[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book II)]
[September 15, 2006]
[Pages 1647-1661]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference
September 15, 2006

    The President. It's always a pleasure to be introduced into the Rose 
Garden. Thank you, Wendell [Wendell Goler, FOX News Channel]. Thank you 
for coming. I'm looking forward to answering some of your questions.
    This week, our Nation paused to mark the fifth anniversary of the 9/
11 attacks. It was a tough day for a lot of our citizens. I was so 
honored to meet with family members and first-responders, workers at the 
Pentagon, all who still had heaviness in their heart. But they asked me 
a question--you know, they kept asking me, ``What do you think the level 
of determination for this country is in order to protect ourselves?'' 
That's what they want to know.
    You know, for me, it was a reminder about how I felt right after 9/
11. I felt a sense of determination and conviction about doing 
everything that is necessary to protect the people. I'm going to go back 
to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly. I'm going to 
talk to world leaders gathered there about our obligation to defend 
civilization and liberty, to support the forces of freedom and 
moderation throughout the Middle East. As we work with the international 
community to defeat the terrorists and extremists, to provide an 
alternative to their hateful ideology, we must also provide our military 
and intelligence professionals with the tools they need to protect our 
country from another attack. And the reason they need those tools is 
because the enemy wants to attack us again.
    Right here in the Oval Office, I get briefed nearly every morning 
about the nature of this world, and I get briefed about the desire of an 
enemy to hurt America. And it's a sobering experience, as I'm sure you 
can imagine. I wish that weren't the case, you know. But it is the case. 
And therefore, I believe it is vital that our folks on the frontline 
have the tools necessary to protect the American people.
    There are two vital pieces of legislation in Congress now that I 
think are necessary to help us win the war on terror. We will work with 
members of both parties to get legislation that works out of the 
Congress. The first bill will allow us to use military commissions to 
try suspected terrorists for war crimes. We need the legislation because 
the Supreme Court recently ruled that military commissions must be 
explicitly authorized by Congress. So we're working with Congress. The 
Supreme Court said, ``You must work with Congress.'' We are working with 
Congress to get a good piece of legislation out.
    The bill I have proposed will ensure that suspected terrorists will 
receive full and fair trials without revealing to them our Nation's 
sensitive intelligence secrets. As soon as Congress acts on this bill, 
the man our intelligence agencies believe helped orchestrate the 9/11 
attacks can face justice.

[[Page 1648]]

    The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved 
in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that 
the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like 
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided 
valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including 
strikes within the United States.
    For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings 
inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That 
is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to 
protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been 
instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high--a point 
that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping. He 
gave us information that helped uncover Al Qaida cells' efforts to 
obtain biological weapons.
    We've also learned information from the CIA program that has helped 
stop other plots, including attacks on the U.S. Marine base in East 
Africa or American consulate in Pakistan or Britain's Heathrow Airport. 
This program has been one of the most vital tools in our efforts to 
protect this country. It's been invaluable to our country, and it's 
invaluable to our allies.
    Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes 
that Al Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another 
attack against the American homeland. Making us--giving us information 
about terrorist plans we couldn't get anywhere else, this program has 
saved innocent lives. In other words, it's vital. That's why I asked 
Congress to pass legislation so that our professionals can go forward, 
doing the duty we expect them to do. Unfortunately, the recent Supreme 
Court decision put the future of this program in question. That's 
another reason I went to Congress. We need this legislation to save it.
    I am asking Congress to pass a clear law with clear guidelines based 
on the Detainee Treatment Act that was strongly supported by Senator 
John McCain. There is a debate about the 
specific provisions in my bill, and we'll work with Congress to continue 
to try to find common ground. I have one test for this legislation; I'm 
going to answer one question as this legislation proceeds, and it's 
this: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill 
Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue. 
That's what I'm going to ask.
    The second bill before Congress would modernize our electronic 
surveillance laws and provide additional authority for the terrorist 
surveillance program. I authorized the National Security Agency to 
operate this vital program in response to the 9/11 attacks. It allows us 
to quickly monitor terrorist communications between someone overseas and 
someone in the United States, and it's helped detect and prevent attacks 
on our country. The principle behind this program is clear: When an Al 
Qaida operative is calling into the United States or out of the country, 
we need to know who they're calling, why they're calling, and what 
they're planning.
    Both these bills are essential to winning the war on terror. We will 
work with Congress to get good bills out. We have a duty, we have a duty 
to work together to give our folks on the frontline the tools necessary 
to protect America. Time is running out. Congress is set to adjourn in 
just a few weeks. Congress needs to act wisely and promptly so I can 
sign good legislation.
    And now I'll be glad to answer some questions. Terry [Terence Hunt, 
Associated Press].

