Question: Whom would you interview and what would you ask?

Transcript: I would have interviewed, I think, the previous Pontiff. I met him on two occasions. I was in awe. I never met a man who had a more kindly face or more piercing eyes. He would be one. Mother Teresa would be another. And I personally would have loved to meet Teddy Roosevelt. I think I would ask them about their spirituality first of all. And Mr. Roosevelt particularly, I would ask about his ability after he left office to risk life and limb in exploring the Amazon, which is little known about him. But just a fabulous saga in the story of one of the great American presidents.

Question: What should we be asking ourselves?

Transcript: You know I don’t know. These are all personal matters. I think if you’re a father and a husband, are you as good as you could possibly be? I know one day my daughter . . . my second daughter said to me, “Dad, no one ever wished that their tombstone said ‘I wish I had spent another day at the office.’” So I think that really struck me. I’ve never forgotten it, and there’s not a day that goes by that I don’t regret her having said that to me, or the truth of her comments. So I think we all need to try to put a little balance in our life, and ask ourselves have we got that balance.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: In my view we ought to be investing and reinvesting in education, and particularly in technical education. We ought to find the wherewithal to be able to come up with a health scheme that can be quite robust and satisfy the needs of the great majority of our population. But we spend our time, as I suggested earlier, arguing things very often which are not very important and leave these big, tough issues unfunded and understated. I was thinking on the way down here today, Dwight David Eisenhower is the one who is responsible for our great infrastructure – this great network of highways. A big idea. Lyndon Johnson had this great society. Richard Nixon put a man on the moon. I mean huge ideas. We seem to be bereft of those ideas. So I think we need to get a little more comity in our political discourse. We need to focus on education in a very serious way. And as I say, get a handle on immigration. And if we do that, I think we’ll have a pretty bright future.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: Probably transitional. We’re in the . . . we’re in the stage . . . And I’m thinking back in the latter part of the 19th century, you had a united Germany come onto the stage, and that was part of the world. And in the 20th century, we had the United States come onto the stage, and that was extraordinarily important to the world. And now you’ve got a China rising followed closely by India. So I think there’s a huge transition, and this will be seen as a transition age. The rapidity of technology and information flow, etc., leads me to that conclusion.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: Look, the future is clearly in our hands. We are still a relatively young country. We’re 36.9 or something years of age younger than a lot of other countries – Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia for that matter, New Zealand, others . . . Australia. We’re younger. This leaves us a lot of time to carefully and confidently move into the future while resolving our questions of social security as we gray, as we get older. I am not heartened by the recent discussion of immigration. I think that this was not our finest hour. I was proud of the president, and he stood up. I was proud of John McCain who stood up. But we have to think through this very carefully. Immigrants have been a source of strength. Immigrants to this country will be a source of strength and economic strength, having wage earners for pensioners, which is very necessary. We have got to get over our fear of immigrants. If we do, and if we go back to a more traditional view of immigration to the United States under some limits, then I think we can march confidently into the future; in which case I’d be optimistic. But if we continue with this bashing of immigrants and fail to be confident enough that we can have immigrants here who could keep their own cultures and customs while accepting fully our national values, then I’d be less confident.

I think as a general matter, we still are able to turn out men and women who believe that this experiment in the United States is a worthy one, and one that is worth our sacrifice. I think further that we’re a nation of . . . a multi-racial, multi-religious democracy that is a beacon to others when we are consistent and faithful to our national values. But when we engage in things like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, or the suspension of Habeas Corpus, then we give lie to this great beacon which I think the world wants us to be.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: Well you don’t regulate it. If it’s going into a state, the states have to make their own regulations, and many of them do . . . some of them more than others. South Africa is a pretty good regulatory . . . Ghana is pretty good. Mozambique is working on it. So you have to depend on them to regulate it, and their own regulations concerning telecom, concerning mineral development . . . development of mineral rights, gas and oil rights, these are not insignificant or . . . peoples, nor are they unsophisticated peoples. So they’ll regulate it.

The instability in Nigeria is very much a North-South instability and a tribal instability. And I must say that looking at the city of Lagos, it’s a huge, sprawling city. I’m frightened almost every morning that I’m gonna wake up and see it just exploding. In terms of U.S. money going in, it’s primarily been ___________ money. There are regulations concerning it. There are always funds that when we send funds overseas through our banks, etc., there is a look by our government of who the end user is. So I’m not as worried about U.S. money going to bad people as I am the governments of those various states not making the right use or making the right choices with the monies they have.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: It’s a mixed bag. As I read it now, some of the African states are a little leery of sort of the ___________ of the Chinese. I think they’d be somewhat more conscious and comfortable with us. And I know a lot of our investment capital and our venture capital from the United States is going into Africa now – telecom and things of that nature – because the markets are growing rapidly.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript:  Absolutely not.  There are humanitarian reasons why we shouldn’t.  There are also, as I say, cold calculations of national security.  The humanitarian reasons have to do with the infectious diseases and HIV/AIDS, which has been a terrible scourge for that continent primarily.  And it could be a great scourge for all the rest of us if we don’t try to contain it.

On the cold calculation aspect and on the security side, there are tribal and ethnic disputes.  There are religious disputes.  There is extremism.  Tanzania and Kenya come to mind in those . . . the embassy bombings.  So there are . . .  Somalia right now.  There are good foreign policy reasons why we ought to engage in Africa.  And here’s one that perhaps you don’t know.  The African continent as a whole grew at over 5% in economic rate last year and the year before.  So there are economic reasons to get involved, and there are energy reasons – all of which are understood by the Chinese who are trying desperately to get involved.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: Yeah. I’m afraid nothing very meaningful will happen in Darfur unless the United States has a small presence. And I’m not talking about necessarily carrying rifles and separating the combatants; but sort of a headquarters outfit. The United States has a way of coalescing efforts, and people take it seriously when the United States gets involved. And I’m one of those who thinks we should be involved. But there are plenty of others with rifles who could separate the combatants; but I think without our sort of action forcing an event, nothing meaningful will happen.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: I think there are probably two. Darfur is the one that’s gotten me very unhappy because it has . . . It’s got everything. It’s got energy avarice. It’s got inhumanity. It’s got tribal and racial aspects. It’s just got inhumanity on a grand scale. And so I think we ought to step up and take a look at that. To some extent all of us are our brothers’ keeper. And the other is the question . . . the whole question of infectious diseases. In some ways in Africa, we . . . George Bush doesn’t get any credit. He’s put four times as much money into this as any other president, and he’s had some . . . some success in some of the infectious diseases. HIV/AIDS is still a real problem. And it . . . He doesn’t get enough credit for it, and therefore he doesn’t get enough . . . with the next administration, he doesn’t get enough sort of psychological award to really continue this great effort and this great struggle.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: No. I don’t think they contribute. If anything there’s an awareness of things going on. As I say, they exploit the vulnerabilities of . . . I know as a policy maker . . . And I’ve been parodied on there at least once to my knowledge, and I deserved it. I said something very stupid. So I find that my children actually, in a way, have a fair understanding of a lot of things that they wouldn’t otherwise . . . otherwise know.

Recorded on: 9/13/07

Transcript: No. What has too much say is a newspaper like the New York Times, the Washington Post, notwithstanding whatever their biases. They have an actually small readership. And a newspaper like the former ___________ has a much larger readership. And if you look at their reporting . . . For instance, all during the Iraq war, you’ll find they did very good – very cogent and very critical. But we give too much credence to very lightly read newspapers. The readership of the New York Times and the Washington Post is not a million combined. But if . . . I don’t think . . . In fact if I read things correctly, most Americans now are getting their news online, or unfortunately from the Stewart show . . . “The Daily Show” which, I must say, seems to find a seam and find the vulnerability of whatever they go after. I enjoy it enormously, but I’m not sure it’s a real good phenomenon in the long run.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: I think it was very unhelpful following 9/11 because I think they stepped away from their traditional role of oversight. Any Executive branch, in my view, which doesn’t have a strong oversight from Congress and the strong checking of our free press will go off the tracks. Anyone – Democrat, Republican, third party. So our system demands this tension, and I would say that members of the press were primarily AWOL for a couple of years. They’ve come back now. Now an administration or any administration which depends on the press for spinning to get their message out should not, then, be upset if the press doesn’t entirely buy the spin, or is somewhat critical of you. And I think there’s a lot of time spent damning the press and denigrating the press when they’re actually used to doing their own job. In other words you can’t depend on them to be spun and then be angry with them when they’re . . . you know when they’re being somewhat critical. You can’t have it both ways.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Question: Is the American political system broken?

Transcript: No. I think we have a way of correcting ourselves. We fight our battles in public. We regularly change our elected members. I think people have to sort of see things deteriorating. And clearly if the opinion polls I see are correct, only 14% view our Congress as . . . in a favorable light while 33% view the President in a favorable light. I think at some point and time people finally decide again to get energized and make our democracy work. And it doesn’t work top down. It works from the bottom up. They get out and start electing school board members who care about the welfare of students and schools. And they start working on city councils, and then up through their congressional members. It’ll happen. This is one of those, I think, periods of cynicism about the political process.

Question: If you could change one thing about the political process, what would it be?

Transcript: Oh gosh, I . . . I think there are thousands. I think the main . . . go back to try to make things a little more thoughtful in the terms of the debate. I mentioned the fact that House members . . . many House members coming to the Senate bring sort of a House behavior, and I think that’s not the way the founding fathers first saw things. And it leads to rhetoric and not good policy deliberations. On the Democratic party, they have two interesting . . . or three interesting candidates. That’s helping. But what you really see right now, I think in my view in the American public, is there’s all this cynicism about Washington; and that Washington spends all its time bickering and not doing much; that the states themselves have started to . . . to take up that . . . or to fill that vacuum – Governor Schwarzenegger in California with his environmental movement. Other states who are looking at more robust healthcare for all of our citizens. So what you’re finding is state leaders are stepping into that vacuum. At some point and time, the national leadership will get the message that the American public wants them to govern on things that matter, and not spend their time on little mouse turds, which is what they’re doing now.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Question: Is there an objective standard of success?

Transcript: Well a standard if you’ve looked at the rhetoric of the administration from April of . . . or March of 2003 until now. There’s been very much a shifting scale. I think the measure of success will be some sort of functioning society, and some sort of minimal governance now in a country which primarily spends its time looking inward for a while and not pestering her neighbors. And I think that’s gonna happen; but I must say I think there will be a lot of suffering in Iraq for Iraqis. I feel that you have had gasoline, and you’ve had oxygen come together, and there was a spark. And so you had conflagration. And this is gonna have to burn itself out, and that’s gonna take some time.

Question: What obligation do we have to that region?

Transcript: Well I think to the region, we have the obligation to __________ our own relationships with them, and try to make them as stable as possible. I think to Iraq, we have to . . . Having started this, we have to try to leave the situation somewhat better than we found it. But at the end of the day, realize that this is an Iraqi problem and Iraqi solution when it comes to governance. We can create the security conditions which can allow them, if there’s political will, to govern. We cannot govern for them. And at a point and time, we’re going to have to make a decision if they’re exerting sufficient effort on political governance. We saw recently Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus came. And thus far there’s a lot of frustration in Washington and in Iraq with the lack of governance.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Question: How does an all-volunteer military affect America’s ability to protect its interests?

Transcript: Well having been part of a military during the time of a draft, and then having been part of the Defense establishment when the All Volunteer Force was coming in, there is no question in my mind that the AVF is head and shoulders above a draft. These young men and women are fantastic. I don’t know if I’d have been worthy of them as a young officer. They’re that good. But we’re on the second . . . just starting the second generation of the All Volunteer Force. This is going to be a very interesting experience, and I don’t know how it’s going to . . . going to come out. Clearly having an all volunteer force is one of the things that has kept public scrutiny of the war down somewhat. I do think, having said that, that there is a place in our society for sort of mandatory service, not necessarily military service. Because I think it’s a good thing to give the country, and I think it’s a good leveler. People of all religions, races and creeds can come together, and sacrifice together, and give back to this country for a year or two. I think that would be a great thing, but I don’t foresee a return to the draft as being desirable or possible unless we were faced with a major catastrophe.

Question: What advice do you have for young people entering the armed forces?

Transcript: Oh I’d encourage them to do it. I’d be very enthusiastic about it. As I say, it is . . . The young men and women who go, they find that they’re part of something bigger than themselves. And I think this makes them, on the one hand, feel that they’re part of something worthwhile; but on the other hand realize that we’re all a part of something larger. And that when you see that you can do your part within that context, I think it makes you a better citizen all around. I think it shapes you very well for a future workforce.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript:   I don’t think it’s necessarily the case.  Abraham Lincoln didn’t have military experience and he did a pretty good job as Commander-in-Chief.  So . . . Franklin Delano Roosevelt the same.  I’m not one who thinks that necessarily would be the judge of a good presidency.  I’m more inclined to think that those presidents who have been judged great by history are primarily presidents who have suffered great hardship in their own lives.  I mean George Washington lost more battles than he won.  Abraham Lincoln – entirely self-made and failed politician.  Theodore Roosevelt a weakly child who built himself up through intent of his own will.  Franklin Roosevelt, who lost the use of his legs and simultaneously developed a spine.  So I think that being in the military or from the military is not a prerequisite.  Perhaps something more closely to look at is what hardships has one overcome in their life?  And how does that shape you to be able to be both empathetic and steely when you need to be?

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: Well if I were talking to the next president, I would say first of all that mothers and fathers who founded our revolution were people who believed . . . who founded our nation to partner our revolution were people who believe passionately in the message of that revolution. And the message of that revolution was human rights, human freedoms. That is democracy. And every single post-war president has shared in a vision of a world made more benign and safer by the United States, which is engaged across the board in the protection of human freedoms and human rights. But I think I would use other terms. I would use the term “reform”. I think to the extent reforms are put into place, then that leads to a growing middle class which is a necessity for a democracy to stick. You have to have the institutions to support the framework of democracy. That’s a free press. Those are parties. Those are understanding of the theory and practice of democracy. And you have to have a rule of law. You can’t impose those from the top down. They have to be developed. So I would be talking about reform which leads to democracy, not democracy which leads to reform.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript: Certainly there has been a rise in the region. Just pick up your paper any day and look at the bombings in Saudi Arabia, or over in Morocco, over in Algeria recently, etc. But it’s not only a rise of fundamentalism which is directed against the west and western interests. There is also a great battle going on within Islam. And the battle is shaped around the question of, “Can a Muslim be modern, entrepreneurial and still a pious Muslim? Or must we return to the days of the Caliphate?” This is something that has to be resolved among and between the 1.2 billion adherents of Islam. And I would note that this is even more, however, confined to the Middle East. I wouldn’t say necessarily the 200 million Muslims in Indonesia are particularly playing the game of modernity versus the Caliphate. They’ve made their decision. They made their decision through the ballot box to opt for modernity and still be practicing Muslims. So it’s primarily confined to the Middle East.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Transcript:  Well they would say it’s the call to peaceful development because “rise” sounds a little militaristic.  It is the case that when exist . . . historically, that when existing powers try to accommodate a rising power, there is some dislocations in the tectonic plates that undergird security and economic landscape.  It is not necessarily the case that the peaceful development or rise of China will be to our detriment because the rising tide can raise all boats.  The real question is whether China wants to join the United States on the world stage – and God knows there’s enough heavy lifting to go around – or whether China feels that it’s a zero sum game; and that for them to complete their peaceful development that the United States has to exit stage right.  I don’t think China has made up their mind on that.  I don’t think anyone knows.

In the Middle East, ___________ certainly very vulnerable in Asia, something that has given all our Asian friends something to think about.  They’ve tried to make a lot of inroads into Africa and into South America recently.  In the Middle East, they are not interested in pushing Iran very much harder because they have such a huge need and thirst for energy.  They do have a special relationship with Pakistan, and we’re ___________ responsible for the nuclear weapon.  But they don’t have enormous, enormous influence on the other states of the Middle East.

Recorded on: 9/14/07

Question: How pressing is the Iranian threat?

Transcript: Well I lived in Iran for about a year, and I must say as charming, and educated, and cultured by the way I found Persians, I also found in my experience no country which was more ethnocentric. For you and for me, the time of Persepolis was about 2,500 years ago; I think for most of our Persian friends it was yesterday. And so there’s a great desire to I think, again, take a major place on the world stage. And I think, at least in the hearts and minds of some in Iran and some in the leadership, the possession of nuclear weapons is a large step onto that stage. That, given the rather difficult rhetoric that President Ahmadinejad puts forth, particularly about the right of Israel to exist, leads me to some concern. Likewise they are involved in some mischief certainly in Lebanon, and Iraq, and Syria which could lead to concerns. Is it an immediate threat? In my view it’s a longer term threat. And I think politically, with the EU3 along with the United States being positioned to try to work diplomatically, we have some time.

Question: Should we engage Iran directly?

Transcript: Absolutely. My own view is first of all, you ought to have enough faith in your ability to conduct diplomacy that you could have talks even with enemies without losing ground at the negotiating table. Or as I say, having them pick your pocket. Besides, face-to-face discussions are beyond just trying to get the other guy to have your way. It’s the ability to explore the depths of your adversary’s thinking. It’s a possibility of . . . There is a possibility of getting some G2 or some intelligence on them. There are a whole host of reasons we ought to engage, I would say, with our enemies even more than our friends.

Recorded on: 9/14/07