I wanted to set the record straight by -- and therefore will say the following: one, that I have many contacts and friends around the world. I've been in the business for a long time. And these contacts and friendships, many of them, precede my assignment and my role in the U.S. government. And just because I am a government official now doesn't mean that I should end those friendships and relationships that I've had with many people, particularly from the region of the broader Middle East, including Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These contacts and relationships have been useful for the United States. But at the same time, I know -- I'm experienced enough to know what that -- the difference between being a channel with these friends on behalf of the United States or having social contacts.

In particular, with regard to the Bhutto family, I have known Benazir Bhutto for a long time and, of course, got to know her husband as well. And I have on occasion had contact with them since they went to Pakistan, since she initially went, and in the aftermath of her assassination.

And these contacts have been social contacts, for the most part. And when something of a policy-related issue has been raised -- and that has been very rare -- I have reported those to the secretary and to other relevant officials. I believe that these contacts are perfectly natural. I actually have been surprised by the commentary or characterization of those contacts.

Second, with regard to Afghanistan, the point was made -- which I think we dealt with earlier -- with regard to the Paris meeting, I think one of the stories had it, and alleged that it was an effort to undermine President Karzai. Let the record show that President Karzai and I are friends, at least for decades, and that the -- I was the president of the Security Council that month, and that he had called me, if -- asking me to, if I could -- we hadn't seen each other, visited for some time -- come to have dinner with him at -- to be his guest for an evening. And the only consideration for me to go to Paris was in relation to that dinner invitation from President Karzai, to do so. And I made that point at that time as well.

Also, with regard to another point that was raised that I have organized a fund-raising group for a possible running of a -- in the Afghan presidential election, and again we have stated that repeatedly to you that I am the permanent representative of the United States to the United Nations. I am proud of the job that I have here, of having represented the United States, continue to represent the United States. I'm an American. I have no plans -- I am not a candidate, have no plans of becoming a candidate, that when I leave here I will work in the private sector.

But again, this -- a point was raised. I am not aware at all of this -- whether there is a group or has been a group or some individuals in Afghanistan were involved in fund-raising. So the point that I want to make is that I was a little surprised that very reputable outlets would publish such things without kind of due diligence of checking. Things were referred to in those articles that are blatantly false. So I was a little surprised by that.

But I look forward to carrying out my responsibilities here. And I think it was a -- it was very unfortunate, the printing of those articles.

Thank you.

Reporter: When Mr. Zardari -- when Mr. Zardari said that you were going to provide him with, I guess, advice, one, was that accurate? And two, will you have been providing advice in your personal capacity or as a State Department official?

Ambassador Khalilzad: Well, number one, I don't know what Mr. Zardari said, because it was alleged that in some phone conversation between one of our officials, Mr. Zardari had said something that he's looking for something from me. I have not provided him with any advice. The only thing we have talked repeatedly about since he has been there, besides my offer of condolences, is just every -- I think, again, the frequency that was referred is completely wrong.

I have probably talked to him six or seven times since he -- they've gone back to Pakistan, and most of it around the time of them moving to Pakistan and with a -- that's not in the nature of advice. It has been "How are you." It's family, "When can we get together," kind of what friends would do.

But, look, I have been ambassador to two very sensitive countries, Iraq and Afghanistan. I know the complexities of managing relations with sensitive countries. And I'm also aware of the phone being an unreliable, untrustworthy instrument for communicating, in terms of security. So I wouldn't see somebody as experienced as myself offering advice to a friend on an open line, on behalf of the United States. That simply is -- you'll have to give me a little more credit than that.

So, the -- no, I've not offered him any political advice. Listen, I'm not only -- people contact me not only from his party, so just -- (inaudible) -- straight, I know others in Pakistan, who belong to other parties, that I have relations with and friends with, and they contact me to say "Hello, how are you?" just to be in touch.

So, no, the -- I don't know whether there was a misunderstanding, what Mr. Zardari said was misconstrued. I can't second-guess that. But, no. As I said, only on one or two occasions a substantive issue was raised with me at that time that -- especially that he -- they were not in Pakistan and didn't have contact with the -- with that embassy. And I just immediately of course reported that to the Secretary and to others.

Reporter: Mr. Ambassador, two quick questions.

Ambassador Khalilzad: Yes, sir.

Reporter: One, have you -- since that publication has come out, have you talked to Mr. Boucher and have since cleared the air?

And secondly -- on this attack in Afghanistan and Afghanistan very well, there is a huge discrepancy between the numbers the U.N. give and the numbers the U.S. -- the Pentagon gives. Now, I understand you stand by the Pentagon numbers, but how do you explain the numbers that are given by president -- the president of Afghanistan as well as the U.N., based on entities in the region? Is there -- is the reason that the people around there -- are they American? Are they turning against the American? Are they turning against the coalition?

Ambassador Khalilzad: On the first issue, I have communicated with Mr. Boucher, and I have communicated with the Secretary. And with regard to your second question --

Reporter: So, you have communicated with -- (off mike) --

Ambassador Khalilzad: Yes, not -- there had been no reason to communicate -- (inaudible) -- communicated with the Secretary. We all work for her. And I've -- Mr. Boucher did send me an e-mail that I did respond to, a couple of communications.

With regard to the second issue, of course -- first I have to say that we regret the loss of any civilian lives. And, I know from personal experience, having been -- again, as ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, how hard our military tries to avoid civilian losses in our military operations. And that's different than terrorists and extremists who target civilians.

Having said that, let me say one or two things about the issue. First, we have done our own investigation and have come up with numbers that are very different than the Afghan government and the U.N. is alleging. And we have offered to do a joint investigation with the Afghans and the U.N.

I believe that there is a bit of a fog of war involved in some of these initial reports. Let the investigations clarify exactly what has happened. Our people are quite confident of their numbers. And the offer of a joint investigation with the U.N. and the Afghan government is very important. I hope that they will participate, do a joint investigation.

I, of course, again, I want to say we regret the loss of any civilian lives. The Afghans have suffered a lot as a result of many years of war. We're there to help them, to rebuild their country, to have a country that can stand on its own feet, that can look after its own people and to bring the tragedy of Afghanistan that has gone on for too long to an end. That's the mission for our military. That's the mission for our civilians who are there, and there should be no misunderstanding among the Afghans on this issue.

No country in the history of Afghanistan has done more to help Afghans that the United States. And therefore I hope that some of the enemies of Afghanistan do not use this incident by exaggerating -- and I am calling for, obviously, supporting this joint investigation -- to cause mischief between the people of Afghanistan and the government of Afghanistan and the government and the people of the United States.

Reporter: Does that include the U.N.? They stand behind the 90 civilian casualties now.

Ambassador Khalilzad: As I said, I don't want to say anything than -- that having been in many such situations myself, that there is a fog of war. Sometime initial reports can be wrong. And the best way to deal with it is to have a -- the kind of investigation that we have proposed, which is U.S., coalition, plus the Afghan government, plus the United Nations.

Reporter: Do you have any plans, sir, to leave your position any time soon?

Ambassador Khalilzad: No, I don't.

Reporter: Can you elaborate on communications between Secretary Rice and Boucher…

Ambassador Khalizad: I can't say anything about that.

Thank you very much.

Reporter: Will you deny that you are running for president of Afghanistan?

Ambassador Khalilzad: I did -- did when you were not here. I can -- you can check with your colleagues.