    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
    [March 21, 2006]
    [Pages 524-539]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    March 21, 2006

        The President. Good morning. Yesterday I delivered a--the second in
    a series of speeches on the situation in Iraq. I spoke about the
    violence that the Iraqi people had faced since last month's bombing of
    the Golden Mosque in Samarra. I also said that for every act of violence
    there is encouraging progress in Iraq that's hard to capture on the
    evening news.
        Yesterday I spoke about an important example of the gains we and the
    Iraqis have made, and that is in the northern city of Tall `Afar. The
    city was once under Al Qaida control, and thanks to coalition and Iraqi
    forces, the terrorists have now been driven out of that city. Iraqi
    security forces are maintaining law and order. We see the outlines of a
    free and secure Iraq that we and the Iraqi people have been fighting
    for. As we mark the third anniversary of the launch of Operation Iraqi
    Freedom, the success we're seeing in Tall `Afar gives me confidence in
    the future of Iraq.
        Terrorists haven't given up; they're tough-minded; they like to
    kill. There's going to be more tough fighting ahead. No question that
    sectarian violence must be confronted by the Iraqi Government and a
    better trained police force. Yet we're making progress, and that's
    important for the American people to understand.

    [[Page 525]]

        We're making progress because of--we've got a strategy for victory,
    and we're making progress because the men and women of the United States
    military are showing magnificent courage, and they're making important
    sacrifices that have brought Iraq to an historic moment--the opportunity
    to build a democracy that reflects its country's diversity, that serves
    its people, and is an active partner in the fight against the
    terrorists.
        Now Iraq's leaders must take advantage of the opportunity. I was
    encouraged by the announcement Sunday the Iraqi leaders--that the Iraqi
    leaders made--are making progress toward a council that gives each of
    the country's main political factions a voice in making security and
    economic policies. It's an indicator that Iraq's leaders understand the
    importance of a government of national unity. Our Ambassador to Iraq,
    Zal Khalilzad, is very much involved in the
    process and will encourage the Iraqi leaders to put aside their
    differences, reach out across sectarian lines, and form a unity
    government.
        Here at home, I'm also encouraged by the strength of our economy.
    Last year, our economy grew at a healthy 3.5 percent. Over the past 2\1/
    2\ years, the economy has added nearly 5 million new jobs; that's more
    than Japan and the 25 nations of the European Union combined. The
    national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent; that's lower than the average
    rate of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Productivity is strong;
    inflation is contained. Household net worth is at an alltime high. Real
    after-tax income is up more than 8 percent per person since the
    beginning of 2001. The growing economy is a result of the hard work of
    the American people and good policies here in Washington.
        I believe America prospers when people are allowed to keep more of
    what they earn so they can make their own decisions about how to spend,
    save, and invest. So I'm going to continue to work with Congress to make
    the tax relief permanent, continue to work with Congress to restrain
    Federal spending, continue to work with Congress to achieve the goal of
    cutting the deficit in half by 2009.
        We cannot take our growing economy for granted, and so I look
    forward to working with the Congress to make sure we invest in basic
    research and promote math and science education. I'm going to work with
    Congress to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I know it came as a
    surprise to some of you that I would stand up in front of the Congress
    and say, ``We got a problem; we're addicted to oil.'' But it is a
    problem. And I look forward to working with both Republicans and
    Democrats to advance an agenda that will make us less dependent on
    foreign oil, an agenda that includes hybrid cars, advanced ethanol
    fuels, and hydrogen cells. I'm going to look forward to working with
    Congress to make sure health care is affordable and available.
        We're going to work with Congress to make sure we meet our
    commitments to our fellow citizens who are affected by Katrina. I
    appreciate the step that the House of Representatives took last week on
    passing a supplemental appropriations bill that funds gulf coast
    reconstruction and, of course, supports our men and women in uniform. I
    look forward to working with the Senate to get that supplemental bill
    passed and to my desk.
        Now I'll be glad to take any questions you have, starting with AP
    person [Terence Hunt, Associated Press]. [Laughter]

    Progress in Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. That would be you, Terry.
        Q. Iraq's Interim Prime Minister said Sunday that violence is
    killing an average of 50 to 60 people a day and that ``if this is not
    civil war, then God knows what civil war is.'' Do you agree with Mr.
    Allawi that Iraq has fallen into civil war?
        The President. I do not. There are other voices coming out of Iraq,
    by the way, other than Mr. Allawi--who I know,
    by

    [[Page 526]]

    the way, and like; he's a good fellow. President Talabani has spoken. General Casey, the other day, was quite eloquent on the subject--Zal
    Khalilzad, who I talk to quite frequently.
    Listen, we all recognize that there is violence, that there's sectarian
    violence. But the way I look at the situation is that the Iraqis took a
    look and decided not to go to civil war.
        A couple of indicators are that the army didn't bust up into
    sectarian divisions. The army stayed united. And as General Casey pointed out, they did, arguably, a good job in
    helping to make sure the country stayed united.
        Secondly, I was pleased to see religious leaders stand up. Ayatollah
    Sistani, for example, was very clear in his
    denunciation of violence and the need for the country to remain united.
    The political leaders who represent different factions of the Iraqi
    society have committed themselves to moving forward on a unity
    government.
        No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence;
    they use violence as a tool to do that. They're willing to kill innocent
    people. The reports of bound Sunnis that were executed are horrific. And
    it's obviously something we're going to have to deal with. And more
    importantly, the Iraqis are going to have to deal with it.
        But I see progress. I've heard people say, ``Oh, he's just kind of
    optimistic for the sake of optimism.'' Well, look, I believe we're going
    to succeed. And I understand how tough it is--don't get me wrong--I
    mean, you make it abundantly clear how tough it is. I hear it from our
    troops; I read the reports every night. But I believe the Iraqis--this
    is a moment where the Iraqis had a chance to fall apart, and they
    didn't. And that's a positive development.
        Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

