should defer answering any substantive questions until we have a chance to visit.

Exchange With Reporters Prior to Discussions With Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel


ENTITY, after the customary preliminaries of reception, invited them to be seated, when at once the conversation commenced by ENTITY informing him that they were a delegation from the State Convention of South Carolina, sent there to present certain memorials of that body. These memorials had been very carefully considered in the Convention, and he believed they told exactly the truth. ENTITY inquired the object of the memorials. ENTITY informed him that one of them was in behalf of Jefferson Davis, A. H. Stephens, George A. Trenholm and Governor Magrath. He said they had understood that by the late interference of ENTITY, Messrs. Stephens and Trenholm had already been released from close confinement and permitted to return to their homes. He would ask for Governor Magrath either a pardon or that he might be released on his parole. They could assure ENTITY no harm would result from such an act of clemency. The business must be proceeded with gradually, and an effort made to execute the law. It was a too common expression, by way of argument in regard to clemency, that such a one had been pardoned, and that he was just as bad as another who had not been pardoned. ENTITY replied that the delegation presented no such argument as that. ENTITY said sometimes the peculiar locality had much to do with pardons. Like many other things in human affairs we cannot have a fixed rule. Much depends on discretion and circumstances. If we know ourselves, we want to do what is best and just, and to show a proper degree of humanity on the part of the Government. ENTITY remarked that they had not come there to express their own hopes and desires, but as delegates from the South Carolina Convention to present the memorials of that body in a formal manner. We will, gentlemen, extend all the facilities and courtesies which the question requires. We would prefer to pardon twenty men than to refuse one. ENTITY replied, that they did not design to say anything with reference to Governor Magrath, further than that they believed much good would result by the exercise of the Executive clemency toward him. ENTITY said if they could get Governor Magrath paroled it would be a great relief to him at the present time. ENTITY thanked ENTITY for having released Messrs. Stephens and Trenholm. We have thus far, then, anticipated your memorial.

Interview with Judge Wardlow, Alfred Huger, Colonel Dawkins and W.H. Trescott of South Carolina