[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2004, Book III)]
[October 18, 2004]
[Pages 2567-2574]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks in Marlton, New Jersey
October 18, 2004

    The President. Thank you all. Thanks for coming. Thanks for the warm 
welcome. It is great to be back in the State of New Jersey. Oh, I know 
it might surprise some to see a Republican Presidential candidate in New 
Jersey in late October. The reason why I'm here, with your help, we'll 
carry the State of New Jersey in November.
    We are now 15 days away from a critical election. Many important 
domestic issues are at stake. I have a positive, hopeful agenda for job 
creation, broader health coverage, and better public education. Yet all 
the progress we hope to make depends on the security of our Nation. 
America is in the middle of a global war on terror, a struggle unlike 
any we have ever known before. We face an enemy that is determined to 
kill the innocent and make our country into a battlefield. In the war on 
terror, there is no place for confusion and no substitute for victory. 
For the sake of our future and our freedom, we will fight this war with 
every asset of our national power, and we will prevail.
    Laura sends her best. So I asked her to marry 
me; she said, ``Fine, just so long as I never have to give a political 
speech.'' [Laughter] I said, ``Okay, you got a deal.'' Fortunately, she 
didn't hold me to that deal. The American people--a lot of Americans 
have seen her give a speech, and when they do, they see a compassionate, 
strong, warm woman.
    I'm proud to have been standing on the stage with Bernie 
Kerik. He knows something about security. 
He's lived security all his life, and I want to thank him for his 
dedication and his service to the people of this country.
    I want to thank Congressman Jim Saxton for 
being here today. And thank you for bringing your daughter, 
Jennifer. I want to thank Congressman Scott 
Garrett for joining us today. Congressman, 
thank you. Congressman Frank LoBiondo--
thanks for coming, Frank and Tina. I want to thank Congressman Chris 
Smith and Marie 
for joining us. The chairman of the Republican Party was born and raised 
in this county. He's doing a fabulous job. Welcome my friend Ed 
Gillespie. Thanks for coming, Ed.
    I want to thank all the State senators and statehouse members who 
are here. I want to thank the grassroots activists. I want to thank you 
for what you're going to do during the next 15 days. Put up the signs. 
Call the phones. Get the people out to vote. We're going to win the 
State of New Jersey and win a great victory in November.
    Audience members. Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
    The President. During the decade of the 1990s, our times often 
seemed peaceful on the surface. Yet, beneath that surface were currents 
of danger. Terrorists were training and planning in distant camps. In 
1993, terrorists made their first attack on the World Trade Center. In 
1998, terrorists bombed American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And 
then came the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, which cost the lives of 
17 American sailors. In this period, America's response to terrorism was 
generally piecemeal and symbolic. The terrorists concluded this was a 
sign of weakness, and their plans became more ambitious,* and their 
attacks became more deadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *White House correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most Americans still felt that terrorism was something distant and 
something that would not strike on a large scale in America. That is the 
time that my opponent wants to go back to----
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. ----a time when danger was real and growing, but we 
didn't know

[[Page 2568]]

it, a time when some thought terrorism was only a ``nuisance.''
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. But that very attitude is what blinded America to the 
war being waged against us. And by not seeing the war, our Government 
had no comprehensive strategy to fight it. September the 11th, 2001, 
changed all that. We realized that the apparent security of the 1990s 
was an illusion.
    The people of New Jersey were among the first to understand how the 
world changed. On September the 11th, from places like Hoboken and 
Jersey City, you could look across the Hudson River and see the Twin 
Towers burning. We will never forget that day, and we will never forget 
our duty to defend America.
    Out of the horror of that day, we also saw good emerge. America has 
seen a new generation of heroes, police, firefighters, members of the 
military. Americans have felt a new sense of community in neighborhoods 
and across our country. We've been reminded that all of us are a part of 
a great American story that is larger than our individual lives, and we 
have been reminded of our solemn responsibility to defend freedom.
    September the 11th also changed the way we should look at national 
security, but not everyone realizes it. The choice we face in this 
election, the first Presidential election since September the 11th, is 
how our Nation will defeat this threat. Will we stay on the offensive 
against those who want to attack us----
    Audience members. Yes!
    The President. ----or will we take action only after we are 
attacked?
    Audience members. No-o-o!
    The President. Will we make decisions in the light of September the 
11th or continue to live in the mirage of safety that was actually a 
time of gathering threats? And in this time of choosing, I want all 
Americans to know you can count on me to fight our enemies and defend 
our freedom.
    Winning the war on terror requires more than tough-sounding words 
repeated in the election season. America needs clear moral purpose and 
leaders who will not waver, especially in the tough times. And winning 
the war on terror requires a strategy for victory. Unlike my 
opponent, I understand the struggle America 
faces, and I have a strategy to win.
    Our first duty in the war on terror is to protect the homeland. This 
morning at the White House, I signed a strong law that will make our 
Nation more secure. With the 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 
we are providing essential funding for Coast Guard patrols and port 
security, for the Federal air marshal program, and for technology that 
will defend aircraft against missiles. We're adding new resources to 
patrol our borders and to verify the identity of foreign visitors to 
America. We need to know who's coming in and out of our country.
    The new law includes vital money for first-responders and for better 
security of chemical facilities and nuclear plants and water treatment 
plants and bridges and subways and tunnels. All these measures show the 
unwavering commitment of our Government. We will do everything in our 
power to protect the American people.
    The law I signed today is part of a broad effort to defend America 
against new dangers. After September the 11th, we created the Department 
of Homeland Security to make sure our Government agencies are working 
together. We're transforming the FBI into an agency whose primary focus 
is stopping terrorism. Through Project BioShield, we are developing new 
vaccines and treatments against biological attacks. We've trained more 
than a half million first-responders across America.
    To protect America, we passed the PATRIOT Act, giving law 
enforcement many of the same tools to fight terrorists that they already 
had to fight drug cartels and

[[Page 2569]]

organized crime. Since September the 11th, law enforcement professionals 
have stopped terrorist activities in Columbus, Ohio; San Diego, 
California; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Buffalo, New York; 
and other places, including New Jersey, where we apprehended an arms 
dealer who was allegedly trying to sell shoulder-fired missiles to 
terrorists.
    My opponent voted for the PATRIOT Act, but 
now he wants to weaken it. There are plenty of safeguards in this law, 
making sure that civil liberties are protected and searches are 
authorized by court order. By seeking to dilute the PATRIOT Act, my 
opponent is taking the eye off the ball. The danger to America is not 
the PATRIOT Act or the good people who use it; the danger to America is 
the terrorists. And we will not let up in this fight.
    To protect America, our country needs the best possible 
intelligence. Chairman Tom Kean and other 
members of the September the 11th Commission made thoughtful and 
valuable recommendations on intelligence reform. We are already 
implementing the vast majority of those recommendations that can be 
enacted without a vote of Congress. We're expanding and strengthening 
the capabilities of the CIA. We've established the Terrorist Threat 
Integration Center so we can bring together all the available 
intelligence on terrorist threats to one place.
    But other changes require new laws. Congress needs to create the 
position of the National Intelligence Director and take other measures 
to make our intelligence community more effective. These reforms are 
necessary to stay ahead of the threats. I urge Congress to act quickly 
so I can sign them into law.
    My opponent has taken a different approach, and it shows in his 
record. Just one year after the first attack on the World Trade Center 
in 1993, Senator Kerry proposed a $6 billion 
cut in the Nation's intelligence budget.
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. But the majority of his colleagues ignored his 
irresponsible proposal. In 1995, he tried to 
cut intelligence funding again, and this time he could not get a single 
Member of the United States Senate to support his bill. And that's an 
important difference between us. Senator Kerry has a record of trying to 
weaken American intelligence. I am working every day to strengthen 
American intelligence.
    In a free and open society, it is impossible to protect against 
every threat. So second, we must pursue a comprehensive strategy against 
terror. The best way to prevent attacks is to stay on the offense 
against the enemy overseas. We are waging a global campaign from the 
mountains of central Asia to the deserts of the Middle East and from the 
Horn of Africa to the Philippines.
    These efforts are paying off. Since September the 11th, 2001, more 
than three-quarters of Al Qaida's key members and associates have been 
brought to justice. The rest of them know we're coming after them.
    After September the 11th, we set a new direction for American policy 
and enforced a doctrine that is clear to all: ``If you support or harbor 
terrorists, you're equally guilty of terrorist murder.'' We destroyed 
the terror camps that trained thousands of killers in Afghanistan. We 
removed the Taliban from power. We have persuaded Governments in 
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to recognize the enemy and join the fight. We 
ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, which 
sponsored terror. Iraq's new Government under Prime Minister 
Allawi is hunting down terrorists in Iraq. We 
sent a message to Libya, which has now given up weapons of mass 
destruction programs and handed nuclear materials and equipment over to 
the United States. We have acted, through diplomacy and force, to shrink 
the area where the terrorists can operate freely, and that strategy has 
the terrorists on the run.

[[Page 2570]]

    My opponent has a fundamental 
misunderstanding on the war on terror. A reporter recently asked Senator 
Kerry how September the 11th changed him. He replied, ``It didn't change 
me much at all.''
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. His unchanged worldview is obvious from the policies 
he still advocates. He has said this war is 
primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation. He has 
declared, we should not respond to threats until they are, quote, 
``imminent.'' He has complained that my administration, quote, ``relies 
unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist 
organizations.'' Let me repeat that. He says that preemptive action is 
``unwise,'' not only against regimes but even against terrorist 
organizations.
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. Senator Kerry's approach 
would permit a response only after America is hit.
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. This kind of September the 10th attitude is no way to 
protect our country. The war on terror is a real war with deadly 
enemies, not simply a police operation. In an era of weapons of mass 
destruction, waiting for threats to arrive at our doorsteps is to invite 
disaster. Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before 
they attack our country. As long as I'm the Commander in Chief, I will 
confront dangers abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.
    The case of one terrorist shows what is at stake. The terrorist 
leader we face in Iraq today, the one responsible for beheading American 
hostages, the one responsible for many of the car bombings and attacks 
against Iraqis, is a man named Zarqawi. 
Before September the 11th, Zarqawi ran a camp in Afghanistan that 
trained terrorists in the use of explosives and poisons--until coalition 
forces destroyed that camp. He fled to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where he received medical care and set up 
operations with some two dozen terrorist associates. He operated in 
Baghdad and worked with associates in northern Iraq who ran camps to 
train terrorists and conducted chemical and biological experiments--
until coalition forces arrived and ended those operations. With nowhere 
to operate openly, Zarqawi has gone underground and is making a stand in 
Iraq.
    Here, the difference between my opponent 
and me is very clear. Senator Kerry believes that fighting 
Zarqawi and other terrorists in Iraq is 
a ``diversion'' from the war on terror. I believe that fighting and 
defeating these killers in Iraq is a central commitment in the war on 
terror.
    If Zarqawi and his associates were 
not busy fighting American forces in Iraq, does Senator Kerry think they would be leading productive and peaceful 
lives? [Laughter] Clearly, these killers would be plotting and acting to 
murder innocent civilians in free nations, including our own. By facing 
these terrorists far away, our military is making the United States of 
America more secure.
    Third, to win the war on terror, America must work with allies and 
lead the world with clarity. And that is exactly what we are doing. The 
flags of 64 nations fly at U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Tampa, 
Florida, representing coalition countries that are working openly with 
us in the war on terror. Dozens more are helping quietly in important 
ways. Today, all 26 NATO nations have personnel either in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, or both. America's allies are standing with us in the war 
on terror, and we are grateful.
    My opponent promises that he would do better with our allies, yet 
he's decided that the way to build alliances is to insult our friends. 
As a candidate for President, Senator Kerry 
has managed to offend or alienate almost every one of America's fighting 
allies in the war on terror. He has called the countries serving 
alongside us in Iraq, quote, ``a trumped-up coalition of the bribed, the 
coerced, the bought, and the extorted.''
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!

[[Page 2571]]

    The President. He has dismissed the 
sacrifice of 14 nations that have lost forces in Iraq, calling those 
nations ``window dressing.'' In our debate a few weeks ago, he declared, 
``When we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia, 
and the United States.'' He left out Poland, one of the first countries 
to see combat on the first days of hostilities in Iraq. He never shows 
respect for some of the 30 nations that are serving courageously in Iraq 
today.
    Senator Kerry even has disregarded the 
contributions of Iraqis who are fighting for their freedom. When he 
speaks of coalition casualties in Iraq, he doesn't count the hundreds of 
Iraqis who have given their lives fighting the terrorists and the 
insurgents. When Iraq's Prime Minister came to 
Washington to address Congress last month, Senator Kerry did not show 
up. Instead, he called a press conference and questioned the Prime 
Minister's credibility. The Prime Minister of Iraq is a brave man who 
survived the assassins of Saddam. The Prime 
Minister of Iraq deserves the respect of the world, not the scorn of a 
politician.
    As part of his foreign policy, Senator Kerry has talked about applying a ``global test.''
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. As far as I can tell, it comes down to this: Before 
we act to defend ourselves, he thinks we need 
permission from foreign capitals.
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. Yet, even the gulf war coalition in 1991 did not pass 
Senator Kerry's ``global test.'' Even with the 
United Nations approval, he voted against removing Saddam 
Hussein from Kuwait.
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. If that vast, U.N.-supported operation did not pass 
his test, nothing ever could. Senator Kerry's 
``global test'' is nothing more than an excuse to constrain the actions 
of our own country in a dangerous world.
    I believe in strong alliances. I believe in respecting other 
countries and working with them and seeking their advice. But I will 
never submit our national security decisions to a veto of a foreign 
government.
    Audience members. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
    The President. Fourth, we will win the war on terror and make 
America safer by advancing the cause of freedom and democracy. Free 
societies are hopeful societies which do not nurture bitterness or the 
ideologies of terror and murder. Free governments in the broader Middle 
East will fight the terrorists instead of harboring them. And this is 
why a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan are vital to peace in that region 
and vital to the security interests of our country.
    After decades of tyranny in the broader Middle East, progress toward 
freedom will not come easily. Yet, that progress is coming faster than 
many would have said possible. Across a troubled region, we are seeing a 
movement toward elections, greater rights for women, and open discussion 
of peaceful reform. The election in Afghanistan less than 2 weeks ago 
was a landmark event in the history of liberty. That election was a 
tremendous defeat for the terrorists.
    My opponent has complained that we are 
trying to, quote, ``impose'' democracy on people in that region. Is that 
what he sees in Afghanistan, unwilling people having democracy forced 
upon them? We removed the Taliban by force, but democracy is rising in 
that country because the Afghan people, like everywhere, want to live in 
freedom.
    No one forced them to register by the millions or stand in long 
lines at polling places. On the day of that historic election, an Afghan 
widow brought all four of her daughters to vote alongside her. She said 
this, she said, ``When you see women here lined up to vote, this is 
something profound. I never dreamed this day would come.'' But that 
woman's dream


[[Page 2572]]

finally arrived, as it will one day across the greater Middle East. 
[Applause] Thank you.
    The dream of freedom is moving forward in Iraq. The terrorists know 
it, and they hate it, and they fight it. And we can expect more violence 
as Iraq moves toward free elections. Yet, every day in Iraq, our 
coalition is defeating the enemy's strategic objectives. The enemy seeks 
to disrupt the march toward democracy. But an Iraqi independent 
electoral commission is up and running, political parties are planning 
campaigns, voter registration will begin next month, and free and fair 
Iraqi elections will be held on schedule this coming January.
    The enemy seeks to establish sanctuaries in Iraq from which to 
commit acts of terror. But Iraqi and coalition forces are on the 
offensive in Fallujah and North Babil and have restored Government 
control in Samarra, Tall `Afar, and Najaf.
    The enemy wants to make Iraqis afraid to join security forces. But 
every week, more and more Iraqis answer the call to arms. More than 
100,000 soldiers, police, and border guards are already trained, 
equipped, and bravely serving their country. And well over 200,000 will 
be in place by the end of 2005.
    The enemy seeks to break the will of the Iraqi people. But as Prime 
Minister Allawi told the Congress, Iraqis are 
hopeful, optimistic, and determined to prevail in their struggle for 
liberty.
    After the enemy has failed in so many goals, what can these killers 
do now? They can fill up our TV screens with horrible images of suicide 
bombings and beheadings. These scenes are chaotic and horrific, but 
they're not a complete picture of what's happening in Iraq. A recent 
poll found that more than 75 percent of Iraqis want to vote, and they 
have confidence in the electoral progress. And more than 75 percent are 
hopeful about the future of their country. The violent acts of a few 
will not divert Iraqis and our coalition from the mission we have 
accepted. Iraq will be free. Iraqis will be secure. And the terrorists 
will fail.
    My opponent has a different outlook. While 
America does the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom, he 
has chosen the easy path of protest and defeatism. He refuses to 
acknowledge progress or praise the growing democratic spirit in Iraq. He 
has not made democracy a priority of his foreign policy. But what is his 
strategy, his vision, his answer? Is he content to watch and wait as 
anger and resentment grow for more decades in the Middle East, feeding 
more terrorism until radicals without conscience gain the weapons to 
kill without limit?
    Giving up the fight might seem easier in the short run, but we 
learned on September the 11th that if violence and fanaticism are not 
opposed at their source, they will find us where we live. America is 
safer today because Afghanistan and Iraq are fighting terrorists instead 
of harboring them. And I believe future generations of Americans will be 
spared violence and fear as democracy and hope and governments that 
oppose terror multiply across the Middle East.
    Victory in the war on terror requires victory in Iraq. If a terror 
regime were allowed to reemerge in Iraq, the terrorists would find a 
home, a source of funding, and vital support. They would correctly 
conclude that free nations do not have the will to defend themselves. 
When Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle East, an 
ally in the war on terror, and a model for hopeful reform in a region 
that needs hopeful reform, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat 
and every free nation will be more secure.
    Unfortunately, Senator Kerry does not 
share our commitment to victory in Iraq. For 3 years, depending on the 
headlines, the poll numbers, and political calculation, he has taken 
almost every conceivable position on Iraq.
    Audience members. Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!

[[Page 2573]]

    The President. First, he said Saddam 
Hussein was a threat, and he voted for the 
war. Then he voted against funds for bullets and body armor for the 
troops he had voted to send into battle.
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. He declared himself an 
antiwar candidate. Months later, he said that knowing everything we know 
now, he would have still voted for the war. Then he said the war was a 
``mistake,'' an ``error,'' or ``diversion.'' Having gone back and forth 
so many times, the Senator from Massachusetts has now flip-flopped his 
way to a dangerous position. My opponent finally has settled on a 
strategy, a strategy of retreat.
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. He has talked about 
artificial timetables to pull our troops out of Iraq. He has sent the 
signal that America's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave, even if 
the job is not done.
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. And that approach would lead to a major defeat in the 
war on terror. So long as I'm the Commander in Chief, America will never 
retreat in the face of the terrorists. [Applause] Thank you.
    We will keep our word to the Iraqi people. We'll make sure Iraqi 
forces can defend their country, and then American troops will return 
home with the honor they have earned.
    On each of the four commitments needed to prevail in the war on 
terror, there is a clear choice before the American people. My 
opponent wants to weaken the PATRIOT Act and 
has a history of trying to undermine our intelligence services. I will 
take every necessary measure to protect the homeland. The Senator wants 
to wage the war on terror on the defensive. I will take the fight to the 
enemy. The Senator insults our friends in the world and wants to please 
a few critics. I'm working with our friends for the sake of freedom and 
security. The Senator is skeptical and pessimistic about democracy in 
Iraq and critical of our efforts in the broader Middle East. I know that 
the advance of freedom is the path to security and peace.
    In all these areas, my opponent's views would make America less 
secure and the world more dangerous. And none of these positions should 
come as a surprise. Over a 20-year career in the United States Senate, 
Senator Kerry has been consistently wrong on 
the major national security issues facing our country. The Senator who 
voted against the $87 billion for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is 
the same Senator who has voted against vital weapons systems during his 
entire career. He tried to cancel the Patriot missile, which shot down 
Scud missiles in Operation Desert Storm. He opposed the B-1 bomber, 
which was critical to victory in the Afghan campaign. He opposed the B-2 
stealth bomber, which delivered devastating air strikes on Taliban 
positions. He opposed the modernized F-14D, which we used against 
terrorists in Tora Bora. He opposed the Apache helicopter, which 
destroyed enemy tanks and anti-aircraft missile launchers in Iraq.
    The Senator who is skeptical of democracy 
in Iraq also spoke with sympathy for a communist dictator in Nicaragua in the 1980s and criticized the democracy 
movement as ``terrorism.'' His misguided policies would have impeded the 
spread of freedom in Central America. The Senator who claims the world 
is more dangerous since America started fighting the war on terror is 
the same Senator who said that Ronald Reagan's policies of peace through 
strength actually made America less safe----
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. ----the same Senator who 
said the Reagan Presidency was 8 years of ``moral darkness.''
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. In this campaign, Senator Kerry can run from his record, but he cannot hide. [Applause] 
Thank you.
    The Senator's long record shows a clear 
pattern on national security. He has consistently opposed a stronger 
military. He has consistently looked for excuses to constrain

[[Page 2574]]

American power. He has consistently shown poor judgment on the great 
issues of war and peace. When one Senator among a hundred holds a policy 
of weakness, it doesn't make a lot of difference. But the Presidency is 
an office of great responsibility and consequence.
    I have a record in office as well, and all Americans have seen that 
record. September the 14th,* 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin 
Towers. It's a day I will never forget. Bernie might remember the workers in hardhats that were yelling 
at me and yelling at us, ``Whatever it takes.'' A man grabbed me by the 
arm, just coming out of the rubble, and he said, ``Do not let me down.'' 
I have a responsibility that goes on. I wake up every morning thinking 
about how to make our country more secure. I acted again and again to 
protect the American people. I will never relent in defending our 
country, whatever it takes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *White House correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a new term----
    Audience members. Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
    The President. In a new term as your President, we will finish the 
work we have started. We will stand up for terror--we will stand up for 
freedom. And on November the 2d, my fellow Americans, I ask that you 
stand with me.
    God bless. Thank you all.

Note: The President spoke at 1:21 p.m. at the Evesham Recreation Center. 
In his remarks, he referred to Bernard B. Kerik, former commissioner, 
New York City Police Department; Tina LoBiondo, wife of Representative 
Frank A. LoBiondo; Marie Smith, wife of Representative Christopher H. 
Smith; Edward W. Gillespie, chairman, Republican National Committee; 
Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon 
the United States (9/11 Commission); former President Saddam Hussein of 
Iraq; Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of the Iraqi Interim Government; senior 
Al Qaida associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi; and former President Daniel 
Ortega of Nicaragua. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a 
Spanish language transcript of these remarks.