Datasets:

pacoreyes

/

Speech-vs-Interview-Dataset

like 1

that there needs to be truthfulness at the highest levels of government. People have got to understand and listen to reality and understand that nations and people want to help when there is suffering. In the meantime, we are going to keep pushing for freedom. During the time, a lot of Burmese people, they were expecting a sort of humanitarian intervention, even though the Burmese regime did not allow the aid. We chose to go through the normal routes. We wanted to basically say, here is your opportunity to receive aid. But I do not think it would have been helpful for the Burmese people had there been a conflict over the delivery of aid. What we do not want to do is compound a terrible situation. In other words, if we just sent in-sent people in, our military in without visas or permission from the Government, there is no telling what the reaction would have been. And so yes, I-no question, there was frustration on the delays, but I felt the best way to do so was the way we ended up doing it. My only point is, is that there is - if there is another catastrophe, and let us pray there is not, but if there is, the Government will now see that they have nothing to fear by welcoming in U.S. aid and other countries' aid. They ought to welcome that. And of course, we'd like to help on that too. We spent about $57 million, or over $50 million of help so far. We care about the stories we hear. And we want the farmers to get seed and fertilizer so they can grow and feed their families and feed the people in their area and, hopefully, grow enough for the country. Now, the United States has proposed civil military relief exercise with the countries in this region, and recent ASEAN meeting endorsed that relief exercise, and probably next year the Philippine will host. So they agree to cooperate relief exercise. I wonder, if the countries in this region agree to cooperate, are you going to invite this exercise to include Burmese military regime or North Korea? I have not thought that through yet, to be frank with you. I cannot answer your question, because you are the first person who is asked me that question. I will take it back to Washington and- under consideration. I have no-but I cannot say yes or no right now. How will the United States try to overcome this impasse, most recently seen at the Security Council over Burma?

dialogic

Well, what we have got to do is continue to work with countries on the Security Council and explain to them that what matters most in life is the human condition and that individual rights are important. And we just have a lot of work to do to convince people that the status quo in Burma-that life can be better, let me put it that way. And it is in their interest that life is better, particularly China. China is an important country on the United Nations Security Council; they are an important country in the world, obviously, Burma's neighbor. And we-I hope that I can use my good relations with the Chinese leadership to convince them that the way forward is for there to be more civic participation, more citizen participation in the future of the country, and that the perfect way to do that is to explain to them how backward the Government was when it came to the response for the natural disaster. Hopefully, that will open up eyes. But no question, there is a lot of diplomacy that needs to be done to convince others that people like Aung Suu San Kyi deserve to be free and political prisoners ought to be free. And the reason I am talking to you today is because I want those in prison and their families to know that we care about them and think about them. I mean, it is in the common ground, for example, that the Burmese be a peaceful country. I mean, we care about that. Whether or not the Chinese will agree that somebody like Aung Suu San Kyi ought to be free and ought to be the center of foreign policy like it is for us, I do not know. We just have to work it hard. you will be meeting the highest Chinese leadership tomorrow. And you said you would mention Burma to those leaders. You have not been able to convince them until now. How optimistic are you that you will be able to convince, and how are you going to go about doing this time, sir? Well, you know, look, it is -I have mentioned Burma a lot to the Chinese leadership, and it is -I have mentioned Darfur; I have mentioned Tibet; I have mentioned religious freedom inside China. And it is just a matter of continuing to make the case. I have-I am sure the Chinese leader's mind is going to be on the Olympics. This is a big deal for the people of China.

dialogic

One of the reasons I am going is to be able to pay my respects to the people of China, and well as to be in a position where I can bring up these issues with the Chinese Government. I am just-it is -to me, this is a process of continually having a consistent message, speaking to the people of Burma, letting the prisoners know we care about them, and pressing hard at the international level. I make no promises to your listeners except that we will continue to try. One thing is the relationship with the regime. Then you have been probably the President who is more committed for the Burmese democratic movement. But the United States tough line against Burma sometimes entrenched the generals there, and some people would say that given the example of the Nargis Cyclone relief efforts, then if you have had this kind of relationship with the generals then you could be able to do more. I understand your point. We have been tough, because we believe that the general has been very stubborn in not allowing certain freedoms, and we believe that is wrong. We believe that those arrested in the marches of '88 ought to be released from prison. There is about 2,000 political prisoners who are being held simply because they had a belief that was contrary to what the general thinks. You notice I am saying general because it is generally viewed as a one-man regime. I know there is others that support him. But yes, I have been and-because I believe that-as a matter of fact, just signed a bill that is going to continue the sanction regime, particularly when it comes to jade and precious gems. That is an interesting question, had we had a different relationship, one, what would it say to the reformers, but also, would it have changed the number of days required to let relief in? What I am concerned about is the general was not being given full information, that he was not fully aware of reality. And I do not think his reaction was because of relations with the United States; I think his reaction was-is because he was in denial to a certain extent about the realities on the ground. But I am constantly-look, my mission, so long as I am the President, which is 6 more months, is to think about ways to relieve human suffering and how to help people inside Burma. And if I thought it would make-help us achieve the objective by changing the relationship with the Government, I'd give it serious consideration.

dialogic

But I do not necessarily agree with that premise. On the other hand, the people that are listening to your radio broadcast has got to know that the President of the United States and a lot of other people in America are concerned and care about how they live and want them to be free and want them to realize the beauties of a Burmese-style democracy. Nevertheless, what is important, though, if for there to be a strong voice in laying out that vision. And that is what I will continue to do. you just met a group of Burmese activists and then you share views with them on Burma's struggle. What do you see and what do you get from having lunch with them? First of all, there is a lot of courageous people that have made a decision to work hard on behalf of the rest of their citizens to achieve a free society. Secondly, that they have great hopes that the United States will continue to speak out, that the United States will not abandon our belief in the universality of freedom. Thirdly, they were-I asked-I said, if you were me, what would you do? And I got a variety of opinions. And it was fascinating to hear voices of people who have actually been on the frontlines of change. I came away with the impression that they are very grateful to the American people for the generous support. Sometimes our generosity is not-actually ends up in the hands of the people as quickly as it should, but nevertheless, that they are- there seems to be a general awareness that the American people care. There are people who may even be wearing the military uniform who understand that the status quo is not acceptable, and there needs to be a better way forward. But a lot of the frustration was focused on a single person, the general in charge of the country, and that-there was a belief that he did not seem to care that much about the plight of the average citizen. And so hopefully, U.S. pressure and U.S. focus will get him to think more about the average person and care about the way the average person lives. Many critics said that our opposition itself is also very much divided and they are not united enough against the military regime and that-do you think that the United States can help prepare them for their future democratic Burma? Well, first of all-that was an interesting question-I did not think they were very divided, at least the crowd I was with.

dialogic

But I thought they were pretty united in their dream for a better Burma. You know, one of the things that, obviously, the people involved in the democracy movement have got to think through is how do you get from here to there. In other words, it is not easy to go from a very fierce military one-man rule to democracy. And you have a very good point, and that is, is that there is a-is there a focused roadmap to get to a better tomorrow? It is hard for me to tell just in that conversation. Obviously, that is going to be a concern for-it must be a concern for people. The rewrite of the Constitution is just a-it is not a good document; it is not a fair document. So therefore, there needs to be a constitution at some point in time that will enable Burma to be a Federal state that-based upon the will of the people. The military regime will hold a election in 2010, and they began preparing this month for election. And then what is U.S. stand on this election? I think the Constitution is a sham constitution, and therefore-but, you know, I-this is a society that is not interested in democracy. They have proved they are not interested in democracy. If they are interested in democracy, they'd let the prisoners out of prison, for starters. The political prisoners would be a-given to chance to leave and live in a free life. That is the first test, not election under a sham constitution. And so, you know, they will play like the election was fair and all this-to justify their behavior. And I think people like yourself ought to be speaking out that the elections, unless certain conditions are met, cannot possibly be fair. We understand and the Burmese listeners also understand how you and the First Lady are compassionate for Burmese people, how much you strongly support to the freedom for Burma. I know both candidates and the-freedom for Burma is a bipartisan issue. And the Burmese people-it is not just the President that thinks about the citizens of Burma. There is a lot of people in our Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, that feel the same way. And so I think the Burmese people are going to have a consistent friend in the United States. You are talking to the China authorities. Do you think China can play a role to make situation better in Burma? I think-oh, yes, I think China could play a different role.

dialogic

And so I will -I will bring up the Burma-Burmese issue again to President Hu Jintao, who I like. And they just got different interests, at times, from the United States. And so I have got to work hard to see if I cannot convince him that we share the same goals. Wonder will Thailand and ASEAN in Southeast Asia-- They need to send a signal. Obviously, Thailand was very helpful when it came to helping with the cyclone- aftermath of the cyclone. After all, this is a staging center for a lot of our materials and other peoples'-countries' materials that came through. Yes, and they can continue to work the issue. We just got to make sure that ASEAN delivers a message that is inspiring to the people of Burma. President, besides sanction and travel restrictions on the generals in Burma, do you-have you ever thought of alternative strategies work on Burma-under U.S. and then with the international community? And if your question is, do I-am I trying to convince others to join us on the strategy? In other words, it would be better if we could all speak with one voice. And I have been in-you know, it had not been that hard with some countries, like the European countries, for example. But it is been difficult with some of the countries in the neighborhood here because we do not share the same goals. Their goal is stability and-at times. And that is not necessarily the-I am for stability too. But I'd like to see the system move toward a free society. I have got a friend who helps deal with the rape victims along the border. These women are being raped- she says, systemically raped by the military as part of their campaign of fear. That stuff has got to end in order for me to feel comfortable with any other policy toward Burma. In other words, there is -and others have different priorities. And so therefore, it is hard to find common ground, but we will continue to try to do so. Then I got to go to the games. I am cheering the American Olympic team. You have the conviction and idea to bring freedom and democracy to Burma, but some people would say that the United States does not have much strategic interest in Burma, unlike Afghanistan. I think so long as there is human suffering like there is here in Burma, then this will be of strategic importance to the United States.

dialogic

Here is the pitch to Bobby Bonilla, and Bonilla takes ball one outside. So I guess that ends some of the conversations about how Cone's arm is. ENTITY is here with us. I am the good luck charm when I am on this radio In fact, when you were with us last year, Bobby Bonilla came up and promptly hit one over the center field wall. And he drives this one deep into right center field This one is bouncing over the wall. And right after Bonilla hit that home run, then Ripken came up, and he did the same thing. In fact, ENTITY, you broadcast that Ripken home run which was an historic night. You were part of it. So let us go back now and take a listen here. We have played that 500 times since then, and everybody loves that. Here is Cal the following season as we pick up again, and ENTITY is here with us. What do you think now? Cal taking ball one from Appier. Well, he is got the only two RBI's, does not he? Two-run single in the first inning for Cal, and now we are a 2-2 ball game. Did you get a chance to see Cal before the game? He baited me about going out on the pitcher's mound because last year I stood in front of the mound and started so he said, you know, That is what that mound is there for. You are supposed to step up on top of it. And he fouls it off back out of play. So I asked him if he were baiting me. He said, If you do not want to go out there and do what you are supposed to do, it is all right with me. You got the Ripken treatment. So I had to go up there and stand on the mound. You are like part of the family now if he was talking to you like that. Well, you stood up there, and you threw a strike in there. It was a slow strike, but I got it over. He hit a hard ball there. Here comes Bonilla, and Ripken has done it again. We may have to have you on every time he bats. Well, it looked like he got a little slider that kind of hung up there above the knees, and he blooped it into shallow center.

dialogic

I have a feeling that Alomar, Palmeiro, Bonilla, Ripken, they are going to combine for a few runs this year. He hit .320 last year with Milwaukee. Not a power-type hitter, but he gets the ball to all fields. And he takes ball one, down and in, on a breaking ball. She is a little jealous that I am here today, but she had to go to school today. You know, she and her mother just took a wonderful trip. They went to see our forces in Bosnia, and then they went to Turkey and Greece. So I told her she got to go to Turkey, Greece, and Bosnia, and I got to go to Baltimore. Here is a foul ball back into the upper deck. Well, we thought maybe she'd get spring break or something. They missed so many days this winter; they need to go more, not less. It is good to see springtime out here, is not it? We had a tough winter. Baseball has brought the sunshine back. You will see how hard the wind is, though, and you do not feel it in here, which is good. Yeah, I have been downtown on top of one of the buildings. The flag is standing straight out at attention out there, but inside here, very comfortable. I mean, you walked out on the mound, and we have seen guys bounce them in there. But you put it right in. Did you warm up ahead of time? And not getting it was Lockhart. Who warmed you up? You played catch with somebody? Well, Mr. Angelos threw me a few balls. We threw about 20 balls together, and then I threw about 20, 30 more balls down there, just fooling around. Well, we put out tapes and CD's of the whole Ripken thing last September and raised money for charity. And everywhere we went after they completed that, people commenting about how much fun it was that you were on the air. And when Cal hit that home run, it wasthere you were, the First Fan. That is what B.J. Surhoff is saying as they call him out on strikes. And that is what B.J.'s arguing, too. But he is called out on strikes.

