    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2002, Book I)]
    [April 8, 2002]
    [Pages 575-584]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With the Wall Street Journal
    April 8, 2002

        Q. Thanks for doing this. This is really--I appreciate it a lot.
        The President. You bet.
        Q. It's a big event tomorrow for the Wall Street Journal.
        The President. Well, I understand--yes, I understand you're kind of
    changing your format.
        Q. Yes. It will look different, color.
        The President. What about the sketches? What happened to the poor
    sketches?
        Q. They'll still be there. You'll still get one.
        Counselor Karen Hughes. This is--journal--
    --
        Q. Somewhat short.
        Q. Subdued color. Champagne, as they call it.
        The President. What is your job?
        Q. I'm the Washington bureau chief.
        The President. What is Al Hunt's job?
        Q. He's the executive Washington editor. I can't define that exactly
    for you; somebody else will have to do that for you.
        The President. Somebody upstairs somewhere.
        Q. He's the guy you have to worry about.
        The President. Good. That's why he's here. [Laughter]

    Iraqi Oil Exports/Energy Policy

        Q. It's a good day to be here. It's a good day to be talking to a
    former oil guy, actually.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. And I thought maybe we would start there. You saw what the Iraqis
    said today about cutting off oil exports.
        The President. Taking production off for a month?
        Q. Yes. And the Iranians and the Libyans have said similar things.
    Do you worry about some form of another Arab oil embargo or some form of
    oil embargo by some people?
        The President. Here's my thoughts on that. One, it means that we
    need an energy policy that encourages diversification away from places
    like Iraq. You know, the ANWR debate has been amazing to watch because
    of the amount of misinformation that has been laid out there. But the
    reason I bring up ANWR is because it just so happens that once
    production is up and

    [[Page 576]]

    running on a very small footprint in the middle of this vast country, we
    can produce as much oil as Iraq produces on the world market.
        A good energy policy is one that obviously encourages conservation
    and new technologies but is also one that helps America diversify away
    from sources of crude oil in places like Iraq. And I--the first I heard
    of this, I said this is a--justifies more than ever the call for
    exploration in areas where technology will allow us to do so in
    environmentally friendly ways.
        I also saw the response of other nations, nations that were willing
    to step up and increase production, and I appreciate that as well.
        My other reaction is that Saddam Hussein
    is willing to cut off production even though it affects his own people.
    It helps define the nature of this regime. I've told people as I've made
    the case for--about my strong feelings about Iraq, that this is a person
    who is willing to poison his own people. Now it looks like he's willing
    to cut off revenues so that he can't feed his own people. Anyway, I'm
    not--I mean, axis of evil.
        Q. You mentioned the statements by other countries. Did you--have
    you heard anything from Saudi Arabia? Did Secretary Powell hear from
    Saudi Arabia?
        The President. I haven't, not yet. He's,
    as a matter of fact, eating dinner with Crown Prince Abdullah as we speak. No, I just--I thought Ari told
    me that there had been some movement on the----
        Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. They said
    they're not going to follow a call for an embargo; OPEC has said that.
        Q. And in terms of--if you have Iraq, if you have Iran, possibly
    Libya, you still have a substantial effect on the market, couldn't it?
        The President. Well, it could, absolutely. There is excess supply,
    and we'll just see how it plays out. But to me, it indicates that--well,
    that's another reason why we've got to be very cautious about making
    bold predictions about the economy. We're an energy-dependent nation.
    And as a result, it's--you know, it points up to part of the fragility
    of our economy. In other words, when you're dependent, a price spike can
    affect growth, obviously.
        So I'm pleased with some of the progress being made, but as I told
    the folks there in this speech I just gave on terrorism insurance: You
    know, people can try all the numbers and prognostications and all they
    want; I'm the kind of fellow who believes that if somebody can't find
    work or is worried about their job, we've got a problem. And bad energy
    policy or the failure to have energy policy or the fact that we're
    dependent upon unstable countries is a reason why I am--do not believe
    that we're out of the economic woods yet.
        Q. Is what Iraq is doing, does it amount to a hostile act against
    the U.S.?
        The President. Well, I wouldn't call it a friendly gesture. It is--
    you know, this is a man who obviously hates
    America. And he's not just affecting America, by the way; it's affecting
    countries--all countries. If, in fact, his action has the--is able to
    run the price of crude up, it's going to affect Europe; it's going to
    affect poor nations; it's going to affect poor people around the world.
    This is a guy who has tried to manipulate the market for short-term gain
    for the wrong reason, is a person who is unfriendly to all nations, as
    far as I'm concerned.
        Q. You would like a better energy policy; that's fine, and that's
    understandable. In the shorter term, if you've got a problem, there are
    some other options you can consider. You could think about SPROs out
    there.
        The President. Could do that.
        Q. There are gas taxes that could be reduced. Either of those
    options appeal to you?
        The President. We'll look at all options. If, in fact, his threat--
    look, we're the kind of people that deal with problems; that's what
    happens in the White House. You're

    [[Page 577]]

    dealt a problem, and we deal with it. And we'll look at all options. But
    let's--I think we need to be a little careful about predicting whether
    or not this man is going to have the effect
    he wants to have until----

    President Saddam Hussein of Iraq

        Q. The effort to do something about Saddam Hussein has obviously
    been kind of put on hold while this Middle East situation gets sorted
    out. It could take a long time to sort out the Middle East situation.
    How long does it stay on hold?
        The President. Well, not necessarily.
        Q. Not necessarily----
        The President. I wouldn't--you made--repeat your question. I think
    you made a pretty strong assumption in your question.
        Q. Well, it's only based on the 20 years of history.
        The President. No, what did you just say, though--seriously, I'm not
    being critical. I'm just curious. Again, you just said my plans for Iraq
    have been placed on hold?
        Q. Yes. Is that incorrect?
        The President. Iraq is a problem, and again, another reason why it's
    a problem, we witnessed today. And we are constantly talking with our
    friends and allies about Iraq. I spent a great deal of time this weekend
    talking to Tony Blair about Iraq. As I've said,
    all options are on the table for Iraq, and that's about all I've--pretty
    much about all I'm going to say. I don't know what you meant by----
        Q. It would be wrong to say that your plans are on hold?
        The President. You see, I assume from your question that we're not
    really thinking about Iraq now, that somehow, because the Middle East
    has flared up, any thought about Iraq or keeping a coalition together on
    Iraq----
        Q. I was thinking more action rather than thought.
        The President. Well, I mean, we're looking at all options. And Iraq
    is an important country. By the way, chasing down the Al Qaida killers
    is still a priority, even though the Middle East has flared up. I'm in
    no hurry on a lot of issues. I'm a patient man; I'm a deliberate person.
    I understand we live in a world where people are constantly saying,
    ``Gosh, after 6 months, how come this isn't over?'' Some people say
    that; most Americans don't feel that. They understand that we're in the
    long, long pull. So you've got to put everything in context.
        And the way I am, I'm a deliberate, patient man when it comes to
    conducting this war, thorough war, to defend our freedom. And I have
    said publicly that the idea of an Al Qaida terrorist network hooking up
    or matching up with or allied with--let me start over--``allied with,''
    I think, is a more understandable word--a nation that has developed a
    weapon of mass destruction is a scenario that I will not leave our
    children saddled with, in other words.
        And again, my timeframe is longer rather than shorter. In other
    words, the fact that we haven't proved whether or not Saddam--or bin
    Laden is alive or dead or--he may be dead,
    may be alive, that fact just simply doesn't bother me. Because if he is
    alive, we're going to get him eventually, and if he's dead, that's fine,
    too.
        But we're making progress there, just quietly, steadily making
    progress. Abu Zubaydah is a very good example;
    for those of you who follow the Al Qaida network, you understand the
    significance of an Abu Zubaydah capture. And anyway, I don't know if I
    answered your question properly. In other words, it almost implied that
    things have to be immediate on all fronts; otherwise, there's not a
    focus. And that's just not the case.
        Q. Just as a prognostication----
        The President. Just as a hypothetical?
        Q. See, that's not what I was going to say. You can define it, I
    guess.
        The President. Okay.
        Q. Do you think if we're sitting here a year from now talking,
    Saddam Hussein is still going to be in power in Iraq?

    [[Page 578]]

        The President. That's one of those hypotheticals. [Laughter] I'm not
    going to----

    Gas Taxes

        Q. Let me go back to something I mentioned earlier, gas taxes. Any
    reason for Republicans to start thinking about rolling back some gas
    taxes at this point?
        The President. I think you're asking me--you're speculating on
    something that hasn't occurred yet.

    Gas Prices

        Q. Just to follow up on that, though, how much of a--do you have any
    sense of how much of an increase in the price of oil or the price of gas
    we could see as a result of this?
        The President. No, I don't yet. I understand you all are trying to
    make news, but this is--this is a fresh statement by--so we've just got
    to see how the world reacts.
        But one thing is for certain: The fact that people are concerned
    points up the fact that we had better do something for the good of our
    country in terms of diversification of supply away from sources of crude
    oil in places like Iraq.

    Israeli Withdrawal From Palestinian Territories

        Q. The other part of your Middle East problem today is obviously on
    the West Bank. You don't seem to have gotten much of a response.
        The President. Actually, there is some new news. IDF announced they
    were withdrawing out of two Israeli cities. What are the names of them,
    Steve?
        Deputy National Security Adviser Hadley.
    Tulkarm and Qalqilya.
        The President. Qalqilya. That's right. And that's a beginning. If
    responsible leaders want peace, they must--there are clear things that
    they must do. The Arabs must condemn and fight terrorism. They must cut
    off funding. They must stop propagandizing about the great heroic
    martyrdom of suicide killers. They must explain clearly that Israel has
    a right to exist and they intend, as leaders, to coexist with Israel in
    a peaceful way.
        The Israelis must continue withdrawal. I was very concerned that a
    point had been reached at which it would be very difficult to achieve
    peace. We want peace. We have laid out the vision for peace, and Israel
    has recognized the Palestinian state. Israel has signed on to Tenet and
    Mitchell, as has the PLO. And my point is that Israel has recognized the
    framework for peace, and it's time for her to start pulling out in order
    to allow all of us who care about peace to be able to work to get peace
    in the region.
        Q. Have you been told by the Israelis that this is a response, the
    beginning of a response to what you asked for in the last few days?
        The President. I have not been told that. All I can tell you is
    they're beginning to withdraw, at least from these two cities, as of an
    hour ago.
        Q. What did you think of the Prime Minister's speech to the Knesset?
    Have you had a chance to----
        The President. Today?
        Q. Yes.
        The President. I didn't see it. I had a--the only thing I've heard
    from him was, we had a good conversation on
    Saturday.
        Q. A good conversation?
        The President. Yes. I mean, it was good in the sense that he knows where I stand, and he heard my--it was a good,
    frank discussion, let me put it to you that way. Ari told me that the word was moving around that it was a
    very hostile conversation. It wasn't. It was just a very frank
    discussion about two leaders who are concerned about the region.
        Q. What he said today was basically--I don't know if I can get you
    the exact words--but, ``We're going to keep going until we're done.'' It
    didn't say when that was going to be.

    [[Page 579]]

        The President. I just can tell you they started pulling out of
    cities.
        Q. When you talked to him, or just in general, are there
    consequences if that doesn't continue?
        The President. It's going to continue.
        Q. Sorry?
        The President. I think it will continue.
        Q. The withdrawal?
        The President. I think he heard what I
    said, and I repeated it again today, prior to this news. And Colin
    Powell's mission is to continue to work to
    set the framework for political discussions, and part of that is for
    Israel to withdraw.

    Secretary of State Powell's Visit to the
    Middle East

        Q. And as part of the Powell mission, do you anticipate him meeting
    with Arafat?
        The President. It depends on the circumstances at the time. He's got
    full latitude to do what he thinks is necessary to get the process
    headed toward a political settlement.

    Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian
    Authority

        Q. And if Yasser Arafat does what sort of things between now and
    when Security Powell gets there, is that more likely to happen?
        The President. That's up to Powell. But
    obviously--listen, Yasser Arafat, as I've said--somebody asked me the
    other day, have I lost trust in him? I said, ``Well, he never earned my
    trust.''
        The way you earn trust is by leading and by, you know, not
    squandering missed opportunities--squandering opportunities, creating
    missed opportunities after missed opportunities, to provide--here you've
    got a nation, America. I'm the first President, I believe, to have ever
    gone to the United Nations and laid out a vision for a Palestinian state
    at peace with Israel. And this is an administration that laid out the
    Tenet plan, embraced the Mitchell plan that was, I guess, finalized on
    my watch but started under President Clinton's watch. So you've had two administrations working toward a
    blueprint for peace. And Mr. Arafat, instead of focusing and seizing and
    using his energy to achieve this vision, has not led. So he's never
    earned my trust.
        Q. So who leads, if Arafat doesn't?
        The President. Arafat is the leader. That's who we're dealing with.

    Secretary of State Powell's Visit to the
    Middle East

        Q. Do you have any interest in having Powell see alternative
    Palestinian leaders while he's there?
        The President. I think Colin ought to visit with whomever is
    necessary to move the peace agenda, and he'll just use his judgment.
    We've got General Zinni on the ground there.
    Burns, I believe--Burns is with Powell. So
    we've got our experts there that understand the area very well. And
    Powell has got an agenda, which is to move the process toward a
    political settlement. And obviously, we've laid the conditions out in my
    speech on Thursday, as to what it will take. And he's got the U.N.
    resolution standing behind him, a blueprint toward where we need to get,
    and there are responsibilities on both parties.

    Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

        Q. Somebody suggested to me that one reason that you dispatched
    Secretary Powell was that the Saudis were--that you had some frank
    conversations with the Saudis over the last few days, including one in
    which they indicated the Crown Prince might not make it to Crawford,
    Texas, unless the situation----
        The President. No.
        Q. Can you describe the conversations with the Saudis on this point?
        The President. Well, listen, the Saudis are just as concerned as
    other nations in the region. But the idea of saying, ``You must do this,
    or else I'm not going to come to Crawford,'' just isn't--that didn't
    happen. Not only didn't it happen, it wouldn't

    [[Page 580]]

    be a very smart thing for anybody to do. It's just not the way I--it's
    not the way we do things in this administration.

    Energy/National Economy

        Q. Let me go back to oil for just a second, and then I think you
    want to switch to something else. Have you gotten, in any kind of
    conversations with the Saudis, any assurances that they are not in the
    oil embargo business anymore and that they'll try to make sure others
    don't----
        The President. I'm sure the subject will come up with Colin and the Crown Prince, but this has been relatively--you know, this is new.
        Q. Right.
        The President. So it'll be a topic of conversation.
        Q. Yes. Yes.
        The President. And as Ari said, he felt
    like that the OPEC, as well as the Saudis--again, tell me the news; I
    haven't seen it. This is all breaking since I just arrived from
    Knoxville.
        Counselor Hughes. The President has been in
    Tennessee.
        The President. Ari watched the whole
    speech on C-SPAN in Knoxville, didn't you?
        Press Secretary Fleischer. Yes. They said
    they're not going along with the call.
        The President. So we just have to see.
        Q. But it's your--the recovery is fragile enough that there are
    things that can still throw it off track.
        The President. Oh, I think so. I don't think the recovery is a
    given. And that's why we need to have this terrorism bill, terrorism
    insurance bill. I mean, there are things that Congress can do, and I
    think there are some signed signals we need to send. We need a trade
    bill. We need an energy bill--that will help--even though it won't
    happen immediately. Diversification won't happen immediately. It will
    help calm nerves. It means that the long term is more optimistic than
    not.
        So there are things we need to do. California, the California energy
    situation wasn't a year ago. And yet, it seems like it was years ago
    that California looked like it was running out of energy. And to me,
    that was a wake-up call. Where are we going to get our gas from to fuel
    the electricity, the new plants that were built in California?
        And you know, the Prime Minister of Canada
    is thrilled that we're increasing demand, because he's a major supplier
    of gas, and we're going to have to work with them. That's why I've got
    this hemispheric energy group, Mexico, Canada, the United States,
    meeting as to how to increase supplies in our hemisphere, the need for
    pipelines, and where they ought to go.
        In other words, that's important. And Mexico, herself, is grappling
    with a constitutional issue on energy. We export about 8 percent of our
    natural gas to Mexico. And obviously, to the extent that Mexico is able
    to attract capital and explore for more gas, it's good for Mexico in
    terms of jobs; it's good for their cashflow; and it's good for the
    energy picture in our hemisphere.
        In my judgment, obviously, we've got to go to Alaska. It's a part of
    a strategy to diversify away from unstable sources of energy. And we
    need more nuclear power as well. That's why the Yucca Mountain issue is
    an issue. We need clean coal technology. We need a comprehensive effort.
    And we need conservation as well. The interesting fact that came out of
    the California energy crisis was that they increased their conservation
    by about 10 percent, which is significant and necessary and good.
        I believe that some of the--I've got faith that technology will--
    that we will have new automobiles. But it's not going to be quick enough
    to deal with immediate issues in the Middle East, for example. In other
    words, down the road there is going to be some new technology. We'll
    still be driving, all of us; we'll still be driving, and

    [[Page 581]]

    we'll be driving cars that make us less dependent on foreign sources of
    crude and are much cleaner burning.

    Corporate Management Reform and Responsibility

        Q. You wanted to switch to corporate----
        Q. Yes. Well, you were talking about things that potentially
    threaten the recovery. Do you think that the--I don't know if ``crisis''
    in confidence is too strong a word, but the feeling, you know, the
    concerns about corporate governments is a serious----
        The President. I think it's a serious--I think it's an issue that we
    need to look at and look at very carefully. I think the markets reflect
    the fact, though, that most investors have still got confidence in our
    economy and in corporate America. But reforms are necessary, and the
    CEOs need to be held accountable for full exposure or full detail of
    assets and liabilities. There needs to be pension review. If officers
    sell, the employees ought to be able sell. There ought to be better
    information sharing. There ought to be more diversification.
        On the other hand, we've got to make sure that we don't disincent
    companies for 401(k) compensation. I think it's a vital part of building
    up savings for our workers.
        There are discussions now about options, how we handle options. I
    think options are important. I think they're a good incentive program. I
    think once options earn the money, that they ought to be calculated in
    the dilution of--yes, be part of the--that they ought to be dilutive in
    their earnings per share calculations. To me, that seems like a
    reasonable way to handle that issue so that people fully understand the
    effect of options being granted.
        Q. But not as Chairman Greenspan has suggested, expensing?
        The President. My personal opinion is that--and I think most of the
    people in my administration feel like the best way to calculate--you
    know, earnings are earnings. And earnings per share is the calculation
    oftentimes used in an investment decision. And so we ought to state the
    earnings for what they are and affect the earnings per share. Listen,
    Alan Greenspan is very smart; I hate to get
    into a debate with him. But my view is, is that it achieves both
    objectives. One, what are the true earnings of the company? And two,
    what is the dilutive effect of options in the money? We may perhaps get
    to the same end that he is trying to achieve, and that is a full
    accounting of options. To me, that's a reasonable way to do that.
        Q. One of the things that's happening right now is that, obviously,
    Arthur Andersen is teetering on the brink. Are you--is it possible the
    Justice Department went a little too far and a little too hard after
    Arthur Andersen? Are you comfortable with the idea that they might go
    away, as a result of what the Justice Department has done?
        The President. Well, I believe people ought to be held responsible
    for decisions made, and I will refer--I'll ask you to refer your
    questions to the Justice Department as to their tactics and decisions.
    Since they filed the suit, they'll be good at explaining it to you.
        Q. But there are policy--I mean, there are policy issues involved.
    And some people say the way the Justice Department went at it is--you
    know, threatened to put thousands of people on the street who were
    totally innocent and all of this.
        The President. There is a need to hold people responsible. I
    oftentimes talk about responsibility era--each of us need to be
    personally--you know, personal responsibility. I also make sure I
    broaden that to corporate responsibility as well. There is a
    responsibility for leadership to conduct themselves in a responsible
    way. I'll leave the details to the Justice Department, but the idea of
    holding people accountable or entities accountable is a very important
    part of ushering in the responsible era. And we'll let--there are all
    kinds of pundits,

    [[Page 582]]

    and I've heard this, that, and other. We'll just let the Justice
    Department answer those questions about the tactics.
        Q. Do you think corporate America had kind of gotten away from that
    responsibility?
        The President. I think--I do think there have been periods where the
    growth and the apparent creation of wealth gets so kind of easy, in a
    way, that people forget--not all people but some forget.
        I remember the oil business in the early eighties, and people would
    say, ``The price is going to 100.'' You know? And investment decisions
    were pretty lax. It just seemed like there was this kind of euphoria
    that swept up this particular sector. And every IPO hit, and everybody
    was in the money and options. It just seemed like the sky was the limit.
    There was never going to be any reality.
        And during those periods of time, sometimes, some fail to remember
    that they have a responsibility to people other than themselves--namely,
    shareholders. And when we look back at this period, I think we'll find
    some incidents of that.
        You asked me whether or not those incidents would cause lack of
    confidence in the future. I don't think so at all, and I think the
    market reflects that. On the other hand, it does call us to action, and
    that's one of the reasons why we've laid out a series of initiatives to
    deal with this issue.
        I worry about a board of directors that are too acquiescent to a
    CEO, beholden not to the shareholder but to the CEO. That concerns me.
    I'm not sure of the law that you can pass necessarily, but I do think
    there is a culture that can evolve out of this period of time which will
    remind people they have a responsibility as leaders of a corporation.
        Q. Can you do anything to make that evolution happen?
        The President. Well, I think it is happening. I can't, as the
    President, call upon, reform and change and call people to account, in a
    broad sense. I mean, I'm not going to get involved in every lawsuit that
    comes down the pike, but I can remind people that we have a
    responsibility as citizens.
        And there is a big responsibility in corporate America amongst the
    CEOs who treat their workers with respect. I was particularly grateful
    of the automobile manufacturers to promote product with keeping their
    workers' livelihoods in mind. I thought that was noble during this
    period of time. That sometimes stands in contrast to a corporate
    stereotype where people say, you know, ``I don't really care about the
    livelihood of the workers. For me, I'm going to bottom line, focus
    immediate bottom line.'' There is a responsibility that these leaders
    have.

    Situation in the Middle East

        Q. Can I just return to the Middle East for a second? I can't get
    over it. When----
        The President. You're writing about it for your whole life.
        Q. I know. I'm stuck. I'm in a rut; I admit it. It's pathetic.
    [Laughter]
        The President. No, it's important.
        Q. Sometimes.
        The President. You know, it's an issue that has consumed enormous
    amounts of time by this administration and every administration
    preceding me in modern history.
        Q. It's lifetime employment for journalists, too.
        The President. It's an important issue. It's an issue in which we've
    got enormous stake. It is an issue that--there has to be a vision of
    peace; there has to be a commitment to peace. And my job is to lay out
    that vision and to lead parties to the steps necessary to achieve the
    vision. And it's going to take a while.
        Step one, in order to get there, is withdrawal of troops, from the
    Israeli perspective; and for the Arabs, to stand up and be accountable
    for holding--cutting off financing of terrorists and disrupting
    terrorist networks. These are people that do not--

    [[Page 583]]

    the terrorists and bombers do not want peace. They want to kill to
    prevent peace.
        Q. Just to finish that thought, though--as you've often said, you're
    an optimistic person.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. Doesn't it feel like we're further away from any kind of a
    resolution than we've been in a long time?
        The President. Well, I--listen, I hate the killing. Yes, in one way
    it seems like we're a long way away from peace, obviously, when you turn
    on your TV and see death, suicide bombers blowing up Passover
    celebrations, young Arab girl blowing up a young Israeli girl.
        But I also know if the innate goodness of mankind and that there are
    people who understand that this way is--as I said, enough is enough. I
    think there is enough good will in the region, inherent goodness of the
    people on both sides of the issue that we'll ultimately have leadership
    say, ``We're sick of this, and now let's work together.''
        I don't know if it's going to be a month or a year, however long.
    But nevertheless, this is a--and you have to look at it that way. You
    have to believe that peace is possible, and I believe it is. Ask Jerry
    Seib if peace is possible. He knows this issue
    better than me.
        But I believe it is, and my administration will continue to work as
    if it is achievable. And one of our jobs is to pick and choose the time
    when we spend capital, be judicious in how we approach these issues, to
    not create false expectations, to be realistic about what's possible,
    and lead.
        But in order to lead, you've got to see a better day. And I feel
    that. This picture right here says--it's a Tom Lea. He wrote the line,
    ``Sarah and I live on the east side of the mountain. It is the sunrise
    side, not the sunset side. It's the side to see the day that is coming,
    not to see the day that is gone.'' And I love that picture, because I
    love the man and I love Texas; because I also love the quote, because it
    is a frame of mind necessary--it's a frame of mind that a President must
    have in order to be a good President.
        And I believe that there are a lot of people in the Middle East,
    average, hard-working mothers and fathers, who want to see a better day.
    And we've got to lead to that better day.

    Note: The interview began at 5 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White
    House. In his remarks, the President referred to Prime Minister Tony
    Blair of the United Kingdom; Usama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, leaders
    of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of
    Israel; U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC
    (Ret.); Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William
    Burns; Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada; and Jerry Seib,
    Washington bureau deputy chief, Wall Street Journal. The President also
    referred to the Tenet plan, the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire and
    security plan of June 13, 2001, negotiated by Director of Central
    Intelligence George J. Tenet; and the Mitchell report, the Report of the
    Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, issued April 30, 2001. A tape
    was not available for verification of the content of this interview.

    [[Page 584]]