can and will do to ensure that material -- make every effort to lock down the type of vulnerable material that the president sees as a danger. >> will this express support for goals which go beyond the goals of the treaty he's about to sign for further reduction in nuclear capability? >> well, we are returning to the -- the president laid out a vision shared by the four men that are coming for the documentary tonight to see a world without nuclear weapons. . ,,,,,, ,,,,

the president believes that it should be about a partisan issue. the president came to this issue through a friendship with senator lugar of indiana. i think the president hopes that democrats and republicans can work together to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and ratified this treaty this year -- and ratify this treaty this year. >> are you considering canceling the meeting with karzai? >> we certainly would evaluate

whenever continued or for the remarks president karzai makes as to whether that is constructive to have such a meeting. >> three strikes, you're out? >> [unintelligible] >> what are those consequences for those remarks? he has doubled down. >> i cannot speak to why he said those things. >> what about the consequences. >> they are troubling. they're confusing. they have been investigated and they have been found to be untruthful. whether there is some domestic political benefits that he is trying to gain, i cannot say. we are in afghanistan and their young men and women are it in

afghanistan -- and our young men and women are in afghanistan because of the threat posed since september 11 when plants posed in that area came to fruition in new york city. we understand -- we think that president karzai needs to understand that the safety and security of his country is not going to be gained simply by rooting out or removing extremist threats in certain areas that is not ultimately filled with good governance. the president has been clear with president karzai, going back to last fall. there have been numerous meetings and video conferences since then. >> is karzai our allies? >> karzai is the democratically

elected leader of afghanistan. >> that is not what i asked. is he our allies? >> -- is he our ally? >> i would say that the remarks he has made -- i can believe that anyone in this country found them anything other than troubling. our position on this, jake, is that, when the afghan leaders take steps to root out corruption, then the president will say kind words. when leaders need to hear stern language from this administration about the consequences of not acting, we will do that as well. >> peter godfrey said this morning that karzai was mentally

unstable and suggested that he was on drugs. is he a credible partner to the u.s.? >> again, he is the democratically elected leader of afghanistan. as i just said to jake, we will not hesitate to ensure that the remarkable investment that our men and women are making is met with the type of governance that has to be in place in order to secure parts of a dangerous country. we will continue to speak out again if need be. we want to see president karzai fulfill the commitments that he enunciated in his inaugural address and in a the donor's conference in london. those commitments were made not just to his people, but to the

international community that have invested in ensuring the security of his country. >> [unintelligible] does the president favored stronger penalties for coal companies? >> obviously, if their safety violations, -- if there are safety violations, the president believes that those violations have to be met with the full force of vol. >> i know -- force of the law. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not think that is something that they will spend a lot of time on. >> robert, did the united states receive a clarification of karzai's remarks?

>> president karzai called secretary clinton on friday. >> did that clarify anything? >> i would lead to the statement that the state the parma put out on that. >> -- that the state department put out on that. >> [unintelligible] >> now you are asking me to speak for karzai thru p j. as i have said, the remarks are troubling and untruthful. again, i do not know why anyone continues to insinuate that there is some sort of foreign corruption when the very thing that he speaks of was looked into. i can begin to decide what reasoning he had for making

those comments. again, our focus is on ensuring that he is continuing to take the necessary steps in governance and corruption. >> in this week's bilaterals, are they here at the convention center? >> at the convention center. the last time i checked, they were all over at the convention center. >> is netanyahu coming? >> israel will be here. i do not know if he is coming. we will have recently met with president sarkozy and president nixon have -- president medvedev, and prime minister netanyahu appeared >>.

>> [unintelligible] >> any country can leave any treaty at any time during i am not -- at any time. i am not sure what he is threatening to do. when we announced a change in our missile defense capabilities to ensure that the threats or the potential threat from iran and protecting the security of europe and the united states, that remains our focus on missile defense. when we announced that, the russians held that. so our stance on missile defense has not changed despite the fact that they are now looking at it through a different lens. i believe he is also talking

about missile defense capability that is offensive in nature that does not exist. >> will that be in prague? >> if president medvedev, if they discussed missile defense, the president will simply reiterate what he and others have told anybody in the world that our posture on missile defense is to ensure the security of this country, our allies in europe from the growing threat and a possible threat from iran. >> does the schedule have any it obama-medvedev capability in it? >> there is some confusion on the press schedule that went out. the signing of the statements and the q&a are all blocked off.

our apologies if that confused you. >> [unintelligible] >> have each. [laughter] -- half each. [laughter] whoever is called on gets just four questions. i'm always curious to know of that, and every time u.s. for questions, you always said, "-- every time you ask four questions, you always say, "i cannot believe we only got one question. well -- one question." >> there is support for a civilian trial. there are discussions and negotiations of a compromise

with senator gramm. would it amount to the president buckling under political pressure? >> i do not know whether the letter -- i do not know what part of transit that is in. there is nothing new that i know of. we are a few weeks from a decision. we are looking at many possibilities, based on the fact that congress became heavily involved in the potential choosing of venues for such a trial. we understand the security and logistical concerns that a city like new york has.

given those concerns and given the congressional prerogatives, we are looking at all available alternatives. >> on the ratification in the senate, do you have any real indication of whether any of the republicans in the senate plan to block it or try to block it? do you have any early read since you announced it? >> i will check with nsc. when people get an opportunity to look at the text of the treaty, which will have been in short order, they will see, as i said earlier, that this is strongly in our national interest. i do not think this prodigious his decision -- i do not think

that this pre-judges his decision. they were encouraging and his desire to see swift ratification -- they were encouraging in his desire to see swifter vacation. this is -- swifter rectification. they will come together to ratify something that republican and democratic presidents have come together to do. >> do you have a readout of what they said the? >> i do not have a readout. but we get back to you.

-- i will get back to you. >> in north carolina, for his 17-minute answer to one question, does that mean that, in the future, white house press conferences he will be brief in his response to allow more than 13 questions, presuming that he has any more press conferences? >> was that one or four? >> that is one. >> lester, i think i am largely the one who coined the phrase that it used to take the president several minutes to clear his throat while giving answers. i hope he is not watching. [laughter]

there are complex issues in our times that this president and this congress have to deal with. not all that can be done neatly in eight-second sound bites. when talking about something of the size and the scope of health care reform, it takes a while to sketch out the landscape and that is what the president enjoys doing, either in an interview sitting for at a town hall meeting where people ask those questions directly to the president. i was one to give another 16 minutes on that answer. [laughter] >> is the president responsible for saying [unintelligible] >> i have not seen that statement. >> it is their.

>> he probably e-mail you directly. i am unaware that he is aware of the statement. >> you funny man. [laughter] >> i have to keep myself entertain. please stick your waitresses. i will be here all week. -- please tip your witnesses. i will be here all week. >> have you tried to change your strategfeeling toward iran to aa nuclear iran? >> i think the president said yesterday that he understands that it is the right of countries to peacefully pursue nuclear power. but iran has obligations as part

of the npt that it must live up to. over the past many years, it has taken many provocative steps indirect avoidance of those obligations. the president has allied with president sarkozy and prime minister brown and the g-20 an effort by the iranians to go around an iea, efforts that were presumed to create nuclear material for a nuclear weapon. again, that breaks their obligation and their commitment to the international community. what you have seen over the past more than a year our efforts in engagement that iran

has decided in each and every turn to step back from. that has brought the international community along to the point where our partners in the pea-5 plus one will take strong sanctions and to the security council as the president hopes to see those sanctions pass the security council by spring. >> is there a meeting between the president to armenia and the president of the united states? >> offers have been given to except -- to accept the help of the international community if it lives up to its international

obligations. the government of iran has, every single time, walked away from them durin. >> [unintelligible] are you making any kind of ceremony when the prime minister is here for this issue? >> i am not aware of any specific event around that issue. it is something that both president bush and president obama both supported. i am sure that it will come up in the bilateral meeting next week. >> many think tanks are saying

that, although the u.s. and russia are [unintelligible] china is building of nuclear weapons -- is building up nuclear weapons. >> obviously, proliferation and many other topics, they will get an opportunity to discuss next week. obviously, we had an expired star agreement with russia that needed to be renewed, needed to seek deeper cuts on each side's nuclear capabilities. the president believes that it is an enormously important step on the road to reducing the nuclear threat in our world. >> obviously, there are a number

of cases going through the courts right now challenging "do not ask/don't tell." it angered a lot of advocates. some legal scholars felt that it was a step backwards. is the president concerned that the doj is tone deaf to certain issues? >> obviously, the president has enunciated his support for ending "do not ask/don't tell." obviously, the justice department is charged with upholding bill long as it exists, not the way the president would like to see it

-- with upholding law long as it exists -- with upholding the law as it exists, not the way the president would like to see it. >> to get back to what secretary gates said a few years ago about posturing, the president believed that that did not need work are needed retooling. >> i think the president's new posturing view is predicated on the logic of incentivizing good behavior, of ensuring the

security of those who live up to their obligations, and provides no assurance to those who have a nuclear weapon or, in the case of iran and north korea, who are not living up to their obligations. obviously, we are entering into a different. . -- into a different period with relative stability and peace among larger countries in the world. this is a posture review designed to drill down a bit on places like north korea and iran and to demonstrate to countries around the world -- as i said earlier, if you live up to those obligations, you will enjoy the benefits of being an active responsible member of the international community. >> is it true that the

initiation was considering a blanket no use policy a few weeks ago? >> i was not in the 150 or so meetings. >> [unintelligible] >> i will say this. we obviously have bombers that are no longer on alert. we have a sea-based missiles that do remain on alert status. our forces are configured in such a way that a retaliatory strike does not need to be launched at the first detection of a foreign launch. the nuclear posture review proposes that we consider a series of options that extend

presidential decision-making time by extending control apparatus around those nuclear weapons and that we open discussions with russia to reduce the possibility of either an accidental launch or a false detection of a launch. >> use this is a version of a deal? >> the president believes that this gives -- extending that decision-making time gives the president the ability to ensure that that decision -- that whatever decision he makes is one based on the best available information for the longest. time. -- for the longest period of time. >> how closely is the white

house following the situation? could there be a window for insurgents? >> i think that many expected that insurgents would use this time to roll back the progress militarily and politically that we have seen in iraq. and general odierno believes that this does not threaten our ability to draw down our forces later in the year. obviously, we're very focused on the steps that need to be taken to ensure political investmenadt

in iraq. >> the npr mentioned several times the transparency with their nuclear arms. >> obviously, proliferation will be a big part of that. obviously, whenever we get together with china, discussions about energy will be on the table. discussions about the global economic recovery and discussions about what the president has talked about in terms of a market-based currency will be there. we will know more the end of -- at the conclusion. >> robert, on karzai's statements,