    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2004, Book I)]
    [April 21, 2004]
    [Pages 636-646]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at the Newspaper Association
    of America Convention
    April 21, 2004

        The President. Thank you all. Burl, thank
    you very much. I kind of like ducking those questions. [Laughter] I
    appreciate you having me. I hope this toast business becomes

    [[Page 637]]

    a habit--[laughter]--if you know what I mean. [Laughter]
        Thanks for letting me come. Tom, thank you
    for your invitation. Dean, thank you
    for having me here. Members of the Politburo--[laughter]--I mean, my
    fellow Americans. [Laughter]
        I was thinking about what I was going to tell you when I came over
    here today, and I thought I'd talk a little bit about the role of the
    President in creating an environment so that our prosperity lasts and
    then the role of the President in securing America. And then I'll be
    glad to duck some questions--[laughter]--just like my mother told me to
    do. [Laughter]
        We're prosperous now, which is good, particularly if you're a guy
    seeking the vote. New jobs are being created. I think we had 308,000 in
    the month of March. Industrial production rose at 6.6 percent in the
    first quarter of this year, which is a positive sign. Homeownership is
    at the highest rate ever, which is really positive for America. The more
    people who own something, the better off the country is. Inflation is
    low. Interest rates are low, and the economy is growing, which is good
    news.
        And the question is, really, from a Presidential perspective is,
    what do you do to keep in place an environment so that prosperity lasts
    beyond just a recovery? It's amazing that we're growing in spite of the
    fact that we've been through a recession, a war, an emergency, and
    corporate scandals, which speaks to the resiliency of the American
    people and the strength of the entrepreneurial spirit.
        The way I view the role of Government is that the Government's role
    isn't to create wealth. The Government's role isn't to say, ``I created
    jobs.'' The Government's role is to create an environment in which
    entrepreneurs feel comfortable about expanding the job base and risking
    capital.
        So here are some things that I think our country must do to make
    sure that we have lasting prosperity, prosperity that reflects the
    willingness of the American system to put in place a competitive system,
    competitive with other countries.
        First, we've got to have a balanced legal system. I'm deeply
    concerned about a legal system that is fraught with frivolous and junk
    lawsuits which make it harder to form businesses, make it less desirable
    to risk capital. A competitive business environment that will encourage
    lasting prosperity must mean there needs to be balance in our legal
    system. There must be tort reform. There's a proper role for tort reform
    at the Federal Government. Class-action lawsuits need to be reformed, in
    my judgment. Asbestos reforms legislation is stuck in the Senate, ought
    to go forward. Obviously, there's a lot that needs to be done at the
    State level. The President can help nudge that along with the bully
    pulpit, but the Congress ought to move on tort reform.
        And they ought to do so on medical liability reform as well. When I
    first came to Washington, I wasn't sure if a proper role of the Federal
    Government was to get involved with medical liability reform. Then I saw
    what frivolous lawsuits and the defensive practice of medicine do to the
    Federal budgets. They cost us a lot of money, and it's a national issue,
    therefore. And so Congress needs to pass medical liability reform, not
    only to send a message that tort reform is vital but also to help us
    control the cost of medicine, which is a second necessary ingredient for
    there to be lasting prosperity.
        I'm a big promoter in what's called health savings accounts and
    association health care plans, because I believe that the best way to
    help control health care costs in the long run is to empower consumer
    decisionmaking in the process, as opposed to Federal Government
    decisionmaking in the process.
        And I readily concede there's a philosophical debate here in
    Washington, DC, of the proper role of the Federal Government versus the
    marketplace. It should come as no surprise to you that I tend to side
    with those who believe market forces are the best way to allocate
    resources

    [[Page 638]]

    and the best way to help control costs and, therefore, will continue to
    be a strong proponent of new ideas such as health savings accounts to
    empower consumers and to encourage the doctor-patient relationship that
    has been eroded as a result of bureaucracies, both in the private and
    public sectors, springing forth.
        There also needs to be innovation in the health care field as well
    as the rest of our society. One of the interesting things about health
    care is, it's kind of like a cottage industry that has yet to adapt to
    the new technologies of the 21st century. And therefore, there are
    missed opportunities when it comes to helping control costs and to
    provide quality care.
        The proper role of the Federal Government, in my judgment on this,
    is to help set a national standard so that the myriad of producers have
    something around which to make proper decisionmaking when it comes to
    the use of IT technology. I believe there ought to be broadband in every
    community and available to every house by the year 2007, in order to
    make sure America has lasting prosperity. And that's just the beginning.
    I think not only should broadband be accessible, but there ought to be
    ample providers available to every house and every community in America.
        And two thoughts pop in my mind about making sure that the broadband
    technology is expanding properly. One, there needs to be good tax policy
    in order to encourage the spread of broadband technology, which means we
    shouldn't tax access. If we want it to spread rapidly and if we want it
    to be available in all communities, in my judgment the Federal
    Government should deny taxation to broadband technology access. And
    secondly, there needs to be good regulatory policy out of the
    administration so as to encourage the spread of competitive--of services
    throughout our country.
        By being an innovative society and promoting innovation, we'll have
    lasting prosperity. We're lagging a little bit on broadband technology,
    the access of broadband technology. And I think we need to kind of
    accelerate it with good policy and, particularly, good regulatory policy
    out of the FCC. I think we're getting that from Chairman Powell. I feel
    comfortable he's got a good and positive vision about how to spread
    broadband.
        You know, it's an interesting debate, of course, during a political
    year--and actually, almost every year--as to whether or not we ought to
    be a free-trading nation. I'm a big believer in free trade. If we want
    to have lasting prosperity, it is essential that the Nation reject the
    economic isolationism and promote trade.
        Our markets are relatively open to other nations. It's a decision,
    by the way, of administrations from both political parties that it makes
    sense for the consumers to be able to have more choices and more
    decisions. When you have more choices and more decisions in the
    marketplace, you generally get better quality goods at a better price.
        And yet, other countries haven't reciprocated. And to me, the proper
    role of the administration to make sure there's lasting prosperity is to
    insist that other countries open up their markets, as opposed to closing
    ours. And we'll continue to do so. We filed a WTO suit against China.
    We've made some noise here and there. We will insist that the trade laws
    be enforced.
        But it's essential that the country reject economic isolationism if
    we want to have lasting prosperity. Trade wars will make it incredibly
    difficult for us to be prosperous and also, by the way, hurt countries
    on the continent of Africa, for example, desperate, poor little
    countries trying to develop markets and trying to develop a business
    community and small businesses. If we don't open up our markets to them,
    if we don't trade freely, it'll be difficult for there to be hope in
    impoverished parts of the world.
        We need an energy plan. You know, it's--we're a country where they
    say, ``Okay, what is your plan?'' Well, I'm going

    [[Page 639]]

