Return to Transcripts main page
FAREED ZAKARIA GPS
Interview with Bill Clinton. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 27, 2015 - 13:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:05] FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: This is GPS. The GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria.
Today, the 42nd president of the United States, Bill Clinton. I'll ask him about the race to be the 45th president of the United States in the 2016 elections. He's watching that carefully.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, 42ND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The other party doesn't want to run against her and if they do they'd like her as mangled up as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: Also the nuclear deal with Iran. Did Iran take the West to the cleaners or did the world get a good deal?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: The nuclear agreement with Iran is on balance the right thing to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: Then it's said that Bill Clinton was born to be a politician, but now he's found his second calling. Finding solutions for problems plaguing the world. From the Syrian crisis to strife in the Ukraine, from hunger and illness to global warming. I'll ask him what works and what doesn't.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I basically think there's more good news than bad news. It's just that the bad news captures the headlines. (END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: But first, here's my take. I'm not a Christian but growing up in India I was immersed in the religion. I attended Catholic and Anglican schools from ages 5 to 18 in which we would sing hymns, recite prayers, and study the scriptures. And the words and actions of Pope Francis have reminded me what I, as an outsider, have always admired deeply about Christianity. That its central message is simple and powerful. Be nice to the poor. When I came to the United States in the 1980s, I remember being
surprised to see what Christian values had come to mean in American culture and politics. Heated debates over abortion, abstinence, contraception and gays. In 13 years of reading, reciting and studying the bible, I didn't recall seeing much about these topics. That's because there's very little in there about them.
As Garry Wills points out in his perceptive new book, "The Future of the Catholic Church with Pope Francis," "Many of the most prominent and contested stance taken by Catholic authority, most of them dealing with sex, have nothing to do with the gospel."
The church's positions on these matters were arrived at through interpretations of, quote, "natural law," unquote, which is not based on anything in the bible. But Wills points out because those grounds looked weak, conservative clergy sought to bolster their views with biblical sanction.
So contraception was condemned by Pope Pius XI through a pretty torturous interpretation of a couple of lines in Genesis that state Onan spilled his seed on the ground. The ban of women in the Catholic clergy is a similar stretch. When the Anglicans decided to ordain female priest, Pope VI explained that women couldn't be priests because Jesus never ordained a female priest.
"True enough," writes Wills. "But neither did he ordain any men. There are no priests other than the Jewish ones in the four gospels. Peter and Paul and their fellows neither called themselves priests nor are called priests by others."
Wills even takes on abortion, opposition to which some Catholics have taken as fundamental to their faith. Quote, "This is odd," writes Wills. Since the matter is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament or New Testament or the early creeds."
In fact, Wills points out, the ban is based on a complex extrapolation from vague language in one biblical verse. Psalm 138:13.
If you want to understand the main message of Jesus Christ you don't have to search the scriptures. He says it again and again. Blessed be poor for yours is the kingdom of God. Jesus has specific advice on how to handle the poor. Treat them as you would Christ himself. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. When you hold a banquet, Jesus explains, do not invite the wealthy and powerful because you do so in the hope that they will return the favor and reward you. Instead invite the dispossessed and you will be rewarded by God.
[13:05:04] We live in a meritocratic age and we believe that people
who are successful are more admiral in some way than the rest of us. But in the kingdom of heaven the bible warns the last shall be first and the first last. In other words, be thankful for your success but don't think it makes you superior in any deep sense.
Commentators have taken Francis' speeches and sayings and variously attacked him or claimed him as a Marxist, a unionist and a radical environmentalist. I don't think the Pope is proposing an alternate system of global politics or economics. He is simply reminding each of us that we have a moral obligation to be kind and generous to the poor and disadvantaged especially if we've been fortunate.
If you have a problem with this message, you have a problem not with Pope Francis really, but with Jesus Christ.
For more go to CNN.com/fareed and read my "Washington Post" column this week. And let's get started.
Earlier this week I had the opportunity to interview President Bill Clinton at the offices of the foundation he started after leaving the presidency in 2001. The Clinton Foundation's big event of the year, the Clinton Global Initiative, kicks off this weekend in New York. We'll get to its work in a moment but before we do I wanted to talk about something we have to get President Clinton's views on. Politics, of course.
ZAKARIA: President Clinton, thank you so much for doing this.
CLINTON: Glad to do it.
ZAKARIA: There will be a new president in 2017, January. You're, some would say, the most skilled student of American politics. Why do you think Hillary Clinton is having a tougher time than many imagined? The lead in the national polls has narrowed. Iowa and New Hampshire seem tough.
CLINTON: Well, I think you know why. I think you know why. In 1992. I received a call before -- in '91 before I started running from president from the Bush White House. He said we've looked at the field. You're the only one who can win. The press has to have someone every election. We're going to give them you. You better not run. All of a sudden something nobody thought was an issue, Whitewater, that never turned out to be an issue winds up being a $70 million investigation and all the hammering happened and you ask voters, do you really believe this amount to anything? No. But do you trust him as much? No. There must be something.
So this is just something that has been a regular feature of all our presidential campaigns except from 2008 for unique reasons. Ever since Watergate something like this happens. And -- so I'd rather happen now than later. And it was always going to happen. The other party doesn't want to run against her. And if they do, they'd like her as mangled up as possible. And they know that if they leak things, say things that that is catnip to the people who get bored talking about what's your position on student loan relief or dealing with shortage of mental health care or what to do with the epidemic of prescription drugs and heroin out in America even in small towns in rural America, or how are you going to get jobs in the cold country given how much they've lost in the last 20 years.
So that just happens. It always happens. And we're seeing history repeat itself. And I actually am amazed that she's born up under it as well as she has. But I have never seen so much expended on so little. And you know, the difference is now, you know, when it happened before nobody knew anything about land in Arkansas so I didn't have many defenders. There have been a shocking number of really reputable press people who have explained how you can't receive or transmit classified information, how the government has no central authority for classification, that Defense, state and the intelligence agencies have their own.
And it's been a lot of really fine things. It's just that they don't seem to show up on television very much, and it is what it is. But I think she -- you know, she went out and did her interview, said she was sorry that using her personal e-mail called this confusion and she'd like to give the election back to the American people. And I trust the people.
[13:10:06] I think it will be all right, but it's obvious what happened. You know, at the beginning of the year she was the most admired person in public life and she earned it. Why? Because she was being covered by people who reported on what she was doing. The new STAR treaty, the Iran sanctions, tripling the number of people on AIDS getting medicine for no more tax money. America was -- when she left office our approval rating was more than 20 points higher than it had previously been.
What happened? The presidential campaign happened. And the nature of the coverage shifted from issue based to political. And it happened. You can't complain. This is not -- this is a contact sport. They're not giving the job away. And people who want to race wanted her to drop some. And the people in the other party desperately wanted it because she's already put out more positions on more issues and said how she would pay for them, I think, than all the others combined based on the two -- the Republican -- the two debates I saw.
ZAKARIA: You think it's a Republican plot, really?
CLINTON: No, I'm not going there because that's what -- it's not a plot. Makes it sound like it's a secret. No. I think that there are lots of people who wanted there to be a race for different reasons. And they thought the only way to make it a race was a full scale frontal assault on her. And so this e-mail thing became the biggest story in the world. So -- let's just suppose there were no presidential campaign and you didn't know any names.
And the State Department said for anybody who used personal device in the era of interoffice e-mail, would you please look and see if you have any e-mails that may not have been captured by the system. That is if you send one to somebody else that's already in there. One person replied. That person said yes, about 5 percent of mine weren't. Here they are. And I heard you had some record problems so here's all the rest of them, too.
And then the State Department says to that person said you gave us 1200 too many. Then that person said, I'd like to be the first secretary of state in history to actually have you make public interoffice e-mails. I want people to see what we do at the State Department. Have at it. And then they said, well, these are our documents. We've got to make sure nobody will be embarrassed. Then everybody else said, well, we want to look and see if we would have classified them.
All this is a fight that goes on every day in government. It's just that the American people never saw it before because no secretary of state ever said do that and did that. And then said, by the way, you know, I'll testify before this eighth Benghazi hearing. The other seven all led by Republicans concluded she did nothing wrong. This has never happened in the history of our republic before. An eighth committee.
She said, I want to do it in public. So they finally agreed to that. All the other people, too, said, can we please testify in public? We'd like the American people to know. They said no. They said, well then, would you please release our testimony? No. We'd rather leak out selective things to the press. So who's being secretive here? Obviously the only person who turned over e-mails, the only person that asked for them to be made public. The only person who held out for public testimony. The only person who has that aides be able to say.
I'm very proud of her. She's born up under this and she's the most honorable person I've ever known and the ablest public servant I've ever known. And I'm fine about it. I feel this was going to happen so it happened. I'm glad it happened this year.
ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, President Bill Clinton on the Donald Trump phenomenon. What did he make of it all and could the Donald really be the GOP nominee. When we come back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[13:18:52] DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Wow. Amazing. Amazing. Thank you. Wow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: Again, as a great student of American politics, what explains Donald Trump?
CLINTON: Well, first of all, he's a master brander. And when you have a lot of people running and people are trying to make distinctions being able to put a personal stamp on it so people identify with who you are accounts for something, certainly in the beginning. So I think that. Then he said to the working class supporters of the Republican Party that have largely shifted over for cultural reasons, I'll give you economic reason to vote for me. I'll build a wall around the southern border of America and I'll stop buying Chinese imports. So your incomes will go up. Now that all will have to be flushed out in the course of time. And
I'm sure the other future debates will do it. But he's got a lot of pizzazz and zip. He's branded himself in a clear way, and he's generated some excitement.
[13:20:18] And it remains to be seen what's going to happen. It's an unusual election. You know, there's -- there doesn't seem to be much interest yet on their side. I think there is on our side because both Hillary and Senator Sanders have laid out pretty detailed, positive policy positions. Talk about what they would cost and, you know, you can actually have a debate there where you can discuss the relative merits of their positions on health care or generating jobs or lifting incomes or whatever. But over there, it seems to be more about resentments and one liners. I don't know. It's interesting.
ZAKARIA: But could Trump be the nominee?
CLINTON: I think so.
CLINTON: I mean, how do I know? I don't understand -- I don't understand any of it very well. I've been out of politics a long time. I haven't run for office in 20 years. And also, I'm not mad at anybody. I mean, you know, I'm a grandfather. I love my foundation. I'm proud of Hillary. I'll do what I can to help her. But I'm not the best pundit anymore. I don't have a good feel for this. All I know is what I think is good for the country. And I think the country needs somebody who can give us broadly shared prosperity, help families and kids.
Try to reduce the impact of all this huge anonymous money in our political system, and in a world full of challenges keep big, bad things from happening and make as many good things happening as possible. That's how I would define the job of the next president. That's what I think. And so I think Hillary would be a great president. But I have -- I have no confidence in my political field anymore. I've just been out of it a long time. But I'm not -- I'm not mad at anybody. So I'm just happy to be here.
ZAKARIA: When we come back, I'll ask President Clinton what his thoughts are on the nuclear deal with Iran. Will it make the world safer or more dangerous?
[13:26:25] ZAKARIA: The Middle East. President Clinton arguably came closer than any other president has come to finding peace there. So what does he think of President Obama's managing of the U.S.-Israeli relationship? I asked him.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ZAKARIA: There are a lot of people who are very fierce supporters of Israel, both in Israel and in the United States, who think President Obama has not been sufficiently supportive of Israel and that there are unnecessary tensions that have been created between Israel and the United States. What is your view?
CLINTON: Well, he's certainly maintained their qualitative military superiority. And there's certainly been some very public squabbles not all of which are his fault. Mr. Netanyahu's trip to the Congress was rather unprecedented. On the other hand --
ZAKARIA: And unwise?
CLINTON: Well, you can ask him that. But here's what I think. I think that the most important thing is we'll have a new president, like, in January of 1917 -- I mean, 2017. And I believe the nuclear agreement with Iran is on balance the right thing to do because I don't believe that an Iranian nuclear capacity now would be just Iran. I think there'd be one to four other states that would get nuclear power in the Middle East.
Then I think you'd have a race on by all these various non-state actors to get fissile material and it could be a nightmare. I also think that 10 years is a very long time. There's a lot of people who say, well, 10 years from now they're just going to do what they're doing now.
In 1979, if somebody had told you that the Berlin wall would fall, the Warsaw Pact would collapse, the Soviet Union would come to an end in 10 years, nobody would have believed that. So a lot can happen in 10 years. Furthermore, even with the sanctions on the Iranians kept supporting their conventional military buildup and the terrorist capacity of Hezbollah. So I think on balance this is going to be a good thing but it's very important to be tough in enforcing it.
And the snapback provisions of the sanctions, it's really important that the United States work clearly, aggressively to keep all the countries on board with the snapback.
ZAKARIA: Ukraine. You've studied it very carefully. You also have dealt with Putin. Do you think Putin will finally blink in a sense? There's a lot of pressure on him, oil prices have collapsed. The European sanctions have so far held. Do you think he's looking for way out?
CLINTON: Yes and no. I was very disturbed when he gladly tore up the agreement I signed with his predecessor Boris Yeltsin promising to respect Ukraine territorial integrity. He said it was an agreement, not a treaty. He never ratified it by the Duma. But the good news is he says he will always honor the new STAR treaty which was negotiated when Hillary was secretary of state in the president's first term which makes the world safer place at a time when very few things do.
So that's good. But my guess is, that he's keeping his options open.
[13:30:02] I know the president is meeting with him during U.N. week. I personally think that's a very good thing.
I don't think you ought to ever stop talking to try to work this out. And we'll just see. I don't know yet. But I think the U.S. ought to be four square on the side of Ukraine. And it's not just attaboy and it's not just military support, although I do feel we should give an appropriate level.
I think we have to get everybody involved in helping them to make the changes necessary to grow their economy more. It's a very resource- rich country. They can do a lot with agriculture. They can do a lot with other things and if we can get them the energy they need, they can be somewhat freed up from the monopolistic position that gave the Russians to put the squeeze on them.
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: Next on GPS, the Syrian civil war. Into its fourth year with no end in sight, what is the solution? I will ask President Bill Clinton when we come back.
[13:35:07] ZAKARIA: Refugees, what do you think is going to be the solution to these refugees coming out of Syria? Because they are numbering in the hundreds of thousands into Europe, into -- already they're in the millions in the neighboring countries. The Syrian civil war isn't going to end any time soon. What will happen?
CLINTON: Well, first, even in this, there's a silver lining. ISIL has a model of how they want the world to work and how they want the Middle East to work. They want to redraw all the boundaries set after World War I, that they say were colonially imposed, and reestablish the caliphate that was last centered in Istanbul. And the Ottomans fell and they want it back. People are voting with their feet. They're voting for normal life, for decency for their children. They don't like it when the Yazidis and the Samaritans are butchered.
And that means there's a fundamental decency there that the rest of us have to respond to. Now to be fair, it is the largest number of refugees since the end of World War II. It is coming at a time when growth is still halting across most of Europe, when in a lot of those countries they've had very tough debates on immigration because of the incidents in France, the "Charlie Hebdo," the other things that have happened. And so there's a lot of angst.
President Obama just said we would take 85,000 this year and I think 100,000 next year, which I think is a good start. I think the most important thing we can do is to try to bolster the countries in the region that have taken a lot of immigrants and that we know are stabilizing forces. And particularly, I'm concerned about Jordan and Lebanon. Lebanon has held together against all the odds since the mid-'70s because they had such a searing experience in their own civil war, they've developed inclusive requirements for governments. So far a lot of the Arab countries with money and without many
refugees have given money to Lebanon and Jordan. The U.S. has given over $4 billion, enough to feed and clothe and house people. But we need to make sure that all the kids are in school and that there are investments there that need to be made anyway that will create jobs, not just for the refugees, but for the Jordanians or the Lebanese. I mean, look at Jordan. Jordan is a majority Palestinian country now. They had 66,000 Egyptians before getting -- I think they have now well over a million Syrians.
ZAKARIA: And the Iraqis.
CLINTON: And the Iraqis. So my view is, and I tried to do this at CGI, I put together a Friends of Jordan working group like we did for Haiti. And I'm hoping we can get more interest there. But here's a stable country, a friend of the United States, an ally of Israel, committed to peaceful co-existence in the Middle East. We ought to help them get through this and we ought to do more than we're doing and so should their neighbors.
And I feel the same way about Lebanon. Lebanon has been so buffeted by the tensions where it is located, Israel, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, so I think the next step is for all of us to do more. That's what President Obama announced. The Europeans will figure out who can best afford it and who can best handle it. But we really ought to emphasize stabilizing the countries in the region that don't have their own oil revenues and aren't filthy rich so that we do more than just maintain people.
We need to create more employment there, more education there, more opportunity there. And if we give that level of assistance to the Jordanians and the Lebanese, they've proved they can make the most of it. They'll actually do something with any extra aid we give them.
ZAKARIA: Germany says they're going to take 800,000 refugees. Should the United States take a lot more than we're taking?
CLINTON: We should take more. What we have to do and what the Germans will do I think -- and they're used to this because they have a lot of -- you know, for decades and decades, they had all the Turks moving in and out, in and out. And they had to work through all of that in their EU membership issues. We need to satisfy the American people that we have good screening system because one of the things that's raising tensions in Europe -- they can say, OK, 99 percent of these people can be great.
[13:40:12] It doesn't take even 1 percent to wreak havoc. So we need to have a good screening system. But, you know, when I was a boy growing up, and well in high school, we moved to a house where my neighbors down the street were Syrian-American who married -- who fought for America in World War II and married an Italian war bride because he was in Italy. And they had four kids that were half Syrian, half Italian. I loved them all. And the Syrians have basically done very well in America and made major contributions.
So -- and a lot of the Iraqis have. So I think we can take more and I think the American people will want to take more, but they will want to know, A, we're not going to wreck the American economy in one place or another, and B, we've taken appropriate steps for safety.
ZAKARIA: On this program last year you said that you -- we needed to do more militarily in order to solve the political crisis at the heart of Syria. Do you think General Petraeus is now taking the same thing? Do you think the Obama administration should even now be much more forceful militarily?
CLINTON: Well, I don't think we need to put a lot more boots on the ground but I think we're going to have to back groups that will have enough influence that they can be part of a negotiated settlement. If you want to have a negotiated political settlement, which is what I think we want at least until we get -- you know, our first priority, I think, is to put the brakes on ISIS, even though I agree that we need a more inclusive different kind of government in Syria.
If we want to have that kind of influence, we got to have -- the people we want to support have got to have enough stick, enough swat to be taken seriously in negotiations. That's the same reason I think we should be aggressively supporting the government in Ukraine because if we want democracy and territorial integrity and ethnic reconciliation, the government has to be able to not only defend itself, but to produce more employment, more business opportunities, more education and training opportunities.
And I think that the two things go hand in hand. So it's hard for us to be advocating for a position X, Y or Z if there's not some group on the ground that is advancing that position who can be trusted to embody it in some reconciling process. I'm all fine with negotiating a -- particularly a temporary solution to Syria to try to staunch the flow of refugees, stop the internal bleeding and get ahold of the ISIS problem, but we have to have somebody who can do that for us on the ground.
ZAKARIA: Do we? I mean, we've been searching for these moderate Syrians.
CLINTON: Well, they come and go. You know, and we don't know because we never -- look, I always -- last year I said this. No one knows for sure if what others have recommended including Petraeus, Hillary and others, have been done in terms of arming people. Suppose they had collapsed and all their arms landed in the laps of the people that we most distrust there. This is not an easy thing. If it were easy, it would have been solved. But I think if we want leverage, we have to have somebody we're backing that has a chance to be at the table and be a part of the solution.
ZAKARIA: OK. Enough with the bad news. When we come back, President Clinton on the good news in the world and there happens to be quite a lot of it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [13:48:18] ZAKARIA: In the year 2000, just 15 years ago, world leaders gathered at the U.N. to set some serious goals for themselves. They said that by this year, they wanted to eradicate extreme poverty, reduce child mortally, and much more. Unlike most of what the U.N. sets out to do, the progress that has been made on these is actually quite remarkable. According to the U.N., the number of people living in extreme poverty has been half.
As has the under 5 mortality rate as has the proportion of hungry people in the developing world. All in the last 25 years. These are some of the issues that the Clinton Foundation works on. I asked President Clinton about them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: So you're marking your 10th anniversary for CGI, the U.N. 15 years ago set out some very ambitious development goals which you among other foundations have tried to help along. You're looking at your next 10 years. What have you learned? What are the best ways to try to alleviate poverty? Is there -- have you come up with some kind of a set of, you know, best practices?
CLINTON: Well, I've learned I think what works best, which is why we're doing this one on what we call the future of impact, which is saying we spent 10 years trying to get everybody to actually make commitments, report on their progress, and measure their impact. Now we want to talk about what works best.
CLINTON: What works best basically are networks of people that work together across their lines of contacts and knowledge in the NGO community and also when government business and the non-governmental sector work together.
[13:45:06] ZAKARIA: Give me an example. What is --
CLINTON: I'll give you -- in fact, I'll give you a couple of examples. In CGI, because we're about to have CGI, one of our best partners has been Procter & Gamble. They developed a little packet that would clean dirty water in a very simple, inexpensive way. It now costs a dime or less. They've now -- they knew that. In the process of doing this, they realized once they got enough partners they could commit to saving at least one life an hour every hour of every day as long as the company is in existence.
They have now given out 7.5 billion of these packets. Each one will clean enough water to take care of a family of three for three or four days. The Starky Hearing Foundation, always, for more than 10 percent of their profits on their commercial hearing aid business in the United States. But when I met them they were giving the gift of hearing to 50,000 people a year in poor countries. And we were in Haiti together, and I was so struck that they thought they were just going to replace the hearing aids then they got to kids at the deaf school and 225 of them all but two left with hearing. And Bill Austin looked at me and said, you know, this is true all over
the world. Most people they're given up for deaf, could hear if they had help. So I said, well, I looked at this model. You can do better than this. So they promised they would double to 100,000 a year by 2020. Last year they did 165,000. This year they're over 200,000. That's what's exciting.
In America, let me just give you one other example, I talked to the AFL-CIO four or five years ago. I said, you know, you've got all these pension funds that are solid, that are in good shape. You should invest -- they have to have diversified holdings -- you ought to invest in building retrofits and building energy-efficient buildings, and creating new jobs, training people to do them. So they put together under the leadership of Randy Weingarten at the AFT a $10 billion commitment.
They have deployed $5.6 billion of that money. They've created about 50,000 jobs. They've trained 900,000 people to do this work. They just got 15,000 more jobs because they have a piece of the LaGuardia Airport extension. They're just building affordable housing in super expensive San Francisco for teachers and they've added $4 billion. Another commitment is $14 billion-plus because it's good for the retirement funds and it's an empowerment issue. Nobody is a victim here. They've actually gone into the business of earning money by creating jobs and training people.
ZAKARIA: What are you most optimistic about going forward? What do you think will be -- you know, we hear so much bad news. What's the good news that will surprise us?
CLINTON: I believe that we will get better and better and better at alleviating extreme poverty. I believe that we will learn how to create more jobs and more businesses than we have. You know, there's a lot of skepticism in the world today about this. Carlos Slim gave a speech saying some day all the rich countries would have to have a three-day workweek because we're now moving closer and closer to artificial intelligence-driven world so that there's no way in the wide world to create enough business and jobs to take care of the people that now are in their working years.
But I think we'll work through that. And I basically think there's more good news than bad news, it's just that the bad news captures the headlines. And I think that there is a newfound appreciation for not leaving people out. You look at this -- one of the hopeful bipartisan things going on in America is the desire to reduce the prison population and the jail population for nonviolent offenders and to make sure they're actually trained to do something when they get out so they can succeed.
I think this whole develop people's potential movement is going to be even more powerful in the next 10 years than it has been in the last.
ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, I have a mystery guest who will recommend the book of the week. Can you guess who it is? [13:54:40]
ZAKARIA: Normally in this space I give you a personal recommendation for a book I've read that I think you will enjoy. Well, this week I'll let President Clinton do the honors.
ZAKARIA: What book have you read recently that you'd recommend?
CLINTON: Well, of course I liked Chelsea's book. And she honored me and she has since she was a little girl, let me read what she turns in at school or turns into the publisher in advance. I think it's remarkable. But I like David MacCulloch's book on the Wright brothers. It's a great book.
For Americans who want an insight into the kind of obsession we saw with Steve Jobs and his work and the belief in -- in innovation and what it can do and understanding what the risks are, I think that Wright brothers book is a good book. I think any American would love reading that.
ZAKARIA: President Clinton, thank you.
CLINTON: You're welcome. Thank you.
ZAKARIA: And thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I'll see you next week.