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.

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

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words – “to form a more perfect union.” I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset – in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.

It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they’d receive better treatment from America’s armed forces than from their own government.

It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries.

It is the reason why we’ve been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.

From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era – that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What’s more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture “serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us.” And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration – including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community – that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong – in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law – a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.

I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is – quite simply – a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall – when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won’t permit it. Our courts won’t allow it. And neither should our conscience.

Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I’ve heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear. And I will focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; second, issues relating to security and transparency.

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts – courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center – he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker – he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee – al-Marri – in federal court after years of legal confusion. We are preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania – bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms – among others – will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture – like other prisoners of war – must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don’t make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees – not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution – so did each and every member of Congress. Together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

The second set of issues that I want to discuss relates to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. Our democracy depends upon transparency, but some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security – for instance, the movements of our troops; our intelligence-gathering; or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I reject their legal rationale – although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded – we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment – informed by my national security team – that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm’s way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm’s way.

In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. This balance brings with it a precious responsibility. And there is no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That causes suspicion to build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability.

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued – and never will – that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon – and I will vigorously defend – the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions – by Congress or by the courts.

We are launching a review of current policies by all of those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it comes to sensitive information.

Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the “State Secrets” privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It has been used by many past Presidents – Republican and Democrat – for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally, each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.

On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don’t know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.

There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions: even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly re-evaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy that protects the American people, and enjoys broad legitimacy at home and abroad.

That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights – through World War and Cold War – because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn’t always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and – in all probability – ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my Administration – along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security – will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals.

This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America – it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again. Thank you, God Bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, listen, I first of all want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for making this visit. I think we had a extraordinarily productive series of conversations, not only between the two of us but also at the staff and agency levels.

Obviously this reflects the extraordinary relationship, the special relationship between the United States and Israel. It is a stalwart ally of the United States. We have historical ties, emotional ties. As the only true democracy of the Middle East it is a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.

I have said from the outset that when it comes to my policies towards Israel and the Middle East that Israel’s security is paramount, and I repeated that to Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel’s security as an independent Jewish state is maintained.

One of the areas that we discussed is the deepening concern

around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran. It’s something the Prime Minister has been very vocal in his concerns about, but is a concern that is shared by his countrymen and women across the political spectrum.

I indicated to him the view of our administration, that Iran is a country of extraordinary history and extraordinary potential, that we want them to be a full-fledged member of the international community and be in a position to provide opportunities and prosperity for their people, but that the way to achieve those goals is not through the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And I indicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu in private what I have said publicly, which is that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.

We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course. But I assured the Prime Minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious. And obviously the Prime Minister emphasized his seriousness around this issue as well — I’ll allow him to speak for himself on that subject.

We also had an extensive discussion about the possibilities of restarting serious negotiations on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians. I have said before and I will repeat again that it is I believe in the interest not only of the Palestinians, but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.

We have seen progress stalled on this front, and I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure. That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they’ve previously agreed to. Those obligations were outlined in the road map; they were discussed extensively in Annapolis. And I think that we can — there is no reason why we should not seize this opportunity and this moment for all the parties concerned to take seriously those obligations and to move forward in a way that assures Israel’s security, that stops the terrorist attacks that have been such a source of pain and hardship, that we can stop rocket attacks on Israel; but that also allow Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state, that allows economic development to take place, that allows them to make serious progress in meeting the aspirations of their people.

And I am confident that in the days, weeks and months to come we are going to be able to make progress on that issue.

So let me just summarize by saying that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has the benefit of having served as Prime Minister previously. He has both youth and wisdom –

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I’ll dispute youth, but — (laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: — and I think is in a position to achieve the security objectives of Israel, but also bring about historic peace. And I’m confident that he’s going to seize this moment. And the United States is going to do everything we can to be constructive, effective partners in this process.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: President Obama, thank you. Thank you for your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader — a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who is acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf.