    to jawbone. It's an awkward position for any President to be in. It
    means we don't have an energy plan, is what it means. It means we're
    hooked. I get, ``What are you going to do about it? Are you going to
    pick up the phone and hope somebody produces more energy?'' That says
    we're dependent, and we are.
        I think we ought to have a full-scale debate and, in my judgment,
    opening up different supplies of energy. I think we need to promote
    nuclear energy. I think we need to make sure we've got clean coal
    technologies available. I think we ought to be exploring for natural
    gas, where we can find natural gas.
        It is--this country is--in order for us to be prosperous in the long
    run, we can't remain hooked on foreign sources of energy. Obviously,
    we've got to promote conservation, new technologies. Listen, I'd love to
    be able to grow our way out of energy independence. There would be
    nothing better for an American President to say, ``Okay, plant more
    corn, and we'll become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.'' I
    fully understand that. The idea of biodiesel makes a lot of sense. We
    ought to continue to promote research and development. And I'm convinced
    technologies will help us in the long run when it comes to becoming less
    dependent on foreign sources of energy.
        The question is, what do we do in the next decade? How do we deal
    with the reality of the situation? And I would hope I can get a bill out
    of Congress that will encourage additional supply and, at the same time,
    encourage conservation and reduce demand.
        The problem we have in the world, by the way, today is that China is
    cranking up their economy. Steel prices are high. Energy prices are
    high, because demand in China is really high. And that's what we're
    faced with. We're faced with a world economy that's beginning to
    recover, with supplies getting tight. And without an energy plan,
    without additional supply, it's going to make us hard to stay
    competitive as well as prosperous in the long run.
        I see some people who, unfortunately, have to follow me around the
    country. I've been spending a lot of time recently on job training
    programs, because education is one really important way as to how we're
    going to have lasting prosperity. I think if you talk to people on the
    leading edge of change here in the country, they will tell you that one
    of their biggest concerns is to be able to find workers that are skilled
    in the jobs of the 21st century. Obviously, we've got to get it right
    through the No Child Left Behind Act, which I'll be glad to expound on,
    if it's one of your questions.
        But there needs to be job training programs that recognizes that as
    technologies race through our society, workers are likely to be left
    behind. And that's why I have promoted--or could be left behind, is a
    better way to put it--that's why I have promoted the community college
    system as a way to make sure that willing workers are matched with
    employers and they have the skill base to do so. The community college
    system is affordable, available, and accessible. They're great things.
    What I like about them is that they're able to adjust their curriculum
    to be able to meet the demands of those who are actually hiring people.
        And finally, a subject that I know that many of you here are
    delighted with, there needs to be permanency in the Tax Code. We don't
    need to be raising taxes right now if we want to have lasting
    prosperity. The worst thing that can happen is to start raising taxes on
    the American people. If you're a planner and if you're spending capital,
    it is essential that there be certainty in the Tax Code. And a lot of
    the provisions of the tax relief we've passed are set to expire. It will
    be a big mistake, in my judgment, to let them expire. And so I will
    continue this year and in further years, hopefully, to be talking about
    permanency with the tax relief and simplification in the Tax Code.

    [[Page 640]]

        People say, ``What do you mean?'' I'll give you one example of how
    to simplify the code. If we can ever get rid of the death tax, forever,
    it will cut down on about 30 percent of the IRS Code, they tell me. By
    the way, the death tax is bad, in my judgment. You're taxing a person's
    assets twice. And if you're interested in making sure the environment
    for the entrepreneur is strong and vibrant, it doesn't make sense to tax
    a person's assets twice. My firm belief is if it's your asset, you ought
    to be able to leave it to whom you want to leave it, without the Federal
    Government making it awfully difficult to do so.
        So that's--those are some ideas, and my job is to think beyond the
    immediate. And America must be wise about how we stay competitive
    because the world is really competitive, and it's changing. And the
    truth of the matter is, to make sure we've got jobs here at home and an
    expanding job base, we've got to be the best place to do business, the
    best place to invest capital, the best place for a small-business person
    to realize his or her dreams, and there are some ideas I just laid out
    that can help us stay that way.
        Security is obviously an issue that's on my mind. It should be on
    yours. I know it's on yours. You write about it all the time. We're at
    war, and it's a different kind of war. It is a war that is different
    because it's hard to really see the enemy, if you know what I mean. This
    is an enemy that is able to inflict serious destruction on people and
    yet be nearly invisible most of the time. It's a war in which people are
    hiding in caves. They give an order, and these people will go kill on a
    moment's notice. And they don't care who they kill. So in other words,
    it's an enemy that hides, an enemy that's so ruthless, there's no such
    thing as innocent or guilt. And they attacked today in Basra. It was a
    terrorist act today. They just blew up innocent Iraqis. They attacked in
    Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, today, and they attack all the time.
        They'd like to attack us again as well, by the way. Obviously, my
    most solemn duty and the duty of everybody involved with government is
    to do everything we can to protect the American people. In this war
    against this enemy, we must use all our assets, not some of our assets
    but every asset at the disposal of those of us who are in positions of
    responsibility. Military assets, intelligence assets--we must rely upon
    alliances.
        And I will tell you the cooperation is good. So much has been
    focused on the decision in Iraq, which, of course, I'll talk about here
    in a minute, that people assume that there's not cooperation with
    nations that didn't agree with the decision in Iraq. That's just simply
    not the case. We're sharing information with countries that may not have
    agreed with us in Iraq. We're acting on information that we've passed
    back and forth together. Alliances are really important in the war
    against terror. International bodies can be important in the war against
    terror if they're effective. They're lousy in the war against terror if
    they're not effective, because this is a results-oriented game we're in
    right now. We've got to be effective to stop them.
        The thing that's interesting and different about this--well, it's
    not interesting--it's frightening about this war, is America is a
    battlefield in the war on terror. That's what's changed. We're now a
    target. It used to be Americans overseas were targets. It's Americans at
    home are targets. And that changes the equation about how a President
    must view threats when I see them or when we see them. What do you do
    about a threat that you see gathering overseas? Do you just kind of hope
    it goes away, or do you deal with it? And I've obviously made the
    decision to deal with it.
        There's no negotiations with these terrorists. These are not the
    kind of people you sit down and you negotiate with. You don't sign a
    treaty with people who are--who don't believe in rules, people who don't

    [[Page 641]]

    have a conscience. The strategy of the terrorists--they're trying to
    shake our will and turn free nations against each other. And they're--
    these guys are tough, and they're sophisticated, and they're smart. And
    we just have to be tougher and smarter and more sophisticated in our
    approach to finding them.
        Al Qaida obviously is the name everybody knows that's associated
    with the war on terror. And we're hunting them down. It takes a while to
    find them, but we're using all our assets and resources and friends and
    allies to bring them to justice. It's the only way you have to deal with
    them, and it's important that we find them before they come here again
    or somewhere else, for that matter.
        And we're making pretty good progress. If Al Qaida were a board of
    directors, the chairman and vice chairman might still be out there, but
    the middle management is gone. That's not to say that they're not
    encouraging others to step forward. They are. But we're on the hunt, and
    we'll stay on the hunt. And it's essential that the country not yield,
    and lead. The world looks at us, and if we show any weakness whatsoever,
    there will be weakness in the world. And as I just told you, in order to
    win this war against these people, there has to be solid cooperation in
    the world.
        Right after September the 11th, I said, ``If you harbor a terrorist,
    you're just as guilty as the terrorist.'' I meant that. The American
    President, when he speaks, must speak clearly and must mean what he
    says. I meant what I said. The Taliban were given a notice. They didn't
    respond, and so we got rid of them. It just wasn't America; it was
    others.
        The world is much better off for that decisive action by our troops
    and the troops of other people, and so are the people who live in
    Afghanistan. I would urge you to see the movie ``Osama.'' It's hard for
    the American mentality to grasp how barbaric the Taliban was toward
    women in Afghanistan. So see the movie, and then maybe--it'll speak
    better than I can possibly speak. Burl is always accusing me of not
    being able to speak so good anyway. [Laughter]
        We're making good progress in Afghanistan. I'm proud of
    Karzai. He stepped up and led. The Afghan army
    is functioning. Listen, there's still work to be done there. There's
    work to be done in most countries where tyranny reigned. See, it's hard
    to go from a tyrannical state to a free state. It's hard to go into a
    society where if you stepped out of line, you were brutalized, into a
    society where people take risks for peace and freedom.
        And that's what you're seeing in Afghanistan, and frankly, that's
    what you're seeing in Iraq. In Iraq, I saw a gathering threat. The world
    saw a gathering threat. The United Nations saw a threat. I went to the
    United Nations. I said, ``Listen, you've been calling upon this
    guy to disarm for 10 years. He's chosen not
    to. Now let's give him one final chance to do so.'' And unanimously, the
    Security Council stepped up and said, ``Disarm, or face serious
    consequences,'' and so did the United States. And when you say,
    ``Disarm, or face serious consequences,'' you better mean what you say
    when you say it.
        And Saddam Hussein chose not to disarm.
    Listen, we viewed him as a threat. The intelligence said he was a
    threat. We all thought he had weapons. We found out--the truth will be
    known over time. We found out he had the ability to make weapons. He had
    the capability. I think the intent was clear. After all, he hated
    America. He paid suiciders to go kill Jews. He used weapons of mass
    destruction on his own people. And so he defied the world, and he's no
    longer in power. The world is better off for it, and so are the people
    of Iraq.
        Because we moved, torture chambers are closed; mass graves won't be
    filled; and democracy is growing in the heart of the Middle East. I'm
    oftentimes asked, ``Is there a solution for the war on terror?'' Yes,

    [[Page 642]]

    there's a long-term solution, and that's freedom. See, free societies
    don't promote terror. Free societies are peaceful societies. Free
    societies are societies that provide hope and opportunity for people.
        Now look, there's a debate, I readily concede. Some people don't
    believe if you're a Muslim or an Arab you can be free. I just strongly
    disagree with that thought. I think everybody yearns to be free, and I
    think everybody can self-govern.
        I remind you, some people thought the Japanese could never self-
    govern or be free. And yet, as I said in my press conference the other
    day, I had the honor of sitting down with--dinner with President
    Koizumi--or Prime Minister Koizumi, and we
    were talking about North Korea, which I'll get to here in a second.
        It's amazing--he's a great guy, by the
    way. Elvis Presley is one of his favorites. [Laughter] His favorite
    movie was Gary Cooper in ``High Noon.'' One time he walked up to me and
    said, ``You like Cooper.'' [Laughter] I said, ``I'm like Cooper?'' He
    said, ``Yes.'' [Laughter] I finally figured out what he meant.
    [Laughter]
        We're talking about peace on the Korean Peninsula with a friend who
    is a former enemy. Some people never thought they could self-govern or
    be free. It dawned on me, by the way, in that conversation, someday an
    American President will be sitting down with a duly elected official
    from Iraq, talking about how to secure the peace better in the Middle
    East. This is an historic moment.
        Times are tough. The last couple of weeks have been really rough,
    roughest on the families of those who lost their lives and those who
    wonder about the security and safety of their loved ones. And the reason
    why they're tough is because people want to stop the advance of freedom.
    That's why. They can't stand the thought of Iraq being free. The stakes
    are high. They view freedom as a real threat to their ambitions. And the
    Iraqi people are looking--they're looking at America and saying, ``Are
    we going to cut and run again?'' That's what they're thinking as well.
        And we're not going to cut and run if I'm in the Oval Office. We
    will do our job. I believe that people yearn to be free. I believe the
    people of Iraq will self-govern, and I believe the world will be better
    off for it. I believe freedom in the heart of the Middle East is an
    historic opportunity to change the world, and it's essential that
    America show resolve and strength and not have our will shaken by those
    who are willing to murder the innocent.
        I mentioned Korea. I think it's--different threats are dealt with in
    different ways. When I came to office, the relationship on the Korean
    Peninsula, with North Korea was like ``America and North Korea.'' There
    was--we were expected to solve the problem, and it wasn't working. So I
    decided that--we tried another equation, and that is convince others in
    the neighborhood to become a party to convincing Kim Chong-il to disarm. It wasn't working, because if you can ever get
    the relationship between the United States and--kind of get a bilateral
    responsibility going with a guy like Kim Chong-il, all he's got to do is
    frighten everybody, and they run up to the United States and said, ``Oh,
    go fix it.'' You know, ``Take care of business.''
        The only way to convince Kim Chong-il to
    disarm is to get China very much involved in the process, which we have
    done. It wasn't easy work because the Chinese felt it was the U.S.
    responsibility, and they really didn't want to have equity in the
    process. They were--we shared the same goal. As a matter of fact, when
    Jiang Zemin came to Crawford, he was quick to
    stand up and say, ``We don't want any nuclear weapons in the Korean
    Peninsula.'' He understood--he understands the stakes. The stakes are,
    of course, America will defend herself if we have to, and he understands
    that. The other thing is that he understands that if one country were to
    develop a nuclear weapon, other countries in the neighborhood might
    develop a nuclear

    [[Page 643]]

    weapon, and that wouldn't be in his interest.
        And so now the Chinese are involved with the process, as are the
    Russians and the Japanese and the South Koreans. And it's a steady, slow
    process to convince Kim Chong-il that his
    interests are not served by the development of a nuclear weapon that he
    can threaten the world with.
        We've made some other progress with him, by
    the way, through the Proliferation Security Initiative. It's an
    initiative of--gosh, I think 18 countries have now signed on or
    something like that, some number close to that--where people are willing
    to interdict ships floating out of North Korea if we suspect there's
    cargo, illicit cargo like arms or drugs on them in order to at least
    stop him from exporting weapons that will be--could be used by all kinds
    of different people.
        Part of understanding North Korea better was a great success by our
    team and the Brits in unraveling the A.Q. Khan network. A.Q. Khan was a nuclear scientist in Pakistan
    that was willing to sell state secrets in order to make money. It's real
    dangerous, by the way, when you have somebody who is willing to sell
    information purely for money, because you don't know where that
    information might end up. And the ambitions of the terrorist network, of
    course, would be to have the ultimate weapons at their disposal in order
    to blackmail and/or to harm.
        The Libyans made a good decision to disarm. They were dangerous. We
    have found more than we thought they had, but they made a wise decision
    to do so. The reason I bring all that up is the war on terror is broader
    than just the Afghan or the Iraq theater. The war on terror is finding
    cells and routing people out before they attack. The war on terror is to
    stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The war on terror
    is to call people to account early, before it's too late. The war on
    terror is to recognize America is a part of the battlefield, and we must
    deal with threats before they're too late.
        The long-term strategy of this Government is to spread freedom
    around the world. And I believe--I told you, a free Iraq will be a major
    change agent for world peace.
        I also believe a free Palestinian state will be a major change agent
    for world peace. Ariel Sharon came to America
    and he stood up with me and he said, ``We are pulling out of Gaza and
    parts of the West Bank.'' In my judgment, the whole world should have
    said, ``Thank you, Ariel. Now we have a chance to begin the construction
    of a peaceful Palestinian state.'' You know, there was kind of silence,
    wasn't there? Because the responsibility is hard. It's hard to be
    responsible for promoting freedom and peace when you're used to
    something else. If you don't have the aspirations of the people firmly
    embedded in your soul, it's hard to take a gamble for peace by putting
    the institutions of a free society in place, institutions that are
    bigger than the people.
        The Palestinian leadership has failed the people year after year
    after year. And now is the time for the world to step up and take
    advantage of this opportunity and help to build a Palestinian state
    that's committed to the principles of individual rights and rule of law
    and fairness and justice so the Palestinian people have a chance to grow
    a peaceful state and so that Israel has a partner in peace, not a
    launching pad of terrorist attacks, on her border.
        And finally, the United States has got responsibilities bigger than
    just leading the world toward peace and freedom. We've got the
    responsibility of helping to relieve suffering and hunger where we see
    it as well. You know, I mentioned to you that--I checked with
    Colin; I think this is true--that we're the
    biggest food donor to the North Korean people. That's a fact I don't
    think a lot of people know. I just hope the food goes to the people and
    not to the generals. Part of the issue is it's hard to verify whether or
    not the food is actually

    [[Page 644]]

    being distributed. But nevertheless, our heart is right.
        We want to help people who are hungry. We want to help people who
    suffer from HIV/AIDS. We want to make sure we help lift countries out of
    terrible poverty by opening our markets for their goods and services. We
    have a responsibility beyond just being the leader in the war against
    terror. We have a responsibility to be the leader in the war against
    hunger and disease and hopelessness. And we are--and we are.
        The role of the President is to think about the long term, is to
    think about how you put in place policy that will be historic, policies
    that will be--that will help change the world for the better. And I
    think we're doing just that.
        I'm ready to answer some questions. How long was that speech? How
    long did I talk? Too long, right? [Laughter]

    Response to Terrorism

        Burl Osborne. Mr. President, you mentioned how difficult it is to
    visualize the enemy in a war on terror. And you also pointed out the
    long term goal of freedom and democracy as an answer. And yet, today
    there is an AP poll that shows two-thirds of the people in this country
    think it's at least somewhat likely we'll have an attack before the
    elections, and nearly half the people are at least considering the
    possibility that at this point in time, the terrorists may be winning.
    And my question is, how, in the interim between now and that long term,
    how do you persuade these people who are in doubt that they're wrong,
    that it won't end that way?
        The President. Two-thirds of the Americans think we're going to get
    hit again? Well, I can understand why they think they're going to get
    hit again. They saw what happened in Madrid. This is a hard country to
    defend. We are making good progress in the defense of America. We've got
    a Department of Homeland Security that now enables people to better
    coordinate and cooperate and share information. We've got a PATRIOT
    Act--which needs to be renewed, by the way, and strengthened, in my
    judgment--that is really important to allow the criminal division and
    the intelligence division of the FBI to share information, which they
    could not do before.
        And by the way, any provision in the PATRIOT Act that enables us to
    collect more information requires court order, just like it does when
    you're dealing with a mobster or a doctor that's creating criminal
    problems or white-collar crime.
        There is--but the PATRIOT Act helps. It helps us to be able to
    connect the dots, is a common phrase here in Washington.
        Our intelligence is good. It's just never perfect, is the problem.
    We are disrupting some cells here in America. We're chasing people down,
    but it is--we've got a big country, Burl. I'm from Texas. It is
    difficult to stop people coming across the Rio Grande River, whether
    they be people looking for work or people looking to do harm, and so I
    can see why people feel that way. And we've just got to stay on the
    offense, is what we've got to do.
        And what was the other part of the question?
        Mr. Osborne. You answered it.
        The President. Okay, good. [Laughter] At least I didn't duck this
    one.
        Mr. Osborne. We'll give you a chance to duck one.
        The President. Okay, good. [Laughter]

    International Cooperation in the War on Terror

        Mr. Osborne. As you mentioned, there have been other incidents today
    in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. And you also mentioned the importance of our
    alliances. We've had some arrests in Britain, even in Spain and
    elsewhere. The question is, are you satisfied with the level of
    cooperation among the governments in combating these attacks?
        The President. Well, yes, I am. I think, obviously, we've got to
    continue to work

    [[Page 645]]

    to make sure people understand the threat is real. For a while,
    obviously, America was the most energetic in fighting terror because the
    memory of September the 11th was fresh in our mind and people felt like,
    ``It couldn't happen to me.'' There's been a lot of attacks since
    September the 11th, which has convinced people that we've got to work
    together.
        Saudi Arabia is a good example. This is a place, when they got
    attacked a year ago--that helped change their attitude toward chasing
    down Al Qaida types within their country. And the attack again today on
    Riyadh was a reminder that there are people that would like--I don't
    want to guess their intentions--I think they would like to overthrow the
    ruling Government. They certainly want to frighten everybody and kill as
    many as they can.
        The attacks on Istanbul happened when I was in Great Britain, and
    they were devastating attacks to the Brits--a lot of Brits were there--
    but also to the Muslims who were killed.
        And the cooperation is good. But it's an issue that you just
    constantly have to work on to remind people of the stakes that just--
    you've got to share intelligence better. And sometimes bureaucracies get
    in the way of the fast flow of information. I suspect governments
    complain that we might not be as forthcoming as quickly as they would
    hope us to be. I haven't heard much of that, but we're getting good
    cooperation. And it's--but I say it's an issue we've got to continue to
    work.
        Pakistan, we're getting good cooperation. Just think about what life
    was like prior to September the 11th in Pakistan. Pakistan was friendly
    to the Taliban. And fortunately, our Government, thanks to the good work
    of Colin Powell, convinced President
    Musharraf that that was not in his
    interests. His interests were to be working with us and fighting off the
    terror. Of course, since then Al Qaida has tried to kill him twice. I
    think it confirms the fact that he's chosen the right side. We're trying
    to help him. And he's active in the war on
    terror. And he is--but he's got issues, just like any of these countries
    have got issues. But he's done--in my judgment, he's been a good, strong
    ally.
        And I'm pleased with the fact that progress is now being made on the
    relationship between Pakistan and India. I don't know if you remember, I
    think it was in the year '01--I don't see many foreign policy kind of
    reporters here, but '01 was the year that we had shuttle diplomacy to
    convince Pakistan and India not to go to war with each other.
    Powell went, and then Straw went from Great Britain, and then Armitage went, and then whoever his equivalent is from
    Great Britain went, with the idea of kind of
    talking everybody down. And now, it's quite the opposite; they're
    talking with each other in a positive way and hopefully can get some
    sticky issues resolved, for the sake of world peace and stability in
    that part of the world. I think progress is being made. But we can
    always--we will always find ways to improve our alliances.
        I mentioned to you--look, I mentioned to you the need for
    international bodies to be effective. We're working with the IAEA with
    Iran. And the Iranians need to feel the pressure from the world that any
    nuclear weapons program will be uniformly condemned. It's essential that
    they hear that message. An appropriate international body to deal with
    them is the IAEA. They signed an additional protocol, which was a
    positive development. The foreign ministers of Great Britain, France, and
    Germany have interceded on behalf of the
    civilized world to talk plainly to the Iranians. One of my jobs is to
    make sure they speak as plainly as possible to the Iranians and make it
    absolutely clear that the development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is
    intolerable, and a program is intolerable. Otherwise they will be dealt
    with, starting through the United Nations.
        And hopefully we're making progress there as well. It's a tough,
    tough crowd

