    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
    [March 20, 2006]
    [Pages 504-524]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the City Club of Cleveland and a Question-and-Answer Session
    in Cleveland, Ohio
    March 20, 2006

        The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Sanjiv, thanks for the introduction. He called me on the
    phone and said, ``Listen, we believe in free speech, so you're going to
    come and give us a speech for free.'' [Laughter] Thanks for the
    invitation; thanks for the warm welcome. It's good to be here at the
    City Club of Cleveland.
        For almost a century, you have provided an important forum for
    debate and discussion on the issues of the day. And I have come to
    discuss a vital issue of the day, which is the safety and security of
    every American and our need to achieve victory in the war on terror.
        I want to thank the mayor for joining us. Mr. Mayor, appreciate you being here. It must make you feel pretty
    good to get the ``Most Livable City'' award. [Laughter] I want to thank
    all the members of the City Club for graciously inviting me to come. I
    want to thank the students who are here. Thanks for your interest in
    your government. I look forward to giving you a speech and then
    answering questions, if you have any.
        The central front on the war on terror is Iraq, and in the past few
    weeks, we've seen horrific images coming out of that country. We've seen
    a great house of worship, the Golden Mosque of Samarra, in ruins after a
    brutal terrorist attack. We have seen reprisal attacks by armed militia
    on Sunni mosques. We have seen car bombs take the lives of shoppers in a
    crowded market in Sadr City. We've seen the bodies of scores of Iraqi
    men brutally executed or beaten to death.
        The enemies of a free Iraq attacked the Golden Mosque for a reason:
    They know they lack the military strength to challenge Iraqi and
    coalition forces in a direct battle, so they're trying to provoke a
    civil war. By attacking one of Shi'a Islam's holiest sites, they hoped
    to incite violence that would drive Iraqis apart and stop their progress
    on the path to a free society.
        The timing of the attack in Samarra is no accident. It comes at a
    moment when Iraq's elected leaders are working to form a unity
    government. Last December, 4 short months ago, more than 11 million
    people expressed their opinion. They said loud and clear at the ballot
    box that they desire a future of freedom and unity. And now it is time
    for the leaders to put aside their differences; reach out across
    political, religious, and sectarian lines; and form a unity government
    that will earn the trust and the confidence of all Iraqis. My
    administration, led by Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, is helping and will continue to help the Iraqis
    achieve this goal.
        The situation on the ground remains tense. And in the face of
    continued reports about killings and reprisals, I understand how some
    Americans have had their confidence shaken. Others look at the violence
    they see each night on their television screens and they wonder how I
    can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq. They
    wonder what I see that they don't. So today I'd like to share a concrete
    example of progress in Iraq that most Americans do not see every day in
    their newspapers and on their television screens. I'm going to tell you
    the story of a northern Iraqi city called Tall `Afar, which was once a
    key base of operations for Al Qaida and is today a free city that gives
    reason for hope for a free Iraq.
        Tall `Afar is a city of more than 200,000 residents, roughly the
    population of Akron, Ohio. In many ways, Tall `Afar is a microcosm of
    Iraq. It has dozens of tribes of different ethnicity and religion. Most
    of the city residents are Sunnis of Turkmen origin. Tall `Afar sits just
    35 miles from the Syrian

    [[Page 505]]

    border. It was a strategic location for Al Qaida and their leader,
    Zarqawi.
        Now, it's important to remember what Al Qaida has told us, their
    stated objectives. Their goal is to drive us out of Iraq so they can
    take the country over. Their goal is to overthrow moderate Muslim
    governments throughout the region. Their goal is to use Iraq as a base
    from which to launch attacks against America. To achieve this goal,
    they're recruiting terrorists from the Middle East to come into Iraq to
    infiltrate its cities and to sow violence and destruction so that no
    legitimate government can exercise control. And Tall `Afar was a key way
    station for their operations in Iraq.
        After we removed Saddam Hussein in April
    2003, the terrorists began moving into the city. They sought to divide
    Tall `Afar's many ethnic and religious groups and forged an alliance of
    convenience with those who benefited from Saddam's regime and others
    with their own grievances. They skillfully used propaganda to foment
    hostility toward the coalition and the new Iraqi Government. They
    exploited a weak economy to recruit young men to their cause. And by
    September 2004, the terrorists and insurgents had basically seized
    control of Tall `Afar.
        We recognized the situation was unacceptable, so we launched a
    military operation against them. After 3 days of heavy fighting, the
    terrorists and the insurgents fled the city. Our strategy at the time
    was to stay after the terrorists and keep them on the run. So coalition
    forces kept moving, kept pursuing the enemy and routing out the
    terrorists in other parts of Iraq.
        Unfortunately, in 2004, the local security forces there in Tall
    `Afar weren't able to maintain order, and so the terrorists and the
    insurgents eventually moved back into the town. Because the terrorists
    threatened to murder the families of Tall `Afar's police, its members
    rarely ventured out from the headquarters in an old Ottoman fortress.
    The terrorists also took over local mosques, forcing local imams out and
    insisting that the terrorist message of hatred and intolerance and
    violence be spread from the mosques. The same happened in Tall `Afar's
    schools, where the terrorists eliminated real education and instead
    indoctrinated young men in their hateful ideology. By November of 2004,
    2 months after our operation to clear the city, the terrorists had
    returned to continue their brutal campaign of intimidation.
        The return of Al Qaida meant the innocent civilians in Tall `Afar
    were in a difficult position. Just put yourself in the shoes of the
    citizens of Tall `Afar as all this was happening. On the one side, you
    hear the coalition and Iraqi forces saying they're coming to protect
    you, but they'd already come in once and they had not stopped the
    terrorists from coming back. You worry that when the coalition goes
    after the terrorists, you or your family may be caught in the crossfire
    and your city might be destroyed. You don't trust the police. You badly
    want to believe the coalition forces really can help you out, but three
    decades of Saddam's brutal rule have taught
    you a lesson: Don't stick your neck out for anybody.
        On the other side, you see the terrorists and the insurgents. You
    know they mean business. They control the only hospital in town. You see
    that the mayor and other political figures are collaborating with the
    terrorists. You see how the people who worked as interpreters for the
    coalition forces are beheaded. You see a popular city councilman gunned
    down in front of his horrified wife and children. You see a respected
    Sheikh and an Imam kidnaped and murdered. You see the terrorists
    deliberately firing mortars into playgrounds and soccer fields filled
    with children. You see communities becoming armed enclaves. If you are
    in a part of Tall `Afar that was not considered friendly, you see that
    the terrorists cut off your basic services like electricity and water.
    You and your family feel besieged, and you see no way out.

    [[Page 506]]

        The savagery of the terrorists and insurgents who controlled Tall
    `Afar is really hard for Americans to imagine. They enforced their rule
    through fear and intimidation--and women and children were not spared.
    In one grim incident, the terrorists kidnaped a young boy from the
    hospital and killed him, and then they boobytrapped his body and placed
    him along a road where his family would see him. And when the boy's
    father came to retrieve his son's body, he was blown up. These weren't
    random acts of violence; these were deliberate and highly organized
    attempts to maintain control through intimidation. In Tall `Afar, the
    terrorists had schools for kidnaping and beheading and laying IEDs. And
    they sent a clear message to the citizens of the city: Anyone who dares
    oppose their reign of terror will be murdered.
        As they enforced their rule by targeting civilians, they also preyed
    upon adolescents craving affirmation. Our troops found one Iraqi
    teenager who was taken from his family by the terrorists. The terrorists
    routinely abused him and violated his dignity. The terrorists offered
    him a chance to prove his manhood by holding the legs of captives as
    they were beheaded. When our forces interviewed this boy, he told them
    that his greatest aspiration was to be promoted to the killer who would
    behead the bound captives. Al Qaida's idea of manhood may be fanatical
    and perverse, but it served two clear purposes: It helped provide
    recruits willing to commit any atrocity, and it enforced the rule of
    fear.
        The result of this barbarity was a city where normal life had
    virtually ceased. Colonel H.R. McMaster of the
    3d Armored Cavalry Regiment described it this way: ``When you come into
    a place in the grip of Al Qaida, you see a ghost town. There are no
    children playing in the streets. Shops are closed and boarded. All
    construction is stopped. People stay inside, prisoners in their own
    homes.'' This is the brutal reality that Al Qaida wishes to impose on
    all the people of Iraq.
        The ability of Al Qaida and its associates to retake Tall `Afar was
    an example of something we saw elsewhere in Iraq. We recognized the
    problem, and we changed our strategy. Instead of coming in and removing
    the terrorists and then moving on, the Iraqi Government and the
    coalition adopted a new approach called clear, hold, and build. This new
    approach was made possible because of the significant gains made in
    training large numbers of highly capable Iraqi security forces. Under
    this new approach, Iraq and coalition--Iraqi and coalition forces would
    clear a city of the terrorists, leave well-trained Iraqi units behind to
    hold the city, and work with local leaders to build the economic and
    political infrastructure Iraqis need to live in freedom.
        One of the first tests of this new approach was Tall `Afar. In May
    2005, Colonel McMaster's unit was given
    responsibility for the western part of Nineveh Province where Tall `Afar
    is located, and 2 months later, Iraq's national Government announced
    that a major offensive to clear the city of the terrorists and
    insurgents would soon be launched. Iraqi and coalition forces first met
    with tribal leaders and local residents to listen to their grievances.
    One of the biggest complaints was the police force, which rarely
    ventured out of its headquarters. When it did venture, it was mostly to
    carry out sectarian reprisals. And so the national Government sent out
    new leaders to head the force. The new leaders set about getting rid of
    the bad elements and building a professional police force that all sides
    could have confidence in. We recognized it was important to listen to
    the representatives of Tall `Afar's many ethnic and religious groups.
    It's an important part of helping to remove one of the leading sources
    of mistrust.
        Next, Iraqi and Army coalition forces spent weeks preparing for what
    they knew would be a tough military offensive. They built an 8-foot
    high, 12-mile long dirt wall that ringed the city. This wall was
    designed

    [[Page 507]]

    to cut off any escape for terrorists trying to evade security
    checkpoints. Iraqi and coalition forces also built temporary housing
    outside the city so that Tall `Afar's people would have places to go
    when the fighting started. Before the assault on the city, Iraqi and
    coalition forces initiated a series of operations in surrounding towns
    to eliminate safe havens and make it harder for fleeing terrorists to
    hide. These steps took time, but as life returned to the outlying towns,
    these operations helped persuade the population of Tall `Afar that Iraqi
    and coalition forces were on their side against a common enemy, the
    extremists who had taken control of their city and their lives.
        Only after all these steps did Iraqi and coalition authorities
    launch Operation Restoring Rights to clear the city of the terrorists.
    Iraqi forces took the lead. The primary force was 10 Iraqi battalions,
    backed by 3 coalition battalions. Many Iraqi units conducted their own
    antiterrorist operations and controlled their own battle space, hunting
    for the enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods block by block.
    Throughout the operation, Iraqi and coalition forces were careful to
    hold their fire to let civilians pass safely out of the city. By
    focusing on securing the safety of Tall `Afar's population, the Iraqi
    and coalition forces begin to win the trust of the city's residents,
    which is critical to defeating the terrorists who were hiding among
    them.
        After about 2 weeks of intense activity, coalition and Iraqi forces
    had killed about 150 terrorists and captured 850 more. The operation
    uncovered weapons caches loaded with small arms ammunition and ski
    masks, RPG rockets, grenade and machine gun ammunition, and fuses and
    batteries for making IEDs. In one cache, we found an ax inscribed with
    the names of the victims the terrorists had beheaded. And the operation
    accomplished all this while protecting innocent civilians and inflicting
    minimal damage on the city.
        After the main combat operations were over, Iraqi forces moved in to
    hold the city. Iraqis' Government deployed more than 1,000 Iraqi Army
    soldiers and emergency police to keep order, and they were supported by
    a newly restored police force that would eventually grow to about 1,700
    officers. As part of the new strategy, we embedded coalition forces with
    the Iraqi police and with the army units patrolling Tall `Afar to work
    with their Iraqi counterparts and to help them become more capable and
    more professional. In the weeks and months that followed, the Iraqi
    police built stations throughout Tall `Afar, and city residents began
    stepping forward to offer testimony against captured terrorists and
    inform soldiers about where the remaining terrorists were hiding.
        Inside the old Ottoman fortress, a joint coordination center manned
    by Iraqi Army and Iraqi police and coalition forces answers the many
    phone calls that now come into a new tip line. As a result of the tips,
    when someone tries to plant an IED in Tall `Afar, it's often reported
    and disabled before it can do any harm. The Iraqi forces patrolling the
    cities are effective because they know the people, they know the
    language, and they know the culture. And by turning control of these
    cities over to capable Iraqi troops and police, we give Iraqis
    confidence that they can determine their own destiny, and that frees up
    coalition forces to hunt the high-value targets like Zarqawi.
        The recent elections show us how Iraqis respond when they know
    they're safe. Tall `Afar is the largest city in western Nineveh
    Province. In the elections held in January 2005, of about 190,000
    registered voters, only 32,000 people went to the polls. Only Fallujah
    had a lower participation rate. By the time of the October referendum on
    the Constitution and the December elections, Iraqi and coalition forces
    had secured Tall `Afar and surrounding areas. The number of registered
    voters rose to about 204,000, and more than 175,000 turned out to vote
    in each election, more than 85 percent of the eligible voters in western

    [[Page 508]]

    Nineveh Province. These citizens turned out because they were determined
    to have a say in their nation's future, and they cast their ballots at
    polling stations that were guarded and secured by fellow Iraqis.
        One young teacher described the change this way: ``What you see here
    is hope--the hope that Iraq will become safer and fairer. I feel very
    confident when I see so many people voting.''
        The confidence that has been restored to the people of Tall `Afar is
    crucial to their efforts to rebuild their city. Immediately following
    the military operations, we helped the Iraqis set up humanitarian relief
    for the civilian population. We also set up a fund to reimburse innocent
    Iraqi families for damage done to their homes and businesses in the
    fight against the terrorists. The Iraqi Government pledged $50 million
    to help reconstruct Tall `Afar by paving roads and rebuilding hospitals
    and schools and by improving infrastructure from the electric grid to
    sewer and water systems. With their city now more secure, the people of
    Tall `Afar are beginning to rebuild a better future for themselves and
    their children.
        See, if you're a resident of Tall `Afar today, this is what you're
    going to see: You see that the terrorist who once exercised brutal
    control over every aspect of your city has been killed or captured or
    driven out or put on the run. You see your children going to school and
    playing safely in the streets. You see the electricity and water service
    restored throughout the city. You see a police force that better
    reflects the ethnic and religious diversity of the communities they
    patrol. You see markets opening, and you hear the sound of construction
    equipment as buildings go up and homes are remade. In short, you see a
    city that is coming back to life.
        The success of Tall `Afar also shows how the three elements of our
    strategy in Iraq--political, security, and economic--depend on and
    reinforce one another. By working with local leaders to address
    community grievances, Iraqi and coalition forces helped build the
    political support needed to make the military operation a success. The
    military success against the terrorists helped give the citizens of Tall
    `Afar security, and this allowed them to vote in the elections and begin
    to rebuild their city. And the economic rebuilding that is beginning to
    take place is giving Tall `Afar residents a real stake in the success of
    a free Iraq. And as all this happens, the terrorists, those who offer
    nothing but destruction and death, are becoming marginalized.
        The strategy that worked so well in Tall `Afar did not emerge
    overnight; it came only after much trial and error. It took time to
    understand and adjust to the brutality of the enemy in Iraq. Yet the
    strategy is working. And we know it's working because the people of Tall
    `Afar are showing their gratitude for the good work that Americans have
    given on their behalf. A recent television report followed a guy named
    Captain Jesse Sellars on patrol and described
    him as a ``pied piper,'' with crowds of Iraqi children happily chanting
    his name as he greets locals with the words ``Salaam alaikum,'' which
    means ``Peace be with you.''
        When the newswoman asks the local merchant what would have happened
    a few months earlier if he'd been seen talking with an American, his
    answer was clear: ``They'd have cut off my head. They would have
    beheaded me.'' Like thousands of others in Tall `Afar, this man knows
    the true meaning of liberation.
        Recently, Senator Joe Biden said
    that America cannot want peace for Iraqis more than they want it for
    themselves. I agree with that. And the story of Tall `Afar shows that
    when Iraqis can count on a basic level of safety and security, they can
    live together peacefully. We saw this in Tall `Afar after the bombing of
    the Golden Mosque in Samarra. Unlike other parts of Iraq, in Tall `Afar,
    the reaction was subdued, with few reports of sectarian violence.
    Actually, on the Friday after the attack, more than

    [[Page 509]]

    1,000 demonstrators gathered in Tall `Afar to protest the attack
    peacefully.
        The terrorists have not given up in Tall `Afar, and they may yet
    succeed in exploding bombs or provoking acts of sectarian violence. The
    people of the city still have many challenges to overcome, including
    old-age resentments that still create suspicion, an economy that needs
    to create jobs and opportunity for its young, and determined enemies who
    will continue trying to foment a civil war to move back in. But the
    people of Tall `Afar have shown why spreading liberty and democracy is
    at the heart of our strategy to defeat the terrorists. The people of
    Tall `Afar have shown that Iraqis do want peace and freedom, and no one
    should underestimate them.
        I wish I could tell you that the progress made in Tall `Afar is the
    same in every single part of Iraq. It's not. Though most of the country
    has remained relatively peaceful, in some parts of Iraq, the enemy is
    carrying out savage acts of violence, particularly in Baghdad and the
    surrounding areas of Baghdad. But the progress made in bringing more
    Iraqi security forces on line is helping to bring peace and stability to
    Iraqi cities. The example of Tall `Afar gives me confidence in our
    strategy, because in this city, we see the outlines of the Iraq that we
    and the Iraqi people have been fighting for: a free and secure people
    who are getting back on their feet, who are participating in government
    and civic life, and who have become allies in the fight against the
    terrorists.
        I believe that as Iraqis continue to see the benefits of liberty,
    they will gain confidence in their future, and they will work to ensure
    that common purpose trumps narrow sectarianism. And by standing with
    them in their hour of need, we're going to help the Iraqis build a
    strong democracy that will be an inspiration throughout the Middle East,
    a democracy that will be a partner in the global war against the
    terrorists.
        The kind of progress that we and the Iraqi people are making in
    places like Tall `Afar is not easy to capture in a short clip on the
    evening news. Footage of children playing or shops opening and people
    resuming their normal lives will never be as dramatic as the footage of
    an IED explosion or the destruction of a mosque or soldiers and
    civilians being killed or injured. The enemy understands this, and it
    explains their continued acts of violence in Iraq. Yet the progress we
    and the Iraqi people are making is also real. And those in a position to
    know best are the Iraqis themselves.
        One of the most eloquent is the mayor of Tall `Afar, a courageous
    Iraqi man named Najim. Mayor
    Najim arrived in the city in the midst of the Al Qaida occupation, and
    he knows exactly what our troops have helped accomplish. He calls our
    men and women in uniform ``lionhearts.'' And in a letter to the troopers
    of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, he spoke of a friendship sealed in
    blood and sacrifice, as Mayor Najim had this to say to the families of
    our fallen: ``To the families of those who have given their holy blood
    for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your
    loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead but
    alive, and their souls are hovering around us every second of every
    minute. They will not be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They
    have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of
    every child and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their
    families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and
    life.'' America is proud of that sacrifice, and we're proud to have
    allies like Mayor Najim on our side in the fight for freedom.
        Yesterday we marked the third anniversary of the start of Operation
    Iraqi Freedom. At the time, there is much to--this time, there's much
    discussion in our country about the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and our remaining mission in

    [[Page 510]]

    Iraq. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a difficult decision.
    The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.
        Before we acted, his regime was defying U.N. resolutions calling for
    it to disarm; it was violating cease-fire agreements, was firing on
    British and American pilots which were enforcing no-fly zones. Saddam
    Hussein was a leader who brutalized his
    people, had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction, and sponsored
    terrorism. Today, Saddam Hussein is no longer oppressing his people or
    threatening the world. He's being tried for his crimes by the free
    citizens of a free Iraq, and America and our allies are safer for it.
        The last 3 years have tested our resolve. The fighting has been
    tough. The enemy we face has proved to be brutal and relentless. We're
    adapting our approach to reflect the hard realities on the ground. And
    the sacrifice being made by our young men and women who wear our uniform
    has been heartening and inspiring.
        The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in
    Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us
    on September the 11th, 2001, those who blew up the commuters in London
    and Madrid, and those who murdered tourists in Bali or workers in Riyadh
    or guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. In the war on terror, we face a
    global enemy, and if we were not fighting this enemy in Iraq, they would
    not be idle. They would be plotting and trying to kill Americans across
    the world and within our own borders. Against this enemy, there can be
    no compromise. So we will fight them in Iraq, we'll fight them across
    the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
        In the long run, the best way to defeat this enemy and to ensure the
    security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the
    broader Middle East. We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the
    peace before. In World War II, free nations came together to fight the
    ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed. And today, Germany and Japan
    are democracies, and they are allies in securing the peace. In the cold
    war, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic
    movement that freed the nations of Central and Eastern Europe from
    Soviet domination. And today, these nations are strong allies in the war
    on terror.
        In the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an
    ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And like
    fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror
    will be defeated. Freedom will prevail in Iraq; freedom will prevail in
    the Middle East. And as the hope of freedom spreads to nations that have
    not known it, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace.
        The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the
    Iraqi people, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. Victory
    will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten
    Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the
    safety of their citizens on their own, and when Iraq is not a safe haven
    for terrorists to plot new attacks against our Nation. There will be
    more days of sacrifice and tough fighting before the victory is
    achieved. Yet by helping the Iraqis defeat the terrorists in their land,
    we bring greater security to our own.
        As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will continue to take
    more responsibility for their own security and fewer U.S. forces will be
    needed to complete the mission. But it's important for the Iraqis to
    hear this: The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave
    that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack
    us again. We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position
    of strength, not weakness. Americans have never retreated in the face of
    thugs and assassins, and we will not begin now.
        Thanks for listening. And I'll be glad to answer some questions, if
    you have any.

    [[Page 511]]

        Yes, ma'am.

    War on Terror

        Q. Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President, and to the City
    Club. My question is that author and former Nixon administration
    official Kevin Phillips, in his latest book, ``American Theocracy,''
    discusses what has been called radical Christianity and its growing
    involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that
    members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians
    who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the
    apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of
    terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?
        The President. The answer is--I haven't really thought of it that
    way. [Laughter] Here's how I think of it. First I've heard of that, by
    the way. I guess I'm more of a practical fellow. I vowed after September
    the 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American
    people. And my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks. I knew
    we were at a war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be
    sophisticated and lethal to fly hijacked airplanes into facilities that
    would be killing thousands of people, innocent people doing nothing,
    just sitting there going to work.
        I also knew this about this war on terror, that the farther we got
    away from September the 11th, the more likely it is people would seek
    comfort and not think about this global war on terror as a global war on
    terror. And that's good, by the way. It's hard to take risk if you're a
    small-business owner, for example, if you're worried that the next
    attack is going to come tomorrow. I understand that. But I also
    understand my most important job, the most important job of any
    President today--and I predict down the road--is to protect America.
        And so I told the American people that we would find the terrorists
    and bring them to justice, and that we needed to defeat them overseas so
    we didn't have to face them here at home. I also understood that the war
    on terror requires some clear doctrine. And one of the doctrines that I
    laid out was, ``If you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as
    the terrorist.'' And the first time that doctrine was really challenged
    was in Afghanistan. I guess the Taliban didn't believe us--or me. And so
    we acted. Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is no
    longer a safe haven for the terrorists.
        And the other doctrine that's really important, and it's a change of
    attitude--it's going to require a change of attitude for a while--is
    that when you see a threat, you got to deal with it before it hurts you.
    Foreign policy used to be dictated by the fact we had two oceans
    protecting us. If we saw a threat, you could deal with it if you needed
    to, you think--or not. But we'd be safe.
        My most important job is to protect you, is to protect the American
    people. Therefore, when we see threats, given the lesson of September
    the 11th, we got to deal with them. That does not mean militarily,
    necessarily. Obviously, the first option for a President has got to be
    the full use of diplomacy. That's what you're watching in Iran right
    now. I see a threat in Iran. I see it there--I'm kind of getting off
    subject here, not because I don't want to answer your question, but kind
    of--I guess that's what happens in Washington; we get a little long-
    winded. [Laughter]
        But now that I'm on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course--
    [laughter]--the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective
    to destroy our strong ally, Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat.
    It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong
    alliance. I made it clear, and I'll be making it clear again, that we
    will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and--[applause].
        At any rate, our objective is to solve this issue diplomatically.
    And so our message must be a united message, a message from

    [[Page 512]]

    not only the United States but also Great Britain and France and Germany
    as well as Russia, hopefully, and China, in order to say, loud and
    clear, to the Iranians, ``This is unacceptable behavior. Your desire to
    have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.''
        And so to answer your question, I take a practical view of doing the
    job you want me to do--which is, how do we defeat an enemy that still
    wants to hurt us, and how do we deal with threats before they fully
    materialize; what do we do to protect us from harm? That's my job. And
    that job came home on September the 11th, for me--loud and clear. And I
    think about my job of protecting you every day. Every single day of the
    Presidency, I'm concerned about the safety of the American people.
        Yes, sir.

    Intelligence/War on Terror

        Q. Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today, you mentioned
    that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by
    the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred 3
    years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before
    we went to war in Iraq, we said there were three main reasons for going
    to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was
    sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had
    purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to
    be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans
    may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are
    getting now is correct?
        The President. That's a great question. First, just--if I might
    correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said--at least I know I
    didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th
    and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a
    state sponsor of terror--by the way, not declared a state sponsor of
    terror by me but declared by other administrations. We also did say that
    Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking
    havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the ``state sponsor
    of terror'' was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't
    want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that
    Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.
        Like you, I asked that very same question: Where did we go wrong on
    intelligence? The truth of the matter is, the whole world thought that
    Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
    destruction. It wasn't just my administration; it was the previous
    administration. It wasn't just the previous administration. You might
    remember, sir, there was a Security Council vote of 15 to nothing that
    said to Saddam Hussein, ``Disclose, disarm, or face serious
    consequences.'' The basic premise was, ``You've got weapons.'' That's
    what we thought.
        When he didn't disclose and when he
    didn't disarm and when he deceived inspectors, it sent a very
    disconcerting message to me, whose job it is to protect the American
    people and to take threats before they fully materialize. My view is, he
    was given the choice of whether or not he would face reprisal. It was
    his decision to make. And so he chose to not disclose, not disarm, as
    far as everybody was concerned.
        Your question, however, the part that's really important, is, how do
    we regain credibility when it comes to intelligence? Obviously, the
    Iranian issue is a classic case, where we've got to make sure that when
    we speak, there's credibility. And so, in other words, when the United
    States rallies a coalition, or any other country that had felt that
    Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
    destruction is trying to rally a coalition in dealing with one of these
    nontransparent societies, what do we need to do to regain the trust of
    not only the American people but the world community?
        And so what I did was I called together the Silberman-Robb
    Commission--Laurence Silberman and
    former Senator Chuck Robb--to take a full
    look at what went

    [[Page 513]]

    right and what went wrong on the intelligence, and how do we structure
    an intelligence network that makes sure there's full debate among the
    analysts? How do we make sure that there's a full compilation of data
    points that can help decisionmakers like myself feel comfortable in the
    decision we make?
        The war on terror requires the collection and analysis of good
    intelligence. This is a different kind of war. We're dealing with an
    enemy which hides in caves and plots and plans, an enemy which doesn't
    move in flotillas or battalions. And so therefore, the intelligence
    gathering is not only important to make a diplomatic case; it's really
    important to be able to find an enemy before they hurt us.
        And so there was a reform process they went through, a full analysis
    of what--of how the operations worked, and out of that came the NDI,
    John Negroponte and Mike Hayden. And their job is to better collate and make sure
    that the intelligence gathering is seamless across a variety of
    gatherers and people that analyze. But the credibility of our country is
    essential--agree with you.
        Yes, sure.

    Spread of Democracy/U.S. Armed Forces

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome to Cleveland. It's an honor to
    have you here. I represent the Cleveland Hungarian Revolution 50th
    anniversary--[inaudible].
        The President. That's good. I was there, by the way.
        Q. Thank you all. [Laughter]
        The President. At least for the celebration in Capitol with Tom
    Lantos. But go ahead.
        Q. Mr. President, in the interest of free speech, if you'll indulge
    me, I have to give you a little context of my question. On this third
    anniversary of your--I consider--courageous initiative to bring freedom
    and basic human dignity to the Iraqi people, the image of the statue of
    the tyrant Saddam falling in Baghdad was very reminiscent of another
    statue, another tyrant, Josef Stalin, who fell in Budapest 50 years ago
    at the hands of many young Hungarian freedom fighters who were seeking
    to overthrow the tyranny of Soviet communism. Mr. President, just like
    our brave fighting men and women today and many Iraqi people, those
    young Hungarian patriots paid a very heavy price for a few days of
    freedom. But they lit the torch that eventually set the captive nations
    on the path to achieving liberty. And so, Mr. President, our Cleveland
    Hungarian community is planning a major event in Cleveland in October--
    [laughter].
        The President. The guy seized the moment, you know. He's a----
        Q. Right.
        The President. I'm not sure what I'm doing in October. Put me down
    as a maybe. [Laughter] Sorry to interrupt.
        Q. Just like you came for the Children's Games in 2004, we hope to
    have you here for that as well. Mr. President, just want to let you
    know, to win the war on terror, we feel that what was started in 1776
    and continued in 1956 must be remembered in 2006.
        The President. Thank you. How much more you got?
        Q. I'm at the question now. Thanks for your indulgence.
        The President. Okay, good. [Laughter]
        Q. My basic question is, how can we help you, from the grassroots
    level, how can we help you promote the cause of freedom and liberty for
    all peoples throughout the world?
        The President. I appreciate that. My main job is to make sure I make
    the case as plainly as I can why it's worth it. And I fully understand--
    I understand people being disheartened when they turn on their TV screen
    and see the loss of innocent life. We're compassionate people. Nobody
    likes beheadings and it--nobody--when innocent children get car bombed.
    So it's my job, sir, to make it clear about the connection between Iraq
    and the war on terror.

    [[Page 514]]

    It's my job to remind people that progress is being made, in spite of
    the violence they see. It's my job to make it clear to the people the
    stakes.
        I've spent time talking about what happens if we were to lose our
    nerve and Iraq would fall to Al Qaida. And the stakes are high. Look, I
    understand some don't view that we're in a war against the terrorists. I
    know that. And therefore, there's a sense that this--9/11 might have
    been an isolated incident. I just don't agree. And here's what I--here's
    the basis from which I make decisions. You heard one--is that 9/11
    affected the way I think. I know these are like totalitarian fascists.
    They have an ideology; they have a desire to spread that ideology; and
    they're willing to use tactics to achieve their strategy.
        And one of the tactics--I said early on in the speech the stated
    objectives of Al Qaida. This isn't my imagination of their strategy;
    this is what they have told us. And I presume you want the Commander in
    Chief to take the words of the enemy seriously. And they have told us
    they believe that we're soft and that with time, we'll leave, and
    they'll fill the vacuum. And they want to plan and plot and hurt
    Americans. That's what they have said. And I think it's really important
    we take their words very seriously.
        And so I will continue making the case, sir, but the best way you
    can help is to support our troops. You find a family who's got a child
    in the United States military; tell them you appreciate them. Ask them
    if you can help them. You see somebody wearing a uniform, you walk up
    and say, ``Thanks for serving the country.''
        Ours is a remarkable country where hundreds--[applause]--where we've
    got thousands of people signing up, volunteering for the United States
    military, many of them after September the 11th, knowing full well what
    they were signing up for. And what's amazing about our military is that
    retention rates are high; people are still signing up. They want to
    defend the country. And for that, I am grateful.
        But my job, sir, is to lay out the strategy and to connect the
    notion of liberty with peace. And that's hard for some. Sometimes
    there's a little bit of a--kind of a point of view that says, ``Well,
    maybe certain people can't be free; maybe certain people can't self-
    govern.'' I strongly believe that liberty is universal. I believe in the
    natural rights of men and women. That was part of our founding. And if
    you believe in that, if you believe in the universality of freedom, then
    I believe those of us who are free have an obligation to help others
    become free.
        Yes, ma'am. I'm tied up in October, but you know--[laughter].

    Iraq/Spread of Democracy

        Q. I'm a Marine mom.
        The President. Okay, good. Thank you. Tell your--[applause].
        Q. My son signed up after 9/11, and I didn't raise a terrorist. But
    let's face it; there's a continuum and a lack of clarity about who's
    violent and who's a terrorist. And we really do want to use the word
    ``enemy'' in a meaningful way. I think your speech has been very brave
    and very important and very clarifying. And in the interest of
    clarifying the purpose of our country to fight preventive war, which we
    know does involve violence, it's very important for us to understand
    what you're saying about your model community in Iraq. And my question
    is that you are killing the bad guys, and that's very important--that's
    the entire story of the battle. And we want to know who the bad guys
    are. Do you feel that Iraq is like a honeycomb, and that we can draw the
    Al Qaida there so we can stand and fight them there? I'm really asking
    for clarification.
        The President. Sure. I think in Iraq there are three types of folks
    that are trying to stop democracy. First of all, I think it's very
    important for people to understand, one reason they're so violent and
    desperate

    [[Page 515]]

    is because they're trying to stop a society based upon liberty. And you
    got to ask why. And the reason why is because it's the exact opposite of
    what they believe.
        There are three types. One is Al Qaida, and Al Qaida is headed into
    there. Al Qaida understands the danger of democracy spreading. And so
    Zarqawi, this fellow named Zarqawi, is
    in charge of Al Qaida inside of Iraq, which recruits foreign fighters.
    And they headed into Iraq because they wanted to fight us. They wanted
    to stop democracy.
        Secondly, there are Saddamists. These were the folks that really
    enjoyed a life of privilege. These are people that were top of the heap.
    They were--they represented a minority in the country, but they got all
    the deal--they got all the goods. And they don't like it--when
    Saddam was removed. And so they are trying to
    regroup.
        And the third group are rejectionists. These are essentially Sunnis,
    as well, who really weren't sure as--about whether or not it meant--what
    it meant to have minority rights, whether or not they'd be protected.
    You can understand. They didn't--during Saddam, there was no such thing as minority rights. And so as
    a new society emerged, they were doubtful. And it is those folks that I
    believe will become marginalized as democracy advances. We're seeing the
    Sunnis change their mind about things. They barely voted in the first
    January 2005 elections; they participated overwhelmingly in the December
    2005 elections. In just an 11-month period of time, there was a change
    of attitude to participate in the democratic process.
        And the fundamental question that I know people ask is whether or
    not democracy, one, can take hold in Iraq, and two, will it change
    people's attitude about the future? And I believe it will. History has
    proven that democracies can change societies. The classic case I like to
    cite is Japan. Prime Minister Koizumi is
    one of my best buddies in the international arena, and when we sit down,
    we talk the peace. I find it interesting that he is a peacemaker with me
    on a variety of issues, and yet my dad
    fought the Japanese. And I'm sure many of your relatives did as well.
        Sixty years ago, Japan was the sworn enemy of the United States.
    Today, they're an ally in peace. And what took place? Well, what took
    place was a Japanese-style democracy. I can't say I promise you this,
    but I suspect that if somebody were standing up at the City Club of
    Cleveland talking about, ``Don't worry; someday, Japan is going to be
    peaceful with the United States, and the 43d President is going to be
    designing how keep the peace''--they'd say, ``Get him off the stage.''
    [Laughter] ``What's he thinking? They're the sworn enemy.'' And now
    they're our ally. So I have faith in the capacity of democracies to help
    change societies.
        And again, I repeat to you, the debate--one of the debates is
    whether or not certain folks can self-govern. There's kind of a--``Maybe
    there are some in the world that aren't capable,'' say the skeptics. I
    strongly disagree with that. I believe there's--hold on a second--I
    believe there's a great desire for people to be free. I believe that.
    And history has proven that democracies don't war with each other.
    Again, I kind of glossed over this, but particularly for the students
    here, look at what happened in Europe over a 100-year period, from the
    early 1900s to today. Europe was at war twice, that cost Americans
    thousands of lives. Today, they don't war, because the systems of
    government changed. Democracies are at peace. Europe is whole, free, and
    at peace.
        And that's an important history lesson for those of us--what I'm
    saying to you, ma'am, is that there is a battle for Iraq now, but it's
    just a part of the war on terror. It's a theater in the war on terror.
    Afghanistan was a theater. And we're in a global battle which requires
    strong alliances, good cooperation, and a constant reminder of the
    nature of this war. So today I met with the Secretary General of
    NATO.

    [[Page 516]]

    And the first subject that came up was the war on terror and how much I
    appreciated NATO's contribution to helping Afghanistan succeed. But it
    is--the enemy in this case is disgruntled folks inside of Iraq coupled
    with an Al Qaida presence there that wants to harm Americans again.
        I don't know--is your son still in the military?
        Q. Yes, sir.
        The President. Thanks. You tell him the Commander in Chief is proud
    of him. You tell him to listen to his mother too.
        Yes. First, and then second; sir, you're next.

    National Economy/Education

        Q. On behalf of the students here from various high school student
    leadership programs, we thank you for speaking with us here at the City
    Club of Cleveland.
        The President. Thanks--I hope it's a convenient excuse to skip
    school, but--[laughter].
        Q. Mr. President, with the war in Iraq costing $19,600 per U.S.
    household, how do you expect a generation of young people such as
    ourselves to afford college at a time like this, when we're paying for a
    war in Iraq?
        The President. Yes. [Applause] Well--hold on for a minute. Hold on.
    We can do more than one thing at one time. And when you grow your
    economy, like we're growing our economy, there is an opportunity to not
    only protect ourselves but also to provide more Pell grants than any
    administration in our Nation's history and increase the student loan
    program. So if you take a look, I think you'll find that we're robust in
    helping--at the Federal level, helping people go to college. And it's
    essential you go to college. It's essential that there be a group of
    youngsters coming up that are well-educated so that we can maintain our
    economic leadership position in the world. We've got a robust program to
    do just that.
        But it's also essential that we keep policies in place that keep the
    economy growing. This economy of ours is strong, and it's--it is, in my
    judgment, growing stronger. But it is possible to put policy in place
    that would weaken it, such as raising taxes. I think we got to keep
    taxes low to keep the economy moving. It's possible to put policy--
    [applause]--it's possible to put policy in place that would hurt this
    economy, like protectionist policy. It's possible to--if we keep suing
    our people trying to risk capital, it's conceivable we won't be the
    leader. That's why we need good tort reform. We got to make sure that--
    [applause].
        My point to you is, economic growth enables us to do more than one
    thing. And that's what we'll continue to do.
        Yes, sir. Right. No, no, hold on for a minute. Hold on for a minute.

    India/Pakistan

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. Yes, sir.
        Q. Every chief needs Indian on their side. [Laughter]
        The President. How long were you working on that for? [Laughter]
        Q. I applaud your vision and foresight to sign a long-term treaty
    with India. But, sir, I am confused that, on one side, you're helping
    democratic countries to flourish and establish democracy in the world
    market, whereas how do we deal with country who has known to harbor
    terrorism, like Pakistan?
        The President. I thought you might be heading there. [Laughter] I,
    obviously, had a trip recently to India and Pakistan and Afghanistan and
    was able to say in India and in Pakistan both, ``It is a positive
    development for America to be a friend of Pakistan. It's a positive
    development for India for America to be a friend of Pakistan, and it's a
    positive development for Pakistan for America to be a friend of India.
    It's an important accomplishment in order to help keep the peace.''

    [[Page 517]]

        I don't view our relationships with Pakistan and India as a zero-sum
    relationship. As a matter of fact, I view our relationships with both
    countries as different sets of issues and the need to nurture both
    relationships to achieve common objectives. And we're in a position to
    be able to do so now.
        President Musharraf is a friend to the
    United States. President Musharraf understands that he must help rout
    out Al Qaida, which is hiding in parts of his country. President
    Musharraf was reminded of that the four times Al Qaida tried to kill
    him. He is a--and so I was able to have a very good discussion with the
    President about our mutual concerns in the war on terror. And it's
    important that that dialog go on. It's a very important part of our--me
    doing my most important job, which is to protect you.
        He also said in a press conference that
    he understands that democracy is important. So one of the conversations
    that I had with him in private--I feel comfortable saying this in public
    because he himself brought it up--was the need for democracy to advance
    in Pakistan. History has showed us that democracies don't war.
        What's interesting about the relationship between Pakistan and
    India--and I'll get to India in a minute. I want to say something on
    India, so thanks for bringing it up--is that when we first--when I first
    got into office, I remember asking Colin Powell to go get in between India and Pakistan. There was a lot
    of noise--you might remember, I think it was '01 or '02, where there was
    deep concerns about--I think '01--deep concerns about a potential
    nuclear conflict. And so there was shuttle diplomacy, back and forth
    between India and Pakistan, including not only our--Colin but also Jack
    Straw, the Foreign Minister of Great Britain. And
    you never know how dangerous one of these situations can become until
    it's too late, but nevertheless, we took it very seriously.
        And today, you don't see the need for the United States shuffling or
    Britain shuffling diplomats back and forth, to walk back--walk the two
    countries back from a potential conflict which would be incredibly
    damaging for the world. That's positive. In other words, it's--and I
    give Prime Minister--President Musharraf
    credit, and I give the Indian Prime Ministers--both Vajpayee and the current Prime Minister--credit for--Prime
    Minister Singh--for envisioning what is
    possible, how is it possible to develop a relationship that's a peaceful
    relationship with our neighbor.
        And, sir, I think it's very important for the United States to stay
    engaged with Pakistan and encourage them. We're trying to negotiate an
    investment treaty with them, with the hopes of being able to eventually
    develop more trade with Pakistan, in the belief that trade helps nations
    develop stability and prosperity is achieved through trade.
        India--the visit there was a very important visit. And I want to
    describe to you right quick, so be careful on the questions. You're
    going to have to--you'll leave your hand up for a while. I agreed with
    the Indian Government that India ought to be encouraged to develop a
    nuclear power industry. And that's a controversial decision on my part,
    because it basically flies in the face of old cold war attitudes as well
    as arm control thinking.
        Let me just share the logic with you. First of all, in that we live
    in a global economy, there is a demand for fossil fuels--an increase in
    the demand for fossil fuels in one part of the world affects the price
    of gasoline in our world. We're connected. Whether people like it or
    not, there is an interconnectedness today that affects our economy.
    Somebody's decision overseas affects whether or not people are going to
    be able to work here in America. So I think it makes sense for the
    United States, as we ourselves become less addicted to oil and fossil
    fuels, which I'm serious about, encourage others to do so

    [[Page 518]]

    as well. And one good way to do so and to protect the environment at the
    same time is to encourage the use of safe nuclear power. It's in our
    interests, our economic interests that we work an agreement with India
    to encourage their expansion of civilian nuclear power.
        Secondly, unlike Iran, for example, India is willing to join the
    IAEA. They want to be a part of the global agreements around nuclear
    power. Thirdly, India has got a record of nonproliferation. They've had
    30 years of not proliferating. Fourthly, India is a democracy and a
    transparent society. You find out a lot about India because there's a
    free press. There is openness. People run for office and are held to
    account. There's committee hearings. It's an open process.
        I feel very comfortable recommending to the United States Congress
    that it's--that they ought to agree with the agreement that Prime
    Minister Singh and I have reached. It's
    important--it's important--it's also an important relationship. For too
    long, America and India were not partners in peace. We didn't deal with
    each other because of the cold war. And now is the time to set the cold
    war behind us. It's over, folks. It no longer is. And let's think about
    the next 30 years.
        And so my hope is someday, somebody will be asking a question,
    ``Aren't you glad old George W. thought about entering into a strategic
    relationship with India?'' And I believe it's in our country's interest
    that we have such a relationship and, at the same time, maintain close
    relations with Pakistan. And it's possible to do so. And we are doing
    so.
        Yes, sir.
        How long do you usually ask questions here for? [Laughter]

    Terrorist Surveillance Program

        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. The guy is supposed to smile over there. Yes.
        Q. Another theater in the war on terror is domestic. And there's a
    controversy around warrantless wiretaps domestically.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. Could you explain why living within the legislation that allowed
    your administration to get a warrant from a secret court within 72 hours
    after putting in a wiretap wouldn't be just as effective?
        The President. No, I appreciate the question. He's talking about the
    terrorist surveillance program that was--created quite a kerfuffle in
    the press, and I owe an explanation to you. Because our people--first of
    all, after September the 11th, I spoke to a variety of folks on the
    frontline of protecting us, and I said, ``Is there anything more we
    could be doing, given the current laws?'' And General Mike
    Hayden of the NSA said, ``There is.'' The
    FISA law--he's referring to the FISA law, I believe--is--was designed
    for a previous period and is slow and cumbersome in being able to do
    what Mike Hayden thinks is necessarily--called hot pursuit.
        And so he designed a program that will
    enable us to listen from a known Al Qaida or suspected Al Qaida person
    and/or affiliate, from making any phone call outside the United States
    in, or inside the United States out--with the idea of being able to pick
    up, quickly, information for which to be able to respond in this
    environment that we're in. I was concerned about the legality of the
    program, and so I asked lawyers--which you got plenty of them in
    Washington--[laughter]--to determine whether or not I could do this
    legally. And they came back and said yes. That's part of the debate
    which you're beginning to see.
        I fully understood that Congress needed to be briefed. And so I had
    Hayden and others brief Members of the
    Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, House Members and Senators,
    about the program. The program is under constant review. I sign a
    reauthorization every--I'm not exactly sure--45 days, say. It's
    something like that.

    [[Page 519]]

    In other words, it's constantly being reviewed. There's an IG that is
    very active at the NSA to make sure that the program stays within the
    bounds that it was designed.
        I fully understand people's concerns about it, but ours is a town,
    by the way, in Washington, where when you don't connect the dots, you're
    held up to Congress, and when you do connect the dots, you're held up to
    Congress. I believe what I'm doing is constitutional, and I know it's
    necessary. And so we're going to keep doing it.

    Domestic Policy

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your comments today about Iraq have
    been, for me, very enlightening. And I greatly appreciate the level of
    clarity that you've provided. But my question is about domestic policy.
    Today, in our neighborhoods, there are terrorists. Children cannot play
    in some of our neighborhoods. Today, we've got--when you see post-
    Katrina, our country was startled at some of the images around poverty
    in some of our cities. Can you be as clear about your domestic policy,
    to address those kinds of things?
        The President. Absolutely. Thanks. Let me start with education,
    which I view as a vital part of providing hope and eradicating poverty.
    I was disturbed, when I was the Governor of Texas, disturbed about a
    system that just moved kids through. There was kind of a process-
    oriented world, that said, ``Okay, if you're 10, you're supposed to be
    here; you're 12, you're supposed to be here,'' and on through. It was
    like--without any sense of accountability. If you believe education is
    one of the cornerstones to a hopeful world, then it seems like to me, it
    makes sense that we've got to have a system that measures so we know
    whether or not people are getting educated.
        So when I got to Washington, I proposed what's called No Child Left
    Behind, which passed with both Republican and Democrat votes. And the
    whole spirit of No Child Left Behind is this: It says in return for
    increased Federal money, for particularly Title I students, we expect
    you to measure grades three through eight. We want to see strong
    accountability because we believe every child can learn, and we expect
    every school to teach. That's the whole spirit of the No Child Left
    Behind Act.
        If you--it turns out that if you can solve problems early, if you
    can find out whether or not a curriculum is working or not early on in a
    child's career, we can correct the problems. And so part of the No Child
    Left Behind Act is, when you measure and find somebody not up to--
    measuring to par, not meeting standards, there's extra money called
    special service money available in the No Child Left Behind Act to make
    sure that there's early tutoring, to make sure that children are not
    just simply shuffled through, to make sure an accountability system is
    used properly--which is to diagnose and solve problems.
        The No Child Left Behind Act is beginning to work. You know why?
    Because we measure. There was an achievement gap in America; that's bad
    for the country. It's an achievement gap between the difference between
    some Anglo children and some African American children, particularly
    inner city. That's beginning to close.
        We need to apply the same rigor of No Child Left Behind,
    particularly in middle [school]* age, for math and science to make sure
    that we're able to compete for the jobs of the 21st century.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And so step one, in my judgment, to address exactly what you
    described as true--kind of this enlightenment that, uh-oh, there are
    parts of our society in which people are, in fact, being completely left
    behind--is to make sure the education system is rigorously based upon
    accountability. And when we find the status quo is unacceptable, have
    the political courage to change, demand high standards and change.

    [[Page 520]]

        And the cornerstone of demanding change in a system that tends to
    protect itself is measurement. And I realize there are people in my
    party who want to undo No Child Left Behind. And I'm sure there are in
    the other party. But my judgment is, you can't achieve educational
    excellence unless you measure and correct problems.
        Now, there's another aspect to providing a hopeful society, and that
    is to encourage ownership. One of the interesting things about Katrina,
    as you well know, is many of the people displaced did not own their own
    homes, that they were renters. One of the goals that I set for my
    administration through a variety of pretty simple programs--like helping
    with downpayment and education programs, recognizing that interest rates
    drive most of the housing purchases--was to encourage minority
    homeownership. It's now at an alltime high.
        I believe that the idea of empowering our faith-based institutions--
    government can help, but government sometimes can't find--well, it just
    doesn't pass--it's just not a loving organization. And so I believe
    strongly--I believe strongly in empowering faith-based and community-
    based programs all throughout America to help achieve certain
    objectives. Mentoring, for example, mentoring of children in prisoners--
    whose mother or dad may be in prison is an initiative I started. Drug
    rehabilitation, giving those who are eligible for drug money a voucher,
    money themselves, a scrip so they can redeem it at a program that they
    choose, not that the government assigns them to--in other words, there's
    a variety of social service programs aimed at lifting people up.
        And so I--look, many Americans kind of were--didn't really realize
    what's taking place in parts of the country that you've described. And
    Katrina was a wake-up call for many Americans. And now there's an
    opportunity, in my judgment, to take--well, for people to take notice
    and put in policy--put policies in place that help those who need help,
    like community health centers, or--for health care--or expand
    educational opportunities through rigorous accountability systems, and,
    I repeat, demanding change where change is due--needed, and promoting
    ownership.
        Thanks. Good question.

    Support for the President

        Q. ----is no shrinking violet. First of all, I want to commend you
    on your presentation today. And I tell you I'm 100 percent behind your
    fight against terrorism. Also----
        The President. Why don't you just leave it at that?
        Q. Oh, no. Oh, no. [Laughter]
        I tell you, one of the reasons I'm qualified to say that; you
    probably heard of Ernie Shavers, the boxer. I trained Ernie Shavers. He
    fought Muhammad Ali, and Muhammad Ali say he hit him so hard, he woke up
    his ancestors in Africa. [Laughter] So I know a little bit about boxing
    and things. But I know in boxing--and I taught over 3,300 children over
    13 years. Two of them fought for world championships, including Ernie
    Shavers. I taught them that the best defense is a good offense. That's
    what you're doing over there now. And I commend you.
        My mom and daddy had moved from Alabama to Ohio in the mid-forties.
    They were the parents of five sons. We all served in the military. I
    served 8 years, and we all served honorably. So I am a marine. I've also
    been a Boy Scout and a firefighter. To lead in, the young person spoke
    about domestic policy. This Wednesday coming, I'll be making my sixth
    trip to the New Orleans/Mississippi area as a contractor. I'm president
    of the Ohio Minority Contracting Association. I want to publicly thank
    Senator Voinovich right now for directing me to Senator Trent Lott, who
    has directed me to Haley Barbour, the Governor down there, who opened up
    opportunities.
        We got people doing debris removal, putting on roofs. And I got a
    $600,000 proposal to feed 22,000 workers down there

    [[Page 521]]

    who have been underfed. You've been down there. I have too. People are
    working 14 and 16 hours a day. And I've never been so proud to be an
    American, to see the outpouring of people out there helping one another,
    particularly the faith-based community. So I thank you, appreciate you,
    and look forward to putting this proposal in your hand. Thank you.
        The President. Well, let's see, I got an invitation and a proposal.
    [Laughter]
        Yes, sir. Anybody work here in this town? [Laughter]
        Q. Sorry about that. Mr. President, I just finished Ambassador Paul
    Bremer's book, and one of the things I just wanted to say to you and to
    Ambassador Bremer is, thank you for protecting us.
        The President. Thanks.
        You're next.

    Immigration Reform

        Q. Okay, my question is----
        The President. We have dueling microphones here. Keep firing away.
        Q. Okay. My question is, since 9/11, one of the key things that we
    need is immigration reform, including comprehensive immigration reform
    that is right now in front of Senator Specter's committee in the
    Judiciary. There are two principles I'm hoping that you would support:
    One, the good people, the engineers, the Ph.D.s, the doctors, the
    nurses, the people in the system who have followed the rules, will go to
    the head of the line in any form of immigration reform. That's title IV
    of the bill.
        Secondly, the illegals who have not followed the rules--I understand
    the debate, I appreciate your statements about immigration reform, but
    isn't it better that we know who they are, have them finger-printed and
    photographed, and allow some form of 245(i) to come back so----
        The President. Tell people what that is. Tell people what 245(i) is.
        Q. Okay--245(i) is a partial amnesty program that expired back in
    2001, in fact, was going to be voted on on 9/11, unfortunately. But
    those--it was a small segment of the illegal population where they would
    pay the $1,000 fine and, for example, coming in illegally, then marrying
    an American citizen, could somehow legalize their status.
        The President. Okay. Let me give you some broad principles on
    immigration reform as I see them. First of all, we do need to know who's
    coming into our country and whether they're coming in illegally or not
    legally--legally or not legally, and whether they're coming in or going
    out. And part of reforms after September the 11th was a better system of
    finding out who's coming here.
        Secondly, we have a big border between Texas and Mexico that's
    really hard to enforce. We got to do everything we can to enforce the
    border, particularly in the South. I mean, it's the place where people
    are pouring across in order to find work. We have a situation in our own
    neighborhood where there are ways--disparities are huge, and there are
    jobs in America that people won't do. That's just a fact. I met an onion
    grower today at the airport when I arrived, and he said, ``You got to
    help me find people that will pull onions,'' or pluck them or whatever
    you do with them, you know. [Laughter] There are jobs that just simply
    aren't getting done because Americans won't do them. And yet if you're
    making 50 cents an hour in Mexico, and you can make a lot more in
    America, and you got mouths to feed, you're going to come and try to
    find the work. It's a big border, of which--across which people are
    coming to provide a living for their families.
        Step one of any immigration policy is to enforce our border in
    practical ways. We are spending additional resources to be able to use
    different detection devices, unmanned UAVs, to help--and expand Border
    Patrol, by the way, expand the number of agents on the border, to make
    sure we're getting them the tools necessary to stop people from coming
    across in the first place.

    [[Page 522]]

        Secondly, part of the issue we've had in the past is, we've had--for
    lack of a better word, catch-and-release. The Border Patrol would find
    people sneaking in; they would then hold them for a period of time;
    they'd say, ``Come back and check in with us 45 days later,'' and then
    they wouldn't check in 45 days later. And they would disappear in
    society to do the work that some Americans will not do.
        And so we're changing catch-and-release. We're particularly focusing
    on those from Central America who are coming across Mexico's southern
    border, ending up in our own--it's a long answer, because it's an
    important question: How do we protect our borders and, at the same time,
    be a humane society?
        Anyway, step one, focus on enforcing border; when we find people,
    send them home, so that the work of our Border Patrol is productive
    work.
        Secondly, it seems like to me that part of having a border security
    program is to say to people who are hiring people here illegally, we're
    going to hold you to account. The problem is, our employers don't know
    whether they're hiring people illegally because there's a whole forgery
    industry around people being smuggled into the United States. There's a
    smuggling industry and a forgering industry. And it's hard to ask our
    employers, the onion guy out there, whether or not he's got--whether or
    not the documents that he's being shown which look real are real.
        And so here's a better proposal than what we're doing today, which
    is to say, if you're going to come to do a job that an American won't
    do, you ought to be given a fool-proof card that says you can come for a
    limited period of time and do work in a job an American won't do. That's
    border security, because it means that people will be willing to come in
    legally with a card to do work on a limited basis and then go home. And
    so the agents won't be chasing people being smuggled in 18-wheelers or
    across the Arizona desert. They'll be able to focus on drugs and
    terrorists and guns.
        The fundamental question that he is referring to is, what do we do
    about--there's two questions--one, should we have amnesty? And the
    answer, in my judgment, is, no, we shouldn't have amnesty. In my
    judgment, granting amnesty, automatic citizenship--that's what amnesty
    means--would cause another 11 million people, or however many are here,
    to come in the hopes of becoming a United States citizen. We shouldn't
    have amnesty. We ought to have a program that says, you get in line like
    everybody else gets in line; and that if the Congress feels like there
    needs to be higher quotas on certain nationalities, raise the quotas.
    But don't let people get in front of the line for somebody who has been
    playing by the rules.
        And so--anyway, that's my ideas on good immigration policy.
    Obviously, there's going to be some questions we have to answer: What
    about the person who's been here since 1987--'86 was the last attempt at
    coming up with immigration reform--been here for a long period of time?
    They've raised a family here. And my only advice for the Congress and
    for people in the debate is, understand what made America. We're a land
    of immigrants. This guy is from Hungary, you know. And we got to treat
    people fairly. We've got to have a system of law that is respectful for
    people.
        I mean, the idea of having a program that causes people to get stuck
    in the back of 18-wheelers, to risk their lives to sneak into America to
    do work that some people won't do, is just not American, in my judgment.
    And so I would hope the debate would be civil and uphold the honor of
    this country. And remember, we've been through these periods before,
    where the immigration debate can get harsh. And it should not be harsh.
    And I hope--my call for people is to be rational about the debate and
    thoughtful about what words can mean during this debate.

    [[Page 523]]

        Final question, sir. You're paying me a lot of money, and I got to
    go back to work. [Laughter]

    Iran

        Q. My name is Jose Feliciano.
        The President. No.
        Q. Yes, it is. [Laughter]
        The President. Yes--it's like the time I called a guy and said,
    ``Hey, this is George Bush calling.'' He said, ``Come on, quit kidding
    me, man.'' [Laughter] Que, Jose? Que quiere decir?
        Q.  [Inaudible] [Laughter]
        The President. That's right.
        Q. And, actually, I'm chairman of the Hispanic Roundtable--I was
    going to ask you that same question. However, I'm going to ask you a
    simple one now, and this relates to preemptive self-defense. How is it,
    Mr. President, that Iran today is really different from what Iraq was 3
    years ago?
        The President. Well, first of all, there were 16 Security Council
    resolutions. The world had spoken with a clear voice, not one time; I
    think 16--is that right, Stretch [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News], 16? I'm
    asking a member of the press corps. I like to, like, reverse roles
    sometimes. [Laughter]. Really checking to see if they're paying
    attention, you know. [Laughter] Halfway through, they kind of start
    dozing off. [Laughter]
        But the world had spoken by a lot against Saddam Hussein. There was a diplomatic process. You might remember
    that the Congress, I think in '98, voted a resolution that there should
    be regime change. My predecessor looked at the same intelligence I
    looked at and saw a threat. But the difference--one difference was that
    in Iraq, there was a series of unanimous resolutions that basically held
    the Iraqi Government to account, which Saddam Hussein ignored. It was,
    like, resolution after resolution after resolution.
        The Iranian issue is just beginning to play out. And my hope, of
    course, is, as I said earlier, that we're able to solve this issue
    diplomatically. It's very important that the United States work with our
    allies--in this case, the lead group of negotiators has been Germany,
    France, and Great Britain--so that the Iranians hear a unified voice.
        Now, the voice sometimes--I mean, if you're one--you're negotiators,
    probably got some lawyers here who are good negotiators--it's easier to
    negotiate one person versus six. I'm not suggesting you're a lawyer, you
    know, but I kind of had the feeling you might have been. [Laughter]
        And so it's very important for us to continue to make sure that they
    hear one voice. Nontransparent societies have got an advantage over
    those of us who are transparent, where every move is in the press, every
    opinion is aired out. And so it's very important for us to work to make
    sure that they hear the one voice. Now, you might have read in the
    newspapers where our Ambassador in Iraq, Zal, has reached out to the Iranians to make it clear to
    them about our concerns about involvement in Iraq--Iranian involvement
    in Iraq. It's very important, however for the Iranians to understand
    that the discussion is limited to Iraq. We feel like they need to know
    our position.
        Ultimately, Iraq-Iranian relations will be negotiated between the
    Iraqi Government and the Iranian Government. Ours is just--we're using
    this as an opportunity to make it clear about our concerns of
    interference within a process that is--a democratic process that is
    evolving. Our position is still very clearly that the Iraqis--Iranians
    should not have a program to build a nuclear weapon, and/or the
    capacity, the knowledge necessary to build something which could lead to
    a nuclear weapon. And we're working closely with our allies and friends
    to continue to make that clear to them.
        So the issues are different. The issues are different stages of
    diplomacy.
        Listen, I've enjoyed this. I hope you have as well. God bless.

    [[Page 524]]

    Note: The President spoke at 12:25 p.m. at the Renaissance Cleveland
    Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Sanjiv K. Kapur, president, City
    Club of Cleveland; Mayor Frank G. Jackson of Cleveland, OH; senior Al
    Qaida associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi; former President Saddam Hussein of
    Iraq; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; Secretary General Jakob
    Gijsbert ``Jaap'' de Hoop Scheffer of the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization; President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan; former Secretary
    of State Colin L. Powell; and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee
    and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India. The Office of the Press
    Secretary also released a Spanish language transcript of these remarks.