    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
    [April 10, 2006]
    [Pages 681-697]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
    and a Question-and-Answer Session
    April 10, 2006

        The President. Thank you. Please be seated. Bill, thanks for the kind introduction. I'm pleased to be here
    at this school, which bears the name of one of America's greatest
    statesmen. Paul Nitze served as a trusted adviser to six Presidents,
    from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. He was one of a small group of
    men who shaped the world that emerged from the Allied victory in World
    War II. He encouraged our Nation to continue the--its noble and
    essential role as freedom's defender. He was the principal author of
    NSC-68, the strategic blueprint for America's victory in the cold war.
    At a time when some wanted to wish away the Soviet threat, Paul Nitze
    insisted that the cold war was, in his words, ``in fact, a real war in
    which the survival of the free world is at stake.'' He helped rally
    America to confront this mortal danger, and his strategic vision helped
    secure the triumph of freedom in that great struggle of the 20th
    century.
        At the start of this young century, America is once again engaged in
    a real war that is testing our Nation's resolve. While there are
    important distinctions, today's war on terror is like the cold war. It
    is an ideological struggle with an enemy that despises freedom and
    pursues totalitarian aims. Like the cold war, our adversary is
    dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in
    liberty are weak and decadent; they lack the resolve to defend our way
    of life. Like the cold war, America is once again answering history's
    call with confidence. And like the cold war, freedom will prevail.
        I thank Dr. Bill Brody; I thank Jessica
    Einhorn. Thank you all for having me
    here. I appreciate all those who teach here. I appreciate the students
    letting me come to speak. Glad to provide a convenient excuse to skip
    class. [Laughter] I want to thank Bill Nitze, adjunct professor, son of a great man. I know how you
    feel. [Laughter] I appreciate Mike Chertoff
    being here. I'm proud to see a lot of folks who wear the Nation's
    uniform for joining us. Welcome.
        I thought I'd give a speech, but a short speech, much to your
    relief, and then I'll be glad to answer some questions.
        Yesterday our Nation marked the third anniversary of a great moment
    in the history of freedom; it was the liberation of Iraq. Three years
    ago, coalition forces entered the gates of Baghdad, fought their way
    into the center of the city, and helped Iraqis pull down the statue of
    Saddam Hussein. What they found in Baghdad
    horrified our troops. One marine describes how
    Iraqis led his unit to a children's prison where more than 100
    youngsters were being held. Some of the children had reportedly been
    jailed because they refused to join the Ba'athist Party Youth
    Organization. He says, ``It was really something. The children just
    streamed out of the gates, and their parents just started to embrace
    us.''
        Under Saddam's brutal regime, the Iraqi
    people lived lives of fear and desperation. Innocent civilians were
    executed in public squares; they were massacred and piled into mass
    graves. Saddam's regime denied people food and medicine while building
    elaborate palaces from which to rule with an iron hand. Saddam sponsored
    terrorism; he pursued and used weapons of mass destruction; he fired at
    U.S. and British air crews patrolling the no-fly zones; he defied more
    than a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions. Today, because America
    and a great coalition acted, the regime is no longer in power, is no
    longer sponsoring terrorists, is no longer destabilizing the region, is
    no longer undermining the credibility of the United Nations, is no
    longer

    [[Page 682]]

    threatening the world. Because we acted, 25 million Iraqis now taste
    freedom.
        The decision by the United States and our coalition partners to
    remove Saddam Hussein was a really difficult
    decision. It was the right decision. After September the 11th, America
    decided that we would fight the war on terror on the offense and that we
    would confront threats before they fully materialized. Saddam Hussein
    was a threat to the United States of America. America is safer today
    because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.
        Coalition forces drove Saddam from power,
    and a U.S. Army unit, led by a graduate of this school--Colonel James
    Hickey, class of 1992--captured Saddam when he
    was hiding in a hole in the ground. Today, thanks to our courageous men
    and women in uniform, the former Iraqi dictator is sitting in a
    courtroom instead of a palace, and he's now facing justice for his
    crimes.
        The past 3 years since liberation, the Iraqi people have begun the
    difficult process of recovering from Saddam's
    repression. They're beginning to build a democracy on the rubble of his
    tyranny. They still face brutal and determined enemies: members of the
    deposed regime who dream of returning to power; other insurgents; and
    foreign terrorists who dream of turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was
    under the Taliban, a safe haven from which to plot and plan new attacks
    against America and our allies. The enemies of a free Iraq are
    determined to ignite a civil war, put the Iraqi people--to pit the Iraqi
    people against one another, and to stop the country's democratic
    progress. Yet the Iraqi people are determined to live in freedom, and
    America is determined to defeat the terrorists, and we're determined to
    help the Iraqi people succeed.
        America is doing our part to help the Iraqis build a democracy. Our
    Nation can be proud of what our courageous men and women in uniform have
    accomplished in the past 3 years. Since liberation, our forces have
    captured or killed thousands of Al Qaida terrorists and other enemy
    fighters; we've freed Fallujah and Tall `Afar and other Iraqi cities
    from the grip of the terrorists and the insurgents; we've trained Iraqi
    security forces so they increasingly can take the lead in the fight and
    eventually assume responsibility for the security of their country.
        We've learned from our mistakes. We've adjusted our approach to meet
    the changing circumstances on the ground. We've adjusted depending upon
    the actions of the enemy. By pursuing a clear and flexible strategy in
    Iraq, we helped make it possible for Iraqis to choose their leaders and
    begin to assume the responsibilities of self-government and self-
    defense. In the past 3 years, our troops in Iraq have done everything
    expected of them and more. They've brought freedom to Iraq, security to
    our country, and pride to the uniform, and they have the gratitude of
    all Americans.
        In the past 3 years, the Iraqi people have done their part. They
    defied death threats from the terrorists to cast ballots not one time,
    not twice, but three times, and each election saw larger and broader
    turnout than the one that came before. Iraqis chose a transitional
    government, drafted the most progressive Constitution in the Arab world,
    approved that Constitution in a nationwide referendum, and voted for a
    new Government under the new Constitution. And in December elections for
    this Government, despite the threats of violence and efforts to
    discourage Sunni participation, nearly 12 million Iraqis--that's more
    than 75 percent of eligible voters--turned out at the polls.
        The Iraqi people have begun building a free society, with a thriving
    free press and hundreds of independent newspapers and magazines and talk
    radio shows where Iraqis openly debate the future course of their
    country. The Iraqi people have begun building a free economy, with an
    independent central bank and thousands of small businesses and a
    relatively stable currency. Iraqi people have stepped forward

    [[Page 683]]

    to fight for their freedom as well. Despite repeated attacks on military
    and police recruiting stations, more than 250,000 Iraqis have
    volunteered to wear their country's uniform. These brave Iraqis are
    increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists and the
    insurgents. Today, there are more than 130 Iraqi Army and police combat
    battalions in the fight, with more than 70 Iraqi battalions taking the
    lead. Iraqi units have assumed primary responsibility for more than
    30,000 square miles of Iraq. We expect that Iraqi units will control
    more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006.
        Iraqis are fighting bravely, and many have given their lives in the
    battle for freedom for their country. And by their courage and
    sacrifice, the Iraqi soldiers and civilians have shown they want to live
    in freedom, and they're not going to let the terrorists take away their
    opportunity to live in a free society.
        Now it's time for the Iraqi leaders to do their part and finish the
    job of forming a unity government. The people of Iraq have made their
    intentions clear. At great personal risk, they went to the polls to
    choose leaders in free elections. And now the leaders they've elected
    have a responsibility to come together to form a Government that unifies
    all Iraqis. Secretary Rice was just in
    Baghdad, where she delivered a strong message from me: Iraq leaders need
    to rise to the moment, to put aside their personal agendas, and take
    charge of their destiny.
        Iraqi leaders have taken some important steps forward. They've
    agreed to an agenda for the new Government to take up once it assumes
    office, including tough issues such as demobilization of the militias,
    protecting the rights of women, restoring Iraq's infrastructure, and
    building national institutions that will effectively represent all
    Iraqis. Iraqi leaders have also agreed to form a new national security
    council that includes all major political groups and representatives of
    the executive and legislative branches. And now they must take the next
    step and fill key leadership posts so that a new Government can begin
    its essential work.
        I understand that putting aside differences to form a Government is
    difficult. Pretty hard for our country. Our first governing charter, the
    Articles of Confederation, failed, and it took us 8 years before we
    adopted our Constitution and elected our first President under that
    Constitution. Iraqis are going to make mistakes as well. They are
    undertaking a difficult process with little democratic experience and
    with the scars of nearly three decades of Saddam Hussein still fresh on their mind. Moving beyond past
    divisions to build a strong democracy requires strong leadership, and
    now is the time for Iraqis to step up and show the leadership.
        The Iraqi people have a right to expect it, and so do the American
    people. Americans have made great sacrifices to help Iraq get to this
    point. Iraqi voters risked their lives to go to the polls. Iraqi
    soldiers and police have given their time to make this moment possible.
    And so Americans and Iraqis alike are waiting and watching to see what
    this sacrifice will produce, and we both expect results. In the words of
    one Iraqi newspaper, ``The time has come for our politicians to save
    people from their suffering and crisis. The Iraqi people are more sacred
    than government positions.''
        Forming a unity government is critical to defeating the terrorists
    and securing the peace. The terrorists and insurgents thrive in a
    political vacuum, and the delay in forming a Government is creating a
    vacuum that the terrorists and insurgents are working to exploit. The
    enemies of a free Iraq blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra in the hope
    that this outrageous act would provoke reprisals and drag the nation
    into a civil war. This past Friday, suicide bombers blew up another
    Shi'a mosque in northern Baghdad. The longer Iraq's leaders delay in
    forming a unity government, the greater the risk that the terrorists and

    [[Page 684]]

    former regime elements will succeed in their efforts to foment division
    and to stop the progress of an Iraq democracy.
        The terrorists know that the greatest threat to their aspirations is
    Iraqi self-government. And we know this from the terrorists' own words.
    In 2004, we intercepted a letter from Zarqawi to Usama bin Laden. In it,
    Zarqawi expressed his concern about ``the gap that will emerge between
    us and the people of the land.'' He declared, ``Democracy is coming.''
    He went on to say, this will mean ``suffocation'' for the terrorists.
    Zarqawi laid out his strategy to stop democracy from taking root in
    Iraq. He wrote, ``If we succeed in dragging the Shi'a into the arena of
    sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis
    as they feel imminent danger. The only solution for us is to strike the
    religious, military, and other cadres among the Shi'a with blow after
    blow.''
        The advance of democracy is the terrorists' greatest fear. It's an
    interesting question, isn't it: Why would they fear democracy? What is
    it about freedom that frightens these killers? What is it about a
    liberty that causes these people to kill innocent women and children? To
    defeat them, Iraq needs a democratic government that represents all
    Iraq, that reins in illegal militias, and earns the trust and confidence
    of all Iraqi communities. When Iraqis have such a government to lead and
    unite them, they will be in a stronger position to defeat their enemies
    and secure the future with a free country. When Iraqis have a democratic
    government in place, it will be a major victory for the cause of
    freedom. It will be a major defeat for the terrorists' aspirations to
    dominate the region and advance their hateful vision.
        Once a Government is formed, the international community must also
    do its part to help this young democracy succeed. Iraq needs greater
    international support, particularly from its Arab neighbors. Arab
    leaders need to recognize that the choice in Iraq is between democracy
    and terrorism, and there is no middle ground. Success of Iraqi democracy
    is in their vital interests because if the terrorists prevail in Iraq,
    they will target other Arab nations.
        The broader international community has responsibilities as well. So
    far, other nations and international organizations have pledged more
    than $13 billion in assistance to Iraq. Iraqis are grateful for the
    promised aid, and so is the United States. Yet many nations have been
    slow to make good on their commitments. I call on all Governments that
    have pledged assistance to follow through with their promises as quickly
    as possible so that the people of the--across the Middle East will see
    that democracy leads to a better life and a brighter future. The success
    of a free Iraq is in the interests of all free nations, and none can
    afford to sit on the sidelines.
        Formation of a unity government is a critical step, but it's not
    going to bring an immediate end to the violence Americans are seeing on
    their TV screens. The terrorists are going to continue to spread chaos
    and carnage in Iraq because they know the images of car bombs and
    beheadings horrify the American people. They know they can't defeat us
    on the battlefield and that the only way to win in Iraq is to break our
    will and force us into an early retreat. Our enemies know what's at
    stake, and they are determined to stop the rise of a democratic Iraq,
    and I am equally determined to stop them.
        The decision to go to war is one of the most difficult a President
    can make. And in 3 years since our forces liberated Iraq, we've seen
    many contradictory images that are difficult for Americans to reconcile.
    On the one hand, we've seen images of great hope--boys and girls back in
    school and millions of Iraqis dipping their fingers in purple ink or
    dancing in the streets or celebrating their freedom. On the other hand,
    we've seen images of unimaginable despair--bombs destroying hospitals
    and hostages bound and executed. And this raises

    [[Page 685]]

    the question in the minds of many Americans: Which image will prevail?
    I'll give you my opinion. I believe that freedom will prevail in Iraq. I
    believe moms and dads everywhere want their children to grow up in
    safety and freedom. I believe freedom will prevail because the
    terrorists have nothing to offer the Iraqi people. I believe freedom
    will prevail because once people have tasted freedom, they will not
    accept a return to tyranny.
        It's important for Americans to understand the stakes in Iraq. A
    free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror. A free Iraq will be a
    partner in the struggle for peace and moderation in the Muslim world. A
    free Iraq will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran and
    send a signal across the broader Middle East that the future belongs not
    to terrorism but to freedom. A free Iraq will show the power of liberty
    to change the world. And as the Middle East grows in liberty and
    prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their safe havens and
    recruits, and America and other free nations will be more secure.
        Today, Iraq is free and sovereign, and that freedom and sovereignty
    has come at a great price. Because Americans and Iraqis and troops from
    17 other nations gave up their own futures so the Iraqi people could
    have a future of freedom, this world is better off because of their
    sacrifice. America will honor their sacrifice by completing the mission
    in Iraq. And Iraqi leaders have a responsibility to the fallen as well.
    By working together, we'll build a future of freedom for both our
    people. We're laying the foundation of peace for generations to come.
        I appreciate your attention, and now I'll be glad to answer some
    questions. Please.

    President's Decisionmaking/War on Terror

        Q. Mr. President, thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it.
    I'm a strategic studies concentrator here at SAIS. My question to you,
    Mr. President--I'll preface it with a comment. Many of us here are
    aspiring policymakers. Many of us here hope to one day be in positions
    of leadership. And some of us may be faced with decisions, very
    difficult decisions on the use of force and engaging in war. I was
    hoping that from your experience, you could share with us some wisdom or
    some insight, not necessarily on tactics but something we can take with
    us through our careers, that we can apply maybe at some point. Thank
    you.
        The President. Thanks. Thanks for the question. I would encourage
    those of you studying here to be a part of policymaking for our
    Government. It is a high honor to serve your country. And my first
    advice is never use force until you've exhausted all diplomacy. I--my
    second advice is if you ever put anybody in harm's way, make sure they
    have got all the support of the Government. My third advice is don't
    make decisions on polls. Stand your ground if you think what you're
    doing right.
        Much of my decision about what we're discussing these days was
    affected by an event. Look, I--during the 2000 campaign, I don't
    remember ever discussing with people what--could I handle war, or could
    my opponent handle war. The war wasn't on our mind. War came
    unexpectedly. We didn't ask for the attack, but it came. And so much of
    the statements I make and have made since that war were a result of that
    attack.
        I vowed then that I would use all assets of our power to win the war
    on terror. That's what I vowed. It--the September the 11th attacks
    affected me. It affected my thinking deeply. The most important job of
    the Government is to protect the people from an attack. And so I said,
    we were going to stay on the offense two ways: One, hunt down the enemy
    and bring them to justice, and take threats seriously; and two, spread
    freedom. And that's what we've been doing, and that's what I'm going to
    continue to do as the President.
        I think about the war on terror all the time. Now, I understand
    there's a difference of opinion in a country. Some view

    [[Page 686]]

    the attack as kind of an isolated incident; I don't. I view it as a part
    of a strategy by a totalitarian, ideologically based group of people
    who've announced their intentions to spread that ideology and to attack
    us again. That's what they've said they're going to do. And the most
    dangerous--the biggest danger facing our country is whether--if the
    terrorists get a weapons of mass destruction to use. Now, perhaps some
    in our country think it's a--that's a pipedream; I don't. I think it is
    a very real threat and, therefore, will spend my Presidency rallying our
    assets--intelligence assets, military assets, financial assets,
    diplomatic initiatives--to keep the enemy off balance and to bring them
    to justice.
        Now, if you're going to be the President or a policymaker, you never
    know what's going to come. That's the interesting thing about the world
    in which we live. We're a influential nation, and so therefore, many
    problems come to the Oval Office. And you don't know what those problems
    are going to be, which then argues for having smart people around.
    That's why you ought to serve in Government if you're not going to be
    the President. You have a chance to influence policy by giving good
    recommendations to the President.
        You got to listen in my line of work, and I listen a lot. Ours is a
    complex organization that requires a management structure that lets
    people come into the Oval Office and explain their positions. And I
    think it's to my interest, by the way, that not everybody agree all the
    time. You can't make good decisions unless there's a little--kind of a
    little agitation in there. [Laughter] And sometimes we have.
        But anyway, good question. I guess my answer to your question is, is
    that you got to be ready for the unexpected. And when you act, you base
    your decisions on principles. I'll tell you one principle--I'm not going
    to filibuster, I promise--but you got me going here, so--[laughter]. I
    want you to understand this principle, and it's an important debate, and
    it's worth debating here in this school, as to whether or not freedom is
    universal, whether or not it's a universal right of all men and women.
    It's an interesting part of the international dialog today. And I think
    it is universal. And if you believe it's universal, I believe this
    country has--should act on that concept of universality. And the reason
    I do is because I do believe freedom yields the peace.
        And our foreign policy prior to my arrival was, ``If it seems okay,
    leave it alone.'' In other words, if it's nice and placid out there on
    the surface, it's okay; just let it sit. But unfortunately, beneath the
    surface was resentment and hatred, and that kind of resentment and
    hatred provided ample recruitment, fertile grounds for recruiting people
    that came and killed over 3,000 of our citizens. And therefore, I
    believe the way to defeat resentment is with freedom and liberty.
        But if you don't believe it's universal, I can understand why you
    say, ``What's he doing? Why is he doing that?'' If there's no such thing
    as the universality of freedom, then we might as well just isolate
    ourselves and hope for the best.
        And so--anyway, kind of rambling here. [Laughter] Yes.

    Iran

        Q. Mr. President, thanks very much for your visit today. We're
    honored by your visit. I'm a first-semester MA student. You mentioned
    the confluence of terror and weapons of mass destruction as the greatest
    threat to American security. Will the United States allow Iran to
    develop nuclear weapons?
        The President. Ah--[laughter]--we do not want the Iranians to have a
    nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge
    as to how to make a nuclear weapon. That's our stated goal. It's also
    the goal, fortunately, of other--of friends and allies, starting with
    Great Britain, Germany, and France.
        One of the decisions I made early on was to have a multinational
    approach to

    [[Page 687]]

    sending messages, clear messages to the Iranians that if they want to be
    a part of the--an accepted nation in the world, that they must give up
    their nuclear weapons ambitions. And we're making pretty good progress.
        By the way, if you're studying how to achieve diplomatic ends, it
    might be worthwhile noting that--I think at least--with the United
    States being the sole interlocutor between Iran, it makes it more
    difficult to achieve the objective of having the Iranians give up their
    nuclear weapons ambitions. It's amazing that when we're in a bilateral
    position, or kind of just negotiating one on one, somehow the world ends
    up turning the tables on us. And I'm not going to put my country in that
    position--our country in that position. Also, I think it's more
    effective that the three of us--the four of us work closely together.
        We've also included Russia into the dialog. A couple of months back,
    you might remember, there was a discussion about whether or not the
    Russians should be allowed to build--or encouraged to build a civilian
    nuclear powerplant, but the fuel of which would be provided and
    collected by the Russians. I supported that initiative. I thought it was
    difficult, on the one hand, to say that civilian nuclear power is a
    sovereign right of a nation, and on the other hand, not to then support
    the Russian initiative. And I did so. I also did so because I want
    Russia to be a part of the team, trying to convince the Iranians to give
    up its nuclear weapons program.
        Now, I want to emphasize this point, and that is, is that we're not
    only making sure they don't have the means to develop the weapon but the
    knowledge. And that's why I was very strong in saying that they should
    not have--that there should not be a research component involved with
    the Russian deal that will enable the Iranians to learn how to better
    enriched--enrich uranium.
        But our objective is to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.
    And the good news is, is that many in the world have come to that
    conclusion. I got out a little early on the issue by saying, ``axis of
    evil.'' [Laughter] But I meant it. I saw it as a problem. And now many
    others have come to the conclusion that the Iranians should not have a
    nuclear weapon.
        The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the
    Iranians from having a nuclear weapon. I know here in Washington
    prevention means force. It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this
    case, it means diplomacy. And by the way, I read the articles in the
    newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What
    you're reading is wild speculation, which is--it's kind of a--happens
    quite frequently here in the Nation's Capital.
        Yes. Please.

    Reconstruction in Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to have you here. I'm a
    first-year student in South Asian studies. My question is in regards to
    private military contractors. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does
    not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of
    Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions. Mr.
    Rumsfeld----
        The President. I was going to ask him. Go ahead. [Laughter] Help.
    [Laughter]
        Q. I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific.
    [Laughter] Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws
    which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However,
    Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less
    against--over our American military contractors. I would submit to you
    that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a
    solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private
    military contractors under a system of law?
        The President. Yes, I appreciate that very much. I wasn't kidding--
    [laughter]. I was going to--I pick up the phone and say,

    [[Page 688]]

    ``Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting
    question.'' [Laughter] This is what delegation--I don't mean to be
    dodging the question, although it's kind of convenient in this case, but
    never--[laughter]. I really will--I'm going to call the Secretary and
    say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about
    it? That's how I work. I'm--thanks. [Laughter]
        Yes, ma'am.

    Public Opinion/Democracy

        Q. Hello, Mr. President. I have a followup question on your comments
    about polls. Your Presidency has been a rather polarizing period in
    America. And occasionally, your attitude towards protesters and
    dissenters has been perceived as being dismissive and occasionally,
    then, cavalier. And I'm wondering how you feel that's contributed to the
    polarization in politics today and if that approach will change, given
    that you have fallen somewhat in the polls?
        The President. Yes. Well--[laughter]--I take protest seriously. I
    mean, I--by the way, I get protested all the time. [Laughter] And I
    welcome it. I think this is the great thing about a democracy. There
    needs to be an outlet. If people feel like their government is not
    listening to them or doesn't agree with them, there ought to be an
    outlet for their discontent.
        And so the protests really don't bother me. I hope that's not viewed
    as cavalier, but it's just the way I feel. And it's a--in terms of
    polls, you cannot have a President make decisions based upon the latest
    political survey. It's just--you got to have people making decisions
    based upon principle. And my attitude is, I'm going to do what I think
    is right.
        I've got to be able to look at myself, by the way--after the
    Presidency--in the mirror and say, I didn't come to Washington, DC, to
    try to chase political opinion; I came to lead this country in a very
    historic time.

        And you heard my discussion about my reaction after 9/11. That's
    what I believe. And that's what I'm going--those are some of the beliefs
    on which I'm going to continue to make decisions.
        But, no, I hear voices of discontent, and I'm just going to do the
    best I can do based upon what I think is right. There's too much
    flattery, too much ego, too much criticism, too much noise, too much
    politics, too much that, for a President to try to kind of grope his way
    around looking at the latest public opinion poll. In my judgment, it
    doesn't serve the Nation well.
        A while ago at a press conference, I remember uttering one wonderful
    piece of wisdom: It's like a dog chasing his tail. It actually didn't
    fly that good. But nevertheless, my point--[laughter]. But thank you;
    it's a legitimate question. And so to answer your question, yes, I hear
    the protests. And I can understand why. I can understand why people are
    concerned about war. Nobody likes war, particularly me. I knew exactly
    what was going to happen when I committed these troops into harm's way.
    I knew there would be--people would lose their life. And I knew I'd be
    trying to comfort mothers and fathers and grieving wives. I knew exactly
    what was coming. And if I didn't think it was the right thing to do, I
    wouldn't have sent them. And if I didn't think we could succeed in Iraq,
    I'd pull them out.
        And the good thing about a democracy is people can express
    themselves. We're fixing to have a huge immigration march today. And
    it's a sign that there's a--this is a important issue that people feel
    strongly about. And I repeat to you: I strongly believe that societies
    in which you're not allowed to express yourself are societies which do
    breed resentment, and, kind of, bottled-up anxiety causes people to
    become very frustrated. And that's not healthy for a society.

        Yes.

    [[Page 689]]

    CIA Employee Identity Disclosure Investigation

        Q. First, let me say, thank you very much for being here, and thank
    you for taking questions. I know we appreciate that. I'm a second-year
    master's student studying international energy policy.
        The President. International?
        Q. Energy policy.
        The President. Oh, good.
        Q. Sorry. [Laughter] My question, sir, is, well, as Anthony alluded
    to earlier and as you're aware, we have many students at SAIS who are
    currently working for or considering working for the State Department,
    the various intelligence agencies, and such. And how do you respond to
    recent--the recent report by Prosecutor Fitzgerald that there is, in his
    words, ``a concerted--evidence of a concerted effort by the White House
    to punish Joseph Wilson,'' who himself has a distinguished record of
    Government service?
        The President. Yes. No, I--this is--there's an ongoing legal
    proceeding which precludes me from talking a lot about the case. There's
    also an ongoing investigation that's a serious investigation. I will say
    this, that after we liberated Iraq, there was questions in people's
    minds about the basis on which I made statements, in other words, going
    into Iraq. And so I decided to declassify the NIE for a reason. I wanted
    to see--people to see what some of those statements were based on. So I
    wanted to see--I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made
    sense for people to see the truth. And that's why I declassified the
    document.
        You can't talk about--you're not supposed to talk about classified
    information, and so I declassified the document. I thought it was
    important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I
    was saying in my speeches. And I felt I could do so without jeopardizing
    ongoing intelligence matters, and so I did.
        And as far as the rest of the case goes, you're just going to have
    to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his
    case. And I hope you understand that. It's a serious legal matter that
    we've got to be careful in making public statements about it.
        Yes, please.

    Asia-Pacific Countries

        Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you for coming here today. I'm
    a second-year SAIS student studying strategic studies. And I'd like to
    briefly turn you a moment--turn your attention to the Asia-Pacific, the
    security situation in Asia right now. Secretary Rice, last March, met
    with her counterparts in Japan and Australia in a security dialog,
    discussing security issues in Asia-Pacific. And this made many countries
    in the region very uncomfortable. They felt that this security dialog
    may have been an effort to contain the quote unquote ``China threat.''
    And mostly our alliance partners in South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand
    have felt this uneasiness. Could you possibly elucidate for us your
    administration's strategy towards Asia-Pacific, ahead of President Hu
    Jintao's visit to Washington? And was the dialog a prelude to a NATO-
    like security structure in Asia-Pacific?
        The President. Thanks for the question. We have worked hard to make
    sure relations with Japan, China, and South Korea are on firm footing,
    and they are. First, the Japanese relationship is a close relationship.
    I'm personally fond of Prime Minister Koizumi. We have a close relationship, and I've worked very
    closely with him on a variety of matters, starting with making sure our
    force posture is such that can--that the Japanese are comfortable with.
        I don't know if you saw the recent announcements about Okinawa, for
    example. You're beginning to see a defense relationship and alliance
    that stays intact but is more attuned to the future. Secondly,
    he's committed troops into Iraq. He
    believes, like I believe, that democracy helps keep

    [[Page 690]]

    the peace. We've worked closely in Afghanistan. In other words, we're
    partners in peace.
        The South Korean issue is one, obviously, that's dominated primarily
    by North Korea. And I made the decision early on in the administration
    to change the dynamics in that negotiation from the United States and
    North Korea to the United States, China, Russia, South Korea, and
    Japan--called the six-party talks, all aiming to get people who have got
    a stake with North Korea at the table, all aiming, again, to send a
    united voice to the North Koreans.
        I'm a little--the North Korean nuclear issue disturbs me, but also
    equally disturbs me is the fact that people are being starved to death.
    And it should disturb the world. It should disturb all of us. The North
    Korea issue dominates my discussions with South Korea. However, there's
    a--South Korea and America has committed ourselves to the peace that
    comes--or the balance that comes with the U.S. force presence there in
    South Korea, although it's been reduced as well. We did not reduce
    force; we reduced manpower, as you probably know since you study it.
        The issue that is on most Americans' mind, and the issue that really
    is the issue of the future in many ways, is China. And I would call our
    relationship with China very positive and complex. It's positive because
    we do have dialog. It's positive because the Chinese leadership--Hu
    Jintao and his predecessor--
    were able to sit down, and we had pretty frank discussions about a
    variety of issues.
        On our agenda, of course, is trade--fairness in trade, as well as
    human rights and freedom of religion. On their issue--on their agenda
    has been, in the past, Taiwan, of course, which is a predominate issue.
    I've worked hard on that issue to make it clear that our position has
    not changed, and we do not expect either party to unilaterally change
    the status quo.
        And one of the things, of course, we work on is to--would be very
    helpful if the Japanese and the Chinese had better relations, and the
    Japanese and the South Koreans. So we're spending time on that issue, as
    well, to try to bring a sense of--to encourage more dialog with--amongst
    those parties.
        Our presence in the Far East is really important. And so therefore,
    my administration has been active in making sure we stay active in the
    region. The visit of Hu Jintao will be an
    interesting and important visit. He's coming into a country where
    there's an over $200 billion trade deficit, and a lot of Americans are
    wondering, where's the equity in trade? And therefore, I think he could
    help the Americans understand the importance of a free trading world if
    he were to maybe make a statement on his currency, for example.
        I believe it's important for Americans to see a society that goes
    from being a--have its economic growth driven by exports to one having
    its economic growth more by consumer demand inside the country. That's
    an important part of our dialog with China.
        It's very important for him to make a declaration on international
    property rights--IPR. It's difficult for a nation that likes to trade,
    like ours, to go into a country uncertain as to whether or not patents
    will be protected or product will be protected from copy. And so it will
    be a wide agenda.
        The Far--the Pacific area is a very important part of our foreign
    policy. It's one where we've got a very active presence, and we'll
    continue to keep one. We've got a free trade agreement--you mentioned
    Singapore--we've got a free trade agreement with Singapore. And it's
    our--my relationship with these countries is based more than on just
    trade and commercialism. Mine is to work toward more democracy and
    freedom, as well, in the region, so that we can keep the peace in the
    long run.

    [[Page 691]]

        I keep repeating this, I know, but I firmly believe that one way you
    lay the foundation for peace is to spread liberty and freedom. And
    there--again, I understand there's a debate. There's a legitimate
    debate. I'm just telling you what my position is. And I got something to
    say about it.
        Yes.

    Human Trafficking

        Q. Good morning, President Bush. I also feel very strongly about
    freedom, although I see it in terms of human trafficking. Your
    administration takes a very strong stance against prostitution. And
    because of that, you do not disperse funds to a lot of very effective
    NGOs around the world who pragmatically combat sex trafficking by
    working with existing prostitution networks. There's no evidence right
    now that proves either legalizing prostitution or criminalizing
    prostitution has any effect in the change of sex-trafficking cases. Have
    you considered changing your ideas about prostitution for the purposes
    of helping either save or keep people from being enslaved in sex
    prostitution?
        The President. No, I appreciate it. I'm--it sounds like I'm dodging
    here, but again, you know more about this subject than I, and I will be
    glad to call Condi and talk to her about
    our policy. I thought we had a very robust strategy on exploitation of
    women and children, particularly around the world. I think I addressed
    this subject at the United Nations and was the only world leader to do.
    But as specifically about our position on prostitution, I'm going to
    have to talk to the Secretary about it.
        Yes.

    Spread of Democracy

        Q. Morning, Mr. President. I have a more general question about the
    United States work to democratize the rest of the world. Many have
    viewed the United States effort to democratize the world, especially
    nations in the Middle East, as an imposition or invasion on their
    sovereign rights. Considering that it was, in fact, the Prophet Mohammed
    who established the first known constitution in the world--I'm referring
    to the constitution he wrote for the city of Medina--and that his life
    and the principles outlined in his constitution, such as the championing
    of the welfare of women, children, and the poor, living as an equal
    among his people, dissolving disputes between the warring clans in
    Arabia, giving any man or woman in parliament the right to vote and
    guaranteeing respect for all religions, ironically parallel those
    principles that we hold most precious in our own Constitution. I'm
    wondering how might your recently formed Iraq Study Group under the U.S.
    Institute for Peace explore these striking similarities to forge a new
    relationship with Iraqis and educate Americans about the democratic
    principles inherent in Islam?
        The President. Great question. I believe that the terrorists have
    hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their behavior. I thank
    you for bringing that to my attention.
        I will pass on your comments to James A. Baker, who is one of the chairmen of the group going to Iraq.
        See, you said something really interesting. Initially, you said
    people view America imposing its beliefs. And I hearken back to what I
    said earlier--this fellow's question here--that if you believe that
    freedom is not universal, then it could be viewed as an imposition of
    beliefs. I'm not saying to countries, ``You've got to look like us or
    act like us,'' but I am saying, you know, ``Give your people a chance to
    be free.'' And I think it's necessary for America to take the lead on
    this issue. I think it is--I think it is vital for our future that we
    encourage liberty and--in this case, the Middle East. And as you said,
    it doesn't necessarily run contrary to what the Prophet Mohammed said.
        It's a--and so how do you advance freedom? I mean, well, one thing
    you do is you make sure that the Lebanese have a

    [[Page 692]]

    chance to self-govern freely without Syrian interference. It's one thing
    you can do.
        Another thing you can do is work for the establishment of a
    Palestinian state, which I'm doing. I believe that there will be a
    Palestinian state that is at peace with Israel. I believe it's going to
    have to be a democracy--again, a Palestinian-style democracy--to achieve
    that. But in my--early in my Presidency, I said, it's in our interest
    that there be two states, side by side in peace, and we're working
    toward that end.
        You know, part of the debate here that I'm sure you're discussing is
    whether or not the United States should insist upon elections before
    everything is right. You hear the--the civil society has to be just
    right before you can have elections. I disagree strongly with that. I
    think elections are the beginning of the process, not the end.
        And I found the elections that Hamas won very instructive and very
    interesting. It was--to me, it was a final condemnation of the Arafat
    era, where people said, ``We're sick of corruption. We want better
    health care and better education; we want--we actually want our leaders
    to focus on the people, not on their self interests.''
        And because I believe in two states, side by side in peace, and
    therefore, expect the Government of both to be peaceful toward each
    other, we're not going to deal with a Government that has announced that
    they want to destroy Israel. On the other hand, we will help the
    Palestinian people. And I believe a democracy will eventually yield the
    state necessary to be side by side with Israel in peace.
        The success of a democracy in Iraq--and as I told you, I think we're
    going to succeed; as a matter of fact, I know we are, if we don't lose
    our nerve--will send a powerful signal. Imagine the signal it will send
    to people in Iran that are not free right now. I believe the women's
    movement is going to be the leading edge of changing the Middle East. I
    don't believe women want to live as second-class citizens. I believe
    it's--I believe there's a universal desire to be treated fairly and
    equally.
        And so I think--look, I'm pleased with the progress. I was reading
    the other day where Kuwaiti women are running for office. It's a
    positive sign, you know? We've got to be realistic about what's
    possible, but we've got to be firm in our belief that freedom is
    possible and necessary. Otherwise--I'll repeat to you--a system that
    says, ``Okay, let's just tolerate the tyrant so long as everything seems
    okay,'' didn't work.
        That's one of the lessons of the attack on the United States. You
    know, the world seemed fine, didn't it? It seemed kind of placid--there
    was a bubble here, a bubble there. But everything seemed all right. And
    yet, beneath the surface, there was tremendous resentment. And it's now
    come to full, and so how do you defeat their--now, if you don't think
    they have a ideology or a point of view, and/or a strategy to impose it,
    then I can understand why you think the United States ought not to be as
    active as we are.
        But I believe differently. I believe they're bound--these folks are
    bound by an ideology. I know that they have got desires. They say it.
    This is one of--this is a different--this is a war in which the enemy
    actually speaks out loud. You heard the letter I wrote--read from--they
    didn't speak out loud on this one, but nevertheless, it's a--we've got
    to take their word seriously. When the enemy speaks, it makes sense for
    our military, our intelligence, the President to take the word seriously
    so we can adapt and adjust.
        Anyway, very interesting question. Thanks for bringing that to my
    attention. Yes, ma'am.

    Millennium Challenge Account

        Q. Hi, Mr. President. Thank you very much for coming to speak with
    us. I am studying international development. And you have alluded much
    to tensions beneath the surface of countries. A lot of times,

    [[Page 693]]

    this comes from economic underdevelopment and lack of economic
    opportunities. You haven't spoken directly about economic development
    this morning, and I would like to know where economic development lies
    on your priority list.
        And also, looking at countries that maybe haven't, in your words,
    gotten everything right in terms of political stability or
    democratization, is holding development funds--keeping development funds
    from those countries actually counterproductive? Because if you can help
    the country to develop economically, maybe some of these underlying
    tensions might dissipate.
        The President. No, it's a great question. First of all, I'm a--
    matter of fact, I met this morning with Rob Portman, head of the USTR, about the Doha round of--for the WTO.
    And the reason I did is because I'm a big believer that trade helps lift
    people out of poverty. As a matter of fact, if you really study the
    relationship between development aid versus capital and the movement of
    capital and who--and how a society benefits more, it's because of trade
    and commerce.
        And so we've been very active in this administration. AGOA, for
    example, is a free trade agreement with Africa. President
    Clinton passed it. I was more than happy
    to sign its extension, and we've been very hard in implementing it on
    the recognition that trade is a vital way for--to help people get their
    economies up and running.
        And so, no question, the economy is important. In the Palestinian
    Territories, Jim Wolfensohn went over
    with a plan--prior to the election, by the way--with a plan to help the
    Palestinians develop their economy on the exact premise that you talk
    about. Economic development provides hope.
        And so, you bet it's an integral of our policy. We give a lot of aid
    out, by the way. We give aid to countries that may like us, may not like
    us, except in few instances. I have changed the development program,
    however, from--let me say, I added on to the development program through
    what's called the Millennium Challenge Account. And that is a
    conditional-based aid program. It's condition-based upon poverty level,
    but it's also condition-based upon behavior of government.
        We should not be--we should insist that governments fight
    corruption. It seems like to me, it's a rational thing to do with
    taxpayers' money. And so part of the--one of the criterion for the
    Millennium Challenge Account, it says, ``You don't get money if you
    don't fight corruption.'' We should insist that people invest in the
    health and education of their people. We should insist on marketplace
    reforms, open markets, so that people have a chance to realize the
    benefits of a growing economy. And we do. And so we give aid.
        But the Millennium Challenge Account is an additional program that
    is, no question, conditional-based, based upon, I think, rational
    criterion. I remember having the discussion with some friends of mine
    from another part of the world. They said, ``How can you insist upon
    conditions for the aid?'' I said, ``How can you not?'' Why does it not
    make sense to say, get rid of your corruption? Unless you people think--
    unless people think that maybe the corruption is normal and necessary.
    It's not. A lot of people--a lot of countries have suffered as a result
    of governments that didn't care about them.
        The other thing we're doing aggressively is to fight hunger and
    disease. Part of making sure that an economy can take hold is a--for
    example, for AGOA to be effective, there's got to be--we got to do
    something about HIV/AIDS, and we are. We're spending about $15 billion--
    or will have spent $15 billion over 5 years. And it's beginning to make
    a difference. And I'm real proud of our country, and I'm real proud of
    our friends and partners on the ground to get antiretroviral drugs to
    people, to help with prevention, to help take care of the orphans. And
    we feed a lot of people too. Ours is a generous nation.

    [[Page 694]]

        So the development program is more than just passing out aid. It is
    trade. It is insistent upon habits of Government, and it's also fighting
    disease and hunger.
        Yes.

    2008 Elections/President's Second-Term Agenda

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President, for coming to SAIS today. I'm a first-
    year master's candidate. In 2 years, the American political system will
    face a unique moment in its history, for, in fact, a sitting Vice
    President will decline the nomination for the Presidency. What are the
    implications for the Republican Party, your legacy, and, if you could
    choose, who would your successor be? Thank you. [Laughter]
        The President. I'm not through yet, you know. [Laughter] It is--I'm
    glad my Vice President is not running for
    President. Not that he would make a great President, but that it
    certainly changes the dynamics inside the White House. And it is an
    amazing moment; you're right. I guess it's the most wide-open race ever.
    Oh, it can't be ``ever.'' ``Ever'' is too long. [Laughter] But in a long
    time. [Laughter]
        I am going to spend 2\1/2\ years charging as hard as I possibly
    can--I want to sprint out of office. And I will be a interested
    observer, and I'm sure I'll be roped into moments after our party
    nominates a candidate, but I'm just going to let the politics run its
    course.
        And I've got a lot to do. We've got--listen, here are some of the
    challenges we face. We got to get off Middle Eastern oil, and therefore,
    we need to stay focused on a research and development initiative that
    helps us get away from fossil fuels but also helps countries like India
    diversify away from fossil fuels. And that's why the agreement I reached
    with India is a very important agreement--I thought that's what you were
    going to ask. [Laughter]
        And many of you are--you look a lot younger than me--[laughter]--and
    so therefore, you better be worried about Social Security and Medicare.
    Our balance sheet is, no question, affected by a current account
    deficit. But a looming issue is the unfunded liabilities inherent in
    Social Security. And the Government needs to deal with it. The problem
    is, Washington is so political that it's--so far, it's--well, if
    somebody looks good, somebody looks bad. And so I'm going to stay
    focused on that, as well, and hopefully, get a bipartisan solution up on
    Social Security and Medicare, so that we can say to a younger
    generation, ``We did our duty; we did something that's really hard to
    do.'' But we'd better get it done. The system is going broke, and you're
    going to pay a lot.
        The immigration debate is an important debate. I don't--my point
    is--and I'll be glad to opine on it if you like. I think we need to be
    a--understand that we're a nation of immigrants, that we ought to be
    compassionate about this debate and provide a--obviously, we've got to
    secure the border and enforce the law. But one way to do so is to make
    sure that people who are coming in here to work have a legal--get a card
    so they don't have to try to sneak across the border, which takes
    pressure off our border.
        People ought to be here on--be able to work on a temporary basis,
    and if they want to become a citizen, after a series of steps they got
    to take--they get in line like everybody else--not at the head of the
    line but the end of the line. And if Congress wants to say, ``Well, we
    need more people from a certain country,'' they expand the number of
    green cards available.
        My point to you is I got a lot to do, and you're the beginning--
    you're the leading edge of what's going to happen. I know--particularly
    from our friends in the press corps, they're going to be asking these
    questions a lot, ``So-and-so said this; what do you say about that, or
    so-and-so--who are you for on this?'' And I'm going to do my job as the
    President.
        Yes.

    [[Page 695]]

    Spread of Democracy/Trade

        Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you for coming. I agree with
    your assertion that Iraq is going to serve as a model for reformers,
    democratic reformers in the Middle East. But at the same time, I believe
    that whenever the seas are rough, the despots of the Middle East keep
    their heads down until the winds blow, and then they continue to do the
    exact same thing they've been doing for generations. I'm wondering, what
    pressures are we putting--or planning to put on these despots, some of
    whom are allies?
        And one point of correction to Kent--the first constitution was
    written by Hammurabi in Samaria, modern-day Iraq. [Laughter]
        The President. I was going to say that, you know, but I wanted to--
    [laughter]. Each President has his own style about how we deal with
    different leaders. I believe that it's very important for people to be--
    to listen. And therefore, I'm a person who does a lot of my work in
    private with these different leaders.
        I talk frankly with people, but you can't have a frank discussion
    with somebody if you--if they feel like you're going to hold them up for
    public ridicule or public criticism. And so for those of you who are
    thinking about being President or being involved with diplomacy, you've
    got to think about how you deal with somebody you don't necessarily
    agree with and how best to be effective.
        And so I just will tell you, however, I'm constantly talking about
    the need for there to be democracy and reform. And there's plenty of
    leverage throughout our Government. The President is not the sole voice
    when it comes to advancing the democracy agenda. You might notice Madam
    Secretary occasionally is outspoken in
    her--as she travels the world, which is positive. But there are other
    ways to send the message, as well, that we believe strongly that
    countries ought to adapt democratic habits.
        I mentioned to you the notion of the women's movement in the Middle
    East. There is a way where the United States can effectively use NGOs--
    and I recognize--let me just say, I recognize sometimes if it says
    ``Made in the USA'' on it, it makes it more difficult to achieve certain
    reforms. And so we got to be wise about how we convince others to
    understand the importance of freedom. But we're--I can just assure you
    that we're constant dialog.
        And I have had a lot of dialog with the leaders that come to see me
    and reminding them that whole societies are those that recognize the
    importance of giving people a chance to express themselves. And you'll
    find in the Middle East, there's--some people will say, ``Well, what
    about such and such a group; they appear to be dangerous.''
        My answer is, if they've got support on the street, there's a
    reason. And if I were you, I would listen to the people better than they
    listen to the people. There's a reason why grass roots movements start.
    And one thing about democracy is, is that it forces the grass roots
    movement out in the open so people compete for ideas and for the will of
    the people in an open forum, not a closed forum. And it's those leaders
    that say, ``I fear the grass root movement,'' are those that eventually
    are going to get whipped unless they outcompete them--outcompete them in
    a good sense, outcompete them for services, outcompete those who are
    stirring up the anxieties on the street by listening to the people and
    actually responding.
        I know that's a foreign concept at some times, but nevertheless,
    it's a concept that ends up leading to a more whole society. And it's
    not easy work. We live in a world today where everything is supposed to
    happen yesterday. If you really think about Iraq--and it's tough; I
    fully recognize it's difficult. And I know people are anxious and their
    hearts break when they see the loss of innocent life. But it was 4
    months

    [[Page 696]]

    ago that there was one of the most amazing elections in the history of
    the Middle East--4 short months ago. It seems like a decade, doesn't it?
    At least it does to me. [Laughter]
        And so we're in a world where everything is, like, supposed to
    happen that way. But that's not the way it works. I believe what we're
    doing is putting those seeds in the ground. And it's important for
    future administrations to follow up, it seems like to me. And I said--I
    thought I laid out a pretty good marker for the United States in my
    second Inaugural Address, that said, why don't we work to end tyranny--
    it's a noble goal--under the belief that people desire to be free. And
    people should live in freedom.
        I told you, listen, I'm deeply concerned about societies in which
    people are starving to death, in which people are ravaged by HIV/AIDS.
    That's why we've taken the initiative in this country. And it's very
    important for the American people to feel good about that initiative as
    well. It's not George Bush's initiative; it's the American people's
    initiative.
        One of the principles that guides my policy is, to whom much is
    given, much is required. And I believe that's an essential part of the
    United States foreign policy.
        I'll tell you another issue, now that I'm getting wound up, that you
    better consider and think about as future policymakers, is whether or
    not this country is going to succumb to protectionism and isolationism.
    And it's an interesting moment in our country's history. I put it in the
    State of the Union for a reason. I decided not to go with ``here's the
    42 things we're going to do to you or for you.'' [Laughter] It's--I
    talked about--I talked about the themes. I'm serious about this now. And
    as young policymakers, you need to seriously consider whether or not
    this country of ours is going to be confident enough to continue to
    lead. If we become isolationist, then we basically say, ``Let them
    suffer.'' If we become isolationist, then we say, ``It doesn't matter if
    people live in freedom or not.'' If we become protectionist, we say,
    ``Trade is okay, but we're more worried about competing in the world
    stage than we are helping developed nations grow.''
        And this is a serious debate that needs to be taken--my position is
    clear. I'm absolutely for this United States of America staying engaged
    to the world. And we've got to be confident in the values--listen, we
    were formed on the natural rights of men and women. Those weren't
    American rights. They were natural rights. There's something greater in
    our founding that speaks to, kind of, the universality of liberty.
        And we ought to be confident about our ability to compete in trade.
    And I know it's difficult. I know it's hard if you're living in the
    Midwest and you lost your job, and somebody tells you, ``You lost your
    job because of free trade.'' It's difficult for people. I know that. On
    the other hand, my judgment is if we put up walls and aren't willing to
    have free and fair trade, it will hurt the world economy, and it will
    cause people to suffer here at home and abroad.
        But this is a defining moment, in my judgment, on these debates.
    I've got a pretty good antennae. I'm able to--see, I get a pretty good
    sense of how people are trending. And it's--and I would hope that out of
    this school comes people who are confident in American values and
    confident in our ability to compete.
        Now, we've got to do smart things, and we've got an economic debate
    going on here. I think if we run up taxes, it will hurt our economy and
    make us less competitive. I know we've got to do something about energy
    to make us competitive in the 21st century. We really have to make sure
    we've got kids who've got the skill set necessary to fill the jobs of
    the 21st century. I mean, there are things we've got to do to make sure
    we remain competitive. It just doesn't happen. But nevertheless, we
    shouldn't fear it. We shouldn't fear competition. Competition is good.

    [[Page 697]]

        And so I just hope--I hope--look, I'm not telling you what your
    curriculum is, but it's something worth talking about. These are--these
    happen to be the big trends of our society. And it's going to take, in
    my judgment, a future generation of people standing up, not losing our
    confidence. Look at the 1920s in our country's history. We shut down
    immigration; we had huge trade tariffs; and we were isolationist. And it
    didn't serve our country well, in my judgment.
        All right, I've got to go to work. [Laughter] This isn't work; this
    is enjoyable. I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by
    and visit with you. Thanks for considering serving our country. It's a
    noble calling. It's a noble calling and worthwhile.
        God bless you.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:36 a.m. at Johns Hopkins University. In
    his remarks, he referred to William R. Brody, president, Johns Hopkins
    University; Jessica P. Einhorn, dean, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
    International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Lt. Col. Fred M.
    Padilla, USMC, commander, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; senior Al Qaida
    associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida
    terrorist organization; Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the
    Northern District of Illinois and Department of Justice CIA leak
    investigation special prosecutor; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of
    Japan; President Hu Jintao of China; James A. Baker III, cochair, Iraq
    Study Group, U.S. Institute for Peace; and James D. Wolfensohn, Quartet
    Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. A participant referred to former
    Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who served as CIA envoy to Niger in
    February 2002.