    Iran

        Q. Thank you. You describe Iran as a threat, yet, you're close to
    opening talks with them about Iraq. What would be the objective in these
    talks if they are not negotiations? And is there a risk of getting drawn
    into the nuclear issue?
        The President. Thanks for asking that question. A couple of months
    ago, I gave Zal, our Ambassador in Iraq,
    permission to explain to the Iraqi--Iranians what we didn't like about
    their involvement in Iraq. I thought it was important for them to hear
    firsthand, other than through press accounts. He asked whether or not it
    made sense for him to be able to talk to a representative in Baghdad. I
    said, ``Absolutely. You make it clear to them that attempts to spread
    sectarian violence, or to maybe move parts that could be used for IEDs
    is unacceptable to the United States.''
        It is very important for the Iranians to understand that any
    relationship between Iraq and Iran will be negotiated between those two
    countries. Iraq is a sovereign government. They have a foreign policy.
    And when they get their unity government stepped up, they will be in
    charge of negotiating with the Iranians their foreign policy
    arrangement. And so this is a way for us to make it clear to them that--
    about what's right or wrong in their activities inside of Iraq.
        Secondly, our negotiations with Iran on the nuclear weapons will be
    led by the EU-3. And that's important because the Iranians must hear
    there's a unified voice about--that says that they shall not have a
    capacity to make a nuclear weapon and/or the knowledge as to how to make
    a nuclear weapon, for the sake of security of the world.
        It's important for our citizens to understand that we have got to
    deal with this issue diplomatically now. And the reason why is because
    if the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon, they could blackmail the
    world. If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon, they could
    proliferate. This is a country that's walking away from international
    accords; they're not heading toward the international accords; they're
    not welcoming the international inspections--

    [[Page 527]]

    or safeguards--safeguard measures that they had agreed to.
        And so our policy for the Iranians, in terms of the nuclear program,
    is to continue to work with the EU-3, as well as Russia and China. Later
    on this week, there's going to be a P-5--that's a diplomatic
    sloganeering for the permanent members of the Security Council plus
    Germany--and working together to make sure that the message remains
    unified and concerted.
        If you're a nontransparent society, you've got a negotiating
    advantage over six parties, because all you have to do is kind of try to
    find a--the weakest link in the negotiating team. And so our job is to
    make sure that this international will remains strong and united, so
    that we can solve this issue diplomatically.
        Helen [Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers]. After that brilliant
    performance at the Gridiron, I am----

    War on Terror

        Q. You're going to be sorry. [Laughter]
        The President. Well, then, let me take it back. [Laughter]
        Q. I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq
    has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of
    Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at
    least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really
    want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House,
    from your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth--what was
    your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, quest for oil--it hasn't
    been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
        The President. I think your premise--in all due respect to your
    question and to you as a lifelong journalist--is that--I didn't want
    war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due
    respect----
        Q. Everything----
        The President. Hold on for a second, please.
        Q. ----everything I've heard----
        The President. Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war.
    Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My
    attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the
    11th. We--when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every
    asset at my disposal to protect the American people.
        Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to
    think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we
    realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy
    innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to
    forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything
    in our power to protect our people.
        Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to
    provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq--hold on
    for a second----
        Q. They didn't do anything to you or to our country.
        The President. Look--excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a
    second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for Al Qaida. That's
    where Al Qaida trained----
        Q. I'm talking about Iraq----
        The President. Helen, excuse me. That's where--Afghanistan provided
    safe haven for Al Qaida. That's where they trained. That's where they
    plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of
    innocent Americans.
        I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem
    diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it
    was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world
    said, ``Disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences''----
        Q. ----go to war----
        The President. ----and therefore, we worked with the world, we
    worked to make

    [[Page 528]]

    sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of
    the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to
    disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And
    we did, and the world is safer for it.
        Q. Thank you, sir. Secretary Rumsfeld----
        Q. Thank you. [Laughter].
        The President. You're welcome. [Laughter] I didn't really regret it.
    I kind of semi-regretted it. [Laughter]
        Q. ----have a debate.
        The President. That's right. Anyway, your performance at the
    Gridiron was just brilliant--unlike Holland's, was a little weak, but--
    [laughter].
        Sorry.

    Progress in Iraq

        Q. Secretary Rumsfeld has said that if civil war should break out in
    Iraq, he's hopeful that Iraqi forces can handle it. If they can't, sir,
    are you willing to sacrifice American lives to keep Iraqis from killing
    one another?
        The President. I think the first step is to make sure a civil war
    doesn't break out. And that's why we're working with the leaders there
    in Baghdad to form a unity government. Obviously, if there is difficulty
    on the streets, the first line of defense for that difficulty will be
    the Iraqi forces, which have proved themselves in the face of potential
    sectarian violence--right after the bombing of the mosque in Samarra.
    The forces are--part of our strategy for victory is to get the forces
    the skills and the tools and the training necessary to defend their own
    country, whether it be against Zarqawi
    and the killers, or whether it be those who are trying to spread
    sectarian violence. And they have proven themselves.
        And so our position is, one, get a unity government formed, and
    secondly, prepare the Iraqi troops, and support Iraqi troops, if need
    be, to prevent sectarian violence from breaking out.
        Yes, sir.

    War on Terror

        Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you for your reaction on the
    latest insurgent attack in Baghdad, 17 police officers killed and a
    bunch of insurgents freed. I spent a fair amount of time in front of
    that hotel in Cleveland yesterday, talking to people about the war and
    saying you were there to talk optimistically. And one woman who said she
    voted for you, said, ``You know what, he's losing me. We've been there
    too long; he's losing me.'' What do you say to her?
        The President. I say that I'm talking realistically to people. We
    have a plan for victory, and it's important we achieve that plan.
    Democracy--first of all, this is a global war on terror, and Iraq is a
    part of the war on terror. Mr. Zarqawi
    and Al Qaida, the very same people that attacked the United States, have
    made it clear that they want to drive us out of Iraq so they can plan,
    plot, and attack America again. That's what they have said; that's their
    objective. I think it is very important to have a President who is
    realistic and listens to what the enemy says.
        Secondly, I am confident, or I believe--I'm optimistic we'll
    succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out. If I didn't believe we had a
    plan for victory, I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way. And that's
    important for the woman to understand.
        Thirdly, in spite of the bad news on television--and there is bad
    news. You brought it up; you said, how do I react to a bombing that took
    place yesterday--is precisely what the enemy understands is possible to
    do. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't talk about it. I'm certainly not
    being--please don't take that as criticism. But it also is a realistic
    assessment of the enemy's capability to affect the debate, and they know
    that. They're capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your
    TV show. And therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were
    talking to. And I can

    [[Page 529]]

    understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win.
        I think most Americans understand we need to win, but they're
    concerned about whether or not we can win. So one of the reasons I go
    around the country, to Cleveland, is to explain why I think we can win.
    And so I would say, yes, I'm optimistic about being able to achieve a
    victory, but I'm also realistic. I fully understand the consequences of
    this war. I understand people's lives are being lost. But I also
    understand the consequences of not achieving our objective by leaving
    too early. Iraq would become a place of instability, a place from which
    the enemy can plot, plan, and attack.
        I believe that they want to hurt us again. And therefore, I know we
    need to stay on the offense against this enemy. They've declared Iraq to
    be the central front, and therefore, we've got to make sure we win that.
    And I believe we will.
        Please.

    White House Staff

        Q. Good morning, sir. Mindful of the frustrations that many
    Americans are expressing to you, do you believe you need to make any
    adjustments in how you run the White House? Many of your senior staffers
    have been with you from the beginning. There are some in Washington who
    say----
        The President. Wait a minute. Is this a personal attack launching
    over here? [Laughter]
        Q. Some say they are tired and even tone-deaf, even within your
    party who say that maybe you need some changes. Would you benefit from
    any changes to your staff?
        The President. I've got a staff of people that have, first of all,
    placed their country above their self-interests. These are good, hard-
    working, decent people. And we've dealt with a lot; we've dealt with a
    lot. We've dealt with war; we've dealt with recession; we've dealt with
    scandal; we've dealt with Katrina. I mean, they had a lot on their
    plate. And I appreciate their performance and their hard work, and
    they've got my confidence.
        And I understand--Washington is a great town for advice. I get a lot
    of it--sometimes in private, from my friends, and sometimes in public.
    There are those who like to stand up and say to the President, ``Here's
    what you ought to be doing.'' And I understand that. This isn't the
    first time during these 5\1/2\ years that people have felt comfortable
    about standing up, telling me what to do. And that's okay. I take it all
    in and appreciate the spirit in which it's delivered, most of the time.
    But--no, look, I'm satisfied with the people I've surrounded myself
    with. We've been a remarkably stable administration. And I think that's
    good for the country.
        Obviously, there's some times when government bureaucracies haven't
    responded the way we wanted them to. And like citizens, I don't like
    that at all. I mean, I think, for example, of the trailers sitting down
    in Arkansas. Like many citizens, they're wondering why they're down
    there. How come we got 11,000? So I've asked Chertoff to find out, what are you going to do with them? The
    taxpayers aren't interested in 11,000 trailers just sitting there; do
    something with them.
        And so I share that sense of frustration when a big government is
    unable to--sends wrong signals to taxpayers. But our people are good,
    hard-working people.
        Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times].

    Second-Term Agenda

        Q. Can I just follow up on that?
        The President. Sure.
        Q. But aside from staff, Mr. President, are you listening to
    suggestions you bring somebody else into the White House, a wise man, a
    graybeard, some old-time Washington hand who can steady Congress if
    they're upset about things, Republicans in Congress?

    [[Page 530]]

        The President. I'm listening to all suggestions. I really am. I
    mean, I'm listening to Congress. We're bringing Congress down here all
    the time. And it's interesting to hear their observations. They--
    they're, obviously, expressing concerns. It's an election year, after
    all. And it seems like history tends to repeat itself when you're in the
    White House. I can remember '02 before the elections; there was a
    certain nervousness. There was a lot of people in Congress who weren't
    sure I was going to make it in '04, and whether or not I'd drag the
    ticket down. So there's a certain unease as you head into an election
    year; I understand that.
        My message to them is, please continue to give me advice and
    suggestions. And I take their advice seriously. But also remember we've
    got a positive agenda. We've got something to do. It's important for
    Congress to have confidence in our ability to get things done. We're
    supporting our troops over the last 12 months. We've got two Supreme
    Court judges confirmed. We've got the PATRIOT Act reauthorized over the
    objections of the Democrat leadership in the Senate. We got some tort
    reform passed. We passed a budget that cut nonsecurity discretionary
    spending. There's a series of--we got an energy bill passed. We worked
    to get a lot of positive things done. And now we've got an agenda--
    continue to keep this economy growing and keep this Nation competitive.
        I meant what I said in my speech: We shouldn't fear this future. In
    other words, we shouldn't allow isolationism and protectionism to
    overwhelm us. We ought to be confident about our ability to shape the
    future.
        And that's why this Competitiveness Initiative is important. That's
    why this energy plan that gets us less addicted to oil is important. We
    got some interesting ideas on health care that we need to continue to
    press to make sure consumers are actually a part of the decisionmaking
    process when it comes to health care decisions. We've got an aggressive
    agenda that, by working together, will get passed. But I do, I listen.
        Yes, Jim [Jim Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times].

    War on Terror/Polls

        Q. ----new guy? No new guy?
        The President. Well, I'm not going to announce it right now. Look,
    they've got some ideas that I like and some I don't like. Put it that
    way.
        Q. You've said during your Presidency that you don't pay that much
    attention to the polls, but----
        The President. Correct.
        Q. ----there is a handful that have come back, and they all say the
    exact same thing: A growing number of Americans are questioning the
    trustworthiness of you and this White House. Does that concern you?
        The President. I believe that my job is to go out and explain to
    people what's on my mind. That's why I'm having this press conference,
    see. I'm telling you what's on my mind. And what's on my mind is winning
    the war on terror. And I understand war creates concerns, Jim. Nobody
    likes war. It creates a sense of uncertainty in the country. The person
    you talked to in Cleveland is uncertain about our ability to go forward.
    She's uncertain about whether or not we can succeed, and I understand
    that. War creates trauma, particularly when you're fighting an enemy
    that doesn't fight soldier to soldier. They fight by using IEDs to kill
    innocent people. That's what they use. That's the tool they use. And it
    creates a sense of concern amongst our people, and that makes sense, and
    I know that.
        And one of the reasons why it's important for me to continue to
    speak out and explain why we have a strategy for victory, why we can
    succeed--and I'm going to say it again--if I didn't believe we could
    succeed, I wouldn't be there. I wouldn't put those kids there. I meet
    with too many families who's lost a loved one to not be able to look
    them in the eye and say, we're

    [[Page 531]]

    doing the right thing. And we are doing the right thing. A democracy in
    Iraq is going to affect the neighborhood. A democracy in Iraq is going
    to inspire reformers in a part of the world that is desperate for
    reformation.
        Our foreign policy up to now was to kind of tolerate what appeared
    to be calm. And underneath the surface was this swelling sense of
    anxiety and resentment, out of which came this totalitarian movement
    that is willing to spread its propaganda through death and destruction,
    to spread its philosophy. Now, some in this country don't--I can
    understand--don't view the enemy that way. I guess they kind of view it
    as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill. I just don't see
    it that way. I see them bound by a philosophy with plans and tactics to
    impose their will on other countries.
        The enemy has said that it's just a matter of time before the United
    States loses its nerve and withdraws from Iraq. That's what they have
    said. And their objective for driving us out of Iraq is to have a place
    from which to launch their campaign to overthrow modern governments--
    moderate governments--in the Middle East, as well as to continue
    attacking places like the United States. Now, maybe some discount those
    words as kind of meaningless propaganda. I don't, Jim. I take them
    really seriously. And I think everybody in government should take them
    seriously and respond accordingly. And so it's--I've got to continue to
    speak as clearly as I possibly can about the consequences of success and
    the consequences of failure and why I believe we can succeed.

    Defense Secretary Rumsfeld/Progress in
    Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, Kathleen Koch, CNN.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. You said you listen to Members of Congress, and there have been
    growing calls from some of those Members for the resignation of Defense
    Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; also from his own former subordinates like
    U.S. Army Major General Paul Eaton, who described him in a recent
    editorial as ``incompetent and tactically inept.'' Do you feel that
    personally you've ever gotten bad advice in the conduct of the war in
    Iraq? And do you believe Rumsfeld should resign?
        The President. No, I don't believe he should resign. I think he's
    done a fine job of not only conducting two battles, Afghanistan and
    Iraq, but also transforming our military, which has been a very
    difficult job inside the Pentagon.
        Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the
    enemy--not just the war plan we executed in Iraq but the war plans that
    have been executed throughout the history of warfare. In other words,
    the enemy changes tactics, and we've got to change tactics too.
        And no question that we've had to adjust our tactics on the ground.
    And perhaps the clearest example is in the training of Iraqi security
    forces. When we got into Iraq, we felt like we needed to train a
    security force that was capable for defending the country from an
    outside threat. And then it became apparent that the insurgents and
    Zarqawi were able to spread their
    poison and their violence in a ruthless way, and therefore, we had to
    make sure that the Iraqi forces were able to deal with the internal
    threat. And we adjusted our tactics and started spending a lot more time
    getting the Iraqis up and running, and then embedding our troops with
    the Iraqis.
        And it has been a success. But no question about it, we missed some
    time as we adjusted our tactics. We had to change our reconstruction
    strategy. We were--we thought it made sense, initially, when we went in
    there to build big, grand projects, which turned out to be targets for
    the insurgents to blow up. And a better strategy was to be spending
    reconstruction money at the local level, so that local leaders committed
    to a peaceful and unified Iraq would benefit. In other words, people
    would see

    [[Page 532]]

    tangible benefits from an emerging democracy, and the leaders would be
    viewed as people helping to improve their lives.
        And so this is a war in which we've changed tactics. It's a war in
    which we've adjusted and learned lessons in the process of the war.
        Yes, sir.

    Social Security Reform

        Q. Just after the 2004 election, you seemed to--you claimed a really
    enviable balance of political capital and a strong mandate. Would you
    make that claim today? Do you still have that?
        The President. I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war.
        Q. Well, is that costing you elsewhere, then?
        The President. I don't think so. I just named 12--I just named an
    agenda that over the last 12 month was--would be, I suspect, if looked
    at objectively, would say, well, they got a lot done. And I'd be glad to
    repeat them if you like, which is--[laughter].
        Q. ----Social Security----
        The President. Wait a minute. Please no hand gestures. [Laughter]
        Social Security--it didn't get done. You notice it wasn't on the
    list. [Laughter] Let me talk about that, if you don't mind. First of
    all, Social Security is a really difficult issue for some Members of
    Congress to deal with because it is fraught with all kind of political
    peril. As a matter of fact, it's been difficult for a lot of Congresses
    to deal with. The one time in recent memory that it was dealt with was
    when there was a near crisis--in other words, when the system was about
    to fall into the abyss, and people came together and solved it. But they
    thought it was a fairly long-term fix; it turned out to be a lot shorter
    fix than they thought.
        So I'm disappointed Congress didn't want to go forward with it, but
    I'm not surprised. Therefore, I tried a new tactic. Last year, the
    tactic was to believe that once the people saw there was a problem, they
    would then demand a solution. And we made progress on describing the
    problem. I think the American people are now beginning to get the
    picture that if we don't do something, Social Security and Medicare will
    bust. If we don't do something, future Congresses--not this Congress,
    but future Congresses--are going to be confronted with some serious
    decisions about raising taxes enormously or cutting benefits
    drastically--or other programs drastically.
        And so that issue sunk in. Just that--there wasn't that connection
    with action inside, in the body of the respective chambers--although,
    there were some noble efforts made by some Members of Congress to get
    something started.
        So the new tactics to get people involved in this process is to try
    to take the politics out of it and bring members of both parties, both
    chambers together. There's quiet consultations going on to get this
    commission--committee together of members that could get something put
    in place that would have a bipartisan appeal to it. Bipartisanship is
    hard to achieve in Washington these days. I readily concede that. Yet
    this issue is one that's going to require a bipartisan approach. It's
    simply not going to be an issue where one party, without the cooperation
    of the other party, kind of tries to move a bill. At least, that's how I
    view it.
        But I'm committed to moving the issue. I think it's important. And
    I'm not deterred by the fact that nothing happened. As a matter of fact,
    I take great pride in the fact that I was willing to bring up the issue
    while others might not have. That's the job of the President. The job of
    the President is not to worry about the short-term attitudes. The job of
    the President is to confront big issues and to bring them to the front
    and to say to people, ``Let's work together to get it solved.'' And I'm
    going to continue working on it.
        Carl [Carl Cameron, FOX News].

    [[Page 533]]

    Terrorist Surveillance Program

        Q. Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance
    program----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----not to change the tone from all this emphasis on
    bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to
    censure you for the implementation of that program. The primary sponsor,
    Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the
    question. And on Sunday, the number-two Democrat in the Senate refused
    to rule that out, pending an investigation. What, sir, do you think the
    impact of the discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this
    office and to the Nation during a time of war and in the context of the
    election?
        The President. I think during these difficult times--and they are
    difficult when we're at war--the American people expect there to be a
    honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I
    view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually
    stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance
    program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party
    believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to
    stand up and say, the tools we're using to protect the American people
    shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and
    say, ``Vote for me; I promise we're not going to have a terrorist
    surveillance program.'' That's what they ought to be doing. That's part
    of what is an open and honest debate.
        I did notice that, at one point in time, they didn't think the
    PATRIOT Act ought to be reauthorized--``they'' being at least the
    minority leader in the Senate. He openly said, as
    I understand--I don't want to misquote him--something along the lines
    that, ``We killed the PATRIOT Act.'' And if that's what the party
    believes, they ought to go around the country saying, ``We shouldn't
    give the people on the frontline of protecting us the tools necessary to
    do so.'' That's a debate I think the country ought to have.
        Yes, sir.

    Progress in Iraq

        Q. You mentioned earlier that you were encouraged by some of the
    discussions going on over a unity government, over the last few days. Do
    you now have in mind a target date for forming the unity government
    and----
        The President. As soon as possible. Next question.

    Public Opinion/Progress in Iraq

        Q. How much of a factor do you think that will be, if it's achieved,
    in turning around, or at least improving the situation in the public
    opinion?
        The President. Here in America?
        Q. Right.
        The President. That's a trick question, because you want to get me
    to talk about polls when I don't pay attention to polls.
        Q. That was one----
        The President. At least that's--after 5\1/2\ years, I was able to
    rout you out. [Laughter]
        First of all, I have no idea whether or not a--how Americans are
    going to react to a unity government. There will be a unity government
    formed; then there could be an attack the next day. And so it's hard for
    me to predict. I do know a unity government, though, is necessary for us
    to achieve our objective. I do know that the Iraqi people--11 million of
    them--voted in an election in December, which was, like, 4 months ago.
    And the message I received from--that is, I hope, the same message that
    those who have been in charge with forming a unity government receive,
    and that is the people have spoken, and they want democracy. That's what
    they said. Otherwise, they wouldn't have participated. They expect there
    to be a democracy in place that listens to their demands.

    [[Page 534]]

        And so I'm--most importantly, I believe a unity government will
    begin to affect the attitudes of the Iraqis. And that's important for
    them to get confidence not only in a government but in a security force
    that will provide them security. It's--confidence amongst the Iraqis is
    what is going to be a vital part of achieving a victory, which will then
    enable the American people to understand that victory is possible. In
    other words, the American people will--their opinions, I suspect, will
    be affected by what they see on their TV screens. The unity government
    will affect, first and foremost, the Iraqi people, and that's a very
    important part of achieving success.
        We do have a plan for victory, and victory is clearly stated, and
    that is that Iraq is not a--becomes a safe haven. And that's important
    for the American people, that Iraq not be a safe haven for terrorists.
    Their stated objective is to turn Iraq into a safe haven from which they
    can launch attacks.
        Secondly, part of the plan for victory is for there to be security
    forces capable of defending and providing security to the Iraqi
    citizens. And thirdly, that democracy, the government take root to the
    extent that it can't be overturned by those who want to stop democracy
    from taking hold in Iraq. These are clear objectives, and they're
    achievable objectives.
        Okay. Mark [Mark Silva, Chicago Tribune].

    Deficit Spending

        Q. Mr. President, in the upcoming elections, I think many
    Republicans would tell you one of the big things they're worried about
    is the national debt, which was $5.7 trillion when you took office and
    is now nearly $8.2 trillion, and Congress has just voted to raise it to
    $8.9 trillion. That would be a 58-percent increase. You've yet to veto a
    single bill, sir--I assume that means you're satisfied with this.

        The President. No, I'm not satisfied with the rise of mandatory
    spending. As you know, the President doesn't have the--doesn't veto
    mandatory spending increases. And mandatory spending increases are those
    increases in the budget caused by increases in spending on Medicare and
    Social Security. And that's why--back to this man's question right
    here--it's important for--``this man'' being Jim--[laughter]--sorry,
    Jim, I've got a lot on my mind these days. That's why it's important for
    us to modernize and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, in order to
    be able to deal with the increases in mandatory spending.
        Secondly, in terms of discretionary spending, that part of the
    budget over which Congress has got some control and over which the
    President can make suggestions, we have suggested that the Congress
    fully fund the troops in harm's way. And they have, and for that the
    American people should be grateful.
        Secondly, we suggested that Congress fund the reconstruction efforts
    for Katrina. They have spent now a little more than $100 billion, and I
    think that's money well-spent, a commitment that needed to be kept.
        Thirdly, we have said that other than security discretionary
    spending, that we ought to, last year, actually reduce the amount of
    discretionary spending and were able to do so. Ever since I've been the
    President, we have slowed the rate of growth of nonsecurity
    discretionary spending and actually cut discretionary spending--
    nonsecurity discretionary spending.
        Last year, I submitted a budget to the United States Congress. I
    would hope they would meet the targets of the budget that I submitted,
    in order to continue to make a commitment to the American people. But in
    terms of the debt, mandatory spending increases is driving a lot of that
    debt. And that's why it's important to get the reforms done.

    [[Page 535]]

    National Economy/Line-Item Veto Legislation

        Q. Thank you, sir. For the first time in years, interest rates are
    rising in the U.S., Europe, and Japan at the same time. Is this a
    concern for you? And how much strain are higher interest rates placing
    on consumers and companies?
        The President. First of all, interest rates are set by an
    independent organization, which----
        Q. ----still, are you concerned about that?
        The President. Well, I'm not quite through with my answer yet.
        Q. I'm sorry.
        The President. I'm kind of stalling for time here. [Laughter]
    Interest rates are set by the independent organization. I can only tell
    you that the economy of the United States looks very strong. And the
    reason I say that is that projections for first-quarter growth of this
    year look pretty decent. That's just projections, that's a guess by some
    economists, and until the actual numbers come out, we won't know. But no
    question that the job market is strong. When you have 4.8 percent
    unemployment--4.8 percent nationwide unemployment, that indicates a
    strong job market, and that's very important.
        One of the measures as to whether or not this economy will remain
    strong is productivity. And our productivity of the American worker and
    productivity of the American business sector is rising. And that's
    positive, because productivity increases eventually yield--eventually
    yield higher standards of living. Homeownership is at an alltime high.
    And there has been all kinds of speculation about whether or not
    homeownership would--home building would remain strong, and it appears
    to be steady. And that's important.
        In other words--and so to answer your question, I feel--without
    getting into kind of the--kind of microeconomics, from my perch and my
    perspective, the economy appears to be strong and getting stronger. And
    the fundamental question that those of us in Washington have to answer
    is, what do we do to keep it that way? How do we make sure, one, we
    don't put bad policies in place that will hurt economic growth? A bad
    policy is to raise taxes--which some want to do. There are people in the
    United States Congress, primarily on the Democrat side, that would be
    anxious to let some of the tax relief expire. Some of them actually want
    to raise taxes now. I think raising taxes would be wrong. As a matter of
    fact, that's why--and I think it's important for us to have certainty in
    the Tax Code. That's why I'd like to see the tax relief made permanent.
        You know, it's a myth in Washington--for Washington people to go
    around the country saying, ``Well, we'll balance the budget; just let us
    raise taxes.'' That's not how Washington works. Washington works--raise
    in taxes, and they figure out new ways to spend. There is a huge
    appetite for spending here. One way to help cure that appetite is to
    give me the line-item veto. You mentioned vetoing of bills--one reason
    why I haven't vetoed any appropriation bills is because they met the
    benchmarks we've set. They have--on the discretionary spending, we've
    said, ``Here is the budget.'' We've agreed to a number, and they met
    those numbers.
        Now, sometimes I didn't--I like the size of the pie; sometimes I
    didn't particularly like the slices within the pie. And so one way to
    deal with the slices in the pie is to give the President the line-item
    veto. And I was heartened the other day when members of both parties
    came down in the Cabinet Room to talk about passage of a line-item veto.
    I was particularly pleased that my opponent in the 2004 campaign,
    Senator Kerry, graciously came down and lent his
    support to a line-item veto and also made very constructive suggestions
    about how to get one out of the United States Congress.

    [[Page 536]]

        Let's see here. They've told me what to say. David [David Jackson,
    Dallas Morning News].

    Spread of Democracy in the Middle East

        Q. Mr. President, you've spoken about Iraq as being a beacon for
    democracy throughout the Middle East. Yet we've had troubles in Iraq,
    and we've seen aggressiveness from Syria and Iran. Are you concerned
    that the Iraq experience is going to embolden authoritarian regimes in
    the Middle East and make it tougher to forge democracy there?
        The President. There's no question that if we were to prematurely
    withdraw and the march to democracy were to fail, the Al Qaida would be
    emboldened, terrorist groups would be emboldened, the Islamo-fascists
    would be emboldened. No question about that.
        There are a lot of reformers in the Middle East who would like to
    see Iraq succeed. And I think that if we were to lose our nerve and
    leave prematurely, those reformers would be let down. So failure in
    Iraq--which isn't going to happen--is--would send all kinds of terrible
    signals to an enemy that wants to hurt us and people who are desperate
    to change the conditions in the broader Middle East.
        The--it's an interesting debate, isn't it, about whether or not this
    country of ours ought to work to spread liberty. It's--I find it
    fascinating that--to listen to the voices from around the world as to
    whether or not it is a noble purpose to spread liberty around the world.
    And it is a--I think it's--at least, my position is affected by my
    belief that there is universality when it comes to liberty. This isn't
    American liberty; this isn't America's possession. Liberty is universal.
    People desire to be free. And history has proven that democracies don't
    war. And so part of the issue is to lay peace, is to give people a
    chance to live in a peaceful world where mothers can raise their
    children without fear of violence or women are free to be able to
    express themselves.
        Q. But how about the difficulty----
        The President. Excuse me a second, David. Excuse me for a second,
    please.
        The--that we ought to pursue liberty. We ought to not be worried
    about a foreign policy that encourages others to be free. That's why I
    said in my second Inauguration Address, ``The goal of this country ought
    to be to end tyranny in the 21st century.'' I meant it. For the sake
    of--I said that for the sake of peace.
        Now, what is your followup yell? [Laughter]
        Q. I was wondering, have the difficulties of the last 3 years made
    the job of those reformers more difficult?
        The President. Well, if the United States were to lose its nerve, it
    would certainly make the job of reformers more difficult. If people in
    Iran, for example, who desire to have a Iranian-style democracy,
    Iranian-style freedom, if they see us lose our nerve, it's likely to
    undermine their boldness and their desire.
        What we're doing is difficult work. And one--the interesting thing
    that's happening is, is that imagine an enemy that says, ``We will kill
    innocent people,'' because we're trying to encourage people to be free.
    What kind of mindset is it of people who say, ``We must stop
    democracy''? Democracy is based upon this kind of universal belief that
    people should be free. And yet there are people willing to kill innocent
    life to stop it. To me, that ought to be a warning signal to people all
    around the world that the enemy we face is an enemy that ascribes to a
    vision that is dark and one that doesn't agree with the universal rights
    of men and women.
        As a matter of fact, when given a chance to govern or to have their
    parasitical government represent their views, they suppressed women and
    children. There was no such thing as religious freedom. There was no
    such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There
    was no such thing as press conferences like this.

    [[Page 537]]

        They were totalitarian in their view. And that would be--I'm
    referring to the Taliban, of course. And that's how they would like to
    run government. They rule by intimidation and fear, by death and
    destruction.
        And the United States of America must take this threat seriously and
    must not--must never forget the natural rights that formed our country.
    And for people to say, ``Well, the natural rights only exist for one
    group of people,'' I would call them--I would say that they're denying
    the basic rights to others.
        And it is hard work. And it's hard work, David, because we're
    fighting tradition. We're fighting people that have said, ``Well, wait a
    minute. The only way to have peace is for there to be tyranny.'' We're
    fighting intimidation. We're fighting the fact that people will be
    thrown in prison if they disagree.
        Yes.

    Iraq/U.S. Armed Forces

        Q. Sir, you said earlier today that you believe there's a plan for
    success; if you did not, you would pull the troops out. And so my
    question is, one, is there a point at which having the American forces
    in Iraq becomes more a part of the problem than a part of the solution?
    Can you say that you will not keep American troops in there if they're
    caught in the crossfire in a civil war? And can you say to the American
    people, assure them that there will come a day when there will be no
    more American forces in Iraq?
        The President. Bob [Bob Deans, Cox Newspapers], the decisions about
    our troop levels will be made by General Casey and the commanders on the ground. They're the ones who
    can best judge whether or not the presence of coalition troops create
    more of a problem than a solution--than be a part of the solution.
        Secondly, I've answered the question on civil war. Our job is to
    make sure the civil war doesn't happen. But there will be--but if there
    is sectarian violence, it's the job of the Iraqi forces, with coalition
    help, to separate those sectarian forces.
        Third part of your question?
        Q. Will there come a day--and I'm not asking you when, not asking
    for a timetable--will there come a day when there will be no more
    American forces in Iraq?
        The President. That, of course, is an objective, and that will be
    decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.
        Q. So it won't happen on your watch?
        The President. You mean a complete withdrawal? That's a timetable. I
    can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon
    what the commanders on the ground say.
        Cannon [Carl Cannon, National Journal].

    Same-Sex Marriage

        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. No, you're not Ken. That Ken. You're Ken [Ken
    Bazinet, New York Daily News]. Sorry Cannon.
        Q. Thank you, sir.
        The President. Sorry, you're Ken, according to the chart. You
    thought I said Cannon----
        Q. I thought you said Ken.
        The President. Bazinet. [Laughter]
        Q. Mr. President, 2 years ago, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San
    Francisco, heard your State of the Union Address, went back to
    California, and began authorizing the marriage of gay men and lesbians.
    Thousands of people got married. The California courts later ruled he
    had overstepped his bounds. But they were--we were left with these
    pictures of thousands of families getting married, and they had these
    children, thousands of children. Now, that might have changed the
    debate, but it didn't. In light of that, my question is, are you still
    confident that society's interest and the interest of those children in
    gay families are being met by government saying their parents can't
    marry?
        The President. I believe society's interest are met by saying--
    defining marriage as

    [[Page 538]]

    between a man and a woman. That's what I believe.

    Immigration

        Q. Mr. President, on immigration, yesterday you answered a question
    from a woman and said, the tough question here is what happens to
    somebody who has been here since 1987. Will you accept a bill that
    allows those who have been here a long time to remain in the country
    permanently?
        The President. I also said that--let me make sure, Stephen [Stephen
    Dinan, Washington Times], that you--first of all, I'm impressed that
    you're actually paying attention to it. The people I saw in the press
    pool weren't. They were--like, Elisabeth was half-asleep--[laughter]--
    yes, you were. [Laughter]
        Q. No, I wasn't.
        The President. Okay. Well, the person next to you was. [Laughter]
    They were dozing off. I could see them watching their watches, kind of
    wondering how long he's going to blow on for. Let's get him out of here
    so we can go get lunch, is what they were thinking. [Laughter] So at
    least you paid attention. Thanks.
        I also went on to say that people who have been here need to get in
    line, like everybody else who is in line legally. My point is that if we
    were--first of all, whatever is passed should not say ``amnesty.'' In my
    judgment, amnesty would be the wrong course of action. We have a way
    toward legality, in terms of citizenship. In other words, there's a
    difference between someone who is here legally working and someone who
    is a citizen. And that's part of the--I maybe didn't make that
    distinction perfectly clear.
        This is going to be a--this could be a fractious debate, and I hope
    it's not. Immigration is a very difficult issue for a lot of Members, as
    you know. It's an emotional issue. And it's one that, if not conducted
    properly, will send signals that I don't think will befit the Nation's
    history and traditions.
        My view is, is that border security starts with a good, solid
    strategy along the border itself--in other words, Border Patrol agents,
    technology, the capacity to pass information quickly so that Border
    Patrol agents will be more likely to intercept somebody coming across
    the border illegally. There needs to be enforcement mechanisms that
    don't discourage the Border Patrol agents. They work hard; they get
    somebody coming in from country X; the person says, ``Check back in with
    us in 30 days''--they don't.
        In other words, they end up in society. That has created some
    despondency--not despondency--it's got to discourage people who are
    working hard to do their job down there and realize the fruits of their
    labor is being undermined by a policy that, on the one hand, releases
    people, kind of, into society, and on the other, doesn't have enough
    beds to hold people so that we can repatriate them back to their
    countries. Chertoff has announced the fact
    that we're getting rid of this catch-and-release program.
        Thirdly, there has to be enforcement--employer enforcement of rules
    and regulations. The problem there, of course, is that people are
    showing up with forged documents. I mentioned this onion picker that I met yesterday--onion grower--who is worried
    about having labor to pick his onions. But he's not--I don't think he's
    in a position to be able to determine whether or not what looks like a
    valid Social Security card, or whatever they show, is valid or not--
    which leads to the fact there's a whole industry that has sprung up
    around moving laborers to jobs that Americans won't do.
        It's kind of--when you make something illegal that people want,
    there's a way around it, around the rules and regulations. And so you've
    got people, coyotes, stuffing people in the back of 18-wheelers or
    smuggling them across 105-degree desert heat. You've got forgers and
    tunnel-diggers. You've got a whole industry aimed at using

    [[Page 539]]

    people as a commodity. And it's wrong, and it needs to be--we need to do
    something about it. And the best way to do something about it is to say
    that if you're--if an American won't do a job and you can find somebody
    who will do the job, they ought to be allowed to do it legally, on a
    temporary basis.
        One of the issues I did talk about--the man asked me the question
    about--don't let people get ahead of the line. So I made that clear. But
    one of the issues is going to be to deal with somebody whose family has
    been here for a while, raised a family. And that will be an interesting
    debate. My answer is, that person shouldn't get automatic citizenship.
        Listen, thank you for your time. I've got lunch with the President
    of Liberia right now. I'm looking
    forward to greeting this--the first woman elected on the continent of
    Africa. Appreciate the opportunity to visit with you all. Look forward
    to future occasions.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 10:01 a.m. in the James
    S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he
    referred to former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of the Iraqi Interim
    Government; former President Jalal Talabani of the Iraqi Transitional
    Government; Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., USA, commanding general, Multi-
    National Force--Iraq; senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi;
    Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraqi Shiite leader; and President Ellen
    Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia.