    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
    [May 2, 2007]
    [Pages 517-531]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the Associated General Contractors of America and a Question-
    and-Answer Session
    May 2, 2007

        The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Please be seated.
    Steve, unlike you, I have trouble finding
    the front end of a front-end loader. [Laughter] Thanks for having me.
    I'm proud to be here with the AGC. It's the oldest and largest
    construction trade association in our country. I understand I'm not the
    first Bush to have ever addressed the AGC convention; a person I now
    refer to as ``41'' addressed you.
    [Laughter] And I appreciated your hospitality to him then, and I
    appreciate your hospitality to me today.
        I want to talk about--a little bit about our economy, and I want to
    talk a lot about our security. And I thank you for giving me a chance to
    come by. What I thought I would do is try to keep my remarks relatively
    brief and then maybe give you all some time to ask some questions.
        First, I want to thank Steve. Steve is a
    Virginia Tech grad, and our hearts are still heavy as a result of that
    terrible incident there on the campus. And yet the amazing thing about
    that campus--and a lot of other places around the country--is we've got
    a great resiliency; people bounce back from tragedy. And so, Steve, you
    can tell the Virginia Tech community, we're still thinking about them
    and appreciate very much the great kind of strength of spirit there--at
    least I saw that there in Blacksburg, Virginia.
        I want to thank two Members of the Senate who have joined us. First,
    John Warner, from Virginia. Senator, thank
    you for coming; ranking member of the House military committee he is a--
    Armed Services Committee--he is a strong supporter of the troops. And I
    appreciate Senator Joe
    Lieberman. John's a Republican; Senator
    Lieberman is an Independent. Joe
    Lieberman is one of these--I would call
    him a unique soul who followed his con-
    science, stood for what he believed in, in the face of a political
    firestorm. And he proved that if you stand on conviction, the people
    will follow. And I look forward to working with these two really fine
    public servants to make the decisions necessary to protect the United
    States. And I'm honored you all are here, and thank you for coming.
        I like to be in the room of builders and doers and problem-solvers
    and entrepreneurs. And I thank you for what you

    [[Page 518]]

    do every day. Your job is to improve infrastructure and provide work for
    people. Our job is to provide an environment so that you can build
    infrastructure and provide work for people. Our job is not to try to
    create wealth in government, our job is to create an environment that
    encourages small businesses and entrepreneurials--entrepreneurs.
        I believe this administration has done that, particularly since we
    cut taxes. You know, most small businesses and self-employed people, or
    people in your line of work, or many of them, are not corporations.
    They're sole proprietorships or subchapter S corporations or limited
    partnerships that pay tax at the individual income-tax level.
        And therefore, when you cut taxes, we not only--individual rates,
    we're not only cutting them on the people who work for you or work with
    you; we're cutting them on you. And my attitude is the more money you
    have in your treasuries, the more likely it is you'll be able to expand.
    The more incentive you have to buy a piece of equipment, the more likely
    it is you'll buy one, which means that somebody is going to have to
    build it for you.
        The best way to enhance progrowth economic policies is to cut the
    taxes on the American people, and that's exactly what we did. These
    taxes are set to expire. In my judgment, if Congress really wants to
    create a progrowth attitude for a long time coming, they ought to make
    the tax relief we passed permanent. They ought not to let them expire.
        My attitude is this about the budget: The best way to balance the
    budget is to keep taxes low, encourage growth, which enhances tax
    revenues, and be wise about how we spend money. I worry about the
    attitude: ``Don't worry; we're just going to raise the taxes on some to
    balance the budget.'' No, they'll raise the tax on some and figure out
    new ways to spend the money. And we're proving that progrowth economic
    policies with fiscal discipline can work, and our budgets are shrinking.
    The best way to keep them shrinking is keep the economy growing and be
    wise about--and setting priorities with your money.
        There's other things we can do in Washington. We've got to make sure
    health care is affordable and available, without inviting the Federal
    Government to run the health care system. Got to do something about
    these junk lawsuits that I'm sure you're concerned about. We've got to
    continue to invest in the Nation's infrastructure.
        We also need an immigration system that upholds the rule of law and
    treats people with respect. We need an immigration system that secures
    our borders and meets the needs of our economy. As I said in the speech
    down in Florida the other day, we need an immigration system without
    amnesty and without animosity. In other words, we need a comprehensive
    immigration reform. I want to thank you for the stand you have taken in
    working with Congress on comprehensive immigration reform. I join you.
        I will work with both Republicans and Democrats to get a bill to my
    desk before the summer is out, hopefully. And I thank the leadership in
    the Senate that's working through this issue. I want to thank Senator
    Jon Kyl of Arizona for working hard on this, Mel
    Martinez, Arlen
    Specter, there's a--Lindsey Graham. There's a series of Senators who are working with
    Ted Kennedy, who is a strong advocate for
    comprehensive immigration reform. And I appreciate the leadership he's
    taken, along with Ken Salazar of
    Colorado. We're making progress. There's a lot more work to be done, and
    your help is important. And so I want to thank you for coming up with a
    rational, reasonable, logical plan.
        I want to talk to you about the other main issue we have here in
    America, and that is your security. The most important job we have is to
    secure the United States of America. That's the most important job of
    the Federal Government. You expect us

    [[Page 519]]

    to spend enormous amounts of energy protecting you, and that's what
    we're doing. I vowed to the American people we would not tire when it
    came to protecting you, and we're not going to. Matter of fact, I spend
    a lot of time thinking about this issue. I wish I didn't have to spend
    time thinking about the issue, but I do because there's still an enemy
    out there that would like to do America harm. And therefore, at this
    hour, we've got men and women in uniform engaging our enemies around the
    world. Our strategy is, we've got to keep the pressure on them. We would
    rather fight them there so we don't have to face them here.
        And the most visible and violent front of this global war is Iraq.
    And it's a tough fight. It has been a difficult year for the American
    people, and I understand that. It reached--last year was--this battle
    reached its most difficult point to date. The terrorists and extremists
    and radicals set off a wave of sectarian violence that engulfed that
    young democracy's capital. It threatened to destabilize the entire
    country.
        So earlier this year, I laid out a new strategy in Iraq. I named a
    new commander to carry it out: General David Petraeus. I want to give you some facts about the new strategy and
    talk about why Iraq relates directly to the safety of the American
    people.
        The most important fact about our new strategy: it is fundamentally
    different from the previous strategy. The previous strategy wasn't
    working the way we wanted it to work. It's interesting; they run polls--
    and I accept that--and it said, you know: ``We don't approve of what's
    happening in Iraq.'' That was what the poll said last fall and winter,
    you know. And had they polled me, I'd have said the same thing.
    [Laughter] I didn't approve of what was happening in Iraq, and so we put
    a new strategy in that was fundamentally different.
        And first of all, Petraeus, General
    Petraeus, is an expert on counterinsurgency, and his top priority is to
    help the Iraqi leaders--who, by the way, were elected by nearly 12
    million of their citizens--secure their population. And the reason why
    is, is that this young democracy needed some time to make important
    political decisions to help reconcile the country. After a thorough
    review, we concluded the best way to help Iraq's leaders to provide
    security was to send more troops into the nation's capital, into the
    country; was to send reinforcements to those troops which were already
    there. And their job was to go after the extremists and radicals who
    were inciting sectarian violence. Their job was to help get Baghdad
    under control. And their job was to continue to train Iraqi forces for
    the day they can secure the country on their own.
        Last week, General Petraeus came to
    Washington, and he updated me, and he updated the Congress on the early
    stages of this new strategy. And I repeat: early stages. He reminded us
    that not all the reinforcements he'd requested has--have arrived, that
    it's going to be at least until the end of this summer that he will know
    whether or not the new strategy has achieved successes. And that means
    the strategy is in early stages.
        My view is, the Congress and the country ought to give General
    Petraeus time to see whether or not this
    works. You know, it's interesting; he goes up in front of the Senate and
    gets confirmed unanimously. And he said: ``I need more troops''--during
    his testimony--``send me more troops, and I will go implement a new
    plan.'' They said, okay, fine; we confirm you. And yet there are some
    doubts in Washington whether or not they ought to send the troops. The
    troops are going. The strategy is new. And the general said: ``Let's
    give it some time to work to see whether or not it's successful, and
    I'll be able to report back to the country by the end of this summer.''
        The most significant element of the new strategy is being carried
    out in this--in the capital. The whole purpose is to secure the capital.
    Our theory is--and it's a good

    [[Page 520]]

    one--is that if the capital is in chaos, the country can't--it's going
    to be difficult for the country to survive.
        It's--the strategy is also being carried out in what's called
    surrounding belts. This is the areas that kind of arc around the
    capital, and it's a place where there's been a lot of planning and
    plotting and attacking. Three American brigades, totaling about 12,000
    reinforcements, have taken up their positions in the Baghdad area. The
    fourth brigade--fourth of five--is heading into Baghdad this week. And
    the fifth is on its way. In other words, you just don't take five
    brigades and move them in overnight. There's a sequencing that has to
    take place, and that sequencing is now being completed.
        The Iraqis, by the way, have increased their own forces. In other
    words, this is a joint operation. This is the Americans and coalition
    forces helping the Iraqis provide security so that the average person
    can live a peaceful life. That's what they want. And so we've got about
    a total of 80,000 combat forces now in the Baghdad area, U.S. combined
    with the Iraqi forces. The position of the forces is shifting. We used
    to have our forces live in bases outside the city. They would go in at
    night, or during the day, and then leave and go back home at night. They
    did a fine job, as you'd expect our U.S. forces to do, or the Iraqi
    forces would do so. And then when they would leave, killers would move
    back in.
        And so now, we've got--American troops are now living and working in
    small neighborhood posts called joint security stations. This is what's
    fundamentally different from the strategy. Our troops, along with the
    Iraqis, go into a neighborhood, and they stay. They operate side by side
    with the Iraqi forces.
        What's interesting is, is that the plan, General
    Petraeus's plan, is to help build trust.
    And when you build trust, you end up getting people buying into a
    centralized government, a unity government, a country that is united.
    And not only that, you end up getting cooperation from people. Remember,
    most people want to live peaceful lives. I hope this make sense to you
    because I firmly believe that Iraqi moms want their child to grow up in
    a peaceful world, just like American moms do.
        The--and so we're seeing some gains. The interesting thing about
    this is that the nature of this strategy is that the most important
    gains are often the least dramatic. It doesn't generate much attention
    when violence does not happen. Instead, some important indicators of
    progress in the security plan are less visible. I would like to share
    some with you.
        The level of cooperation from local residents is important. It's an
    indication as to whether or not we're making progress: our ability to
    take weapons off the street and break up extremist groups. The
    willingness of Iraqis to join their security forces is an interesting
    measurement, and, finally, it's important to measure the level of
    sectarian violence. If the objective is to bring security to the
    capital, one measurement is whether or not sectarian violence is
    declining. These measures are really not flashy. In other words, they're
    not headline-grabbing measures. They certainly can't compete with a car
    bomb or a suicide attack, but they are interesting indications. And as
    General Petraeus reported, these are
    heading in the right direction.
        For example, General Petraeus reports
    that American and Iraqi forces received more tips from local residents
    in the past 4 months than during any other 4-month period on record.
    People are beginning to have some confidence, and they're beginning to
    step forth with information, information that will help them live normal
    lives.
        Thanks to these tips the number of weapons caches that are being
    seized are growing each month. Better intelligence has led American and
    Iraqi forces in Baghdad and the surrounding belts to conduct operations
    against Sunni and Shi'a extremists. My attitude is, if murderers run
    free, it's

    [[Page 521]]

    going to be hard to convince the people of any society that the
    government is worth supporting. And therefore, the Iraqis and U.S.
    forces and coalition forces are after murderers, regardless of their
    religious affiliation.
        American and Iraqi forces captured the head of a major car bombing ring recently, the leader
    of a bombing network with ties to Iran, members of a death squad that
    terrorized a Baghdad neighborhood, the leader
    of a secret militia shell--cell that kidnaped and executed American
    soldiers. These are just some examples of what happens when you start to
    earn the confidence of the people.
        Baghdad residents see actions, they grow more confident.
    Interestingly enough, General Petraeus
    reported that in his short time he's been there, and in the short time
    that this plan is being implemented and the--remember, it's not fully
    implemented. Three of the brigades are present; are in place. The fourth
    brigade has just moved into Baghdad, and it will be in place relatively
    soon. And the fifth is on its way. Then, in spite of the fact that we
    haven't fully implemented the plan, the number of sectarian murders in
    Baghdad has dropped substantially.
        Even as the sectarian attacks have declined, the overall level of
    violence in Baghdad remains high. Illegal armed groups continue to--
    continue their attacks; insurgents remain deadly. In other words, as we
    report progress, it's very important for us to make sure that the
    American people understand there's still issues; there's still
    challenges. Illegal armed groups need to be dealt with, and we are.
        The primary reason for the high level of violence is this: Al Qaida
    has ratcheted up its campaign of hope--high-profile attacks, including
    deadly suicide bombers carried out by foreign terrorists. In the past 3
    weeks, Al Qaida has sent suicide bombers into the Iraqi Parliament. Or
    they send a suicide attack into an American military base. These attacks
    may seem like random killing; they're not. They're part of Al Qaida's
    calculated campaign to reignite sectarian violence in Baghdad, to
    discourage the Iraqi citizen, and to break support for the war here at
    home. This is what these murderers are trying to achieve.
        I don't need to remind you who Al Qaida is. Al Qaida is the group
    that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our
    soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who
    came and murdered our citizens. Now I've got to tell you; that day
    deeply affected my decisionmaking. And I vowed that I would do anything
    that I possibly could, within the law, to protect the American citizens
    against further attack by these ideologues, by these murderers.
        And so when I'm talking about Al Qaida in Iraq, I fully recognize
    what happens in Iraq, matters here at home. Despite their tremendous
    brutality, they have failed to provoke the large-scale sectarian
    reprisals that Al Qaida wants. The recent attacks are not the revenge
    killings that some have called a civil war; they are a systematic
    assault on the entire nation. Al Qaida is public enemy number one in
    Iraq. And all people of that society ought to come together and
    recognize the threat, unite against the threat, and reconcile their
    differences.
        For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to
    take sides in a civil war; it's whether we stay in the fight against the
    same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11. I
    strongly believe it's in our national interest to stay in the fight.
        As you watch the developments in Baghdad, it's important to
    understand that we will not be able to prevent every Al Qaida attack.
    When a terrorist is willing to kill himself to kill others, it's really
    hard to stop him. Yet, over time, the security operation in Baghdad is
    designed to shrink the areas where Al Qaida can operate; it's designed
    to bring out more intelligence about their presence; and designed to
    allow

    [[Page 522]]

    American and Iraqi forces to dismantle their network.
        We have a strategy to deal with Al Qaida in Iraq. But any time you
    say to a bunch of coldblooded killers, ``Success depends on no
    violence,'' all that does is hand them the opportunity to be successful.
    And it's hard. I know it's hard for the American people to turn on their
    TV screens and see the horrific violence. It speaks volumes about the
    American desire to protect lives of innocent people, America's deep
    concern about human rights and human dignity. It also speaks volumes
    about Al Qaida, that they're willing to take innocent life to achieve
    political objectives.
        The terrorists will continue to fight back. In other words, they
    understand what they're doing. And casualties are likely to stay high.
    Yet, day by day, block by block, we are steadfast in helping Iraqi
    leaders counter the terrorists, protect their people, and reclaim the
    capital. And if I didn't think it was necessary for the security of the
    country, I wouldn't put our kids in harm's way.
        We're seeing significant progress from our new strategy in Anbar
    Province as well. That's a largely Sunni area west of Baghdad. It's been
    a hotbed for Al Qaida and insurgents. According to a captured Al Qaida
    document--in other words, according to what Al Qaida has said--and by
    the way, in a war to protect America, it's really important to take the
    words of the enemy very seriously--according to this document, the
    terrorists' goal is to take over Anbar and make it their home base in
    Iraq. According to the document we captured--that is a document from Al
    Qaida, the same people that attacked us in America--their objective is
    to find safe haven in this part of Iraq. They would bring them closer--
    it would bring them closer to their objective, their stated objective,
    which is to destroy the young Iraqi democracy, to help them build a
    radical Islamic empire based upon their dark ideology, and launch new
    attacks on the United States, at home and abroad. That's what they've
    said they want to do.
        Al Qaida has pursued their objective with a ruthless campaign of
    violence. They can't persuade people through logic; they have to
    terrorize people and force people to try to allow them to impose their
    point of view. And not long ago, it looked like they might prevail in
    Anbar; looked pretty grim, it really did. Then something began to change
    because we were steadfast, because our troops and our diplomats are
    courageous people. Tribal sheiks finally said, enough is enough. Their
    local leaders said, we're tired of it. And they joined the fight against
    Al Qaida.
        The sheiks and their followers knew exactly who the terrorists were,
    and they began to provide highly specific intelligence to American and
    Iraqi forces. In asymmetrical warfare, you've got to have good
    intelligence in order to be able to deal with the enemy. In the old
    days, you could see platoons moving; you could see ships floating along,
    aircraft in formation flying to a location. In this war, it's different.
    In this war, you have to know specifically where a IED factory may be.
    You have to know in advance that somebody's getting ready to slide into
    society and kill innocent in order to achieve an objective. Intelligence
    is important, and so they began to provide intelligence, all aiming to
    secure their part of Iraq so they could live in peace.
        They began to encourage their young men to volunteer for the
    security forces. The number of Iraqi Army and police recruits in Anbar
    has skyrocketed. It's an interesting measurement, isn't it? There's a
    threat to the security of their people. The local leaders said: Why
    don't you join up to help defend us? And the number of recruits is
    significant.
        Our commanders saw this as an opportunity to step up the pressure on
    Al Qaida. Our commanders made the recommendation from the field that
    they could use more troops to help secure Anbar. And so

    [[Page 523]]

    I ordered additional U.S. marines and special operation forces to Anbar;
    as part of our reinforcement package, 4,000 of the troops are going into
    Anbar.
        Together, American and Iraqi forces are striking powerful blows.
    We've cleared out terrorist strongholds like Ramadi and Fallujah. We're
    there with the Iraqis so that they can't take those cities back--
    ``they,'' the enemy. American and Iraqi forces are operating in places
    that have been too dangerous to go before, and people are beginning to
    see something change.
        In Ramadi, for example, our forces have seized nearly as many
    weapons caches in the past 4 months as they did in all of last year.
    We've captured key Al Qaida leaders. We're on the hunt. We're keeping
    the pressure on them, in Iraq and everywhere else in the world in which
    they try to hide. Their--these Al Qaida leaders are revealing important
    details about how their network operates inside of Iraq.
        Al Qaida has responded with sickening brutality. They've bombed
    fellow Sunnis in prayer at a mosque. They murdered local residents with
    chlorine truck bombs. They recruited children as young as 12 years old
    to carry out suicide attacks. But this time, the Sunni tribes in Anbar
    are refusing to be intimidated.
        They are showing that Al Qaida's ideology lacks popular appeal and
    staying power. Ultimately, what matters is what you believe. The United
    States and our coalition and most Iraqis believe in liberty. Al Qaida
    believes in imposing their dark vision on others and are willing to use
    death and murder to do so.
        I appreciate the determination of the Iraqi people. I appreciate
    their courage. I appreciate the fact that these tribal sheiks have stood
    up in Anbar, and we will stand with them. Our men and women in uniform
    took Al Qaida's safe haven away in Afghanistan, and we're not going to
    let them reestablish a safe haven in Iraq.
        The military gains achieved by our new operations are designed to
    give Iraq's Government time to make political progress. We fully
    recognize that the military cannot solve this problem alone, that there
    has to be political reconciliation and economic process--progress.
        You know, the Iraq Government has been in office about a year. It--
    and they're beginning to make some progress toward political benchmarks
    it has set, political benchmarks I support. The legislature has passed a
    budget that commits $10 billion for reconstruction projects. That's $10
    billion of the Iraqi people's money; that's a positive sign. The
    assembly met. They appropriated money for the good of the Iraqi people.
    They spent $7.3 billion to train and equip their own security forces.
    The council of ministers has approved legislation that would provide a
    framework for equitable sharing of oil resources. We strongly believe--
    by the way, both Republicans, Democrats, and Independents believe
    strongly that a good oil bill will help unite the country. That's why
    it's a benchmark. And they're making--this Government is making progress
    toward an important piece of legislation that would help the security
    track progress, as well as the political and economic track.
        The Government has formed a committee to organize Provincial
    elections. That's important; you want people buying into government.
    There needs to be Provincial elections, so that when the money is
    distributed from the central government, there's a representative
    government there to spend the money. Leaders have taken initial steps
    toward an agreement on de-Ba'athification policy. That's an important
    piece of reconciliation that we think ought to go forward. A committee
    is meeting with all major Iraqi groups to review the Constitution. And
    there's a key conference tomorrow and Friday in Egypt, where Prime
    Minister Maliki will work to build greater
    support from Iraq's neighbors and the international community. It's in
    the world's interest that this young democracy survive.

    [[Page 524]]

    It's certainly in the interest of the neighborhood that Iraq be a
    country that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself, a
    Government which rejects radicalism. And it's in the world's interest.
        And so Condoleezza Rice--I talked to
    her last night on her way out of town--is heading over to Egypt. And
    she's going to represent our country--and she represents it well, by the
    way--and will do so in Egypt. It's going to be an important
    international conference, and I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome
    of that conference.
        Iraq's leaders still have got a lot to do, don't get me wrong. Yes,
    there's progress, but they've got a lot more to do. And the United
    States expects them to do it--just like I expect them to remain
    courageous and just like they expect us to keep our word. And what's
    interesting is, is that the Iraqis are making a calculation: Will the
    United States of America keep its word? Because if not, they want to do
    something different. And I think it's going to be important for us to
    keep signaling them as they make progress, we appreciate the progress.
    More to do? No question about it. And we expect them to do it. But they
    can also count on us to keep our word.
        The stakes are high, really high in Iraq. General Petraeus is beginning to carry out the strategy, yet the
    Democrat leaders in Congress have chosen this time to try to force a
    precipitous withdrawal. In other words, I was presented a bill last
    night that said: ``There's a timetable. You had to leave--start leaving
    by July 1st and definitely be leaving by October 1st.'' That didn't make
    any sense to me, to impose the will of politicians over the
    recommendations of our military commanders in the field. So I vetoed the
    bill.
        That phase of the process is now over, and a new phase has begun.
    Later on this afternoon, leaders from both parties and both chambers are
    coming down to the White House. And I look forward to meeting with them.
    I am confident that with good will on both sides that we can move beyond
    political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds
    and the flexibility they need to do the job that we have asked them to
    do.
        As we move forward the debate, there are some other things that all
    of us in Washington should keep in mind. First of all, debate is good. I
    have no problem with debates. I--this issue of Iraq and this war on
    terror deserves a serious discussion across the United States. We don't
    agree on every issue, but one of the things I have heard here in
    Washington is that people understand the consequences of failure in
    Iraq.
        If we were to leave Iraq before the Government can defend itself,
    there would be a security vacuum. Extremists and radicals love vacuums
    and chaos. It gives them a chance to use their tactics, tactics of
    death, to spread their ideology. The more chaotic a region, or for
    example--or the less control there is in a region, the more the state
    looks like a failed state: these people that attacked us on September
    the 11th can be emboldened. It will encourage them. It will enable them
    to achieve objectives. I'm deeply concerned about a vacuum in Iraq
    encouraging rival extremist factions to compete for power.
        I worry about a situation where if radicals took control of a
    country like Iraq, they would have oil resources to use at their
    disposal to try to achieve their objectives. You can attack a nation
    several ways: One, you can get 19 kids to fly airplanes into buildings.
    Or you can gain control of something a country needs and deny that
    country access to that--in this case, oil--and run the price of oil up,
    all attempting to inflict serious economic damage.
        It's a--and by the way, an opportunity for radicals and extremists
    to gain resources would not only enable them to inflict economic damage,
    it would enable them to achieve other objectives. They'd have more
    resources at their disposal. It--look, all the radicals and extremists
    in Iraq don't want

    [[Page 525]]

    to attack America; I'm not saying that. But many do. And that's--therein
    lies the danger to our country.
        Al Qaida terrorists who behead captives and order suicide bombings
    in Iraq would not simply be satisfied to see us gone. A retreat in Iraq
    would mean that they would likely follow us here. A retreat in Iraq
    would say to a lot of people around the world, and particularly in the
    Middle East, America can't keep its word. It would certainly confirm Al
    Qaida's belief that we're weak and soft as a society. It would embolden
    them to be able to recruit. It would more likely enable them to find
    safe haven and sanctuary.
        No responsible leader in Washington has an interest in letting this
    happen. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, there is no benefit in
    allowing a widespread humanitarian nightmare to consume Iraq. There
    would be no benefit in allowing chaos to spill out of Iraq and into the
    broader Middle East. There would be no benefit in emboldening Iran and
    endangering our allies in the region. And there would be no benefit in
    allowing the same terrorist network that attacked America on 9/11 to
    gain a safe haven from which to attack us again. Even if you think it
    was a mistake to go into Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull
    out now.
        This is a frustrating war. Nobody likes war. You know, I know full
    well how many Americans react to what they see on their TV screens. I
    wish there was an easy way out; that's what people wish. But there is no
    easy way out. The easy road would be the wrong road, in my opinion.
    Leaving now would be short term--would bring short-term satisfaction at
    the cost of long-term disaster. The outcome in Iraq will have a direct
    impact on the security of our people here at home. And no matter how
    tempting it might be, it would be unforgivable for leaders in Washington
    to allow politics and impatience to stand in the way of protecting the
    American people.
        Success in this fight is going to be difficult. It will require
    sacrifice. It's going to require time. But for all the--all we hear
    about the consequences of failure in Iraq, we also shouldn't forget the
    consequences of success. I share with people--and I do this quite
    often--but I find it incredibly ironic that during my time as President,
    certainly one of my best friends, and soon to be another best friend,
    are--were the Prime Ministers of Japan. I
    had a very close personal relationship with Prime Minister Koizumi. And
    last weekend at Camp David, I--Laura and I had a chance to--at the White
    House, and then eventually at Camp David, we hosted Prime Minister
    Abe. At--you know, my dad fought the Japanese. He was an 18-year-old kid right out
    of high school, went into the Navy, was a torpedo bomber. Many of your
    relatives did the same thing. They fought the Japanese with all their
    soul and all their might in a bloody, bloody conflict. Japan was a sworn
    enemy of the United States of America. I doubt in 1948 or '49 anybody
    could have hardly predicted that a President would stand up and say: I
    have found that these two Prime Ministers of Japan are good to work with
    to achieve peace.
        It's an interesting statement--isn't it?--about the possibilities of
    liberty to change history. And so with Prime Minister Koizumi and Prime Minister Abe, we
    talked about security. We talked about working closely together to
    convince the leader of North Korea to give up his
    nuclear weapons ambitions and programs. We talked about helping the
    young democracy of Iraq survive in the midst of the Middle East. We
    fully understand that the long-term way to protect America is to defeat
    an ideology of hate with an ideology of hope. I learned firsthand the
    power of liberty to transform an enemy into an ally.
        I firmly believe that a democracy can survive in the Middle East,
    and I believe it is a necessary part of laying a foundation of peace for
    generations to come.

    [[Page 526]]

        Good to be with you. [Applause] Thank you all. Sit down. Thank you.
    I'll take some questions. Yes, sir. You get to start since you're the
    boss. [Laughter]

    Military Operations in Iraq/Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

        Q. Thank you. In May of 2006, my second cousin was on his second
    tour in Iraq. Corporal Cory Palmer--he's a--in the Marines--he was on
    patrol in a Humvee, and they ran over a roadside bomb. He and three
    others in that Humvee perished. What do I need to do--what do we need to
    do to help you, so that my second cousin and others like him have not
    died or been injured in vain?
        The President. Thank you. The horrors of war come home to every--to
    a lot of families in America. Yesterday I had the honor of meeting with
    moms and dads and wives, in this case, who--children, who have lost a
    loved one. And I've met with a lot of families, sadly enough. Most of
    the time, I hear that very question. Actually, it's not a question; it's
    a statement.
        Here's what I've heard: One, my loved one died doing what he or she
    wanted to do. Two, do not allow that loved one to have died in vain. In
    other words, it is an interesting spirit amongst the--now, listen, I
    visited with some who said: ``Get out; I wish you hadn't have done this
    in the first place.'' But by far the vast majority reflect what you
    asked: What does it take?
        First of all, it takes, in order to make sure your loved one doesn't
    die--didn't die in vain, is to have the will and determination necessary
    to succeed. One of the reasons I've come to speak to you is because I
    must continually explain to the American people the stakes in this war,
    the consequences of failure, and the consequences of success. In order
    for me to do my part to make sure your second cousin and anybody else who lost a loved one in Iraq didn't die
    in vain, is to continue to take the case to the American people, why
    what happens in Iraq matters to them.
        Secondly, one way to make sure that your second cousin didn't die in vain is to remind legislators that
    regardless of their position on the war, that they have got to fund our
    troops, that they have got to make sure that--without conditions of--
    that say you've got to withdraw by a certain date.
        Now, here's the reason that doesn't make any sense. I'm sure a lot
    of Americans know intuitively it doesn't make any sense for people on
    Capitol Hill to say, ``You must withdraw.'' The reason why is, first of
    all, we ought to rely upon conditions on the ground, and we ought to
    rely upon our military commanders and our diplomats on the ground to
    give us advice. It's the best way to conduct a war.
        Secondly, imagine what a thinking enemy is doing when they hear
    timetables. Oh, you've got to be out by a certain date? Well, why don't
    we just wait. [Laughter]
        Thirdly, what does it say to the Iraqis? Remember, there are a lot
    of people who basically wonder whether or not a coalition is going to
    stand with them as they make difficult choices. And you're--if you're an
    Iraqi thinking, ``Well, I may have some support; I may not. And if not,
    I better start hedging my bet.'' The Government isn't quite ready to
    provide the security necessary for people to be comfortable with a
    reduced coalition presence.
        And therefore it--and, by the way, in order to make a unified
    government work, there has to be people willing to commit to that
    government. There have to be people willing to commit to civil society.
    Remember, these people are recovering from a brutal tyrant, and they
    have to make a--they've got to commit, in their soul that it's
    worthwhile, that this Government is worthwhile. And they're not willing
    to make that commitment yet because they're uncertain about their
    future.
        And so a artificial timetable of withdrawal is--really affects the
    psychology of the Iraqis as well. That's why I vetoed the bill. And I
    believe we can work together

    [[Page 527]]

    in Congress to get it done. I think that Senators would tell you there's
    an opportunity. And first of all, they got to fund the troops because
    the longer they wait in funding the troops, it's going to hurt our
    military. The military is spending money over in Iraq as we speak, and
    they need money. And if they don't get the money from the supplemental,
    they'll start taking it from other accounts, which could affect
    readiness. And it begins to affect the overall strength of our military.
        And that's one reason I keep explaining that to the American people,
    so that they understand that this--these delays, they make nice politics
    in some quarters, but it's lousy for our military and the military
    families.
        Anyway, good question; thanks for asking it. Yes, ma'am.

    Freedom of the Press/War on Terror Strategy/Iraq Study Group

        Q. I'd like to know, like a lot of other people in this room; we
    have family members who are actively involved in the security of this
    country in various ways. From them, we've received positive information
    who we consider credible, who say about the success and the good things
    that are happening as a result of us being in Iraq. I would like to know
    why and what can be done about we, the American people, receiving some
    of that information more from the media, more from the overall media.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. [Inaudible]----
        The President. Probably ask--[applause]--if you're trying to goad me
    into attacking the media, you're crazy. [Laughter]
        It's interesting, people get their news all different kinds of ways.
    This is an interesting, different type of war. I mentioned asymmetrical
    warfare. That means an enemy can use inexpensive weapons to try to
    defeat expensive defensive armament. A car bomb, a suicide bomber, an
    IED: these are inexpensive weapons that create--help them achieve
    strategic objectives.
        It's also different in that this is a volunteer army that we have
    fielded. And therefore, the role of government is to make sure that our
    families are well supported--our military families are well supported,
    that the veterans get everything they deserve, and that the health care
    is perfect as possibly can be. And we're working toward it.
        By the way, I was proud of our Secretary of Defense the other day. When he found a inadequate health care, he
    responded, because he knows--and the Congress shares the same view--is
    that if--when we have somebody volunteering to be in combat, they and
    their families deserve the best that we can possibly provide.
        Thirdly, back to your question. You thought I was kind of doing one
    of these--[laughter]--Washington, DC, dodges. [Laughter] I talk to a lot
    of families who have got a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere
    else in this global war on terror, and they are in constant
    communication with their loved one. That's amazing; isn't it? You've got
    a kid in Iraq who is e-mailing mom daily, talking about the realities of
    what he or she sees. Information is moving--you know, nightly news is
    one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and
    through the Internets. It's amazing how many e-mails I see from people
    that are writing in what they think and what they hear.
        We've all got--believe--those of us who believe that we're doing the
    right thing must continually speak. Joe Lieberman's been great about continually speaking about the
    consequences. And--[applause]--wait--no, you didn't give me a chance to
    say something nice about Chairman Warner.
    [Laughter] He too has been strong.
        And I--[applause]--it's just a--I can't answer your question beyond
    that people just need to be--the best messenger, by the way, for us is
    David Petraeus, because he's actually
    there in Baghdad. And Ryan

    [[Page 528]]

    Crocker who's actually--he's the Ambassador
    who is there in Baghdad. And freedom of the press is a valuable freedom
    here, and it's just something that we've all got to live with and value
    it for what it is and just continue to speak the truth as best as we can
    without trying to gloss over the inherent dangers.
        The interesting thing I find is that our--as the president here mentioned, there have been multiple rotations.
    People have gone back to Iraq. In other words, they've reupped, and the
    reenlistment rate is high. People are signing up for the first time as
    well. And it's just an interesting statement--isn't it?--about the
    character of our military, a character which is--says that we've got
    people willing to serve a cause greater than themselves.
        I saw a marine yesterday and--came out of Anbar. His brother, who
    was in the Army, was lost. And I was comforting his family as best as I
    possibly can or could. And he said: ``We're making great progress in
    Anbar; I just wanted to tell you that, President.'' You know, is he the
    kind of guy that tells the President what he wants to hear? I don't
    know. All I can tell you is what he told me. And I told that to David
    Petraeus, who confirmed it.
        And--but slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll
    succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I
    described is sectarian violence down. Success is not ``no violence.''
    There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of
    violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel
    comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying
    to achieve.
        I'm asked all the time about strategies. I liked what James A.
    Baker and Lee Hamilton reported back after a serious investigation of Iraq. I
    liked their ideas. And it's something that we should seriously consider.
    And their idea was, is that at some point in time, it makes sense to
    have a U.S. presence configured this way, embedded with Iraqi forces,
    training Iraqi forces, over-the-horizon presence to provide enough
    security to know that people will have help if they need it, but put
    the--more onus on a sovereign government of Iraq, a presence to keep the
    territorial integrity of Iraq intact, a special ops presence to go after
    these killers who have got their intentions on America. It's an
    interesting idea.
        By the way, in the report, it said, it is--the government may have
    to put in more troops to be able to get to that position. And that's
    what we did. We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be
    in some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision:
    the Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear:
    I'm a commander guy.
        Yes, sir.

    Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq/President's Faith

        Q. We're General Contractors of America, and what are we doing--I
    don't hear anything about the reconstruction of Iraq.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. Could you fill us in on that? Are we doing enough, as general
    contractors? And we are at your disposal.
        And second is a personal question: What do you pray about? And how
    we can we pray for you?
        The President. Thank you. The first question: Our reconstruction
    strategy initially was to do big projects, and then those big projects
    would be destroyed by the enemy. In other words, they blow them up. And
    it became very frustrating. And some of the big projects were
    successful; a lot of them weren't. So therefore we restructured, and we
    said that the best way to help the Iraq--remember, Iraq has now put out
    10 billion of their own money. So, step one, they're a sovereign
    government, and if you want to--if we want to do business with Iraq, we
    can figure out how you can go do it--business with Iraq. In other words,

    [[Page 529]]

    they're spending their own money. That's what's important to remember.
        And that's actually a hopeful sign, that they appropriated money in
    a constitutionally elected assembly, and hopefully, that money is spent
    in a way that encourages all Iraqis to have some faith that the central
    government can function rationally. I guess what I'm telling you is, the
    security situation was such that it made the initial phases of our
    reconstruction not as effective as we would have liked.
        Now we're giving reconstruction money to two different groups of--or
    two groups of people, not different--two groups. One, our military
    commanders. It's called CERP money. They go into a neighborhood in
    Baghdad that had been ravaged by sectarian violence; they bring order
    with the Iraqis; they stay in place; they gain the confidence of the
    people; and there is some reconstruction money to help provide jobs of
    cleaning up neighborhoods and rebuilding storefronts.
        The other reconstruction money goes to what's called Provincial
    Reconstruction Teams. These are teams of diplomats living out in the
    hinterlands, working with local folks to meet objectives of the local
    folks, so that the people begin to see that there is one, security; two,
    hope; and three, tangible benefits. And that's how we're using--I'm not
    exactly sure what a proper role could be for you. I just--I--the good
    news is, I can find out pretty quick--[laughter]--ly, quickly.
    [Laughter]
        The fact that you would ask the question: How can I pray for you?
    Speaks volumes about the United States of America. I have been amazed by
    the fact that millions of Americans of all faith, all political
    backgrounds, pray for me and Laura. And it is
    unbelievably sustaining; it is comforting. It is humbling to be prayed
    for. Wisdom and strength and my family is what I'd like for you to pray
    for.
        Yes, sir.

    Spread of Democracy/Freedom Agenda

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Okay, we've got dueling questions. [Laughter] You
    just lost, because he's got the mic. [Laughter] It's the possession
    deal, you know. [Laughter]
        Q. You talked about the terror of 9/11, and what I wanted to share
    with you, my wife and I had our first child 2 months after 9/11. We
    named her Grace because we felt that the world needed some grace at the
    time. And what I wanted to--wish to bestow upon you--is the fact that
    our appreciation at keeping my family and all those families of America
    safe for the past 5 years is--[inaudible].
        The President. Thank you. Thank you. Grace will live--the question
    is, will Grace live in a peaceful world, today and tomorrow? Today, we
    will continue to stay on the pressure. And we're sharing intelligence,
    and we're on the offense. And my attitude is, is that if the United
    States ever let up, it would embolden; it would send the wrong signal.
    So we're pressuring. And I'm--I would hope whoever takes my place would
    have that same sense of urgency. I--you know, no matter what you may be
    hearing, it's--people, when they get in that Oval Office and take a look
    at the realities of the world will, I suspect, subscribe to the--that we
    just need to be not only vigilant but pressuring.
        You know, the interesting debate that we're now confronted with is
    this ideological debate about whether or not it's worth it to spread
    freedom. Should we spread freedom? Can the spread of freedom take root
    in dangerous parts of the world? And is it worth it? Does it make sense?
        I--as you can tell, I'm a strong proponent of spreading freedom,
    first of all. And I've got confidence that freedom can be spread in
    parts of the world where it may look difficult at this moment in history
    to see freedom take root.
        I've got confidence for a couple of reasons. One, I believe in the
    universality of

    [[Page 530]]

    freedom. That means I believe everybody desires to be free. I don't
    think freedom is uniquely American, nor do I think it's uniquely
    Methodist--[laughter]--I think it is universal.
        I told you--I also obviously believe in the universality of
    motherhood. I believe mothers in Iraq want their children to grow up in
    peace, just like mothers in America do. I also believe people in Iraq
    want to live in a free society. I am--my--I wasn't surprised; I was
    pleased when 12 million people went to the polls. That statement to me
    was: freedom.
        Secondly, can it take hold in parts of the world that some suspect
    that it can't root? I would remind people of, for example, of--I
    mentioned Japan. There are other examples in our history. One of the
    unique aspects of my Presidency is I can predict to you that--with
    relative certainty that a violent part of the world, the Far East, is
    stable and headed in the right direction, absent one spot.
        That--in 1950, that would have been a hard prediction to make.
    Shortly before 1950, I mentioned, thousands of U.S. citizens had died in
    a war with Japan. Mao Zedong was beginning an ascendancy where the form
    of government was repressed and that no such thing as a marketplace--was
    repressive, and there was no such thing as a marketplace. And Korea had
    just been--the Peninsula of Korea had just been torn asunder, where
    thousands of U.S. soldiers had died as well.
        Today, Japan, as I mentioned, is a strong ally, an important
    economic partner and security partner. South Korea is a strong ally,
    important trading partner, and important security partner--albeit their
    democracy went through a difficult period of time. Democracies don't
    emerge on a straight line; neither did ours. Our great democracy
    enslaved people for 100 years. All men were created equal, except some.
    We're reconfirming the belief that all men are created equal.
        And so it takes a while for freedom to take root. It's hard work for
    societies to adopt the habits necessary for a free society to emerge.
    Interesting enough, in China, there's certainly not a free society, but
    there is a free marketplace emerging. And in 1950, that would have been
    a difficult prediction to make.
        And so I believe liberty can take hold in parts of the world because
    history has shown it to be. Different time, no question; a different
    part of the world, no question. But if you have faith in the
    universality of freedom, and if you've seen history--liberty take hold
    before, it should give us confidence.
        Finally, it's necessary for free societies to emerge, free societies
    in the image of a country's own history and tradition. And why is it in
    our interest that that happen? There is a root cause. There is a reason
    why 19 kids got on an airplane to come and kill us, and that is because
    societies in that part of the world have bred resentment and lack of
    hope.
        I don't believe you can have a comfortable and secure society if
    half the people are not treated equally. There's something universal in
    our demands to be treated with respect. It matters what the form of
    government is, in terms of whether or not peace will emerge.
        And so I believe that the liberty agenda, freedom agenda can take
    root, and I know it's necessary to make sure Grace can live in peace. I
    think people will look back at this period of time and make one or two
    judgments. They'll either say: What happened to them in 2007? How come
    they couldn't see the impending dangers that the little Graces of
    America would have to live with? How come they couldn't spot the
    radicalism that would emerge even more violent than it had been? How
    come they couldn't see the fact that Iran would become emboldened if the
    United States of America didn't keep its commitments in Iraq? What was
    it that prevented them from recognizing that nations in the Middle

    [[Page 531]]

    East would tend to choose up sides and back violent regimes--violent
    groups in order to protect their ownselves? How come they couldn't
    remember the lesson of September the 11th--which said: What matters
    overseas, matters at home. Or they'll look back and say they had faith;
    they had faith in the ability of liberty to transform a region into a
    region of hope that yielded the peace so little Grace can be amazed that
    this generation has done its job.
        And those are the risks, and that's the task, and God bless you.

    Note: The President spoke at 9:44 a.m. at the Willard Hotel. In his
    remarks, he referred to Steve L. Massie, president, Associated General
    Contractors of America; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general,
    Multi-National Force--Iraq; Haytham Kazim Abdallah Al-Shimari, head of
    the Rusafa Al Qaida-Iraq bomb network; Qais Khazali, member, Khazali
    network; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; former Prime Minister
    Junichiro Koizumi and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan; Chairman Kim
    Jong Il of North Korea; and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. He
    also referred to H.R. 1591.