    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
    [May 24, 2007]
    [Pages 613-625]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    May 24, 2007

        The President. Please be seated. Thank you all. Good morning.
        Today Congress will vote on legislation that provides our troops
    with the funds they need. It makes clear that our Iraqi partners must
    demonstrate progress on security and reconciliation. My administration
    and Members of Congress from both parties have had many meetings to work
    out our differences on this legislation. As a result, we've removed the
    arbitrary timetables for withdrawal and the restrictions on our military
    commanders that some in Congress had supported.
        We were also successful in removing billions of--in unrelated
    domestic spending that many of the Democrats were insisting on. I wanted
    to remove even more. But, still, by voting for this bill, members of
    both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our
    country will support our service men and women in harm's way.
        As it provides vital funds for our troops, this bill also reflects a
    consensus that the Iraqi Government needs to show real progress in
    return for America's continued support and sacrifice. The Iraqi Study
    Group--the Iraq Study Group recommended that we hold the Iraqi
    Government to the series of benchmarks for improved security, political
    reconciliation, and governance that the Iraqis had set for themselves. I
    agree; so does the Congress. And the bill reflects that recommendation.
        These benchmarks provide both the Iraqi Government and the American
    people with a clear roadmap on the way forward. Meeting these benchmarks
    will be difficult; it's going to be hard work for this young government.
    After all, the Iraqis are recovering from decades of brutal
    dictatorship. Their democratic government is just over a year old. And
    as they're making tough decisions about their future, they're under
    relentless attack from extremists and radicals who are trying to bring
    down the young democracy.
        Our new strategy is designed to help Iraq's leaders provide security
    for their people and get control of their capital so they can move
    forward with reconciliation and

    [[Page 614]]

    reconstruction. Our new strategy is designed to take advantage of new
    opportunities to partner with local tribes to go after Al Qaida in
    places like Anbar, which has been the home base of Al Qaida in Iraq.
        This summer is going to be a critical time for the new strategy. The
    last of five reinforcement brigades we are sending to Iraq is scheduled
    to arrive in Baghdad by mid-June. As these reinforcements carry out
    their missions, the enemies of a free Iraq, including Al Qaida and
    illegal militias, will continue to bomb and murder in an attempt to stop
    us. We're going to expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months. We can
    expect more American and Iraqi casualties. We must provide our troops
    with the funds and resources they need to prevail.
        Another important issue before Congress is immigration reform. I
    want to thank the bipartisan group of Senators who produced a bill that
    will help us secure our borders and reform our immigration system. For
    decades, the Government failed to stop illegal immigration. My
    administration has stepped up efforts to improve border security,
    doubling the number of Border Patrol agents. We've effectively ended the
    policy of catch-and-release, which allowed some illegal immigrants to be
    released back into society after they were captured. Last year alone, we
    apprehended more than a million people trying to enter this country
    illegally. This is progress, but it's not enough.
        Many Americans are rightly skeptical about immigration reform. I
    strongly believe the bipartisan Senate bill addresses the reasons for
    past failures, while recognizing the legitimate needs of our economy and
    upholding the ideals of our immigrant tradition.
        This bill does not grant amnesty. Amnesty is forgiveness without a
    penalty. Instead, this bill requires workers here illegally to
    acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a fine, pass background checks,
    remain employed, and maintain a clean record. This bill provides the
    best chance to reform our immigration system and help us make certain we
    know who's in our country and where they are.
        Our immigration problems cannot be solved piecemeal. They must be
    all addressed together, and they must be addressed in logical order. So
    this legislation requires that border security and worker-verification
    targets are met before other provisions of the bill are triggered. For
    example, the temporary-worker program can begin only after these
    security measures are fully implemented. Immigration reform is a complex
    issue; it's a difficult piece of legislation. And those who are looking
    to find fault with this bill will always be able to find something. But
    if you're serious about securing our borders and bringing millions of
    illegal immigrants in our country out of the shadows, this bipartisan
    bill is the best opportunity to move forward. I'm confident, with hard
    work and good will, Congress can pass and I can sign a bill that fixes
    an immigration system we all agree is broken.
        The issues of war and immigration are difficult, but that's no
    excuse in avoiding our responsibility to act. The American people sent
    us to Washington to take on tough problems, and they expect us to
    deliver results.
        And now I'll be glad to answer some of your questions.
        Hunt [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Iran/Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Efforts

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. The IAEA says that Iran has
    significantly accelerated its uranium enrichment program. And today
    President Ahmadi-nejad said that he would go ahead; he vowed to go
    ahead. There also is the detention of three Iranian Americans. Where is
    this all headed? And do you think it's time for tough U.N. sanctions
    with real teeth, and are you confident that Russia and China would go
    ahead?
        The President. As you know, we have been discussing this issue a lot
    at these

