    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
    [April 6, 2006]
    [Pages 653-673]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on the War on Terror and a Question-and-Answer Session in
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    April 6, 2006

        The President. Thank you. Firoz, thanks a
    lot. So I said, ``That's an interesting name.'' He said, ``I've lived in
    seven countries,'' but he also said he's proud to be an American. And
    we're proud you're an American. Thank you very much for inviting me.
        You know, I was just standing here, listening to Firoz; one of the great things about our country is that you
    can come, and you can enjoy the great blessings of

    [[Page 654]]

    liberty, and you can be equally American if you've been here for 1
    generation or 10 generations. I thought it was neat that somebody who
    has been--you've been here 27 years though, right? Yes. Well, seven
    countries, 27 years here, introducing the President, though. I think it
    says a lot about the United States of America. Thanks for having me.
        I'm looking forward to sharing with you what's on my mind. I look
    forward to hearing what's on yours as well. First thing is, Laura sends her best to the folks of Charlotte. She sends her
    best, Tony, to you and your bride. Thank you for having us here, to Central Piedmont. I
    appreciate your involvement in education. I married well; she's a really
    patient person too. [Laughter]
        I traveled down here with Congressman Robin Hayes, the Congressman from this district. Congressman,
    thank you for being here; appreciate it.
        I've known your mayor for a long time.
    He's a man of accomplishment. I know he was particularly proud to land
    the NASCAR Hall of Fame. Pretty big deal, you know? It's a pretty big
    deal. Thank you all for coming. I want to thank the others who serve on
    the city council who are here. The mayor was telling me a lot of the
    council members are here. I appreciate your service to your city.
        I think one of the things I'd like to tell you about is why and how
    I made some decisions I made. My friends from Texas who, once they get
    over the shock that I'm actually the President--[laughter]--like to ask
    me what it's like to be President. And I guess the simple job
    description would be, it is a decisionmaking experience. And I make a
    lot of decisions. Some of them you see; some of them you don't see.
    Decisionmaking requires knowing who you are and what you believe. I've
    learned enough about Washington to know you can't make decisions unless
    you make them on principle. And once you make a decision based upon
    principle, you stand by what you decide.
        In order to make good decisions, you've got to rely upon good
    people. People have got to feel comfortable about coming in the Oval
    Office and tell you what's on their mind. There's nothing worse than
    people walking in and say, ``Well, I'm a little nervous around the guy;
    I think I'd better tell him what he thinks he needs to hear.'' You can't
    do the country justice, you can't make good decisions unless you've got
    a lot of good, competent people around you, and I do--Condoleezza
    Rice, Secretary of State; Don
    Rumsfeld; Vice President.
        These are people who have seen good times, and they've seen tough
    times. But in all times, they're capable of walking in and telling me
    what's on their mind. That's what you need as the President. And then
    once you make up your mind, they say, ``Yes, sir, Mr. President, I'll
    get it done.''
        The biggest decision I've had to make since I've been your President
    is putting kids in harm's way. It's a decision no President wants to
    make. It's a decision I wish I did not have to make. But I'd like to
    share with you why I made the decision I made.
        First of all, war came to our shores on September the 11th, 2001. It
    was a war we did not ask for. It's a war we did not want, but it is a
    war that I intend to deal with so long as I'm your President. In order
    to deal with this war on terror, you've got to understand the nature of
    the enemy. And I'll share my thoughts with--about this enemy we face.
        They're an enemy bound together by an ideology. These are not folks
    scattered around that are kind of angry and lash out at an opportune
    moment. These are people that are--believe something, and their beliefs
    are totalitarian in nature. They believe you should not be able to
    worship freely. They believe that young girls should not go to school.
    They've got a perverted sense of justice. They believe in the use of
    violence to achieve their objectives. Their stated objectives, their
    stated goals are to spread their totalitarian view throughout

    [[Page 655]]

    the Middle East. That's what they want to do.
        They have made it abundantly clear that they believe folks who live
    in America are weak, that we don't have the will to compete with their
    philosophy. That's what they believe. I'm just telling you what they
    said. I think it's really important in a time of war for the President
    to take the words of the enemy very seriously. And I do.
        They think that the use of violence will cause us to lose our nerve
    and retreat. And they have stated that they want safe haven from which
    to not only topple moderate governments in the Middle East but from
    which to launch attacks against the United States. Given that in mind,
    I'd like to share some of the lessons learned. One lesson is the nature
    of the enemy.
        Another lesson is, is that we must defeat the enemy overseas so we
    don't have to face them here again. And that requires a strategy that is
    offensive in mind: press the enemy; find the enemy; bring the enemy to
    justice; never relent; never give them quarter; understand you cannot
    negotiate with these people; you can't rationalize with these people,
    that you must stay on the hunt and bring them to justice. This is
    precisely what we're doing.
        One obviously immediate target is to dismantle Al Qaida. They hide
    in kind of the far reaches of the world. They plot and plan, however,
    from the far reaches of the world. They're good at communications.
    They're good at deception. They're good at propaganda. And they want to
    strike again. We have done a good job of dismantling the operating
    structure of Al Qaida--Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh--a
    series of these folks that have become the operating element of Al
    Qaida. Obviously, Usama bin Laden and his
    sidekick Zawahiri is still at large. We
    understand that. But we're looking, and we're listening, and we're
    working with allies like President Musharraf of Pakistan, President Karzai
    of Afghanistan to bring this--to bring the head of Al Qaida to justice.
        The second lesson learned is that unlike previous wars, these
    folks--this kind of terrorist network that is ideologically bound needs
    safe haven. They need a place to hide. They need a symbiotic
    relationship with governments that will enable them to plot, plan, and
    attack.
        So early on in the conflict, I not only vowed that we would use our
    fierce determination to protect this country by staying on the offense,
    but that we would deny safe haven to these terrorists. And so I said,
    ``If you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the
    terrorist.'' And one thing that I think is really important for our
    citizens to understand is that when the President says something, he
    better mean what he says. In order to be effective, in order to maintain
    credibility, words have got to mean something. You just can't say things
    in the job I'm in and not mean what you say.
        And I meant what I said. And so we said to the Taliban, ``Get rid of
    the Al Qaida.'' They chose not to. I made my first decision to send our
    kids into harm's way and liberate Afghanistan. The decision to liberate
    Afghanistan was based first and foremost on the need to enforce the
    doctrine that I thought was necessary to protect the American people.
    One of the benefits of sending our kids into harm's way was that we
    liberated 25 million people from the clutches of one of the most
    barbaric regimes known to the history of man.
        Laura and I went over to that fledgling
    democracy. We went to see President Karzai. It
    was a remarkable experience. It's hard to describe. You know, I'm not
    such a good poet. Let me put it to you this way: My spirits were lifted
    to see people committed to democracy, recognizing that democracy stands
    in stark contrast to the life these people had to live under the
    Taliban.
        The task now is to continue to fight off the Taliban and Al Qaida
    that would continue to try to disrupt the march of the new democracy,
    help this country survive

    [[Page 656]]

    and thrive and grow, and help the Afghan citizens realize the dreams of
    men and women that they can live in a free and peaceful world. Remember,
    these folks have voted for a President and
    voted for a Parliament. I'm proud of the progress we're making there.
    It's an historic achievement for our country and for our troops. And it
    was a necessary achievement to enforce the doctrines that we said were
    necessary to protect our people.
        Another lesson--this is an important lesson for the country. It's
    one that, kind of, sometimes can get obscured in the politics of
    Washington, but it's one that I'm confident when I tell you it's
    necessary for this country to adhere to. It's going to be necessary for
    me or whoever follows me. When we see a threat, we have got to take the
    threat seriously before it comes to hurt us.
        You know, growing up in Midland, Texas, we all felt pretty secure as
    a kid, mainly because we thought oceans could protect us. Now in my
    case, we were really far away from oceans too, but nevertheless, it's--
    when you think about it, though, if you're a baby boomer like me, you
    think about what it was like growing up. We knew there was a nuclear
    threat. Of course, we had put forth an interesting sounding strategy
    called ``mutually assured destruction,'' which provided an umbrella for
    security and safety.
        But nevertheless, we never really felt anybody would invade us, did
    we? We never felt there would be another attack like Pearl Harbor on our
    lands. And yet September the 11th changed all that. More people died on
    September the 11th because of an attack by an enemy on our shore than
    died at Pearl Harbor. The biggest threat we face is when a terrorist
    network is able to acquire weapons even stronger than airplanes. If the
    terrorist network were ever to get weapons of mass destruction, one of
    their stated objectives, our country and the free world would face a
    serious threat.
        I saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did I see a threat in Iraq; the
    previous administration saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did the
    previous--which, by the way, passed a resolution in the United States
    Congress that said, we ought to have a regime change in Iraq. Not only
    did the previous administration see a threat in Iraq; members of both
    political parties, in both Chambers, during my time as President saw a
    threat in Iraq. And the reason we saw threats is because the
    intelligence said that Saddam Hussein
    possesses weapons of mass destruction.
        But it wasn't just U.S. intelligence that said that; there was--the
    worldwide intelligence network felt like he had weapons of mass
    destruction. After all, when I took the case to the United Nations
    Security Council, the Security Council voted 15 to nothing to say loud
    and clear, ``Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.'' That's
    not what the United States said alone. This is what France and Great
    Britain, China, Russia, and members of the Security Council said,
    because the world felt like Saddam Hussein
    had weapons of mass destruction. And after 9/11, it was abundantly clear
    that a state sponsor of terror, which is what he had been declared by
    previous administrations, and the idea of weapons of mass destruction
    and the fact that he was at least, at the very minimum, a stated enemy
    of the United States of America posed a serious threat for our country.
        My biggest job is to protect the American people. That became
    abundantly clear on September the 11th. It's important to pass good
    reform for education; it's important to support the community college
    system; it's important to work for, you know, a Medicare plan that meets
    the needs. My biggest job is to protect you--at least that's how I see
    the job. Much of my decisionmaking, by the way, is based upon what
    happened on September the 11th. It had an effect on me, just like it had
    an effect on the country. I've never forgotten that

    [[Page 657]]

    day. I've never forgotten the lessons learned, and so when we saw a
    threat, we got to take it seriously. Oceans could no longer protect us.
    The enemy was able to strike us and kill, and they were dangerous.
        And before a President ever commits troops, you got to try diplomacy
    at all costs. I'm going to say to you what I said before: Putting those
    kids in harm's way is a tough, difficult decision. And nobody should
    ever want to do it, because I understand fully the consequences of the
    decision. And so as I told you, I went to the diplomatic route. I was
    hoping that when the world spoke with that one voice at the United
    Nations Security Council, Saddam Hussein
    would see the reason of the free world. But he didn't.
        I felt all along the decision was his to make. He said--the world said, ``Disclose, disarm.'' In the
    meantime, I want you to remember, he was deceiving inspectors. It's a
    logical question to ask: Why would somebody want to deceive inspectors?
    I also told you earlier that when America speaks, we got to mean what we
    said. I meant what we said when we embraced that resolution that said,
    ``Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.'' Words mean something
    in this world, if you're trying to protect the American people.
        I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as
    disappointed as everybody else is. But what wasn't wrong was Saddam
    Hussein had invaded a country. He had used
    weapons of mass destruction. He had the capability of making weapons of
    mass destruction. He was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of
    terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and
    the security of our country.
        Iraq is now the central front on the war on terror. The war on
    terror is broader than Iraq, but Iraq is the key battlefield right now.
    And the enemy has made it so.
        The advance of democracy frightens the totalitarians that oppose us.
    Mr. Zarqawi, who is there in Iraq, is
    Al Qaida. He's not Iraqi, by the way. He is there representing the Al
    Qaida network, trying to stop the advance of democracy. It's an
    interesting question, isn't it. Why would somebody want to stop
    democracy? Like, what's wrong with democracy; Mister, why are you afraid
    of it? Are you threatened by the fact that people get to speak and you
    don't get to dictate? Are you threatened by the fact that people should
    be able to worship the Almighty freely? What about democracy that
    bothers--I think it's a legitimate question we all ought to be asking.
        But nevertheless, he's tough, and he's mean, and he'll kill innocent
    people in order to shake our will. They have stated, clearly stated--
    they being Al Qaida--that it's just a matter of time for the United
    States to lose its nerve. They recognize they cannot beat us on the
    battlefield; they cannot militarily defeat the United States of America.
    But they can affect our conscience. And I can understand why. Nobody
    likes to see violence on the TV screens. Nobody wants to see little
    children blown up when a U.S. soldier is trying to give them candy.
    Nobody likes to see innocent women die at the hands of suicide bombers.
    It breaks our heart.
        The United States of America is an incredibly compassionate nation.
    We value human life, whether it be here at home or whether it be abroad.
    It's one of the really noble features of our country, I think. Nobody
    likes to see that, and the enemy understands that, however. They know
    that if we lose our nerve and retreat from Iraq, they win.
        We've got a strategy for victory in Iraq. It's important for you to
    know that victory will be achieved with a democracy that can sustain
    itself, a country that will be able to defend itself from those who will
    try to defeat democracy at home, a country that will be an ally in the
    war on terror, and a country that will deny Al Qaida and the enemies
    that face America the safe

    [[Page 658]]

    haven they want. Those are the four categories for victory. And they're
    clear, and our command structure and our diplomats in Iraq understand
    the definition of victory.
        And we're moving that way. We're moving that way. We've got a plan
    to help rebuild Iraq. You know, when we first went in there--by the way,
    every war plan or every plan is fine, until it meets the enemy. But
    you've got to adjust. You've got to be able to say on the ground,
    ``Well, this is working; this isn't working.'' The enemy is not a--they
    think differently; they make different decisions; they come up with
    different tactics to try to defeat us. And it's very important for us--
    for me to say to our commanders and our diplomats, ``Devise that
    strategy on the ground; keep adjusting, so that we achieve the victory
    that we want.''
        So when we first got into Iraq, we went with big rebuilding
    projects. You know, ``We're going to help them do this and help them do
    that,'' big electricity projects. And the enemy blew them up. And so
    what we've done now is we've gone to a more rational strategy to provide
    money for local folks, including our military, to help smaller projects,
    but projects that are able to connect with the people on the ground. You
    know, jobs helps a lot if you're trying to say democracy is worth it.
        Second aspect of our plan was to promote democracy. And I know 4
    months in the way these news cycles work seems like a decade; at least
    it does to me at times, you know? [Laughter] Four months ago, 12 million
    people went to the polls. It was an amazing event, wasn't it, I mean,
    really think about it. If you can project back to the amazement,
    surprise, exhilaration that happened when, given a chance to vote for
    the third time in one year, the Iraqi people having had suffered under
    the tyranny of Saddam Hussein said, ``I want
    to be free. That's what we want to be.'' That's what they said. Twelve
    million people, in the face of incredible threats and potential suicide
    bombers--and ugly words coming out of those who fear democracy--said,
    ``Give me a chance.'' It was an amazing experience. It was a--in my
    judgment, a moment that is historic.
        Part of the task now is to say to the Iraqis' leaders, ``The people
    said something, now you need to get--you need to act. You need to get a
    unity government together.'' And that's what we're watching right now.
    It takes awhile for people to overcome the effects of tyranny, and
    there's a lot of politics happening in Iraq. It's a little different
    from what used to be the place. It's a little different from other
    countries in that part of the world where one person makes a decision,
    and everybody kind of either likes it or doesn't like it, but you keep
    your mouth shut if you don't like it.
        Here you're watching people kind of edging for responsibility and
    working it, and we're very much involved. I know you know Condi went over there the other day, and her message
    was, let's get moving. The people want there to be a unity government.
    The people want there to be a democracy, and it requires leadership, for
    people to stand up and take the lead. And so we're working with them to
    get this unit government up and running.
        And then there's the security side. You can't have a democracy
    unless the people are confident in the capacity of the state to protect
    them from those who want to stop the advance of democracy. The enemy for
    awhile tried to shake our nerve. They can't shake my nerve. They just
    can't shake it. So long as I think I'm doing the right thing and so long
    as we can win, I'm going to leave our kids there, because it's necessary
    for the security of this country. If I didn't think that we could win,
    I'd pull them out. You just got to know that. I cannot sit with the
    mothers and fathers of our troops in harm's way and not feel like
    victory is necessary and victory will be achieved.

    [[Page 659]]

        Part of my decisionmaking process about whether they're there is
    based upon whether or not the goal is necessary and attainable. It's
    necessary to protect this country--I'm going to talk about it a little
    later--and it is attainable. It's attainable because the Iraqis on the
    political side have said, ``You bet. Give us a chance.'' They wrote a
    Constitution; they ratified the Constitution. Twelve million went to the
    polls. That's a high voter turnout, by the way. On the security side,
    our goal, our mission is to let the Iraqis take the fight. And as I--
    I've always been saying, ``They stand up; we stand down.'' That means we
    train the Iraqis to take the fight to those who want to disrupt their
    country.
        And we're making good progress on the military side. By the way, we
    had to change our tactics. When we first got there, we said, why don't
    we train us an army that will be able to protect from an outside threat.
    It turned out there wasn't much of an outside threat compared to the
    inside threat. And so now the training mission has adapted to the
    tactics of the enemy on the ground. We're embedding our guys with the
    Iraqi Army. They're becoming more efficient. There's over 200,000
    trained, and we're constantly monitoring the quality of effort. And as
    the quality of the forces improves, they take over more territory. The
    idea is to have the Iraqi face in front, making the--helping the folks
    get the confidence in their Government.
        We lagged in police training. And so General Casey, as he--who is our general on the ground there, told
    me, he said, ``You know, this is going to be the year of training the
    police so they can bring confidence to people.''
        The enemy shifted its tactics, as you know, and has tried to create
    a civil war. And they blew up the--one of the holiest sites in Samarra,
    trying to get the Sunnis to get after the Shi'a, and vice versa. This
    has been an objective for awhile. First it was go after coalition
    troops. There is still danger for our troops, don't get me wrong. But
    they really tried to incite a civil war. And what was interesting to
    watch is to watch the reaction for the--by the Government. The
    Government, including many of the religious leaders, stood up and said,
    ``No, we don't want to go there; we're not interested in a civil war.''
        The Iraqi troops did a good job of getting between some mosques and
    crowds, and they got in between competing elements and stood their
    ground. And as I put it awhile ago, they said--the Iraqi people looked
    into the abyss and didn't like what they saw. And it's still
    troublesome, of course. There's still sectarian violence. You can't have
    a free state if you've got militia taking the law into their own hands.
        Now, remember, this is a society adjusting to being free after a
    tyranny. And Saddam Hussein's tactics to keep
    the country in check was to pit one group of people against another and
    say, ``I'm the only stabilizing force for you.'' He was brutal on Shi'a;
    he destroyed, with chemical weapons, many Kurds; and he was tough on
    Sunnis too. But he created a kind of--this sense of rivalry.
        And so you can understand why there's revenge after years of this
    kind of tension he created. Our job and the job of rational Iraqi
    leaders is to prevent these sectarian reprisal attacks from going on.
    And it's tough work, but I want you to know, we understand the problem.
    More importantly, General Casey
    understands the problem.
        We're adjusting our tactics to be able to help these Iraqis secure
    their country so that democracy can flourish. They want democracy.
    That's what they've said. The troops, time and time again, have shown
    that they're better trained than before. And we've got more work to do
    on that, I readily concede. There's a lot of debate and a lot of
    questions about what's happening, I understand that.
        Again, I repeat to you, I know what violence does to people. First
    of all, I'm confident--people are saying, ``I wonder if these people can
    ever get their act together

    [[Page 660]]

    and self-govern?'' The answer is, I'm confident they can if we don't
    lose our nerve.
        One of the decision--principles--a principle on which I made
    decisions is this: I believe that freedom is universal. America was
    founded on the natural rights of men and women, which speaks to the
    universality of freedom. And if you believe in the universality of
    freedom, then you have confidence that if given a chance, people will
    seize that opportunity.
        No question the Iraqis need help after living under the thumb of a
    tyrant. But freedom is embedded, I believe, in the souls of men and
    women all over the Earth. You know, you don't demand freedom just--more
    than Methodists demand freedom, let me put it to you that way. I'm a
    Methodist. [Laughter] There's an interesting debate: Is it imposing
    one's values to encourage others to live in freedom? I argue the answer
    to that question is, absolutely not, if you believe in the universality
    of freedom.
        And so while thrilled to see the vote, I was--I wasn't shocked.
    People want to be free. I know you're thinking about, ``Well, when's he
    going to get our troops out of there?'' There's a debate going on in
    Washington, DC, which it should, and it's an important debate about our
    troop levels. Here's my answer to you: I'm not going to make decisions
    based upon polls and focus groups; I'm going to make my decisions based
    upon the recommendations of our generals on the ground. They're the ones
    who decide how to achieve the victory I just described. They're the ones
    who give me the information.
        I remember coming up in the Vietnam war, and it seemed like that
    there was a--during the Vietnam war, there was a lot of politicization
    of the military decisions. That's not going to be the case under my
    administration. They say, ``Well, does George Casey tell you the truth?'' You bet he tells me the truth. When
    I talk to him, which I do quite frequently, I've got all the confidence
    in the world in this fine general. He's a smart guy; he's on the ground;
    he's making incredible sacrifices for our country. And he--if he says he
    needs more troops, he'll get them, and if he says he can live with fewer
    troops because the Iraqis are prepared to take the fight, that's the way
    it's going to be.
        There are some in Washington, DC, and around the country who are
    good folks, legitimate, decent folks, saying, ``Pull the troops out.''
    That would be a huge mistake. It would be a huge--[applause]--hold on a
    second--it would be a huge mistake for these reasons: The enemy has said
    that they want us to leave Iraq in order to be able to regroup and
    attack us. If the American people--the American Government, not the
    people--were to leave prematurely, before victory is achieved, it would
    embolden the enemy.
        Now, I recognize some don't see the enemy like I do. There's kind of
    a different view of the enemy. That's a good thing about America; people
    can have different points of view, you know. And people should be
    allowed to express them, which is great.
        I see an enemy that is totalitarian in nature, that's clearly stated
    they want to attack us again, and they want safe haven from which to do
    so. That's why they're trying to stop democracy in Iraq. If we were to
    pull out our troops early, it would send a terrible signal to the
    Iraqis. Twelve million people said, ``I want to be free.'' And they need
    our help. We're helping the Iraqis achieve freedom. They watch these
    deals. They listen carefully to the debate in America. They need to
    watch, by the way; they need to watch this debate, which is good. It's
    what free societies do; they debate. But they're also listening very
    carefully about whether or not this country has got the will necessary
    to achieve the objective.
        Thirdly, if we left before the mission was complete, what would it
    say to our troops and the families, particularly those who have lost a
    loved one? I spend--let me

    [[Page 661]]

    say this about our military: The Volunteer Army is a necessary part of
    our society. We need to maintain the Volunteer Army. It is a really--
    we've got a magnificent group of men and women who serve our country. Do
    you realize most people who served, are serving today, volunteered after
    9/11? They saw the stakes, and they said, ``I want to join the United
    States military.'' The retention rate is high, which means we've got
    people serving in uniform who not only volunteered and saw the stakes
    but have been involved in this conflict and said, ``I'd like to stay in
    the military.''
        It is a--the military is a vital part of securing this country in
    the war on terror. Now, if you don't think we're at war, then it
    probably doesn't matter that much. I not only think we're at war; I know
    we're at war. And it's going to require diligence and strength and a
    really--and a military that's well-paid, well-housed, well-trained,
    where morale is high. And pulling out before the mission is complete
    would send a terrible signal to the United States military.
        I welcome the debate, but I just want people here to know, we're
    going to complete the mission. We'll achieve victory. And I want to say
    this to the Iraqi people: We want to help you achieve your dreams. And
    the United States of America will not be intimidated by thugs and
    assassins.
        I got one more thing to say, then I--[applause]--I got one more
    thing to say. I know I'm getting a little windy. I want to talk to
    people about why it's important for us to succeed in Iraq, and
    Afghanistan, for that matter. I told you there's a short-term reason:
    Deny safe haven and help get allies in the war on terror to prevent this
    totalitarian movement from gaining a stronghold in places from which
    they can come hit us.
        There's a longer term reason as well, and that is, you defeat an
    ideology of darkness with an ideology of hope and light. And freedom and
    liberty are part of an ideology of light. Our foreign policy in the past
    has been one that said, well, if the waters look calm in parts of the
    world, even though there may not be freedom, that's okay. The problem
    with that foreign policy is, below the surface there was resentment and
    anger and despair which provided a fertile ground for a totalitarian
    group of folks to spread their poisonous philosophy and recruit.
        The way to defeat this notion of--their notion of society is one
    that is open, that is democratic, that is based upon liberty. This
    doesn't have to be an American-style democracy. It won't be. Democracy
    has got to reflect the tradition and the history of the countries in
    which it takes hold. I understand that. And nobody in the Middle East
    should think that when the President talks about liberty and democracy,
    he's saying you got to look just like America or act like America.
    Nobody is saying that.
        I am saying, though, trust your people, give them a chance to
    participate in society. I believe a society is a whole society in which
    women are free and are given equal rights. I believe there's a whole
    society in which young girls are given a chance to go to school and
    become educated. I believe it's a whole society when government actually
    responds to people, not dictates to people. That's what I believe. And I
    believe that it's the best way in the long run to defeat an ideology
    that feels the opposite way. And we've seen it happen in our history
    before. It's happened in some of your lifetimes.
        One of the ways I like to describe what I'm trying to tell you is
    about my relationship with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. I say this all the time, as the press
    corps will tell you traveling with me--``When is he ever going to quit
    saying that?'' Well, it's the best example I can give you about what I'm
    trying to describe is happening today during these historic times. My
    dad fought the Japanese as an 18-year-old
    kid--or 19--he went in at 18, I guess. But he was in combat. Many of
    your relatives fought the Japanese. It's hard to think back and kind of
    remember the bitterness that we had toward the Japanese. They attacked

    [[Page 662]]

    the United States of America and killed a lot of folks. And we want to
    war with them, and a lot of people died, and it was a bloody war.
        After the war--and by the way, it ended with an old doctrine of
    warfare, which is, destroy as many innocent people as you can to get the
    guilty to surrender. That's changed, by the way, with the precision
    nature of our military and the way we're structured. And the way our
    troops think is we now target the guilty and spare the innocent. That's
    another subject if you got a question. But anyway, today, my friend in
    keeping the peace is Prime Minister of
    Japan.
        Amazing, isn't it? Maybe you take it for granted. I don't. I think
    it's one of the really interesting parts of--one of the interesting
    stories of history, that 60 years after we fought the Japanese, I can
    tell you that I work with Prime Minister Koizumi on a variety of issues. It's amazing, I think. I
    know 60 seems like a long time. If I were six or seven, it would seem
    like a long time. At 59, it seems like a long time. [Laughter] Maybe
    when I'm 60, it will seem like a short time.
        Anyway, so what happened? What was it that caused something to
    change, an enemy to become an ally? I believe it's because the Japanese
    adopted a Japanese-style democracy. And I appreciate the fact that one
    of my predecessors, Harry S. Truman, had the foresight to see the
    capacity of freedom, the universal right of people to change the world,
    to make it so that, eventually, an American President would be able to
    say, we're working together to keep the peace. They're no longer an
    enemy; they're a friend. Democracies don't war.
        Europe is whole and free and at peace for a reason. We lost
    thousands of troops on the continent of Africa--on the continent of
    Europe since World War I. Thousands and thousands of young men and women
    lost their lives during that war. And today, there's peace. And the
    reason why is because democracies don't war with each other.
        I believe that one day an American President will be talking about
    the world in which he is making decisions or she is making decisions,
    and they'll look back and say, ``Thank goodness a generation of
    Americans understood the universality of liberty and the fact that
    freedom can change troubled parts in the world into peaceful parts of
    the world.''
        Is it worth it in Iraq? You bet it is. It's worth it to protect
    ourselves in the short run, but it's necessary and worth it to lay the
    foundation of peace for generations to come. And that's what's on my
    mind these days.
        I'll be glad to answer questions. Yes, ma'am.

    Federal Budget/National Economy

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Good.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Good. You're welcome here. [Laughter] This is not a
    political convention. [Laughter]
        Q. But more importantly, I'm an American, and my husband and I are
    proud parents of four children and five grandchildren. And I care very
    deeply, as you, about our future as a country and our place in the
    world.
        The President. Good.
        Q. I agree with you completely, that when war came to our borders,
    that we needed to defend our country against Al Qaida and was completely
    with you there. I agree that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, as many are
    across the world. But I am more concerned about the deficit that we are
    incurring in this country and the effect that that will have on my
    children and grandchildren and our present. My colleagues here on the
    city council and I were just talking about how we can't afford after-
    school enrichment opportunities for the children of Charlotte because of
    cutbacks

    [[Page 663]]

    in the community development block grant. And I just----
        The President. That's a great question. Thank you.
        Q. ----think we need to secure our borders, to protect our ports,
    and to invest in the people of Charlotte and this country----
        The President. Good.
        Q. ----for a real national----
        The President. I got your question, thank you. It's a good question.
    She basically--no seriously, it's a legitimate question. What are you
    doing about the deficit, you know? There are two types of deficits that
    I want to describe to you. One is the current account deficit. It's the
    deficit that we're on plan to cut in half by 2009. There's an
    interesting debate in Washington about how do you deal with a current
    account deficit.
        By the way, we--and the area where we're able to affect the deficit
    the most is through some of the programs you described called
    discretionary spending. There's also discretionary sending and mandatory
    spending. Mandatory spending is a formula-driven spending that happens
    based upon conditions, not based upon, necessarily, legislation,
    although you can change mandatory spending through formula adjustment.
    Mandatory spending in Social Security, mandatory spending Medicare,
    mandatory spending Medicaid, programs like that; farm program is
    mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is some of the education
    programs you described. Discretionary spending is also military
    spending.
        We--I'm going to put this in a little larger context. I promise to
    answer your question. We were confronted with a series of hurdles to
    economic growth that we had to deal with in Washington. We had a stock
    market correction, a quite significant stock market correction, and we
    had a recession early in '01. And then the enemy attacked us, which hurt
    our economy. Obviously, my decision to go to war--people don't--you
    know, war is an unsettling thing. I fully understand that. Sometimes
    it's not conducive to risking capital during a time of war. We had a
    major natural disaster. All of this affected our economy.
        I made the decision to cut taxes, as you know. It was a decision
    based upon the principle that if people had more money in their pocket,
    they're likely to spend it, save it, or invest it. And therefore, I felt
    like the best way to address these economic hurdles was to stimulate our
    economy through progrowth economic policies, starting with a tax cut--
    and a tax cut, by the way, for everybody. Everybody who paid taxes
    should get a cut. It's a tax cut that helped our small businesses. I
    firmly believe by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains, it
    stimulated investment.
        And our strategy has, I think, been proven by the numbers. We're
    growing at 3.4 percent--3.5 percent last year. The national unemployment
    rate is at 4.8 percent--5 million jobs in 2\1/2\ years. I mean, I could
    go on--housing is up. There's a lot of positive economic news. And no
    question, however, we've been running a deficit.
        One reason we're running a deficit is because I'm going to make sure
    our troops have what it takes to do their job. In the harm's way--when
    they're in harm's way, you've got to be able to say to their families
    that we're going to give them all they got. You know, we want to help
    them.
        One of the interesting things about--for this war is that we're
    saving a lot of lives through a health care system that is phenomenal.
    And we're pulling these kids off the battlefield and sending them to
    Walter Reed or Bethesda as quickly as possible, sparing no expense to
    save lives. But no question, it's been costly.
        Katrina--we're up to $100 billion on Katrina. I don't know if you've
    been over there. You know, it just breaks your heart to see the
    devastation done in the gulf coast of Mississippi and inside New
    Orleans. It's a gut-wrenching experience to see

    [[Page 664]]

    the devastation that went on, and the Federal Government has made a
    strong commitment to provide that money.
        That's background for--no question, we have a current account
    deficit. I have submitted a budget that says we can cut it in half by
    2009. Now, there is a debate in Washington. Some of them are saying,
    ``Raise the taxes in order to balance the budget.'' In all due respect,
    that's not the way Washington works. Washington will raise the taxes and
    figure out new ways to spend the money. So my attitude is, let's leave
    the progrowth economic policies in place, which by the way, yielded a
    $100 billion-plus more money than anticipated last year, because a
    growing economy yields more tax revenues, and be tough on the spending.
        And I understand it creates some of the conditions you said, and I
    appreciate you bringing those to my attention. We're now in another
    budget discussion in Washington. And I submitted another tough budget.
    Now, people said, ``Why don't you veto the budgets?'' I'd like to
    explain that to you. So we sit down from the executive branch and
    negotiate--we come up with a budget that we think is necessary to meet
    goals. The goal is to cut the current account deficit in half by 2009,
    and then we negotiate with the Congress. We say, ``Here's the top line;
    here's what we want you to meet in order to meet the goals we think are
    necessary.''
        Thus far, they've hit the top line that we've suggested. Last year,
    as the councilwoman mentioned, the mayor pro tem mentioned, that there
    are some cutbacks in CDBG money. It's all aimed at trying to get this
    deficit under control. And the--and so Congress said last year, you're
    right. Here's the top line; we made it.
        And so the size of the pie was what we thought was necessary to
    achieve an objective. And so therefore, I'm confronted with a choice. I
    may not like the slices of the pie, but I like the size. And if I vetoed
    bills because of the slices, but it met the size, what would happen
    during the next budget negotiations? They'd say, ``Well, wait a minute;
    we hit your number; you vetoed the bills. How can we trust you in good
    faith?''
        The job of the President is to set a goal, which is to reduce that
    deficit in half by 2009. And if people want me to be able to deal with
    slices of the pie, just give me the line-item veto. And I think that
    will help make sure that--[applause]--let me talk about another thing.
    I'm sorry--this is a long answer to a very important question. I'm sorry
    I'm blowing on too much here, but the real deficit--I'll get you in a
    minute--the real deficit--another real deficit is the deficit inherent
    in Social Security and Medicare.
        There is a massive amount of unfunded liability inherent in those
    two very important programs. And the reason why is, is that baby boomers
    like me are getting ready to retire. And there's a lot of us, and we're
    living longer than the program initially anticipated, and we've been
    promised greater benefits, and fewer people per retiree paying into the
    system. And the system is going to go broke, and a lot of people are
    watching whether or not the United States has the will to address this
    problem, because if we don't, future Presidents and future Congresses
    are going to have to raise taxes significantly, reduce benefits
    significantly, or reduce other programs significantly. This is a
    significant problem facing a future generation of Americans.
        As you know, I took the problem on last year. I might have been the
    only guy in Washington taking the problem on last year. [Laughter] My
    theory was, go out and explain to the American people we got a problem.
    And the people now understand we got a problem, and the fundamental
    question is, how do you translate that to a program that Congress will
    act on?
        And so my second strategy has been--remember, we're always adapting
    our tactics--was to put together a bipartisan group, which we're in the
    process of doing,

    [[Page 665]]

    of members from both political parties, from both Chambers, to come up
    with common ground so we can say to the American people, here is a
    bipartisan approach to these very serious, unfunded liabilities that
    face future generations of Americans. It's a short-term account. It's
    very important, no question, Madam Councilperson. The long-term issue is
    equally, if not greater of importance, which is the unfunded liabilities
    inherent in Social Security and Medicare. I'm going to continue to take
    on the issue. It's a big issue, and I'm confident we can get it solved.
        Okay. Yes, sir.

    Freedom of Religion

        Q. [Inaudible]--I want to thank you for coming back to Charlotte
    again. We certainly enjoyed your wife here a few weeks ago. Okay, thank
    you. But I just wanted not to ask a question but just to offer you a
    message of encouragement. I know many men and women in this room and
    around our region, both Democrat and Republican, continue to pray for
    wisdom and encouragement for you and strength during these times. So we
    just want to continue to encourage you.
        The President. Thank you. Appreciate you.
        I'd like to say one thing about religion--religion and politics, if
    you don't mind. The United States of America must never lose sight of
    this beautiful principle: You can worship or not worship, and you're
    equally American. You're equally American if you're a Christian, Jew, or
    Muslim, atheist, agnostic. We must never lose sight of that. That's what
    distinguishes us from the Taliban.
        Having said that, I cannot thank you all enough for the prayers. It
    means a lot to me and Laura. One of the most
    amazing aspects of the Presidency is to meet total strangers, and they
    say, ``I pray for you.'' They don't say, ``I need a road or a bridge.''
    [Laughter] The mayor might have said that--[laughter]--or a museum. They
    say, ``I pray for you, Mr. President.'' Thank you.
        Let's see. Yes, ma'am.

    The Presidency

        Q. A lot of people were betting that I wouldn't get a chance to ask
    you questions.
        The President. Why is that?
        Q. Just because there would be, you know, you might not choose me.
    [Laughter] Thank you very much.
        The President. Don't bet against yourself is lesson one.
        Q. Right. And I wanted to say to you, Mr. President, that on the war
    on terror, Social Security, the tax cuts, Dubai Ports, immigration, you
    have shown immense political courage. And I really think that you will
    be vindicated on all of those positions, as Ronald Reagan was, for
    example. And also, I wanted to know what else would it take for me to
    get my picture taken with you? [Laughter]
        The President. My attitude is, about this job, is just do my job.
    Say what you think is right. There's an interesting sense about whether
    this poll or that poll--I'm just going to tell you something about the
    Presidency. You cannot make decisions based upon polls. [Applause]
    You've got to stand--I'm not trying to elicit applause here; I'm just
    trying to share with you what it's like, as best I can, to be your
    President, at least why I do what I do.
        And I am--I'm the kind of fellow that--it's like the Social Security
    issue. You know, they say, ``Well, you shouldn't have brought it up,''
    you know. I can't live with myself if I see a problem and not willing to
    address it. I want, after 8 years, to be able to walk out of that office
    and say, I did what I thought was right.
        Now, you talk--an interesting thing is, I'm reading a lot of history
    these days, and it's--I've got some books to recommend, if you like
    them, you know. [Laughter] In contrary to what some of them think back
    there, it's not big print and pictures, either.

    [[Page 666]]

    [Laughter] Yes. Yes, I got you; thank you. [Laughter]
        I read three books on George Washington. I think it's really
    interesting, isn't it? Historians are still analyzing the first
    President of the United States. And history is--sometimes history
    doesn't record the immediate effects of a Presidency. And you just do
    what you think is right, and you don't have to--you can't worry about
    it, you know. If they're still writing about Washington, you know, who
    knows how long I will be gone before they're writing about me in a way
    where there's enough time between the day--the Presidency and an
    objective look of what takes place.
        You heard me quoting Harry Truman. I bet you when Harry Truman made
    the decision to help the Japanese become a democracy, there was some
    editorialization basically saying, how dare you work with an enemy. You
    know, I bet there was some of that. I bet there was a lot of skepticism,
    and I can understand that, you know. I can understand why people are
    skeptical about whether or not a democracy can take hold in a part of
    the world like the Middle East. My only point to you, it's necessary for
    the peace. It has worked in the past, and it's necessary. And we cannot
    lose confidence in these universal values.
        Let's see here. Yes. Yes. No, wait a minute. You're second. Excuse
    me. [Laughter] I beg your pardon.

    Voluntarism

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Young people involved--thank you for that. That's a
    good question. She asked, what can young people do to get involved?
    First of all, the fact that you asked the question is an encouraging
    sign.
        I like to tell people that the true strength of America is the
    hearts and souls of our people. You know, our military might is strong;
    our wallets are fatter than anybody else's in the world, on an
    individual--per capita basis. But the true strength of our country is
    the fact that neighbors love neighbors.
        De Tocqueville saw this when he came to the United States in 1830s.
    He was a traveler, and he came and said, ``I'm coming to the land of the
    rugged individualist.'' And he discovered something interesting way back
    in 1832, I think it was, when he wrote his book. He discovered that
    Americans have a penchant, the desire to form voluntary associations to
    help a neighbor. And it's that spirit of helping a neighbor that
    Presidents should foster and encourage because it really is the strength
    of the United States of America.
        When you really think about the community of Charlotte, in spite of
    the fact that the Federal Government has got influence or the city
    council has got influence, there are thousands of your fellow citizens
    teaching a child to read. And it doesn't require one law. There are
    people feeding the hungry. I bet you've got some of the great food
    pantry programs in the United States of America here. There are people
    providing shelter for the homeless. There are thousands of acts of
    kindness. The Boy Scout troops are active, I bet--the Girl Scouts. These
    are--the Little League programs, you know, the basketball programs.
    They--there's thousands of acts of kindness taking place on a daily
    basis.
        To answer your question, involvement can mean a lot of things. It
    can mean serving in the military; it can mean teaching a child to read;
    it can mean getting your classmates to volunteer to help feed the
    hungry. There's thousands of ways to contribute, and the fact that we
    have millions of Americans doing that is really a remarkable aspect of
    our country.
        One of the principles that has guided me is, to whom much is given,
    much is required. That's why I'm very proud of our Nation's effort to
    help lead the effort to solve the HIV/AIDS issue, particularly on the
    continent of Africa. We're an abundant nation. We're a blessed people in
    many ways, and yet there's a pandemic raging

    [[Page 667]]

    across the continent of Africa that's literally having the potential
    effect of wiping out a generation of people. And the stories are
    heartbreaking, and they're devastating to a civilization in many places.
    And yet our Nation has made the commitment to spend $15 billion over a
    5-year period of time to help provide antiretroviral drugs, to help
    provide prevention, to help the orphans who've been left alone. The
    program is being administered by the U.S. Government.
        And one aspect--there's a Global Fund as well. Another aspect--but
    the people on the ground, the foot soldiers, many are from the faith
    community, who have said, ``I want to help. What can I do to help a
    neighbor?'' The neighbor could be right around the corner, or the
    neighbor could be on the continent of Africa, in this case. We are a
    generous, compassionate people, and it's our true strength.
        Let's see here. Yes, sir. Yes, please.

    Support for the President

        Q. Yes, sir. Actually, I'm bringing a statement to you for a friend,
    Sahara Bozanis, a young Iraqi woman who just came to America last year.
    She grew up under Saddam, and she actually worked for the U.S. forces
    during the war as an interpreter. I talked to her this week. She wanted
    to make sure that she knew--that you knew that her family that's still
    there is grateful, that she thinks that even though there may be
    terrorists still going on, that they are safer now than they ever were
    before. And her goal is to one day meet you to thank you in person
    because you have changed their lives. Even though we might not see that
    in the press, their lives are much better today than they were 3, 4
    years ago.
        The President. Thank you, sir.
        Q. So she wanted to thank you.
        The President. Say, wait a minute, I--I will keep my word here. Oh,
    there you are. Yes, sorry. You thought I forgot, didn't you? I beg your
    pardon; I did forget. [Laughter] You know how guys near 60, they begin
    to kind of--[laughter].

    International Support for the War on Terror

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. A civics teacher, great, thank you. Thank you for
    teaching.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. No, I appreciate--that's a very good question. First
    of all, thank you for teaching. By the way--as you grow up, the lady
    behind you--the girl behind you--as you grow up, one way to contribute
    is to teach, by the way.
        The global war on terror requires a global response, and inherent in
    this woman's question was, what are you doing to make sure that others
    join the United States, recognizing that we cannot do this alone? And I
    appreciate the question a lot.
        There is a lot of cooperation going on now. One of the great myths
    is that the United States is alone in the war on terror. Take, for
    example, Afghanistan. No question, we've got Special Forces there. No
    question, we've got a viable element of our military there to fight off
    Al Qaida or Taliban as they either sneak across the border or come from
    different Provinces to try to do harm, but NATO is very actively
    involved there as well.
        The NATO presence is in the lead in many of the Provinces. There's
    what's called Provincial Reconstruction Teams. It's kind of along the
    lines that I talked about earlier, about localizing the reconstruction
    efforts on a Provincial basis. This is what's happening in Afghanistan,
    and there's reconstruction--Provincial Reconstruction Teams run by
    different countries. Germany has got a presence there. France has had--
    has presence in Afghanistan. In other words, there is a global network
    there.
        In Iraq, as well, there's a lot of coalition forces, some small,
    some large. Great Britain, of course, is large. The Japanese had a
    thousand troops there. It's an amazing commitment by Prime Minister
    Koizumi

    [[Page 668]]

    when you think about the aftermath of World War II. The South Koreans
    have got a significant force there. The Poles have had a significant
    force there. There's a big international presence there. Many of the--
    and the NATO mission, by the way, is present in Iraq, as well, all aimed
    at helping train. They're very much involved in the training mission to
    give the Iraqi troops the skills necessary to do their jobs.
        The global war on terror is fought on more fronts than just the
    military front. For example, one of the really important parts of this
    war on terror is to share intelligence, is to be able to say, ``If you
    hear somebody or see somebody coming that you tell a counterpart in
    another agency--another intelligence service.'' And so we spend a lot of
    time--John Negroponte, for example, or
    Porter Goss, spends a lot of time with their
    counterparts constantly figuring out how best to share information.
        Again, in old war, people could measure movement by the enemy from--
    by watching ships and tanks move across plains. Now we're dealing with
    people that are kind of moving around stealthily. And we've got to be in
    a position where we can share that intelligence.
        The third aspect of the global war on terror is to cut off their
    money. It turns out, terrorists need money--just like the Federal
    Government spends money. And it's a--so we're--our Secretary of
    Treasury, John Snow, and others are constantly
    working to make sure that hawalas, for example, which are kind of a
    money transmitting entity, doesn't--includes terrorist financing. Or we
    worked with the Saudi Government to make it clear that the financing of
    terrorist activities are not in our interest, obviously, or their
    interest.
        By the way, the Saudi Government has been very active in the war on
    terror. They've got a list of Al Qaida potential killers, and they're
    bringing them to justice. Pakistan has been a strong ally in the war on
    terror. You might remember that President Musharraf was one of three countries--or that Pakistan under
    President Musharraf was one of three countries that had recognized the
    Taliban. And so needless to say, after September the 11th, he was--made
    a choice. Colin Powell did a wonderful job
    of talking to President Musharraf in a very respectful and dignified way
    and basically said, ``Who are you with?'' And he has been an ally in the
    war on terror.
        The interesting thing about President Musharraf is, the enemy has tried to kill him four times. There
    have been four assassination attempts on him by Al Qaida, which causes
    him to be a strong ally in the war on terror. [Laughter]
        And so it's a great question. I'm constantly working to remind
    people about the stakes. I knew one of the real dangers after 9/11 was
    that people would tend to forget the lessons learned. And that's normal.
    And frankly, if you're the President of the United States, you want
    normalcy. You want people to go back to their life as quickly as
    possible.
        And so it's--my job is to travel the country, like I'm doing a lot
    of, and saying, ``Here are the stakes. Go ahead and live your life and
    risk capital and raise your families. Let us worry about it.'' And it's
    such a different kind of war that we're constantly having to work with
    our allies, as well, to remind them about the stakes.
        The enemy has reminded them about the stakes. Remember that ours
    isn't the only country that's been attacked. There were attacks in
    Madrid; there were attacks in London, attacks in Egypt; there's been a
    series of attacks around the world. Jordan--they go up--Al Qaida goes in
    and blows up a wedding. These are coldblooded killers, now. These are
    people that will stop at nothing to achieve their objectives.
        And so--no, that's a great question. And the coalition is--it's been
    a large coalition, and we're constantly working it. Some countries feel
    comfortable about helping in Afghanistan; some--that same country may
    not feel comfortable about Iraq. But either

    [[Page 669]]

    way, we're talking about this war on terror on a regular basis.
        Yes. Sir.

    Progress in Iraq/Lessons Learned in the War on Terror

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Okay, yes. Squeaky wheel? Okay, hold on. [Laughter]
    It'll work.
        Q. Mr. President, my name is----
        The President. I went with the tall guy first. [Laughter]
        Q. It's an honor to stand here in front of you and ask you this
    question. You talked a little bit about your decisionmaking ability, and
    you've been steadfast as it relates to the global war on terror, which I
    think is commendable. Another thing I look for in a leader is their
    ability to look in hindsight, and their ability to be--a degree of
    humility, and maybe wondering what could have been done differently. I
    wonder if you look back and go, maybe I should have done this
    differently. I'd just be curious to hear that.
        The President. I appreciate that. I'm constantly looking back to see
    if things could be done differently or better. A classic example--first
    of all, I meant what I said on the strategic objective in Iraq. I said
    in the '04 campaign; I'm going to say it to you again: Knowing what I
    know today, I'd have made the same decision.
        The tactics of going in--one of the interesting questions--you know,
    for example, the training of troops. We started training a military from
    ground one, Iraqi military, as if there was going to be a threat from
    outside its borders, which, in retrospect, we could have done better.
    After all, the threat was not from outside the borders; the threat was
    inside the borders as a result of Zarqawi coming in the country.
        The police training has now begun in earnest in '06. The fundamental
    question is, could we have sped that up; could we have done a better
    job? The strategy, I'm convinced, is right, which is to give the Iraqis
    the opportunity to defend themselves. The question is, are the tactics--
    in order to achieve that, could we have done a quicker job and expedited
    the idea of having the Iraqis standing up and us standing down?
        I mentioned the reconstruction projects. Again, these are all
    necessary to look back to make sure that as we head out into the future,
    that we're able to adjust quicker and better. And I spent a lot of time
    reviewing decisions made.
        There's a--you know, there's a debate in Washington about the
    strategic objective, however. That's different from the tactics on the
    ground. I strongly believe what we're doing is the right thing. If I
    didn't believe it--I'm going to repeat what I said before--I'd pull the
    troops out, nor if I believed we could win, I would pull the troops out.
        There is a--the military are constantly taking a real-time analysis
    based upon previous decisions and what they anticipate the needs to be.
    And so they themselves are constantly evaluating what could have been
    done differently.
        Obviously, one classic case that hurt us that I wish were done
    differently was Abu Ghraib, the prison. What took place there and the
    pictures there just represented everything we didn't stand for. And it
    hurt us. It hurt us in the international arena, particularly in the
    Muslim world, where they said, look--it gave the enemy a fantastic
    opportunity to use it for propaganda reasons. ``Look at the United
    States of America. Look what they're doing to these people. They're
    disgracing--they don't believe in the dignity of each person,'' and, in
    fact, we do. I wish that could be done over. It was a disgraceful
    experience. However, I'm proud to report that the people who made that
    decision are being brought to justice, and there was a full
    investigation over why something like that could have happened.
        And so, yes, I do. Look, I fully understand there is--I guess, my
    reputation is,

    [[Page 670]]

    he sticks to his guns and--it's a very legitimate question: Do you ever
    kind of understand that maybe--that you've got to be somewhat flexible?
        I'm not flexible in my principles. I think if you're flexible in
    your principles, you end up not making sound decision. But I do agree
    with your question that a President has got to be capable of looking
    back and learning from how things could have been done differently.
    Great question. Thank you.
        Okay, squeaky wheels. There's three of you up there. Is this like a
    chorus? [Laughter] Would you please decide among yourselves?

    Terrorist Surveillance Program

        Q. I've got the mike.
        The President. Okay, yes, very good. [Laughter] Good move.
        Q. You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But
    while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to
    tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to
    preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating
    safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to
    make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my
    own behalf. You are----
        The President. I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. [Laughter] Go
    on, what's your question?
        Q. Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is
    that I--in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of nor more
    frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the Presidency, by
    the Senate, and----
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. No, wait a sec. Let him speak.
        Q. And I would hope--I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that
    compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your
    administration, and I would hope, from time to time, that you have the
    humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself, inside yourself. And I
    also want to say, I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to
    speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this
    country is about.
        The President. It is, yes.
        Q. And I know that this doesn't come welcome to most of the people
    in this room, but I do appreciate that.
        The President. Appreciate----
        Q. I don't have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment
    to you.
        The President. I appreciate it. Thank you. Let me--I'm going to
    start off with what you first said, if you don't mind. You said that I
    tap your phones--I think that's what you said. You tapped your phone--I
    tapped your phones. Yes. No, that's right. Yes. No, let me finish.
        I'd like to describe that decision I made about protecting this
    country. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion
    is, I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist
    surveillance program, and I'll tell you why. We were accused in
    Washington, DC, of not connecting the dots, that we didn't do everything
    we could to protect you or others from the attack. And so I called in
    the people responsible for helping to protect the American people and
    the homeland. I said, is there anything more we could do?
        And there--out of this national--NSA, came the recommendation that
    it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country,
    inside the country from Al Qaida or suspected Al Qaida in order to have
    real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I
    thought that made sense so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may
    not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers--and
    we've got plenty of them in Washington--but they made this assessment
    that it was constitutional for me to make that decision.

    [[Page 671]]

        I then, sir, took that decision to Members of the United States
    Congress from both political parties and briefed them on the decision
    that was made in order to protect the American people. And so members of
    both parties, both Chambers, were fully aware of a program intended to
    know whether or not Al Qaida was calling in or calling out of the
    country. It seems like to make sense, if we're at war, we ought to be
    using tools necessary within the Constitution on a very limited basis, a
    program that's reviewed constantly, to protect us.
        Now, you and I have a different--of agreement on what is needed to
    be protected. But you said, would I apologize for that? The answer is,
    absolutely not.

    Palestinian Elections/Israel

        Q. Mr. President--[inaudible]--I was raised on a ranch in New
    Mexico, and my heroes have always been cowboys.
        The President. There you go. Thank you, yes. [Laughter] I'm not sure
    I qualify as a cowboy. [Laughter]
        Q. Thinking about our children's children, if the all-powerful
    granter of the Presidential request were to visit you this evening and
    give you one of these three: of ongoing economic growth and security for
    America, ridding the world of the security threat now posed by North
    Korea and Iran, or establishing peace between the Israelis and the
    Palestinians, which one----
        The President. Whew. [Laughter] Back to back, you know? [Laughter] I
    don't--that's not the way life works. You can do more than one thing at
    one time. We can achieve peace with the--we can win this war on terror
    if we're steadfast and strong. It's not going to happen on my watch.
    It's going to take awhile. We can spread liberty and freedom to create
    peace. And we can work on the Palestinian-Israeli issue at the same
    time. I am the first President to have articulated two states living
    side by side in peace.
        And I'm also a President who believed that the Palestinians needed
    to have elections. There's an interesting debate in Washington, is do
    you wait for the conditions to be perfect before elections, that the
    institutions be in place before there are elections, or do you have
    elections as a step toward a civil society and a democratic society? As
    you know, I've taken the latter rather than the former, and encouraged
    the Palestinian elections.
        And what was interesting about those elections is that--and since
    then, by the way, the Israelis have had elections. The Palestinian
    elections--let me just step back. I think the Palestinians have been a
    long-suffering people that deserve better government. The former
    leadership turned out to be corrupt, like, stole money. And as a result
    of his leadership, we never got very close to peace. There wasn't a
    lasting--there weren't lasting institutions in place. I believe
    democracies don't war.
        And so the election was really an interesting one, I think,
    recently. Guess what the election was based on? Corruption. This is the
    Palestinian elections. Anticorruption campaigns, ``Vote for me; we're
    not going to steal your money. Vote for me; we'll help educate your kids
    and provide health care.'' The dilemma we're in--it's not a dilemma. I
    made the decision that if you believe in two states living side by side
    in peace, then one of the parties in the state--one of the parties
    cannot declare their intentions to destroy the other party. That's not
    peaceful. That is warlike.
        And so our posture at this point in time is to say to the
    Palestinians, Hamas, get rid of it; get rid of that platform. It's not a
    peaceful platform. It's a warlike platform. We want there to be two
    states side by side in peace.
        We've also said, we'll help the people but not the Government. You
    know, somebody said, ``Well, you support elections.'' I said, yes, I do.
    I don't necessarily have to like who wins. But I do think it was a
    necessary part of the evolution of the state to have the Palestinian
    people be able to say, ``We're sick of it. We're sick of

    [[Page 672]]

    the status quo. We want something differently. We want a government
    that's honest, and we want a government that listens to our demands.'' I
    thought it was a positive development. And now, I would strongly urge
    the Hamas Government to change their tune and their rhetoric about
    Israel and advocate the peace and work toward a civil society that will
    yield a lasting peace.
        Again, this is an issue where I'm--progress is being made, but it
    requires a steadfast support of our belief that democracies will yield
    to peace.
        I've got to go. I appreciate you. Yes, one last question. Yes,
    ma'am, I promised you. I'm sorry.

    Alternative Fuel Sources

        Q. Thank you. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I am Wilhelmenia
    Rembert. I serve as vice chair of the Board of County Commission here in
    Mecklenburg County. I'm joined by my colleague, Commissioner Dumont
    Clarke, and we welcome you to Mecklenburg County.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. I defer my own question to ask you a question of one of my
    students at Winthrop University--where I'm a professor of social work--
    asked me to bring to your attention. And that is, what can you, Mr.
    President, and what will you do to help control the rising cost of fuel,
    which is really affecting the ability of many students to travel and the
    rest of us--not just students--to travel back and forth to work and to
    school? Thank you.
        The President. I appreciate that. I wish I could wave a wand and
    say, we need more gasoline relative to demand. I don't have the capacity
    to control the market. I do have the capacity to start leading this
    country away from dependence on oil. And I believe that we need to
    promote--vigorously promote alternative sources of energy, starting with
    ethanol, which could help the farmers around here, by the way. There's a
    lot of ethanol. Ethanol, basically, right now, is produced from corn. In
    the Midwest, a lot of people are using more ethanol--and to promote
    technologies such as plug-in hybrid batteries. We're close to some
    significant breakthroughs. By the way, this is where Republicans and
    Democrats are working together in Washington, DC, to provide the funding
    necessary for technology to help lead us away from dependency upon oil.
        And so this isn't going to help your person tomorrow, I readily
    concede. But it is going to--it's going to, in the relatively near
    future, be able to enable people to plug their car in and drive the
    first 40 miles on battery as opposed to using gasoline.
        And so there is a real need--that's why I put this in the State of
    the Union--a real need for us to diversify away from fossil fuels, not
    only to protect the environment, Mister, but also for national and
    economic security reasons. And the--we're making progress.
        I was able to make a decision right after Katrina that helped deal
    with the--what could have been a even stronger rise in the price of
    gasoline. I was able to suspend EPA rules because of the natural
    disaster that took place. And by suspending the blended rules, that can
    create disruption as these--as the seasonal change, there's a disruption
    in supply. By suspending those rules, it enabled us to import more
    European gasoline. And that, in turn, provided stability in the
    marketplace. And so we didn't have significant spikes.
        I fully understand the effects of gasoline price raises on people
    who are working. It's like a tax. Every time it goes up at the pump,
    people are, like, paying a tax. And the long-term solution is to get off
    oil. And we are aggressively doing so.
        Thanks for your time. God bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:45 a.m. at Central Piedmont Community
    College. In his remarks, he referred to Firoz Peera, chair, World
    Affairs Council of Charlotte; P. Anthony Zeiss, president, Central
    Piedmont

    [[Page 673]]

    Community College, and his wife, Beth; Mayor Patrick McCrory of
    Charlotte, NC; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader
    responsible for planning the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, who
    was captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, an Al
    Qaida operative suspected of helping to plan the September 11, 2001,
    terrorist attacks, who was captured in Karachi, Pakistan on September
    11, 2002; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist
    organization; Ayman Al-Zawahiri, founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad
    and senior Al Qaida associate; former President Saddam Hussein of Iraq;
    senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi; Gen. George W. Casey,
    Jr., USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; and former
    Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.