Transcript: Well my goals will be to do what we can to stabilize Iraq without great loss of America life and limb. That we would enter into very active negotiations with the problems facing the world. Our own controversies with Iran. Trying to work through the problems with Syria which sponsors Hezbollah, as does Iran. They sponsor Hamass. Find a way to get Hamaas to renounce its determination to destroy Israel, its refusal to recognize Israel as ultimately we succeeded in getting the PLO to change its charter. Trying to have a stable Palestinian government to negotiate a two-state resolution with Israel.

Recorded on: 7/4/2007 at The Aspen Ideas Festival

Transcript: I believe we will retain our determination and willingness to protect our vital, national interests. We have to ask that question as matters progress. And as of this moment July 4, 2007, it is not clear what the result will be of the surge. It’s not promising at the moment. It may improve. There may be changes of strategy, which will take our troops out of the center of a civil war in Baghdad for the perimeter of training. Change in mission. We do not want to leave Iraq a volatile and enormous difficulty, with enormous problems.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: Well we respond to threats of the moment. In World War II we interned the Japanese – a very distasteful chapter in American history which we have since acknowledged and moved to correct. Nine-eleven shocked the country . . . obviously shocked the world too with thousands dying. And we’ve respond with a variety of measures such as worthless wiretaps in violation of the legislation in Congress. And then the periods cool, and we have reflections on it. And the matters are weighed by the Congress or weighed more by the courts, and we get it right. We correct the injustices of the past.

Recorded on: 7/4/2007 at The Aspen Ideas Festival

Transcript: I would say that the values that we articulate of freedom, opportunity, equality, justice, that there is a gap between what we say and even how we regard our actions in the United States with so many problems. Certainly there is an enormous gap with the way other nations view the United States as to what we stand for. I come down to the structure of our government, separation of powers and checks and balances. We eventually get it right because Americans are decent people, and we really do prize the concept of liberty, and equality, and opportunity, and justice. When the country was founded we had slavery. We certainly didn’t include or comprehend Thomas Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence of liberty. It took us more than a century to have votes for the women. So we didn’t have really an extensive democracy. We have problems today at Guantanamo. The constitutional right of habeas corpus. We have problems with immigration, but we are working with them. And ultimately I think we will get it right. And our structure of government with separation of powers and checks and balances is really, in a large sense, the greater symbol of what America stands for.

Recorded on: 7/4/07

Transcript: It is the tax incentives which have led to a lot of oil exploration over the years. The depletion allowance and tax breaks. And now we’re structuring tax breaks for ethanol, and we are putting requirements saying that electric companies have to have a certain amount of renewables. And we’re putting requirements on automobile manufacturers to produce cars which give more miles per gallon. So the government is a tremendous factor.

Recorded on: 7/4/07

Transcript: Well I believe our dependency on OPEC oil is a major problem. We have legislation pending now in the Senate. I introduced, along with Senator Cole, a provision to take away the antitrust exemption, which OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the other OPEC nations have. They sit down in a room, reduce supply and the prices go up. We need to develop alternative sources of energy and we’re doing it now with ethanol, renewables. An energy bill passed the Senate, which is a step in that direction.

Recorded on: 7/4/07

Transcript: Well I believe that the military option should be the very last resort; and then only when it is in our vital, national interest. I think had we known that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction we would not have gone into Iraq. Once there, we don’t want to leave it in a destabilized situation. I think we have not pursued diplomacy with near the intensity we should with Iran. Finally, we did have bilateral talks with North Korea and those have borne fruit. We’re not exactly sure in the long run how North Korea will respond, but we straightened out the $25,000,000, got that released, and now we’re all on the path perhaps to defusing the nuclear threat with North Korea. I long advocated dialogue with Syria and dialogue with Iran. I believe that we do not approach four nations with sufficient respect. Treat them with sufficient dignity so that the diplomatic approach should be pursued much more intently. If we would do more ourselves, I think we could get more cooperation as we have to from Russia, and China, and European countries if we’re to have sanctions or turn Iran away from developing nuclear weapons.

Recorded on: 7/4/07

Transcript: Well the problem of Islamic fundamentalism has been with us quite a long time, and it has been growing. And it is come to the fore in recent acts of terrorism which we saw in the Trade Centers at about 1993; saw with the acts of terrorism against our ship; 9/11; and there is a growing sense under the broad category of jihad where the Muslim world feels the necessity to assert itself and its values. They do not like our way of life. They do not like the way we treat women. Women are very different in our society. They do not like the way our women dress and it is an evolving problem stemming largely or significantly from problems in the Mid East.

Recorded on: 7/4/07

Transcript: The most pressing problems in my judgment are terrorism, the threat of countries like Iran getting nuclear weapons, or North Korea misusing nuclear weapons. The other hotspots around the globe and in the Mid East are the fragile peace between Israel and Hezbollah, the battles between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the threat that Hamaas poses firing shells into Israel, the need for nuclear arms control; pursuit of the negotiations, which are underway between the United States and Russia . . . major economic issues to be resolved, especially with the growing power of China and India.

Recorded on: 7/4/07

Question: How can we lessen America’s dependence on foreign oil?

