    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book II)]
    [October 25, 2006]
    [Pages 1903-1918]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    October 25, 2006

        The President. Thank you all very much. I'm going to spend a little
    more time on my opening comments than I usually do, but I'll save plenty
    of time for questions.
        Over the past 3 years, I have often addressed the American people to
    explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were
    encouraging, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein, the elections in which 12 million Iraqis defied the
    terrorists and voted for a free future, and the demise of the brutal
    terrorist Zarqawi. Other developments were not encouraging, such as the
    bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not
    find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss
    of some of America's finest sons and daughters.
        Recently American and Iraqi forces have launched some of the most
    aggressive operations on enemy forces in Baghdad since the war began.
    They've cleared neighborhoods of terrorists and death squads and
    uncovered large caches of weapons, including sniper scopes and mortars
    and powerful bombs. There has been heavy fighting. Many enemy fighters
    have been killed or captured, and we've suffered casualties of our own.
    This month we've lost 93 American servicemembers in Iraq, the most since
    October of 2005. During roughly the same period, more than 300 Iraqi
    security personnel have given their lives in battle. Iraqi civilians
    have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists,
    insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups, and criminals.
        The events of the past month have been a serious concern to me and a
    serious concern to the American people. Today I will explain how we're
    adapting our tactics to help the Iraqi Government gain control of the
    security situation. I'll also explain why, despite the difficulties and
    bloodshed, it remains critical that America defeat the enemy in Iraq by
    helping the Iraqis build a free nation that can sustain itself and
    defend itself.
        Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the
    war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan
    under the Taliban. The enemy we face in Iraq has evolved over the past 3
    years. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, a
    sophisticated and a violent insurgency took root. Early on, this
    insurgency was made up of remnants of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party as
    well as criminals released by the regime. The insurgency was fueled by
    Al Qaida and other foreign terrorists, who focused most of their
    attention on high-profile attacks against coalition forces and
    international institutions.
        We learned some key lessons from that early phase in the war. We saw
    how quickly Al Qaida and other extremist groups would come to Iraq to
    fight and try to drive us out. We overestimated the capability of the
    civil service in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the
    Iraqi people. We did not expect the Iraqi Army, including the Republican
    Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the face of advancing
    coalition forces.
        Despite these early setbacks, some very important progress was made
    in the midst of an incredibly violent period. Iraqis formed an interim
    government that assumed sovereignty. The Iraqi people elected a
    transitional government, drafted and adopted the most progressive
    democratic Constitution in the Arab world, braved the car bombs and
    assassins to choose a permanent government under that Constitution, and
    slowly began to build a capable national army.
        Al Qaida and insurgents were unable to stop this progress. They
    tried to stand up to our forces in places like Fallujah, and they were
    routed. So they changed their tactics. In an intercepted letter to Usama

    [[Page 1904]]

    bin Laden, the terrorist Zarqawi laid out
    his strategy to drag Iraq's Shi'a population into a sectarian war. To
    the credit of the Shi'a population, they resisted responding to the
    horrific violence against them for a long time.
        Yet the persistent attacks, particularly last February's bombing of
    the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of Shi'a Islam's most holy shrines,
    eventually resulted in sectarian reprisals. The cycle of violence, in
    which Al Qaida insurgents attacked Shi'a civilians and Shi'a death
    squads retaliated against Sunnis, has sharply increased in recent
    months, particularly in Baghdad.
        As the enemy shifts tactics, we are shifting our tactics as well.
    Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or
    standing in the crossfire between rival factions. Our mission is to help
    the elected Government in Iraq defeat common enemies, to bring peace and
    stability to Iraq, and make our Nation more secure. Our goals are
    unchanging. We are flexible in our methods to achieving those goals.
        On the military side, our commanders on the ground are constantly
    adjusting our tactics to stay ahead of our enemies. We are refining our
    training strategy for the Iraqi security forces, so we can help more of
    those forces take the lead in the fight and provide them better
    equipment and firepower to be successful. We've increased the number of
    coalition advisers in the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior so
    they can better plan and execute security operations against the enemy.
        We have changed our force structure so we can better respond to the
    conditions on the ground. For example, during the Iraqi elections, we
    increased our force levels to more than 150,000 troops to ensure people
    could vote. Most recently, we have moved additional coalition and Iraqi
    forces into Baghdad so they can help secure the city and reduce
    sectarian violence.
        After some initial successes, our operations to secure Baghdad have
    encountered greater resistance. Some of the Iraqi security forces have
    performed below expectations. Many have performed well and are fighting
    bravely in some of Baghdad's toughest neighborhoods. Once again,
    American troops are performing superbly under very difficult conditions.
    Together with the Iraqis, they've conducted hundreds of missions
    throughout Baghdad. They've rounded up or killed key insurgents and
    death squad leaders.
        As we fight this enemy, we're working with the Iraqi Government to
    perform the performance--to improve the performance of their security
    forces, so they can regain control of the nation's capital and
    eventually assume primary responsibility for their country's security.
        A military solution alone will not stop violence. In the end, the
    Iraqi people and their Government will have to make the difficult
    decisions necessary to solve these problems. So in addition to refining
    our military tactics to defeat the enemy, we're also working to help the
    Iraqi Government achieve a political solution that brings together Shi'a
    and Sunnis and Kurds and other ethnic and religious groups.
        Yesterday our Ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad, laid out a three-step approach. First, we're working
    with political and religious leaders across Iraq, urging them to take
    steps to restrain their followers and stop sectarian violence.
        Second, we're helping Iraqi leaders to complete work on a national
    compact to resolve the most difficult issues dividing their country. The
    new Iraqi Government has condemned violence from all quarters and agreed
    to a schedule for resolving issues, such as disarming illegal militias
    and death squads, sharing oil revenues, amending the Iraqi Constitution,
    and reforming the de-Ba'athification process.
        Third, we're reaching out to Arab States such as Saudi Arabia, the
    UAE, and Jordan and asking them to support the Iraqi Government's
    efforts to persuade Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms and accept

