[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book I)]
[May 2, 2007]
[Pages 517-531]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks to the Associated General Contractors of America and a Question-
and-Answer Session
May 2, 2007

    The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Please be seated. 
Steve, unlike you, I have trouble finding 
the front end of a front-end loader. [Laughter] Thanks for having me. 
I'm proud to be here with the AGC. It's the oldest and largest 
construction trade association in our country. I understand I'm not the 
first Bush to have ever addressed the AGC convention; a person I now 
refer to as ``41'' addressed you. 
[Laughter] And I appreciated your hospitality to him then, and I 
appreciate your hospitality to me today.
    I want to talk about--a little bit about our economy, and I want to 
talk a lot about our security. And I thank you for giving me a chance to 
come by. What I thought I would do is try to keep my remarks relatively 
brief and then maybe give you all some time to ask some questions.
    First, I want to thank Steve. Steve is a 
Virginia Tech grad, and our hearts are still heavy as a result of that 
terrible incident there on the campus. And yet the amazing thing about 
that campus--and a lot of other places around the country--is we've got 
a great resiliency; people bounce back from tragedy. And so, Steve, you 
can tell the Virginia Tech community, we're still thinking about them 
and appreciate very much the great kind of strength of spirit there--at 
least I saw that there in Blacksburg, Virginia.
    I want to thank two Members of the Senate who have joined us. First, 
John Warner, from Virginia. Senator, thank 
you for coming; ranking member of the House military committee he is a--
Armed Services Committee--he is a strong supporter of the troops. And I 
appreciate Senator Joe
Lieberman. John's a Republican; Senator 
Lieberman is an Independent. Joe 
Lieberman is one of these--I would call
him a unique soul who followed his con-
science, stood for what he believed in, in the face of a political 
firestorm. And he proved that if you stand on conviction, the people 
will follow. And I look forward to working with these two really fine 
public servants to make the decisions necessary to protect the United 
States. And I'm honored you all are here, and thank you for coming.
    I like to be in the room of builders and doers and problem-solvers 
and entrepreneurs. And I thank you for what you

[[Page 518]]

do every day. Your job is to improve infrastructure and provide work for 
people. Our job is to provide an environment so that you can build 
infrastructure and provide work for people. Our job is not to try to 
create wealth in government, our job is to create an environment that 
encourages small businesses and entrepreneurials--entrepreneurs.
    I believe this administration has done that, particularly since we 
cut taxes. You know, most small businesses and self-employed people, or 
people in your line of work, or many of them, are not corporations. 
They're sole proprietorships or subchapter S corporations or limited 
partnerships that pay tax at the individual income-tax level.
    And therefore, when you cut taxes, we not only--individual rates, 
we're not only cutting them on the people who work for you or work with 
you; we're cutting them on you. And my attitude is the more money you 
have in your treasuries, the more likely it is you'll be able to expand. 
The more incentive you have to buy a piece of equipment, the more likely 
it is you'll buy one, which means that somebody is going to have to 
build it for you.
    The best way to enhance progrowth economic policies is to cut the 
taxes on the American people, and that's exactly what we did. These 
taxes are set to expire. In my judgment, if Congress really wants to 
create a progrowth attitude for a long time coming, they ought to make 
the tax relief we passed permanent. They ought not to let them expire.
    My attitude is this about the budget: The best way to balance the 
budget is to keep taxes low, encourage growth, which enhances tax 
revenues, and be wise about how we spend money. I worry about the 
attitude: ``Don't worry; we're just going to raise the taxes on some to 
balance the budget.'' No, they'll raise the tax on some and figure out 
new ways to spend the money. And we're proving that progrowth economic 
policies with fiscal discipline can work, and our budgets are shrinking. 
The best way to keep them shrinking is keep the economy growing and be 
wise about--and setting priorities with your money.
    There's other things we can do in Washington. We've got to make sure 
health care is affordable and available, without inviting the Federal 
Government to run the health care system. Got to do something about 
these junk lawsuits that I'm sure you're concerned about. We've got to 
continue to invest in the Nation's infrastructure.
    We also need an immigration system that upholds the rule of law and 
treats people with respect. We need an immigration system that secures 
our borders and meets the needs of our economy. As I said in the speech 
down in Florida the other day, we need an immigration system without 
amnesty and without animosity. In other words, we need a comprehensive 
immigration reform. I want to thank you for the stand you have taken in 
working with Congress on comprehensive immigration reform. I join you.
    I will work with both Republicans and Democrats to get a bill to my 
desk before the summer is out, hopefully. And I thank the leadership in 
the Senate that's working through this issue. I want to thank Senator 
Jon Kyl of Arizona for working hard on this, Mel 
Martinez, Arlen 
Specter, there's a--Lindsey Graham. There's a series of Senators who are working with 
Ted Kennedy, who is a strong advocate for 
comprehensive immigration reform. And I appreciate the leadership he's 
taken, along with Ken Salazar of 
Colorado. We're making progress. There's a lot more work to be done, and 
your help is important. And so I want to thank you for coming up with a 
rational, reasonable, logical plan.
    I want to talk to you about the other main issue we have here in 
America, and that is your security. The most important job we have is to 
secure the United States of America. That's the most important job of 
the Federal Government. You expect us