    [[Page 615]]

    press avails. Iran is constantly on the agenda at a press avail like
    this--or a press conference like this, and the reason why is, is because
    they continue to be defiant as to the demands of the free world. The
    world has spoken and said, no nuclear weapons programs. And yet they're
    constantly ignoring the demands.
        My view is that we need to strengthen our sanction regime. I just
    spoke to Condoleezza Rice, and we will work
    with our European partners to develop further sanctions. And, of course,
    I will discuss this issue with Vladimir Putin as well as President Hu Jintao.
        The first thing that these leaders have got to understand is that an
    Iran with a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing for the
    world. It's in their interests that we work collaboratively to continue
    to isolate that regime.
        I'm sympathetic for the people of Iran. I'm sorry they live under a
    Government that continues to insist upon a program that the world has
    condemned, because it is denying the good people of Iran economic
    opportunities that they would have. This is a country with a great
    tradition and a great history. There are hard-working people in that
    country that want to benefit from a society that is more open, and yet
    the Government insists upon measures that will lead to further
    isolation. And therefore, to answer your--one part of your question, we
    will work with our partners to continue the pressure.
        Secondly, obviously, to the extent that these people are picking up
    innocent Americans, it's unacceptable. And we've made it very clear to
    the Iranian Government that the detention of good, decent American souls
    who are there to be beneficial citizens is not acceptable behavior.
        Toby [Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters].

    U.S. Soldiers Missing
    in Iraq/Military Operations in Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, dozens of American troops have been killed this
    month, and sectarian violence appears to be rising again in Iraq. And
    you yourself just said that you're expecting more casualties in the
    weeks and months ahead. How much longer do you believe you can sustain
    your current policy in Iraq without significant progress on the ground?
    And how confident are you about finding those missing soldiers?
        The President. I'm confident that the military is doing everything
    it can to find the missing soldiers. I talked to General
    Petraeus about this subject and Secretary
    Gates. And General Petraeus informs him that
    we're using all the intelligence and all the troops we can find--to find
    them. It's a top priority of our people there in Iraq.
        Obviously, the loss of life is--it is devastating to families. I
    fully understand that. But I want to remind you as to why I sent more
    troops in. It was to help stabilize the capital. You're asking me, ``How
    much longer?'' We have yet to even get all our troops in place. General
    David Petraeus laid out a plan for the
    Congress. He talked about a strategy all aiming--all aimed at helping
    this Iraqi Government secure its capital so that they can do the--some
    of the political work necessary, the hard work necessary to reconcile.
        And as I explained in my opening remarks, all the troops won't be
    there until mid-June. And one reason you're seeing more fighting is
    because our troops are going into new areas, along with the Iraqis. And
    so General Petraeus has said, ``Why don't
    you give us until September, and let me report back,'' to not only me
    but to the United States Congress, ``about progress?''
        I would like to see us in a different configuration at some point in
    time in Iraq. However, it's going to require taking control of the
    capital. And the best way to do that was to follow the recommendations
    of General Petraeus. As I have constantly
    made clear, the recommendations of
    Baker-Hamilton appeal to me, and that is to
    be embedded and to train and to guard the

    [[Page 616]]

    territorial integrity of the country and to have Special Forces to chase
    down Al Qaida. But I didn't think we could get there unless we increased
    the troop levels to secure the capital. I was fearful that violence
    would spiral out of control in Iraq and that this experience of trying
    to help this democracy would--couldn't succeed.
        And so therefore, the decisions I made are all aimed at getting us
    to a different position; and the timing of which will be decided by the
    commanders on the ground, not politicians here in Washington.
        Chen [Edwin Chen, Los Angeles Times]. Ed, excuse me. That's Henry
    [Ed Henry, Cable News Network]. Chen. Yes, you're coming down there; no,
    sorry. Work the print people a little bit, see. I've got the strategy:
    print. Ed, sorry.

    Trade With China

        Q. Good morning, Mr. President. A lot of lawmakers in Congress are
    saying that China has not done enough to allow its currency to
    appreciate, and they're talking about things like duties. What is your
    view about that, and are you prepared to do more to encourage the
    appreciation of the yuan?
        The President. Thanks, Ed. I spoke to Madam Wu Yi
    today, as a matter of fact, had her into the Oval Office, wanted to
    thank her for bringing her delegation in and also to ask her to pass on
    a message to Hu Jintao that I appreciate his
    willingness to work in a strategic--with strategic dialogs in order to
    put in place the type of measures that reflect a complex relationship,
    in other words, the ability to discuss issues such as beef or
    intellectual property rights.
        And one of the issues that I emphasized to Madam Wu Yi, as well as the delegation, was, was that we're watching
    very carefully as to whether or not they will appreciate their currency.
    And that's all in the context of making it clear to China that we value
    our relationship, but the $233 billion trade deficit must be addressed.
    And one way to address it is through currency evaluations.
        Another way to address it is for them to help convert their economy
    from one of savers to consumers. And that's why Secretary
    Paulson worked very assiduously with
    this strategic dialog group to encourage openness for capital markets;
    that China must open its capital markets to allow for different
    financial institutions from around the world to go into the country. It
    not only will be beneficial to the United States, but we happen to think
    it will be beneficial to the Chinese economy, for the consumers to have
    different options when it comes to savings and purchases.
        And so this is a important dialog, and it's one that I thank the
    Chinese Government for engaging in. And there's been some progress.
    Yesterday they opened new air routes. That's beneficial for U.S.
    airlines. It also happens to be beneficial for China, as far I am
    concerned. It's beneficial for that country to open up its access to
    more travelers, whether they be business or tourists.
        Anyway, this is a complex relationship. And there's a lot of areas
    where we're working together, and there's areas where there's friction.
    And we've just got to work through the friction. One area where I've
    been disappointed is beef. They need to be eating U.S. beef. It's good
    for them. They'll like it. And so we're working hard to get that beef
    market opened up.
        Ed.

    War on Terror

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. A new Senate report this morning
    contends that your administration was warned before the war that by
    invading Iraq, you would actually give Iran and Al Qaida a golden
    opportunity to expand their influence, the kind of influence you were
    talking about with Al Qaida yesterday and with Iran this morning. Why
    did you ignore those warnings, sir?

    [[Page 617]]

        The President. Ed, going into Iraq, we were warned about a lot of
    things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen. And
    obviously, as I made a decision of--as consequential as that, I weighed
    the risks and rewards of any decision. I firmly believe the world is
    better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I know the Iraqis are better
    off without Saddam Hussein in power. I think America is safer without
    Saddam Hussein in power.
        As to Al Qaida in Iraq, Al Qaida is going to fight us wherever we
    are. See, that's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of
    the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They
    want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. And
    they want safe haven from which to launch attacks. They're willing to
    kill the innocent to achieve their objectives, and they will fight us.
    And the fundamental question is, will we fight them? I have made the
    decision to do so. I believe that the best way to protect us in this war
    on terror is to fight them.
        And so we're fighting them in Iraq; we're fighting them in
    Afghanistan; we've helped the Philippines fight--Philippine Government
    fight them. We're fighting them. And this notion about how this isn't a
    war on terror, in my view, is naive. It doesn't reflect the true nature
    of the world in which we live.
        You know, the lessons of September the 11th are these: We've got to
    stay on the offense; we've got to bring these people to justice before
    they hurt again; and, at the same time, defeat their ideology with a
    ideology based upon liberty. And that's what you're seeing, and they're
    resisting it.
        I think it ought to be illustrative to the American people that Al
    Qaida is trying to stop new democracies from evolving. And what does--
    what should that tell you? That ought to tell you that we're dealing
    with people that have an ideology that is opposite of liberty and will
    take whatever measures are necessary to prevent this young democracy
    from succeeding.
        The danger in this particular theater in the war on terror is that
    if we were to fail, they'd come and get us. And, you know, I look at
    these reports right here in the Oval Office. For people who say that
    we're not under threat, they just simply do not know the world. We are
    under threat. And it's in our interest to pursue this enemy.
        Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News].

    Government of Iraq/U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of
    victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic. You once again
    mentioned Al Qaida. Does that mean that you are willing to leave
    American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi Government does? I know
    this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a yes
    or no.
        The President. We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi
    Government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to
    the polls to approve a Constitution. It's their Government's choice. If
    they were to say, ``Leave,'' we would leave.
        Q. [Inaudible]--results would be catastrophic, as you've said over
    and over again?
        The President. I would hope that they would recognize that the
    results would be catastrophic. But this is a sovereign nation, Martha.
    We are there at their request. And hopefully, the Iraqi Government would
    be wise enough to recognize that without coalition troops, particularly
    U.S. troops, that they would endanger their very existence. And it's why
    we work very closely with them, to make sure that the realities are such
    that they wouldn't make that request. But if they were to make the
    request, we wouldn't be there.
        David [David Gregory, NBC News].

