    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
    [April 10, 2007]
    [Pages 401-409]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at American Legion Post 177 in Fairfax, Virginia
    April 10, 2007

        Thank you all. Good morning. Please be seated. Thank you for your
    warm hospitality. It's a pleasure to be here at Legion Post 177,
    Fairfax, Virginia. I appreciate you inviting me. And I've come to share
    some thoughts about service to our country, this war we face, and the
    need for the United States Congress to make sure our troops have what is
    necessary to complete their mission.
        Bob Sussan greeted me coming in. I appreciate
    you, Commander, greeting a fellow from Post 77; we dropped the ``1'' in
    Houston. [Laughter] He not only presented me with a cake; he gave me a
    chance to express my gratitude to the Legion, its

    [[Page 402]]

    members, and the service you provide for
            those who wear the uniform today.

        I appreciate the example you have set. You know, there's something
    to be said for a country where people serve something greater than
    themselves, where people in this era volunteer in the face of danger to
    defend the United States of America. And those who have worn the uniform
    in the past have set such a powerful example for our brave men and women
    who wear the uniform today, and I thank you for that a lot. I don't know
    if you know that or not, but the example of our veterans have inspired
    many to wear the uniform today.
        I find the history of this post interesting, Bob. In November of 1944, a group of World War I veterans
    gathered here in Fairfax to form an organization to help the troops
    returning from the battlefield in Word War II. Veterans said: ``What can
    I do to help a fellow veteran?'' The founders rallied support for the
    soldiers and the sailor and the airmen and the marines. In other words,
    these veterans understood what it meant to be in war, what it meant to
    be far from home, and they provided necessary support for our troops.
        And when they came back from war, they helped make the transition to
    civilian life. In other words, there was somebody there available to
    help them, somebody to say: ``Brother or sister, how can I help you?
    What can I do to help you after you have served our country?'' It's a
    proud American tradition and a tradition being carried on here at Post
    177, and I thank you for that a lot.
        Today, the men and women at this post visit the wounded in our
    military hospitals, and I thank you for going to Walter Reed in
    Bethesda. You know, we're going to make sure that the care is superb
    care. I went over there the other day, and I made it clear to the
    caregivers that there were some bureaucratic snafus that were
    unacceptable. Secretary Gates and our
    military folks will clean that up. But the care that our troops get from
    the doctors and nurses is superb care, and we owe those people in the
    frontlines of providing care for the wounded a real debt of gratitude,
    just like we owe the families and the soldiers the best health care
    possible.
        I appreciate very much the ROTC scholarships you provide,
    particularly for George Mason University students. I'm a big believer in
    education; I know you are as well. But rather than talking on the
    subject, you're acting, and I appreciate that a lot. But, more
    importantly, the students do too.
        And thanks for sending the care packages to our troops. It matters.
    Iraq and Afghanistan are far away from home--a little different from the
    wars you fought, however; there is e-mail today--[laughter]--and cell
    phones. But, nevertheless, there is a sense of loneliness that can
    sometimes affect our troops, and the fact that you would take time to
    send them care packages to remind those who wear the uniform that you
    support them, a stranger reaches out to them and offers support--I thank
    you a lot for that.
        This is an unusual era in which we live, defined on September the
    11th, 2001. See, that's a date that reminded us the world had changed
    significantly from what we thought the world was. We thought that oceans
    and friendly neighbors could protect us from attack. And yet, on that
    day, less than 20 miles from this post, an airplane crashed into the
    Pentagon and killed 184 men, women, and children. An airplane driven by
    fanatics and extremists and murderers crashed into the Pentagon. And as
    you know, on that day nearly 3,000 people died in New York that day. And
    more would have died had not the people on United Flight 93 showed
    incredible courage and saved no telling how many lives here in
    Washington, DC, by taking that plane to the ground.
        My attitude about the world changed, and I know the attitude about
    the world from a lot of folks here in--America's attitude changed. It
    reminded me that the

    [[Page 403]]

    most solemn duty of your Federal Government is to protect the American
    people from harm. The most solemn duty we have is to protect this
    homeland. I vowed that day that we would go on the offense against an
    enemy, that the best way to defeat this enemy is to find them overseas
    and bring them to justice so they will not hurt the folks here at home.
        In other words, we don't have the luxury of hoping for the best, of
    sitting back and being passive in the face of this threat. In the past
    we would say, oceans would protect us, and, therefore, what happened
    overseas may not matter here at home. That's what changed on September
    the 11th. What happens overseas affects the security of the United
    States. And it's in this Nation's interest that we go on the offense and
    stay on the offense. We want to defeat them there so we don't have to
    face them here.
        On 9/11, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive
    state 7,000 miles away can bring death to our citizens. I vowed that if
    you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist.
    That's a doctrine. In order for this country to be credible, when the
    President says something, he must mean it. I meant it, and the Taliban
    found out that we meant what we said. And therefore, we ended Al Qaida's
    safe haven in a failed state.
        The two points I want to make is, doctrine matters, and, secondly, a
    failed state can lead to severe consequences for the American people.
    And therefore, it's in our interests not only to pursue the enemy
    overseas so we don't have to face them here; it's in our interest to
    spread an alternative ideology to their hateful ideology.
        These folks do not believe in the freedom to worship. They don't
    believe that women have got an equal place in society. They don't
    believe in human rights and human dignity. We believe that people have
    the right to worship the way they see fit. We believe all humans are
    created equal. We believe in dissent. We believe in public discourse.
    Our ideology is based upon freedom and liberty; theirs is based upon
    oppression.
        And the best way to secure this country in the long run is to offer
    up an alternative that stands in stark contrast to theirs. And that's
    the hard work we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, the
    Taliban that ran that country and provided safe haven to Al Qaida--where
    thousands of people were able to train in order to be able to launch
    attacks on innocent people, innocent Americans, for example--that
    Taliban no longer is in power.
        And, in fact, there is a young, struggling democracy in Afghanistan.
    The people in Afghanistan went to the polls and voted. President
    Karzai is now representing a government of and
    by and for the people. It's an unimaginable sequence of events. Had you
    asked people in the mid-1990s: ``Is it possible for there to be a
    democracy in Afghanistan?''--of course not. But there is a democracy in
    place, and it's in our interest to deny Al Qaida and the Taliban and the
    radicals and the extremists a safe haven. And it's in our interest to
    stand with this young democracy as it begins to spread its wings in
    Afghanistan.
        And then we're doing the hard work in Iraq. I made a decision to
    remove a dictator, a tyrant who was a threat to the United States, a
    threat to the free world, and a threat to the Iraq people. And the world
    is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.
        And now we're undertaking the difficult and dangerous work of
    helping the Iraqi people establish a functioning democracy. I think it's
    necessary work to help them establish a functioning democracy. It's
    necessary because it is important for the moderate people--people who
    want to live in peace and security--to see what is possible in the
    Middle East. It is hard work because we face an enemy that understands
    the consequences of liberty taking root and are willing to kill innocent
    lives in order to achieve their political objectives.

    [[Page 404]]

        A minority--and I emphasize ``minority''--of violent extremists have
    declared that they want to turn that country into a terrorist base from
    which to launch an ideological war in the Middle East and attacks on the
    United States of America. That is the stated objective of Al Qaida in
    Iraq. It's important that we listen to the enemy. It's important we take
    their threats seriously.
        In contrast, however, the vast majority of Iraqis have made it clear
    they want to live in peace. After all, about 12 million of them went to
    the polls, a feat that was, again, unimaginable in the mid-1990s. If you
    had said: ``Can you imagine Iraqis being able to vote for a Constitution
    and then a Government under that Constitution?'' in the mid-1990s; they
    would have said: ``You're too idealistic; that's impossible.'' And yet
    that's what happened.
        The terrorists, recognizing that this country was headed toward a
    society based upon liberty, a society based upon an ideology that is the
    opposite of what they believe, struck. And they struck by blowing up the
    Golden Mosque of Samarra, which is a holy shrine, a holy site. It's a
    site that a lot of people hold dear in their heart. And they were
    attempting to provoke retaliation by a segment of that society: the
    Iraqi Shi'a. And they succeeded, and the result was a tragic escalation
    of violence.
        And in the face of the violence--in other words, there was reprisal,
    people said: ``We're going to get even; how dare these people do this.''
    And in the face of this violence, I had a choice to make. See, we could
    withdraw our troops from the capital of Iraq and hope that violence
    would not spiral out of control, or we could send reinforcements into
    the capital in the hopes of quelling sectarian violence, in order to
    give this young democracy time to reconcile, time to deal with the
    politics necessary for a government that can sustain itself and defend
    itself to emerge.
        I made the decisions after--to reinforce, but I didn't do it in a
    vacuum. I called in our military commanders and experts, and I listened
    to a lot of opinions--and there's a lot of opinions in Washington, DC,
    in case you hadn't noticed. [Laughter] The opinions that matter a lot to
    me are what our military folks think. After all, this is a military
    operation, and as the Commander in Chief, you must listen to your
    military and trust their judgment on military matters. And that's what I
    did.
        They recognized what I recognized, and it's important for the
    American citizen to recognize this, that if we were to have stepped back
    from Baghdad before the Iraqis were capable of securing their capital,
    before they had the troops trained well enough to secure the capital,
    there would have been a vacuum that could have easily been filled by
    Sunni and Shi'a extremists, radicals that would be bolstered by outside
    forces. In other words, the lack of security would have created an
    opportunity for extremists to move in. Most people want to live in peace
    in Iraq. There are extremists who can't stand the thought of a free
    society, that would have taken advantage of the vacuum. A contagion of
    violence could spill out across the country, and in time, the violence
    could affect the entire region.
        What happens in the Middle East matters here in America. The
    terrorists would have emerged under this scenario more emboldened. They
    would have said: Our enemy, the United States, the enemy that we
    attacked, turns out to be what they thought--weak in the face of
    violence, weak in the face of challenge. They would have been able to
    more likely recruit. They would have had new safe haven from which to
    launch attacks. Imagine a scenario in which the extremists are able to
    control oil revenues to achieve economic blackmail, to achieve their
    objectives. This is all what they have stated. This is their ambition.
        If we retreat--were to retreat from Iraq, what's interesting and
    different about this war is that the enemy would follow us here. And
    that's why it's important we succeed in Iraq. If this scenario were to
    take place,

    [[Page 405]]

    50 years from now people would look back and say: ``What happened to
    those folks in the year 2007? How come they couldn't see the danger of a
    Middle East spiraling out of control where extremists competed for power
    but they shared an objective which was to harm the United States of
    America? How come they couldn't remember the lesson of September the
    11th, that we were no longer protected by oceans, and chaos and violence
    and extremism could end up being a serious danger to the homeland?''
        That's what went through my mind as I made a difficult decision, but
    a necessary decision. And so rather than retreat, I sent more troops in.
    Rather than pull back, I made the decision to help this young democracy
    bring order to its capital so there can be time for the hard work of
    reconciliation to take place after years of tyrannical rule, brutal
    tyrannical rule.
        And now it's time for these Iraqis, the Iraqi Government to stand up
    and start making some strong political moves, and they're beginning to.
    I speak to the Prime Minister quite often
    and remind him that here at home we expect them to do hard work; we want
    to help, but we expect them to do some hard work. And he reminds me:
    Sometimes legislative bodies and parliaments don't move as quickly as
    the executive branch would like. [Laughter] But he understands.
        He understands we expect them to spend
    money on their reconstruction, and they've committed $10 billion to do
    so. They understand that when we said: ``We were going to send more
    troops in; you need to send more troops into Baghdad,'' that we expect
    them to, and they have. They understand that when we work together to
    set up a security plan where there is a top military figure in charge of Baghdad's security from the Iraq side,
    that we expect somebody there who is going to be nonsectarian and
    implement security for all the people of Baghdad, they responded. See,
    they understand that.
        And now we expect them to get an oil law that helps unify the
    country, to change the de-Ba'athification law so that, for example,
    Sunni teachers that had been banned from teaching are allowed back in
    the classroom, and that there be Provincial elections. And we'll
    continue to remind them of that. In sending more troops--in other words,
    in sending troops in, it is--I recognize that this is more than a
    military mission. It requires a political response from the Iraqis as
    well.
        The Iraqi people, by the way, have already made a political
    response: they voted. [Laughter] I also sent a new commander in, General
    David Petraeus. He is an expert in
    counterinsurgency warfare. He's been in Baghdad 2 months. A little less
    than half of--only about half of the reinforcements that he's asked for
    have arrived. In other words, this operation is just getting started.
    There's kind of, I guess, a knowledge or a thought in Washington that
    all you got to say is, ``Send 21,000 in,'' and they show up the next
    day. That's not the way it works. [Laughter] It takes a while for troops
    to be trained and readied and moved into theater, and that's what our
    military is doing now.
        And there are some encouraging signs. There's no question it's
    violent; no question the extremists are dangerous people. But there are
    encouraging signs. Iraqi and American forces have established joint
    security stations across Baghdad. As you might remember, we had a
    strategy of clear, hold, and build. Well, because we didn't have enough
    troops nor did the Iraqis have enough troops, we would do the clear
    part, but we didn't do the hold part, and so it made it hard to do the
    build part.
        And now because of our presence and more Iraqi troops along with
    coalition troops, they're deployed 24 hours a day in neighborhoods to
    help change the psychology of the capital that, for a while, was
    comfortable in its security, and then violence began to spiral out of
    control. That's

    [[Page 406]]

    the decision point I had to make: Do you try to stop it? And what I'm
    telling you is, according to David Petraeus, with whom I speak on a weekly basis, we're beginning to
    see some progress toward the mission--toward completing the mission.
        Our troops are also training Iraqis. In other words, part of the
    effort is not only to provide security to neighborhoods, but we're
    constantly training Iraqis so that they can do this job. The leaders
    want to do the job. Prime Minister Maliki
    makes it clear he understands it's his responsibility. We just want to
    make sure that when they do the job, they've got a force structure
    that's capable of doing the job. So that's why I rely upon our
    commanders like General Petraeus that let
    me know how well the Iraqis are doing. So it's the combination of
    providing security in neighborhoods through these joint security
    stations and training that is the current mission we're going through,
    with a heavy emphasis on security in Baghdad.
        Iraqis see our forces out there, joint forces, both coalition and
    Iraqi forces, and they have confidence. And as a result of the
    confidence, they're now cooperating more against the extremists. Most
    people want to live in peace. Iraqi mothers, regardless of their
    religious affiliation, want their children to grow up in a peaceful
    world. They want there to be opportunities. They don't want their
    children to be subject to random murder. They expect their government to
    provide security, and when the government doesn't provide security, it
    causes a lack of confidence. And they're beginning to see more security,
    and so people are coming into the stations and talking about different--
    giving different tips about where we may be able to find the extremists
    or radicals who kill innocent people to achieve political objectives.
        We're using the information wisely. And I say ``we''--every time I
    say ``we''--it's just not American troops, there are brave Iraqi troops
    with us. Our forces have launched successful operations against
    extremists, both Shi'a and Sunni. My attitude is, if you're a murderer,
    you're a murderer and you ought to be held to account. Recently, Iraqi
    and American forces captured the head of a Baghdad car bomb network that was responsible for the
    attacks that you see on your TV screens--some of the attacks you see on
    your TV screen.
        Look, these people are smart people--these killers. They know that
    if they can continue the spectacular suicide bombings, they will cause
    the American people to say, ``Is it worth it? Can we win? Is it possible
    to succeed?'' And that really speaks to the heart of the American
    people, I think. I mean, we are a compassionate people. We care about
    human life. And when we see the wanton destruction of innocent life, it
    causes us to wonder whether or not it is possible to succeed. I
    understand that.
        But I also understand the mentality of an enemy that is trying to
    achieve a victory over us by causing us to lose our will. Yet we're
    after these car bombers. In other words, slowly but surely, these
    extremists are being brought to justice by Iraqis, with our help.
    Violence in Baghdad, sectarian violence in Baghdad, that violence that
    was beginning to spiral out of control, is beginning to subside. And as
    the violence decreases, people have more confidence, and if people have
    more confidence, they're then willing to make difficult decisions of
    reconciliation necessary for Baghdad to be secure and this country to
    survive and thrive as a democracy.
        The reinforcements are having an impact, and as more reinforcements
    go in, it will have a greater impact. Remember, only about half of the
    folks we've asked to go in are there.
        It's now been 64 days since I have requested that Congress pass
    emergency funding for these troops. We don't have all of them there.
    About half more are going to head in. We're making some progress. And 64
    days ago, I said to the United States Congress: ``These troops need
    funding.'' And instead of providing

    [[Page 407]]

    that vital funding, the Democrat leadership in Congress has spent the
    past 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops, just as
    we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad. In both the House and the
    Senate, majorities have passed bills that substitute the judgment of
    politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the
    ground. They set arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq, and they
    spend billions of dollars on porkbarrel projects and spending that are
    completely unrelated to this war.
        Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them,
    and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to
    pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our
    troops in the field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying
    this money. In the coming days, our military leaders will notify
    Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other
    military accounts to cover the shortfall caused by Congress's failure to
    fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take
    money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army
    operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
        This $1.6 billion in transfers come on top of another $1.7 billion
    in transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last
    month. In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take
    money from military personnel accounts, weapons and communications
    systems so we can continue to fund programs to protect our soldiers and
    marines from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-
    resistant vehicles to our troops on the frontlines. These actions are
    only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact
    on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be.
        The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, recently testified that if Congress fails to pass a
    bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider
    cutting back on equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our
    Guard and Reserve forces. The Army will also be forced to consider
    curtailing some training for Guard and Reserve units here at home. This
    would reduce their readiness and could delay their availability to
    mobilize for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems
    grow even more acute. The Army will be forced to consider slowing or
    even freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops
    depend on is repaired. They will have to consider delaying or curtailing
    the training of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of
    those forces to deploy overseas. And the Army may also have to delay the
    formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those
    troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy.
        So what does that mean? These things happen. Some of our forces now
    deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended because other
    units are not ready to take their places. In a letter to Congress, the
    Army Chief of Staff, Pete Schoomaker,
    recently warned: ``Without approval of the supplemental funds in April,
    we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will
    impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their
    families.''
        The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will
    mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their
    loved ones to return from the frontlines. Others could see their loved
    ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable.
    It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's
    unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in
    this country.
        The United States Senate has come back from its spring recess today.
    The House will return next week. When it comes to funding our troops, we
    have no time to waste. It's time for them to get the job

    [[Page 408]]

    done. So I'm inviting congressional leaders from both parties--both
    political parties--to meet with me at the White House next week. At this
    meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an
    emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a
    bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without
    artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our
    generals on the ground.
        I'm hopeful we'll see some results soon from the Congress. I know we
    have our differences over the best course in Iraq. These differences
    should not prevent us from getting our troops the funding they need
    without withdrawal and without giving our commanders flexibility.
        The Democrat leaders in--Democratic leaders in Congress are bent on
    using a bill that funds our troops to make a political statement about
    the war. They need to do it quickly and get it to my desk so I can veto
    it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our
    troops, without strings and without further delay.
        We are at war. It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in
    Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are
    waiting for the funds they need to succeed. As the national commander of
    the American Legion Paul Morin recently put
    it: ``The men and women of the Armed Forces in the theater of operations
    are dependent on this funding to sustain and achieve their military
    missions. This funding is absolutely critical to their success and
    individual well-being''--end quote. I thank the commander and the
    American Legion for their strong support on this issue. You do not make
    a political statement; you're making a statement about what is necessary
    for our troops in the field, and I am grateful.
        I'm always amazed at the men and women who wear our uniform. Last
    week, before I went down to Crawford--for a snowy Easter, I might add--
    [laughter]--I was in California at Fort Irwin. And I had a chance to
    visit with some who had just come back from Iraq and some who were going
    over to Iraq, and it just amazes me that these young men and women know
    the stakes; they understand what we're doing; and they have volunteered
    to serve. We're really a remarkable country and a remarkable military,
    and, therefore, we owe it to the families and to those who wear the
    uniform to make sure that this remarkable group of men and women are
    strongly supported, strongly supported, by the way, during their time in
    uniform and then after their time in uniform, through the Veterans
    Administration.
        I tried to put this war into a historical context for them. In other
    words, I told them that they're laying the foundation of peace. In other
    words, the work we're doing today really will yield peace for a
    generation to come. And part of my discussion with them was I wanted
    them to think back to the work after World War II. After World War II,
    we defeated--after we defeated Germany and Japan, this country went
    about the business of helping these countries develop into democracies.
    Isn't it interesting a country would go to--have a bloody conflict with
    two nations, and then help democracy succeed. Why? Because our
    predecessors understood that forms of government help yield peace. In
    other words, it matters what happens in distant lands.
        And so today I can report to you that Japan is a strong ally of the
    United States. I've always found that very ironic that my dad, like many of your relatives, fought the Japanese
    as the sworn enemy, and today, one of the strongest allies in keeping
    the peace is the Prime Minister of Japan.
    Something happened between when old George H.W. Bush was a Navy fighter
    pilot and his boy is the President of the United States. Well, what
    happened was the form of government changed. Liberty can transform
    enemies into allies. The hard work

    [[Page 409]]

    done after World War II helped lay the foundation of peace.
        How about after the Korean war? Some of you are Korean vets, I know.
    I bet it would have been hard for you to predict, if you can think back
    to the early fifties, to predict that an American President would say
    that we've got great relations with South Korea, great relations with
    Japan, that China is an emerging marketplace economy, and that the
    region is peaceful. This is a part of the world where we lost thousands
    of young American soldiers, and yet there's peace.
        I believe that U.S. presence there has given people the time
    necessary to develop systems of government that make that part of the
    world a peaceful part of the world, to lay the foundation for peace. And
    that's the work our soldiers are doing in the Middle East today, and
    it's necessary work. It is necessary because what happens in the Middle
    East, for example, can affect the security of the United States of
    America. And it's hard work, and we've lost some fantastic young men and
    women, and we pray for their families, and we honor their service and
    their sacrifice by completing the mission, by helping a generation of
    Americans grow up in a peaceful world.
        I cannot tell you how honored I am to meet with the families of the
    fallen. They bear an unbelievable pain in their heart. And it's very
    important for me to make it clear to them that I believe the sacrifice
    is necessary to achieve the peace we all long for.
        I thank you for supporting our troops. I thank you for setting such
    a fantastic example for a great group of men and women who have
    volunteered to serve our country, and thanks for being such fine
    Americans.
        God bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:23 a.m. In his remarks, he referred to
    Bob Sussan, commander, American Legion Post 177; Secretary of Defense
    Robert M. Gates; President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan; Prime Minister
    Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general,
    Multi-National Force--Iraq; Lt. Gen. Abboud Gambar, Iraqi commander of
    Baghdad, Iraqi Army; Haytham Kazim Abdallah Al-Shimari, head of the
    Rusafa Al Qaida-Iraq bomb network; and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of
    Japan.