[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.