    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book II)]
    [August 14, 2006]
    [Pages 1507-1514]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks Following a Meeting With Secretary of State Condoleezza
    Rice and the Foreign Policy Team and an
    Exchange With Reporters
    August 14, 2006

        The President. Good afternoon. Today I met with members of my
    national security team, both here at the State Department and at the
    Pentagon. I want to, first of all, thank the leadership of Secretary
    Condi Rice and Secretary Don Rumsfeld.
        During those discussions, we talked about the need to transform our
    military

    [[Page 1508]]

    to meet the threats of the 21st century. We discussed the global war on
    terror. We discussed the situation on the ground in three fronts of the
    global war on terror, in Lebanon and Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Friday's U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon is an important
    step forward that will help bring an end to the violence. The resolution
    calls for a robust international force to deploy to the southern part of
    the country to help Lebanon's legitimate armed forces restore the
    sovereignty of its democratic Government over all Lebanese territory. As
    well, the resolution is intended to stop Hizballah from acting as a
    state within the state.
        We're now working with our international partners to turn the words
    of this resolution into action. We must help people in both Lebanon and
    Israel return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives without
    fear of renewed violence and terror.
        America recognizes that civilians in Lebanon and Israel have
    suffered from the current violence, and we recognize that responsibility
    for this suffering lies with Hizballah. It was an unprovoked attack by
    Hizballah on Israel that started this conflict. Hizballah terrorists
    targeted Israeli civilians with daily rocket attacks. Hizballah
    terrorists used Lebanese civilians as human shields, sacrificing the
    innocent in an effort to protect themselves from Israeli response.
        Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies
    with Hizballah's state sponsors, Iran and Syria. The regime in Iran
    provides Hizballah with financial support, weapons, and training. Iran
    has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel. We can only
    imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the
    nuclear weapon it seeks.
        Syria is another state sponsor of Hizballah. Syria allows Iranian
    weapons to pass through its territory into Lebanon. Syria permits
    Hizballah's leaders to operate out of Damascus and gives political
    support to Hizballah's cause. Syria supports Hizballah because it wants
    to undermine Lebanon's democratic Government and regain its position of
    dominance in the country. That would be a great tragedy for the Lebanese
    people and for the cause of peace in the Middle East.
        Hizballah and its foreign sponsors also seek to undermine the
    prospects for peace in the Middle East. Hizballah terrorists kidnaped
    two Israeli soldiers, Hamas kidnaped another Israeli soldier for a reason--Hizballah and Hamas reject the vision of
    two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in
    peace and security. Both groups want to disrupt the progress being made
    toward that vision by Prime Minister Olmert and
    President Abbas and others in
    the region. We must not allow terrorists to prevent elected leaders from
    working together toward a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle
    East.
        The conflict in Lebanon is part of a broader struggle between
    freedom and terror that is unfolding across the region. For decades,
    American policy sought to achieve peace in the Middle East by promoting
    stability in the Middle East. Yet the lack of freedom in the region
    meant anger and resentment grew, radicalism thrived, and terrorists
    found willing recruits. We saw the consequences on September the 11th,
    2001, when terrorists brought death and destruction to our country,
    killing nearly 3,000 of our citizens.
        So we've launched a forward strategy of freedom in the broader
    Middle East. And that strategy has helped bring hope to millions and
    fostered the birth of young democracies from Baghdad to Beirut. Forces
    of terror see the changes that are taking place in their midst. They
    understand that the advance of liberty, the freedom to worship, the
    freedom to dissent, and the protection of human rights would be a defeat
    for their hateful ideology. But they also know that young democracies
    are fragile and that this may be their last and best opportunity to stop
    freedom's advance and

