Message: 1
From: U.S. Department of State <usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Arms Control and International Security: Interview Jake Tapper of ABC’s "This Week"
Arms Control and International Security: Interview Jake Tapper of ABC’s "This Week"
Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:32:47 -0500
Interview Jake Tapper of ABC’s "This Week"
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Department of Defense
Washington, DC
April 9, 2010
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, I’d like to start with you. This has been a big week for talking about deterrents. Especially deterrents against Iran. And yet we learned that Iran is announcing the third generation of centrifuges. Six times faster than the previous generation. Is Iran not saying to the United States, "We are not deterred"?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jake, it has been a very positive week for American foreign policy, and particularly with respect to our nuclear posture. When it comes to Iran, we take everything they say with more than a grain of salt, because we know that they have a — a tendency to say things that may or may not be carried out. May or may not be accurate. But in fact their belligerence is helping to make our case every single day.
Countries that might have had doubts about Iranian intentions, who might have even questioned whether Iran was seeking nuclear weapons, are having those doubts dispelled as much by the evidence we present as by what comes out of the leadership of Iran.
QUESTION: Secretary Gates, just a year and a half ago you had a different boss but you had the same job. And you were expressing support for the idea that nuclear weapons can be an effective deterrent against chemical and biological weapons:
GATES (from October 28, 2008): "In the first Gulf War, we made it very clear that if Saddam used chemical or biological weapons, then the United States would keep all options on the table. We later learned that this veiled threat had the intended deterrent effect as Iraq considered its options."
QUESTION: It’s a refrain that a lot of Republicans have talked about that the United States is taking things off the table that would deter other countries.
Did you change your mind?
SECRETARY GATES: Well I think what’s happened is the situation has changed. We have more robust deterrents today, because we’ve added to the nuclear deterrent missile defense. And — and with the phased adaptive approach that the president has approved, we will have significantly greater capability to deter the Iranians, because we will have a significantly greater missile defense.
We’re also developing this conventional prompt global strike, which really hadn’t gone anywhere in the — in the Bush administration, but has been embraced by the new administration. That allows us to use long range missiles with conventional warheads. So we have — we have more tools if you will in the deterrents kit bag than — than we used to.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, the United States according to the nuclear posture review — the United States will not be developing new nuclear weapons. China will. Russia will. You said, when you were running for president in 2007:
CLINTON (from August 2, 2007): "Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents since the cold war have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace. I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
QUESTION: Did you change your mind?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, Jake. Because I think if you actually read the nuclear posture review, you would make three conclusions. First — we intend to maintain a robust nuclear deterrent. Let no one be mistaken. The United States will defend ourselves, and defend our partners and allies. We intend to sustain that nuclear deterrent by modernizing the existing stockpile. In fact, we have $5 billion in this year’s budget going into that very purpose.
We believe, and this is a collective judgment from this government that is certainly shared by the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the secretary of energy, and the others along with the State Department who worked on this nuclear posture review, that we can have the kind of deterrent that we need by modernizing our stockpile, but not necessarily having to replace and build new nuclear weapons.
But if there is a conclusion down the road that there does have to be consideration for some kind of replacement, that decision will go to the president. We don’t think that we’ll get there. We think that we have more than an adequate nuclear deterrent.
And with this emphasis on our nuclear stockpile, and the stewardship program that we are engaged in, that we’ll be, you know, stronger than anybody in the world as we always have been with more nuclear weapons than are needed many times over. And so we do not see this as in any way a diminishment of what we are able to do.
SECRETARY GATES: Let me — let me just chime in, in this respect. The reliable replacement warhead program that existed in the past was really a means to an end. It was a means to modernizing the nuclear stockpile as Secretary Clinton says. Making it more reliable, safer, and — and more secure. It — that — the policy of the Bush administration was also not to — to — not to add new nuclear capabilities. This was about how do you make the stockpile safer and more reliable.
