    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
    [April 19, 2007]
    [Pages 426-444]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at Tippecanoe High School and a Question-and-Answer Session in
    Tipp City, Ohio
    April 19, 2007

        The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you. Sit down.
    Thanks for coming. I'm honored you're here. Steve, thank you for the invitation. It's a real pleasure to
    be with you. What I thought I would do is share some thoughts with you
    about a couple of subjects, primarily Iraq, and then I'd like to answer
    some of your questions, on any topic that you'd like to ask me about.
        Before I do, I do want to thank Steve and
    the chamber of commerce for giving me a chance to dialog with you and,
    hopefully, giving the students here at this high school a chance to hear
    from the President firsthand. I know there are students who will be
    listening. My mission is to not only share with you what's on my mind
    and why I have made some of the decisions I have made, but another
    mission is to convince you that serving the public--that public service
    is worthwhile; that you can go into politics or you can feed the hungry
    or you can serve in the military, and it's a fulfilling part of a
    person's life and a necessary part, in my judgment, of a country that is
    a complete country.
        So I want to thank the high school folks. I want to thank Chuck
    Wray, the principal, for greeting me. I
    appreciated you letting me come to this center of learning. I
    particularly want to thank the teachers for teaching. There is no more
    noble profession than to be a teacher, and I'm honored to be in your
    midst.
        I want to thank the mayor, George Lovett--
    George L. [Laughter] Thank you, George--George W. [Laughter]
        I'm traveling today with the leader in the House for the Republican
    Party, John Boehner. John is a--[applause]--
    I've found him to be a good, solid, honest person. I know he is
    providing strong leadership in the House of Representatives. And I know
    he cares a lot about this district. I've seen John work issues. I've
    heard him speak in depth about what he believes. And I appreciate his
    leadership, and I appreciate him joining me today.
        I'm--I wish I was traveling here with Laura.
    The best thing about my family is my wife. She is a great First Lady. I
    know that sounds not very objective, but that's how I feel. And she's
    also patient. Putting up with me requires a lot of patience. But she
    sends her best. She's in New Orleans today.
        And I will tell you, one reason--this may sound counterintuitive,
    but a good marriage is really good after serving together in Washington,
    DC. It's been an amazing experience to be a husband and then a dad as
    President of the United States. And I emphasize: That is the priority
    for me as the President. It's my faith, my family, and my country. And I
    am pleased to report that our family is doing great, particularly since
    my wife is such a fantastic person. And she sends
    her very best.
        Let me say something about Virginia Tech, and I want to first thank
    Steve for the moment of silence. You know, it's
    a--there is--the President spends time at disasters. It's--part of the
    job of the Presidency is to help people heal from hurt. And the amazing
    thing is, though, when you go down to a scene like Virginia Tech, you
    can't help but be buoyed by the spirit, that out of the tragedy comes a
    certain sense of resolve.
        One of the things I try to assure the families and the students and
    the faculty of that fine university was that there are a lot of people
    around our country who are praying for them. It's interesting; here in
    Tipp City, the first thing that happened was a moment of silence, a
    moment of prayer. To provide--at least my prayer was:

    [[Page 427]]

    Please comfort and strengthen those whose lives were affected by this
    horrible incident. It really speaks to the strength of this country--
    doesn't it?--that total strangers here in Ohio are willing to hold up
    people in Virginia in prayer, and I thank you for that. And my message
    to the folks who still hurt in--at Virginia Tech is that a lot of people
    care about you, and a lot of people think about you, a lot of people
    grieve with you, and a lot of people hope you find sustenance in a power
    higher than yourself, and a lot of us believe you will.
        My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision--if the job
    description were: What do you do? It's decisionmaker. And I make a lot
    of big ones, and I make a lot of little ones. Interestingly enough, the
    first decision I made happened right before I got sworn in as President.
    I was at the Blair House, which is across the street from the White
    House, getting ready to give my Inaugural Address. And the phone rang,
    and the head usher at the White House said,
    ``President-elect Bush.'' I said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``What color rug do
    you want in the Oval Office?'' [Laughter] I said, ``This is going to be
    a decisionmaking experience.'' [Laughter]
        The first lesson about decisionmaking is, if you're short on a
    subject, ask for help. So if you're a student listening and you're not
    very good at math, ask for help. Don't be afraid to admit that you need
    help when it comes to life. I wasn't afraid to admit I wasn't sure how
    to design a rug, so I called Laura. [Laughter] I
    said: ``They've asked me to design a rug in the Oval Office. I don't
    know anything about rug designing; will you help me?'' She said, ``Of
    course.'' But I said: ``I want it to say something''--the President has
    got to be a strategic thinker--and I said to her: ``Make sure the rug
    says, `Optimistic person comes to work.''' [Laughter] Because you can't
    make decisions unless you're optimistic that the decisions you make will
    lead to a better tomorrow. And so if you were to come in the Oval
    Office, what you would see is this fantastic rug that looks like the
    sun. And it just sets the tone for the Oval Office.
        I share that with you because I make a lot of decisions, and I'm
    optimistic that the decisions I have made will yield a better tomorrow.
    The hardest decision you make is whether or not to commit troops into
    combat, people like this young man, people who've served our country
    with great distinction, people who volunteered to say, ``I want to serve
    the United States.'' The hardest decision a President makes is to ask
    those men and women to go into harm's way.
        My decisionmaking was deeply affected by the attack of September the
    11th, 2001. It was a moment that defined a dangerous world to me with
    absolute clarity. I realized then that this country was no longer
    invulnerable to attack from what may be happening overseas.
        I realized that there is an enemy of the United States that is
    active and is lethal. At further study of that enemy, I realized that
    they share an ideology, that these weren't--that the--and when you
    really think about it, the September the 11th attack was not the first
    attack. There was a 1993 World Trade Center attack; there was attacks on
    our Embassies in East Africa; there was an attack on the USS Cole. There
    have been other attacks on U.S. citizens, and that these attacks were
    instigated and carried out by coldblooded killers who have a belief
    system. They are threatened by free societies. They can't stand the
    thought of freedom being the prevailing attitude in the world because
    their view is, if you don't believe in what I believe in, you probably
    shouldn't be around.
        They--this enemy is smart, capable, and unpredictable. They have
    defined a war on the United States, and I believe we're at war. I
    believe the attack on America made it clear that we're at war. I wish
    that wasn't the case. Nobody ought to ever hope to be a war President or
    a Presidency--a President during war. But that's how I see