Transcript: Well I believe our dependency on OPEC oil is a major problem. We have legislation pending now in the Senate. I introduced, along with Senator Cole, a provision to take away the antitrust exemption, which OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the other OPEC nations have. They sit down in a room, reduce supply and the prices go up. We need to develop alternative sources of energy and we’re doing it now with ethanol, renewables. An energy bill passed the Senate, which is a step in that direction.

Question: What is government’s role in promoting alternative fuels?

Transcript: Tremendous. Tremendous. It is the tax incentives which have led to a lot of oil exploration over the years. The depletion allowance and tax breaks. And now we’re structuring tax breaks for ethanol, and we are putting requirements saying that electric companies have to have a certain amount of renewables. And we’re putting requirements on automobile manufacturers to produce cars which give more miles per gallon. So the government is a tremendous factor. Zach

Recorded on: 7/4/07

Transcript: Well my goals will be to do what we can to stabilize Iraq without great loss of America life and limb. That we would enter into very active negotiations with the problems facing the world. Our own controversies with Iran. Trying to work through the problems with Syria which sponsors Hezbollah, as does Iran. They sponsor Hamass. Find a way to get Hamaas to renounce its determination to destroy Israel, its refusal to recognize Israel as ultimately we succeeded in getting the PLO to change its charter. Trying to have a stable Palestinian government to negotiate a two-state resolution with Israel.

Recorded on: 7/4/07

Question: When you read the newspaper or watch the news, what issues stand out for you?

Transcript: The most pressing problems in my judgment are terrorism, the threat of countries like Iran getting nuclear weapons, or North Korea misusing nuclear weapons. The other hotspots around the globe and in the Mid East are the fragile peace between Israel and Hezbollah, the battles between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the threat that Hamaas poses firing shells into Israel, the need for nuclear arms control; pursuit of the negotiations, which are underway between the United States and Russia . . . major economic issues to be resolved, especially with the growing power of China and India

Question: How do you explain the growth of Islamic fundamentalism?

Transcript: Well the problem of Islamic fundamentalism has been with us quite a long time, and it has been growing. And it is come to the fore in recent acts of terrorism which we saw in the Trade Centers at about 1993; saw with the acts of terrorism against our ship; 9/11; and there is a growing sense under the broad category of jihad where the Muslim world feels the necessity to assert itself and its values. They do not like our way of life. They do not like the way we treat women. Women are very different in our society. They do not like the way our women dress and it is an evolving problem stemming largely or significantly from problems in the Mid East.

Question: How can the U.S. balance diplomacy and the use of force?

Transcript: Well I believe that the military option should be the very last resort; and then only when it is in our vital, national interest. I think had we known that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction we would not have gone into Iraq. Once there, we don’t want to leave it in a destabilized situation. I think we have not pursued diplomacy with near the intensity we should with Iran. Finally, we did have bilateral talks with North Korea and those have borne fruit. We’re not exactly sure in the long run how North Korea will respond, but we straightened out the $25,000,000, got that released, and now we’re all on the path perhaps to defusing the nuclear threat with North Korea. I long advocated dialogue with Syria and dialogue with Iran. I believe that we do not approach four nations with sufficient respect. Treat them with sufficient dignity so that the diplomatic approach should be pursued much more intently. If we would do more ourselves, I think we could get more cooperation as we have to from Russia, and China, and European countries if we’re to have sanctions or turn Iran away from developing nuclear weapons.

Question: Feature: Does U.S. engagement in Iraq limit us elsewhere?

Transcript: I believe we will retain our determination and willingness to protect our vital, national interests. We have to ask that question as matters progress. And as of this moment July 4, 2007, it is not clear what the result will be of the surge. It’s not promising at the moment. It may improve. There may be changes of strategy, which will take our troops out of the center of a civil war in Baghdad for the perimeter of training. Change in mission. We do not want to leave Iraq a volatile and enormous difficulty, with enormous problems.

Recorded on: 7/4/07

Question: What does America stand for?

Transcript: I would say that the values that we articulate of freedom, opportunity, equality, justice, that there is a gap between what we say and even how we regard our actions in the United States with so many problems. Certainly there is an enormous gap with the way other nations view the United States as to what we stand for. I come down to the structure of our government, separation of powers and checks and balances. We eventually get it right because Americans are decent people, and we really do prize the concept of liberty, and equality, and opportunity, and justice. When the country was founded we had slavery. We certainly didn’t include or comprehend Thomas Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence of liberty. It took us more than a century to have votes for the women. So we didn’t have really an extensive democracy. We have problems today at Guantanamo. The constitutional right of habeas corpus. We have problems with immigration, but we are working with them. And ultimately I think we will get it right. And our structure of government with separation of powers and checks and balances is really, in a large sense, the greater symbol of what America stands for.

Question: Are America’s actions sometimes at odds with its values?

Transcript: Well we respond to threats of the moment. In World War II we _________ the Japanese – a very distasteful chapter in American history which we have since acknowledged and moved to correct. Nine-eleven shocked the country . . . obviously shocked the world too with thousands dying. And we’ve respond with a variety of measures such as worthless wiretaps in violation of the legislation in Congress. And then the periods cool, and we have reflections on it. And the matters are weighed by the Congress or weighed more by the courts, and we get it right. We correct the injustices of the past.

Recorded on: 7/4/07