dialogic

I toldI went down to see the umpires before the game, and I said that I really wanted to see them because they were the only people in the country that got secondguessed more than I did. So I like those guys. I am for them, you know. Well, that is it for the Orioles in the third inning. The ENTITY is here with us, ENTITY. And at the end of three, it is the Orioles, 3; Kansas City, 2. ENTITY, ENTITY, along with the ENTITY, ENTITY, as the Royals come to bat. The Orioles are back in front, 3 to 2. ENTITY was just commenting to us between innings about what a beautiful scene it is here at Camden Yards. I wish everybody could see it. And he makes the catch. I think everybody here is having a good time. You know, it is been said thatI mean, opening day in baseball really, actually for a baseball fan, carries all of the same sentiment that we ascribe to New Year's Eve, you know, a clean slate, a fresh start, high hopes. But it is even more tangible in baseball because we really know that they have got a shot. Now, you were telling us between innings that you had a chance to go down to Atlanta and see the layout there. I looked at the Olympic Stadium, which is magnificent. The American people will love it. And then after the Olympics, a section in the back is going to be taken down like what we now see from here over center field, and it is going to be converted into the Braves' new stadium. But the unique thing about it is, it is going to bethe base line is going to be even closer I mean, the foul line is going to be even closer tothe base lineto the stands than here. And home plate's going to be even tucked in tighter than here, so that the average distance from base line to the stands will be about 45 feet. And the major league ballparks average something like 70 feet. So even though the Braves have this magnificent pitching staff, they are going to be tested because they will not get as many easy foul-outs. In comes Hammonds, and he makes the catch for out number two. Well, that is a good point because, I mean, the current stadium in Atlanta probably has more foul territory than any other ballpark. But it just interested me that they are going to have a little extra handicap there.

dialogic

I asked the ENTITY how he plans to get the country and the Congress to focus on Working Families The country's already focused on family issues. Every single day, there are conversations around the kitchen table where people are trying to figure out, you know what, this childcare is costing so much. I am not sure that we are going to be able to make our mortgage at the end of the month. There are folks who are saying, you know, little Johnny is sick but if I do not show up at my job, because I do not have paid family leave, we are not going to be able to pay the electricity bill. And so the goal for our Working Families Summit on Monday is to lift up a conversation that everybody's already having individually and letting people know you are not alone out here. And so what we want to do is to lift up best practices, show that for companies who are offering paid family leave, who are offering flexibility, their workers are more productive, more loyal, there is lower turnover and, ultimately, they are going to be more profitable. I am going to be taking some action, a presidential memorandum, directing every federal agency to be very clear to their employees that it is my view that offering flexibility where possible is the right thing to do. We do not want people having to choose between family and work when you have got an emergency situation. You know this, but you talk to 10 different people, you are going to get 10 different challenges that they face in trying to succeed at the work and life balance, to succeed at both. What are the three things that you would like to see companies, employers, businesses do to make it work, because you know those priorities do not always align? There are some things that we know will make a difference in people's lives. Paid family leave; we are the only advanced country on earth that does not have it. It does not make any sense. One of the most precious memories that I will ever have is when my first daughter, Malia, was born, I was lucky enough that my schedule allowed me to take that first month off. 00 in the morning and feeding her and burping her and, you know, creates a bond that is irreplaceable. And a lot of companies are already doing it and it is working. And Michelle and I have talked about this.

dialogic

You know, when we knew that employers had our backs and were willing to give us flexibility to look after family, that made us want to work harder for that employer, even if it meant taking work home with us. So we have unpaid family leave right now but for a whole lot of families it means they cannot use it because they just cannot afford it. If I have got a parent teacher conference you know, we always say that we want parents involved in our kids' education. There are millions of families out there who cannot even imagine taking time off to go to a parent teacher's conference. And then the third thing is the issue of childcare. You know, we do not do a very good job providing high-quality, affordable childcare and there are a lot of countries, a lot of our competitors do it. That means that it is a lot easier for women to be in the workforce and not have to make choices that ultimately mean that they are , in some cases, getting paid less or having less opportunities. I should add on that list equal pay for equal work. We have done some things administratively on that front. I always say that should not be a women's issue because I always wanted Michelle to make sure that she was getting paid fairly because when she brought her paycheck home that went into the overall pot to help us pay our bills. You know, Republicans, they will be critical of some of the initiatives you try to It is no secret that Democrats' midterm election strategy is to pitch to women, to get the women to come out to vote. They have said that. I was raised by a single mom who had to work, go to school, raise two kids. I did not come from a wealthy family. We were helped by my grandparents and the primary breadwinner there was my grandma, who never got a college education but worked her way up from a secretary to being a vice president at a bank, but also hit a glass ceiling. I have got a strong, successful wife, who I remember being reduced to tears sometimes because she could not figure out how to juggle everything that she was doing. And I have got two daughters that I care about more than anything in the world. And so this is personal for me and I think it is personal for a lot of people.

dialogic

ENTITY, you are paying a visit to Pakistan at a very crucial juncture, at a time when changes are being experienced in the region. And people of Pakistan are pinning a lot of hope on your visit because they think many problems are there and your visit will play a very vital role in it. The first thing that is really important for people to understand is that relations between our countries oftentimes depend on the relations between the leaders. In other words, ENTITY Musharraf and I can set a tone for the relationship because of our capacity to talk to each other. And it is important to be with each other and to share concerns and to talk about ideas. And so one object of the trip is to continue what is a good relationship. A good relationship between me and ENTITY tends to permeate throughout our Government. Secondly, I and one reason we have got a good relationship is we speak frankly with each other. Listen, I understand he has got a difficult job made really difficult by the fact that people have tried to kill him, as you know. Extremists have decided that he is a obstacle to their vision and, therefore, have tried to kill him. And so he is not only a man who is shown great courage in the face of adversity, but he does have a vision of how to work together to achieve common objectives. Secondly, I want the people of Pakistan to know that the American people care about them, that ours is a relationship that is much bigger than just the war on terror; that when our Chinooks flew supplies into the rural part of Pakistan, it was not out of a sense of just, kind of, pure diplomacy, it was out of a sense of care and concern about the individuals. And I understand sometimes people may have wonder about our motives, wonder about America's true concerns. And this will give me a chance to speak to the people of Pakistan and say, Look, we care for you, and remind people that in our country, there is great Pakistani Americans. We are a rich society because we have got people from around the world, including people who were born and raised in Pakistan and have now chosen America as a home. And so it is a trip that is of good will and importance. ENTITY, there is a common perception that the relations between the United States and Pakistan have fluctuated in the past. So what measures would you suggest to make it more durable and sustainable for the days to come and the long-time perspective?

dialogic

Yes, that is a really good question, because, again, we want people to understand this relationship is a vital relationship that will exist throughout the years. One way we can do that is increase trade opportunities before our countries between our countries. And we will be talking about a bilateral investment treaty. Secondly, student exchanges and I understand there is been some issues with visas, and we have got to work through those, because I believe the more Pakistani youngsters who come to America to study will get to really see what America is all about. And as more Americans that go there to study will see what Pakistan is all about. And so there is ways for us, beyond the war on terror and by the way, the war on terror is a critical aspect of our relationship; do not get me wrong. But the other thing that is interesting and I think important for the people of Pakistan to know is that ENTITY Musharraf, in his democracy initiative, can show the whole Muslim world, and the world itself, that it is possible to have a religious that is not extreme and a state that listens to people and responds to the needs of people. And that is a really important message that Pakistan can show the world. And I will, of course, continue to talk to my buddy and my friend about his goals for a democratic Pakistan. ENTITY, an early solution to the whole issue of Kashmir, about which you have also mentioned in your speech at the Asia Society that is vital for the region. So, in your view, being a close friend of both Pakistan and India, what role the United States can play in resolving this issue? Well, I started to play a role in my speech, and I spoke out on the issue and encouraged ENTITY and the Prime Minister of India to continue down the road of solving the issue with a solution that is acceptable to all sides. There is a temptation sometimes for countries to try to jump in the middle of dialog. I have seen the progress that is been made in the relationship from when I first became ENTITY You might remember an early time in my Presidency, there was real tension. And part of it has to do with trust, but there is got to be tangible progress; I recognize that. And so I will use my trip to urge the leadership to continue solving this issue, with the idea that it can be solved. ENTITY, what economic incentive would you offer to Pakistan during the forthcoming visit?

dialogic

And one of the steps on a robust trading relationship is what is called the Bilateral Investment Treaty, and that is an important part of the process. And believe me, every time ENTITY talks to me, he is talking about markets, and I understand that. But he also understands that there is some steps needed before this robust trade. I must applaud ENTITY's vision for the Pakistan economy. But the truth of the matter is, what matters is results. That is really good news for the people of Pakistan. First and foremost, because, obviously, if people can make a living and do well, they can see the benefits of democracy tangible benefits of living in a system where people are free to express themselves, but where the marketplace is the economic determinant. Coming to another subject, what strategy the United States has adopted for conquering terrorism in Pakistan, in a very holistic manner? First of all, freedom defeats an ideology of hatred. And the enemy I say the enemy because they will kill they innocent Pakistanis; they kill innocent Americans We need more Muslims have died at the hands of Al Qaida and these extremists than anybody else. These I do not view these people as religious people. I view them as people who have taken a great religion and kind of twisted it to meet their means. And so they have a vision. And it is not a vision it is a vision that does not recognize the freedom of people to worship. It is a vision that does not understand the that recognize the importance of women in society or free speech. And so the way to defeat that vision is with a better vision, more hopeful, and democracy provides that vision. We are in close coordination, of course, with the Government of Pakistan. We share a mutual interest. Nobody should want foreign fighters in their soil wreaking havoc. And it is hard for a part of a country to develop if there are people in that part of the country that are willing to kill innocent life to achieve an objective. And so we share short-term objectives with the Pakistani Government. We also share the long-term objective, and that is that is freedom. I am looking forward to the trip.

dialogic

ENTITY, you know that the problem in Colombia is the fighting of this drug problem. And the newspapers in Colombia are very much in front of this thing. I personally had an experience just 2 weeks ago. I was in New York. I was invited to the Waldorf Astoria for dinner. And the person who invited me came to the Grand Central and walked from the Grand Central to the Waldorf Astoria, and in that short walk, four people offered him drugs. Is it in the United States that there is not enough control and enough punishment, enough action in that way? So, what can you tell our readers about that? Cano first, I strongly supported what President Barco said when he called attention of the world and certainly the United States to the consumption problem. We have no argument with that he is right. And what I am trying to do in our new antidrug strategy is to go after not only the criminals that sell drugs to your friend in those two blocks but the people that use it. We are coupling with that an all-out education program that is not just government but private sector as well. What concerns me and other leaders is that it is going not only into some countries in our own hemisphere, South America, but all through Europe. And I asked the Soviets if they had a problem with it, and it is everywhere. But I think when President Barco, my respected friend, pointed out, look, you have got to do something about consumption, he was right. And I have used that in speaking to leadership groups in this room and in others to try to encourage support for our antinarcotics program, which still does have strong support in our country, and for the legislation we need, getting tougher on the people that sell it, and for the education, of educating against being a user. ENTITY, Argentina is trying to restructure its highly inefficient economy. And that implies some degree of social tensions. And President Menem was here recently to explain some of these goals. What was your perception of these goals and these problems? And what do you think the U.S. can do to assist or help a country like Argentina dealing with these economic and social problems? In the first place, I was most impressed with President Menem not just here when he came to visit but at the United Nations when we sat together and had a chance to have a quick meeting. I think there is been a universal respect for what he is tried to do.

dialogic

He came out of one political background, and he has broadened the appeal not just to have support in the Argentine but in the United States as well. I told him we want to work with him on the debt problem. I realize it is not easy because Argentina does have a very large debt. But the elements of the Brady plan are there, and they can be very helpful to him. We want to encourage and be helpful in privatization, and I think there is ways that we can encourage investment in Argentina, given these political reforms. So, it is across the board; it is not just one program. But the thing that is impressed me is the toughness of the man and his willingness to make the tough decisions on getting his economic house in order and, indeed, what he is doing on the political front. So, I think you will see a whole new relationship between Argentina and the United States. This is on my mind because the Argentinian Ambassador presented his credentials yesterday, and well, he really said just about what I am saying here in terms of the feeling in Argentina about the United States. And I want to encourage as many of our top people to go there as possible; work closely with the finance people, the environment people, the military, whatever it is. So, we have a new era bilaterally; and I think, universally, there is a respect for what he is trying to do. first is subversion; second, the tensions in the military suspected of violation of human rights; and third, the economy and the foreign debt? Subversion: nobody is interested in doing anything other than to help stop possible subversion. Because as Chile moves towards its elections within the next few weeks, this is a very significant development; and it is one that, in my view, can result speaking as ENTITY in better relations with our country. On the military violations, this obviously is a matter where the people of Chile and the Government and everybody else has to respond. There is not much we can do about it. But I do not want to see in any country a military subvert the will of the people when democracy is on the move in this hemisphere a general answer to a specific question. Well, of course, Chile has been out in front of other countries in managing its economy, in spite of its difficulties in some areas. We talked about the politics, the political problem. But Chile, because of its I would not say economic miracle, but they have done far better.

dialogic

And the elements of support from the international institutions and again, on the Third World debt or their debt problems are in place pretty much in Chile. So, I am somewhat optimistic about their being about to cope financially, at least as we see it from the United States. ENTITY, in spite of superpower negotiations on regional issues, Soviet-bloc arms continue to pour into Nicaragua. What does your government plan to do about this? And do you plan to bring this up at the coming summit in San Jose? I will bring it up every chance I get And what we are trying to do is educate our friends in Europe and people who strongly support democracy all over the world that this is happening. I think people do not believe it. Secondly, we will continue to work with the Soviet Union. We had a little argument not argument, but they felt we had challenged their word on this whole question, as you remember, not so many weeks ago. And we were not doing that. We were pointing out the totality of the shipments, which are in the range that you have just outlined here. So, we will make clear every chance we get to the Soviets that that is not in their interests, and certainly we view it against the security interests of the United States, and we view it against the tide in terms of democracy. Why should that military clique, who at one point were espousing their own Marxist beliefs, deny, through having a military force far bigger than is required and bigger than any of its neighbors, the will of the people? So, it is a combination of these things. And I will be pleased to discuss it in Costa Rica; in Washington, DC; or anyplace else. And I think there is a little more understanding now in our country about it, but not as much as there should be, see, because the regime keeps denying this, you see. ENTITY, according to the Tela accords, which were signed recently by the five Central American Presidents, the Nicaraguan resistance must be demobilized and voluntarily repatriated by December 8th. With the economy of my country in terrible shape, Honduras is insisting that the resistance leave its territory by this date, December 8th. If the resistance does not want to return voluntarily to Nicaragua, for whatever reason, will the United States take them? And will you take this up with President Azcona when you meet with him in San Jose on Friday?

dialogic

one was voluntary repatriation, and I think the other was to democratic conditions, or something of that nature. And so, those two are the sine qua nons of demobilization, it seems to me. And so, I can sympathize; and, yes, I will be glad to discuss it further with President Azcona. I understand it does cause some differences, but I do not want to push for anything other than voluntary and then demobilization into democratic conditions. So, I think the major objective here should be to see that these elections are free and fair and that opposition and, yes, we will help with repatriation on those conditions, absolutely; we will help. But I must insist that all of us in this hemisphere and I will try to insist on this do what we can to be sure that these elections coming up in Nicaragua are free and fair and that the opposition has a chance to take its case to the people. And I am not just talking about 3 minutes on television at midnight. I think there is got to be a very fair presentation of the opposition case. So, I do not want to sound insensitive to what is happened, to the burden on Honduras. I am sensitive to it and am perfectly prepared to discuss it further with President Azcona. We discussed it when he was up here. But we are getting close now in terms of time, and these elections are the key to a lot of things. There have been reports of the United States concentrating troops along the Mexican border for drug interdiction matters. A, can you confirm that for us? And, B, given the nature of our border and the fact that Mexico uses a substantial part of its own army for the same purposes, would you like to see an operation on the border constrained to the border of Mexico and the United States designed to break up drug traffic and arms traffic coming from the United States into Mexico? I'd like to see the utmost cooperation between the military. I am not sure that I am prepared to endorse a joint force, and I am not sure Mexico President Salinas would want that. But I should tell you, we have reached a new level of cooperation because of the courage of the new President of Mexico. And in terms of our interdiction, what you may be thinking of is not a deployment of U.S. troops but using the National Guard in some areas on exercises to try to stop drugs from coming in.

dialogic

The more cooperation we have with Mexico along the lines you are talking about to interdict whether it is illegal arms going one way or illegal drugs coming another to have that border policed and peaceful, the better it is. But I am very encouraged by the cooperation we are getting all up and down the line from the Salinas administration, and I hope they are encouraged, because this is indeed a two-way street. And as one who feels very close to Mexico as you know, my grandchildren are half-Mexican, and this one is one that is real close to my heart. And I do not want to propose anything nor will I support anything that looks like an abuse of U.S. power. The way to do it is to work cooperatively with the Salinas regime and the officials in the military, policia, whatever it is, to accomplish the ends that both countries want. And I am not suggesting we do not have border problems. We do; Mexico does with us. But the level of cooperation has really stepped up. And our visit with the President here I think the more my high officials my Cabinet people that saw him, the more impressed they were. the economic crisis and the terrorist subversion. They limit and complicate any effective action which may be taken with regard to the drug traffic. Well, we have made some proposals on antinarcotics that affect Peru and affect Bolivia. But I think the way to answer that question is to say I enthusiastically look forward to participation in this so-called Andean drug summit, and we are going to be trying to set the along with as invitees and invitors. Now we have had official invitation from Bolivia and Colombia and Peru. And I think to really definitively answer your question we have got to have that meeting, because I do not want them to be making proposals that just go counter to the culture in Peru. And I want them to understand, though, how strongly we feel about it and how prepared we are to help them. So, we have made some proposals, and as you know, we have helped in the past, principally in Bolivia on helicopters and spraying. But I do not want to go further than that now until we have this summit. There is no point in having it if we have our minds already made up. I have got to hear from them. We have got to have a hemispheric answer, not just a U.S. proposal on it.

dialogic

ENTITY, ex-Secretary Schlesinger, writing in the Washington Post this morning, pointed to the increasing consumption of oil by the U.S. and the increasing dependency, as a result, on the Gulf region. Now, I know that, as a former oilman, you must be aware of the very large reserves in the hemisphere of heavy oil. I would be very wary of interjecting myself, our government, into the market. I'd be concerned about that. I can see the security argument that some might make, and it is valid. You have Mexico; you have the enormous resources in Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela; Colombia has some production. And you can make a case that there is more for the security interest of the United States in giving preference. My problem with it is it distorts the market, and it artificially could raise the price to the American consumer, or you could start regional conflict not military but economic conflict between the producing countries. And Saudi Arabia and, to some degree, Kuwait and Iran dominate the international oil market. And if we move to preferences, if we move to regional compacts of this nature, I think you could set off a price war that would damage the economy not just of the of every producing country. And that would work opposite of increasing prices here, but it would not be good for the economies that need to optimize their revenue from oil and gas. And I am talking about Mexico, and I am certainly talking about Venezuela. But I share Jim's I did not see this article, but I share his concern about my country becoming ever increasing on foreign sources. And that is why I have tasked Jim Watkins, our able Secretary of Energy, to come up with a national energy policy. It will be more use of domestic of gas, I am sure. It will be a vital industry in oil, but it will be alternate sources as well. We are not going to back away from nuclear power in this country. ENTITY, in Peru and my country, Bolivia, there are thousands of people working in the coca leaf fields because they do not have any other source of income. Unless there is a serious commitment from rich countries to help to create jobs through investments, for instance the narco traffic problem probably will not change. Julio , we certainly consider that. Again, that is a subject that I want to discuss with your new and, I'd say, very impressive President. Again, I had a good meeting with him.

dialogic

And I do not want to prejudge this so-called Andean drug summit, but we recognize that many of these small peasant farmers are dependent on coca crops. I also recognize that the business has gotten pretty good for them better than it used to be because more people, especially in my country, are using the damn stuff. But we have got to be openminded about alternative cropping. We have certainly got to be openminded about trying to get business opportunities that would take some of these farmers and get them involved in something other than producing coca. So, I am openminded, but again, I do not want to prejudge the summit. ENTITY, as you know, we will have Presidential elections in Brazil in 3 weeks. And the U.S.-Brazil relations have become a major issue in the political campaign. What I would like to know is your expectations regarding this election and what the new President, that will be elected by the people for the first time in almost 30 years, could expect from the U.S.? Let me answer your question, but let me ask for clarification. How has the U.S. become an issue in the election? And the heartbeat is democracy, I am convinced of that; that has not always been the history. I think that is the heartbeat in Brazil. So, the United States should stand ready, as we have with Argentina, to see what comes out of the election clearly, not be involved in the election and then stand ready with a friendly country and I think we do have friendly relations with Brazil to iron out what has cropped up as difficulties, be it in trade or something else. Look, you have got a new regime. What do you stand for? What kind of relations do you want with the United States? And we are ready we are ready to deal with you. And Brazil faces horrendous debt problems, too. One area that is been a little contentious has to do with the forests and with the environmental implications of that on global warming. And at first, I think there was a disconnect between Brazil and the United States, but now I do not think we are very far apart. We had a good talk with President Sarney in New York about this. And I think when we were talking about environmental set-asides he thought I was talking about intervention into the sovereignty or diminishing the sovereignty of Brazil. And heaven's sakes, we are not interested in that.

dialogic

We are interested in this concept of global warming and in working with Brazil in a constructive way. Without knowing who wins the election and what that person stands for, I'd have to wait and see. I would simply go back to Argentina, when some were predicting, I think we would all recognize, great difficulties if President Menem won the election. We had a lot of sophisticated guys telling me, hey, this would be not good for me, for the United States, for our country. We have all been through campaigns; we have listened to campaign rhetoric espoused a little myself from time to time. But look at the facts; look at where we are going. And we want to do that with Brazil, and we will. ENTITY, the drug fighting it is a matter of survival in Colombia and a way to defend our democracy. The Colombian Government established a reward of 100 million pesos to the person that provides any information in order to catch the big drug traffickers. However, they move to other countries, and the action has not been effective yet. Has the United States Government, through any international organization, considered the possibility of setting up a better and more attractive reward? I had not thought about the reward possibility. Maybe our Department of Justice has. So, I should hedge a little bit on that. What we have done is set up or are in the process of setting up much more cooperation with others in terms of the problem itself. In the first place, we have, I want to repeat, a great respect for what President Barco is doing against a lot of tough forces and against good God, here you guys are in the newspaper business, and just for printing the truth and standing up against this, you have been firebombed and had great difficulty. So, we can identify with that. So, I think it is going to be everyone knows our stance on extradition, and I understand it is not a particularly popular stance in some areas in Colombia. But the administration, President Barco, has been very good about that. Whether the reward I know we have some rewards, but whether it applies to this or not, I'd have to get you an answer. Marlin, if you would I am embarrassed to say I do not know the specific figures.

dialogic

If there was some feeling on the part of President Barco, on other leaders in the hemisphere, that this would be useful, I can guarantee you I would give it fast consideration, because we have got to show that we are doing what we can against consumption your point and that we want to cooperate in every way possible to bring these people to justice. ENTITY, the drug cartel has sent various messages to the Colombian Government and to the Colombian Congress seeking some sort of dialog to end the war. In their last message 2 days ago, they even proposed that this subject should be put to a referendum. They have specifically offered to dismantle all their operations, to retire completely from the business, and to eliminate drug trafficking from Colombia. What would be your reaction if the Colombian Government would eventually agree to this dialog? I would let the Colombians make their determination on how they want to treat problems in their own country. But I would be very wary of taking the word of an indicted drug dealer. I would be extraordinarily worried about that because I do not think they keep their word. I think these are people that the background on some of them, you know well, were common criminals until they got into the lucrative business of poisoning the kids not just in the United States but in Colombia as well and every other country as well. So, I am not sure the Colombian officials need free advice from me, but I would be very wary about that negotiation. And I think that the Government of Colombia has been very wary about that kind of negotiation because they know the kind of people they are dealing with. ENTITY, Colombia's war on drugs can only be sustained if the country's economy is strengthened. Eighty-seven million dollars, which was given to our country basically in military equipment, is a welcome aid. We were very grateful for your help. But we feel that in order to maintain the proper political attitude of the Colombian people towards drugs much more for the country's economy is needed. Could you consider and perhaps the meeting at the Andean summit might be the place to give, eventually, discussion to this would you be able to consider a type of Marshall plan for countries such as Colombia that are decidedly and deeply involved in the war on drugs? Well, again, I would be willing to consider anything. And I hate to cry poor mouth we are living under constraints on the economic side that I wish we were not living under.

dialogic

But we did discuss with the President of Colombia the egregious effect that the coffee agreement has had on the overall economy and, thus, the resources available to help fight narcotics. So, we told him, look, we are going to try to help reinstate this agreement. It is not a popular thing in this country because people think, hey, I am going to have to pay more for a cup of coffee; but we ought to go the extra mile here in trying to help Colombia. And so, it is with that in mind on that one facet of the problem I think we can try to help. But, look, if there is some bold plan that can come out of this summit that will help in the areas that produce it and then Colombia, which has both production and has become this factory, really, for these people we should be openminded about it and go the extra mile to try to help on the economic because I do see the connection. We do not just say, look, you do something about these drugs crime, criminals, explosions, arms and then forget the economy. We are not going to do that. But I have got to stop a little short until I know what the view of these leaders will be when we get there. The celebration of the 100 years of Costa Rican democracy will make you coincide in our country with Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega. I have thought about that. Is there a possibility that you will be meeting or would you be willing to meet President Ortega in Costa Rica, and what topics would you be willing to discuss with him? We are there as guests of President Arias. This is a multilateral approach, coming there to salute democracy. I find it somewhat ironic that Mr. Ortega is there to salute democracy, but nevertheless, so be it; that is good. We want to have a tribute to 100 years of Costa Rican democracy, and what we do not want to do is inject a lot of regional tensions into their meeting. But I am going to be polite, charming and if I had an encounter, it would be very firm because I do not see why that one Sandinista regime is swimming against the tide, as Chairman Mao used to say. The aspirations in our hemisphere, in all these countries, is for democracy; and you see it happening all the time just heard about it around this table by your very questions.

dialogic

And Marx's star is fading not just in this hemisphere but look at Eastern Europe, look around the whole world and human rights are rising up, and pluralism is coming on. So, let the Nicaraguan people speak to this question. They do not need George Bush telling them how to do it. Let them speak to it and be sure that the opposition has every opportunity to take their case to the people of Nicaragua. But it is not going to help to have me go through this once again with Mr. Ortega. I had a chance to do that in Brazil. He knows how I feel about it, and everybody knows we have a tense relationship. So, I do not want to act like we are waltzing around there in great harmony, because we are not. And there are so many ways that they can prove that they want to join the family of nations in this hemisphere stay with it, and stop subverting El Salvador in the process would be a good way to begin. We stopped a major shipment of arms interdicted the other day going into El Salvador. So, I have no agenda with Mr. Ortega. And as he takes a step that might lead to democracy, great, I am for that; but we are not going to solve any problems there in Costa Rica. I am there as the guest of the country, guest of President Arias. I wish Mr. Ortega had been there when Arias was sworn in, and I will tell you why. I realize that the United States has varying degrees of problems in our own hemisphere for a lot of historic reasons. Maybe you were there this day I am talking about. I represented the United States as Vice President. You had 30,000 people in a stadium in the capital. And what you did was to go in there, everybody lined up behind their flag. And I am saying to myself, I do not know what kind of reception I am going to get the U.S. Stars and Stripes and the Vice President I know we have got good relations with Costa Rica, but a lot of other countries represented. I swear to God, to the day I die I will never forget the reception for my country. It was not me they did not know who the hell I was but marching in behind the Stars and Stripes with our little delegation, and people were cheering, and it was democracy. It overlooked any kind of regional differences, and it was so moving and touching.

dialogic

And when the Nicaraguan representative walked in there, they were whistling and giving it the old cheer that you give when some guy gives you a bad call in a soccer game. And it said something. I am standing, listening very carefully to this what are the people trying to say? and it is not we love you, North Americanos or anything like this. And it made a profound impression on me. And I do not think there is going to be an occasion for that kind of thing. But if Mr. Ortega had been there instead of his representative, Vice President Ramirez, he would have heard this, and he would have sensed it. He would have understood what the Costa Ricans were talking about when they had this peaceful transition yet again the will of the people being exercised. Sorry to end with a lecture, but it is a good ending point because we are not going down there to have some battle with Mr. Ortega. But I am there to celebrate the Costa Rican democracy, 100 years of it, and to join other democratically elected Presidents in saluting the democracy of this country and recognizing that it has not been easy for Argentina or Brazil or some countries to come out of a different kind of a past, even though the people probably never lost their confidence in democracy. And so, that is what we are going there for. And I just hope that it does not get cluttered up by the photographers that work for you guys wanting to see a picture of me and Ortega together. That has nothing to do with democracy in Costa Rica nothing. ENTITY, on Mr. Noriega we each asked our question. Will you answer one question on Noriega? You have been criticized in this country politically and some of the media for the way you reacted in the coup in Panama. You said that you acted according to what you felt. I was not criticized by any of the Presidents of the countries around this table, I noticed not one. We have got a lot of hawks out here; we have got a lot of macho guys out there that want me to send somebody else's kid into battle. And what I will do is prudently assess the situation at the time, and I have seen nothing in terms of intelligence or fact coming in later that would make me have done something differently. And that does not mean that under some provocation or some denial of our rights as the United States of America, that I'd be afraid to use force.

dialogic

But for these instant hawks up there to those doves that now become instant hawks on Capitol Hill, they do not bother me one bit because the American people supported me by over 2 to 1, and I think I sent a strong signal to the countries represented around this table that we are not going to imprudently use the force of the United States. If somebody lays a glove on an American citizen there in the Canal Zone or where we have certain treaty rights, then we have got a different story. Will you participate in the next uprising? And this man must be brought to justice. You know, one of the hits they gave me is I said that we have no argument with the Panamanian Defense Forces. And some of our more sophisticated columnists, perhaps who you are referring to, say the minute the President says this, this implies that he is going to use U.S. force. I am not going to do that. But it does not imply I am not going to use force. So, I am not going to say what I am going to do force or no force but there is no implicit guarantee that when some guy jumps up and causes a coup, that the United States is going to send in the SOUTHCOM forces. So, we took a few hits on it, but not too much. But when I had the Prime Minister of Spain here the other day, he understood it. And it is very important to me, I think, as it relates to this hemisphere that we all love so much, too. The minute Noriega gets out of there, the minute he is gone unless replaced by a tyrant, so I reserve that but the minute he is gone, we have instantly improved relations with Panama. We have good relations with the people of Panama. And I will be darned if we should sit here, as countries that respect democracy, and let this man beat up the Vice President, Guillermo Ford, beat the hell out of him and bleed him out there, to avert democracy. We are talking about the trend for democracy, and Panama is entitled to it. And it cannot be superimposed by the United States, but they spoke in a free and fair election, and they are entitled to it. And I am going to do everything I can from up here. I am working with our colleagues in the hemisphere, Venezuelan President and others, to try to see that the will of the people is respected. And Noriega is the fly in the ointment.

dialogic

We share a strong commitment to curtailing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in general and to continuing the work in Iraq. And again let me say how pleased I am at the agreement that he worked out with Iraq to continue the inspections, as well as the access which has been provided to the UNSCOM inspectors which was previously denied. The last 6 days is not the same as the next 6 months, but it is all very hopeful. And ENTITY deserves a lot of appreciation from the United States and from all Americans for the work that has been done. ENTITY, are you both on the same wavelength in terms of what would happen if there is a breach in the agreement in the aftermath of that implementation? Well, over the weekend ENTITY said he thought that under the resolution there would have to be some consultations before any military force could be taken or used. We believe that the resolution gives us the authority to take whatever actions are necessary. But of course, we would consult. It would be unthinkable that we would not do that. We do that all the time anyway. I spent an awful lot of time on the telephone with large numbers of world leaders in the last several weeks as this difficulty has unfolded, and so I am not sure there is a conflict between our positions. What do you think, ENTITY? I think what ENTITY has said is exactly what I said on television on Sunday. And not only was ENTITY himself informed, as you will recall, Mrs.- the Secretary of State Albright consulted Council members, Ambassador Richardson, Secretary of Defense Cohen-and so there was consultation even this time around. So the consultation is an ongoing process and part of the way we do business in the international community. And I agree with what ENTITY has said. ENTITY, what do you think about Senator Lott's criticism that this agreement is a sellout? The agreement on its own terms is clearly not a sellout. The agreement on its own terms preserves the integrity of the UNSCOM inspections. It does add some diplomats to the inspection process in the Presidential sites, but if the agreement is complied with-and again, I think ENTITY did a good job working through these issues over the weekend-then we will be able to do what the United States has always wanted, which is to complete the inspection process. Again, let me say-I know I do not need to beat this dead horse, but I think it is worth repeating one more time.

dialogic

I see this issue with Iraq in the larger context of the threat I believe will be presented to the world for the next few decades from biological and chemical and perhaps even, God forbid, small-scale nuclear weapons-a different sort of weapons of mass destruction threat than we have faced in the past. And world leaders simply have to come to grips with the potential that is out there for organized groups-not just nations but terrorist groups, narcotraffickers, international criminals-to make and deploy such weapons for their own purposes, so that this is very important on its own merits. But it is also very important as the first of what I believe will have to be a many, many year effort by all peace-loving people to deal with this issue. ENTITY, how would you feel about testifying or talking to the grand jury and in some way giving your side of the story in the ongoing controversy? Well, you know I am not going to talk about that today. I have got to do the work that the people of this country hired me to do, so I cannot -I am not going to discuss that. Sir, with your pledge to cooperate fully, as you mentioned when this story first broke-- I wish you would concentrate on my issues. I just do not have anything else to say about it. ENTITY Sir, are you going to embrace the Conrad bill for tobacco, sir? Let me say-I'd like to answer that question and then, if I could, I'd like to make one comment about Kosovo before you leave. I have said that the Conrad bill embraces the principles that I feel strongly about. I have not reviewed all of its provisions, and I am not sure exactly what it does, for example, on the tobacco farmer issue, but in general I think Senator Conrad has put out a very good bill. And what I hope will happen is that either his bill will attract bipartisan support or that it will lead to a bipartisan bill reflecting the principles that I have outlined in the tobacco settlement- for the tobacco settlement. I personally believe, even though there are now less than 70 scheduled work days left in this year, that Congress ought to have no higher priority than to get this done. We need to do this and get this behind us. We do not need to wait until next year. Let me just make one comment if I might about Kosovo, because the Secretary of State has just returned from an arduous trip.

dialogic

The United States and I condemn in the strongest possible terms excessive violence that has led to the death of innocent civilians there. We believe the cause of it is the inadequate response by the Serbian Government to the legitimate concerns of the Albanian minority in Serbia, but majority in Kosovo. I believe that the decision that the Secretary and other world leaders reached in the last few days, the reimposition of the sanctions, and the strong statements that were made coming out of the Contact Group, and the unity of the countries gives us some hope that we can resolve this. But this is a matter of great concern to me; I know it is of great concern to ENTITY. We do not want the Balkans to have more pictures like we have seen in the last few days, so reminiscent of what Bosnia endured. And I just want to make it absolutely clear that to me it is a very serious issue. consider military action, sir, as your Secretary of State has said in the past, and others? But the Secretary of State, along with all of her colleagues-and there is been remarkable unanimity on this- they have taken a position that gives us a chance to avoid further bloodshed by all parties under all conditions. That is what I want. Have you been in touch with Milosevic? Will you have some travel tips on Africa for ENTITY? I think I will be discussing a few interesting things, and I have one or two ideas that I would want to put to ENTITY. I think it is great that he is going to Africa, and I think it is good for U.S.-African relationship, and the entire continent is excited that for the first time a sitting U.S. ENTITY is doing this. And it is a sign that U.S.-African relationship is on the upswing. And I am very pleased about that. ENTITY, will the American people hear your version in the Lewinsky matter? Well, we are going to discuss that. We are working very hard on that. We are doing everything we can to get it back on track. And I hope we can have a chance to talk about it. Will this visit have helped in some way?

dialogic

We are in the Cabinet Room at the White House in this Christmas season. It is a great pleasure to have as our special guest, as part of our millennium month, the ENTITY. Do you spend a lot of time-do you have a lot of Cabinet meetings? And I have a lot of other meetings in here, like with individual Cabinet members. I met this week with three or four different Cabinet members and extended staff here. So we have large meetings in here. This room is, like, right off the Oval Office? That is right, right off the Oval Office. Did they plan it that way so the ENTITY could run right in and meet with- how often do you have Cabinet meetings? I do not have too many full Cabinet meetings, because we have 23 members of the Cabinet plus Chief of Staff. So I have a few of those a year, when we have to do a review and get all geared into one issue or another. But I have a lot of meetings with various Cabinet officials in this room and with maybe more than one who are all working on a common project. We have a lot to talk about, and I want to get an overview as we look ahead to this millennium but cover some current things. That is the basis of the State Department yesterday-should we travel; should we stay home? We are told the Cabinet members have been asked to stay home or stay in Washington. The Cabinet members are staying here, but it is really just as a precaution, because we feel a high level of confidence about where we are with the Y2K problems. We have been working on this for years. We have spent a lot of money on it; we have tried to get all the private sector involved. All the big systems in this country, I think-airline travel, banking systems, electrical systems, Social Security checks-all those things I think are in good shape. We are here partly as a precaution and partly so, if any of our friends in other parts of the world have any trouble, we can all be there to give whatever help we can. And how about the terrorism threat, where people are asked to be careful, especially overseas, and we have these arrests occurring in Washington and Vermont? Well, what I would say to the American people about that is that we know that at the millennium, a lot of people who may even be a little crazy by our standards or may have a political point to make, may try to take advantage of it.

dialogic

So we are on a heightened state of alert. We are working very hard on it. And my advice to the American people would be to go on about their business and do what they would intend to do at the holiday season but to be a little more aware of people and places where they find themselves. And if you see something suspicious, well, call us and let us know. We are working very, very hard on this. And if it were me, I would not just refrain from activities. I am going to go out and do my Christmas shopping. I am going to do what I normally do. Are you saying if you have a hunch about something, go to the hunch? If you have a hunch about something, if you see something that is suspicious, you should report it, just to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to maximize our protection. Colin Powell says that maybe by doing all this, you have scared them off. You know, if you make people fear the alert so much, that might cause terrorists to have a second thought. Well, they should have a second thought, because we are working it hard. Let us discuss some things political-one of your main-you know that. Do you agree with Al Gore's request to have debates? I do not want to get into handicapping the campaign. I think that the more debates they have, the better. I am very proud to be a member of my party when I see those two debate. They have their ideas. You know I favor the Vice President and not just because I feel personally loyal to him. I think he is been by light-years the best Vice President this country has ever had, by a long, long way. But I think the fact that he and Bill Bradley are out there talking about education; they are talking about health care; they are talking about biomedical research; and they know what they are talking about; and they have thought about these things-I think it is a very substantive, good thing. And that is what I think elections ought to be about, so I am proud of that. Were you surprised at the idea, though, to say, let us forget-you know, Goldwater and Kennedy were going to do that. I was intrigued by it. If someone had offered me that in 1992, I probably would have done it.

dialogic

Yes, probably, because I think we need to find out whether we can have elections without the kind of money that they cost today, and we cannot have them without that kind of money unless people can have access, the candidates can have access to the voters. That is, what costs all the money is access to the voters. Barry Goldwater had told me that he and John Kennedy had arranged that if Goldwater would be the nominee in '64, had Kennedy lived, they were going to travel around together. And I'd like to see it happen in a general election. I do not think it is necessary for the voters to be for one person but think that the other person is a bad person. And I think it is very bad development in our politics. So if there could be a way to be more and more debates, not only now but in the general election, I think it would be a good thing for American democracy. I did three last time and three the time before, but I would have done six or seven or however many. I believe in this. You say, of course, you are supporting your Vice President. What do you think of Bill Bradley, though? Oh, I have known him for many years. I like him. He is had a very interesting life, and he is got an interesting take on things. Kennedy could run with Johnson. You picked a man from a neighboring State to run with you. Do you understand the difficulty of a Vice President running? But it gets easier as time goes on and people focus on it. But I think that, as I said, when Harry Truman became President, he did not even know about the atomic bomb. And we had already lost five or six Presidents in office by the time he became President. Both of them had responsibility in office. Then President Carter upped the ante more; Vice President Mondale had far more responsibility than anybody had before. President Reagan, to his credit, gave President Bush a lot of responsibility. But no Vice President has ever had the range of responsibility and the level of achievement, accordingly, that Al Gore has had, whether it was in our technology policy, our environmental policy, our foreign policy, the economic empowerment of poor areas. If something happened to you, there is not surprise we have to tell him?

dialogic

There would be nothing- if something were to happen to me tonight, he could become President, and there would be nothing he would not know, no person he had not met, no issue he had not dealt with. We will be right back with the ENTITY, at this Christmas season. Speaking of debates, it was Vice President Gore's idea, we just reminded each other, to debate Perot. And I understand you were the only one here that agreed with that. They all thought there was a lot of downside to it. But I wish we had more debates in recent years on trade policy, because it is such a controversial thing. Everybody is for selling more of our exports. Everybody has the feeling, because we have a big trade deficit, that people take advantage of us. People are worried about losing their jobs, even though the unemployment rate is at a 30-year low. And I think we need to continue to debate this. I wish we had more of them. I hope there will be some trade debates in this election. Did Seattle throw you, ENTITY? I ask that because Governor Bush was with us last week, and he agrees completely with you on the trade issue, but he said he thought-I am paraphrasing-that you kind of copped out, that you did not forcefully attack those people who were demonstrating; you sort of rode the middle. Well, first of all, I attacked those who were violent in no uncertain terms. And I said to those who were demonstrating for a cleaner environment or for decent labor standards that I thought their concerns were legitimate but their opposition to the trade agreement was wrong. And that is what I believe. And I think that we are a little different on that. I mean, I strongly agree, and most Republicans that apparently agree with me that we ought to have expanded trade. We benefit, not just from the exports; we also benefit from the influence. You have got an- time, so do I. We benefit in that an open market enables us to grow and still have to compete, and that keeps inflation down.

dialogic

One of the reasons-in February we are going to have the longest economic expansion in the history of the country, and we did it with three things We did it with getting rid of the debt-deficit; we did it with investing in technology and people; and we did it with opening our borders in trading and continuing to compete, because usually, when you have this kind of economic growth, inflation takes over and kills the recovery. But the difference between me and most Republicans is that I believe that globalization is inevitable. But people are scared of all this change, and what we have to do is to convince them that change can be their friend. And the way to do it is to say, Okay, we are going to compete, and we are going to win over the long run, and we are going to win in the short run. no forced labor, no child labor, no abusive working conditions. Did Seattle surprise you? I think-I knew there would be a lot of people there. I was surprised the first night at the level of violence. Who instigated it, you mean? Yes, throw rocks-there was just a very small percentage of those thousands of people who were doing this. There were probably a couple of hundred people who were prepared to throw rocks at stores and take other violent action. Most of them were there to express their opposition to some aspect or another of this process of globalization, but they cannot turn the clock back. The world is better off than it would have been if we had not had 50 years of increasing economic integration, and America has won big these last 7 years by being involved. And we are making a huge mistake, in my judgment, if we do not continue to both expand trade and work for better core labor standards in a better environment. Do the unions then not understand this? They are the biggest supporters your party has-the trade unions in America have been. If you look at Seattle, for example, there are 170,000 union members in and around Seattle. And most of them have jobs in part because their companies are so tied to trade. I went to York, Pennsylvania, the other day to the Harley Davidson motorcycle factory, something most-at least most guys and an increasing number of women can identify with. They have got a year's backlog, and 25 percent of the Harleys are sold overseas, and the biggest foreign market is now Japan, which makes the only competitors to Harley and motorcycles.

dialogic

Some unions feel that their jobs might be undercut by the importation of textile or clothing goods or shoes or whatever, but on balance, we have won big as a country by opening our markets, showing we are not afraid to compete, and asking others to open their markets, too, to be fair, whether it is farmers or manufacturers or people in entertainment or people in the information technology business. Is it tough going into a last year? I ask that because we sat together here quite a few times. I remember once we were looking out, and you said to me, You know, my bad days are good days. I love this job. You love this job. And I will miss it. People ask me all the time, What will you miss most? Will it be living in the White House, going to Camp David, getting on Air Force One? The job is what I will miss most, the work. There is no place in the world where you can come in contact with so many different kinds of people and so many different kinds of issues and have so much opportunity to do good or stop bad things from happening. But the hard thing about it now is you want to do everything, and you have to be disciplined. You have to figure out what can I do? What can I put out there that the country ought to do that maybe cannot be done while I am here? I just want to do everything I can. We will be back with the working ENTITY right after this. A lot of them are saying it should be changed. What do you think? I tried to have a different policy. I tried to say gays should be able to serve in the military-- But if the military code of justice says that homosexual acts are illegal, if they keep it, then they'd have to observe that. But when we went to do not ask, do not tell, it was all we could get through the Congress. The Congress had a vetoproof majority to reverse the policy I recommended. Now a new administration and new Members of Congress, they are free to do something different. What we are doing now-in August, we issued some new guidelines to try to correct some of the abuses, because the policy, as it was articulated in '93, has been often abused, and that is what is led to some of these expulsions, some of this harassment. The Secretary of Defense is absolutely committed to faithfully implementing the policy.

dialogic

It is really do not ask, do not tell, do not pursue, under those circumstances. No, I did not say that. I recommended a different policy, but the policy is better than the results. That is, if the policy were faithfully applied, we would not have many of the problems that we have had these last few years. And I think the Secretary of Defense and the leadership of the Pentagon is now- with these new guidelines and with the work they are doing to try to make sure people are trained and they understand they are not supposed to go in and harass people and what can and cannot trigger an inquiry, I think we can make it better now. How much-we know about your interest and the gains we have made in the racial area and still a long way to go. How are we doing in that area, in the homosexual area in this country, with regards to acceptance, do you think? We are a long way from where we were just in '92 and '93. I think vast majorities of the American people support hate crimes legislation that protects gays as well as people with different racial and religious backgrounds. I think most Americans strongly support nondiscrimination in the workplace and would vote for the employment nondiscrimination act if they were in Congress. I hope that the Congress will vote for it this year, this next year. I think that-the real problem, I still believe, is the absence of open, personal contact. We do not know it-- I think there are too many people who do not know gay men and lesbian women in the ordinary course of their lives, and they do not see that there are people who- their friends, their sisters, their brothers, their sons, their daughters, their co-workers, and that it is-my judgment is it is not a lifestyle people choose. I think that-and I think that my view is that every American that works hard, obeys the law, plays by the rules ought to be treated with dignity and respect and have a part in our American family. That is what I believe. Do you agree with the Vermont judiciary that while marriage may be wrong, they are entitled, couples who live together who are gay, to equal benefits? That is always been my position, that- you have got gay couples that, for example, have been together for years now.

dialogic

One of them- and I am beginning to think about this, because I am moving into this age bracket now; one of them has a heart attack; one of them gets sick; one of them is in the intensive care unit in the hospital; and only family members can come in; and sometimes they are not allowed in-that kind of thing. You know, I think that, in terms of health care coverage at work or in terms of property and willing of property to your closest family member, that sort of thing, I think they ought to be able to do that. Well, marriage in our culture and to me has a certain connotation, meaning for me, that has not gotten me to where I could accept that, because I think it is basically a union for the purpose of, among other things, having children, and so that is why I have never supported the term of marriage, although there are a lot of increasing numbers of people, even in the clergy, who believe that they should be able to do that. We will be back with more of ENTITY. We have got an overview here on the millennium and some other things after this. We are in the Cabinet Room at the White House with ENTITY. The Washington Post said that you are applying to the Government to reimburse for legal fees. I have never-I have never considered doing that. So where did that story come from? I think it was leaked from the Independent Counsel's Office. That is the way the story read to me. I think that they have cost the taxpayers enough money already. I may be entitled to it, but my instinct is not to do it. But I have really never had a discussion about it. My instinct is not to do it. I have had this legal defense fund; people have helped me pay for my legal fees. The travesty in this thing is the way the law is written. You can only get your legal fees if you are a target of an investigation but you are not charged. So if you are charged and acquitted, you cannot get them, and if you never were a target, you cannot get them. So the thing that I think is just tragic is you have no idea how many completely innocent people that were harassed repeatedly and called into hearings and called into this, that, and the other thing.

dialogic

Everybody knew they never did anything wrong, but I mean, not just one interview which you could understand but over and over and over again, so that they have these massive legal bills, and they are not eligible for any reimbursement at all. So I have been trying to figure out how to help them pay their legal bills. That is what I wish I could apply for. I wish there was some fund where I could get some money for them to pay their bills, because a lot of these people, they are not President; they are not like me; they cannot have a legal defense fund that would pay their bills off. How did you emotionally hold up through all that? Is that part of your structure? Where does that come from? One is what you said. If somebody hits you and knocks you down, you were supposed to get up, not give up. And I also deeply believed- one thing I knew, the Whitewater thing was a total fraud, and I thought the people who were pursuing it knew it was a fraud at some point . They had to, especially 4-something years ago, when the Government report came out, the RTC report saying that neither my wife or I had done anything wrong and had detailed millions of dollars in explanations showing that. The other thing was that I am -in the last couple of years, I had to come to terms with a lot of things. I prayed a lot; I thought a lot; I sought a lot of advice. I had a lot of help from really good people, here and around the world. A lot of the people I served with, world leaders, called and talked to me. Are you surprised at that? I was touched by it beyond belief. Some of the conversations I had with people like Nelson Mandela, I have carried with me all my life. They were there for you? And that was part of the-- But here-but also, letters I got from, you know, kids around America. You would not believe the letters I got from-- And letters I got from religious leaders and people that taught philosophy and thought about these things. It was just-and I also had a lot of counseling, a lot of help from these ministers who came in and met with me, and my wife and daughter had a lot to do with it Hillary and Chelsea had a lot to do with it.

dialogic

Are you hurt by the Dick Morrises, the Stephanopouloses who write books, who write columns, become part of the media sometimes, in Morris's case, often a very critical- a guy you were pretty close to? Does that hurt you? Well, first of all, I am very grateful for the overwhelming loyalty that I have enjoyed from people who could have made a lot of money by dumping on me because that is what sells and the kind of media culture they were in. And I have enjoyed an extraordinary degree of it. I have also had a lot of stability. A lot of people have stayed with me the whole time. So let me start with my gratitude. When Dick first started going on television and saying those things, he used to call somebody here in the office and apologize in advance and just say, You know, I have got to do this. It is the only way I can get on television. I know that. And so it is hard for me to take it seriously. I think that a lot of the things that he has said, he knows downright are not true, and I feel bad for him because I think you pay a terrible price when you do that over and over and over again. You feel bad for him? I feel really bad for him. And he is said a lot of things that he just knows are not so. And so I feel badly for him. But I do not -I cannot be mad at him. With George, it is a different story. But when George entered politics, he entered as a boy wonder. He came right in with Dick Gephardt, you know, and he assumed great responsibilities because he is a person of-he works like crazy, and he is smart, and he is basically good-hearted in a lot of ways. I remember when I was attacked in the New Hampshire primary, and everybody said, He is dead, and he ought to get out, and all that, George was asking, Well, should we withdraw? And James Carville and I, who grew up in the country, you know, out there with the folks, we looked at him and said, George, if the people want me to withdraw, they will withdraw me at election time. That is what you have got elections for. And I think that-I think he is probably more comfortable now being a part of the professional critics of the Washington establishment, the media establishment.

dialogic

That is where he started in politics, and I think that is just where he is. Do those pundits in general bother-do they get at you? Some guy-Truman wrote that famous note when he got mad. I have got that note, you know. You have the actual note? One of the great little stories of my Presidency is Steve Forbes gave me that letter that Truman wrote. I have always been grateful to him. SOB he called that writer. Yes, he said, You will need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a --- Do you ever watch ENTITY Live or Meet The Press or somebody-do you get mad? No, the truth is I never watch them. I never watch the Sunday talk shows. And the only time I ever see any of these other programs is if I am channel surfing late at night and I happen to run into them. I watch your program sometimes when you are interviewing somebody I want to hear from. But basically, you do not turn on Meet The Press or And if I did, what good would that do me? If someone-if I read a column, like an op-ed column, of someone who says, I think the ENTITY administration policy is all wet on this for these reasons, I read that, because Benjamin Franklin said, Our critics are our friends. They show us our faults. But I cannot-you cannot afford to be angry as ENTITY. If you are angry all the time over things people say about you-you can be angry about what happens to the American people. But if you are angry about what happens to you, then you are wasting a lot of time and emotional energy that belongs to the American people. And you are not going to make good decisions. So nothing really good can come with that. You really feel like an employee of the people? We will be back with some more moments with ENTITY from the Cabinet Room in the White House. We are back with ENTITY. I want to read something that was given to me today. The last time-not the last time, we have been together many times, but the night Vince Foster died, you were on television together, in this building. We were the last two to know about it. We were going to go another half hour, and McLarty came on and said, You cannot do it.

dialogic

But anyway, that aside, the last question to you that night was called in by someone asking you, even though you had only been a year, less than a year in office, what do you think your legacy will be? I will be happy to tell you. Number two, I'd like to provide health security for all Americans. Number three, I want my national service plan to pass to open doors of college education to millions of Americans. Number four, I strongly want to pass a welfare reform bill that will move people from welfare to work. And five, I want to reform the political system. Reading this, how have you done? And we have made-we have done some really good things in health care; we just have not been able to have universal access. And I finally got-I am very proud of this- we had 100 percent of my party vote for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. So we now have unified the Democratic Party for our campaign finance reform, and it is just a question of whether the other party will come along now. We have done a lot of other things as well, and we have been able to advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, the Balkans. I am sorry we were not able to have more progress in health care, but we may have some this year. The main thing is I feel this enormous gratitude because I think our country is ending this century on such a high note, and I really do think we built our bridge to the 21st century. And are you going to campaign for Hillary? But I think that there is a time for that. I think in the beginning people want to know who she is, what she believes, what she will do as a Senator, and they will want to see her. And I need to be as supportive of her as I can. There will come a time when I can perhaps help her in the campaign. The people of New York have been wonderful to me, and I am very grateful for that. But they want to make an independent judgment about her, so I have to be careful about when I do it and how I do it. But if and when I can help, I will do whatever I can to help, because first of all, for her, I want her to win. It would be such a gift for the people of New York and America.

dialogic

As you know, there is a lot of mistrust in the country about what the government does, why it does it. On Friday, the SEC, headed by a chair you appointed, accused Goldman Sachs of securities fraud just as the financial regulation reform debate was heating up in the Senate. What do you say to people out there who say there was something fishy and political about that? Well, what I'd say is that I gave a speech about financial regulatory reform in 2007 before our current crisis, in 2008, before we fully knew what this crisis was going to be. We released financial reform as a package over a year ago. And so we are not Johnny-come-latelies to this thing. We have been pushing this hard throughout. And the SEC is an entirely independent agency that we have no day-to-day control over. And they have never discussed with us anything with respect to the charge that will be brought. So this notion that somehow there would be any attempt to interfere in an independent agency is completely false. So you can say categorically, no winks, no heads up in advance, no signal from anyone? We found out about it on CNBC. In the 2008 campaign, you got a lot of money, about $1 million from employees of Goldman Sachs. Your former White House counsel Greg Craig is apparently going to represent Goldman Sachs. In light of this case, do either of those things embarrass you? First of all, I got a lot of money from a lot of people. And the vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country. And moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record, again, in 2007, 2008, pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business. And so nobody should be surprised in the position that I am taking now, because it is one that I was very clear about during the course of the campaign. As far as my former White House counsel Greg Craig, he is one of the top lawyers in the country. He has a range of clients. But we have the toughest ethics rules that any president has ever had. And the one thing that he knows is is that he cannot talk to the White House, he cannot lobby the White House. Once he left the White House, he cannot in any way use his former position to have any influence on us.

dialogic

And so neither of those things, I think, are going to have any bearing on how we move forward on this issue of Wall Street reform. But the circumstance of him representing Goldman Sachs in this case, in light of the federal action, is not a problem in itself. He is a top lawyer who is being hired to deal with an investigation that is ongoing. Let me ask you a broader question about Wall Street. Should average Americans think about big Wall Street institutions the way that some come to think about tobacco companies? That is, companies whose core activities are harmful to the country? I think that, and I have said this repeatedly, we have to have a thriving financial sector, because, essentially, part of what is made America so successful is our ability, if we have got a dream and we want to go get some financing for the next Apple computer, the next iPod, the next, you know, invention out there, that we are able to go and get investors to finance our dream and make it happen. So we have got to have a thriving and effective financial sector. But we also have to have basic rules of the road in place to make sure that investors, consumers, shareholders, the economy as a whole are protected against excess, are protected against wild gambles that are taken purely because it is good for somebody's year-end bonus as opposed to because there is some economic function that actually contributes to society as a whole. And I think that throughout our history, there have been times where the financial sector swung way out of balance. That is part of what happened back in the 1930s and 1929 after the crash, and FDR came in place and said, we are going to set up some rules so that we do not have bank runs, so that there is not wild speculation. We have gotten into one of those places where we need to update those rules of the road. And if we do so, not only is that good for the economy, not only does it protect consumers and investors, it is also good for the financial sector, because it will rebuild trust, and people will have confidence that when they are dealing with banks, when they are dealing with these institutions, that they in fact are playing it straight, above board, and they are competing on the basis of who is providing the best services and the best products as opposed to who is got the most creative accounting rules or who is able to concoct the wildest derivatives that may serve no economic function whatsoever

dialogic

Some of the institutions and their lobbyists do not seem to think it would be so good for them. They have made out very well under a regime in which, when things were going well, they were making huge profits. And when things did not go well and everything crashed, taxpayers were left footing the bill. I, and I think a vast majority of Americans, think it is unacceptable to have a situation in which tails you win and heads I lose. And taxpayers have been put in the position where they had to make a choice a couple of years ago, either we let the entire economy crash because of irresponsibility on Wall Street, or alternatively we end up having to pony up money. The core of the Wall Street reforms that we are proposing is to make sure, number one, that we do not have to bail out firms if they acted recklessly, that we can unwind them in an orderly fashion that protects the economy as a whole and taxpayers are not on the hook. Number two, that instruments like derivatives, very complicated instruments that are hugely leveraged and can put everybody at risk -- what Warren Buffett called financial weapons of mass destruction -- that those are all put in an exchange, in a clearinghouse so that everybody knows exactly what is going on. And again, taxpayers are not on the hook. And that we have got very strong consumer protections so that we do not have people being fooled or tricked into instruments that end up putting in a very difficult financial situation and erode the health of the economy as a whole. When you spoke in New York a few months ago to a lot of those Wall Street executives, you urged them, even in the absence of a law, to take to heart the need to change the way they do business. Have they done that? I mean, look, I think that you do not want to paint with too broad a brush. I do think that there is a sense of, now that the crisis is over, let us go back to business as usual. And what I have been saying consistently is, we have to change business as usual so that financial institutions are still making a profit, they are still providing excellent service to companies, there is still innovation, there is still dynamism. We want to make sure that the core functions in the free market are working, but that we do not find ourselves in the kind of crisis situation that we found ourselves in a year and a half ago.

dialogic

Sometimes with all the rhetoric, which is pretty strong on both sides, it is hard to sort out the actual disagreements on policy. Your side, you have said that the other side is trying to weaken the legislation at the behest of special-interest lobbyists. Senator Lincoln proposed derivatives rules that went further than what your administration proposed. Does that mean that your administration in the first instance knuckled under to a special-interest lobbyist? This has to do with derivatives, the issue that I just raised. And the core principle that I have put forward is that when you have got these complex financial instruments, they should be in a clearinghouse, an exchange, like the stock market, where taxpayers are not on the hook if one party in that situation goes belly up, that the other financial players are the ones who are covering any losses, that everybody knows exactly what is going on. And if we had that kind of transparency, then those things can potentially serve a function. United Airlines can hedge against buying fuel, because they do not know what oil prices are going to be like six months from now. So as long as we have got that kind of transparency and accountability, then we are meeting that core principle. What about that financial institutions can own those derivatives? I think Senator Lincoln has a range of good proposals in terms of derivatives. I think what we put forward met that core principle. And I am confident that what we are going to see in the next several weeks is a bill that, at the end, enshrines that principle, that if you are going to operate with derivatives, you have got to make sure that you are an open book, everybody knows what is going on, and we are not going to see a replication of the kinds of crises that we have seen before. Let us talk about taxes. You have got to have a tax bill this year; otherwise, when those Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will go up for everybody. Is there any way that you would accept, either on a temporary basis or a partial temporary basis, the preservation of some of those Bush tax cuts for the top end? I do not think we can afford it. Look, I just paid my taxes, and I had a pretty healthy bill. I am sympathetic to the fact that people would prefer paying fewer taxes.

dialogic

That is part of the reason why, as part of the Recovery Act, we cut taxes for 98 percent of working families, because we thought it was important in a recession to make sure people got a little bit of help. But as we go forward, if we are going to be fiscally disciplined, we have got to do two things. We have got to cut programs that are not working and show the strength. And that is why, for example, I put a three-year freeze on discretionary spending, something that previous presidents had not done, because we have got to hold the line on spending. And I have proposed a range of cuts on all kinds of things. So if Congress sent you a bill extending tax cuts to any extent for those above 250,000, you'd veto it? Well, I am not going to get into vetoes right now. What I will tell you is that it is sensible for us to say that if you make more than $250,000 a year, going back to the tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton are perfectly fair. For us to extend them would mean hundreds of billions of dollars of lost revenue at a time when everybody says we have got to make sure that we are dealing with our deficit. Well, speaking of the deficit, in early 2011, some of your advisers think it is time with the economy getting better for a serious assault on the deficit. Should Americans think of your promise not to raise taxes for anyone under $200,000 as lasting for the entirety of your presidency, you would never accept tax increases for that group? Or is it something for the initial phase of your presidency, now you take account again of where the deficit is and make a different decision? Over the last decade, the wages and incomes of ordinary families have flat-lined at best. So middle-class families have been seeing a bigger and bigger burden as health-care costs go up, college costs go up. And the fact of the matter is is that their wages and incomes fail to match up. So they needed some help, they needed some relief. That is why I wanted to cut taxes for them. Where you have seen huge growth of incomes and wages is at the top end. That is why I think letting the Bush tax cuts phase out made some sense.

dialogic

Now, the thing I did not anticipate up until a few months before my election was the fact that we were going to be in such a deep crisis that I'd be inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, $8 trillion worth of accumulated national debt that we are going to have to deal with. And that is why I have appointed this bipartisan fiscal commission to give me recommendations in terms of, how do we deal with this in a serious way moving forward. So in effect, that changes the terms of your promise in the campaign, because of that worsening deficit situation? I believe that we should be able to solve this problem without putting a burden on middle-class families. I believe that we should be able to make sure that we do not burden middle-class families further. Having said that, I am also going to wait for the fiscal commission to provide me what their best recommendations are. Because the one thing that I think all of us agree on is that we are currently on an unsustainable path, and that means that we are going to have to have a tax system that works better for everybody and is simplified. That means that we have got to get control of entitlement reform. And by the way, health-care reform went a long way towards doing that. But we are also going to have to look at Social Security and the other aspects of entitlements. It means that we are going to have to cut out waste in the system. But at a certain point, what we have got to do is match up money going out and money coming in. And right now, we have got a huge structural debt that I inherited and that the recession made worse. We are going to have to solve that. And that means that I do not want to pre-judge what this commission is going to come up with. I want to take a look and see what they propose. If reducing consumption is a good idea, could you see the potential for a value-added tax in this country? You know, I know that there is been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries, it is something that would be novel for the United States. And before, you know, I start saying this makes sense or that makes sense, I want to get a better picture of what our options are.

dialogic

And my first priority is to figure out, how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide, and then we decide, how do we pay for that, as opposed to figuring out how much money can we raise, and then not have to make some tough choices on the spending side. You say you are going to pick a Supreme Court choice by the end of May. You have got a lot of qualified candidates out there, but some would provoke bigger fights than others because of legal decisions, things they have written, their personal background, whatever. Are you taking account of the size of the fight that a nominee would propose in making your selection, given all the other things you are trying to do? I think the main thing I am thinking about was true when I selected Justice Sotomayor, is, who can do a great job on the court? Who can look at a range of really complicated issues and adhere to the law and fidelity to the Constitution? But who is also somebody who has the kind of life experience so that they understand how their decisions are impacting ordinary people? And you are right, we have got some terrific candidates. I am confident in the next couple of weeks we are going to be able to make a decision, and it is going to be somebody who will be confirmable, that I think both conservative and liberals, you know, who are familiar with these individual's legal background will say are imminently qualified for the court. And I expect a smooth confirmation process. Some people think you are a little cocky sometimes, so I am going to invite you to be self-critical. You have seen all aspects of the presidency -- the demands, private persuasion, public communication, decision-making. What do you think are the aspects of the job you are best suited for? What do you need to get better at? And how might that change your approach to the job? Well, you know, this last year and a half has been, I think, by any historical standard, a pretty exceptional year and a half, where we have had to make some very tough decisions very quickly in less-than-optimal conditions. You had an economy that was crashing, we had to make some very fast decisions. Some of those decisions were very unpopular. When I look at what we have done well, I think the core decisions we have made have been the right ones.

dialogic

Tonight we are going to illuminate the bridge in blue because blue is my father's favorite color. And I think it'll put a smile on his face. In terms of having concerns about people coming here from other states, are there anything, sort of protocols, you can put in place? I know it is much harder to do by people traveling by car, but is there anything the state can do to really make sure there is not- What other states did, if you remember in the beginning, when they were afraid of New Yorkers going there, they did a mandatory quarantine. That if New Yorkers traveled to their state, they had to quarantine for two weeks. We are not there yet, but it is just a great point of irony that when we start this situation, the other states said, No, we do not want New Yorkers coming here. Federal government was talking about blockading New York and not allowing New Yorkers to leave. That is what they were talking about. Now, it would have been illegal, unconstitutional, and it would have started a civil war, but I do not know that any of those things is ever stopped the federal government before. They wanted to blockade New York. The other states wanted to make sure no New Yorkers went to their state. We have the lowest infection rate. And my health officials are saying, We hope people from Florida do not come here. How many businesses did you call and what kind of reception did you get? What kind of reception did you get from business owners that you called about shutting down and staying shut down? People send me texts and videos and pictures. And they were sending me texts and videos of particular restaurants and bars at particular times. We got over 25,000 complaints from people, which is a very interesting phenomenon, by the way. We have never gotten 25,000 complaints. Sometimes when I say something really absurd, but not even 25,000. So now they see a business doing the wrong thing, they snap a picture, right? Everybody has a phone and a camera. They snap a picture. They are doing complaints, 25,000 complaints. Some of them actually text them to me. So I made a few phone calls and said to restaurant owners, bar owners, What are you doing? We have the guidelines. I am looking at a picture of your establishment taken 25 minutes ago. I am looking at a picture of your establishment, taken 25 minutes ago, and people are violating everything.

dialogic

You are violating the rules. What are you doing? And look, the state is going to enforce the rules, the state licenses bars and restaurants for a liquor license, state liquor authority. You can lose your liquor license. You lose your liquor license, that is serious. So I just wanted to make sure they knew the laws and the rules. I wanted to make sure they knew that the state was going to be sending out inspectors. And even their patrons do not respect it. The people of the state know what they did. They know the sacrifice they made over 106 days to get that virus down. And they do not want anyone's irresponsibility to jeopardize that. I have been with people, somebody walks by does not have a mask, they are outraged. There are a lot of conscientious people who paid a very high price, did the right thing and they do not want other people ruining it for them. What kind of response did you get from business owners? They would say, We told people. Was their best response, but what does that mean? We told people? They are your patrons, in your establishment, you are responsible. ENTITY, how would social distancing be enforced on the bike path? Like any other path, like any other park, stay six feet apart when you cannot wear a mask. Do you want to answer, ENTITY? As an example today, when we opened the path, we are going to have staff all across the shared use path to make sure reinforcing that people need to stay socially distancing. We also have signage out there as well. ENTITY, Kiryas Joel confirmed to us that several private schools have reopened under the phase two religious gathering allowance. We have also have videos of dozens of kids going in, buses with backpacks and masks. There is also another video we got a huge wedding at KJ last weekend with hundreds in attendance. Orange County says Kiryas Joel is in state's police's jurisdiction, why is not state police enforcing your executive order? Well, first, local governments have the primary responsibility for enforcement. And I have said a number of times, local governments have to do their job. I have taken responsibility for every bad decision and every unpopular decision, right? I am the one who sets all these rules. Everybody's angry at me. The one thing I need the local government to do is actually enforce them.

dialogic

Now, they do not want to enforce them because they are not popular. Nobody wants to go to the bar and say, you guys have to wear a mask. You guys, guys being gender neutral, are violating the social distancing. I get it. But they have to do their job. Any religious group, any community, they have to do their job. If they need backup help by the state police because they cannot handle it, then we will provide state police backup help, but they have to do their job. I cannot use the state police everywhere in this state. We do not have enough state police. I need the local governments to do their job. One more then we are going to cut a ribbon. Hey, ENTITY, in chatting with any of the restaurant owners or bar owners about lack of social distancing and not wearing masks, did any of them counter to you by saying, Well, where is your call on your request to the protestors who had been gathering and not really social distancing and in some cases wearing masks? Should not the rules be the same for the protestors as they are for the bar owners and restaurant owners? They did not say that because they listened to my briefings. And because I have said to the protestors on a number of occasions, you should be wearing masks. And by the way, I said to the police, you should be wearing masks, even on a symbolic level. You want other people to comply with the law, you are going to enforce the law, adhere to the law. ENTITY, can you give us your impression of the bridge path. And do you think it will have an impact on the black Rockland economy? I think, and I will ask ENTITY to chime in because he sees it more closely. I think the bridge has had a tremendous positive impact on the entire regional economy. It is better for the environment. It is saving money. People are coming to restaurants, et cetera, just to see the bridge, especially before this ENTITY situation. There are other pedestrian passes on the Hudson that attract people just to walk over the Hudson. They are just a pedestrian path and people, by the thousands, go just to walk over the Hudson. Here, you can walk over the Hudson on a beautiful bridge, you can see New York City to the South, the Hudson Valley to the North.

dialogic

We appreciate you taking the time, and we appreciate your commitment to answer our questions. We really appreciate that. Over the years, I have heard you talk about your adherence to a philosophy called positive thinking. Is this the mantra that if you believe something, if you visualize it, then it will happen? I also think in terms of the downside. I have been given a lot of credit for positive thinking, but I also think about downside because only a fool does not . To what extent do you think that that positive thinking mindset is suitable to handling the worst pandemic that we have seen in a century? I think you have to have a positive outlook. Otherwise, you would have nothing without a positive outlook. I think we have done an incredible job, between the ventilators and stopping very infected people from China coming in, meaning putting the ban on China, which frankly nobody wanted me to do, practically nobody because it was very early in January. When you put a ban on Europe, that is a big thing. We would have probably lost hundreds of thousands of lives more had I not done that. And all of the experts, every one of them, not one of them wanted to do it. Three months later, they are all saying, I am glad you did it. The criticism of you that is most prominent, is about the communication. It is the public health experts saying that it needs to be based in reality. And they are saying that the wishful thinking and the salesmanship is just not suitable in a time when the pandemic has killed 145,000 Americans. And I understand what you are saying, that people need to hear positive thinking, but for the past five months it is been, the virus is totally under control, and the cases have been going up and the deaths have been going up. But you have been saying it is under control. Nobody knew what this thing was all about. 1917, but it was a totally different, it was a flu in that case. And by the way, if you watch the fake news on television, they do not even talk about it. But you know, there are 188 of the countries right now that are suffering, some proportionately far greater than we are. Right now, right now, Spain is having a big spike. You look at Moscow, look at what is going on with Moscow. Look at Brazil, look at these countries what is going on.

dialogic

This was sent to us by China, one way or the other, and we are never going to forget it. Believe me, we are never going to forget it. And we were beating China at every single point. We were beating them on trade, we were making progress like nobody's ever made progress. Before the pandemic, they had the worst year, Jonathan, that they have had in 67 years. You know that. With the tariffs and everything else I did, we would taking in billions of dollars. I was giving some of it to the farmers. The farmers were doing well because they were targeting the farmers, I was targeting China. Then all of a sudden, the game changed, and I had to close it down. I closed down the greatest economy ever in history. And then, I closed it down. And now we are opening it. And we saved, by the way, by closing it down, we saved millions of lives. If we would have gone to herd and we knew very little about the disease, if we would've gone herd, we would have lost millions of people, millions of people. We are at 140,000 people. We are at 140. We would have lost millions of people. And those people that really understand it, they really understand it. They said, it is incredible the job that we have done. And again, I bring it up, the ban- Who says that? By the time you banned China, it came in through Europe. Nobody knew the extent. But the question is, Mr. President, by June we knew things were bad. And the last time I was with you was the day before your Tulsa rally in the Oval, and you were saying big, huge crowd, it was endorsed. These people, they listen to you. By the way, Excuse me, Jonathan, we had a 19,000 seat stadium and first of all, we had 12,000 people, not 6,000, which you reported and other people reported. It was like an armed camp. Because they had 120 Black Lives Matter people there and Tulsa- I understand but why would you have wanted a huge crowd? And Tulsa, well, because that area was a very good area at the time. That is a month later, but Tulsa was a very good, Oklahoma was doing very well as a state. We had a tremendous crowd, we had tremendous response. It was like an armed camp. You could not get anybody in.

dialogic

But we had 12,000 people. The other thing we had that nobody wants to talk about, so Fox broadcast it. It was the highest rating in the history of Fox television Saturday night. You are saying something. That speech was the highest rated speech in the history of Fox television on Saturday night. And nobody says that. I think you misunderstand me. I am not criticizing your ability to draw a crowd. Are you kidding me? I have covered you for five years. You draw massive crowds. You get huge ratings. I am asking about the public health I am just saying this. I am just saying this. At the time And I canceled another one. I had to cancel it and we were going to have a great crowd in New Hampshire, and I canceled it for the same reason. I have covered you for a long time. I have gone to your rallies. I have talked to your people. They love you. They listen to you. They listen to every word you say, they hang on your every word. They do not listen to me or the media or Fauci. They want to get their advice from you. And so, when they hear you say, everything's under control, do not worry about wearing masks. I mean, these are people, many of them are older people, Mr. President. Well, what is your definition of control? It is giving them a false sense of security. Under the circumstances right now, I think it is under control. I will tell you what- But that does not mean we are not doing everything we can. It is under control as much as you can control it. This is a horrible plague that beset us. You really think this is as much as we can control it? Well, I will tell you, I'd like to know if somebody First of all, we have done a great job. We have gotten the governors everything they needed, they did not do their job. Many of them did not and some of them did. We will talk about the successful ones, the good ones. We had good and bad. And we had a lot in the middle, but we had some incredible governors. I could tell you right now who the great ones are and who the not so great ones are, but the governors do it. We gave them massive amounts of material. President, you changed your message this week, in terms of you canceled the Jacksonville convention, you said, Wear a mask.

dialogic

You are saying that, It is going to get worse before it gets better. And you said that. You understand that. If I could just finish my question. The question is, even some of your own aides wonder whether you would stick to that message until Election Day, whether in a week or two, you will not say, Right, we have got to reopen again. We cannot do this stuff anymore. That you will get bored of talking about the virus and go back to that sort of cheerleading. I never get bored of talking about this, it is too big a thing. So will you stick to that message? And again, it should have been stopped by China, and it was not . We have it here. We have 140,000 people at this moment. And what you have to do, is handle it the best it can be handled. And again, I am working with the governors. I got them tremendous amounts of equipment that they would have never gotten. Jonathan, they would not have equipment now, if I did not get. When can you commit, by what date, that every American will have access to the same day testing that you get here in the White House? Well, we have great testing. Let me explain the testing. We have tested more people than any other country, than all of Europe put together times two. We have tested more people than anybody ever thought of. India has 1.4 billion people. They have done 11 million tests. We have done 55, it'll be close to 60 million tests. And there are those that say, you can test too much. You do know that. Who says that? What testing does- What testing does, it shows cases. Nobody has done it like we have done it. We have gotten absolutely no credit for it. But we have come up with so many different tests. The only thing that we have now is some people have to wait longer than we'd like them to. We want it- We want point to point. We want to have a five minute to a 15 minute test. Every American- And, from what I understand, we are close to 50% where it is point to point tests. We are making thousands of instruments, thousands of tests right now, tens of thousands that can be distributed to various parts of the country. And we have even sent some of them to other countries where they had a big problem.

dialogic

Jonathan, almost 50%, in fact, I think the number might be over, is immediate testing. You take a test. You have to send it to a laboratory. Let us say that takes a day. There is nothing you can do about that. But when do you think you will have it for everyone? I think that you will have that relatively soon. What does that mean? You already have half. I would much rather get back to you. Because I do not want to have you write in one month, I did not make it. I missed it by a day. I get it. President, I want to talk about the federal intervention. One thing I would say about testing. Because we test so much, we show cases. So, we show many, many cases. We show tremendous number of cases. I know you are smiling when I say that, but I am telling you. Well, I mean, I have heard you say this. So, they do not show case. I was not going to continue on the testing, but you said it. So, we are testing so much because it is spread so far in America. We are testing so much because we had the ability to test. Because we came up with test- Jonathan, we did not even have a test. When I took over, we did not even have a test. Why would you have a test? We did not have a test because there was no test. And, in a very short order, we got one test. We got another test. We got another. Many of those tests are now obsolete because it is called science. But, because we tested so many people, 55, 60 million people, very soon, we get cases. Some kid has even just a little runny nose. And then, you report many cases. So, we look like we have more cases than massive countries like China, which by the way, does not report, as you know. Well, I do not put any stock in China's figures. The point is, because we are so much better at testing than any other country in the world, we show more cases. If you look at death- And, if you look at death per- Well, right here, United States is lowest in numerous categories. We are lower than the world. We are lower than Europe. What does that mean? Oh, you are doing death as a proportion of cases. I am talking about death as a proportion of population.

dialogic

That is where the U.S. is really bad, much worse than South Korea, Germany, et cetera. You cannot do that. Why cannot I do that? You have to go by the cases. What it says is, when you have somebody where there is a case- The people that live from those cases. It is surely a relevant statistic to say, if the U.S. has X population and X percentage of death of that population versus South Korea- Because you have to go by the cases. You do not know that. You do not know that. You think they are faking their statistics, South Korea? I will not get into that because I have a very good relationship with the country. But you do not know that. And they have spikes. You take the number of cases. I do not know what we are first in. We have the best. And we have cases because of the testing. I understand on the cases, it is different. No, but you are not reporting it correctly, Jonathan. If you take a look at this other chart look, this is our testing. We do more tests. Well, do not we get credit for that? And, because we do more tests, we have more cases. In other words, we test more. We have now, take a look. You deserve to be praised for testing. Plus, 60,000 Americans are in hospital, 1,000 dying a day. If you watch the news or read the papers, they usually talk about new cases, new cases, new cases. I am talking about death. Well, you look at death. It went down to 500. It is gone down in Arizona. It is going down in Florida. It is going down in Texas. It is going down in Florida? That is my report, as of yesterday. Anyway, Mr. President, if I could change subjects. It is going down in Arizona. It is gong down in Texas. Texas has big problems. It spiked and is now going down in Florida. It is evened out and going down in Florida. I will have to see those figures. But you have to look at this. This is the number of tests compared to the rest of the world. I do not deny your figures. You have done more tests by far than the rest of the world. I do not deny that. And, because we have done more tests, we have more cases. You have more infections.

dialogic

Now, you can take them back. President, different subject, it is been widely reported that the U.S. has intelligence indicating that Russia paid bounties or offered to pay bounties to Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers. You had a phone call with Vladimir Putin on July 23rd. Did you bring up this issue? That was a phone call to discuss other things. I think a lot of people. If you look at some of the wonderful folks from the Bush Administration, some of them, not any friends of mine, were saying that it is a fake issue. But a lot of people said, it is a fake issue. But we had a call. We had a call talking about nuclear proliferation. Which is a very big subject where they would like to do something. We discussed numbers things. We did not discuss that. And you have never discussed it with him. I have never discussed it with him. I'd have no problem with it. But you do not believe the intelligence. It is because you do not believe the intelligence. Nobody ever brings up China. They always bring Russia, Russia, Russia. If we can do something with Russia in terms of nuclear proliferation, which is a very big problem. A much bigger problem than global warming in terms of the real world, that would be a great thing. It never reached my desk. It was in your written brief though about it. If it reached my desk, I would have done something about it. It never reached my desk because- Do you read your written brief? I read it a lot. I read a lot. I read a lot. You read your daily intelligence brief? I comprehend extraordinarily well, probably better than anybody that you have interviewed in a long time. I read a lot. I spend a lot of time at meetings. Because this was apparently in your- The world is a very angry place, if you look all over the world. I see a 22 soldiers were killed in India with China fighting over the border. It is been raging for many, many decades. I have so many briefings on so many different countries, but this one did not reach my desk. The reason I say this is, even if you do not believe this particular piece of intelligence, and there is dispute, no doubt, there is dispute in the intelligence committee about it, John Nicholson, former head of forces in Afghanistan said, and this is when he was working for you, that Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban.

dialogic

Is not that enough to challenge Putin over the killings of U.S. soldiers? Well, we sold them weapons when they were fighting Russia too. When they were fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan- I am just saying we did that too. I did not ask Nicholson about that. He was there for a long time. Did not have great success because he was there before me. And then, ultimately, I made a change. But you surely heard that. I mean, it is well known in the intelligence community, that they are arming the Taliban, Russia. Russia is supplying weapons and money to the Taliban. I have heard that but, again, it is never reached my desk. I mean, he said it on the record when he was in- Hey, Russia does not want anything to do with Afghanistan. Let me just say about Russia. Because of Afghanistan, they went bankrupt. The last thing that Russia wants to do is get too much involved with Afghanistan. They tried that once. And by the way, we are largely out of Afghanistan, as you probably know. Well, I wanted to ask you about that. The US troop level in Afghanistan right now is roughly the same as it was when you- We will be down in a very short It is already planned. We will be down in a very short period of time to 8,000, then we are going to be down to 4,000. We have been there for 19 years. But if you just let me finish my question. You boosted to 14,000, and now you are back down to 8,500. We will be at 4,000. I will get you the exact- I do not want to tell you that. I do not want to tell you. It is going down to 4,000. On election day, how many American troops will be in Afghanistan? That is almost as many as when you came into office. We had much more. We had a lot of people over there too. And we did a good job. We wiped out ISIS. Let me just tell you what you do not see. Have you thought about going down to zero? We took out, in Syria, we took out ISIS. We a hundred percent of the caliphate. When I took over Obama, it was totally rampant. ISIS was all over the place. We took them out. We captured them. We killed them a hundred percent, not 99%.

dialogic

I wanted to get out at 99. 99% was good, but a hundred percent of the caliphate. We took out Soleimani. We took out al-Baghdadi. We took out people that nobody thought possible. Al-Baghdadi was the biggest terrorist of them all. They could not find him. I took him out. I took him out. I have done things that no other president's done. They should have never been in the Middle East. The decision to go to the Middle East and get into the Middle East was the single biggest mistake made in the history of our country. You told Fox News recently that you could not say whether you'd accept the results of the 2020 election. What does that actually look like as the sitting president? What would that actually look like? Well, Hillary Clinton never accepted them. Well, she conceded on them. I mean, she does not accept them and she got beaten very easily. She conceded on election night. Now, she grumbled about it and said all sorts of- She wrote books about it. Okay, fine, she wrote books. She wrote books about it. I get it. I get it. I am not disputing you beat Hillary Clinton. Listen, what of asking is you will be the sitting president in the White House. What does that look like not accepting- I will tell you what it looks like. Let me tell you what it looks. So we have a new phenomena. It is called mail-in voting, where you send, where a governor- It is been here since the Civil War. They have never done anything like that. It will be bigger this year because of the pandemic. So they are going to send tens of millions of ballots to California, all over the place, to who is going to get them. I have a friend who lives in Westchester County- They send applications, not allots. He had a beautiful, wonderful son. He called me, he said, I just got a ballot for my son, Robert. Somebody got at ballot for a dog. Somebody got a ballot for something else. You got millions of ballots going, nobody even knows where they are going. You look at some of the corruption having to do with You have to apply, you have to go through a process. You have to apply for mail-in. Look, you are sending it out- Let us do concrete. Let us do concrete. You download them off You can get them off the internet.

dialogic

There is no way you can go through a mail-in vote without massive cheating. I honestly do not understand this topic with- The Republican party has an extremely well-funded vote by mail program. Your campaign puts out emails telling people to vote by mail. Your daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, she did robocalls in California saying it is safe and secure, mail-in voting. Let me tell you. We have no choice. Let me tell you. We have no choice because right now, we have, but we have many court cases that we are waiting. We have one filed in Western Pennsylvania. We have many court cases where we are trying to end it. We went through World War I, you went to the polls, you voted, we went through World War II, you went to the polls, you voted. You have had mail-in voting since the Civil War. And now because of the China virus, we are supposed to stay home, send millions of ballots all over the country, millions and millions. You know, you could have a case where this election will not be decided on the evening of November 3rd. What is wrong with that? It will not be two months, but what is wrong with the proper mail-in count? Have you discussed the- Because lots of things will happen during that period of time. Especially when you have tight margins, lots of things can happen. There is never been anything like this when you try Now, of course, right now, we have to live with it, but we are challenging it in many courts, as you know, all over the country. President, the other day, a reporter asked you about Ghislaine Maxwell. You said, I just wish her well, frankly. I have met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, but I wish her well, whatever it is. President, Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested on allegations of child sex trafficking. Why would you wish such a person well? Well, first of all, I do not know that, but I do know this- She is been arrested for that. You know that. She is now in jail. Yeah, I wish you well, I'd wish you well, I'd wish a lot of people well. So you are saying you hope she does not die in jail? Is that what you mean by wish her well?

dialogic

Well, her boyfriend died in jail and people are still trying to figure out how did it happened? And I do wish her well. I am not looking for anything bad for her. I am not looking bad for anybody. And they took that and made it such a big deal- He died in jail. I do, I wish her well. Let us move to Portland. I am sure you have seen the disturbing footage of people in fatigues beating the Navy veteran. It is not fake news, it is on video. Pepper spraying him. For 59 days, these people were anarchists and agitators, and some protesters, but these were anarchists. These people were beating the hell out of the city. They were beating up our federal buildings and our federal courthouse. We told the police to stop it. And the police would not do it. But your Inspector Generals are investigating unconstitutional- You are trying now to blame law enforcement instead of anarchists- It is Antifa and anarchists that are causing the problems, not law enforcement. Our law enforcement, if we did not have people at our courthouse, and they are strong, tough people, and they do not want They try and be very good, believe me. But if we did not have people there, you would have your federal courthouse, a $600 million building, you would have that thing burned to the ground right now. I am asking you about tactics and about the unmarked vans where they are rounding people up. Okay, let me tell you about unmarked. Can I just finish my question. Well let me tell you about unmarked. Could I just finish my question? Because it relates to this. This is from Rand Paul. We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities, but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will. What is your response to Senator Paul? First of all, these are Homeland Security people. They are securing a courthouse. Border, hopefully they have ICE in there. Hopefully they have ICE. Because these terrorists, these Antifa people, these people that are at anarchists and agitators, when they see the name on a uniform of a person, a policeman or a law enforcement person, they find out where that person lives. And then they go and they scare the hell out of the person's family. And so they do it for that reason. It is just common There is nothing secret about this.

dialogic

And you know it. We have Chad Wolf. They have people. He is doing a fantastic job. He is doing a fantastic job. Chad Wolf has pickets and very dangerous looking people outside of his house. He is tough and he is got people, but if you have the names on all of these uniforms, you will have these maniacs in front of their houses, scaring their family and their wives or husbands, whatever it may be. I think it is a very good reason not to have your name. Why should you have identification? Do you support that investigation? Well, I have not seen the result yet. Let me see the result. But you support the initiative of it? Have you been watching television- Have you been watching television? Have you been seeing the violence? Now, if you watch NBC News like I watch NBC fake news. I am watching it. I am watching this NBC News sham, and you have a mayor named Wheeler and he is standing out there and he is being accosted by the people. You know that. I mean, it is horrible what they are doing to him in Portland, the mayor of Portland and he thought he'd go out. What they were doing and saying, and everything else to him, I happened to watch it on a different station. He had five security guards. I saw it. He got out with his life. If you watch NBC News, they make them like he is standing there bravely fighting with the people, in a positive sense, that everything is wonderful. He is lucky he got away with his life because they would've killed him. He had five guards, but NBC News showed it like he is standing with the people for justice. Look, those people, take a look at what they have done to the courthouse. Take a look at what they have done to the streets. We had a very good We have arrested a lot of people and we now have a 10 year rule. You try not to knock down our courthouse- You touch our courthouse, you go to jail for 10 years. Turning to the rest of the country, we have not seen protests like this since the '60s. If I could finish my question. If I could finish my question. And they are doing it for political reasons. You said you have done so much for African Americans. President, have you ever met with a Black Lives Matter activist to hear them out, hear their arguments?

dialogic

Well, Black Lives Matter started off to me very badly because it was- Did you ever meet with one? That was the first time I ever of Black Pigs is what they are referring to, in a blanket, fry them like bacon. So I got off to a bad start. I got off to a very bad start. Would you meet with a- Would you with a Black Lives Matter activist? Nobody's asked for a meeting, right? I have never been, nobody's ever asked me for a meeting. Let me tell you with African Americans, I am doing very well. They had the best employment numbers they have ever had. They had the best job numbers they have ever had. They were making more money than they ever made. We were all set until we got hit by China with the virus. Do you believe that- Do you believe though, Mr. President, that many police treat black people differently from white people? You have seen the statistics. The knee on the neck was a disgrace. I am talking about what does systemic racism mean to you? I hope the answer to that question is no. Does anybody really answer that question accurately? What is your cold-hearted view of it? Police have killed white people- I know, but why do you think Black men- in larger number, police have killed white people. In quantity, but why do you think Black men are two and a half times more likely to be killed by police than white men? but I do not like it. But you must've thought about it. I do not know why, but I do not like it. I do know this- Does it speak to something systemic? that police have killed many white people also. But proportionally, what does it speak to? It speaks to something, if that is the number? If that is the number, it speaks to something that to me is unacceptable. And what do you do about it then? Well, I think we have already done a lot of things- Let me just tell you. No, no, I understand your achievements. I know what you are going to say. I am not suggesting you have not done a lot economically- I have done a thing called criminal justice reform. I get it, I am just saying what changes- I am asking about a statistic. I got criminal justice - I get it. I get it. I got opportunities on, I took care of the historically Black

dialogic

If you look at what I have done for colleges, for Black colleges and universities, I got them funding. Obama never did it. I did more for the Black community than anybody with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, whether you like it or not. You really believe you did more than Lyndon Johnson who passed the Civil Rights Act? I have done things. He passed the Civil Rights Act. If you take a look at what Lyndon Johnson did? Because frankly, it took a long time, but for African Americans- under my administration, Jonathan, under my administration, African Americans were doing better than they have ever done in the history of this country. So I did a lot, job numbers, all of it, money. They had money, they were getting great. and now you know what we are doing? I am building it up again. We are going to have it. Next year will be a great year, unless it is screwed up by somebody that does not know what he is doing, which could happen, but I do not think it will. John Lewis is lying in state in the U.S. Capitol. How do you think history will remember John Lewis? I do not know John Lewis. He chose not to come to my inauguration. He chose I never met John Lewis, actually, I do not believe. I cannot say one or the other. I find a lot of people impressive. He did not come to my inauguration. He did not come to my State of the Union speeches, and that is okay. And again, nobody has done more- for Black Americans than I have. I think he made a big mistake by not showing up. But taking your relationship with him out of it, do you find his story impressive? What he is done for this country? He was a person that devoted a lot of energy and a lot of heart to civil rights, but there were many others also. Would you support that idea? I would have no objection to it if they have like to do it. President, you have been so generous with your time and we really appreciate.

dialogic

I only have 20 minutes or thereabouts, so I have tried to write some concise questions. So, let me put it to you this way. The conservative revolt that Jack Kemp is leading appears to be a challenge to your leadership of the party. And I wonder if you think this is a decisive battle with the far right between the main body of the party? But, very frankly, I am surprised, because I think the issue is so clear cut that when the facts are explained, how they can continue resistance to this when we have protected entirely the tax cuts passed last year and when, in fact, this is less a tax increase than it is a tax reform. Only about 17 percent of this represents new taxes on the people, and 31 percent represents collecting money that we are duty bound to collect, because it is owed and presently not being paid. together, and I am wondering how you plan to restore this GOP unity and your own leadership amongst the so-called dissidents. They are so far on the wrong side right now that I think maybe it is up to them to restore it with me Is Jack Kemp now out of your coalition. I do not bear grudges or anything, no. He is been here to the leadership meetings, and he is heard my side. I realize how strongly he well, is almost, you might say, a purist to the extent that he just cannot see the difference between reform and increase. And if it were a case of this present tax reform which, incidentally, was not of our choosing. This was made necessary in order to get the spending cuts we are still trying to get. If it had resulted in altering the incentive tax cuts that we put in place, I could understand. I am just hard put to understand how he can continue to believe that this in some way represents a turn in my direction or philosophy, because it does not . Does what he is doing do you hold the theory of the allegation of what he is doing is his effort to buttress his own ambitions for the Presidency in 1984? No, I am not going to make any suppositions of that at all. You do not believe that? I will just accept it as a legitimate disagreement. Where are the Boll Weevils on this particular issue? They helped you very much last year.

dialogic

Now, this is awfully I have been meeting with individuals and with groups from the Congress steadily for the last several days, and I have to tell you that this seems to me a more mixed situation, that there is division within these various groups, and I could not pin down exactly, rather than that one group that you just mentioned, Jack and that coterie that is a united group. I think there is a division in all the ranks Gypsy Moths, Boll Weevils, Republicans, Democrats on support of this. And what I have been doing in the meetings is simply trying to correct the misperception they have of it, and, in many cases, that is been successful, that they have come in with a misunderstanding of what we are trying to do. Well, I have never seen you work so hard as you have in the past 2 weeks. Do you think you have attained the 100 votes or near it that the Democrats say have to get before they will support it? All I can say is that everything indicates we are making progress. You do not want to predict victory yet? Are you going to keep this pace up all the way through Tuesday? You have not decided whether to go to the Nation on television yet? Well, we were talking about this early in the week, because, again, much of the press coverage, I think, has contributed to a misconception about this. And I, in these couple of trips that I have made out in the last few weeks into the country, I discovered that this constant drumbeat of biggest tax increase in history when it is nothing of the kind has well, the people are uninformed. And when I have had an opportunity, as I did in Billings, Montana, the other day, to explain what it is we are doing, I found then the people were in support. Well, why do you think the Conservative Republicans are resisting this bill so much? Is it because it taxes people who have not been paying and should have been, or because it reduces tax benefits on things like construction or things like cigarettes, dividend interest, or is this just an election-year reaction? I think it is, pretty much, an election-year reaction, and the idea that they may be portrayed as, now, supporting tax increases when we have been the party going the other way. Of course, I must say that some of those conservative voices I have to be frank and say they cannot be described as people who were followers and have abandoned me.

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic

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

dialogic