    [[Page 1905]]

    national reconciliation. The international community is also supporting
    the international compact that outlines the support that will be
    provided to Iraq as it moves forward with its own program of reform.
        These are difficult tasks for any government. It is important for
    Americans to recognize that Prime Minister Maliki's unity Government has been in office for just over 5 months.
    Think about that. This young Government has to solve a host of problems
    created by decades of tyrannical rule. And they have to do it in the
    midst of raging conflict, against extremists from outside and inside the
    country who are doing everything they can to stop this Government from
    succeeding.
        We're pressing Iraq's leaders to take bold measures to save their
    country. We're making it clear that America's patient is not unlimited.
    Yet we also understand the difficult challenges Iraq's leaders face, and
    we will not put more pressure on the Iraqi Government than it can bear.
    The way to succeed in Iraq is to help Iraq's Government grow in strength
    and assume more control over its country as quickly as possible.
        I know the American people understand the stakes in Iraq. They want
    to win. They will support the war as long as they see a path to victory.
    Americans can have confidence that we will prevail because thousands of
    smart, dedicated military and civilian personnel are risking their lives
    and are working around the clock to ensure our success. A distinguished
    independent panel of Republicans and Democrats, led by former Secretary
    of State Jim Baker and former
    Congressman Lee Hamilton, is taking a fresh
    look at the situation in Iraq and will make recommendations to help
    achieve our goals. I welcome all these efforts. My administration will
    carefully consider any proposal that will help us achieve victory.
        It's my responsibility to provide the American people with a candid
    assessment on the way forward. There is tough fighting ahead. The road
    to victory will not be easy. We should not expect a simple solution. The
    fact that the fighting is tough does not mean our efforts in Iraq are
    not worth it. To the contrary, the consequences in Iraq will have a
    decisive impact on the security of our country, because defeating the
    terrorists in Iraq is essential to turning back the cause of extremism
    in the Middle East. If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in
    Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves and use Iraq as a base
    to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East. They
    will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will
    pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain
    to Indonesia.
        I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq.
    I'm not satisfied either. And that is why we're taking new steps to help
    secure Baghdad and constantly adjusting our tactics across the country
    to meet the changing threat. But we cannot allow our dissatisfaction to
    turn into disillusionment about our purpose in this war. We must not
    look at every success of the enemy as a mistake on our part, cause for
    an investigation, or a reason to call for our troops to come home. We
    must not fall prey to the sophisticated propaganda by the enemy, who is
    trying to undermine our confidence and make us believe that our presence
    in Iraq is the cause of all its problems.
        If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's
    security, I'd bring our troops home tomorrow. I met too many wives and
    husbands who have lost their partners in life, too many children who
    won't ever see their mom and dad again. I owe it to them and to the
    families who still have loved ones in harm's way to ensure that their
    sacrifices are not in vain.
        Our country has faced adversity before during times of war. In past
    wars, we've lost young Americans who gave everything to protect our
    freedom and way of life. In this war, we've lost good men and

    [[Page 1906]]

    women who've given their lives for a cause that is necessary and it is
    just. We mourn every loss, and we must gird ourselves for the sacrifices
    that are yet to come. America's men and women in uniform are the finest
    in the world. I'm awed by their strength and their character. As General
    Casey reported yesterday in Iraq, ``The
    men and women of the Armed Forces have never lost a battle in over 3
    years in the war.'' Every American can take pride in our troops and the
    vital work they are doing to protect us.
        Our troops are fighting a war that will set the course for this new
    century. The outcome will determine the destiny of millions across the
    world. Defeating the terrorists and extremists is the challenge of our
    time and the calling of this generation. I'm confident this generation
    will answer that call and defeat an ideology that is bent on destroying
    America and all that we stand for.
        And now I'll be glad to answer some of your questions. Terry
    [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    War on Terror/Democracy Efforts in Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, the war in Iraq has lasted almost as long as World
    War II for the United States. And as you mentioned, October was the
    deadliest month for American forces this year--in a year. Do you think
    we're winning, and why?
        The President. First of all, this is a different kind of war than a
    war against the fascists in World War II. We were facing a nation-
    state--two nation-states--three nation-states in World War II. We were
    able to find an enemy by locating its ships or aircraft or soldiers on
    the ground. This is a war against extremists and radicals who kill
    innocent people to achieve political objectives. It has a multiple of
    fronts.
        Afghanistan was a front in this war against the terrorists. Iraq is
    now the central front in the war against the terrorists. This war is
    more than just finding people and bringing them to justice. This war is
    an ideological conflict between a radical ideology that can't stand
    freedom and moderate, reasonable people that hope to live in a peaceful
    society.
        And so it's going to take a long time, Terry. I am confident we will
    succeed. I am confident we'll succeed in Iraq, and the reason I'm
    confident we'll succeed in Iraq is because the Iraqis want to succeed in
    Iraq. The ultimate victory in Iraq, which is a government that can
    sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself, depends upon the Iraqi
    citizens and the Iraqi Government doing the hard work necessary to
    protect their country. And our job is to help them achieve that
    objective. As a matter of fact, my view is, the only way we lose in Iraq
    is if we leave before the job is done.
        And I'm confident we can succeed in the broader war on terror, this
    ideological conflict. I'm confident because I believe the power of
    liberty will defeat the ideology of hate every time, if given a chance.
    I believe that the radicals represent the few in the Middle East. I
    believe the majority of people want to live in a peaceful world. That's
    what I believe.
        And I know it's incumbent upon our Government and others who enjoy
    the blessings of liberty to help those moderates succeed, because
    otherwise, we're looking at the potential of this kind of world: a world
    in which radical forms of Islam compete for power; a world in which
    moderate governments get toppled by people willing to murder the
    innocent; a world in which oil reserves are controlled by radicals in
    order to extract blackmail from the West; a world in which Iran has a
    nuclear weapon. And if that were to occur, people would look back at
    this day and age and say, ``What happened to those people in 2006? How
    come they couldn't see the threat to a future generation of people?''
        Defeat will only come if the United States becomes isolationist and
    refuses to, one, protect ourselves, and two, help those

    [[Page 1907]]

    who desire to become--to live in a moderate, peaceful world. And it's a
    hard struggle, no question about it. And it's a different struggle.
        Q. Are we winning?
        The President. Absolutely, we're winning. Al Qaida is on the run. As
    a matter of fact, the mastermind, or the people who they think is the
    mastermind, of the September the 11th attacks is in our custody. We've
    now got a procedure for this person to go on trial, to be held for his
    account. Most of Al Qaida that planned the attacks on September the 11th
    have been brought to justice.
        Extremists have now played their hand; the world can clearly see
    their ambitions. You know, when a Palestinian state began to show
    progress, extremists attacked Israel to stop the advance of a
    Palestinian state. They can't stand democracies. Extremists and radicals
    want to undermine fragile democracy because it's a defeat for their way
    of life, their ideology.
        People now understand the stakes. We're winning, and we will win,
    unless we leave before the job is done. And the crucial battle right now
    is Iraq. And as I said in my statement, I understand how tough it is,
    really tough. It's tough for a reason: Because people understand the
    stakes of success in Iraq. And my point to the American people is, is
    that we're constantly adjusting our tactics to achieve victory.
        Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

    Iraqi Military and Security Forces

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you considering sending more U.S.
    troops to Iraq? What would be the justification for it? And how reliable
    is this new timetable of 12 to 18 months?
        The President. I will send more troops to Iraq if General
    Casey says, ``I need more troops in
    Iraq to achieve victory.'' And that's the way I've been running this
    war. I have great faith in General Casey. I have great faith in
    Ambassador Khalilzad. I trust our
    commanders on the ground to give the best advice about how to achieve
    victory. I want to remind you, victory is a government that can sustain
    itself, govern itself--a country that can govern itself, sustain itself,
    and defend itself and serves as an ally in the war on terror--which
    stands in stark contrast to a government that would be chaotic, that
    would be a safe haven for the enemy to launch attacks on us.
        One way for the American people to understand what Iraq could look
    like is what Afghanistan looked like under the Taliban, a place where
    there was no freedom; a place where women were taken to the public
    square and beaten if they did not adhere to the strict, intolerant
    guidelines of the Taliban; a place where thousands trained to attack
    America and our allies. Afghanistan doesn't have nearly the resources
    that Iraq has. Imagine a safe haven for an enemy that ended up with the
    resources that it had.
        It is--and so this is a war where I say to our generals, ``Do you
    have what it takes to win?'' Now, General Casey talked about part of our strategy, and part of the
    strategy is to give the Iraq Government the tools necessary to protect
    itself, to defend itself. If you're able to defend yourself, you're more
    likely to be able to govern yourself as well. But politics--the
    political way forward and the military way forward must go hand in hand.
        And what the General was saying
    yesterday is that there is a three-step process to enable the Iraqi
    forces to be able to help this Government bring security. One was to
    train and equip. The goal is 325,000 troops, 137,000 military and the
    balance, police.
        Second was to put the Iraqi security forces in the lead. Six of ten
    divisions now are in the lead in helping this Government defend itself.
    The strategy has been to embed U.S. personnel, officers and non-com
    officers, into these forces to help them gain the confidence and the
    capacity to be effective when they're in the lead.

    [[Page 1908]]

        And the third step is for the Iraqi security forces to be able to
    operate independently. And this, perhaps, is going to be one of the most
    difficult aspects of having the Iraqis ready to go, because that means
    they have to be able to drive themselves, maintain their vehicles,
    provide logistics, have combat service support. And that's what General
    Casey was describing.
        The key is that our commanders feel that there--they have got enough
    flexibility to design the program to meet the conditions on the ground.
    You know, last spring, I thought for a period of time we'd be able to
    reduce our troop presence early next year. That's what I felt. But
    because we didn't have a fixed timetable and because General
    Casey and General Abizaid and the other generals there understand that the way we're
    running this war is to give them flexibility, have the confidence
    necessary to come and make the right recommendations here in Washington,
    DC, they decided that that wasn't going to happen. And so what he was
    describing to you was the way forward to make sure that the Iraqis are
    fully prepared to defend themselves.
        Q. What about the 12 to 18 month estimate?
        The President. It's a condition, a base estimate. And that's
    important for the American people to know. This notion about, you know,
    fixed timetable of withdrawal, in my judgment, is a--means defeat. You
    can't leave until the job is done. Our mission is to get the job done as
    quickly as possible.
        Let's see here, Dave [David Gregory, NBC News].

    Progress in Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, for several years you have been saying that
    America will stay the course in Iraq; you were committed to the policy.
    And now you say that, no, you're not saying, stay the course, that
    you're adapting to win, that you're showing flexibility. And as you
    mentioned, out of Baghdad, we're now hearing about benchmarks and
    timetables from the Iraqi Government, as relayed by American officials,
    to stop the sectarian violence.
        In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about
    benchmarks and timetables were labeled as defeatists, ``defeatocrats,''
    or people who wanted to cut and run. So why shouldn't the American
    people conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic,
    rhetorical games and all politics 2 weeks before an election?
        The President. David, there is a significant difference between
    benchmarks for a government to achieve and a timetable for withdrawal.
    You're talking about--when you're talking about the benchmarks, he's
    talking about the fact that we're working with the Iraqi Government to
    have certain benchmarks to meet as a way to determine whether or not
    they're making the hard decisions necessary to achieve peace. I believe
    that's what you're referring to. And we're working with the Iraqi
    Government to come up with benchmarks.
        Listen, this is a sovereign government. It was elected by the people
    of Iraq. What we're asking them to do is to say, when do you think
    you're going to get this done, when can you get this done, so the people
    themselves in Iraq can see that the Government is moving forward with a
    reconciliation plan and plans necessary to unify this Government.
        That is substantially different, David, from people saying, ``We
    want a time certain to get out of Iraq.'' As a matter of fact, the
    benchmarks will make it more likely we win. Withdrawing on an artificial
    timetable means we lose.
        Now, I'm giving the speech--you're asking me why I'm giving this
    speech today--because there's--I think I owe an explanation to the
    American people--and will continue to make explanations. The people need
    to know that we have a plan for victory. Like I said in my opening
    comments, I fully understand, if the people think we don't have a plan
    for victory, they're not

    [[Page 1909]]

    going to support the effort. And so I'll continue to speak out about our
    way forward.
        Jessica [Jessica Yellin, ABC News].

    Iran and Syria

        Q. Sir, you've called Iran part of the axis of evil and Syria a
    state sponsor of terrorism. You said earlier today that your
    administration will consider any proposal that will help us achieve
    victory. So, I'm wondering, if it's determined that Iran and Syria could
    help you achieve victory in Iraq, would you be willing to work with
    them?
        The President. Iran and Syria understand full well that the world
    expects them to help Iraq. We've made that very clear to them.
        Let me talk about the Iranian issue. We've got a lot of issues with
    Iran. First is whether or not they will help this young democracy
    succeed. The second issue, of course, is whether or not they will help
    the Lebanese democracy succeed--the Siniora
    Government, which is--a priority of this Government is to help that
    Siniora Government. The big issue right now is whether or not Iran will
    end up with a nuclear weapon. And so our issues with Iran are many. And
    our position is very clear to the Iranians: There is a better way
    forward for the Government and the people than to be isolated.
        And we will continue to work to make it clear to the Iranian
    Government that all three accounts and the sponsor of terrorists will
    cause more isolation. We've got a very active diplomatic effort taking
    place. The Iranians know our position on Iraq, and they know it clearly.
    More importantly, they know the Iraqis' position relative to Iran. We're
    helping a sovereign government succeed. And the Iraqis have sent
    messages to the Iranians: To help us succeed, don't interfere in the
    internal affairs.
        As to Syria, our message to Syria is consistent: Do not undermine
    the Siniora Government in Lebanon; help us get
    back the--help Israel get back the prisoner
    that was captured by Hamas; don't allow Hamas and Hizballah to plot
    attacks against democracies in the Middle East; help inside of Iraq.
    They know our position as well, Jessica.
        Q. May I just follow? James Baker has himself said that he believes
    the U.S. should work with Iran. So would you be willing to work with
    Iran in a way that allows some sort of negotiations in Iraq, even if
    they don't come to the table in the P-3 and P-5 negotiations?
        The President. Jessica, Iran has a chance to come to the table with
    the United States to discuss a variety of issues. And the way forward is
    one that I had made clear at previous press conferences, and that is, if
    they would verifiably stop their enrichment, the United States will be
    at the table with them. In the meantime, they understand our position,
    and they understand, more importantly, the Iraqi position about their
    interference inside their country.

    Progress in Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Prime Minister Maliki apparently gave
    his own news conference this morning, where he seemed to be referring to
    Ambassador Khalilzad and General Casey yesterday, when he said, nobody
    has the right to set any timetables in Iraq--and also seemed to be upset
    about the raid in Sadr City, saying he wasn't consulted. And I believe
    the quote was, ``It will not be repeated.'' Do you still have full,
    complete, and total confidence in Prime Minister Maliki as a partner in
    Iraq? And what can you tell the American people about his ability to
    rein in the militias, since he seems to derive much of his power from
    them?
        The President. Yes. First, this is back to the question that David
    asked about benchmarks. You called it ``timetables.''
        Q. He did, sir.
        The President. Okay, he called it
    ``timetables;'' excuse me. I think he was referring to the benchmarks
    that we're developing

    [[Page 1910]]

    that show a way forward to the Iraqi people, and the American people for
    that matter, about how this unity Government is going to solve problems
    and bring the people together. And if his point is, is that those
    benchmarks, or the way forward, can't be imposed upon Iraq by an outside
    force, he's right. This is a sovereign government. But we're working
    closely with the Government to be able to say, ``Here's what's going to
    happen then; here's what we expect to happen now; here's what should be
    expected in the future.''
        Second part of your question?
        Q. I was wondering--first of all, he seemed to be pushing back
    with----
        The President. Oh, on the sectarian--on the militias. I heard that,
    and I asked to see his complete transcript of this press conference,
    where he made it very clear that militias
    harm the stability of his country. Militias--people out--who operate
    outside the law will be dealt with. That's what the Prime Minister said
    in his press conference. The idea that we need to coordinate with him is
    a--makes sense to me. And there's a lot of operations taking place,
    which means that sometimes communications may not be as good as they
    should be. And we'll continue to work very closely with the Government
    to make sure that the communications are solid.
        I do believe Prime Minister Maliki is
    the right man to achieve the goal in Iraq. He's got a hard job. He's
    been there for 5 months, a little over 5 months, and there's a lot of
    pressure on him, pressure from inside his country. He's got to deal with
    sectarian violence; he's got to deal with criminals; he's got to deal
    with Al Qaida--all of whom are lethal. These are people that will kill.
    And he wants to achieve the same objective I want to achieve, and he's
    making tough decisions.
        I'm impressed, for example, by the way, that he has got religious leaders, both Sunni and Shi'a, to start
    working together. I appreciate the fact that he has made a very clear
    statement on militias. And, by the way, death squad members are being
    brought to justice in this--during these operations in Baghdad.
        I speak to him quite frequently, and I remind him we're with him, so
    long as he continues to make tough decisions. That's what we expect. We
    expect that the Iraqi Government will make the hard decisions necessary
    to unite the country and listen to the will of the 12 million people.
        Let's see here. Yes, sir, Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News].

    Situation in North Korea

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. North Korean leaders apparently today
    warned South Korea against joining international sanctions, saying South
    Korea would pay a high price if they did so. Are you still confident
    that South Korea and China will implement the full force of the U.N.-
    passed sanctions? And what happens if North Korea continues to thumb its
    nose at the world?
        The President. I believe that--first of all, I've been briefed on
    this subject recently by the Secretary of State, who just came back from the Far East. She met
    with the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Chinese, and the Russians. Her
    report is that all countries understand we must work closely together to
    solve this problem peacefully. And that means adhering to the latest
    United Nations Security Council resolution that was passed.
        The leader of North Korea likes to threaten.
    In my judgment, what he's doing is just testing the will of the five
    countries that are working together to convince him there is a better
    way forward for his people. I don't know the exact words he used, but he
    is--this is not the first time that he's issued threats. And our goal is
    to continue to remind our partners that when we work together, we're
    more likely to be able to achieve the objective, which is to solve this
    problem diplomatically. And so I would report to you the coalition
    remains firm, and we will continue to work to see to it that it does
    remain firm.

    [[Page 1911]]

        Baker [Peter Baker, Washington Post].

    Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for taking questions today.
        The President. What was that?
        Q. Thank you for taking questions today.
        The President. Baker, I'm just happy to be able to do so, brother.
    [Laughter] I can't tell you how joyful it is. [Laughter]
        Q. When you first ran for President, sir, you talked about the
    importance of accountability. We learned from Bob Woodward's recent book
    that Secretary Card, on two occasions, suggested that you replace
    Secretary Rumsfeld, and both times you said no. Given that the war in
    Iraq is not going as well as you want, and given that you're not
    satisfied as you just told us today, why hasn't anybody been held
    accountable? Should somebody be held accountable?
        The President. Peter, you're asking me why I believe Secretary
    Rumsfeld is doing a good job, I think, if I might decipher through the
    Washington code.
        Q. Or someone else.
        The President. Well, let's start with Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld.
    I've asked him to do some difficult tasks as the Secretary of Defense,
    one, wage war in two different theaters of this war on terror,
    Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the same time, asked him to transform our
    military posture around the world and our military readiness here at
    home. In other words, the transformation effort into itself is a big
    project for any Secretary to handle. But to compound the job he has,
    he's got to do that and, at the same time, wage war. And I'm satisfied
    of how he's done all his jobs.
        He is a smart, tough, capable administrator. As importantly, he
    understands that the best way to fight this war, whether it be in Iraq
    or anywhere else around the world, is to make sure our troops are ready,
    that morale is high, that we transform the nature of our military to
    meet the threats, and that we give our commanders on the ground the
    flexibility necessary to make the tactical changes to achieve victory.
        This is a tough war in Iraq. I mean, it's a hard fight, no question
    about it. All you've got to do is turn on your TV. But I believe that
    the military strategy we have is going to work. That's what I believe,
    Peter. And so we've made changes throughout the war; we'll continue to
    make changes throughout the war. But the important thing is whether or
    not we have the right strategy and the tactics necessary to achieve that
    goal. And I believe we do.
        Dick [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News].
        Q. And from the----
        The President. Wait a minute, let me say--the ultimate
    accountability, Peter, rests with me. That's the ultimate--you're asking
    about accountability, that's--rests right here. It's what the 2004
    campaign was about. If people want to--if people are unhappy about it,
    look right to the President. I believe our generals are doing the job I
    asked them to do. They're competent, smart, capable men and women. And
    this country owes them a lot of gratitude and support.
        Yes, now Dick, sorry.

    War on Terror

        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. It was a clever little followup you slipped in there.
    Sorry, Gregory. I mean, look--Gregory is still mad he didn't get the
    followup, but it's okay.
        Q. You've said, Mr. President, several times here this morning that
    the definition of failure in Iraq would be to leave before the job was
    done. But you also said that you have no intention of seeing our troops
    standing in the crossfire of a sectarian war within that country. With
    many observers on the ground saying that civil war in Iraq is as close
    as it's ever been, how do you reconcile those two statements? And what
    happens if a full-fledged civil war breaks out?
        The President. Dick, our job is to prevent the full-scale civil war
    from happening in

    [[Page 1912]]

    the first place. It's one of the missions, is to work with the
    Maliki Government to make sure that there is
    a political way forward that says to the people of Iraq, it's not worth
    it. Civil war is not worth the effort--by them. That's the whole
    objective, is to help this Government be able to defend itself and
    sustain itself so that the 12 million people that voted--they didn't
    vote for civil war; they voted to live under a Constitution that was
    passed. And so we will work to prevent that from happening. I----
        Q. What about----
        The President. Let me finish. I view that this is a struggle between
    radicals and extremists who are trying to prevent there to be a
    democracy, for a variety of reasons. And it's in our interest that the
    forces of moderation prevail in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. A
    defeat there--in other words, if we were to withdraw before the job is
    done, it would embolden extremists. They would say, you know, we were
    right about America in the first place, that America did not have the
    will necessary to do the hard work. That's precisely what Usama bin
    Laden has said, for example. A defeat there
    would make it easier for people to be able to recruit extremists and
    kids, to be able to use their tactics to destroy innocent life. A defeat
    there would dispirit people throughout the Middle East who wonder
    whether America is genuine in our commitment to moderation and
    democracy.
        And I told you what the scenario, Dick, could look like, 20 or 30
    years from now, if we leave before the job is done. It's a serious
    business. And that's why I say it's the call of this generation. And I
    understand how tough it is, see, but I also said in my remarks, just
    because the enemy has been able to make some progress doesn't mean we
    should leave. Quite the contrary, we ought to do everything we can to
    help prevent them from making progress. And that is what our strategy
    is.
        Elaine [Elaine Quijano, Cable News Network].
        Q. What if there is a civil war?