    [[Page 618]]

    War on Terror/Threat of Further Terrorist Attacks

        Q. Mr. President, after the mistakes that have been made in this
    war, when you do as you did yesterday, where you raised 2-year-old
    intelligence, talking about the threat posed by Al Qaida, it's met with
    increasing skepticism. The majority in the public, a growing number of
    Republicans appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out
    this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you're still a
    credible messenger on the war?
        The President. I'm credible because I read the intelligence, David,
    and make it abundantly clear in plain terms that if we let up, we'll be
    attacked. And I firmly believe that.
        Look, this has been a long, difficult experience for the American
    people. I can assure you, Al Qaida, who would like to attack us again,
    have got plenty of patience and persistence. And the question is, will
    we?
        Yes, I talked about intelligence yesterday. I wanted to make sure
    the intelligence I laid out was credible, so we took our time. Somebody
    said, well, he's trying to politicize the thing. If I was trying to
    politicize it, I'd have dropped it out before the 2006 elections. I
    believe I have an obligation to tell the truth to the American people as
    to the nature of the enemy. And it's unpleasant for some. I fully
    recognize that after 9/11, in the calm here at home, relatively
    speaking, caused some to say, well, maybe we're not at war. I know
    that's a comfortable position to be in, but that's not the truth.
        Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. Al
    Qaida will be emboldened. They will say, yes, once again, we've driven
    the great, soft America out of a part of the region. It will cause them
    to be able to recruit more. It will give them safe haven. They are a
    direct threat to the United States.
        And I'm going to keep talking about it. That's my job as the
    President, is to tell people the threats we face and what we're doing
    about it. And what we've done about it is, we've strengthened our
    homeland defenses. We've got new techniques that we use that enable us
    to better determine their in--their motives and their plans and plots.
    We're working with nations around the world to deal with these radicals
    and extremists. But they're dangerous, and I can't put it any more
    plainly: They're dangerous. And we will, and I can't put it any more
    plainly to the American people and to them: We will stay on the offense.
        It's better to fight them there than here. And this concept about,
    well, maybe let us kind of just leave them alone, and maybe they'll be
    all right is naive. These people attacked us before we were in Iraq.
    They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq, and they've been
    attacking ever since. They are a threat to your children, David, and
    whoever is in that Oval Office better understand it and take measures
    necessary to protect the American people.
        Q. So what about--[inaudible].
        The President. Axelrod [Jim Axelrod, CBS News].

    U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about the Petraeus
    report, which, as you say, will be in September and report on progress.
    Doesn't setting up the September date give the enemy exactly what you've
    said you don't want them to have, which is a date to focus on, and
    doesn't it guarantee a bloody August?
        And while I have you, sir, the phrase you just used, ``a different
    configuration in Iraq'' that you'd like to see, is that a plan B?
        The President. Well, see, actually, I would call that a plan
    recommended by Baker-Hamilton, so that would be a plan B-H. I've stated--you didn't
    like it? [Laughter] Okay.

    [[Page 619]]

        I've stated, this is an idea that--I like the concept. The question
    is, could we get there given the violence last fall? And the answer, in
    my judgment, was, no, we would never be able to configure our troops
    that way, in that configuration--place our troops in that configuration
    given the violence inside the capital city.
        David Petraeus felt like that it was
    important to tell the White House and tell the Congress that he would
    come back with an assessment in September. It's his decision to give the
    assessment, and I respect him, and I support him.
        Q. Doesn't it give the terrorists a----
        The President. It does, precisely. It's going to make--it could make
    August a tough month, because you see, what they're going to try to do
    is kill as many innocent people as they can to try to influence the
    debate here at home. Don't you find that interesting? I do--that they
    recognize that the death of innocent people could shake our will, could
    undermine David Petraeus's attempt to
    create a more stable Government. They will do anything they can to
    prevent success. And the reason why is, Al Qaida fully understands that
    if we retreat, they then are able to have another safe haven, in their
    mind.
        Yesterday, in my speech, I quoted quotes from Usama bin Laden. And the reason I did was--is that I want the
    American people to hear what he has to say--not what I say, what he
    says. And in my judgment, we ought to be taking the words of the enemy
    seriously.
        And so yes, it could be a bloody--it could be a very difficult
    August. And I fully understand----
        Q. [Inaudible]--fighting the Democrats on that in the Senate about a
    date----
        The President. Yes, David Petraeus,
    the commander--look, do you want politicians making those decisions, or
    do you want commanders on the ground making the decisions? My point is,
    is that I would trust David Petraeus to make an assessment and a
    recommendation a lot better than people in the United States Congress.
    And that's precisely the difference.
        Michael [Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post].

    Justice Department/Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales

        Q. Good morning, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about the
    Justice Department. In the last couple months, we have heard disturbing
    evidence about senior officials of the Justice Department misleading
    Congress. We heard disturbing evidence yesterday that a senior official
    at Justice Department improperly took, by her own admission, political
    considerations into effect in evaluating career employees of the Justice
    Department.
        We've also had evidence from the former Deputy Attorney General of
    the White House strong-arming a sick man into trying to approve an
    illegal spying program. I'm curious, Mr. President, if you are concerned
    about the cumulative picture that's being drawn about your Justice
    Department? And what assurances can you give the American people that
    the Department is delivering impartial justice to the American people?
        The President. Yes, thank you, Michael. There is a--an internal
    investigation taking place at the Justice Department. And this will be
    an exhaustive investigation. And if there's wrongdoing, it will be taken
    care of.
        I thought it was interesting how you started your question, ``Over
    the months.'' I think you said, ``Over the last months.'' This
    investigation is taking a long time; in fact, kind of being drug out. I
    suspect for political question--for political reasons. In other words,
    as I mentioned the other day, it's just grand political theater.
        If--Attorney General Gonzales has testified. He's produced
    documents. And I would hope the Senate and the Congress would move
    expeditiously to finish their hearings and get on to the business of
    passing legislation that is meaningful for the

    [[Page 620]]

    country. But if there had been wrongdoing, that will be addressed, the
    way we'd hope it would be.
        Q. [Inaudible]--confidence. Are you----
        The President. Yes, I've got confidence in Al Gonzales doing the
    job.
        Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News].

    War on Terror/Progress in Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, are you surprised by reports today from the Iraqis
    that sectarian killings are actually on the rise to pre-troop surge
    levels? And, if I may, yesterday after your speech, Senator Joe Biden
    said Al Qaida in Iraq is a ``Bush-fulfilling prophecy.'' They weren't
    there before; now they're there. He said U.S. troops should get out of
    the middle of a civil war and fight Al Qaida.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. Can you respond to that?
        The President. We are fighting Al Qaida in Iraq. A lot of the
    spectaculars you're seeing are caused by Al Qaida. Al Qaida will fight
    us wherever we are. That's what they do. That's what they've said they
    want to do. They have objectives. These are ideologues driven by a
    vision of the world that we must defeat. And you defeat them on the one
    hand by hunting them down and bringing them to justice, and you defeat
    them on the other hand by offering a different alternative form of
    government.
        The Middle East looked nice and cozy for a while. Everything looked
    fine on the surface, but beneath the surface, there was a lot of
    resentment; there was a lot of frustration, such that 19 kids got on
    airplanes and killed 3,000 Americans. It's in the long-term interest of
    this country to address the root causes of these extremists and radicals
    exploiting people that cause them to kill themselves and kill Americans
    and others.
        I happen to believe one way to do that is to address the forms of
    government under which people live. Democracy is really difficult work,
    but democracy has proven to help change parts of the world from
    cauldrons of frustration to areas of hope. And we will continue to
    pursue this foreign policy; it's in our national interest we do so.
        What other aspect of the question?
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Yes, I'm--there's--certainly, there's been an uptick
    in violence. It's a snapshot; it's a moment. And David
    Petraeus will come back with his
    assessment, after his plan has been fully implemented, and give us a
    report as to what he recommends--what he sees, and what he recommends,
    which is, I think, a lot more credible than what Members of Congress
    recommend. We want our commanders making the recommendations, and--along
    with Ryan Crocker, our Ambassador there--I
    don't want to leave Ryan out.
        And so it's a--you know, to Axelrod's point, it's a--no question
    it's the kind of report that the enemy would like to affect because they
    want us to leave. They want us out of there. And the reason they want us
    to leave is because they have objectives that they want to accomplish.
    Al Qaida--David Petraeus called Al Qaida
    public enemy number one in Iraq. I agree with him. And Al Qaida is
    public enemy number one in America. It seems like to me that if they're
    public enemy number one here, we want to help defeat them in Iraq.
        This is a tough fight, you know? And it's--obviously, it's had an
    effect on the American people. Americans--a lot of Americans want to
    know win--when are you going to win? And victory is--victory will come
    when that country is stable enough to be able to be an ally in the war
    on terror and to govern itself and defend itself.
        One of the things that appealed to me about the Baker-Hamilton is that it will
    provide a--kind of a long-term basis for that likely to happen, assuming
    the Iraqi Government invites us to stay there. The--and I believe this
    is an area where we can find common ground with Democrats

    [[Page 621]]

    and Republicans, by the way. I fully recognize there are a group of
    Democrats who say: ``Get out of the deal now. It's just not worth it.''
        One of the areas where I really believe we need more of a national
    discussion, however, is, what would be the consequences of failure in
    Iraq? See, people have got to understand that if that government were to
    fall, the people would tend to divide into kind of sectarian enclaves,
    much more so than today, that would invite Iranian influence and would
    invite Al Qaida influence, much more so than in Iraq today. That would
    then create enormous turmoil--or could end up creating enormous turmoil
    in the Middle East, which would have a direct effect on the security of
    the United States.
        Failure in Iraq affects the security of this country. And it's hard
    for some Americans to see that. I fully understand it; I see it clearly.
    I believe this is the great challenge of the beginning of the 21st
    century--not just Iraq, but dealing with this radical, ideological
    movement in a way that secures us in the short term and more likely
    secures us in the long term.
        Jim [Jim Rutenberg, New York Times]. You didn't nod off there, did
    you? [Laughter] A little hot out here in the Rose Garden for you?
    [Laughter]

    Usama bin Laden/Threat of Further Terrorist
    Attacks

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. Yes, well, go ahead and take the tie off. I'm halfway
    done anyway. [Laughter]
        Q. Mr. President, yesterday you discussed Usama bin Laden's plans to
    turn Iraq into a terrorist sanctuary. What do you think your own
    reaction would have been 5 years ago had you been told that towards the
    end of your term, he would still be at large with that kind of
    capability, from Iraq, no less, and why--can you tell the American
    people--is he still on the run? Why is he so hard to catch?
        The President. I would say that 5 years ago--like I said, we're
    going to pursue him. And we are pursuing him. And he's hiding. He is in
    a remote region of the world. If I knew precisely where he is, we would
    take the appropriate action to bring him to justice. He is attempting to
    establish a base of operations in Iraq. He hasn't established a base in
    operations. My points yesterday were, here was his intentions, but
    thankfully, of the three people I named, all of them no longer are a
    part of his operation.
        My point is, is that--I was making the point, Jim, as I'm sure you
    recognized, that if we leave, they follow us. And my point was, was that
    Usama bin Laden was establishing an external cell there, or trying to.
    And he's been unable to do it, precisely my point. That's why we've got
    to stay engaged. Had he been able to establish an internal cell that had
    safe haven, we would be a lot more in danger today than we are. His
    organization is a risk. We will continue to pursue as hard as we
    possibly can. We will do everything we can to bring him and others to
    justice.
        We have had good success in the chief operating officer position of
    Al Qaida. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
    Ramzi al Rabium--there's a lot of names that
    I--some of whom I mentioned yesterday, that are no longer a threat to
    the United States. We will continue to work to bring him to justice;
    that's exactly what the American people expect us to do, and, in the
    meantime, use the tools we put in place to protect this homeland.
        We are under threat. Now, some may say, well, he's just saying that
    to get people to pay attention to him, or try to scare them into--for
    some reason. I would hope our world hadn't become so cynical that they
    don't take the threats of Al Qaida seriously, because they're real. And
    it's a danger to the American people. It's a danger to your children,
    Jim. And it's really important that we do all we can do to bring them to
    justice.

    [[Page 622]]

        Q. Mr. President, why is he still at large?
        The President. Why is he at large? Because we haven't got him yet,
    Jim, that's why. And he's hiding, and we're looking, and we will
    continue to look until we bring him to justice. We've brought a lot of
    his buddies to justice, but not him. That's why he's still at large.
    He's not out there traipsing around. He's not leading many parades,
    however. He's not out feeding the hungry. He's isolated, trying to kill
    people to achieve his objective.
        Those are his words--his objectives are his words, not mine. He has
    made it clear; he and Zawahiri, their
    number two, have made it clear what they want. And in a war against
    extremists and radicals like these, we ought to be listening carefully
    to what they say. We ought to take their words seriously. There have
    been moments in history where others haven't taken the words of people
    seriously, and they suffered. So I'm taking them seriously.
        Yes, Jim [Jim Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times].

    Former President Saddam Hussein of Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, moments ago you said that Al Qaida attacked us
    before we were in Iraq. Since then Iraq has become much less stable; Al
    Qaida has used it as a recruiting tool, apparently with some success. So
    what would you say to those who would argue that what we've done in Iraq
    has simply enhanced Al Qaida and made the situation worse?
        The President. Oh, so, in other words, the option would have been,
    just let Saddam Hussein stay there? That's--your question is, should we
    not have left Saddam Hussein in power? And the answer is, absolutely
    not. Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States. He'd attacked his
    neighbors. He was paying Palestinian suicide bombers. He would have
    been--if he were to defy--and by the way, cheating on the U.N. oil for
    sanctions program--Oil-for-Food Programme. No, I don't buy it. I don't
    buy that this world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein in
    power, and particularly if--and I'm sure the Iraqis would agree with
    that.
        See, that's the kind of attitude--he says, okay, let's let them live
    under a tyrant, and I just don't agree. I obviously thought he had
    weapons; he didn't have weapons. The world thought he had weapons. It
    was a surprise to me that he didn't have the weapons of mass destruction
    that everybody thought he had, but he had the capacity at some point in
    time to make weapons. It would have been a really dangerous world if we
    had the Iranians trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and Saddam Hussein
    competing for a nuclear weapon. You can imagine what the mentality of
    the Middle East would have been like.
        And so the heart of your question is, shouldn't you have left Saddam
    Hussein in power? And the answer is ``No.'' And now that we've----
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. ----well, that's really the crux of it. And--let me
    finish, please, here. I'm on a roll here. And so now that we have, does
    it make sense to help this young democracy survive? And the answer is
    ``Yes,'' for a variety of reasons.
        One, we want to make sure that this enemy that did attack us doesn't
    establish a safe haven from which to attack again. Two, the ultimate
    success in a war against ideologues is to offer a different ideology,
    one based upon liberty, by the way, embraced by 12 million people when
    given the chance. Thirdly, our credibility is at stake in the Middle
    East. There's a lot of Middle Eastern nations wondering whether the
    United States of America is willing to push back against radicals and
    extremists, no matter what their religion base--religious bases may be.
        And so the stakes are high in Iraq. I believe they're absolutely
    necessary for the security of this country. The consequences of failure
    are immense.
        Yes.

    [[Page 623]]

        Q. So there was no choice between the course we took and leaving
    Saddam Hussein in power? No--nothing else that might have worked?
        The President. Well, we tried other things. As you might remember
    back then, we tried the diplomatic route: 1441 was a unanimous vote in
    the Security Council that said disclose, disarm, or face serious
    consequences. So the choice was his to make. And he made a choice that
    has subsequently left--subsequently caused him to lose his life under a
    system that he wouldn't have given his own citizens. Now, we tried
    diplomacy. As a matter of fact, not only did I try diplomacy; other
    Presidents tried diplomacy.
        Let's see here. John [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].

    Legislative Priorities/Immigration Reform

        Q. Thanks, Mr. President. You've said many times that you plan to
    sprint to the finish of your Presidency. At this point in the home
    stretch, what can you say you're still expecting to accomplish? And how
    concerned are you that the immigration bill in particular is going to
    get caught up in electoral politics?
        The President. Yes, thanks. Well, we need to pass additional energy
    legislation. We need to renew No Child Left Behind. Get these trade
    bills out of Congress--the trade bills on Panama and Peru and Colombia,
    hopefully, work toward a free trade--further the work we've done on the
    Korean free trade agreement. Hopefully, I'll be able to bring back
    successful negotiations on Doha for a congressional vote which will
    require a TPA extension and/or--a TPA extension, there's no ``and/or''
    to it. Making sure that this progress on balancing the budget continues.
    The deficit is--I know you're following the numbers, John--the deficit
    is reduced more than anticipated as a result of increased tax revenues
    coming in and the fiscal measures that we took. And now we're going to
    have to work with Congress to make sure they don't overspend and make
    sure they don't raise the taxes on the people as well.
        Running up the taxes will hurt this economy, which would hurt the
    revenues to the Treasury. I'm deeply concerned about the Democratic
    budget that is classic tax and spend. I'm looking forward to seeing how
    they intend to keep their promise of balancing this budget in 5 years.
        A big--and of course, fighting this war on terror is a huge issue. I
    obviously would like to find common ground on how to proceed in Iraq,
    with Democrats and Republicans. I recognize there are a handful there or
    some who just say, ``Get out, it's just not worth it, let's just
    leave.'' I strongly disagree with that attitude; most Americans do as
    well. And the vote showed that what's possible when we work together,
    the vote--the pending vote today showed what's possible when we work
    together, when Republicans and Democrats work together. There's a good
    group of Republicans that want to work with Democrats. They just don't
    want to accept something that they don't agree with.
        Immigration, this is a tough issue. This is a very emotional, hard
    issue for members of both parties. I've always been a believer that
    comprehensive immigration reform is the best way to secure our border. I
    campaigned on that for President twice. I believed it when I was the
    Governor of Texas. I understand this issue very well. I also understand
    the frustrations of many citizens in that they believe the government
    hasn't done its job of stopping illegal migrants from coming into the
    country.
        And that's why over the past couple of years there's been a
    significant effort to secure the border. There's going to be a doubling
    of the Border Patrol agents; there's going to be fencing and berms and
    different types of equipment to help the Border Patrol do its job in a
    better way. As a matter of fact, I was concerned about it enough to ask
    the National Guard to go down there for a while.

    [[Page 624]]

        And--but, John, I don't see--and so those concerns, by the way, are
    addressed in this bill. The bill essentially says that before any other
    reforms take place, certain benchmarks will be met when it comes to
    securing the border. Last year, during the debate, people said, well,
    let's have security first. That's exactly what the bill does.
        However, I don't see how you can have the border security the
    American people expect unless you have a temporary-worker program, with
    a verifiable work card. People will come here to do work to feed their
    families, and they'll figure out ways to do so. As a result of people
    wanting to come here to do work to feed their families, there is an
    underground industry that has sprung up that I think is essentially
    antihumanitarian. It is an industry based upon coyotes; those are
    smugglers. Good, hard-working, decent people pay pretty-good-size money
    to be smuggled into the United States of America.
        There is a document forgery industry in America. There are people
    who are willing to stuff people inside temporary shelter in order for
    them to evade the law. I don't think this is American. I think the whole
    industry that exploits the human being is not in our Nation's interests.
    And the best way to deal with this problem is to say, if you're going to
    come and do jobs Americans aren't doing, here is a opportunity to do so,
    on a temporary basis. I would much rather have people crossing the
    border with a legitimate card, coming to work on a temporary basis, than
    being stuffed in the back of an 18-wheeler. And I would hope most
    Americans feel that as well.
        Secondly, in order for there to be good employer verification--it's
    against the law to hire somebody who is here illegally, but many times
    small businesses or large are presented with documents, and they don't
    know whether they're real or not. And so therefore, we must have a
    tamper-proof identification card, which is a part of this bill.
        A tough issue, of course, is what do you do with the people already
    here? Anything short of kicking them out, as far as some people are
    concerned, is called amnesty. You can't kick them out. Anybody who
    advocates trying to dig out 12 million people who have been in our
    society for a while is sending a signal to the American people that's
    just not real. It's an impractical solution. Nor do I think they ought
    to be given automatic citizenship; that is amnesty--okay, you're here
    illegally, therefore, you're automatically a citizen.
        And so therefore, we proposed and worked with the Senate to devise a
    plan that said, if you're here already before a certain date, that there
    are certain hurdles you must cross in order to receive what's called a Z
    visa, in order to be able to work here. You've got to go through a
    background check; you've got to pay a fine at some point in time;
    there's a probationary period. And there's a series of steps that people
    have to go through, and then people get at the back of the line--the
    citizenship line--not the beginning of the citizenship line.
        If you're for the bill, I thank you; if you're against it, you can
    find every reason in the world to be against a comprehensive bill. It's
    easy to find something to be against in this bill. All it takes is to
    take one little aspect of it and ignore the comprehensive nature and how
    good it is.
        I knew this was going to be an explosive issue. It's easy to hold up
    somebody who is here and working hard as a political target. I would
    like to get this bill done for a lot of reasons. I'd like to get it done
    because it's the right thing to do. I'd like to get it done because I
    happen to believe the approach that is now being discussed in the Senate
    is an approach that will actually solve the problem. I'd like to get it
    out of politics. I don't think it's good to be, you know, holding people
    up. We've been through immigration debates in this country, and they can
    bring out the worst,

    [[Page 625]]

    sometimes, in people. We're a land of immigrants.
        I was touched yesterday when the kid from
    the Coast Guard Academy--ensign, now ensign--talked about his migrant
    grandfather from Mexico. And here's this guy--this man standing up in
    front of the President of the United States and his class, talking about
    serving America. He wasn't--you know, his grandfather wasn't born here.
    I don't know what job he did; I suspect it was probably manual labor. I
    don't know; I didn't ask him.
        But I do know he spoke with pride. I do
    know he represents the best about what immigration can mean for America.
    You know, welcoming people here who want to work and realize the
    American Dream renews our spirit and soul. It's been the case throughout
    generations. And we have an opportunity to put a good law in place now;
    right now. And it's going to be hard work. And sure, politics will get
    involved. But the question is, will Members of Congress rise above
    politics? I will. It's the right thing to have a comprehensive bill.
        And so I'm going to continue to reach out to Members of Congress
    from both parties and call upon them to take the lead and show the
    political courage necessary to get the bill to my desk as quickly as
    possible.
        I want to thank you for your interest.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 11:01 a.m. in the Rose
    Garden at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to President
    Vladimir V. Putin of Russia; President Hu Jintao and Vice Premier Wu Yi
    of China; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-
    National Force--Iraq; Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates; James A.
    Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, cochairs, Iraq Study Group; and Usama bin
    Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization. Reporters referred
    to former Department of Justice official Monica M. Goodling; former
    Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey; former Attorney General John
    Ashcroft; and Ens. Marc A. Mares, USCG.