We met before, but this is the first time that we’re meeting as President and Prime Minister. So I was particularly pleased at your reaffirmation of the special relationship between Israel and the United States. We share the same goals and we face the same threats. The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace. The common threat we face are terrorist regimes and organizations that seek to undermine the peace and endanger both our peoples.

In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by any standard. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, it could actually give terrorists nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.

So in that context, I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.

I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world, if we could, Mr. President, so — this (inaudible) that one shouldn’t let go, maybe peace with the entire Arab world.

I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel. And for this there has to be a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There will have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We’re ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share, as well. If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself. And if those conditions are met, Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy, its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security, and in peace.

And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you, a true friend of Israel, to the achievement of our common goals, which are security, prosperity, and above all, peace.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. We’re going to take a couple of questions. We’re going to start with Steve.

Q Mr. President, you spoke at length, as did the Prime Minister, about Iran’s nuclear program. Your program of engagement, policy of engagement, how long is that going to last? Is there a deadline?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I don’t want to set an artificial deadline. I think it’s important to recognize that Iran is in the midst of its own elections. As I think all of you, since you’re all political reporters, are familiar with, election time is not always the best time to get business done.

Their elections will be completed in June, and we are hopeful that, at that point, there is going to be a serious process of engagement, first through the P5-plus-one process that’s already in place, potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran.

I want to reemphasize what I said earlier, that I believe it is not only in the interest of the international community that Iran not develop nuclear weapons, I firmly believe it is in Iran’s interest not to develop nuclear weapons, because it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and be profoundly destabilizing in all sorts of ways. Iran can achieve its interests of security and international respect and prosperity for its people through other means, and I am prepared to make what I believe will be a persuasive argument, that there should be a different course to be taken.

The one thing we’re also aware of is the fact that the history, of least, of negotiation with Iran is that there is a lot of talk but not always action and follow-through. And that’s why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talks forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear — and deploying a nuclear weapon. That’s something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it’s also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.

My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good faith effort to resolve differences. That doesn’t mean every issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we’ll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this approach.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Aren’t you concerned that your outstretched hand has been interpreted by extremists, especially Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Meshal, as weakness? And since my colleague already asked about the deadline, if engagement fails, what then, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it’s not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.

Q Qatar, an example.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry?

Q The example of Qatar. They would have preferred to be on your side and then moved to the extremists, to Iran.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Oh, I think — yes, I’m not sure about that interpretation. Look, we’ve been in office a little over a hundred days now — close to four months. We have put forward a clear principle that where we can resolve issues through negotiations and diplomacy, we should. We didn’t expect — and I don’t think anybody in the international community or anybody in the Middle East, for that matter — would expect that 30 years of antagonism and suspicion between Iran and the United States would be resolved in four months. So we think it’s very important for us to give this a chance.

Now, understand that part of the reason that it’s so important for us to take a diplomatic approach is that the approach that we’ve been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked. Nobody disagrees with that. Hamas and Hezbollah have gotten stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished. And so not talking — that clearly hasn’t worked. That’s what’s been tried. And so what we’re going to do is try something new, which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians.

The important thing is to make sure that there is a clear timetable of — at which point we say these talks don’t seem to be making any serious progress. It hasn’t been tried before so we don’t want to prejudge that, but as I said, by the end of the year I think we should have some sense as to whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we’re starting to see serious movement on the part of the Iranians.

If that hasn’t taken place, then I think the international community will see that it’s not the United States or Israel or other countries that are seeking to isolate or victimize Iran; rather, it is Iran itself which is isolating itself by willing to — being unwilling to engage in serious discussions about how they can preserve their security without threatening other people’s security — which ultimately is what we want to achieve.

We want to achieve a situation where all countries in the region can pursue economic development and commercial ties and trade and do so without the threat that their populations are going to be subject to bombs and destruction.

That’s what I think the Prime Minister is interested in, that’s what I’m interested in, and I hope that ends up being what the ruling officials in Iran are interested in, as well.

Don Gonyea. Where’s Gonyea?

Q Right here. Thank you. Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, can you each react to King Abdullah’s statement of a week ago that we really are at a critical place in the conflict and that if this moment isn’t seized and if a peace isn’t achieved now, soon, that in a year, year and a half, we could see renewed major conflict, perhaps war? And do you agree with that assessment?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I think we have to seize the moment and I think we’re fortunate in having a leader like President Obama and a new government in Israel and perhaps a new understanding in the Arab world that I haven’t seen in my lifetime. And you’re very kind to be calling me young, but I’m more than half a century old and in my 59 years in the life of the Jewish state, there’s never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today and also see the need to join together in working towards peace while simultaneously defending ourselves against this common threat.

I think we have — we have ways to capitalize on this sense of urgency and we’re prepared to move with the President and with others in the Arab world if they’re prepared to move, as well. And I think the important thing that we discussed, among other things, is how to buttress the Israeli-Palestinian peace tracks, which we want to resume right away, with participation from others in the Arab world; how we give confidence to each other that would — changes the reality, it changes the reality on the ground, changing political realities top-down, as well, while we work to broaden the circle of peace.

And I think that the sense of urgency that King Abdullah expressed is shared by me and shared by many others and I definitely know it’s shared by President Obama.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Look, I think there’s an extraordinary opportunity and the Prime Minister said it well. You have Arab states in the region — the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudis — who I think are looking for an opportunity to break this long-standing impasse but aren’t sure how to do it, and share concerns about Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon. In order for us to potentially realign interests in the region in a constructive way, bolstering, to use the Prime Minister’s word, the Palestinian-Israeli peace track is critical.

It will not be easy. It never has been easy. In discussions, I don’t think the Prime Minister would mind me saying to him — or saying publically what I said privately, which is that there is a recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution; that, you know, the leadership of the Palestinians will have to gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that’s something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish.

The other Arab states have to be more supportive and be bolder in seeking potential normalization with Israel. And next week I will have the Palestinian Authority President Abbas as well as President Mubarak here and I will deliver that message to them.

Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well, and I shared with the Prime Minister the fact that under the roadmap and under Annapolis that there’s a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that, but it’s an important one and it has to be addressed.

I think the humanitarian situation in Gaza has to be addressed. Now, I was along the border in Sderot and saw the evidence of weapons that had been raining down on the heads of innocents in those Israeli cities, and that’s unacceptable. So we’ve got to work with the Egyptians to deal with the smuggling of weapons and it has to be meaningful because no Prime Minister of any country is going to tolerate missiles raining down on their citizens’ heads.

On the other hand, the fact is, is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel’s long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.

So all these things are going to have to come together and it’s going to be difficult, but the one thing that I’ve committed to the Prime Minister is we are going to be engaged, the United States is going to roll up our sleeves. We want to be a strong partner in this process.

I have great confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political skills, but also his historical vision and his recognition that during the years that he is Prime Minister this second go-around, he is probably going to be confronted with as many important decisions about the long-term strategic interests of Israel as any Prime Minister that we’ve seen in a very long time. And I have great confidence that he’s going to rise to the occasion and I actually think that you’re going to see movement in — among Arab states that we have not seen before.

But the trick is to try to coordinate all this in a very delicate political environment. And that’s why I’m so pleased to have George Mitchell, who is standing behind the scrum there, as our special envoy, because I’m very confident that as somebody who was involved in equally delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, he is somebody who recognizes that if you apply patience and determination, and you keep your eye on the long-term goal, as the Prime Minister articulated — which is a wide-ranging peace, not a grudging peace, not a transitory peace, but a wide-ranging, regional peace — that we can make great progress.

Q Mr. President, the Israeli Prime Minister and the Israeli administration have said on many occasions — on some occasions that only if the Iranian threat will be solved, they can achieve real progress on the Palestinian threat. Do you agree with that kind of linkage?

And to the Israeli Prime Minister, you were speaking about the political track. Are you willing to get into final status issues/negotiations like borders, like Jerusalem in the near future, based on the two-state solution? And do you still hold this opinion about the linkage between the Iranian threat and your ability to achieve any progress on the Palestinian threat?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me say this. There’s no doubt that it is difficult for any Israeli government to negotiate in a situation in which they feel under immediate threat. That’s not conducive to negotiations. And as I’ve said before, I recognize Israel’s legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause.

Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.

Having said that, I think that dealing with Iran’s potential nuclear capacity is something that we should be doing even if there already was peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I think that pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace is something that is in Israeli’s security interests and the United States’ national security interests, even if Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon. They’re both important.

And we have to move aggressively on both fronts. And I think that based on my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he agrees with me that they’re both important. That’s not to say that he’s not making a calculation, as he should, about what are some of the most immediate threats to Israeli’s security, and I understand that.

But, look, imagine how much less mischief a Hezbollah or a Hamas could do if in fact we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief, and vice versa.

I mean, so obviously these things are related, but they are important separately. And I’m confident that the United States, working with Israel, can make progress on both fronts.

Q Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: We’ve had extraordinarily friendly and constructive talks here today, and I’m very grateful to the President for that. We want to move peace forward, and we want to ward off the great threats.

There isn’t a policy linkage, and that’s what I hear the President saying, and that’s what I’m saying too. And I’ve always said there’s not a policy linkage between pursuing simultaneously peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, and to trying to deal with removing the threat of a nuclear bomb.

There are causal links. The President talked about one of them. It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area, and threaten existing peace agreement.

So it’s very clear to us. I think we actually — we don’t see closely on it, we see exactly eye to eye on this — that we want to move simultaneously and then parallel on two fronts: the front of peace, and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability.

On the front of peace, the important thing for me is to resume negotiations as rapidly as possible, and to — and my view is less one of terminology, but one of substance. And I ask myself, what do we end up with? If we end up with another Gaza — the President has described to you there’s rockets falling out of Gaza — that is something we don’t want to happen, because a terror base next to our cities that doesn’t call — recognize Israel’s existence and calls for our destruction and asks for our destruction is not arguing peace.

If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they — if they fight terror, if they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come at a substantive solution that allows the two people to live side by side in security and peace and I add prosperity, because I’m a great believer in this.

So I think the terminology will take care of itself if we have the substantive understanding. And I think we can move forward on this. I have great confidence in your leadership, Mr. President, and in your friendship to my country, and in your championing of peace and security. And the answer is, both come together — peace and security are intertwined. They’re inseparable.

And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you to achieve both.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you, everybody.

END
1:55 P.M. EDT

MR. GREGORY:  We’re back.  King Abdullah of Jordan spent the last week here in Washington with a full agenda:  meeting with the president, the secretary of state, congressional leaders and a full military arrival ceremony at the Pentagon.  Before returning to Jordan on Friday, he stopped here at MEET THE PRESS for an exclusive interview.

Your Majesty, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

KING ABDULLAH II:  Thank you very much.

MR. GREGORY:  President Obama is now the third U.S. president that you have worked with.  You spent time with him this week and even during the campaign. Tell me your impressions here as he comes upon 100 days in office?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, I–from I think day one that I, I, I met him, a very impressive man.  A lot of depth.  A lot of, I think, instinctive understanding of the challenges that the world faces.  And obviously I’m here in Washington to talk about relaunching negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and Israelis and Arabs, and we had a meeting of the minds, very fruitful discussions.  And I think he has a clear understanding of, of what the challenges are.

MR. GREGORY:  How do you compare him to the president you worked the most with, and that’s President Bush?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, I think, again, President Bush had the instinctive understanding that we have to solve the core issue of the Middle East, which is the Israeli-Palestinian ones.  We’re here relaunching an initiative that allows Arabs to reach out to Israel if we can move on the two-state solution, which is critical for stability and peace for our region.

MR. GREGORY:  But is it fair to say that at the end of President Bush’s term in office you grew more impatient with him and his team and his approach?

KING ABDULLAH II:  I think he was dedicated to moving the process forward.  I think I was getting frustrated with the team that didn’t have a sense of urgency.  But a lot has changed in the world–the economic crisis for one, recently–that if we don’t sort of get a win somewhere, 2009, 2010 is going to be very difficult.

MR. GREGORY:  Speaking about President Bush, last December he spoke about the frustration along the path of his presidency, but also the state of the Middle East as he saw it.  This is what he said.

(Videotape, December 5, 2008)

FMR. PRES. GEORGE W.  BUSH:  Despite these frustrations and disappointments, the Middle East in 2008 is a freer, more hopeful and more promising place than it was in 2001.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  Do you agree with that?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Yes, but nowhere near what we need as the endgame.  I mean, it’s all relative at the end of the day.  Until you solve the problem, you’re going to get an up and down on how free or stable it is.  But we still haven’t solved the core issue.  So you can’t say that, that the, the future for the Middle East is any brighter.  Unless we solve the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Arab challenges, then we will always be an area of instability that costs all of us.

MR. GREGORY:  But it’s interesting that you raise that point as that being the core problem.  You ask most Americans and certainly the government, the core problem out of the Middle East right now is terrorism, is al-Qaeda.  And President Obama spoke about that very issue and seemed to be speaking to voices like yours when he was recently in France.  Listen to that.

(Videotape, April 3, 2009)

PRES. OBAMA:  Al-Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity.  It is–you know, don’t fool yourselves.  Because some people say, “Well, you know, if, if we changed our policies with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or, or if we were more respectful towards the Muslim world, suddenly these organizations would stop threatening us.” That’s just not the case.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  He seems to be contradicting you a bit.

KING ABDULLAH II:  Not at all.  What, what, what he’s trying to say and, and what I’m trying to say is the challenge that we have in front of American public is connecting the dots.  Any crisis that you want to talk about, whether it’s al-Qaeda, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, all comes back to the sore, the emotional issue that is Palestine and Jerusalem.  Any conflict that you pick in the Middle East today, all roads lead back to Jerusalem is probably be a better way of, of explaining it.  So until you deal with the Palestinian issue it is more difficult to deal with al-Qaeda, whether it’s Pakistan, all these other problems that you’re facing.

MR. GREGORY:  But, but isn’t–doesn’t that suggest, and he seems to be suggesting that that’s not the case; that if you just solve this problem that somehow al-Qaeda goes away, isn’t that fantasy?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, well, but what, what is al-Qaeda’s platform is, is, is the, the plight of the Palestinians in Jerusalem under occupation.

MR. GREGORY:  That’s what they say.  Is that what they really believe?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, I mean, you’re always going to have extremist elements that are going to be there to, to find a, a, a platform for recruiting.  But you can’t really take them that seriously when the core issue, the major grievance in the Arab and Muslim world is solved.  And so in Arab and Muslim minds, the most emotional aspect is the Palestinian cause and that of Jerusalem.  And from there leads all the other problems.

MR. GREGORY:  As you know, the president is expected to speak to the world, to the Muslim world, to the Arab world from an Arab capital some time during the first 100 days.  It may slip and go beyond the first 100 days.  What do you think his message should be?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, his message has been consistent in that he is showing that America has an outreach to the Muslim and Arab world.  We in, in Jordan initiated the, the Amman Message, which is an outreach of–well, actually inter-Islam to begin with, but also to Christians, Muslims and other–Jews and other faiths in the world.  But I think it’s never done at the level–it never has been done at the level of the president of the United States.  You have the most powerful, most capable country in the world, and the message of outreach from Obama has resonated extremely well in the Arab world.  But again, that’s only delaying the, the, the confrontation or the, the conflict unless we solve the core issue.

MR. GREGORY:  Hm.

KING ABDULLAH II:  And I–every time you come up and show me an example of a, of a problem, I’m going to point you back towards the Palestinians and Jerusalem.

MR. GREGORY:  What’s the image of the United States in the Middle East today?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Fantastic.

MR. GREGORY:  Really?

KING ABDULLAH II:  I, I, I, I, I want to say that I have been following, by chance, President Obama around the world.  I was in England a, a day or two behind him, I was in the Czech Republic.  I just come from Japan on the way here to Washington.  Wherever you go, and all the leaders that I’ve spoken to the–in the Middle East, this president provides hope.  Now, there was tremendous sympathy internationally for the United States and anger after 9/11, but today there’s a collective hope that there’s a new America.  And a new America means new values for, for the world.  What everybody believed America to stand for is what I think Obama encompasses.  But how long is that goodwill going to last?  And that’s some of the challenges that you have.

MR. GREGORY:  Let me turn to an issue that has really gripped this country this week, and that is the issue of how the United States government and its interrogators treated September 11th prisoners after those attacks.  You were sitting next to President Obama this week when this question came up about the release of those memos about how to treat prisoners, the, the–and the torture issue, and this is what he had to say.

(Videotape, Tuesday)

PRES. OBAMA:  We rely on some very courageous people not just in our military, but also in the Central Intelligence Agency, to help protect the American people.  Having said that, the, the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings.  That’s why I’ve discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  Do you think the United States lost its moral bearings?

KING ABDULLAH II:  I, I think that the view of America was negatively affected by, by this issue.  This–look, I mean, the questions that have been asked of the president, me as a non-American, it’s, it’s in a way none of my business. But all I will say is that when you want to go down that path that you’re opening sort of Pandora’s box of where, where does it end.  We…

MR. GREGORY:  Do you think the United States engaged in torture?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, from what we’ve seen and what we’ve heard, that–there are enough accounts to show that that is the case.  But there is still a major battle out there, and I think that America–and I think this is what President Obama is trying to do, is make sure that the, the legal system that America is known for is, is, is transparent to make sure that…

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

KING ABDULLAH II:  …illegal activities aren’t taking place.

MR. GREGORY:  That’s an important point.  You actually do believe that the United States engaged in torture.

KING ABDULLAH II:  From what I see on, on, on, on the press, that shows that there were illegal ways of, of dealing with detainees.

MR. GREGORY:  Does torture work?

KING ABDULLAH II:  I…

MR. GREGORY:  Does it produce valuable intelligence?

KING ABDULLAH II:  I’m not an expert to be able to say one way or another if it does.  Again, it’s such a gray area when it comes to, to a country at war. I think there, there are smarter ways of being able to deal with getting information.

MR. GREGORY:  But yet Jordan is one of the most stalwart U.S. allies in the Middle East.  There’s a lot of business that’s done between the two countries and a very tight relationship.  Did Jordan engage in torture in concert with the United States?

KING ABDULLAH II:  No.  And I, I, I have been told by my people that I’ve asked on, on many occasions, as these international issues came up, I think that we have been very smart in, in, in being intelligent of convincing operatives that we have come across to, to end up working for us.  And you can’t do that when it comes to torture.

MR. GREGORY:  The Human Rights Watch issued a report about Jordan which contradicts that, and it said the following.  I’ll put it on the screen and allow you to react to it.  “From 2001 until at least 2004, Jordan’s General Intelligence Department served as a proxy jailer for the U.S. CIA, holding prisoners that the CIA apparently wanted kept out of circulation, and later handing some of them back to the CIA.  More than just warehousing these men, the GID interrogated them using methods that were even more brutal than those in which the CIA has been implicated to date.  …  If the Jordanians did indeed promise the U.S. authorities that prisoners rendered there would not be tortured, it was a promise that neither the U.S. nor Jordan believed.”

KING ABDULLAH II:  I–when that report came out, or when I was asked that question I think by one of your colleagues several years ago, I went straight back to my director of intelligence at the time and I said, “Is there any foundations to this?” And he said categorically no.  And I made it quite clear to him and all the colleagues that have come up the ranks since then that we don’t tolerate that.  So I’d like to think that my people were telling me the truth.

MR. GREGORY:  Bottom line on this, do you think you can defeat an enemy like al-Qaeda without resorting to what some people would consider torture?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, again, if we look at how Jordanians have been successful in the past in being able to get people to work for us back against terrorist organizations, I think using your intelligence and, and a good, sound argument have, for us, has shown a way of extreme success.  And obviously I can’t go into any, any operations in the past or ongoing operations.

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.

KING ABDULLAH II:  But I think that your intelligence would probably tell you that our method works.

MR. GREGORY:  Will the release of photographs of detained prisoners who are apparently abused, being released in the United States this week, will that inflame the situation even more?  Will it hurt the U.S. in the Middle East and beyond?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, it, it will–obviously any pictures or any cases like that will have a negative attitude internationally.  But again, I think President Obama has been very clear in, in his campaign and very clear from, from the start that that is not tolerated.  America is providing a new image of what and how things should be done.  And I think that the world has a belief in the president, a lot of faith in what he has to say.  Obviously the pressure on the president is to deliver.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

KING ABDULLAH II:  But the carte blanche that you’ve started with is actually a pretty good one and I hope one that is not, not used properly.

MR. GREGORY:  I want to get to a couple of important matters, both Iran and the question of Israeli-Palestinian peace.  First with Iran.  What are Iran’s intentions in the Middle East?

KING ABDULLAH II:  I, I think as in previous decades, it would like to be the policeman of the gulf.  It wants to have its presence felt in, in the region. And having said that, I think that President Obama’s gesture of, of, of a dialogue is one that Iran shouldn’t take for granted, and let’s see where dialogue will take us.

MR. GREGORY:  The new prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been very clear, and he agrees with the United States in this regard, and that is that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program, they believe.  And this is what Prime Minister Netanyahu said to Jeff Goldberg in an interview of The Atlantic magazine.  He said:  “The Iranian nuclear challenge represents a `hinge of history’ and added that `Western civilization’ will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.  …  `You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult,’” he said, “`controlling atomic bombs.  When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.’” Do you see it that way?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, again, let me go back to saying I think that the challenge we have here in America of connecting the dots.  If you have an issue that the threat that Iran poses to Israel, which is what Netanyahu was saying, the best way of solving that problem is solving the core issue, which is the Palestinian problem and that of Jerusalem.  Because that regime goes to their people to say that the reason why we have nuclear weapons, the reason that we need to, to challenge Israel is, is because of the suffering of the Palestinians and the occupation of Jerusalem.

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.

KING ABDULLAH II:  I go back to–if we, if we start solving this Israeli-Palestinian problem, it allows us to get Arabs and Muslims to the, to the negotiating table with the, with the Israelis, then there’s not a problem anymore.

MR. GREGORY:  Do you think a nuclear program in Iran is inevitable?

KING ABDULLAH II:  There’s more of an incentive for the Iranians to continue down that path when there’s an argument that they want to use in front of their people that Palestinians are under occupation.  I would imagine that when it comes to an economy that is suffering, like many economies are suffering around the world, a nuclear military program is extremely expensive. And if you’ve solved the core issue in the Middle East, I think a lot of leaders will be sort of checking their calculators to see whether it’s worth to go down the military nuclear road.

MR. GREGORY:  And what do you think is the best way for the United States to pursue or to persuade Iran to back away from a nuclear program?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

MR. GREGORY:  That’s it.

KING ABDULLAH II:  That allows us to then solve the Israeli-Arab-Muslim problem.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

KING ABDULLAH II:  There’s 57 nations in the world, a third of the United Nations, that don’t recognize Israeli today.  So what we’re doing is saying 57 nations, Iran has signed this document, believe it or not, that is saying, “Look, Israel, if you solve the Palestinian problem, if you allow us to solve the problems of Jerusalem, we all want to have peace with you.”

MR. GREGORY:  Do you think Iran fears an attack from Israel, fears an attack from the United States?

KING ABDULLAH II:  I think all of us consider that, that–no, I think not from the United States.  But the, the rogue question would be what Israel would do. And therefore, I think it is an imperative over the next month or two to start negotiations, because I think any military strike against Iraq–Iran would be extremely counterproductive and I, I don’t see the outcome of that.  OK, you hit Iran.  What happens then?  And it’s the, the not knowing I think creates a lot of fears with all of us around the world.

MR. GREGORY:  Let me turn to the very important issue of Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East.  Your father, King Hussein, was on this program 40 years ago talking about his concern that time was slipping away to solve this issue.  This is what he said.

(Videotape, April 13, 1969)

KING HUSSEIN I:  The ability of all to move towards peace are being impaired. If conditions remain the way they are I believe there is very, very grave danger of an explosion in the area or at least the loss of this chance, which we feel is the first and maybe the last one, of establishing a just and thus durable peace in the area.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  Forty years later you are preparing your own memoir, and the working title at this point is “The Last Best Chance.” A similar message to your father 40 years ago.

KING ABDULLAH II:  That’s right.

MR. GREGORY:  What do you mean by that?

KING ABDULLAH II:  Well, what, what I’m trying to do with this book is to explain the dynamics have changed in the Middle East, and really this is our last best chance.  What my late father was saying is that then there was a major opportunity slipping past.  And I think 40 years later how many wars, how much death and destruction, how many Israelis, Arabs and Muslims have lost their lives.  Are we prepared to go another decade?  And believe you me, if we do not solve the problem today of the Israelis and Palestinians, it’s only going to be a matter of time of another conflict.

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.

KING ABDULLAH II:  And I had come here to the United States to predict the war in Lebanon several months before, I came to predict that…(unintelligible)…was going to happen, although it took me by surprise by being two months earlier.  I thought it was going to happen by the time Obama came into office.  And in the next 18 months, if we don’t move the process forward and bring people to the negotiation table, there will be another conflict between Israel and another protagonist.  And how many people have to continue to lose their lives?  And so the message of the book is basically say this is our last chance, because geographically the future of a Palestinian state is under fire.  And we’re now arriving at the crossroads that if we do not have a negotiator separate from Israelis and Palestinians, then there may never be a chance.  So Israel has to decide, does it want to make a relationship with 57 nations or does it want to stay Fortress Israel?  And how does that hurt all of us?

MR. GREGORY:  And was your message to President Obama, “We need a complete paradigm shift here.  It is time for the United States to impose a solution, time for the United States to start making some demands”?  Is that your view?

KING ABDULLAH II:  The only way that we’re going to be able to solve this problem–you–if it, if it’s left to the players, the Israelis and Palestinians by themselves, we’re not going to get anywhere.  It can only happen if there is an American umbrella with a determined American president that is going to get the Israelis and Palestinians to sit on the table, because both sides historically have always come an excuse why not to go the last mile.  And I believe that Obama understands how much this resonates.  For the first time, I think Americans can clearly say that a two-state solution is in the vital national interests of the United States.

MR. GREGORY:  I don’t want to have you go without asking you about the fragile situation in Pakistan.  The United States, this administration has said Pakistan is not doing enough to stand up to the Taliban in that northwest frontier.  How concerned are you?

KING ABDULLAH II:  I think Pakistan should be of tremendous concern to, to, to all of us, and these are one of a multitude of, of, of discussions that we had with the president.  And again, I think that as you move towards Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation I hope in the next month or two, Arab and Muslim countries will be doing more to assist coalition forces, assist the Pakistanis in being able to deal with that threat.  But people are looking for a signal of the United States.  And I know that President Obama is waiting until Prime Minister Netanyahu comes here and listens to what he has to say. But if right after that visit there’s not a clear understanding of how America is going to weigh in on these problems, then I think the goodwill of the United States will disappear and I think that people will start cutting their own deals.

MR. GREGORY:  And finally, a lot of attention on gift-giving right now as the president travels overseas.  He gave DVDs and he also gave an iPod to the queen of England.  You came here bearing a gift that was very interesting. You gave the president a royal weaponry set complete with four different types of daggers and an ax.  Are you preparing the president for battle here, Your Majesty?

KING ABDULLAH II:  I think the president is prepared for battle, and basically he knows that he has somebody standing next to him on his right and helping him through this.

MR. GREGORY:  All right, Your Majesty, good luck.

KING ABDULLAH II:  Thank you very much, sir.

MR. GREGORY:  Thank you very much for being here.

KING ABDULLAH II:  Thank you.