    [[Page 646]]

    to negotiate with. They've got a classic--it's a really long answer, I
    know. At least I'm answering it. [Laughter] They've got the classic
    principal-to-nonprincipal negotiating strategy available for them.
    They've got a fellow sitting up on top,
    probably the decisionmaker on most matters, and yet the world goes to
    Khatami, so you're not really sure
    if the message is getting totally delivered or not. I think the message
    is getting delivered to them that it's intolerable if they develop a
    nuclear weapon. It would be intolerable to peace and stability in the
    Middle East if they get a nuclear weapon, particularly since their
    stated objective is the destruction of Israel.
        Last question.
        Mr. Osborne. Just for the record, I've always understood you
    clearly. [Laughter]
        The President. Then why don't you write that way? [Laughter]
        Mr. Osborne. Touche, touche.
        The President. I've known him a long time. [Laughter]

    Democracy in Iraq

        Mr. Osborne. There's an editorial in the Washington Post today that
    opines that your opponent has changed his stance on Iraq.
        The President. I'm not going to talk about my opponent here.
        Mr. Osborne. We're not finished with the question.
        The President. Okay. [Laughter] Touche back. [Laughter]
        Mr. Osborne. And he is saying that--he no longer is saying that the
    outcome in Iraq has to be a democracy but rather that it has to be a
    stable government, and that, in their words, democracy is an option. My
    question is, is a democratic form of government in Iraq an option for
    you, or is it an imperative?
        The President. It's necessary. It's what will change the world, help
    change the world. And you either believe people can self-govern or not,
    believe democracy is possible in that part of the world, and I think it
    is. I think it is.
        Listen, thanks for letting me come. I hope you toast more often.
    [Laughter] God bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:30 p.m. at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. In
    his remarks, he referred to Burl Osborne, chairman, and Tom Curley,
    president and chief executive officer, Associated Press; William Dean
    Singleton, vice chairman and chief executive officer, MediaNews Group,
    Inc.; President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan; former President Saddam
    Hussein of Iraq; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; Chairman Kim
    Chong-il of North Korea; President Jiang Zemin of China; A.Q. Khan,
    former head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program; Prime Minister Ariel
    Sharon of Israel; President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan; Secretary of
    State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Jack Straw of the United
    Kingdom; former Minister of Foreign Affairs Dominique de Villepin of
    France; Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer of Germany; and
    Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei and President Mohammad Khatami-Ardakani
    of Iran.