Before leaving Seoul, the White House organized a quick trip to Panmunjom, the South Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone, otherwise known as the DMZ.

We journeyed by bus out of the bustling, traffic-snarled capital northward on a highway called Unification Road, the first of many indications of how deeply South Korea seeks to end the nearly 60-year reign of silent tension and alienation with and from the North. The drive took just under 90 minutes.

Traveling by bus to the DMZ, passing rice paddies (All photos: courtesy of Major Garrett)

Keep Reading ...

SINGAPORE - After meeting with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President Obama said he accepted an invitation to visit the world's most populous Muslim nation next year.

"I am very excited about our prospects for deepening relations in the future, and I want to make sure everybody knows that I intend to be visiting Indonesia next year," Obama said at the Shangri-La Hotel here, where he conducted a one-on-one meeting with Yudhoyono on the sidelines of the APEC summit here.

"The invitation that's been extended...is one I want to take up," Obama said. "And I am hoping to take Michelle and the girls as well so that they can take a look at some of my old haunting grounds."

Obama noted his "historic ties to Indonesia" and said he was "extraordinarily impressed with the progress that Indonesia has made in developing its democracy."

Obama lived in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta from 1967 to 1971. His half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, was born there.

"As one of the world's largest Islamic nations, it has enormous influence and really is, I think, a potential model for the kind of development strategies, democracy strategies, as well as interfaith strategies that are going to be so important moving forward."

Yudhoyono called Obama "a friend of Indonesia," adding he knows the nation of 230 million people spread over 17,508 islands (about 6,000 of these are inhabited), "very well and is well respected." Yudhoyono also called Obama's "positive outreach to the Islamic world" refreshing.

The Indonesia president said he expects relations with the US to achieve a "higher level for comprehensive partnerships on trade, investment, education, climate change, energy and counter-terrorism.

SINGAPORE - President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said tough issues divide the two in on-going nuclear arms reduction talks and aides now openly acknowledge both nations will need a "bridge" agreement because a new deal won't be hammered out before the current START treaty expires Dec. 5.

"Our goal continues to be to complete the negotiations and be able to sign a deal before the end of the year," Obama said following an hour-long meeting with Medvedev on the sidelines of the APEC summit here.

"And I am confident that if we work hard and with a sense of urgency about it, that we should be able to get that done. Both sides are trying to work through some difficult technical issues but are doing so in good faith."

Obama's highly conditioned assessment underscored increasing American anxiety over the pace of negotiations. While it was always clear neither the US and Russia would have a new arms deal signed and ratified by the Dec. 5 deadline, it now appears at least possible a treaty won't materialize by year's end. On Saturday, White House officials denied publicly the need to even consider a "bridge" agreement.

The START treaty requires both nations to reduce stockpiles of nuclear warheads to 6,000 and 1,600 delivery systems -- missiles fired from land, sea or air. The goal of the new START deal is to reduce warheads to 1,500-1,600 and delivery systems to between 500 and 1,000.

Sticking points include how to inspect and verify destruction to warheads and delivery systems and which system and warheads count as genuine reductions. The Russians accuse the US of seeking to count the destruction of obsolete warheads and missiles against the number of usable weapons.

The Russians, generally, are hesitant to open their bases and facilities to intrusive US verification inspections.

"We've agreed to give additional impetus to those (new START) negotiations, find solutions on remaining issues," Medvedev said. "In some instances, those are technical issues, some are political issues. We will task our aides to continue working on those matters. I hope that...we will be able to finalize the text of a document by (the end of) December. The world is watching. It is all the more important now."

Mike McFaul, the president's top National Security Council adviser on Russia, acknowledged for the first time both nations are now negotiating a second treaty, a so-called "bridge" pact that would maintain the current START treaty while talks continue on its successor. To finish a bridge deal, both sides have to agree to current intrusive verification methods, a key test of current trust between Medvedev and Obama.

"We're not at the end game yet," McFaul said of the Obama-Medvedev talks. "We still have some fairly major things to finish. To get into the details....we're just not going to talk about the negotiations day-by-day. We said we're going to sign a treaty by the end of the year."

Obama tried to strike a positive note at the end of his assessment of the meeting here.

"I have found as always, President Medvedev, to be frank, thoughtful and constructive in his approach to US-Russian relations," Obama said. "I am someone who genuinely believes that the reset button has worked and we are moving in a good direction."

McFaul later said Obama and Medvedev resolved some areas of contention, but declined to describe them or their relative importance in shaping a final deal.

"We made progress and I really don't want to talk about the specifics, because the Russians have asked us not to talk about the specifics."

When asked if there would be a summit surrounding the signing of the new treaty, McFaul demurred.

"They (Obama and Medvedev) said we're going to get it done by the end of the year. We have not talked about the modalities of when or when or how," McFaul said. "We just haven't gotten to that point."

McFaul also said the "bridging agreement hadn't been negotiated. What it will say, we'll have to wait until we get an agreement. It's more of a technical issue. But I need to be clear, we don't have an agreement yet. It would be to preserve the verification."

When asked how long this underlying bridge deal would last, McFaul said: "It will depend, a lot, on when we get the new START agreement. Both those things will go together. We don't see any gaps down the road in terms of a bridging agreement, a bridge leads to somewhere, it leads to the other agreement."

SINGAPORE - In remarks, full text below, President Obama on Sunday announced Hawaii will host the APEC meeting in 2011 and defended calling the US a "Pacific nation."

The president also said he will tackle mounting US debt after the economy rebounds and preached the virtues of sustained economic growth at home and abroad. He sought to back up his description of America as a "Pacific nation" with references to geography, economic interaction and overseas scholarship.

Obama also indicated interest in securing a new agreement on global trade through the World Trade Organization's so-called Doha-round. He also suggested finalizing the long-pending (since June 2007) US free trade agreement with South Korea, the biggest trade deal since the North American Free Trade deal (NAFTA). Keep Reading ...

UPDATE: Breakfast just concluded here. Michael Froman, a top economic adviser to Obama on the National Security Council, repeated what had been reported here earlier --- that Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen flew here overnight to update APEC leaders on climate change talks.

Nineteen of the 20 APEC heads of state attended the breakfast, arranged at the last minute by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Froman told the traveling White House pool reporters the following:

"There was a general consensus of support for what Rasmussen laid out. He called it one agreement, two steps.  Copenhagen (UN Climate Change talks) would be the first step in a process toward an international binding agreement."

Rasmussen, in a tacit admission the Copenhagen process will not result in a full-blown global treaty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, told the assembled leaders he will instead seek a politically "binding agreement that would cover all the major elements of the negotiations including mitigation, adaption, technology and finance."

Froman told the travel pool that there was "widespread consensus among leaders that Copenhagen be a success" and that it produce evidence of "real concrete progress." Keep Reading ...

Democratic sources tell Fox Robert "Bob" Bauer will be named White House Counsel on Friday.

The White House refused to confirm or deny Bauer's expected appointment.

Fox first reported in October that Bauer was the leading candidate for White House Counsel. At that time, no other candidates were mentioned by the White House or Democratic sources.

Bauer is married to Anita Dunn, interim Communications Director. Dunn relinquished her post this week and will leave the White House at month's end.

It is not know when Bauer will start, but it is expected to be in December.

Interim White House Communications Director Anita Dunn will leave her post at month's end and be replaced by deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, Fox News has learned.

Dunn joined the White House in May, replacing Ellen Moran, who left abruptly to become chief of staff at the Commerce Department.

Dunn worked extensively on the Obama campaign and has been featured prominently as one of the the highest ranking women on the Obama communications and strategy team. She was part of a "60 Minutes" piece on the Obama campaign.

Officials said Dunn will remain involved in future White House communications and strategy decisions, but as an outside consultant. Dunn came to the White House from her firm, Squier, Knapp, Dunn Communiations.

Dunn was among the officials most identified with White  House criticism of the Fox News Channel. Numerous White House aides said her departure, had nothing to do with her criticism of Fox.

Dunn has always carried the "interim" title and it has long been understood she would leave the White House by year's end. To the degree her departure is early, it is early by a matter of weeks.White House officials said Dunn actually stayed longer than she originally intended, in part to assist the White House in the health care debate.

Dunn is married to Robert "Bob" Bauer, a prominent Washington elections lawyer who is currently President Obama's personal attorney and chief counsel for the Democratic National Committee.

Fox News has previously reported that Bauer is the leading candidate to replace White House Counsel Greg Craig, who will leave his post by year's end.

Pfeiffer, 33, was communications director for the Obama campaign and worked out of its Chicago headquarters. He previously held communications posts with Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson, both of South Dakota.

Senior White House Correspondent Major Garrett's questions at today's White House Briefing with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Garrett: Robert, you said the message on the phone calls to the Hill is to pass health care, correct?

Gibbs: Yes.

Garrett: Yes, I would. And so that -- that message is about a bill that the president has yet to endorse. Am I still correct on that?

Gibbs: The president supports the passage of the bill.

Garrett So he does endorse it?

Gibbs: Support, endorse...

Garrett: Getting back to what Jake (Tapper) was asking about earlier, there are still some unresolved issues, so I'm just curious if the president supports it in its unresolved form or its resolved form?

Gibbs: The president wants the House -- the president wants the House to pass this. The president wants the House to pass health care reform.

Garrett: On August 7th, the president said the worst...

Gibbs: I'm glad we got to... six questions to get to the fact that the president would travel from here to the House to say, "Pass the bill."

Garrett:  Well, when I asked him yesterday, he didn't say, and neither did you, so I'm just trying to nail that down.

Gibbs: I don't think it -- I hope it wasn't news that we were going up there to have them pass the bill. Apparently it was.

Garrett: On August 7th, the president said, "The worst may be behind us. Today, we're pointed in the right direction. That's why we're turning this economy around. I am convinced that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel." Was he correct on August 7th?

Gibbs: Yes.

Garrett: There's nothing about that that we want to revise?

Gibbs: The -- as I've said here and I think you'll hear economists of all political stripes say, you're not going to have economic growth -- I'm sorry. You're not going to have job growth without economic growth, right? The figures that were released recently denote that we have, for the first time in more than a year, seen positive economic growth. We see figures like unemployment claims, as I mentioned, go down, productivity go up. I think the president would believe that we're on the right path, yes. Is he satisfied? Of course not.

Garrett: But the worst is behind us?

Gibbs: I believe that's the case, yes.

Garrett:  Two publications, the Guardian and the Weekly Standard, are both reporting about IAEA possession of documents that suggest Iran has tested what they called an advanced nuclear warhead, or a two-point implosion device, and has brought this to the attention of the Iranians in the most recent conversations not only about trying to find out if they're in favor or not in favor of the low-enriched uranium transfer to Russia, but about this apparent new technology breakthrough. And also, they suggest that the intelligence committees in the House and the Senate have been briefed about this.

I'm curious. Is the White House aware of this? Is it concerned about it in any way, shape or form?

Gibbs: Let me check with NSC on that. I don't have anything on that. (The NSC staff informed Fox later it would have no comment at all on this matter)

Transcript of Senior White House Correspondent Major Garrett's questions at the Nov. 5 White House briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Topics: Afghanistan decision timing, H1N1, Cash for Clunkers

Garrett: Robert, is it safe to assume that since you're going to double check on the status of the Joint Chiefs meeting with the president that he will not make an announcement before he leaves for Asia? I just want to make...

Gibbs: I have not been told -- I have not been told that it won't happen, but won't happen, but...

Garrett: It's becoming increasingly unlikely that it will. That's a safe assumption. Correct?

Gibbs: I -- I -- I -- it is a safe assumption, understanding that it could change.

Garrett: OK. Do you have any guidance as to whether or not the country will know before Thanksgiving?

Gibbs: Just -- the only guidance I have is the next several weeks -- coming weeks.

Garrett: Back on H1N1, was it wrong for Wall Street firms to even request? And would the administration, more broadly say, "Look, if you're not in the priority category, don't ask?"

Gibbs: Well, look...

Garrett: Or was it wrong for the bureaucracy at the city level to give it out, getting what they would consider a legitimate request?

Gibbs: Well, the CDC has priority groupings for those that are likely to be most susceptible to this strain of flu and to the effects, obviously, that it can cause -- younger children, pregnant women, individuals that have -- are in homes with children that I think are under six months of age all comprise part of that priority group.

If there's anybody in that locality that fits that priority grouping that hasn't had or made available to them vaccine and others that aren't in that priority grouping are getting it, then, yes, that is -- that is a failing of the system that should work.

Garrett: And the word from the White House is if you're not on the list, don't ask. Is that correct?

Gibbs: We want everyone ultimately to be -- to have access to and get vaccinated. We want, though, first to establish -- CDC has -- that priority ordering so that those most susceptible to the effects of this illness are vaccinated first.

Garrett: Back to Gitmo, is it fair to say that the detainees are on a list?

Gibbs: I don't -- you'd have to ask the Pentagon of what -- what -- what their ultimate priority listing is. I don't know.

Garrett: How concerned is the administration that cash-for- clunkers in some respects turned out to be a cash for F-150 Ford trucks, that did not really demonstrably increase gasoline fuel efficiency?

Gibbs: Well, you couldn't get -- you could not get a -- you couldn't get the award unless the car you were turning in got a greater gas mileage than the -- the car that you were getting got a greater gas mileage than the car that you were turning in. That was written into the law.

I can get you final statistics for the amount -- the average amount, based on the cars that were purchased, what that ultimately saves in energy costs, in environmental costs, which ultimately mean our national security.

Garrett: It's OK?

Gibbs: Again, there -- there are certain benchmarks that are written into the law, and you don't qualify for -- you don't qualify for the money unless you meet the benchmarks in the law.

[Following up on President Obama's position on the House health care reform bill]

Garrett: Does that include or not include an explicit endorsement of the House bill?

Gibbs: Well, I don't know what he's going to say tomorrow because he hasn't said it.

Garrett: But you don't know?

Gibbs: I -- I haven't seen the remarks.

Garrett: But it's not his formulated position yet?

Gibbs: I haven't seen the remarks.

End Garrett questions.

Senior White House Correspondent Major Garrett interviewed David Axelrod, Senior Adviser to the President, Wednesday. 

Axelrod discusses health care reform, Afghanistan, Iran and Tuesday's election results in the wide ranging interview.  Click HERE to watch the interview, or read the transcript below.

The president's decision on Afghanistan is still a few weeks away. Will the country know before Thanksgiving?

I'm not going to, Major, give you a precise deadline. The president is working through the options focusing on the objective that he began with and will continue to focus on which is how do you best disrupt, dismantle, and destroy al Qaeda and how do you embrace a strategy in Afghanistan that best facilitates that and he'll make a decision soon based on a thoughtful review of all the options.

Based on the deployment schedules communicated to the president will he have sufficient time to be prepared for the Spring?

Absolutely I think that, you know, the troops that he ordered in March are just now completing their arrival and the next troops would not be due there until the Spring and Summer and he has time to make this decision and do it in a thoughtful way.

To those who ask me via Twitter and other mechanisms why it's taking so long, what's the answer?

The answer is that whenever you deploy troops and make decisions relative to war you ought to make them based on the best information and get the strategy right, make sure that the strategy serves your goals and that  you're making the right decisions and he owes that to the service men and women who are going, he owes that to their families, and he owes it to the American people.

Health care - the goal is Christmas. Is it a realistic goal soft preference or hard demand for this White House?

We want to get this done. It's been a long process. A lot of good work has been done. We're very close to finishing and a lot of the delay right now has to do with the Congressional Budget Office reviewing the Senate proposal and scoring it for cost and impact and so on. And that's delayed the process.  You've got holidays in the way and so on. But we hope that the Senate will work through and get it done. The House seems to be on a more expedited schedule so we have the ability to get this done and we'd like to get it done.

Soft preference or hard demand? We want to get it done

Iran - there are protests in the street. The president's being apprised of this. There are also reports out of Israel of an intercept of arms possibly from Iran headed to Hezbollah. What is the overall climate right now for the U.S. as it views Iran? The street protests, problems with Israel, continued rebuffing of the enriched uranium proposal. What is all this telling the White House?

Well, we've made it clear to Iran that there's a proposal on the table that would allow them to help their people and would get that uranium out of Iran and satisfy the international community that that uranium wouldn't be used for weapons grade purposes and they ought to seize this opportunity.  The one thing that's happened in last nine months is the international community has come together in a way that it wasn't before so the international community is more united and Iran is more divided.  And if I were the leaders of Iran I would look at those developments and I would factor them into the decision making.

Do these actions make the administration more suspicious of what Iran is trying to accomplish?

I don't' think the administration is at all naive about what we're dealing with here. And obviously we operate in a climate in which, you know, there's weariness and there should be. But the point here is that there is a crossroads here and Iran ought to take the right turn because what they're looking at now is a united international community.  The Russians have stood firmly with us, the French, and other nations. And they're willing to act in concert so this ought to be a source of concern to Iran and encourage them to do what would plainly be the right thing here.

Why should millions of votes in New Jersey and Virginia matter less than a larger political atmosphere than the relatively smaller number of votes in New York-23?

Well,  i think you have to look at what those races were. The New York-23 race was the one race that was really a microcosm of the national debate.  The other races in New Jersey and in Virginia were really state races very much focused on state issues and Jersey was very much focused on Governor Corzine.  But in New York-23 the issues that we're discussing every day in Washington were very much on the ballot and particularly because of the purge of the republican candidate by the right.  It became more so and what you saw was a pretty vigorous turn out there yesterday in a district that had been held by a republican for 140 years and a democratic candidate won. I think that sends a strong message here.

  Keep Reading ...