    [[Page 428]]

    the world. And I made a vow that I would do everything I could, and work
    with Members of Congress to do everything they could, to protect the
    United States. It is the most solemn duty of our country, is to protect
    our country from harm.
        A lesson learned was that--at least in my opinion--that in order to
    protect us, we must aggressively pursue the enemy and defeat them
    elsewhere so we don't have to face them here. In other words, if what
    happens overseas matters to the United States, therefore, the best way
    to protect us is to deal with threats overseas. In other words, we just
    can't let a threat idle; we can't hope that a threat doesn't come home
    to hurt us. A lesson of that terrible day was, threats overseas can come
    home to hurt us. And so the fundamental question--and this has led to
    constructive debate--it's, what do you do about it?
        I've chosen a path that says, we will go overseas and defeat them
    there. I also know full well that it's important for us if we're facing
    an ideology, if we're facing ideologues, if we're confronting people who
    believe something, that we have got to defeat their belief system with a
    better belief system. Forms of government matter, in my opinion. It
    matters how--the nature of the government in which people live. And
    therefore, I have put as part of our foreign policy not only an
    aggressive plan to find extremists and radicals and bring them to
    justice before they hurt us, but also to help people live in liberty,
    free societies as the great alternative to people living under a tyrant,
    for example.
        And so my decisionmaking was based upon those principles. And now
    we're involved in a--I call it a global war against terror. You can call
    it a global war against extremists, a global war against radicals, a
    global war against people who want to hurt America. You can call it
    whatever you want, but it is a global effort. And by the way, the United
    States is not alone in this effort. We're helping lead an effort. And
    the major battlefield in this global war is Iraq, and I want to spend
    some time talking about Iraq.
        The--living under a tyrant must be just brutal, and living under the
    reign of Saddam Hussein was incredibly brutal. A lot of innocent people
    were killed; a lot of people were cowed by the state. There really
    wasn't much in terms of a civil structure that would enable people to
    have a kind of a form of a representative government. People were kept
    apart through violence, in many ways. People were pitted against each
    other. A lot of people were given favored treatment.
        The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a difficult decision, I
    think a necessary decision. If you want to talk about that later on, we
    can. And what has happened since then is that we are trying to help a
    young democracy survive in the heart of the Middle East and, at the same
    time, prevent our stated enemies from establishing safe haven from which
    to attack us again.
        Now I say that--preventing our enemies from establishing a safe
    haven from which to attack us again--because that is their stated
    objective in Iraq. That's what Al Qaida says. Al Qaida is the same group
    of folks that attacked us on September the 11th. They have said their
    objective is to drive the United States out of Iraq in order to
    establish safe haven. And why would they need safe haven? They would
    need safe haven from which to plot and plan and train to attack again.
    They have an objective, and that is to spread their ideology throughout
    the Middle East. That is what they have stated. That's their objectives.
        Our objective is to deny them safe haven, is to prevent Al Qaida
    from being able to do in Iraq that which they did in Afghanistan, which
    is where they trained thousands of young men to come and kill--and to
    eventually kill innocent people.
        Our objective also is to help a young democracy flourish in a part
    of the world that desperately needs liberty, in a part of

    [[Page 429]]

    the world where government--forms of government will provide hope so as
    eventually to discourage the type of mentality that says 19 kids should
    get on airplanes and kill 3,000 people.
        And it's incredibly hard work, but I have come to the conclusion,
    obviously, that it's necessary work. It's necessary work for peace.
        The--in 2005, the Iraqi people went to the polls; 12 million voted.
    I view that as a statement that says--by the way, I wasn't surprised
    that 12 million people, if given a chance to vote, voted. I was pleased,
    but I wasn't surprised. And the reason I wasn't surprised is because I
    believe in this principle: I believe liberty is universal. I don't
    believe freedom is just confined to America. I think there is a
    universal principle that all people desire and want and should be free,
    that it's not just an American ideal; it is universal.
        I think back, for example, right after World War II--people might
    have argued after fighting the Japanese that they don't want to be free.
    They're the enemy; they killed a lot of people; they attacked the United
    States? Why should we work to help them be free? Except those people
    were--didn't quite understand, not only do people want to be free, that
    when free societies emerge, they're more likely to yield the peace.
        And so it's a--this country began to evolve, and it started with
    elections. And it's easy to forget the elections because of all the
    violence. In 2006, I was convinced that we would be able to reposition
    our troops and have fewer troops in Iraq because the Iraqis want to take
    on the security themselves. This is a sovereign government. People got
    elected. They want to be--showing the people of Iraq that they can run
    their own government. I don't know if you get that sense on your TV
    screens or not, but I certainly get that sense when I talk to the Prime
    Minister, with whom I speak quite
    frequently.
        And yet they--and yet the enemy--and the enemy--when I say
    ``enemy,'' these are enemies of free societies, primarily Al Qaida-
    inspired--blew up the great religious shrine in '06, a year ago--all
    aiming to create a sense of sectarian violence, all aiming to exacerbate
    the religious tensions that sometimes were exacerbated under Saddam
    Hussein, all aiming at preventing this young democracy from succeeding.
    And they succeeded. The enemy succeeded in causing there to be sectarian
    strife. In other words, the Government wasn't ready to provide the
    security. People started taking matters into their own hands. ``I'm
    going to protect myself, or I'm going to rely upon somebody else to
    protect me,'' they would say.
        So I have a decision point to make, last fall. And the decision
    point was whether or not to either scale back or increase our presence
    in Iraq. And that was a difficult decision. It's difficult any time, as
    I told you, you put a soldier in harm's way. I understand the
    consequence of committing people into war. The interesting thing is, I'm
    the Commander in Chief of an incredibly amazing group of men and women
    who also understand that consequence and yet are willing to volunteer.
        The question was, do we increase our--I call it ``reinforce''; you
    can call it surge; there's all kind of words for it--or do we pull back?
    As you know, I made a decision to reinforce. And I did because I believe
    the Iraqis want to have a peaceful society. I believe Iraqi mothers want
    their children to grow up in peace, just like American mothers do. I
    think, if given a chance, that society can emerge into a free society. I
    felt strongly that if violence erupted, sectarian violence erupted in
    the capital, it would make it impossible to achieve the objective, and
    that is to help this free society. Listen, there are people--or let it
    emerge into a free society.
        And the goal is a country that is stable enough for the Government
    to work, that can defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on
    terror, that won't be a safe

    [[Page 430]]

    haven, that will deny the extremists and the radicals. I happen to think
    there will be an additional dividend when we succeed. Remember the rug?
    I'm optimistic we can succeed. I wouldn't ask families to have their
    troops there if I didn't think, one, it was necessary, and two, we could
    succeed. I believe we're going to succeed, and I believe success will
    embolden other moderate people that said, they're going to reject
    extremists and radicals in their midst.
        There's a good group of people in Washington--fair, decent,
    honorable people--and by the way, in this political discourse, we should
    never question anybody's patriotism if they don't happen to agree with
    the President. That's not the American way. The American way is, we
    ought to have a honest and open dialog. There are good people, patriotic
    people who didn't believe that additional troops would make that big a
    difference, and, therefore, we should not increase but, in some cases,
    pull out; in some cases, pull back. Either case, having weighed the
    options, I didn't think it was viable, and I didn't think it would work.
        A couple of points I want to make, and then I promise to stop
    talking and answer your questions. [Laughter] People often ask me, what
    are we seeing on TV? What's happening with the violence? Here's my best
    analysis: One, the spectaculars you see are Al Qaida-inspired. They
    claim credit for a lot of the big bombings. The bombing of the
    Parliament was Al Qaida; the bombing of the Golden Samarra was Al Qaida.
    These are the Sunni extremists inspired by Usama bin Laden, who attacked the United States. I keep repeating that
    because I want you to understand, what matters overseas, in my judgment,
    affects the security of the United States of America in this new era.
        Their objective is twofold: One, shake the confidence of the average
    Iraqi that their Government is incapable of providing security, and,
    therefore, people will turn to militias in order to protect themselves;
    their second objective is to shake our confidence. It's an interesting
    war--isn't it?--where asymmetrical warfare is--and that means people
    being able to use suicide bombers--not only obviously kills a lot of
    innocent people, like which happened yesterday in Iraq, but also helps
    define whether or not we're successful.
        If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide
    bombers, we'll never be successful. We will have handed Al Qaida
    ``that's what it takes'' in order to determine whether or not these
    young democracies, for example, can survive. Think about that. If our
    definition is no more suiciders, you've just basically said to the
    suiciders, ``Go ahead.''
        The--Iran is influential inside of Iraq. They are influential by
    providing advanced weaponry. They are influential by dealing with some
    militias--they tend to be Shi'a militias--all aiming to create
    discomfort, all aiming to kind of--according to some--to create enough
    discomfort for the United States. But in doing so, they're making it
    harder for this young democracy to emerge. Isn't it interesting, when
    you really take a step back and think about what I just said, that Al
    Qaida is making serious moves in Iraq, as is surrogates for Iran.
        Two of the biggest issues we face for the security of this country
    today and tomorrow is Al Qaida and Iran. And yet their influence is
    being played out in Iraq. I believe that if we were to leave before this
    country had an opportunity to stabilize, to grow--and by the way, I
    fully understand and completely agree with those who say, this is not
    just a military mission alone. That is too much, to ask our military to
    be able to achieve objectives without there being a corresponding
    political avenue, political strategy being fulfilled by the Iraqis. I
    fully expect them to reconcile. I fully expect them--and I made it clear
    to the Prime Minister that they should pass
    different de-Ba'athification law, that they ought to have local a
    elections, that they ought to share their oil wells so people feel a
    common--you know, a common

    [[Page 431]]

    bond to something bigger than provincialism.
        They have to do work. They know they have to do work. I told that to
    Prime Minister Maliki this week on a secure
    video: You have an obligation to your people, and to our people, for
    that matter, to do the hard work necessary, to show people that you're
    capable of getting your Government to move forward with political
    reconciliation. There has to be reconstruction money spent, their
    reconstruction money. They've dedicated $10 billion out of their budget,
    and now they've got to spend that money wisely to show people that the
    Government can be for all the people.
        The--but if we were to leave before that were to happen, I will
    share a scenario that I'm fearful of. One, that the very radicals and
    extremists who attack us would be emboldened. It would confirm their
    sense that the United States is incapable of long-term commitments,
    incapable of--it would confirm their commitment that they think we're
    soft--let me put it to you that way. That's what they think.
        That doesn't necessarily mean that the United States has to kind of
    muscle up for the sake of muscling up. That's not what I'm trying to
    say. But I do believe it is risky to have an enemy that has attacked us
    before to not take the United States seriously for the long run.
        Secondly, there would be a violence--level of violence that would
    spill out beyond just the capital, could spill out beyond Iraq. And then
    you would have ancient feuds fueled by extremists and radicals competing
    for power, radical Shi'a, radical, extreme Sunnis, all competing for
    power. They would happen to share two enemies: one, the United States
    and Israel, for starters, and every other moderate person in the Middle
    East.
        Imagine a scenario where the oil wealth of certain countries became
    controlled--came under the control of a radical, extremist group. And
    then all of a sudden, you'd be dealing not only with safe haven for
    potential violent attack; you'd be dealing with the economic
    consequences of people who didn't share the values of the West, for
    example.
        Iran wants to--they've stated they'd like to have--let me just say,
    we believe they would like to have a nuclear weapon. Part of our
    diplomacy is to prevent them from doing so. If the United States were to
    leave a chaotic Iraq, not only would the vacuum of our failure there to
    help this young Government enable extremists to move more freely and
    embolden them, but I also believe it would--it could cause the Middle
    East to enter into a nuclear arms race.
        And the scenario I'm beginning to describe to you, I believe, is a
    real scenario, a real possibility for scenario. And I believe if this
    were to happen, people would look back 30 years from now or 20 years
    from now, and say: What happened to them in 2007? How come they couldn't
    see the threat?
        And so I want to share that with you because--these thoughts with
    you, because as a person whose job it is to make decisions, you've got
    to understand that I'm making them on what I believe is solid ground.
    These are necessary decisions for the country.
        We're having an interesting debate in Washington. John and I spent some time talking about it, and that is this
    supplemental funding--because I sent up a request to make sure our
    troops had the money necessary to do the missions that they have been
    asked to do. I want to share a couple thoughts with you on that, and
    then I'll answer some questions.
        First, I think it's a mistake, and I've made it clear that the
    Congress should not have artificial timetables for withdrawal in a
    funding mission--funding statement. I'll tell you why. [Applause] Thank
    you. Thank you. The reason why is, if you're a young commander on the
    ground or an Iraqi soldier and you've been tasked with a mission to help
    provide security for a city and an enemy hears that you're leaving soon,
    it

    [[Page 432]]

    affects your capacity to do your job. It sends a signal to a dangerous
    part of the world that it's just a matter of time; things will happen.
        I think it's a mistake for Congress to tell the military how to do
    its job. We've got fantastic generals and colonels and captains who are
    trained to carry on military missions; that's their responsibility. And
    it's very important that they be given the resources and the flexibility
    necessary to carry out that which the Commander in Chief has asked them
    to do.
        I fully understand the debate, and, again, I repeat to you: It's an
    important debate. I would hope it would be conducted with civil tone to
    bring honor to the process. Sometimes it gets a little out of hand there
    in Washington; I admit. But my message to the Congress has been: Don't
    put our troops in between the debate; let's get them the money; let's
    get the commanders the flexibility; and we can debate Iraq policy
    without shorting the capacity for these troops to do their jobs.
        These are--I would call these times consequential times. I believe
    we're in a long, ideological struggle. And I believe the struggle will
    determine whether or not this country is secure. People ask me--you
    know, I've been reading a lot of history. People ask me, ``Can you think
    of any historical parallels?'' Well, clearly the cold war is an
    interesting parallel. There's a--by the way, every new phase of history
    has its own unique features to it. For example, you've got a kid in the
    battlefield, and he's e-mailing home every day, or 24-hour news cycles.
    I mean, there's a lot of war--asymmetrical warfare, or $50 weapons are
    sometimes used to defeat expensive vehicles. In other words, these are
    different times.
        But there are some parallels. One is, of course, the ideological
    standoff during the cold war, eventually won by freedom, the forces of
    freedom. For some, that sounds, maybe, corny--but it's true. It's an
    historical truth. And in my judgment, it requires people to have faith
    in that universal principle of liberty.
        I like to remind people that my dad was
    a 18-year-old kid when he signed up to--for the United States Navy in
    World War II and went off to combat in a really bloody war. And yet his
    son becomes the President, and one of his best friends in the
    international scene was the Prime Minister of Japan. Prime Minister Koizumi was a partner in peace.
    Isn't it interesting? I think there's a historical lesson there, that
    liberty has got the capacity to transform enemies to allies.
        I think there's a lesson in Korea. I think if you were to ask
    somebody to predict in 1953 what the world would look like in the Far
    East, I don't think they would have said, China would have a marketplace
    that was growing; Korea would be our sixth largest trading partner--I
    think it's the sixth largest trading partner, but certainly a partner in
    peace; and Japan would have been an ally, a strong ally that would have
    committed troops to the young democracy of Iraq to help this democracy.
    I don't think people would have predicted that, but, in fact, it
    happened. It happened because the United States provided enough
    stability so that societies were able to evolve toward free societies,
    or freer societies.
        We've got--we face this--we face a unique set of challenges, but I
    think we can learn something from history when we think about those
    challenges. And I guess my conclusion is, I believe the decisions I have
    made were not only necessary to protect the country but are laying a
    foundation of peace, the beginnings of laying that foundation of peace,
    so that generations will look back and say: ``Thank goodness. I thank
    goodness America didn't lose sight of basic principles, and thank
    goodness America stayed true to her beliefs, and thank goodness America
    led.''
        So thanks for letting me share some thoughts with you. And now I'll
    be glad to answer some questions. [Applause] Okay,

    [[Page 433]]

    thank you. Probably a nerve-wracking experience to think about asking--
    it's not a nerve-wracking experience. Go ahead.

    Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

        Q. Mr. President, what is your view of those who--in the opposing
    party whom you've invited to come to the White House to discuss
    solutions to the Iraq war and its funding, who have expressed a
    reluctance to come and talk because of the perception that you would
    have a precondition or a no-negotiation on any points regarding the war?
        The President. No, thanks. He asked the question about--prior to the
    meeting yesterday, there was some concern that I wouldn't listen, that
    I'd made up my mind, and, therefore, discussions weren't necessary. And
    I will tell you, we had a very cordial meeting. The Speaker and the leader and minority
    leader and Senator McConnell all came down, along with others.
        Clearly, there's different points of view, and that's fine. That's
    the greatness about our society. In my discussions with the leaders, I
    said: ``You have the authority to pass the funding legislation. That's
    your authority, not mine.'' I submitted what the Pentagon thinks it
    needs. In other words, the process works where I ask the Pentagon: How
    much do you need? What do you need to do the job? And they submitted
    their request, and then we, on behalf of the Pentagon, sent it up to
    Congress. And they had the authority to pass that--pass the bill any way
    they see fit.
        I have the authority, in our Constitution, to veto the bill if I
    don't think it meets certain criteria. They, then, have the authority to
    say, ``Well, we don't agree with the President's veto, and now we're
    going to override the veto,'' so that that which they passed becomes
    law. And here's where we are. I said, ``Get a bill to me as quickly as
    you can.'' And I believe they committed to a bill late next week, or a
    week from next Monday, I think is what they're aiming for. And
    therefore, we will sit back and hope they get it done quickly. Time is
    of the essence. We need to get money to the troops. It's important for
    them to get the money.
        However, I did make it clear that in exercising your authority, if
    you put timetables, or if you micromanage--or artificial deadlines or
    micromanage the war or insist upon using a war supplemental to load up
    with items that are not related to the global war on terror, I will
    exercise my constitutional authority, and then you will have the
    opportunity to override my veto if you so choose.
        My point to the leaders--and it was a very cordial meeting
    yesterday, by the way, and people--the positive news is that we don't--
    the negative thing is we don't agree 100 percent. That's not--you
    shouldn't be surprised. The positive news is that there was a cordial
    discussion. The discussion was dignified, like you would hope it would
    be, and people were free to express their minds.
        And so my attitude is, if they feel like they've got to send this up
    there with their strings, like they said, please do it in a hurry so I
    can veto it, and then we can get down to the business of getting the
    troops funded. [Laughter]
        Sir.

    Public Opinion on Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, how would you respond to the rather mistaken idea
    that the war in Iraq is becoming a war--in Vietnam?
        The President. Yes, thank you. There's a lot of differences. First,
    the Iraqi people voted for a modern constitution, and then set up a
    government under that Constitution. Secondly, the--that's as opposed to
    two divided countries, north and south. The--in my judgment, the vast
    majority of people want to live underneath that Constitution they
    passed. They want to live in peace. And what you're seeing is radical on
    the fringe creating chaos in order to

    [[Page 434]]

    either get the people to lose confidence in their government or for us
    to leave.
        A major difference, as far as here at home is concerned, is that our
    military is an all-volunteer army, and we need to keep it that way. By
    the way, the way you keep it that way is to make sure our troops have
    all they need to do their job and to make sure their families are happy.
    And--[applause].
        There are some similarities, of course; death is terrible. Another
    similarity, of course, is that Vietnam was the first time a war was
    brought onto our TV screens here in America on a regular basis. I'm
    looking around, looking for baby boomers. I see a few of us here. It's a
    different--it was the first time that the violence and horror of war was
    brought home. That's the way it is today.
        Americans, rightly so, are concerned about whether or not we can
    succeed in Iraq. Nobody wants to be there if we can't succeed,
    especially me. And these--violence on our TV screens affects our frame
    of mind, probably more so today than what took place in Vietnam. I want
    to remind you that after Vietnam, after we left, the--millions of people
    lost their life--the Khmer Rouge, for example, in Cambodia. And my
    concern is, there would be a parallel there, that if we didn't help this
    Government get going, stay on its feet, be able to defend itself, the
    same thing would happen. There would be the slaughter of a lot of
    innocent life. The difference, of course, is that this time around the
    enemy wouldn't just be content to stay in the Middle East; they'd follow
    us here.
        It's interesting, I met with some Congressmen today, and one person
    challenged that. He said, ``I don't necessarily agree with that.'' In
    other words, I have told people that this is a unique war, where an
    enemy will follow us home, because I believe that. But if you give Al
    Qaida a safe haven and enough time to plan and plot, I believe the risk
    is, they will come and get us. And I freely admit that much of my
    thinking was affected on September the 11th, 2001, and the aftermath of
    September the 11th, 2001. And I wanted to share that with you and the
    American people so that they understand that when I make decisions, why
    I'm making decisions. I can assure you; I'm not going to make any
    decisions in regard to anybody's life based upon a poll or a focus
    group.
        Sir, they don't want you to ask the question. [Laughter] They
    silenced you. Go ahead and yell. [Laughter]

    International Support for Iraq/Iran and Syria

        Q. Would you speak, please, a little bit about----
        The President. Now you can use it.
        Q. Would you speak a little bit about the support or lack of support
    that we're getting from other countries, particularly those countries
    surrounding Iraq----
        The President. Sure.
        Q. ----Saudi Arabia, so forth?
        The President. Thank you, sir. First, our mission is getting a lot
    of support from the Iraqis. That's the place to first look. Are the
    Iraqis willing to make sacrifices necessary for their own country? I
    think there's a lot of Americans who wonder whether or not the Iraqis
    want to live in a free society and are willing to do that which is
    necessary to help their country succeed. If I felt they weren't, I would
    not have our troops in harm's way, just so you know.
        I believe they are. They have suffered unbelievable death and
    destruction. Yesterday's bombing--I don't--we don't have the intel on
    it; I suspect it's Al Qaida. Al Qaida convinces the suiciders to show
    up. Al Qaida understands the effects of this kind of warfare on the
    minds of not only people in Iraq but here and elsewhere in the world.
    And yet the Iraqis continue to recruit for their army and their police
    force. I thought it was interesting that the Sunni Speaker of the
    House, the day that the council
    chambers were bombed, said,

    [[Page 435]]

    ``We're going to meet.'' These folks have gone through unbelievable
    horrors--they really have--and yet they continue to show courage in the
    face of this kind of violence.
        Secondly, there is--there are nations who are concerned about
    whether or not a Shi'a government in Iraq will end up being a surrogate
    for Iran, for example. I think there are some Sunni nations--Sunni-
    governed nations, like Saudi and Jordan, that are concerned about a
    shift in the Middle East toward Iran, and that they are--wonder whether
    or not this Government of Iraq, which is a Shi'a government as a result
    of the fact that most people in Iraq--or the majority, see a--the
    largest plurality of people in Iraq are Shi'a--you wouldn't be surprised
    if people voted that; that's what happened as a result of the elections.
    And they wonder whether or not the Government is going to be of and by
    and for the Iraqi people. And that's--concerns them.
        And so one of the reasons we were working with the Iraqis on this
    neighborhood conference is for people to hear firsthand that the Iraqi
    Government is, first and foremost, Iraqi. They're not interested in
    being anybody else's surrogate.
        We've got a lot of work to do there, and it's an interesting
    question you ask. I was pleased, and I thanked His Majesty, that 80 percent of the debt
    in Saudi--I'll get you in a minute--is--80 percent of the Saudi debt in
    Iraq was forgiven. I appreciated that. It's a strong gesture. But we
    have a lot--not we; the Iraqi Government has a lot of work to do to
    convince skeptical nations that, in fact, they're going to be a
    pluralistic society, that they're not going to hold one group above
    another when it comes to their society.
        Iran--I mentioned Iran. Iran is a serious problem. This is a nation
    that has said they want to have a nuclear--or we believe wants to have a
    nuclear weapon. And to what end? They don't need a nuclear weapon. And
    it's really important for the free world to work together to prevent
    them from having a nuclear weapon.
        I'm very worried about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It's
    not in the interests of our children that that happens, for the sake of
    peace. They have been unhelpful in Iraq, intentionally unhelpful in
    Iraq. And so I obviously sent out the orders to our troops, commanders,
    that they will protect themselves against Iranian influence--or let me
    just say this--or threats to their lives based--because of what Iran has
    done.
        We have no beef with the Iranian people, which is really important
    for the people of Iran to understand. We value the history of Iran. We
    respect the traditions of Iran. It's the Iranian Government that is
    making the decisions that is causing you to be isolated. You're missing
    a opportunity to be a great nation because your Government has made
    decisions that is causing the world to put economic sanctions on you and
    to isolate you. I would hope the Iranian Government would change their
    attitude. And the Iranian people must understand that if they do--if
    they don't--if they stop their enrichment process, that they can have a
    better relationship with countries such as the United States. If they
    aren't meddling in Iraq, they can have a better relationship with a
    country that wishes them no harm.
        Syria--I don't know if I'm going too much or not, but you asked.
    [Laughter] We have made it very clear to President Asad that there are a series of gestures we'd like to see him
    make for the sake of peace. One such gesture is to leave Lebanon alone,
    let the Lebanese democracy flourish, stop interfering in this young
    democracy.
        Isn't it interesting that it's the democracies of the Middle East
    that are having the most problem with the extremists? I think it is. We
    have said to the Syrians, ``Stop harboring Hamas and Hizballah''--
    violent, radical organizations aimed at causing harm in the Middle East.
    And we have

    [[Page 436]]

    said to President Asad, ``Stop allowing the
    flow of suicide bombers through your country into Iraq.''
        You know, some have suggested that the United States start
    diplomatic relations with Syria. My message is, the Syrian has got the
    choice to make; the Syrian President must
    make the choice that will stop isolating his regime. And the United
    States will continue to make it clear to Syria, and work with other
    nations to make it clear to Syria, that their behavior is unacceptable
    if we want peace in the Middle East.
        And so that's a--there will be meetings. I think the Iraq Compact
    group will be meeting, as will an Iraq neighbor group. And it's there
    that the neighborhood can come together, all--and Condi is going to--Condi, Secretary Rice will be
    representing us there--all aiming to make it clear that we hope that we
    can encourage nations to help this young democracy to not only survive
    but to thrive. And it's an interesting challenge given the history of
    the region.
        Yes, sir.

    Immigration Reform/Border Security

        Q. Mr. President--to kind of switch directions a little bit--illegal
    aliens in this country apparently are putting a lot of pressure on our
    social services. Could you comment on what the plans are in the future
    to take care of that?
        The President. Yes, sir. They are not apparently putting pressure on
    the social services; they are putting pressure on the social services.
    [Laughter]
        I believe it's in the interest of the United States to have a
    comprehensive immigration plan that meets certain objectives: One, helps
    us better secure our border; two, recognizes that people are doing work
    here that Americans are not doing; three, that recognizes that we are a
    nation of immigrants, and we ought to uphold that tradition in a way
    that honors the rule of law; four, that it's in the interest of the
    country that people who are here be assimilated in a way that--with our
    traditions and history--in other words, those who eventually become
    citizens be assimilated. In other words, one of the great things about
    America is, we've been able to assimilate people from different
    backgrounds and different countries. I suspect some of your relatives
    might be the kind of people I'm talking about.
        Four, that we do not grant amnesty. I am very worried about
    automatic citizenship being granted to people who have been here
    illegally. I think it undermines the rule of law--[applause]. I think it
    undermines the rule of law. I also think it would create a condition or,
    indeed, send the signal that it's okay for another X millions of people
    to come.
        Five, you can't kick people out. You may think you can kick people
    out, but you can't. It's not going to work. It's impractical to think
    that you can find 10 million people who have been here for a long period
    of time and boot them out of the country.
        Six, if you hire somebody who is an illegal alien, you ought to be
    held to account. Now, those are the principles--[applause]--wait a
    minute. Those are the principles. And we're working in Congress. The
    first step was to make it clear to the American people that we would
    change our border policy. This is a subject I'm real familiar with. As
    you might recall, I was the Governor of the great State of Texas, and
    we've been dealing with immigration--[applause]--there you go. Always
    one in every crowd. [Laughter]
        A lot of Americans did not believe that this country was intent upon
    enforcing our border. And a couple of years ago, working with
    John and other Members of Congress, we began
    a border modernization program. And that meant, for example, more Border
    Patrol agents, and we will have doubled them, I think--I can't remember;
    I don't want to throw out facts; I may get them wrong, but we're
    doubling the number of Border Patrol agents by 2008.

    [[Page 437]]

        It means some barriers, whether they be vehicle barriers or fencing,
    different roads to make our enforcement folks be able to travel easier
    on the border, UAVs--unmanned aerial vehicles--infrared detection
    devices. In other words, this border is becoming modernized.
        It's interesting, I went down to Yuma, Arizona, right after Easter.
    And when I first went down there, there was a fence next to Mexico, and
    that was it; kind of a rickety fence, it looked like. And one of the
    tactics was for people to storm over the fence and rush the neighborhood
    on the other side, and the Border Patrol may pick up two or three of
    them, and however many else got in. Now there is double fencing in this
    area, with a wide area in between that our Border Patrol are able to
    travel on. In other words, we're beginning to get a modernization
    program that's pretty effective. As a matter of fact, the number of
    arrests are down.
        Another problem we had--it's a long answer because it's a really
    important topic. Another problem we had was catch-and-release. We
    would--the Border Patrol would catch somebody, say, from Mexico; they'd
    send them right back, but, say, from--a lot of folks are coming from
    Central America. But by the way, the reason why is because they want to
    put food on the table, and there are jobs Americans aren't doing. You
    know what I'm talking about. Some of you--if you're running a nursery,
    you know what I'm talking about. If you've got a chicken factory, a
    chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm
    talking about. People have got starving families, and they want to come
    and work.
        By the way, if I were a leader of a country where people were
    willing to take risks like these people were, I'd be worried that I'd be
    losing an incredibly good part of my workforce, hard-working people.
        Anyway, they're coming across--and from Central America; they're
    paying exorbitant sums, by the way. There's a whole industry based upon
    using people as chattel. They're commodities to be exploited, frankly.
    And they're coming up, and so we would catch them, but we didn't have
    enough beds on the border. So they catch a fellow from El Salvador
    trying to sneak in, and they say: ``Check back in with us, you know; we
    don't have any room to hold you. Come back in, and we'll have the
    immigration judge.'' Well, guess what happened? A guy wants to work;
    he's not interested in seeing the immigration judge. Off he goes; you'll
    never find him.
        And so we've ended that practice by increasing the number of beds
    now on the border. So when we get somebody from other than Mexico, we
    hold them, and then send them back to their country. And the message is
    getting out that the border is becoming more secure.
        However, I think it's very important--I'm getting to the meat here--
    very important for us to have a temporary-worker program if you really
    want to enforce the border. Our border is long. It is hard to enforce to
    begin with. It seems like to me that it's in our national interest to
    let people come on a temporary basis to do jobs Americans are not doing,
    on a temporary, verifiable basis, with a tamper-proof card, to let
    people come and do jobs Americans aren't doing and let them go home
    after that so that they don't have to sneak across the border. In other
    words, if there's a way for people to come in an orderly way, they won't
    have to try to get in the bottom of the 18-wheeler and pay a person
    thousands of dollars to smuggle them into the United States of America.
        There are a lot of employers who are worried about losing labor here
    in the United States. They don't know whether they're legal or illegal,
    by the way, because not only is there a smuggling operation, there's a
    document forging operation. In other words, the law that we have in
    place has created an entire underground system of smugglers, inn
    keepers, and document

    [[Page 438]]

    forgers. And that's not the American way, by the way.
        And so these guys don't know what they're getting--some card; it
    looks legal--``Sure, let's go; you can work in my nursery or go pick
    my--help me pick my lettuce.'' And they don't know whether they're
    looking at somebody legal or illegal. We need a tamper-proof card that
    will enable an employer to verify whether or not this person is here
    legally or not. Otherwise, it's unfair to hold somebody to account. In
    other words, if we're enforcing the law, saying you're employing
    somebody here illegally, we better make sure that that employer is able
    to verify with certainty whether the person is here legal or not.
        Finally, the fundamental question is, what do you do with the--you
    right there; everybody nervous up front--[laughter]--the question is,
    what about the 10 to 12 million people who are already here? It's a
    tough issue. As I've told you, my position is, not legal automatically.
    I'm also realistic enough to know that you're just--it may sound
    attractive in the political sound-bite world--just kick them out. It is
    not going to work. It's just not going to work.
        And so we're working with the Senate and the House to devise a plan
    that, in essence, says that you have broken the law and that you have an
    obligation to pay a fine for having broken the law if you want to stay
    in the United States; that there is a line for citizenship--there are a
    lot of people in that line right now--and that after paying a penalty
    for breaking the law, that you can get at the back of the line, not the
    front of the line; that if you want to become a citizen, you've got to
    prove that you can speak the language, that you can assimilate, that you
    have paid your taxes, that you haven't broken the law--[applause]--that
    you haven't broken the law, and then, if you choose, you have an
    opportunity to apply for citizenship. But you don't get to jump ahead of
    people who have played by the rules.
        And this is a tough debate, and I appreciate John's leadership on this issue. It's an emotional debate. I just
    ask our fellow citizens not to forget that we are a nation of law, but
    we are also a humane country that breaks our heart when we see people
    being abused and mistreated, and that I believe that--I know we need to
    have a civil debate on the subject. We're immigrants. We're a nation of
    immigrants. And I happen to personally believe as well, that there's
    nothing better for society than to have it renewed. When newcomers who
    come here legally realize the great benefits that one can achieve
    through hard work, it renews our spirit and renews our soul, when people
    are given a chance to realize the great blessings of the United States
    of America.
        And so we're working on it. Thank you for bringing it up. It's going
    to be an interesting, interesting legislative issue. I'm--there's--a lot
    of good people in the Senate are working hard to reach accord. And we're
    right in the middle of them trying to help them. And then if we can get
    a bill out of the Senate, we'll take it to the House and see where we
    go. Good question.
        Yes, sir.

    U.S. Armed Forces/Iraq Study Group/Health Care of Wounded Soldiers and
    Veterans

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. About time you asked a question. [Laughter]
        Q. This is truly an honor. Thank you for coming today. My question
    is about the U.S. military preparedness. I'm actually of a small
    manufacturing company in Dayton where we manufacture a lot of parts for
    the up-armored Humvees, gun turrets, and things like that----
        The President. This isn't, like, one of these self-interest
    questions, is it? [Laughter]
        Q. No, no, no. There's my--I'll get right to it. There's--currently
    the law is that only

    [[Page 439]]

    50 percent of the military components have to be U.S. made. When we went
    into Afghanistan, there was a gentleman in Switzerland who refused to
    give us part of something for the NORDAM bomb that we had; he refused to
    make it because it was made over there. And my question is about
    increasing that percentage and keeping a prepared military, that we
    don't have to rely on other countries to defend ourselves.
        The President. Right. My answer is, I'm really not sure what you're
    talking about, and I'll look into it. [Laughter] But I can tell you,
    we're going to spend a lot of money on this military because we're
    worried about whether or not this military will have the supplies
    necessary, the equipment necessary after multiple rotations.
        I want to assure parents whose loved one may be in the military:
    We're not going to put your son or daughter over there unless they're
    ready. And no question, multiple rotations have been hard on our
    families. And as you know, recently, Secretary Gates recommended to me, and I accepted, saying with certainty
    to our troops: ``Your tours will be up to 15 months, and you'll be home
    for a guaranteed 12 months.'' And the reason why he did that is that we
    had some people deployed for what they thought might be 12 months and
    were asked to stay in theater. And what's the most important thing we
    can do for this volunteer army is to provide certainty for our families.
        In other words, you sign--you volunteer to be in the military, and
    you're deployed, we want to make sure there's certainty so that families
    can prepare. The worst thing that can happen, according to our military
    experts there, is for somebody's hopes to be dashed, that there's not
    clarity about what's expected of our troops. And so we did that.
        There is--the term of art is called reset--that is to make sure that
    we reset our military. And there is an area where there is good common
    ground with Members of Congress--the Democrat leadership understands
    that reset is an important part of keeping this military ready and
    active.
        Let me say one thing I forgot to tell you before. I don't know if
    you remember the Baker-Hamilton report. James A. Baker, the Secretary of State, Lee
    Hamilton, two distinguished people, real good people, the kind of
    Americans that have served with distinction and are still serving. They
    proposed an interesting idea, which was for the United States to be
    postured at some point in time with the following force posture: One,
    embedded with Iraqi troops, not only as a training mission but to help
    them understand chain of command issues and just the issues of a modern
    military; that our troops be stationed in a over-the-horizon position so
    we could respond to a particular situation, so it didn't get out of
    control; that we helped defend the territorial integrity of Iraq; and
    that we chase down Al Qaida.
        It's an interesting force posture to be in. Frankly, I was hopeful,
    as I mentioned to you, that we could be in that kind of force posture a
    year ago. I really thought we were going to be there until the sectarian
    violence got out of control. They also said that the United States may
    have to increase troops in order to be able to get there. And that's
    what you're seeing happen. And that's where I'd like to be. And I'd like
    to be in a position so that the certainty of our troop deployments, like
    we've come, is just etched in everybody's mind.
        I'm watching our military very carefully. I love our military, for
    starters. And I want to make sure that during these difficult times,
    that we help them on their needs. One of my concerns is that the health
    care not be as good as it can possibly be.
        I will tell you that we had a bureaucracy problem at Walter Reed.
    What we didn't have is a compassion problem at Walter Reed. We've got
    some unbelievably good docs and nurses who work around the clock to help
    the troops and their families. But

    [[Page 440]]

    our bureaucracy, that sometimes can be large and cumbersome at the
    Federal level, didn't respond. And I appreciate the way Secretary
    Gates got control of the situation.
        Just so you know, I am concerned that a soldier getting out of--or a
    marine getting out of uniform and stays in the Defense--is transferred
    seamlessly from the Defense health system to the Veterans health system.
    In other words, one of my concerns is that there is a gap. And we owe it
    to these families and these soldiers and marines to make sure that that
    service is seamless. And that's why I asked Bob Dole and Donna Shalala to make
    sure that those two bureaucracies don't create the conditions where
    somebody isn't getting the help they need.
        I know that's on people's minds. There's--one of the areas where we
    do agree is that we got to make sure our veterans are treated as good as
    we can possibly treat them. We've asked a lot of these troops, and we
    will do the best to make sure the Veterans Administration and the
    Defense health systems work well.
        Yes, sir.

    President's Principles

        Q. Mr. President, I admire your stick-to-it-iveness. You mentioned
    earlier about not using polls and focus groups. But I have to ask you
    personally, with respect to economics, with respect to the war, with
    respect to the war on terror and Iraq and immigration, when you go to
    bed at night and you see these polls--everybody and their brother does a
    poll now--how does it make you feel?
        The President. That's an interesting question. You know, I'm--I've
    been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times. I
    mean, they're a moment; that they are--let me put it to you this way:
    When it's all said and done, when Laura and I
    head back home--which at this moment will be Crawford, Texas--I will get
    there and look in the mirror, and I will say, ``I came with a set of
    principles, and I didn't try to change my principles to make me
    popular.'' You can't make good decisions--[applause].
        As I mentioned to you, this is a decisionmaking experience, and you
    cannot make good decisions if you're not making decisions on a
    consistent set of principles. It's impossible. Oh, you can make
    decisions, all right, but they're inconsistent. What I think is
    important is consistency during difficult and troubled times, so that
    people--they may not agree, but they know where I'm coming from.
        And I'll share some of the principles. You've heard one: I believe
    freedom is universal; I believe that. Let me put it another way: I
    believe there's an Almighty, and I believe a gift from the Almighty to
    every man and woman and child on this Earth is freedom. That's what I
    believe.
        Secondly, I believe you can spend your money better than the
    government can spend your money. Oh, I know that sounds like a sound
    bite, but it's a principle by which you set budgets. For example, I
    believe that cutting taxes helped this country overcome a recession and
    a war. And the reason why is, is that markets flourish when people have
    more money. Employers, small businesses do better when you have more
    money. When your treasury is more likely to have money, you're more
    likely to take risk. And that's what tax cuts do.
        And by the way, it's another issue that we're facing. I--in all due
    respect to the Democrats, if you look at their budget, they want to
    raise your taxes. I believe Congress needs to keep your taxes low. I
    believe, by the way--let me--[applause]. Thank you. I'm not trying to
    rally, I'm just trying to explain. [Laughter]
        I believe we have proven that the best way to balance the budget--
    and I know many of you are concerned about a balanced budget--is to grow
    the economy through low taxes, which means enhanced revenues, and be
    wise about spending your money. In other words, progrowth economic
    policies have proven to work. And

    [[Page 441]]

    it turns out that when the economy grows, taxes increase. And therefore,
    the corollary is to make sure we don't overspend.
        The temptation in Washington is to spend, it just is. And every idea
    sounds like a great idea. And--but we are proving that you can balance
    the budget by keeping taxes low. As a matter of fact, I think it was 167
    billion--the deficit was 167 billion less than anticipated because of--
    over the last 2 years because of low taxes. I said we'd cut the deficit
    in half by 5 years or 4 years, and we've done it 3 years quicker. Now,
    we've submitted a new budget that shows we can balance the budget
    without raising taxes. That's a principle.
        I believe, for example, that the government ought to trust people to
    make decisions. And so how does that--like health care; that's a big
    issue for all of us. One of the ways that I think--was that your
    question? Good, okay. I'll ask it for you: What are you going to do on
    health care? Anyway--[laughter]. The Tax Code discriminates against an
    individual on health care decisions. And I believe that we ought to
    change the Tax Code so an employee of a corporation is treated equally
    as somebody who is self-employed. In other words, the tax treatment
    ought to be the same, all aimed at encouraging individual decisionmaking
    in the marketplace. I'm a big believer in health savings accounts,
    because health savings accounts means you are the decisionmaker, along
    with your doc.
        Health care--like Medicare, we changed Medicare for the better.
    Medicare--I remind people, Medicare had changed--medicine had changed;
    Medicare hadn't. Prescription drugs became an integral part of medicine,
    and yet the senior was not covered with prescription drugs in Medicare.
    It didn't make any sense to me to pay thousands for an ulcer operation
    but not a dime for the prescription drugs that could have prevented the
    ulcer from happening in the first place.
        And so we modernized Medicare with the prescription drug benefit,
    but we also did something unique when it came to Government programs. We
    gave seniors choices. In other words, we created more of a marketplace.
    It's amazing what happens when people demand something: People provide
    for it in the marketplace. Competition helps keep price low. It was
    estimated that we would spend some 600 billion additional money through
    Medicare, and yet the cost to the Government and you, more particularly,
    is substantially lower because of competition. That's a principle.
        When it comes to pension plans, I think you ought to be managing
    your money. I don't think you ought to be relying upon government to
    tell you what your benefit is. I think you ought to be in a position to
    take your own money and manage it on a tax advantage basis.
        In other words, my point is, the principle is that we ought to trust
    people to make decisions. To whom much is given, much is required. I'm
    glad you asked this question; thank you. [Laughter] Listen, Laura says: ``You love to hear yourself talk, don't you?''
    [Laughter]
        I want to share this story with you, though, because I believe an
    important principle is, to whom much is given, much is required. The
    United States of America has been given a lot. We are a blessed nation.
    For--those of you who travel around the world know exactly what I'm
    talking about, about what a great life we have here compared to a lot of
    other folks.
        When I first came into office, I was deeply concerned about the
    pandemic of HIV/AIDS, particularly on the continent of Africa. I was
    concerned because during the 21st century, an entire--it was possible
    that an entire generation could be wiped out by a disease for which we
    could do something about.
        I went to Congress; I went to you. I asked for a substantial sum of
    money to help fund a campaign to save lives on the most 19 affected
    nations on Earth. I asked a former CEO of Eli Lilly, Randy
    Tobias, to run the program. As a result of
    your

    [[Page 442]]

    generosity, based upon the principle to whom much is given, much is
    required, over 850,000 people receive antiretroviral drugs today. That's
    up from 50,000, 3 years ago.
        Is it in our Nation's interest to do that? I believe it is. If what
    happens overseas matters here at home, then I do think it's important to
    help address issues like starvation and disease. But I also think it's
    in the interest of the soul of the Nation to adhere to an important
    principle. And I think we're adding to a glorious chapter in our history
    to say that the people of the United States have helped save thousands
    of lives that otherwise might have been lost to HIV/AIDS.
        And so those are some of the principles. And you asked a question:
    What do I think? I think it's important to stand on principle. I think
    it's important to make decisions based upon a core set of beliefs.
    That's what I think. And politics comes and goes, but your principles
    don't. And everybody wants to be loved--not everybody, but--[laughter]--
    you run for office, I guess you do. [Laughter] You never heard anybody
    say: ``I want to be despised; I'm running for office.'' [Laughter] But I
    believe, sir, in my soul, that I have made the right decisions for this
    country when it comes to prosperity and peace. That's what I believe.
        I want to share something with you about history. I'm reading a lot
    of history; I mentioned to you. I read three histories on George
    Washington last year. The year 2006, I read three histories about our
    first President. My attitude is, if they're still writing about 1, 43
    doesn't need to worry about it. [Laughter]
        Yes, ma'am.

    Shootings at Virginia Tech/School Safety

        Q. This is in regards to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Being a high
    school student----
        The President. Go ahead. Go ahead. Let's get the mike there.
        Q. Sorry.
        The President. Thanks.
        Q. This is in regards to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Being a high
    school student, I was wondering what's being done to ensure safety in
    schools?
        The President. I think that--first of all, I don't know your
    principal very well--I met him. I will tell you,
    though, that his biggest concern, besides you learning to read, write,
    add, and subtract and be a student who can contribute to society, is
    your safety.
        One of the lessons of these tragedies is to make sure that when
    people see somebody or know somebody who is exhibiting abnormal
    behavior, to do something about it, to suggest that somebody take a
    look, that if you are a parent and your child is doing strange things on
    the Internet, pay attention to it and not be afraid to ask for help and
    not be afraid to say, ``I am concerned about what I'm seeing.''
        I think there's a tendency at times for people--and I fully
    understand this--is to respect somebody's privacy, you know, and not
    share concerns. But some of the lessons of these shootings have been
    that it is--and I don't know about this case--and by the way, they're
    still digging out the facts, so I think it's very important for us not
    to comment until it's all said and done--but that other cases, there
    have been warning signals, that if an adult, for example, had taken
    those signals seriously, perhaps tragedy could have been avoided.
        And so the lesson is, is that--and I know you're--the lesson is, is
    that the principals and teachers and adults of this school must be on
    alert, and I know they are.
        And as I--I repeat to you: You're lucky--all of us--a lot of these
    high schools are really lucky to have people who care about you. I mean
    the--unfortunately, in a complex society, the teacher's job and the
    principal's job is more than just teaching; it is safety. And yet that
    is a vital concern, I know, to the folks who run this school.
        Okay. Yes, ma'am.

    [[Page 443]]

    War on Terror

        Q. [Inaudible]--misconception about scaling back in Iraq.
        The President. Sure, go ahead. Wait, I want this question recorded.
    A little hustle there. [Laughter] Thank you.
        Q. I believe there's a big misconception that scaling back in Iraq
    will cost less in the long run than to go in and get the job done. How
    do you get that message across to America and especially to Congress?
        The President. Yes, I appreciate that. Her concern is that a scale
    back will either save money or save lives or save headache, and how do
    you get the message out? Coming here is part of getting the message out.
    The President has got to be educator in chief, and I've just got to keep
    talking about it. I've spent a lot of time on this subject. This is a
    subject that has concerned a lot of our fellow citizens. They are deeply
    worried about whether or not it is possible for us to succeed, and that
    there needs to be an explanation of the violence.
        And my answer is, is that the--there is a political process that's
    ongoing, an economic process that's ongoing, a rebuilding process that's
    ongoing, and a security process that's ongoing, and that you can't have
    the former unless you have security. And therefore, it's in the
    interest--if a failed state creates violence and chaos that eventually
    could come and hurt us, it's in our interest to help succeed.
        And therefore, the troop levels need to be commensurate with the
    capacity of that society to protect itself. The objective is to have the
    Iraqis take over their own security. It's just that they weren't ready
    to do so. And I appreciate your question.
        It's very important--I think some really are--I know a lot of people
    are tired of it. People get pretty tired of war, and I understand that.
    It's really important as we--that we have a sober discussion and
    understand what will be the consequences of failure.
        The--as I told you, on the rug--the reason I brought up the rug was
    to not only kind of break the ice but also to talk about strategic
    thought. The President's job is to think not only about today but
    tomorrow. The President's job is not only think about the short-term
    security of the United States but to think about the little guys, you
    know--what the world will look like 20 or 30 or 40 years from now.
        And I appreciate your question because I will continue to work hard
    to explain the consequences of this world in which we live; that what
    happens overseas matters here at home in the 21st century, and that we
    are in the beginning of a long struggle that will have, hopefully, not a
    lot of military action, would be my hope for future Presidents. But it
    is a struggle akin to other struggles we have been through.
        The ideological struggle of the cold war is a potential parallel.
    It's freedom versus communism. This is a--this is a struggle with
    freedom versus extreme radicalism. There have been--how do you allow a
    society, or how do you encourage societies to evolve after struggle,
    after conflict? There are other historical parallels. And my job is to
    continue to explain the consequences: consequences of success, which I
    believe will be peace; the consequences of failure, which I believe will
    be creating a more dangerous situation here in the United States.
        Boehner is a busy man. He is busy
    representing the people of this district. He is now giving me the
    signal--[laughter]. I'm feeling his vibes. [Laughter] I'm going to fly
    him back to Washington.
        I'm honored that you gave me a chance to come and visit with you. I
    ask for God's blessings on our troops and their families, on the people
    of Virginia Tech, and on the people of the United States. Thank you for
    your time.

    [[Page 444]]

    Note: The President spoke at 1:05 p.m. In his remarks, he referred to
    Steve Bruns, former president, Tipp City Area Chamber of Commerce; Prime
    Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida
    terrorist organization; Mahmud al-Mashhadani, Speaker of the Iraqi House
    of Representatives; King Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi
    Arabia; President Bashar al-Asad of Syria; Secretary of Defense Robert
    M. Gates; and former Sen. Robert J. Dole and former Secretary of Health
    and Human Services Donna E. Shalala, Cochairs, President's Commission on
    Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors.