Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought – and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share – the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can’t bring back every job that’s left our shores. But right now, it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.

So let’s change it. First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.

Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

My message is simple. It’s time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.

We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal – ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration – and it’s made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that – openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

That’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers – places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It’s time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning – the first time that’s happened in a generation.

But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn’t make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.

The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. It means we should support everyone who’s willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.

After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.

Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don’t gut these investments in our budget. Don’t let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.

What’s true for natural gas is true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.

When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan, who said, “I’m proud to be working in the industry of the future.”

Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.

We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well tonight, I will. I’m directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.

Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

There’s never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren’t the only ones hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who’ve seen their home values decline. And while Government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them. That’s why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don’t destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.

There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense. We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill – because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.

I’m confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.

And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system’s core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.

So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail – because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again. And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.

A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.

When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.

I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt; energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now: Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?

The greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?

I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad – and it seems to get worse every year.

Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything – even routine business – passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

Finally, none of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas.

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.

On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about Government spending have supported federally-financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.

The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective Government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can’t achieve.

That is the lesson we’ve learned from our actions abroad over the last few years.

Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America.

From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.

As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana’a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qadhafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators – a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied.

How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings – men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.

And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.

That’s why, working with our military leaders, I have proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats.

Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. As they come home, we must serve them as well as they served us. That includes giving them the care and benefits they have earned – which is why we’ve increased annual VA spending every year I’ve been President. And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our Nation.

With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we are providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I’m proposing a Veterans Job Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her.

Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates – a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job – the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other – because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s someone behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: As all of you know, I do not speak from notes but there are a couple things I want to say that are a little more emotional. So, I’m going to read them as I wrote them.

C.S. Lewis said, “A friend is someone who knows the song in your heart and can sing it back to you when you’ve forgotten the words.”

My best friend, my life mate, who sings that song when I forget the words, is my wife, Karen.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) SANTORUM: People have asked me how I’ve done this, sitting back at the polls, and not getting a whole lot of attention paid to us. How did you keep going out to Iowa in 99 counties and 381 town hall meetings and speeches?

Well, every morning, when I was getting up in the morning to take on that challenge, I’ve required a strength from another particular friendship. One that is sacred. I’ve survived the challenges so far by the daily grace that comes from God.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: For giving me his grace every day, for loving me, words (ph) and all. I offer a public thanks to God.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: Third thanks. Thank you so much, Iowa.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: You, you, by standing up and not compromising, by standing up and being bold and leading, leading with that burden and responsibility you have to be first, you have taken the first step of taking back this country.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: This journey started officially just a few months ago in June when I stood on the steps of the county courthouse in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. I decided to go there, not the typical place someone announces for president. It’s not where I was born. It’s not where I ever lived.

But it’s where my grandfather came, back in 1925. He came by himself, even though he was married with two children, one of them being my father. He came after having fought in World War I because Mussolini had been in power now three years and he had figured out that fascism was something that would crush his spirit and his freedom and give his children something less than he wanted for.

So he made a sacrifice. He left to the coal fields of southwestern Pennsylvania. He worked in the mine at a company town. Got paid with coupons, he used to call them. Lived in a shack.

Eventually, he figured out that that was a trip to nowhere, so he started taking money less so he could start to save. And he did.

And after five years, he got his citizenship and brought my father over at the age of 7. He ended up continuing to work in those mines until he was 72 years old, digging coal.

I’ll never forget the first time I saw someone who had died. It was my grandfather. And I knelt next to his coffin and all I could do is eye level, was look at his hands. They were enormous hands. And all I could think was those hands dug freedom for me. And so to honor him, I went to Somerset County, because I believe foundationally, while the economy is in horrible condition, while our country is not as safe as it was, and while threats are rising around the world, while the state of our culture under this administration continues to decline with the values that are unlike the values that built this country, that the essential issue in this race is freedom. Whether we will be a country that believes that government can do things for us better than we can do for ourselves, or whether we believe, as our Founders did, that rights come to us from God and when he gave us those rights, he gave us the freedom to go out and live those rights out to build a great and just society not from the top down but from the bottom up.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: My grandfather taught me basic things that my dad taught me, over and over again: work hard, work hard, and work hard.

And I think about that today. There are so many men and women right now who would love to work hard, but they don’t have the opportunity. We have two parties who are out talking about how they’re going to solve those problems.

One wants to talk about raising taxes on people who have been successful and redistributing money, increasing dependency in this country, promoting more Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps and all sorts of social welfare programs and passing Obamacare, to provide even more government subsidies, more and more dependency, more and more government — exactly what my grandfather left in 1925.

And then there’s another vision. There’s another vision. Republican vision which is let’s just cut taxes, let’s just reduce spending and everyone will be fine.

I believe in cutting taxes. I believe in balancing budgets. I propose cutting $5 trillion from this budget over the next five years. I support a balanced budget amendment that puts a cap at 18 percent of GDP as a guarantee of freedom for this country.

But –

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: But I also believe we as Republicans have to look at those who are not doing well in our society by just cutting taxes and balancing budgets.

And that’s why I put forth a plan that Iowans responded to. It’s a plan that says, yes, let’s flatten the tax code, get rid of it, replace it with five deductions. Let’s create two rates, 10 and 28.

Why 28? It’s good enough for Ronald Reagan, it’s good enough for me.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) SANTORUM: Then I’d take the corporate tax, cut that in half because it’s the highest in the world and we need to be competitive.

But when I traveled around Iowa to the small towns, I found a lot of those small towns were just like the small towns that I traveled around in Pennsylvania. They were towns that were centered around manufacturing and processing.

Those good jobs that built those towns, and those jobs slowly, whether it’s in Hamburg, whether it’s in Newton, or any place in between, we found those jobs leaving Iowa. Why? Because our workers didn’t want to work, because our workers weren’t competitive?

No. It’s because government made workers uncompetitive, by driving up the cost of doing business here. It’s 20 percent more expensive to do manufacturing jobs in this country than it is in the top nine trading partners that we have to compete with. And that’s why we’re losing our jobs.

And so, when Republican purists say to me, well, why are you treating manufacturing different than retail? I say, because Wal- Mart’s not moving to China and taking their jobs with them.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: So we eliminate the corporate tax on manufacturing so we can compete. We take the regulations, every regulation that’s over $100 million and we repeal all those regulations. Repeal them all. And there’s a lot of them.

Under the Bush and Clinton administrations, they averaged 60 regulations over $100 million a year. This administration hit 150 last year.

You don’t want to know what’s crushing business. This administration is crushing business.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: People have asked me, well, why do you think you can win? Because we’ve been told by so many people there’s another candidate in this race who is running a rather close race with me tonight.

(LAUGHTER)

SANTORUM: That is a better person to choose because he can win. Let me tell you –

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Romneycare.

SANTORUM: What wins — what did you say?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Romneycare.

SANTORUM: Oh, Romneycare. OK. I just didn’t hear you. What wins, what wins in America are bold ideas, sharp contrasts, and a plan that includes everyone, and a plan that includes people from all across the economic spectrum. A plan that says, we will work together to get America to work.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: How did I win when I won in Pennsylvania? I won because I went out and worked in the communities like I grew up in. Butler, Pennsylvania, a steel town. How was I able to win as a congressman in a 60 percent Democratic district, and then in a 70 percent Democratic district which represented all of the old abandoned steel mills in Pittsburgh? All of them, all of them along the Monongahela River, those mills were in my district.

And I ran in a tough election year when George Bush Sr. was losing the election by a landslide in my district. And I got 60 percent of the vote, because I shared the values of the working people in that district.

If we have someone who can go out to western Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan and Indiana and Wisconsin and Iowa and Missouri, and appeal to the voters that have been left behind by a Democratic Party that wants them to make them dependent instead of valuing their work, we will win this election.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: Those are the same people that President Obama talked about who clinged to their guns and their bibles. Thank God they do.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: They share our values about faith and family. They understand that when the family breaks down, the economy struggles.

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: They understand when families aren’t there to instill values into their children, and into their neighbors, as little league coaches, as good neighbors, of fathers and mothers being part of a community, that the neighborhood is not safe and they are not free.

These are the basic values that America stands for. And those are the values that we need if we’re going to go up against Barack Obama and win this election and restore the founding principles of our country to America.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: I want to close by thanking all of you. This has been an incredible journey. Ninety-nine counties, 381 town hall meetings, 36 pizza ranches.

(LAUGHTER)

SANTORUM: And you notice I’m not buttoning my coat for a reason.

(LAUGHTER)

SANTORUM: OK. I love Iowa, but the fair can be a little bit thickening.

(LAUGHTER)

SANTORUM: It’s been a great journey. And I just have to say, I always said, you know, the three words that I heard most often when I traveled around this state. Well, that was — that was late –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Welcome to Iowa.

SANTORUM: Welcome to Iowa.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: I want to thank the Iowans who are up here on stage, who introduced to many of them. Folks who stood up when no one else was standing up. Folks who when I was sitting at single digits in the polls believed in the message and the messenger, believed in the cause, and were willing to stand behind us and do what was not popular in the world today. Lead.

They led. And to each and every one of you, I want to thank you for leading, for doing what was necessary to promote the cause of liberty. Thank you, including Matt Schultz.

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: I have to — I have to particularly give a shout-out to the guy who really helped us on the ground here as a volunteer late. Became a little bit of a symbol of the campaign. The owner of the Chuck truck.

(CHEERS)

SANTORUM: I love that — I don’t really often talk about “The New York Times,” but I love that graphic in “The New York Times” that had how the entourage has traveled around the state. And there were these long rows of buses and people and airplanes and SUVs and people and staff, and then all the way at the bottom was the Chuck truck, me and Matt, and one of my kids.

That was — that was the most — Chuck.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: I started with this. I’m going to end with it. You know I’ve written a whole bunch of books in my life. I’ve written just one. It’s called “It Takes A Family.” I started my speech talking about my wife. And I’ll end it talking about the other gems in my life. Six of my kids are up here. Elizabeth, John, Daniel, Sarah Maria, Peter and Patrick. They have not seen much of their daddy over the past several months, yet they’ve stood by me every step of the way, encouraged me and loved me unconditionally. There’s another little girl who’s not here tonight. She is with a little button. She’s our little angel. That’s Isabella Maria. Isabella Maria, we don’t take her out in crowds. She’s — has a disability. She has a disability that has a — according to the records, the statistics, has a 1 percent chance of survival after one year. She is 3 1/2 years old.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: So Bella is here with us in spirit and is deeply embedded into my heart. People ask me what motivates me. I say, the dignity of every human life.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: God has given us this great country to allow his people, to allow his people to be free. Has given us that dignity because we are a creation of his. And we need to honor that creation. And whether it’s the sanctity of life in the womb, or the dignity of every working person in America to fulfill their potential, you will have a friend in Rick Santorum.

We are off to New Hampshire. We are –

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: Because the message I shared with you tonight is not an Iowa message, or an Iowa and South Carolina message. It is a message that will resonate across this land. It’s a resonate — it will resonate, I know, in New Hampshire, because you think I’ve been in Iowa a lot. I’ve been to New Hampshire 30 times and have been more times and done more events than anybody but Jon Huntsman and he cheats, he lives there.

(LAUGHTER)

SANTORUM: We will be in New Hampshire. We’ll leave tomorrow. We’ll spend our time there. And with your help and God’s grace, we’ll have another fun night a week from now.

God bless you.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

LINDA UPMEYER, CHAIRWOMAN FOR GINGRICH’S IOWA CAMPAIGN: Would you like an introduction?

NEWT GINGRICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Sure.

UPMEYER: Good evening. We all know that the 2012 election is about jobs and the economy. We know that Americans demand a candidate with ideas and solutions to rebuild the America we love. There is only one Reaganite Conservative in this election, and we just punched his ticket for New Hampshire.

CROWD: Newt. Newt. Newt. Newt. Newt. Newt. Newt.

GINGRICH: Well, thank you, Linda. And I want to thank Linda Upmeyer is the majority leader in the house, and Greg Ganske, my former colleague in the Congress, who really all summer held this together, when really it could have fallen apart.

I want to thank everybody who worked all fall, particularly during the avalanche of negative ads. Calista and I want to thank the people of Iowa. All through being drowned in negativity, everywhere we went, people were positive, they were receptive, they were willing to ask questions, and they would listen. And they really wanted to get to the truth rather than the latest 30-second distortion. And it really gave us a feeling that this process does work.

I am delighted to be here tonight, and I think that we are at the beginning of an extraordinarily important campaign.

The ultimate goal of this campaign has to be to replace Barack Obama and get America back on the right track. But let’s be clear, one of the things that became obvious in the last few weeks in Iowa is that there will be a great debate in the Republican Party before we are prepared to have a great debate with Barack Obama. And I think it’s very important to understand that.

And I want to take just a minute and congratulate a good friend of ours, somebody who we admire and whose family we admire, and that’s Rick Santorum. He waged a great, positive campaign. I served with Rick. We’ve had a great relationship over the years, and I admire the courage, the discipline, the way he focused. And I also admire how positive he was. I wish I could say that for all the candidates.

But here’s the key thing to ask. It’s not just about beating Obama, as important as that is. It’s about what do we need to do as a country to get back on the right track. And that’s a lot bigger than just replacing one person in the White House.

That’s fixing the Congress, fixing the bureaucracy, fixing the courts, resetting the culture, getting the judges to understand that they operate within the constitution, not above it. There are tremendous steps we have to take. And we have to re-establish the work ethic and recognize we want to reward work, not redistribution; that we want to reward paychecks, not food stamps. And this is going to be a very important national conversation.

But it’s not just about here at home. We also have to understand, and this will be a major debate with Congressman Paul, who’s had a very good night, and I congratulate him on having done very well. But the fact is, his views on foreign policy, I think, are stunningly dangerous for the survival of the United States.

And I think it’s a very simple question, which I would be glad at the next debate to ask Congressman Paul. If you have a terrorist who is prepared to put on a bomb and wear it as a vest and walk into a grocery store or a mall or a bus and blow themselves up, as long as they can kill you, why would you think that if they could get access to a nuclear weapon they wouldn’t use it? An Iranian nuclear weapon is one of the most frightening things we have to confront for the future of every young person up here and every young person out there. If they are going to live in safety, they have to live in a world in which there is no Iranian nuclear weapon, period.

So, on that front we’ll have a very important debate. Is the world dangerous and do we need to be strong enough to protect ourselves or is the world really safe and is it just the Americans who are confused?

I have no doubt about 9/11. It was bad people trying to kill us. It wasn’t Americans. I have no doubt about the Iranians, and I have no doubt about the importance of the survival of Israel as a moral cause, which we have to recognize as central to our future.

So we’ll have a great debate with Congressman Paul. And it’s important for setting a new stable foreign policy for the 21st century.

We’ll have one other great debate. And that is whether this party wants a Reagan Conservative who helped change Washington in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan and helped change Washington in the 1990s as Speaker of the House. Somebody who is into changing Washington, or do we want a Massachusetts moderate who, in fact, will be pretty good at managing the decay, but has given no evidence in his years in Massachusetts of any ability to change the culture or change the political structure or change the government.

Let me be clear and I think it’s important given all the things that were done in this state over the last few weeks. We are not going to go out and run nasty ads. We’re not going to go out and run 30-second gut shots. We’re not — but I do reserve the right to tell the truth. And if the truth seems negative, that may be more a comment on his record than it is on politics.

So this is going to be a debate that begins tomorrow morning in New Hampshire, and will go on for a few months. And I’m convinced that the Republican Party will pick an heir of Reagan, a committed conservative, and somebody with a track record of changing Washington.

I want to say two last things. And I think Calista will join me in both of these. The first is — and here I think you’ll find Rick Santorum saying the same thing — my dad was a career soldier for 27 years. I would not have survived in this campaign against millions and millions of dollars of negative advertising if it weren’t for the thousands of volunteers who showed up and who helped us in every town and in every precinct. People went out because they cared.

There’s someone up here who actually drove in from Indianapolis around Thanksgiving and said, “I’m staying.” And someone else who brought three children and drove up from Texas and said, “I’m staying.” We had people who wanted to get America back on the right track. They weren’t millionaires, they weren’t from Wall Street, they didn’t have a super PAC, but they had courage, they had work, they were smart, and together we survived, I think, the biggest onslaught in the history of the Iowa primary and we set the stage.

Now I want to say one last thing. We were over earlier tonight in Waterloo, which had the largest single site for caucusing, and a very distant relative, like 190 years, named Craig Gingrich, who came from Pennsylvania where his great-great-great-grandfather came from, spoke for me. And he was very kind, he’s gotten to know our younger daughter, Jacqui, and he sent to her what he was going to say.

And part of what he said to his caucus was about his two sons, who had just come back from serving in the Middle East. And it reminded me. And I would like to close with this because I think it’s so important. It’s why the Iowa experience and the New Hampshire experience, the places where you actually have to see people, you can’t just buy TV ads or use robo calls, but in the end it’s people.

This process is what they risk their lives to preserve. This process of people coming together, sharing values, sharing fears and dreams, finding a way to come and get it to work, unlike the current total mess in Washington, which I believe, frankly, is a bipartisan mess.

Unlike the current mess in Washington, the American system over time works when the American people roll up their sleeves to make it work. And every one of us need to remember — it’s part of what made these negative ads so shameful — every one of us should remember this process survives because young men and women risk their lives to allow us to do this. We should act worthy of them.

Thank you. Good luck and God bless you. On to New Hampshire.

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Good morning.  Thank you.  Thank you so much.  Please, have a seat.  Thank you.

What a remarkable, remarkable crowd.  Thank you, Rosy, for your very kind introduction.  I did not know you played basketball.  (Laughter.)  I will take your word for it.  (Laughter.)  Rosy, thank you for your many years of friendship.  Back in Chicago, when I was just getting started in national politics, I reached out to a lot of people for advice and counsel, and Rosy was one of the very first.  When I made my first visit to Israel, after entering the Senate, Rosy, you were at my side every step of that profound journey through the Holy Land.  So I want to thank you for your enduring friendship, your leadership, and for your warm introduction today.

I also want to thank David Victor, Howard Kohr and all the board of directors.  And let me say that it is wonderful to look out and see so many great friends, including a very large delegation from Chicago.  (Applause.)  Alan Solow, Howard Green.  Thank you all.

I want to thank the members of Congress who are joining you today — who do so much to sustain the bonds between the United States and Israel, including Eric Cantor — (applause) — Steny Hoyer — (applause) — and the tireless leader I was proud to appoint as the new chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  (Applause.)

We’re joined by Israel’s representative to the United States, Ambassador Michael Oren.  (Applause.)  And we’re joined by one of my top advisors on Israel and the Middle East for the past four years and who I know is going to be an outstanding ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro.  (Applause.)  Dan has always been a close and trusted advisor and friend, and I know that he will do a terrific job.

And at a time when so many young people around the world are standing up and making their voices heard, I also want to acknowledge all the college students from across the country who are here today.  (Applause.)  No one has a greater stake in the outcome of events that are unfolding today than your generation, and it’s inspiring to see you devote your time and energy to help shape that future.

Now, I’m not here to subject you to a long policy speech.  I gave one on Thursday in which I said that the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.

On Friday, I was joined at the White House by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we reaffirmed — (applause) — we reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years — that even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable — (applause) — and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.  (Applause.)

A strong and secure Israel is in the national security interest of the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, although we do both seek a region where families and children can live free from the threat of violence.  It’s not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations.

America’s commitment to Israel’s security flows from a deeper place — and that’s the values we share.  As two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers — and foremothers — fought must be the work of every generation.  As two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedoms we cherish must be constantly nurtured.  And as the nation that recognized the State of Israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland for the Jewish people.  (Applause.)

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel living in a very tough neighborhood.  I’ve seen it firsthand.  When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland.  When I went to Sderot and saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year-old boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket, and when I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I was reminded of the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map — face of the Earth.

Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority.  It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels.  It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies.  (Applause.)  It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.  (Applause.)  And that includes additional support –- beyond regular military aid -– for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system.  (Applause.)  A powerful example of American-Israeli cooperation — a powerful example of American-Israeli cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved Israeli lives.  So make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge.  (Applause.)

You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  (Applause.)  Here in the United States, we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime.  (Applause.)  At the United Nations, under our leadership, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world.  Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we’re going to keep up the pressure.  So let me be absolutely clear –- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  (Applause.)

Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses.  As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality.  Moreover, Iran continues to support terrorism across the region, including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations.  So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and we will stand up to groups like Hezbollah, who exercise political assassination and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.

You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel.  (Applause.)  As I said at the United Nations last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”  (Applause.)

So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew.  In the wake of the Goldstone Report, we stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself.  (Applause.)  When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it.  (Applause.)

And so, in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of Israel’s security.  (Applause.)  And it is precisely because of our commitment to Israel’s long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  (Applause.)

Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties.  (Applause.)  And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace.  (Applause.)  No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction.  (Applause.)  And we will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements.  (Applause.)  And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.  (Applause.)

And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option.  The status quo is unsustainable.  And that is why on Thursday I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims — the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians since at least the Clinton administration.

I know that stating these principles — on the issues of territory and security — generated some controversy over the past few days.  (Laughter.)  I wasn’t surprised.  I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy.  I don’t need Rahm to tell me that.  Don’t need Axelrod to tell me that.  But I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination.  I also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another.  (Applause.)  So I want to share with you some of what I said to the Prime Minister.

Here are the facts we all must confront.  First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories.  This will make it harder and harder — without a peace deal — to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.

Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.

Third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region.  A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders.  Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

And just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years.  There’s a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations.  They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one, not just in the Arab World — in Latin America, in Asia, and in Europe.  And that impatience is growing, and it’s already manifesting itself in capitals around the world.

And those are the facts.  I firmly believe, and I repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict.  No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state.  And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations or in any international forum.  (Applause.)  Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate.  That is my commitment; that is my pledge to all of you.  (Applause.)

Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner –- which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist.  (Applause.)  And we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and for their rhetoric.  (Applause.)

But the march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations –- will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative.  And for us to have leverage with the Palestinians, to have leverage with the Arab States and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success.  And so, in advance of a five-day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.

There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations.  Since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday — not what I was reported to have said.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.  The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps — (applause) — so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself –- by itself -– against any threat.  (Applause.)  Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security.  (Applause.)  And a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and non-militarized state.  (Applause.)  And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.  (Applause.)

Now, that is what I said.  And it was my reference to the 1967 lines — with mutually agreed swaps — that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now.  And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.  (Applause.)  That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means.  It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation.  It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.  (Applause.)  It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides.  The ultimate goal is two states for two people:  Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people — (applause) — and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people — each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.  (Applause.)

If there is a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance.  What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately.  I’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace.  (Applause.)  The world is moving too fast.  The world is moving too fast.  The extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow.  Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.

Now, I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment.  I respect that.  And as fellow Americans and friends of Israel, I know we can have this discussion.

Ultimately, it is the right and the responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed.  (Applause.)  And as a friend of Israel, I’m committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized.  And I will call not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, on the Arab States, and the international community to join us in this effort, because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel’s alone.  (Applause.)

But even as we do all that’s necessary to ensure Israel’s security, even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us, and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead, I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace.  For if history teaches us anything, if the story of Israel teaches us anything, it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible.  Peace is possible.

The Talmud teaches us that, “So long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith.”  And that lesson seems especially fitting today.

For so long as there are those across the Middle East and beyond who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the United States will never abandon our support for those rights that are universal.

And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security.  This is not idealism; it is not naïveté.  It is a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.  (Applause.)  That is my goal, and I look forward to continuing to work with AIPAC to achieve that goal.

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless Israel, and God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

END
11:21 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Please, have a seat.  Thank you very much.  I want to begin by thanking Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark — one million frequent flyer miles.  (Laughter.)  I count on Hillary every single day, and I believe that she will go down as one of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.

The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy.  For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the Middle East and North Africa.  Square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights.  Two leaders have stepped aside.  More may follow.  And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by faith.

Today, I want to talk about this change — the forces that are driving it and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security.

Now, already, we’ve done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts.  After years of war in Iraq, we’ve removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there.  In Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead.  And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was no martyr.  He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate –- an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change.  He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy -– not what he could build.

Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents.  But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life.  By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia.  On December 17th, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart.  This was not unique.  It’s the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -– the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity.  Only this time, something different happened.  After local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years.  In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat.  So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country.  Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands.  And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home –- day after day, week after week — until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise.  The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not.  In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few.  In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn  -– no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.

And this lack of self-determination –- the chance to make your life what you will –- has applied to the region’s economy as well.  Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity.  But in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.

In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere.  The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism.  Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression.  Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore.  Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world -– a world of astonishing progress in places like India and Indonesia and Brazil.  Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before.  And so a new generation has emerged.  And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.”

In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.”

In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now.  It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”

In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.”

Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region.  And through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily.  In our day and age -– a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication –- people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks.  But it will be years before this story reaches its end.  Along the way, there will be good days and there will bad days.  In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual.  And as we’ve already seen, calls for change may give way, in some cases, to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds.  For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region:  countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them.  We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks.  We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies.  As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.  Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense.  Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.

And that’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.  I believed then -– and I believe now -– that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.  The status quo is not sustainable.  Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face a historic opportunity.  We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator.  There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity.  Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise.  But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility.  It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -– it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome.

Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don’t align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region.  But we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles –- principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:

The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.  (Applause.)

The United States supports a set of universal rights.  And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders  -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.

And we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.

Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest.  Today I want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.

Let me be specific.  First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.  That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high -– as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab world’s largest nation.  Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions, and responsible regional leadership.  But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have thus far been answered by violence.  The most extreme example is Libya, where Muammar Qaddafi launched a war against his own people, promising to hunt them down like rats.  As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force -– no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help.  Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed.  The message would have been clear:  Keep power by killing as many people as it takes.  Now, time is working against Qaddafi. He does not have control over his country.  The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council.  And when Qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it’s not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power.  Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens.  The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime –- including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.

The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy.  President Assad now has a choice:  He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.  The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests.  It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests.  It must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.  Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and will continue to be isolated abroad.

So far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression.  And this speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses its own people at home.  Let’s remember that the first peaceful protests in the region were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail.  We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran.  The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory.  And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Now, our opposition to Iran’s intolerance and Iran’s repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known.  But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change — with change that’s consistent with the principles that I’ve outlined today.  That’s true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power.  And that’s true today in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a longstanding partner, and we are committed to its security.  We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.

Nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and we will — and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away.  The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.  (Applause.)  The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict.  In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy.  The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security.  Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks.  But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress.  And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region.  Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike.  Our message is simple:  If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States.

We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future -– particularly young people.  We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo -– to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease.  Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths.  And we will use the technology to connect with -– and listen to –- the voices of the people.

For the fact is, real reform does not come at the ballot box alone.  Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information.  We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard -– whether it’s a big news organization or a lone blogger.  In the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden, and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.

Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview.  Let me be clear, America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them.  And sometimes we profoundly disagree with them.

We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy.  What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion and not consent.  Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the respect for the rights of minorities.

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion.  In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”  America will work to see that this spirit prevails -– that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them.  In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation.  And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women.  History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered.  And that’s why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men -– by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office.  The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.  (Applause.)

Now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the region, our efforts can’t stop there.  So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that are transitioning to democracy.

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets.  The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family.  Too many people in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping that their luck will change.  Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job.  Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people.  In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world.  It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google.  That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street.  For just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

So, drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; on investment, not just assistance.  The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness, the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young.  America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy.  And we’re going to start with Tunisia and Egypt.

First, we’ve asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt.  Together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year.  And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past.  So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship.  We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation.  And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we’re working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt.  And these will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region.  And we will work with the allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa.  If you take out oil exports, this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland.  So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement.  And just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress -– the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect.  We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts at anti-corruption — by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to increase transparency and hold government accountable.  Politics and human rights; economic reform.

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region.  For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.  For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own.  Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations.  Yet expectations have gone unmet.  Israeli settlement activity continues.  Palestinians have walked away from talks.  The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate.  Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.

I disagree.  At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.  That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.  Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.  And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values.  Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable.  And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.  But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth:  The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River.  Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself.  A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders — must believe peace is possible.  The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action.  No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else.  But endless delay won’t make the problem go away.  What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples:  Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear:  a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.  The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.  We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.  The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat.  Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security.  The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.  And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations.  Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met.  I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain:  the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees.  But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, let me say this:  Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table.  In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel:  How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?  And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.  Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be.  Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past.  We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones.  That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.”  We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza.  “I have the right to feel angry,” he said.  “So many people were expecting me to hate.  My answer to them is I shall not hate.  Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”

That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future.  It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful.  In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests.  In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, “peaceful, peaceful.”  In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known.  Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar.  Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire.  Our people fought a painful Civil War that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved.  And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union –- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa -– words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights.

It will not be easy.  There’s no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope.  But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves.  And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

END 1:00 P.M. EDT

The SPEAKER. Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and the distinct honor of presenting to you His Excellency Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel.

(Applause, the Members rising.)

Prime Minister NETANYAHU. Vice President Biden, Speaker Boehner, distinguished Senators, Members of the House, honored guests, I am deeply moved by this warm welcome, and I am deeply honored that you’ve given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.

Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time that we

were the new kids in town? And I do see a lot of old friends here, and I see a lot of new friends of Israel here as well, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Israel has no better friend than America, and America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism.

Congratulations, America. Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance.

In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.

My friends, you don’t need to do nation-building in Israel; we’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel; we’ve already got it. And you don’t need to send American troops to Israel; we defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own.

Thank you all; and thank you, President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this.

Some of you have been telling me that your belief has been reaffirmed in recent months that support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future, for an epic battle is now underway in the Middle East between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the Earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar–the tremors of shattered states, their toppled governments–and we can all see that the ground is still shifting.

Now, this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty. These extraordinary scenes in Tunis and Cairo evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989.

I take it as a badge of honor–and so should you–that in our free societies you can have protests. You can’t have these protests in the farcical parliaments in Tehran or in Tripoli. This

[Page: H3349]

is real democracy. So, as we share the hopes of these young people throughout the Middle East and Iran that they’ll be able to do what that young woman just did–I think she was young. I couldn’t see quite that far–we must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then. The brief democratic spring in Tehran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny, and it is this same tyranny that smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution and inflicted on that long-suffering country the medieval rule of Hezbollah.

So, today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads; and like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled–the path of liberty. No one knows what this path consists of better than you–nobody. This path of liberty is not paved by elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights can not be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.

Israel has always embraced this path in a Middle East that has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.

There was a great English writer in the 19th century, George Eliot. It’s a “she.” It was a pseudonym in those days. George Eliot predicted over a century ago that, once established, the Jewish state will shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East.

Well, she was right.

We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates. Now, don’t laugh. Ah, you see, you think you’re tough on one another here in Congress. Come spend a day in the Knesset. Be my guest.

Courageous Arab protesters are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We are proud in Israel that over 1 million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. Now, I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of 1 percent are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel.

The startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East. Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the Middle East.

Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium–by the way, it hasn’t changed. I stood here, and I said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab world. Well, it has begun to take root, and this beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity because I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly of peace; but while we hope for the best and while we work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future.

They oppose modernity.

They oppose democracy.

They oppose peace.

Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.

When I last stood here, I spoke of the consequences of Iran’s developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn, for the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us–a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.

Militant Islam threatens the world.

It threatens Islam.

Now, I have no doubt–I am absolutely convinced–that it will ultimately be defeated. I believe it will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. It depends on cloistering young minds for a given number of years, and the process of opening up information will ultimately defeat this movement; but like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact an horrific price from all of us before its eventual demise. A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world.

You see, I want you to understand what this means because, if we don’t stop it, it is coming. They could put a bomb anywhere. They could put it in a missile. They’re working on missiles that could reach this city. They could put it on a ship, inside a container, that could reach every port. They could eventually put it in a suitcase or in a subway.

Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. In less than seven decades, after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people while calling for the annihilation of the

Jewish state. Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.

But there is something that makes the outrage even greater. Do you know what that is? It is the lack of outrage because, in much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It’s even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.

Not you. Not America. You’ve acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you, America.

President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The President successfully led the Security Council at the U.N. to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. Now, those words and these are vitally important; yet the Ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear weapons program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. In that same year, Muammar Qadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons program and for the same reason.

The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation; and this is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: that America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Now, as for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say “never again,” we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.

My friends, while Israel will be ever vigilant in its defense, we will never give up our quest for peace. I guess we will give it up when we achieve it, because we want peace, because we need peace. Now, we’ve achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and these have held up for decades.

I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal. I mean that literally–inside the Suez Canal. I was going down to the bottom, with a 40-pound ammunition pack on my back, and somebody reached out to grab me, and they’re still looking for the guy who did such a stupid thing. I was nearly killed there. I remember battling terrorists along both banks of the Jordan.

Too many Israelis have lost loved ones, and I know their grief. I lost my brother. So no one in Israel wants a return to those terrible days. The peace with Egypt and Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle East, and this peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace.

The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan are vital, but they are not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians.

Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples–a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state. I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace. Now, this is not easy for me. It’s not easy because I recognize

[Page: H3350]

that, in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. You have to understand this:

In Judea-Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We’re not the British in India. We’re not the Belgians in the Congo. This is the land of our forefathers–the land of Israel–to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history–and boy, am I reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new. No distortion of history can deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.

But there is another truth.

The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people, living in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy where their creativity and initiative can flourish. Now, we’ve already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last 2 years, the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves.

By the way, Prime Minister Fayyad has led this effort on their part, and I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation.

On our side, we’ve helped the Palestinian economic growth by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people, and the results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming–it is growing by more than 10 percent a year–and Palestinian cities, they look very different today than what they looked like just a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks. They even have e-businesses, but you can’t see that when you visit them.

That’s what they have–it’s a great change–and all of this is happening without peace. So imagine what could happen with peace. Peace would herald a new day for both our peoples, and it could also make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility.

So now here is the question. You’ve got to ask it:

If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? All six Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of the Oslo Accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included.

So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it means accepting a Jewish state alongside it. You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.

In 1947, the U.N. voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes. The Palestinians said no. In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War. They were simply unwilling to end the conflict and–I regret to say this–they continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists; and worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.

My friends, this must come to an end.

President Abbas must do what I have done–and I told you it wasn’t easy for me. I stood before my people, and I said: I will accept a Palestinian state. It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say: I will accept a Jewish state.

Those six words will change history.

They will make it clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end, that they’re not building a Palestinian state to continue the conflict with Israel but to end it, and those six words will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace.

With such a partner, the Israeli people will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv. Now, these areas are densely populated, but they are geographically quite small; and under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel. The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations; but we must also be honest, so I am saying today something that should be said publicly by all those who are serious about peace:

In any real peace agreement, in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. Now, the precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We will be generous about the size of the future Palestinian state; but as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.

I want to be very clear on this point: Israel will be generous on the size of a Palestinian state, but we will be very firm on where we put the border with it. This is an important principle and shouldn’t be lost.

We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, to be independent, to be prosperous. All of you and the President, too, have referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people just as you’ve been talking about a future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Jews from around the world have a right to emigrate to the one and only Jewish state, and the Palestinians from around the world should have a right to emigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state.

Here is what this means: it means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel. Everybody knows this. It is time to say it, and it is important.

And, as for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected the freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.

I know this is a difficult issue for Palestinians, but I believe that with creativity and with goodwill a solution can be found. So this is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace; but you know very well that, in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is the peace you can defend, so peace must be anchored in security.

In recent years, Israel withdrew from south Lebanon and from Gaza. We thought we’d get peace. That’s not what we got. We got 12,000 rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children by Hezbollah and Hamas. The U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon, they failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza, they evaporated overnight. So, if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked, and missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute.

I want you to think about that, too. Imagine there’s a siren going on now and that we have less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket. Would you live that way? Do you think anybody can live that way? Well, we are not going to live that way either. The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size. It’s one of the smallest countries in the world.

Mr. Vice President, I’ll grant you this, it’s bigger than Delaware. It’s even bigger than Rhode Island, but that’s about it. Israel on the 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington beltway. Now, here is a bit of nostalgia. I came to Washington 30 years ago as a young diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out. There is an America beyond the beltway, but Israel on the 1967 lines would be only 9 miles wide. So much for strategic depth.

So it is therefore vital–absolutely vital–that a Palestinian state be fully

[Page: H3351]

demilitarized; and it is vital–absolutely vital–that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace; they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels because, in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow.

And, my friends, when I say tomorrow, I don’t mean some distant time in the future. I mean tomorrow.

Peace can only be achieved around a negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end. I appreciate the President’s clear position on this issue. Peace can not be imposed. It must be negotiated; but peace can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace, and Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel. It says: kill the Jews everywhere you find them. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior.

Now, again, I want to make this clear: Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future for our children, but Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian Government backed by the Palestinian version of al Qaeda.

That we will not do.

So I say to President Abbas: tear up your pact with Hamas. Sit down and negotiate. Make peace with the Jewish state. If you do, I promise you this: Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations; it will be the first to do so.

My friends, the momentous trials of the last century and the unfolding events of this century attest to the decisive role of the United States in defending peace and advancing freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All people who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great Nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation–the people of Israel–who fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds in ancient and modern times alike.

I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America: thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.

May God bless all of you, and may God forever bless the United States of America.

[Applause, the Members rising.]

At 12 o’clock and 10 minutes p.m., His Excellency Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, accompanied by the committee of escort, retired from the Hall of the House of Representatives.

A right-wing lobbyist, Republican hack and a former staffer are the lobbying triumvirate getting rowdy on the bus.

It’s nice to see at least one of Kasich’s staffers/former staffers making big in the private sector. You’ll remember that the governor said he had to pay his senior staff much more than former Gov. Ted Strickland paid his crew because, by golly these folks are the cream of the crop and he’s competing with the private sector.

What Yosemite John didn’t say is that a bunch of these folks were just waiting in the wings being paid by political organizations and THE Ohio State University for ten or twelve years while he found himself and worked what was apparently a “no-show” gig at Lehman Brothers. (I thought that only happened on The Sopranos)

Freshly minted Ohio super-lobbyist Don Thibaut, a former Kasich staffer who spent 10 years on the Kasich political donation tit is now one of the three Friends of John who is getting all the big private sector lobbying business. Thibaut has gone from John’s hanger-on to represent some mighty big fish in the Kasich pond of infuence including the Corrections Corp. of America.

Kasich says he doesn’t talk clients with his Three Amigos, but interestingly, the Dispatch found that Thibault managed to slip one in – ooops!

It appears that the Kasich Administration’s gutting of the Office of the Ohio Consumers Councel has something to do with Thibault’s representation of IGS Energy, a Dublin natural gas marketer. When the OCC filed a complaint about deceptive marketing practices by IGS, the next thing you know the OCC is on Kasich’s shit list, meaning he cut most of their funding for the next two years.

One can only imagine the high fives exchanged at IGS over that one.

Let’s hope the Dispatch continues to do some critical thinking/reporting about what comes out of the Kasich Administration. I might suggest a follow-up assignment. How does the governor continue to say we have an $8 billion hole in the budget when his budget is coming in at around $5 billion more per biennium than Strickland’s last budget?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, Newt Gingrich is with us live after a week in
which he announces for President and his own party goes nuts.
SARAH PALIN: That we all have a right to ask Speaker Gingrich what in the heck did you mean
that Paul Ryan’s budget plan is radical?
RUSH LIMBAUGH: The attack on Paul Ryan, the support for an individual mandate in– in
health care? I– I– folks don’t ask me to explain this.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Headlines in conservative newspapers were no kinder. Gingrich to the
House GOP: Drop Dead, noted the Wall Street Journal, nor was it any smoother when Gingrich
got to Iowa.
MAN: You’re an embarrassment to our–
NEWT GINGRICH (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former House Speaker): Well–
MAN: –party.

NEWT GINGRICH: –I’m sorry if you feel that way.
MAN: Why don’t you get out before you–
NEWT GINGRICH: I’m sorry– I’m sorry–
MAN: –make a bigger fool of yourself?
NEWT GINGRICH: –sorry.
BOB SCHIEFFER: This morning, he’s here to talk about all of it. And it’s all ahead on FACE
THE NATION.
ANNOUNCER: FACE THE NATION with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob
Schieffer. And now from Washington, Bob Schieffer.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And, good morning again. Newt Gingrich joins us live in the– in the studio
here. And, Mister Gingrich, let’s just start with the overnight news. Mitch Daniels, the one that a
lot of Republicans, establishment Republicans and especially a lot of people who had supported
George Bush last time out were really putting pressure on him to run for the Republican
nomination. He said last night he’s simply not going to do it. What do you make of that and
what–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Well–
BOB SCHIEFFER: –what is the impact of that on the race.
NEWT GINGRICH: I’d– I’d– I mean, Mitch has his own reasons for not running. But he is one of
the great reform governors in this country, he’s one of the hopes that you can get things fixed.

His educational reforms are remarkable. He’s done a great job of bringing jobs to Indiana. His
privatization program on highways is really a benchmark for the country. He has a great future
and I think will play a major role in designing the platform and a major role in helping other
people learn that you actually can govern and you can actually be creative. And I think the Scott
Walkers, the John Kasichs, even Chris Christies all of them learned something from I mean–
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Why– why–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping):–his governorship.
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): –do you think he decided not to run?
NEWT GINGRICH: You’d have to ask him. But he’s– he’s a terrific talent. He would have been
a very formidable competitor. I mean, I really thought he would be in the frontrunners from day
one if he had decided to run.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, let’s talk about your campaign.
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Okay.
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): You heard at the top of this broadcast, we kind of laid it out
there. You began your campaign last week on Meet The Press with what I have to say was just
withering criticism of the plan passed by the Republican House to replace Medicare with
government subsidized private insurance and– and you heard them. You’ve heard them all
week. Republicans from Rush Limbaugh to Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina to Paul
Ryan himself cried foul. Then you backed off and said you made a mistake. But you sounded
pretty certain. And I just want to go back and– and let’s listen to what you said–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Yeah.
BOB SCHIEFFER: –last week.
DAVID GREGORY (May 9, 2011): Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public
opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher
program where you give seniors–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping; May 9, 2011): Yeah.
DAVID GREGORY (May 9, 2011): –some premium support and so that they can go out and buy
private insurance?
NEWT GINGRICH (May 9, 2011): I don’t think right wing social engineering is anymore
desirable than left wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right
or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So then, you go on television and you just totally retract that. You said I’ve
made a mistake. Well, you sounded awfully certain when you said it. What happened here?
NEWT GINGRICH: Look if– if you go back and replay what David Gregory asked.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I did.

NEWT GINGRICH: Yeah. No, I’m just saying. If you listen to his words, he doesn’t say how do
you feel about Paul Ryan? I like Paul Ryan. Didn’t even say how do you feel about Ryan’s
budget? I would have voted for Ryan’s budget. He said should Republicans pass an unpopular
plan? And I made the mistake of accepting his premise. I wasn’t referring to Ryan. I was
referring to a general principle. We, the people, should not have Washington impose large-scale
change on us. Paul Ryan has begun a process– he and I’ve talked about it several times this
week. And we go back many years. Paul Ryan has begun a process. It’s an important process.
This is the third time we’ve seen a Medi-scare campaign by the Democrats against Reagan
and–
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Well–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): –now just listen– but–
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): –go ahead.
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): –but– my context was we Republicans have to go to the
country, we have to explain what we’re trying to accomplish to save Medicare, how we would
save Medicare. The country has to have time, the American people have to have time to ask us
questions, to modify the plan if necessary, to get to a point where people are comfortable with it
and that was my point. I– I probably used unfortunate language about social engineering. But
my point was really a larger one that neither party should impose on the American people
something that they are deeply opposed to.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well– well, do you think Republicans ought to run with the Paul Ryan plan? I
mean is it good social–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): I think–
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): –engineering here?
NEWT GINGRICH: –there was not a question as good social engineering. The question is I
believe Republicans should start with the Ryan plan, should go to the country and explain it. But
should listen to the American people and where necessary modify it. I think this is what Paul
Ryan believes. It’s not going to be a– a yes or no. This is the– and this is what’s sad about
what’s happening. This is the beginning of a profound conversation about a fiscal crisis that is
going to crush this country.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I know– I know you said you weren’t even talking about Paul Ryan.
You told Rush Limbaugh the same thing. But listen to what you went on to say in this interview
with– with David Gregory. Here’s part two.
NEWT GINGRICH (May 9, 2011): So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.
DAVID GREGORY (May 9, 2011): But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping; May 9, 2011): I– I think–
DAVID GREGORY (overlapping; May 9, 2011): –which is completely–

NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping; May 9, 2011): –I think–
DAVID GREGORY (overlapping; May 9, 2011): –changing Medicare.
NEWT GINGRICH (May 9, 2011): — I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to
have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better
options not one where you suddenly impose upon them. I don’t want to– I’m– I’m not against
Obama care which is–
DAVID GREGORY (overlapping; May 9, 2011): –Mm-Hm.
NEWT GINGRICH (May 9, 2011): –imposing radical change and I would be against a–
BOB SCHIEFFER: So there you are. You were talking about Paul Ryan.
NEWT GINGRICH: And I said– and I said– and Paul agrees that the– the plan can be modified.
I would modify it frankly to start much earlier than he does but I’ll modify it in a way that will
move in the direction he’s going and would modify it in a way that people could voluntarily
decide. Are there things that can be done to improve Medicare that they would like to do?
When– when you deal with a program of this size and– and I don’t think anybody, including
Paul Ryan believes that you come out and say take it or leave it. This– this is the beginning of a
conversation. He and I are on the same side in that conversation. Obama is on the opposite
side of that conversation. And I think that’s an important thing to keep in mind.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, as what you’re saying then is that the Paul Ryan plan is not too big a
jump. You said, it’s–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Yes.
BOB SCHIEFFER: –too big a jump. It’s too radical.
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): I’m–
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): You’re saying now–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Yes, it is. I think–
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): –it’s not too radical—
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): –I think well–
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): –it’s not too big a jump?
NEWT GINGRICH: –I think– I think it is a big plan that needs to be worked through with the
American people. In that process it will clearly be modified. And I think if Republicans approach
it that way and have a conversation with the American people, we will in fact totally defeat the
Democrat scare tactics and the American people will give us permission to have a very
significant reform of Medicare.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Are you saying that this is going to be the Republican plan? Because here’s
what I’m saying to you, Democrats are just licking their chops here. They’re saying, man, I hope

we can get him out there and have them against Medicare because if they can, we can beat
them. I mean they’re– they’re running ads with you in them saying–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): But– right, but that–
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): –that.
NEWT GINGRICH: Look, this is the third time in my career this has happened. They tried to
scare people about Ronald Reagan. And Ronald Reagan carried more states than FDR carried
in ‘32. They tried to scare people in ’96 about our effort to save Medicare. We were the first
reelected House Republicans since 1928. If we have the courage to stand toe to toe and say
this is a fiscal crisis, we have every right as a country to talk through how to get to a better
Medicare system and it is shameful for the Democrats to lie about it, we will in fact win that
debate for the third time in my lifetime.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about a– a mandate that people are ought to be required to
buy–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: –insurance. You at various times in your career have said that they should.
That everybody ought to pay and have some– some part in paying for– for medical care. Do
you believe in a mandate or not?
NEWT GINGRICH: No. No, I do not believe in a mandate.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You do concede you have said in the past–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Sure.
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): –that you did.
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, then the Heritage Foundation has said they were for it at one time. All
of us have wrestled with two problems. How do we maximize individual freedom and how do we
make sure that people have some responsibility for their debts? There are a lot of people who
refuse to pay for their health bill, including people with money. And so, we’re trying to find a way
to match both. I believe that we ought to go to the Tenth Amendment approach, return a lot of
this power back to the states, recognize that decades of Washington in trying to solve it have
failed and try to find a way to re-approach this. I do not believe in mandates. In fact, I think that
in many ways they’re unconstitutional, both on religious liberty grounds and on personal liberty
grounds, but we all have been wrestling with this for a long time. And I think, you know, I’m not
going to get involved in a gotcha game. I– I’ve voted seven thousand times and given five
thousand speeches and probably ten thousand interviews. So people can go back and pick up a
sentence here and there. I have a– I’m running for President because this country needs very
dramatic change. I’m going to outline a program of very dramatic change. And I’m prepared to
debate and defend that program.
BOB SCHIEFFER: How much did this hurt you politically? I am told that when hours after you
appeared on Meet The Press last Sunday, some of your big donors were on the phone saying
you’ve got to get off this or your donations are going to dry up. I’m told that in fact one campaign
fundraiser was canceled last Sunday. Is that true?

NEWT GINGRICH: Not that I know of. But, you know, to be honest, I– I– I don’t know it. Look, I
spent all week in Iowa. I was in seventeen towns. I was also briefly in Lacrosse, in Minneapolis.
And in seventeen towns in Iowa, they managed to catch the one person. I– I think I talked to
over two thousand people in meetings. In– in Ames, Iowa, we thought we would have forty
people at two in the afternoon. We had a hundred and seventy-eight. On one particular day, we
had to move three out of five meetings because the rooms weren’t big enough. Everywhere I
went in Iowa, people wanted to know how do we defeat Obamacare, how do we get the budget
balanced, how do we create jobs, how do we solve our energy problem? They were not paying
attention to the noise level in Washington, DC. And so, I had this unusual experience that I was
actually having a great time. I was reading the Iowa Media, I was talking to Iowans, and the
campaign looked very, very alive if you were in Iowa.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So, when people say and– and– and you’re right.
NEWT GINGRICH: Yeah.
BOB SCHIEFFER: That’s what they’re saying in the national media. I have not heard one single
Republican come to your defense, perhaps there was one. But I haven’t heard it here in
Washington. When they say your campaign’s already imploded, that it’s over before it started,
you’re saying not yet.
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I– I think it’s amazing, the only national reporter who came to Iowa,
Mara Liasson of NPR and– and Fox, Sunday Morning. She came to two overflow meetings and
she looked around. I think it was pretty clear to her this campaign was a long way from over.
None of the people rendering judgment of Washington had talked to the voters in Iowa, none.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I want to– I’m going to ask you about President Obama’s speech. I want to
talk little about foreign policy. But– but before we go to break, I want to ask you about this
bizarre revelation that came up last week that your wife in 2005-2006 filed a financial disclosure
because she was working for the House Agriculture Committee that revealed that you owed
between two hundred and fifty thousand, a half million dollars to a jewelry company. What was
that about Mister Speaker?
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, first of all, it was about obeying the law. She filed a disclosure, it’s
been sitting there for five years. We’re private citizens. I work very hard. We have a reasonably
good income. I currently owe nothing except I owe one mortgage on a house that’s rental
property in Wisconsin. Everything else is totally paid for. My home is paid for. My cars are paid
for. We don’t have a second house. We don’t do– you know, we don’t do elaborate things.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Did you owe a half million dollars to a jewelry company at one point?
NEWT GINGRICH: We had a revolving fund.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what does that mean?
NEWT GINGRICH: It means that we had a revolving fund. That it was– it was a– it was an
interest-free account.
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): I mean who buys a half million dollars worth of jewelry on
credit?

NEWT GINGRICH: No, it’s– it’s a– go and talk to Tiffany’s, it’s a standard no-interest account.
BOB SCHIEFFER: How– how long did you owe it?
NEWT GINGRICH: I have no idea but it was paid off automatically. We paid no interest on it.
There was no problem with it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Was it–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): It’s a normal way of doing business.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Why I mean that– it’s very odd to me that– that– that someone would run up
a half million dollars bill–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): It’s–
BOB SCHIEFFER: –at a jewelry store.
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, go, you go talk to Tiffany’s. All I’m telling you is we– we are very
frugal. We, in fact, live within our budget. We owe nothing.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What did you buy?
NEWT GINGRICH: We owe nothing. Well, it’s– it’s a pre– it’s–my private life.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I understand.
NEWT GINGRICH: And– and I understand, I’m just suggesting to you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I mean you’re running for president.
NEWT GINGRICH: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You’re going to be the guy in charge of the Treasury Department. And it just-
- it just sticks out–
NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): And– and– and– okay–
BOB SCHIEFFER: –like a sore thumb.
NEWT GINGRICH: And okay, I’m, you know, I’m a guy running for president who pays all of his
bills and after tax income and no cost put to the taxpayer and who currently owes nothing
except one rental property in Wisconsin. I am debt-free. If the U.S. government was debt-free as
I am, everybody in America would be celebrating. I think I have proven I can manage money. As
a small businessman, I run four small businesses. They have been profitable. They’ve
employed people. You know, this is the opposite of the Obama model. So as a private citizen
who’s done well, I think I’m allowed to pick and choose what I prefer doing.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And you paid that bill?

NEWT GINGRICH: On time with no interest. I mean it– it was a revolving account.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. We’re going to take a break here. We’ll come back and talk a little
bit about foreign policy in a minute.
NEWT GINGRICH: Sure.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we’re back with the Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.
Mister Gingrich, the President made a big speech on the Middle East last week. What did you
think of it?
NEWT GINGRICH: I think it is a disaster. I think it is extraordinarily dangerous. I think that it–
defining the 1967 border would be an act of suicide for Israel. They are totally non-defensible. I
think for the United States, you know– we don’t have moral equivalence here. You have Hamas
which is a terrorist organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. You have a
democracy. Now the idea that somehow we’re supposed to be neutral between Hamas and
Israel is fundamentally flawed. And I do not believe that we should have any pressure on Israel
as long as Hamas’s policy is the destruction of Israel. And as long as missiles are being fired
into Israel and terrorists are preparing to try to kill Israelis. And I think it is– a President who
can’t control his own border probably shouldn’t lecture Israel about their border.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I– I– I have to ask you though you’re using words like dangerous. I mean,
the President was calling for peace. How– why– why can you characterize that as dangerous?
NEWT GINGRICH: Because how do you have peace with a Hamas organization whose stated
goal is the destruction of Israel and driving every Israeli out of the country? I mean, read what
Hamas says. This idea, that somehow– these people are firing missiles virtually every day into
Israel. These people are constantly preparing for terrorism. They’re recruiting children to be
suicide bombers. How–how can you– the President talks about peace when he ought to be
insisting that we cut off all aid to Hamas and isolate Hamas as long as it is a terrorist
organization trying to destroy an entire people. I mean, I– I really think we’ve got to get over this
moral equivalence thing. There is no moral equivalence between a democratic society and a
terrorist group.
BOB SCHIEFFER: The President talked about President Assad of Syria this week, in that
speech. And basically, he said Assad needs to leave or he needs to move on. What’s your
response to that?
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, con– considering the President’s ineffectiveness with Qaddafi, who on
March 3rd, he said had had to go, he seems to be going around picking places to make large
pronouncements with small effect. I mean, I– I think we need a fundamental reassessment of
our policy in the whole region. When we give the Pakistanis twenty billion dollars in aid since
9/11 and we learned that Bin Laden was not hiding in a cave in the mountains. He was in a fairly
large compound in a major military city one mile from their national defense university, that
should raise very profound questions about what’s going on and how little do we understand the
region. When you look at Christians being driven out of Iraq, when you look at Coptic churches
being burned in Egypt, I think we need to be– we– we really need a much more honest and
much more rigorous reappraisal of what’s happening in the region.
10
BOB SCHIEFFER: I have to say you have not exactly been a model of consistency especially,
when he talks about Libya. I– I think it was on March 3rd, when asked what we should do about
Libya when all that was breaking out here’s what you said on Fox News.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (Fox News March 8, 2011): What would you do about Libya?
NEWT GINGRICH (Fox News March 8, 2011): Exercise a no-fly zone this evening.
Communicate to the Libyan military that Qaddafi was gone and that the sooner they switch
sides the more likely they were to survive.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So, you said to put in a– a no-fly zone. Then, you know, a few– few days
later you go on the Today Show and you seem to say just the opposite it looks– listen to this.
NEWT GINGRICH (March 23, 2011): I would not have intervened. I think there are a lot of other
ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region that we could have worked
with. I would not have used American and European forces.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What some people say, Mister Speaker, is that whatever the President said
you would just take the opposite attack there.
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, if you had taken two other things. On February 22nd, I said on Fox, I
think we should use indirect means, covert operations and our allies in the region. But I don’t
think we should get involved. On March 3rd, when you’re talking about it, the President has now
announced grandly, Qaddafi must go. Well, if the President’s serious about Qaddafi must go, I
said that night, responding to go the President, this is what we should do. Two weeks later, it’s
clear there was a total muddle. They had no plan. They had no ideas. The– the no-fly zone was
a joke. Qaddafi wasn’t being threatened. And so– so, you’re right. As the– as the President
zigzags, as an analyst I was trying to respond to the moment that he zigzagging, but I think the
policy has been a fail– a failure. I mean, if you’re Assad watching Qaddafi, why do you care
what the President of the United States says, because the President of the United States has
been remarkably ineffective in Libya. And I was responding at each stage to what the President
said. Now I believe in the beginning what I said on February 22nd was really operative, which is,
don’t get directly involved. Don’t put our prestige on the line. Help the people who are rebelling.
Use local allies like the Moroccans, or the Egyptians or the Jordanians, or the Iraqis, and have
people who speak Arabic doing that. But the President changed the rules on with– with no
planning, with no preparation on March 3rd he staked the position of the United States that
Qaddafi must go. And then did nothing to make sure that Qaddafi went except wasted a lot of
money and had Americans fecklessly running around not being effective and they haven’t been
effective up until now.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mister Gingrich, why do you think you ought to be President.
NEWT GINGRICH: I believe the United States is in the early stages of a huge challenge as a
country. And I believe that President Obama is taking us in exactly the wrong direction. We
need a program for very dramatic in creating jobs. I have one with five major tax policies and
with deregulation. We need an American energy program not going to Brazil to praise the
Brazilians for drilling offshore, and saying we’re going to be their best customer. We need a
program of balancing the federal budget again, which I did four times as speaker in– in a way
that people thought was impossible when I started. We need very large entitlement reform. The
largest entitlement reform of our lifetime was welfare reform which I led as speaker. Two or
11
three people went back to work and went to school. So I think we’re in a period where we face
enormous choices about which kind of country we want to be. I think Obama is in exactly the
wrong direction. And I think the Republicans who has actually led the Congress, achieved four
balanced budgets, achieved economic growth. When I entered we had 5.6 percent
unemployment. When I left it was drifting down below four percent. I think I have both a record
of real achievement and a record of real choice compared to Obama.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And– and what about your personal life and your personal behavior. Are
people supposed to just put that aside.
NEWT GINGRICH: No. I think the American people have to look at it and have to decide. First
of all, recognizing that I’ve said I did some things that were wrong. I’ve had to go to God and ask
for forgiveness. I’ve had to seek reconciliation. They’ve to look– look at who I am now. They’ve
look at my marriage. You have to look at our daughters and son-in-laws. You have to look at my
relationship with our grandchildren. And then they have to decide. Am– am I now a mature
person who has in fact come to grips with life and who would be an effective leader in getting
this country back with jobs and with lower gasoline prices and with a real American energy plan
and with a balanced budget.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And do you think you’re that person.
NEWT GINGRICH: I think I can. I– with the help of the American people, no one person can do
this. But with the help of the American people as we discovered in Iowa, well, they have a huge
crowds, I do believe it’s possible for this country to get that job done. And I think I could help
lead the American people in getting that job done.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Newt Gingrich, thank you very much.
NEWT GINGRICH: Thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Hope you’ll come back.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy