Sen. Harry Reid

• Reid Apologizes for ‘Negro’ remarks – New York Times
• Op-Ed – Sandy Banks: It’s Not Reid Who Should Apologize – L.A. Times
• Dems launch offensive to save Reid – Politico
• GOP claim Lott-Reid Double Standard – Politico

ABC’S “THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS”

STEPHANOPOULOS: Major milestone this week here in Iraq with the American troops pulling out of the cities. And I wonder if you can put the broader American mission in context. Are we in the process of securing victory or cutting our losses to come home?

BIDEN: Securing victory. Look, the president and I laid out a plan in the campaign which was twofold. One, withdraw our troops from Iraq in a rational timetable consistent with what the Iraqis want. And the same time, leave behind a stable and secure country.

And one of the reasons I’m here, George, is to push the last end of that, which is the need for political settlement on some important issues between Arabs and Kurds and among the confessional groups. And I think we’re well on our way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, your predecessor doesn’t seem convinced.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: John Hannah, Vice President Cheney’s national security adviser, wrote this week that under Obama, Bush’s commitment to winning in Iraq has all been vanished. The vice president warned against a premature withdrawal.

He said: “I would not want to see the U.S. waste all of the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point.”

BIDEN: You know, it’s kind of ironic. It’s their timetable we are implementing. Cheney and Bush agreed with the Iraqis before we were elected that we’d have combat troops out of the cities by June 30th.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So he’s wrong to be worried?

BIDEN: Well, I mean, it’s — I mean, for this he can’t have it both ways. He negotiated that timetable. We have met the commitment the timetable the last administration negotiated with Iraqis. And we’re totally confident that is the right thing to do.

So I find it kind of ironic that he’s criticizing his own agreement that he negotiated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re also facing a little bit of criticism from the Iraqis. You know yesterday you stood up there with Prime Minister Maliki and talked about your commitment to solve these political problems, yet his spokesman came out after the meeting and said: “This is purely an Iraqi issue, we don’t want the Americans to get involved.”

What do you say to that?

BIDEN: Well, that’s that not what — that’s not what the prime minister said. The prime minister said that we may need you to get involved.

What we offered the prime minister, as well as the speaker, as well as the two vice presidents, was that to the extent — let me give you an example. The United Nations has started a process to deal with what they called the “disputed internal borders.” And that is the debate between the Kurds and the Arabs as to where the line is.

Kirkuk is probably the biggest flashpoint. And we were asked that we would — would we be helpful to the United Nations in doing this? I was further asked that would I communicate to the Kurdish leadership, who I have a close relationship with, that their passing a constitution through their parliament in Kurdistan was not helpful to the process that was under way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what’s going on here? Maliki says one thing and his spokesman says another.

BIDEN: Well, look, I think that it’s very important that Prime Minister Maliki and all of the Iraqi leaders are able to in fact communicate, which is true, to the people of Iraq, that they’re now a sovereign nation.

They take directions from no one. That they are able to handle their own internal affairs. And the fact — my guess is, if the spokesman said that — which surprises me, if the spokesman said that, I’d imagine they’re worried about an upcoming election, making it look like the United States is going to continue to try to direct things here.

We are not. That is not why I’m here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re not going to direct things, but what if the Iraqi people — they’ve been dealing with these political disputes for an awful long time, what if they can’t solve them, the violence flares up again?

BIDEN: Well, that’s going to be a tragic outcome for the Iraqi people. We made a commitment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But are we going to put our lives on the line again?

BIDEN: No. We made a commitment to withdraw our troops from the cities by the 30th, to withdraw our combat brigades from Iraq by next summer — the end of next summer, and withdraw all troops according to the SOFA, that agreement we negotiated with them, by the end of 2011. That is our intention.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But no matter what, 2011, American troops all gone?

BIDEN: That is the intention. We believe the Iraqis will be fully capable of maintaining their own security. And we believe that with the time frame, with their upcoming election — you know they’re having an election in January, I know you know that, they’ll form a new government early — in late winter as a consequence of that election.

And it is our expectation that that election will come off peacefully and that their democracy is gradually maturing, so.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to Iran. We’re three weeks out from their election.

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any doubt it was stolen?

BIDEN: Well, look, what I don’t want to do is play into the hands of the supreme leader and Ahmadinejad like they’re blaming the British now. You know, there — that the reason why there was unrest is outside influence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They’re saying they have confessions from reformers saying that.

BIDEN: Well, you know, they say a lot of things. That’s simply not true. The — I think the dust hasn’t settled yet in terms of?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Still, three weeks ago.

BIDEN: Well, no, now here’s what I think. I mean, I think it’s clear that the consequences of the way the election was conducted and the way that the election was declared — who was declared the winner and how, is going to have a rippling effect.

What that effect will be, I don’t know. I think we have to wait to see how this settles out and — before we can make a judgment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there’s no doubt now that they responded violently to the election.

BIDEN: Oh, there is no doubt about that. There is none. The whole world saw it. And it is — we have to acknowledge as a free and sovereign nation that we abhor the violence that took place. We think it was inappropriate, the way in which they treated those protesters.

And so there is no question, we and the rest of the world looked at them and said, my lord, this is not the way to conduct?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But how do you respond to critics who say the United States should have come out forcefully right away, right away and said, this is wrong, stop it, and they say that would have made a difference?

BIDEN: Well, I don’t — I think the president was absolutely pitch-perfect. I think what the president did is exactly the right way. I think the president did not allow us to be used to as the scapegoat, us to be used as?

STEPHANOPOULOS: There were some reports that you were arguing for a more forceful response earlier.

BIDEN: Well, I think the president did it exactly right. I think he was correct.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And going forward, what next? What should the strategy be right now?

