[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1999, Book II)]
[July 1, 1999]
[Pages 1097-1105]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 1097]]
The President's News Conference With President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
July 1, 1999
President Clinton. Good afternoon. I'm delighted to welcome
President Mubarak back to the White House. He is our longtime partner in
building a safer and more peaceful world.
Once again, we now have a real chance to move the peace process
forward in the Middle East. Egypt has been central to that process and
to all the progress which has been made since the Camp David accords
over 20 years ago. Egypt will continue to play a leading role to address
the important tasks ahead, building on Oslo, Wye River implementation,
reaching a permanent status agreement between Palestinians and Israelis,
widening the circle of peace to include agreements with Syria and
Lebanon, revitalizing talks between Israel and the Arab world on a host
of other important issues from the environment to water resources to
refugees to economic development. There are, to be sure, major
challenges ahead, but the will of the people for peace is strong.
President Mubarak and I also discussed our common determination to
fight terrorism in all its forms.
With regard to the peace process, let me just say one other thing.
The best way for the Israelis to have lasting security is a negotiated
peace based on mutual respect. That is also the best way for
Palestinians to shape their own future on their own land. A negotiated
peace is the best way for all the people of the region to realize their
aspirations.
Let me just say also that over the last two decades, under President
Mubarak's leadership, Egypt has done much to fulfill the aspirations of
its people. Economic growth has been strong and sustained; inflation has
been held in check; the GDP per person has increased by a factor of
five. Egypt is building a modern infrastructure in roads, powerplants,
communication systems. Civil society has grown, with work ahead to
strengthen it, so that all Egyptians participate in building a better
future.
Among the reasons for all this progress, two stand out, both
advanced by President Mubarak's wise leadership. First, Israel's--excuse
me--Egypt's deepening peace with Israel that has freed resources and
energies of the people. A broader regional peace will be good for
prosperity, for progress, and for freedom.
Second, Egypt's economic reform, with expansion of the private
sector and free markets. The work of President Mubarak and Vice
President Gore on our U.S.-Egypt
partnership for growth and development, which they will advance later
today, has been crucial. The President is committed to continuing the
reforms, and America will continue to help.
Today we discussed a number of other issues. I'd like to mention
just one: Kosovo. I am profoundly grateful to Egypt for supporting the
stand taken by NATO. Already, more than half the refugees have returned
to Kosovo. There is still much work to do, and I thank Egypt for its
commitment to provide Egyptian police officers for the civilian police
implementation force there.
But we have made a powerful statement together. The future belongs
to those who reconcile human differences, not those who exploit them.
The future belongs to those who respect human rights, not those who
destroy people because of their religion, their race, or their ethnic
background.
I hope we can carry some of the momentum from what we have achieved
in Kosovo to the Middle East, as we seek there to promote tolerance and
a durable peace. As we do, the leadership of President Mubarak, as
always, will be critical.
Mr. President, welcome. The floor is yours.
President Mubarak. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I was very pleased to see my friend President Clinton and exchange views
with him on matters of common concern. As usual, our talks this morning
reflected the similarity and the convergence of our views. We value our
solid friendship with this great Nation and consider it one of the
pillars of our policy.
[[Page 1098]]
For decades, we have been working together in order to bring about
peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. President Clinton has been
playing an active and very effective rule. Under his leadership, the
American contribution to the cause of peace has reached a new high. His
continued involvement is appreciated by those of us who are committed to
peace in the region.
In the months ahead, we'll be looking forward to reviving the peace
process, which has been stalled for sometime. Unfortunately, valuable
time has been wasted. Today there's an opportunity which should not be
missed. We shall work closely with the U.S. and coordinate our joint
efforts in order to have the parties break the stalemate and restore
movement towards peace.
Recent events indicate that most of the region's inhabitants are
yearning for peace. We shall be working with President Asad, Prime Minister Barak, and
Chairman Arafat, respectively, with a view to
creating the necessary atmosphere for resuming the peace process without
delay. I'll be meeting with each of them in the near future for this
purpose.
Agreements which have been signed on the Palestinian track must be
implemented fully and in good faith. Provocative actions, especially
settlement activities, should be stopped altogether. This will pave the
way for starting final status negotiations. In parallel, negotiations
should be resumed on the Syrian track. There are signs that the ground
is favorable for that. It would be a mistake to assume that movement
should be confined to one track at a time. Progress on each track
facilitates movement on the other. The goal is to achieve just,
comprehensive, and stable peace in the whole area.
In that context, we were alarmed by the recent Israeli bombing of
civilian targets in Lebanon. Such actions only poison the atmosphere in
the region. They create an erosion of the people's confidence in the
process at the time when we are working hard to encourage the parties to
take confidence-building measures. We call upon Israel to apply maximum
self-restraint in the crucial months ahead.
As tangible progress is achieved towards peace, we can work for
enhancing cooperation and interaction in the region. Egypt was a country
that initiated the peace process, and we remain most willing and
determined to do all we can to help bridge the gaps and restore
confidence between the parties.
We also discussed some other regional and international problems,
notably African issues, as well as matters related to cooperation
between countries of north and south.
I commended President Clinton on the success of the American role in
bringing about peace and security in Kosovo. We hope that the events
that took place in that part of the world will convince all those
concerned of the necessity to abide by the rule of law and respect the
human rights of all peoples. We are aware of the fact that much has to
be done to help the refugees and to prevent any recurrence of ethnic,
religious, or cultural violent conflicts. On our part, we will
contribute to international forces as being assigned the task of
maintaining security and order in Kosovo.
As we are about to enter a new era, with the dawning of the new
millennium, we must spare no effort in our quest for peace and security.
For all nations, global problems that threaten the future of mankind
ought to be addressed with vigor and determination. In all these
endeavors, we shall cooperate with our partners and friends, among whom
the U.S. figures very prominently.
Our bilateral cooperation is expanding every year, and it will
continue to grow. This is a goal both of us are committed to. The
Clinton administration has done much in this respect, and the
President's personal involvement in this process was and continues to be
most appreciated by the Egyptian people.
Before I conclude, I would like to send a message of friendship and
affection to all Americans. Thank you very much.
President Clinton. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, as is our
practice, we will alternate between American and Egyptian journalists.
Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International], you go first.
Q. I'd like to ask both Presidents questions. President Clinton, do
you have any new ideas for breaking the stalemate in the Middle East?
And with the advent of our own Independence Day, when do you think
Lebanon will be free and independent and rid of a longtime occupation?
President Mubarak, do you think the new Israeli Government will make
a gesture toward halting the settlements?
President Clinton. Well, let me answer the questions you asked me
first. I do think that
[[Page 1099]]
the time is right, but I think that before I advance publicly any ideas,
I should have a chance to meet with the Prime Minister-elect, Mr.
Barak, when he--according to the reports in the
press this morning, he has constituted a government on quite a broad
base. We should give him more freedom of movement to move aggressively
ahead.
Our role, traditionally, has been to try to create the conditions
and provide the support necessary for the parties to make peace, and I
expect that he will have ideas of his own about
that. And so I think that the appropriate thing for me at the moment is
to look forward to our meeting, which I hope will occur in the near
future, and then after that, after I talk with him, to make whatever
statements are called for at that time.
On the question of Lebanon, I think our position on that has always
been clear. We believe that a comprehensive peace in the Middle East
should include not only an agreement with the Palestinians and an
agreement with the Syrians but also an agreement which includes Lebanon
and promotes its independence and integrity.
President Mubarak. The question about the settlements you mean? I
think the time now is, at least, to improve the atmosphere in the area,
to stop building the settlements now until the negotiations start. Then
the Palestinians and the Israelis could sit and find out what could be
done. This is, I mean, a step for improving the atmosphere between the
two groups.
President Clinton. Would you like to call on one of your
journalists?
President Mubarak. Yes.
Q. Thank you. The question is for President Clinton. I would like to
follow up on Helen's question on the settlements. President Clinton, in
1991, when you first were running for the Presidency, you made a pledge
never to criticize Israel publicly. However, your administration
expressed its dissatisfaction with Israel's settlements activities by
describing them as an obstacle to peace.
However, 23 new settlements have been built since the signing of the
Wye River accord. Would you be willing, your administration, would be
willing to tell Israel to stop building the settlements, the new Israeli
government, to stop building the settlements and undo the wrong that has
been done? Thank you.
President Clinton. Well, I think our position on the settlements has
been clear. We don't believe that unilateral actions by any parties,
including other interested parties like the United States, which
compromise the capacity of the parties to the Oslo accord to reach
agreement on final status issues, should be taken. And that includes
provocative settlement actions. We have made that clear and unambiguous.
But I do not believe--the Israeli people just had a huge election, a
big election, and they voted in very large percentages in ways that
almost every commentator has concluded sent the signal that they were
ready to pursue the peace process to its conclusion. They now have a
Prime Minister-elect who has just completed his
government. He is coming to see me in the next few days. I think the
less I say, until I see him and until we see if we can embrace a common
posture toward making a peace, the better. But my views on the
settlement question are well-known and have not changed.
Yes, Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].
2000 Election and Campaign Finance Reform
Q. Mr. President, Governor Bush has raised a record-breaking $36
million, more than 10 times his closest rival for the Republican
nomination. Do you think he's wrapped up the nomination, or is wrapping
it up? And if he decides not to accept Federal campaign money and the
spending limits that go with it, as appears increasingly likely, do you
think that would be a blow to campaign finance reform?
President Clinton. Well, first of all, I don't want to get into
being a political handicapper, so I can't say--how do I know what the
Republicans are going to do in their nominating process? I don't have a
clue.
But I would make two observations. First of all, the leadership of
the Republican Party, in general, are unanimously hostile to campaign
finance reform. They don't believe in it. And so, if he did that, he would have that in common with the other
leaders, who won't permit us to bring the McCain-Feingold bill to a vote
or to try to pursue what I believe are needed changes in the campaign
finance laws. So that is one thing that--that's just where they are, and
they're very forthright about it. And the American people are going to
have to make up their minds whether this is an important issue to them
or not.
But I would make one point, generally. I think the most valuable
commodity in an election, in a democracy, in which you will cover
[[Page 1100]]
the candidates extensively--even more valuable than money--is ideas. And
I think the most important thing, therefore, that I have seen in this
election so far is that Vice President Gore
is, nearly as I can determine, the only candidate of either party who
has yet actually told the American people what he would do if he got
elected.
And I think that if you look at the 1998 elections, for example,
it's a good example that, in a democracy which has a vigorous media
publicizing what people are doing and saying, money may be important,
but ideas are even more important.
World Summit on Terrorism/Middle East Peace Process
Q. My first question is for President Mubarak. You've been
suggesting for some time the preparation of a world summit on terrorism.
Did you discuss your ideas on this issue with President Clinton? And,
Mr. President, do you have a specific plan for dealing with this
international threat?
And for you, President Clinton, to carry on with the peace process,
how do you plan to work really on the peace process as you approach the
next, best and maybe the happiest, 18 months in the Clinton
administration? [Laughter]
President Clinton. Well, being at peace would be a good start.
[Laughter]
President Mubarak. I've already discussed this issue about
international terrorism with the President, as well as I have discussed
it with other heads of states, but mainly here with President Clinton I
did this issue. I'm saying that in the coming century, the most
dangerous element is not the war program of this or that; it's terrorism
spreading all over the world.
Sometimes when the terrorism starts, when I start speaking about
terrorism sometime, I was told, ``Oh, because of some kind of incident,
you're speaking about terrorism.'' Now terrorism is spreading everywhere
in the world. It's a very dangerous phenomenon. And a summit, and if
it's well prepared before it--I think the whole world will suffer from
terrorism. War is much more easier than terrorism. Terrorism, you never
know when the attack is going to take place. But war is planned, and you
know its limits.
That's why I discussed with the President, and I hope we could reach
a summit, and before the summit there should be very thought-out
preparation with a technical group to see what kind of agreement could
be reached in the whole world under the U.N.
President Clinton. We discussed this issue quite extensively, and
this has been a subject of great concern to me. It's one thing we've
shared over the last 6 years. A few years ago, I gave a speech at the
United Nations, at the opening session, about terrorism and asked that
we focus on it.
We have asked the Congress to provide substantial resources to look
into what else we can do to fight terrorism, to deal with the threats of
biological and chemical weapons and the prospect that they might get
into the hands of terrorists. We have to consider the prospect in the
future that, as the President said, the most serious security threats to
nations will not be from other nations but from terrorist groups that
cross national borders and that may well form presently unprecedented
allegiances with other illegal groups, organized crime groups, drug
traffickers, weapons profiteers.
And so I think that all the nations of the world that are interested
in stability and peace for their people are going to have to have a much
higher level of cooperation on these issues. So I'm for doing anything
that can be done to increase that.
Now, you asked me about the Middle East peace process. Let me just
say again, our role has never been to dictate to either party the terms
of the peace. Even though we have many Arab-Americans and many Jewish
Americans in this country, we do not live in the Middle East. The people
of the Middle East live there, and they have to work out the terms of
their own reconciliation.
What we have always tried to do is to keep the parties working
together and then to do whatever was necessary to provide the support
that the friends of peace need, and if the process seemed in danger of
failing, as it did before the Wye River 9\1/2\ days and sleepless
nights, to do what could be done to keep it alive. But I think that the
people of Israel have sent us a loud message that they want the process
to be kept alive and they want it to be seen through.
So we're in a period of transition now. Let's let the Prime
Minister, the new Prime Minister-elect get his
government in place, take office, come to see me, talk to President
Mubarak,
[[Page 1101]]
and talk to all the other parties and see where we go from there. But
those of us who are friends of the peace process in the Middle East
should focus on successful resolution of it. And sometimes, the less we
say in public, the more likely we are to have a positive impact on the
outcome of the negotiations.
Q. On Northern Ireland----
President Clinton. Larry [Larry McQuillan, Reuters]? Yes, I'll take
an Irish question. Go ahead.
President's Relationship With the Vice President/Medicare
Q. President Clinton, as you're aware, there have been reports of
tension between you and Vice President Gore, and I wondered if you could
comment on your relationship. And are you resigned, as the campaign goes
on, that inevitably, you're going to be at odds on certain issues and
disagree with the Vice President, and for that matter, assuming your
wife decides to run for the Senate, perhaps on Medicare and New York
issues?
President Clinton. Well, that's a substantive question. I'll be glad
to answer that if you want. But let me say, I have been, frankly,
bewildered by those reports. Only one person ever asked me about it
directly, one of your number, and that was Wolf Blitzer, in an interview I did before I left my European trip at
the G-8, and I gave him a very good answer, which was that I thought
that the Vice President had done a good job
in his announcement. I thought the most important thing he had done is--
I'll say again--is to tell the American people what he would do if he
got the job and to pose the choice that I think is before them, which is
do you want to go beyond--build on and go beyond the successful
direction of the last 6\1/2\ years, or would you like to turn around and
go back and take a different course?
And so I think he's doing fine. I
honestly do not know what the source of the stories are, but they are
not in my heart or my mind. I want him to get out there, and if he
disagrees with the decisions that I make as President during the next
year and a half, then of course, he will have to say so. And I will take
no offense at that. And if my wife
decides to run for Senator from New York, then some of the disagreements
that we've had in the past over decisions I've made as President she may
be constrained to state publicly because they will be relevant to the
future. And that's the way a democracy works.
You know, members of a political party, whether Democrats or
Republicans, belong to the political party because they share a general
set of values and a general approach and because they agree on almost
all things, not because they agree on all things. It would be a dreary
world, indeed, if we all agreed on everything, and I didn't ask Al
Gore to become Vice President so that he
would agree with me about everything. Nobody with a fine mind and a lot
of experience and looking at the world we live in would agree with
anyone else with the same qualities on every issue. It just wouldn't
happen.
Now, on the merits--let me say, on this Medicare issue, there have
been many people--not just in New York with the teaching hospitals, but
there are rural hospitals; there are home therapy providers; there are
others--who have felt that the budget savings, the cuts in the '97
Balanced Budget Act, were too severe and made it difficult for them to
maintain quality of care. One such group are the teaching hospitals.
There are a lot of them in New York who take care of a lot of poor
people, but there are a lot of them in Massachusetts, a lot of them in
California, and there is at least one in every State in the country.
When we put out our Medicare plan, we, therefore, did not continue
all of the cost savings in the '97 Balanced Budget Act beyond the period
when they run out. We actually left some of them off to try to alleviate
that pressure. The second thing we did was to create a fund, a quality
fund, of about $7.5 billion, which the Congress can use to debate and
allocate to alleviate present problems.
So I would encourage the Senators from New York, or anyone else
who's concerned about this, to bring those concerns, bring the facts to
the table, get it out in the open, then embrace the idea of Medicare
reform, pass that fund, and then allocate it as it should be allocated.
Because I do think that's a legitimate issue.
Iraq/Kosovo/Middle East Peace Process
Q. For President Mubarak, have you discussed the issue of Iraq and
how close or distant American and Egyptian positions are? For President
Clinton, Mr. President, I'd like to congratulate you on your success and
resolve on Kosovo. And from your statement, you referred as one
[[Page 1102]]
of the criteria for success, the return of refugees; will you work--the
return of refugees, Kosovars, to their homes. Will you use the same
criteria in the Middle East, that the Palestinian refugees and displaced
will come back to their homes? Thank you.
President Clinton. That's really good. [Laughter] That's really
good. [Laughter]
President Mubarak. Well----
President Clinton. You called on him. [Laughter]
President Mubarak. I didn't know what was the question. [Laughter]
Really, for the first part of the question, about Iraq, really, our
position didn't change at all. We are looking forward, how to help the
people of Iraq under any circumstances. I have discussed this with the
President, and I think that the resolution in the U.N., and I think
maybe some improvement in it in the near future, may lead to helping the
people of Iraq for medicine, food, and other things. And I hope that
something can conclude in that direction--discussed this with the
President.
President Clinton. Let me say, our position on Iraq is that we favor
the proposal before the United Nations, advanced by the British and the
Dutch. It would provide for more money to Iraq to help the people there,
with their human needs. But it would maintain a vigorous arms control
regime, because we do not believe that Saddam Hussein should be permitted to develop again weapons of mass
destruction.
And I would remind everyone that he has
actually used weapons of mass destruction. He has used chemical weapons
on the Iranians. He has used them on his own people, on the Kurds that
live in Iraq.
So I think that we have a balanced position. But I have never wanted
the Iraqi people to suffer because of their leader. And I think we supported a relaxation of the way the
funds flow there so that more can go to benefit the people. But I do not
believe we should give up on an attempt, an insistence, indeed, that the
United Nations, in return for this, maintain an arms control regime.
Now, on the refugee question, let me say one brief question about
Kosovo because I do appreciate the interest in Kosovo in Egypt and in
other countries of the region. About half the refugees have gone home.
They're dying to go home. And one of the reasons that NATO was
determined to act is we knew, if we acted quickly enough, that the
refugees could go home and most of them would wish to go home.
Even in Bosnia, where the war went on from--the conflict--from 1991
until 1995, there were many people who had established other lives in
other places and did not want to go home. There are still a lot of
refugees who have not gone home in Bosnia.
So I'm delighted that the Kosovars are pouring in. The truth is that
we've actually tried to slow it down a little bit, because we're worried
about the landmines and other explosives which might be there, and we
want it to be safe for them, and because we're tying to get organized to
help everybody rebuild their homes and the basic infrastructure of life
so that once they do go home, they can actually live and do well.
Now, that brings you back to the refugee question you asked in the
Middle East. I think that the important thing is if we have the right
kind of a peace agreement. That's why I say--no one can accuse me of
dodging Middle East questions. I've been up to my ears and eyeballs in
this peace process since the day I took office. But if you just look at
it as a practical matter--the agreement that is made in the end--whether
refugees go home depends in part on how long they've been away and
whether they wish to go home. It will also depend on what the nature of
the settlement is, how much land will the Palestinians have, where will
it be, how does it correspond to where people lived before.
And I would like it if the Palestinian people felt free and more
free to live wherever they like, wherever they want to live. I would
also like it very much if we could help those countries which have borne
a heavy burden, particularly Jordan where a majority of the population
is now Palestinian, to build a better life for the people who are there,
because they have a lot of very serious economic challenges. They have a
fine new King who is an able person, and
we're trying to help, and we want others to help. But I think it will
depend upon the refugees themselves, and it will depend upon the shape
of the final agreement.
Ask the Irish question if you want.
Northern Ireland Peace Process
Q. Thank you, sir. Several questions on Northern Ireland. What is
the latest--[laughter]--sorry.
[[Page 1103]]
President Clinton. They're learning from you now. [Laughter]
Q. What is the latest update you can give us about your activities?
Do you plan to make an emergency trip over there? Do you blame either
side for the impasse? And what constructive suggestions can you convey
to us at this juncture?
President Clinton. Well, I have been--for the last couple of days,
particularly, we've been in virtually constant contact with the parties
there. And I spent a lot of time on it yesterday and late, late last
night and this morning early. They are in negotiations as we speak. The
mood seems to be reasonably positive, and they are exploring some new
ideas. I offered my suggestions for a possible resolution of the
sticking points, with the benefit of all the folks on our national
security team who have been working on that.
And I'll say this, it is a very difficult problem for the parties,
but it will be very hard for the world to understand if this breaks off,
since everyone has agreed to the fundamental elements of the Good Friday
agreement. Both sides agree that they have to comply with every bit of
it. There was an election where the Irish people voted for it. Then
there was an election where the Irish people voted for leaders under it.
So if you have a situation where you've had two elections ratifying
a peace agreement and you have all the leaders saying that we all have
to comply with every element of it and it falls apart over sequencing, I
think that it would be--to call it a tragedy would be a gross
understatement. But it is a very difficult thing--it would take 30
minutes to go through the whole litany of why. But they are working now.
They are exploring some new ideas, and they do seem determined to work
it through to a positive conclusion.
Would you like to take one more?
Middle East Peace Process/Iraq
Q. Thank you. President Clinton, you talked about the 9\1/2\ days at
the Wye Plantation. We know you tried; God knows you tried, but you
failed, sir. [Laughter] What makes you think that----
President Clinton. I got an agreement. It wasn't my job to implement
it. It has not been fully implemented. The agreement, itself, was a
success.
Q. That's correct, sir, but your officials--[laughter]----
President Clinton. That's all right. They tell me I've failed every
day. It's quite all right. [Laughter] You just save them the trouble
today. Go ahead.
Q. Your officials used to speak about CBM, confidence-building
measures. The Palestinians did their part, even Netanyahu thanked Arafat
at one stage. But let's say you failed in convincing the Israelis to
reciprocate and do the same. What makes you feel that this time around
you would be more successful, sir?
My question to President Mubarak: Sir, how does Egypt view any
external interference in Iraqi internal affairs from whatever source it
comes? Thank you.
President Mubarak. I've failed also this time. [Laughter]
President Clinton. Yes, they zinged you this time.
Let me say, I think, with regard to Wye, obviously, I think its
conditions should be honored, because it's like any agreement between
two parties; unless both parties agree that the agreement should be
modified, then it should be honored.
I believe that historians, when they look back on this period, will
conclude that the principal difficulty that Mr. Netanyahu had was the nature of his coalition, and because it
was small enough--his majority was so small and it included people who
were so hostile to the peace process, that no matter what he tried to
do, they could always threaten to bring him down.
Now, the reason I think it will be different now is, number one,
Prime Minister-elect Barak was a much more open
and heartfelt supporter of the Oslo process. He has--you remember, I
think his first public event after his election was to visit the
gravesite of our friend Prime Minister Rabin. But number two, he got a
big vote from the people of Israel with peace being the major issue. And
number three, he has constituted a government--
apparently, from the morning press--with quite a large voting majority
in the Knesset, obviously geared toward the peace process, because the
parties have deep differences, in his coalition, over domestic policies
unrelated to the peace process.
So for those reasons, I think the chances of success are now
greater. And therefore, I think that all of us should try to restrain
our comments about specifics until we talk to the Prime
[[Page 1104]]
Minister-elect and we can form a common strategy.
President Mubarak. Concerning the interference in the internal
affairs of Iraq, you know our principle from the beginning; we never
interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq. If there is any change in the
Government of Iraq, it should come from internally, not from outside.
This is our principle which has been adopted all our life with any
country in the world.
Press Secretary Joe Lockhart. Thank you.
President Clinton. One more, go ahead.
Q. On Russia?
President Clinton. One more.
Q. What if I say I'm going to leave? [Laughter]
President Clinton. I'll give you a question. [Laughter]
Bill Bradley
Q. Mr. President, when you were asked about George W. Bush and the
Republicans a few moments ago, you deferred, pleading ignorance. Perhaps
I could ask you about the Democrats. When you said that Al Gore is the
only one in the race on either side of the party who has been talking
about ideas, clearly that represents a dig not merely at the Republican
candidates but also former Senator Bill Bradley as well. So let me ask
you about his candidacy, sir, if I may.
Number one, do you believe that he's as qualified as is the Vice
President to be President of the United States? And number two, how do
you explain, in your own mind, when you heard the figures yesterday
showing that the Vice President raised less money than he'd hope for and
Bill Bradley appears to have raised more?
President Clinton. Well, first of all, I'm not going to talk about
their fundraising because I don't think I should be a political
handicapper. But anyone who understands Senator Bradley's career and
life story would not be particularly surprised by this. I certainly
wasn't. And I don't think it's accurate to say the Vice President has raised less money than he hoped for.
On the other question, it wasn't a dig at Senator Bradley. He has
said, himself, that he has not laid out his case for being President and
said that he wants to wait until the fall to do it. That's what he said.
I'm not digging him. I have nothing bad to say about him. That's a fact.
But I, personally, have always believed that you should begin by
saying why you want the job, because you're asking people to hire you to
do things. And I think the Vice President
deserves a lot of credit for doing that. That's my view. But you can't
read that as a dig at Senator Bradley because he, himself, said, ``In
the fall, I will tell you what it is I intend to do.'' That's his
position.
Q. And do you think he's as qualified as the Vice President, sir?
President Clinton. I think the question--the American people will
have to decide who's qualified and who's not. There is nobody in the
race who is running or who could run who has had as much experience in
as many different ways. He's had both
legislative experience and executive experience. Besides that, he's been
a journalist, the Vice President. You've got to think that counts for
something. [Laughter] So he's been a journalist; he's been in the
executive branch; he's been in the legislative branch. He has vast
experience in foreign policy, in arms control issues, and vast
experience in domestic policy. And maybe even more important than
experience, the ideas that he's advanced have made America a better
place. So if results counts and experience counts, then he has quite a
good resume.
And I don't have to make comparative judgments about the other
candidates to say that. No one has anything like that level of
experience, with that level of positive impact on the people of our
country. Those are just, I think, indisputable facts.
Q. How about one more?
President Clinton. You want to ask one more Egyptian? Equal time.
Middle East Peace Process
Q. I have a question for President Mubarak and one for President
Clinton. Sir, at this moment, Prime Minister-elect Ehud Barak is forming
his government in Israel. What should be, with so little time before the
next American elections, which are just around the corner, what would
be----
President Clinton. Seventeen months? [Laughter]
Q. What would be perhaps the one thing or one message you would
direct towards Mr. Barak as a step that should be taken as soon as
possible to revive the peace process?
[[Page 1105]]
And President Clinton, your comment on President Mubarak's
statement?
President Mubarak. Is the question directed to me?
Q. Yes, first, Your Excellency.
President Mubarak. I think I have already mentioned that, in the
comments I started with, there should be some steps to make that feel
much far better and to start the peace process. Eighteen months is quite
a lot; we could achieve in one year so many things. The peace process
was already started years and years ago. The Palestinians have signed
some agreements. If Mr. Barak--and I'm sure that he's going to do it--
starts implementing the Wye agreement, for example makes some steps for
the settlements, I think the process will move. And we hope that we
could finish or reach a final status in one year. One year and a half is
quite a lot of time for negotiations.
President Clinton. I agree with that. It doesn't have anything to do
with the time left I have on my term. My advice would be--let me go back
to 1993 when I became President. Our biggest problem was the domestic
economy was not doing well, and we had a $290 billion deficit, and there
was no easy way to close it. And we presented an economic plan to the
Congress that passed by only one vote in both Houses. It was very
controversial; it was very difficult, I think in that sense--
politically, internally--was perhaps more controversial than making--
than in Israel going forward with the peace process maybe now, given the
vote in the last election.
I think it's better, if you know you've got to do something without
which you cannot succeed in serving your people in the long run, it's
better to do it sooner rather than later, generally. That is generally
true. And if it is going to be difficult and there are tough
consequences, it's better to take them early rather than later. That is
just a general rule. Because otherwise, if you don't do it, you may
never get around to doing it, but it won't get any better. It will just
get worse and worse and worse.
So it's better to just take a deep breath and go on and do what you
think has to be done. That's what I believe.
Press Secretary Lockhart. Thank you.
President Clinton. First--next question, I'll give you--next time we
come, I'll give you the first one, after we do the roll. I've got to go.
Thank you.
President Mubarak. Thank you very much.
President Clinton. Thank you.
Note: The President's 177th news conference began at 1:47 p.m. in
Presidential Hall (formerly Room 450) in the Old Executive Office
Building. In his remarks, the President referred to Gov. George W. Bush
of Texas; CNN senior White House correspondent Wolf Blitzer; President
Saddam Hussein of Iraq; King Abdullah II of Jordan; outgoing Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Prime Minister-elect Ehud Barak of
Israel; and former Senator Bill Bradley. President Mubarak referred to
President Hafiz al-Asad of Syria and Chairman Yasser Arafat of the
Palestinian Authority.