[[Page 519]]

to spend enormous amounts of energy protecting you, and that's what 
we're doing. I vowed to the American people we would not tire when it 
came to protecting you, and we're not going to. Matter of fact, I spend 
a lot of time thinking about this issue. I wish I didn't have to spend 
time thinking about the issue, but I do because there's still an enemy 
out there that would like to do America harm. And therefore, at this 
hour, we've got men and women in uniform engaging our enemies around the 
world. Our strategy is, we've got to keep the pressure on them. We would 
rather fight them there so we don't have to face them here.
    And the most visible and violent front of this global war is Iraq. 
And it's a tough fight. It has been a difficult year for the American 
people, and I understand that. It reached--last year was--this battle 
reached its most difficult point to date. The terrorists and extremists 
and radicals set off a wave of sectarian violence that engulfed that 
young democracy's capital. It threatened to destabilize the entire 
country.
    So earlier this year, I laid out a new strategy in Iraq. I named a 
new commander to carry it out: General David Petraeus. I want to give you some facts about the new strategy and 
talk about why Iraq relates directly to the safety of the American 
people.
    The most important fact about our new strategy: it is fundamentally 
different from the previous strategy. The previous strategy wasn't 
working the way we wanted it to work. It's interesting; they run polls--
and I accept that--and it said, you know: ``We don't approve of what's 
happening in Iraq.'' That was what the poll said last fall and winter, 
you know. And had they polled me, I'd have said the same thing. 
[Laughter] I didn't approve of what was happening in Iraq, and so we put 
a new strategy in that was fundamentally different.
    And first of all, Petraeus, General 
Petraeus, is an expert on counterinsurgency, and his top priority is to 
help the Iraqi leaders--who, by the way, were elected by nearly 12 
million of their citizens--secure their population. And the reason why 
is, is that this young democracy needed some time to make important 
political decisions to help reconcile the country. After a thorough 
review, we concluded the best way to help Iraq's leaders to provide 
security was to send more troops into the nation's capital, into the 
country; was to send reinforcements to those troops which were already 
there. And their job was to go after the extremists and radicals who 
were inciting sectarian violence. Their job was to help get Baghdad 
under control. And their job was to continue to train Iraqi forces for 
the day they can secure the country on their own.
    Last week, General Petraeus came to 
Washington, and he updated me, and he updated the Congress on the early 
stages of this new strategy. And I repeat: early stages. He reminded us 
that not all the reinforcements he'd requested has--have arrived, that 
it's going to be at least until the end of this summer that he will know 
whether or not the new strategy has achieved successes. And that means 
the strategy is in early stages.
    My view is, the Congress and the country ought to give General 
Petraeus time to see whether or not this 
works. You know, it's interesting; he goes up in front of the Senate and 
gets confirmed unanimously. And he said: ``I need more troops''--during 
his testimony--``send me more troops, and I will go implement a new 
plan.'' They said, okay, fine; we confirm you. And yet there are some 
doubts in Washington whether or not they ought to send the troops. The 
troops are going. The strategy is new. And the general said: ``Let's 
give it some time to work to see whether or not it's successful, and 
I'll be able to report back to the country by the end of this summer.''
    The most significant element of the new strategy is being carried 
out in this--in the capital. The whole purpose is to secure the capital. 
Our theory is--and it's a good

[[Page 520]]

one--is that if the capital is in chaos, the country can't--it's going 
to be difficult for the country to survive.
    It's--the strategy is also being carried out in what's called 
surrounding belts. This is the areas that kind of arc around the 
capital, and it's a place where there's been a lot of planning and 
plotting and attacking. Three American brigades, totaling about 12,000 
reinforcements, have taken up their positions in the Baghdad area. The 
fourth brigade--fourth of five--is heading into Baghdad this week. And 
the fifth is on its way. In other words, you just don't take five 
brigades and move them in overnight. There's a sequencing that has to 
take place, and that sequencing is now being completed.
    The Iraqis, by the way, have increased their own forces. In other 
words, this is a joint operation. This is the Americans and coalition 
forces helping the Iraqis provide security so that the average person 
can live a peaceful life. That's what they want. And so we've got about 
a total of 80,000 combat forces now in the Baghdad area, U.S. combined 
with the Iraqi forces. The position of the forces is shifting. We used 
to have our forces live in bases outside the city. They would go in at 
night, or during the day, and then leave and go back home at night. They 
did a fine job, as you'd expect our U.S. forces to do, or the Iraqi 
forces would do so. And then when they would leave, killers would move 
back in.
    And so now, we've got--American troops are now living and working in 
small neighborhood posts called joint security stations. This is what's 
fundamentally different from the strategy. Our troops, along with the 
Iraqis, go into a neighborhood, and they stay. They operate side by side 
with the Iraqi forces.
    What's interesting is, is that the plan, General 
Petraeus's plan, is to help build trust. 
And when you build trust, you end up getting people buying into a 
centralized government, a unity government, a country that is united. 
And not only that, you end up getting cooperation from people. Remember, 
most people want to live peaceful lives. I hope this make sense to you 
because I firmly believe that Iraqi moms want their child to grow up in 
a peaceful world, just like American moms do.
    The--and so we're seeing some gains. The interesting thing about 
this is that the nature of this strategy is that the most important 
gains are often the least dramatic. It doesn't generate much attention 
when violence does not happen. Instead, some important indicators of 
progress in the security plan are less visible. I would like to share 
some with you.
    The level of cooperation from local residents is important. It's an 
indication as to whether or not we're making progress: our ability to 
take weapons off the street and break up extremist groups. The 
willingness of Iraqis to join their security forces is an interesting 
measurement, and, finally, it's important to measure the level of 
sectarian violence. If the objective is to bring security to the 
capital, one measurement is whether or not sectarian violence is 
declining. These measures are really not flashy. In other words, they're 
not headline-grabbing measures. They certainly can't compete with a car 
bomb or a suicide attack, but they are interesting indications. And as 
General Petraeus reported, these are 
heading in the right direction.
    For example, General Petraeus reports 
that American and Iraqi forces received more tips from local residents 
in the past 4 months than during any other 4-month period on record. 
People are beginning to have some confidence, and they're beginning to 
step forth with information, information that will help them live normal 
lives.
    Thanks to these tips the number of weapons caches that are being 
seized are growing each month. Better intelligence has led American and 
Iraqi forces in Baghdad and the surrounding belts to conduct operations 
against Sunni and Shi'a extremists. My attitude is, if murderers run 
free, it's

[[Page 521]]

