Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)

[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
[February 14, 2007]
[Pages 129-144]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

The President's News Conference
February 14, 2007

The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Thanks for coming in
on an icy day. I have just finished a conversation with General David
Petraeus. He gave me his first briefing
from Iraq. He talked about the Baghdad security plan. It's the plan that
I described to the Nation last January, and it's a plan that's beginning
to take shape. General Petraeus and General Odierno talked about how the fact that the Iraqi Government is
following through on its commitment to deploy three additional army
brigades, Iraqi Army brigades in the capital. We talked about where
those troops are being deployed, the position of U.S. troops with them,
as well as the ``embeds'' with the Iraqi troops. And we talked about the
plan.
He also talked about the new Iraqi commander. The commander who Prime Minister Maliki picked to operate the Baghdad security plan is in place.
They're setting up a headquarters, and they're in the process of being
in a position to be able to

[[Page 130]]

coordinate all forces. In other words, there's still some work to be
done there to get the command and control center up and running in
Baghdad.
We talked about the fact that our coalition troops that are heading
into Baghdad will be arriving on time. In other words, I'm paying
attention to the schedule of troop deployments to make sure that they're
there, so that General Petraeus will have
the troops to do the job--the number of troops to do the job that we've
asked him to do.
We talked about the coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces.
And I would characterize their assessment as--the coordination is good.
In other words, there's good conversation, constant conversation between
the commanders of our troops and their troops, and that's a positive
development.
The operation to secure Baghdad is going to take time, and there
will be violence. As we saw on our TV screens, the terrorists will send
car bombs into crowded markets. In other words, these are people that
will kill innocent men, women, and children to achieve their objective,
which is to discourage the Iraqi people, to foment sectarian violence,
and to frankly discourage us from helping this Government do its job.
Yesterday there was a suicide bomber. In other words, there's an
active strategy to undermine the Maliki
Government and its Baghdad security plan. And our generals understand
that; they know that they're all aimed at frankly causing people here in
America to say it's not worth it. And I can understand why people are
concerned when they turn on the TV screens and see this violence. It's
disturbing to people, and it's disturbing to the Iraqi people. But it
reminds me of how important it is for us to help them succeed. If you
think the violence is bad now, imagine what it would look like if we
don't help them secure the city--the capital city of Baghdad.
I fully recognize we're not going to be able to stop all suicide
bombers; I know that. But we can help secure that capital, help the
Iraqis secure that capital so that people have a sense of normalcy, in
other words, that they're able to get a better sense that this
Government of theirs will provide security. People want to live in
peace; they want to grow up in a peaceful environment. And the decision
I made is going to help the Iraqi Government do that.
When General Petraeus's nomination was
considered 3 weeks ago, the United States Senate voted unanimously to
confirm him, and I appreciated that vote by the Senators. And now
Members of the House of Representatives are debating a resolution that
would express disapproval of the plan that General Petraeus is carrying
out. You know, in recent months, I've discussed our strategy in Iraq
with Members of Congress from both political parties. Many have told me
that they're dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. I told them I was
dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. And that's why I ordered a
comprehensive review of our strategy.
I've listened to a lot of voices; people in my administration heard
a lot of voices. We weighed every option, and I concluded that to step
back from the fight in Baghdad would have disastrous consequences for
people in America. That's the conclusion I came to; it's the conclusion
members of my staff came to; it's the conclusion that a lot in the
military came to.
And the reason why I say ``disastrous consequences,'' the Iraqi
Government could collapse; chaos would spread; there would be a vacuum;
into the vacuum would flow more extremists, more radicals, people who
have stated intent to hurt our people. I believe that success in Baghdad
will have success in helping us secure the homeland.
What's different about this conflict than some others is that if we
fail there, the enemy will follow us here. I firmly believe that. And
that's one of the main reasons why I made the decision I made. And so

[[Page 131]]

we will help this Iraqi Government succeed.
And the first step for success is to do something about the
sectarian violence in Baghdad so they can have breathing space in order
to do the political work necessary to assure the different factions in
Baghdad--factions that are recovering from years of tyranny--that there
is a hopeful future for them and their families. I would call that
political breathing space. And by providing this political breathing
space--in other words, giving the Maliki
Government a chance to reconcile and do the work necessary to achieve
reconciliation--it'll hasten the day in which we can change our force
posture in Iraq.
A successful strategy obviously--a successful security strategy in
Baghdad requires more than just military action. I mean, people have to
see tangible results in their lives. I mean, they have to see something
better. They not only have to feel secure where they live, but they've
got to see positive things taking place.
The other day, the Iraqi Government passed a $41 billion budget, 10
billion of which is for reconstruction and capital investment. There's a
lot of talk in Washington about benchmarks. I agree, ``benchmarks''
meaning that the Iraqi Government said they're going to do this, for
example, have an oil law as a benchmark. But one of the benchmarks they
laid out, besides committing troops to the Iraqi security plan, was that
they'll pass a budget in which there's $10 billion of their own money
available for reconstruction and help. And they met the benchmark, and
now, obviously, it's important they spend the money wisely.
They're in the process of finalizing a law that will allow for the
sharing of all revenues among Iraq's peoples. In my talks with Members
of Congress, some have agreed with what I'm doing; many who didn't--they
all, though, believe it's important for the Iraqi Government to set
benchmarks and achieve those benchmarks. And one benchmark we've all
discussed was, making it clear to the Iraqi people that they have a
stake in the future of their country by having a stake in the oil
revenues. And so the Government is in the process of getting an oil
revenue law that will help unify the country.
The Iraqi Government is making progress on reforms that will allow
more of its citizens to reenter political life. Obviously, I'm paying
close attention to whether or not the Government is meeting these
benchmarks, and will continue to remind Prime Minister Maliki that he must do so.
We've given our civilians and commanders greater flexibility to fund
our economic assistance money. Part of the strategy in Baghdad is to
clear and then to hold and then to build. We've been pretty good about
clearing in the past; we haven't been good about holding, ``we'' being
the Iraqis and coalition forces. So we spent time today talking to
General Petraeus about the need--his need
and his understanding of the need to hold neighborhoods so that the
people themselves in the capital city feel more secure.
But also part of the strategy is to make sure that we build. And so
we're giving our commanders flexibility with reconstruction money that
they have at their disposal. We're also sending more PRTs, Provincial
Reconstruction Teams, into Iraq. We're trying to speed up their arrival
into Iraq so that the Iraqi people see tangible benefits from the
Government that they elected under one of the most progressive
Constitutions in the Middle East.
Later this week, the House of Representatives will vote on a
resolution that opposes our new plan in Iraq, before it has a chance to
work. People are prejudging the outcome of this. They have every right
to express their opinion, and it is a nonbinding resolution. Soon
Congress is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation that is
binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops. Our troops
are counting on their elected leaders in Washington,

[[Page 132]]

DC, to provide them with the support they need to do their mission. We
have a responsibility, all of us here in Washington, to make sure that
our men and women in uniform have the resources and the flexibility they
need to prevail.
Before I'm going to take some questions, I'd like to comment about
one other diplomatic development, and that took place in the Far East.
At the six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea agreed to specific
actions that will bring us closer to a Korea Peninsula that is free of
nuclear weapons. Specifically, North Korea agreed that within 60 days,
it will shut down and seal all operations at the primary nuclear
facilities it has used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. It has agreed
to allow international inspectors to verify and monitor this progress.
It is committed to disclosing all of its nuclear programs as an initial
step toward abandoning these programs.
In exchange, five other parties at the table--that would be China,
Russia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States--have got commitments.
We will meet those commitments as this agreement is honored. Those
commitments include economic, humanitarian, and energy assistance to the
people of North Korea.
This is a unique deal. First of all, unlike any other agreement, it
brings together all of North Korea's neighbors in the region as well as
the United States. The agreement is backed by a United Nations Security
Council resolution. That resolution came about--the sanctions came about
as a result of the resolution because of a unanimous vote on the
Security Council.
This is good progress. It is a good first step. There's a lot of
work to be done to make sure that the commitments made in this agreement
become a reality, but I believe it's an important step in the right
direction.
And with that, I'll be glad to take your questions, starting with
you, Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Russia-U.S. Relations

Q. Mr. President, on Russia, is the Vladimir Putin who said, ``The
United States is undermining global security and provoking a new arms
race,'' the same Vladimir Putin whose soul you looked into and found to
be trustworthy? Has he changed? Are U.S.-Russian relations
deteriorating?
The President. I think the person who I was referring to in 2001 is
the same strong-willed person. He is a person
with whom I have had agreements and disagreements throughout the course
of my Presidency and his. We've disagreed on the utility of NATO. I've
tried to convince Vladimir that NATO is positive; it's a positive
influence; that democracies on your border are good things to have.
Democracies tend not to fight each other. And I firmly believe NATO is a
stabilizing influence for the good, and that helps Russia. Evidently, he
disagrees with that assessment; part of his speech was expressing
concerns about NATO.
There's a lot we can work together on, and that's what's important
for American people to understand. We know that we've got common goals
that make sense for both our peoples. Two such goals are Iran,
convincing the Iranians to get rid of its nuclear weapons. And Russia's
leadership on this issue is very important to getting a Chapter VII
resolution out of the United Nations. And by the way, they were
constructive, in terms of the resolution I just described about North
Korea. In other words, where we have common interests and we work
together on those common interests, we can accomplish important things
for the security of our own people as well as the security of the world.
And secondly, Russia and the United States work very closely on
proliferation concerns. We're both concerned about the proliferation of
technologies that could end up hurting our people and other people in
the world.

[[Page 133]]

And so there's--it's a complicated relationship. It's a relationship
in which there are disagreements, but there's also a relationship in
which we can find common ground to solve problems. And that's the spirit
I'll continue to work with Vladimir Putin on.
Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

Iran/War in Iraq

Q. Thank you, sir. General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq
do not by themselves implicate Iran. What makes you so certain that the
highest levels of Tehran's Government is responsible?
The President. Yes----
Q. And how can you retaliate against Iran without risking a war?
The President. What we do know is that the Qods Force was
instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq;
we know that. And we also know that the Qods Force is a part of the
Iranian Government; that's a known. What we don't know is whether or not
the head leaders of Iran ordered the Qods Force to do what they did.
But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what
matters is, is that they're there. What's worse: that the Government
knew or that the Government didn't know? But the point I made in my
initial speech in the White House about Iraq was, is that we know
they're there, and we're going to protect our troops. When we find the
networks that are enabling these weapons to end up in Iraq, we will deal
with them. If we find agents who are moving these devices into Iraq, we
will deal with them. I have put out the command to our troops--I mean,
to the people who are commanders that we'll protect the people--the
soldiers of the United States and innocent people in Iraq and will
continue doing so.
Now, let me step back on Iran itself. We have a comprehensive
strategy to deal with Iraq [Iran].* There's a variety of issues that we
have with Iraq [Iran].* One, of course, is influence inside of Iraq.
Another is whether or not they end up with a nuclear weapon. And I
believe an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous for world
peace, and have worked with other nations of like mind. And it turns
out, there's a lot of countries in the world that agree with that
assessment. After all, we did get a Chapter VII resolution out of the
United Nations that included EU-3 as well as Russia and China. That's a
positive development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*White House correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The message to the Iranian people is, is that your leaders are
making decisions that are isolating you in the world, thereby denying
you a brighter future. And I believe Iran is a unbelievably vital
nation. It's got a great history; it's got wonderful traditions; it's
got very capable, smart people. There is--I believe there's also a
desire to not be isolated from the world. And our policies are all aimed
at convincing the Iranian people there's a better way forward, and I
hope their Government hears that message.
Yes, anyway, that's a long answer to a short question, and now
you're trying to get to me to another one, aren't you? Gregory [David
Gregory, NBC News].
Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
The President. Excuse me, David--David.
Q. Thank you, sir. I'd like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you
are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to
make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to
be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against
Iran. Is that the case?
The President. I can say with certainty that the Qods Force, a part
of the Iranian Government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that
have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat: I do not know

[[Page 134]]

whether or not the Qods Force was ordered from the top echelons of
Government. But my point is, what's worse: them ordering it and it
happening or them not ordering it and it's happening? And so we will
continue to protect our troops.
David, our strategy is comprehensive in order to resolve problems
that will affect our own peace and the peace in the world. And the
biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon.
And as you know, we've been dealing with this issue ever since you've
been covering me and pretty much ever since I've been the President. And
we've made it very clear to the Iranians that if they would like to have
a dialog with the United States, there needs to be a verifiable
suspension of their program. I would hope that they would do that. I
would like to be at the--have been given a chance for us to explain that
we have no desire to harm the Iranian people.
But my focus is on making sure that this weapon is dealt with--the
program is dealt with in a constructive, peaceful way. And we'll
continue to work toward achieving our common objectives with other
nations in the world in a peaceful way.
Sheryl [Sheryl Stolberg, New York Times].
Q. ----using faulty intelligence to provoke Iran?
The President. Well, no, I heard your question. And I told you, I
was confident that the Qods Force, a part of the Iranian Government, was
providing weaponry into Iraq. And to say it is provoking Iran is just a
wrong way to characterize the Commander in Chief's decision to do what
is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue
to do so.
Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News].

Six-Party Talks

Q. Mr. President, on the North Korea deal, the former U.N.
Ambassador, John Bolton, yesterday said, quote: ``It's a bad,
disappointing deal, and the best thing you can say about it is that it
will probably fall apart.'' This is from a man you repeatedly praised
for his judgment and leadership at the United Nations. His main
criticism is that the financial pressure led North Korea back to the
table, and now it's being released. How do you respond to that?
The President. I strongly disagree, strongly disagree with his
assessment. I have told the American people, like the Iranian issue, I
wanted to solve the North Korean issue peacefully, and that the
President has an obligation to try all diplomatic means necessary to do
so. I changed the dynamic on the North Korean issue by convincing other
people to be at the table with us, on the theory that the best diplomacy
is diplomacy in which there is more than one voice--that has got an
equity in the issue--speaking.
And so we had a breakthrough as a result of other voices than the
United States saying to the North Koreans: ``We don't support your
nuclear weapons program, and we urge you to get rid of it in a
verifiable way.'' Perhaps the most significant voice that had been added
to the table was China. But the South Korean voice was vital, as was the
Japanese and Russian voices as well. So the assessment made by some that
this is not a good deal is just flat wrong.
Now, those who say the North Koreans have got to prove themselves by
actually following through in the deal are right--and I'm one. This is a
good first step. It will be a great deal for the North Korean people if
their Government follows through with the agreement, which, by the way,
started in September of 2005. The agreement that we announced the other
day was a continuation of the initial agreement in September of 2005.
And for those who say that, well, this is an interesting moment, and now
it's up to the North Koreans to do that which they say they will do, I
couldn't agree more with you.
And the first phase is to shut down and seal their facility, their
main weapons manufacturing facility, and then disclose their

[[Page 135]]

programs. And for that, they'll receive some help from the South
Koreans, the equivalent of 50,000 tons of fuel.
And the second phase is to disable and abandon their facilities. In
other words, this is a phased approach that will enable all of us to say
to our respective populations, we're watching carefully and that there's
a opportunity for the North Koreans to prove that this program can work.
If they do the second phase, there is a--there will be about the
equivalent of a million tons--minus the 50,000 tons--available of food,
economic assistance, and fuel. I am particularly interested in helping
get food to the North Korean people. Now, that's not going to happen
until there's some verifiable measures that have been taken.
The financial measures that you're speaking about are really a
separate item, because it has everything to do with--it's a banking
issue that our Treasury Department is analyzing to determine whether or
not funds were illicitly moved through the bank.
Let's see, yes, sir.

Iran/War in Iraq

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more
time. You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the
Iranian Government are, in fact, behind these explosives--that
contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the
highest levels of the Iranian Government were behind this. It also--it
seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts
with what your own Press Secretary said yesterday.
The President. Can I--let me explain it to you, Ed [Ed Henry, Cable
News Network], I can't say it more plainly: There are weapons in Iraq
that are harming U.S. troops because of the Qods Force. And as you know,
I hope, that the Qods Force is a part of the Iranian Government. Whether
Ahmadi-nejad ordered the Qods Force to
do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I
intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do
something about it. And we're going to protect our troops.
Q. But given some of those contradictions, Mr. President----
The President. There's no contradiction that the weapons are there
and they were provided by the Qods Force, Ed.
Q. What assurances can you give the American people that the
intelligence this time will be accurate?
The President. Ed, we know they're there; we know they're provided
by the Qods Force; we know the Qods Force is a part of the Iranian
Government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to
the Qods Force, ``Go do this,'' but we know it's a vital part of the
Iranian Government.
What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow
we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is
preposterous, Ed. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find
devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're
going to do something about it, pure and simple.
Now David says: ``Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for
war?'' No, it means I'm trying to protect our troops; that's what that
means. And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the
Commander in Chief and those responsible for our troops on the ground.
And we'll continue do so.
Yes, ma'am. You're not a ``ma'am.'' Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC
News].

Situation in Iraq

Q. Mr. President, do you agree with the National Intelligence
Estimate that we are now in a civil war in Iraq? And also, you talk
about victory, that you have to have victory in Iraq; it would be
catastrophic if we didn't. You said again today that the enemy would
come here, and yet you say

[[Page 136]]

it's not an open-ended commitment. How do you square those things?
The President. You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like
victory in World War II. And it's one of the challenges I have, to
explain to the American people what Iraq will look like in a situation
that will enable us to say, we have accomplished our mission.
First, the--Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace.
I say ``relative peace'' because if it's, like, zero car bombings, it
never will happen that way. It's like--I mean, the fundamental question
is, can we help this Government have the security force level necessary
to make sure that the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in certain
neighborhoods has stopped?
Look, there's criminality in Iraq as well as the ethnic violence.
And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with
criminals. There is an Al Qaida presence in Iraq, as you know. I believe
some of the spectacular bombings have been caused by Al Qaida. As a
matter of fact, Zarqawi--the terrorist Zarqawi, who is not an Iraqi--
made it very clear that he intended to use violence to spur sectarian--
car bombings and spectacular violence--to spur sectarian violence. And
he did a good job of it.
And so there--and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who
believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the
Shi'a are the majority of the country. And they're willing to use
violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.
The reason I described that is that no matter what you call it, it's
a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq.
We've got people who say ``civil war''; we've got people on the ground
who don't believe it's a civil war. But nevertheless, it is--it was
dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it, so
that a government that is bound by a constitution, where the country
feels relatively secure as a result of a security force that is
evenhanded in its application of security; a place where the vast
resources of the country--this is a relatively wealthy country, in that
they've got a lot of hydrocarbons--is shared equally amongst people;
that there is a federalism that evolves under the Constitution, where
the local Provinces have got authority as well; and where people who may
have made a political decision in the past and yet weren't criminals can
participate in the life of the country; and is an ally in the war on
terror--in other words, that there is a bulwark for moderation as
opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as
successful.
Q. Do you believe it's a civil war, sir?
The President. I can only tell you what people on the ground, whose
judgment--it's hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to
give you an assessment--firsthand assessment. I haven't been there. You
have; I haven't. But I do talk to people who are and people whose
judgment I trust, and they would not qualify it as that. There are
others who think it is. It is, however, a dangerous situation, thereby
requiring action on my part.
Listen, I considered several options: One, doing nothing--and that
if you don't believe the situation was acceptable, then you should do
something. And I didn't believe the situation was acceptable.
Secondly, I could have listened to the advice of some and pulled
back and hoped for the best. I felt that would be extraordinarily
dangerous for this young democracy, that the violence in Baghdad could
escalate mightily and then spill out across the country, creating chaos,
vacuums into which extremism would flow. Or make the decision I made,
which is to reinforce the troops that were on the ground, to help this
Iraqi Government and security force do what they're supposed to do.
Sir, you dropped?
Q. Bad hands. [Laughter]
The President. Yes.

[[Page 137]]

Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
The President. Modern guy, you know--you got the Blackberry and
everything there.

Military Families/U.S. Armed Forces

Q. I'd like to ask you about troop morale.
The President. Yes.
Q. As you know, a growing number of troops are on their second,
third, or fourth tour in Iraq. There have been a growing number of
reports about declining morale among fighting men. I spoke personally to
an infantry commander--tough guy, patriot--who says more and more of the
troops are asking, questioning what they're doing here. Does this come
as a surprise to you? Are you aware of this? Is it a minority opinion?
Is it a growing opinion? And does it concern you?
The President. I am--what I hear from commanders is that the place
where there is concern is with the family members, that our troops, who
have volunteered to serve the country, are willing to go into combat
multiple times, but that the concern is with the people on the
homefront. And I can understand that. And I--and that's one reason I go
out of my way to constantly thank the family members. You know, I'm
asking--you're obviously talking to certain people--or a person. I'm
talking to our commanders. Their job is to tell me what--the situation
on the ground. And I have--I know there's concern about the homefront. I
haven't heard deep concern about the morale of the troops in Iraq.
Q. Would a commander tell you that? Would he--[inaudible]--because
you're the President of the United States?
The President. Yes, they'd tell me that. Sure, absolutely. Just like
they told me that they thought they needed extra troops to do the job.
Sure.
Listen, I want our troops out of there as quickly as possible. But I
also want to make sure that we get the job done, and I made the decision
I made in order to do so.
Jim [Jim Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times].

Iran/Diplomacy

Q. You spoke positively about the role of diplomacy in North Korea,
and you obviously gave it a long time to work. Where does diplomacy fit
in, in terms of Iran, and do we have any leverage if we try diplomacy
there?
The President. Well, I guess you could call getting the EU-3, China,
and Russia on the same page on a Chapter VII resolution successful
diplomacy. I thought that was diplomacy. And it took a long time to get
there. I mean, we're working hard to send a concerted message to the
Iranians, a focused, unified message that the world believes you should
not have a nuclear program. And so this is a multilateral approach to
try to get the Government to alter its course on a nuclear weapons
program.
I can't think of any more robust diplomacy than to have more than
one party at the table talking to the Iranians. And we did so through
the United Nations at this case. If they want us at the table, we're
more than willing to come, but there must be a verifiable suspension of
this weapons program that is causing such grave concern.
We'll continue to work with other nations. Matter of fact, I believe
that it is easier for the United States to achieve certain diplomatic
objectives when we work with other nations, which is precisely why we
adopted the strategy we did in dealing with the Iranians.
Sheryl.

U.S. Congress/Iraq

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it seems pretty clear
where this Iraq vote in the House is headed. Your Press Secretary has
said repeatedly that Members of Congress ought to watch what they say
and be concerned about the message that

[[Page 138]]

they're sending to our enemy. I'm wondering, do you believe that a vote
of disapproval of your policy emboldens the enemy? Does it undermine
your ability to carry out your policies there? And also, what are you
doing to persuade the Democratic leadership in Congress not to restrict
your ability to spend money in Iraq?
The President. Yes, thanks. A couple of points: One, that I
understand the Congress is going to express their opinion, and it's very
clear where the Democrats are, and some Republicans; I know that. They
didn't like the decision I made. And by the way, that doesn't mean that
I think that they're not good, honorable citizens of the country--just
have a different opinion. I considered some of their opinions and felt
like it would not lead to a country that could govern itself, sustain
itself, and be an ally in the war on terror--one.
Secondly, my hope, however, is that this nonbinding resolution
doesn't try to turn into a binding policy that prevents our troops from
doing that which I have asked them to do. That's why I keep reminding
people, on the one hand, you vote for David Petraeus in a unanimous way, and then the other hand, you say that
you're not going to fund the strategy that he thought was necessary to
do his job, a strategy he testified to in front of the Senate. I'm going
to make it very clear to the Members of Congress, starting now, that
they need to fund our troops, and they need to make sure we have the
flexibility necessary to get the job done.
Secondly, I find it interesting that there is a declaration about a
plan that they have not given a chance to work. Again, I understand; I
understand. The other part of your question?
Q. It emboldens the enemy----
The President. Oh, yes. The only thing I can tell you is that when I
speak, I'm very conscious about the audiences that are listening to my
words. The first audience obviously is the American people. My second
audience would be the troops and their families. That's why I appreciate
the question about whether or not--about the troop morale; it gave me a
chance to talk to the families and how proud we are of them.
Third, no question, people are watching what happens here in
America. The enemy listens to what's happening; the Iraqi people listen
to the words, the Iranians. People are wondering; they're wondering
about our commitment to this cause. And one reason they wonder is that
in a violent society, the people sometimes don't take risks for peace if
they're worried about having to choose between different sides,
different violent factions. As to whether or not this particular
resolution is going to impact enemy thought, I can't tell you that. But
I can tell you that people are watching the debate.
I do believe that the decision I made surprised people in the Middle
East. And I think it's going to be very important, however, that the
Iraqi Government understand that this decision was not an open-ended
commitment, that we expect Prime Minister Maliki to continue to make the hard decisions he's making.
Unlike some here, I'm a little more tolerant of a person who has been only in government for 7 months and
hasn't had a lot of--and by the way, a Government that hasn't had a lot
of experience with democracy. And on the other hand, it's important for
him to know, and I believe he does know, that the American people want
to see some action and some positive results. And listen, I share that
same desire.
The faster that the Maliki Government
steps up security in Baghdad, the more quickly we can get to what Baker-
Hamilton recommended, and that is embedding and training over the rise
in presence, protection of the territorial integrity of Iraq, and a
strong hunt for Al Qaida and terrorists who would try to use that
country as safe haven. I thought the Baker-Hamilton made a lot of sense,
their recommendations. We just weren't able to get there if the capital

[[Page 139]]

was up in flames. And that's why I made the decision I made.
Yes, Peter [Peter Baker, Washington Post].

CIA Employee Identity Leak Investigation

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, we've now learned through sworn
testimony that at least three members of your administration, other than
Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media. None of
these three is known to be under investigation. Without commenting on
the Libby trial, then, can you tell us whether you authorized any of
these three to do that----
The President. Not going to talk about it.
Q. ----or were they authorized without your permission?
The President. Yes, thanks, Pete. I'm not going to talk about any of
it. Thank you.
Q. They're not under investigation, though, sir?
The President. Peter, I'm not going to talk about any of it.
Q. How about pardons, sir? Many people are asking whether you might
pardon somebody----
The President. Not going to talk about it, Peter. [Laughter] Would
you like to think of another question? Being the kind man that I am, I
will recycle you. [Laughter]
John [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].

Economic Sanctions/Iran

Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
The President. Do you like that one--``recycling'' him? [Laughter]
Q. That took care of one of my questions as well, sir, but----
The President. If that's the case, sit down. Next question.
[Laughter]
Q. A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran, so
I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the
financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic
pain for a lot of our allies?
The President. Yes. It's an interesting question. One of the
problems--not specifically on this issue, just in general--that--let's
put it this way: Money trumps peace, sometimes. In other words,
commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world.
And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a
specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest
that they forgo their own financial interest.
And, John, that's why sometimes it's tough to get tough economic
sanctions on countries. And I'm not making any comment about any
particular country, but you touched on a very interesting point.
And so therefore, we're constantly working with nations to convince
them that what really matters in the long run is to have the environment
so peace can flourish. In the Iranian case, I firmly believe that if
they were to have a weapon, it would make it difficult for peace to
flourish. And therefore, I'm working with people to make sure that that
concern trumps whatever commercial interests may be preventing
governments from acting. I make no specific accusation with that
statement. It's a broad statement. But it's an accurate assessment of
what sometimes can halt multilateral diplomacy from working.
Let's see here. Ann [Ann Compton, ABC Radio].

Iraq/2008 Presidential Election

Q. Thank you. Iraq is not only being debated in Congress, but it's
going to be debated in the Presidential election that's coming ahead. Is
that debate--is there a chance that that is going to hurt your progress
in Iraq? And is it appropriate, at some point, perhaps, for the
Government to brief the Presidential candidates so they have a better
understanding of what it is you're trying to do?
The President. Thank you for that question. I thought for a minute
you were going

[[Page 140]]

to try to get me to comment on the Presidential race. And I'd just like
to establish some ground rules here with those of you who are stuck
following me for the next little less than 2 years: I will resist all
temptation to become the pundit in chief and commenting upon every twist
and turn of the Presidential campaign. As much as I like politics and am
intrigued by the race--it's very similar to how I deftly handled Baker's
question--I won't comment.
Secondly, I remember a Member of Congress came to me before one of
my speeches--I think it was the Iraq speech as opposed to the State of
the Union speech--and said, ``You'd better be eloquent in order to
convince the American people to support this plan.'' He didn't say
``articulate''; he said ``eloquent.'' [Laughter] And my point to the
person was, what really matters is what happens on the ground. I can
talk all day long. But what really matters to the American people is to
see progress--which leads to your point, Martha, and that is, progress
can best be measured by whether or not the people can see noticeable
changes of security inside the capital city. In this case, the Baghdad
security plan has got to yield peace in certain mixed neighborhoods, for
example.
And so therefore, to the extent that it affects votes, speeches,
perceptions, elections, what really is going to matter is what happens,
ultimately. And that's all I really care to comment about it. You know,
it's----
Q. Do you think you could win reelection----
The President. I'm not running. [Laughter] And I know that's going
to disappoint some of you. But, anyway, that's pundit in chief-type
questions, so I'm not going to answer those. Pundit in chief--trying to
get me to be pundit in chief. No.
Let's see here. Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, McClatchy].

Support for Troops in Iraq

Q. Morning.
The President. Yes, thanks.
Q. I think I'd like to follow on Sheryl's question about undermining
the troops.
The President. Yes.
Q. Do you have to support the war to support the warrior? I mean, if
you're one of those Americans that thinks you've made a terrible
mistake, that it's destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak
out, are they by definition undermining the troops?
The President. No, she actually asked ``the enemy,'' not ``the
troops.'' But I'll be glad to answer your question. No, I don't think so
at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops;
absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the
money necessary to do the mission.
I said early in my comment--my answer to Sheryl was that somebody
who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am.
And your question is valid. I mean, can somebody say: ``We disagree with
your tactics or strategy, but we support the military''--absolutely,
Ron, sure. But what's going to be interesting is if they don't provide
the flexibility and support for our troops that are there to enforce the
strategy that David Petraeus, the general
on the ground, thinks is necessary to accomplish the mission.
Michael [Michael Allen, Politico]. Michael, who do you work for?
[Laughter]

Bipartisanship in Congress/Legislative Agenda

Q. Mr. President, I work for politico.com.
The President. Pardon me? Politico.com?
Q. Yes, sir. Today. [Laughter]
The President. Do you want a moment to explain to the American
people exactly what--[laughter].
Q. Mr. President, thank you for the question. [Laughter]
The President. Quit being so evasive. [Laughter]
Q. You should read it.

[[Page 141]]

The President. Is it good? You like it?
Q. David Gregory endorsed----
The President. David Gregory likes it. I can see the making of a
testimonial. [Laughter] Anyway, go ahead, please.
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke hopefully about your ability
to work with Democrats, their willingness to work with you in this new
world. I wonder how that's going so far, what you've learned about how
they think, and does the current debate constitute grounds for divorce?
The President. Interesting way to put it. First of all, I think
they're patriotic people who care about our country--back to Hutch's
penetrating comment--or question. I do. I was very appreciative of the
reception I got at the State of the Union. It was a cordial, respectful
reception that gave me a chance to talk about what I believe. I was also
very grateful for the reception I received at the Democratic retreat
that I went to there in Virginia.
You know, my impression of the meeting there was that we share a lot
in common. We're people that actually put filing papers down and ran for
office; we're willing to put our families through the grind of politics;
we wanted to serve our country, that we care deeply about what takes
place in Washington, America, and the world.
My hope is, is that we can get positive pieces of legislation
passed, because I think there's a lot of expectation that the difference
of opinion on Iraq would make it impossible for us to work on other
areas. I disagree with that assessment. And I hope I'm right, and the
best way to determine whether I'm right is, will I be able to sign
legislation that we have been able to work on?
One such piece of policy is a balanced budget. There seems to be
agreement that we should have a balanced budget. I laid out one way
forward to achieve that balance, and it shows that we can balance the
budget without raising taxes and do so in a 5-year horizon. And I would
like to work with the Democrat leadership as well as obviously my
Republican folks, to get it done.
Secondly, an interesting opportunity is immigration. As you know, I
strongly believe that we need to enforce our borders and that--and have
taken steps to do so. But I also believe that in order to enforce the
borders, we need a temporary-worker program so that people don't try to
sneak in the country to work, that they can come in an orderly fashion,
and take the pressure off the Border Patrol agents that we've got out
there, so that the Border Patrol agents don't focus on workers that are
doing jobs Americans aren't doing but are focusing on terrorists and
criminal elements, gun runners, to keep the country--both our countries
safe--Mexico and the United States safe.
I also know that we need to deal with the people who are here--the
12 million people who are here illegally. I have said multiple times
that we can't kick them out of our country. It doesn't make any sense to
me to try to do that, and I don't think--maybe some feel that way, but I
don't feel that way. But I also don't believe we should give them
automatic amnesty--automatic citizenship, which I view as amnesty. And
we look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to have a
comprehensive immigration plan.
Energy is an opportunity for us to work together. We've done a lot
of work in the past on promoting alternative sources of energy. America
has done more than any nation in the world in promoting alternatives and
renewables, all aiming to make sure our economy grows, that we have
energy independence, and that we're good stewards of the environment.
And I look forward to working with the Democrats on the energy
independence initiative I laid out.
One such initiative was the mandatory fuel standards that relies
upon alternative fuel to power automobiles. Ethanol is the first and
most notable place where we can start, but we also need to spend monies

[[Page 142]]

to develop technologies that will enable us to make energy out of
products other than corn, switchgrass or wood chips, for example.
The problem with relying only on corn is that--by the way, when your
demand for corn stays high, the price tends to go up, and your hog
farmer gets disgruntled with the alternative energy plan. And therefore,
what's going to matter is that new technologies come on line as quickly
as possible to take the pressure off of corn ethanol--or corn, as a
result of being used in ethanol, and we can work with Congress to do
that. That's an area we can work.
Health care: I got a letter the other day from a group of Republican
and Democrat Senators talking about the desire to work on health care.
And they liked some of my ideas. But my only point is, is that there's
an opportunity for us to work together to help the uninsured have
private insurance so they can be--so they can get good health care. And
there's an opportunity to work together there.
The Governors are coming into town soon. And I'm going to have
Secretary Leavitt describe to them the
affordable grants program that is a part of our comprehensive approach,
including rewriting the Tax Code.
Finally, No Child Left Behind needs to be reauthorized. I fully
understand that if you read your newspaper articles--which I do,
sometimes--and listen carefully, you'll hear voices in both parties
saying they don't like No Child Left Behind--it's too much testing, or
we don't want to be held to account, or whatever they say. The bill is
working. It makes a lot of sense.
There's an income gap in America that I talked about when I went to
Wall Street. And what's clear to me is that our kids have got to have
education so that in this global economy, the jobs of the 21st century
stay here at home. And it starts with good education. And therefore, I
will argue vociferously that No Child Left Behind Act needs to be
reauthorized--it's working; it's an important piece of legislation--and
will reach out to Democrat Members, as well as Republican Members, to
get this bill reauthorized.
And so there's a lot of areas, Mike. I'd say it's a little early in
the process. This is a 2-year term. We've got time to work together to
get important pieces of legislation done. And I like the start. As a
matter of fact, this afternoon I've got members of both parties, both
Chambers coming down to visit about how we can continue to work together
to get some legislation done.
As I told the Democrats, and as the Democrats have made clear to me
in my visits, that neither of us are going to abandon our principles,
that I don't expect them to change their principles, and they shouldn't
expect me to. But there's ways for us to work together to achieve
legislative successes for the common good. That's what the American
people want to see, and that's what I believe we can do. Is it going to
take work? Yes, it's going to take work, but it's okay. That's why you
pay us all this money.
Richard [Richard Wolffe, Newsweek].

Iran

Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
The President. Last question, then I've got to go have lunch with
Bob Gates, Secretary of the Defense.
What are you looking at there? Checking the time? For the viewer out
there--you're getting a big--timekeeper and everything. [Laughter]
Q. I don't mean to interrupt. [Laughter]
The President. I just thought he was looking at the watch because he
was getting bored. I wasn't sure, you know?
Q. I'm never bored.
The President. Remember the debates?
Q. Yes.
The President. Yes. [Laughter]
Q. Mr. President, Republican and Democratic Presidents before you
sat down for face-to-face talks with the Soviet Union, a

[[Page 143]]

nation that was clearly hostile, tyrannical, and had a huge nuclear
arsenal. Why do you think that face-to-face talks between yourself and
the leadership of Iran would be any more compromising for you?
The President. Richard, if I thought we could achieve success, I
would sit down, but I don't think we can achieve success right now. And
therefore, we'll want to work with other nations. I think that we're
more likely to achieve our goals when others are involved as well. I
really don't want to put the situation--listen, let me put it this way:
I want to make sure that in the Iranian issue that the whole world stays
engaged, because I believe that's a more effective way of convincing the
Iranians that--to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. That's why.
Look, I know this is a world in which--and I'm not suggesting you're
this way--but this is a world in which people say, ``Meet, sit down and
meet.'' And my answer is: ``If it yields results, that's what I'm
interested in.'' And so I believe the strategy that--and by the way, I
remember this during the North Korean issue, debate. People kept saying,
``Well, all you've got to do is sit down with the guy.'' And I kept saying, ``Well, I think it's going to be more
effective if we have other people at the table with us saying the same
thing, so that just in case he decides not to honor the agreement, there
will be other people saying the same thing I'll say, which is, `You said
one thing; you did another.' '' It will make it easier for us to send
that message that the world, pretty well united in solving this problem
peacefully.
And so that's why I made the decision I made. It sounds tempting for
somebody to say, ``All you've got to do is sit down with the people.''
I'm in a little different position in that I'm trying to achieve certain
objectives. And we are making progress on the Iranian issue. If you step
back to early on in the process, there was doubt as to whether or not
the world would come together, sometimes because of the reason John
mentioned, in other words, the conflicting interests. And I believe we
are making good progress toward solving this issue peacefully.
And we'll continue to try to solve the issue peacefully. It's an
important issue whether or not Iran ends up with a nuclear weapon. It's
one of these issues that people are going to look back and say: ``You
know, how come they couldn't see the impending danger? What happened to
them?'' You've heard me say that often about what would happen if we
don't--if we were to abandon our efforts in the Middle East for
stability and peace through forms of government that are more likely to
defeat an extremist ideology that would like to be able to prevail.
And it's a--at any rate, that's why I made the decision I made.
Presidents have to weigh different options all the time. Look, I fully
understand there are some who are--don't agree with every decision I
make. I hope the American people understand I make those decisions
because I believe it's going to yield the peace that we all want.
Listen, thank you for your time. Enjoyed it very much.

Note: The President's news conference began at 11:01 a.m. in the East
Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Gen. David H.
Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Lt. Gen.
Raymond T. Odierno, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Corps--Iraq;
Lt. Gen. Abboud Gambar, commander, Iraqi Army; Prime Minister Nuri al-
Maliki of Iraq; President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia; President Mahmud
Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; and Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Reporters
referred to Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff;
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow; and I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby,
former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney.

[[Page 144]]