    [[Page 1509]]

    steer newly free nations to the path of radical extremism. So the
    terrorists are striking back with all of the destructive power that they
    can muster. It's no coincidence that two nations that are building free
    societies in the heart of the Middle East, Lebanon and Iraq, are also
    the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity.
        Some say that America caused the current instability in the Middle
    East by pursuing a forward strategy of freedom, yet history shows
    otherwise. We didn't talk much about freedom or the freedom agenda in
    the Middle East before September the 11th, 2001; or before Al Qaida
    first attacked the World Trade Center and blew up our Embassies in Kenya
    and Tanzania in the 1990s; or before Hizballah killed hundreds of
    Americans in Beirut and Islamic radicals held American hostages in Iran
    in the 1980s. History is clear: The freedom agenda did not create the
    terrorists or their ideology. But the freedom agenda will help defeat
    them both.
        Some say that the violence and instability we see today means that
    the people of this troubled region are not ready for democracy. I
    disagree. Over the past 5 years, people across the Middle East have
    bravely defied the car bombers and assassins to show the world that they
    want to live in liberty. We see the universal desire for liberty in the
    12 million Iraqis who faced down the terrorists to cast their ballots
    and elected a free government under a democratic Constitution. We see
    the universal desire for liberty in 8 million Afghans who lined up to
    vote for the first democratic Government in the long history of their
    country. We see the universal desire for liberty in the Lebanese people
    who took to the streets to demand their freedom and helped drive Syrian
    forces out of their country.
        The problem in the Middle East today is not that people lack the
    desire for freedom. The problem is that young democracies that they have
    established are still vulnerable to terrorists and their sponsors. One
    vulnerability is that many of the new democratic governments in the
    region have not yet established effective control over all their
    territory.
        In both Lebanon and Iraq, elected governments are contending with
    rogue armed groups that are seeking to undermine and destabilize them.
    In Lebanon, Hizballah declared war on Lebanon's neighbor, Israel,
    without the knowledge of the elected Government in Beirut. In Iraq, Al
    Qaida and death squads engage in brutal violence to undermine the unity
    Government. And in both these countries, Iran is backing armed groups in
    the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold.
        The message of this administration is clear: America will stay on
    the offense against Al Qaida; Iran must stop its support for terror. And
    the leaders of these armed groups must make a choice: If they want to
    participate in the political life of their countries, they must disarm.
    Elected leaders cannot have one foot in the camp of democracy and one
    foot in the camp of terror.
        The Middle East is at a pivotal moment in its history. The death and
    destruction we see shows how determined the extremists are to stop just
    and modern societies from emerging in the region. Yet millions of people
    in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan and elsewhere are equally determined
    to live in peace and freedom. They have tired of the false promises and
    grand illusions of radical extremists. They reject the hateful vision of
    the terrorists, and they dream of a better future for their children and
    their grandchildren. We're determined to help them achieve that dream.
        America's actions have never been guided by territorial ambition. We
    seek to advance the cause of freedom in the Middle East because we know
    the security of the region and our own security depend on it. We know
    that free nations are America's best partners for peace and the only
    true anchors for stability. So we'll continue to

    [[Page 1510]]

    support reformers, inside and outside governments, who are working to
    build the institutions of liberty. We'll continue to confront terrorist
    organizations and their sponsors who destroy innocent lives. We'll
    continue to work for the day when a democratic Israel and a democratic
    Palestine are neighbors in a peaceful and secure Middle East.
        The way forward is going to be difficult. It will require more
    sacrifice. But we can be confident of the outcome because we know and
    understand the unstoppable power of freedom. In a Middle East that grows
    in freedom and democracy, people will have a chance to raise their
    families and live in peace and build a better future. In a Middle East
    that grows in freedom and democracy, the terrorists will lose their
    recruits and lose their sponsors and lose safe havens from which to
    launch new attacks. In a Middle East that grows in freedom and
    democracy, there will be no room for tyranny and terror, and that will
    make America and other free nations more secure.
        Now I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Deb [Deb
    Riechmann, Associated Press].

    Situation in the Middle East/Israel

        Q. Mr. President, both sides are claiming victory in a conflict
    that's killed more than 900 people. Who won, and do you think the cease-
    fire will hold?
        The President. We certainly hope the cease-fire holds, because it is
    step one of making sure that Lebanon's democracy is strengthened.
    Lebanon can't be a strong democracy when there's a state within a state,
    and that's Hizballah.
        As I mentioned in my remarks, Hizballah attacked Israel without any
    knowledge of the Siniora Government. You can't
    run a government, you can't have a democracy if you've got a armed
    faction within your country. Hizballah attacked Israel. Hizballah
    started the crisis, and Hizballah suffered a defeat in this crisis. And
    the reason why is, is that first, there is a new--there's going to be a
    new power in the south of Lebanon, and that's going to be a Lebanese
    force with a robust international force to help them seize control of
    the country, that part of the country.
        Secondly, when people take a look-see, take a step back and realize
    how this started, they'll understand this was Hizballah's activities.
    This was Hizballah's choice to make.
        I believe that Israel is serious about upholding the cessation of
    hostilities. The reason I believe that is I talked to the Prime Minister
    of Israel about it. And I know the
    Siniora Government is anxious that the
    hostilities stop and the country begin to rebuild.
        I can't speak for Hizballah. They're a terrorist organization.
    They're not a state. They act independently of, evidently, the Lebanese
    Government, and they do receive help from the outside.
        Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].

    Hizballah/War on Terror

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President----
        The President. It's good to see you. Thanks for breaking in with
    us--kind of a rough crowd here, hanging out with you.
        Q. Thank you. Despite what you've just said, there is a perception,
    a global perception, certainly in the Arab media and in many Western
    media as well, that Hizballah is really a winner here because they have
    proven that they could, as a guerrilla force, withstand the Israeli
    Army. They have been the sole source of humanitarian aid to many of the
    Lebanese people in the south. So they've improved their position
    politically, within Lebanon, and militarily and globally. They've gotten
    an aura of being able to stand up for so long against Israel. How do you
    combat that and the perception that we settled for less than we
    originally wanted in the U.N. resolution, a less robust force? And what
    actions can the United States or this international force take if Iran,
    for instance, tries to rearm Hizballah?

    [[Page 1511]]

        The President. Yes. First of all, if I were Hizballah, I'd be
    claiming victory too. But the people around the region and the world
    need to take a step back and recognize that Hizballah's action created a
    very strong reaction that, unfortunately, caused some people to lose
    their life, innocent people to lose their life. But on the other hand,
    it was Hizballah that caused the destruction.
        People have got to understand--and it will take time, Andrea; it
    will take time for people to see the truth that Hizballah hides behind
    innocent civilians as they attack. What's really interesting is a
    mindset--is the mindsets of this crisis. Israel, when they aimed at a
    target and killed innocent citizens, were upset. Its society was
    aggrieved. When Hizballah's rockets killed innocent Israelis, they
    celebrated. I think when people really take a look at the type of
    mentality that celebrates the loss of innocent life, they'll reject that
    type of mentality.
        And so Hizballah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine,
    and they're claiming victories and--but how can you claim victory when
    at one time you were a state within a state, safe within southern
    Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an
    international force? And that's what we're now working on, is to get the
    international force in southern Lebanon.
        None of this would have happened, by the way, had we--had 1559, U.N.
    Resolution 1559 been fully implemented. Now is the time to get it
    implemented. And it's going to take a lot of work, no question about it.
    And no question that it's a different kind of war than people are used
    to seeing. We're fighting the same kind of war. We don't fight the
    armies of nation-states; we fight terrorists who kill innocent people to
    achieve political objectives. And it's a hard fight. It requires
    different tactics, and it requires solid will from those of us who
    understand the stakes.
        The world got to see what it means to confront terrorism. I mean,
    it's the challenge of the 21st century. The fight against terror--a
    group of ideologues, by the way, who use terror to achieve an
    objective--this is the challenge. And that's why, in my remarks, I spoke
    about the need for those of us who understand the blessings of liberty
    to help liberty prevail in the Middle East. And the fundamental question
    is, can it? And my answer is, absolutely, it can.
        I believe that universal--that freedom is a universal value. And by
    that I mean, I believe people want to be free. One way to put it is, I
    believe mothers around the world want to raise their children in a
    peaceful world. That's what I believe. And I believe that people want to
    be free to express themselves and free to worship the way they want to.
    And if you believe that, then you've got to have hope that, ultimately,
    freedom will prevail. But it's incredibly hard work, because there are
    terrorists who kill innocent people to stop the advance of liberty. And
    that's the challenge of the 21st century.
        And the fundamental question for this country is, do we understand
    the stakes and the challenge, and are we willing to support reformers
    and young democracies, and are we willing to confront terror and those
    who sponsor them? And this administration is willing to do so. And
    that's what we're doing.
        And you asked about Iran? What did you say about them? My answer was
    too long to remember the third part of your multipart question.

    Syria and Iran/Sponsorship of Hizballah

        Q. I'm sorry. How can the international force or the United States,
    if necessary, prevent Iran from resupplying Hizballah?
        The President. The first step is--and part of the mandate in the
    U.N. resolution was to secure Syria's borders. Iran is able to ship
    weapons to Hizballah through Syria. Secondly is to deal--is to help seal
    off the

    [[Page 1512]]

    ports around Lebanon. In other words, there's--part of the mandate and
    part of the mission of the troops, the UNIFIL troops will be to seal off
    the Syrian border.
        But, as well, there's a diplomatic mission that needs to be
    accomplished. In other words, the world must now recognize that it's
    Iranian sponsorship of Hizballah that exacerbated the situation in the
    Middle East. People are greatly concerned about the loss of innocent
    life, as are the Americans--American people. We care deeply about that,
    the fact that innocents lost their life. But it's very important to
    remember how this all happened. And Hizballah has been emboldened
    because of its state sponsors. I know they claim they didn't have
    anything to do with it, but sophisticated weaponry ended up in the hands
    of Hizballah fighters, and many assume and many believe that that
    weaponry came from Iran through Syria.
        And so the task is more than just helping the Siniora Government;
    the task is also--and the task is not just America's alone; the task is
    the world's--and that is to continually remind the Iranians of their
    obligations, their obligations not to develop a nuclear weapons program,
    their obligations not to foster terrorism and promote terrorism.
        And we'll continue working with our partners to do that, just that.
        Yes, Michael [Michael Allen, Time].

    Counterterrorism Efforts in the United Kingdom/Security Measures

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Until the other day, few Americans
    thought about liquid explosives when they got on a plane. What are the
    other emerging or evolving threats to the homeland that are most on your
    mind? That is, what else needs to be hardened as convincingly as
    cockpits have been hardened?
        The President. Michael, we will take the actions that are necessary
    based upon the intelligence we gather. And obviously, if we find out
    that terrorist groups are planning and plotting against our citizens--or
    any other citizens, for that matter--we will notify the proper
    authorities and the people themselves of actions that we're taking.
        Uncovering this terrorist plot was accomplished through the hard and
    good work of British authorities as well as our folks. And the
    coordination was very strong, and the cooperation, interagency and with
    the Brits, was really good. And I congratulate the Blair Government and the hard-working folks in Great Britain.
    And, by the way, they're still analyzing; they're still dealing with
    potential threats. And I want to thank our folks too. It was a really
    good effort.
        But my point to you is that if we find out or if we believe that the
    terrorists will strike using a certain type of weapon or tactic, we will
    take the necessary precautions, just like we did when it came to liquids
    on airplanes.
        Okay. Yes.

    Israel

        Q. The U.N. resolution says that Israel must stop all offensive
    action. What do you view as defensive action? If Hizballah----
        The President. Somebody shoots at an Israeli soldier.
        Q. They can respond in what way?
        The President. Absolutely.
        Q. Any way Israel responds to that, if they start another ground
    offensive, that is all defensive?
        The President. I'm not going to--I keep getting asked a lot about
    Israel's military decisions, and we don't advise Israel on its military
    options. But as far as I'm concerned, if somebody shoots at an Israeli
    soldier, tries to kill a soldier from Israel, then Israel has the right
    to defend herself, has a right to try to suppress that kind of fire. And
    that's how I read the resolution. And that's how Ms. Rice reads the
    resolution.
        Yes, Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

    [[Page 1513]]

    United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701

        Q. Mr. President, to much of the rest of the world, the United
    States appeared to tolerate the bloodshed and ongoing fighting for a
    long time before assertively stepping in, and in the process, perhaps
    earned the further enmity of a lot of people in the rest of the world,
    particularly the Arab and Muslim world. What is your thought about that?
        The President. My thought is that, first of all, we, from the
    beginning, urged caution on both sides so that innocent life would be
    protected. And secondly, I think most leaders around the world would
    give Condoleezza Rice and her team great credit for finally getting a
    U.N. resolution passed. We were working hard on a U.N. resolution pretty
    quickly, and it can be a painful process; diplomacy can be a painful
    process. And it took a while to get the resolution done. But most
    objective observers would give the United States credit for helping to
    lead the effort to get a resolution that addressed the root cause of the
    problem. Of course, we could have got a resolution right off the bat
    that didn't address the root cause. Everybody would have felt better for
    a quick period of time, and then the violence would have erupted again.
        And our hope is that this series of resolutions that gets passed
    gets after the root cause. We want peace, Bill. We're not interested in
    process; what we want is results. And so--look, America gets accused of
    all kinds of things. I understand that. But if people analyze the facts,
    they were to find two things: One, we urged caution; and two, secondly,
    that we worked on a diplomatic process that we believe has got the best
    chance of achieving a long-term objective, which is peace.
        Final question, then I got to go.

    Homeland Security/Counterterrorism Efforts in the United Kingdom

        Q. Mr. President, 4 days later, now do you believe that the U.K.
    terror plot was developed by Al Qaida leaders? Do you believe that there
    are terror cells operating within the U.S.? And along with Michael's
    question, what do you say to critics who say there are giant loopholes
    in homeland security?
        The President. Well, first I would say that--I don't know the
    loophole question. Maybe you can give me some specific loopholes. But it
    sounded like to me Homeland Security did a good job, along with
    intelligence services and FBI, in working with the British to shut down
    a major plot that could have killed Americans.
        First part of the question? That's what happens when you get 60.
        Q. Do you believe the terror plot was developed by Al Qaida leaders?
        The President. We certainly--I stand by the statements that
    initially came out of Chertoff, which was,
    it sure looks like it. It looks like something Al Qaida would do. But
    before we actually claim Al Qaida, we want to make sure that we have--we
    could prove it to you. Of course, the minute I say it's Al Qaida, then
    you're going to step up and say, prove it. So therefore, I'm not going
    to say it until we have absolute proof. But it looks like the kind of
    thing Al Qaida would do, and----
        Q. As far as terrorist cells inside the U.S.?
        The President. Any time we get a hint that there might be a
    terrorist cell in the United States, we move on it. And we're listening;
    we're looking. And one thing that's important is for us to make sure
    that those people who are trying to disrupt terrorist cells in the
    United States have the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution
    of the United States, see.
        One of the things we better make sure is, we better not call upon
    the Federal Government and people on the frontlines of fighting terror
    to do their job and disrupt cells without giving people the necessary
    tools to disrupt terrorist plots before they strike. And that's what
    we're doing here in this Government.

    [[Page 1514]]

        And that's why the terrorist surveillance program exists, a program
    that some in Washington would like to dismantle. That's why we passed
    the PATRIOT Act, to give our folks the tools necessary to be able to
    defend America. The lessons of the past week is that there's still a war
    on terror going on, and there's still individuals that would like to
    kill innocent Americans to achieve political objectives. That's the
    lesson. And the lesson for those of us in Washington, DC, is to set
    aside politics and give our people the tools necessary to protect the
    American people.
        Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 3:40 p.m. at the State Department. In his
    remarks, he referred to Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israeli
    soldiers captured and held captive by militants in Lebanon since July
    12, 2006; Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel; President Mahmoud Abbas
    of the Palestinian Authority; Prime Minister Fuad Siniora of Lebanon;
    and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom.