[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2005, Book II)]
[December 19, 2005]
[Pages 1875-1888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference
December 19, 2005

    The President. Welcome. Please be seated. Thanks.
    Last night I addressed the Nation about our strategy for victory in 
Iraq and the historic elections that took place in the country last 
week. In a nation that once lived by the whims of a brutal 
dictator, the Iraqi people now enjoy 
constitutionally protected freedoms, and their leaders now derive their 
powers from the consent of the governed. Millions of Iraqis are looking 
forward to a future with hope and optimism.
    The Iraqi people still face many challenges. This is the first time 
the Iraqis are forming a Government under their new Constitution. The 
Iraqi Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Parliament for 
certain top officials, so the formation of the new Government will take 
time as Iraqis work to build consensus. And once the new Iraqi 
Government assumes office, Iraq's new leaders will face many important 
decisions on issues such as security and reconstruction, economic 
reform, and national unity. The work ahead will require the patience of 
the Iraqi people and the patience and support of America and our 
coalition partners.
    As I said last night, this election does not mean the end of 
violence, but it is the beginning of something new, a constitutional 
democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And we will keep working 
toward our goal of a democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain 
itself, and defend itself.
    Our mission in Iraq is critical to victory in the global war on 
terror. After our country was attacked on September the 11th and nearly 
3,000 lives were lost, I vowed to do everything within my power to bring 
justice to those who were responsible. I also pledged to the American 
people to do everything within my power to prevent this from happening 
again. What we quickly

[[Page 1876]]

learned was that Al Qaida was not a conventional enemy. Some lived in 
our cities and communities and communicated from here in America to plot 
and plan with bin Laden's lieutenants in 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Then they boarded our airplanes 
and launched the worst attack on our country in our Nation's history.
    This new threat required us to think and act differently. And as the 
9/11 Commission pointed out, to prevent this from happening again, we 
need to connect the dots before the enemy attacks, not after. And we 
need to recognize that dealing with Al Qaida is not simply a matter of 
law enforcement; it requires defending the country against an enemy that 
declared war against the United States of America.
    As President and Commander in Chief, I have the constitutional 
responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. 
Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the 
authority necessary to fulfill it. And after September the 11th, the 
United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use 
military force against Al Qaida.
    After September the 11th, one question my administration had to 
answer was how, using the authorities I have, how do we effectively 
detect enemies hiding in our midst and prevent them from striking us 
again? We know that a 2-minute phone conversation between somebody 
linked to Al Qaida here and an operative overseas could lead directly to 
the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able 
to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new 
attacks.
    So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorized the 
interception of international communications of people with known links 
to Al Qaida and related terrorist organizations. This program is 
carefully reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure it is being 
used properly. Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed 
more than a dozen times on this program. And it has been effective in 
disrupting the enemy while safeguarding our civil liberties.
    This program has targeted those with known links to Al Qaida. I've 
reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 
11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as our Nation is--for so 
long as the Nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to 
kill American citizens.
    Another vital tool in the war on terror is the PATRIOT Act. After 
September the 11th, Congress acted quickly and responsibly by passing 
this law, which provides our law enforcement and intelligence community 
key tools to prevent attacks in our country. The PATRIOT Act tore down 
the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and 
intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist 
threats. It allows Federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools 
already used against other types of criminals. America's law enforcement 
personnel have used this critical tool to prosecute terrorist operatives 
and their supporters and to breakup cells here in America.
    Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in 12 days. The 
House of Representatives voted for reauthorization, but last week, a 
minority of Senators filibustered the PATRIOT Act, blocking the Senate 
from voting to reauthorize key provisions of this vital law. In fact, 
the Senate Democratic leader boasted to a group 
of political supporters that the Senate Democrats had ``killed the 
PATRIOT Act.'' Most of the Senators now filibustering the PATRIOT Act 
actually voted for it in 2001. These Senators need to explain why they 
thought the PATRIOT Act was a vital tool after the September the 11th 
attacks but now think it's no longer necessary.
    The terrorists want to strike America again, and they hope to 
inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. 
Congress has a responsibility to give our law enforcement and 
intelligence officials the tools they need to protect the

[[Page 1877]]

American people. The Senators who are filibustering the PATRIOT Act must 
stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the 
PATRIOT Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this 
law for a single moment.
    As we fight the war on terror, we'll also continue to work to build 
prosperity for our citizens. Because we cut taxes and restrained 
nonsecurity spending, our economy is strong, and it is getting stronger. 
We added 215,000 new jobs in November. We've added nearly 4.5 million 
new jobs since May of 2003. The unemployment rate is down to 5 percent, 
lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Despite 
hurricanes and high gas prices, third-quarter growth was 4.3 percent. 
More Americans own their own homes than at any time in our history. 
Inflation is low. Productivity is high, and consumer confidence is up. 
We're heading into a new year with an economy that is the envy of the 
world, and we have every reason to be optimistic about our economic 
future.
    We made other important progress this year on the priorities of 
American families. We passed a good energy bill, and we're putting 
America on the path to make our economy less dependent on foreign 
sources of oil. We were wise with taxpayers' money and cut nonsecurity 
discretionary spending below last year's level. We passed the Central 
American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement to open up markets and 
help level the playing field for America's workers and farmers and small 
businesses. We passed bankruptcy reform and class-action lawsuit reform. 
I appointed John Roberts as the 17th 
Chief Justice of the United States. Chief Justice Roberts is poised to 
lead the Supreme Court with integrity and prudence for decades to come.
    We've got more work to do in this coming year. To keep our economy 
growing, we need to keep taxes low and make the tax relief permanent. We 
must restrain Government spending, and I'm pleased that the House today 
has voted to rein in entitlement spending by $40 billion, and I urge the 
United States Senate to join them. We must reduce junk lawsuits and 
strengthen our education system and give more Americans the ability to 
obtain affordable health insurance. We must pass comprehensive 
immigration reform that protects our borders, strengthens enforcement, 
and creates a new temporary-worker program that relieves pressure on the 
border but rejects amnesty.
    I look forward to the Senate holding an up-or-down vote on Judge Sam 
Alito and confirming him by January 
20th as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Alito has more 
prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 
years. He's a highly respected and principled jurist, and he will make 
our Nation proud as a member of the High Court.
    As we prepare to spend time with our families this holiday season, 
we also stop to count our blessings. We're thankful for our courageous 
men and women in uniform who are spending the holidays away from loved 
ones, standing watch for liberty in distant lands. We give thanks for 
our military families who love and support them in their vital work and 
who also serve our country. And we pray for the families of the fallen 
heroes. We hold them in our hearts and we lift them up in our prayers 
and we pledge that the sacrifice of their loved ones will never be 
forgotten.
    I'll be glad to answer some questions here, starting with you, Terry 
[Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Investigation of Leaks/Judicial Safeguards on Wiretaps

    Q. Thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into 
the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the 
basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?
    The President. Let me start with the first question. There is a 
process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks,

[[Page 1878]]

and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it 
was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program 
in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping 
the enemy.
    You've got to understand--and I hope the American people 
understand--there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United 
States of America, and they're very dangerous. And the discussion about 
how we try to find them will enable them to adjust. Now, I can 
understand you asking these questions, and if I were you, I'd be asking 
me these questions too. But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got 
secrets of the United States Government and feels like they need to 
disclose them publicly.
    Let me give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy 
know what may or may not be happening. In the late 1990s, our Government 
was following Usama bin Laden because he was 
using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact that we were 
following Usama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of 
telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what 
happened? Saddam--Usama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to 
change how he communicated.
    We're at war, and we must protect America's secrets. And so the 
Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full 
investigation. I haven't ordered one, because I understand there's kind 
of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak 
emerges.
    The second part of the question is? Sorry, I gave a long answer.
    Q. It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts 
for permission for the intercepts?
    The President. First of all, I--right after September the 11th, I 
knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in 
my administration to analyze how best for me and our Government to do 
the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a 
possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the 
possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect 
and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to 
move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on 
our feet, quick to detect and prevent.
    We use FISA still--you're referring to the FISA court in your 
question--of course we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. 
What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to 
move quickly to detect.
    Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the 
question, is it legal to do so? I am--I swore to uphold the laws. Do I 
have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I 
mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the 
Constitution as well as the authorization of force by the United States 
Congress.
    Adam [Adam Entous, Reuters].

Iraqi Elections and Constitution

    Q. Mr. President, you have hailed the Iraqi elections as a success, 
but some lawmakers say you are not focusing on the threat of civil war. 
Do you fear a civil war? And how hard will you push Iraq's competing 
political parties to get a Government and a constitutional compromise?
    The President. I appreciate that. We look at all contingencies, but 
my optimism about a unified Iraq moving forward was confirmed when over 
10 million people went to the polls under a--and voted for a Government 
under the new Constitution. Constitutions tend to bind societies.
    Now, there are some things we've got to watch, Adam, for certain. 
One, is we've got to help the Iraqi Government as best as they need 
help, to stand up a Government as quickly as possible. In other words, 
we're urging them: Don't delay; move as

