    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
    [March 28, 2007]
    [Pages 347-356]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
    March 28, 2007

        All right. Thanks for having me. Thank you. Please be seated. Not a
    bad introduction by a cowboy. [Laughter]
    Thanks for having me. Welcome to Washington. I'm glad to be with you. I
    was telling Laura this morning, ``I'm really
    looking forward to going over to talk to the Nation's cattlemen.'' I
    appreciate being with people who understand the importance of faith,
    family, hard work, good values. I like to remind people, every day is
    Earth Day if you make a living off the land. It's good to be with fellow
    conservationists.
        I'm going to talk a little bit about two big priorities: One, how to
    keep this economy strong so people can make a living; and secondly, how
    this country needs to stay resolved and firm in protecting the security
    of our country. And I appreciate you giving me a chance to come over and
    visit.
        I do want to thank John Queen. I want
    to thank the board of directors. Thanks for being here and making your
    voices heard. You can influence the debate in Washington. And this is a
    town where people do listen to other people's voices. I've got a few
    suggestions for you when you go up to Capitol Hill. [Laughter] But
    before I give them, I do want to recognize Senator Craig Thomas from the State of Wyoming and Marilyn
    Musgrave from Colorado. Appreciate you
    both being here.
        Let me talk about how to keep this economy growing. You know, one of
    the main jobs of government is to create the conditions for economic
    growth. A main job of government is not to try to create wealth. In
    other words, the fundamental question we've got to ask here in
    Washington is,

    [[Page 348]]

    what do we need to do to encourage investment and risk takers and to
    encourage entrepreneurship? And I believe the heart of good economic
    policy is keeping people's taxes low.
        You know, I--[applause]. The reason I say that is, there's a
    fundamental debate in Washington, when you really get down to it, and
    the debate is who best to spend your money. [Laughter] And I believe a
    cattleman can spend their money better than the government can. Now,
    obviously, we need some amount of money here, and that's called setting
    priorities. But beyond that, the best way to keep this economy growing
    is to let you keep more of your own tax money. The tax cuts we passed
    are working.
        You know, when you cut the individual tax rates, you affect farmers
    and ranchers. Many farmers and ranchers are subchapter S corporations or
    limited partnerships or sole proprietorships, which means you pay tax at
    the individual income-tax level. And if you're worried about a vibrant
    agricultural economy, it makes sense to let those who work the land keep
    more of their own money so they can invest, so they can make the
    necessary changes so that their businesses can remain vibrant.
        I say, the tax cuts work. Since we enacted major tax reform in 2003,
    in response to recession and a terrorist attack, this economy of ours
    has created more than 7 million jobs, new jobs, and it's expanded 13
    percent. The tax cuts are working, and the United States Congress needs
    to make those tax cuts permanent.
        Now, one of the taxes that concerns you a lot, I know, is the death
    tax. It should. You get taxed while you're living, and then you get
    taxed after you die. It's double taxation at its worst. We put the death
    tax on the road to extinction. Notice I didn't say, ``It is going to be
    extinct.'' Under current law, it will come back into effect in 2011,
    which puts people in an awkward position in 2010. [Laughter]
        I really believe Congress needs to pay attention to the effects of
    the death tax on our farmers and ranchers. If people are concerned about
    keeping land in the hands of the family rancher, the best way to do so
    is to get rid of the death tax for those who ranch the land, once and
    for all.
        When you're working the Halls of Congress, I hope you work hard on
    the death tax issue. There's no excuse not to get rid of it. Now, you'll
    hear people say, ``We don't want to give tax relief to the
    billionaires.'' Okay, fine, but let's put a bill on the President's desk
    that respects the ranchers of the United States of America and the
    farmers and the small-business owners, and I'll sign it.
        To keep the economy growing, we've got to be wise about our budgets.
    Now what you'll hear here in Washington is, we have got to raise your
    taxes in order to balance the budget. That's not the way Washington, DC,
    works. They will raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your
    money. [Laughter] All I do is ask you to look at the budget that the
    Senate just recently passed. You know, we changed hands here in
    Washington in the Senate and the House. And the new leadership there in
    the Senate passed a new budget which raises taxes so they can increase
    spending, and the House is looking at the same type of approach.
        I have a different view. My attitude is, keep the taxes low so the
    economy grows to generate more tax revenues, and don't overspend; to set
    priorities with the people's money, not try to be all things to all
    people. And so I submitted a budget to the House and the Senate that
    balances the budget in 5 years without raising one dime on the working
    people of the United States of America.
        I'm looking forward to working with you on a farm bill that's good
    and decent and fair. I just put up a--submitted some ideas through our
    Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns. I want
    to remind you that in the bill we've submitted to Congress, we asked

    [[Page 349]]

    for a $17 billion increase in conservation spending over a 10-year
    period. That's an increase over the last farm bill. That includes money
    for CRP and a 30-percent increase for equip, plus one point three-
    quarters billion dollars on water conservation programs. I think this is
    a wise use of our money.
        I'm interested in a farm bill that enhances conservation, that
    recognizes the contribution our ranchers make, that is fair, that is
    reform oriented, and helps us compete in the global marketplace. I
    appreciate your efforts to work on a good farm bill. I'm looking forward
    to working with you on it.
        Finally, to keep the economy growing, we ought to open up markets
    for U.S. goods and services. If you're interested in economic vitality
    and growth, the way to encourage that growth is to find new markets for
    U.S. products. And I want to spend a little time talking about trade
    today.
        Last year, the United States exported $1.4 trillion worth of goods
    and services. That makes us the largest exporter in the world. To me,
    that says, is that when we have opportunities that are fair, we produce
    the kinds of goods and services people want to buy. Every time we break
    down a barrier to trade, it makes it more likely somebody who's raising
    a cow will have an opportunity to sell that cow into a better market.
    Free trade lowers consumer prices. In other words, when you open up
    trade, it's good for consumers.
        Trade is good for people working. I don't know if you realize this
    or not, but jobs exported by--supported by exports pay wages that are 13
    to 18 percent higher than the average. If you manufacture a good that is
    sold overseas, you're making more money than somebody who's not
    exporting. Isn't that an interesting fact?
        I happen to believe competition is good. I believe competition
    brings out the best in everybody. So I don't mind competition, so long
    as the playing rules are fair. My attitude on trade is, you treat us the
    way we treat you, and then let's compete. America is 5 percent of the
    world's population, which means 95 percent of the rest of the world are
    potential customers for things that we grow or manufacture.
        I think it's good business to open up trade agreements. When I came
    into office, we only had trade agreements with 3 nations; now we have 11
    of them in force and more on the way. The countries that America has
    free trade agreements with represent 7 percent of the world's GDP, yet
    they account for 43 percent of our exports. The reason I bring this up
    to you is, there's a lot of room for expansion when it comes to trade.
    There's a lot of opportunity.
        And so this administration is committed to open up markets. And
    there's a vital vote getting ready to come up in front of the--up to the
    Congress, and that is agreements that we have cut with Peru, Colombia,
    and Panama. I believe these are important markets for you and important
    markets for U.S. goods and services. Congress needs to make sure that
    they send an affirmative message when it comes to trade on these three
    agreements.
        Now, trade obviously creates issues. We end up with disputes and
    opportunities for people to make mischief when it comes to trade, people
    to use excuses for not opening up markets. And we went through one of
    those periods with you all, and that is with the BSE issue. BSE was
    discovered in 2003, and we worked with our cattle folks aggressively to
    address the issue, to prevent further introduction and spread of the
    disease. In other words, there was a proactive effort by government and
    the cattle raisers to address the issue.
        During the last 3 years, we've conducted over 800,000 tests to
    assess the health of our cattle herds. Thanks to these and other
    science-based measures, we've helped the farmers and ranchers manage any
    possible BSE risk in the cattle population. And today, because of our
    collaborative efforts and a strong scientific approach to dealing

    [[Page 350]]

    with BSE, we can say to global consumers with complete assurance,
    ``American beef is safe, and it is good to eat.''
        And the word is getting out. In 2006, exports of beef and beef
    products totaled more than $2 billion. That's a--nearly a 50-percent
    increase from 2005. It's not at the levels we want, but there has been
    some improvement in sales. And that's important for you. The more
    markets there are that are open for your product, the easier it's going
    to be for you to make a living. And I understand that, and it's
    important for Congress to understand that as well.
        Today, more than 100 countries have fully or partially opened their
    markets to U.S. beef. The objective of this administration, however, is
    to make sure that they're better than partially opened; they're fully
    opened, including to countries like Japan and Korea. We're also working
    to open up markets that have still got a ban on our imports. In other
    words, this is an important part of our foreign policy. When I'm talking
    to leaders and they've got an issue with American beef, it's on the
    agenda. I say, ``If you want to get the attention of the American people
    in a positive way, you open up your markets to U.S. beef.'' People
    understand that, when it comes to being treated fairly in the world
    marketplace.
        We got an opportunity to expand further--open up further markets by
    expanding trade through the Doha round of the World Trade Organization.
    It gives us a chance to level the playing field. It gives us a chance so
    that I can say to our cattle raisers and others that, ``You'll be
    treated fairly.'' Now, you got to compete; you got to grow some product
    that somebody wants. But you should be treated fairly. The rules will
    treat you fairly. That's all you can expect.
        And so I want you to know that we're going to work hard to bring
    Doha to a successful conclusion. It's hard work. This weekend, the
    President of Brazil is coming to
    see me, and we'll be talking about how we can work together to open up
    markets, and at the same time, address their concerns about our farm
    issues.
        The only way that we can complete Doha and make headway on other
    trade agreements, however, is for Congress to extend trade promotion
    authority. This authority allows the President to negotiate complicated
    trade deals and then send them to the United States Congress for an up-
    or-down vote on the whole agreement. Presidents of both parties have
    considered this a incredibly important tool for completing trade
    agreements. In other words, our trade partners have got to say, ``If
    that's the deal we negotiate, that's the one that somebody is going to
    have to vote up or down on.'' You can't negotiate a deal in fairness
    with the United States if you think it's going to be changed on the
    floor of the Congress. So the up-or-down vote is important to get, and
    that's what you get when you get trade promotion authority.
        And yet this authority will expire on July the 1st unless Congress
    acts. And I want to thank the National Cattlemen's Beef Association for
    joining with the administration and other organizations in urging the
    Congress to renew trade promotion authority.
        Look, there's going to be a vigorous debate about trade in Congress,
    and I thank you for engaging in that debate. And you know, trashing
    trade will make a good sound bite on the evening news--[laughter]--but
    walling off America from the rest of the world would harm this economy,
    and it would harm our cattle raisers. The road to protectionism may seem
    broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline. So I urge
    Congress to reject protectionism and to keep this economy open to
    tremendous opportunities that the world has to offer for our ranchers
    and farmers and entrepreneurs.
        Just as our prosperity depends on rejecting economic isolationism,
    so too our security depends on rejecting calls for America to abandon
    its leadership in this world.

    [[Page 351]]

    September the 11th is an important moment in this country's history.
    It's a sad moment, but it should serve as a wakeup call to the realities
    of the world in which we live.
        On September the 11th, we saw problems originating in a failed state
    some 7,000 miles away that affected how we live. See, September the 11th
    was not only a day we were attacked, it is a day that our country must
    never forget. And the lessons of that day must never be forgot, that
    what happens overseas matters here at home. It may be tempting to say,
    ``Oh, just let it run its natural course.'' But for me, allowing the
    world to run its natural course, which could lead to more violence and
    hatred, would end up reducing the security of the United States, not
    enhancing the security. And our biggest job in America, the biggest job
    of this government is to protect you from harm.
        I think about it every day, and so do a lot of other good, decent
    citizens of this country. The best way to protect this country is to
    defeat the enemy overseas so we don't have to face them here at home.
    And for the long-term peace and security of this country, we must
    advance an ideology that stands in stark contrast to the ideology of the
    killers. The best way to secure this homeland is to stay on the offense,
    and in the meantime, encourage the spread of liberty as an alternative
    to tyranny.
        And it's hard work, but it is necessary work. We went into
    Afghanistan, and we did so to remove a vicious tyranny that had harbored
    terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks on our country. Our message was,
    if you provide safe haven, if you provide comfort to an enemy, you're
    just as guilty as the enemy. And so, along with allies, we captured or
    killed hundreds of Al Qaida and Taliban fighters; we closed down their
    training camps; we helped the people of Afghanistan replace the Taliban
    regime with a democratic government. And it's in our Nation's long-term
    interests that we help the people of Afghanistan survive the threats and
    onslaughts by people who want to reinstate tyranny.
        And then we went into Iraq, and we removed the dictator who was a
    threat to the United States and to the world. And now we're undertaking
    the difficult and dangerous work of helping the Iraqi people establish a
    functioning democracy that can protect their own people and serve as an
    ally in this global war against those who would do America harm.
        In 2005--I want you to remember--in 2005, the Iraqi people held
    three national elections. Oh, it seems like a decade ago, doesn't it?
    And yet in the march of history, it's not all that long ago that the
    Iraqi people showed up at the election box, after having lived under the
    thumb of a brutal and murderous tyrant, to express their will about the
    future of their country. They chose a transitional government. They
    adopted the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world,
    and then they elected a government underneath that constitution. Despite
    the endless threats from killers, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came
    out to vote, in a show of hope and solidarity that the United States
    should never forget.
        A thinking enemy watched all this. See, there are some who can't
    stand the thought of a free society emerging in their midst. And this
    enemy escalated attacks. Al Qaida is very active in Iraq. And they and
    other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shi'a
    Islam: the Golden Mosque of Samarra. Why did they do that? They did that
    to provoke retaliation. They did that to cause people to take up--arm
    themselves. And they succeeded. Radical Shi'a elements, some of whom
    have received support from Iran, increased their support of death
    squads, and then the situation began to escalate.
        And so I had a choice to make. Last fall, I looked at the facts; I
    consulted with a lot of folks in Congress and our military commanders.
    And my choice really boiled down to this: Do we withdraw our troops

    [[Page 352]]

    and let violence spiral out of control, let this young democracy fail?
    Or do I send reinforcements to help the Iraqis quell the violence and
    secure their capital? In other words, do we give them breathing space to
    get on the path of reconciliation so that this young democracy could
    survive?
        Well, I weighed the options, and the military commanders and I
    concluded that the consequences of withdrawal would be disastrous for
    the United States of America. And let me tell you why. If we were to
    step back from Baghdad before it was more secure, before the Government
    could secure its own capital, it would leave a security vacuum. And into
    that vacuum could quickly come Sunni and Shi'a extremists, bolstered by
    outside forces. A contagion of violence could spill out across the
    country, and, in time, the violence of these emboldened extremists could
    affect the entire region. The terrorists could emerge from chaos--see,
    they benefit when the situation is chaotic--with new safe havens to
    replace the one they had lost in Afghanistan.
        There's no doubt in my mind that their intention is to try to strike
    us again, and they need the resources and the safe haven to do so. If we
    were to abandon this young democracy to chaos, it would embolden these
    extremists; it would enable them to be able to recruit more; it would
    give them new resources from which to plot and plan. I believe the
    consequences of failure in Iraq affect the security of the United States
    of America, and that's why I made the decision I made.
        And so instead of retreating, we reinforced, troops led by a capable
    commander named General David Petraeus.
    The Iraqi Government saw our firm support, and they're now beginning to
    carry out an aggressive plan to secure their nation's capital. And the
    plan is still in the beginning stages. I mean, General Petraeus had been
    on the ground just for about 2 months. Only half of the reinforcements
    that he needs have arrived. And he says it's going to be early June
    before all the troops that are dedicated to the operation are even in
    place. In other words, I've sent reinforcements into Baghdad with a new
    commander, with a plan to help the Iraqis secure the capital, a plan
    that we believe will be successful. He's been there for about 2 months.
    Half the troops that he needs have arrived.
        And look, I recognize it's going to require a sustained, determined
    effort to succeed; I know that. And there are some early signs that are
    encouraging. I mean, for example, the Iraqi leader has appointed a commander for
    Baghdad who is working closely with our generals. The last of the nine
    Iraqi surge battalions arrived in the Iraqi capital. In other words,
    they said, ``We're going to commit troops to this plan to secure the
    capital,'' and they're delivering. The Iraqis are showing up. Iraqi
    leaders have lifted restrictions that once prevented Iraqi and American
    forces from going into areas like Sadr City. You've been reading about
    Sadr City; well, my attitude is, murderers are murderers, and they ought
    to be brought to justice. And so any political restrictions preventing
    our people are being lifted. Iraqis are in the lead, and we're helping
    them.
        We're now setting up checkpoints across Baghdad. When I say ``we,''
    that is the Iraqis with American help. They're hardening perimeters
    around markets and areas that have been targets for these spectacular
    attacks, all aimed at shaking the confidence of the American people and
    shaking the confidence of the Iraqi people. We've got joint security
    stations throughout the Iraqi capital. In the past, we would clear an
    area, and then we'd go home, and then the insurgents or killers would
    move back in. Now we've got a strategy of clear, hold--and that's what
    that means--and then using money to help reconstruct Iraq. By the way,
    most of the money is coming from the Iraqis; he's put out a $10 billion
    reconstruction budget. That's what we expect. A government of and by the
    people should

    [[Page 353]]

    be spending the people's money to help rebuild their country.
        American forces are now deployed 24 hours in these neighborhoods,
    and guess what's happening? The Iraqi people are beginning to gain
    confidence. Support from the Iraqi people can be measured by the tips
    our people are getting--in other words, people saying, ``So-and-so is
    over here, a cache of weapons over there.'' And we're using the tips to
    aggressively pursue. We've launched successful operations against Shi'a
    extremists. We've captured hundreds of fighters that are spreading
    sectarian violence. In other words, we're after killers. We're after--we
    don't say, this religious group or this religious group. We're saying,
    if you're trying to destabilize this young democracy, the Iraqis, with
    coalition help, are coming after you.
        Last week, we captured a Shi'a extremist leader and his associates who were implicated in the kidnaping
    and murder of five U.S. soldiers in Karbala. Last month, American and
    Iraqi forces uncovered more than 400 weapons caches. We're conducting
    dozens and dozens of operations on a daily basis throughout that country
    with the Iraqi forces.
        See, ultimately, the Iraqis are going to have to defend themselves.
    Ultimately, it is their responsibility. That's what the 12 million
    people who voted want. We just need to give them some breathing space so
    they can gain their confidence and have the capabilities necessary to
    protect this country.
        We're destroying bomb factories. Just last week, we captured the
    head of the Al Qaida bomb
    network, responsible for some of the most horrific bombings in Baghdad.
    It's interesting; I mentioned Al Qaida. Al Qaida wants us to fail in
    Iraq. This is what their leaders have clearly said, and they're willing
    to kill innocent women and children to achieve their objectives.
        The missions I described are only the opening salvos in what is
    going to be a sustained effort. Yet the Iraqi people are beginning to
    say--see positive changes. I want to share with you how two Iraqi bloggers--they have
    bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here--[laughter]--describe:
    ``Displaced families are returning home. Marketplaces are seeing more
    activity. Stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel
    safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort
    succeed. We hope the Governments in Baghdad and America do not lose
    their resolve.''
        I want to read something that Army Sergeant Major Chris
    Nadeau says; the guy is on his second
    tour in Iraq. He says: ``I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm a
    soldier. The facts are the facts. Things are getting better. We're
    picking up momentum.''
        These are hopeful signs, and that's positive. Yet at the very moment
    that General Petraeus' strategy is
    beginning to show signs of success, the Democrats in the House of
    Representatives have passed an emergency war spending bill that
    undercuts him and the troops under his command. This bill would damage
    our effort in Iraq three ways.
        First, the House bill would impose restrictions on our commanders in
    Iraq, as well as rigid conditions and arbitrary deadlines on the Iraqi
    Government. It would mandate a precipitous withdrawal of American forces
    if every one of these conditions is not met by a date certain. Even if
    they are met, the bill would still require that most American forces
    begin retreating from Iraq by March 1st of next year, regardless of
    conditions on the ground. It's unclear what the military significance of
    this date is. What is clear is that the consequences of imposing such a
    specific and random date for withdrawal would be disastrous.
        If the House bill becomes law, our enemies in Iraq would simply have
    to mark their calendars. They'd spend the months ahead picking how to
    use their new--plotting how to use their new safe havens once we were to
    leave. It makes no sense for

    [[Page 354]]

    politicians in Washington, DC, to be dictating arbitrary timelines for
    our military commanders in a war zone 6,000 miles away.
        I want to read to you what a major newspaper editorial page said--
    and by the way, this editorial page, like, generally is not singing my
    praises--[laughter]--``Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to
    adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings--
    or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to
    conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of
    congressional meddling in military strategy.''
        Second, the House bill also undermines the Iraqi Government and
    contradicts the Democrats' claim that they simply want to help the
    Iraqis solve their own problems. For example, the House bill would cut
    funding for the Iraqi security forces if Iraqi leaders did not meet
    arbitrary deadlines.
        The Democrats cannot have it both ways. They can't say that the
    Iraqis must do more and then take away the funds that will help them do
    so. Iraq is a young democracy. It is fighting for its survival in a
    region that is vital to our security. The lesson of September the 11th
    must not be forgot. To cut off support for the security forces would put
    our own security at risk.
        Third, the House bill would add billions of dollars in domestic
    spending that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the bill
    includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach
    growers. These may be emergencies; they may be problems; but they can be
    addressed in the normal course of business. They don't need to be added
    on to a bill that's supporting our troops. There's $6.4 million for the
    House of Representatives salaries and expenses account. I don't know
    what that is--[laughter]--but it is not related to the war and
    protecting the United States of America.
        This week, the Senate is considering a version that is no better.
    The Senate bill sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal. It also
    undermines the Iraqi Government's ability to take more responsibility
    for their own country by cutting funds for Iraqi reconstruction and law
    enforcement. And just like their colleagues in the House, Senate
    Democrats have loaded their bill with special interest spending.
        The bill includes $40 million for tree assistance. You know, all
    these matters may be important matters; they don't need to be loaded on
    to a bill that is an emergency spending bill for our troops. There's
    $3.5 million for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how
    Congress works. [Laughter] I'm not kidding you. [Laughter]
        Here's the bottom line: The House and Senate bills have too much
    pork, too many conditions on our commanders, and an artificial timetable
    for withdrawal. And I have made it clear for weeks, if either version
    comes to my desk, I'm going to veto it. It is also clear from the strong
    opposition in both Houses that my veto would be sustained. Yet Congress
    continues to pursue these bills, and as they do, the clock is ticking
    for our troops in the field. Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin
    to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making
    political statements and start providing vital funds for our troops.
    They need to get that bill to my desk so I can sign it into law.
        Now some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops,
    they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I
    believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That's not going
    to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the
    frontlines, the American people will know who to hold responsible. Our
    troops in Iraq deserve the full support of the Congress and the full
    support of this Nation.
        I know when you see somebody in the uniform, you praise them, and I
    thank you for that. And we need to praise those military families, too,
    that are strong, standing by their loved one in this mighty struggle

    [[Page 355]]

    to defend this country. They risk their lives to fight a brutal and
    determined enemy, an enemy that has no respect for human life.
        We saw that brutality in a recent attack. Just 2 weeks ago,
    terrorists in Baghdad put two children in the back of an explosive-laden
    car, and they used them to get the car past a security checkpoint. And
    once through, the terrorists fled the vehicle and detonated the car with
    the children inside. Some call this civil war; others call it emergency.
    I call it pure evil. And that evil that uses children in a terrorist
    attack in Iraq is the same evil that inspired and rejoiced in the
    attacks of September the 11th, 2001. And that evil must be defeated
    overseas so we don't have to face them here again.
        If we cannot muster the resolve to defeat this evil in Iraq, America
    will have lost its moral purpose in the world and we will endanger our
    citizens, because if we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy
    will follow us here. Prevailing in Iraq is not going to be easy. Four
    years after this war began, the nature of the fight has changed, but
    this is a fight that can be won. We can have confidence in the outcome,
    because this Nation has done this kind of work before.
        You know, following World War II, after we fought bitter enemies, we
    lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany and stood with them
    as they built their representative governments. We committed years and
    resources to this cause, and the effort has been repaid many times over
    in three generations of friendship and peace. After the Korean war, had
    you predicted that Korea would have been a major trading partner in the
    world, or Japan would have been a major trading partner and vibrant
    economy, or China would be developing an open market and the Far East
    would be relatively peaceful: they'd have called you a hopeless
    idealist. And yet, because of American presence and influence, the Far
    East has emerged as I've described it.
        The stakes are high in the efforts we're undertaking in Iraq. It's a
    part of a long ideological struggle against those who spread hatred and
    lack of hope and lack of opportunity. But I believe, with patience and
    resolve, we will succeed. The efforts we're undertaking today will
    affect a generation of Americans who are coming up in our society.
        You know, it's important for you to understand that the Iraqi people
    want to live in freedom and peace. I believe strongly in the
    universality of liberty. I believe people want to be free, and, if given
    a chance, they will take the risks necessary to be free. And that's
    what's happened in Iraq. We see the desire for liberty in Iraqi soldiers
    who risk their lives every day. We see the desire in the shopkeepers and
    civic leaders who are working to reform their neighborhoods. We see it
    in the desire of Iraqi moms and dads who want the same thing for their
    children that we want for our children.
        If we stand by the Iraqi people today and help them develop their
    young Iraqi-style democracy, they're going to be able to take
    responsibility for their own security. And when that day comes, our
    forces can come home, and that we will leave behind a stable country
    that can serve as an example for others and be an ally in this global
    struggle against those who would do us harm. It's tough work, but it's
    necessary work, work the United States has done before, and work the
    United States will complete now.
        God bless you.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:13 a.m. at the Holiday Inn on the Hill.
    In his remarks, he referred to John M. Queen III, president-elect,
    National Cattlemen's Beef Association; President Luiz Inacio Lula da
    Silva of Brazil; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-
    National Force--Iraq; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; Lt. Gen.

    [[Page 356]]

    Abboud Gambar, Iraqi commander of Baghdad, Iraqi Army; Qais Khazali,
    member, Khazali network; and Haytham Kazim Abdallah Al-Shimari, head of
    the Rusafa Al Qaida-Iraq bomb network.