Secretary Rice Interview With Fareed Zakaria, CNN
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
New York, New York
June 19, 2008
Interview With Fareed Zakaria of CNN
QUESTION: Today, I am very pleased to welcome the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as my guest. Welcome.
SECRETARY RICE: Nice to be with you, Fareed.
QUESTION: Kishore Mahbubani, a Singaporean diplomat, former diplomat, very severe critic of American foreign policy has written in Newsweek that if Barack Obama were elected president of the United States, 50 percent of the anti-Americanism around the world would disappear just like that. What do you think?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I won't get into the politics, as you know. But look, the United States is a big power. We have always had to do things that were sometimes unpopular. Sometimes, as the most powerful country in the world, you feel a little bit unloved, but the most important thing is that you're doing the right thing. And I'm quite certain that whoever is president of the United States is going to pursue American interests. And sometimes, that will be popular and sometimes, it won't.
QUESTION: But surely, I mean, you have yourself described Obama's nomination as an extraordinary development for the country. You can see it resonating around the world. Don't you think that, were he elected president, it would give people a sense of, only in America can something like this happen?
SECRETARY RICE: Oh, I do think that people look at the United States and they see a country where we've had a tough time in terms of our own journey to democracy, and yet, we represent a multiethnic democracy that works. We are a place where difference is respected and, indeed, embraced. And I do think that as a symbol of what America has come to mean, this is important. I know when I'm in places like Colombia or Brazil, where Afro-Brazilians or Afro-Colombians are still marginalized, people say, well, this is extraordinary that the United States has CEOs and secretaries of state and follow on and on, that are people of color.
But ultimately, you don't represent the United States as a person of color, as a black person or a Hispanic. You represent as the Secretary of State or whatever role you're playing, and ultimately, that will have to represent U.S. interests. And that may not be popular.
QUESTION: All right. Let's talk about U.S. interests. The United States is currently negotiating a status of forces agreement with Iraq. The Iraqi Prime Minister said they were at a dead end. Then President Bush said, "No, if I were a betting man, I'd say this is going to work out." The Foreign Minister of Iraq then says, "I think it's going to work," he told The Wall Street Journal, "because of concessions the Americans are now willing to make."
So what are the concessions that the United States is willing to make to get this status of forces agreement? Because it would be awfully embarrassing if we couldn't get a SOFA with Iraq.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, Fareed, this is a negotiation. And so there will be ups and downs and people will say things. But I do think we're making progress. And the United States is absolutely willing to take into consideration Iraqi concerns. We're dealing with a very different situation here. This is a sovereign country, a newly sovereign country and a newly democratic country. And you have a lot of voices, some of them involved in the negotiation, some of them not, that are making assertions and claims about what's going on in the negotiations.
I don't want to get into the details of the negotiations, but we're going to respect Iraqi sovereignty. We need to find a legal basis for our troops to continue to operate, because the UN Security Council resolution expires at the end of the year. And I think most Iraqis understand that they continue to need coalition help in fighting off their quite determined enemies.
QUESTION: But if you were to be a betting person, how soon will the SOFA actually happen?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I can't give you a deadline, but they're working very hard at it and I think they're making some progress. We also have a Strategic Framework Agreement which describes the broader relationship, the economic relationship, the political relationship. And that is also going along well. And so I believe we'll get there. The most important thing is that we and the Iraqis are doing this in the spirit of good faith. I think the Iraqis understand that we have certain requirements, but we do want to be respectful of and responsive to their sovereignty concerns.
QUESTION: Another area with Iraq where there hasn't been as much progress; I've been hearing from Administration officials for over a year now that lots of Arab embassies were about to open in Baghdad. And it does seem there may be a trickle now. But fundamentally, you still have this problem that the entire Arab world does not seem on board. You have had - it's five years into the occupation and so far, I think Bahrain is the only country that has an embassy, maybe the UAE and Kuwait are coming in. But there still is no indication that the rest of the Arab world is jumping in there and just establishing an embassy in Iraq.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we're a couple of years into the existence of a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi Government. And the attitudes toward that government are clearly changing in the Arab world. I do think there was a period of time when things looked very dire in Iraq, when the violence was very high, when the Iraqi Government was unable to move along the lines of its reconciliation program, when it wasn't passing laws.
I do think there was a time when its Arab neighbors were perhaps still wondering whether or not this Iraq, this unified, democratic Iraq was actually going to survive and exist. I remember, Fareed, sitting with the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, and he was asked, you know: Is Iraq going to deteriorate into civil war? And he said, "Iraq will not commit suicide." Well, that showed how people were thinking at the time. Well, now, the violence is down. The Iraqi Government is passing laws. It has a significant set of laws concerning reconciliation. And the attitudes are changing. They're recognizing that Iraq is there to stay, that this is an Arab state that is a founding member of the Arab League.
And it's showing up in a couple of ways. You've just had very high-ranking officials from the UAE visit Iraq. I think you will see others going back and forth. The UAE is putting an ambassador there and a couple of other states, Jordan, Bahrain are close to doing so. And the Gulf Cooperation Council has invited Iraq to be with Egypt and Jordan, a permanent member, and so I think you're going to see - of the GCC+ -- now +3 - so I think you will see this trend accelerate. Iraq is functioning. Its parliament is functioning. Its government is functioning.
QUESTION: You still don't see the Sunnis back in the government, though, and that is one of the complaints you hear in the Arab world, that it is still essentially a Shiite majority government that does not have any Sunni participation. You don't have Sunni groups being - taken into the armed forces in the way that many of them have requested. So there still appears to be at least the appearance of Shiite majoritarianism, not democracy.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, it is a Shia majority. But this is a unity government that is beginning to show that. First of all, I want to - probably one of the important things that has happened is that when the security forces of Iraq went to Basra and took on Shia militias, that was the sign that many of the Arab states said that they were looking for. And now, that has happened. And the operation in Basra was extremely important from that point of view.
You also have had reconciliation legislation passed: the Justice and Accountability Act, -- de-Baathification, and the amnesty law. Now there are ongoing discussions with Tawafiq. And they --
QUESTION: That's the Sunni group?
SECRETARY RICE: The Sunni group, right. And they've been close a couple of times. There is a lot in terms of personalities and politics involved there. But another way that you're going to see Sunnis involved in ways that they were not before is as a result of what happened in places like Anbar, where the awakening, the tribal Sunnis came together and expelled, in effect, al-Qaida. I think you're going to see them as a pretty powerful force in the upcoming provincial elections and will --
QUESTION: Which will take place, in your view?
SECRETARY RICE: Everyone believes that those elections will take place, hopefully by the end of the year. The UN is working very hard on them. The Iraqis are working very hard. But those provincial elections will renovate the councils - provincial councils that, frankly, were not very representative because the Sunnis either boycotted the elections or were prevented from participating because of the level of extremism and violence that was holding their places -- their provinces hostage. So you will see stronger Sunni voices. And I think not just the ones that are in Baghdad, but ones from the provinces as well.
QUESTION: Let me take you to Afghanistan. There - almost all reports, whether they are internal government reports or media reports say, over the last year there has been a disturbing rise in the Taliban in Afghanistan and perhaps in parts of Pakistan. Ahmed Rashid, who's a writer whom I'm sure you've read, if not have met, says that it is the most dramatic rise in the strength of the Taliban in recent years. There are military officers, senior military officers who openly say we need - the United States needs two or more combat brigades in Afghanistan. Will they go there?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the military is always reporting to Secretary Gates and to the President on what they need. And I know that there are strong efforts to do what the commanders on the ground need. But the Taliban has come back more organized in the last couple of years, but they've also suffered some really major defeats. And in many places, they've turned to sort of classic terrorism tactics: suicide bombings, kidnappings, trying to terrorize the population. When I was recently in Kandahar with Foreign Secretary Miliband of Great Britain, we talked a lot about the need to start to really provide population security. If we learned something important in Iraq, it's that you can talk about hearts and minds, but first you have to help people protect their bodies.
QUESTION: Which means you need troops. Isn't that the lesson of Iraq?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, what you're seeing -- first of all, the United States, of course, is moving forces from the east and the French were moving into the east. And that - the United States was moving to the south and the French are moving into the east. I think you will see more contributions. But it's also not just a matter of military force, it's a matter of trying to get better trained Iraqi police forces. Because very often –
SECRETARY RICE: I'm sorry, Afghan police forces. It was also the case in Iraq, but it's Afghan police forces. Because you need, often, to hold territory once it's been cleared by security armed forces and you don't really want armies to have to hold places. One of the efforts that is really now being undertaken by the Europeans is to accelerate the training of Afghan police forces.
QUESTION: We'll be back in a second.
QUESTION: We're back. The newly elected government in Pakistan says that they believe that part of the strategy that they should be pursuing with regard to the rise of the Taliban is a much more political strategy. They criticized Musharraf for having approached it too much with military arms. They've tried to sign a deal with a very prominent Taliban leader. Do you think that's the right approach?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the key here is to find something that works for Pakistan and works for the whole international community that is concerned about the extremism, particularly in the frontier areas. We have to remember that Musharraf did try an agreement with the groups in the frontier areas and it didn't hold, because the agreement was that they would indeed not allow the extremists to operate and to operate cross-border and to attack and they did precisely that.
And so we respect this new government. We have been great advocates of the return to civilian government in Pakistan and a democratic government. We're going to work with them as a civilian government and keep the lines of authority straight when we work with them. We just say to them terrorism is not just a problem for the United States and for the Afghans. It's clearly a problem with Pakistan. After all, everybody believes that it was Baitullah Mahsud whose group murdered Benazir Bhutto. So this is clearly a problem for Pakistan. And you have to -- perhaps, some political elements will work. But not all of these extremists are reconcilable and the ones who are irreconcilable are going to have to be dealt with or they will be a danger to Pakistan itself.
QUESTION: But General Petraeus, who is the new head of CENTCOM, if confirmed, approached Iraq precisely by saying, let me take a look at the Sunni insurgence and let me cut deals with all of those who seem reconcilable and then narrow that small - much smaller group of irreconcilables and use the military really only on them. Would that seems to be the approach that the Government of Pakistan is suggesting.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, as I said, the - we are supportive of a government in trying to make clear to their people that this is Pakistan's fight. I think that's very important. They said this is Pakistan's fight. And maybe there are reconcilables, but the history, given what President Musharraf tried, is that what happens when you allow a kind of cooling period is that the terrorists take advance of that and come back and attack. We are also, though, very much in agreement that there needs to be more than a military strategy. It's why we have advocated for zones that would be free-trade zones on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the U.S. helped with that. That's why we have advocated to have more aid of the economic kind, of health and education, go into this area. And there is some reason for hope, because after all, these frontier areas in the elections did not vote for extremist parties.
QUESTION: But of course, on the Afghan-Pakistan issue, the Afghan President Karzai now says he wants to send his troops into Pakistan in hot pursuit - in effect, invade Pakistan. Do you think that's a good idea?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think it's better that Pakistan and Afghanistan cooperate on their respective sides of the border.
QUESTION: But you're in the middle of all this. What -- do you think that Karzai has a point?
SECRETARY RICE: There is plenty of cooperation that can take place between Pakistan and Afghanistan in terms of intelligence sharing, in terms of political activity like the Jirga, that - the Loya Jirga that the two of them, Musharraf and Karzai, constituted a little while ago. But I think it's probably not wise to talk about Afghan cross-border operations. After all --
QUESTION: But many --
SECRETARY RICE: -- (inaudible) are pretty busy.
QUESTION: But many Afghan officials and many independent analysts say that President Karzai in Afghanstan has a point when he says that the Taliban has been strengthened from across the border in Pakistan. That a lot of the support it's getting comes from across the border and that that's why the Afghan operations are not able to get at them.
SECRETARY RICE: They have to be defeated on both sides of the border. There are Taliban operating in Afghanistan who have to be defeated, and there are Taliban who are operating in Pakistan and they have to be defeated, too. But I think it's probably better that the respective governments deal with their own problems. Now, the United States is prepared to help in any way that we can. But the cooperation between the two will make it more difficult for there to be the kind of cross-border terrorism that is being experienced. But I think it's probably better that they work it from their respective sides of the border.
QUESTION: You have been very supportive of the new civilian government in Pakistan with one exception: the United States has studiously avoided calling for a restoration of the deposed judges, something that is an absolute article of faith in Pakistan among many, many civil rights groups, human rights groups. Why is that? Isn't an independent judiciary at the heart of democracy and wasn't the rather bizarre way in which the judiciary was overthrown, entirely extraconstitutional? So when you're calling for a democracy in Pakistan, shouldn't you go that last step and call for the restoration of the judicial system?
SECRETARY RICE: Look, an independent judiciary is critical to democracy. There are some issues, because this one is highly politically charged in Pakistan, and I think that we have always believed that after the elections, this will be worked out in course between Pakistanis. And it's best that it be worked out between Pakistanis (inaudible).
QUESTION: But you know that Pakistan - lots of Pakistanis believe that your studious silence on the issue is, effectively, a vote of support for Musharraf to continue to play an important role, because were the judiciary to come back, they would, in effect, nullify his extraconstitutional moving to power.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don't know how this would turn out if the judiciary were to come back into being, because one doesn't know under what circumstances or how they would do it. We have worked with President Musharraf. President Musharraf did a great thing for its country - his country, he took off the uniform, he brought them back to civilian rule. He really did set them on a course that was not an extremist course, starting (inaudible).
QUESTION: But he put the chief justice under house arrest and he suspended half the judiciary.
SECRETARY RICE: I have said - and I said to him that he made a number of mistakes. And I thought that the state of emergency was a mistake.
QUESTION: Do you think he should resign now - give Pakistan a new (inaudible)?
SECRETARY RICE: This is clearly a Pakistani matter. He's the President of Pakistan and we'll treat him as the President of Pakistan. But Pakistan is in a period now of bringing its new democratic institutions into being. They will work through these matters. But President Musharraf has been a good ally. He did a lot for Pakistan in bringing it into civilian rule. And he's somebody that we will continue to treat with respect.
QUESTION: Let me ask you about Gaza. The Israeli Government is still not providing exit visas to the three Palestinians who have been given Fulbright scholarships to the United States. Is the State Department pressing to have this matter resolved? Will it be resolved?
SECRETARY RICE: We are pressing to have the matter resolved and I hope that it will be resolved soon. We also (inaudible) visa procedures and we would like to have these young people be able to take up their fellowships. And so we're working. We're glad that the four out, but we do believe that they all ought to be able to take up their fellowships.
QUESTION: There is some criticism of the basic approach that you have taken to Gaza, which is to isolate it, to put it under sanctions and, in effect, to cut it off from the rest of the world. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, reporting from Gaza, says that this has radicalized the population. They blame Israel. They blame the United States. And I can certainly say from my travels, that the hypocrisy of saying we want democracy, and then the minute they vote for Hamas, saying we're going to try to strangle it, is loudly proclaimed. You may believe its sincerity or not. What do you say to people who point out that this doesn't seem to be working? It seems as though the people in Gaza are becoming more radical. Hamas is gaining a certain amount of support. Why should we continue on this course if it doesn't seem to be delegitimizing Hamas?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, given the violence and the intimidation that Hamas uses in Gaza, I'm not certain that Hamas is actually becoming more popular. I believe --
QUESTION: Well, they held elections and they won.
SECRETARY RICE: No, no, no. I mean now, since the - since Gaza has been under Hamas control since the coup, as Abu Mazen has called it. I do know that things are improving in the West Bank. I know that the economy is improving. I know that places like Jenin are now largely the security responsibility of the Palestinians. I know that they had a very successful investment conference at Bethlehem. I know that bookings are up in Bethlehem, that the tourist hotels are at almost record numbers in places like Bethlehem. So I do see things getting better in the West Bank. I don't see things getting better in Gaza. And I think that -
QUESTION: But that's my point, that you're isolating Gaza --
SECRETARY RICE: No.
QUESTION: -- and it's doing worse.
SECRETARY RICE: No, but --
QUESTION: Why is that?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, because Gaza is doing worse because Hamas is isolating Gaza and Hamas is a stranglehold on Gaza.
QUESTION: But isn't that collective punishment on the people of Gaza and not on Hamas?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the problem is that Hamas is continuing to use violence against Israeli cities. It's continuing to hold its own people hostage, took down - by the way, this isn't a matter with the United States - it took down the legitimate institutions of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza that were, in fact, elected by the Palestinian people. Now, as to the democracy point, we said, right away, that the elections were free and fair and that they had to be recognized. But there comes certain responsibilities with governing. And one of them is that you really shouldn't to be a terrorist organization and a political party at the same time. Another is that you really should say and push off agreements that Palestinians, going back to Yasser Arafat, had signed on behalf of the Palestinian people. And all that the international community demanded was that Hamas live up to those international agreements.
And so Hamas is the one that made the bad choice. This was not a bad choice that the United States or Europe or anybody else made; Hamas made the bad choice. Now, we hope that the effort for calm will be successful. Because ultimately, what has to happen, is that we need to get an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and then Abu Mazen will be able to say to the Palestinian people, do you want to live like we do in the West Bank or do you want to live like they do in Gaza? And frankly, I think the Palestinian people are not going to want to live the way that they do in Gaza.
QUESTION: And we'll be right back.
QUESTION: And we're back. Madame Secretary, you made a new set of offers and inducements, and negative inducements to Iran. They have not been rejected out of hand yet. Do you read anything into this?
QUESTION: Well, perhaps one reason that they've not been rejected out of hand this time is that we actually made certain that they were published. And we wanted the Iranian people to know what's really being offered to them. The regime has said that we're trying to deprive Iran of the technology that they have a right to that is civilian nuclear technology. That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, we have supported the Russian reactor there, Bushehr, which would give them that civil nuclear capability. We've just said, you can't have enrichment and reprocessing of a fuel cycle, which can lead to the development of a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: A number of Iranians have said to me that one possible solution might be - these are Iranians not authorized to speak for the government, but very close to it - is a consortium in Iran that has very, very intrusive international monitoring, perhaps is even staffed entirely by international scientists and such. Is that a possible, potential solution?
SECRETARY RICE: How about an international consortium outside of Iran, and then fuel supply that is assured for an Iranian reactor? How about a plan to help Iran with its actual energy needs? It has said what kind of electricity and energy it needs to generate. How about trade –
QUESTION: But that's the standoff, so - but my question is, is there a potential solution where there is some kind of a consortium on Iranian soil, or is that a complete no-no?
SECRETARY RICE: I think the problem there is that one could never trust that Iran would stick to the deal. And the reason that nobody-- and that includes Russia, China-- wants Iran to have enrichment and reprocessing of any kind on its territory is because nobody trusts them not to cheat. They were enriching and reprocessing, they were violating their agreements for 18 years without anybody knowing it. It is not a transparent society, and so I think it would be difficult to think of an inspection regime that would give you full confidence. It is better to think of ways for Iran to gain what it says it wants, which is reliable, civilian nuclear energy. And almost anything would be on the table if that were truly the Iranian goal that does not involve the fuel cycle.
QUESTION: Last week you went to the Heritage Foundation and talked up the North Korean nuclear negotiations, I think, defending yourself from some conservatives who say that this is a sellout. Why not adopt the North Korean model, which is have - engage North - engage Iran, have talks with them, get other countries involved so that it's a multiparty talk. In other words, the North Korean model - I say this as an admirer of it - could easily be applied to Iran. But with Iran you say, all that's fine, we're simply not going to talk to them.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we would talk to them. In fact, we do have six parties that are ready to talk to them at any time, if they'll just suspend their enrichment and reprocessing. It really is difficult to imagine the circumstances. You're sitting there, you're having talks. The talks are going on and on. They're enriching and reprocessing. They're getting better and better.
QUESTION: Why not have limited talks over a three-month cycle? Say, after that, you know, we stop the talks if there's no progress, cause we don't want you to run out the clock?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the Europeans did that more than two years ago. That's exactly what happened. They were enriching and reprocessing. The Europeans said, stop --
QUESTION: But never with us. They keep saying that they want to have talks with us.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, and we're ready. I've said I will meet my counterpart any place, anytime, anywhere, to talk about anything, not just about nuclear issues, about anything.
Now, I've said very often I don't know why they don't want to talk to us. It would not, it seems to me, be that difficult to suspend for some period of time. Let's do it the other way around. Rather than saying we'll negotiate for a while and then see if you suspend, let's say, you'll suspend for a while, and let's negotiate. Because can you imagine the crises if, in fact, we are negotiating, and they don't suspend, and then you have to break off the talks. I can imagine that that would actually be a more difficult circumstance than the one in which we find ourselves now.
QUESTION: You said China has been helpful in North Korea. Why has China blocked the ability for the United States to deliver aid in Myanmar? We had American ships on the - you know, off the coast of Burma. Simply couldn't get aid across.
SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. Well, they haven't - China hasn't blocked the efforts, but we had hoped that they would be more assertive with the junta in Burma and assisting –
QUESTION: Well, they blocked the ability to get it on the Security Council –
SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. It was - it got to the Security Council only as a discussion item. We were never able to get a strong resolution to deal with it. The Chinese -- and, frankly, they're not alone. Some of Burma's other neighbors have not been willing to put the kind of pressure on the Burmese regime that is needed. I will say that I think the rather limited progress that we made was because China and a couple of others did intercede with the junta to allow some aid in.
But the truth of the matter is that the international community has not responded as it should have. This is, sometimes, one of the frustrations with the Security Council. I remember when the General Assembly took up the issue of the responsibility to protect some time ago, a couple of years ago, and the United States was skeptical, because we said if you take on something like the responsibility to protect, and then you don't do it, what does that say about the credibility of the Security Council in the international community. It's precisely what's come true in Burma.
QUESTION: When you wrote a Foreign Affairs article recently and you talked about the fact that our real allies are the ones with which we share values. Is Saudi Arabia an ally of the United States?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, Saudi Arabia is certainly an ally. It's a strategic partner, but clearly we don't share common values. We have advocated for reform in Saudi Arabia. I think you see some small kernels, sometimes, of reform. But when I talk about countries with which we share values, I talk about countries that do care about the ability of their populations to both access their government and to be able to hold their government accountable.
QUESTION: Many people in Saudi Arabia tell me that they feel their government would be more helpful on issues like oil if we weren't constantly badgering them and telling them that they are not true allies of the United States.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I didn't say that we don't have allies who don't share our values, but our strongest allies, the ones which with we have common values, we can do things that are unimaginable with others. Look at the things that we're doing--
QUESTION: Do you expect the Saudis to help us on oil by increasing production?
SECRETARY RICE: The Saudis - I also - the idea that somehow, because we speak out about democracy, causes Saudi Arabia to do certain things on oil - Saudi Arabia has certain interests. And I - when we talk to the Saudis about the price of oil, we talk instead about the need for producers to be aware of the effects of high prices on international economic growth. And ultimately, if there is not international economic growth, if the system is not working in that way, then it's going to be harder to sell that oil.
QUESTION: All right. Final question, Madame Secretary. There used to be a great tradition of secretaries of state becoming president. I mean, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Buchanan, John Quincy Adams. I think it's been about 160 years.
SECRETARY RICE: It's been a while. (Laughter.) It's been a while.
QUESTION: So do you want to break that? If John McCain were to ask you to be his vice presidential candidate - look, he needs somebody younger, he needs somebody who can help him with women. You're perfect.
SECRETARY RICE: John McCain is a terrific patriot and he's a good friend and he would be a superb President, but I'll be back in California. I'll be back at Stanford. I have a lot of issues that I'm concerned about. One of the ones is the one I've seen you write about, Fareed. I think the United States has got to keep its own confidence. We've got to worry about whether or not we are confident enough in our ability to compete in our education system, in really being ready for the challenges of the 21st century at home, in order to keep our leadership abroad. And so I'll go back to California and work on those issues --
QUESTION: Is that Shermanesque? If you were offered it, what would you say?
SECRETARY RICE: No, no, no. Eight years is long enough. I don't need another job in government.
QUESTION: On that note, thank you very much, Madame Secretary.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much, Fareed. It was great being with you, and congratulations on your show.
QUESTION: Thank you.
Released on June 22, 2008