    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2008, Book I)]
    [June 13, 2008]
    [Pages 816-826]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Ned Temko of the Observer in Rome,
    Italy
    June 13, 2008

    Progress in Iraq/Remarks to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
    and Development in Paris, France

        Mr. Temko. You're giving a major speech in Paris in a few hours'
    time on what you describe as a new era of transatlantic union. And
    obviously, the picture in Europe is much more encouraging, it would
    seem, than a few years ago. What's changed, in your view, and what needs
    to be fixed?
        The President. This is the--what's changed is the--we've gone beyond
    the Iraq period for two reasons. One is that Iraq is--democracy is
    succeeding. People are beginning to see progress. And therefore, people
    that--at least governments that felt like they didn't want to
    participate in the liberation of Iraq have now wanted to participate in
    the reconstruction of Iraq. And their people are beginning to see some
    success. Maliki has moved things--
    Stockholm--and comports himself like a leader would, and he speaks
    hopefully about the future.
        Secondly, that there are a lot of issues that we're focused on that
    kind of send a signal that cooperation is necessary to change the
    conditions of the world for the better--cooperation on AIDS, cooperation
    on malaria, cooperation on trade, hopefully, discussion about climate
    change, cooperation in Afghanistan. In other words, the agenda is
    varied, and it's profound.
        And my speech basically says that by focusing on these issues and by
    working together in a unified way, we can be transformative, just like
    we were in the past. Europe used to be inward looking right after World
    War II--necessarily so--to rebuild. America helped. Now we can be
    outward looking as we help others.
        I also have a--I'm a believer that liberty is transformative--the
    power of liberty is universal, that moral relativism must be rejected,
    and that we've got to have confidence in liberty to help others so that
    we're more secure ourselves. And that's what the speech is. It's a
    hopeful speech.

    Russia-U.S. Relations

        Mr. Temko. And one of the areas of Europe where liberty has been
    sort of partly transformative is clearly post-Soviet Russia. And you've
    had very strong personal relationship with Putin. First of all, is your
    assessment that Putin is still basically in charge? And how important is
    your personal relationship?
        The President. Let me start with the second. My personal
    relationship is important because we had differences. And therefore, if
    you work hard to establish a relationship of trust, that you're then
    able to air out your differences in a way that's respectful of the other
    person, and at the same time, find common ground.
        One area of common ground that has really not been given much
    attention is Iran. I agreed that the Iranians should have--they have the
    sovereign right to have civilian nuclear power. Putin obviously believes they should; witness the cooperation

    [[Page 817]]

    on Bushehr. We both agree, however, that they can't be trusted with the
    knowledge that comes from enrichment. And therefore, Putin suggested to
    the Iranians that Russia provide the enriched uranium necessary to run
    their fuel plant. I agree. And as I said yesterday in the press
    conference, that this really undermines the argument for the Iranians
    because if, in fact, their only focus is on civilian nuclear power, they
    readily accept the plant, the fuel, and the offer of Russia to pick up
    the spent fuel.
        So there are areas where we cooperate, and there are areas where we
    have disagreements. And yet I believe the best foreign policy for the
    American President is to be in a position to earn the trust of those
    where there's not a hundred-percent agreement. And by the way, any
    American President will find out there's never a hundred-percent
    agreement, even with your closest friends.
        Mr. Temko. I'm sure that's right. [Laughter]
        The President. And so the first part of the question--yes, look, I
    think it's--I went to Sochi. Putin
    introduced me to Medvedev. And he, in not
    only his body language, but in his words to me--that Medvedev is going
    to be in charge of foreign policy. And their relationship is being
    sorted out, and the world is fascinated to watch what's happening. I
    think it's--I'll take him for his word, and then we'll watch and see
    what happens.

    Religious Freedom

        Mr. Temko. How concerned are you about issues like human rights in
    Russia? And what degree of influence does any outside country--even the
    United States or----
        The President. Oh, I think it matters. I think it matters when
    people speak up, whether it be in Russia or China or anywhere else. In
    Russia's case, there was--early on in my Presidency, I remember talking
    to Vladimir Putin on behalf of the
    Catholic Church, where there were concerns about the Church being able
    to have a robust presence.
        Vladimir Putin is sensitive to
    religious issues. He's a religious guy himself. He has a beautiful
    little Orthodox church on his own property, which he proudly showed me
    and Laura one time. He made sure I met some of
    the Jewish community when I was there in Russia. And so he is sensitive
    to religious liberty, more so than some other countries.

    Natural Resources/Multilateral Relations

        Mr. Temko. And is Western leverage reduced by the fact that Russia
    has a good chunk of the world's natural energy resources?
        The President. I think it certainly changes the equation on a lot of
    foreign policy. It's interesting to watch the European Union wrestle
    with energy independence. Early in my Presidency, nations were saying
    they were going to get rid of nuclear power. And I questioned them
    quietly, on an individual basis, about that decision, because if you get
    rid of one source of power, you have to find another source of power,
    unless, of course, you don't care whether your economy grows. Most
    leaders end up caring whether their economy grows.
        So I predicted to some of these leaders that there would be an issue
    in terms of having a sole source supplier, particularly of natural gas
    from Russia. And now there's great consternation within the EU. And my
    only point is, is that this energy issue complicates a lot of foreign
    policy issues, including that between the EU and Russia, as well as that
    between the United States and Venezuela, or the world and Iran. And the
    question is, what do you do about it?

    Energy Policy

        Mr. Temko. Well, that was going to be my next question.
        The President. What we need to do about it in the United States is
    to get this Democratically controlled Congress to allow us

    [[Page 818]]

    to explore for oil and gas. We did an energy study when I first became
    President that predicted it would be an issue if we did not explore for
    oil and gas. And what people don't understand is hydrocarbons are
    necessary as we transition to a new era, based upon new technologies.
    But new technologies don't arrive overnight. I mean, they just don't
    suddenly appear. It takes time and money to develop these technologies.
    The world is in the process of doing that. The United States is spending
    a lot of money on research, both privately and publicly. Japan is as
    well.
        And yet we forgot the notion of transitioning. And so we don't
    explore in ANWR, we don't explore for oil shale, we don't explore off
    the coast of America, and we should be.

    Oil Prices/Upcoming Middle East Oil Summit

        Mr. Temko. In terms of the oil price, which is obsessing most of the
    world now, is there anything individual governments can do, in your
    view?
        The President. There's no magic wand. It took us a while to get to
    where we are; it's going to take us a while to get out of it. And the
    truth of the matter is that there's either got to be more supply or less
    demand. And demand doesn't decline overnight, although patterns and
    habits are beginning to change in the United States. You notice some of
    these car manufacturers are now announcing they're going to be
    manufacturing smaller automobiles.
        I think that people have got to recognize that, I mean, our policy
    in America has been robust on the development of new technologies and
    weak on finding enough hydrocarbons so that we can become less dependent
    on foreign sources of oil.
        Mr. Temko. In terms of the short term, fixing the oil price----
        The President. You mean the magic wand?
        Mr. Temko. Yes.
        The President. No, there's not one.
        Mr. Temko. And in terms of these conferences, I notice there's going
    to be a conference in Jeddah, and your national security staff----
        The President. That would be Hadley,
    the spokesman.
        Mr. Temko. Yes, indeed--not unreasonably said that you would want to
    know what such a conference----
        The President. I was asked this at a press conference last night. I
    said it's an interesting idea. Of course, I'm going to go home and take
    a look at what it all means, and I'll decide who's going to attend on
    our behalf. But if I might repeat, the solution to the price of
    hydrocarbons is either more hydrocarbons or less usage of hydrocarbons.
        During my trips to the Middle East--I've got great relations with
    the leaders there, and I talked to King Abdallah about increasing the supply of oil, on the
    theory that if you harm your consumers with high price, they will find
    other ways to power their economies as quickly as possible. And
    secondly, he should not want to see kind of a worldwide contraction as a
    result of consumers spending money on energy that ends up overseas, as
    opposed to spending money on opportunities in their respective
    economies.
        So I think people, if they take a sober look at the world's supply,
    there's just not a lot relative to demand.
        One of the things that could help is that if some countries, big
    consumers of hydrocarbons stop subsidizing their populations so that
    there is a response to price on the demand side.

    Iran

        Mr. Temko. Iran has been very much on the agenda again, all this
    week----
        The President. Yes, it is. It should be.
        Mr. Temko. ----and should be. Ahmadi-nejad has all but said no to the latest incentive package.
    If that stands, what's the next step in your view?

    [[Page 819]]

        The President. More sanctions. The next step is for the Europeans
    and the United States and Russia and China to understand diplomacy only
    works if there are consequences. And sometimes the world tends to focus
    on the process as opposed to the results. And I have tried during my
    Presidency to say, we need to focus on the results. And for diplomacy to
    be consequential, there has to be a statement that says to the Iranians:
    Here's your way forward; if you choose not to, there will be a
    consequence. And the consequence in this case, in the diplomatic
    channel, is sanctions that are effective. So we will work with our
    partners on implementation of the sanctions thus far in place through
    the U.N., and work with them on additional sanctions, including through
    the U.N. process, as well as through the financial process.
        Mr. Temko. What's at stake here? Sorry, go on.
        The President. On the theory that there are people inside Iran who,
    one, are suffering as a result of the decisions their Government made;
    but secondly, leaders inside of Iran who are sick and tired of the
    isolation brought about by this regime. In 2003, the Iranians had agreed
    to verifiably suspend; we had agreed to say, there's a way forward,
    working with our European partners. In other words, there was a--looked
    like a successful way forward for both sides of this debate. Then
    Ahmadi-nejad gets elected, changes the
    tone and changes the policy.
        And so my only point there is that--and this is the point I make to
    our partners--is that the Iranians had adopted a different attitude
    during my Presidency--in other words, in the relatively near past--and
    that's not to say they can't do it again. And now is the time. And the
    consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon are substantial. They're
    substantial in the Middle East. If the people in the Middle East do not
    think that the United States and Europe, for example, are going to work
    to provide security, they will find their own ways to secure themselves.
    And what the Middle East does not need is a nuclear arms race. It does
    not need the instability that comes from an innate fear that the West is
    not strong enough or willing enough to take on the problem.

    Situation in the Middle East

        Mr. Temko. So there's a lot at stake here, in your view.
        The President. In my judgment, it's the international issue that
    faces all of us. And therefore, success in Iraq is important; it has
    consequences for the Iranian issue. It is important for us to have
    security agreements with our friends. We, the United States, has
    security agreements with UAE, for example. When you go to the Middle
    East and you sit in my seat and listen, yes, there's concern about the
    Palestinian state. But the dialogue has shifted dramatically from solve
    the Palestinian state and you've solved the problems in the Middle East,
    to now solve the Iranian issue and you solve the problems in the Middle
    East.

    Iran

        Mr. Temko. Let's assume that Ahmadi-nejad does not respond to this
    latest package, that there are additional sanctions. You clearly feel
    very strongly about this issue.
        The President. That's why I put all options on the table.
        Mr. Temko. And there are other options, obviously. What happens if
    at the end of the year, you have tougher sanctions, but you still have
    no resolution?
        The President. I don't want to speculate on that. My hope is, is
    that let's get the tough sanctions in place. That's the task.
        Mr. Temko. But there's always an alternative on the table; there has
    to be.
        The President. Oh, yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Temko. And you----
        The President. And alternatives not just for the United States,
    alternatives for a lot of other countries, some of which the world needs
    to think about as we head into this

    [[Page 820]]

    arena. We don't want a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. That's an
    alternative.

    U.S. Foreign Policy

        Mr. Temko. But you would be willing to hand over a status quo which
    was slightly improved, i.e., tougher sanctions?
        The President. Actually, it's not status quo because there's a
    multilateral forum in place that will enable Presidents to more likely
    deal with this issue.
        I have made it clear that it's difficult for the United States to
    achieve an issue in a one-on-one situation with people like Ahmadi-
    nejad or Kim Jong Il. I have changed the foreign policy of the United States to
    make it more multilateral because I understand that diplomacy without
    consequences is ineffective. And the only way to achieve consequences
    through diplomacy is for there to be a universal application, in this
    case, of sanctions. Unilateral sanctions don't work.
        You know, I tell my partners, we're asking you to sanction. I know
    you're sitting there saying to yourself, ``Well, it's easy for him to
    say because they've already sanctioned.'' And the question facing
    countries is, does money trump effective diplomacy for the sake of peace
    and security?

    Progress in Iraq

        Mr. Temko. Iraq, you mentioned. Postsurge, are things heading in the
    right direction, in your view?
        The President. Absolutely.
        Mr. Temko. And how is----
        The President. Violence is down. And as a result of violence being
    down, the economy is growing and political reconciliation is taking
    place. And the lesson learned in this postconflict period in both Iraq
    and Afghanistan is, you got to have security.
        I gave a speech at the Air Force Academy that said it's a different
    set of issues that we face now than we faced 60 years ago in
    postconflict. First of all, the conflicts took longer to resolve in
    World War II, and yet the reconstruction was done in relative peace and
    security. Here it took little time to accomplish the initial military
    objective, and reconstruction had to be done in the face of a lot of
    violence.
        And in 2006, it became apparent that our strategy of training and
    encouraging the Iraqis to take the lead was not working; sectarian
    violence was severe. As you know, I made the decision to send 30,000
    more in because we recognized that--and had belief that security would
    yield this kind of evolution of democracy, and it is. The number of laws
    they passed, the Iraqi Parliament have passed, have been--I would say it
    certainly exceeded expectations. And they passed their budgets faster
    than we have passed our budgets.

    British and U.S. Troop Levels in Iraq

        Mr. Temko. I'm sure that's true. [Laughter]
        The British Government, Gordon Brown had said yesterday, I think,
    that he will announce sometime in the coming weeks future plans for
    British deployment in Iraq. British officers have acknowledged that in
    the recent fighting in Basra, the American military role was crucial to
    making sure that there was a response. Is there not a concern that,
    whatever the justifications for a British withdrawal, that a British
    pullout of troops could have an effect either on American deployment or
    on the situation as a whole? Or are you relaxed about it?
        The President. I'm, first of all, appreciative of the fact that
    Gordon Brown is constantly in dialogue with us
    about what he and his military are thinking. Secondly, we ourselves are
    bringing out troops based upon return on success. And thirdly, I am
    confident that he, like me, will listen to our commanders to make sure
    that the sacrifices that have gone forward won't be unraveled by
    drawdowns that may not be warranted at this point in time. I'm looking
    forward to discussing with him.
        We've had some discussions. He was going to
    be at 3,500, I think, if I'm not mistaken; he's now at 5,000.

    [[Page 821]]

        National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley. I think he's at 4,200.
        The President. Forty-two-hundred, I don't know, whatever, but it's--
    --
        Mr. Temko. But it did roll back on an----
        The President. It's greater than he
    thought, in other words----
        Mr. Temko. Yes, that's right.
        The President. In other words, the Government took a look and said,
    ``Well, maybe we ought to leave more troops in.'' My only point is, is
    that timetables--you say, timetable for withdrawal, and our answer is,
    there should be no definitive timetable; there ought to be obviously a
    desire to reduce our presence, but it's got to be based upon success.
        All I can tell you is, from my perspective, the British response has
    been that way. They've said, we're going to have--we think we'll be at
    3,500, but then adjusted their plans based upon the conditions.

    Iraq/President's Decisionmaking

        Mr. Temko. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq obviously is----
        The President. Still looking for them.
        Mr. Temko. Still looking for them, exactly. [Laughter]
        The President. That was a huge disappointment.
        Mr. Temko. And the obvious question your critics ask, particularly
    in Britain, is if we'd known at the time there weren't any WMD, would
    there have been this war?
        The President. Well, you know, that's one of those great
    hypotheticals that we didn't know. Now having said that, I still
    strongly defend the decision. The world is better off without Saddam
    Hussein in power. But Presidents don't get to do redos; they don't get
    to do look-backs, ifs. All I can tell you is, is that we thought for
    certain there was weapons of mass destruction, as did the nations that
    voted for 1441.
        See, the interesting thing about history is that--short-term, kind
    of momentary history, is that people forget what life was like at the
    moment that this decision was made. One, people forget that we tried to
    solve this problem diplomatically. You might remember, there was a great
    debate: Will Bush go to the United Nations, or will they move without
    trying to solve this problem diplomatically? Well, we did go to the
    United Nations; I insisted we go to the United Nations. And we worked
    diligently from the summer of 2002 until March of 2003 to see if we
    couldn't have solved this. We went back to the United Nations for a
    resolution.
        Mr. Temko. For a second resolution, yes.
        The President. And in the meantime, we're working with our allies
    and friends. We didn't realize, nor did anybody else, that Saddam
    Hussein felt like he needed to play like he had weapons of mass
    destruction. It may have been, however, that in his mind all this was
    just a bluff. After all, there had been 17 United Nations Security
    Council resolutions, the world wasn't serious, which leads me back to
    the point that when the world says something, it better have--it better
    mean what it says, otherwise people who are destabilizing just don't
    take it seriously. ``Who cares?'' they say.
        And so I was asked in Germany--one of the guys said, ``You making
    any mistakes?'' ``Of course,'' I said. One of the mistakes was my
    language made it look like that I was anxious for war; that because of
    my language, I didn't understand the consequences. Well, of course I
    understand the consequences. And I understand better than anybody that
    the Commander in Chief has got an obligation to comfort those who have
    lost a loved one because of his decision. And then the man went on and
    said, ``Well, was it a mistake to get rid of Saddam Hussein?'' The
    answer is absolutely not.

    [[Page 822]]

    President's Decisionmaking

        Mr. Temko. You very movingly described in one interview this week
    that--how difficult it is to put young American men and women in harm's
    way and how much time and energy you've tried to devote to doing what
    you can, obviously, to comfort the families of someone who has been
    killed----
        The President. And making sure they understand that the sacrifice
    won't go in vain. Nothing worse than a politician making decisions based
    upon the last Gallup poll when people's lives are at stake, or where
    they have made a sacrifice. And I tell these folks--and they want to
    know--look, there's a lot of them, and I haven't visited with all the
    families. But I will tell you this: Many, many families look at me
    trying to determine whether or not, one, I believed that it was
    necessary; and two, whether or not I'm going to let their son or
    daughter kind of lie in an empty grave when it comes to the sacrifice
    they made. They want to know whether or not the President--if he
    believes it was necessary, whether or not he's going to see this thing
    through, regardless of what they're screaming on the TV sets.

    President's Image Abroad

        Mr. Temko. You're flying into Britain where your public awaits you,
    and you know there's a tough public there sometimes. One of the
    questions----
        The President. Do I care? Only to the extent that it affects
    people's view of my--the citizens I represent. Do I care about my
    personal standing? Not really.

    Iraqi Civilians/U.S. Military Casualties/Freedom Agenda

        Mr. Temko. One of the questions, of course, they ask, is, do you
    feel a sense of personal pain----
        The President. Course I do.
        Mr. Temko. ----over the Iraqi civilians who have----
        The President. I feel a sense of pain for those who were tortured by
    Saddam Hussein, by the parents who watched their daughters raped by
    Saddam Hussein, by those innocent civilians who have been killed by
    inadvertent allied action, by those who have been bombed by suicide
    bombers. I feel a sense of pain for death. I feel a sense of pain for
    the families of our troops. I read about it every night, or I used to
    read about it every night. The violence has changed.
        But I get a report every day about whether or not the U.S. has
    suffered casualties. And when I get those reports, I think about those
    mothers and fathers. And I meet with a lot of families--a lot--in order
    to be able to--it's my duty to try to console and comfort. And many
    times, the comforter in chief ends up being comforted, by the way, by
    the families, the strength of the families.
        This is a volunteer army, and these kids are in this fight because
    they want to be in the fight. And they believe in it. And yet these poor
    parents are looking at--oftentimes looking at negativity, just people
    quick to report the ugly and the negative. But it's hard to report on
    the schools that are opening or the clinics that are opening or the
    playgrounds that are filling up. The society is coming back.
        I have great faith in the power of liberty. First of all, I wasn't
    surprised when people went to vote in defiance of the killers. I was
    pleased, but not surprised, because I believe in the universality of
    freedom. I don't believe it is a Western value. And I say to people, I
    am concerned about the comfortable isolating themselves and saying, who
    cares whether somebody over there lives in a free society?
        And I'll say in my speech, moral relativism must be challenged, this
    notion that it doesn't matter what forms of government are--I think it
    does matter. I think it also matters, along these lines, that when I
    talk about freedom, it's just not freedom from tyranny, it's freedom
    from HIV/AIDS; it's

    [[Page 823]]

    freedom from malaria; it's freedom from hunger--for two reasons. One,
    it's in our national interests that we defeat hopelessness. The only way
    a suicide bomber can recruit is when he finds somebody hopeless. And
    secondly, it's in our moral interests. A nation is a better nation when
    it feeds the hungry and takes care of the diseased.
        And therefore, when I go to the G-8, my message to the G-8 is, yes,
    we'll talk about the environment, and that's important. But George W.
    Bush is going to be talking about those people who are needlessly dying
    because of mosquito bites. And I expect them to honor their obligations.
    We came to the G-8 last year, and I said: ``Why don't you match what the
    United States of America does? We're putting up $30 billion for HIV/
    AIDS, $1.6 billion for malaria. And why don't you match us?'' And they
    said, ``Okay.''
        And so we're going to go to the G-8 and we're going to sit down and
    say, ``Have we matched?'' Because there are people needlessly dying
    today. And we'll come up with a good solution for greenhouse gases by
    getting China and India at the table. And it's going to take time to
    evolve, but I'm going to remind people we can act today to save lives
    for the good of the world.
        White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.
    Okay, we're about 25 minutes.
        The President. That means shorten my answers.

    Former Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United
    Kingdom

        Mr. Temko. No, no, I'll shorten my questions. [Laughter]
        Just three very brief questions. First of all, your relationship
    with Tony Blair--I'm struck, in your last question, that you seem to
    share with him a genuine passion for ideas and that politics matter. How
    would you describe your relationship with Blair?
        The President. I would say, first of all, it's a relationship forged
    by fire. We share--as you can tell, I have this idealistic streak, and
    so does Blair. But we also understand that this idealism is a practical
    response to the world. See, this is an--he understands, like I
    understand, this is an ideological struggle. These acts are not isolated
    acts of lawlessness. We're in a war.
        A lot of people hope this wasn't the war--you know, just kind of
    dismiss it as, oh, there's some irritated guys, you know, just kind of
    making some moves. We viewed it as an ideological struggle that requires
    response through good intelligence, sometimes military, obviously,
    sometimes law enforcement, all aiming to dismantle and protect our
    people--dismantle the cells and protect our people, but that ultimately,
    freedom has to defeat the ideology of hate.
        Mr. Temko. Was Tony Blair your poodle, to use the----
        The President. You know, look, this is the convenient--one of the
    great things about Western press is that they oftentimes retreat to the
    convenient rather than trying to, you know, probe the depths of a
    relationship or the depths of somebody's feelings or the basis of
    philosophy. And so it's convenient. It's convenient to say, you know,
    ``warmonger,'' ``religious zealot,'' ``poodle.'' I mean, these are just
    words that people love to toss around foolishly.

    President's Legacy

        Mr. Temko. How do you think and how do you hope that you and Blair--
    but particularly yourself--how would you hope that the achievement--
    what's your greatest achievement or your greatest pride as President?
    And what's your greatest regret?
        The President. Well, first of all, just so you know, I'm not going
    to be around to see it. There's no such thing as objective short-term
    history. It takes a while for history to have its--you know, to be able
    to have enough time to look back to see why decisions were made and what
    their consequences were.
        So you know, I'd hope it'd be somebody who would use the influence
    of the United

    [[Page 824]]

    States to help transform societies by working on disease and hunger and
    freedom. And the liberation of 50 million people from the clutches of
    barbaric regimes is noteworthy, at the minimum.

    President's Beliefs

        Mr. Temko. Does this job take its toll on you? I mean, can you----
        The President. My spirits are pretty high. I mean, I'm--you got to
    believe, you know? You got to have a set of beliefs that are the
    foundation for your very being. Otherwise these currents and tides and
    24-hour news and politics will kind of leave you adrift. And I tell
    people that when I get home, I'm going to look in that mirror and say, I
    didn't sacrifice my core beliefs to satisfy critics or satisfy pundits
    or, you know----

    President's Future

        Mr. Temko. And what next--a foundation, a book?
        The President. Yes, I'm going to think about that, yes--writing a
    book. I'm going to build a Presidential library with a freedom institute
    at SMU--Southern Methodist University--all aimed at promoting the
    universal values that need to be defended. I'm very worried about
    isolationism and protectionism. The world has gone through these
    ``isms'' before. And you watch and see, the protectionist debate is
    mounting in the United States; it's mounting in Europe, certainly. It
    was much easier to kind of blame the economic woes on external forces,
    and therefore, the response would be, okay, let's quit trade, let's make
    sure our jobs aren't going elsewhere, and that's--some of those concerns
    are legitimate.
        On the other hand, it is a forerunner of isolationism, and you know,
    I remind people that we've been through a period of isolationism and
    protectionism right before World War II. And, by the way, curiously
    enough, at that period of time, there was nativism as well. And I find
    it interesting that the immigration debate is now pretty pronounced
    around. And so I'm going to set up a--this isn't, like, you know, a
    headquarters for the Republican Party.
        And by the way, just so you know, the foreign policy I've just
    outlined for you is--you know, it's not a hundred percent received
    amongst conservative thinkers in the United States either.

    NBC's ``The West Wing''

        Mr. Temko. Yes, I know, yes. Do we have 90 seconds?
        Ms. Perino. Yes.
        Mr. Temko. Okay, so----
        Ms. Perino. I would say 90 seconds.
        Mr. Temko. Ninety seconds, okay. Just one very quick--this is going
    to seem slightly flippant, but you're going to the greatest fan club of
    ``The West Wing'' television show in the world on Sunday. Since you're
    the only person who can review that program from experience----
        The President. I've never watched it.
        Mr. Temko. You're kidding. Why not?
        The President. Because I don't watch network TV. I read.
        Mr. Temko. You read. Okay. And then the----
        The President. I seriously don't watch TV. You know, I watch sports,
    but I'd much rather read books. And I do, I read a lot. I may even read
    yours. [Laughter]

    Progress in Iraq

        Mr. Temko. And then the last question----
        The President. But I won't be able to find it because it's written
    by--so-called written by the other guy. [Laughter]
        Q. Certainly true. Last question, which comes back to Iraq again.
    Gordon Brown--and I thought your question on the pain you feel
    personally was quite clear and absolutely strong. Gordon Brown a couple
    weeks ago phoned a voter who was upset about Iraq, and apologized on
    behalf of the Government, not for the war, which he still thinks was the
    right thing, but for

    [[Page 825]]

    the kind of suffering of the Iraqi people. Do you think that's a wise
    thing to do?
        The President. I think the Iraqi people--yes, some have suffered, no
    question. But they're living in a free society. Everybody is going to
    have to handle their own internal business the way they want to. I'm not
    going to second-guess one way or the other. But my view is, is that when
    you talk to Iraqis, they're thrilled with the idea of living in a free
    society. Do they like the fact that violence is still there? No. But
    every society reaches a level of violence that's tolerable.
        And has that reached Iraq? I don't know yet. But I do know life is
    improving. I do know they live under a Government that they helped
    elect, or they elected. And there's still a lot of work to be done,
    don't get me wrong, but--and you know, the thing that people ought to
    focus on is the courage of the Iraqis. They put up with a lot of
    violence, Muslims killing Muslims. But first of all, there have been
    some accidents, but nobody can claim that the United States or Great
    Britain are intentionally killing innocent people. We're not. As a
    matter of fact, warfare has changed a lot.
        Mr. Temko. But the existence of the war has led to the deaths of
    innocent people, and the fact is----
        The President. It has, but before the war, hundreds of thousands
    were discovered in mass graves.

    Freedom Agenda

        Mr. Temko. So on balance, you have----
        The President. Freedom trumps tyranny every time. And it's hard for
    people to see that. It's hard for people sitting afar to say, ``Isn't
    that beautiful, somebody lives in a free society?'' And my point is, is
    that I think it's important for those of us who do live in free
    societies to understand that others want to live in free societies. And
    it takes time and sacrifice and effort to get that done. But one of the
    lessons of history is, is free societies yield of peace.
        I remind people, 60 years ago isn't all that long. And to say that
    Europe would be whole, free, and at peace prior to the end of World War
    II would have been, you know, you would have been viewed as a hopeless
    idealist. Well, I'm making the point that I--when I gave my speech at
    the Knesset, if you read what I said, here's what 60 years from now the
    world can look like, and I believe will look like, unless we all
    retreat. It's not worth it, you know. And my point is, it's working.
        Mr. Temko. Good. Thank you very much. And thank you for taking so
    much time.

    Note: The interview was taped at 9:45 a.m. at the Villa Taverna. In his
    remarks, the President referred to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of
    Iraq; Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin and President Dmitry A. Medvedev
    of Russia; King Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia;
    President Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; Chairman Kim Jong Il of North
    Korea; and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom. The
    transcript was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on June 15.
    A tape was not available for verification of the content of this
    interview.

    [[Page 826]]