[[Page 1879]]

quickly as you can; solve the--get the political parties--once the vote 
is completed, get the political parties together and come up with a 
Government.
    And it's going to take awhile, because, first of all, the ballots 
won't be fully counted, I guess, until early January. And then, as I 
mentioned in my remarks, it takes a two-thirds vote to--first, to seat 
certain officials. Sometimes it's hard to achieve a two-thirds vote in 
legislative bodies. How about the Senate, for example? [Laughter] But 
nevertheless, it's going to take awhile. And the American people have 
got to understand that we think in terms of elections, most of our 
elections end the day after the election. Sometimes they don't, Adam. 
[Laughter] And so you're going to see a lot of give-and-take, and it's 
important for us to get this process moving forward.
    Secondly, there is an opportunity to amend the Constitution. You 
remember that was part of the deal with the Iraqis in order to get this 
process moving. And we'll want to make sure we're monitoring and 
involved with that part. In other words, involvement doesn't mean 
telling the sovereign Government what to do. Involvement means giving 
advice as to how to move forward so a country becomes more unified. And 
I'm very optimistic about the way forward for the Iraqi people.
    And the reason why is based upon the fact that the Iraqis have shown 
incredible courage. Think about what has happened in a brief period of 
time--relatively brief. I know with all the TV stations and stuff in 
America, 2\1/2\ years seems like an eternity. But in the march of 
history, it's not all that long. They have gone from tyranny to an 
amazing election last December. If I'd have stood up here a year ago, in 
one of my many press conferences, and told you that in the--``Next year 
I make this prediction to you: That over 10 million Iraqis, including 
many Sunnis, will vote for a permanent Government,'' I think you 
probably would have said, ``There he goes again.''
    But it happened. And it happened because the Iraqis want to live in 
a free society. And what's important about this election is that Iraq 
will become an ally in the war on terror, and Iraq will serve as a 
beacon for what is possible, a beacon of freedom in a part of the world 
that is desperate for freedom and liberty. And as I say in my speeches, 
a free Iraq will serve as such an optimistic and hopeful example for 
reformers from Tehran to Damascus. And that's an important part of a 
strategy to help lay the foundation of peace for generations.
    John [John Roberts, CBS News].

President's Decision on Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. So many questions, so little time.
    The President. Well, keep your question short, then. [Laughter]
    Q. I'll do my best, sir. But sir, you've shown a remarkable spirit 
of candor in the last couple of weeks in your conversation and speeches 
about Iraq. And I'm wondering if, in that spirit, I might ask you a 
question that you didn't seem to have an answer for the last time you 
were asked, and that is, what would you say is the biggest mistake 
you've made during your Presidency, and what have you learned from it?
    The President. Answering Dickerson's [John Dickerson, TIME] 
question. No, I--the last time those questions were asked, I really felt 
like it was an attempt for me to say it was a mistake to go into Iraq. 
And it wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq. It was the right decision to 
make.
    I think that, John, there's going to be a lot of analysis done on 
the decisions on the ground in Iraq. For example, I'm fully aware that 
some have said it was a mistake not to put enough troops there 
immediately--or more troops. I made my decision based upon the 
recommendations of Tommy Franks, and I still 
think it was the right decision to make. But history will judge.

[[Page 1880]]

    I said the other day that a mistake was trying to train a civilian 
defense force and an Iraqi army at the same time but not giving the 
civilian defense force enough training and tools necessary to be able to 
battle a group of thugs and killers. And so we adjusted.
    And the point I'm trying to make to the American people in this, as 
you said, candid dialog--I hope I've been candid all along, but in the 
candid dialog--is to say, we're constantly changing our tactics to meet 
the changing tactics of an enemy. And that's important for our citizens 
to understand.
    Thank you. Kelly [Kelly Wallace, Cable News Network].

Open Dialog on Wiretaps

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. If you believe that present law needs 
to be faster, more agile, concerning the surveillance of conversations 
from someone in the United States to somewhere outside the country----
    The President. Right.
    Q. ----why, in the 4 years since 9/11, has your administration not 
sought to get changes in the law instead of bypassing it, as some of 
your critics have said?
    The President. No, I appreciate that. First, I want to make clear to 
the people listening that this program is limited in nature to those 
that are known Al Qaida ties and/or affiliates. That's important. So 
it's a program that's limited, and you brought up something that I want 
to stress, and that is, is that these calls are not intercepted within 
the country. They are from outside the country to in the country or vice 
versa. So in other words, this is not a--if you're calling from Houston 
to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to 
monitor, there would be a process to do that.
    I think I've got the authority to move forward, Kelly. I mean, this 
is what it's--and the Attorney General 
was out briefing this morning and I--about why it's legal to make the 
decisions I'm making. I can fully understand why Members of Congress are 
expressing concerns about civil liberties. I know that. And it's--I 
share the same concerns. I want to make sure the American people 
understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and 
we're doing that and, at the same time, protecting your civil liberties.
    Secondly, an open debate about law would say to the enemy, ``Here's 
what we're going to do.'' And this is an enemy which adjusts. We monitor 
this program carefully. We have consulted with Members of the Congress 
over a dozen times. We are constantly reviewing the program. Those of us 
who review the program have a duty to uphold the laws of the United 
States, and we take that duty very seriously.
    Let's see here--Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News]--working my way 
around the electronic media, here.

Domestic Wiretaps

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You say you have an obligation to 
protect us. Then why not monitor those calls between Houston and L.A.? 
If the threat is so great, and you use the same logic, why not monitor 
those calls? Americans thought they weren't being spied on in calls 
overseas--why not within the country, if the threat is so great?
    The President. We will, under current law, if we have to. We will 
monitor those calls. And that's why there is a FISA law. We will apply 
for the right to do so. And there's a difference--let me finish--there 
is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. 
And it's important to know the distinction between the two.
    Q. But preventing is one thing, and you said the FISA laws 
essentially don't work because of the speed in monitoring calls 
overseas.
    The President. I said we use the FISA courts to monitor calls. It's 
a very important tool, and we do use it. I just want to make sure we've 
got all tools at our disposal. This

[[Page 1881]]

is an enemy which is quick, and it's lethal. And sometimes we have to 
move very, very quickly. But if there is a need based upon evidence, we 
will take that evidence to a court in order to be able to monitor calls 
within the United States.
    Who haven't I called on, let's see here. Suzanne [Suzanne Malveaux, 
Cable News Network].

Congressional Oversight

    Q. Democrats have said that you have acted beyond the law and that 
you have even broken the law. There are some Republicans who are calling 
for congressional hearings and even an independent investigation. Are 
you willing to go before Members of Congress and explain this 
eavesdropping program? And do you support an independent investigation?
    The President. We have been talking to Members of the United States 
Congress. We have met with them over 12 times. And it's important for 
them to be brought into this process. Again, I repeat, I understand 
people's concerns. But I also want to assure the American people that I 
am doing what you expect me to do, which is to safeguard civil liberties 
and, at the same time, protect the United States of America. And we've 
explained the authorities under which I'm making our decisions and will 
continue to do so.
    Secondly, there is a committee--two committees on the Hill which are 
responsible, and that's the Intelligence Committee. Again, any public 
hearings on programs will say to the enemy, here's what they do; adjust. 
This is a war. Of course we consult with Congress and have been 
consulting with Congress and will continue to do so.
    Wendell [Wendell Goler, FOX News Channel]. You got a little problem 
there, Wendell? [Laughter]

Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction/Iraq

    Q. I'm caught, Mr. President.
    The President. Oh, you're caught. [Laughter] Well, liberate him. 
[Laughter]
    Q. You've talked about your decision to go to war and the bad 
intelligence, and you've carefully separated the intelligence from the 
decision, saying that it was the right decision to go to war despite the 
problems with the intelligence, sir. But with respect, the intelligence 
helped you build public support for the war. And so I wonder if now, as 
you look back, if you look at that intelligence and feel that the 
intelligence and your use of it might bear some responsibility for the 
current divisions in the country over the war, and what can you do about 
it, sir?
    The President. No, I appreciate that. First of all, I can understand 
why people were--well, wait a minute. Everybody thought there was 
weapons of mass destruction, and there weren't any. I felt the same way. 
We looked at the intelligence and felt certain that Saddam 
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. 
Intelligence agencies around the world felt the same way, by the way. 
Members of the United States Congress looked at the National 
Intelligence Estimate--same intelligence estimate I looked at--and came 
to the same conclusion, Wendell.
    So in other words, there was universal--there was a universal 
feeling that he had weapons of mass destruction. As a matter of fact, it 
was so universal that the United Nations Security Council passed 
numerous resolutions. And so when the weapons weren't there, like many 
Americans, I was concerned and wondered why. That's why we set up the 
Silberman-Robb Commission to address intelligence shortfalls, to 
hopefully see to it that this kind of situation didn't arise.
    Now, having said all that, what we did find after the war was that 
Saddam Hussein had the desire to--or the 
liberation--Saddam had the desire to reconstitute his weapons programs. 
In other words, he had the capacity to reconstitute them. America

[[Page 1882]]

was still his enemy. And of course, he manipulated the Oil-for-Food 
Programme in the hopes of ending sanctions. In our view, he was just 
waiting for the world to turn its head, to look away, in order to 
reconstitute the programs. He was dangerous then. It's the right 
decision to have removed Saddam.
    Now, the American people--I will continue to speak to the American 
people on this issue, to not only describe the decisionmaking process 
but also the way forward. I gave a speech prior to the liberation of 
Iraq, when I talked about a broader strategic objective, which is the 
establishment of democracy. And I've talked about democracy in Iraq. 
Certainly it's not the only rationale; I'm not claiming that. But I also 
want you to review that speech so that you get a sense for not only the 
desire to remove a threat, but also the desire to help establish 
democracy. And the amazing thing about--in Iraq, as a part of a broader 
strategy to help what I call, ``lay the foundation of peace,'' 
democracies don't war; democracies are peaceful countries.
    And what you're seeing now is an historic moment, because I believe 
democracies will spread. I believe when people get the taste for freedom 
or see a neighbor with a taste for freedom, they will demand the same 
thing, because I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe 
everybody has the desire to be free. I recognize some don't believe 
that, which basically condemns some to tyranny. I strongly believe that 
deep in everybody's soul is the desire to live in liberty, and if given 
a chance, they will choose that path. And it's not easy to do that. The 
other day, I gave a speech and talked about how our road to our 
Constitution, which got amended shortly after it was approved, was 
pretty bumpy. We tried the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work. 
There was a lot of, kind of, civil unrest. But nevertheless, in that--
deep in the soul is the desire to live in liberty; people--make the--
have got the patience and the steadfastness to achieve that objective. 
And that is what we're seeing in Iraq.
    And it's not going to be easy. It's still going to be hard, because 
we're getting rid of decades of bitterness. If you're a--you know, you 
find these secret prisons where people have been tortured, that's 
unacceptable. And yet there are some who still want to have retribution 
against people who harmed them.
    Now, I'll tell you an amazing story; at least I thought it was 
amazing. We had people--first-time voters, or voters in the Iraqi 
election, come in to see me in the Oval. They had just voted that day, 
and they came in. It was exciting to talk to people. And one person 
said, ``How come you're giving Saddam Hussein 
a trial?'' I said, ``First of all, it's your Government, not ours.'' She 
said, ``He doesn't deserve a trial. He deserves immediate death for what 
he did to my people.'' And it just struck me about how strongly she felt 
about the need to not have a rule of law, that there needed to be quick 
retribution, that he didn't deserve it. And I said to her, ``Don't you 
see that the trial itself stands in such contrast to the tyrant that 
that in itself is a victory for freedom and a defeat for tyranny,'' just 
the trial alone. And it's important that there be rule of law.
    My only point to you is there's a lot of work to get rid of the 
past, yet we're headed in the right direction. And it's an exciting 
moment in history.
    Stretch [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News].

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the domestic spying 
issue for a moment. According to FISA's own records, it's received 
nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, 
rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security 
shouldn't be a concern, and it can be applied retroactively. Given such 
a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you 
see fit to sidetrack that process?

[[Page 1883]]

    The President. We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a 
different era, a different war, Stretch. So what we're--people are 
changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And 
we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this 
is a--it requires quick action.
    And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just 
want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to 
do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and 
three, we're guarding your civil liberties. And we're guarding the civil 
liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the 
folks at NSA, the legal team, as well as the Inspector General, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress. 
This is a part of our effort to protect the American people. The 
American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil 
liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to 
continue doing my job.
    Let's see here--Sanger [David Sanger, New York Times].

Impact of Intelligence Failures/Iran

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Following up on Wendell's question 
about the intelligence failures ahead of Iraq, one of the side effects 
appears to have been that the United States has lost some credibility 
with its allies when it goes to them with new intelligence. You, for 
example, your administration, has been sharing with some of your allies 
the contents of a laptop computer that was found in Iran concerning 
their nuclear program. Yet you are still having----
    The President. Is that classified? [Laughter] No, never mind, 
Sanger.
    Q. Yet you are still having some difficulty convincing people that 
Iran has a nuclear program. Can you tell us whether or not you think one 
of the side effects of the intelligence failure has been that it has 
limited your ability to deal with future threats like Iran, like North 
Korea, or any other future threats concerning terrorists?
    The President. Sanger, I hate to admit it, but that's an excellent 
question. No question that the intelligence failure on weapons of mass 
destruction caused all intelligence services to have to step back and 
reevaluate the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence--no doubt 
about that. And so there's been a lot of work done to work with other 
intelligence agencies to share information about what went right and 
what went wrong, as well as to build credibility among all services.
    I think, David, where it is going to be most difficult to make the 
case is in the public arena. People will say, ``If we're trying to make 
the case on Iran, well, the intelligence failed in Iraq; therefore, how 
can we trust the intelligence in Iran?'' And part of the reason why 
there needs to be a public message on this is because the first hope and 
the first step is a diplomatic effort to get the Iranians to comply with 
the demands of the free world. If they don't, there's--along the 
diplomatic path, there's always the United Nations Security Council. But 
that case of making--beginning to say to the Iranians, ``There are 
consequences for not behaving,'' requires people to believe that the 
Iranian nuclear program is, to a certain extent, ongoing. And so we're 
working hard on that. I mean, it's no question that the credibility of 
intelligence is necessary for good diplomacy.
    Q. Do you intend to make that case publicly too, sir? You haven't 
yet laid out the evidence on Iran----
    The President. Well, I think that the best place to make the case 
now is still in the councils of government and convincing the EU-3, for 
example, to continue working the diplomatic angle. Of course, we want 
this to be solved diplomatically, and we want the Iranians to hear a 
unified voice. I think people believe that--I know this: People know 
that an Iran with the capacity to manufacture a nuclear weapon is not in 
the world's interest. That's universally

[[Page 1884]]

accepted. And that should be accepted universally, particularly after 
what the President recently said about 
the desire to annihilate, for example, an ally of the United States.
    And so the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is--people say, 
``Well, we can't let that happen.'' The next step is to make sure that 
the world understands that the capacity to enrich uranium for a civilian 
program would lead to a weapons program. And so therefore, we cannot 
allow the Iranians to have the capacity to enrich. One of the reasons 
why I proposed working with the Russians, the Russian idea of allowing 
Iran to have a civilian nuclear powerplant industry without enriched 
material--in other words, the enriched materials--without enriching 
material, the enriching material would come from Russia, in this case, 
and be picked up by the Russians, was to prevent them from having the 
capacity to develop a nuclear weapon.
    So I think there's universal agreement that we don't want them to 
have a weapon. And there is agreement that they should not be allowed to 
learn how to make a weapon. And beyond that, I think that's all I'm 
going to say.
    But, appreciate it.
    Baker [Peter Baker, Washington Post].

War on Terror and Safeguarding Civil Liberties

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, 
what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of 
a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is 
going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that 
we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the 
unchecked power of the Executive in American society?
    The President. First of all, I disagree with your assertion of 
``unchecked power.''
    Q. Well----
    The President. Hold on for a second, please. There is the check of 
people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. 
We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest 
there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm 
telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program 
a dozen times.
    This is an awesome responsibility, to make decisions on behalf of 
the American people, and I understand that, Peter. And we'll continue to 
work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, 
to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to 
make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United 
States. To say ``unchecked power'' basically is ascribing some kind of 
dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.
    Q. What limits do you see, sir? What limits do you see broadening--
--
    The President. I just described limits on this particular program, 
Peter. And that's what's important for the American people to 
understand. I am doing what you expect me to do and, at the same time, 
safeguarding the civil liberties of the country.
    John [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].

President's Goals for 2006

    Q. Thank you, sir. Looking ahead to this time next year, what are 
the top three or top five--take your pick--accomplishments that you hope 
to have achieved? And in particular, what is your best case scenario for 
troop levels in Iraq at this time next year?
    The President. This is kind of like--this is the ultimate benchmark 
question. You're trying to not only get me to give benchmarks in Iraq 
but also benchmarks domestically.
    I hope the world is more peaceful. I hope democracy continues to 
take root around the world. And I hope people are able to find jobs. The 
job base of this country is expanding, and we need to keep it that way. 
We want people working. I want

[[Page 1885]]

New Orleans and Mississippi to be better places. I appreciate very much 
the progress that Congress is making toward helping a vision of New 
Orleans rising up and the gulf coast of Mississippi being reconstructed. 
I think we can make good progress down there.
    One of the key decisions our administration has made is to make sure 
that the levees are better than they were before Katrina, in New 
Orleans. That will help--people will have the confidence necessary to 
make investments and to take risk and to expand.
    I appreciate the Congress, and I'm looking forward to the Senate 
confirming--affirming the U.S. Congress's decisions to fund the 
education or reimburse States for education. There's some good health 
care initiatives in the bill. We want to make sure that people don't get 
booted out of housing. We want to work carefully to make sure people 
understand that there are benefits or help available that--for them to 
find housing. We want to continue to move temporary housing on the gulf 
coast of Mississippi so people can get better--closer to their 
neighborhoods and get their homes rebuilt. We want to start helping 
Mayor Nagin get temporary housing near New 
Orleans so as this economy comes back, people will be able to find jobs.
    I appreciate the fact that the Congress passed the GO Zone tax 
incentives in order to attract capital into the region. So one of my 
hopes is, is that people are able to find hope and optimism after the 
Katrina disaster down there, that people's lives get up and running 
again, that people see a brighter future. I've got a lot of hopes, and 
I'm looking forward to working with Congress to get those--to achieve 
some big goals.
    Joe [Joseph Curl, Washington Times].
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. You see, I hope by now you've discovered something 
about me, that when I say we're not going to have artificial timetables 
of withdrawal, and/or, you know, trying to get me out on a limb on what 
the troop levels will look like--the answer to your question on troop 
levels is, it's conditions-based. We have an objective in Iraq, and as 
we meet those objectives, our commanders on the ground will determine 
the size of the troop levels.
    Nice try--end of your try.
    Joe.

Timetables and Terrorism

    Q. Mr. President, you said last night that there were only two 
options in Iraq, withdrawal or victory. And you asked Americans, 
especially opponents of the war, to reject partisan politics. Do you 
really expect congressional Democrats to end their partisan warfare and 
embrace your war strategy? And what can you do about that to make that 
happen?
    The President. Actually, I said that victory in Iraq is much larger 
than a person, a President, or a political party. And I've had some good 
visits with Senate and House Democrats about the way forward. They share 
the same concerns I share. You know, they want our troops out of Iraq as 
quickly as possible, but they don't want to do so without achieving a 
victory. These are good, solid Americans that agree that we must win for 
the sake of our security. And I'm interested in, Joe, their ideas and 
will continue to listen carefully to their ideas.
    On the other hand, there are some in this country that believe, 
strongly believe, that we ought to get out now. And I just don't agree 
with them. It's a wrong strategy, and I'd like to tell you again why. 
One, it would dishearten the Iraqis. The Iraqis are making a great--
showing great courage to setting up a democracy. And a democracy in 
Iraq--I know I've said this, and I'm going to keep saying it, because I 
want the American people to understand--a democracy in Iraq is vital in 
the long run to defeating terrorism. And the reason why is, is because 
democracy is hopeful and optimistic.

[[Page 1886]]

    Secondly, it sends the wrong signal to our troops. We've got young 
men and women over there sacrificing. And all of a sudden, because of 
politics or some focus group or some poll, they stand up and say, 
``We're out of there.'' I can't think of anything more dispiriting 
than--to a kid risking his or her life than to see decisions made based 
upon politics.
    Thirdly, it sends the wrong signal to the enemy. It just says, 
``Wait them out. They're soft. They don't have the courage to complete 
the mission. All we've got to do is continue to kill and get these 
images on the TV screens, and the Americans will leave.'' And all that 
will do is embolden these people. Now, I recognize there is a debate in 
the country, and I fully understand that, about the nature of the enemy. 
I hear people say, because we took action in Iraq, we stirred them up; 
they're dangerous. No, they were dangerous before we went into Iraq. 
That's what the American people have got to understand. That's why I 
took the decision I took on the NSA decision, because I understand how 
dangerous they are. And they want to hit us again.
    Let me say something about the PATRIOT Act, if you don't mind. It is 
inexcusable for the United States Senate to let this PATRIOT Act expire. 
You know, there's an interesting debate in Washington, and you're part 
of it, that says, well, they didn't connect the dots prior to September 
the 11th--``they'' being not only my administration but previous 
administrations. And I understand that debate. I'm not being critical of 
you bringing this issue up and discussing it, but there was a--you might 
remember, if you take a step back, people were pretty adamant about 
hauling people up to testify and wondering how come the dots weren't 
connected.
    Well, the PATRIOT Act helps us connect the dots. And now the United 
States Senate is going to let this bill expire. Not the Senate--a 
minority of Senators. And I want Senators from New York or Los Angeles 
or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer. It is 
inexcusable to say, on the one hand, connect the dots, and not give us a 
chance to do so. We've connected the dots--or trying to connect the dots 
with the NSA program. And again, I understand the press and Members of 
the United States Congress saying, ``Are you sure you're safeguarding 
civil liberties?'' That's a legitimate question and an important 
question. And today I hope I'll help answer that. But we're connecting 
dots as best as we possibly can.
    I mentioned in my radio address--my live TV-radio address--that 
there was two killers in San Diego making phone calls prior to the 
September the 11th attacks. Had this program been in place then, it is 
more likely we would have been able to catch them. But they're making 
phone calls from the United States, overseas, talking about--who knows 
what they're talking about, but they ended up killing--being a part of 
the team that killed 3,000 Americans. And so--I forgot what got me on 
the subject, but nevertheless, I'm going to--we're doing the right 
thing.
    April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks].

Issues of Race

    Q. Mr. President, in making the case for domestic spying, could you 
tell us about planned attacks on the U.S. that were thwarted through 
your domestic spying plan? And also, on the issue of race, since you 
brought up the issue of Katrina, 2005 gave us your defense of yourself 
on race, and some are still not sold on that. In 2006, what are you 
giving to the Nation on the issue of race, as we're looking to the 
renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2007 and things of that nature?
    The President. Yes, thanks. April, the fact that some in America 
believe that I am not concerned about race troubles me. One of the jobs 
of the President is to help people reconcile and to move forward and to 
unite. One of the most hurtful things I

[[Page 1887]]

can hear is, ``Bush doesn't care about African Americans,'' for example. 
First of all, it's not true. And secondly, I believe that--obviously 
I've got to do a better job of communicating, I guess, to certain folks, 
because my job is to say to people, we're all equally American, and the 
American opportunity applies to you just as much as somebody else. And 
so I will continue to do my best, April, to reach out.
    Now, you talked about--and we have an opportunity, by the way, in 
New Orleans, for example, to make sure the education system works, to 
make sure that we promote ownership. I think it is vitally important for 
ownership to extend to more than just a single community. I think the 
more African Americans own their own business, the better off America 
is. I feel strongly that if we can get people to own and manage their 
own retirement accounts, like personal accounts and Social Security, it 
makes society a better place. I want people to be able to say, ``This is 
my asset.'' Heretofore, kind of asset accumulation may have been only a 
part of--a single--a part of--a segmented part of our strategy. We want 
assets being passed from one generation to the next. I take pride in 
this statistic, that more African Americans own a home, or more 
minorities own a home, now than ever before in our Nation's history, not 
just African Americans. That's positive.
    I still want to make sure, though, that people understand that I 
care about them, and that my view of the future, a bright future, 
pertains to them as much as any other neighborhood.
    Now, you've mentioned the Voting Rights Act. Congress needs to 
reauthorize it, and I'll sign it.
    The other question was?
    Q. Sir----
    The President. You asked a multiple-part question.
    Q. Yes, I did.
    The President. Thank you for violating the multiple-part question 
rule.
    Q. I didn't know there was a law on that. [Laughter]
    The President. There's not a law. It's an Executive order. 
[Laughter] In this case, not monitored by the Congress--[laughter]--nor 
is there any administrative oversight. [Laughter]

Protecting Intelligence Sources and Methods

    Q. Well, without breaking any laws, on to--back on domestic spying. 
Making the case for that, can you give us some example----
    The President. Oh, I got you. Yes, sorry. No, I'm not going to talk 
about that, because it would help give the enemy notification and/or, 
perhaps, signal to them methods and uses and sources. And we're not 
going to do that, which is--it's really important for people to 
understand that the protection of sources and the protections of methods 
and how we use information to understand the nature of the enemy is 
secret. And the reason it's secret is because if it's not secret, the 
enemy knows about it, and if the enemy knows about it, adjusts.
    And again, I want to repeat what I said about Usama bin Laden, the man who ordered the attack that killed 3,000 
Americans. We were listening to him. He was using a type of cell phone 
or a type of phone, and we put it in the newspaper--somebody put it in 
the newspaper that this was the type of device he was using to 
communicate with his team, and he changed. I don't know how I can make 
the point more clear, that any time we give up--and this is before they 
attacked us, by the way--revealing sources, methods, and what we use the 
information for, simply says to the enemy, ``Change.''
    Now, if you don't think there's an enemy out there, then I can 
understand why you ought to say, ``Just tell us all you know.'' I happen 
to know there's an enemy there. And the enemy wants to attack us. That 
is why I hope you can feel my passion about the PATRIOT Act. It is 
inexcusable to say to the American people, ``We're

[[Page 1888]]

going to be tough on terror but take away the very tools necessary to 
help fight these people.'' And by the way, the tools exist still to 
fight medical fraud, in some cases, or other--or drug dealers. But with 
the expiration of the PATRIOT Act, it prevents us from using them to 
fight the terrorists. Now, that is just unbelievable. And I'm going to 
continue talking about this issue and reminding the American people 
about the importance of the PATRIOT Act and how necessary it is for us 
in Washington, DC, to do our job to protect you.
    Let's see, who else? Jackson--Action Jackson [David Jackson, USA 
Today]. Got him a new job and everything.

President's Leadership

    Q. Thank you, sir. One of the things we've seen this year is the 
reduction in your approval ratings. And I know how you feel about polls, 
but it appears to be taking something out of your political clout, as 
evidenced by the PATRIOT Act vote. What do you attribute your lower 
polls to, and are you worried that independents are losing confidence in 
your leadership?
    The President. David, my job is to confront big challenges and lead. 
And I fully understand, everybody is not going to agree with my 
decisions. But the President's job is to do what he thinks is right, and 
that's what I'm going to continue to do.
    Secondly, if people want to play politics with the PATRIOT Act, 
it's--let me just put--it's not in the best interests of the country, 
David. And yesterday--or this morning, I spoke to the Speaker, who called me. He said, ``Mr. President, we had a 
pretty good couple of days. Got your budget passed. Got the Katrina 
relief package going forward. We're supporting our troops. We've got the 
free trade''--we talked about passing CAFTA in the past. I mean, we've 
done a lot. And it's good for the country, by the way.
    And so I'm just going to keep doing my job. Maybe you can keep 
focusing on all these focus groups and polls and all that business. My 
job is to lead, to keep telling the American people what I believe, work 
to bring people together to achieve a common objective, stand on 
principle, and that's the way I'm going to lead. I did so in 2005, and 
I'm going to do so in 2006.
    Thank you all for coming. Happy holidays to you. Appreciate it.

Note: The President's news conference began at 10:32 a.m. in the East 
Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to former President 
Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida 
terrorist organization; President Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; and Mayor 
C. Ray Nagin of New Orleans, LA. The Office of the Press Secretary also 
released a Spanish language transcript of this news conference.