BIDEN: Well, look, the Iranian government has a choice. They either choose greater isolation, and from the whole world, or they decide to take a rightful place in the — in civilized, big, great nations. They can — that’s the path they have to choose.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Haven’t they already shown evidence in the last week of what their choice is?

BIDEN: Well, they have in terms of the way they conducted their election, but they haven’t in terms of whether — the real key issues to now, are they going to continue the nuclear program? Are they going to be braced by what happened? Is this going to alter their behavior internally or externally?

Look, responses that they saw on the street in any country have consequences. It’s hard to predict what those consequences will be.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what are the consequences for the U.S. relationship? I mean, the president had said he wants to meet with the Iranians over the nuclear program through the P-5. But how does he engage with the Iranians now without breaking faith with those reformers?

BIDEN: Well, the way you do it is if they choose to meet with the P5, under the conditions the P5 was laid out, it means they begin to change course. And it means that the protesters probably had some impact on the behavior of an administration that they don’t like at all. And it believes and I believe that means there’s consequences to that.

Now, if they in fact decide to shut out the rest of the world, clamp down, further isolation, I think that takes them down a very different path.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to those who say that it’s the United States now that should hit the pause button, there should be a cause correction, and we shouldn’t rush to sit down…

BIDEN: Well, we’re not. We’re not rushing to sit down.

As I said to you, we have to wait to see how this sort of settles out. And there’s already an offer laid out there by the permanent five plus one to say we’re prepared to sit down and negotiate with you relative to your nuclear program. And so the ball’s in their court.

STEPHANOPOULOS: When I saw President Ahmadinejad back in April, his response to that was that we need to see more from the United States first.

Is it fair to say now that there will be absolutely no more concessions to the Iranians in advance of those discussions?

BIDEN: It’s fair to say the position the president has laid out will not change.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there will be engagement — if the Iranians want to…

(CROSSTALK)

BIDEN: If the Iranians seek to engage, we will engage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, the clock is ticking…

BIDEN: If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the offer is on the table?

BIDEN: The offer’s on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he’s prepared to make matters into his own hands.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They’re entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.

What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues.

If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?

BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they’re existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say we can’t dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike.

BIDEN: I’m not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what’s in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what’s in our interests.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Meanwhile, North Korea…

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: … seven missile launches in the last 24 hours, 11 this week. Anything the United States can do about it?

BIDEN: The question is, is there anything that we should do about it?

Look, this has almost become predictable behavior. Some of it seems like almost attention-seeking behavior.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you don’t want to give the attention?

BIDEN: And — no, I don’t want to give the attention, because, look, I think our policy has been absolutely correct so far. We have succeeded in uniting the most important and critical countries to North Korea on a common path of further isolating North Korea. They’re going to be faced with a pretty difficult choice, it seems to me.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not a task that includes very forceful enforcement of the sanctions. The Russians and the Chinese blocked any boarding of the ships, didn’t they?

BIDEN: No, no. Well, what they did was, if you noticed, the ship had to turn around and come back. Why? Because no port would allow them into their port.

There was no place they could go with certitude that they would not be, in fact, at that point, boarded and searched. And so I would argue that it, in fact, worked.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is our policy now though basically waiting for the Kim Jong-il regime to collapse?

BIDEN: Our policy is to continue to put united pressure from the very countries that North Korea was able to look to before with impunity. They could take almost any action and got no reaction, no negative reaction.

That’s changed. And it is — there is a significant turning of the pressure. And there are going to be some very difficult decisions that that regime’s going to have make.

There’s a real debate going on right now, George, about succession in North Korea.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Reports that he’s tapped his youngest son.

BIDEN: That is the report.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe it?

BIDEN: Well, if I had to bet, that would be my guess. But I don’t think anyone knows for certain.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The clock is also ticking on Afghanistan. Key members of Congress made it pretty clear during the war supplemental debate that they’re going to give until early next year to see progress in Afghanistan or they’re going to cut off the funding, move to cut off the funding.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, I think the right approach is one we have chosen, the Obama/Biden administration.

We did a thorough review of what our objectives and policies were and should be in Afghanistan.

BIDEN: We set in motion a policy which is now only beginning to unfold. All the troops we agreed to increase are not even all in place at this point. And we also believe, as General Jones accurately said, that, ultimately, the success or failure in Iraq will not rest not on a military outcome, but on a both economic and political outcome internally, getting better governance in place and economic development in that country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But do Americans have a right to expect that if we don’t see continued progress in the next six to nine months, six to 12 months, then we should think about cutting back and pulling out?

BIDEN: Look, I think the Americans have a right to expect success. And I think the success is measured by how we defined it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: At any cost?

BIDEN: No. Success. And if they conclude that, whatever the policy that’s being undertaken by any administration as not succeeding, they have a right to say, look, cease and desist. But I don’t think that’s where we’re going, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: There were some reports this week that the president has already made the judgment sending General Jones over to Afghanistan with a clear message — no more troops. This is it, this is all you can get.

And Bob Woodward wrote about it. He talked about the general meeting with various military figures in Afghanistan, and this is what he said — this is what he reports that General Jones said: “If there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment. Everyone in the room caught phonetic reference to WTF — which in the military now sort of means, what the (blank).”

Are you concerned that this is sending some kind of a chilling message?

BIDEN: No, not at all. Look, here’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don’t want to hear the advice?

BIDEN: Look, no, no. We got the advice.

We spent five months with the entire national security team, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser down in that tank, down in that Situation Room, laboriously banging out the plans. The military came in with explicit requests. The president gave them what they asked for. It hasn’t even been implemented yet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were on the other side, it was reported, that you didn’t want an expansion of troops.

BIDEN: No, no. I did want an expansion of troops. There was a slight difference about how to layer them, how to proceed.

The president — we all ended up in — you know, this was an open discussion. And the thing I like about the president, he seeks everyone’s opinion.

Well, we reached a consensus opinion, and the consensus opinion of the national security team, of which I’m a part, was to do exactly what’s under way.

The point is — I suspect the point that Jim Jones is making is, hey, it hasn’t even been implemented yet. Troops are still on the way. Slow up, guys.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But to be clear, you’re saying if the military believes there should be more troops, they shouldn’t be afraid to give that advice. They should give that advice?

BIDEN: They should not be afraid to give whatever advice from the field or from the Pentagon to the president and the secretary of defense that they think they need.

STEPHANOPOULOS: While we’ve been here, some pretty grim job numbers back at home — 9.5 percent unemployment in June, the worst numbers in 26 years.

How do you explain that? Because when the president and you all were selling the stimulus package, you predicted at the beginning that, to get this package in place, unemployment will peak at about 8 percent. So, either you misread the economy, or the stimulus package is too slow and to small.

BIDEN: The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there.

Everyone thought at that stage — everyone — the bulk of…

STEPHANOPOULOS: CBO would say a little bit higher.

BIDEN: A little bit, but they’re all in the same range. No one was talking about that we would be moving towards — we’re worried about 10.5 percent, it will be 9.5 percent at this point.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But we’re looking at 10 now, aren’t we?

BIDEN: No. Well, look, we’re much too high. We’re at 9 — what, 9.5 right now?

STEPHANOPOULOS: 9.5.

BIDEN: And so the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn’t — I’m not — it’s now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we’re in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we’re in.

We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package. The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, but a lot of people were saying that you needed to do something bigger and bolder then, including the economist Paul Krugman. He’s saying — right now he’s saying the same thing again — don’t wait. You need a second stimulus, you need it now.

BIDEN: Look, what we have to do now is we have to properly, adequately, transparently and effectively spend out the $787 billion.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s your job. You’re in charge of that now.

BIDEN: That is my job, and I think we’re doing it well. If you noticed, George, I mean, there were other predictions. This was going to be wasteful and all these terrible projects were going to be out there, and we’re wasting money. Well, that dog hasn’t barked yet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Senator Coburn has identified some.

BIDEN: Yes — no, he hasn’t, but he did, he identified one hundred ? forty-eight of which we had already killed. And so — and the rest I dispute. So the bottom line though is, I think anybody would say this has been pretty well managed so far.

The question is, how do you now — do we — what we have to do, George, is we have to, as this rolls out, put more pace on the ball. The second hundred days you’re going to see a lot more jobs created.

And the reason you are is now all of these contracts for the over several thousand highway projects that have approved.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you’re also seeing states across the country cutting back on their programs. Many of the people on unemployment?

BIDEN: Sure.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ? today are going to run out of unemployment in September. That means for a lot of those people, if there is not a second stimulus, they’re going to be out in the cold.

BIDEN: Well, look, we have increased the amount of money unemployed — those on unemployment rolls have gotten, 12 million are getting more money because of the stimulus package.

We’ve increased the number of people eligible by 2 million people. We’ve given a tax cut to 95 percent of the people who get a pay stub. They have somewhere — $60 bucks a month out there that’s going into the economy.

There is a lot going on, George. And I think it’s premature to make the judgment?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no second stimulus?

BIDEN: No, I didn’t say that. I think it’s premature to make that judgment. This was set up to spend out over 18 months. There are going to be major programs that are going to take effect in September, $7.5 billion for broadband, new money for high-speed rail, the implementation of the grid — the new electric grid.

And so this is just starting, the pace of the ball is now going to increase.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re in charge of the stimulus. You’re the president’s envoy here in Iraq. You’re supposed to settle this dispute between the director of national intelligence and the CIA over who is going to appoint the station chiefs. By the way, have you solved that one yet?

BIDEN: I think we’ve solved that one.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have?

BIDEN: Well, let me put it this way. I think we’re well on the way to that being solved.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Who won?

BIDEN: They both won.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So they’re going to share the responsibility to appoint to station chiefs?

BIDEN: Not done yet. Let me comment on that next week to you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK. Well, let me get to the broader point then. You’ve fixed — you say you’ve fixed a problem that will?

BIDEN: Well they fixed the problem.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ? to find out that they fixed the problem — look to find out the details on all of that. But you’ve got all of these discrete projects now. And when you came in you talked a lot about how you didn’t want to get bogged down in individual projects because you wanted to be, you know, the president’s primary adviser.

Are you’re worried you’re going to far in the other direction?

BIDEN: No. Because all of these projects have end dates on them. You know, they all have sell-by dates, because — and that’s I think that — I hope I’ve brought some real expertise to this job, available to the president.

The things he has asked me to do. I hope I’m relatively good at. And — but all of them have specific objectives.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, Sarah Palin.

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were the last person to run against her.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Were you surprised by her decision to step down?

BIDEN: Well, look, you and I know — and I shouldn’t say that because that implicates you in my answer, so. But those who have been deeply involved in politics know at the end of the day it is really and truly a personal deal.

And personal family decisions have real impact on people’s decisions. I love reading these history books and biographies of people, the reason they made the choice to run or not run was because the state of the economy.

It maybe had a lot to do with what the state of their life was, and the state of their family, et cetera. So I’m not going to second guess her.

STEPHANOPOULOS: She cast herself as the victim of political blood sport in that press conference. Is that how you see it?

BIDEN: No. I respect her decision. I don’t — I don’t know what prompted her decision to not only not run again and also to step down as a consequence of the decision not to run in 2010. And I take her at her word that had a personal ingredient in it. And you have to respect that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Vice President, thank you very much.

