ABC’S “THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS”

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

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

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

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

(LAUGHTER)

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: So he’s wrong to be worried?

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

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

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

What do you say to that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are not. That is not why I’m here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any doubt it was stolen?

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: Still, three weeks ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(CROSSTALK)

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, the clock is ticking…

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the offer is on the table?

BIDEN: The offer’s on the table.

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

Is that the right approach?

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: Meanwhile, North Korea…

BIDEN: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIDEN: That is the report.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe it?

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

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

Is that the right approach?

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

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

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: At any cost?

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

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

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

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

BIDEN: No, not at all. Look, here’s…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: CBO would say a little bit higher.

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: 9.5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Senator Coburn has identified some.

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

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

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

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

BIDEN: Sure.

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

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no second stimulus?

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

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

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

BIDEN: I think we’ve solved that one.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have?

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: Who won?

BIDEN: They both won.

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

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

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

BIDEN: Well they fixed the problem.

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

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, Sarah Palin.

BIDEN: Yes.

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

(LAUGHTER)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIDEN: Thank you.

For all of you who think traditional journalism is dead or would be happy to see it die, the Associated Press reminds us tonight what the watchdog is all about.

Vice President Joe Biden released a report today regarding progress made with funds from the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – the stimulus bill.  I looked at it.  It’s pretty weak beer.

Here’s part of what the Associated Press wrote tonight:

But the effect of that spending is less clear. Many of the claims the White House is making are based on anecdotes selected to fit the Obama administration’s message. For instance, the report cites a newspaper article about workers being rehired at a factory in Chicago. That account is true, but is no more an accurate snapshot of the nation’s economy than a story, not cited in the report, about a Roanoke, Va., railcar factory closing. (Read More)

The Obama Administration report also says that 150,000 jobs have been saved or created.  How could one even begin to get to a number like that so soon?  The report doesn’t mention – but the AP does – that since February the nation has lost 1.3 million jobs.

President Obama is not well served by flooding the Internets and airwaves with pablum.  Every time you turn around there’s another “.gov” site out there promising real information and transparency.  What we get instead is messaging wrapped in slick graphics.  Everything seems to be a mile wide but an inch deep.

I had high hopes for an information presidency, what we’ve gotten instead is the Ronald Reagan communications team with better technology.

There is a lot of good going on with this Administration.  Creating bullshit, releasing it and then patting yourself on the back for being “transparent” is not in the category of good.  It’s in the category of annoying.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Please. (Applause.) Larry, thank you for that introduction.

Ladies and gentlemen, there’s an old — there’s an old Saxon expression. And what it says is — (applause) — there’s an old expression. This is the man who introduced me to AIPAC. And there’s an old expression that says an institution is little more than the lengthened shadow of a man. This is the man right here. This is the man. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, I was backstage and the stage director, a lovely young woman, was telling me that she was the stage director, and I told her how well I take orders. (Laughter.) And Larry was speaking, and I said, you see that man? I said, he’s been my friend for 38 years. And she looked at me like, that’s not possible — (laughter) — not that I don’t look that old, but that she wasn’t born, I don’t think — when she said it. (Laughter.)

But the truth is Larry, and his magnificent wife, have been just wonderful, wonderful, wonderful supporters of Israel and AIPAC. And he really did, along with one of my closest friends, period, not just in politics, Michael Adler — Michael Adler’s dad in Miami and Larry Weinberg on the West Coast are the two people who gave me my formal education. And I thank them both. Thank you both. (Applause.)

I say to the board and all of you that are here, I’m delighted by your warm welcome. And it’s very good to be among friends. I’d like to begin by congratulating your president, David Victor, for — and the incoming president, Lee Rosenberg. Rosy, we’re all pulling for your dad, Big Rosy, and we know how proud he must be right now as you’re about to take on your new responsibilities. (Applause.)

I’d like to also congratulate AIPAC’s Executive Director, Howard Kohr, and the rest of the staff for another successful conference. (Applause.)

And I want to congratulate an old friend, who I think is probably the most articulate and eloquent speechmaker in the world, Shimon Peres, President of the State of Israel — (applause) — on the 61st anniversary of Israel’s independence, which we’re going to celebrate — which we celebrated last week. And the President — President Obama and I look forward to visiting later today with the President. I’m anxious to see him in the White House. (Applause.)

A little over a hundred days ago, our country started on a new path. The citizens of this country made a very fundamental decision. And it began with the historic inauguration of the 44th President, Barack Obama, but it grew — it grew out of the determination of millions of Americans who desperately wanted to change not only the direction of our country, but quite frankly, the trajectory that the world was on. That’s what the Obama-Biden administration has set out to do, a lofty goal but an absolutely minimum required task — to change the direction of this country and all the trajectory of the world. We not only want to do it here at home; we believe our fate is inextricably tied to the direction the world is moving in.

But in the midst of change, with all the change you will hear about, there is one enduring, essential principle that will not change; and that is our commitment to the peace and security of the state of Israel. (Applause.) That is not negotiable. That is not a matter of change. That is something to be reinforced and made clear. (Applause.) It seems almost unnecessary to state it, but I want the word to go forth in here that no one should mistake it.

That commitment began when the United States of America emerged from World War II as the preeminent economic, political, and military power in the world, and one of our great Presidents, Harry Truman, reached out to a tiny, struggling state, emerging from the ashes of the Holocaust, and recognized the state of Israel. It’s a commitment that spans generations, and administrations of both political parties. And our job — obviously you know it’s yours — just so you know, we know it’s our job to ensure that that endures.

The bond between Israel and the United States was forged by a shared interest in peace and security; by shared values and to respect all faiths and for all faiths and for all people; by deep ties evidenced here today among our citizens, both Christian and Jew; and a common, unyielding commitment to democracy.

Indeed, we’ve both experienced recent elections and the peaceful transition of power. I want to congratulate my friend, Prime Minister Netanyahu — and as they say in the Senate, he is my friend — for his victory. Bibi and I have been friends for a long, long time — too long to mention. And you know the old cliché — imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, I looked at Likud’s website, campaign website — and on behalf of the Obama-Biden administration, I must say I am flattered. (Laughter.) Take a look at the website. It looked like we were running co-joint campaigns here. (Laughter.) And we didn’t charge Bibi a thing for it. (Laughter.) All kidding aside, a lot of you in the audience, and a lot of board members here, have been my friends for a long, long time

My commitment, though, to Israel did not begin with the friendships that I share on this stage. As the friends on this stage know, and some of you have heard me say, my commitment began at my father’s dinner table. My father was what you’d refer to as a righteous Christian. My father — we had dinner at my father and mother’s home as an occasion to sit down and have conversation and, incidentally, eat, rather than eat and, incidentally, have conversation. And over the years, my commitment was nurtured by many of the people in this room, starting with Larry and many others that are here.

In 1973, as a 29-year-old or just 30 — just turned 30 years old, elected United States senator from the state of Delaware — I made my first overseas trip to Israel. It was on the eve at the time unknown of the Yom Kippur War. I had just come from Cairo, and visited the Suez Canal. And I then went to visit the Prime Minister, Golda Meir, which was one of the great honors. I was asked not long ago, what are the two most meaningful meetings I ever had as a senator. And they were with the freed later president of South Africa, and Golda Meir. (Applause.) They both embodied everything I had been taught — different races, different religions, different regions — the same tenacity and the same open heart.

I sat across the desk from the Prime Minister. And she, as many of you know, is a chain smoker. She continually smoked. And she had a set of maps behind her, the old maps that were on rollers. There was a whole big slew of them, like eight maps in one set. And she was describing to me the Six-Day War and reading letters from the front, from young Israelis, most of whom had died defending their country. It was very moving. She kept flipping the maps up and down and pointing to different battles. I’m sure many of you had the experience. I’m sure you had the experience, Larry.

And there was a young man sitting next to me who didn’t say a lot. His name was Rabin. And we had a conversation that lasted — I won’t put a time on it, but I’m quite confident it was over an hour. It was a long time. It was a great moment for a young man like me. It was meaningful. I learned a lot. But it also gave me a sense of the degree of — how do I say it — the pain, the history, the hope, the pragmatism, the grit of an entire nation. And almost it seemed in mid-sentence, she looked at me — and my good friend, Michael Adler, heard me say this before, it was — kind of startled me — she said, Senator, would you like a photo? It was, like, by the way, do you want to go to the ball game?

And I said, well, of course, Madam Prime Minister. And the office in those days that she had, there were double doors that opened up onto a hallway. And we walked out, and there were photographers arrayed. And we stood next to one another, looking straight at the camera, at the photographers and the cameras. But she was talking to me without looking at me. She said the following. She said, Senator — looking straight ahead, but talking — she said, Senator, you seem worried. You look like you’re worried. And I turned to her, and I said, well, Madam Prime Minister, I am. The picture you just painted — in those days 60 million Arabs, 2 million Jews, et cetera.

And she put her hand out — still looking at the camera — on my arm. She said, Senator, don’t worry. We Jews have a secret weapon in our struggle here. We have no place else to go. (Applause.)

And, for me, I thought at the time — some of you know, she was so engaging — I thought at the time, I’m probably the only person in the world she ever said that to. (Laughter.) And it was for me, at that moment, her comments crystallized for me everything I’d learned at my father’s table, and everything about the basic responsibility of the United States to be a partner in ensuring that there will always, always be a place for Jews of the world to go — (applause) — and that place always must be Israel. (Applause.) It’s real. It’s serious. It’s compelling. It’s the only certainty, the only certainty. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m here today to tell you something you already know, and I assure you this — President Barack Obama shares that same commitment. (Applause.) His support is rooted in his personal connection to the Zionist idea to which he spoke about last year at this conference. He said last year that when he was a child, and I quote, “I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity, and I deeply understood the Zionist idea that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.”

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama’s commitment was reinforced — not that it need to have been — by his two relatively recent trips to Israel, when he met with Israeli leaders from across the spectrum — and you all know it’s a very wide spectrum in Israel; by the powerful, searing experience that he had visiting maybe in a sense the holiest of all places, commemorating the Holocaust; by seeing, first-hand, Israel’s unique security dilemmas from a helicopter with top generals — the sort of experience I had in ’73 when I stood on the Golan Heights and realized if you had a really good arm you could literally throw a grenade down in the territory that could do damage to Israelis.

He also had it reinforced by traveling to the northern border, and met with families whose homes had been destroyed by rockets fired by Hezbollah and Hamas into their villages. But the President and I both know that ultimately we’ll be judged not by our commitment and our verbal assurances to you or to anyone else or to the state of Israel, but by the results of the commitment we have made. (Applause.)

We believe that the results we seek, including a secure Israel at peace, can be best achieved by taking a new direction in our foreign policy; by, first and foremost, reestablish America’s preeminent leadership in the world. (Applause.) The nation who asserts it leads, but has no one following, is not leading. We must reassert the confidence that we once had, and the confidence the world once had in us to lead the world.

When America has confidence — the confidence of our allies and our friends, and the broad support we need in the world — not only is America stronger but Israel will be stronger, because America is able to be a more efficient partner and effective partner, and our adversaries and Israel’s adversaries know that as well.

In the Middle East, we stand for the premise that the status quo of the last decade has not served the interests of the United States or Israel very well. It has not enhanced the peace and security of the region, no matter how good the intention. I went to a Catholic grade school. When you got in trouble, the nuns would make you — I’d say, but, sister — and they’d make you write on the board a hundred times after school: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. All the good intentions of the last decade have not resulted in a more secure, more stable Middle East; a more secure, more stable Israel; a more secure, more stable United States.

So we are working to change that by responsibly ending the war in Iraq, by refocusing our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda, by engaging all countries in the region, including those with whom we have overwhelming disagreements, in order to advance our national security interests.

We are intensely focused on avoiding the grave danger, as Larry spoke about and others have, as well, including my good friend, John, of a nuclear armed Iran. (Applause.) A nuclear-armed Iran risks an arms race in the region that would make every country less secure; presents an existential threat. What we have tried with Iran in recent years has obviously not worked. What will work remains to be seen.

Since 2000, Iran has installed thousands of centrifuges and produced over a thousand kilograms of low-enriched uranium; not capable of use in a nuclear weapon — low-enriched — but nonetheless, they have produced that. Instead of arresting the danger; in the last six years, the danger has grown. It has not been arrested. We’re determined to change that. That’s why we will pursue direct, principled diplomacy with Iran with the overriding goal of preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The United States will approach Iran initially in the spirit of mutual respect. We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. That’s a path that the Islamic Republic can take if it so chooses. Or that government can choose a different future: one of international pressure, isolation; and one which nothing is taken off the table.

If our efforts to address this problem through engagement are not successful, we have greater international support to consider other options. And ladies and gentlemen, don’t kid yourselves — international support matters, as we’ve learned over the last eight years. (Applause.) We must sometimes act alone, but it’s always stronger when we act in unison.

Given the situation we inherited, we know we don’t have unlimited time to make this assessment. Iran also has played a dangerous role in the region supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and undermining many of our friends and those who claim to be our friends. Indeed, these proxies are the tools in my view, our view, that Iran uses to exploit conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — use it to their advantage.

In this way the continuation of Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab — Arab-Israeli conflicts, strengthen Iran’s strategic position. They give Iran a playing field upon which to extend its influence, sponsor extremist elements, inflame public opinion — all which are counterintuitive. It’s counterintuitive if you think about it, that Iran’s Shia influence in a Sunni Arab world would be able to be extended.

There are many reasons to pursue an end to these conflicts. It gives Israelis peace and security they deserve; to help the Palestinians fulfill their aspirations of an independent and better life; to ease tension in the regions — in this region.

Today, one of the most pressing reasons may be to deprive Iran of the ability to extend its destabilizing influence. Again, it’s counterintuitive if you think about its ability to extend its influence in the region.

That’s why from day one of this administration we began to make a strong, sustained effort on behalf of peace. The President decided that we must be engaged; we must take risk on behalf of peace for Israel. The President appointed one of our most tenacious diplomats to lead that effort, George Mitchell, and the President is strongly and personally committed to achieving what all have basically said is needed — a two-state solution, with a secure Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable and independent Palestinian state. (Applause.)

He and I both believe that it’s absolutely necessary to ensure Israel’s survival as a Jewish democratic state that this occur. (Applause.) That is also the solution that Israel and the Palestinians committed to in the road map and reaffirmed in Annapolis. It can be achieved. It must be achieved.

There’s an old expression, which Larry will get a kick out of, and it relates to Christianity. G.K. Chesterton once said, “It’s not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it’s been found difficult and left untried.” Well, the truth of the matter is, the fact that peace has not occurred does not mean peace cannot occur.

Same time, we’ll pursue a secure and lasting and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. The Israelis and its Arab neighbors have sufficient common interest to bring this goal within reach. Progress towards peace has only been possible when people — when people were willing to think differently; to take risks; to make a principled compromise. That’s why we have to pursue every opportunity for progress while standing up for one core principle: First, Israel’s security is non-negotiable. (Applause.) Period. Period. Our commitment is unshakeable. We will continue to provide Israel with the assistance that it needs. We will continue to defend Israel’s right to defend itself and make its own judgments about what it needs to do to defend itself. (Applause.)

Secondly, all of us have obligations to meet, including commitments Israel and the Palestinians made in the road map. The Palestinian Authority must combat terror and incitement against Israel. The United States and its partners have provided funding and training for a reformed Palestinian security force, which has impressed everyone, including the Israeli security officers with its recent demonstrations of professionalism and effectiveness. We are right now seeking funds from Congress to expand this program. But Israel has to work towards a two-state solution. You’re not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts, and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement based on their first actions — (applause) — its access to economic opportunity and increased security responsibility. This is a “show me” deal — not based on faith — show me. Prime Minister Netanyahu has important ideas about how to achieve some of these objectives and we look forward to working with him to help develop them when he comes to visit.

The Quartet and the Arab states also have clear responsibilities. One of the most important is to support the Palestinian Authority with the tools and funds it needs to govern on the West Bank, develop and reform its institutions, help the people of Gaza work toward returning to Gaza. We are doing our part with major assistance packages currently before the Congress. We expect others to do theirs.

The Arab states should act now, not later, to build upon — (applause) — to build upon the Arab Peace Initiative — a constructive combination that contains the promise of a cooperative and comprehensive peace, but now is the time. Now is the time for Arab states to make meaningful gestures to show the Israeli leadership and the people that the promise of ending Israel’s isolation in the region is real and genuine. They must take action now — show me. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, finally, the world must continue to make clear to Hamas that the legitimacy it seeks will only come when it renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and abides by past agreements — period. (Applause.) These are not — some say, when I repeat that and the President says it, that these are unreasonable. These are not unreasonable demands — they’re basic standards of international conduct.

We’re working hard to provide assistance to Palestinians in Gaza that does not benefit Hamas, and to coordinate with our allies to end the smuggling of weapons in the Gaza, which continue. And we demand — we demand the immediate and unconditional release — unconditional release of Gilad Shalit — (applause) — after nearly three years — three years of captivity. It is not acceptable. (Applause.) And we remain committed — we remain committed to seeing him returned safely to his family.

We will also explore opportunities, as the Israelis are, for progress between Israel and Syria. Peace between Israel and Syria could reshape the region. We will ensure that it does not come if it comes at the expense of Israel’s security or Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence.

The search for a secure and just and lasting peace in the Middle East has frustrated many and all who have come before us. We understand the immensity of the challenge. We recognize the hard choices that must be made. But we also know this: The path we have been on in recent yeas will not result in security and prosperity for Israel or the Palestinians, nor will it produce the stability and progress that’s needed in the region to ultimately guarantee Israel’s security.

Look, we know there are different views in this room. We know there are different views in this town about how to move forward. Nowhere are these issues debated more openly and vividly than in the streets of Israel and in the Knesset, which is an overwhelming tribute to its democracy. But I believe the critical question is not where we stand today, but how we see tomorrow, and what we’re prepared to do to get there. This administration sees and seeks a future of lasting peace and security in which Israeli children can leave behind the tyranny of rockets and terror; when Israeli mothers, as they send their children off to school, do not have to worry about whether or not they will come home; or Palestinian children have full opportunities to live out their dreams, and the entire Middle East does not have to live under the dread of a nuclear cloud.

Delaying the pursuit of these goals is not an option. It’s easier, but it is not an option. And the longer we wait, the harder it will be. Now is the time to work together for the promise of a better day, and for the success and strength and security of our most-treasured ally, Israel.

Thank you very much. God bless you all, and may God protect our troops. (Applause.)

END

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr. President, as we used to say in the Senate, I hope you’ll excuse a point of personal privilege here. I — Arlen Specter has been my friend and my confidant and my partner, and I his partner, in scores and scores of major, major pieces of legislation and issues for a long time. And beyond that, Mr. President, he’s been there for me every time things have been tough for me, and I hope I have been there for him.

And it gives me great pleasure, great pleasure, Mr. President, to now officially be in the same caucus with Arlen Specter. We’ve ridden the train for so many years, we’ve visited each other’s homes, our families, that it is — it’s just, as, again, a point of personal privilege, it’s just a delight to have no separation.

Mr. President, I’m even more pleased that Arlen’s independence, integrity and piercing intellect will now be sitting in a Democratic caucus. I think it will be a real added value. Anyone who thinks that Arlen is going to cash in his independence politically has another thing coming, but I think our caucus and our party will be better for it, and as a consequence, I think we’ll be able to serve the country even better than we have.

And the people of Pennsylvania are going to continue to benefit from his fierce — and I emphasize and I need not tell you, Mr. President — his fierce commitment to the people of Pennsylvania and to this country.

So, Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a man of immense personal courage and unmatched integrity, my friend, Arlen Specter.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, and thank you, Mr. President, for your support and encouragement.

I was unwilling to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate, but I am pleased to run in the primary on the Democratic ticket and am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers in a general election.

I have not represented the Republican Party; I have represented the people of Pennsylvania. And I will continue to do just that. As I said yesterday, I will not be an automatic 60th vote. There have been positions, which I talked about yesterday and will not re-enumerate, where I stand in a different position from the traditional position of the Democrats, and I will continue that independence.

I do think, Mr. President, that I can be of assistance. You have projected an administration that I feel very comfortable with. I felt comfortable, frankly, in talking to my Republican colleagues yesterday, which I did, to have them hear from me personally what my thinking was and my reasons for what I was undertaking to do. And that wasn’t an easy conversation, but I felt comfortable with it.

And I think I can be of assistance to you, Mr. President, in my views on centrist government. There are a lot of big issues which we’re tackling now that I’ve been deeply involved in — issues which go beyond my own personal interests. And I do want to serve in a sixth term; I make no bones about that. But I’ve been deeply involved in health care reform, and global warming, climate control, and immigration, and will continue to be so. And I am mindful of the deficit and the national debt as we balance a lot of competing interests.

One matter that especially concerns me is medical research. I think it is scandalous that we have not done more to harness the scientific know-how in America, with the gross national product we have, to do more to cure the maladies of the world. And I’ve taken the lead with Senator Tom Harkin on a bipartisan basis in increasing NIH funding, and I think that has saved or prolonged lives, including mine. And that’s a big reason why I’m so anxious to stay in the Senate and carry that work forward.

But most of all, I’m appreciative of what Senator Biden has said. We have talked over every problem under the sun and under the moon. We’ve ridden that train together again and again, and we’ve supported that train. We’ve helped finance it. And I appreciate what you have in the stimulus package, Mr. President.

When I talked to the President yesterday, I said, I haven’t seen you in the elevator lately. His office used to be right down the hall from mine on the 7th floor of the Hart Building, and he hadn’t come back lately, so I said I was calling him up just to — just to chit-chat. And I got to know the President to some extent in the Senate — I talked to him already, but that’s — Joe taught me how to do that.

Just one personal comment. The President approached me when he was Senator Obama, before the Democratic primary. And he said, “Tell me, Arlen, if a Jewish kid from Kansas can carry Pennsylvania, how can a black kid from Kansas carry Pennsylvania?” And I gave him some advice, and he became — (laughter) — he became President of the United States of America.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s how it worked. Thank you so much, Arlen. Thank you.

Well, let me start off by just saying I’m thrilled to have Arlen in the Democratic caucus. I have told him that he will have my full support in the Democratic primary. Joe Biden has said the same thing. We are confident that Arlen Specter is going to get a 6th term in the Senate and the American people are going to be better off for it.

I’d like to say a few more things about Arlen, but before I do, I’d like to briefly address the ongoing challenge posed by the H1N1 flu virus.

We are closely and continuously monitoring the emerging cases of this virus throughout the United States. Overnight we also received confirmation that an infant in Texas has died as a result of this virus. And my thoughts and prayers and deepest condolences go out to the family, as well as those who are ill and recovering from this flu.

This is obviously a serious situation — serious enough to take the utmost precautions. Secretary Napolitano, Secretary Sebelius and our entire team are in close contact with state and local authorities around the nation. But I would also urge health agencies in local communities to be vigilant about identifying suspected cases of this virus in your areas and reporting them to the appropriate state and federal authorities in a timely way. We need your assistance.

It’s also the recommendation of our public health officials that schools with confirmed or suspected cases of H1N1 should strongly consider temporarily closing so that we can be as safe as possible. If the situation becomes more serious and we have to take more extensive steps, then parents should also think about contingencies if schools in their areas do temporarily shut down, figuring out and planning what their child care situation would be.

If we ended up having a school closure, a child was sick, just sending a child from the school to a day care center is not a good solution. So we would have to think through, and each parent, I think, would have to think through what options would be available to them in the event that this became more serious.

Yesterday, I also requested from Congress an immediate $1.5 billion in emergency funding. This funding will ensure that we have adequate supplies of vaccines and the equipment to handle a potential outbreak. It will ensure that these vaccines and equipment get to where they need to go around the country. And it will provide for sufficient planning and preparation at the state and local levels.

Every American should know that the federal government is prepared to do whatever is necessary to control the impact of this virus. But there are also steps that Americans can take individually. They’re the same steps that you would take to prevent any other flu: Keep your hands washed, cover your mouth when you cough, stay home from work if you are sick, keep your children home from school if they are sick.

I’ll continue to get constant updates on the situation from the responsible agencies, and we will continue to offer regular updates to the American people about the steps they need to take and the steps that we are taking. And I can assure you that we will be vigilant in monitoring the progress of this flu, and I will make every judgment based on the best science available.

Now, part of the reason we have such an outstanding array of scientists and researchers is because of the tireless efforts of the gentleman standing to my right. Having courageously battled multiple life-threatening diseases of his own — and let me tell you, Arlen Specter is one tough hombre — he has become a champion for public health in this country.

He’s most recently responsible for the increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health so that it can continue to discover the cures and treatments that will save countless lives.

And that brings me to why we’re here today. Today I have the honor of standing next to the newest Democrat from the state of Pennsylvania. I know the decision Senator Specter made yesterday wasn’t easy. It required long and careful consideration, and it required courage. But I know that it also reflects an independence that has been the hallmark of Arlen Specter’s career since the days he arrived in Washington. He has never been in the Senate to fight for any particular party, but rather for the men and women of Pennsylvania who sent him here.

This is also why I don’t expect that Senator Specter will agree with every decision I make and support every single one of those policies. I don’t accept — I don’t expect Arlen to be a rubber stamp. I don’t expect any member of Congress to be a rubber stamp. In fact, I’d like to think that Arlen’s decision reflects a recognition that this administration is open to many different ideas and many different points of view; that we seek cooperation and common ground; and that in these 100 days we’ve begun to move this nation in the right direction.

As I told Senator Specter yesterday, he has my full support, my full commitment to work with him on those areas where we do agree — areas like health care, education, expanding America’s manufacturing base, and medical research. I look forward to working with the Senator on these and other issues in the coming weeks and months. I’m eager to receive his counsel and advice, especially when he disagrees. And I have great respect and admiration for the decision that he has made.

Senator Specter often tells the story about his father, Harry Specter, who came to this country from Russia nearly a century ago. He fought in World War I and was seriously wounded in action. Later, he became one of the thousands of veterans who never received the bonus that our government promised in return for the brave service that they had rendered to our nation. Many of these veterans would later march on Washington because of that broken promise, and some were shot at by their own government because they were voicing dissent.

Arlen Specter has said that his career in public service has been one long journey to get his father’s bonus. And until he does, he plans to keep on running. It’s a metaphor that’s particularly apt today as he begins the next chapter in his proud effort to fight for all those men and women who need and deserve a voice in Washington.

And so I’m grateful that he is here. And I’m also grateful that Joe Biden paid him a little attention on the train. (Laughter.) Thank you much, everybody.

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS GUEST HOST: Well, Karl Rove goes “On the Record.” Vice President Biden made waves recently when he told a dramatic story about a Oval Office confrontation he allegedly had with President Bush.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are more safe. We’re more secure. Our interests are more secure, not just at home but around the world. We are rebuilding America’s ability to lead. I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office — and he was a great guy, enjoyed being with him. He said to me, he said, Well, Joe, he said, I’m a leader. And I said, Mr. President, turn around and look behind you. No one’s following. People are beginning to follow the United States again as a consequence of our administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: Fascinating story. But did it really happen? We asked the man they call “the architect,” one of President Bush’s closest advisers, Karl Rove.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY: Karl Rove, thanks so much for joining us tonight.

KARL ROVE, GEORGE W. BUSH ADVISER, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: You bet. Thanks, Megyn.

KELLY: All right. So let’s start with this latest claim by the vice president, Joe Biden, that he basically schooled President Bush and told him, Listen, you may consider yourself a leader, but turn around, no one’s following you. A lot of people in the White House, which you were in when President Bush was there, have come out and said that just didn’t happen. What’s your memory of it?

ROVE: Yes. It didn’t happen. Look, Joe Biden does this. I remember this a couple years ago when he made a similar claim. Joe Biden said, for example, that he spent hours with the president. Joe Biden was never alone with the president for more than a few moments. There was staff in the room at all times. He never said these kind of things.

I hate to say it, but he’s a serial exaggerator. If I was being unkind, I’d say he’s a liar. But it is a habit he ought to drop. You’ll notice every one of these incidents has the same structure. Joe Biden courageously raises the impudent question. The president befuddledly answers, and Joe Biden drives home the dramatic response. And I mean, it just — it’s his imagination. It’s a made-up, fictional world. He ought to get out of it and get back to reality.

KELLY: Really? So you’re saying he just made this thing up out of whole cloth with no basis in fact?

ROVE: He’s making these things up out of whole cloth. And you know, if you look back at him — I mean, Joe Biden is spending hours, he said, with President Bush? I mean, please. I mean, members of Congress might spend, you know, a significant amount of time with the president if you added up all the meetings that they were in together with other people. But the implication that he leaves is that he and the president were sitting there in the Oval Office. He was tutoring the president. He was asking him the critical questions that no one was willing to confront him with.

I mean, this is — this — with all due respect to the vice president, these are the kinds of things you can get away with if you are a United States senator or a backbencher in the U.S. House of Representatives. You should not exaggerate and lie like this when you’re the Vice President of the United States.

KELLY: Does this not happen, were a senator would spend, in his words, hours with the president in the Oval Office? Is that unusual?

ROVE: Well, it’s not unusual for somebody to spend a considerable block of time with the president. But I think there are very few presidents who spend hours with somebody in the Oval Office, particularly a — with all due respect, a blowhard like Joe Biden was. I mean, this guy is — I’ve seen him in some meetings when he came to the White House. He was — you know, he was — you know, would have outbursts and say something that didn’t really make much sense. This is not the kind of guy who becomes the confidant of any president of either party, particularly if it’s the president of the other party that you represent.

KELLY: And Karl, would there be a note taker there? I mean, because I know some in the White House even said…

ROVE: Sure.

KELLY: … I went back and looked at the notes of every meeting he had…

ROVE: Right.

KELLY: … President Bush had with Joe Biden…

ROVE: Right.

KELLY: … and I didn’t see anything to back up any of these claims.

ROVE: Right.

KELLY: Would it have been in notes? Would somebody have been keeping notes of such meetings?

ROVE: Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely. There would be a note taker in the room. I thought it was interesting, Andy Card, who was the chief of staff, said he didn’t recall any such meeting like this. Candy Wolf (ph), who was the head of congressional liaison — these are the two officials most likely to be in there, the head of congressional liaison and the chief of staff.

I’ve talked to other members of the White House staff who — both several years ago when this first emerged, and then in the last couple of days, and no one has any recollection of anything remotely akin to what Vice President Biden says he was routinely saying and doing in the White House.

KELLY: You know, Karl, this isn’t — it’s not getting a lot of play. Do you think — do people not care? If you — as you claim here, if the vice president of the United States is absolutely flat-out lying about a conversation he claims he had with President Bush — and not just one conversation but other conversations — why doesn’t anyone care?

ROVE: Yes. Well, first of all, could you imagine Dick Cheney as vice president in 2001 coming in and saying, Well, I had these kind of conversations with Bill Clinton or Al Gore or during the previous eight years, and here’s what I told him, and if Gore or Clinton said, That’s not accurate, don’t you think the media would be all over it?

I think part of this is, is that it’s the Obama administration and the media is giving him a pass. I think the other part of it may be that some in the media know — look, this is a guy whose 1980 presidential campaign was derailed because he was found to be copying, plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, the leader of the British Labor Party, and recounting an episode in Kinnock’s life as if it were in his own life, involving — I believe it was a coal miner relative or something.

So this is a guy who has a reputation for embellishing — mildly, I would say — embellishing the truth. And he is doing so this time around, and the media ought to pay attention to it. The man is the Vice President of the United States, and he may be Joe Biden, but he’s still the Vice President of the United States and ought to be held to a higher standard.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY: Well, up next, Karl Rove on the presidential bow controversy. Did President Obama bow to the Saudi king or didn’t he? The White House denies it, but do the pictures tell a different story? Karl weighs in on that next.

Plus: The president’s economic guru, Larry Summers, gets heckled by Codepink, C-Span looking more like Jerry Springer today. We’re back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KELLY: Welcome back, everybody. More now with Karl Rove.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY: You know, another thing not getting that much attention in the press is this dustup over whether President Obama bowed when he met the king of Saudi Arabia. And we’ve got the videotape of it, you know, that shows clearly, there was something that amounted to at least a stoop. But interestingly now, Karl, the White House has come out and denied this, saying explicitly it was not a bow, saying he grasped the king’s hand with two hands and he’s taller. And that was their explanation for what we saw there.

ROVE: Well, it reminds me of the politician who was caught in bed with somebody other than his wife by his wife, and he told his wife, Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

(LAUGHTER)

ROVE: I mean, who do they think they’re kidding? I mean, this is a bow to the waist. I mean, for them to say that this is — he was holding both of the king’s hands and bowing and lowering his head because the king is shorter than him — he’d have to be talking to Tattoo from “Fantasy Island.”

(LAUGHTER)

ROVE: I mean, the kind only a couple inches shorter than he is. And look, they ought to admit the president bowed. He shouldn’t have bowed. It was a breach of protocol. But it diminishes them for them to try and say to the American people, Don’t believe what you see on the camera. I mean, the president…

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: They didn’t come out explicitly and do it. It was, like, an unnamed White House source that came out and said it wasn’t a bow, wasn’t a bow. But…

ROVE: Well, that says a lot. Would you like to be the White House spokesman on camera saying, No, that’s not a bow? I mean, there’s a reason why it is an unnamed White House spokesman is saying — giving an — offering an excuse because nobody’s willing to go on camera and look them in the eye and say, Oh, yes, you’re misunderstanding, that’s not a bow. I mean, it’s a bow. Please. It maybe was unintentional, maybe was unscripted. But don’t ask us to expect (ph) it wasn’t a bow.

KELLY: Isn’t there somebody in the White House advising him on protocol? You know, This is what you do when you meet the kind. Don’t bow! U.S. presidents don’t bow!

ROVE: I would suspect so. I’m not certain somebody was so emphatic beforehand. They might have assumed after he met the queen of England the lesson was good enough. And look, I would — I would readily — look, these are big conferences. You’re on a different — you’re in a different time zone. It’s a — you’ve got a hurried schedule. You know, people — you know, I’ve been there. I understand how you can sometimes do some things that you might not otherwise do.

They ought to just simply say it was unintentional. It was not intended to be a bow, you know, and let it go. But the idea of saying to the American people, It was not a bow, don’t expect — don’t believe what your eyes are telling you — this bespeaks at an alarming or lack of respect for the intelligence of the ordinary American on the part of the Obama White House press operation.

KELLY: You know, and you — you came out with an interesting op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal, talking about President Obama and his recent trip abroad, and talking about how contrary to many people’s expectations, in your view, President Obama has quickly become one of the most divisive presidents we’ve had…

ROVE: Yes.

KELLY: … in recent history. Now, coming from a guy who worked for George Bush, that’s saying something. How do you get away with that?

ROVE: Yes. Well, it was interesting. I — actually, this was identified by the Pew Charitable Trust, the Pew Research Center, where they took a look back at all of the — they took a look at the approval ratings that President Obama and his predecessors had among their party members. And among Democrats, 88 percent of Democrats approve of the job performance of President Obama. But his job approval among Republicans has dropped to 27 percent.

Now, what — it’s called the approval gap. You take the support among, you know, people in your own party and subtract from it the support that you have among people in the other party. And if you look back, this is the biggest gap — 61 points is the biggest gap in the history of American politics. The next largest gap is 51 in 2001 under President George W. Bush.

Now, President Bush had come through an awfully contentious election with a big court case in Florida and a narrow victory. He lost the popular vote. Democrats were not accepting him as a legitimate president. And yet his gap is smaller than the gap that in 11 weeks Barack Obama has been able to amass.

KELLY: Well, how do you explain that? How do you explain that?

ROVE: Well, there are two reasons. One is, is a friend of mine, a political science professor at the University of Missouri, John Petrossic (ph), points out that this is a secular trend, that since 1980, this gap, this approval gap, where the partisans of your party approve and the partisans of other party quickly begin to disapprove — that that gap has been growing, that each successive president has had a higher gap, approval gap, than his predecessor.

But the other thing is, is it has happened so quickly, I think, under this president and to such an extreme degree is because the conflict between what he said in the campaign he would do — get past the petty recriminations, he said, end the nasty partisanship, be a new kind of president with a new kind of politics — and instead, what we have seen is, is that he has come into office and has frozen the Republicans out of deliberations on Capitol Hill. And when they made suggestions about the stimulus bill, he pointedly reminded them, quote, “I won.”

And then he goes to Europe and feels obligated to trash his predecessor in office — his predecessor while in a foreign country. Now, can you imagine Angela Merkel, Chancellor Merkel, getting up at an international conference and trashing her predecessor, Chancellor Schroeder, or Chirac being trashed by Sarkozy or Gordon Brown standing up and trashing Tony Blair?

The Europeans must have looked at him and thought, Don’t you understand the campaign is over and you’re the winner? I thought it was gratuitous, unfair, unnecessary and diminishing. It makes him look like he’s not self-confident, like he’s only able to advance himself by trashing his predecessor. And of course, the Europeans, a lot of them, think it’s unfair because they had taken the measure of Bush and worked with him over eight years, and know him and like him.

KELLY: Yes, I got to go, but I want to ask you this. The Washington Times and some others have come out and said President Obama succeeded in that trip in becoming loved by Europeans and others abroad. As for whether he’s respected, that remains an open question. Do you agree with that? Is that a fair question to raise?

ROVE: I think that’s — look, I don’t know if it’s love, but they certainly admire him and like him. And part of the reason is because he’s not asking them to do the hard things. The Europeans don’t like American leadership to remind them that we must do tough things. I mean, he went over there with two purposes, get them to stimulate their economies by additional spending. They told him to get lost. And get additional combat capacity for Afghanistan, and they said, No, we’re not going to do that.

So he’s — and he — and he did — and talked to them in a way that doesn’t hold their feet to the fire on the big important issues. Whether we like it or not, whether he likes it or not, America’s president is the world’s leader, and he must tell (ph) the world to difficult and dangerous tasks.

KELLY: Karl Rove, always a pleasure, sir. Thanks so much for being here.

ROVE: Thanks for having me, Megyn.

KELLY: All of us (ph).

ROVE: Appreciate it.