The approach that we now have is — is intended to do exactly that. It offers us a path forward, as Secretary Clinton says, in terms of reuse, refurbishment, and — and if necessary, replacement of components. Not an entire warhead necessarily. So the chiefs, and I and — and the directors of the nuclear labs are all very comfortable that — that this puts us in a position to modernize the stockpile and — and the $5 billion dollars that Hillary has referred to is actually just what’s in our budget to — for this program.
There is another big chunk of money in the Department of Energy budget for this infrastructure and modernization program as well. So we think this is a pretty robust approach to — to sustaining and modernizing the stockpile.
QUESTION: Let’s turn to the nuclear security summit that’s about to start. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel has said he’s — he’s not going to come amidst concerns that some of the Arab and Muslim countries — Egypt and Turkey in particular — were going to raise the worst kept secret in the world that Israel has nuclear weapons and the fact that Israel is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.
Don’t they have a point?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well part of the goal of the nuclear security summit is to focus on the threat from nuclear terrorism. And we don’t believe the threat from nuclear terrorism comes from states. Our biggest concern is that terrorists will get nuclear material. We fear North Korea and Iran, because their behavior as — the first case, North Korea being — already having nuclear weapons, and Iran seeking them — is that they are unpredictable. They have an attitude toward countries like Israel, like their other neighbors in the Gulf that makes them a danger.
So we are focusing on the two states, but we are also very concerned about nuclear material falling into terrorists’ hands. And that’s a concern that we all share. So part of the challenge is to bring the world together as President Obama is doing in the nuclear security summit. To have everyone sign off on an agreed upon work plan that will enable us to begin to try to tie up these loose nukes, and these loose nuclear materials. To make sure they don’t fall into the wrong hands.
And Israel will be represented by the deputy prime minister. And will be at the table as we begin to try to figure out how to deal with this particular problem.
QUESTION: Is that a good thing, because it would have made the summit into a — a side show?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well that’s a decision for every government to make as to who comes and who doesn’t come.
So the point is that countries will be represented. And the overall goal of this nuclear security summit is to make progress. I have to say, Jake, you know this is something that Secretary Gates and I have said repeatedly. You know, the threat of nuclear war — nuclear attack as we grew up with in the Cold War has diminished. The threat of nuclear terrorism has increased. And we want to get the world’s attention focused where we think it needs to be with these continuing efforts by Al Qaeda and others to get just enough nuclear material to cause terrible havoc, destruction, and loss of life somewhere in the world.
QUESTION: President Obama officials say he’s contemplating presenting a peace plan to help jump start the process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. What advice do you give President Obama when it comes to whether or not he should offer a peace plan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well I never share advice that I give directly to any president.
QUESTION: Well then, hypothetically?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well — and I don’t answer hypotheticals. But I will say this. That this administration from the very first day has made it clear we are committed to pursuing a path of peace in the Middle East. And to get the two parties to get to a point where they can engage in negotiations again to deal with these very difficult final status issues.
Our goal remains the resumption — the relaunch of negotiations. Both indirect — eventually leading to direct, and that’s our focus.
QUESTION: Secretary Gates, turning to Afghanistan, when you hear President Karzai refer to the 87,000 troops under your command when you — as occupiers, and suggest that he could envision joining the Taliban, how does that affect you? Does it make your blood boil?
SECRETARY GATES: Well I think, you know, this is a — a man who’s first of all a political leader. He has domestic audiences as well as foreign audiences. What I can tell you is that General McChrystal continues to meet with him regularly. They have a very positive relationship. He gets very good cooperation out of President Karzai. I think that the — the Afghans are very concerned about their sovereignty. And they are very concerned that — that it be clear who — who is the president of Afghanistan.
And — and that he be treated with respect, because he is the representative of the people of Afghanistan and their sovereignty. And I think that — I think that that kind of cooperative relationship, certainly that he has with — I can only speak for General McChrystal’s side of it. But I think General McChrystal feels that this is a man he can work easily with. And — and he has taken him to Kandahar. He has indicated he’s willing to go to Kandahar repeatedly for the Shuras as the Kandahar campaign gets underway.
So I think that the — that the day to day working relationship, certainly on the military side, and — and between General McChrystal and President Karzai is — is working well. And I think — I think we frankly have to be sensitive in our own comments about President Karzai in terms of being mindful that he is the embodiment of sovereignty for Afghanistan also in the way we treat him.
QUESTION: Secretary Gates, WikiLeaks recently released a video that showed U.S. troops killing some civilians in Iraq. I understand the fog of war, and I understand that — that this was a very difficult situation. Does the release of that video, and the fact that that happened damage the image of the U.S. in the world?
SECRETARY GATES: I don’t think so. They’re — they’re in a combat situation. The video doesn’t show the broader picture of the — of the firing that was going on at American troops. It’s obviously a hard thing to see. It’s painful to see, especially when you learn after the fact what was going on. But you — you talked about the fog of war. These people were operating in split second situations.
And, you know, we — we’ve investigated it very thoroughly. And it’s — it’s unfortunate. It’s clearly not helpful. But by the same token, I think — think it should not have any lasting consequences.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton. I — I do want to ask you a couple of domestic questions.
First of all, there was a Supreme Court opening. What advice would you give President Obama?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well I think President Obama is fully aware of this great responsibility and opportunity that Justice Stevens’ retirement presents him. And as a former law professor, I know he is devoted to the Constitution. And understands the critical role that the court plays in so many areas of our — our lives as Americans.
And I’m confident that he’s going nominate a highly qualified person. And I hope that there will be a smooth confirmation, because whoever the president nominates will be qualified to sit on the court. And I think it would be really reassuring for the country to see Republicans and Democrats working together to confirm a nominee as soon as possible.
QUESTION: And lastly, healthcare reform. When you look at President Obama’s success that he was able to get this done. Do you think, "Oh, that’s how you do it?" Or do you think that the only way he was able to do it was because you and your husband stormed the castle first. And even if it didn’t work, you laid the ground work for President Obama to help to be able to succeed?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Jake, I don’t think either of those things. I think thank goodness. Finally the United States is going to have a system that will begin to meet the needs of all of our people, reform our insurance industry which is long overdue. Begin to control costs, which is absolutely critical. And, you know, it’s been a long time coming. It goes back many decades. And I think it’s an extraordinary historical achievement. And I’m delighted to, you know, have — have seen it come to pass.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, thanks so much for joining us.
SECRETARY GATES: Pleasure.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
PRN: 2010/423
Message: 2
From: U.S. Department of State <usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:35:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Arms Control and International Security: Interview With David Gregory of NBC’s "Meet the Press"
Arms Control and International Security: Interview With David Gregory of NBC’s "Meet the Press"
Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:22:46 -0500
Interview With David Gregory of NBC’s "Meet the Press"
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Department of Defense
Washington, DC
April 9, 2010
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, let’s talk about the nuclear issue. So you’ve got critics on both sides of this decision–those who think that it goes too far, weakens America; those who think it doesn’t go far enough. So if this nuclear disarmament decision represents middle ground, is it enough to make the world safer?
SECRETARY CLINTON: It certainly is. And I, I know that this is a, a very important issue that I thank you for discussing with us, because the president’s position is very clear. We will always protect the United States, our partners and allies around the world. Our nuclear deterrent will remain secure, safe and effective in doing so. But we also think we will ultimately be safer if we can introduce the idea that United States is willing to enter into arms treaties with Russia to reduce our respective nuclear arsenals, and that we’re going to stand against nonproliferation in a way that will perhaps deter others from acquiring nuclear weapons. And so you have to look at the entire package: Nuclear Posture Review, the new START treaty, and the nuclear security summit.
QUESTION: But, Secretary Gates, this is not about the U.S. and the USSR anymore. It’s not about the U.S. and Russia anymore. And critics, what they’ve seized on is this idea that American nuclear power, muscle, is ultimately what has deterred aggressors in the past. So, as you look at this posture review, disarmament decision, how does this deter a country like Iran or North Korea from, you know, a–going away from their nuclear ambitions?
SECRETARY GATES: Well, first of all, we have still a very powerful nuclear arsenal. The Nuclear Posture Review sets forth a process by which we will be able to modernize our nuclear stockpile to make it more reliable, safer, more secure and effective. We have, in addition to the nuclear deterrent today, a couple of things we didn’t have in the Soviet days. We have missile defense now, and that’s growing by leaps and bounds every year; significant budget increase for that this year both regional and the ground-based interceptors. And we have prompt global strike affording us some conventional alternatives on long-range missiles that we didn’t have before. So, believe me, the chiefs and I wouldn’t–the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I would not have wholeheartedly embraced not only the nuclear posture review but also the START agreement if we didn’t think, at the end of the day, it made the United States stronger, not weaker.
QUESTION: But it still doesn’t answer the question of if you’re in Iran or North Korea and you’ve been proliferating even after disarmament started between the U.S. and Russian, what’s to stop them from continuing down that path just because of this posture?
SECRETARY GATES: Well, first of all, I think it puts us in a much stronger position in terms of going to other countries and getting their support for putting pressure on the Iranians and the North Koreans. I think it also has, potentially, a deterrent effect on other countries who might be potential proliferaters as they look at North Korea and, and Iran.
QUESTION: What is, Secretary Clinton, the bottom line threat of all of these missiles around the world getting into the hands of terrorists?
SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s a serious threat, David, and that’s why the president has convened this nuclear security summit starting Monday. We often say that the threat of nuclear war, as we used to think about it during the Cold War, has actually decreased, but the threat of nuclear terrorism has increased. And by that we mean that there’s a lot of nuclear material that is not as secure. It hasn’t been destroyed. It isn’t under lock and key in many places in the world, particularly in the former Soviet Union, but not exclusively there. We know that terrorist groups, primarily al-Qaeda, persist in their efforts to obtain enough nuclear material to try to do something that would cause just such mass havoc and terror and damage and destruction that it would be devastating. And we know that a lot of countries haven’t, until relatively recently, seen the threat as we see it. You know, remember, we’ve been working for 18-plus years to diminish the threat in a partnership with Russia; and we’ve worked–when my husband was president, we started working with some of the nation’s that were part of the Soviet Union to get their nuclear material out. But this hasn’t been a high international priority, and that’s what we intend to make it starting this week.
QUESTION: Let, let me talk to a related topic, and that is trying to deter Iran from building a nuclear weapons program.
Secretary Gates, is the notion of Iran becoming a nuclear power inevitable at this point? Is the strategy of the U.S. government becoming more and more containment?
SECRETARY GATES: No, we have not, we have not made that–drawn that conclusion at all. And, in fact, we’re doing everything we can to try and keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We have–we’re probably going to get another U.N. Security Council resolution, and that’s really, I mean, it’s important, but it’s all–in it’s own, in it’s own right, in terms of isolating Iran, but it’s also important in terms of a legal platform for organizations like the E.U. and individual countries to take even more stringent actions against Iran. At the end of the day, what, what has to happen is the Iranian government has to decide that its own security is better served by not having nuclear weapons than by having them. And it’s a combination of economic pressures, it’s a combination of more missile defense and cooperation in the Gulf to show them that any attack would–we can defend against and react against. So I think it’s a combination of, of all of these different options in terms of trying to convince the Iranians that, that they’re headed down the wrong path.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, it raises to me a larger question about the U.S. role in the world. This president tried engagement as he came into office–engagement with the Iranians, engagements with the North Koreans. It hasn’t worked. They don’t want to talk. They don’t want to dance with this president. So what is the next phase then? What is America’s influence in the world?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, I would argue because the president was willing to offer engagement, we actually have more support vis-a-vis North Korea and Iran than was certainly present when he became president. The fact that Iran and North Korea have not responded makes our case, in a way. And if you look at North Korea, for example, we now have a very clear understanding with the other members of the six party talks, led by China, that North Korea cannot be permitted to just go on its own course, that it has to be pressured to come back into this framework to try to get to the denuclearization of the peninsula.
With Iran, a lot of countries were on the sidelines. Their attitude was, "Well, you know, the United States, you know, they’re just hurling insults. They’re not really, you know, willing to have any diplomatic engagement." We said, "OK, fine. We’re willing." We, we stretched out our hand. The president made extraordinary efforts. It was the Iranians who refused. That has brought more people to the table. We have unity in what’s called the P5-plus-1, the permanent members of the U.N. plus Germany. They are meeting in New York as, as we speak, to begin the hard process of coming up with the language of a resolution.
QUESTION: So you don’t think the U.S. would have to go, go it alone on sanctions before bringing others?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, not at all.
QUESTION: Before going to the United Nations?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I think…
QUESTION: Because you don’t have results yet. You say there’s been all this unity, but there’s been missed deadlines and you still don’t have results.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but, you know, David, I have–I’m a big believer in strategic patience. I mean, you know, if we, if we could wave the magic wand and get everybody to move like we could. But that’s never been the case in the world. You, you work through persuasion. You present evidence. We have been consistently doing so. And, as Secretary Gates just said, the Security Council resolution will not in any way forestall us or the E.U. or other concerned countries from taking additional steps. But it will send a really powerful message. The Iranians have been beating down the doors of every country in the world to try to avoid a Security Council resolution. And what we have found over the last months, because of our strategic patience and our willingness to keep on this issue, is that countries are finally saying, "You know, I kind of get it. I get that they didn’t, they didn’t cooperate. They’re the ones who shut the door, and now we have to do something."
QUESTION: Is a nuclear-capable Iran as dangerous as a nuclear state of Iran?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, clearly, weapons are more dangerous than potential. Potentially is troubling, too.
QUESTION: Are they capable now?
SECRETARY CLINTON: They’re, you know, that, that’s an issue upon which intelligence services still differ. But our goal is to prevent them from having nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: Secretary Gates, I want to ask you about…
SECRETARY GATES: I’d say it’s our judgment here…
QUESTION: Yeah.
SECRETARY GATES: …they are not nuclear capable.
QUESTION: They are not nuclear capable?
SECRETARY GATES: Not yet.
QUESTION: And is that just as dangerous as being a nuclear state to your mind?
SECRETARY GATES: Only in this respect: how you differentiate. How far, how far have they gone? If they–if their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? So it becomes a serious verification question, and I, I don’t actually know how you would verify that. So they are continuing to make progress on these programs. It’s going slower, slower than they anticipated, but they are moving in that direction.
QUESTION: We’ve been talking about our foes. I want to talk about our friends because I think a lot of Americans are troubled by some of our relationships with our friends in the world right now. Hamid Karzai, who is the leader of Afghanistan, has done some things recently. He’s tried to establish control over what was supposed to be an independent election commission. He invited the Iranian leader to Afghanistan in a move that seemed to try to embarrass the U.S. He talked about the U.S. trying to dominate Afghanistan. And now he made threats, apparently, to join the Taliban. I think a lot of people are, are, are fair in wondering why the American forces should fight and die for people represented by a guy like this.
SECRETARY GATES: Well–oh, go ahead.
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, go ahead, Bob.
SECRETARY GATES: I, I, first of all, I think you have to see this guy as, first of all, the president of Afghanistan and of a sovereign country. And when there are attacks on him, on his family, and what he perceives to be on Afghanistan itself, or insults to the sovereignty of Afghanistan, he’s going to react and he’s going to react strongly. The fact is, on a day-to-day basis, speaking from our perspective, he has a very effective working relationship with General McChrystal. He has cooperated with General McChrystal in going down to Kandahar to begin to set the stage as the Kandahar campaign gets under way and talking to the local tribal leaders and, and so on. So I think, I think we have to understand the pressures he’s under, but, at the same time, understand their sensitivity. This is a country that has been at war for almost two generations. They have had armies come in and leave and, and–who have paid no attention to Afghan sovereignty. We are working very hard at that. We have to work as hard in our rhetoric as we are in our actions.
QUESTION: So do we–is the message here, don’t overreact to some of this?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. You know…
QUESTION: Did you not overreact when you spoke to him on the phone?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I certainly didn’t overreact. You know, I think, David, some of what is said is, is not true, and a lot of others who make claims are, you know, short on evidence and very long on rhetoric. This is a, a, a very difficult situation, and we are working very closely with, not only the president, but there’s a whole government that is there. I mean, we work well with a lot of the ministers who are, you know, dealing on a day-to-day business with our civilian and military leadership. We have an international presence that each of our allies are working in different parts of Afghanistan. And I personally, you know, have a lot of sympathy for President Karzai and the extraordinary stress he lives under every single minute of every day. And, you know, I, I have a little experience in what it’s like being, you know, in the political arena. And in our country, you kind of know it goes with the territory. You put your toe out there. This is new, this is something that Afghans don’t have any experience with, a lot of countries around the world. He’s not alone in wondering that if he’s attacked by some newspaper in the United States, "Is our government behind it?" And that’s not unusual for us to encounter. I see it all the time in leaders that I deal with.
QUESTION: So if there’s a–if there’s–people who get worried about our allies, frankly, not listening to the United States, take Israel for example. Was the United States blindsided by the fact that the Israeli prime minister abruptly decided not to come to this nuclear conference?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No. I mean, that’s, that’s a decision for a head of government, a head of state. You know, Gordon Brown is not coming from Great Britain, Kevin Rudd is not coming from Australia, King Abdullah’s not coming from Saudi Arabia. There are many things. It’s like when President Obama had to cancel his trip to Indonesia and Australia. There are all kind of things.
QUESTION: This seems abrupt, though. I mean, this seems there were a couple of abrupt things.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well…
QUESTION: At a low point in the relationship with Israel.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m sure that–well, the Indonesians and the Australians thought it was kind of abrupt when the president called up and said…
QUESTION: Right.
SECRETARY CLINTON: …"Oh, by the way, I’m not coming on this long-planned trip." But the Israeli government will be represented at a very high level. And, you know, they are–they share our deep concern about nuclear terrorism, and they want to be at the table as we try to figure out how we’re going to make the world safer.
QUESTION: This doesn’t make the relationship even, even more difficult at a difficult time?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, not at all. I mean, we have a deep and, and very close relationship between the United States and Israel that goes back many years. That doesn’t mean we’re going to agree on everything. We don’t agree with any of our friends on everything. We have a special relationship with Great Britain; we have close relationships with France, our oldest ally. Doesn’t mean we agree on everything. And I, I think that somehow since we’re living in a 24/7 news cycle with, you know, things popping every minute, a lot is made of a little instead of trying to step back and see the forest instead of the trees. And that’s what, you know, I try to do every day. What are the long-term consequences of what we’re doing? And, you know, you just can’t react to every little event that some, you know, media outlet wants to blow up, you can’t do that.
QUESTION: Final point, a domestic matter. There is this image, which I’m sure you’ve seen, of, of you embracing President Obama when health care was accomplished. And, as you might imagine, people in the media could read in a lot to that given the history between you and the president and your history with the issue of health care. And I just wonder, at the end of that process of healthcare reform being accomplished, whether you viewed that and said "This is what I, this is what President Clinton ultimately hoped to accomplish, that healthcare reform in this form." Is that how you feel?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I was thrilled that we finally got healthcare reform passed. I mean, it’s been a high priority of mine for many years, I often say I have the scars to show for it, and it was a wonderful historic accomplishment for the American people and I was thrilled that…
QUESTION: It’s what you would have wanted back in ‘93, ‘94?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you, you know, everything that was done up until this time added to it. You know, we–a lot of people made contributions going back to President Johnson and President Nixon and, you know, certainly my husband, and even, you know, the–President Bush. There, there were building blocks, but getting it across the finish line with the kind of comprehensive reform that our country deserved to have didn’t happen until this year, and I’m thrilled by it.
QUESTION: We’ll leave it there. Thank you both.
SECRETARY GATES: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
PRN: 2010/425
