Zardari – Mr. 10% available anywhere, anytime except in his own country which is in a state of veritable civil war — how much time has he spent away from the levers of power since the Swat campaign began?  Guess who’s in charge in Pakistan: Still the Army.

Ahmadinejad – He’s saying, “Look at me Bibi! Here’s my brother who already has nukes … Suck It.”

MR. DAVID GREGORY (HOST):  … But first, the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan. I sat down with both leaders earlier this week after their White House meetings. Pakistan’s President Zardari, in office for the last eight months, is the widower of slain Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. I began by asking about the Taliban and whether he agrees with the Obama administration that the group represents an existential threat to his country.

MR. ASIF ALI ZARDARI: No, I consider the philosophy of Taliban as threat to the world, not just to Pakistan and your country, but I feel it’s a larger threat.

MR. GREGORY: Existential threat to Pakistan?

MR. ZARDARI: Pakistan, the whole world. They start from the Horn of Africa and come down all the way to Pakistan. They don’t evolve from Pakistan and go up, they come down.

MR. GREGORY: Do you consider the Taliban to be a bigger threat today than India?

MR. ZARDARI: I consider it a different–they’re–India’s a country and Pakistan is a, a…(unintelligible)…we’re, we’re two states which in fact Pakistan stemmed out of the subcontinent out of India. So it’s a different relationship, it’s a different context.

MR. GREGORY: Is there a war with the Taliban inside Pakistan?

MR. ZARDARI: There is a war, sir.

MR. GREGORY: And is it America’s war or Pakistan’s war?

MR. ZARDARI: It’s a war of our existence. We’ve been fighting this war much before they attacked 9/11. They’re kind of a cancer created by both of us, Pakistan and America and the world. We got together, we created this cancer to fight the superpower and then we went away–rather, you went away without finding a cure for it. And now we’ve both come together to find a cure for it, and we’re looking for one.

MR. GREGORY: When you speak like that, it doesn’t sound as if you consider it Pakistan’s war, you consider it America’s responsibility.

MR. ZARDARI: No, I think it’s a joint responsibility. I think it’s the joint responsibilities of all the democracies of the world. That’s why we made this Friends of Democratic Pakistan, so we can bring most strength to the situation. You’ve got to admit that you all have been trying to battle it for the last eight years. The–all the…(unintelligible)…world powers have been trying to battle it for the last eight years in Afghanistan and nobody’s come out of victorious yet.

MR. GREGORY: And so you say there is a commitment on the part of Pakistan to fight the Taliban now. How many troops, how many Pakistani troops do you now have in the western part of your country battling the Taliban?

MR. ZARDARI: Three times the amount of troops you have battling them in Afghanistan. That’s 125,000 we have on ground.

MR. GREGORY: And yet the administration–you have a military force of roughly 660–650,000 men.

MR. ZARDARI: Oh.

MR. GREGORY: Has the administration said to you there should be more fighting men in the west?

MR. ZARDARI: There is a point of view that more men might improve the situation, but that’s something that’s still disputed by our military analysts. We don’t think that more–presence of more troops there–you must remember, 650-personnel strong army doesn’t mean they’re all infantry. That’s the fighting brigade of the infantry, that’s the teeth of the army. So they’re not all infantry. They’re tank drivers, they’re truck drivers, they’re other–gunners, etc., etc. So we have an infantry of 250,000, out of which 125,000 happens to be in those mountains.

MR. GREGORY: So you have a sufficient number of troops fighting the Taliban.

MR. ZARDARI: We think, we think they’re sufficient.

MR. GREGORY: You appeared on Capitol Hill this week, and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Howard Berman, said this, speaking of you. He said, “He did not present a coherent strategy for the defeat of this insurgency. I had a sense of what they’re doing today,” he said, “I did not have a sense of what they plan to do tomorrow.” What’s the strategy?

MR. ZARDARI: So, well, he didn’t even ask me, so that’s OK. But I’ll tell you what I’ve got planned to do. We, we’ve been loving…(unintelligible)…in, in America, my wife was loving, and we were of the view and always have been of the view that democracy is the answer to the problem. Like somebody said, it may be–not be the best form of government, but it’s the only form of government. Now we’ve got democracy. Democracy needs help. It needs a little more help than we’ve been getting in the past. What the American public and people at large do not understand is for 10 years you have given $10 billion to a dictator, but you’ve given them for the war in these mountains. So it’s actually reimbursement for the money spent; after all, 125,000 troops moving in logistically, otherwise do cost. So you’ve been paying back…(unintelligible)…into Pakistan for the expenses occurred as such. But we need to support democracy.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. ZARDARI: We need to support the country, we need support–we need to support the systems. And we’ve been involved for the last 30 years. It’s not 10 years.

MR. GREGORY: But is that a strategy for cracking down on the Taliban insurgency?

MR. ZARDARI: Sure it is. Sure it is. The stronger my institutions are, the more the youth I employ, the less fodder they have. The more poverty goes down, the less fodder they have to recruit from. That’s the strategy. What else can–what–there is no scientific theorem to that. And if there was one, if you had a strategy, you would’ve done it in a, in 10 years.

MR. GREGORY: But there’s a military question, which is, is Pakistan capable of dealing with an insurgency, capable of mounting an effective counterinsurgency when the orientation of your military’s primarily been to fight a big enemy to the east in India, predicated on the idea of some kind of deterrence? Are you able to mount a counterinsurgency strategy at this point?

MR. ZARDARI: Sir, we’ve been in this war for the last seven years. But if you see the record of the one year that the democratic government of Pakistan, the PPP government and its allies has been there, we’ve done more to damage the infrastructure of the Talibans or the–or these miscreants, whatever you need to call them, than ever before.

MR. GREGORY: And yet there are some who say that the strategy has not borne fruit. You went in–so people understand, you went into an area north of Islamabad, the Swat Valley, and you essentially made a deal with the Taliban, which is they would put down their arms if Islamic law could be applied, could be implemented there.

MR. ZARDARI: Incorrect.

MR. GREGORY: Incorrect. Tell me what’s correct.

MR. ZARDARI: The correct position is that we came up with the formula which was that there would be speedy justice there known as…(foreign language spoken). Nothing to do with Sharia law. It’s been interpreted by–as Sharia law by them. And then that didn’t work. But we had to get the population to be with us. The population was fed up with them and was fed up with the fighting. Some–the provincial government came up with this idea that let’s go for a peace deal and let’s get the people involved. They tried it. It hasn’t worked.

MR. GREGORY: But when you made this deal, when you actually signed this deal…

MR. ZARDARI: The parliament signed on this deal. The parliament recommended me–to me to sign.

MR. GREGORY: Were you against it?

MR. ZARDARI: I was–yes, I had a position against it.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Why? Why did you think it was misguided?

MR. ZARDARI: I thought that it won’t work.

MR. GREGORY: You think it was abdication to the Taliban?

MR. ZARDARI: No, it’s not abdication. I thought that the Talibans are not rational people. I don’t think there’s any good Talibans. The world does, so that’s a defensive opinion.

MR. GREGORY: But so you think there’s no negotiating with them.

MR. ZARDARI: I don’t think there should be a negotiating with them at the moment. Maybe one day when there is enough, we’ve done enough.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. ZARDARI: Then always–there cannot only, only be war. There has to be a–the parliament has come up with a strategy where there’s the three D’s: dialogue, deterrence and development. So we have to go into dialogue by the will of the people, which we did. It didn’t work. Now we’ve got to do the, the deterrence phase where we are fighting. And then once we’ve calmed the situation down in–then we’ll go to the development stage to give them the ownership, give them schools.

MR. GREGORY: You have the fighting that’s going on in Swat. You have the Taliban insurgency there. That insurgency has also spread into Punjab, to the state of Punjab. I don’t have to tell you, that’s where half of Pakistan’s population is. And it has lead to some dire assessments by analysts who look at your country with a critical eye, including a former adviser to General David Petraeus who helped him with the insurgency in Iraq, and he said this: “We’re now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state,” because the Taliban insurgency has so destabilized Pakistan. Does he have that right?

MR. ZARDARI: I think you–he’s had other positions wrong before, so–and having said that, we have a threat, yes. Is the state of Pakistan going to collapse? No. We are 180 million people. The population is much, much more than the, the insurgents are. But we do have a problem. We have a problem because it’s been there. It was like I said, it was a monster created by all, all of us. We got together and we didn’t–we forgot to make a cure for it.

MR. GREGORY: Can you survive politically?

MR. ZARDARI: Of course.

MR. GREGORY: Is it possible to defeat this insurgency without U.S. soldiers fighting by your side or at least training your soldiers in Pakistan?

MR. ZARDARI: I think we need to find a strategy where the world gets together against this threat, because it’s not Pakistan specific, it’s not Afghanistan specific. Like I said, it’s all the way from the Horn of Africa. You’ve had attacks in Spain, you’ve had attacks in Britain, you’ve had attacks in America, you’ve had attacks in Africa, Saudi Arabia. So I think the world needs to understand that this is the new challenge of the 21st century and this is the new war, and we’ve all got together.

MR. GREGORY: The question a lot of people ask is are you–is Pakistan really committed to that war? In The New York Times Dexter Filkins, who, who’s reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan, writes this: “Whose side is Pakistan really on? … Little in Pakistan is what it appears. For years, the survival of Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders has depended on a double game: assuring the United States that they were vigorously repressing Islamic militants–and in some cases actually doing so–while simultaneously tolerating and assisting the same militants. From the anti-Soviet fighters of the 1980s and the Taliban of the 1990s to the homegrown militants of today, Pakistan’s leaders have been both public enemies and private friends. When the game works, it reaps great rewards: billions in aid to boost the Pakistani economy and military and Islamist proxies to extend the government’s reach into Afghanistan and India.”

MR. ZARDARI: I think it’s an old concept, an old theory that he’s talking about. And what billions are you talking about? Like I said, a billion dollar a year? That’s not even–altogether, this aid package is not even one tenth of what you gave AIG. So let’s face it; we need, in fact, much more help. We are responsible, a responsible state. We’ve brought democracy back, it’s a young democracy. Accept it, it was not me who was aiding the dictators of the past.

MR. GREGORY: Is there a view, however, in Pakistan that the Taliban should be kept around for a rainy day, as it’s been said, as a bulwark against Indian influence in neighboring Afghanistan?

MR. ZARDARI: I don’t think so. I don’t think so.

MR. GREGORY: You don’t think that was part of the past at all?

MR. ZARDARI: I think in–it was part of your past and our past, and the ISI and the CIA created them together. And I can find you 10 books and 10 philosophers and 10 write-ups on that, of what all you didn’t do.

MR. GREGORY: Fair argument, certainly, a lot of people would agree with you. But did the game change after 9/11 to a point where the U.S. decided to root out this threat and Pakistan was straddling both sides?

MR. ZARDARI: You tell me. I was imprisoned by the same dictator you were supporting. You were supporting a dictator who…

MR. GREGORY: You’re speaking of General Musharraf.

MR. ZARDARI: I’m speaking of General Musharraf. In fact, I lost my wife on his watch and I has–I spent five years in his prison.

MR. GREGORY: But, Mr. President, you know well that there is a widespread belief that your military and your intelligence services still have these same sympathies for the Taliban.

MR. ZARDARI: I wouldn’t agree with you. I think General Musharraf may have had a mind-set that I–to run with the head and hunt with the hound. But certainly not on our watch. We don’t have that thought process at all.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. There’s been a question about the security of that arsenal. You’ve assured the world that those nuclear weapons are secure. But I wonder why you’re continuing to add to your stockpile, add to your arsenal at what is described as a pretty fast rate when there’s so much instability in the country?

MR. ZARDARI: That’s, that’s, that’s not a fact. It’s a, it’s a position that some people have taken. We, we’re not adding to our stockpile as such. Why do we need more?

MR. GREGORY: So you’re not adding to your nuclear arsenal at all?

MR. ZARDARI: I don’t think so, no.

MR. GREGORY: You don’t–do you know?

MR. ZARDARI: Even if I did, I wasn’t going to tell you.

MR. GREGORY: There is a view that–in the intelligence community in this country that it does not know where all the nuclear weapons are within Pakistan. Why not share that information so there could be a joint strategy to keep those weapons secure?

MR. ZARDARI: Why don’t you do the same with other countries yourself? I think it’s a sovereignty issue and we have a right to our own sovereignty. It’s a sovereign country.

MR. GREGORY: Who’s in control of Pakistan, you or the military?

MR. ZARDARI: I think the military is in control of their hemisphere and I’m in control of the whole country.

MR. GREGORY: Can they overrule you?

MR. ZARDARI: No. I can overrule them.

MR. GREGORY: Haven’t they overruled you in the past?

MR. ZARDARI: No. We’ve gone to their position and they’ve come to our positions.

MR. GREGORY: But you still have final say?

MR. ZARDARI: The parliament has final say. It’s the parliament that forms government, and I am a product of the parliament.

MR. GREGORY: But why is it when you wanted your intelligence chief to go to Mumbai you were overruled by your military?

MR. ZARDARI: No, it was not overruled by the military. They thought it was too, too soon. And eventually we’ve offered for the intelligence chief to meet.

MR. GREGORY: There’s a lot of discussion about additional aid, as you’ve been talking about throughout our conversation, for Pakistan, $1.5 billion for five years, a total of $7.5 billion. But as you know, there’s discussion about putting some strings, some limits on that aid based on performance by Pakistan. Do you disagree with that policy?

MR. ZARDARI: I think it’s doubting an ally before you go into action together. If we are allies–and we, and we understand, it’s an accepted position that you–we cannot work this problem out unless Pakistan, Afghanistan and America are on the same page. How do you go and take an ally along by saying, “OK, I don’t trust you,” from the first day? It’s not a, a good position to be in. So I feel that we shouldn’t have any, any kind of conditionalities. We should have a result, a result-oriented relationship where I should be given a time line and I’ll give you all a time line so we can both give each other time lines and meet the time lines on, on the, on, on the positive.

MR. GREGORY: In terms of U.S.-Pakikstani cooperation, there are drones that fire missiles and target Taliban and other extremists, al-Qaeda figures, within Pakistan. Do you consider those to be effective?

MR. ZARDARI: I would consider them to be very effective if they were part of my arsenal. I’ve been asking for them, but I haven’t got a positive answer as yet. But I’m not giving up.

MR. GREGORY: Where is Osama bin Laden?

MR. ZARDARI: You all have been there for eight years, you tell me. You lost him in Tora Bora, I didn’t. I was in prison. In fact, my wife warned America about Osama bin Laden in ’89. She rung up senior Bush and asked, asked of him, “Are you destabilizing my government?” Because he paid the then opposition $10 million to do–overthrow the first woman elected in Islamic country. So we knew that he was your operator. And…

MR. GREGORY: But you’re not actively looking for him?

MR. ZARDARI: I think the world is looking for him, and we are part of the world’s lookout brigade.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think he’s alive or dead?

MR. ZARDARI: I’ve said before that he–I don’t think he’s alive.

MR. GREGORY: And you believe that.

MR. ZARDARI: I have a strong feeling and I have sole reason to believe that, because I’ve asked my counterparts in the American intelligence agencies and they haven’t heard of him since seven years.

MR. GREGORY: Mr. President, thank you very much for your views and good luck with your work.

MR. ZARDARI: Thank you, sir.

MR. GREGORY: Coming next, seven years after 9/11 and the war rages on with the insurgent Taliban still controlling parts of Afghanistan. Can the government regain control? And the tough issue of civilian casualties due to U.S. air strikes. Some harsh words from President Hamid Karzai. Our exclusive interview from earlier this week is next.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai after this brief commercial break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: Mr. President, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

MR. HAMID KARZAI: Happy to be here.

MR. GREGORY: President Obama talked about the deterioration in Afghanistan during a speech back in March. This is what he said.

(Videotape, March 27, 2009)

PRES. OBAMA: The situation is increasingly perilous. It’s been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on. Insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies and the Afghan government have ridden–risen steadily. And most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: So here we are seven years after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Another American president is committing troops to Afghanistan, 21,000 additional troops. By this summer there’ll be 68,000 U.S. troops. My question: Is it too little, too late?

MR. KARZAI: Well, a very important question, indeed. When we began in 2001 with the arrival of the international community in Afghanistan and the two–the Afghan people and the international community joining hands, we together defeated the Taliban and the terrorists and al-Qaeda in less than a month and a half. Subsequent to that the Afghan people would, as we established the interim government, would come in large numbers, hundreds of them, to my office and ask for more international forces in the country, in their villages, in their towns, in their districts. That didn’t happen at that time. So in that sense, the arrival of more forces is late. It should’ve happened then, six years ago, and we should’ve paid attention then, six years ago, to the sanctuaries, to the training grounds, to the–those financing the terrorists. It’s a bit late. But as we all know, it’s never too late for a good thing to do.

MR. GREGORY: With 21,000 additional troops, there’s a question of what can be gained. But the issue of civilian casualties as a result of U.S. air strikes, how much damage does that do to the U.S. effort?

MR. KARZAI: A lot of damage. This is something that I’ve been engaged with with our allies for at least six years now.

MR. GREGORY: And you talked to President Obama about it.

MR. KARZAI: Oh, very, very much. For as least six years now, in different ways and different forms. The Afghan people are allies of the United States. The Afghan people want this effort together to succeed. The Afghan people see that the presence of the international community in Afghanistan brings us plenty of good things. But Afghan people also want to have their children safe. The Afghan people say we are fighting together with you, shoulder to shoulder against terrorism, that we are part of the struggle; that we are not–our homes, our villages are not places for terrorism and that they should be safe. It’s an important thing that America recognize that civilian casualties are the biggest concern of Afghanistan and a damage to the effort against terrorists.

MR. GREGORY: When President Obama addressed the American people and announced more troops going to your country, he raised a very important question, which is what is America’s purpose…

MR. KARZAI: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: …in Afghanistan? Dexter Filkins, veteran war correspondent, has covered Afghanistan and Pakistan thoroughly for The New York Times, writes in the current edition of The New Republic this, and he starts with a question: “What can be won in Afghanistan? Driving around the country, as I did recently, one is constantly overwhelmed by how little has been accomplished there. In December 2001, the country lay in ruins. Today, it is still pretty much the same place. … Today, Taliban fighters move freely across the countryside, and in some places they have set up a shadow government. … After eight years of neglect, the Afghanistan state is a weak and pathetic thing.” Pretty strong words. Why is that the case?

MR. KARZAI: Very wrong words.

MR. GREGORY: Wrong. You say it’s wrong.

MR. KARZAI: Very wrong words. Pretty strong, wrong words. It isn’t like that. In 2001, Afghanistan did not have a single kilometer of paved road. Today Afghanistan has its ring road completed, nearly 3,000 kilometers and above. Today we have many of the roads in the cities paved. Today we have health services, which were only to about 9 percent of the Afghan population in 2002, reaching nearly 85 percent and over of the Afghan population. The rural developing program of Afghanistan goes to more than half of Afghanistan’s 40,000 villages. In 2002, we had 4,000 students in Afghanistan universities and only three or four universities. Today we have 75,000 students in Afghan universities, 14 public universities and, and many private universities. In 2002, the 4,000 students that we had were all boys, men. Today, nearly 40 percent are girls of the 75,000. Today we have thousands of Afghans studying abroad, at least 1,000 each year in India and hundreds in Europe and America. We have experts return to Afghanistan. I met with them three months ago. The country is a lot better.

MR. GREGORY: Back in 2003, this is what you said about the Taliban. They were the ones who provided safe haven to al-Qaeda, these are the people that threatened both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is what you said back in June of 2003: “I am not worried about the resurgence of the Taliban. The Taliban movement as a movement is finished and is gone.” Were you wrong about that?

MR. KARZAI: I was not wrong about that.

MR. GREGORY: But they’re back.

MR. KARZAI: I was, I–no. It’s–there’s a difference. The Taliban as a movement is gone from ruling Afghanistan. They were the government in Afghanistan. In 2001 they were the government. Today they are not the government. In 2002 they were threatening you. Today they are not, from Afghanistan. Yes, they are a threat in the form of the terrorism that they bring upon us, in the form of the violence that they bring upon us; not as an organized political force holding the government in Afghanistan. That’s not there.

MR. GREGORY: Are they an existential threat to your leadership?

MR. KARZAI: They’re not an existential threat to Afghanistan’s government. They are a threat to our, to our efforts towards more security, more progress, more reconstruction and a more peaceful life. That threat they definitely are, and especially in parts of the country. That’s strongly there, yes.

MR. GREGORY: The new administration has a slightly different strategy for trying to deal with the Taliban, and it has to do with operations on a tactical level, similar to what was done in Iraq, to try to turn some of these what might be called irreconcilables and bring them into the American fold.

MR. KARZAI: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: This is how the president described it back in that March speech.

(Videotape, March 27, 2009)

PRES. OBAMA: There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force and they must be defeated. But there are also those who’ve taken up arms because of coercion or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. And that’s why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Now, you have called that reconciliation process…

MR. KARZAI: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: …unworkable. Why do you believe that?

MR. KARZAI: No. I, I didn’t call the reconciliation process unworkable. And by the way, I agree with President Obama’s description of the elements of peacemaking with the Taliban. Those Taliban who have been driven out of the country by fear or coercion or intimidation by our forces or the international forces, or by whatever other circumstances that they’ve found themselves compelled to leave the country and take guns against us are the ones that we want to reconcile with. They are the sons of the soil, they must return. To be very precise, those of the Taliban who are part of al-Qaeda or other terrorist networks, or those who are in the grip of, you know, intelligence services must not and cannot come to Afghanistan because they will continue to bring violence and destruction and, and, and damage to Afghanistan. But those who have been driven out of fear or the other circumstances that I described earlier are welcome. They’re the sons of our soil, they’re from our country and we want to reconcile with them. And that’s what President Obama was referring to. What I was objecting to was the international forces directly engaging at local level with the Taliban commanders for reconciliation. That is the job of the Afghan government.

MR. GREGORY: Speaking about the Taliban and the defeat of the Taliban and al-Qaeda generally, do you have more confidence today in Pakistan’s commitment to fighting and defeating the Taliban than you did under General Musharraf?

MR. KARZAI: Definitely more, yes. Definitely there is a recognition the Pakistani leadership and the democratically-elected leadership. They see very much the same way things that, that, that–as we see; therefore, we have a lot more confidence there. We had a very good meeting in Washington. I hope that this will be taken into further steps, meaning implementation on the ground. I’m a lot more confident and a lot more hopeful.

MR. GREGORY: You are running for re-election, and as you campaign you’ve had some pretty pointed messages. You’re critical of the United States for civilian casualties as a result of U.S. air raids. You also were at a rally recently during which you were very clear and you said, “Look, I have made certain demands of the Americans, and if they do not provide additional aircraft, for instance, I’ll go somewhere else and I’ll get it.” You appeared to threaten the administration, and I wonder whether your core political message is an anti-American message.

MR. KARZAI: It is not. It is very much a pro-American message. So the Afghans do want this relationship with America to continue, but of course Afghanistan has a character of its own and an interest of its own and a demand upon our allies as well. We are, we are your front line in the war on terrorism. The Afghan people have given everything on a daily basis in the war on terrorism. We have our police dying every day, at least five, six of them. Our security forces…(unintelligible)…people. Our villages are not where the terrorists are. And that’s what we kept telling the U.S. administration, that the war on terrorism is not in the Afghan villages, not in the Afghan homes. Respect that. Civilian casualties are undermining support in the Afghan people for the war on terrorism and for the, the, the relations with America. How can you expect a people who keep losing their children to remain friendly?

MR. GREGORY: And yet…

MR. KARZAI: And, and, and that’s a moral question as well. We have to be morally on a much higher platform in our force to win the war on terrorism.

MR. GREGORY: And do you worry, do you worry that the U.S. has not met that standard?

MR. KARZAI: The U.S. has…

MR. GREGORY: Have they not met their own moral standard?

MR. KARZAI: The U.S., the U.S., the U.S. has not met that standard in Afghanistan. The United States must stand on a much higher moral platform in order for us together to win this war.

MR. GREGORY: Let me be clear about what you are saying. Are you suggesting that the United States is waging an immoral war in Afghanistan?

MR. KARZAI: No. No. It’s not immoral war, it’s the standard of morality that we are seeking which is also one that is being desired and spoken about in America. In other words, are we the same as the terrorists, are we the same as the bad guys, or are we standing on a much higher moral, moral platform? Are we better human beings or not? We must definitely be better human beings in order for us to tell the people that, “Look, those guys are wrong and we are better.” And we must show that in our practice, and that practice should be extreme care for civilians and their children and their homes and, and, for the civilians to see us completely distinct and separate from the terrorists. So we have to be better. My moral, moral platform has to be a lot higher, a lot more distinct and likeable than the terrorists and the bad guys. That’s what separates us. Otherwise there’ll be no difference, so why should the people care about us or–and not care about them? Do you get my point?

MR. GREGORY: And yet Secretary of Defense Gates has made the point that there has to be sustained commitment on the part of the Afghan people and the Afghan government.

MR. KARZAI: And there is.

MR. GREGORY: He says this: “It’s absolutely critical that the Afghans believe that this is their war. it is their war against people who are trying to overthrow their government that they democratically elected.” Do you think that’s the view of your people?

MR. KARZAI: That is absolutely the view of our people. And that’s why our people, even when they are bombed, even when they suffer, they still come to us. They receive me in their midst when I go to, to offer my condolences. They receive the American soldiers, they receive the American officers when a, when an incident like that. In Farah there was an incident of massive civilian casualties, and the U.S. military officials and the Afghan government went together to the population. That means the people are still with us. Had they been against us, they would have not received us, they would have not come to us. But then, there is a limit to all of that. Any society will, will, will get fed up with, with, with continued violence and continued casualties. That is something very, very serious. And I, and I have conveyed this to my friends in America in all humility and friendship, on behalf of the Afghan people, that Afghans are a straightforward, honest allies, believing in the cause that we have undertaken, and that’s why we were able to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda in less than a month and a half. And if you continue to behave the way we are, we will lose that. And that’s, and that’s a correct thing to do.

MR. GREGORY: Before you go, just a couple of other issues. One of the big issues fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan is the poppy crop, opium. This is what you said on this program back in 2004.

(Videotape, June 13, 2004)

MR. KARZAI: This production of, of, of poppies supports terrorism. It criminalizes the economy. It undermines institution building in Afghanistan. Afghanistan will have to destroy it for the sake of the Afghan people and also because of…(unintelligible). We will succeed because we have to succeed.

(End of videotape)

MR. GREGORY: And yet today 60 percent of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is poppy, it is opium. It accounts for 93 percent of the world’s production of opium. That’s not a very strong record.

MR. KARZAI: It isn’t, it isn’t like that today. When I was speaking, was it 2004, we had only–well, in 2005 we had only three provinces free of poppies in Afghanistan. Today we have 22 provinces free of poppies in Afghanistan, either completely or mostly, you know, to, to a bigger extent. Only one province in the country is producing poppies to the quantity that it can make 60 percent of Afghanistan’s exports. So Afghanistan has made progress in, in, in, in reducing poppies in Afghanistan, in eradicating and removing it from, from our, our culture. But the money that is spent to eradicate poppies and to provide it with alternative livelihoods is something that we have a question about with our allies.

MR. GREGORY: Finally, this spring you signed a law that makes it legal for Afghan men to rape their wives. Now, you have said in the past month that you were reviewing that law. Are you going to repeal it?

MR. KARZAI: It has been reviewed. When–there’s so much that I can talk about in response to what is there. It is not exactly as, as is printed in the, in the, in parts of the world media. But when I heard of this, I called the minister of justice and he told me that there were problems in this law and that it will be–then I instructed the review and amendment of the law. I called in the clergy in the country, the senior most who, who had a hand in drafting this law, and they’d redo the…(unintelligible)…amend it and redraft it, and even parts of the law removed. I’ve already done that. The minister of justice was with me about 10 days ago to give me the amended law that will be sent to the parliament. So it’s something that we have to do.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. KARZAI: And we have to correct it, regardless of whether it’s…

MR. GREGORY: So how–just to be clear then, how are you correcting it? What is permissible behavior?

MR. KARZAI: But it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s–well, it’s, it’s, it’s the–it’s not my choice. It has to go through a legal process and consultation and back to the parliament. We are a democratic country. We have a parliament that, that passes laws like that, that debates them and then sends them back to the concerned lobbies.

MR. GREGORY: But, but are basic human rights part of your democratic values?

MR. KARZAI: Absolutely. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

MR. GREGORY: So, so raping of women is a crime in Afghanistan and will be a crime?

MR. KARZAI: Absolutely. Absolutely. A crime in Afghanistan, because our religion is extremely, extremely difficult on that.

MR. GREGORY: So this particular area, the, the ability to rape your wife is something that will be repealed.

MR. KARZAI: Rape has, rape has…

MR. GREGORY: Is that–are you saying that unequivocally?

MR. KARZAI: It is not, it is not in the law. This–it’s not in these very sharp words that are described in the Western media. Even if it is milder than that, it is wrong and it will be repealed, it will be removed and the amendment will be made in this law. So the Afghan people don’t want that and the Afghan people are sensitive about it. I assure you that has been done.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. KARZAI: It’s something that really embarrassed us when it came out. We are a lot more aware a nation, a lot more culturally good nation than sometimes we are seen in, in, in the rest of the world.

MR. GREGORY: So in democratic Afghanistan it is illegal for a man to rape his wife?

MR. KARZAI: Absolutely. Absolutely. Like hell. Sure.

MR. GREGORY: All right, Mr. President, thank you very much. Good luck with your important work.

MR. KARZAI: Thank you.

Q Make this a habit.

MR. GIBBS: Yes — keep you guys busy.
The President has obviously concluded the meetings with President Karzai and President Zardari. And as promised, we’ll give a — get a readout from General Jones, the President’s National Security Advisor.

General.

GENERAL JONES: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’m pleased to be here to talk a little bit about the meetings that were held this afternoon that you’ve already heard quite a bit about. I’d just like to add a couple of points to those that have been already been made.

The President started out his meeting with President Karzai by commenting with great sympathy on the tragedies that have happened out in western Afghanistan, and indicating that we regret the loss of life, particularly of innocent people, and that the investigations underway will be pursued aggressively with full intent to discover what, in fact, did happen, how it happened, and how we can make sure that things like that do not happen again. And it was clear that President Karzai was moved by that — by the President’s statement, and he thanked the President for starting off the meeting with that expression of condolence.

The President also continued to offer considerable support to Afghanistan, emphasizing the fact that the U.S. would be supporting in as many ways as possible, stressing the fact that the upcoming elections in Afghanistan should be as fair and open as possible, and certainly as much as possible, beyond any question that they’re not honest elections.

He also commented on the new strategy that we’re implementing in Afghanistan as a result of the strategic review; emphasizing that it’s not just about military options, that despite the fact that we’re going to contribute 21,000 U.S. troops to help stabilize the southern part of the country; but also emphasizing that the role of reconstruction, the role of governance and rule of law are all things that have to be undertaken in concert with the security efforts, so that the security-economic development and governance and rule of law — and especially good governance at the local, regional, and national levels — has to be put in evidence. So the emphasis on civilian and military efforts is a cornerstone of the new strategy, as is the more accelerated development of the Afghan army and the Afghan police capabilities.

He also made reference to judicial reform and encouraged the President to do whatever he could to stamp out corruption wherever he found it, or the perception of corruption, and asked that we see concrete results in that regard.

He also commented to the President he was very encouraged, as we all are, by the new relationship with Pakistan. It’s obvious that the two Presidents get along well and it’s obvious that both governments have pledged to work together to cross a wide range of potential areas of cooperation to include security measures, but also economic measures and the like. We’ll continue to work on things like cross-border trade, for example.

And finally, the President emphasized that Afghanistan should be encouraged to continue to develop civil liberties and human rights. And the Afghan President responded that one of the great pleasures of his administration was seeing the rise in education and the number of Afghan students participating in higher education. He quoted the figure of 4,000 students in 2002, and 75,000 Afghan students, men and women, participating at the university level, and emphasized the fact that in 2002 there were no female students at all in the university system. So he was extremely proud of that.

President Karzai responded that in addition to his appreciation for the President’s gesture on the casualties, that he supports the new strategy fully and that — asked for more focused assistance on not only military training but civilian training for young people.

And I might say that throughout the discussion the President had with both heads of state, that the idea of doing things for the young people came up time and time again — with some emotion, I might add, on some of the participants — that this is about the future of two new, young democracies and within those democracies we are talking really about the future of the next generation. And so this was said several times.

President Karzai also indicated that he wanted to do whatever he could to restore an Afghan economy. He wanted to develop its export business; wanted focused help on agriculture; and wanted to do things where people would notice the change in their lives. If they’re surrounded by good governance, if they have secure living conditions, if they have the applied and focused help that they need in order to develop their economies, they will do better.

He recognized that they need to do more with regard to judicial reform and pledged to go after corruption wherever it existed. And he closed by saying that above all, whether he’s reelected or not, he would like to make sure that he contributes to institutionalizing democratic ideals in Afghanistan.

With President Zardari, the President started out by declaring that he wanted to be of help to the people of Pakistan not just in a military way, but to help Pakistan with a new beginning; to again help the government institutionalize democracy and make progress, recognizing that these are difficult times, and the threat of extremists to Pakistan requires a concerted action. And on that score, he emphasized that this is a regional problem and this is why getting together with both Presidents and our government for these few days of very intensive conferences are going to be very important, because we’re going to approach this as a regional problem.

As you know, the AFPAK strategy review emphasized the fact that we have several countries but we have one theater. And this is the way we’re looking at it. It’s important to occasionally remind ourselves that this is a common struggle, and we’re approaching it that way.

So the central goal here is to make sure that all parties understand that this is a united front, not only among the Presidents, but among the Ministers of Defense, the Foreign Ministers, and the various echelons of government involved with economic reconstruction, judicial reform, and all of those things that go into stabilizing a situation.

The President pledged to do whatever we could, to do as quickly — to do what we can as quickly as possible to help the Pakistani government, and said this type of aid would not just be restricted to military, but we would aid in any ways we can to help with health and education, institution-building, advisors, whatever we can do to help the government and the military resist this very serious threat. Miracles will not happen, so this won’t happen quickly. But with a common focus, we can make strides hopefully in the near future.

President Zardari responded by affirming his commitment to work within this regional context to preserve democracy in Pakistan; to want to do more economically for the people — he spoke of building schools and hospitals — but underlying all of his remarks was a pledge to meet the threat and to be successful, and assured the President that they were properly focused on it; was thankful for the assistance that the President offered, and looked forward to working with us in a concerted in the weeks and months ahead.

I think it was a very warm meeting between the three Presidents. They have embraced common themes, an intent to work together, and I think was a very good start. And we will have more meetings the next couple of days at the ministers’ levels to continue to develop these issues.

And I’ll be happy to take any questions.
Q General Jones, if I’m reading between the lines, forgive me here, but it sounds like in the first meeting with President Karzai, there was more telling him that he should be more — do more on human rights and corruption, whereas, with President Zardari, there wasn’t that tone. Am I reading that correctly?

GENERAL JONES: Oh, I don’t know. I think the — the tone of both meetings was pretty much the same. We have a longer history with Afghanistan in terms of understanding and having the ability to do more things because of that relationship having taken a number of years now.

I think with Pakistan we are learning about the things that we can do. But I think the balance of tone was just about the same and I wouldn’t say that he was more directed one way or the other.

Q General Jones, you said that President Zardari — underlying all of his remarks with a pledge to meet the threat and to be successful. Is there anything specific we can point to as far as what the Pakistani army or the Pakistani government is going to do on meeting the threat of the Taliban insurgence in the eastern part of the country?

GENERAL JONES: Well, I’d characterize it by saying that it’s clear that he and his fellow Presidents have come to an agreement that this is not a individual national belong that belongs to either Afghanistan or Pakistan; that this is in fact a regional problem. We have adopted that as our centerpiece of our strategy.

And so the dialogue between the three about not only doing things militarily to correct the situation, but politically between the two principal countries in the region, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to work on economic issues, and to do those things that show their respective populations that there is an alternative, there is a better way and there is greater hope for their children in the future. And as I said, this was a common theme.

I think this was a pretty powerful expression, a recognition of what the right attitude and the right approach has to be. The details will be worked out over time, but I think all three were focused on the seriousness of the threat and I think, in Pakistan’s case, he made a number of points to illustrate that he was focused on it and that they had every intention to do something about that in very real time. And I think there’s some evidence that they’ve started doing that, which is encouraging.

Q As part of President Obama’s message of condolence about the airstrike, did President Karzai ask that they be suspended pending the end of this investigation, or reduced in intensity? And also, did President Zardari bring up the idea that — the Predator strikes in those areas?

GENERAL JONES: The answer is no to both questions. The President was genuine in his acceptance. I think he deeply appreciated the President’s words. And the issue of — operational issues did not come up with President Zardari.

Q In the past the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan have come to Washington and said, okay, we’re going to do this, we’re going to fight together against extremism. What specific steps would you seek in the next few weeks, few months so that people who aren’t privy to intelligence or defense information can judge that this time it’s actually going to be different?

GENERAL JONES: Well, as you know, in developing our strategic review concerning Afghanistan and Pakistan, we did this in concert with both countries. Both countries had teams here; they participated with us in the development of a strategy. We also extended a wider hand to our NATO allies, as well, And brought in, probably in an unparalleled way, just an awful lot of countries to make sure that we had the benefit of their thinking collectively, so that we could develop a document that other people could buy into.

And so this was accomplished. And one of the characteristics, I think the telling characteristics of the document and the agreement was that it does focus on things beyond simply military capacity. It focuses a lot on reconstruction.

In Afghanistan, of course, this is going to be a particularly important part of the strategy. It focuses a lot on rule of law and good governance. And as we continue to develop our relationship with Pakistan, which as you know is somewhat embryonic in some terms because we’ve had no mil-to-mil relations — military-to-military relations — with Pakistan for almost a decade, and so we’re trying to build these relationships up in very real time to face a very real threat.

So the fact that people recognize that this is a regional problem — that’s relatively new I think, within the last six months — the fact that we have a written strategy to address this regional problem which requires regional solutions, the fact that we’re going beyond military solutions and stimulating economic development — trade, bringing in other countries — we have a regional representative, Richard Holbrooke; we have a new ambassador in Kabul; we have a new deputy to the U.N.’s special representative in Kabul — we have a lot of things in place now that allow us to take a regional approach and a regional focus to implementing the strategy.

Q General, the President mentioned al Qaeda repeatedly, but he never said the Taliban in his remarks, and I was wondering if that was purposeful. Also is General Kayani mobilizing and deploying the 11th Corps? And if not, why should we take his efforts seriously?

GENERAL JONES: I’m sorry, why should you take General Kayani’s effort seriously?

Q No, the Pakistani President, I mean his word that he’s serious about this. Is the 11th Corps crucial to that, and what commitment have you got on that?

GENERAL JONES: I think those issues will be discussed in follow-on meetings, so I don’t have an answer for you on that as of today because we didn’t get down to that level of specificity.

The President — of course, his focus — we are focused on al Qaeda, but we’re also focused on extremism of any form, especially those extremists that want to strike outside of their borders and destabilize democratically elected governments. And that’s what we’re there to defeat. And I think this meeting was an affirmation that we will be successful.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

MR. GIBBS: Thanks, guys.

Well folks, as an American who “loves” other countries and their people, I know we all got the ultimate bad rap for around six of Bush’s years.  The reason why of course is that leaders matter, especially when they’re elected by the people.  Leaders make decisions and carry out policies that affect people outside of their own borders.

The Iranians have an opportunity to send Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back under a rock in a few weeks.  If they don’t, he’s still speaking for all of them.  We had the same opportunity in 2004.  Let me just say to my Iranian friends tonight: If you vote this guy back in, things can get worse.

At any rate here’s what Ahmadinejad had to say today, courtesy of AFP:

On the United States:

Ahmadinejad, whose visit to Damascus came as Defence Secretary Robert Gates toured US allies in the region to reassure them about overtures to the Tehran regime by President Barack Obama, hit out at the continuing US military presence on Iran’s borders.

“They weren’t invited in. They’re unwelcome visitors who should leave Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan,” the Iranian president said.

“We don’t want honey from bees that sting us. Efforts must be made to rid the region of the presence of foreigners… and to reform the unjust global political and economic system.”

Ahmadinejad said Iran and Syria were standing together to “resist foreign intervention and the major powers trying to impose their hegemony over the region.”

The United States “has put pressure on Syria and Iran, but it needs us and wants to develop relations,” he said.

On Israel:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad slammed Zionism as “occupation” and “aggression” Tuesday as he delivered his latest diatribe against the Jewish state on a visit to key Middle East ally Syria.
“The Zionist occupiers are destructive microbes, because Zionism itself is occupation, aggression, the use of assassination and annihilation,” he told a joint news conference with President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian capital.

“Zionism was created to threaten us. To support the Palestinian resistance is a humanitarian and popular obligation,” Ahmadinejad said in remarks in Farsi that were translated into Arabic.

“Syria and Iran are united in supporting the Palestinian resistance.”

Despite the erratic behavior of the Pervez Musharraf government for most of George W. Bush’s presidency, of the Big Worry — Pakistan’s nukes — we were always told, no problem.  I can remember Pentagon and Bush Administration officials speaking cryptically of fail-safe mechanisms which would keep the weapons or nuclear material from ever falling into the wrong hands.

Today’s story in the Times says something different.  Apparently, for at least the last two weeks, Obama Administration officials have been concerned:

As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan, senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities.

The officials emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal, most of which is south of the capital, Islamabad, faced an imminent threat. President Obama said last week that he remained confident that keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure secure was the top priority of Pakistan’s armed forces.

But the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located, and its concerns have intensified in the last two weeks since the Taliban entered Buner, a district 60 miles from the capital. The spread of the insurgency has left American officials less willing to accept blanket assurances from Pakistan that the weapons are safe.

Pakistani officials have continued to deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites, the officials said.

One only need read Ahmed Rashid’s latest work, Descent Into Chaos, to believe in the likelihood of one scenario American planners worry over.  What if warheads need to be moved due to instability or insurgency where they are located?  Can the Pakistanis claim that there are no Taliban or al-Qaeda sympathizers among the ranks of the military which would effect that move?  The answer is no.  The further answer, according to my reading of Rashid’s work, is that there have been and continue to be Islamic extremists in leadership and rank and file positions within Pakistan’s nuclear program.

The Obama Administration picked a good week to signal “no more B.S.” to Pakistan.  Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is due at the White House on Wednesday.  When the last American president used to meet with the last Pakistani president, what came of the meetings were little more than photo-ops with Bush heaping praise on Musharraf.

Just hours after the Times hit newsstands, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen gave a news briefing where he used diplomatic but strong language to describe the state of affairs with Pakistan and what is needed from them as stalwart U.S. allies:

“But Afghanistan has been an ‘economy-of-force’ operation for far too long,” Mullen said. “The Taliban, aided by al-Qaida and other extremists and safe havens across the border, are recruiting through intimidation, controlling through fear and advancing an unwelcome ideology through thuggery.”

The Taliban also are making advances in Pakistan. “I am gravely concerned about the progress they have made in the south and inside Pakistan,” the chairman said. “The consequences of their success directly threaten our national interests in the region and our safety here at home. This isn’t about ‘can-do’ any more; this is about ‘must-do.’”

The United States must increase its efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mullen said. More manpower is flowing into Afghanistan, and more money and resources are moving in to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “But we need a commensurate commitment from the civilian side,” he said. “And as I’ve said many times before, we need more, and more concerted, pressure applied from Pakistan as well.”

Mullen’s “must-do” goes for Afghan President Hamid Karzai as well.  Karzai sent his own message to the world today when he named former defense minister Mohammad Qasim Fahim as one of his two running mates. Fahim, a bad seed even by that region’s standards was pushed aside as Karzai’s 2004 running mate for being a warlord not totally supportive of an Afghan central authority.  Fahim has been accused of war crimes in the past and was one of the several warlords entitled by the CIA and Pentagon during the first several years of the Bush War on Terror.  Those entitlements – and millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars – worked against peace and prosperity in Afghanistan once the Taliban were thought to have been defeated.

Karzai will be joining Zardari and Obama Wednesday for a summit in which Obama really has his work cut out for him.  It appears the mistakes of the Bush Administration in allowing South Asia to go to hell in a handbasket are not lost on Obama’s team.  There seems to be the laying of groundwork for a tough meeting — we’ll have to wait and see what comes of it all.

• Islamic extremists (Taliban, Terrorists, Etc)
• Poor people depicted as simple and helpless or violent and lawless
• The corrupt Pakistani military and polity.

Just like in our own coverage of ourselves, we see the extremes.

Rehman’s column is heartening in that by its very publication it says “we can speak our minds in Pakistan,” reminding the world that there are forces of moderation worth supporting in the country.

Rehman says the Taliban being fought by Pakistani troops in their own country are different from the Talib of the 1990s who conquered most of Afghanistan.  He calls them neo-Taliban.  In the minds of many Pakistanis, he says, the Taliban were tolerated in Afghanistan because they brought stability in some respects – even while denigrading women and culture.

Pakistan’s neo-Taliban, however, hold no redeeming value:

While the neo-Taliban operating against Pakistan can outdo the Afghan Taliban in their animus towards women and democratic institutions, they display none of the characteristics attributed to the latter by their Pakistani supporters. Unlike the Afghan Taliban they are dividing Pakistan and not consolidating its unity; they are increasing violent disorder and not suppressing it; and they are raising non-state militias, not disarming the existing ones.

To end his piece, Rehman says the Pakistani government needs to do two things: restore trust between the people and the central government and bring the full force of the government down on the neo-Taliban who would split or destroy their nation.

First, the government should reduce its trust deficit with the people. Its claims of fulfilling its obligations to the nation must be backed by something more than the hollow perorations and meaningless gyrations of ministers.

Secondly, the people must receive evidence that those maintained for and charged with defending the lives, properties and entitlements of the people, which is what national integrity really means, are able and willing to earn their keep. The neo-Taliban have lost all claim to leniency; they must be made to face the full might of the state, except for those who can be trusted with mending their ways.

The United States has some skin in this game as well – about $10 billion since 9/11 and billions more planned.  To date there hasn’t been much return on investment.  What the Pakistani military and government have done to the U.S. is taken passive-aggressive behavior to high art.

Things are very dangerously different these days.  The terrorists don’t have their sites set on just Pakistan’s enemies any longer, they’re threatening Pakistan’s very existence.  For the past week in fact, Pakistani military and police units have been trying to wrest back control of territory just 60 miles from Islamabad.

In the coming weeks Congress will be deciding on the next big aid package to Pakistan.  No one could tell you where a lot of the previous funds went.  What is evident is that we’re not safer, and that’s including the average American and the average Pakistani.  Rehman reminds us that there are people over there worth fighting for – let’s hope the next round of aid truly strengthens the good in Pakistan and helps eradicate the neo-Taliban.

President Obama: Please, be seated. Before we begin tonight, I just want to provide everyone with a few brief updates on some of the challenges we’re dealing with right now.

First, we are continuing to closely monitor the emergency cases of the H1N1 flu virus throughout the United States. As I said this morning, this is obviously a very serious situation, and every American should know that their entire government is taking the utmost precautions and preparations.

Our public health officials have recommended that schools with confirmed or suspected cases of this flu strongly consider temporarily closing. And if more schools are forced to close, we’ve recommended that both parents and businesses think about contingency plans if their children do have to stay home.

I’ve requested an immediate $1.5 billion in emergency funding from Congress to support our ability to monitor and track this virus and to build our supply of antiviral drugs and other equipment. And we will also ensure that those materials get to where they need to be as quickly as possible. you would take to prevent any other flu: keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough; stay home from work if you’re sick; and keep your children home from school if they’re sick.

We’ll continue to provide regular updates to the American people as we receive more information. And everyone should rest assured that this government is prepared to do whatever it takes to control the impact of this virus.

The second thing I’d like to mention is how gratified I am that the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution today that will serve as an economic blueprint for this nation’s future.

I especially want to thank Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, all of the members of Congress who worked so quickly and effectively to make this blueprint a reality.

This budget builds on the steps we’ve taken over the last 100 days to move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity.

We began by passing a recovery act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families. We passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for 11 million American children whose parents work full time. And we launched a housing plan that has already contributed to a spike in the number of homeowners who are refinancing their mortgages, which is the equivalent of another tax cut.

But, even as we clear away the wreckage of this recession, I’ve also said that we can’t go back to an economy that’s built on a pile of sand, on inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards, on overleveraged banks and outdated regulations that allow recklessness of a few to threaten the prosperity of all.

We have to lay a new foundation for growth, a foundation that will strengthen our economy and help us compete in the 21st century. And that’s exactly what this budget begins to do.

It contains new investments in education that will equip our workers with the right skills and training, new investments in renewable energy that will create millions of jobs and new industries, new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses, and new savings that will bring down our deficit.

I also campaigned on the promise that I would change the direction of our nation’s foreign policy. And we’ve begun to do that, as well. We’ve begun to end the war in Iraq, and we forged with our NATO allies a new strategy to target Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and banning torture without exception.

And we’ve renewed our diplomatic efforts to deal with challenges ranging from the global economic crisis to the spread of nuclear weapons.

So I think we’re off to a good start, but it’s just a start. I’m proud of what we’ve achieved, but I’m not content. I’m pleased with our progress, but I’m not satisfied.

Millions of Americans are still without jobs and homes, and more will be lost before this recession is over. Credit is still not flowing nearly as freely as it should. Countless families and communities touched by our auto industry still face tough times ahead. Our projected long-term deficits are still too high, and government is still not as efficient as it needs to be.

We still confront threats ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, as well as pandemic flu. And all this means you can expect an unrelenting, unyielding effort from this administration to strengthen our prosperity and our security in the second hundred days, in the third hundred days, and all of the days after that.

You can expect us to work on health care reform that will bring down costs while maintaining quality, as well as energy legislation that will spark a clean-energy revolution. I expect to sign legislation by the end of this year that sets new rules of the road for Wall Street, rules that reward drive and innovation, as opposed to short-cuts and abuse.

And we will also work to pass legislation that protects credit card users from unfair rate hikes and abusive fees and penalties. We’ll continue scouring the federal budget for savings and target more programs for elimination. And we will continue to pursue procurement reform that will greatly reduce the no-bid contracts that have wasted so many taxpayer dollars.

So we have a lot of work left to do. It’s work that will take time, and it will take effort. But the United States of America, I believe, will see a better day.

We will rebuild a stronger nation, and we will endure as a beacon for all of those weary travelers beyond our shores who still dream that there’s a place where all of this is possible.

I want to thank the American people for their support and their patience during these trying times, and I look forward to working with you in the next hundred days, in the hundred days after that, all of the hundreds of days to follow to make sure that this country is what it can be.

And with that, I will start taking some questions.

And I’ll start with you, Jennifer.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. With the flu outbreak spreading and worsening, can you talk about whether you think it’s time to close the border with Mexico and whether — under what conditions you might consider quarantining, when that might be appropriate?

Obama: Well, first of all, as I said, this is a cause for deep concern, but not panic. And I think that we have to make sure that we recognize that how we respond intelligently, systematically, based on science and what public health officials have to say, will determine in large part what happens.

I’ve consulted with our public health officials extensively on a day-to-day basis, in some cases an hour-to-hour basis. At this point, they have not recommended a border closing. From their perspective, it would be akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out, because we already have cases here in the United States.

We have ramped up screening efforts, as well as made sure that additional supplies are there on the border so that we can prepare in the eventuality that we have to do more than we’re doing currently.

But the most important thing right now that public health officials have indicated is that we treat this the same way that we would treat other flu outbreaks, just understanding that, because this is a new strain, we don’t yet know how it will respond.

So we have to take additional precautions, essentially, take out $1.5 billion, so that we can make sure that everything is in place should a worst-case scenario play out.

I do want to compliment Democrats and Republicans who worked diligently back in 2005 when the bird flu came up. I was part of a group of legislators who worked with the Bush administration to make sure that we had beefed up our infrastructure and our stockpiles of antiviral drugs, like Tamiflu.

And I think the Bush administration did a good job of creating the infrastructure so that we can respond. For example, we’ve got 50 million courses of anti-viral drugs in the event that they’re needed.

So, the government is going to be doing everything that we can. We’re coordinating closely with state and local officials. Secretary Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security, newly installed Secretary Sebelius of Health and Human Services, our acting CDC director, they are all on the phone on a daily basis with all public health officials across the states to coordinate and make sure that there’s timely reporting, that if — as new cases come up, that we’re able to track them effectively, that we’re allocating resources so that they’re in place.

The key now I think is to make sure that we’re maintaining great vigilance, that everybody responds appropriately when cases do come up, and individual families start taking very sensible precautions that — can make a huge difference.

So wash your hands when you shake hands. Cover your mouth when you cough. I know it sounds trivial, but it makes a huge difference. If you are sick, stay home. If your child is sick, keep them out of school.

To — if you are feeling certain flu symptoms, don’t get on an airplane, don’t get on a — any system of public transportation where you’re confined and you could potentially spread the virus.

So those are the steps that I think we need to take right now. But understand that because this is a new strain, we have to be cautious. If this was a strain that we were familiar with, then we might have to — then I think we wouldn’t see the kind of alert levels that we’re seeing, for example, with the World Health Organization. OK?

Deb Price of Detroit News. Where’s Deb?

Good to see you.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President.

On the domestic auto industry, have you determined that bankruptcy is the only option to restructure Chrysler? And do you believe that the deep cuts in plant closings that were outlined this week by General Motors are sufficient?

Obama: Let me speak to Chrysler first because the clock is ticking on Chrysler coming up with a plan. I am actually very hopeful, more hopeful than I was 30 days ago, that we can see a resolution that maintains a viable Chrysler auto company out there.

What we’ve seen is the unions have made enormous sacrifices on top of sacrifices that they had previously made. You’ve now seen the major debt holders come up with a set of potential concessions that they can live with.

All of that promises the possibility that you can get a Fiat- Chrysler merger and that you have an ongoing concern. The details have not yet been finalized, so I don’t know to jump the gun. But I am feeling more optimistic than I was about the possibilities of that getting done.

With respect to GM, we’re going to have another 30 days. They’re still in the process of presenting us with their plans. But I’ve always said that GM has a lot of good product there and if they can get through these difficult times, and engage in some of the very difficult choices that they’ve already made, that they can emerge a strong, competitive, viable company.

And that’s my goal in this whole process. I would love to get the U.S. government out of the auto business as quickly as possible. We have a circumstance in which a bad recession compounded some great weaknesses already in the auto industry.

And it was my obligation and continues to be my obligation to make sure that any taxpayer dollars that are in place to support the auto industry are aimed not at short-term fixes that continue these companies as wards of the state, but rather institutes the kind of restructuring that allows them to be strongly competitive in the future. I think we’re moving in that direction. prudent and appropriate thing for Chrysler to do to engage in the filings that they — that received some notice a while back because they had to prepare for possible contingencies.

It’s not clear that they’re going to have to use it. The fact that the major debt-holders appear ready to make concessions means that, even if they ended up having to go through some sort of bankruptcy, it would be a very quick type of bankruptcy and they could continue operating and emerge on the other side in a much stronger position.

So my goal is to make sure that we’ve got a strong, viable, competitive auto industry. I think some tough choices are being made. There’s no denying that there’s significant hardship involved, particularly for the workers and the families in these communities.

And we’re going to be coming behind whatever plan is in place to make sure that the federal government is providing as much assistance as we have to ensure that people are landing back on their feet, even as we strengthen these core businesses.

Jake? Where’s Jake? There he is.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve said in the past that waterboarding, in your opinion, is torture. Torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?

Obama: What I’ve said — and I will repeat — is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, “We don’t torture,” when the entire British — all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what’s — what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

And — and so I strongly believed that the steps that we’ve taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a — in a position where we can still get information.

In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.

At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians.

And it makes us — it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international, coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.

So this is a decision that I’m very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we’re taking on an unscrupulous enemy.

OK?

Question: (Off-mic)

Obama: I’m sorry?

Question: (Off-mic) sanctioned torture?

Obama: I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the — whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.

Obama: Mark Knoller?

Question: Thank you, sir. Let me follow up, if I may, on Jake’s question. Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others saying that the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” not only protected the nation but saved lives?

And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?

Obama: I have read the documents. Now they have not been officially declassified and released. And so I don’t want to go to the details of them. But here’s what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn’t answer the core question.

Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn’t answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?

So when I made the decision to release these memos and when I made the decision to bar these practices, this was based on consultation with my entire national security team, and based on my understanding that ultimately I will be judged as commander-in-chief on how safe I’m keeping the American people.

That’s the responsibility I wake up with and it’s the responsibility I go to sleep with. And so I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe. But I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking short cuts that undermine who we are.

And there have been no circumstances during the course of this first 100 days in which I have seen information that would make me second guess the decision that I have made. OK?

Chuck Todd.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to move to Pakistan. Pakistan appears to be at war with the Taliban inside their own country. Can you reassure the American people that if necessary America could secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and keep it from getting into the Taliban’s hands or, worst case scenario, even al Qaeda’s hands?

Obama: I’m confident that we can make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure. Primarily, initially, because the Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands. We’ve got strong military-to-military consultation and cooperation.

I am gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan, not because I think that they’re immediately going to be overrun and the Taliban would take over in Pakistan. I’m more concerned that the civilian government there right now is very fragile and don’t seem to have the capacity to deliver basic services: schools, health care, rule of law, a judicial system that works for the majority of the people.

And so as a consequence, it is very difficult for them to gain the support and the loyalty of their people. So we need to help Pakistan help Pakistanis. And I think that there’s a recognition increasingly on the part of both the civilian government there and the army that that is their biggest weakness.

On the military side, you’re starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally. And you’re starting to see the Pakistani military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists.

We want to continue to encourage Pakistan to move in that direction. And we will provide them all of the cooperation that we can. We want to respect their sovereignty, but we also recognize that we have huge strategic interests, huge national security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don’t end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.

Question: But in a worst-case scenario…

Obama: I’m not going to engage in…

Question: (Off-mic) military could secure this nuclear…

Obama: I’m not going to engage in — in hypotheticals of that sort. I feel confident that that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands.

OK, Jeff Mason?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. One of the biggest changes you’ve made in the first 100 days regarding foreign policy has had to do with Iraq. But do the large-scale — there’s large-scale violence there right now. Does that affect the U.S.’s strategy at all for withdrawal? And could it affect the timetable that you’ve set out for troops?

Obama: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to note that, although you’ve seen some spectacular bombings in Iraq that are a — a legitimate cause of concern, civilian deaths, incidents of bombings, et cetera, remain very low relative to what was going on last year, for example.

And so you haven’t seen the kinds of huge spikes that you were seeing for a time. The political system is holding and functioning in Iraq.

Part of the reason why I called for a gradual withdrawal as opposed to a precipitous one was precisely because more work needs to be done on the political side to further isolate whatever remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq still exists.

And I’m very confident that, with our commander on the ground, General Odierno, with Chris Hill, our new ambassador, having been approved and already getting his team in place, that they are going to be able to work effectively with the Maliki government to create the conditions for an ultimate transfer after the national elections.

But there’s some — some serious work to do on making sure that how they divvy up oil revenues is ultimately settled, what the provincial powers are and boundaries, the relationship between the Kurds and the central government, the relationship between the Shia and the Kurds. Are they incorporating effectively Sunnis, Sons of Iraq, into the structure of the armed forces in a way that’s equitable and just?

Those are all issues that have not been settled the way they need to be settled. And what we’ve done is, we’ve provided sufficient time for them to get that work done, but we’ve got to keep the pressure up, not just on the military side, but on the diplomatic and development sides, as well.

Chip Reid?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. On Senator Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party, you said you were thrilled; I guess nobody should be surprised about that.

But how big a deal is this, really? Some Republicans say it is huge. They believe it’s a game-changer. They say that, if you get the 60 votes in the Senate, that you will be able to ride roughshod over any opposition and that we’re on the verge of, as one Republican put it, “one-party rule.”

Do you see it that way? And, also, what do you think his switch says about the state of the Republican Party?

Obama: Well, first of all, I think very highly of Arlen Specter. I think he’s got a record of legislative accomplishment that is as good as any member of the Senate.

And I think he’s always had a strong independent streak. I think that was true when he was a Republican; I think that will be true when he’s a Democrat.

He was very blunt in saying I couldn’t count on him to march lockstep on every single issue. And so he’s going to still have strong opinions, as many Democrats in the Senate do.

I’ve been there. It turns out, all the senators have very strong opinions. And I don’t think that’s going to change.

I do think that having Arlen Specter in the Democratic caucus will liberate him to cooperate on critical issues, like health care, like infrastructure and job creation, areas where his inclinations were to work with us, but he was feeling pressure not to.

And I think the vote on the recovery act was a classic example. Ultimately, he thought that was the right thing to do. And he was fiercely berated within his own party at the time for having taken what I consider to be a very sensible step. So — so I think it’s, overall, positive.

Now, I am under no illusions that suddenly I’m going to have a rubber-stamp Senate. I’ve got Democrats who don’t agree with me on everything, and that’s how it should be.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Every senator who’s there, whether I agree with them or disagree with them, I think truly believes that they are doing their absolute best to represent their constituencies.

And we’ve got regional differences, and we’ve got some parts of the country that are affected differently by certain policies. And those have to be respected, and there’s going to have to be compromise and give-and-take on all of these issues.

I do think that, to my Republican friends, I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine. I can’t sort of define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn’t work and the American people voted to change.

But there are a whole host of areas where we can work together. And I’ve said this to people like Mitch McConnell. I said, look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I — we should have a public plan. That may be philosophically just too much for you to swallow.

On the other hand, there are some areas like reducing the costs of medical malpractice insurance where you do agree with me. If I’m taking some of your ideas and giving you credit for good ideas, the fact that you didn’t get 100 percent can’t be a reason every single time to oppose my position.

And if that is how bipartisanship is defined, a situation in which basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in a historic election, you know, we’re probably not going to make progress.

If, on the other hand, the definition is that we’re open to each other’s ideas, there are going to be differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard, core differences that we can’t resolve, but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress.

Question: Is the Republican Party in the desperate straits that Arlen Specter seems to think it is?

Obama: You know, politics in America changes very quick. And I’m a big believer that things are never as good as they seem and never as bad as they seem.

You’re talking to a guy who was 30 points down in the polls during a — a primary in Iowa. So — so I never — I don’t believe in crystal balls.

I do think that our administration has taken some steps that have restored confidence in the American people that we’re moving in the right direction and that simply opposing our approach on every front is probably not a good political strategy.

Ed Henry?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you’re going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at that it was above — quote, “above my pay grade.”

Now that you’ve been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

Obama: You know, the — my view on — on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don’t want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women’s freedom and that there’s no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I’m pro-choice is because I don’t think women take that — that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So — so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

And so I’ve got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s — that’s where I’m going to focus.

Jeff Zeleny.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President.

During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?

Obama: Now let me write this down.

(LAUGHTER)

Obama: I’ve got…

Question: Surprised, troubled…

Obama: I’ve got — what was the first one?

Question: Surprised.

Obama: Surprised.

Question: Troubled.

Obama: Troubled.

Question: Enchanted.

Obama: Enchanted, nice.

(LAUGHTER)

Question: And humbled.

Obama: And what was the last one, humbled?

Question: Humbled. Thank you, sir.

Obama: All right. OK. Surprised. I am surprised compared to where I started, when we first announced for this race, by the number of critical issues that appear to be coming to a head all at the same time.

You know, when I first started this race, Iraq was a central issue, but the economy appeared on the surface to still be relatively strong. There were underlying problems that I was seeing with health care for families and our education system and college affordability and so forth, but obviously, I didn’t anticipate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And so, you know, the typical president, I think, has two or three big problems. We’ve got seven or eight big problems. And so we’ve had to move very quickly and I’m very proud of my team for the fact that we’ve been able to keep our commitments to the American people, to bring about change, while at the same time managing a whole host of issues that had come up that weren’t necessarily envisioned a year-and-a-half ago.

Troubled? I’d say less troubled, but, you know, sobered by the fact that change in Washington comes slow. That there is still a certain quotient of political posturing and bickering that takes place even when we’re in the middle of really big crises.

I would like to think that everybody would say, you know what, let’s take a time-out on some of the political games, focus our attention for at least this year, and then we can start running for something next year. And that hasn’t happened as much as I would have liked.

Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I — when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use.

(LAUGHTER)

Obama: But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They’re really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.

And, you know, the more I interact with our servicemen and women, from the top brass down to the lowliest private, I’m just — I’m grateful to them.

Humbled by the — humbled by the fact that the presidency is extraordinarily powerful, but we are just part of a much broader tapestry of American life, and there are a lot of different power centers. And so I can’t just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want or, you know, turn on a switch and suddenly, you know, Congress falls in line.

And so, you know, what you do is to — is to make your best arguments, listen hard to what other people have to say, and coax folks in the right direction.

This metaphor has been used before, but the ship of state is an ocean liner. It’s not a speedboat. And so the way we are constantly thinking about this issue, of how to bring about the changes that the American people need, is to — is to say, if we can move this big battleship a few degrees in a different direction, you may not see all the consequences of that change a week from now or three months from now, but 10 years from now or 20 years from now, our kids will be able to look back and say, “That was when we started getting serious about clean energy. That’s when health care started to become more efficient and affordable. That’s when we became serious about raising our standards in education.”

And — and so I — I have a much longer time horizon than I think you do when you’re a candidate or if you’re listening, I think, to the media reportage on a day-to-day basis.

And I’m humbled, last, by the American people who have shown extraordinary patience and I think a recognition that we’re not going to solve all of these problems overnight.

OK. Lori Montenegro?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, when you met with the Hispanic Caucus a few weeks ago, reports came out that the White House was planning to have a forum to talk about immigration and bring it to the forefront.

Going forward, my question is, what is your strategy to try to have immigration reform? And are you still on the same timetable to have it accomplished in the first year of your presidency?

And, also, I’d like to know if you’re going to reach out to Senator John McCain, who is Republican and in the past has favored immigration reform?

Obama: Well, we reach out to — to Senator McCain on a whole host of issues. He has been a leader on immigration reform. I think he has had the right position on immigration reform. And I would love to partner with him and others on what is going to be a critical issue.

We’ve also worked with Senator McCain on what I think is a terrific piece of legislation that he and Carl Levin have put together around procurement reform. We want that moved, and we’re going to be working hard with them to get that accomplished.

What I told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is exactly what I said the very next day in a town hall meeting and what I will continue to say publicly, and that is we want to move this process.

We can’t continue with a broken immigration system. It’s not good for anybody. It’s not good for American workers. It’s dangerous for Mexican would-be workers who are trying to cross a dangerous border.

It is — it is putting a strain on border communities, who oftentimes have to deal with a host of undocumented workers. And it keeps those undocumented workers in the shadows, which means they can be exploited at the same time as they’re depressing U.S. wages.

So, what I hope to happen is that we’re able to convene a working group, working with key legislators like Luis Gutierrez and Nydia Velazquez and others to start looking at a framework of how this legislation might be shaped.

In the meantime, what we’re trying to do is take some core — some key administrative steps to move the process along to lay the groundwork for legislation. Because the American people need some confidence that if we actually put a package together, we can execute.

So Janet Napolitano, who has great knowledge of this because of having been a border governor, she’s already in the process of reviewing and figuring out how can we strengthen our border security in a much more significant way than we’re doing.

If the American people don’t feel like you can secure the borders, then it’s hard to strike a deal that would get people out of the shadows and on a pathway to citizenship who are already here, because the attitude of the average American is going to be, well, you’re just going to have hundreds of thousands of more coming in each year.

On the other hand, showing that there is a more thoughtful approach than just raids of a handful of workers as opposed to, for example, taking seriously the violation of companies that sometimes are actively recruiting these workers to come in. That’s again something we can start doing administratively.

So what we want to do is to show that we are competent and getting results around immigration, even on the structures that we already have in place, the laws that we already have in place, so that we’re building confidence among the American people that we can actually follow through on whatever legislative approach emerges. OK?

Question: (Off-mic)

Obama: I see the process moving this first year. And I’m going to be moving it as quickly as I can. I’ve been accused of doing too much. We are moving full steam ahead on all fronts.

Ultimately, I don’t have control of the legislative calendar, and so we’re going to work with legislative leaders to see what we can do.

Andre Showell? There you go.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President.

As the entire nation tries to climb out of this deep recession, in communities of color, the circumstances are far worse. The black unemployment rate, as you know, is in the double digits. And in New York City, for example, the black unemployment rate for men is near 50 percent.

My question to you tonight is given this unique and desperate circumstance, what specific policies can you point to that will target these communities and what’s the timetable for us to see tangible results?

Obama: Well, keep in mind that every step we’re taking is designed to help all people. But, folks who are most vulnerable are most likely to be helped because they need the most help.

So when we passed the Recovery Act, for example, and we put in place provisions that would extend unemployment insurance or allow you to keep your health insurance even if you’ve lost your job, that probably disproportionately impacted those communities that had lost their jobs. And unfortunately, the African-American community and the Latino community are probably overrepresented in those ranks.

When we put in place additional dollars for community health centers to ensure that people are still getting the help that they need, or we expand health insurance to millions more children through the Children’s Health Insurance Program, again, those probably disproportionately impact African-American and Latino families simply because they’re the ones who are most vulnerable. They have got higher rates of uninsured in their communities.

So my general approach is that if the economy is strong, that will lift all boats as long as it is also supported by, for example, strategies around college affordability and job training, tax cuts for working families as opposed to the wealthiest that level the playing field and ensure bottom-up economic growth.

And I’m confident that that will help the African-American community live out the American dream at the same time that it’s helping communities all across the country.

Michael Scherer of TIME?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush’s use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush’s? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?

Obama: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s overbroad.

But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We’re in for a week, and suddenly we’ve got a court filing that’s coming up. And so we don’t have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We’ve got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.

There — I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can’t litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.

But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it’s not such a blunt instrument.

And we’re interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.

Staff: Last question.

Obama: Jonathan Weisman, you get — you get the last word. Where are you? There you are.

Question: Thank you, sir. You are currently the chief shareholder of a couple of very large mortgage giants. You’re about to become the chief shareholder of a car company, probably two.

And I’m wondering, what kind of shareholder are you going to be? What is the government’s role as the keeper of public — public trust and bonds in — in soon-to-be public companies again? Thank you.

Obama: Well, I think our — our first role should be shareholders that are looking to get out. You know, I don’t want to run auto companies. I don’t want to run banks. I’ve got two wars I’ve got to run already. I’ve got more than enough to do. So the sooner we can get out of that business, the better off we’re going to be.

We are in unique circumstances. You had the potential collapse of the financial system, which would have decimated our economy, and so we had to step in.

As I’ve said before, I don’t agree with every decision that was made by the previous administration when it came to TARP, but the need for significant intervention was there, and it was appropriate that we moved in.

With respect to the auto companies, I believe that America should have a functioning, competitive auto industry. I don’t think that taxpayers should simply put — attach an umbilical cord between the U.S. Treasury and the auto companies so that they are constantly getting subsidies, but I do think that helping them restructure at this unique period when sales — you know, the market has essentially gone from 14 million down to 9 million, I don’t think that there’s anything inappropriate about that.

My goal on all this is to help these companies make some tough decisions based on realistic assumptions about economic growth, about their market share, about what that market is going to look like, to prevent systemic risk that would affect everybody, and, as soon as their situations are stabilized and the economy is less fragile so that those systemic risks are diminished, to get out, find some private buyers, and…

Question: (Off-mic) products or services (Off-mic)

Obama: I don’t think that we should micromanage, but I think that, like any investor, the American taxpayer has the right to scrutinize what’s being proposed and make sure that their money is not just being thrown down the drain.

And so, you know, we’ve got to strike a balance. I don’t want to be — I’m not an auto engineer. I don’t know how to create an affordable, well-designed plug-in hybrid. But I know that, if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same.

So my job is to ask the auto industry: Why is it you guys can’t do this? And, in some cases, they’re starting to do it, but they’ve got these legacy costs. You know, there are some terrific U.S. cars being made, both by Chrysler and G.M.

The question is, you know, give me a plan so that you’re building off your strengths and you’re projecting out to where that market is going to be. I actually think, if you look at the trends, that those auto companies that emerge from this crisis, when you start seeing the pent-up demand for autos coming back, they’re going to be in a position to really do well, globally, not just here in the United States.

So I just want to help them get there. But I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector, if — if you could tell me right now that, when I walked into this office that the banks were humming, that autos were selling, and that all you had to worry about was Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, getting health care passed, figuring out how to deal with energy independence, deal with Iran, and a pandemic flu, I would take that deal.

(LAUGHTER)

And — and that’s why I’m always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, “Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government.” No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that’s not the hand that’s been dealt us.

And, you know, every generation has to rise up to the specific challenges that confront them. We happen to have gotten a big set of challenges, but we’re not the first generation that that’s happened to. And I’m confident that we are going to meet these challenges just like our grandparents and forbearers met them before.

All right? Thank you, everybody.