    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
    [April 20, 2007]
    [Pages 445-463]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan and a Question-
    and-Answer Session in East Grand Rapids, Michigan
    April 20, 2007

        The President. Thank you all very much. I'm glad to be back in Grand
    Rapids. I appreciate the opportunity to address the World Affairs
    Council of Western Michigan. I was leaving the White House today,
    Laura said, ``Where are you headed?'' I said,
    ``To the west coast.'' [Laughter] She said, ``Make sure you take your
    suntan lotion.'' [Laughter] I said, ``The west coast of Michigan''--
    [laughter]--and I'm glad to be with you.
        You can't help but think about Gerald Ford when you come to Grand
    Rapids, Michigan. You know, our country was blessed to have such a
    decent, honorable, kind, courageous leader in Gerald R. Ford, and we
    miss him a lot.
        I appreciate Dixie Anderson, who is the
    executive director of the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. I
    thank Barbara Propes, who is the president of
    the World Affairs Council of America. I want to thank Ping Liang, president, board of directors of the World Affairs
    Council of Western Michigan, and a fellow Yale Bulldog.
        I appreciate my friend, Ambassador Pete Secchia for joining us today. He was the Ambassador to Italy under
    41. I appreciate Sara Shubel, who is the
    superintendent of the East Grand Rapids Public Schools. Thank you very
    much for allowing me to come to this beautiful auditorium here in East
    Grand Rapids High School. I appreciate Jenny Fee,
    the associate principal, as well as Larry Fisher.
        My purpose of coming is to instruct, is to talk about the issues
    that our world is facing, particularly the issue of Iraq. And

    [[Page 446]]

    I appreciate the chance to come to this high school to do so.
        I thank Congressman Vern Ehlers,
    Congressman from this district. I appreciate you being here, Vern, and
    thank you for joining me and Congressman Pete Hoekstra on Air Force One. It's probably quite convenient for
    you to fly from Washington on Air Force One. [Laughter] Glad to provide
    the transportation. [Laughter] Both these men are really honorable folks
    who serve western Michigan well in Congress, and I want to thank you for
    your service.
        I thank the Michigan Attorney General, Michael Cox, for joining us. Mike, thanks for coming today.
    Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land.
    She heard this was a foreign policy speech. [Laughter] I appreciate
    Mayor Cindy Bartman, city of East Grand
    Rapids; Mayor George Heartwell, city of
    Grand Rapids. Thank you all for serving. I appreciate your willingness
    to become public servants.
        One of the messages I hope that I can convey to the high school
    students who are here, no matter what your political beliefs may be:
    that it's important to serve. It's important to serve the community in
    which you live. And you can do so all kinds of ways. You can run for
    mayor at some point in time, or you can feed the hungry. But service is
    noble, and service is necessary. I see we've got some who wear the
    uniform of the United States military. In this day and age, that's the
    ultimate service, as far as I'm concerned, and I appreciate your
    volunteering.
        For more than a half century, the World Affairs Council of Western
    Michigan has been a forum for lively and important debate. I understand
    this council was set up in 1949. It's been an important forum for people
    to talk about the big questions facing our country. There is no bigger
    question than what course our Nation should pursue in Iraq, and that's
    what I'm here to talk about.
        Three months ago, my administration completed an extensive review of
    that very question. I ordered major changes to our strategy in Iraq. And
    to lead this new strategy, I named General David Petraeus, an expert who wrote the Army's new manual on
    counterinsurgency warfare.
        This new strategy is fundamentally different from the previous
    strategy. It recognizes that our top priority must be to help Iraq's
    elected leaders secure their population, especially in Baghdad, because
    Iraqis will not be able to make the political and economic progress they
    need until they have a basic measure of security. Iraq's leaders are
    committed to providing that security, but at this point, they cannot do
    it on their own.
        And so I ordered American reinforcements to help the Iraqis secure
    their population, to go after the terrorists and insurgents that are
    inciting sectarian violence, and to get their capital under control. As
    our troops take on this mission, they will continue to train and mentor
    the Iraqi security forces for the day they can take full responsibility
    for the security of their own country.
        General Petraeus has been carrying out
    this new strategy for just over 2 months. He reports that it will be
    later this year before we can judge the potential of success. Yet the
    first indications are beginning to emerge, and they show that so far,
    the operation is meeting expectations. There are still horrific attacks
    in Iraq, such as the bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, but the direction
    of the fight is beginning to shift.
        In the coming months, I'll deliver regular updates on our
    operations. Today I want to share some details about how this effort is
    unfolding in three areas: Baghdad, Anbar Province, and the outskirts of
    Baghdad, where terrorists and extremists are making a stand.
        The most significant element of our new strategy is being carried
    out in Baghdad. Baghdad has been the site of most of the sectarian
    violence; it is the destination for most of our reinforcements. So far,
    three

    [[Page 447]]

    additional American brigades totaling about 12,000 troops have reached
    the Baghdad area, another brigade is in Kuwait preparing to deploy, and
    one more will arrive in Kuwait next month. The Iraqi Government is also
    meeting its pledge to boost its force levels in the city. For every
    American combat soldier deployed to Baghdad, there are now about three
    Iraqi security forces, giving us a combined total of nearly 80,000
    combat forces in the Baghdad area.
        My point is, is that the American combat forces are not alone in the
    effort to secure the nation's capital. And just as important as the
    growing number of troops is their changing position in the city. I
    direct your attention to a map showing our troop presence around Baghdad
    late last year. This is how we were positioned. Most troops were at
    bases on the outskirts of the city. They would move into Baghdad to
    clear out neighborhoods during the day, and then they would return to
    their bases at night. The problem was that when our troops moved back to
    the bases, the extremists, the radicals, the killers moved back into the
    neighborhoods.
        And we're changing. Part of our strategy change, part of the new
    mission in Baghdad, is for American troops to live and work side by side
    with Iraqi forces at small neighborhood posts called joint security
    stations. You can see from this map, there are now more than two dozen
    joint security stations located throughout Baghdad; more are planned.
    From these stations, Iraqi and American forces work together to clear
    out and then secure neighborhoods, all aimed at providing security for
    the people of Baghdad. If a heavy fight breaks out, our forces will step
    in, and Iraqi forces learn valuable skills from American troops. They'll
    fight shoulder to shoulder with the finest military ever assembled.
        By living in Baghdad neighborhoods, American forces get to know the
    culture and concerns of local residents. Equally important, the local
    residents get to know them. When Iraqi civilians see a large presence of
    professional soldiers and police patrolling their streets, they grow in
    confidence and trust. They become less likely to turn to militias for
    protection. People want security in their lives, and they tend to turn
    to the most apparently effective security force. And as people gain
    confidence in the ability of the Iraqi troops, along with the United
    States, to provide security, they begin to cooperate. In fact, Iraqi and
    American forces have received more tips in the past 3 months than during
    any 3-month period on record. These are tips provided by local citizens
    about where to find terrorists and insurgents.
        Most people, the vast majority of people want to live in peace.
    Iraqi mothers want their children to grow up in peace. And if given the
    opportunity and given the confidence, civilians turn in the terrorists
    and extremists and murderers to help achieve that peace.
        This new approach to securing Baghdad brings risks. When I announced
    the new operation, I cautioned that more troops conducting more
    operations in more neighborhoods would likely to bring more casualties.
    Since the security operation began, we have seen some of the highest
    casualty levels of the war. And as the number of troops in Baghdad grows
    and operations move into even more dangerous neighborhoods, we can
    expect the pattern to continue.
        We must also expect the terrorists and insurgents to continue
    mounting terrible attacks. Here is a photo of the devastation caused by
    a car bomb at a bus stop in Baghdad on Wednesday. The victims of this
    attack were innocent men and women who were simply coming home from
    work. Yet this was hardly a random act of murder. It has all the
    hallmarks of an Al Qaida attack. The terrorists bombed the buses at rush
    hour, with the specific intent to kill as many people as possible. This
    has been long a pattern of Al Qaida in Iraq; this

    [[Page 448]]

    is what they do. They carried out the spectacular attack on the United
    Nations headquarters in Baghdad. They bombed the Jordanian Embassy in
    Iraq. They claimed credit for the bombing of the Golden Mosque of
    Samarra. Just last week, they sent a suicide bomber to attack the Iraqi
    Parliament building.
        Al Qaida believes that its best chance to achieve its objectives,
    which is to drive the United States out of Iraq and prevent the
    emergence of a free society in the Middle East, is to defeat the
    security operation by conducting spectacular attacks that provoke Iraqis
    into taking violence into their own hands and lead Americans to conclude
    that the sectarian killing will never be contained. This strategy is
    merciless, but it is not without logic. It's important for all Iraqis--
    Sunnis and Shi'a alike--to understand that Al Qaida is the greatest
    threat to peace in their country. And the question is whether we and the
    Iraqis will give in and to--respond the way Al Qaida wants. Because of
    the lessons of September the 11th, the answer is, the United States
    Government will not give in to what Al Qaida wants. And the Iraqis must
    not give in to Al Qaida if they want to have a peaceful society.
        The nature of a strategy aimed at securing the population is that
    the most important gains are often the least dramatic. Day by day, block
    by block, Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains in
    Baghdad. Thanks to more troops on the streets and more cooperation from
    residents, the average number of weapons stockpiles seized each week has
    jumped 50 percent since the beginning of the new strategy. American and
    Iraqi forces tracked down and captured the leaders of a major car bomb
    ring. We found and cleared a warehouse where terrorists were storing
    chemicals to make weapons. We captured members of a death squad that had
    terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood. As a result,
    displaced families are beginning to return home. And the number of
    sectarian murders in Baghdad has dropped by half since the operation
    began.
        The results of the security operation are uneven across the city. In
    some areas, there have been sharp declines in sectarian killing, while
    in other areas, the level of violence is still far too high. Yet even in
    volatile districts like Sadr City, our new approach is beginning to make
    a difference. A report last month in the Grand Rapids Press quoted an
    Iraqi resident of Sadr City. Perhaps you read
    it. If you didn't, here's what it said: ``They thanked us''--they're
    talking about our forces and Iraqi forces--``They thanked us with
    respect and a smile.'' This resident said: ``I'm happy that such a
    campaign is done in my neighborhood.'' People want security, and they
    want to live in peace.
        Developments like these are not as spectacular as a terrorist bomb.
    When a family decides to stop depending on militias to protect them or a
    young man rejects insurgency and joins the Iraqi Army, it doesn't
    usually make the evening news. Yet small, individual choices like these
    are vital to the success of our campaign. They show that despite all the
    violence, the vast majority of Iraqis want security; they want to live
    in peace. I know I've said that more than once. It's important for our
    citizens to understand that people around the world are anxious for
    peace, and yet there are extremists and radicals and murderers who will
    do anything they can to prevent it from happening.
        The Iraqi security forces are growing in maturity and gaining trust,
    and that's important. Our men and women in uniform are showing great
    courage and skill, and that's important to the Iraqi people as well.
        Another significant element of our new strategy is being carried out
    in Anbar Province, a largely Sunni area west of Baghdad. For much of the
    past 4 years, Anbar has been a hotbed for insurgents and Al Qaida
    terrorists. Remember, Al Qaida is Sunni in nature. According to a
    captured Al Qaida

    [[Page 449]]

    document, according to what Al Qaida has made clear, their goal is to
    take over the Anbar Province and make it their home base for Iraq. That
    would bring them closer to their stated objective of taking down Iraq's
    democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and having safe haven from
    which to launch attacks on the United States citizens here at home or
    abroad. That is what Al Qaida has stated. That is their objective, and
    Anbar Province is where they're trying to achieve their objective. Al
    Qaida has pursued this goal through a ruthless campaign of violence, and
    they grew in power. They were succeeding.
        And then something began to change. The people of Anbar began to
    realize their life was not the paradise Al Qaida promised; as a matter
    of fact, it was a nightmare. So, courageous tribal sheiks launched a
    movement called The Awakening, and began cooperating with American and
    Iraqi forces. The sheiks and their followers knew exactly who the
    terrorists were, and they began providing highly specific intelligence.
    To help capitalize on the opportunity, I sent more troops into Anbar
    Province. Alongside the Iraqi Army and police, U.S. marines and Special
    Operations forces have been striking terrible blows against Al Qaida.
        The maps show the dramatic changes taking place in Ramadi, which
    happens to be the capital of Anbar Province. The red-shaded areas in the
    first map show the concentration of Al Qaida terrorists in the city 2
    months ago. The second map shows the concentration of the terrorists
    now. Their presence has declined substantially. Here is how one reporter
    described the changes: ``A year ago, Ramadi's police force had virtually
    been wiped out, leaving only a couple dozen officers and a lawless city
    with nowhere to turn for help. Now guerrilla fighters have begun to
    disappear, schools and shops have reopened, and civilians have begun
    walking previously in deserted streets.''
        Anbar Province is still not safe. Al Qaida has responded to these
    changes with sickening brutality. They bomb fellow Sunnis in prayer at a
    mosque; they send death squads into neighborhoods; they have recruited
    children as young as 12 years old to help carry out suicide attacks. But
    this time, local Sunnis are refusing to be intimidated. With the
    encouragement of their tribal leaders, they're stepping forward to
    protect their families and drive out the terrorists. They're stepping
    forward to prevent Al Qaida--the people who attacked us on September the
    11th, 2001--from establishing safe haven in Anbar Province. And I
    believe strongly it's in the interest of the United States of America to
    help them.
        General Petraeus said earlier this
    month, ``In the latest recruiting effort, which used to draw minimal
    numbers of Iraqis willing to serve in the Iraqi Army or the Iraqi police
    in Anbar Province, there were over 2,000 volunteers for the latest
    training.'' General Petraeus went on: ``Frankly, it's a stunning
    development and reflects the frustration the Sunni Arab tribes have with
    what Al Qaida has done to them. It has really had a devastating
    effect.'' If given a chance, most people will reject extremists and
    radicals and murderers.
        The United States will help the Sunni sheiks and will help their
    people. We will stay on the offense in Anbar Province. We and the Iraqi
    Government are carrying out our new strategy in Baghdad and Anbar, as
    well as the ``Baghdad belts''; these are areas on the outskirts of the
    capital that have been staging grounds for deadly attacks. I have
    discussed the capital city with you. I discussed a western Province with
    you. And I'm now going to talk about the belts around the capital city
    of Iraq.
        We have moved an additional Stryker battalion to Diyala Province,
    which is northeast of Baghdad, where our soldiers and Iraqi forces are
    conducting raids against Al Qaida and insurgents. We have sent
    reinforcements to Diwaniyah Province--Diwaniyah, a city of Diwaniyah,

    [[Page 450]]

    which is 80 miles south of Baghdad, where we're working with Iraqi
    forces to rout out militia and Shi'a extremists.
        In these and other parts of the Baghdad belts, Iraqi and American
    forces are fighting to clear and hold territory that the enemies of a
    free society considered their own. They're fighting back. As a result,
    violence is increasing. And as our forces move deeper into the
    territory, the violence could increase even more. Yet these operations
    are having an important impact on this young democracy. They're keeping
    the pressure on the terrorists and insurgents who have fled Anbar and
    Baghdad. They're helping cut off the supply of weapons and fighters to
    violent groups inside the capital. They're showing Iraqi citizens across
    the country, there will be no sanctuary for killers anywhere in a free
    Iraq.
        All of these military operations are designed to improve security
    for everyday folks, they're designed to reduce sectarian violence, and
    they're designed to open up breathing space for political progress by
    Iraq's Government.
        It may seem like decades ago, but it wasn't all that long ago that
    12 million Iraqi citizens voted for a free and democratic future for
    their country. And the Government they elected is in place--it hasn't
    been in place a year yet--and they're working hard to make progress on
    some key benchmarks, progress to help this country reconcile and unite
    after years of tyrannical and brutal rule.
        The Iraqi legislature passed a budget that commits $10 billion of
    their money for reconstruction projects, and now the Government must
    spend that money to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens. The Council of
    Ministers recently approved legislation that would provide a framework
    for an equitable sharing of oil resources, and now that legislation
    needs to go before their Parliament for approval. The Government has
    formed a committee to organize Provincial elections, and the next step
    is to set a date for those elections to be held. Iraqi leaders are
    taking steps toward an agreement on a de-Ba'athification law that will
    allow more Iraqis to reenter their nation's civic life, and they need to
    agree on that measure and send it to the Parliament.
        Prime Minister Maliki is working to
    build greater support from Iraq's neighbors and the international
    community. I just talked to him the other day on secure video--I was in
    the White House, and he was in Baghdad--and we talked about this
    neighborhood conference opportunity to rally the international community
    to help support this young democracy's efforts to thrive and prosper.
    And at the conference in Egypt next month, he, along with Secretary
    Rice and other concerned leaders, will seek
    increased diplomatic and financial commitments for this country.
        Iraq's leaders have begun meeting their benchmarks, and they've got
    a lot left to do. As more breathing space is created by reducing the
    sectarian violence, Iraq's leaders have got to take advantage of that
    breathing space. I have made it abundantly clear to the Prime
    Minister that our patience is not unlimited,
    that we fully recognize that there has to be political progress and
    economic progress, along with military progress in order for that
    Government to succeed. And it's up to the Iraqi people and the Iraq-
    elected folks to show America and the world they're ready to do the hard
    work necessary to reconcile and move forward.
        It's important to understand that Iraq's Government is working hard
    in a difficult environment. The day after its building was bombed, the
    Iraqi Parliament held a special session. Its Speaker said the meeting sent ``a clear message to all the
    terrorists and all those who share--who dare to try to stop this
    political process that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue.''
    I found that to be a heartening statement, that here Al Qaida bombs
    their Parliament, and this man stands up and says: You're not going to
    scare us; we want to represent the will of the 12 million people who
    voted.

    [[Page 451]]

        I--you've just got to know my view of--the vast majority of Iraqis
    are courageous people. They've endured brutality as a result of
    murderers trying to stop their new country from--their new system of
    government from succeeding. And I'm impressed by their courage. And I
    believe this current Government under Prime Minister Maliki is committed to building a strong democracy. That's my
    judgment, having talked to him. I've watched a man begun to grow in
    office. I first talked to him in June, when he was named the Prime
    Minister. I've talked to him consistently ever since. I look to see
    whether or not he has courage to make the difficult decisions necessary
    to achieve peace. I'm looking to see whether or not he has got the
    capacity to reach out and help unify this country. He says, you know,
    sometimes it's hard to get the Parliament to do exactly what he thinks
    they ought to do. [Laughter] I know what he means. [Laughter]
        As we increase troop levels, we're also increasing our civilian
    presence. We're doubling the number of what's called Provincial
    Reconstruction Teams, which partner civilian experts with combat units
    to ensure that military operations are followed up with rapid economic
    assistance. These teams help local Iraqi leaders restore basic services
    and stimulate job creation and promote reconciliation. Their work
    highlights a sharp difference: The Iraqi and American Governments want
    to rebuild communities and improve lives; the extremists and terrorists
    want to destroy communities and take lives. And when ordinary Iraqis see
    this difference for themselves, they become more likely to stand with
    their elected leaders and help marginalize the extremists in this
    struggle.
        Here at home, a different kind of struggle is taking place, and its
    outcome will have a direct impact on the frontlines. Despite the initial
    signs of progress on the ground, despite the fact that many
    reinforcements have not even arrived, Democratic leadership of the
    Congress is pushing legislation that would undercut the strategy General
    David Petraeus has just started to pursue.
    They have passed bills in the House and Senate that would impose
    restrictions on our military commanders and mandate a precipitous
    withdrawal by an arbitrary date. They say, withdrawal, regardless of the
    conditions on the ground. That approach makes for a vivid contrast with
    the attitude in Iraq. A prominent Middle Eastern scholar recently visited Iraq, described the difference this
    way: ``A traveler who moves between Baghdad and Washington is struck by
    the gloomy despair in Washington and the cautious sense of optimism in
    Baghdad.''
        We have honest differences of opinion in Washington and around this
    country, and I appreciate those differences. The ability to debate
    differences openly and frequently is what makes America a great country.
    Our men and women in uniform should never be caught in the middle of
    these debates. It has now been 74 days since I sent to Congress a
    request for emergency funding that our troops urgently need. The
    leadership in Congress have spent those 74 days trying to substitute
    their judgment for the judgment of our generals, without sending me
    legislation. And now, to cover ongoing Army operations, the Pentagon is
    being forced to transfer money from military personnel accounts.
        The delay in spending is beginning to affect the ability of the
    Pentagon to fund our troops and all our missions. On Wednesday, I met
    the White House with congressional leaders from both parties. It was a
    very cordial meeting. I think you would have been pleased at the tone of
    the meeting in the Cabinet Room there at the White House; at least I
    was. I urged the people around the table to put politics aside and to
    send a bill that funds our troops, without arbitrary deadlines, without
    wasteful spending, and without handcuffing our commanders.
        There is ample time to debate this war. We need to get the troops
    the money.

    [[Page 452]]

    When we debate the war on terror, it can be convenient to divide up the
    fight by location. And so we hear about, quote, ``the war in
    Afghanistan'' and, quote, ``the war in Iraq,'' if they were something
    separate. This is a natural way to talk about a complicated subject; I
    don't think it's accurate. Our enemies make no distinction based on
    borders. They view the world as a giant battlefield and will strike
    wherever they can. The killers who behead captives and order suicide
    bombings in Iraq are followers of the same radical ideology as those who
    destroy markets in Afghanistan, or they set off car bombs in Algeria,
    and blow up subway trains in London. The men who attacked Iraq's
    Parliament last week swear allegiance to the same terrorist network as
    those who attacked America on September the 11th, 2001.
        The fight in Iraq has been long and is trying. It's a difficult
    period in our Nation's history. I also say, it's a consequential moment
    in our Nation's history as well. It's natural to wish there was an easy
    way out, that we could just pack up and bring our troops home and be
    safe. Yet in Iraq, the easy road would be a road to disaster. If we were
    to leave Iraq before that Government can defend itself and be an ally in
    this war against extremists and radicals and be able to deny safe haven
    to people who want to hurt the United States, the consequences for this
    country would be grave.
        There would be a security vacuum in Iraq. Extremists and radicals
    love vacuums in which to spread chaos. The world would see different
    factions of radicals, different groups of extremists competing for
    influence and power. The extremists who emerge from this battle would
    turn the country into a new radical regime in the Middle East. I told
    you they want to launch new attacks on America, and they need safe haven
    from which to do so.
        Not every enemy we face in Iraq wants to attack us here at home, but
    many of them do. And I believe it's in the interest of this country to
    take those threats seriously. We don't have to imagine what might happen
    if a group of terrorists gained safe haven. We've learned that lesson, I
    hope--precisely what happened in Afghanistan--it's really important for
    our memories not to dim. At least it's important for my memory not to
    dim, because my most important job is to protect the American people.
    The lesson of 9/11 is that when you allow extremists and radicals and
    killers to find a sanctuary anywhere in the world, that can have deadly
    consequences on the streets of our own cities. What happens overseas
    matters here in the United States of America. It's one of the
    fundamental lessons of September the 11th, 2001.
        Those who advocate pulling out of Iraq claim they are proposing an
    alternative strategy to deal with the situation there. Withdrawal is not
    a strategy. Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent violence from
    spilling out across that country and plunging Iraq into chaos and
    anarchy. Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent Al Qaida from taking
    advantage of the chaos to seize control of a nation with some of the
    world's largest oil resources. Withdrawal would embolden these radicals
    and extremists. Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent Al Qaida from
    using Iraq as a base to overthrow other moderate countries. Withdrawal
    would do nothing to prevent Iran from exploiting the chaos in Iraq to
    destabilize the region, expand its radical influence, threaten Israel,
    and further its ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons.
        If anything, withdrawal would make each of these dangerous
    developments more likely. Withdrawal would embolden enemies and confirm
    their belief that America is weak and does not have the stomach to do
    what is necessary to lay the foundations for peace. Ultimately,
    withdrawal would increase the probability that American troops would
    have to return to Iraq and confront an enemy that is even more
    dangerous.
        So no matter how frustrating the fight in Iraq can be, no matter how
    much we

    [[Page 453]]

    wish the war was over, the security of our country depends directly on
    the outcome of Iraq. The price of giving up there would be paid in
    American lives for years to come. I firmly believe that historians would
    look back on that decision to withdraw, and say: ``What happened to them
    in the year 2007? How come they could not see the dangers to the United
    States of America?''

        No one understands the stakes in Iraq more clearly than our troops.
    Every man and woman in our military volunteered for the job. They make
    us proud every day. Michael Evans is a
    specialist from Sumner, Illinois. His unit is part of the new operation
    to secure Baghdad. He said, quote, ``It is a great feeling to know we're
    contributing to getting insurgents off the streets, so the people do not
    have to live in fear.'' He went on to say, ``I'll be coming away from
    this knowing that I was doing something to help the American people--so
    that what happened on 9/11 never happens again.''

        I agree with him. Specialist Evans
    represents the greatness of our country, decent citizens volunteering to
    protect you. You know, for all we hear about the consequences of failure
    in Iraq, we should not forget the consequences of success in Iraq.
    Success in Iraq would bring something powerful and new, a democracy in
    the heart of the Middle East, a nation that fights terrorists instead of
    harboring them, and a powerful example for others of the power of
    liberty to overcome an ideology of hate.

        We have done this kind of work in the United States of America
    before. I am--you know, I marvel at the fact that on the one hand, my
    dad joined the Navy at 18 to fight a sworn
    enemy--the Japanese--and on the other hand, his son, some 55 years
    later, best friend and keeping the peace with the Prime Minister of
    Japan. I find that an amazing fact of
    history: 41 fights them; 43 works with them to lay the foundation for
    peace, including working with Japan to deploy Japanese troops in Iraq.
    It's amazing to me. But it shows the power of liberty to transform
    enemies into allies.
        We have done the hard work before of helping young democracies. As a
    matter of fact, we did so after a brutal World War II, in helping
    Germany and Japan get back on their feet and establish forms of
    government that yield peace. We did so after the Korean war. I suspect
    it would be hard to find anybody in 1953 to predict that an American
    President would one day be reporting to the World Affairs Council of
    Western Michigan that relations in the Far East are solid for the United
    States of America and that that part of the world is relatively peaceful
    compared to other troubled parts of the world. In '53 they would have
    been thinking about all the lives lost in Japan or in Korea. In '53 they
    would have seen a Communist China gaining strength.
        And yet, in 2007, we've got a Korea that went through difficult
    times to get to the democracy she's now in and is now a major trading
    partner of the United States. We've got a China with an open
    marketplace, based upon the principles where consumers get to decide
    things, not the state. The political system has got a long way to go,
    but the marketplace is beginning to redefine that society. Or how about
    Japan? A place where we lost thousands of lives, and yet now they're a
    partner in peace.
        America has done the hard work necessary to give liberty a chance to
    prevail. And it's my answer--my opinion and in the opinion of people
    like Specialist Evans that we do so in the Middle East for the sake of
    peace for a young generation of Americans.
        Thank you. Thank you all. You all, sit down.
        I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions, on any subject. Yes,
    sir.

    [[Page 454]]

    Emergency Supplemental Appropriations/War on Terror Strategy

        Q. How do you think the new Democratic Congress will--[inaudible].
        The President. Yes, thanks. First of all, I just want you to know
    that even though I'm quite critical of the delay in the supplemental
    funding, I respect the Democratic leadership in Washington. We have
    fundamental disagreements about whether or not helping this young
    democracy is--the consequences of failure or success, let's put it that
    way. It's also very important in this debate to understand that even
    though we have our policy differences--particularly as the young lad
    that you are--that we don't think either of us are not patriotic
    citizens, okay?
        So when you hear the debate, in my perspective, it's because of--I
    just disagree with the notion that when we have troops in harm's way
    that there ought to be a kind of political process with strings attached
    to a piece of legislation that goes to fund our troops. As I say,
    there's ample time to discuss right or wrong. I don't believe there's
    ample time to delay funding for men and women who have volunteered.
        Secondly, I feel very strongly--wait a minute--[applause]--this is a
    sober forum--or a forum of sober people, I hope. [Laughter] There is a--
    I have a fundamental problem with a--look, a lot of people didn't like
    the strategy. In other words, people said: ``You shouldn't have done
    that, Mr. President.'' And I fully understand that aspect of it. I also
    found it quite ironic that the general I asked to lead the strategy, a
    counterinsurgency expert, David Petraeus,
    gets approved by the United States Senate 81 to nothing, and then, on
    his way over, they begin to micromanage his ability to follow through on
    the strategy.
        So we have just a policy difference. I--when it's all said and done,
    I believe these troops will get the money they need. I think you're
    going to see there to be a continual debate on this subject.
    Interestingly enough, I said in a forum yesterday in Ohio and I'll share
    with you now, I thought at this point this year, I would be announcing
    troop reductions in Iraq, because I felt--this is, again, a year ago--I
    felt that the Iraqi Government was better prepared to be able to handle
    their own security. And by the way, they want to handle their own
    security. The Prime Minister is constantly
    saying: ``Let me do more of it.'' We just believe he's not quite ready
    to do so and that it's in our interest to help him be able to take on
    more of the security challenges. And I thought we'd be reducing troops.
        And then what happened was, the Samarra bombing took place by Al
    Qaida, which caused there to be a sectarian outrage. And because the
    Government was ill-prepared to provide enough security in the capital,
    people began to use militias to provide security. And the sectarian
    outrage, the killing started to get out of hand. And I had a decision to
    make: withdraw from the capital and just kind of hope for the burnout
    theory--as you know, I was worried about chaos, and into chaos comes
    more extremists--or reinforce. I chose reinforce, all aiming to get to a
    position where we'll be able to reposition our forces.
        I liked what James A. Baker and Lee
    Hamilton suggested. I thought that was a
    good suggestion. And that is to be in a position at some point in time
    where our troops are embedded with the Iraqi units; in other words,
    there's Iraqi units providing security with a handful of U.S. troops
    helping them learn what it means to be a good military. That's not a
    given. It's hard to have a good military. It's hard to have a chain of
    command with logistical support and maintenance support. And we're good
    at it, and we can help others become good at it. And embedding troops
    and training troops makes sense for me. I like the idea of having our
    troops on the over-horizon presence, to be able to help bail out extreme
    situations. I really want to make sure that our special ops stays on the
    hunt for

    [[Page 455]]

    Al Qaida in Iraq. We can't let Al Qaida develop another safe haven.
    Listen, we spent a lot of energy to drive Al Qaida out of Afghanistan;
    we don't want them to be able to establish a same type of safe haven in
    Iraq. That's where I would like to be.
        I made the judgment, along with our military commanders: we could
    not get there until we provided enough security. And I fully understand
    this is a rough war. As I mentioned in my speech--let me put it more
    bluntly: The enemy has got an advantage. They know that a spectacular
    bombing is going to make it on the news, and it shakes people's
    conscience, and it should. Ours is a nation that has deep compassion for
    human life and human dignity.
        But they also know it makes people question whether or not we can
    succeed in Iraq. Remember, we believe most of the spectaculars, like the
    ones you saw--we don't have the intel--I can't tell you for certain
    Wednesday's bombing was Al Qaida. In other words, I don't have the--I
    can speculate. But I can tell you a lot of the spectacular bombings have
    been Al Qaida. A lot of the suicide bombings have been Al Qaida. That's
    why I said Al Qaida is the main threat for peace, because what they're
    trying to do is shake the confidence of the Iraqi people and their
    Government and the coalition's ability to provide security, and shake
    our confidence.
        And, you know, as I say, it is tempting to think, well, just pull
    out of there and everything is going to be fine. I firmly believe,
    however, that one of the lessons of September the 11th is that if we
    were to concede Iraq to basically Al Qaida, in a sense, that they would
    follow us here, that oceans no longer protect us. And it's also
    important for you to know that my thinking was deeply affected on
    September the 11th, 2001. And therefore, a lot of the core of my
    thinking is to work to protect the United States as my most solemn
    obligation.
        Yes, sir.

    Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom

        Q. I'm wondering if you could describe your relationship with Tony
    Blair? [Inaudible]--reduced troops in Basra, how has that impacted your
    relationship?
        The President. No, thank you. Good question. His question was: One,
    the relationship with Tony Blair; two, they have reduced their troops in
    Basra, in southern Iraq, and has that affected our relationship?
        First, I have found Tony Blair to be a stand-up man. He's the kind
    of person who keeps his word. He's a strategic thinker. He thinks beyond
    the moment, to be able to try to project out beyond the current, so that
    the decisions that we have made jointly are decisions that end up
    yielding a long-term peace.
        He, of course, like a good ally, informed me of his Government's
    intentions to reduce their presence in Basra. I concurred with him
    because the conditions on the ground were such that he didn't need to
    keep as many troops there as were initially stationed there. Secondly,
    what's interesting, as he made the announcement on Basra, he also made
    the announcement that they're going to send more troops into
    Afghanistan. Blair knows what I know--Prime Minister Blair knows what I
    know, that we're in a global war and that we think about Afghanistan and
    Iraq as separate wars--they're of the same war; they're just different
    theaters of this war.
        He also knows what I know, that our--we have got to work really
    closely and share intelligence, and that's one of the reasons I
    appreciate Pete so much. He understands the intelligence business as a
    key component of keeping the country safe. We've got to share
    intelligence. This is--Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of a country
    which has been attacked; so has ours. And--no, I appreciate you bringing
    him up; he's solid. And in my judgment, the world needs courageous
    leadership, like--people like Tony Blair.

    [[Page 456]]

        Yes, sir.

    Iran and Syria/Spread of Democracy in the Middle East

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. What's the next step for the United
    States, or even the United Nations, in dealing with the belligerent
    behavior of Iran with regards to nuclear development?
        The President. Yes, thank you. Excellent question. You go to school
    here?
        Q. No. [Laughter]
        The President. I was going to say, give the man an ``A.''
        First of all, you do understand Iran is a Shi'a nation primarily.
    It's--interestingly enough, though, only 50 percent of the nation is
    Persian. A great portion of Iran is Azeri, Baloch, other kinds of
    nationalities make up their country.
        The Iranians have defied international organizations in an attempt
    to enrich uranium and--we believe, because they want to have a nuclear
    weapon. And I believe this challenge is one of the most significant
    challenges we face--``we,'' the free world, face. There's a lot of
    reasons why.
        One, just as an example, you really don't want a regime that funds
    terrorist organizations like Hizballah to have a nuclear weapon as a
    part of their capacity to create the conditions, for example, of
    diplomatic blackmail. Secondly, the current leader of Iran has--I'm not exactly sure--I can't remember exactly
    his words, but the sum of them were that the destruction of one of our
    allies was important to them--that would be Israel.
        Third, it's ironic--isn't it?--that any time a democracy begins to
    take hold in the Middle East, extremist groups prevent that democracy
    from moving forward. One such democracy is Lebanon, a wonderful little
    country. And yet there is a Syrian influence; Syria uses not only their
    own agents inside the country but Hizballah to destabilize this young
    democracy. And Hizballah is funded by Iran. In other words, the Iranian
    regime's current posture is to destabilize young democracies, and
    they're doing so in Iraq as well.
        So our objective is to rally the world to make it clear to the
    current regime that if they continue their practices, they will continue
    to be isolated. And we're making interesting progress. We've passed
    several U.N. Security Council resolutions, the primary benefit of which
    is to say to the Iranian regime, and equally importantly the Iranian
    people, that countries as diverse as the United States and China and
    Russia and parts of Europe will isolate you, will deny you, the Iranian
    people, the benefits that you deserve. Iran is a proud country with a
    great tradition and good, hard-working people. And yet their Government
    is making decisions that endanger peace and, at the same time, will
    continue to lead to isolation. And so should the Iranian people worry
    about isolation? I think so, because you're missing economic
    opportunities. You're missing the chance to improve your lives. You're
    missing the chance to enhance your country's great history.
        The choice is up to the Iranian Government as to whether or not they
    will be accepted into the family of nations, all aimed at promoting
    peace and economic prosperity. They have not--they've made a bad choice
    up to now. And so we'll continue to work hard with the rest of the
    world, all aiming at solving this very difficult problem diplomatically.
        Yes, ma'am.

    Iraq Study Group/Situation in the Middle East

        Q. [Inaudible]--the name of the conference in Egypt that you were
    discussing?
        The President. Sure.
        Q. I think that's a great idea. I was wondering, we did have a
    group--a commission, I believe, here, that was discussing how to solve
    our Iraq problems, but we really haven't implemented the advice from----
        The President. Baker-Hamilton.

    [[Page 457]]

        Q. ----Baker-Hamilton commission. I was wondering how we were going
    to be able to convince the countries that participate in this conference
    in Egypt that we will actually consider implementing their advice----
        The President. Good. No. That's a good question. First, there was a
    couple of aspects of Baker-Hamilton; a lot of it had to do with troop
    posture. And they, Baker-Hamilton, recommended that, as I described, a
    troop presence to help keep the territorial integrity of Iraq, to embed,
    to train, to be over the horizon, to chase down extremists. That's
    pretty much what they recommended, and I agree. The problem is--and by
    the way, on, like, page 70-something in their book, they said: And the
    United States may have to increase troop levels necessary to be able to
    get there. And that's what I did. [Applause] Wait a minute, wait a
    minute--because I realize that we couldn't be in a position on the troop
    postures they recommended if the capital went into flames. That's a
    judgment I made.
        By the way, with the advice of a lot of people--and just so you
    know, I spend a lot of time listening to our military. I trust our
    military, I like our military, I'm impressed by our military. I spend a
    lot of time talking to Condi Rice. I spend
    a lot of time talking to allies in the Congress, and I spend a lot of
    time listening to and talking to people who have a different point of
    view.
        It was after this considered judgment that I made that decision, all
    aiming at some point in time. Now, the problem is, the Congress, many of
    whom think that it's a good idea, however, are unwilling to allow
    conditions on the ground to make the decisions as to when we can ever
    get there. I don't have that luxury. I must allow conditions on the
    ground to dictate our position in order to make decisions.
        Now, a lot of what Baker-Hamilton talked about was--or some of what
    they talked about was the diplomatic initiatives. There were--they
    talked about a regional conference, and we're happy to participate. They
    also suggested that the United States enter into bilateral negotiations
    with Syria, for example. And this is where I have a disagreement. As you
    know--as you may or may not know, when I was a younger lad, Jimmy
    Baker was in Houston and a good friend
    of my family's, and in spite of my deep affection for him, I invited him
    into the Oval Office and said, ``I disagree with you.'' And he said,
    ``Fine, I disagree with you.'' [Laughter]
        And the reason I do is because--now, there's a difference between a
    regional conference, in my judgment, and--I'll tell you what I hope we
    can gain out of that--but I do want to address why it's--I think it
    would be counterproductive at this point to sit down with the Syrians,
    because Syria knows exactly what it takes to get better relations with
    the United States. It's not as if they haven't heard what we're for, and
    we're for making sure they leave the Lebanese democracy alone. They have
    undermined Lebanon's democracy. When the United States and France worked
    together on a U.N. resolution, the U.N. demanded that they leave
    Lebanon. They did, but they're still meddling.
        Secondly, there's a man who was assassinated, named Hariri. It's
    very important that there be a full investigation of the Hariri murder,
    and they know we expect them to support that investigation. We believe
    they're hindering that investigation right now. Thirdly, they're
    providing safe haven for--I'll just say they've got--Hamas and Hizballah
    have got centers of influence in Damascus. That's unacceptable to the
    United States. We have made it clear to them that in order for them to
    have better relations that they must rid their capital of these
    organizations, all aimed at wreaking havoc in the Middle East and
    preventing, for example, the development of a peaceful Palestinian state
    that can live with Israel, side by side in peace.

    [[Page 458]]

        And finally, Syria is a transit way for suicide bombers heading into
    Iraq. In sum, they have been particularly unhelpful in achieving peace
    we want. Now what happens when people go sit down with Bashar
    Asad, the President of Syria? He walks out
    and holds a press conference, and says: ``Look how important I am;
    people are coming to see me; people think I'm vital.'' But he hasn't
    delivered on one request by the free world.
        I asked our security folks, the national security folks to give me a
    list of all the foreign advisers and foreign secretaries of state and
    all the people that have gone to see Bashar Asad. And every time they send one in there, we say: Why? Why are
    you sending somebody there? What is your intention? What have you asked
    him to do? They all say basically what I just said, and nothing has
    happened. And my attitude is, is that I think talks would be
    counterproductive. I'm interested not in process; I'm interested in
    results. I'm interested in this leader turning Syria into a positive
    influence for peace, not an obstructionist to peace.
        On Iran, I said we'll talk to Iran, but they've got to suspend their
    enrichment. Diplomacy works when people sit down at the table and need
    something from you. That's how diplomacy works. It is, in my judgment,
    just talking for the sake of talking doesn't yield positive results
    often. As a matter of fact, it can reaffirm behavior that is not in our
    interests. So we've said to the Iranians, we will talk with you, but
    first do what the world has asked you to do, and suspend the enrichment
    of uranium.
        As I said in my talk here, and I'm speaking to you--I'm also
    speaking to the Iranian people. They must know that our beef with Iran
    is not with the people of Iran, it's with the Government of Iran that
    continues to make decisions that isolates you from the opportunities of
    a fantastic world.
        Now what do we hope to gain out of the regional conference? It's
    very important for us, first of all, for the Iraqi democracy to gain
    acceptance. This is a new Government. Remember, these folks were run by
    a tyrant for years, and now we're watching the emergence of a new
    government that has not been in office for a year yet, by the way. We've
    been there for more than a year, but the Constitution was passed in '05,
    late '05; the new Government was seated in June of '06. So Prime
    Minister Maliki--and it's important, I
    think, for the world to recognize, or the region to recognize that he
    was duly elected by the people of Iraq and represents the will of the
    Iraqi citizens. It's important for people to express their support for
    this new Government.
        It's--let me just talk about a couple of countries: One, Saudi
    Arabia--my friend, His Majesty, the King, kindly forgave 80 percent of the debt in the
    run-up to this conference. Eighty percent of Saudi debt to Iraq was
    forgiven. That's a strong gesture. It's a gesture that I'm confident
    will spread good will in Iraq. And so the conference can be a success on
    that alone.
        I will tell you, however, that the--His Majesty is skeptical about the Shi'a government
    in Iraq. And it's going to be very important for Prime Minister
    Maliki to follow through on the new de-
    Ba'athification law, for example, which reaches out to Sunnis. People
    say, what does that mean? Well, the law was passed that basically said,
    if you were a member of the Ba'ath party, you couldn't participate in
    much of civil society. And in some Provinces, that is--that's precluded
    people from being school teachers. In other words, in order to be a
    teacher, you had to sign up for Saddam's deal, and yet you might not
    have been a political person. And so what a lot of folks are watching is
    to see whether or not there's going to be a reconciliation with the
    Sunnis who have been affected by the de-Ba'athification.
        The oil revenue sharing is a very interesting aspect, and this is
    what people are watching for, because most of the oil is

    [[Page 459]]

    in Shi'a land or with the Kurds. And therefore, an equitable sharing
    agreement of the people's resources throughout society will send a
    signal that this Government is not going to take unnecessary retribution
    against peaceful Sunnis. And so the benchmarks that I described are
    important for America, but they're also important to make sure that
    further regional conferences are successful.
        And so I talked to Condi about this
    last night, as a matter of fact, this very subject, about what
    constitutes success. And first of all, it's successful to have people
    come to the table and discuss Iraq and its new form of government. In
    other words, the region recognizes there is a new government when they
    come, and that's vital. And then we'll see whether or not some of the
    pledges, reconstruction pledges, will be met. Excellent question.
        Yes, sir.

    Public Opinion on Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, thanks for coming to the west coast, first.
        The President. Looking for the surfboard. [Laughter]
        Q. You mentioned in your comments, sir, about the American patience.
    What's the Prime Minister's take on that? What is his understanding of
    American patience?
        The President. Well, he is--you know, I don't know; I think
    he's concerned about his own country's
    patience, first and foremost. He's having a tough time. It's a--I will
    give you my take on patience. I think that if the American people fully
    understand the stakes of failure, they'll understand why we're doing
    what we're doing. And my own view of patience is that a President--and I
    believe Tony Blair agrees with this--must make
    decisions on certain principles and not try to chase opinion polls. If
    you make decisions based upon the latest opinion poll, you won't be
    thinking long-term strategy on behalf of the American people. It's a--
    [applause]
        And Tony Blair understands that as well. At
    least that's what I get from him. That's--when I talk to him, that's the
    impression I get.
        There weren't opinion polls when Abraham Lincoln was the President.
    Believe me, I'm not comparing myself to him, but I just don't think a
    President like Abraham Lincoln made a decision about whether all men
    were created equal based upon an opinion poll. [Laughter] Nor do I make
    an opinion about my strong belief that freedom is universal, and there's
    no debate. I believe in the universality of liberty, and I believe
    liberty has got the capacity to help transform parts of the world into
    peaceful parts of the world.
        That's what I described to you at the end of--what happened at the
    end of World War II and at the end of the Korean conflict. I firmly
    believe in the power of freedom, and I firmly believe that everybody
    wants to be free. As a matter of fact, to take it a step further, I
    believe there's an Almighty, and I believe a great gift to each man,
    woman, and child in this world is freedom. That's what I believe. It is
    a principle from which I will not deviate.
        People said to me--the guy asked a question the other day, you don't
    like the opinion polls and all that stuff--I said, any politician who
    says they don't want to be popular, you know--you can't win if, like,
    50-plus-one don't like you for a moment. [Laughter] You can't make your
    decisions, however, based on something that just changes; it just, poof.
    And when it's all said and done, I fully understand that some of the
    decisions I have made have created a lot of national debate. But I want
    you to know something, that when I go home and look in the mirror in
    Crawford, Texas, after my time, I will be able to have said: ``He didn't
    change his principles to be the popular guy, you know; he stood for what
    he believed.''

    [[Page 460]]

    Spread of Democracy in the Middle East/U.S. Foreign Policy

        Q. Mr. President, I really appreciate your emphasis on the
    universality of freedom. I'm wondering if and how the United States can
    promote liberal democratic reform in countries like Saudi Arabia and
    whether you could address specifically whether it is, perhaps, American
    support for these autocratic regimes that are creating such an Islamic
    backlash against the United States?
        The President. That is a--boy, I don't want to be Mr. Gratuitous,
    say--fabulous question--but it's really one of the fundamental questions
    that has caused a lot of debate in Washington, DC, about my freedom
    agenda.
        There are some who say that promoting democracy and liberty in the
    Middle East is a waste of time. I happen to believe that, kind of,
    managing stability doesn't address the root cause of the problems that
    caused 19 kids to get on an airplane and kill 3,000 of our citizens. And
    so part of our strategy to defend the country is the promotion of
    freedom around the world. I also, in my second Inaugural Address,
    believe in the interests of the United States to challenge tyranny
    wherever we find it. As an aside, and I'm not suggesting my friends
    here--the scribblers over here--are saying this, but some have called
    him hopelessly idealistic to believe in the power of freedom to
    transform parts of the world that seem impervious to liberty.
        I believe it is the only realistic way to protect ourselves in the
    long term, and that is to address the conditions that create hatred,
    envy, and violence.
        The other thing that's important to note is that societies,
    depending upon their past, take a while to achieve freedom as we define
    it. In other words, there's--some move at snail's pace, some move
    obviously quicker. And all the societies will reflect their own
    traditions and histories. So when you hear me talk about the freedom
    agenda, it's not like I expect Jefferson democracy to be blooming in the
    desert.
        Secondly, friendship with leaders makes it easier to have a frank
    and candid discussion in a way that doesn't offend. And my friend--I do
    have a good, very close relationship with King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, and I'm proud of
    that relationship. It gives me a chance to be able to share with him
    ideas about--in a private way, obviously not so private now--
    [laughter]--why I believe giving people more voice in the affairs of
    their Government is in the interests of their Government. Same with my
    friend President Mubarak of Egypt. I
    have made it clear, for example, that--and by the way, the Egyptians had
    a Presidential election that was quite modern and different. And I don't
    believe that it's going to be possible to be able to have a less-free
    Presidential election during the next round.
        And so there is progress being made toward more liberty, in a part
    of the world that most people said had no chance to be a place for
    democracy to take hold. I will give you the--in Yemen, there was an
    election that was supervised by international bodies. They came out and
    said, ``It's a fair election.'' There are women now serving in Kuwait
    Parliament. Jordan--the King of Jordan is
    making moves toward liberalizing his society. I think, slowly but
    surely--and by the way, this is a long process. Remember, I talked about
    the aftermath of the Korean war. This is like--we're talking 55 years
    later. It takes a while.
        And the fundamental question facing the country is, will we be
    engaged in the Middle East helping moderates defeat and fight off
    radicals--hopefully, not militarily every single time, hopefully, rarely
    militarily--but by defeating an ideology with forms of government. And
    it's really going to be an interesting debate. I have staked my claim
    for the first part of the 21st century. I will tell you; I am worried
    about our country becoming isolationist and protectionist.

    [[Page 461]]

    We have been through isolationist and protectionist spells in our
    history. One of my concerns is that people say: ``It is not worth it to
    be engaged as heavily as we are in parts of the world,'' particularly
    the Middle East. I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned because I
    believe it will be missed opportunity to help people realize that--if
    you've got a Muslim brotherhood doing a better job of providing health
    care and education, the way to deal with that is to do a better job than
    they are, as opposed to ignoring the realities on the ground. And that's
    what open societies that have got an election process force people to
    do.
        I was criticized by some that upon insisting that the Palestinian
    elections go forward. I believe elections are the beginning of the
    reform process, not the end. I believe elections have the capacity to
    show the elite what's right and what's wrong. And I believe the Hamas
    elections in the Middle East made it clear that the Palestinians are
    sick and tired of corruption and government that was not responding to
    their needs.
        I wasn't happy with the outcome of the election. Sometimes that
    happens; you're not happy with the outcome of elections. [Laughter] But
    I was inspired by the fact that the Palestinians went to the polls and
    said, in the fairest way possible: ``We're sick of it. Arafat has let us
    down; no peace. We want to live in peace. Where's the prosperity? Let's
    get us another bunch in there and see if they can do the job.'' The
    problem is, is that the new crowd they have in there refuses to
    recognize Israel's right to exist, which runs contrary to our policy.
    And therefore, we will continue to take the posture we've taken, because
    we're interested in peace.
        I'm interested in helping the Palestinians develop a Palestinian
    state. It's all along the same agenda, by the way, which is the freedom
    agenda. I believe the only way for Israel to have secure peace in the
    long run is for there to be a democracy living side by side with Israel
    in peace. I'm afraid that Israel will ultimately be overrun by
    demographics in order for her to remain a Jewish democratic state. And
    yet Hamas wins. And you can't expect a Israeli democratic elected
    official to negotiate with a group of people who have avowed to destroy
    them.
        And hopefully, at some point in time, the situation will get
    clarified, if the Palestinian people have another right to express
    themselves, and that right ought to be, are you for a state or not for a
    state? Are you going to have people that prevent a better future for
    emerging from you? By the way, this all started with the elections. And
    they said: ``Oh, you shouldn't have elections; you shouldn't have been
    fighting against them.'' Why would I fight against elections? I'm for
    elections. I think elections are important for society. I think--and I
    think they're equally important here as they are in the Middle East.
        And the fundamental question, really, facing in the long term on
    this is, will the United States believe that the value system that has
    enabled our country, by the way, to emerge--and it took us 100 years to
    get rid of slavery, for example. Far be it from us to say we're perfect.
    We had a great Constitution, but our history has been scarred by
    treating people like chattel, with slavery, which is an abhorrent part
    of our past. But nevertheless, it takes a while, and it takes patience.
    But it also takes great faith and certain value systems to help
    societies emerge.
        The other question is on trade. And by the way, I happen to believe
    isolationism and protectionism go hand in hand. As you know, I'm an
    open-market trader. I believe in free trade. I think competition and
    trade not only helps the United States; I think it's the best way to
    alleviate poverty around the world. And yet--and that doesn't mean you
    don't enforce trade agreements. Recently, we've enforced trade
    agreements with China, not trying to shut down trade, but trying to
    enhance trade, trying to make trade more palatable to people in the

    [[Page 462]]

    United States, recognizing that there is such thing as fair trade as
    well as free trade.
        But I'm concerned about people saying: ``Well, it's just not worth
    it; shut her down; let's make it harder to trade.'' There's going to be
    some interesting trade votes coming up in front of the Congress here--
    free trade agreement with Peru and Colombia are coming up. And we'll
    find out whether or not the leadership and both Republicans and
    Democrats are truly committed to not only our neighborhood but trading
    in a way that enhances prosperity for both sides of the equation.
        We're in the middle of negotiations on the Doha round of WTO. I hope
    some of you are concerned about world poverty. I certainly am. And the
    best way to deal with world poverty is to encourage prosperity through
    trade and opening up markets. And we're in a complex negotiation, and
    I'm dedicated to getting this round completed in a way that meets our
    interests, but also meets other interests.
        I want to share with you one other thing, then I've got to get out
    of here. You know, Laura says: ``You get up there
    and all you do is talk, and you love to hear yourself talk.'' [Laughter]
    I want to share one other aspect of our foreign policy. I believe to
    whom much is given, much is required. And I want to share something
    about this great, generous nation, for which you deserve a lot of
    credit.
        Whether it be on HIV/AIDS or malaria, the United States is in the
    lead. And when I got elected, I was deeply concerned about the fact that
    an entire generation of folks on the continent of Africa could be wiped
    out by a disease that we could not cure, but halt. And I set up what's
    called the Global Fund for AIDS. And yet it kind of sat there empty. It
    was a deal where everybody could contribute, and then the United States
    would match to try to encourage commitments, but it didn't fill up. And
    so I went to Congress and asked that they spend your money on a
    unilateral initiative where we would take on, I think, the 17 most or 19
    most affected countries in the world and deliver antiretroviral drugs.
        Foreign policy is more than military; it is more than just spreading
    freedom; it's also, in my judgment, in our interest to base it upon that
    admonition: if you're blessed, you ought to help others. And as a result
    of the American people, we spread antiretrovirals or got antiretrovirals
    to 850,000 people. That's up from 50,000 in 3 years.
        We're all interconnected in this world. What happens overseas
    matters here at home, from a security perspective, but I also believe it
    matters here at home from the perspective of keeping our spirits strong.
    It's in the interest of this country that we be engaged in freeing
    people from tyranny, the tyranny of government and the tyranny of
    disease and hunger.
        I appreciate you giving me a chance to come and visit with you. God
    bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:02 p.m. at East Grand Rapids High School.
    In his remarks, he referred to Larry Fisher, associate principal, East
    Grand Rapids High School; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding
    general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of
    Iraq; Mahmud al-Mashhadani, Speaker of the Iraqi House of
    Representatives; Fouad Ajami, director, Middle East Studies Program,
    Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins
    University; former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; President
    Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

    [[Page 463]]