War on Terror/Counterterrorism Efforts

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of 
State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis 
of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint

[[Page 1649]]

Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you 
think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder 
whether you're following a flawed strategy?
    The President. If there's any comparison between the compassion and 
decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, 
it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to 
think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the 
United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill 
innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.
    My job, and the job of people here in Washington, DC, is to protect 
this country. We didn't ask for this war. You might remember the 2000 
campaign. I don't remember spending much time talking about what it 
might be like to be a Commander in Chief in a different kind of war. But 
this enemy has struck us, and they want to strike us again. And we will 
give our folks the tools necessary to protect the country; that's our 
job.
    It's a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't that way. I wish I could 
tell the American people, ``Don't worry about it; they're not coming 
again.'' But they are coming again. And that's why I've sent this 
legislation up to Congress, and that's why we'll continue to work with 
allies in building a vast coalition to protect not only ourselves but 
them. The facts are--is that after 9/11, this enemy continued to attack 
and kill innocent people.
    I happen to believe that they're bound by a common ideology. Matter 
of fact, I don't believe that, I know they are. And they want to impose 
that ideology throughout the broader Middle East. That's what they have 
said. It makes sense for the Commander in Chief and all of us involved 
in protecting this country to listen to the words of the enemy. And I 
take their words seriously. And that's what's going to be necessary to 
protect this country, is to listen carefully to what they say and stay 
ahead of them as they try to attack us.
    Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].
    Q. Can I just follow up?
    The President. No, you can't. Steve. If we follow up, we're not 
going to get--I want Hillman [G. Robert Hillman, Dallas Morning News] to 
be able to ask a question. It's his last press conference--not yet, 
Hillman. [Laughter] Soon. You and Wendell seem----

``Military Commissions Act of 2006''

    Q. Thank you very much, sir. What do you say to the argument that 
your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced 
evidence, and secret hearings? And Senator McCain says your plan will 
put U.S. troops at risk. What do you think about that?
    The President. This debate is occurring because of the Supreme 
Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common 
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article Three says 
that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What 
does that mean, ``outrages upon human dignity''? That's a statement that 
is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be 
clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that 
that which they are doing is legal. You know, it's--and so the piece of 
legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is 
needed to go forward.
    The first question that we've got to ask is, do we need the program? 
I believe we do need the program. And I detailed in a speech in the East 
Room what the program has yield--in other words, the kind of information 
we get when we interrogate people within the law. You see, sometimes you 
can pick up information on the battlefield; sometimes you can pick it up 
through letters; but sometimes you actually have to question the people 
who know the strategy and plans of the enemy. And in this case, we 
questioned people like Khalid Sheikh

[[Page 1650]]

Mohammed, who we believe ordered the 
attacks on 9/11, or Ramzi bin al-Shibh or 
Abu Zubaydah, coldblooded killers who were part 
of planning the attack that killed 3,000 people. And we need to be able 
to question them, because it helps yield information, information 
necessary for us to be able to do our job.
    Now, the Court said that you've got to live under Article 3 of the 
Geneva Convention, and the standards are so vague that our professionals 
won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to 
be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law. These are 
decent, honorable citizens who are on the frontline of protecting the 
American people, and they expect our Government to give them clarity 
about what is right and what is wrong in the law. And that's what we 
have asked to do.
    And we believe a good way to go is to use the amendment that we 
worked with John McCain on, called the Detainee 
Treatment Act, as the basis for clarity for people we would ask to 
question the enemy. In other words, it is a way to bring U.S. law into 
play. It provides more clarity for our professionals, and that's what 
these people expect. These are decent citizens who don't want to break 
the law.
    Now, this idea that somehow we've got to live under international 
treaties, you know--and that's fine; we do; but oftentimes the United 
States Government passes law to clarify obligations under international 
treaty. And what I'm concerned about is if we don't do that, then it's 
very conceivable our professionals could be held to account based upon 
court decisions in other countries. And I don't believe Americans want 
that. I believe Americans want us to protect the country, to have clear 
standards for our law enforcement, intelligence officers, and give them 
the tools necessary to protect us within the law.
    It's an important debate, Steve. It really is. It's a debate that 
really is going to define whether or not we can protect ourselves. I 
will tell you this: I've spent a lot of time on this issue, as you can 
imagine, and I've talked to professionals, people I count on for advice; 
these are people that are going to represent those on the frontline of 
protecting this country. They're not going forward with the program. 
They're not going--the professionals will not step up unless there's 
clarity in the law. So Congress has got a decision to make: Do you want 
the program to go forward or not?
    I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to 
be able to protect America.
    Hillman. This is Hillman's last press conference, so--sorry, sorry, 
about that.

Immigration Reform

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. On another of your top priorities, 
immigration, leaders of both parties have indicated that any chance of 
comprehensive immigration reform is dead before the election. Is this an 
issue you would like to revisit in a lame-duck session after the 
election? Or would it be put off until the new Congress?
    The President. Bob, I strongly believe that in order to protect this 
border, Congress has got to pass a comprehensive plan that on the one 
hand provides additional money to secure the border and on the other 
hand recognizes that people are sneaking in here to do jobs Americans 
aren't doing. It would be better that they not sneak in, that they would 
come on a temporary basis, in an orderly way, to do work Americans 
aren't doing and then go home. And I will continue to urge Congress to 
think comprehensively about this vital piece of legislation.
    I went up to the Hill yesterday, and of course this topic came up. 
It's exactly what I told the Members of Congress. They wanted to know 
whether or not we were implementing border security measures that they 
had funded last January, and the answer is, we are. One of the key 
things I told them was we had ended what's called catch-and-release. 
That was a--you know,

[[Page 1651]]

a Border Patrol agent would find somebody, particularly from--not from 
Mexico, and would say, ``Well, we don't have enough detention space, so 
why don't you come back and check in with the local person you're 
supposed to check in with,'' and then they'd never show back up. And 
that, of course, frustrated the Border Patrol agents; it frustrates 
American citizens; it frustrates me. And we ended it because Congress 
appropriated money that increased the number of beds available to detain 
people when we get them sneaking into our country illegally.
    The border has become modernized. And Secretary Chertoff here, later on this month, will be announcing further 
modernizations, as he has led a contract that will use all kinds of 
different technologies to make the border more secure. But in the long 
run, to secure this border, we've got to have a rational work plan.
    And finally, we're going to have to treat people with dignity in 
this country. Ours is a nation of immigrants, and when Congress gets 
down to a comprehensive bill, I would just remind them, it's virtually 
impossible to try to find 11 million folks--who have been here, working 
hard and, in some cases, raising families--and kick them out. It's just 
not going to work. But granting automatic citizenship won't work either. 
To me, that would just provide an additional incentive for people to try 
to sneak in, and so therefore, there is a rational way forward. I'll 
continue working--I don't know the timetable. My answer is, as soon as 
possible; that's what I'd like to see done.
    Thank you. Let's see, Wendell. Coming your way. Everybody is going 
to get one.

United Nations/Iran

    Q. My apologies, Mr. President, for talking too long at the start.
    The President. Don't worry. I'm not going to apologize for talking 
too long to your answer. [Laughter]
    Q. Talk as long as you'd like, sir. [Laughter]
    When you go to New York next week, it's our thinking that one of the 
things you'll be trying to do is to get more international support for 
taking a tough stance against Iran. I wonder how much that is frustrated 
by two things: one, the war in Iraq and world criticism of that; and the 
other, the Iraqi Prime Minister going to Iran and basically challenging 
your administration's claim that Iran is meddling in Iraqi affairs.
    The President. First, Wendell, my decision, along with other 
countries, to remove Saddam Hussein has 
obviously created some concern amongst allies, but it certainly hasn't 
diminished the coalitions we put together to deal with radicalism. For 
example, there's 70 nations involved with the Proliferation Security 
Initiative, and that's an initiative to help prevent weapons of mass 
destruction and/or component parts from being delivered to countries 
that could use them to hurt us; or the broad war on terror, the 
intelligence sharing or financial--sharing of financial information; or 
Afghanistan, where NATO troops are there now, along with ours.
    In other words, there's a broad coalition. Most nations recognize 
the threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon in the middle of the Middle 
East. And there's common consensus that we need to work together to 
prevent the Iranian regime from developing that nuclear weapons program.
    I am pleased that there is strong consensus. And now the objective 
is to continue reminding the Iranian regime that there is unanimity in 
the world and that we will move forward together. And we expect them to 
come to the table and negotiate with the EU in good faith. And should 
they choose to verifiably suspend their program, their enrichment 
program, we'll come to the table. That's what we have said; offer still 
stands.
    During the Hizballah attacks on Israel, the United Nations did pass 
a resolution

[[Page 1652]]

with our European friends and ourselves and, of course, Russia and China 
voting for the resolution. I think it passed 14 to 1; one nation voted 
against the resolution toward Iran. So there is common consensus. And 
you've heard me lament oftentimes, it takes a while to get diplomacy 
working. There's one nation of Iran and a bunch of nations like us 
trying to kind of head in the same direction. And my concern is that 
they'll stall; they'll try to wait us out.
    So part of my objective in New York is to remind people that 
stalling shouldn't be allowed. In other words, we need to move the 
process. And they need to understand we're firm in our commitment, and 
if they try to drag their feet or get us to look the other way, that we 
won't do that, that we're firmly committed in our desire to send a 
common signal to the Iranian regime.
    It is important for the Iranian people to also understand we respect 
them; we respect their history; we respect their traditions; we respect 
the right for people to worship freely; we would hope that people would 
be able to express themselves in the public square; and that our 
intention is to make the world safer. And we'll continue to do so.
    Suzanne [Suzanne Malveaux, Cable News Network] and then Martha 
[Martha Raddatz, ABC News].

Iran's Nuclear Enrichment Program

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. If I could follow up on that question.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad, the Iranian President, will actually be in 
the same building as you next week, in Manhattan for the United Nations 
General Assembly. You say that you want to give the message to the 
Iranian people that you respect them. Is this not an opportunity, 
perhaps, to show that you also respect their leader? Would you be 
willing to, perhaps, meet face to face with Ahmadi-nejad, and would this 
possibly be a breakthrough, some sort of opportunity for a breakthrough 
on a personal level?
    The President. No, I'm not going to meet with him. I have made it 
clear to the Iranian regime that we will sit down with the Iranians once 
they verifiably suspend their enrichment program. And I meant what I 
said.
    Martha.

