Do you not always have that option anyway? Is the option of sanctions and greater action not always on the table?

I think the inspectors said--I do not want to go back and redebate it, but they said they were partially in compliance and partially out.

I want it to work. We all want it to work.

I do not think they believe it is going on.

But are they being served if we do not have direct access to him?

We will commence our hearing tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

No threat has been greater to us, according to, I think, everybody, than the potential of a 'dirty bomb'.

You've allowed summit after summit with Russian President Putin to go by without any action.

Global diplomacy, as you know well, is defined by the issues that a President of the United States chooses to publicly put on the table.

I answered, nuclear proliferation, globally, and the President agreed.

But they are very different in a lot of ways, and that is what concerns a lot of people who are struggling with this now.

there is a deep-rooted skepticism in the region among people who are potential players and existing players.

Your answer disturbed me.

The only question is why it's not happening at a pace that maximizes the capacity for success and minimizes the potential of disaster.

I have reservations. And they are not personal in any way whatsoever.

I believe that could be done in three or four years.

With the same amount of money. It didn't add a cent.

I mean, we secured more nuclear fissionable material in the two years prior to 9/11 than we did in the two years after 9/11.