Dataset Viewer
Auto-converted to Parquet Duplicate
title
float64
date
float64
president
float64
url
stringclasses
43 values
question_order
int64
0
2
interview_question
stringlengths
30
2.01k
interview_answer
stringlengths
14
7.83k
gpt3.5_summary
float64
gpt3.5_prediction
float64
question
stringlengths
13
296
annotator_id
float64
annotator1
float64
annotator2
float64
annotator3
float64
inaudible
float64
multiple_questions
float64
affirmative_questions
float64
index
int64
0
236
clarity_label
float64
evasion_label
float64
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. Do you think that is a good thing?
THE PRESIDENT. I think it's a good thing. I was very lucky. When I went to the Senate I got three major committees. I was put on the Appropriations Committee, on the Interstate Commerce Committee
null
null
Do you think that is a good thing?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
0
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. Mr. President, have you any ideas on what should be done with the evidence turned up on Senator McCarthy by that subcommittee?17
THE PRESIDENT. I understand that the Justice Department is making an investigation. It has been referred to the Justice Department, so I have no comment to make on it. 17 Senate Rules Subcommittee. [25.]
null
null
Mr. President, have you any ideas on what should be done with the evidence turned up on Senator McCarthy by that subcommittee?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
1
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-yitzhak-rabin-israel-kennebunkport
0
Q. Does the Prime Minister feel that that would have a major impact on the peace talks?
The President. Nice try. The Prime Minister. I don't deal with domestic political American or personal domestic American problems.
null
null
Does the Prime Minister feel that that would have a major impact on the peace talks?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
2
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. Well, do you think the advantages all around would outweigh the risks or the embarrassments ?
THE PRESIDENT. Oh, yes, I think so. I have had all sorts of well, in 324 press conferences I imagine I have had all the experiences that a man can possibly have at a press conference, and I have never felt that I would want to discontinue them. And I have never felt that I have been unfairly treated.
null
null
Do you think the advantages all around would outweigh the risks or the embarrassments?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
3
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-klaus-iohannis-romania
0
Q. So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of those events?
President Trump. One-hundred percent. I didn't say under oath—I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say, I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean, think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No, I didn't say that, and I didn't say the other.
null
null
So he said those things under oath?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
4
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-klaus-iohannis-romania
1
Q. So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of those events?
President Trump. One-hundred percent. I didn't say under oath—I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say, I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? I mean, think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No, I didn't say that, and I didn't say the other.
null
null
Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of those events?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
5
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-vicente-fox-quesada-mexico-and-prime
0
Q. President Bush, Secretary of State Rice is finding common ground with the British today on the view that the next step against Iran could be sanctions. Do you agree that's the way to go if Iran fails to comply with the Security Council's 30-day deadline on its nuclear program?
President Bush. Thanks. First, I do want to offer my country's assistance to the people affected by the recent earthquakes in Iran. We obviously have our differences with the Iranian Government, but we do care about the suffering of Iranian people. There is common agreement that the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon. And the reason there's common agreement is because the Iranian Government with such a weapon, as is now constituted, would pose a serious threat to world security. Condoleezza Rice is in Europe today to discuss with the P-5, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, a strategy to go forward in a unified way that says to the Iranian Government, the world rejects your desires to have a nuclear weapon. Condi is strategizing with those who will be making the U.N. Security Council decisions as to that united front. In other words, we agree on a goal. Now the question is, how do we work together to achieve that goal? And you're watching Secretary of State Rice work with our friends to remind the Iranians on a regular and consistent basis that if they want to be—participate in the international order of things, if they don't want to isolate themselves, they must listen very carefully to what we are saying with unified voice. Murder Investigation in Cancun
null
null
Do you agree that the next step against Iran should be sanctions if Iran fails to comply with the Security Council's 30-day deadline on its nuclear program?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
6
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. Mr. President, have you signed the commission for United States Attorney for Mr. Johnson of Nevada?16
THE PRESIDENT. I don't remember whether l have or not. The thing has been pending in my office for quite some time. 16 James William Johnson, Jr., of Fallon, Nev.
null
null
Have you signed the commission for United States Attorney for Mr. Johnson of Nevada?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
7
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-969
0
Q. Mr. President, in Atlanta on Tuesday, you referred to Ronald Reagan's campaign statements about the Ku Klux Klan and States rights. And then you said that hatred and racism have no place in this country. Do you think that Reagan is running a campaign of hatred and racism, and how do you answer allegations that you are running a mean campaign?
THE PRESIDENT. No. I do not think he's running a campaign of racism or hatred, and I think my campaign is very moderate in its tone. I did not raise the issue of the Klan, nor did I raise the issue of States rights, and I believe that it's best to leave these words, which are code words to many people in our country who've suffered from discrimination in the past, out of the election this year. I do not think that my opponent is a racist in any degree. AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN
null
null
Do you think that Reagan is running a campaign of hatred and racism?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
8
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-969
1
Q. Mr. President, in Atlanta on Tuesday, you referred to Ronald Reagan's campaign statements about the Ku Klux Klan and States rights. And then you said that hatred and racism have no place in this country. Do you think that Reagan is running a campaign of hatred and racism, and how do you answer allegations that you are running a mean campaign?
THE PRESIDENT. No. I do not think he's running a campaign of racism or hatred, and I think my campaign is very moderate in its tone. I did not raise the issue of the Klan, nor did I raise the issue of States rights, and I believe that it's best to leave these words, which are code words to many people in our country who've suffered from discrimination in the past, out of the election this year. I do not think that my opponent is a racist in any degree. AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN
null
null
How do you answer allegations that you are running a mean campaign?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
9
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-the-national-press-club
0
Q. Mr. President, are you sorry that more countries did not take a more active part in the effort to help South Vietnam?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes. We need all the help we can get. I wish that every country that did participate could have participated more. I wish all of the signatories to the SEATO Treaty could have actively helped more. PROBLEMS OF WORLD POPULATION [14.] Part of the question of yours I don't think I answered a moment ago. I do think we have got serious problems of world population. When I came into office we were spending about $6 million a year on the population question. This year it is about $166 million. It is not a question though of the dollars you spend; it is attitudes, policies of government, and opinions and so on and so forth. I do think that we must do something about the population problem as well as the food problem. I am very proud that the basic industry of agriculture has been able, up to now, to produce much more food than we can consume in this country and do it at a much lower percentage of the total dollar that is spent for food than we have ever done before. I think it is a great tribute to agriculture. I was pointing that out to Secretary Hardin, who is a scientist and who comes from the University of Nebraska, a very able man who is going to be Secretary of Agriculture.14 That is one of the problems he is going to deal with. 14 Clifford M. Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture designate. We have not learned yet how to master the distribution system. I think it is a tragedy that here we live in the midst of plenty, with more than we can eat and a great deal more, as you can observe, than we should eat, and so many of our fellow human beings are starving throughout the world. I had great doubts about making $1 billion worth of wheat available to India, almost $1 billion. I had an extended discussion with the Cabinet. I finally appointed George Ball15 to come and make an argument against it so I could hear all the reasons why it shouldn't be done, and he did. 15George W. Ball, former Under Secretary of State. For the President's special message to the Congress on food for India and for his statement upon signing a joint resolution providing additional emergency food aid for India, see 1967 volume, this series. Book I, Items 33 and 153. While I was considering it he called me the next day and said: "I made that argument against it because you asked me to. But the more I have thought about it the more I think you ought to go ahead with your original inclination." So we did. It has been one of the decisions that I have been very proud of. I wish that we could feel that we could do more in the way of using our surplus capacity to produce food and to distribute it where it is needed. I think it is tragic that we live in a world where every person doesn't have all the food they need. And there are many people in this country who don't have it. We are trying to face up to it some. We have greatly extended it through the Food Stamp plan, through Public Law 480,16 but we have not scratched the surface. We have not done near enough. We are still in the horse and buggy days. And it is not Christian. It is almost criminal to have the capacity to produce what we have and not know any more about how to distribute it and get it to the people who need it. 16For remarks and a statement by the President upon signing the extension of Public Law 480 (the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954) and the 1968 amendments to the Food Stamp Act of 1964, see Items 417, 519. I think that we are going to be held accountable and we ought to face up to that problem. It is one of the big problems for this administration. It is a problem I did not solve. I think we have made some progress, some headway, but we have not found the answers. BALANCE OF PAYMENTS [15.]
null
null
Are you sorry that more countries did not take a more active part in the effort to help South Vietnam?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
10
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-965
0
Q. Are you going to do it now?
The President. What?
null
null
Are you going to do it now?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
11
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-128
0
Q. You have said the Ford administration is the only one that has done anything.
THE PRESIDENT. Anything that's required that companies put their name on the line that they participated or had received information, that is correct. ARAB OIL EMBARGO [9.]
null
null
You have said the Ford administration is the only one that has done anything.
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
12
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-vicente-fox-quesada-mexico-and-prime
0
Q. Mr. President, can you explain to Canadians——
President Bush. Which one?
null
null
Can you explain to Canadians——
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
13
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-klaus-iohannis-romania
0
Q. When is that? Is that in public?
President Trump. Okay? Do you have a question here?
null
null
When is that?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
14
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-klaus-iohannis-romania
1
Q. When is that? Is that in public?
President Trump. Okay? Do you have a question here?
null
null
Is that in public?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
15
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-yitzhak-rabin-israel-kennebunkport
0
Q. Mr. President, you spoke of a strategic partnership between the two countries. I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit and tell us if you believe Israel has strategic importance to the United States in the aftermath of the cold war.
The President. I do, and I think that when we talk about militarily qualitative edge, that is a longstanding position of the United States. We will continue to uphold it. Israel is a democracy surrounded by countries that aren't, and they have been loyal and staunch friends. My responsibilities as for President of the United States and the security of this country relate to the fact that nobody knows where the next crisis could come. You rely on friends in a crisis. Israel is not only important as a friend, but they have demonstrated strategic reliability. So I don't care to elaborate any more, but I just would reemphasize the fact that it is not only historic friendship based on democracy, but it is in the interest of the United States. It is in our security interest to retain the kind of relationship we have militarily and every other way with Israel. Palestinians
null
null
Could you elaborate on the strategic partnership between the two countries?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
16
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-yitzhak-rabin-israel-kennebunkport
1
Q. Mr. President, you spoke of a strategic partnership between the two countries. I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit and tell us if you believe Israel has strategic importance to the United States in the aftermath of the cold war.
The President. I do, and I think that when we talk about militarily qualitative edge, that is a longstanding position of the United States. We will continue to uphold it. Israel is a democracy surrounded by countries that aren't, and they have been loyal and staunch friends. My responsibilities as for President of the United States and the security of this country relate to the fact that nobody knows where the next crisis could come. You rely on friends in a crisis. Israel is not only important as a friend, but they have demonstrated strategic reliability. So I don't care to elaborate any more, but I just would reemphasize the fact that it is not only historic friendship based on democracy, but it is in the interest of the United States. It is in our security interest to retain the kind of relationship we have militarily and every other way with Israel. Palestinians
null
null
Do you believe Israel has strategic importance to the United States in the aftermath of the Cold War?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
17
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-brian-mulroney-canada-camp-david
0
Q. Still any problems that have to be worked out?
The President. None. Well, once in a while you can run into a little hiccup, a little bump in the road. Once in a while we've had some differences on trading problems. But look, you've got to look at the big picture. And the relationship is outstanding. It's important. I mean, it is vitally important to the United States. It's important today, was yesterday, will be tomorrow. And so it really is fundamentally sound and good and strong. [At this point, a question was asked and answered in French, and a translation was not provided.] Iraq
null
null
Still any problems that have to be worked out?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
18
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-enrique-pena-nieto-mexico
0
Q. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Presidents. Both governments have expressed that they are in favor of the free market and globalization. We've heard some voices that oppose themselves to this paradigm. Candidate Trump has pointed out that he is inclined towards protectionism. My question is, do the legal mechanisms of NAFTA provide it with strength so that it is not put aside by decree? And, President Obama, I'd like to ask you what pending issues you have in your administration that you would have liked to complete? Thank you.
President Peña Nieto. I think the free market model of commercial trade openness, this model has undoubtedly shown enormous benefits for nations, for those of us that follow this model, of course. And let me just say that as of the agreement signed with the United States and Canada—I'm talking about NAFTA, of course—the trade level grew over 500 percent—547 percent to be exact—in this last 20 years of NAFTA. And this undoubtedly is reflected in more productive investments, in the creation of jobs as well. And it has promoted different projects for the development of infrastructure to make our countries even more competitive. I also think that what is happening is that whenever we've had a slowdown process in the world economy, we start questioning the model, no doubt. However—and this is something I'm fully convinced of—no doubt that this model Mexico has followed and promoted and fostered, well, it has had a particularly important strategic partnership with the U.S. and Canada. This is a model that still promises a lot of things, so much for the benefits of our citizens, because it allows us to consolidate the North American region as a more competitive region, with a lot more investment, and which we are really taking advantage of opportunities to build labor possibilities for our peoples. This is really something we have to highlight and underline. And bear in mind, because it represents so much and this agreement is projecting into the future, of course—free trade, of course. Right now we can say that this is something that we have had now for 20 years. And I think there are also conditions to modernize, to update, and to find more advantages so that it will potentiate shared common possibilities that we, the three partners, the three strategic partners, have. I am talking about Mexico, the United States, and Canada. I believe that this agreement, which is also strengthened through TPP, which is now about to be approved in the different countries, undoubtedly, they potentialize, they boost, and they create a highly promising platform for economic development and for the benefits this will constitute for our societies. I think the mechanism of solidarity and the purpose—I think the position of the United States is that after 20 years of having NAFTA, we now have eventually the conditions to modernize it, to update NAFTA, and potentialize this agreement even more. President Obama. I agree with Enrique that one of the values of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, is that we've learned from our experience in NAFTA what's worked, what hasn't, where we can strengthen it. And a number of the provisions inside of the Trans-Pacific Partnership address some previous criticisms of NAFTA and will make what is already an extraordinarily strong economic relationship between our two countries even stronger and will make sure that the process of global integration is serving not just large companies, but is helping small companies and small businesses and workers. So what I've said consistently is that globalization is a fact—because of technology, because of an integrated global supply chain, because of changes in transportation. And we're not going to be able to build a wall around that. What we can do is to shape how that process of global integration proceeds so that it's increasing opportunity for ordinary people; so that it's creating better jobs; so that we are strengthening protections for workers; so that we are addressing some of the environmental challenges that come with rapid growth. And for us to look forward and find ways in which we shape this new direction of the global economy in a way that benefits everybody, rather than to look backwards and think that we can undo what has taken place, I think is our best strategy. And for all the talk about starting trade wars or increasing protectionist barriers between countries, when you actually examine how our economies work—auto plants in the United States, for example, would have a very hard time producing the number of automobiles they produce—and they've been having record years over the last several years—if they're also not getting some supplies from companies in Mexico. And companies in Mexico are not going to do well if they don't have some connection to not just markets, but also suppliers and technology from the United States. So we have to focus on, how do we ensure the economy works for everybody and not just a few? There are dangers that globalization increased inequality. There are dangers that because capital is mobile and workers are not, if we are not providing them sufficient protection that they can be left behind in this process. And that's what we have to focus on. And the Trans-Pacific Partnership is consistent with that. Okay? Juliet Eilperin [Washington Post]. Turkey
null
null
Do the legal mechanisms of NAFTA provide it with strength so that it is not put aside by decree?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
19
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-enrique-pena-nieto-mexico
1
Q. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Presidents. Both governments have expressed that they are in favor of the free market and globalization. We've heard some voices that oppose themselves to this paradigm. Candidate Trump has pointed out that he is inclined towards protectionism. My question is, do the legal mechanisms of NAFTA provide it with strength so that it is not put aside by decree? And, President Obama, I'd like to ask you what pending issues you have in your administration that you would have liked to complete? Thank you.
President Peña Nieto. I think the free market model of commercial trade openness, this model has undoubtedly shown enormous benefits for nations, for those of us that follow this model, of course. And let me just say that as of the agreement signed with the United States and Canada—I'm talking about NAFTA, of course—the trade level grew over 500 percent—547 percent to be exact—in this last 20 years of NAFTA. And this undoubtedly is reflected in more productive investments, in the creation of jobs as well. And it has promoted different projects for the development of infrastructure to make our countries even more competitive. I also think that what is happening is that whenever we've had a slowdown process in the world economy, we start questioning the model, no doubt. However—and this is something I'm fully convinced of—no doubt that this model Mexico has followed and promoted and fostered, well, it has had a particularly important strategic partnership with the U.S. and Canada. This is a model that still promises a lot of things, so much for the benefits of our citizens, because it allows us to consolidate the North American region as a more competitive region, with a lot more investment, and which we are really taking advantage of opportunities to build labor possibilities for our peoples. This is really something we have to highlight and underline. And bear in mind, because it represents so much and this agreement is projecting into the future, of course—free trade, of course. Right now we can say that this is something that we have had now for 20 years. And I think there are also conditions to modernize, to update, and to find more advantages so that it will potentiate shared common possibilities that we, the three partners, the three strategic partners, have. I am talking about Mexico, the United States, and Canada. I believe that this agreement, which is also strengthened through TPP, which is now about to be approved in the different countries, undoubtedly, they potentialize, they boost, and they create a highly promising platform for economic development and for the benefits this will constitute for our societies. I think the mechanism of solidarity and the purpose—I think the position of the United States is that after 20 years of having NAFTA, we now have eventually the conditions to modernize it, to update NAFTA, and potentialize this agreement even more. President Obama. I agree with Enrique that one of the values of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, is that we've learned from our experience in NAFTA what's worked, what hasn't, where we can strengthen it. And a number of the provisions inside of the Trans-Pacific Partnership address some previous criticisms of NAFTA and will make what is already an extraordinarily strong economic relationship between our two countries even stronger and will make sure that the process of global integration is serving not just large companies, but is helping small companies and small businesses and workers. So what I've said consistently is that globalization is a fact—because of technology, because of an integrated global supply chain, because of changes in transportation. And we're not going to be able to build a wall around that. What we can do is to shape how that process of global integration proceeds so that it's increasing opportunity for ordinary people; so that it's creating better jobs; so that we are strengthening protections for workers; so that we are addressing some of the environmental challenges that come with rapid growth. And for us to look forward and find ways in which we shape this new direction of the global economy in a way that benefits everybody, rather than to look backwards and think that we can undo what has taken place, I think is our best strategy. And for all the talk about starting trade wars or increasing protectionist barriers between countries, when you actually examine how our economies work—auto plants in the United States, for example, would have a very hard time producing the number of automobiles they produce—and they've been having record years over the last several years—if they're also not getting some supplies from companies in Mexico. And companies in Mexico are not going to do well if they don't have some connection to not just markets, but also suppliers and technology from the United States. So we have to focus on, how do we ensure the economy works for everybody and not just a few? There are dangers that globalization increased inequality. There are dangers that because capital is mobile and workers are not, if we are not providing them sufficient protection that they can be left behind in this process. And that's what we have to focus on. And the Trans-Pacific Partnership is consistent with that. Okay? Juliet Eilperin [Washington Post]. Turkey
null
null
President Obama, what pending issues do you have in your administration that you would have liked to complete?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
20
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. We understand that you have had a number of offers ?
THE PRESIDENT. That's correct. That's correct. But I haven't made up my mind on just what I am going to do. [18.]
null
null
We understand that you have had a number of offers?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
21
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-saad-al-hariri-lebanon
0
Q. And about his role in Syria and the region?
President Trump. Whose role?
null
null
And about his role in Syria and the region?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
22
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/excerpts-from-the-last-press-conference-warm-springs-georgia
0
Q. They don't decide anything, do they? THE
PRESIDENT: No.
null
null
They don't decide anything, do they?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
23
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1215
0
Q. Mr. President, do we have any reason to believe that the Vietcong offer to exchange prisoners had any substance to it?
THE PRESIDENT. I don't think I would want to comment on that kind of a question. PARIS PEACE TALKS [11]
null
null
Do we have any reason to believe that the Vietcong offer to exchange prisoners had any substance to it?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
24
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-ehud-olmert-israel
0
Q. You said you wanted to hear more. Is there anything that worries you about this plan?
President Bush. No, the only thing that worries me about the plan is that Hamas has said they want to destroy Israel. And the reason that worries me is how can you have two states side by side in peace if one of the partners does not recognize the other state's right to exist? It's illogical for somebody to say, I'm for a state side by side with another state, and yet I don't want the state to exist. And so we spent time talking about Hamas, and I assured the Prime Minister that our position is steady and strong, that Hamas must change. Now, we care about the Palestinian people—and I say, "we," both of us—he can speak for himself on this issue—but we are trying to set up a mechanism that supports the Palestinian people. Our beef is not with the Palestinian people. Our beef is with the Government that—a group in the Government that says they don't recognize Israel. And so the United States, we're working with the Europeans—Condi's people in the State Department are working with the Europeans to come up with a mechanism to get food and medicine and aid to the Palestinians. You may want to comment on it yourself, Mr. Prime Minister. Prime Minister Olmert. Thank you, Mr. President. Indeed, the Government, Sunday, decided to spend 50 million shekels buying medical equipment—50 million shekels, about $11 million—for the time being, to buy medical equipment and drugs needed for the hospitals in Gaza. And as I said during the Cabinet meeting, we will spend any amount of money needed in order to save lives of innocent Palestinians suffering from the indifference of their Government. We will not hesitate to do it. We will use the revenues that we have collected, and more if necessary. We will make arrangements, together with our friends, so that the supplies will arrive directly to those who need them. This is a humanitarian commitment. We are absolutely committed to help innocent people that suffer from the brutality and the intransigence of their own Government, and we will continue to do it at all times. Thank you, Mr. President. Iran
null
null
You said you wanted to hear more.
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
25
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-ehud-olmert-israel
1
Q. You said you wanted to hear more. Is there anything that worries you about this plan?
President Bush. No, the only thing that worries me about the plan is that Hamas has said they want to destroy Israel. And the reason that worries me is how can you have two states side by side in peace if one of the partners does not recognize the other state's right to exist? It's illogical for somebody to say, I'm for a state side by side with another state, and yet I don't want the state to exist. And so we spent time talking about Hamas, and I assured the Prime Minister that our position is steady and strong, that Hamas must change. Now, we care about the Palestinian people—and I say, "we," both of us—he can speak for himself on this issue—but we are trying to set up a mechanism that supports the Palestinian people. Our beef is not with the Palestinian people. Our beef is with the Government that—a group in the Government that says they don't recognize Israel. And so the United States, we're working with the Europeans—Condi's people in the State Department are working with the Europeans to come up with a mechanism to get food and medicine and aid to the Palestinians. You may want to comment on it yourself, Mr. Prime Minister. Prime Minister Olmert. Thank you, Mr. President. Indeed, the Government, Sunday, decided to spend 50 million shekels buying medical equipment—50 million shekels, about $11 million—for the time being, to buy medical equipment and drugs needed for the hospitals in Gaza. And as I said during the Cabinet meeting, we will spend any amount of money needed in order to save lives of innocent Palestinians suffering from the indifference of their Government. We will not hesitate to do it. We will use the revenues that we have collected, and more if necessary. We will make arrangements, together with our friends, so that the supplies will arrive directly to those who need them. This is a humanitarian commitment. We are absolutely committed to help innocent people that suffer from the brutality and the intransigence of their own Government, and we will continue to do it at all times. Thank you, Mr. President. Iran
null
null
Is there anything that worries you about this plan?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
26
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-126
0
Q. Are you willing to risk another jolt to the economy from this large price increase?
THE PRESIDENT. I think a bigger jolt would be to have the jobs lost and the houses cold. PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN THEMES [17.]
null
null
Are you willing to risk another jolt to the economy from this large price increase?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
27
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. You mean that you are not going to write them immediately ?
THE PRESIDENT. No.
null
null
You mean that you are not going to write them immediately?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
28
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. How far will that extend--off the Continental Shelf?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that's the point where I laid claim to the jurisdiction of the United States--the Continental Shelf.
null
null
How far will that extend--off the Continental Shelf?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
29
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. Do you think the return of the Republicans to power means a realignment of the political parties after the 4 years?
THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't.
null
null
Do you think the return of the Republicans to power means a realignment of the political parties after the 4 years?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
30
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-augusta-georgia
0
Q. Felix Belair, New York Times: Mr. President, are there any estimates at all of the amount potentially that might be saved as a result of the directives being issued today?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I didn't ask for that estimate, Felix, but-(confers with Mr. Hagerty)--I just hear from Jim that the Treasury Department is actually trying to make such an estimate today and later in the day may be able to give you such an estimate. I do know that as of now we have about a half million dependents in the Military Establishment abroad. This is a rather expensive business. No one likes to break up families, but when you are sending out gold dollars all the time--that's what they are now under the present situation--why we have to set a limit, and that is what we are trying to do.
null
null
Are there any estimates at all of the amount potentially that might be saved as a result of the directives being issued today?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
31
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-vladimir-putin-russia-moscow
0
Q. Mr. President, do you see the chance that the United States would exercise its option to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty if it is not possible to negotiate changes to permit a national missile defense? And was this possibility raised in your discussions with President Putin?
President Clinton. Well, first of all, I have not made a decision on the national missile defense stage one. It is premature. The statement of principles that we have agreed to I thought reflected an attempt to bring our positions closer together. I do not believe the decision before me is a threat to strategic stability and mutual deterrence. The Russian side disagrees. But we had a lot of agreement here.And again, let me say, I urge you all to read that. I do not want the United States to withdraw from the ABM regime, because I think it has contributed to a more stable, more peaceful world. It has already been amended once, and its framers understood that circumstances might change and threats might arise which were outside the context of U.S.-now Russian relations. We acknowledge that there is a threat. It needs to be met, and we're trying to bridge our differences. And I think that's where we ought to leave it. START Treaties
null
null
Do you see the chance that the United States would exercise its option to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty if it is not possible to negotiate changes to permit a national missile defense?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
32
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-vladimir-putin-russia-moscow
1
Q. Mr. President, do you see the chance that the United States would exercise its option to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty if it is not possible to negotiate changes to permit a national missile defense? And was this possibility raised in your discussions with President Putin?
President Clinton. Well, first of all, I have not made a decision on the national missile defense stage one. It is premature. The statement of principles that we have agreed to I thought reflected an attempt to bring our positions closer together. I do not believe the decision before me is a threat to strategic stability and mutual deterrence. The Russian side disagrees. But we had a lot of agreement here.And again, let me say, I urge you all to read that. I do not want the United States to withdraw from the ABM regime, because I think it has contributed to a more stable, more peaceful world. It has already been amended once, and its framers understood that circumstances might change and threats might arise which were outside the context of U.S.-now Russian relations. We acknowledge that there is a threat. It needs to be met, and we're trying to bridge our differences. And I think that's where we ought to leave it. START Treaties
null
null
Was this possibility raised in your discussions with President Putin?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
33
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-965
0
Q. In light of his speech yesterday at the U.N., are there any new steps that we can take to continue the arms reduction process?
The President. Oh, yes. We have long said that as soon as we once settle this issue of the START agreement—I have said that I think our next goal must be to now engage in negotiations on reducing conventional weapons.
null
null
In light of his speech yesterday at the U.N., are there any new steps that we can take to continue the arms reduction process?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
34
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-865
0
Q. Does your note establish a precedent--asking for a conference with your successor?
THE PRESIDENT. I'm sure I have no idea. But I am glad to cooperate in any matter that concerns national solidarity.
null
null
Does your note establish a precedent--asking for a conference with your successor?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
35
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-andres-pastrana-colombia-cartagena
0
Q. President Clinton, is there a specific situation in which the U.S. Government might consider perhaps giving Colombia military support to fight the guerrillas?
President Clinton. Our involvement is laid out in the terms of Plan Colombia. The President has developed this plan with his team, and it does not contemplate that. And so, the answer is no. That's not authorized by what we did. What we want to do is to increase the capacity of the Colombian Government to fight the narcotraffickers and, in so doing, to reduce anyone else's income from illegal drug trade and increase the leverage that the President has to find a peaceful resolution of the civil conflict. And that is his policy, not my policy. I'm supporting his policy. President Pastrana. Once again, in order to make it very clear, while Andres Pastrana is the President of Colombia, we will not have a foreign military intervention in Colombia. Plan Colombia and Human Rights
null
null
Is there a specific situation in which the U.S. Government might consider giving Colombia military support to fight the guerrillas?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
36
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-158
0
Q. Mr. President, Madam Nhu has now left the United States, but indicated that she intends to return. Will we renew her tourist visa?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes.
null
null
Will we renew her tourist visa?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
37
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-john-howard-australia
0
Q. Thank you, sir. On immigration, some worry that the U.S. military is stretched too thin. How effective can these National Guard troops be if they're shuttling in and out of the border area every two or three weeks? And how are you going to turn around these House Members who seem to be unswayed by your argument on the guest-worker program?
President Bush. The program to put Guard on the border is one that will enable the Border Patrol to do its job better. It's very important for the American people to know it's the Border Patrol that's going to be on the frontline of apprehending people trying to sneak into our country. And the Guard will be doing a variety of functions, which I outlined last night. Secondly, the Guard is—the up to 6,000 Guard in the first year of operation really is not going to put a strain on our capacity to fight and win the war on terror, as well as deal with natural disasters. And, of course, we'll be working in conjunction with Governors to make sure that that's not the case, that it doesn't put an unnecessary strain on other functions of the Guard. Thirdly, the Pentagon is briefing today— how the program is going to work. There are Guard troops in Arizona and New Mexico and Texas that can be used by the Governors down there to work with the Border Patrol, that they'll be reimbursed for. And there's also training missions that can be used to help complement the Border Patrol. We're going to have double the Border Patrol agents since 2001, by 2008. And what the Guard is doing, the Guard is providing an interim service until those Border Patrol agents get stood up. I made it clear to the country last night that we're not going to militarize our border. Mexico is a friend. But what we are going to do is use assets necessary to make sure that we can assure the American people that the border is secure. Now in order to secure the border, it's important for people up here in Washington to understand that there's got to be a temporary-worker program. Border security and a temporary-worker program are really important because—let me say, a temporary-worker program is really important to border security, because we don't want people trying to sneak into the country. It seems rational to me to say, "If you're coming to work, come to work in a legal way, on a temporary basis, so you're not trying to sneak across." So the tem-porary-worker program goes hand in hand with border security. In order for there to be a—in order for us to solve the problem of an immigration system that's not working, it's really important for Congress to understand that there needs a—that the elements I described all go hand in hand. And so I'll continue to work with them. Look, this is a hard issue for many people.
null
null
How effective can these National Guard troops be if they're shuttling in and out of the border area every two or three weeks?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
38
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-john-howard-australia
1
Q. Thank you, sir. On immigration, some worry that the U.S. military is stretched too thin. How effective can these National Guard troops be if they're shuttling in and out of the border area every two or three weeks? And how are you going to turn around these House Members who seem to be unswayed by your argument on the guest-worker program?
President Bush. The program to put Guard on the border is one that will enable the Border Patrol to do its job better. It's very important for the American people to know it's the Border Patrol that's going to be on the frontline of apprehending people trying to sneak into our country. And the Guard will be doing a variety of functions, which I outlined last night. Secondly, the Guard is—the up to 6,000 Guard in the first year of operation really is not going to put a strain on our capacity to fight and win the war on terror, as well as deal with natural disasters. And, of course, we'll be working in conjunction with Governors to make sure that that's not the case, that it doesn't put an unnecessary strain on other functions of the Guard. Thirdly, the Pentagon is briefing today— how the program is going to work. There are Guard troops in Arizona and New Mexico and Texas that can be used by the Governors down there to work with the Border Patrol, that they'll be reimbursed for. And there's also training missions that can be used to help complement the Border Patrol. We're going to have double the Border Patrol agents since 2001, by 2008. And what the Guard is doing, the Guard is providing an interim service until those Border Patrol agents get stood up. I made it clear to the country last night that we're not going to militarize our border. Mexico is a friend. But what we are going to do is use assets necessary to make sure that we can assure the American people that the border is secure. Now in order to secure the border, it's important for people up here in Washington to understand that there's got to be a temporary-worker program. Border security and a temporary-worker program are really important because—let me say, a temporary-worker program is really important to border security, because we don't want people trying to sneak into the country. It seems rational to me to say, "If you're coming to work, come to work in a legal way, on a temporary basis, so you're not trying to sneak across." So the tem-porary-worker program goes hand in hand with border security. In order for there to be a—in order for us to solve the problem of an immigration system that's not working, it's really important for Congress to understand that there needs a—that the elements I described all go hand in hand. And so I'll continue to work with them. Look, this is a hard issue for many people.
null
null
How are you going to turn around these House Members who seem to be unswayed by your argument on the guest-worker program?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
39
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-667
0
Q. Do you have a specific target for how much you want that violence to be reduced?
The President. Enough for the Government to succeed. In other words, the Iraqi people have got to have confidence in this unity Government, and reduction in violence will enable the people to have confidence. And you said something about troop levels. Our policy is stand up/stand down; as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. But if we stand down too soon, it won't enable us to achieve our objectives. And we will support this Iraqi Government—that's what I went to tell them. We'll do what it takes to support them. And part of that support is the presence of coalition forces. Guantanamo Bay Detainees/Abu Ghraib Prison
null
null
Do you have a specific target for how much you want that violence to be reduced?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
40
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-128
0
Q. Mr. President, you would keep both him and Mr. Kelley in their jobs?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, because I think Clarence Kelley has taken a very serious situation in the FBI--I think he straightened it out--and I think he is a person that all of us can have trust in as far as the job as the Director of the FBI. PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN THEMES [4.]
null
null
Mr. President, would you keep both him and Mr. Kelley in their jobs?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
41
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-vladimir-putin-russia-moscow
0
Q. President Clinton, Mr. President, what do you feel about Russia's continuation of reducing within START III the number of warheads down to 1,500 warheads? Thank you.
President Clinton. I missed the translation. Would you give it to me again?
null
null
What do you feel about Russia's continuation of reducing within START III the number of warheads down to 1,500 warheads?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
42
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-yitzhak-rabin-israel-kennebunkport
0
Q. Mr. President, can you now envision a time of real peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors? And to what extent has a new government in Israel contributed to this process?
The President. Well, I salute the Prime Minister. He has been very forthright, as he said here in his statement, about wanting to continue the peace negotiations, and absolutely, I think all of us should look optimistically about the chances for peace. There are always obstacles. But the fact that they are coming together across a table, the people that have had ancient enmity, is a very good sign. I think the approach of this new government which is saying, "Let's meet; let's talk," is exactly what it's going to take to achieve the kind of peace that everybody wants. As you'll notice in my statement, I called upon Arab governments to be forthcoming in the forthcoming talks. So yes, we are optimistic. We all know there are problems, but we must achieve it.
null
null
Can you now envision a time of real peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
43
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-yitzhak-rabin-israel-kennebunkport
1
Q. Mr. President, can you now envision a time of real peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors? And to what extent has a new government in Israel contributed to this process?
The President. Well, I salute the Prime Minister. He has been very forthright, as he said here in his statement, about wanting to continue the peace negotiations, and absolutely, I think all of us should look optimistically about the chances for peace. There are always obstacles. But the fact that they are coming together across a table, the people that have had ancient enmity, is a very good sign. I think the approach of this new government which is saying, "Let's meet; let's talk," is exactly what it's going to take to achieve the kind of peace that everybody wants. As you'll notice in my statement, I called upon Arab governments to be forthcoming in the forthcoming talks. So yes, we are optimistic. We all know there are problems, but we must achieve it.
null
null
To what extent has a new government in Israel contributed to this process?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
44
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. Mr. President, have you reached a decision in the Rosenberg case ?
THE PRESIDENT. The Rosenberg case5 hasn't come up to me; therefore, I can't reach a decision on it until it does come up. 5 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been sentenced to death for conspiring to give atomic bomb data to the Soviet Union. The presiding judge, I. R. Kaufman, had set the execution for the week of January 12, 1953, but granted a stay to allow a plea for executive clemency. The plea was sent to the Justice Department on January 10, 1953, to be presented to the President. President Truman did not make the final decision. [11.]
null
null
Have you reached a decision in the Rosenberg case?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
45
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-the-national-press-club
0
Q. Did you seriously consider naming Arthur Goldberg as Chief Justice after the Fortas nomination was withdrawn? 9
THE PRESIDENT. Yes. And before, too. 9Arthur J. Goldberg, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and Associate Justice Abe Fortas, whose nomination as Chief Justice was withdrawn on October 2, 1968 (see Item 509). INTENTION CONCERNING FUTURE PUBLIC OFFICE [7.]
null
null
Did you seriously consider naming Arthur Goldberg as Chief Justice after the Fortas nomination was withdrawn?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
46
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-865
0
Q. Have you received any reply from Governor Roosevelt?
THE PRESIDENT. No. 1 1 President-elect Roosevelt's reply, dated November 14, 1932, is printed in the note to Item 395.
null
null
Have you received any reply from Governor Roosevelt?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
47
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-rancho-mirage-california
0
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. My question is about the Supreme Court.
The President. I'm shocked. [Laughter]
null
null
My question is about the Supreme Court.
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
48
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-126
0
Q. Mr. President, could you tell us why it took you 6 days and four clarifications before you finally admitted that you had, in fact, made a mistake in the debate in your remarks on Eastern Europe?
THE PRESIDENT. I think it took some thoughtful analysis because, as someone may have noticed, there was a letter to the editor in the New York Times a day or 2 ago by a very prominent ethnic, a man by the name of Janovitz, as I recall, who said that my answer was the right one. But it all depends on how you analyze the answer. But I wanted to be very clear, to make certain that the Polish Americans and other ethnics in this country knew that I knew that there are some 30 Soviet divisions in Poland and several of the other Eastern European countries. On the other hand, I want to say very strongly that anybody who has been in Poland, for example, as I have in 1975, and seen the Polish people--the strong, courageous look in their face, the deep feeling that you get from talking with them--although they recognize that the Soviet Union has x number of divisions occupying their country, that freedom is in their heart and in their mind, and they are not going to be dominated over the long run by any outside power. Now, we concede for the time being, the Soviet Union has that military power there. But we subscribe to the hopes and the aspirations of the courageous Polish people and their relatives here in the United States.
null
null
Could you tell us why it took you 6 days and four clarifications before you finally admitted that you had, in fact, made a mistake in the debate in your remarks on Eastern Europe?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
49
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-667
0
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Could you characterize the worry you heard from Iraqi leaders about U.S. troop levels that you first mentioned on the flight home from Iraq? And here in the Rose Garden a week ago, you said that Zarqawi's death is an opportunity for Iraq's new Government to turn the tide in this struggle. After your visit, do you truly believe that the tide is turning in Iraq?
The President. First part of the question? I'm sorry.
null
null
Could you characterize the worry you heard from Iraqi leaders about U.S. troop levels that you first mentioned on the flight home from Iraq?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
50
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-667
1
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Could you characterize the worry you heard from Iraqi leaders about U.S. troop levels that you first mentioned on the flight home from Iraq? And here in the Rose Garden a week ago, you said that Zarqawi's death is an opportunity for Iraq's new Government to turn the tide in this struggle. After your visit, do you truly believe that the tide is turning in Iraq?
The President. First part of the question? I'm sorry.
null
null
After your visit, do you truly believe that the tide is turning in Iraq?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
51
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-brian-mulroney-canada-camp-david
0
Q. How do you feel about leaving Camp David?
The President. Leaving Camp David? Well, I'm not leaving until -- [laughter] -- Monday night. But Monday night if you ask me, I expect I'd feel sad about that. This has been a wonderful retreat here, and I've sure enjoyed sharing it with friends, domestic and from overseas. And this weekend is going to be pure joy because we've got some good friends here.
null
null
How do you feel about leaving Camp David?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
52
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. You are including the Southern Democrats in progressives ?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I am including the Southern Democrats. You will find that they will become very progressive when they don't have the chairmanships. [Laughter] [22.]
null
null
You are including the Southern Democrats in progressives?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
53
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-965
0
Q. Mr. President, let me bring you back to the Middle East. You've got very little time left, and Mr. Arafat of the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] seems to be inching towards the kinds of conditions you and Mr. Shultz have said he should. Is this perhaps not time to go the inch in his direction and start some kind of talks with Mr. Arafat rather than, as Mr. Shultz did, close the door on him?
The President. No, we've been watching very closely. And for example, we thought in the last few days that there was a statement that came out of that meeting in Sweden that appeared to be clean-cut and not with the things around the edge that then defused what seemed to be a pledge. But we had to wait until his press conference and what he said. And I have to say that again he has left openings for himself, where he can deny that he meant this or meant that that sounded so clean-cut. It's up to him. We are willing to meet with him and talk with him, and I'm sure the Israelis would be, when once and for all it is clear-cut that he is ready to recognize Israel's right to be a nation, that he is ready to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people for a homeland for them, and so forth. Now, the thing about George Shultz's decision-I'd like to call to your attention-there is a law passed by the Congress with regard to the conditions for granting a waiver to someone to come in and meet with the United Nations or participate in what they're doing. And there's no way under that law that Mr. Arafat qualifies as yet. And the day that he does, and it is clear cut, then we can grant that visa. But as I say, he is barred by the terms of that law, and the only way that the—and the Secretary of State has full power under that law. It's his decision to make. And he can only grant a waiver if an individual meets certain requirements, and Arafat doesn't.
null
null
Is this perhaps not time to go the inch in [Arafat’s] direction and start some kind of talks with Mr. Arafat rather than, as Mr. Shultz did, close the door on him?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
54
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-yair-lapid-israel-jerusalem-israel
0
Q. So you don't expect to bring up human rights? Moderator. Well, let's let Prime Minister——
President Biden. I will bring up—I always bring up human rights. I always bring up human rights. But my position on Khashoggi has been so clear. If anyone doesn't understand it in Saudi Arabia and everywhere else, then they haven't been around for a while. Moderator. Okay. Prime Minister Lapid. About the overflights of Saudi Arabia, of course, as I was saying in my speech, we are all for promoting normalizations with every country in the region that it is possible. But since the President is going to Saudi Arabia, and he will—there will be a finalization of the issues over there, I will let the President finalize this when he's in Jeddah. Moderator. Thank you, Prime Minister. President Biden. I'm optimistic. [Laughter] Moderator. And the next question will come from Ms. Tal Schneider from Times of Israel. U.S. Visa Waiver Program
null
null
So you don't expect to bring up human rights?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
55
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1215
0
Q. Mr. President, have you decided, sir, on how you are going to deliver the State of the Union Message?
THE PRESIDENT. No. APOLLO 8 ASTRONAUTS [8.]
null
null
Have you decided, sir, on how you are going to deliver the State of the Union Message?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
56
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-anders-fogh-rasmussen-denmark-camp
0
Q. Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, in previous meetings, you have discussed Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and now Haditha, and possibly other crimes have been added to that list. Mr. President, how did you try to convince the Prime Minister today that that kind of violations of human rights will stop and guilty will be prosecuted? And for Mr. Prime Minister, are you today convinced that violations of human rights will stop so that these violations are not undermining the war for democracy in Iraq? Thank you.
President Bush. You know, the last time—I think it was in Denmark, we talked about Abu Ghraib, if I'm not mistaken. Yes. I told the people in Denmark—on your soil—that it was a disgusting event. It soiled our soul. It's not what America stands for. I also—I'm not sure I put it this way, but I understand humans make mistakes, but there needs to be accountability. And since then, those involved with the Abu Ghraib have been brought to justice. And that's what happens in transparent societies— which, by the way, stood in stark contrast to the society that Saddam Hussein ran, where there was no justice, where there was no transparency, where people weren't given a chance to take their case in front of an impartial court. But that's what's happened here in America. I'm like the Prime Minister; I understand that these incidents run contrary to what we believe; I know that. But I also want to assure—I assured the Prime Minister that they'll be dealt with. That's what societies like ours do. I can't guarantee success all across the front, but I can guarantee there will be justice. Prime Minister Rasmussen. I'm very much in line with that. What we have seen in Abu Ghraib is not, was not what we are standing for. If the allegations concerning Haditha show up to be true, it is definitely not what the coalition, what America, what Denmark stands for. On the contrary, we are in Iraq to promote freedom, democracy, respect for human rights. And, of course, we should comply with these basic principles in all our behavior. I can give no guarantee, but just like the President, I can give the guarantee that in free and open societies, the whole process will be transparent. And if there are wrongdoings, the responsible will be prosecuted. That's a guarantee you can give in a free and open society based on the rule of law. The President. Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News]. Abu Musab Al Zarqawi/War on Terror
null
null
Mr. President, how did you try to convince the Prime Minister today that that kind of violations of human rights will stop and guilty will be prosecuted?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
57
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-anders-fogh-rasmussen-denmark-camp
1
Q. Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, in previous meetings, you have discussed Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and now Haditha, and possibly other crimes have been added to that list. Mr. President, how did you try to convince the Prime Minister today that that kind of violations of human rights will stop and guilty will be prosecuted? And for Mr. Prime Minister, are you today convinced that violations of human rights will stop so that these violations are not undermining the war for democracy in Iraq? Thank you.
President Bush. You know, the last time—I think it was in Denmark, we talked about Abu Ghraib, if I'm not mistaken. Yes. I told the people in Denmark—on your soil—that it was a disgusting event. It soiled our soul. It's not what America stands for. I also—I'm not sure I put it this way, but I understand humans make mistakes, but there needs to be accountability. And since then, those involved with the Abu Ghraib have been brought to justice. And that's what happens in transparent societies— which, by the way, stood in stark contrast to the society that Saddam Hussein ran, where there was no justice, where there was no transparency, where people weren't given a chance to take their case in front of an impartial court. But that's what's happened here in America. I'm like the Prime Minister; I understand that these incidents run contrary to what we believe; I know that. But I also want to assure—I assured the Prime Minister that they'll be dealt with. That's what societies like ours do. I can't guarantee success all across the front, but I can guarantee there will be justice. Prime Minister Rasmussen. I'm very much in line with that. What we have seen in Abu Ghraib is not, was not what we are standing for. If the allegations concerning Haditha show up to be true, it is definitely not what the coalition, what America, what Denmark stands for. On the contrary, we are in Iraq to promote freedom, democracy, respect for human rights. And, of course, we should comply with these basic principles in all our behavior. I can give no guarantee, but just like the President, I can give the guarantee that in free and open societies, the whole process will be transparent. And if there are wrongdoings, the responsible will be prosecuted. That's a guarantee you can give in a free and open society based on the rule of law. The President. Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News]. Abu Musab Al Zarqawi/War on Terror
null
null
Mr. Prime Minister, are you today convinced that violations of human rights will stop so that these violations are not undermining the war for democracy in Iraq?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
58
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. What about written questions, do you think that would have
THE PRESIDENT. I don't know. I have never tried it, Pete3 It might give you more chance to deliberate. But then I like this rough and tumble press conference we have right here. If I can't take care of myself, that's my fault. 3 Raymond P. Brandt of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. [8.]
null
null
What about written questions, do you think that would have
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
59
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-yitzhak-rabin-israel-kennebunkport
0
Q. Well, what about this basic question of settlements, sir, that's been so touchy between the two countries?
The President. I think that I would let Prime Minister Rabin's words speak, not just the words here but the words that he spoke during his campaign, and then the actions that he has taken. We see a very different approach to settlements, and we salute the Prime Minister. It was not an easy position, and I'm sure there are divisions in Israel on this position. But he took a lot of courage, and he has begun to implement that policy certainly to the satisfaction of the United States. I would prefer you call on your traveling journalists so I don't overlook anybody, and then, well, if they ask me the question, I'll be glad to try to -- -- Israeli POW - MIA's
null
null
What about this basic question of settlements, sir, that's been so touchy between the two countries?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
60
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-the-aftermath-hurricane-andrew
0
Q. To clear up the situation in Louisiana, Mr. President, is it your expectation that no Federal troops will be necessary there?
The President. Well, I gather that's the case right now. But we made clear to Governor Edwards that if more was required, please let us know. I think we had assurance on that. I didn't talk to him. I've been trying to get hold of him. But one of our White House officials talked to him, and I think that was his last, latest judgment on it. I've got time for one more question. State and Federal Cooperation
null
null
To clear up the situation in Louisiana, Mr. President, is it your expectation that no Federal troops will be necessary there?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
61
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1106
0
Q. Proud to be here, sir. Are there inherent and unavoidable risks in allowing the sale of a defense firm to interests owned by Dubai?
The President. That question has been looked at very carefully, has been analyzed by a CFIUS committee. I signed off on it this morning because I'm convinced, at the recommendation of the CFIUS committee, as well as our military, that it's a sale that should go through. April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks]. Elections in New Orleans, LA
null
null
Are there inherent and unavoidable risks in allowing the sale of a defense firm to interests owned by Dubai?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
62
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1106
0
Q. I got a few more, if you like.
The President. You've had a big day. [Laughter]
null
null
I got a few more, if you like.
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
63
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-tony-blair-the-united-kingdom-1
0
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. How close are you to an agreement on a package of incentives for Iran? And what does Iran stand to gain if it were to give up its enrichment program? And why are you ignoring these recent back-channel overtures from Iran?
President Bush. We spent a great deal of time talking about the Iranian issue, and one of the goals that Tony and I had was to convince others in the world that Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous, and therefore, we do have a common goal. And this fundamental question is, how do you achieve that goal, obviously. We want to do it diplomatically. Right now we, as a matter of fact, spent a lot of time upstairs talking about how to convince the Iranians that this coalition we put together is very serious. One option, of course, is through the United Nations Security Council. And we strategized about how do we convince other partners that the Security Council is the way to go if the Iranians won't suspend like the EU-3 has asked them to do. The Iranians walked away from the table. They're the ones who've made the decision, and the choice is theirs. Now, if they would like to see an enhanced package, the first thing they've got to do is suspend their operations, for the good of the world. It's incredibly dangerous to think of an Iran with a nuclear weapon. And therefore, Steve, to answer your questions, of course, we'll look at all options, but it's their choice right now. They're the folks who walked away from the table. They're the ones who said that, "Your demands don't mean anything to us." Now, in terms of—you said back channels——
null
null
How close are you to an agreement on a package of incentives for Iran?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
64
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-tony-blair-the-united-kingdom-1
1
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. How close are you to an agreement on a package of incentives for Iran? And what does Iran stand to gain if it were to give up its enrichment program? And why are you ignoring these recent back-channel overtures from Iran?
President Bush. We spent a great deal of time talking about the Iranian issue, and one of the goals that Tony and I had was to convince others in the world that Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous, and therefore, we do have a common goal. And this fundamental question is, how do you achieve that goal, obviously. We want to do it diplomatically. Right now we, as a matter of fact, spent a lot of time upstairs talking about how to convince the Iranians that this coalition we put together is very serious. One option, of course, is through the United Nations Security Council. And we strategized about how do we convince other partners that the Security Council is the way to go if the Iranians won't suspend like the EU-3 has asked them to do. The Iranians walked away from the table. They're the ones who've made the decision, and the choice is theirs. Now, if they would like to see an enhanced package, the first thing they've got to do is suspend their operations, for the good of the world. It's incredibly dangerous to think of an Iran with a nuclear weapon. And therefore, Steve, to answer your questions, of course, we'll look at all options, but it's their choice right now. They're the folks who walked away from the table. They're the ones who said that, "Your demands don't mean anything to us." Now, in terms of—you said back channels——
null
null
What does Iran stand to gain if it were to give up its enrichment program?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
65
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-tony-blair-the-united-kingdom-1
2
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. How close are you to an agreement on a package of incentives for Iran? And what does Iran stand to gain if it were to give up its enrichment program? And why are you ignoring these recent back-channel overtures from Iran?
President Bush. We spent a great deal of time talking about the Iranian issue, and one of the goals that Tony and I had was to convince others in the world that Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous, and therefore, we do have a common goal. And this fundamental question is, how do you achieve that goal, obviously. We want to do it diplomatically. Right now we, as a matter of fact, spent a lot of time upstairs talking about how to convince the Iranians that this coalition we put together is very serious. One option, of course, is through the United Nations Security Council. And we strategized about how do we convince other partners that the Security Council is the way to go if the Iranians won't suspend like the EU-3 has asked them to do. The Iranians walked away from the table. They're the ones who've made the decision, and the choice is theirs. Now, if they would like to see an enhanced package, the first thing they've got to do is suspend their operations, for the good of the world. It's incredibly dangerous to think of an Iran with a nuclear weapon. And therefore, Steve, to answer your questions, of course, we'll look at all options, but it's their choice right now. They're the folks who walked away from the table. They're the ones who said that, "Your demands don't mean anything to us." Now, in terms of—you said back channels——
null
null
Why are you ignoring these recent back-channel overtures from Iran?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
66
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-667
0
Q. Following up on the other Peter's question about Karl Rove, you said you were relieved with what happened yesterday. But the American public, over the course of this investigation, has learned a lot about what was going on in your White House that they didn't know before, during that time, the way some people were trying to go after Joe Wilson, in some ways. I'm wondering if, over the course of this investigation, that you have learned anything that you didn't know before about what was going on in your administration. And do you have any work to do to rebuild credibility that might have been lost?
The President. I think that—first of all, the decision by the prosecutor speaks for itself. He had a full investigation. Karl Rove went in front of the grand jury like—I don't—a lot of times. More times than— they took a hard look at his role. Secondly, as I told the other Peter, I'm going to tell you that there's an ongoing trial; it's a serious business. And I've made the comments I'm going to make about this incident, and I'm going to put this part of the situation behind us and move forward. Let's see here—yes, sure. Richard [Richard Benedetto, USA Today]. Public Opinion on Iraq/War on Terror
null
null
Over the course of this investigation, have you learned anything that you didn't know before about what was going on in your administration?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
67
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-667
1
Q. Following up on the other Peter's question about Karl Rove, you said you were relieved with what happened yesterday. But the American public, over the course of this investigation, has learned a lot about what was going on in your White House that they didn't know before, during that time, the way some people were trying to go after Joe Wilson, in some ways. I'm wondering if, over the course of this investigation, that you have learned anything that you didn't know before about what was going on in your administration. And do you have any work to do to rebuild credibility that might have been lost?
The President. I think that—first of all, the decision by the prosecutor speaks for itself. He had a full investigation. Karl Rove went in front of the grand jury like—I don't—a lot of times. More times than— they took a hard look at his role. Secondly, as I told the other Peter, I'm going to tell you that there's an ongoing trial; it's a serious business. And I've made the comments I'm going to make about this incident, and I'm going to put this part of the situation behind us and move forward. Let's see here—yes, sure. Richard [Richard Benedetto, USA Today]. Public Opinion on Iraq/War on Terror
null
null
Do you have any work to do to rebuild credibility that might have been lost?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
68
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-865
0
Q. Have you anything more on the war debts?
THE PRESIDENT. No.
null
null
Have you anything more on the war debts?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
69
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-216
0
Q. Mr. Spivack: I meant, did you feel that reporters had been fair to you, too, in their questions?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, when you come down to it, I don't see what a reporter could do much to a President, do you? [Laughter]
null
null
Did you feel that reporters had been fair to you in their questions?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
70
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-158
0
Q. Mr. President, what are the prerequisites or conditions for resumption of some sort of trade with Red China?
THE PRESIDENT. We are not planning to trade with Red China in view of the policy that Red China pursues. When the Red Chinese indicate a desire to live at peace with the United States, with other countries surrounding it, then quite obviously the United States would reappraise its policies. We are not wedded to a policy of hostility to Red China. It seems to me Red China's policies are what create the tension between not only the United States and Red China but between Red China and India, between Red China and her immediate neighbors to the south, and even between Red China and other Communist countries. [4.]
null
null
What are the prerequisites or conditions for resumption of some sort of trade with Red China?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
71
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-965
0
Q. Are you going to do it now, sir?
The President. There are things, conditions, that have to be met also there. Any time that they are ready to come forward on an open basis, we would be ready to talk to them. Soviet-U.S. Relations
null
null
Are you going to do it now, sir?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
72
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-970
0
Q. Mr. President, do you think you should be discussing it with him?
THE PRESIDENT. No. I think it's improper for me now to be having a direct conversation with Billy. There have been some communications between us through our attorneys, through my Counsel in the White House and through his attorneys. But they've been completely proper, and records have been maintained of them. And I believe that's the best way to handle this matter until it is resolved. As I said in the closing part of my statement, even in the future, regardless of the outcome of this occurrence, I will not accept any benefit from the funds that Billy has received. And also, as long as I have the slightest suspicion that Billy is still involved with Libya, I will exclude any sort of relationship between myself and Billy that relates to government matters that could possibly impact on Libya.
null
null
Do you think you should be discussing it with him?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
73
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. Mr. President, do you think the press conference should be regular--like you hold it--once a week, or twice a week?
THE PRESIDENT. I think they ought to be with regularity. I think it adds to the information of the public as to what goes on, and I think they are entitled to know what is in the President's mind.
null
null
Do you think the press conference should be regular—like you hold it—once a week, or twice a week?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
74
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-tony-blair-the-united-kingdom-1
0
Q. You both presented the Iraqi Government as a substantial vindication of the conflict. Do you also accept, as a matter of harsh political reality, that the Iraq conflict has also left both of you politically weakened and, whether justly or unjustly, less able to give the kind of moral leadership that you're discussing today?
President Bush. No question that the Iraq war has created a sense of consternation here in America. I mean, when you turn on your TV screen and see innocent people die, day in and day out, it affects the mentality of our country. But here's what they're asking in America; they're asking, "Can we win?" That's what they want to know. Do we have a strategy for victory? And so the talk about the unity Government—you might remember, there was some—a lot of speculation as to whether there would even be a unity government. A couple of months ago, people were saying, "Well, they can't even get a unity government going." But we have a unity government—a Kurd President, a Prime Minister who is a Shi'a, a Speaker who is a Sunni. These are strong leaders. It's an indication that progress is being made. Part of progress, of course, is on the political track. You know, we had elections in Iraq; 12 million people voted last December. Now, it seems like an eternity ago, I know, like a decade. But that's not all that long ago in the larger scope of things. Twelve million people said, we want to be free. It was an astounding moment. And this unity Government is now formed as a result of those elections, under a Constitution approved by the Iraqi people. That's progress. It's certainly a far sight from the days of a tyrant who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and used weapons of mass destruction and threatened the neighborhood. I mean, that is progress. No question, however, that the suiciders and the killers and the IEDs and the deaths have an effect on the American people. But one of the reasons that I appreciate Tony coming is that he brings a fresh perspective of what he saw. And the American people need to know, we are making progress toward a goal of an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself; that will deny the terrorists a safe haven. You know, Al Qaida has made it clear what their intentions are in Iraq. I'm sure you've read some of the intercepts that are laid out there for people to see. And they have made it clear that it's just a matter of time for countries like Great Britain and the United States to leave. In other words, if they make life miserable enough, we'll leave. And they want us to leave because they want a safe haven from which to launch attacks, not only on us but on moderate Muslim governments as well. These people are totalitarians. They're Islamic fascists. They have a point of view; they have a philosophy; and they want to impose that philosophy on the rest of the world. And Iraq just happens to be a—one of the battles in the war on terror. And Tony brings up a good point: Why are they resisting so hard; what is it about democracy they can't stand? Well, what they can't stand about democracy is this: Democracy is the exact opposite of what they believe. They believe they can impose their will; they believe there's no freedom of religion; they believe there's no women's rights. They have a dark vision of the world, and that's why they're resisting so mightily. So, yes, I can understand why the American people are troubled by the war in Iraq. I understand that. But I also believe the sacrifice is worth it and is necessary. And I believe a free Iraq is not only going to make ourselves more secure, but it's going to serve as a powerful example in the Middle East. You know, foreign policy, for a while, just basically said, if it seems okay on the surface, just let it be. And guess what happened? There was resentment and hatred that enabled these totalitarians to recruit and to kill, which they want to continue to do to achieve their objectives. And the best way to defeat them in the long run is through the spread of liberty. And liberty has had the capacity to change enemies to allies. Liberty has had the capacity to help Europe become whole, free, and at peace. History has proven that freedom has got the capacity to change the world for the better, and that's what you're seeing. You know, the amazing thing about dealing with Prime Minister Blair, has never once has he said to me on the phone, we better change our tactics because of the political opinion polls. And I appreciate that steadfast leadership. And I appreciate somebody who has got a vision, a shared vision for how to not only protect ourselves in the war on terror but how to make the world a better place. Prime Minister Blair. I don't really think it's a matter of our vindication. I think, in a way, that's the least important part of it. But I do think that occasionally, we should just take a step back and ask, why are we doing this? Why is it so important? Saddam was removed from power 3 years ago. Since then, incidentally, our forces have been there with the United Nations mandate and with the consent of the Iraqi Government itself—the Iraqi Government becoming progressively more the product of direct democracy. So whatever people thought about removing Saddam—you agree with it, you didn't agree with it—for these last 3 years, the issue in Iraq has not been, these people are here without any international support, because we haven't had any United Nations resolution governing our presence there. The issue is not, you're there, but the Iraqi people don't want you there, because the Iraqi Government and now this directly elected Iraqi Government has said they want us to stay until the job is done. So why is it that for 3 years, we have had this violence and bloodshed? Now, people have tried to say, it's because the Iraqi people—you people, you don't understand; you went in with this Western concept of democracy, and you didn't understand that their whole culture was different; they weren't interested in these types of freedom. These people have gone out and voted—a higher turnout, I have to say— I'm afraid to say, I think, than either your election or mine. These people have gone out and voted—— President Bush. Depends on which one, 2000 or 2004? [Laughter] Prime Minister Blair. I think both of them. President Bush. I think you're right. [Laughter] Prime Minister Blair. They have gone out and voted despite terrorism, despite bloodshed, despite literally the prospect of death for exercising their democratic right. So they have kept faith with the very democratic values that we say we believe in, and the people trying to wrest that democracy from them are opposed to absolutely everything we stand for and everything the Iraqi people stand for. So what do we do in response to this? And the problem we have is very, very simple. A large part of the perspective with which we look at this is to see every act of terrorism in Iraq, every piece of ghastly carnage on our television screens, every tragic loss of our own forces—we see that as a setback and as a failure, when we should be seeing that as a renewed urgency for us to rise to the challenge of defeating these people who are committing this carnage. Because over these past 3 years, at every stage, the reason they have been fighting is not, as we can see, because Iraqi people don't believe in democracy; Iraqi people don't want liberty. It is precisely because they fear Iraqi people do want democracy; Iraqi people do want liberty. And if the idea became implanted in the minds of people in the Arab and Muslim world that democracy was as much their right as our right, where do these terrorists go? What do they do? How do they recruit? How do they say, America is the evil Satan? How do they say, the purpose of the West is to spoil your lands, wreck your religion, take your wealth? How can they say that? They can't say that. So these people who are fighting us there know what is at stake. The question is, do we? President Bush. Must say, that was a great answer. [Laughter] Prime Minister Blair. Yours was pretty good too. [Laughter]
null
null
Do you both accept that the Iraqi Government is a substantial vindication of the conflict?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
75
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-tony-blair-the-united-kingdom-1
1
Q. You both presented the Iraqi Government as a substantial vindication of the conflict. Do you also accept, as a matter of harsh political reality, that the Iraq conflict has also left both of you politically weakened and, whether justly or unjustly, less able to give the kind of moral leadership that you're discussing today?
President Bush. No question that the Iraq war has created a sense of consternation here in America. I mean, when you turn on your TV screen and see innocent people die, day in and day out, it affects the mentality of our country. But here's what they're asking in America; they're asking, "Can we win?" That's what they want to know. Do we have a strategy for victory? And so the talk about the unity Government—you might remember, there was some—a lot of speculation as to whether there would even be a unity government. A couple of months ago, people were saying, "Well, they can't even get a unity government going." But we have a unity government—a Kurd President, a Prime Minister who is a Shi'a, a Speaker who is a Sunni. These are strong leaders. It's an indication that progress is being made. Part of progress, of course, is on the political track. You know, we had elections in Iraq; 12 million people voted last December. Now, it seems like an eternity ago, I know, like a decade. But that's not all that long ago in the larger scope of things. Twelve million people said, we want to be free. It was an astounding moment. And this unity Government is now formed as a result of those elections, under a Constitution approved by the Iraqi people. That's progress. It's certainly a far sight from the days of a tyrant who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and used weapons of mass destruction and threatened the neighborhood. I mean, that is progress. No question, however, that the suiciders and the killers and the IEDs and the deaths have an effect on the American people. But one of the reasons that I appreciate Tony coming is that he brings a fresh perspective of what he saw. And the American people need to know, we are making progress toward a goal of an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself; that will deny the terrorists a safe haven. You know, Al Qaida has made it clear what their intentions are in Iraq. I'm sure you've read some of the intercepts that are laid out there for people to see. And they have made it clear that it's just a matter of time for countries like Great Britain and the United States to leave. In other words, if they make life miserable enough, we'll leave. And they want us to leave because they want a safe haven from which to launch attacks, not only on us but on moderate Muslim governments as well. These people are totalitarians. They're Islamic fascists. They have a point of view; they have a philosophy; and they want to impose that philosophy on the rest of the world. And Iraq just happens to be a—one of the battles in the war on terror. And Tony brings up a good point: Why are they resisting so hard; what is it about democracy they can't stand? Well, what they can't stand about democracy is this: Democracy is the exact opposite of what they believe. They believe they can impose their will; they believe there's no freedom of religion; they believe there's no women's rights. They have a dark vision of the world, and that's why they're resisting so mightily. So, yes, I can understand why the American people are troubled by the war in Iraq. I understand that. But I also believe the sacrifice is worth it and is necessary. And I believe a free Iraq is not only going to make ourselves more secure, but it's going to serve as a powerful example in the Middle East. You know, foreign policy, for a while, just basically said, if it seems okay on the surface, just let it be. And guess what happened? There was resentment and hatred that enabled these totalitarians to recruit and to kill, which they want to continue to do to achieve their objectives. And the best way to defeat them in the long run is through the spread of liberty. And liberty has had the capacity to change enemies to allies. Liberty has had the capacity to help Europe become whole, free, and at peace. History has proven that freedom has got the capacity to change the world for the better, and that's what you're seeing. You know, the amazing thing about dealing with Prime Minister Blair, has never once has he said to me on the phone, we better change our tactics because of the political opinion polls. And I appreciate that steadfast leadership. And I appreciate somebody who has got a vision, a shared vision for how to not only protect ourselves in the war on terror but how to make the world a better place. Prime Minister Blair. I don't really think it's a matter of our vindication. I think, in a way, that's the least important part of it. But I do think that occasionally, we should just take a step back and ask, why are we doing this? Why is it so important? Saddam was removed from power 3 years ago. Since then, incidentally, our forces have been there with the United Nations mandate and with the consent of the Iraqi Government itself—the Iraqi Government becoming progressively more the product of direct democracy. So whatever people thought about removing Saddam—you agree with it, you didn't agree with it—for these last 3 years, the issue in Iraq has not been, these people are here without any international support, because we haven't had any United Nations resolution governing our presence there. The issue is not, you're there, but the Iraqi people don't want you there, because the Iraqi Government and now this directly elected Iraqi Government has said they want us to stay until the job is done. So why is it that for 3 years, we have had this violence and bloodshed? Now, people have tried to say, it's because the Iraqi people—you people, you don't understand; you went in with this Western concept of democracy, and you didn't understand that their whole culture was different; they weren't interested in these types of freedom. These people have gone out and voted—a higher turnout, I have to say— I'm afraid to say, I think, than either your election or mine. These people have gone out and voted—— President Bush. Depends on which one, 2000 or 2004? [Laughter] Prime Minister Blair. I think both of them. President Bush. I think you're right. [Laughter] Prime Minister Blair. They have gone out and voted despite terrorism, despite bloodshed, despite literally the prospect of death for exercising their democratic right. So they have kept faith with the very democratic values that we say we believe in, and the people trying to wrest that democracy from them are opposed to absolutely everything we stand for and everything the Iraqi people stand for. So what do we do in response to this? And the problem we have is very, very simple. A large part of the perspective with which we look at this is to see every act of terrorism in Iraq, every piece of ghastly carnage on our television screens, every tragic loss of our own forces—we see that as a setback and as a failure, when we should be seeing that as a renewed urgency for us to rise to the challenge of defeating these people who are committing this carnage. Because over these past 3 years, at every stage, the reason they have been fighting is not, as we can see, because Iraqi people don't believe in democracy; Iraqi people don't want liberty. It is precisely because they fear Iraqi people do want democracy; Iraqi people do want liberty. And if the idea became implanted in the minds of people in the Arab and Muslim world that democracy was as much their right as our right, where do these terrorists go? What do they do? How do they recruit? How do they say, America is the evil Satan? How do they say, the purpose of the West is to spoil your lands, wreck your religion, take your wealth? How can they say that? They can't say that. So these people who are fighting us there know what is at stake. The question is, do we? President Bush. Must say, that was a great answer. [Laughter] Prime Minister Blair. Yours was pretty good too. [Laughter]
null
null
Do you also accept that the Iraq conflict has left both of you politically weakened and, whether justly or unjustly, less able to give the kind of moral leadership that you're discussing today?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
76
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-667
0
Q. Thank you. [Laughter] Mr. President, you've made a public point recently of soliciting outside advice about the way forward in Iraq and retooling your strategy. I wonder, what idea from a critic or somebody outside your administration that you've concluded should be part of the strategy going forward?
The President. Well, I think—I've gotten a lot of advice from people. You know, one of the interesting debates from the outside community is troop levels. I've got people who say, "You need to increase the number of forces—now." I've gotten people that said, "Well, the role of the United States ought to be more indirect than it has been," in other words, in a supporting role. To those folks, I say, "Look, I'm going to rely upon General Casey." But I did share with him the philosophies that were reflected in a conversation we had over lunch at Camp David. I've had people come in and say, "You better make sure that the Iraqi forces are well-tooled to do their job." In other words, there's people who have gone over there and taken a hard look, have felt like that the Iraqi forces were not equipped well enough to be able to stand up as we stand down. I asked that question of General Casey, and the area where he agrees with the critics is that they don't quite have the capability to move themselves around the country. In other words, they need more mobility. And he recognizes that and is working toward an Iraqi Army that has more mobility. Obviously, there has been criticism about our reconstruction plan, that we started with big projects that were sometimes blown up or sometimes didn't get off the ground like we'd hoped. And that's why we morphed a lot of our aid into a PRT approach, where local commanders had the capacity to get money out more quickly. But I appreciate people's advice, and I appreciate their candor. I am going to meet this afternoon with a group of folks put together by the Peace Institute. They're going to take a look at Iraq. And the reason I bring that up to you is that it's important for people to share their advice with this administration. It's an important business. And it's not easy. It's a complex task to help a society go from tyranny to freedom. But the American people have got to understand, I believe we're going to succeed. That's why we're there. And my message to the Iraqis is, we're going to help you succeed. My message to the enemy is, don't count on us leaving before we succeed. My message to our troops is, we support you 100 percent; keep doing what you're doing. And my message to the critics is, is that we listen very carefully and adjust when needed to adjust. This policy will be driven by the people on the ground. Those are the folks who are going to ultimately make the recommendation that I'll accept. It's important to get advice; I share the advice with our commanders and with Zal. They're the folks who are right there. These are very competent, capable people who understand the Iraqi situation well. And their judgment is important, and I listen very carefully to it— along the same way. Sheryl [Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times]. Welcome. Got a couple of newcomers today, sitting next to Tapper. 2006 Midterm Elections/Democratic Party
null
null
What idea from a critic or somebody outside your administration have you concluded should be part of the strategy going forward in Iraq?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
77
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-european-union-leaders-lisbon
0
Q. President Clinton, sir, can you confirm if it's true that tomorrow you will meet in Lisbon with Prime Minister from Israel Ehud Barak?
President Clinton. Yes. I will, and I'm going to talk to Mr. Arafat before that, sometime today. Yes. Indonesia
null
null
Can you confirm if it's true that tomorrow you will meet in Lisbon with Prime Minister from Israel Ehud Barak?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
78
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-216
0
Q. David P. Sentner, Hearst Newspapers: Mr. President, you referred earlier to the great values to be considered in our way of living. Would you sum up for us your idea of what kind of a United States you would like your grandchildren to live in?
THE PRESIDENT. I'd say in a peaceful world and enjoying all of the privileges and carrying forward all the responsibilities envisioned for the good citizen of the United States, and this means among other things the effort always to raise the standards of our people in their spiritual, their intellectual, their economic strength and generally and specifically and that's what I would like to see them have. Sterling F. Green, Associated Press: Thank you, Mr. President. [The Press Conference was concluded with a standing ovation and applause by the members present as the President left the conference room.]
null
null
Would you sum up for us your idea of what kind of a United States you would like your grandchildren to live in?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
79
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-666
0
Q. Mr. President, does the closeness of today's abortion vote in the Supreme Court suggest to you that abortion rights are at risk in the next court? Or does it suggest that the fact that partial birth abortion can survive even a conservative court say that they aren't as threatened as some believe?
The President. Well, first, I think the court decision is clearly the only decision it could reach consistent with Roe v. Wade. So I think what you know there is that that's the vote for Roe v. Wade. You can't have a rule like the rule of Roe and then ignore it. So that's why— if you remember, on this late-term abortion issue a couple of years ago, I pleaded with the Congress to adopt a broad limitation on lateterm abortions consistent with Roe v. Wade, but to make an exception for the life and health of the mother, as the Supreme Court decision required. They declined to do that, and so we've had a political impasse here, and then you've seen what's happened in all these States. So the decision is, I think, consistent with Roe v. Wade. And as you pointed out, it was narrowly upheld. I think that's about what the vote for Roe is. And I think that in the next 4 years, there will be somewhere between two and four appointments to the Supreme Court, and depending on who those appointees are, I think the rule will either be maintained or overturned. And I think that it's very much in the balance, depending on what appointments are made in the next 4 years. That's what I believe. Yes, go ahead, Larry [Larry McQuillan, USA Today]. Gasoline Prices and Energy Policy
null
null
Does the closeness of today's abortion vote in the Supreme Court suggest that abortion rights are at risk in the next court?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
80
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-666
1
Q. Mr. President, does the closeness of today's abortion vote in the Supreme Court suggest to you that abortion rights are at risk in the next court? Or does it suggest that the fact that partial birth abortion can survive even a conservative court say that they aren't as threatened as some believe?
The President. Well, first, I think the court decision is clearly the only decision it could reach consistent with Roe v. Wade. So I think what you know there is that that's the vote for Roe v. Wade. You can't have a rule like the rule of Roe and then ignore it. So that's why— if you remember, on this late-term abortion issue a couple of years ago, I pleaded with the Congress to adopt a broad limitation on lateterm abortions consistent with Roe v. Wade, but to make an exception for the life and health of the mother, as the Supreme Court decision required. They declined to do that, and so we've had a political impasse here, and then you've seen what's happened in all these States. So the decision is, I think, consistent with Roe v. Wade. And as you pointed out, it was narrowly upheld. I think that's about what the vote for Roe is. And I think that in the next 4 years, there will be somewhere between two and four appointments to the Supreme Court, and depending on who those appointees are, I think the rule will either be maintained or overturned. And I think that it's very much in the balance, depending on what appointments are made in the next 4 years. That's what I believe. Yes, go ahead, Larry [Larry McQuillan, USA Today]. Gasoline Prices and Energy Policy
null
null
Or, does the fact that partial birth abortion can survive even a conservative court suggest that they aren't as threatened as some believe?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
81
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-rancho-mirage-california
0
Q. It sounds like you are willing to give an endorsement.
The President. Ron Allen, NBC. [Laughter] 2016 Presidential Election
null
null
It sounds like you are willing to give an endorsement.
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
82
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-john-howard-australia
0
Q. Would you go along with border protection only and a guest-worker program— [inaudible].
President Bush. I said I want a comprehensive bill because I understand there needs to be a comprehensive bill in order to make—in order for us to achieve the objective. And the objective is, on the one hand, protect our borders, and on the other hand, never lose sight of the thing that makes America unique, which is, we're a land of immigrants and that we—we're not going to discriminate against people. Now, we don't think there ought to be an automatic path to citizenship; that's called amnesty. Amnesty would be wrong. Amnesty would say that somebody that stood in line legally is—is mistreated, as far as I'm concerned. Amnesty would mean that more people would try to come and sneak into our country in the hopes that they would be granted automatic citizenship. But there ought to be a way for somebody to pay a fine or learn English or prove that they've been here for a long time working and be able to get in line—not the head of the line but the back of the line—in order to become a citizen. You know, there are some in our country who say, "Let's just deport everybody." It's unrealistic. It may sound attractive to some. You can't deport people who have been in this country for a long period of time— millions of people that have been here. And so we've got to be rational about how we move forward. And part of my appeal last night was to say to people, let's don't get so emotional that we forget who we are. We're a land of immigrants, and when we welcome somebody to our country who is here legally, willing to work and willing to realize a dream, it helps restore our soul. So this is a difficult debate for Members. I'm going to continue working with them. Part of my job is to lead, and I did last night. I said, here's how we get to where we need to be. Australia's Wheat Market/Trade
null
null
Would you go along with border protection only and a guest-worker program?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
83
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. Mr. President, could you tell us anything further about your plans when you leave office, in a personal vein ?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, no, I don't think I am able to give you any definite program because I really haven't any definite plans. I will. tell you what I am going to do on Inauguration Day, if that will help you.
null
null
Mr. President, could you tell us anything further about your plans when you leave office, in a personal vein?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
84
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-216
0
Q. Edward V. Koterba, United Features Syndicate: Mr. President, in line with your opening statement and a question earlier, it is agreed that at times over the last 8 years we at the press conferences may not have been too charitable in our questioning of you. Now could you elaborate, sir, and relate to us your feeling about your relations with the press and these press conferences in particular?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know that I can elaborate very much. I'll say this, the other evening I asked the people that they call the regulars around the White House, and you people know them as well as I do, and I guess there was, what, seventy? Seventy people. Now I didn't ask them whether they were critics or particular friends of mine, some of them are, they've been warm personal friends, whether they were Democrats or Republicans or Socialists--but we had a good time I think, everybody seemed to, and I think on a personal basis it was a friendly thing. So I have never objected to penetrating and searching questions. The only thing I object to is something that tries to--it's like the beating of your wife question, I don't like that, and--[laughter]--but I have no one that I could single out and say that they have been annoying nor have I anyone to argue with.
null
null
Could you elaborate on your feelings about your relations with the press?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
85
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-216
1
Q. Edward V. Koterba, United Features Syndicate: Mr. President, in line with your opening statement and a question earlier, it is agreed that at times over the last 8 years we at the press conferences may not have been too charitable in our questioning of you. Now could you elaborate, sir, and relate to us your feeling about your relations with the press and these press conferences in particular?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I don't know that I can elaborate very much. I'll say this, the other evening I asked the people that they call the regulars around the White House, and you people know them as well as I do, and I guess there was, what, seventy? Seventy people. Now I didn't ask them whether they were critics or particular friends of mine, some of them are, they've been warm personal friends, whether they were Democrats or Republicans or Socialists--but we had a good time I think, everybody seemed to, and I think on a personal basis it was a friendly thing. So I have never objected to penetrating and searching questions. The only thing I object to is something that tries to--it's like the beating of your wife question, I don't like that, and--[laughter]--but I have no one that I could single out and say that they have been annoying nor have I anyone to argue with.
null
null
Could you elaborate on your feelings about these press conferences in particular?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
86
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-last-news-conference
0
Q. My question was, does the President of the United States get any such pension as that?
THE PRESIDENT. No. The President of the United States is going to have to commence begging meals after the 20th. [Laughter] He is getting a lot of invitations, so I don't believe he will go hungry.
null
null
Does the President of the United States get any such pension as that?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
87
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/excerpts-from-the-press-conference-1
0
Q. Mr. President, is it true that under the Yalta agreement on voting procedure two of the Big Powers have the power to overrule discussions on any proposal that might be brought up, not only force but anything else? THE
PRESIDENT: As I remember the thing—the easiest way of putting it- on everything that is procedural, not the actual use of force, you have to have a majority of eleven.
null
null
Is it true that under the Yalta agreement on voting procedure two of the Big Powers have the power to overrule discussions on any proposal that might be brought up, not only force but anything else?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
88
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1106
0
Q. So "no" to a tax on profits?
The President. Look, the temptation in Washington is to tax everything, and they spend the money—"they" being the people in Washington. The answer is, is for there to be strong reinvestment to make this country more secure from an energy perspective. Listen, these oil prices are a wake-up call. We're dependent upon oil, and we need to get off oil. And the best way to do so is through technology. And I've been traveling the country talking about the need to develop alternative sources of energy, such as ethanol, and to spend money to advance technologies, such as new battery technology that will enable us to have plug-in hybrid vehicles. We signed a good energy bill a while ago, and that encouraged—for example, one thing it's got in there is a tax credit to encourage people to purchase hybrid vehicles so that the consumptive patterns of the American people change. And the American people have got to understand that we're living in a global economy, and so when China and India demand more oil, it affects the price of gasoline at the pump. And therefore, it's important for us to diversify away from oil. But it's also important for the people to understand that one of the reasons why the price is gasoline is up is there's tight gasoline supplies. And one reason there's tight gasoline supplies is because we haven't built any new refineries since the 1970s. And therefore, Congress needs to provide regulatory relief so people can expand their refineries. So it's a combination of people investing the cash flows as well as regulatory relief to enhance the ability for people to achieve the objective, which is more gasoline on the market, which will help our consumers. Dick Keil [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News]. Sudan
null
null
So "no" to a tax on profits?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
89
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-965
0
Q. Mr. President, this is your final news conference with us, we think. And at your first news conference, you said that the Soviets would commit any crime, would lie, would cheat, would steal to achieve their political goals. Now, tonight, you're celebrating your joint progress with President Gorbachev and celebrating a speech in which he renounced the use of force by the Soviet Union to achieve foreign policy goals. Do you think that he has really changed? And to the extent that he has changed, have you changed? What have you learned over these 8 years that may have changed your view of the Soviet system?
The President. I know so many of you have quoted this in that first press conference of mine, and Sam [Sam Donaldson, ABC News], I think it was your question.
null
null
Do you think that President Gorbachev has really changed?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
90
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-965
1
Q. Mr. President, this is your final news conference with us, we think. And at your first news conference, you said that the Soviets would commit any crime, would lie, would cheat, would steal to achieve their political goals. Now, tonight, you're celebrating your joint progress with President Gorbachev and celebrating a speech in which he renounced the use of force by the Soviet Union to achieve foreign policy goals. Do you think that he has really changed? And to the extent that he has changed, have you changed? What have you learned over these 8 years that may have changed your view of the Soviet system?
The President. I know so many of you have quoted this in that first press conference of mine, and Sam [Sam Donaldson, ABC News], I think it was your question.
null
null
To the extent that he has changed, have you changed?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
91
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-965
2
Q. Mr. President, this is your final news conference with us, we think. And at your first news conference, you said that the Soviets would commit any crime, would lie, would cheat, would steal to achieve their political goals. Now, tonight, you're celebrating your joint progress with President Gorbachev and celebrating a speech in which he renounced the use of force by the Soviet Union to achieve foreign policy goals. Do you think that he has really changed? And to the extent that he has changed, have you changed? What have you learned over these 8 years that may have changed your view of the Soviet system?
The President. I know so many of you have quoted this in that first press conference of mine, and Sam [Sam Donaldson, ABC News], I think it was your question.
null
null
What have you learned over these 8 years that may have changed your view of the Soviet system?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
92
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-brian-mulroney-canada-camp-david
0
Q. Are you flying back to Houston without us, sir?
The President. Look for deer.
null
null
Are you flying back to Houston without us, sir?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
93
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-mauricio-macri-argentina-buenos-aires
0
Q. [Inaudible]—holdouts, how you see them?
President Obama. So with respect to the holdouts and the bondholders, this is working its way through the court system. And I know that President Macri has also initiated a proposal that's being considered by your Parliament. I have to be careful not to comment on the issue because of the nature of our legal system. These are judges typically that I appoint, and so in order for them to remain impartial, if there's a pending case, I do not talk about it publicly. What I can say is that the constructive approach that President Macri has taken, I think, has opened up the possibility of a resolution. And a resolution on this issue will stabilize Argentina's financial relationship internationally in a way that can accelerate many of the other issues that are of great concern. To some degree, this is viewed as high finance, and so ordinary people say, why does this matter? But if you're talking about foreign investment, if you're talking about trade, if you're talking about all the things that ultimately matter to ordinary people because they produce jobs and they produce economic development and provide more revenue in order to reinvest in education or science and technology, that requires the kind of financial stability that is so important. And look, I've been through this. When I came into office in 2008, the world financial system was going down the toilet, as we say. [Laughter] And we had to take a lot of efforts and make difficult choices. And they weren't always popular at the time. But because of the steps that we took, our banks recovered faster than European banks, for example. Our economy began to recover faster. We started producing more jobs. So sometimes, short-term pain and taking decisive action early is the right thing to do, rather than putting it off to mañana and then you end up having a perpetual set of problems and you never restore the kind of stability and trust that's necessary. White House Press Secretary Joshua R. Earnest. The first question from the U.S. delegation will come from Josh Lederman with the Associated Press. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) Terrorist Organization/U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy/Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. R. Edward "Ted" Cruz
null
null
How do you see the holdouts?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
94
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-matteo-renzi-italy
0
Q. So your Italian accent, of course.
The President. I've got my hands to—grazie. [Laughter]
null
null
So your Italian accent, of course.
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
95
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-666
0
Q. Mr. President, as you know, for the third time, a Justice Department investigation has recommended that the Vice President's activities in fundraising during the last campaign cycle be looked into. Previously, on two occasions, the Attorney General has declined to do this. Would it be better for the Attorney General, for your administration, and for the Vice President's candidacy if he invited such an investigation?
The President. Well, first let me say, my understanding is—I know this is true in the previous cases, and I think it's true here—is that there are some people in the Justice Department that think there should be and some who think there shouldn't be. And the Attorney General, who has shown no reluctance to ask for a special counsel when she thought one was called for, didn't think one was called for in this case, and she reaffirmed that yesterday. I think the fact that the Vice President released the transcript of his interview was a very good thing, because some Republican Senators had made some assertions about it that just weren't so—they weren't true. And now that the whole thing has been put out in the public, it seems to me that the best thing to do is for the American people to make their own judgments about it. But I don't see any reason that the Attorney General shouldn't make a decision in this case, as she has in every other one. Claire [Claire Shipman, NBC]. Vice President Al Gore
null
null
Would it be better for the Attorney General, for your administration, and for the Vice President's candidacy if he invited such an investigation?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
96
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-toronto-canada
0
Q.—talk to you about Haiti after this week. Have you found out anything more about the situation there?
The President. I thought you already all knew everything about it because you didn't ask me any questions about it.
null
null
Will you talk about Haiti after this week?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
97
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-toronto-canada
1
Q.—talk to you about Haiti after this week. Have you found out anything more about the situation there?
The President. I thought you already all knew everything about it because you didn't ask me any questions about it.
null
null
Have you found out anything more about the situation in Haiti?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
98
null
null
null
null
null
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-the-aftermath-hurricane-andrew
0
Q. Mr. President, does the Federal Government have the lead role in this right now?
The President. The Federal Government has a leading role in the humanitarian relief. It does not have a role in the security right now. That's in the hands of the State, and it's been entrusted largely to the National Guard, which is under the control of the Governor because it has not been federalized.
null
null
Does the Federal Government have the lead role in this right now?
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
99
null
null
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
Downloads last month
14