Its the crucial factor . It is. It is definitely. At the same time, turkey and saudi arabia has sent more troops since that russian intervention started. In spite of that, it was the crucial factor. So you owe president putin a lot . Everyone was beside us, russia, irania, and even the chinese. But each one in its own way. With the political, military, or economical. Its not one factor. You cannot only talk about the fire power or the human resources. Its multi facet issue, all those countries supported syria, beside all the other countries who supported to a lesser degree. Has president putin demanded anything of you . Whats the deal . When you want to intervene, he didnt ask for anything. Nothing . For simple reason, first of all, politics built on values. Thats very important. The second thing is common interest with us, because they are fighting the same terrorist that they could fight in russia. We are fighting the terrorist that could be fighting in europe, in the United States, anywhere else in the world. But the difference between president putin and the other western, he could see that clearly while the others couldnt see that. Thats why his intervention is based on values and on the same time, based on the interest of the russian people. Do you speak much to him . When theres something to speak about, of course we speak. How often this year have you spoken with him . I didnt count, but many times. How would you describe your relationship with him . Very frank, very honest, mutual respect. But he has demanded nothing of you, is that the case . Nothing at all. Because the suspicion is that russia may be working in concert with the United States and secretary of state kerry is meeting Vladimir Putin thursday in moscow. The suspicion is that they are coming to some sort of deal that might be bad news for you. Regarding the first part, if you wanted to ask me for something, he would ask me to fight the terrorists, because this is where his interest as president , and a country, i mean russia, lies. Second, regarding that allegation from time to time that russia and they discuss something about the syrian issue, its the impression they are deciding whats going to happen in syria. Many times, russia has said clearly that the syrian issue is for the Syrian People. And yesterday, minister lavrov said that clearly, we cannot sit with the americans to define what syria wants to do. This is syrian issue. Only the Syrian People can define the future of their country. The role of russia to offer the International Atmosphere to protect the syrian from intervention, the russians are honest, the american didnt in that regard. But this is not to take the difference about what we have to do as syrians. So just to be clear, neither Vladimir Putin or foreign minister lavrov has ever talked to you about a day when you would leave power . Never come up. Only the Syrian People define who is going to be the president , when to come and when to go. They never said a single word regarding this. And youre not worried about secretary kerry meeting with putin and coming to an understanding in which you may have to leave power . No. For one reason, the russian politics is not based on making deals. Its based on values. Thats why you dont see any achievement between them and the american. Because different principles. They make politics based on making deals, regardless of the values, which is not the case for the russians. But its not just russia thats bombing your enemies, its the United States. Do you welcome american air strikes against isis . No, because its not legal. First of all, its not legal. Its not legal for russia to do it, is it . No. They are invited legally and formally by the syrian government. Its the right of any country to invite any other country to help with any issue. So they are legal in syria. The americans are not. Since the russian intervention, the terrorism has been, lets say, regressing. While before that, the american illegal intervention, isis was expanding, the terrorism was expanding and taking over new areas in syria. Theyre not serious. So i cannot say i welcome the unseriousness and to be in syria illegally. Thousands of missions, hundreds of air strikes, the United States is not being serious in syria . The question is not how many strikes. What the achievement, that the question. The reality is telling. The reality is telling that since the beginning of the american air strikes, the terrorism has been expanding and prevailing. Not vice versa. Its only shrinked when the russians intervened. So this is reality. You have to we have to talk about facts. Its not only about the pro forma action that theyve been taking. So american air strikes are ineffective and counterproductive . Yes, it is counterproductive somehow when the terrorism is yes, it is counterproductive, thats correct. Whose fault is it . The military, or is it president obama not being, lets say, ruthless enough . No. First of all, its not about being ruthless. Its about being genuine. Its about intentions. Its about being serious. Its about having the will. The United States doesnt have the will to defeat the terrorists. It has the will to control them and to use them as a card like they did in afghanistan. That will reflected on the military aspect of the issue. If you want to compare, more than 120 or 30 russians air strike in few areas in syria. Compared to 10 or 12 american air strikes. In syria, it Means Nothing. But that military, ineffectiveness is a reflection of the political will. There was a political will, as you put it, to remove you from power. That was the will of washington. That seems to have changed. Have you any idea why the United States has changed its mind, apparently about your future . No, because the problem of the american official, they Say Something and they mask their intentions. They go in different way. They Say Something, they say the opposite. They something, they do something different. So you cannot tell what their real intentions. What im sure about, they dont have good intentions toward syria. Maybe they are making tactics, maneuvers, but they havent changed their intention, as i believe. President obama wanted you out. Hes leaving office soon. And youre staying. Did you win . No, its not between me and him. Its between me and whoever wants to invade this country, mainly the terrorists. This is where we can win as syrians, if we can get rid of the terrorists, restore stability to syria, this is where we win. Otherwise, we cannot talk about winning. Thats true, they did not succeed, but if they dont succeed in their plans, it doesnt mean we win the war. We have to be realistic about using the terms in that regard. But one of the president s key aims, which was to remove you from power has cleared failed. Do you believe its failed . Yes, it is failed, but it sdnts mean i win. Because to him, the war is to remove me. For me, not the same. For me, its to restore syria. Its two different wars. Im not fighting my war. Im not fighting the war to stay as president. For me, i dont care about what the other president s want. If i care about what the syrians want. If they want me to stay, im going to stay. If they want me to leave, im going to leave. So its a completely different thing. Do you feel the United States has fundamentally misunderstood your war with isis, with what you might call a common enemy . Again, its not common enemy. We are genuine fighting and alnusra and every affiliated to Al Qaeda Organization within syria. They are the same all of them are terrorists. They want to talk not about the terrorist groups, we wanted to defeat those terrorists, while the United States wanted to manage those groups in order to topple the government in syria. So you cannot talk about common interests, unless they really want to fight those terrorists, and they didnt do that. Like in 2006, they didnt fight to defeat them. But america is very genuine about fighting isis. Isis is a threat to the american homeland, how can you say americas not serious . Because isis has been set up in iraq in 2006, while the United States was in iraq. Not syria was in iraq. So it was growing under the supervision of the American Authority in iraq, and they didnt do anything to fight isis at that time. Its been expanding under the supervision of the american airplane and they could have seen the isis using the oil field and exporting oil to turkey. They didnt try to attack any convoy of isis. How could they really be against isis . Cannot see. How the russians have seen it from the first day and start attacking. The russian intervention unmasked the american intentions regarding isis and the other terrorist groups of course. Three years ago, president obama made a threat against you, he drew a red line and then withdrew from that and did not attack you. What do you feel about that . Is that the sign of a weak president . That part, the United States has been promoting for four years now only good president is ruthless or who should go to war. This is the definition. Otherwise, its going to be a weak president. Which is not true. Actually, for the american administration, since the second world war, they have share in the violent conflicts in every part of this world. And as the time goes by, those administration are becoming more and more pyro maniac. The difference now is only about me. Not about the goal. One of them sent his own troops. Like bush. The other one is using surrogate mercenaries, the third one, using proxy and so on. But the quality is the same. Nothing has changed. To go back to that moment three years ago, was that the sign of a weak United States and a weak president . If you want to talk about the war, attacking syria, theyve been attacking syria through proxy. They didnt take any pressure on saudi arabia in order to tell them, stop sending money and personnel and Logistic Support to that terrorist. They could have done so. They didnt. So actually, they are waging war, but in a different way. They didnt attack with me, but they send mercenaries. Thats what i mean. Did it surprise you that they didnt attack . No, no. It wasnt a surprise. But i think what they are doing now had the same effect. So between mercenaries and between missiles, this one could be more effective for them. So, no, i couldnt say that i was surprised. Youre a leader. By drawing a red line and not following through, has that damaged americas credibility, not just in the middle east, but in the world . It hasnt ever existed for us. At least in the early 70s, to be frank with you. Since we restore our relationship with the United States in 1974. We never saw any administration with real credibility. With any issue, they never had it. So i cannot say that it harmed. Many of their lies, they dont believe them. Not because of what you mentioned, because of their politics in general, their mainstream politics are at an alltime low. Thats how we see it. An all time low in terms of its credibility in the world . The politics in general, not regarding syria, yeah. Do you welcome the end of president obamas term of office . It Means Nothing for us. Because if you change administration, but you dont change politics, it Means Nothing. Its politics. In syria, we never bet on any president coming or any president going. We never get, because what they say in their campaign is different from they practice after they became elected. Youve talked about president s being the same, never changed their policy, but there will be a new president in the United States next year. Do you hope for a new relationship . Do you believe anying like that is possible . Yeah, of course we hope always. We hope next president would be much wiser than previous one, less pyro maniac, as i said, less militaristic, adventurist president , thats what we hope. But we never saw. And the difference is very marginal, so we keep hoping, but we dont bet on that hope. So there will be a new president. There are two main choices. One of them is donald trump. What do you know of mr. Trump . Nothing. Just what i heard in the media. That what i say, we dont have to waste our time hearing what they say during their campaign, theyre going to change after they become elected. And this is where you have to start evaluating the president , after the campaign, not during the campaign. And what are you hearing in the media about mr. Trump. The conflict between the american. We dont pay much attention to it. Even this race between the different, lets say, nominees, is changing the campaign. So what you hear today is not relevant tomorrow. So we cannot base our politics on daytoday politics. But youre following this election . Not really. Not really. Because as i said, you dont follow anything that you cannot consider as connected to the reality. Its only connected to the reality when they are in office. So far, its only rhetoric. We dont have to waste our time with rhetoric. Simply rhetoric, talking about mr. Trump, anything mr. Trump says, you wouldnt necessarily believe that would be the policy of a President Trump . Im not talking about trump or anyone. Im talking in general. Its not about the names. Its the principle for every president american president in every campaign. Hes made very few comments about syria or the middle east, but hes described you as a bad guy. Does that worry you . Thats his opinion. No, its personal opinion. He doesnt have to see me as a good guy. The question for me, do the syrians see me as a good guy . Not american president , i dont care about it. Its not part of my political one of the things hes said is that he would be much tougher on isis. You would welcome that, wouldnt you . Because you just said president obama isnt serious. You dont have to be tougher. This word doesnt have any meaning in reality, in real life. You have to fight isis in different ways. Isis not only fighters, you have to attack them with the strongest bomb on the side. Its not like this. The issue of terrorism is very complicated. Its related to the ideology. How can you be tough against the ideology of isis . Thats question. How can you tough regarding their economy, how they offer money and donations . How can you deal with that . I think mr. Trump is talking about military toughness. He wants to its not enough. You have to be smart. Its not enough to be tough. First of all, you have to have the will, you have to be genuine, then you have to be smart, and then you can be tough. Being tough and military active, this is important, but its the last option when you fulfill the first criteria. From what you know of mr. Trump, is he smart enough . I dont know him. When i sit with him face to face, i can judge him. But i only look at the person on the tv. On the tv, you can manipulate everything. You can make, how to say, you can rehearse, you can prepare yourself. Do you like what you see on tv of mr. Trump . I dont follow the election. We dont bet on it, we dont follow it. He seems to respect president putin, does that give you hope that maybe hes a man you can do business with . If hes genuine. If he every person on earth, whether they agree or not, they should respect him, respect his values, respect the interest of his own people, and hes honest and genuine. So how can you respect someone with those descriptions . If hes genuine, i think hes correct, thats what i can say. Mr. Trump has also made comments about muslims. And not allowing muslims into the United States. Did that anger you, upset you . Yeah, especially in syria. Its a country made of many, many religions and sects and ethnicities. We think this diversity is richness, not the opposite. Its the way the government and the way the influential forces in society that made it a problem or a conflict. If you can have all those People Living in one society, with real integration, with harmony, this is richness. This is for the interest of any society, including the United States. So mr. Trump should not have made those comments about muslims . Anyone shouldnt make any sdrim native rhetoric in any country. I dont believe in this kind of rhetoric, of course. Heres whats happening. Donald trump says he will announce his Vice President ial pick on friday at 11 00 a. M. Eastern in manhattan. He made the details public wednesday night on twitter. Thousands of mourners gathered to remember three of the five Police Officers killed last week in dallas. Funerals for two other officers will be held later this week. And Authorities Say the suspect who fatally shot two bailiffs at a courthouse on monday faced a life in prison term for kidnap and rape. Now its back to our program. Mr. Trump has no experience in foreign policy. Does that worry you . Who had this experience before . Obama . Or george bush . Or clinton before . None of them had any experience. This is the problem with the United States. You have to look for a statesman who has real experience in politics for years. Not because to have position in congress for few years or minister of foreign affairs, for example. That doesnt mean you have the experience. The experience in states could be much, much stronger. So we dont think that most of the president s of the United States were well versed in politics. So a man with no experience in foreign policy, in the white house, is not necessarily dangerous, in your view . If anyone who doesnt have experience in any position, a white house or in the president ial palace in syria, or another country, of course its dangerous for the country generally. Of course the United States as a great power, it could have more impact on the rest of the world, but its not only about the experience. When you have institutions, they can help. Its about intention. Is it going to be with good experience, but with militaristic intentions, and so on. So you have to talk about many factors. Its not enough to talk only about experience. Someone with more experience in affairs is Hillary Clinton. Shes known to you, in one sense. What would the consequences be if Hillary Clinton wins the election . Again, the same. Depends on her politics. What politics is she going to adopt . Is she going to prove that shes tough and take the United States to another war . Or to make escalations . This is going to be bad for everyone, including the United States. If its going to go in another direction, that would be good. But again, i will focus more about the intentions, before talking about the experience. The experience is very important, but the intention is the most crucial thing for any president. So, can you ask the question, can they tell genuinely, the American People and the rest of the world, what their real intentions about their politics . Are they going to make escalation, are we going to see more enitant around the world . One difference between them clearly is mrs. Clinton is determined still to get rid of you. Thats her stated position. Mr. Trump says, hes focusing on isis, leave you alone. Ill ask you the question. Does Hillary Clinton represent more of a threat to you than donald trump . No. Because in the beginning of this as well, the same motto i must go, many times from nearly every western official, whether leader or any level. We never cared about it. We never. So you cannot talk about this is a threat. This interfering in our internal issues. Were not going to respond to. As long as i have the support of the Syrian People, i dont care about whoever talk, including the president of the United States himself. Anyone. Its the same for us. Thats why i say clinton and trump and what obama say, for me, nothing. We dont put it on the mailing. We dont waste our times with those recordings, or even demands. But if Hillary Clinton as president establishes a nofly zone, over your territory, over northern syria, for example, that makes a huge difference. Of course. This is where we can talk about it. Thats why i said, the policy is the crucial thing for us. When they started supporting the terrorists with such projects or plan or step, this is where you can have more chaos in the world. Thats another question. Do the United States have interest in having more chaos around the world . Or the United States have more interest in having stability around the world . Thats another question. Of course of the United States can create chaos. Theyve been creating chaos for the last 50, 60 years around the world. Its not something new. Are they going to make it worse, more prevailing . Its not about me. Its not about the president. Its about the whole situation in the world, because you cannot separate the situation in syria from the situation from the middle east. When the world is not stable, the world cannot be stable. Let me probe you about how much you might want a relationship with the United States. Isis is headquartered in your country, in raqqah. If you knew that isis was about to attack the United States, would you warn america . In principle, yes. Because they may attack syria. And i cannot blame the innocents in the United States for the bad intentions of their official. This is not correct. As i said many times, i dont consider the United States enemy because they dont occupy my land. But at the same time, this is not realistic, because theres no relation between us and the United States. This kind of information or cooperation needs Security Cooperation based on political cooperation. We have neither. So you cannot have it anyway. Ive spoken to your foreign minister many times and hes described to me the danger of isis exploding not just across syria, but across the middle east, and that has clearly happened. Yeah. As isis is drink back or broken, is there a danger that their fighters scatter . Is there a danger that as you defeat isis, the United States becomes more vulnerable to terrorism . No. If we defeat isis, we are helping the rest of the world. Because those terrorists coming from more than a hundred countries around the world. Including the western countries. If they are defeated, they go back with more experience and more extremism and theyre going to attack in those countries. So if we defeat them here, we are helping every other country, including the United States. But isis fighters may leave raqqah, and as weve seen with terrorist attacks in europe, they come to france, they come to belgium, they could come to the United States as well and attack. That is a real risk, isnt it . Thats what im talking about. I said, if we defeat terrorism, they cannot go back, we are helping them. If they leave, if they escape, if we keep having this terrorism, this is where you can start exporting those terrorists to as what happened in france recently. So what you said is correct. Thats what i mean. If we defeat them here and they cannot go back, this is where we help. If they go back, they will be a danger to the rest of the world. Like any war, there are two sides. Your forces have been accused of doing terrible things. Ive been here many times and ive seen some of the terrible things as a result of your forces air strikes, bombardments and so on. Do you believe one day, you will face an International Court . First of all, you have to do your job as president. When you are attacked by terrorists, i mean, as country, you have to defend your country. And thats my job, according to the constitution. So im doing my job, and im going to keep doing it, no matter what im going to face. Lets be clear about this. Defending the country cannot be balanced with the personal future of president is going to face criminal court or anything like that, or to face this. Doesnt matter. If you dont want to face all the things, leave that position and give it to someone else. But the reason people are saying you should face a war crimes tribunal is that you are clearly using any means whatsoever. I mean, i know you dont agree that theres such a thing as a barrel bomb. Yes. Never mind the metal, the charge is that you are using indiscriminate force, indiscriminate weapons, in civilian areas. Thats true, isnt it . First of all, those people, do they have any criteria that what they mean you should use with the terrorists. They dont have. So this is irrelevant. It has no meaning from legal point of view and from realistic point of view. Second, if you talk about indiscriminate, no army would use indiscriminate in a situation where there is nearly intermingle or between the two sides with respect, mr. President , ive seen a bomb thrown from a helicopter. That was indiscriminate. Yeah, yeah. Lets say technically, thats not the issue, whether to throw it from helicopter or aircraft. Thats not the issue. The more important thing, if you want to talk about besides, like the United States using the drones and the highest precision missiles in afghanistan. How many terrorists they have killed so far . Theyve killed many, many civilians and innocents. Even if thats true, that doesnt make anything that you do right. No, no, no. I mean, first of all, the kind of argument its not related to High Precision or less precision. Theres no such criteria. This is only part of the Media Campaign recently. With respect, its not just a Media Campaign. The United Nations has you well know has spoken about this. Human Rights Groups have spoke know about this. Not just indiscriminate use of weapons against civilians, but the u. N. Spoke about the problems in aleppo, in daria, which is very close to here, of the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Yes. Sieges. Thats going on right now close to us. Were going to talk about this issue. Now, regarding the armament is whats been banned by international law. Its our right to use any of it to defeat the terrorists. And you know theres a charge you have used chemical weapons, which you deny. We didnt. No one has offered any evidence of this. Theres plenty of evidence, but you reject them. Theres no evidence. Graphic, scientific, eyewitness. You have allegation from the International Organization of chemical weapons. They came to syria and they didnt have any evidence. They collected everything, samples and everything to offer evidence. They couldnt. Theres no evidence. So we didnt use it. And theres no logic in using it. Lets talk about the methods your forces are using close to here, which is cutting off an area and besieging it, and there are thousands of civilians, very close to here, who are starving. Yeah. Do you recognize that . Lets presume you are saying what youre saying is correct. Lets presume that. Now youre talking about inside, or besieged by the army for years now, not for month. For years. They dont have food and every basic because the government doesnt allow them, but at the same time, theyve been fighting if are two years and shelling us with mortars and killing civilians from their area. It means, according to this narrative, that we are allowing them to have armaments, but we dont allow them to have foot. Thats not realistic. Thats what the u. N. Said. In mediya its only managed to get four aid convoys in in all these years. How do we prevent them from having food, but we allow them having armaments to kill us . This is contradiction. Second, the proof that this is not correct, that you have every video about the conveys coming from the United Nations to reach those area, otherwise how could they survive for years, if they are under besiege . Its been years. Theyve been talking about the same narrative repeating, reiterated for years now, but people are still alive. How could they live without food . Qo e d888888 888jj as you know, targeting civilians in a war is a war crime. And just recently, the family of maria colvin, an american journalist, has launched a suit in the United States, charging you and your government with deliberately targeting and killing her. You know maria colvin. Yeah yeah. She was a friend of mine. Did your forces target marie colvin and her colleagues with an intention to kill her . No. Unfortunately the army forces didnt know that she existed. Its a war and she came illegally to syria, she worked with the terrorists and because she came illegally, shes being responsible of everything that befall on her. This is first. Second shes responsible for her own death. She came illegally to syria. We can be responsible for everyone in our country when they come legally. She came illegally. And she went with the terrorists. We didnt know anything about it. That doesnt complain why missiles hit the home she was in. Nobody knows which home or which missile, or where it came from. No one has any evidence. This is just allegation. Its a conflict area, its war. You know about crossfire. When youre caught in crossfire somewhere, you cannot tell who killed who. So these are allegations. Second, we had hundreds of journalists came to syria legally and illegally, and they covered for the terrorists, be not for the government. And we didnt kill them. So why to single out this person, in order to kill them . Theres no logic. This is second. Third, tens of journalists working for the government and supported by the government has been killed. Did we kill them . We didnt. So this is war. Have you heard about good war . I dont think anyone has. Its a war. You always have innocent people being killed and no one can tell how. The impression you give is of a man who bears no responsibility for the terrible things that are done in his name, to the Syrian People. You have an air of oh, well, it really doesnt matter. You only bear responsibility of the decisions that you take. You dont bear responsibility of the decisions that you didnt take. Some of the decisions youve taken have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Like . Like . Attacking certain areas, launching campaigns, air strikes, release of certain weapons. The only decisions weve taken, to defend our country against the terrorists ask, thats correct decision. The second one is to make dialogue with everyone. We make dialogue with everyone, including some terrorist groups who wanted to give up their armaments and we made it. Were very flexible. We dont make any decision to attack areas where there arent terrorists, or where terrorists dont shell. Do you ever see photographs, pictures, videos, of children, for example, in rebelheld areas . And if you have seen those photographs, what do you feel . Sorrow, regret . How can you tell that the children are from that area . An answer like that, reinforces peoples views that you dont care for the people on the other side that your forces kill. That question could be answer, if you answer that question. How can you blame bush for the one million iraqi dead for the war in iraq in 2003 . Im talking about president bush. Im here to ask you its the principle. The same principle. He attack sovereign country, while i defend my country. If you want to use one standard, its one thing. If you want to do double standard, thats another thing. Youre still not giving me the impression that actually you care very not. Well i talk to american audience. So there must be analogy between the two things. Its about the logic that you use to explain something. Its not only about my answer. He attack sovereign country while we are defending our country. He killed iraqi people on their land. We are defending mainly against terrorists who are coming from different places in that world. So this is our right. What you talk about, the clean war, where theres no casualty, no civilian, no innocent people to be killed, that doesnt exist. No one could make it. No war in the world. Is this how youve explained the war, for example, to your children at the breakfast table . Im sure of course, i talk about reality, about the fact. To talk about the children being killed, the children of where . How . They are talking about propaganda and about Media Campaign and about sometimes fake pictures on the internet. We cannot talk but about the facts. We have to talk about the facts. I cannot talk about allegations. Have you ever cried about whats happened to ssyria . Crying doesnt mean you are a good man. It doesnt mean you have a lot of passion. Its about the passion thats within your heart. Its not about your eyes, its not about the tears. This is first. Second, as a president , its about what you are going to do. Not about how youre going to feel. How are you going to protect the syrians . When you have incident, bad incident, and you have it every day, do you keep crying every day . Or do you keep working . My question is, how can i help . Whenever i have bad event or incident, i ask myself, how can i protect the other syrians who are having the same problem . What are you going to do next . Are you just going to go on and on and on . You and your father have been in power for 46 years. Is that right . No, its not right. Because hes a president , im another president. So its not right at all. He was elected by the Syrian People. I was elected after he died. He didnt put me in any position. So you cannot connect. Im president , and hes president. Ive been in power for 16 years, not for 45 years. Youve been in power for 16 years. My question is, are you going to go on and on and on . In my position, you have to ask the Syrian People. If they dont want me, i have to leave right away. Today. If they want me, i have to stay. If i want to stay, again their will, i cannot produce, i cannot succeed. And i dont think i have the intention not to succeed. How do you think history will remember you . How i hope history will remember me. I cannot foretell. Im not fortune teller. I hope that the history would see me as the man who protected his country from the terrorism and from the intervention and saved its sovereignty and the integrity of its land. Because you know what the first draft of history is saying, that youre a brutal dictator, a man with more blood on your hands than even on your father . No, again, the example, do you have the doctor who cut the hand of the patient to save the gangrene, to save the body. So when you defeat the terrorists, youre not ruthless. Thats how you look at yourself. And thats how the people want to look at you. Thats how you see yourself, as a patriot . I cannot be objective about looking at myself. The most important thing, how the syrians look at me. That the real and objective opinion, not my opinion. I cannot be objective about myself. Mr. President , thank you very much for answering nbcs questions and for taking time to talk to me, thank you very much. Youre welcome. President assad, a man not just defiant, but seeming confident, sure of victory, sure of his position. Happy with russia, unhappy with president obama. But this war is far from over. Just miles from here, people are still dying. Syrias agony is still unrelenting. Im bill neely from damascus. Goodbye