So typically, the idea is simplifying the system, hopefully lowering rates, broadening the base -- that is something that I think most economists think would help us propel economic growth. So what I believe is, is that we have got to start that conversation next year. I think we can get some broad bipartisan agreement that it needs to be done. But it is going to require a lot of hard work to actually make it happen. Your deficit commission talked about lowering everybody's tax rate and eliminating deductions, such as changing the home mortgage deduction and many other deductions as well. That is the kind of plan you are talking about. Well, I have not specifically endorsed that plan. What I am saying is, is that the general concept of simplifying -- eliminating loopholes, eliminating deductions, eliminating exemptions in certain categories -- might make sense if, in exchange, people's rates are lower. That may end up being a more efficient way of doing business. Does that completely change this debate over the Bush tax cuts? And that is that people like myself who have been incredibly blessed and who have a lot more income and wealth can afford to pay more than we currently are paying. I strongly believe that. I believed that during the campaign for ENTITY. I believed it when I was campaigning during these midterms. I still believe it. And so the fight about what the top 1 percent or 2 percent of America should be contributing as part of our contribution to rebuilding America and putting it on a competitive footing -- that basic principle is one that I continue to believe in and I will be fighting for over the next two years. By making this agreement with Republicans on taxes and on the economy, is it your understanding -- and do you have any understanding with the Republicans -- that if you are able to act quickly on that agreement, you will then get a vote on many other things you are hoping to get by the end of the year, particularly the START nuclear treaty -- the arms deal with Russia? Well, the START treaty is something that I absolutely think has to get done before Congress leaves for Christmas vacation. It is good for our national security; it allows us to verify what is going on with respect to nuclear weapons in Russia.


I will tell you what, are those two guys telling you the truth tonight? They are telling the truth Have you read the full book, ENTITY? I have read it. I read it twice, as a matter of fact. I think she did a terrific job. I want to thank Jim for all the work he did on it. And after Mother died, I had to do a little work just checking some of the facts, but I was amazed at how candid and forthright she was. I think a lot of folks will really enjoy reading it, and we will see a portrait of a remarkable person during an important time in our country's life. I was really proud of her for doing it. Last time we were together, we spoke about your loss. Wasn't it difficult to read it? Or the first time, before it was actually published in book form, it kind of helped me deal with the loss. But I tell you, it still makes me a little sad. Last week when I finished reading it the second time, I found myself fighting back the tears a little bit, but that is one of the things that makes the book so wonderful. I have even had total strangers come up to me and say that they cried when they read it, too. What was her most, ENTITY, remarkable aspect to you? I think her resilience. You know, she was just a person driven by love and loyalty and an incredible desire to keep living. When Dick asked her to marry him, she reminded him that she'd been widowed three times and asked him if he had considered odds of what he was trying to get into. But no matter what happened to her, she just bounced back. And I think that is probably the most important lesson she imparted to me and to my brother, just do not give up. They have discussed the difficulty of when Roger had his troubles and how she held up during that time, during your only defeat, how she held up during that time. Was she a strength source, was she a place most people figure their mothers as a safe place to go. Well, I think she really plainly was not only a safe place to go, but she really did always convince us that we could do better tomorrow. When I lost that race in 1980, I had the distinguished record of being at that time the youngest former Governor in the history of the entire United States.

Interview With Larry King


I was out of a job; I did not know where my next nickel was coming from. And within 3 or 4 days she decided that I could be reelected Governor. And when my brother had his drug problem, it was awful for her, much tougher, of course, than any election loss. And she, as she says in the book, had a lot to learn about drug addiction, about what those of us who were in the same family had done by not confronting my brother. And she finally came to understand, as Dick said earlier, that getting arrested and actually being forced to go to prison may well have saved my brother's life. And I think a lot of that happened because my mother never quit believing in him and was brave enough to face the truth about what happened and then, at her age, was willing to learn whatever it took to learn to help get him over it and working him through it and do her part. And she sure would have had a good time touring for this book, would not she? I was thinking about that today. This thing would be a stomp-down bestseller if she'd lived, because she'd have had so much fun promoting it. She had a good time doing everything she did. She learned to be a politician rather late in life. You know, before I got in politics, she voted, but that was about it. And then by the time I'd been through a campaign or two, she was the best organized person I knew. She had 300 to 400 names on a file card in our hometown, and all the local politicians were half afraid of her. She just got into things, and her enthusiasm took over. I really regret that she is not stomping around the country selling this book and not on your program and not answering questions. Do you remember the night when you were running for office and you and Al Gore were on, and she called in from Vegas? You asked her, Where are you? She loved Las Vegas, and she loved those race tracks. Everyone is complimenting you today on the eloquence yesterday at another tragic day in the lives of all Americans, the death of a President. Was that a difficult moment for you? It was in some sense because, you know, the other people who were speaking, Secretary Kissinger and Senator Dole and Governor Wilson, they'd all played an important role in President Nixon's life.

Interview With Larry King


From what we understand, Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to ask you for some specific enunciations of red lines, for specific promises related to the Iranian nuclear program. What is your message to the prime minister going to be? What do you want to get across to him? First of all, it is important to say that I do not know exactly what the prime minister is going to be coming with. We have not gotten any indication that there is some sharp ask that is going to be presented. Both the United States and Israel have been in constant consultation about a very difficult issue, and that is the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is something that has been one of my top five foreign-policy concerns since I came into office. We, immediately upon taking over, mapped out a strategy that said we are going to mobilize the international community around this issue and isolate Iran to send a clear message to them that there is a path they can follow that allows them to rejoin the community of nations, but if they refused to follow that path, that there would be an escalating series of consequences. Three years later, we can look back and say we have been successful beyond most people's expectations. When we came in, Iran was united and on the move, and the world was divided about how to address this issue. Today, the world is as united as we have ever seen it around the need for Iran to take a different path on its nuclear program, and Iran is isolated and feeling the severe effects of the multiple sanctions that have been placed on it. Does the problem get solved? And I think that Israel, understandably, has a profound interest not just in good intentions but in actual results. And in the conversations I have had over the course of three years, and over the course of the last three months and three weeks, what I have emphasized is that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is not just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States, and that when I say we are not taking any option off the table, we mean it. We are going to continue to apply pressure until Iran takes a different course. You have probably said it 50 or 100 times. And a lot of people believe it, but the two main intended audiences, the supreme leader of Iran and the prime minister of Israel, you could argue, do not entirely trust this.

Interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic


The impression we get is that the Israeli government thinks this is a vague expression that is been used for so many years. Is there some ramping-up of the rhetoric you are going to give them? I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it. It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA is robust in evaluating Iran's military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that. I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as ENTITY, I do not bluff. I also do not , as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let me describe very specifically why this is important to us. In addition to the profound threat that it poses to Israel, one of our strongest allies in the world; in addition to the outrageous language that has been directed toward Israel by the leaders of the Iranian government if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, one that is rife with unstable governments and sectarian tensions. And it would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation. What would your position be if Israel were not in this picture? It would still be a profound national-security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Why, then, is this issue so often seen as binary, always defined as Israel versus Iran?


I think it has to do with a legitimate concern on the part of Israel that they are a small country in a tough neighborhood, and as a consequence, even though the U.S. and Israel very much share assessments of how quickly Iran could obtain breakout capacity, and even though there is constant consultation and intelligence coordination around that question, Israel feels more vulnerable. And I think the prime minister and the defense minister, feel a profound, historic obligation not to put Israel in a position where it cannot act decisively and unilaterally to protect the state of Israel. I understand those concerns, and as a consequence, I think it is not surprising that the way it gets framed, at least in this country, where the vast majority of people are profoundly sympathetic to Israel's plight and potential vulnerabilities that articles and stories get framed in terms of Israel's potential vulnerability. But I want to make clear that when we travel around the world and make presentations about this issue, that is not how we frame it. this is something in the national-security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community. And I assure you that Europe would not have gone forward with sanctions on Iranian oil imports which are very difficult for them to carry out, because they get a lot of oil from Iran had it not been for their understanding that it is in the world's interest, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. China would not have abided by the existing sanctions coming out of the National Security Council, and other countries around the world would not have unified around those sanctions, had it not been for us making the presentation about why this was important for everyone, not just one country. Is it possible that the prime minister of Israel has over-learned the lessons of the Holocaust? I think the prime minister has a profound responsibility to protect the Israeli people in a hostile neighborhood, and I am certain that the history of the Holocaust and of anti-Semitism and brutality directed against the Jewish people for more than a millennium weighs on him when he thinks about these questions. I think it is important to recognize, though, that the prime minister is also head of a modern state that is mindful of the profound costs of any military action, and in our consultations with the Israeli government, I think they take those costs, and potential unintended consequences, very seriously. Do you think Israel could cause damage to itself in America by preempting the Iranian nuclear program militarily?


I do not know how it plays in America. I think we in the United States instinctively sympathize with Israel, and I think political support for Israel is bipartisan and powerful. How does this impact their own security environment? ultimately, the Israeli prime minister and the defense minister and others in the government have to make their decisions about what they think is best for Israel's security, and I do not presume to tell them what is best for them. But as Israel's closest friend and ally, and as one that has devoted the last three years to making sure that Israel has additional security capabilities, and has worked to manage a series of difficult problems and questions over the past three years, I do point out to them that we have a sanctions architecture that is far more effective than anybody anticipated; that we have a world that is about as united as you get behind the sanctions; that our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt. In that context, our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily. And the only way, historically, that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take off the table. That is what happened in Libya, that is what happened in South Africa. And we think that, without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested. They recognize that they are in a bad, bad place right now. It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to be the best decision for Israel's security. These are difficult questions, and again, if I were the prime minister of Israel, I'd be wrestling with them. As president of the United States, I wrestle with them as well. Could you shed some light on your relationship with the prime minister? You have met with him more than with any other world leader. It is assumed that you have a dysfunctional relationship. What is it like? I actually think the relationship is very functional, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.


The fact of the matter is, we have gotten a lot of business done with Israel over the last three years. I think the prime minister and certainly the defense minister would acknowledge that we have never had closer military and intelligence cooperation. When you look at what I have done with respect to security for Israel, from joint training and joint exercises that outstrip anything that is been done in the past, to helping finance and construct the Iron Dome program to make sure that Israeli families are less vulnerable to missile strikes, to ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge, to fighting back against delegitimization of Israel, whether at the Human Rights Council, or in front of the UN General Assembly, or during the Goldstone Report, or after the flare-up involving the flotilla the truth of the matter is that the relationship has functioned very well. Do you talk about things other than business? You know, the truth of the matter is, both of us have so much on our plates that there is not always a lot of time to have discussions beyond business. Having said that, what I think is absolutely true is that the prime minister and I come out of different political traditions. This is one of the few times in the history of U.S.-Israeli relations where you have a government from the right in Israel at the same time you have a center-left government in the United States, and so I think what happens then is that a lot of political interpretations of our relationship get projected onto this. But one thing that I have found in working with Prime Minister Netanyahu is that we can be very frank with each other, very blunt with each other, very honest with each other. For the most part, when we have differences, they are tactical and not strategic. Our objectives are a secure United States, a secure Israel, peace, the capacity for our kids to grow up in safety and security and not have to worry about bombs going off, and being able to promote business and economic growth and commerce. We have a common vision about where we want to go. At any given moment as is true, frankly, with my relationship with every other foreign leader there is not going to be perfect alignment of how we achieve these objectives. In an interview three years ago, right before he became prime minister, Netanyahu told me that he believes Iran is being run by a messianic apocalyptic cult. Last week, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to the Iranian leadership as rational.


Where do you fall on this continuum? Do you feel that the leaders of Iran might be so irrational that they will not act in what we would understand to be their self-interest? I think you are right to describe it as a continuum. They have a very ingrown political system. They are founded and fueled on hostility towards the United States, Israel, and to some degree the West. And they have shown themselves willing to go outside international norms and international rules to achieve their objectives. All of this makes them dangerous. They have also been willing to crush opposition in their own country in brutal and bloody ways. I think it is entirely legitimate to say that this is a regime that does not share our worldview or our values. I do think, and this is what General Dempsey was probably referring to, that as we look at how they operate and the decisions they have made over the past three decades, that they care about the regime's survival. They are sensitive to the opinions of the people and they are troubled by the isolation that they are experiencing. They know, for example, that when these kinds of sanctions are applied, it puts a world of hurt on them. They are able to make decisions based on trying to avoid bad outcomes from their perspective. So if they are presented with options that lead to either a lot of pain from their perspective, or potentially a better path, then there is no guarantee that they cannot make a better decision. It seems unlikely that a regime built on anti-Americanism would want to appear to succumb to an American-led sanctions effort. Now, what we have seen, what we have heard directly from them over the last couple of weeks is that nuclear weapons are sinful and un-Islamic. And those are formal speeches from the supreme leader and their foreign minister. Do you believe their sincerity? My point here is not that I believe the sincerity of the statements coming out of the regime. The point is that for them to prove to the international community that their intentions are peaceful and that they are, in fact, not pursuing weapons, is not inconsistent with what they have said. So it does not require them to knuckle under to us. What it does require is for them to actually show to the world that there is consistency between their actions and their statements. And that is something they should be able to do without losing face. Why is containment not your policy?


In the sense that we contained the Soviet Union, North Korea It is for the reason I described because you are talking about the most volatile region in the world. It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe. We have applied a lot of pressure on North Korea as well and, in fact, today found them willing to suspend some of their nuclear activities and missile testing and come back to the table. But North Korea is even more isolated, and certainly less capable of shaping the environment than Iran is. And so the dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world. Do you see accidental nuclear escalation as an issue? Look, the fact is, I do not think any of it would be accidental. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, I will not name the countries, but there are probably four or five countries in the Middle East who say, We are going to start a program, and we will have nuclear weapons. And at that point, the prospect for miscalculation in a region that has that many tensions and fissures is profound. You essentially then duplicate the challenges of India and Pakistan fivefold or tenfold. With everybody pointing at everybody else. With everybody pointing at everybody else. What I am getting at specifically is, let us assume there is a Hezbollah attack on Israel. Israel responds into Lebanon.   The potential for escalation in those circumstances is profoundly dangerous, and in addition to just the potential human costs of a nuclear escalation like that in the Middle East, just imagine what would happen in terms of the world economy. The possibilities of the sort of energy disruptions that we have never seen before occurring, and the world economy basically coming to a halt, would be pretty profound. So when I say this is in the U.S. interest, I am not saying this is something we'd like to solve. One of the aspects of this is the question of whether it is plausible that Barack Obama would ever use military power to stop Iran. The Republicans are trying to make this an issue and not only the Republicans saying that this man, by his disposition, by his character, by his party, by his center-left outlook, is not going to do that.


Look, if people want to say about me that I have a profound preference for peace over war, that every time I order young men and women into a combat theater and then see the consequences on some of them, if they are lucky enough to come back, that this weighs on me I make no apologies for that. Because anybody who is sitting in my chair who is not mindful of the costs of war should not be here, because it is serious business. These are not video games that we are playing here. Now, having said that, I think it is fair to say that the last three years, I have shown myself pretty clearly willing, when I believe it is in the core national interest of the United States, to direct military actions, even when they entail enormous risks. And obviously, the bin Laden operation is the most dramatic, but al-Qaeda was on its well before we took out bin Laden because of our activities and my direction. In Afghanistan, we have made very tough decisions because we felt it was very important, in order for an effective transition out of Afghanistan to take place, for us to be pushing back against the Taliban's momentum. So aside from the usual politics, I do not think this is an argument that has a lot of legs. And by the way, it is not an argument that the American people buy. They may have complaints about high unemployment still, and that the recovery needs to move faster, but you do not hear a lot of them arguing somehow that I hesitate to make decisions as commander in chief when necessary. Can you just talk about Syria as a strategic issue? But it would seem to me that one way to weaken and further isolate Iran is to remove or help remove Iran's only Arab ally. What else can this administration be doing? The Arab Spring, as bumpy as it has been, represents a strategic defeat for Iran, because what people in the region have seen is that all the impulses towards freedom and self-determination and free speech and freedom of assembly have been constantly violated by Iran. But more directly, it is now engulfing Syria, and Syria is basically their only true ally in the region. It is a matter not of if, but when. Now, can we accelerate that? We are working with the world community to try to do that.


It is complicated by the fact that Syria is a much bigger, more sophisticated, and more complicated country than Libya, for example the opposition is hugely splintered that although there is unanimity within the Arab world at this point, internationally, countries like Russia are still blocking potential UN mandates or action. And so what we are trying to do and the secretary of state just came back from helping to lead the Friends of Syria group in Tunisia is to try to come up with a series of strategies that can provide humanitarian relief. But they can also accelerate a transition to a peaceful and stable and representative Syrian government. If that happens, that will be a profound loss for Iran. Is there anything you could do to move it faster? Well, nothing that I can tell you, because your classified clearance is not good enough. This is part of, by the way, the context in which we have to examine our approach toward Iran, because at a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim, and deflect attention from what has to be the core issue, which is their potential pursuit of nuclear weapons? That is an example of factors that when we are in consultation with all our allies, including the Israelis, we raise these factors, because this is an issue of many dimensions here, and we have got to factor all of them in to achieve the outcome that hopefully we all want. Do the Israelis understand that? There have been disagreements between Israel and the U.S. before, but this is coming to a head about what the Israelis see as an existential issue. In your mind, have you brought arguments to Netanyahu that have so far worked out well? I think that in the end, Israel's leaders will make determinations based on what they believe is best for the security of Israel, and that is entirely appropriate. When we present our views and our strategy approach, we try to put all our cards on the table, to describe how we are thinking about these issues. We try to back those up with facts and evidence. We compare their assessments with ours, and where there are gaps, we try to narrow those gaps. And what I also try to do is to underscore the seriousness with which the United States takes this issue. And I think that Ehud Barak understands it.


I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu, hopefully when he sees me next week, will understand it. And one of the things that I like to remind them of is that every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept. Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they have had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that? That is a good way to phrase it. there is no good reason to doubt me on these issues. Some of it has to do with the fact that in this country and in our media, this gets wrapped up with politics. And if you have a set of political actors who want to see if they can drive a wedge not between the United States and Israel, but between Barack Obama and a Jewish American vote that has historically been very supportive of his candidacy, then it is good to try to fan doubts and raise questions. But when you look at the record, there is no there there. And my job is to try to make sure that those political factors are washed away on an issue that is of such great strategic and security importance to our two countries. And so when I am talking to the prime minister, or my team is talking to the Israeli government, what I want is a hardheaded, clear-eyed assessment of how do we achieve our goals. And our goals are in sync. And historically, one of the reasons that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has survived so well and thrived is shared values, shared history, the links between our peoples. But it is also been because it has been a profoundly bipartisan commitment to the state of Israel. we have got Israel's back. And that is something that I constantly try to reinforce and remind people of. Wait, in four words, is that your message to the prime minister we have got Israel's back? That is not just my message to the prime minister, that is been my message to the Israeli people, and to the pro-Israel community in this country, since I came into office. It is hard for me to be clearer than I was in front of the UN General Assembly, when I made a more full-throated defense of Israel and its legitimate security concerns than any president in history not, by the way, in front of an audience that was particularly warm to the message. My message will be much more specific, about how do we solve this problem.


ENTITY, you are the first ENTITY to visit Lithuania. What is your message to Lithuania's people? Secondly, I am really looking forward to it. Freedom is precious, and we welcome our friends the Lithuanians into the-as a free nation into the brotherhood of nations. I will also say to the world that the Baltic countries know what it means to live under fear and the lack of freedom, and to have these countries be allied with the United States and other nations is important to our soul. It is important to have that sense of freedom as a source of vigor and strength, and a very important alliance. That is what I want to say. What are America and Lithuania going to do after the Prague, together? Well, we are going to work to fight terror. It is most evident here in America because we have been under attack, and we are still under attack. People still want to hurt us because of what we stand for. But countries which love freedom are not immune from these people. These are coldblooded killers, and we have got a charge to keep for a long time coming. And the best way to do that is work together. So the NATO mission is one of defending freedom by fighting against those who would try to defeat freedom, which means we have got to share intelligence, work together militarily in a way that complements everybody, cut off the money of the terrorists. But that is the true threat that we face. After Prague, I am going to Russia. And I am going to say to the Russian people, You should not fear expansion of NATO to your border. These are freedom-loving people that are now on your border. You ought to welcome them. It should help Russian security - that the cold war is over, that the United States does not view Russia as a threat and neither does NATO. So we have got to address our sights to the new threats. Relationship between Western democracies and Russia seems to be very friendly. But do you really trust President Putin? I press any leader that does not believe 100 percent in freedom, and of course I do-I am -freedom of the press or Chechnya or issues that indicate that there might not be a whole-hearted commitment to freedom of the people. I do it in a way that is a friendly way. I believe the best way to work together is to do it in a spirit of cooperation.

Interview With LNK TV of Lithuania


I believe the best way to make sure we have got good relations is to make it clear that there is no animosity. But of course I do. I work very closely with him. And we want Russia to be a country based upon the values which we share, because we believe those values are the best values for the human condition of everybody. I like to tell people, freedom is not an American gift; freedom is a gift from the almighty God. And I firmly believe that. And freedom is important in any country in the world. Some people wonder why the United States, the superpower of the world, pays so much attention to the small Baltic state Lithuania. What could you tell those people? Well, I can tell those people everybody matters. See, our country believes in the worth of every individual. We believe everybody is precious; everybody counts; and that we are rooted, our whole history and our very being is rooted, on the notion of people being able to realize their dreams. And that is what we believe. That is why we never recognized the Soviet domination of the Baltics. We called Lithuania independent for all those years. How do you imagine the future of NATO Alliance after new members will join? Better-better because the-NATO will have this new spirit. Listen, if you lived under slavery and subjugation and you are free, there is a spirit. There is a remembrance of what it is like. That is an important spirit in NATO. Lithuania brings a wonderful spirit of strength of purpose, of endurance. Secondly, as we change the military strategy to reflect the new threat-see, Russia is not a threat militarily. The threats that we now face come from a global terror network. And we will change our military capabilities to meet the strategies necessary to defeat terrorism. And Lithuania will have an important contribution to make, as will all countries in NATO. So the expansion of NATO will make it easier for us to defend the peace. It was a great pleasure to talk to you. We will see you in Vilnius. It is going to be exciting for me. We are waiting for that. Yes, we will do our best.

Interview With LNK TV of Lithuania


Well, I think we will start with the host country. And again, we want to thank you very much for granting us the interview, ENTITY. And I am sure you will enjoy Venice and you will enjoy Italy. You will be in Italy a few days just before the elections. Do you consider Italy a country so politically stable that the elections do not worry you, or is your administration worried about the Communist participation in the Government and about repercussions on NATO? Well, I cannot deny wherever in the world I find a Communist movement their conduct has been such that it is of concern. But, no, and I think it would be improper for me to inject any opinions into your election there. But I have great confidence that the Italian people will do what is right, as they have for quite some time now. ENTITY, can you conceive any circumstances on which the United States would go to war with Iran as a result of military actions against the United States warships in the Persian Gulf, and what part would you expect the allies to play? that the Persian Gulf is international waters; it must stay open. It is vital to most of the countries of Western Europe because of the oil from there, as well as Japan. And it is important to us, although not quite as vital with regard to the amount of oil that we bring out of there. I do not see the danger of a war. I do not know how it could possibly start, except that it is true this is not the first place or the only place in the world where we have felt it necessary to maintain a military force. And always, we have followed the rule that we are not going to send our people anywhere unless they are permitted to defend themselves if attacked. And we are not out to attack anyone, but we will, if fired upon, will fire back. ENTITY, I am the Canadian reporter, so you will not be very surprised with this first question I have for you. Just before leaving Ottawa in April, you told Mr. Mulroney that you would consider a bilateral accord to reduce the pollution that causes acid rain. When we got back in Washington 2 weeks later, your top environmental official, Lee Thomas, said that such emission controls were not justified. So, I am asking you, ENTITY, are you willing to negotiate an accord that would set goals and timetables and controls or not?

Interview With Foreign Journalists Prior to the Venice Economic Summit


I have told our people that I think we should use the pattern that Canada and the United States used with regard to polluted air-or polluted water along our borders. And we were very successful in cleaning up the lakes and the streams that either crossed our borders or that were very close to them. And we worked together on that. And that is the pattern that I said I thought we should follow here. And we are in consultation. And we have a great deal of work to do ourselves on pinning sources and so forth. But all of that is going forward. It is not something that you can just say that we will do it at 10 a.m. in the morning. But we intend to work closely with Canada and find an answer to the problem. Many Japanese people are hoping that the United States will lift the sanctions as a result of the semiconductor codes prior to the Venice summit. Is there any chance that the United States will lift the sanctions prior to the summit? We are looking forward to doing that as quickly as we can, but it depends on those Japanese concerns agreeing to the-or abiding by the terms that were agreed to earlier. And then that agreement was violated, and this is what brought about our retaliation. I do not know that it can be done as quickly as our going to the summit, which is almost upon us, but it will be done as soon as, as I say, all those conditions are met. And I know that Prime Minister Nakasone is doing his best and is being most cooperative in trying to arrive at a settlement. ENTITY, you have always emphasized that progress in arms control should be linked with progress in human rights. You are making progress in arms control at the moment, and as you are going to Berlin next month and as you are going to see the wall which divides the city, do not you think that the time has come for a new initiative on human rights? Well, I do not know what his message might be, but I am quite sure that I will make reference to the wall and what it represents. I believe that we have made progress, some progress in human rights, not as much as we would like or as fast as we would like. There is a greater distance to go, much more to be done, but at least we are seeing the signs of improvement in that field of human rights. I think another thing also has to do-that is tied into arms reduction, must be the regional aspect.


And there, I think the Soviet Union-they have expressed their desire to get out of Afghanistan, and I think we all should be encouraging them to make good on that statement and move as fast as possible to end an assault that has seen almost 5 million people have to flee their country as refugees and live in neighboring countries. And it is a brutal assault on the people who remain. We are seeing attacks on children-deliberately aimed at children by the use of weapons that are made to look like child's toys, but which, when picked up, cause either the death or the severe injury of the children. I recently had five children in this office right here who'd been brought to our hospitals from Afghanistan. And one of them, a small, tiny girl, was horribly disfigured by burns. But the other four were either missing a leg or an arm. Over the years, Britain, irrespective of which political party is in power, has enjoyed a strong, special relationship with the United States, including an American military presence with nuclear weapons on British soft. Irrespective of the result of the general election now being fought in Britain, will you do everything in your power to maintain this relationship in general and specific terms? It is difficult for me to conceive of a time when we would not have the almost family relationship that we have between our two countries. I have admired your Prime Minister and the progress that has been made in many fields there, but I know that I cannot go beyond that, because I am not going to, again, intervene or express an opinion with regard to your politics. But the relationship between our two countries does go back many, many years, and I think it would take more than an election in either one of our countries to change that. ENTITY, may I go back a moment to the Persian Gulf?. People say, especially in Congress, that there is a danger of war. And in any case, confrontation with Iran could cause a resurgence in terrorism and dampen the peace process in the Middle East. Do you think these objections are true, and what do you expect the Europeans to do to help you there? Specifically, what do you expect Italy, for instance, to do to help you? Well, in the economic summit last year in Japan, we came to quite some sizable agreements with regard to terrorism and the cooperation between all of our countries on that. There is no question but that the Iranian Government does support terrorism.


And I would think that the issues, as I expressed them earlier, about simply defending ourselves with regard to our own ability to maintain trade in the open waters-I do not see that as bringing on a war. As a matter of fact, we are doing everything we can, working with other countries to try and bring about an end to the war that we have. Now, Iraq has already expressed a willingness to simply end the war, both sides retreat to their own borders, no one gain any territory or suffer any penalty, just simply end the war. Iraq has expressed a willingness to do this, and the only holdout is Iran. We are going to continue to try and press for peace there. It is my understanding that war has taken about a million lives so far. I do not think that they would like to take on the United States in addition to Iraq. And we are not going to start a war, so it would have to be them if they tried to start one. In case of an agreement about the double zero option, what will you answer to those who fear denuclearization of Europe? Well, I think we are a long way from denuclearization of Europe. You have really three sets of weapons. The ones that we are talking particularly about in having a zero option are the intermediate range. But even if that should be done, you have that third group which, in the case of the allies, would number someplace in 4,000 warheads. These are the battlefield weapons, the airplane-carried weapons and so forth, and some nuclear submarines that are dedicated to our agreement with the European nations. Then I would have to point out that as you proceeded-if you did-into that field that is where it would absolutely have to include conventional weapons. conventional weapons. ENTITY, you just talked a moment ago about freedom of navigation in the Gulf. Ottawa is planning to buy 10 to 12 submarines from Europe to force your Navy to ask permission when you send ships in the Northwest Passage. Are we going towards a confrontation of some kind? I see a great deal of merit on Canada's concern with regard to the islands north of Canada, which throughout much, if not all, of the year many of them are connected by permanent ice connections with people living on that ice-that this is somewhat different than most of the other points in the world where there could be the same type of concern as to whether a water is international or territorial.


We have to worry about an action that could set a pattern, a precedent, that then in other parts of the world we would find-what is it, about 16 chokepoints in the world that must be kept open if the free world, not only ourselves but others, are to be able to get the necessities of life. And someone that wanted to attack the free world-obviously their naval strategy would be to close those down.  You seem to be saying that Canada had some legitimate claim to sovereignty for that- And I am hopeful that we can-and the good neighbors that we are-that we can find an answer to that and that will, at the same time, will not set a dangerous precedent with regard to other international waters. ENTITY, I would like to ask concerning the value of the dollar. Is the United States Government planning any measures to maintain the value of the dollar, and will you make an announcement at the summit on this? Now, wait a minute, I missed out there at the first. I'd like to ask regarding as-in the value of dollars.- So, is the United States Government planning any measures to maintain the value of the dollar? Well, I do not think we want any more precipitous nosediving of the dollar. We do think that there was a readjustment that was needed, that our dollar, in relation to other currencies, was overpriced. And it was making competition a little unfair in worldwide trade; we were being priced out of the market. Sometimes when we see the dollar adjust as it has, I have often wondered if we are describing it accurately or if we should not be saying that other currencies that have so far been undervalued have gained some value that is more realistic worldwide. Are you going to reappoint Mr. Volcker as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board? We have not even met or discussed that as yet. I know that I am going to be faced with that decision down the road, or perhaps he has a decision he wants to make himself. But we just have not made a decision. But I think that out of the economic summit also, in the whole field of macroeconomics, we will be touching on the need for some stability with regard to currencies worldwide and cure any runaway volatility. If I may ask you a more personal question, you have experienced the worst political crisis of your life during the last months.


Your wife has been criticized by some American columnists. You lost your Chief of Staff. Did it ever occur to you during this crisis to resign? And what gave you the strength to carry on? Well, I think the strength to carry on was because there was not any truth, and is not any truth, in the charges that are being leveled at me. I did not know that there was money deposited with regard to our arms purchase in accounts or that any of that money was then going to be used for the contras. We had sold $12 million worth of arms. We got our $12 million. And it was not until the covert operation that we were-or meetings that we were having-not with Khomeini's government. These meetings were with people who were looking forward to what might be the Government of Iran in the absence of the Khomeini and wanted to establish better relations with the United States. They could probably get executed for what they were doing. But anyway, when the whole thing did leak and burst in all the press of the world, it was only then that word was brought to me that apparently someone in the go-between in the arms transaction had raised the price and there was excess money and it had been put in a Swiss bank account. Now, I still do not know who did that, how much, where it went, who is gotten any of it; and I am still waiting for these investigations to reveal it. So frankly, I sleep very well at night. There was information that had evidently been withheld from me by some of those who are testifying. And I do not feel that I am faced with any crisis, and, no, I never considered resigning. ENTITY, Secretary Shultz, before the House Appropriations Committee last March, was talking about the impossibility of the United States living up to any undertaking of confidentiality. He said that the result is that other countries are increasingly hesitant in dealing with us and they even hesitate to communicate with us because as soon as they put anything down, somebody will leak it. How big is the problem of leaks in the American Government, and does it affect the allies in Europe? During these last several years, I was not prepared for how much leaking does go on from the White House or from-let us just say in Washington. It is not just confined to the White House.


Many times, if there is something in which you have to give information to the Congress, you know you are going to read about it in the paper almost immediately. As a matter of fact, may I say something here that might sound a little critical? A great deal of the leaking is not the leaking of valid information, it is the leaking of a rumor, an unsubstantiated statement. And yet our press goes all out, including the headlines with it. Now, I recognize the right of the free press; I do not want censorship. And I know also that the press, at least in our country, has a tradition of protecting its source. So, when I see those stories that are written with according to a White House source -no name. But since many times they print as fact this statement by this unnamed source, does not the press have a responsibility, if they want to protect their source, of at least before they go with the story checking out to see if the story is true? Would it kill them to make a telephone call and find out is this true, did you say this, or did you do that? And it is destructive to our relationship with other countries. As I say, a number of times I have had to pick up the phone and call one of my counterparts in another country because of embarrassment caused to them by a leak. And we have done, and continue to do, everything we can to try and find out who is responsible for these leaks, and we have not been able to determine them, to pin them down. Was there a leak, or is not just the attributing of the story to an unnamed source a way of writing a story someone wants to write, particularly among columnists? When are you meeting Mr. Gorbachev, ENTITY? It is up to him to tell us when he can come. He has agreed; he did agree to a summit in the United States; and that invitation is still open. And I am hopeful that, before the year is out, we will have that meeting.


We think that a lot of people responded to a theme, or at least I think so, in the presidential campaign of sacrifice to cut the deficit as long as that sacrifice is equal. The Btu tax was designed originally on the concept of equal sacrifice. But then all of these exceptions were added, and it really makes it appear that it is one of the most complicated proposals ever. Did you make a mistake allowing all the special exceptions to be included in the Btu tax? Some of them were included in the House of Representatives bill, and I did not agree with all of them. But let me say what I think was a good criticism of the tax and that is that we wanted the tax to restrain energy consumption in ways that promoted energy conservation and also supported fuel switching to more environmentally beneficial and more available natural gas. That bill, as drawn, would be a big boon to the natural gas industry in Texas and Oklahoma and throughout the United States. And that is one of the things we were trying to do. Now, some of the oil companies did not like it, but the people that were in the gas business liked it. We had a big Texas gas company, headed by a person who strongly supported President Bush in the last election, endorsed the economic program. ARCO and Sun Oil both endorsed the economic program, including the Btu tax. So Secretary Bentsen, who, as you know, has represented you in the Senate for a long time, offered the Senate a modified Btu tax which, instead of having all those particular exemptions, would basically have alleviated the burden of the Btu tax on industry and agriculture on the production sector but still given them an incentive to move toward natural gas wherever possible and would also have cut the Btu rate and would have replaced that with more spending cuts. From my point of view, unfortunately, we could not pass that through the committee because Senator Boren had said he would not vote for any tax based on the heat content of fuel. But I still think it was a good concept, and it will be interesting to see what happens if the Senate's version of the economic plan passes, to see what happens in the conference and what we come up with. What we have now is a gasoline tax that is been passed by the Senate committee, and you have called that regressive in the past. How can you sell that, if you have to, to House Members who did risk some political capital by supporting you on the Btu tax?

Interview With Phil Adler of KRLD Radio, Dallas, Texas


I think anything that comes out has to be a combination of agreement between the House and the Senate. It is hard to get 218 House Members and 51 Senators to agree on anything that is tough. I mean, everybody can talk about cutting the deficit, but it is one thing to talk about it and quite another to do. But I think they will be able to do it. No one was particularly happy with the form of the Btu tax, or very few people were, that passed the House, but everybody thought that Secretary Bentsen could come up with a plan that would make it good for the economy and could achieve what we were trying to do in terms of promoting domestic energy, and I think he did. The Senate preferred a tax that was a gas tax and a tax on some other fuels. It, at least, is small enough so that it is not particularly unfair to people in rural areas. It is not as big as what some had wanted, and certainly I did not want just a big old gas tax. I also think it is important to point out in Texas, in light of the rhetoric in the recent political campaign, that it is simply not true that there is no spending cuts in this plan. There is $250 billion in spending cuts, and they affect everything. They affect agriculture and veterans and Medicare and the whole range of discretionary spending of the Government. They affect foreign aid; they affect defense. And the tax increases, two-thirds of them, fall on people with incomes above $200,000, three-quarters on people with incomes above $100,000. Families of four with incomes below $30,000 are held harmless, and people who work for a living 40 hours a week and have kids in the house who are now in poverty would actually be lifted above poverty by these tax changes in ways that promote the movement from welfare to work. It was developed, and in a very aggressive way, by Lloyd Bentsen and by Leon Panetta, who used to be chairman of the House Budget Committee, to be fair, to have equal spending cuts in taxes, and to drive the deficit down so we could bring interest rates down. That is good for Texas, and that is good for everybody in America. And also, it leaves some room for investments that are critical to our future. And as you know, I support you were implying this before I got on I support the space station and the super collider projects because I think they are good for America's future.


And if you are going to spend money on those things, you have to spend money on them. You cannot play games; they do cost some money. ENTITY, how long can you guarantee that support for the super collider and the space station? Will they fall if that is the only way to meet your overall deficit reduction goal? Well, my overall deficit reduction goals can be met in my plan with the space station and the super collider. I do want to emphasize that we have already shaved $4 billion off the 5-year budget for the space station and some money off the 5-year budget for the super collider by redesigning the space station, based on a team of exceptional national experts who analyzed the project and recommended that it be redesigned and also that NASA's management be changed rather dramatically. And we just delayed the implementation schedule on the super collider some, so that none of the opponents of the space station and the super collider could claim that there had been no spending cut there. So we have done that. But I strongly feel it would be a mistake to abandon those. Now, I would be less than candid if I did not tell you that there are a lot of people in other parts of the country who want to cut those projects. There was always a lot of opposition to them, and because of the last election and all of the rhetoric and all the claims in Texas that there were no spending cuts in this budget, that has given real energy to the opponents of the space station and the super collider. It was not true that there were no spending cuts, but there are a lot of people up there who have been wanting to kill these projects for years who are just gleeful at the way the rhetoric in the last election played out in Texas. They think that they have been given a license by the people of Texas to kill the space station and the super collider. And it is going to be very much harder for me to keep them alive. ENTITY, I am informed that our time has run out, by one of your aides, I believe. I enjoyed it.


I am very pleased indeed to welcome ENTITY and his delegation, Mrs. ENTITY, and young Barbara. It is very important for us because of the importance of the United States to our future and the United States to the future of our continent. We have had very good discussions with ENTITY, able to cover quite a wide field. We are very pleased with the development of the bilateral relations, strong economic links, growing all the time. Continued attention by the U.S. corporate world on South Africa is very critically important for us. AGOA has had a very big impact in terms of the development of our economy, and we continue to work on all of these matters. It also gave us a chance to convey our thanks to ENTITY for the support with regards to meeting the African continental challenges. That includes questions of peace and security, the NEPAD processes, again, very important for the future of our continent. That, of course, also gave an opportunity to discuss some of the specific areas of conflict around the continent. I must say, ENTITY, that at the end of these discussions, we, all of us, feel enormously strengthened by your very, very firm and clear commitment to assist us to meet the challenges that we have got to meet domestically and on the African Continent. We-the visit will certainly result in strengthened bilateral relations and strengthened cooperation to meet these other challenges that we face together. It is a pleasure to be in South Africa. Your Nation's recent history is a great story of courage and persistence in the pursuit of justice. This is a country that threw off oppression and is now the force of freedom and stability and a force for progress throughout the continent of Africa. I appreciate our strong relationship, and it is a vital relationship. And ENTITY, I want to thank you very much for working hard to make it a vital and strong relationship. We have met quite a few times in the recent past, and every time we have met, I have -I feel refreshed and appreciate very much your advice and counsel and your leadership. I appreciate ENTITY's dedication to openness and accountability. He is advancing these principles in the New Partnership for African Development, the leader in that effort. ENTITY and I believe that the partnership can help extend democracy and free markets and transparency across the continent of Africa. ENTITY has shown great leadership in this initiative, and our country will support the leaders who accept the principles of reform, and we will work with them.

The President's News Conference With President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa in Pretoria, South Africa


South Africa is playing a critical role in promoting regional security in Africa, and we discussed ENTITY's leadership, for example, in Burundi. South Africa has helped achieve the peaceful inauguration of a new ENTITY. Or in the Congo, South Africa brokered an agreement on the creation of a transitional government. And in Zimbabwe, I have encouraged ENTITY and his Government to continue to work for the return of democracy in that important country. I also discussed with ENTITY the importance of the continued cooperation in the global war on terror. The United States and South Africa are working together to strengthen this nation's border security and law enforcement. And we are devoting $100 million to help countries in eastern Africa increase their counterterror efforts. We are determined to fight and to join our friends to fight terrorists throughout this continent, throughout the world. We are also committed to helping African nations achieve peace. In Liberia, the United States strongly supports the cease-fire agreement signed last month. President Taylor needs to leave Liberia so that his country can be spared further grief and bloodshed. Yesterday, I talked with President Kufuor of Ghana, who leads ECOWAS. I shared with the President our conversation. I assured him the United States will work closely with ECOWAS and the United Nations to maintain the cease-fire and to enable a peaceful transfer of power. We are also pressing forward to help end Africa's long-running civil war in Sudan. My Special Envoy, Senator Jack Danforth, is returning to the region. We are making progress there. And his efforts are making good progress. ENTITY also discussed our action to combat ENTITY/ENTITY. South Africa has recently increased its budget to fight the disease, and we noticed and we appreciate that. America is now undertaking a major new effort to help governments and private groups combat ENTITY. Over the next 5 years, we will spend $15 billion in the global fight against ENTITY. People across Africa had the will to fight this disease but often not the resources, and the United States of America is willing to put up the resources to help in the fight. We are committed to helping the people of Africa defeat hunger. We provided more than 500,000 metric tons of food aid to southern Africa over the past 18 months. This year we will provide nearly $1 billion to address food emergencies. We care when we see people who are hungry. We look forward to working with ENTITY to alleviate suffering. We are also working to expand trade, which I believe is the key to Africa's economic future.


The African Growth and Opportunity Act is creating jobs and stimulating investment across the continent. Right here in South Africa, exports to the United States under AGOA have increased by 45 percent in the last year alone-significant progress. We are working with five nations of the Southern African Customs Union on a free trade agreement to help expand the circle of prosperity even wider. ENTITY, our countries have many common interests. We also share a fundamental commitment to the spread of peace and human rights and liberty. By working in close partnership, we are serving both the interests of the people of South Africa and the United States. I want to thank you for your friendship, appreciate the hospitality. It is been a great honor to be in your country. I understand that two U.S. journalists and two South African journalists will pose some questions. I'd like to direct the question to both Presidents, and it does concern the issue of ENTITY/ENTITY and the $15 billion grant. Did you manage to reach some kind of understanding or consensus on the issue of how South Africa will access that money, on what terms South Africa will be able to access that money? And ENTITY, did you give any undertakings in terms of using your influence to ensure that there will be cheaper access-access to cheaper drugs and medicines? And to ENTITY, sir, did you-- Did you give any undertaking in terms of the running out of the national treatment plan? Well, as ENTITY had indicated, we did indeed discuss this. The situation is that we received a request from the U.S. Government to say, can we make proposals as to how to access the fund, for what purposes-a program, a program that we would present. So we are working on that. We want to respond to that request from the United States Government as quickly as is possible. We will do that and convey it. So it will be out of that process of discussion that will result, out of that proposal between the U.S. Government and ourselves, that then will come a program, a particular concrete kind of action, with the necessary costing when we get to that stage. So the matter will be discussed in that way. And ENTITY had indicated in our discussions that of course the U.S. Government is taking a comprehensive approach to this, which would, therefore, include questions of awareness, questions of health infrastructure, questions of treatment, and so on. So we will look at the totality of those and-in the proposal that we would make.


We just named Tobias to be the Ambassador, nominated him to be the Ambassador, and he is -upon confirmation-will be working with the countries such as South Africa to develop a strategy-is what we need. We need a commonsense strategy to make sure that the money is well-spent. And the definition of well-spent means lives are saved, which means good treatment programs, good prevention programs, good programs to develop health infrastructures in remote parts of different countries so that we can actually get antiretroviral drugs to those who need help. The cost of antiretroviral drugs has dropped substantially. But we did talk about the pharmaceutical union in a broader context. As you may know, the United States supported a moratorium on the enforcement of patent laws concerning those drugs related to diseases that were causing pandemics. And we will continue to work with South Africa as well as other countries to see if we cannot reach a commonsense policy that, on the one hand, protects intellectual property rights and, on the other hand, makes, you know, lifesaving drugs or treatment drugs for, in some cases, lifesaving, in some cases that are proper for treatment, more widely available at reasonable costs. But one reason I felt emboldened to ask the Congress for a substantial amount of new money for the ENTITY Initiative was because of the cost of antiretrovirals, and it is significantly lower than it was a couple of years ago. So we are making good progress. And I look forward to working with ENTITY on putting together a sound strategy that saves lives. That is what our country is interested in. We are interested in dealing with this pandemic in a practical way. But whatever you do, do not fall into that bad habit of asking both of us three or four questions. ENTITY, you have an assessment team in Liberia now to help you decide whether to send in U.S. troops as part of a peacekeeping effort. U.S. troops are getting shot at increasingly in Iraq every day. We have troops in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Korea. What do you say to critics who suggest that our forces may be spread too thinly now to engage in further initiatives? And to ENTITY, do you think that the United States should play a more active role in peacekeeping, specifically in Liberia? Well, first, my answer to people is that we will not overextend our troops, period.


Secondly, we have made a commitment that we will work closely with the United Nations and ECOWAS to enforce the cease-fire, see to it that Mr. Taylor leaves office, so that there can be a peaceful transition in Liberia. We have made that commitment. I have said it clearly more than one time, like yesterday in Senegal, for example. So nothing has changed from about 12 hours ago on that question. We do have assessment teams there to assess what is necessary to help with the transition. And ENTITY brought up the question, and he can answer it his own way. And we are now determining the extent of our involvement. Yes, certainly, we discussed this question with ENTITY many years ago and agreed that it is critically important that we as Africans should, indeed, take responsibility for the future of peace and stability on the continent. So that is a principal obligation that falls on us as Africans. So as you would know, the West African states, ECOWAS, have agreed to send in troops into Liberia. And they are trying to move that process forward as quickly as is possible. We appreciate very much the point that was made by ENTITY of the commitment of the United States to lend sup-port-the assessment teams are there to assess that-to lend support to those processes, processes of restoration of peace, making sure people do not starve, making sure that there is a restoration of democracy in Liberia. So the U.S. will cooperate with the African troops that will go there. So it is not- we are not saying that this is a burden that just falls on the United States. It really ought to principally fall on us as Africans. Of course, we need a lot of support, logistics-wise and so on, to do that, but the will is there. I think our money has helped train seven battalions of peacekeepers amongst African troops. And it is a sensible policy for us to continue that training mission, so that we never do get overextended. And so one of the things you will see us do is invigorate this-reinvigorate the strategy of helping people help themselves by providing training opportunities. I think we have trained five Nigerian battalions, if I am not mistaken, one Senegalese. So we have got-but it is in our interest that we continue that strategy, Tom, so that we do not ever get overextended.


During the past week, the two Presidents or the Governments of-the Government of the U.S. and South Africa have expressed sharp differences about the best way to deal with the Zimbabwean question. And having met this morning, I wonder if the two Presidents have found the best approach or have agreed about the best approach to deal with Zimbabwe. Can we get from the smiles that you now have a formula to deal best with Zimbabwe? I did not know, ENTITY, that we'd expressed sharp differences. We are absolutely of one mind, the two Governments and ENTITY and myself are absolutely of one mind about the urgent need to address the political and economic challenges of Zimbabwe. It is necessary to resolve this matter as quickly as is possible. We have said, as you would know, for a long time that the principle is rooted- principal responsibility for the resolution of these problems rests with the people of Zimbabwe and, therefore, have urged them-both the ruling party and the opposition, the Government and the opposition-to get together and seriously tackle all of these issues. I did tell ENTITY that, indeed, the Government-ZANU-PF and the MDC are indeed discussing. They are engaged in discussions on all of the matters that would be relevant to the resolution of these political and economic problems. We have communicated the message to both sides that-indeed, as we agreed with ENTITY-that it is very, very important that they should move forward with urgency to find a resolution to these questions. Of course, again, as ENTITY was saying, that apart from these important political issues about democrats and so on, you actually have ordinary people who are hungry in an economy which cannot cope with them, and you cannot allow that kind of situation to go on forever. We had discussed this matter earlier, sometime back, with the U.S. Government that we have to find-we have got to find a way of getting a political solution, and we would indeed count very much on such economic, financial support as would come from the United States afterwards, in order to address the urgent challenges that face Zimbabwe. So we did not fight about any of what I have just said. We were smiling because we were certain a clever reporter would try to use the Zimbabwe issue as a way to maybe create tensions which do not exist. Look, Zimbabwe is an important country for the economic health of Africa.


A free, peaceful Zimbabwe has got the capacity to deliver a lot of goods and services which are needed on this continent in order to help relieve suffering. And it is a very sad situation that is taken place in that country. Look, we share the same objective. He represents a mighty country in the neighborhood who is , because of his position and his responsibility, is working the issue. And I am not-not any intention of second-guessing his tactics. We share the same outcome. And I think it is important for the United States, whether it be me or my Secretary of State, to speak out when we see a situation where somebody's freedoms have been taken away from them and they are suffering. And that is what we are going to continue to do. ENTITY is the point man on this important subject. He is working it very hard. He is in touch with the parties involved. He is-he is making-he believes, making good progress. And the United States supports him in this effort. Do you regret that your State of the Union accusation that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa is now fueling charges that you and Prime Minister Blair misled the public? And then, secondly, following up on Zimbabwe, are you willing to have a representative meet with a representative of the Zimbabwe opposition leader, who sent a delegation here and complained that he did not think ENTITY could be an honest broker in the process? Well, I think ENTITY can be an honest broker, to answer the second question. The first question is-look, there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace. And there is no doubt in my mind the United States, along with allies and friends, did the right thing in removing him from power. And there is no doubt in my mind, when it is all said and done, the facts will show the world the truth. And so there is going to be a lot of, you know, attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I am absolutely confident in the decision I made. Do you still believe they were trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa? I mean, the statement you made-- One thing is for certain, he is not trying to buy anything right now. If he is alive, he is on the run. And that is to the benefit of the Iraqi people. But look, I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program.


Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. What is your assessment of those three theaters? And looking back in perspective, would you do anything different? Well, that is an interesting question on doing anything different. Of course, history is going to be the judge of that. But the decision, for example, on Iraq, to remove Saddam Hussein, was the right decision then, and it is the right decision now. The progress in Iraq has been substantial. For a period of time, it-the democracy was in doubt, primarily because sectarian violence was really unacceptable. I decided to put more troops in, rather than pull back, and now the violence is the lowest it is been since March of 2004. So I am encouraged about Iraq. Afghanistan is also difficult because of new democracy emerging from the shadows of a brutal regime. Last year, of course, the Taliban announced they were going to go on the offense. In fact, our coalition went on the offense and, from a security perspective, made some progress against the Taliban. The best progress, though, is the advance of better trained police forces-and I thank the Italian Government for helping-as well as a better Afghan ENTITY, which over time needs to provide the security for the country. Iraq will probably-progresses quicker cause it is got wealth. Iran-the free world must continue to send a clear message to the Iranians that their ability to enrich, which could be transferred to a program to develop a nuclear weapon, is unacceptable. And so I will continue to work on this trip to talk about the dangers of a nuclear Iran-not civilian nuclear power, but a program that would be aimed at blackmail or destruction-and that we have got to work to stop them from learning how to enrich. Should Iran resist the international pressure, military option remains open? Italy wants to join the 5plus-1 group of contacts negotiating with Iran. Germany is skeptical; they do not want us. What do you say? I say that whatever is effective in terms of sending a clear message to Iran. I will be spending time talking to this with the Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. I have talked to Condi about this issue. Italy can be an effective voice in sending a message to the Iranians. And that you do not have to choose isolation; there is a better way forward. And Italy can be a critical part of that.

Interview With Gianni Riotta of Italy's Rai TV


And so we will work-I have not really taken the temperature that much, but my judgment is, Italy can be a very important contributor. The relationship between the United States and Europe has been strained sometimes in the recent past. During your trip, what do you suggest we can do together vis-a-vis the oil crisis, food crisis, and the recession coming? Yes, you know-first of all, let me talk about strained relations. Look, I have had great relations with many of the leaders. Do we agree on every issue? But do we agree on common values? We believe in human rights and human dignity and free press and free religion. And so what unites us is a heck of a lot stronger than those moments where we do not necessarily agree on every single issue. And so I will remind people of that. I will remind people that we have got a lot of work to do. In terms of the current energy issue, look, we are too dependent on hydrocarbons. World demand is such, relative to supply, that the price of energy is high. And therefore, we need to be spending monies on new technologies to enable us to become less dependent on oil. one, less dependency on hydrocarbons; and two, it will make us better stewards of the environment. I mean, if you are concerned about global warming, one thing you ought to be concerned about then is making sure that we have got power generated from a clean source of energy, a renewable source of energy, which is nuclear power. The food prices concern me, obviously. But the truth of the matter is, one reason why food prices are so high is because energy prices are high. fertilizer is an energy; driving a tractor is an energy; crops to markets require energy. And so the crux of a lot of the problem is the energy prices. Talking to Prime Minister Berlusconi, what areas do you-will you encourage Italy to work with the United States, especially? Well, Iran, of course, because I just happen to see it as a major threat. Afghanistan-and I will thank the Italian people for their sacrifices to help this young democracy. Silvio Berlusconi and I worked a lot of big issues together in the past. I know him well, I trust him, I like him. I am -I find him to be one of the really interesting world leaders.


And I am really looking forward to seeing him again in his capacity, once again, as the Prime Minister. We ought to work on trade matters. We ought to work on diseases like ENTITY/ENTITY and malaria on the continent of Africa, for example. You met the Pope while in the United States, and how do you see his role in trying to reopen the dialogue between different civilizations and religions? And we had a fabulous visit here, and it was such an honor to welcome him to the South Lawn of the White House. I wish you could have seen it. But you-maybe you did see it. I wish your viewers could have seen the reception he was given here. I think it was one of the largest crowds ever on the South Lawn, like 13,000 people. And my own personal visit with him was so uplifting. And we did talk about the interfaith dialogue, that I think is really important for people to find common ground through religion to, like, deal with the violence that is used by some in the name of religion, to perpetuate an ideology, and to remind people that peace-religion is peace. I talked to the King of Saudi Arabia about his visit with the Holy Father, and those are two very important figures when it comes to obviously Christianity and Islam. Yes. How do you see vitality of the American democracy, looking at this? Well, look, I am for McCain, and everybody knows that. On the other hand, I thought it was a really good statement, powerful moment when a major political party nominates a African American man to be their standard bearer. And it is good for our democracy that that happened. So I think it is a good sign for American democracy. And I am in an interesting position. I ran hard for the Presidency twice; I campaigned hard in the off years, and now I will be passing the mantle on to Senator McCain, particularly at the convention when he becomes the official nominee of our party. Obviously, he is going to be the nominee, but there is a moment at the convention where it is , Here he is. And I will do my part to help him win, and- but it is going to be up to him. That is - he will be the man sitting in the Oval Office making the tough decisions for peace and security. You mentioned history at the beginning of this interview. And you know-you are aware that history will ask you about Iraq.


Republicans are already out saying what you are talking about so far, for Wednesday night, is not going to create any new jobs. You know, I would suggest that they save the rebuttal for after the speech -- -- since they have not really -- they have not really heard what we are proposing. But what is it going to be? We are going to talk about how we can, first of all, focus on job creation and growth. And I met with the Republicans, so I have their ideas. And some of the things we propose are things that actually should get some strong bipartisan support. Right. Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. in infrastructure -- Here is what I said was that our number-one priority was stopping the economic contraction. And we did create or save several million jobs. But we still lost 7 million jobs. There are reports now of other potential suicide bombers coming out of Yemen. Osama bin Laden, as we know, has issued a tape championing the Christmas Day attempted bomber. Do you have any indication that they are already here? Since 9/11, we have put in a series of measures that make us much safer now than we were before 9/11. Al Qaeda itself is greatly weakened from where it was back in 2000. Bin Laden sending out a tape trying to take credit for a Nigerian student who engaged in a failed bombing attempt is an indication of how weakened he is because this is not something necessarily directed by him. Ever in the middle of all this coming at you, do you think maybe one term is enough? You know, I would say that when I -- the one thing I am clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than an mediocre two-term president. And I -- and I believe that. You know, there is a tendency in Washington to think that our job description of elected officials is to get reelected. I will not slow down in terms of going after the big problems that this country faces. I am not backing off the need for us to tackle these big problems in a serious way.

Interview With Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America


Iwhat did you say, nice tie? I wore it for the national service signing today. It is interesting, we just had a lunch with a number of columnists Audience members. Would it make you feel better if I said I did not enjoy it? I mean anyway, and they knew you were all here, and we had 700 or 800 people out on the lawn for the national service signing. And four or five of these folks that have been covering Washington for 20 years said they had never seen the White House so busy. I did not know if they were happy or sad about it, but anyway, it is busy. I thank you for coming today. I hope this will be the first of a number of opportunities we have to provide people who have radio talk shows and who communicate with millions of Americans on an intimate basis, daily, to come to the White House to have these kinds of briefings. You have already heard all the basic approaches that the administration is going to take on health care and that will be hopefully crystallized in a compelling way in my address to the Congress and to the country tomorrow evening. So, I thought what I would do is make a general statement about how this fits into the overall approach the administration is taking and then answer your questions. I'd rather spend time just answering your questions. But let me just make a general comment, that I think you canthat runs through the thread of debate that we had on the economic program, on the health care issue, on NAFTA, on the crime bill that is coming up, on the welfare reform issue, on all the major things we are trying to come to grips with. It is now commonplace to say that we are living through a time of profound change, not only in our country but around the world. People are trying to come to grips with a rate and nature of change that comes along less frequently than once a generation. I mean, they are going through these things, trying to come to grips with what it means to be a democracy and what it means to try to change the economy. In our country, if we are going to continue to be the leading power of the world, not just militarily but economically, socially, the shining light of the world, this has to be a good place for most Americans to live. Most people have to know that if they work hard and play by the rules that they can make the changes that are sweeping through this country and the world their friends and not their enemies.

Interview With Radio Talk Show Hosts


They have to believe that as citizens they can work together and trust the major institutions of our society to function well, to meet these changes, to respond to them. the size of the deficit, the fact that we have an investment deficit, too, in many critical areas, the health care crisis, at a time when most people are quite insecure in their own lives and most Americans have worked harder for stagnant or lower wages for the last 10 to 20 years, when they are paying more for the basics in life, when they have lost faith in the fundamental capacity of political institutions to represent them and to solve problems. I think you can see that in the 700,000 letters we got on health care. The number of people who would say, you know, What is wrong with me? I worked hard all my life, and I lost my health insurance, or My child got sick, and now I can never change my job, or My wife and I spend 60 hours a week running our business. And our health insurance was $200 a month 4 years ago, and it is over $900 a month today, you know that things are out of control. I say that because I believe providing security in the health care area and in meeting the other objectives we talked about, quality and choice and cost controls and all, is a necessary precondition, not only to improve the health care of the American people but to help root the American people again in this moment, to make them freer to face the other challenges that we face. I see in this debate over NAFTA which I have wrestled with in my own mind, that is, the whole nature of our trade relations with Mexico and other countries and where we are going for far longer than I have been ENTITY, I had to deal with it when I was a Governor. I see people, some of them looking ahead with confidence in the future that we can triumph in the world of the 21st century, that we can compete and win, that we can create tomorrow's jobs, and others so uncertain about it, just trying to hold on to today and to yesterday's jobs. So, what I am trying to do is to give the American people a greater sense of security over those things that are basic to their lives that they can control and at the same time challenge our people to assume responsibility for dealing with our problems and for marching confidently into the future.

Interview With Radio Talk Show Hosts


That is what this national service issue is all about that we celebrated today on the White House lawn. And therefore, the health care issue is about more than health care. It is about restoring selfconfidence to America's families and businesses. It is about restoring some discipline to our budget and investment decisions, not only in the Government but in the private sector. It is about giving us the sense that we actually can move forward and win in the face of all these changes. I cannot underor I guess I cannot overstate how important I think it is, not only on its own terms but also for what it might mean for America over the long run. Does anybody really know whether this will work, from the administration? Have you parsed the numbers that fine, that you can say if this is passed in toto, it will indeed do what you say, cut costs, maintain quality of care, cover everybody? We know it will do that, but that is not exactly what you asked. That is, we know that if this plan is adopted, it will provide universal coverage, that it will achieve substantial savings in many areas where there is massive waste. Koop, who was, you know, President Reagan's Surgeon General, who was with us yesterday, and the doctors that we had, said that in his judgment, there was at least $200 billion of waste, unnecessary procedures, administrative waste, fraudulent churning of the system, at least, in our system. So, we know that those things will achieve those objectives? No we do not know that because nobody can know that exactly. But I would like to make two points. Number one, our administration has gone further to get good health care numbers than anyone ever has before. Until I became ENTITY I did not know this, but the various Agencies in the Federal Government responsible for various parts of health care financing and regulation had never had their experts sit down in the same room together and agree on the same set of numbers and the same methodologies for achieving them. No wonder we had so much fight over what something was going to cost and the deficit was going crazy. The Government had never gotten its own act together. Then the second thing we did was to go out and solicit outside actuaries from private sector firms who made a living evaluating the cost of health care and asked them to review our numbers.

Interview With Radio Talk Show Hosts


Now, that is very important that you understand that, because there is going to be there should be a debate over whether the course I have recommended is the best course to achieve the goals we all want to achieve, whether there is a better course, whether we can achieve the Medicare and Medicaid cuts that we say we can achieve without hurting the quality of care. But I want you to understand that we really have killed ourselves at least to get the arithmetic right, to give people an honest starting point, a common ground to start from, so that we can have the arguments over policy. Do you feel that your plan places undue hardship on business with the employer mandate versus an individual plan that has been proposed with other proposals? First of all, let us just look at the employer mandate. Most employers cover their employees. I like your question in the sense that the question assumes that we should have universal coverage, and that is a good assumption. If you do not have universal coverage, you can never really slow the rate of waste in cost, because you will always have a lot of cost shifting in the system. That is, people who are not covered will still get health care, but they will get it when it is too late, too expensive, somebody else will pay the bill, and it will have real inefficiencies and distortions, as it does today. If you want to cover everybody, there are essentially three ways to do it. You can do it the way Canada does. You can abolish all private health insurance premiums, raise taxes to replace the health insurance premiums, and have a single-payer system, just have the Government do it. That is, the Canadian system has very low administrative costs, even lower than Germany and Japan. The problem is, it is not very good for controlling costs in other ways, because the Government makes all the cost decisions. The citizens know they have already paid for this through government. So they make real demands on the system. Whereas if you have a mixed system where employers and employees are actually in there knowing what they are spending on health care and lobbying for better management and to control costs, like in Germany, you do not have costs go up as fast. So the Canadian system, even though it is administratively the cheapest, is the second most expensive in the world. We are spending 14 percent of our income; they are spending 10 percent of theirs. Everybody else is under 9.

Interview With Radio Talk Show Hosts


The problem with the individual mandate is that it couldand again, I want a debate on this. I think the Republicans are entitled to their day in court on this, and I want them to have it. I mean, I want an honest, open discussion on this. I am so impressed with the spirit that is pervading this health insurance we had 400 Members of Congress show up for 2 days at our health care university just trying to get everybody to have enough information to be singing out of the same hymnal when we talk to one another. The dangers of the individual mandates are that it could cause the present system we have for most Americans, which is working well for most Americans, to disintegrate. That is, you have to have some subsidies with an individual mandate. So will companies that now cover their employees basically start covering their upper income employees or not their lower income employees? Will they dump all their employees and make them go under the individual mandate system? How are you going to keep up with all these individuals when you realize who you have got to subsidize or not? In other words, we believe it has significantly more administrative burdens, and it has the potential to cause the present system to come undone. But they deserve their day in court on it, and we will debate it. Let me just say this.  We propose to keep lower the premiums of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, including all those that are just starting up. And they get more if their wages of their employees are low, and low-wage workers also get a subsidy to try to make sure nobody goes out of business. But the point I want to make is, most small businesses who do cover their employees, and that is the majority of them, are paying too much for their health insurance. They are being burdened by it. That is one reason 100,000 Americans a month permanently lose their health insurance, as well as at any given time in a year, as many as one in four may be without it. So what we propose to do will actually help more small businesses than it will hurt. And over the long run, they will all be better off, because if you put everybody under this system, then the rate of increase in health care costs will be much lower. And it is just not fair, at some point, for anybody who can pay something to get a free ride, because keep in mind, we all get health care in this country.

Interview With Radio Talk Show Hosts


But if we are not insured, we get it when it is too late, too expensive. Usually we show up at the emergency room, the most expensive of all, and then somebody else pays the bill. That is one of the things that is driving these costs out of sight. We have heard a lot about every group today, except for the doctors. And from the doctors that I am hearing from, they are saying that this is going to hit them in their pockets. In my experience before in being in operating rooms and seeing doctors after the diagnostic related groups started setting some prices of procedures back in the eighties, a lot of doctors that went into business for themselves were either multiusing single-use items or resterilizing items that were made for single-use so that they would not lose any of the money that was going to be coming to them, so they would not take a personal hit out of it. How does your plan guarantee us an uncompromised medical plan? Well, for one thing, the quality standards that govern medical care today will still be in effect. That is, most of them are professional standards, and they are not enforced by the Government today. They are talking about doing more procedures to make up the money. They are saying, Well, I am going to have to see more patients and spend less time with them. I mean, the truth is that as we have tried to control the costs of Medicare and Medicaid, particularly Medicare, by holding down costs, you see dramatically increased numbers of procedures. What we want to do is to remove the incentive for having large numbers of procedures by having big blocks of consumers pay for their annual health care needs in a block, so that you will not have so much fee-for-service. I would also point out to you that one of the big problems we have had with doctor costs going up is that doctors are having to negotiate their way through the mine field of 1,500 separate health insurance companies writing thousands of different policies, having to keep up with it in ways that no doctors anywhere in the world but our doctors have to deal with. We have already had the American Academy of Family Practice and a lot of other doctors groups have endorsed our plan. The AMA has been quite interestingly supportive in general terms. They say they want to see all the details. Koop has agreed to come in and sort of moderate this discussion. But we had a couple hundred doctors here yesterday, most of whom were extremely supportive.

Interview With Radio Talk Show Hosts