Saddam Hussein

    Q. Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and 
building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between 
Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and Al Qaida. A Senate Intelligence Committee 
report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that 
the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, 
you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying 
that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
    The President. The point I was making to Ken Herman's [Austin 
American-Statesman] question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor 
of terror and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in 
Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing 
of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational 
relationship. I was making the point that Saddam Hussein had been 
declared a state sponsor of terror for a reason, and therefore, he was 
dangerous.
    The broader point I was saying, I was reminding people was why we 
removed Saddam Hussein from power. He was dangerous. I would hope people 
aren't trying to rewrite the history of Saddam Hussein; all of a sudden, 
he becomes kind of a benevolent fellow. He's a dangerous man. And one of 
the reasons he was declared a state sponsor of terror was because that's 
what he was. He harbored terrorists; he paid for families of suicide 
bombers. Never have I said that Saddam Hussein gave orders to attack 9/
11. What I did say was,

[[Page 1653]]

after 9/11, when you see a threat, you've got to take it seriously. And 
I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein, as did Congress, as did the United 
Nations. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam in 
power, Martha.
    Dave [David Gregory, NBC News]. He's back.

``Military Commissions Act of 2006''

    Q. Sorry, I've got to get disentangled----
    The President. Would you like me to go to somebody else here, until 
you--[laughter].
    Q. Sorry.
    The President. But take your time, please. [Laughter]
    Q. I really apologize for that. Anyway----
    The President. I must say, having gone through those gyrations, 
you're looking beautiful today, Dave. [Laughter]
    Q. Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation 
rules say there's another important test--these critics include John 
McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning--and that test 
is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier 
from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they 
were roughed up, and those governments said, ``Well, they were 
interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva 
Conventions,'' and then they were put on trial and they were convicted 
based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you 
react to that, as Commander in Chief?
    The President. David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as 
those you named, adopted the standards within the detainee detention 
act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to 
clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous 
standards.
    And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, 
but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear 
standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot 
ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not 
going to. They--let me finish, please--they will not violate the law. 
You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is--and the 
American people have got to understand this--that this program won't go 
forward, if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common 
Article 3 from the Geneva Convention; it's just not going to go forward. 
You can't ask a young professional on the frontline of protecting this 
country to violate law.
    Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think 
about that: Go ahead and violate it; we won't prosecute you. These 
people aren't going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you 
want and bring up this example or that example; I'm just telling you the 
bottom line, and that's why this debate is important, and it's a vital 
debate.
    Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. 
That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't. I think it's vital, and I 
have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask 
to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who 
might be coming to this country--I got to give them the tools they need. 
And that is clear law.
    Q. But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends----
    The President. The point I just made is the most important point.
    Q. Okay.
    The President. And that is, the program is not going forward. David, 
you can give a hypothetical about North Korea or any other country; the 
point is that the program is not going to go forward if our 
professionals do not have clarity in the law. And the best way to 
provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is 
the crux of the law. That's how we define Common Article 3, and it sets 
a

[[Page 1654]]

good standard for the countries that you just talked about.
    Next man.
    Q. No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point----
    The President. I know you think it's an important point.
    Q. Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva 
Conventions as they see fit--as they see fit--you're saying that you'd 
be okay with that?
    The President. I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt 
the same standards we adopt, and that by clarifying Article 3, we make 
it stronger; we make it clearer; we make it definite.
    And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical you 
want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom 
line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the 
rules--if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.
    Q. This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your----
    The President. Next man.
    Q. This will not endanger U.S. troops----
    The President. David, next man, please. Thank you. It took you a 
long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question.

Democracy Efforts in Iraq/Insurgency and Terrorist Attacks

    Q. Morning, sir. I'd like to ask you another question about Iraq. 
It's been another bloody day there. The last several weeks have been 40, 
50, 60 bodies a day. We've been talking for the last several months 
about Iraq being on the brink of a civil war. I'd like to ask you if 
it's not time to start talking about Iraq as being in a civil war, and 
if it's not, what's the threshold?
    The President. Well, it seems like it's pretty easy to speculate 
from over here about the conditions on the ground. And so what I do is I 
talk to people like our Ambassador and 
General Casey, which I just did this 
morning. And they and the Iraqi Government just don't agree with the 
hypothesis it is a civil war. They believe that there's, no question, 
violence; they believe that Al Qaida is still creating havoc; they know 
there's people taking reprisal; they're confident there are still 
Saddamists who are threatening people and carrying out attacks.
    But they also believe that the Baghdad security plan is making 
progress. There was a lot of discussion about Al Anbar Province 
recently, and I spent some time talking with our commanders. No 
question, it's a dangerous place. It's a place where Al Qaida is really 
trying to root themselves; it's a place from which they'd like to 
operate. You know, this business about Al Qaida, Al Anbar's loss is just 
not the case; it's not what our commanders think.
    So to answer your question, there's no question, it's tough. What I 
look for is whether or not the unity Government is moving forward, 
whether or not they have a political plan to resolve issues such as oil 
and federalism, whether or not they're willing to reconcile, and whether 
or not Iraqi troops and Iraqi police are doing their jobs.
    Q. But how do you measure progress with a body count like that?
    The President. Well, one way you do it is you measure progress based 
upon the resilience of the Iraqi people: Do they want there to be a 
unity government, or are they splitting up into factions of people 
warring with the head leaders, with different alternatives of governing 
styles and different philosophies? The unity Government is intact. It's 
working forward. They're making tough decisions, and we'll stay with 
them. We'll stay with them because success in Iraq is important for this 
country. We're constantly changing our tactics. We're constantly 
adapting to the enemy. We're constantly saying, ``Here's the way 
forward; we want to work with you.'' But this is really the big 
challenge of the 21st century,

[[Page 1655]]

whether or not this country and allies are willing to stand with 
moderate people in order to fight off extremists. It is the challenge.
    I said the other night in a speech, this is like the ideological war 
of the 21st century, and I believe it. And I believe that if we leave 
that region, if we don't help democracy prevail, then our children and 
grandchildren will be faced with an unbelievable chaotic and dangerous 
situation in the Middle East. Imagine an enemy that can't stand what we 
believe in getting a hold of oil resources and taking a bunch of oil off 
the market in order to have an economic punishment. In other words, they 
say, ``You go ahead and do this, and if you don't, we'll punish you 
economically.'' Or imagine a Middle East with an Iran with a nuclear 
weapon threatening free nations and trying to promote their vision of 
extremism through Hizballah.
    I find it interesting that young democracies are being challenged by 
extremists. I also take great hope in the fact that, by far, the vast 
majority of people want normalcy and want peace, including in Iraq; that 
there is a deep desire for people to raise their children in a peaceful 
world; the desire for mothers to have the best for their child. And it's 
not--this isn't--you know, Americans--you've got to understand, this is 
universal. And the idea of just saying, well, that's not important for 
us--to me--or the future of the country, it's just not acceptable.
    And I know it's tough in Iraq. Of course it's tough in Iraq, because 
an enemy is trying to stop this new democracy, just like people are 
trying to stop the development of a Palestinian state, which I strongly 
support, or people trying to undermine the Lebanese democracy. And the 
reason why is because the ideologues understand that liberty will trump 
their dark vision of the world every time. And that's why I call it an 
ideological struggle. And it's a necessary struggle, and it's a vital 
struggle.
    Richard [Richard Benedetto, USA Today].

United Nations

    Q. Mr. President, as you prepare to go up to the United Nations next 
week to address the General Assembly, Secretary Kofi Annan has been 
critical of some of U.S. policies, particularly in Afghanistan, lately. 
How would you characterize the relationship between the United States 
and the United Nations at this point?
    The President. Yes. First of all, my personal relationship with Kofi 
Annan is good. I like him. And we've got a good 
relationship, personal relationship. I think a lot of Americans are 
frustrated with the United Nations, to be frank with you. Take, for 
example, Darfur--I'm frustrated with the United Nations in regards to 
Darfur. I have said and this Government has said, there's genocide 
taking place in the Sudan. And it breaks our collective hearts to know 
that.
    We believe that the best way to solve the problem is there be a 
political track as well as a security track. And part of the security 
track was for there initially to be African Union forces supported by 
the international community, hopefully to protect innocent lives from 
militia. And the AU force is there, but it needs--it's not robust 
enough. It needs to be bigger. It needs to be more viable.
    And so the strategy was then to go to the United Nations and pass a 
resolution enabling the AU force to become blue-helmeted--that means, 
become a United Nations peacekeeping force--with additional support from 
around the world. And I suggested that there also be help from NATO 
nations in logistics and support in order to make the security effective 
enough so that a political process could go forward to save lives.
    The problem is, is that the United Nations hasn't acted. And so I 
can understand why those who are concerned about Darfur are frustrated; 
I am. I'd like to see more robust United Nations action. What you'll

[[Page 1656]]

hear is, ``Well, the Government of Sudan must invite the United Nations 
in for us to act.'' Well, there are other alternatives, like passing a 
resolution saying, we're coming in with a U.N. force in order to save 
lives.
    I'm proud of our country's support for those who suffer. We've 
provided, by far, the vast majority of food and aid. I'm troubled by 
reports I hear about escalating violence. I can understand the 
desperation people feel for women being pulled out of these refugee 
centers and raped. And now is the time for the U.N. to act.
    So you asked if there are levels of frustration; there's a 
particular level of frustration. I also believe that the United Nations 
can do a better job spending the taxpayer--our taxpayers' money. I think 
there needs to be better management structures in place, better 
accountability in the organization. I hope the United Nations still 
strongly stands for liberty. I hope they would support my call to end 
tyranny in the 21st century.
    So I'm looking forward to going up there to--it's always an 
interesting experience, Richard, for a west Texas fellow to speak to the 
United Nations. And I'm going to have a strong message, one that's 
hope--based upon hope and my belief that the civilized world must stand 
with moderate reformist-minded people and help them realize their 
dreams. I believe that's the call of the 21st century.
    Let's see, who else? The front row people have all asked. Hutch [Ron 
Hutcheson, Knight Ridder].

Terrorist Surveillance Program

    Q. Good morning.
    The President. Good morning. Thank you.
    Q. On both the eavesdropping program and the detainee issues----
    The President. We call it the terrorist surveillance program, Hutch.
    Q. That's the one.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. You're working with Congress sort of after the fact, after you 
established these programs on your own authority. And Federal courts 
have ruled in both cases, you overstepped your authority. Is your 
willingness to work with Congress now an acknowledgment that that is a 
fact?
    The President. First of all, I strongly believe that the district 
court ruling on the terrorist surveillance program was flawed. And 
there's a court process to determine whether or not my belief is true. 
That's why it's on appeal. We're working with Congress to add certainty 
to the program.
    In terms of the Hamdan decision, I 
obviously believed that I could move forward with military commissions. 
Other Presidents had. The Supreme Court didn't agree, and they said, 
``Work with Congress.'' And that's why we're working with Congress.
    McKinnon [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].

National Economy/2006 Midterm Elections

    Q. Thank you, sir. Polls show that many people are still more 
focused on domestic issues like the economy than on the international 
issues in deciding how to vote in November. And I'd just like to ask you 
if you could contrast what you think will happen on the economy if 
Republicans retain control of Congress versus what happens on the 
economy if Democrats take over?
    The President. If I weren't here--first of all, I don't believe the 
Democrats are going to take over, because our record on the economy is 
strong. If the American people would take a step back and realize how 
effective our policies have been, given the circumstances, they will 
continue to embrace our philosophy of government. We've overcome 
recession, attacks, hurricanes, scandals, and the economy is growing, 
4.7 percent unemployment rate. It's been a strong economy. And I've 
strongly believed the reason it is because we cut taxes and, at the same 
time, showed fiscal

[[Page 1657]]

responsibility here in Washington, with the people's money. That's why 
the deficit could be cut in half by 2009 or before.
    And so I shouldn't answer your hypothetical, but I will. I believe 
if the Democrats had the capacity to, they would raise taxes on the 
working people. That's what I believe. They'll call it tax on the rich, 
but that's not the way it works in Washington, see. For example, running 
up the top income tax bracket would tax small businesses. A lot of small 
businesses are subchapter S corporations or limited partnerships that 
pay tax at the individual level. And if you raise income taxes on them, 
you hurt job creation. Our answer to economic growth is to make the tax 
cuts permanent so there's certainty in the Tax Code and people have got 
money to spend in their pockets.
    And so yes, I've always felt the economy is a determinate issue, if 
not the determinate issue in campaigns. We've had a little history of 
that in our family and--[laughter]--you might remember. But it's a--I 
certainly hope this election is based upon economic performance.
    Let's see here, kind of working my way--yes, Mark [Mark Silva, 
Chicago Tribune].

USA PATRIOT Act

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd also like to ask an election-
related question. The Republican leader in the House this week said that 
Democrats--he wonders if they are more interested in protecting the 
terrorists than protecting the American people. Do you agree with him, 
sir? And do you think that's the right tone to set for this upcoming 
campaign, or do you think he owes somebody an apology?
    The President. I wouldn't have exactly put it that way. But I do 
believe there's a difference of attitude. I mean, take the PATRIOT Act, 
for example--an interesting debate that took place, not once, but twice, 
and the second time around there was a lot of concern about whether or 
not the PATRIOT Act was necessary to protect the country. There's no 
doubt in my mind we needed to make sure the PATRIOT Act was renewed to 
tear down walls that exist so that intelligence people could serve--
could share information with criminal people. It wasn't the case, Mark, 
before 9/11.
    In other words, if somebody had some intelligence that they thought 
was necessary to protect the people, they couldn't share that with 
somebody who's job it was to rout people out of society to prevent them 
from attacking. It just made no sense. And so there was a healthy 
debate, and we finally got the PATRIOT Act extended after it was passed 
right after 9/11. To me, it was an indication of just a difference of 
approach.
    No one should ever question the patriotism of somebody who--let me 
just start over. I don't question the patriotism of somebody who doesn't 
agree with me; I just don't. And I think it's unwise to do that. I don't 
think that's what leaders do. I do think that--I think that there is a 
difference of opinion here in Washington about tools necessary to 
protect the country--the terrorist surveillance program--or what did you 
call it, Hutcheson? Yes, the illegal eavesdropping program is what you 
wanted to call it--[laughter]--IEP as opposed to TSP. [Laughter] There's 
just a difference of opinion about what we need to do to protect our 
country, Mark. I'm confident the leader, you 
know, meant nothing personal. I know that he shares my concern that we 
pass good legislation to get something done.
    Ken.

Former Governor Ann Richards of Texas

    Q. Thank you, sir. I'd be interested in your thoughts and 
remembrances about Ann Richards, and particularly what you learned in 
running against her 12 years ago.
    The President. Yes. Obviously, Laura and I pray for her family. I 
know this is a tough time for her children. She loved her children, and 
they loved her a lot.

[[Page 1658]]

    Running against Ann Richards taught me a lot. She was a really, 
really good candidate. She was a hard worker. She had the capacity to be 
humorous and yet make a profound point. I think she made a positive 
impact on the State of Texas. One thing is for certain: She empowered a 
lot of people to be--to want to participate in the political process 
that might not have felt that they were welcome in the process.
    I'll miss her. She was a--she really kind of helped define Texas 
politics in its best way. And one of the things we have done is we've--
in our history, we've had characters, people larger than life, people 
that could fill the stage; when the spotlight was on them, wouldn't 
shirk from the spotlight but would talk Texan and explain our State. And 
she was really good at that.
    And so I'm sad she passed away, and I wish her family all the best--
and all her friends. She had a lot of friends in Texas. A lot of people 
loved Ann Richards.
    And anyway, as I understand, they're working on the deal and how to 
honor her, and she'll be lying in state in the capitol, and----
    Q. Will you be sending anybody to----
    The President. Yes, I will send somebody to represent me. I don't 
know who it is going to be yet. Well, we're trying to get the details. 
Before I ask somebody, I've got to find out the full details.
    Thanks for asking the question. Let's see, New York Times, Sheryl 
[Sheryl Gay Stolberg].

``Military Commissions Act of 2006''

    Q. Hi, Mr. President.
    The President. Fine. How are you doing?
    Q. I'm well today. Thank you. [Laughter]
    The President. Did you start with, ``Hi, Mr. President''?
    Q. Hello, Mr. President.
    The President. Okay, that's fine. Either way, that's always a 
friendly greeting. Thank you.
    Q. We're a friendly newspaper.
    The President. Yes. [Laughter] Let me just say, I'd hate to see 
unfriendly. [Laughter]
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Want me to go on to somebody else and you collect 
your--[laughter]. Sorry, go ahead, Sheryl.
    Q. Mr. President, your administration had all summer to negotiate 
with lawmakers on the detainee legislation. How is it that you now find 
yourself in a situation where you have essentially an open rebellion on 
Capitol Hill led by some of the leading members of your own party, very 
respected voices in military affairs? And secondly, would you veto the 
bill if it passes in the form that the Armed Services Committee approved 
yesterday?
    The President. First, we have been working throughout the summer, 
talking to key players about getting a bill that will enable the program 
to go forward, and was pleased that the House of Representatives passed 
a good bill with an overwhelming bipartisan majority out of their 
committee, the Armed Services Committee. And I felt that was good 
progress. And obviously, we've got a little work to do in the Senate, 
and we'll continue making our case. But, no, we've been involved--ever 
since the Supreme Court decision came down, Sheryl, we've been talking 
about both the military tribunals and this Article 3 of the Geneva 
Convention.
    The Article 3 of the Geneva Convention is hard for a lot of citizens 
to understand. But let's see if I can put it this way for people to 
understand. There is a very vague standard that the Court said must kind 
of be the guide for our conduct in the war on terror and the detainee 
policy. It's so vague that it's impossible to ask anybody to participate 
in the program for fear--for that person having the fear of breaking the 
law. That's the problem.
    And so we worked with members of both bodies and both parties to try 
to help bring some definition to Common Article 3. I really don't think 
most Americans want

[[Page 1659]]

international courts being able to determine how we protect ourselves. 
And my assurance to people is that we can pass law here in the United 
States that helps define our treaty--international treaty obligations. 
We have done that in the past. It is not the first time that we have 
done this. And I believe it's necessary to do it this time in order for 
the program to go forward.
    Peter [Peter Baker, Washington Post].
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Sheryl's second question was whether 
you would veto the bill as it passed yesterday.
    The President. Oh, I don't--that's like saying, can you work with a 
Democrat Congress, when I don't think the Democrat Congress is going to 
get elected. I believe we can get a good bill. And there is--as you 
know, there's several steps in this process. The House will be working 
on a bill next week--the Senate will be. Hopefully, we can reconcile 
differences. Hopefully, we can come together and find a way forward 
without ruining the program.
    So your question was Sheryl's question?
    Q. No, sir.
    The President. Oh, you were following up on Sheryl's question?
    Q. Yes, sir.
    The President. That's a first. [Laughter]

Iraqi Military and Security Forces/U.S. Armed Forces

    Q. We're a friendly paper too. [Laughter]
    Mr. President, you've often used the phrase ``stand up/stand down,'' 
to describe your policy when it comes to troop withdrawals from Iraq--as 
Iraqi troops are trained and take over the fight, American troops will 
come home. The Pentagon now says they've trained 294,000 Iraqi troops 
and expect to complete their program of training 325,000 by the end of 
the year. But American troops aren't coming home, and there are more 
there now than there were previously. Is the goalpost moving, sir?
    The President. No, no. The enemy is changing tactics, and we're 
adapting. That's what's happening. And I asked General Casey today, ``Have you got what you need?'' He 
said, ``Yes, I've got what I need.''
    We all want the troops to come home as quickly as possible. But 
they'll be coming home when our commanders say the Iraqi Government is 
capable of defending itself and sustaining itself and is governing 
itself. And you know, I was hoping we would have--be able to--hopefully, 
Casey would come and say, you know, 
``Mr. President, there's a chance to have fewer troops there.'' It 
looked like that might be the case, until the violence started rising in 
Baghdad, and it spiked in June and July, as you know--or increased in 
June and July.
    And so they've got a plan now. They've adapted. The enemy moved; 
we'll help the Iraqis move. And so they're building a berm around the 
city to make it harder for people to come in with explosive devices, for 
example. They're working different neighborhoods inside of Baghdad to 
collect guns and bring people to detention. They've got a ``clear, 
build, and hold'' strategy.
    The reason why there are not fewer troops there, but are more--
you're right; it's gone from 135,000 to about 147,000, I think, or 140-
something thousand troops--is because George Casey felt he needed them to help the Iraqis achieve their 
objective.
    And that's the way I will continue to conduct the war. I'll listen 
to generals. Maybe it's not the politically expedient thing to do, is to 
increase troops coming into an election, but we just can't--you can't 
make decisions based upon politics about how to win a war. And the 
fundamental question you have to ask--and Martha knows what I'm about to 
say--is, can the President trust his commanders on the ground to tell 
him what is necessary? That's really one of the questions.
    In other words, if you say, ``I'm going to rely upon their 
judgment,'' the next

[[Page 1660]]

question is, how good is their judgment, or is my judgment good enough 
to figure out whether or not they know what they're doing? And I'm going 
to tell you, I've got great confidence in General John Abizaid and General George Casey. These are extraordinary men who understand the 
difficulties of the task and understand there is a delicate relationship 
between self-sufficiency on the Iraqis' part and U.S. presence.
    And this is not a science but an art form in a way, to try to make 
sure that a unity government is able to defend itself and, at the same 
time, not be totally reliant upon coalition forces to do the job for 
them. And the issue is complicated by the fact that there are still Al 
Qaida or Saddam remnants or militias that are 
still violent. And so to answer your question, the policy still holds. 
The ``stand up/stand down'' still holds, and so does the policy of me 
listening to our commanders to give me the judgment necessary for troop 
levels.
    Richard [Richard Wolffe, Newsweek] and then Allen [Mike Allen, 
Time].

Usama bin Laden/Pakistan's Role in the War 
on Terror

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier this week, you told a group of 
journalists that you thought the idea of sending Special Forces to 
Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Now recently you've also----
    The President. It's because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign 
nation.
    Q. Well, recently you've also described bin Laden as a sort of 
modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why--if you can 
explain why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt 
down bin Laden, wherever he is?
    The President. We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the 
question. They were asking me about somebody's report, well, Special 
Forces here--Pakistan--if he is in Pakistan, which this person thought 
he might be, who is asking the question--Pakistan is a sovereign nation. 
In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, 
we've got to be invited by the Government of Pakistan.
    Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance 
your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that. Then 
when you find him, you bring him to justice. And there is a kind of an 
urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn't 
stayed focused on Usama bin Laden. Forget it. It's convenient throw-away 
lines when people say that. We have been on the hunt, and we'll stay on 
the hunt until we bring him to justice. And we're doing it in a smart 
fashion, Richard, we are.
    And I look forward to talking to President Musharraf. Look, he doesn't like Al Qaida. They tried to kill 
him. And we've had a good record of bringing people to justice inside of 
Pakistan, because the Paks are in the lead. They know the stakes about 
dealing with a violent form of ideological extremists.
    And so we will continue on the hunt. And we've been effective about 
bringing to justice most of those who planned and plotted the 9/11 
attacks, and we've still got a lot of pressure on them. The best way to 
protect the homeland is to stay on the offense and keep pressure on 
them.
    Last question. Allen.

American Culture

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. It was reported earlier this week that 
in a meeting with conservative journalists, you said you'd seen changes 
in the culture. You referred to it as a ``Third Awakening.'' I wonder if 
you could tell us about--what you meant by that, what led you to that 
conclusion? And do you see any contradictory evidence in the culture?
    The President. No, I said--Mike, thanks. I was just speculating that 
the culture might be changing, and I was talking about when you're 
involved with making decisions

[[Page 1661]]

of historic nature, you won't be around to see the effects of your 
decisions. And I said that when I work the ropelines, a lot of people 
come and say, ``Mr. President, I'm praying for you''--a lot. As a matter 
of fact, it seems like a lot more now than when I was working ropelines 
in 1994. And I asked them--I was asking their opinion about whether or 
not there was a ``Third Awakening,'' I called it.
    I'd just read a book on Abraham Lincoln, and his Presidency was 
right around the time of what they called the Second Awakening, and I 
was curious to know whether or not these smart people felt like there 
was any historical parallels. I also said that I had run for office the 
first time to change a culture--Herman and Hutch remember me saying, you 
know, the culture that said, ``If it feels good, do it, and if you've 
got a problem, blame somebody else''--to helping to work change a 
culture in which each of us are responsible for the decisions we make in 
life. In other words, ushering in a responsibility era. And I reminded 
people that responsibility means, if you're a father, love your child; 
or if you're corporate America, be honest with the taxpayers; if you're 
a citizen of this country, love your neighbor.
    And so I was wondering out loud with them. It seems like to me that 
something is happening in the religious life of America. But I'm not a 
very good focus group either. I'm encapsulated here. I'm able to see a 
lot of people, and from my perspective, people are coming to say, ``I'm 
praying for you.'' And it's an uplifting part of being the President; it 
inspires me. And I'm grateful that a fellow citizen would say a prayer 
for me and Laura.
    Anyway, thank you all very much.

Note: The President's news conference began at 11:15 a.m. in the Rose 
Garden at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader responsible for planning the September 
11, 2001, terrorist attacks, who was captured in Pakistan on March 1, 
2003; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, an Al Qaida operative suspected of helping to 
plan the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, who was captured in 
Karachi, Pakistan, on September 11, 2002; Abu Zubaydah, a leader of the 
Al Qaida terrorist organization, who was captured in Faisalabad, 
Pakistan, on March 28, 2002; U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; 
Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., USA, commanding general, Multi-National 
Force--Iraq; Gen. John P. Abizaid, USA, commander, U.S. Central Command; 
Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; and 
President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. The President also referred to 
H.R. 6054, the ``Military Commissions Act of 2006,'' and S. 2455 and S. 
3874, both concerning the terrorist surveillance program. A reporter 
referred to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq.