[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 44, Number 24 (Monday, June 23, 2008)]
[Pages 851-860]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
<R04>
Interview With Ned Temko of The Observer in Rome, Italy
June 13, 2008
Progress in Iraq/Remarks to the Organization for Economic Cooperation
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
[[Page 852]]
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 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/Global Foreign Policy
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
[[Page 853]]
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 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 awhile to get to
where we are; it's going to take us awhile 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.
[[Page 854]]
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?
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 dialog 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
[[Page 855]]
of other countries, some of which the world needs to think about as we
head into this 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. Post-surge, 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 post-conflict 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 post-
conflict. 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 dialog 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.
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----
[[Page 856]]
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 re-dos; 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.
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
[[Page 857]]
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. Troop 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 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.
Press Secretary Dana Perino. Okay, we're about 25 minutes.
The President. That means shorten my answers.
[[Page 858]]
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,
``war monger,'' ``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 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
[[Page 859]]
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 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
[[Page 860]]
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 Putin and President Dmitriy 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. This 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.