BIDEN: Thank you.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: Madam Secretary, thanks very much for doing this.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: I’m glad to see you, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, we were just talking about Cairo, did you ever imagine you’d be here as secretary of state?

CLINTON: Never. (LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: Never crossed my mind. And what an extraordinary honor to be here, especially for this speech today.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president has a very high-powered team, Vice President Biden, General Jones, Secretary Gates. You’ve got envoys for Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea. How do you fit in?

(LAUGHTER) CLINTON: Well, I&

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your role, exactly?

CLINTON: Well, my role is as the chief diplomat for the United States of America. And, you know, when I agreed to do this job, I made it very clear to the president that I would be able to run the State Department and USAID, and that we would have to forge a team that I think we’ve done very well. And that I wanted special envoys, because we were inheriting so many hotspot problems that I knew you could never have one person possibly address all of that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It also gives you the ability to get out of the crisis management and carve out areas where you’re really going to take initiative. What are those?

CLINTON: Well, I’m having to do both. I mean, I spend a lot of my time on the problems that you would imagine, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Middle East, Iran. But I’m also working to create a strategic set of priorities that will guide our efforts.

So for example, there are specific regional and country-based endeavors that we are teeing up. We are going to work really hard on our relationships with, for example, Indonesia and Turkey and India.

We have a strategic and economic dialogue that will start the last week in July with China that Secretary Geithner and I are going to co-lead. I mean, we& (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: Plenty of work to go around.

CLINTON: There is plenty of work to go around. But then there are transnational problems. I mean, the president asked me to lead the effort on food security. The president also wants us to focus on Haiti. And ironically the United Nations&

STEPHANOPOULOS: The — you know, President Clinton&

CLINTON: & secretary-general asked Bill to be the special envoy. So we’re really going to have a united effort by our government and by the international community. Those are just some of the, you know, very specific and more general challenges that we are taking on and managing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re also developing a reputation for blunt talk as secretary. You talked about Pakistan abdicating its responsibilities, about the idea that we get into negotiation with North Korea is implausible. And especially on this issue of settlements with Israel, you were very strong last week, so was the president. And I don’t know if you’ve seen the headlines in Israel, headlines talking about the American threat. Publicly the prime minister is saying that this is just unreasonable, these demands from the United States. And privately he was reported to have said, and this is a quote: “What the hell do they want from me?”

CLINTON: Well, George, I think it’s very clear, as you heard in the speech from the president here in Cairo, that he wants to focus from the very beginning of his term in office on doing everything he can to try to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians together. We were very close in 2000. And it’s heartbreaking to see where we are today. And we can’t just stand by and expect time to work its magic. So that means, as the president said in his speech, and as he has said on several other occasions prior to it, that we have to do our very best to reassure Israel, to demonstrate our commitment to Israel’s security, that the bonds we have are unshakeable and durable. But we do have a view about Israel’s security. We see historical, demographic, political, technological trends that are very troubling as to Israel’s future. At the same time, there is a legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people that needs to be addressed.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is there any room for compromise on the settlements issue?

CLINTON: Well, I don’t think we want to pre-judge the effort. I think that if you look back, certainly from my perspective, every Israeli leader that I have personally known and others who I have looked at through an historical lens, has come to the same conclusion. Who would have predicted the Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert would have reached the conclusion they reached about what was in Israel’s best interest. Who would have predicted that even Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his earlier term, during the 1990s, would have made some of the decisions he made.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But his team says now that if you continue to push this, it’s going to bring down his government.

CLINTON: We are setting forth our views. Obviously decisions about how to go forward are up to the Israelis and the Palestinians. But I think it is an appropriate role for the United States, and certainly it is what the president has decided, to make clear some of the obstacles he sees. Now remember, the Israelis made a commitment in the road map in the prior administration –

STEPHANOPOULOS: But they say that includes an understanding for natural growth inside the settlement.

CLINTON: Well, that was an understanding that was entered into so far as we are told, orally. That was never made a part of the official record of the negotiations, as it was passed on to our administration. No one in the Bush administration said to anyone that we can find in our administration –

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not only Elliot Abrams? You wrote about that.

CLINTON: Nobody in a position of authority at the time that the Obama administration came into office said anything about it. And in fact, there is also a record that President Bush contradicted even that oral agreement.

But, the fact is that the road map which was agreed to officially, adopted by the Israeli government said something very clear about settlements.

So, I think that what the president is doing is saying, look, everybody should comply with the obligations you’ve already committed to. And for the Palestinians, let’s not forget. They must end incitement against Israel. They must demonstrate an ability to provide security.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s what I wanted to ask you about. Abbas was in Washington, last week, He had an interview in the “Washington Post” where he sure seemed to suggest that he doesn’t have to do anything right now.

CLINTON: Well, I think you’re seeing public positions taken, which is understandable in a process like this. But, we’ve made it very clear to President Abbas, what we expect from him, as well.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about Iran? You reported in the papers back in March, when you met with the Foreign Minister of the UAE that you were skeptical of the possibility that diplomacy would work to stall or stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Are you still that doubtful?

CLINTON: Well, I am someone who’s going to wait and see. I mean, I want to see what the president’s engagement will bring. We have a team of people who we have tasked to work on this. I think there’s an enormous amount of potential for change if the Iranians are willing to pursue that –

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, what do you think they want deep down? You know, you read some of their public declarations by their supreme leader and others saying that they consider nuclear weapons un-Islamic. Yet, they continue to pursue the nuclear program.

CLINTON: But George, one of the values of engagement is we need to have better information, and maybe about each other. Not just about a one-way street of information. The idea that we could have a diplomatic process with Iran means that for the first time, we would actually be sitting at a table across from Iranians authorized by the supreme leader to talk with us about a whole range of issues. That gives us information and insight that we don’t have. Of course there’s a contradiction because we don’t have any really clear sense as to what it is they are seeking.

Now, one of the things that you heard the president say is, you know, we understand the legitimate right of nations to have access to peaceful, nuclear energy. If that is at the core of what they want, there are ways of accommodating that do not lead to a nuclear weapon. But, we have to test that and we have to be willing to sit and listen and evaluate without giving up what we view as a primary objective of the engagement, which is to do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your own envoy Dennis Ross has said one way to strengthen the position the United States going into these negotiations is to make it very clear that if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel or any U.S. ally, that would be met as an attack on the United States — full response. Now, that was your position during the campaign, as well.

Is it U.S. policy now?

CLINTON: I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be formal as it is with NATO, but, I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: By the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is we want to avoid a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East. And we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs. Now, let me just put it this way. If Iran is seeking security, if they believe — and you know, you have to put yourself into the shoes of the other party when you negotiate — if they believe that the United States might attack them the way that we did attack Iraq, for example –

STEPHANOPOULOS: Before they attack, as a first strike.

CLINTON: That’s right, as a first strike. Or, they might have some other enemies that would do that to them. Part of what we have to make clear to the Iranians is that their pursuit of nuclear weapons will actually trigger greater insecurity because right now, many of the nations in the neighborhood, as you know very well –

STEPHANOPOULOS: Because Israel will strike before they can finish.

CLINTON: Well, but not only that. I mean, other countries — other Arab countries are deeply concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons. So, does Iran want to face a battery of nuclear weapons countries — (CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you get those other Arab nations to say that publically? That was part of the president’s theme today. CLINTON: Well, you know, we’ve been there a little over four months. And clearly a lot of what we’re doing is teeing up our framework for decision making. We are aggressively pursuing diplomacy, not as an end in itself, but as a means to try to resolve some of these outstanding and very difficult problems. We are trying to make clear that the United States is of course going to pursue our interests in values. But, frankly, we believe there are ways that we can make them consonant with the issues and values that are important to others, as well.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, when I saw President Ahmadinejad last month, he said the U.S. wasn’t really walking the block here and he cited the idea that President Obama never responded to his initial letter of congratulations. Why not?

CLINTON: Well, I think that President Obama has made very clear that he is going to put forth an open hand. But not as part of an electoral ploy or propaganda.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you have to let the elections play out.

CLINTON: I think just like in every country. There is a process that takes place during an election. That will be over soon. And then we’re going to hope to get a positive process going.

STEPHANOPOULOS: With North Korea it seems like nothing has worked. Engagement doesn’t work, isolation doesn’t work. They keep on pursuing their nuclear ambitions. And the problem with North Korea is that they’ve tried to sell every single weapon they’ve ever made.

CLINTON: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, what does that mean? How do we stop them now and what happens if they try to sell nuclear material?

CLINTON: One of the positive developments, George, in the face of what has been very provocative and belligerent behavior by the North Koreans is that it has actually brought the members of — six-party process — Japan, South Korea, China, Russia, the United States, much closer together in how we view –

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that process isn’t going anywhere, is there?

CLINTON: Well, but I think what is going somewhere is additional sanctions in the United Nations. Arms embargo, other measures taken against North Korea with the full support of China and Russia.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Including enforcing past resolutions which gives the U.N. the ability to board North Korean ships?

CLINTON: Well, we are working very hard to create a mechanism where we can interdict North Korean shipments. Obviously some countries — not just the ones I named — but others have some legitimate concerns about setting precedent and alike. But, we are working very hard. I’ve personally talked with all the foreign ministers. Some of them many more times than just a couple. We’ve been in very close communication. Obviously we’re working closely with our team in New York. We think we’re going to come out of this with a very strong resolution with teeth that will have consequences for the North Korean regime.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what are the consequences if they try to ship nuclear material elsewhere?

CLINTON: We will do everything we can to both interdict it and prevent it and shut off their flow of money. If we do not take significant and effective action against the North Koreans now, we’ll spark an arms race in Northeast Asia. I don’t think anybody wants to see that. And so part of what we’re doing is again, sharing with other countries our calculus of the risks and the dangers that would lie ahead if we don’t take very strong action.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several senators wrote the president a letter just the other day that North Korea should go back on list of the states who sponsor terrorism. Will you do that?

CLINTON: Well, we’re going to look at it. There’s a process for it. Obviously we would want to see recent evidence of their support for international terrorism.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any?

CLINTON: Well, we’re just beginning to look at it. I don’t have an answer for you right now.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Because the senators say they never stopped with these actions.

CLINTON: Well, we — you know, we take it very seriously. I mean, obviously they were taken off of the list for a purpose and that purpose is being thwarted by their actions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One other issue on North Korea. The trial has begun for the American journalists.

CLINTON: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the families of the journalists have come out very clearly and said, the only way this is going to be solved is if the United States government gets involved directly. Have you been involved directly in any way?

CLINTON: I have been. I have been involved directly in working with our team as they have made approaches and requests for information through the channels we use with North Korea. The Swedish ambassador in Pyongyang is taking care of our interests there. He has visited both young women I think, now three times, if I’m not mistaken. I’ve met with the families. We have made it clear through statements, both public and private that we view this as a humanitarian issue –

STEPHANOPOULOS: We were told that you sent a letter saying that the girls didn’t mean — the women didn’t mean to go into North Korea, and asking for their release.

CLINTON: I have taken every action that we thought would produce the result we’re looking for. We think that the charges against these young women are absolutely without merit or foundation. We hope the trial ends quickly, it’s resolved and they’re sent home.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Have you gotten any hopeful signs back?

CLINTON: We have gotten some responses but we’re not sure exactly who’s going to be making this decision and what the reasons for the eventual decision are. So, we’ve been very careful in what we’ve said because clearly we don’t want this pulled into the political issues that we have with North Korea, or the concerns that are being expressed in the United Nations Security Council. This is separate. It is a humanitarian issue and the girls should be let go.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s an interesting point: you don’t know who is going to make this decision. Do you believe these reports that Kim Jong-il has tapped his youngest son as his successor? CLINTON: We obviously are following this very closely. We don’t yet know what the outcome of that decision& (CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: What would that mean?

CLINTON: We don’t know. I mean, we would have to wait and evaluate it, the time of it, who might be essentially, you know, put in place to supervise him, if he were the choice. We have to evaluate all of that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This week is also the anniversary of — the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. And you put out a very strong statement on that anniversary. Yet when you went to China earlier this year, you basically said the Chinese know what we think about human rights.

And I guess what I’m trying to get at is, how do you approach that issue? When do public statements make a difference? When should diplomacy be conducted privately? And who is your real audience with these statements?

CLINTON: You know, George, it’s such a great question. And there is no one easy answer, because I think so much of it depends upon what our objectives are. We have made very clear time and time again our concerns about religious freedom in China, treatment of Tibet, Tibetan culture. So that is — we’re on the record with that. We’ve had these, you know, very strong statements that we’ve made historically, going back years, and so of course we want everyone to know that we still feel very strongly about it. But we also would like to see if there is some way we could actually chip away at Chinese resistance to providing some more, at least cultural and religious autonomy for Tibetans. So we — it’s a constant weighing process. You know, I think a lot of times the public statements can turn out to be counterproductive. They can harden positions. Yet at the same time, the public statements can hearten those who are the dissidents. So trying to keep that in balance so that we don’t ever turn our backs on those who are struggling for the very rights that we believe in so strongly and that we think are universal rights, and yet looking for ways that we can actually get results, not just score debating points or, you know, have somebody say, good for you, you made a strong statement.

So what we’re trying to do, and I think you hear it from what the president and I have been saying over the last four months is to really focus in on where we can make progress.

STEPHANOPOULOS: A year ago, you bowed out of the presidential campaign, very graceful speech. It was a bitter campaign. And I’m just wondering, how did president Obama convince you to come on his team?

(LAUGHTER) CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I never had any — any dream, let alone inkling that I would end up in President Obama’s cabinet. When I left the presidential race after getting some sleep and taking some deep breaths, I immediately went to work for him in the general election. I, you know, traveled the country. I worked hard on my supporters. I made the case, which I believed strongly in making sure that we elected him our president. And I was looking forward to going back to the Senate and, frankly, going back to my life and representing New York, which I love. And I had no idea that he had a different plan in mind. So when&

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since the primaries.

CLINTON: Well, but I had — I mean, that was certainly never expected. And after the election, I started seeing little, you know, tidbits in the press, I thought it was absurd. I thought, you know, this is the kind of silly stuff that ends up in the press. And then when he called and asked me to come see him, and we had our first conversation, I said, you know, I really don’t think I’m the person to do this, I want to go back to my life. I really feel like I owe it to the people of New York. And I gave him a bunch of other names of people who I thought would be great secretaries of state. But he was quite persistent and very persuasive. And, you know, ultimately it came down to my feeling that, number one, when your president asks you to do something for your country, you really need a good reason not to do it. Number two, if I had won and I had asked him to please help me serve our country, I would have hoped he would say yes. And finally, I looked around our world and I thought, you know, we are in just so many deep holes that everybody had better grab a shovel and start digging out.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Final question. The Economist magazine said this week that the question you raised in that famous “3 a.m.” ad is right back in the center of American politics.

Has the president answered it for you?

CLINTON: Absolutely. And, you know, the president in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has been strong, thoughtful, decisive, I think he is doing a terrific job. And it’s an honor to serve with him.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Madam Secretary, thank you very much.

CLINTON: Thanks. Good to talk to you.

1:10 P.M. (Local)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I’m grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I’m also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there’s been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum — “Out of many, one.”

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes — and, yes, religions — subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I’m aware that there’s still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who’ve been displaced. That’s why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future — and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people — (applause) — I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. And that’s why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they’ve endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It’s easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations — the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them — and all of us — to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I’ve made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It’s about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that’s why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I’m hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know — I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they’re out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it’s being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there’s a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of somebody else’s faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that’s why we’re forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That’s why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action — whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue — the sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights. (Applause.) I know — I know — and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we’ve seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women — to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations — including America — this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities — those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century — (applause) — and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I’m emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We’ll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I’m announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek — a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many — Muslim and non-Muslim — who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort — that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There’s so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country — you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort — a sustained effort — to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It’s easier to start wars than to end them. It’s easier to blame others than to look inward. It’s easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There’s one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples — a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

END
2:05 P.M. (Local)

Readout of The President’s Meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

President Obama and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia met today and discussed a wide range of issues including Middle East peace, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, energy, Iran and other matters affecting the region. The President and the King also discussed the President’s upcoming speech to the Muslim world. The President and King pledged to remain in close contact in order to continue to make progress on these and other issues central to the US-Saudi relationship.

###

This came, “Immediate Release,” for God’s Sake!  LMAO.  How about if the White House just released the President’s public schedule each day.  For the 30 minutes it took some young press aide to sweat over the drivel above and the layers of approval it probably went through, is it really worth it?

Exercises like the one above are not transparency.

There were actually at least four “Tank Man” photographs.  Go check out a splendid post over at the Lens blog at the New York Times for more.  Below is an interview with Jeff Widener a former AP photog (his picture above).

Q    Mr. President, welcome to the program.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.

Q    Mr. President, thank you for joining us — that we could join you, in this case.  If you want to improve relations with the Muslim world, do you have to change or alter in some way the strong U.S. support for Israel?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I don’t think that we have to change strong U.S. support for Israel.  I think that we do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace, and that that’s going to require, from my view, a two-state solution; that it’s going to require that each side — Israelis and Palestinians — meet their obligations.

I’ve said very clearly to the Israelis both privately and publicly that a freeze on settlements including natural growth is part of those obligations.  I’ve said to the Palestinians that their continued progress on security and ending the incitement that I think understandably makes Israelis so concerned — that that has to be — those obligations have to be met.

So the key is to just believe that that process can move forward and that all sides are going to have to give.  And it’s not going to be an easy path, but one that I think we can achieve.

Q    Mr. President, you mentioned a freeze on settlements.  The Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is quoted today saying to Cabinet members in Israel that he will not follow your demand for a freeze on settlements in the West Bank, that it’s not going to happen.  What does it suggest that Israel is not taking your advice?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think it’s still early in the process.  They formed a government, what, a month ago?  I think that we’re going to have a series of conversations.  Obviously the first priority of a Israeli Prime Minister is to think in terms of Israel’s security.  I believe that strategically the status quo is unsustainable when it comes to Israeli security; that over time, in the absence of peace with the Palestinians, Israel will continue to be threatened militarily and will have enormous problems along its borders.

And so it is not only in the Palestinians’ interest to have a state; I believe it is in the Israelis, as well, and in the United States’ interest as well.

Q    But if the United States says for years that Israel should stop the settlements, and for years Israel simply does not, and the United States continues supporting Israel in roughly the same way, what does that do with American credibility in the Muslim world, which you’re trying to address?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think what is certainly true is that the United States has to follow through on what it says.  Now, as I said before, I haven’t said anything yet because it’s early in the process.  But it is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace and that there’s not equivocation and there’s not a sense that we expect only compromise on one side; it’s going to have to be two-sided.

`And I don’t think anybody would deny that in theory.  When it comes to the concrete, then the politics of it get difficult both within the Israeli and the Palestinian communities.  But, look, if this was easy it would have already been done.

Q    Many people in the region are concerned; when they look at the U.S. relationship with Israel, they feel that Israel has favored status in all cases.  And what do you say to people in the Muslim world who feel that the U.S. has, repeatedly over time, blindly supported Israel?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what I’d say is there’s no doubt that the United States has a special relationship with Israel.  There are a lot of Israelis who used to be Americans.  There is huge cross-cultural ties between the two countries.  I think that as a vibrant democracy that shares many of our values, obviously we’re deeply sympathetic to Israel.

And I think I would also say that given past statements surrounding Israel — the notion that they should be driven into the sea, that they should be annihilated, that they should be obliterated, the armed aggression that’s been directed towards them in the past — you can understand why not only Israelis would feel concern, but the United States would feel it was important to back this stalwart ally.

Now, having said all that, what is also true is that part of being a good friend is being honest, and I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative not only for Israeli interests, but also U.S. interests.  And that’s part of a new dialogue that I’d like to see encouraged in the region.

Q    Does it undermine your effort, reaching out to the Muslim world, which you’ll do with the speech in Cairo, that you’ll be speaking in a country with an undemocratic government that is an ally of the United States?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, keep in mind I already spoke in Turkey.  They have a democracy that I’m sure some Turks would say has flaws to it, just as there are some Americans who would suggest there are flaws to American democracy –

Q    Are you about to say Egypt is just a country with some flaws?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, what I’m about — don’t put words in my mouth, Steve, especially not in the White House.  (Laughter.) You can wait until the postscript.

There is a wide range of governments throughout the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world, and the main thing for me to do is to project what our values are, what our ideals are, what we care most deeply about — and that is democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

Now, in every country I deal with, whether it’s China, Russia, ultimately Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, allies as well as non-allies, there are going to be some differences.  And what I want to do is just maintain consistency in affirming what those values that I believe in are, understanding that we’re not going to get countries to embrace various of our values simply by lecturing or through military means.  We can’t force these approaches.  What we can do is stand up for human rights; we can stand up for democracy.  But I think it’s a mistake for us to somehow suggest that we’re not going to deal with countries around the world in the absence of their meeting all our criteria for democracy.

Q    Michele Norris.

Q    You’ve mentioned many times the importance of reaching out to Iran with an open hand, trying to engage that country.  Are you also willing to try to engage with Hezbollah or Hamas, entities that have now had significant gains in recent elections?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let’s just underscore a point here.  Iran is a huge, significant nation state that has, I think, across the international community been recognized as such.  Hezbollah and Hamas are not.  And I don’t think that we have to approach those entities in the same way.  In the –

Q    — does that change with their electoral gains?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, if at some point — Lebanon is a member of the United Nations — if at some point they are elected as a head of state — or a head of state is elected in Lebanon that is a member of that organization, then that would raise these issues.  That hasn’t happened yet.

With respect to Hamas, I do think that if they recognize the Quartet principles that have been laid out — and these are fairly modest conditions here — that you recognize the state of Israel without prejudging what various grievances or claims are appropriate, that you abide by previous agreements, that you renounce violence as a means of achieving your goals — then I think discussions with Hamas could potentially proceed.

And so the problem has been that there’s been a preference oftentimes on the part of these organizations to use violence and not take responsibility for governance as a means of winning propaganda wars or advancing their organizational aims.  At some point, though, they may make a transition — there are examples of — in the past, of organizations that have successfully transitioned from violent organizations to ones that recognize that they can achieve their aims more effectively through political means, and I hope that occurs.

Q    Mr. President, because you mentioned Iran I want to ask a question about that and about your efforts to engage with the Muslim world in a different way.  I’d like to know which development you think would be more harmful to America’s prestige in the Muslim world, which is worse:  An Iranian government that has nuclear weapons, or an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m not going to engage in these hypotheticals, Steve, but I can tell you that my view is that Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing to the region — not just with respect to Israel’s response, but the response of other Arab states in the region, or Muslim states in the region that might be concerned about Iran having an undue advantage.

More broadly, I’ve got a concern about nuclear proliferation generally, something that I talked about in my speech in Prague. I think one of the things that we need to do is to describe to the Iranians a pathway for them achieving security, respect and prosperity that doesn’t involve them possessing a nuclear weapon. But we have to be able to make that same argument to other countries that might aspire to nuclear weapons, and we have to apply some of those same principles to ourselves, so that — for example, I’ll be traveling next month to Moscow to initiate START talks, trying to reduce our nuclear stockpiles, as part of a broader effort in the international community to contain our nuclear weapons.

Q    And you want other nations to restrain themselves until you can complete that process?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, that’s going to be the challenge.  That’s why we’re so busy around here all the time.

Q    Let me ask about one other challenge if I might.

Forgive me, Michele, go ahead.

Q    No, go ahead.

Q    Is your effort to engage the Muslim world likely to be complicated or even undermined by the fact that you’re escalating a war in a Muslim country, Afghanistan, with the inevitable civilian casualties and other bad news that will come out of there?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there’s no doubt that anytime you have civilian casualties that always complicates things, whether it was a Muslim or a non-Muslim country.  I think part of what I’ll be addressing in my speech is a reminder that the reason that we’re in Afghanistan is very simple, and that is 3,000 Americans were killed and you had a devastating attack on the American homeland; the organization that planned those attacks intends to carry out further attacks and we cannot stand by and allow that to happen.

But I am somebody who is very anxious to have the Afghan government and the Pakistani government have the capacity to ensure that those safe havens don’t exist.  And so it’s — I think will be an important reminder that we have no territorial ambitions in Afghanistan.  We don’t have an interest in exploiting the resources of Afghanistan.  What we want is simply that people aren’t hanging out in Afghanistan who are plotting to bomb the United States.  And I think that’s a fairly modest goal that other Muslim countries should be able to understand.

Q    Mr. President, you have talked about creating a new path forward on Guantanamo, on the relationship that the U.S. has with countries in the Muslim world, and on several fronts.  But at the same time, the former Vice President has been out talking about the policies in the former administration.  He’s forceful, he’s unapologetic, and he doesn’t seem willing to scale back his rhetoric.  How much does that undermine or complicate your effort to extend a hand, to explain the Obama doctrine and draw a line of demarcation between that administration and yours?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, he also happens to be wrong.  Right? And last time, immediately after his speech, I think there was a fact check on his speech that didn’t get a very good grade.

Does it make it more complicated?  No, because I think these are complicated issues and there is a legitimate debate to be had about national security.  And I don’t doubt the sincerity of the former Vice President or the previous administration in wanting to protect the American people — and these are very difficult decisions.  If you’ve got a — as I said in my speech, if you’ve got an organization that is out to kill Americans and is not bound by any rules, then that puts an enormous strain on not only our intelligence operations, our national security operations, but also our legal system.

The one thing that I’m absolutely persuaded by, though, is that if we are true to our ideals and our values, if these decisions aren’t made unilaterally by the executive branch, but rather in consultation and in open fashion and in democratic debate, that the Muslim world and the world generally will see that we have upheld our values, been true to our ideals, and that ultimately will make us safer.

Q    It’s unusual for the debate to be playing out in a public forum, though.  Have you picked up the phone?  Have you talked to him?  Have you had a conversation?

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t think it’s that unusual.  As I remember, there were some speeches given by Vice President Gore that differed with President Bush’s policies.  And I think that’s healthy; that’s part of the debate.  And I don’t in any way begrudge, I think, anybody in debating, sometimes ferociously, these issues that are of premium importance to the United States. And I am constantly listening and gauging whether or not there’s new information out there that I should take into account.

I will tell you that based on my reviews, I am very confident about the policies that we’ve taken being the right ones for the American people.

Q    We’re told that our time is up.  So you’ve been very generous.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, guys.

END                4:18 P.M. EDT

Official: N. Korea fires missiles to threaten U.S. spy planes - Yonhap

North Korea fired two additional short-range missiles Monday in an apparent move to threaten U.S. spy planes monitoring a site where the regime is believed to have conducted its second nuclear test, a South Korean official said.

“The launches took place at around 5:03 p.m.,” the official said, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. North Korea had earlier launched a surface-to-air missile around noon, hours after it said it detonated a nuclear device in an underground bunker.

• Scale of N. Korean Test Unclear – New York Times
• N. Korea conducts ‘successful’ nuclear test – Washington Post
• World leaders condemn North Korea, Urge Action – Reuters
• In Quotes: World Leaders React – BBC
• China “resolutely opposes” N. Korean test – Xinhua

“The Korean Central News Agency released the following report on Monday in connection with one more successful underground nuclear test in the DPRK.

“The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test on May 25 as part of the measures to bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defence in every way as requested by its scientists and technicians.

“The current nuclear test was safely conducted on a new higher level in terms of its explosive power and technology of its control and the results of the test helped satisfactorily settle the scientific and technological problems arising in further increasing the power of nuclear weapons and steadily developing nuclear technology.

“The successful nuclear test is greatly inspiring the army and people of the DPRK all out in the 150-day campaign, intensifying the drive for effecting a new revolutionary surge to open the gate to a thriving nation.

“The test will contribute to defending the sovereignty of the country and the nation and socialism and ensuring peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and the region around it with the might of (the military first policy) Songun.”