    Iraqi Government

        The President. You're asking me hypotheticals. Our job is to make
    sure there's not one, see. You been around here 5\1/2\ years; you know I
    won't answer hypotheticals. Occasionally slip up, but----
        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You talk about the U.S. Government and
    the Iraqi Government working closely together on benchmarks. I'm
    wondering, sir, why was Prime Minister Maliki not at the news conference
    yesterday with General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad? Would that not
    have sent a strong message about there being a very close level of
    cooperation between the two Governments?
        The President. Elaine, I have no idea why he wasn't there.
        Q. Was he invited, sir?
        The President. I have no idea. I'm not the scheduler of news
    conferences. I do know they work very closely together, and they've got
    a very close working relationship, and that's important.

    Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki

        Q. May I ask you, sir, following up, when you say that you're not
    satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq, why should that not be
    interpreted by some to mean that you are dissatisfied with Prime
    Minister Maliki's performance?
        The President. Because I know Prime Minister Maliki; I know how hard
    his job is; and I understand that he is working to make the decisions
    necessary to bring this country together. And he's--look, we'll push
    him, but we're not going to push him to the point where he can't achieve
    the objective. And we'll continue to work with him. He represents a
    government formed by the people of Iraq. It's a--and he's got a tough
    job. I mean, think about what his job is like. He's got to deal with
    political factions. He's got to deal with the hatred

    [[Page 1913]]

    that is left over from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
        There's a lot of people still furious about what happened to them
    during Saddam Hussein's period. You can
    imagine that. What happens if your brother or sister had been
    assassinated by Saddam Hussein and his political party? You'd be--you
    wouldn't be happy about it. Reconciliation is difficult in a society
    that had been divided and tortured by a tyrant.
        And Prime Minister Maliki has got the difficult job of reconciling
    these grievances and different political parties on top of that, plus
    dealing with violence. I've talked to him a lot. I like his spirit. I
    like his attitude. He's confident we can achieve the mission. He's not--
    he's realistic about how difficult it is in Iraq.
        It's in our Government's interest that we help him succeed, because
    he wants a unified country. And I believe we will succeed. I know we're
    not going to succeed, however, if we set artificial timetables for
    withdrawal or we get out of there or we say to the enemy, ``Just keep
    fighting; we'll leave soon.'' That's not going to work. What will work
    is a strategy that's constantly--tactics that constantly change to meet
    the enemy. And that's what I was describing in my speech; we're
    constantly adjusting. As the enemy changes, we change. War is not a--
    this war and other wars, they're not static. They're dynamic events. And
    we must adjust to meet those events, and we are.
        Jim [Jim Rutenberg, New York Times].

    Progress in Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Does the United States want to maintain
    permanent bases in Iraq? And I would follow that by asking, are you
    willing to renounce a claim on permanent bases in Iraq?
        The President. Jim, any decisions about permanency in Iraq will be
    made by the Iraqi Government. And frankly, it's not in much of a
    position to be thinking about what the world is going to look like 5 or
    10 years from now. They are working to make sure that we succeed in the
    short term. And they need our help, and that's where our focus is.
        But remember, when you're talking about bases and troops, we're
    dealing with a sovereign government. Now, we entered into an agreement
    with the Karzai Government. They weren't called
    permanent bases, but they were called arrangements that will help this
    Government understand that there will be a U.S. presence so long as they
    want them there. And at the appropriate time, I'm confident we'll be
    willing to sit down and discuss the long-term security of Iraq. But
    right now we're discussing how to bring security to Baghdad and what do
    we do in Al Anbar Province, where Al Qaida still uses violent methods to
    achieve political objectives.
        You know, it's interesting, if you--I'm sure people who watch your
    TV screens think the entire country is embroiled in sectarian conflict
    and that there's constant killing everywhere in Iraq. Well, if you
    listened to General Casey yesterday, 90
    percent of the action takes place in 5 of the 18 Provinces. And around
    Baghdad, it's within a 30-mile area. And the reason I bring that up is
    that while it seems to our American citizens that nothing normal is
    taking place--and I can understand why; it's a brutal environment there,
    particularly that which is on our TV screens--that there is farmers
    farming; there are small businesses growing; there's a currency that's
    relatively stable; there's an entrepreneurial class; there's commerce.
    General Abizaid was describing to me what it
    was like to go to Baghdad markets.
        There's a lot of work to be done, don't get me wrong, but it is--
    there are people living relatively normal lives who, I believe--strongly
    believe that they want to continue that normalcy. And it's up to Prime
    Minister Maliki to do everything he can to
    make the situation as secure as possible.

    [[Page 1914]]

        Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News]. Sorry, Rutenberg, you're through.

    2006 Midterm Elections

        Q. Thank you, sir. Is the coming election a referendum on Iraq?
    Should it be?
        The President. I think the coming election is a referendum on these
    two things: Which party has got the plan that will enable our economy
    continue--to continue to grow, and which party has a plan to protect the
    American people. And Iraq is part of the security of the United States.
    If we succeed--and when we succeed in Iraq, our country will be more
    secure. If we don't succeed in Iraq, the country is less secure.
        The security of this country--and look, I understand here in
    Washington, some people say we're not at war. I know that. They're just
    wrong, in my opinion.
        The enemy still wants to strike us. The enemy still wants to achieve
    safe haven from which to plot and plan. The enemy would like to have
    weapons of mass destruction in order to attack us. These are lethal,
    coldblooded killers. And we must do everything we can to protect the
    American people, including questioning detainees or listening to their
    phone calls from outside the country to inside the country. And there
    was--as you know, there was some recent votes on that issue. And the
    Democrats voted against giving our professionals the skill--the tools
    necessary to protect the American people.
        I will repeat, like I've said to you often: I do not question their
    patriotism; I question whether or not they understand how dangerous this
    world is. And this is a big issue in the campaign. Security of the
    country is an issue, just like taxes are an issue. If you raise taxes,
    it will hurt the economy. If you don't extend the tax cuts, if you don't
    make them--in other words, if you let the tax cuts expire, it will be a
    tax increase on the American people.
        Take the child tax credit. If it is not made permanent--in other
    words, if it expires--and you got a family of four sitting around the
    breakfast table, the taxpayers can be sure that their taxes will go up
    by $2,000: 500 for that child, 500 for the one right there, 500 for this
    one, and 500 for that one. That is a tax increase. And taking $2,000 out
    of the pockets of the working people will make it harder to sustain
    economic growth.
        So the two issues I see in the campaign can be boiled down to, who
    best to protect this country and who best to keep taxes low. That's what
    the referendum is about.
        Let's see here, David [David Greene, Baltimore Sun]. Hold on for a
    minute. David.

    Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki

        Q. Thank you, sir. You've long talked about the importance when the
    Federal Government is involved in an effort, spending money and
    resources, of measuring success, accountability, as Peter said. Now
    you've set some benchmarks on the Maliki Government. You've said that
    you're expecting him to make tough decisions. Can you tell the American
    people how you plan to measure his success in reaching those benchmarks,
    and what happens if he doesn't hit those benchmarks?
        The President. David, the first objective is to develop benchmarks
    that the Government agrees with and that we think are important. You
    can't--it's really important for the American people to understand that
    to say, ``Okay, these are the benchmarks you must live with,'' is not
    going to work nearly as effectively as if we have--when we have buy-in
    from the Government itself, the sovereign Government of Iraq.
        And so the step is to say to the Maliki Government--which we're
    doing--let us work in concert to develop a series of benchmarks to
    achieve different objectives. And the purpose of that is to assure the
    Iraqi people that this unity Government is going to work to--for the
    improvement of the Iraqi people. In other words, it will be beneficial
    for the Government to say

    [[Page 1915]]

    to the Iraqi people, ``Here is what we intend to do, and here's when we
    intend to do it.''
        It will also be beneficial for the American people to be able to see
    that this Iraqi Government is going to make the difficult decisions
    necessary to move forward, to achieve the goal. And that's what we're
    talking about when it comes to benchmarks. It's--again, I repeat: One
    should not expect our Government to impose these benchmarks on a
    sovereign government. You'd expect us to work closely with that
    Government to come up with a way forward that the Government feels
    comfortable with. And there's probably going to be some bones of
    contention during these discussions, but nevertheless, we'll respect the
    fact that the Iraq Government is sovereign, and they must respect the
    fact that we've got patience but not unlimited patience.
        Q. What happens if that patience runs out?
        The President. See, that's that hypothetical Keil is trying to get
    me to answer. Why don't we work to see to it that it doesn't work out--
    run out? That's the whole objective. That's what positive people do.
    They say, ``We're going to put something in place, and we'll work to
    achieve it.''
        Let's see here, Stephen [Stephen Dinan, Washington Times].

    2006 Midterm Elections

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. With a Republican Congress, you failed
    to achieve three major goals of your second term: Social Security
    reform, a Tax Code overhaul, and a comprehensive immigration bill. Why
    shouldn't Americans give Democrats a chance to work with you on those
    issues, especially when divided government seemed to work in the late
    1990s, on the budget?
        The President. That's a tricky little question there. [Laughter]
    First, I haven't given up on any of those issues. I've got 2 years left
    to achieve them. And I firmly believe it is more likely to achieve those
    three objectives with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican-
    controlled Senate. And I believe I'll be working with a Republican-
    controlled Congress and a Republican-controlled Senate.
        I understand here in Washington, people have already determined the
    outcome of the election, like it's over even before the people actually
    start heading--voting. But that's not what I see when I'm on the
    campaign trail. You know, we've got some people dancing in the end zone
    here in Washington, DC. They've got them measuring their drapes; they're
    going over to the Capitol and saying, ``My new office looks beautiful. I
    think I'm going to have this size drape there, or this color.'' But the
    American people are going to decide, and they're going to decide this
    race based upon who best to protect the American people and who best to
    keep the taxes low.
        Secondly, I'll tell you what I see--you didn't ask, but I'm going to
    tell you anyway. I see there's a lot of enthusiasm amongst the
    grassroots activists. Our people are going out there to man the phones
    and to put up the yard signs. You know, they're showing up when it comes
    time to--these absentee votes. We're organized. We've got a fantastic
    grassroots organization to turn out the vote. This campaign has
    obviously got national implications to it, no question about it: the
    Iraq war, the security of the country, economic vitality and growth. But
    each of these elections turn out to be local in their scope and in their
    character.
        And we've got good candidates running hard, and we're going to win.
    Now, I know that defies conventional wisdom here. I'm not suggesting
    anybody in this august crowd has determined the outcome of the election
    already, but they're running profiles on who this person is going to be
    running this office, or this one that's going to be--magazines have got
    all kinds of new stars emerging when they haven't won the votes yet.
        And anyway, thanks for asking about the campaign. I'm enjoying it
    out there. I like

    [[Page 1916]]

    campaigning. It's what guys like me do in order to get here. We
    campaign. We shake the hands, you know, and give the speeches. And
    Laura is campaigning too. From my perspective,
    our people are ready to go out there and vote for--vote our candidates
    back into power.
        Let me see here, Michael Allen [Time].

    U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your comment earlier that last spring,
    you believed that troops would be able to come home early next year----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----I wonder if you could talk to us about how you came to
    believe that and over what period of time or whether it was a single
    development because you realized that wasn't feasible.
        The President. No, no, no, look, Mike, here's the way it works. I
    meet with our--or talk to our generals all the time. And the security
    situation looked like, at that point in time, that beginning next year,
    we could reduce our troop presence. That's what we felt--until the
    conditions on the ground changed. And when they changed, our generals
    changed their attitude. And when their attitude changed, my attitude
    changed.
        Look, I want to get our troops home as fast as we can. But I do not
    want to leave before we achieve victory. And the best way to do that is
    to make sure we have a strategy that works, tactics that adjust to the
    enemy, and commanders that feel confident making recommendations to the
    Secretary and to the Commander in Chief.
    And that's how that happened. In other words, they're saying it looks
    like things are positive, things are stepping up. The security situation
    is--looks like it could be this way. And then when it changed, we
    changed. And that's important for the American people to know, that
    we're constantly changing tactics to meet the situation on the ground.
        Knoller [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].
        Q. Excuse me----
        The President. No.
        Q. May I follow up?
        The President. Well, you're taking Wolffe's time. Is this your
    question, Wolffe [Richard Wolffe, Newsweek]?
        Q. No, sir, it's not.
        The President. Okay, okay.
        Q. But I yield.
        The President. Then it's your question.
        Q. Only for a moment.
        The President. Okay.
        Q. I just wanted to ask you quickly, sir, if you believe that Iraq
    will be able to defend, sustain, and govern itself by the time you leave
    office?
        The President. Mike, I believe Iraq will be able to defend, govern,
    and sustain itself; otherwise, I'd pull our troops out. See, you all got
    to understand that, and the parents of our troops must understand, that
    if I didn't believe we could succeed and didn't believe it was necessary
    for the security of this country to succeed, I wouldn't have your loved
    ones there. That's what I want these parents to hear.
        And that's a backhanded way of getting me to put a timetable. My
    answer is, we'll work as fast as we can get the job done.
        Mark and then Richard.
        Q. Thank you, sir.
        The President. That way it will give you time to----

    2006 Midterm Elections

        Q. I understand why you would claim or assert that the Republicans
    will win the midterm elections. But if in your heart of hearts you
    really didn't think that, would you tell us so? [Laughter] And are you
    resentful that some Republican candidates seem to be distancing
    themselves from you?
        The President. You know, no, I'm not resentful, nor am I resentful
    that a lot of Democrats are using my picture. All I ask is that they
    pick out a good one. [Laughter] Make me look good, at least, on the
    picture.

    [[Page 1917]]

        Mark, the first part of your question, the serious part, if I
    thought we were going to lose, would I tell you--we're not going to
    lose, in my heart of hearts. [Laughter] No, again, I understand how--
    look, I read the--look at the newspapers around here. I can see why you
    would think that I'm concealing something in my heart of hearts. The
    race is over as far as a lot of the punditry goes. They've got it all
    figured out. And they just--as I said, they're dancing in the end zone.
    They just haven't scored the touchdown, Mark, you know; there's a lot of
    time left. And these candidates are working hard out there. And my
    message to them is, keep talking about the security of the United States
    and keeping taxes low, and you'll come back here.
        Last question. Richard.

    Ethics in Government

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Back in 2000, you campaigned around the
    country saying you wanted to usher in the responsibility era, to end the
    days when people said, ``If it feels good, do it, and if you've got a
    problem, blame somebody else.''
        The President. Right.
        Q. Yet over the last several months, we've seen many members of your
    own party in Congress embroiled in one scandal or another and all too
    ready to blame somebody else, whether prosecutors or Democrats or even
    the media. So I'm wondering, why do you think it is so many people in
    your own party have failed to live up to the standards of the
    responsibility era?
        The President. If any person in any party fails to live up to high
    standards, they ought to be held to account, Richard. It's important for
    there to be trust in the Halls of Congress and in the White House and
    throughout government. People got to trust elected leaders in order for
    democracy to work to its fullest extent. And I fully expect people to be
    held to account if there's wrongdoing, just like I expect corporate
    executives to be held to account for wrongdoing, just like I expect
    people throughout our society to be held to account for wrongdoing.
        People do have to take responsibility for the decisions they make in
    life. I take responsibility for the decisions I make. I also understand
    that those of us in positions of responsibility have the duty to bring
    honor to the offices we hold. People don't have to agree with somebody's
    opinion--there's all kinds of opinions here--but in order to make this
    country work and to make democracy succeed, there's got to be high
    standards, and people must be held to account to achieve those
    standards.
        I thank you for your time. See you on the campaign trail.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 10:31 a.m. in the East
    Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to former President
    Saddam Hussein and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki or Iraq; Usama bin
    Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; Gen. George W.
    Casey, Jr., USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Khalid
    Sheikh Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader responsible for planning the
    September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, who was captured in Pakistan on
    March 1, 2003; Gen. John P. Abizaid, USA, commander, U.S. Central
    Command; Prime Minister Fuad Siniora of Lebanon; Gilad Shalit, an
    Israeli soldier captured and held captive by militants in Gaza since
    June 25; Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea; and President Hamid Karzai
    of Afghanistan. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a
    Spanish language transcript of this press conference.

    [[Page 1918]]