    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
    [May 10, 2007]
    [Pages 554-560]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference in Arlington, Virginia
    May 10, 2007

        The President. Good morning. I've just completed a meeting with
    Secretary Gates and General Pace and the members of the Joint Chiefs. I appreciate your
    hospitality. I really enjoy coming to the Defense Department to sit at
    the same table with these distinguished Americans. These folks are good,
    strategic thinkers. They're smart, they're capable, and we're lucky they
    wear the uniform.
        I spent time discussing with them the needs of our military
    personnel as they carry out vital missions. The Joint Chiefs shared with
    me the latest developments and updated me on the troop rotations as they
    implement our new Baghdad security plan. They report that the three
    additional Iraqi brigades promised by the Government are in place and
    are conducting operations in the Baghdad area. These--three additional
    American brigades, totaling about 12,000 troops, have taken up positions
    and are also conducting operations.
        The Chiefs told me that the fourth American brigade of
    reinforcements has just entered Baghdad and its surrounding towns and
    that the commanders expect the fifth American brigade to be in place by
    the middle of June. So it's going to be another month before all the
    additional troops that General Petraeus
    has requested are on the ground and carrying out their missions in Iraq.
        American reinforcements in Baghdad, along with the Iraqi security
    forces, are now living and working with the Iraqi people in neighborhood
    posts called joint security stations. These stations are a place from
    which American and Iraqi forces act against terrorists and insurgents
    and death squads. And they patrol streets to build trust and increase
    local cooperation. In other words, there's active engagement by Iraqi
    forces and coalition forces in neighborhoods throughout Baghdad and the
    area.
        And what happens with increased presence: there's increased
    confidence. And with increased confidence becomes increased information,
    information that forces can use to go after extremists, to bring down
    sectarian violence that plague the capital city of that country. The
    level of sectarian violence is an important indicator of whether or not
    the strategy that we have implemented is working. Since our operation
    began, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.
        As we have surged our forces, Al Qaida is responding with their own
    surge. Al Qaida is ratcheting up its campaign of high-profile attacks,
    including deadly suicide bombings carried out by foreign terrorists.
    America responded, along with coalition forces, to help this young
    democracy, and a brutal enemy has responded as well.

    [[Page 555]]

    These attacks are part of a calculated campaign to reignite sectarian
    violence in Baghdad and to convince the people here in America that the
    effort can't succeed. We're also seeing high levels of violence because
    our forces are entering areas where terrorists and militia once had
    sanctuary. As they continue to do so, our commanders have made clear
    that our troops will face more fighting and increased risks in the weeks
    and months ahead.
        As we help Iraqis bring security to their own country, we're also
    working with Iraqi leaders to secure greater international support for
    their young democracy. And last week, Secretary Rice attended an international meeting on Iraq and
    Egypt, and she briefed me, and she briefed Secretary Gates--there he is, right there. [Laughter]
        The meeting included representatives from Iraq's neighbors, as well
    as Egypt and Bahrain and G-8 countries and the Arab League and the
    Organization of the Islamic Conference and the five permanent members of
    the U.N. Security Council. It was a robust international meeting where
    Iraqi leaders expressed their determination to meet a series of
    benchmarks they have set for political progress. In other words, they
    have not only told me that they're going to meet benchmarks, they've not
    only told Secretary Gates that they intend
    to meet benchmarks, but they've also told the international community
    they intend to do so.
        These benchmarks include adoption of a national oil law and
    preparations for Provincial elections and progress on a new de-
    Ba'athification policy and a review of the Iraqi Constitution.
        The nations assembled in Egypt pledged to support Iraq in these
    efforts. In other words, the Iraqis said, ``We need help,'' and these
    nations pledged support. It was a very positive development. They're
    going to help Iraq secure its borders. They've said they will help stem
    the flow of terrorists into their country. They agreed to support the
    International Compact established by Iraq and the United Nations so that
    Iraq can reform and rebuild its economy.
        For Iraqi leaders to succeed in all these efforts, their people must
    have security. That's why I made the decision I made. That's why we sent
    additional troops into Baghdad. But we need to give General Petraeus's
    plan time to work. There's a debate raging in Washington here about how
    long we're going to be there--we haven't even got all our troops there.
    I still find it interesting that General Petraeus was given a unanimous
    confirmation vote by the United States Senate after he made clear his
    plan, and before the plan has been fully implemented, some in Washington
    are saying, ``You need to leave.'' My attitude is, General
    Petraeus's plan ought to be given a chance
    to work, and we need to give the troops under his command the resources
    they need to prevail.
        I met with congressional leaders to discuss the way forward, last
    week. I fully understand Republicans and Democrats have disagreements.
    We should be able to agree that the consequences of failure in Iraq
    would be disastrous for our country. And they would be disastrous for
    our country. We should be able to agree that we have a responsibility to
    provide our men and women on the frontlines with the resources and
    flexibility they need to do the job we've asked them to do.
        I believe that leaders of good will can deliver to our troops. And
    we've got to deliver it soon--time is running out--because the longer we
    wait, the more strain we're going to put on the military.
        All Americans know the goodness and character of the U.S. Armed
    Forces. They are risking their lives each day to fight our enemies and
    to keep our people safe. Their families are making tremendous sacrifices
    on behalf of our country. It's important for the people who wear the
    uniform and their families to know that as the Commander in Chief, I'm
    proud of the sacrifices they have made, and the American people honors
    their service to our country.

    [[Page 556]]

        And now I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Jennifer
    [Jennifer Loven, Associated Press], why don't you kick it off.

    Military Operations in Iraq/Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

        Q. Thank you, sir. With some Republicans saying they need to see
    measurable progress by September, are you willing to reevaluate troop
    levels then, based on what General Petraeus says? And also, are you
    willing to accept any consequences for benchmarks in the war funding
    bill?
        The President. You know, I meet with a lot of people on the subject
    of Iraq, and I should. There's a lot of opinions on both sides of the
    aisle about this issue. And my message to the Members of Congress is,
    whatever your beliefs may be, let's make sure our troops get funded, and
    let's make sure politicians don't tell our commanders how to conduct
    operations. Let's don't hamstring our people in the field. That's my
    message.
        Their message to me has been, you know, don't you think the Iraqi
    Government ought to do more? They recognize what I recognize, and these
    gentlemen up here particularly recognize: that without political
    progress, it's going to be hard to achieve a military victory in Iraq.
    In other words, the military can provide security so a political process
    can go forward.
        Look, the two questions you asked: One was about General Petraeus's
    report to the--back--around September about what's taking place in
    Baghdad. My attitude toward Congress is, why don't you wait and see what
    he says? Fund the troops, and let him come back and report to the
    American people. General Petraeus picked
    this date. He believes that there will be enough progress one way or the
    other to be able to report to the American people, to give an objective
    assessment about what he sees regarding the Baghdad security plan.
        It's at that point in time that I'm confident that the
    Secretary and the Joint Chiefs will take a
    look at what David Petraeus says and make
    recommendations about troop levels based upon the conditions on the
    ground, which stands in stark contrast to Members of Congress who say,
    we're going to determine troop levels based upon politics or the latest
    opinion poll or how we can get our Members elected.
        And the second part of your question was about benchmarks. Look, let
    me talk about this recent effort by Congress to fund our troops. The
    idea that the House of Representatives put forward is one that we will
    fund our troops by piecemeal. Secretary Gates was very strong about why that's a bad idea. And the
    American people must understand that if you fund our troops every 2
    months, you're in a--put in a position where we have to delay certain
    procurement, or that military contracts must be delayed. There's a lot
    of uncertainty in funding when it comes to 2-month cycles. So we reject
    that idea. It won't work.
        I find it odd that the Congress is--I find it ironic that the
    Congress is ready to fully fund unrelated domestic spending items and
    only one-half of the money requested for our troops. They provide 100
    percent of the money for the special interest projects that--they don't
    have anything to do with fighting the war on terror, and 50 percent of
    the money to go to those who wear our uniform. They got it wrong. They
    ought to provide 100 percent of the money for people who wear the
    uniform and leave these special pork projects out of the bill. The--and
    so I'll veto the bill if it's this haphazard, piecemeal funding. And I
    made that clear.
        One message I have heard from people from both parties and--is that
    the idea of benchmarks makes sense. And I agree. It makes sense to have
    benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward. And so I've
    empowered Josh Bolten to find common ground
    on benchmarks, and he will continue to have dialog with both Republicans
    and Democrats.
        You know, this bill--I believe we can get a good supplemental, and I
    hope it's

    [[Page 557]]

    as quick as possible. The first blush is the bad supplemental coming out
    of the House. Nevertheless, there is--the Senate will have a say, and
    then there will be a conference committee, and hopefully, we can move a
    good bill forward as quickly as possible. These gentlemen will tell you
    that the longer we wait, the more it hurts our military and the
    families.
        Toby [Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters].

    Prime Minister Tony Blair/Europe's Role in Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, with Prime Minister Tony Blair stepping down, are
    you concerned that British policy on Iraq could change significantly?
        The President. First of all, I'll miss Tony Blair. He is a political
    figure who is capable of thinking over the horizon. He's a long-term
    thinker. I have found him to be a man who's kept his word, which
    sometimes is rare in the political circles I run in. When Tony Blair
    tells you something, as we say in Texas, you can take it to the bank.
    We've got a relationship such that we can have really good discussions.
    And so I'm going to miss him. I--he's a remarkable person, and I
    consider him a good friend.
        I obviously look forward to meeting with his successor. I believe
    that the relationship between Great Britain and America is a vital
    relationship. It is a relationship that has stood the test of time. And
    when America and Great Britain work together, we can accomplish
    important objectives. We share common values. We share a great history.
    And so I look forward to working with the--with Gordon Brown, who I presume is going to be the--maybe I shouldn't
    say that--I shouldn't predict who is going to be in, but I--the punditry
    suggests it will be him.
        I have had a meeting with him and found him to be an open and
    engaging person. I--it's amazing how people make all kinds of
    characterizations about people in the political process, and I found him
    to be a easy-to-talk-to, good thinker.
        Q. What do you think he'll do on Iraq? Do you feel like you're in--
    --
        The President. I think--look, yes, I believe he understands the
    consequences of failure. The interesting thing about the Iraq debate, by
    the way, is, I don't hear a lot of discussions about happens if we
    fail--what happens if we fail. I hear a lot of discussions about, maybe
    we can make good political progress based upon this issue, or let's just
    make sure that we constantly achieve--make political hay based upon
    Iraq. I hear a lot of that. But there needs to be a serious discussion
    about what happens if we create a vacuum into which radical movements
    flow.
        If you're worried about Iran, then it's really important that people
    understand the consequences of us leaving before the job is done. I am
    deeply concerned about what would happen in the Middle East should
    America's credibility be diminished as a result of us not keeping our
    word, as a result of us abandoning millions of people who are anxious to
    live in a stable, secure, free society. I worry about the signal it
    would send to Al Qaida. As I told you earlier, and as David
    Petraeus said--let me put it in his
    words--``Al Qaida is public enemy number one in Iraq.'' Al Qaida also
    should be viewed as public enemy number one in America.
        And why do I say that? Well, Al Qaida attacked us once and killed
    thousands of citizens on our soil. I believe they want to attack us
    again. I believe failure in Iraq would only embolden Al Qaida further. I
    know that vacuums in the Middle East are likely to be filled by radicals
    and extremists, who, at the very minimum, would share a common enemy:
    the United States and some of our strongest allies.
        And so it's vital we succeed. The debate in Washington is, how fast
    can we withdraw--amongst some. The debate ought to be, what do we need
    to do to make sure that we not only don't fail but succeed?

    [[Page 558]]

        And so I believe Gordon Brown understands
    the consequences of failure. But I'm looking forward to working with
    him. I'm looking forward to working with the new President of
    France. I'm looking forward to working with
    a lot of people in Europe to not only achieve success in Iraq but also
    achieve success in Afghanistan, another theater in the war on terror.
        Let's see here--Roger [Roger Runningen, Bloomberg News]. Yes, Rog. I
    call him ``Rog.''

    President-Elect Nicolas Sarkozy of France/
    Vice President Cheney's Visit to the Middle
    East/Iran

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon. You just mentioned the
    new leader of France, and I was going to ask you about him. Have you
    talked to him? Are you recruiting him as part of the coalition? Any
    messages for him?
        And you've sent Mr. Cheney to the Mideast to visit with the other
    neighbors. What specifically are the requests you are making of them?
        The President. Sure. First of all, Presidents don't recruit; the
    people elect a leader with whom I will work. And I had a--I did talk to
    President-elect Sarkozy; I think it was at about 8:03 Paris time. He won
    at 8:00, and I called him shortly thereafter. And I'm so grateful he
    took my phone call. I had met with him before when he came over here and
    found him to be a very engaging, energetic, smart, capable person. We
    will have our differences, and we will have our agreements. And I'm
    looking forward to working with him.
        Vice President Cheney is in the Middle East. His first message to
    the Iraqis was that they have got to speed up their clock, that--I agree
    with General Petraeus's assessment that
    there are two clocks: one ticking here in Washington and one ticking
    there. And they must understand that we are very serious when it comes
    to them passing law that enables this country to more likely reconcile.
    And then he'll be traveling to talk to other friends in the area.
        One of the questions that many ask is, do we understand the Iranian
    issue well? Do we understand the consequences of Iran having a nuclear
    weapon--which it looks like they want to try to achieve--to get. And the
    answer is, absolutely. And they'll find a stalwart friend in dealing
    with extremism in that vital part of the world. And that--Vice President
    will lay out our strategy of convincing others to join us in--on this
    Iranian issue. He will point out to them that we have worked hard to
    convince not only the EU-3 to join with the United States in sending a
    clear message but also now Russia and China, and that we do have a
    diplomatic front. And we've got to work--to continue to work together.
    We've got to work to keep it together, to send a focused, concerted
    message.
        He will also remind people that success in Iraq will be important
    for dealing with Iran, that if we were to listen to some of the voices
    in Congress and withdraw before the job was done, it would embolden
    Iran. In other words, there are strategic consequences to what is being
    said here in Washington, DC, about the Iraqi issue.
        And so he's got to--it's a vital trip, and I really appreciate him
    going. And it looked like he had a good stop yesterday. I haven't talked
    to him, but it looks like he's--it looks like he had a good day
    yesterday, and I'm looking forward--he'll check in.
        Mark [Mark Silva, Chicago Tribune].

    Military Operations in Iraq/Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

        Q. Mr. President, in your meeting with some moderate Republicans
    this week, in particular Representative LaHood, who, afterwards, said:
    ``The way forward after September, if the report is not good, is going
    to be difficult''----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----those are his words. Are you perhaps facing an ultimatum on
    the war this fall with Congress?

    [[Page 559]]

        The President. You know, I--first of all, I appreciate the Members
    coming down to the White House. We had a good exchange. It gave me a
    chance to share with them my feelings about the Iraqi issue. I spent
    time talking to them about what it meant to fail and what it means when
    we succeed. They expressed their opinions. They're obviously concerned
    about the Iraq war, but so are a lot of other people.
        I remind people--I reminded them that last fall, late fall, I had
    been one of these people that get endlessly polled. You know, these
    surveys and the pollsters constantly calling people all the time, it
    looks like--and had asked my opinion; I'd have said, I disapprove of
    what was going on in Iraq. You could have put me down as part of the
    disapproval process--and, therefore, had put a plan in place that would
    more likely cause me to approve of what's going on in Iraq. That's why I
    made the decision I made.
        I explained to them why I made the decision I made. And I said,
    look, David Petraeus has got a plan, and
    Members of Congress--some Members of Congress won't let him implement
    the plan. That doesn't make any sense, on the one hand, for us to send
    him out with the unanimous confirmation by the Senate, and then to deny
    him the troops and/or the funds necessary to get the job done. And I
    reminded them that we ought to give David Petraeus a chance.
        I did explain to them that General Petraeus has said he's going to come back and report to the
    Secretary and the Joint Chiefs and the White
    House and the Congress about whether or not the strategy that he thinks
    could work is working. And at that point in time, we will respond
    accordingly.
        As I have told people, that decisions about the posture in Iraq need
    to be based upon conditions on the ground. And no better person to
    report about the conditions on the ground than somebody who was there,
    and that would be General Petraeus. And at
    that point in time, upon the recommendation of the Secretary and the Joint Chiefs and General Petraeus, we will
    respond to what he says. And so I said, why don't we wait and see what
    happens? Let's give this plan a chance to work. Let's stop playing
    politics. It's one thing to have a good, honest debate about the way
    forward in Iraq, it's another thing to put our troops right in the
    middle of that debate.
        These troops deserve the money necessary to do the job. And our
    commanders need the flexibility necessary to do the job. And I believe
    this cause is necessary and it's noble. That's why I put those young men
    and women out there in the first place. It's necessary for the peace and
    security of our country. It's noble to have such amazing citizens
    volunteer to go into harm's way. And our Congress needs to support them.
    It's one thing to have a political debate or a debate about strategies,
    it's another thing to make sure that money gets sent to them on a timely
    basis. I repeat: This idea of funding our troops every 2 months is not
    adequate, and I frankly don't think it's right. They need to give the--
    these troops what they--what the military has asked for them.
        And we can debate Iraq and should. But there should be no debate
    about making sure that money gets there on a timely basis so our kids
    can do the job we've asked them to do.
        I want to thank you all for your time.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 12:06 p.m. at the
    Pentagon. In his remarks, he referred to Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA,
    commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Prime Minister Tony
    Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown of the United
    Kingdom; and President-elect Nicolas Sarkozy of France.

    [[Page 560]]