going to be hard to convince the people of any society that the 
government is worth supporting. And therefore, the Iraqis and U.S. 
forces and coalition forces are after murderers, regardless of their 
religious affiliation.
    American and Iraqi forces captured the head of a major car bombing ring recently, the leader 
of a bombing network with ties to Iran, members of a death squad that 
terrorized a Baghdad neighborhood, the leader 
of a secret militia shell--cell that kidnaped and executed American 
soldiers. These are just some examples of what happens when you start to 
earn the confidence of the people.
    Baghdad residents see actions, they grow more confident. 
Interestingly enough, General Petraeus 
reported that in his short time he's been there, and in the short time 
that this plan is being implemented and the--remember, it's not fully 
implemented. Three of the brigades are present; are in place. The fourth 
brigade has just moved into Baghdad, and it will be in place relatively 
soon. And the fifth is on its way. Then, in spite of the fact that we 
haven't fully implemented the plan, the number of sectarian murders in 
Baghdad has dropped substantially.
    Even as the sectarian attacks have declined, the overall level of 
violence in Baghdad remains high. Illegal armed groups continue to--
continue their attacks; insurgents remain deadly. In other words, as we 
report progress, it's very important for us to make sure that the 
American people understand there's still issues; there's still 
challenges. Illegal armed groups need to be dealt with, and we are.
    The primary reason for the high level of violence is this: Al Qaida 
has ratcheted up its campaign of hope--high-profile attacks, including 
deadly suicide bombers carried out by foreign terrorists. In the past 3 
weeks, Al Qaida has sent suicide bombers into the Iraqi Parliament. Or 
they send a suicide attack into an American military base. These attacks 
may seem like random killing; they're not. They're part of Al Qaida's 
calculated campaign to reignite sectarian violence in Baghdad, to 
discourage the Iraqi citizen, and to break support for the war here at 
home. This is what these murderers are trying to achieve.
    I don't need to remind you who Al Qaida is. Al Qaida is the group 
that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our 
soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who 
came and murdered our citizens. Now I've got to tell you; that day 
deeply affected my decisionmaking. And I vowed that I would do anything 
that I possibly could, within the law, to protect the American citizens 
against further attack by these ideologues, by these murderers.
    And so when I'm talking about Al Qaida in Iraq, I fully recognize 
what happens in Iraq, matters here at home. Despite their tremendous 
brutality, they have failed to provoke the large-scale sectarian 
reprisals that Al Qaida wants. The recent attacks are not the revenge 
killings that some have called a civil war; they are a systematic 
assault on the entire nation. Al Qaida is public enemy number one in 
Iraq. And all people of that society ought to come together and 
recognize the threat, unite against the threat, and reconcile their 
differences.
    For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to 
take sides in a civil war; it's whether we stay in the fight against the 
same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11. I 
strongly believe it's in our national interest to stay in the fight.
    As you watch the developments in Baghdad, it's important to 
understand that we will not be able to prevent every Al Qaida attack. 
When a terrorist is willing to kill himself to kill others, it's really 
hard to stop him. Yet, over time, the security operation in Baghdad is 
designed to shrink the areas where Al Qaida can operate; it's designed 
to bring out more intelligence about their presence; and designed to 
allow

[[Page 522]]

American and Iraqi forces to dismantle their network.
    We have a strategy to deal with Al Qaida in Iraq. But any time you 
say to a bunch of coldblooded killers, ``Success depends on no 
violence,'' all that does is hand them the opportunity to be successful. 
And it's hard. I know it's hard for the American people to turn on their 
TV screens and see the horrific violence. It speaks volumes about the 
American desire to protect lives of innocent people, America's deep 
concern about human rights and human dignity. It also speaks volumes 
about Al Qaida, that they're willing to take innocent life to achieve 
political objectives.
    The terrorists will continue to fight back. In other words, they 
understand what they're doing. And casualties are likely to stay high. 
Yet, day by day, block by block, we are steadfast in helping Iraqi 
leaders counter the terrorists, protect their people, and reclaim the 
capital. And if I didn't think it was necessary for the security of the 
country, I wouldn't put our kids in harm's way.
    We're seeing significant progress from our new strategy in Anbar 
Province as well. That's a largely Sunni area west of Baghdad. It's been 
a hotbed for Al Qaida and insurgents. According to a captured Al Qaida 
document--in other words, according to what Al Qaida has said--and by 
the way, in a war to protect America, it's really important to take the 
words of the enemy very seriously--according to this document, the 
terrorists' goal is to take over Anbar and make it their home base in 
Iraq. According to the document we captured--that is a document from Al 
Qaida, the same people that attacked us in America--their objective is 
to find safe haven in this part of Iraq. They would bring them closer--
it would bring them closer to their objective, their stated objective, 
which is to destroy the young Iraqi democracy, to help them build a 
radical Islamic empire based upon their dark ideology, and launch new 
attacks on the United States, at home and abroad. That's what they've 
said they want to do.
    Al Qaida has pursued their objective with a ruthless campaign of 
violence. They can't persuade people through logic; they have to 
terrorize people and force people to try to allow them to impose their 
point of view. And not long ago, it looked like they might prevail in 
Anbar; looked pretty grim, it really did. Then something began to change 
because we were steadfast, because our troops and our diplomats are 
courageous people. Tribal sheiks finally said, enough is enough. Their 
local leaders said, we're tired of it. And they joined the fight against 
Al Qaida.
    The sheiks and their followers knew exactly who the terrorists were, 
and they began to provide highly specific intelligence to American and 
Iraqi forces. In asymmetrical warfare, you've got to have good 
intelligence in order to be able to deal with the enemy. In the old 
days, you could see platoons moving; you could see ships floating along, 
aircraft in formation flying to a location. In this war, it's different. 
In this war, you have to know specifically where a IED factory may be. 
You have to know in advance that somebody's getting ready to slide into 
society and kill innocent in order to achieve an objective. Intelligence 
is important, and so they began to provide intelligence, all aiming to 
secure their part of Iraq so they could live in peace.
    They began to encourage their young men to volunteer for the 
security forces. The number of Iraqi Army and police recruits in Anbar 
has skyrocketed. It's an interesting measurement, isn't it? There's a 
threat to the security of their people. The local leaders said: Why 
don't you join up to help defend us? And the number of recruits is 
significant.
    Our commanders saw this as an opportunity to step up the pressure on 
Al Qaida. Our commanders made the recommendation from the field that 
they could use more troops to help secure Anbar. And so

[[Page 523]]

I ordered additional U.S. marines and special operation forces to Anbar; 
as part of our reinforcement package, 4,000 of the troops are going into 
Anbar.
    Together, American and Iraqi forces are striking powerful blows. 
We've cleared out terrorist strongholds like Ramadi and Fallujah. We're 
there with the Iraqis so that they can't take those cities back--
``they,'' the enemy. American and Iraqi forces are operating in places 
that have been too dangerous to go before, and people are beginning to 
see something change.
    In Ramadi, for example, our forces have seized nearly as many 
weapons caches in the past 4 months as they did in all of last year. 
We've captured key Al Qaida leaders. We're on the hunt. We're keeping 
the pressure on them, in Iraq and everywhere else in the world in which 
they try to hide. Their--these Al Qaida leaders are revealing important 
details about how their network operates inside of Iraq.
    Al Qaida has responded with sickening brutality. They've bombed 
fellow Sunnis in prayer at a mosque. They murdered local residents with 
chlorine truck bombs. They recruited children as young as 12 years old 
to carry out suicide attacks. But this time, the Sunni tribes in Anbar 
are refusing to be intimidated.
    They are showing that Al Qaida's ideology lacks popular appeal and 
staying power. Ultimately, what matters is what you believe. The United 
States and our coalition and most Iraqis believe in liberty. Al Qaida 
believes in imposing their dark vision on others and are willing to use 
death and murder to do so.
    I appreciate the determination of the Iraqi people. I appreciate 
their courage. I appreciate the fact that these tribal sheiks have stood 
up in Anbar, and we will stand with them. Our men and women in uniform 
took Al Qaida's safe haven away in Afghanistan, and we're not going to 
let them reestablish a safe haven in Iraq.
    The military gains achieved by our new operations are designed to 
give Iraq's Government time to make political progress. We fully 
recognize that the military cannot solve this problem alone, that there 
has to be political reconciliation and economic process--progress.
    You know, the Iraq Government has been in office about a year. It--
and they're beginning to make some progress toward political benchmarks 
it has set, political benchmarks I support. The legislature has passed a 
budget that commits $10 billion for reconstruction projects. That's $10 
billion of the Iraqi people's money; that's a positive sign. The 
assembly met. They appropriated money for the good of the Iraqi people. 
They spent $7.3 billion to train and equip their own security forces. 
The council of ministers has approved legislation that would provide a 
framework for equitable sharing of oil resources. We strongly believe--
by the way, both Republicans, Democrats, and Independents believe 
strongly that a good oil bill will help unite the country. That's why 
it's a benchmark. And they're making--this Government is making progress 
toward an important piece of legislation that would help the security 
track progress, as well as the political and economic track.
    The Government has formed a committee to organize Provincial 
elections. That's important; you want people buying into government. 
There needs to be Provincial elections, so that when the money is 
distributed from the central government, there's a representative 
government there to spend the money. Leaders have taken initial steps 
toward an agreement on de-Ba'athification policy. That's an important 
piece of reconciliation that we think ought to go forward. A committee 
is meeting with all major Iraqi groups to review the Constitution. And 
there's a key conference tomorrow and Friday in Egypt, where Prime 
Minister Maliki will work to build greater 
support from Iraq's neighbors and the international community. It's in 
the world's interest that this young democracy survive.

[[Page 524]]

It's certainly in the interest of the neighborhood that Iraq be a 
country that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself, a 
Government which rejects radicalism. And it's in the world's interest.
    And so Condoleezza Rice--I talked to 
her last night on her way out of town--is heading over to Egypt. And 
she's going to represent our country--and she represents it well, by the 
way--and will do so in Egypt. It's going to be an important 
international conference, and I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome 
of that conference.
    Iraq's leaders still have got a lot to do, don't get me wrong. Yes, 
there's progress, but they've got a lot more to do. And the United 
States expects them to do it--just like I expect them to remain 
courageous and just like they expect us to keep our word. And what's 
interesting is, is that the Iraqis are making a calculation: Will the 
United States of America keep its word? Because if not, they want to do 
something different. And I think it's going to be important for us to 
keep signaling them as they make progress, we appreciate the progress. 
More to do? No question about it. And we expect them to do it. But they 
can also count on us to keep our word.
    The stakes are high, really high in Iraq. General Petraeus is beginning to carry out the strategy, yet the 
Democrat leaders in Congress have chosen this time to try to force a 
precipitous withdrawal. In other words, I was presented a bill last 
night that said: ``There's a timetable. You had to leave--start leaving 
by July 1st and definitely be leaving by October 1st.'' That didn't make 
any sense to me, to impose the will of politicians over the 
recommendations of our military commanders in the field. So I vetoed the 
bill.
    That phase of the process is now over, and a new phase has begun. 
Later on this afternoon, leaders from both parties and both chambers are 
coming down to the White House. And I look forward to meeting with them. 
I am confident that with good will on both sides that we can move beyond 
political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds 
and the flexibility they need to do the job that we have asked them to 
do.
    As we move forward the debate, there are some other things that all 
of us in Washington should keep in mind. First of all, debate is good. I 
have no problem with debates. I--this issue of Iraq and this war on 
terror deserves a serious discussion across the United States. We don't 
agree on every issue, but one of the things I have heard here in 
Washington is that people understand the consequences of failure in 
Iraq.
    If we were to leave Iraq before the Government can defend itself, 
there would be a security vacuum. Extremists and radicals love vacuums 
and chaos. It gives them a chance to use their tactics, tactics of 
death, to spread their ideology. The more chaotic a region, or for 
example--or the less control there is in a region, the more the state 
looks like a failed state: these people that attacked us on September 
the 11th can be emboldened. It will encourage them. It will enable them 
to achieve objectives. I'm deeply concerned about a vacuum in Iraq 
encouraging rival extremist factions to compete for power.
    I worry about a situation where if radicals took control of a 
country like Iraq, they would have oil resources to use at their 
disposal to try to achieve their objectives. You can attack a nation 
several ways: One, you can get 19 kids to fly airplanes into buildings. 
Or you can gain control of something a country needs and deny that 
country access to that--in this case, oil--and run the price of oil up, 
all attempting to inflict serious economic damage.
    It's a--and by the way, an opportunity for radicals and extremists 
to gain resources would not only enable them to inflict economic damage, 
it would enable them to achieve other objectives. They'd have more 
resources at their disposal. It--look, all the radicals and extremists 
in Iraq don't want

[[Page 525]]

to attack America; I'm not saying that. But many do. And that's--therein 
lies the danger to our country.
    Al Qaida terrorists who behead captives and order suicide bombings 
in Iraq would not simply be satisfied to see us gone. A retreat in Iraq 
would mean that they would likely follow us here. A retreat in Iraq 
would say to a lot of people around the world, and particularly in the 
Middle East, America can't keep its word. It would certainly confirm Al 
Qaida's belief that we're weak and soft as a society. It would embolden 
them to be able to recruit. It would more likely enable them to find 
safe haven and sanctuary.
    No responsible leader in Washington has an interest in letting this 
happen. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, there is no benefit in 
allowing a widespread humanitarian nightmare to consume Iraq. There 
would be no benefit in allowing chaos to spill out of Iraq and into the 
broader Middle East. There would be no benefit in emboldening Iran and 
endangering our allies in the region. And there would be no benefit in 
allowing the same terrorist network that attacked America on 9/11 to 
gain a safe haven from which to attack us again. Even if you think it 
was a mistake to go into Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull 
out now.
    This is a frustrating war. Nobody likes war. You know, I know full 
well how many Americans react to what they see on their TV screens. I 
wish there was an easy way out; that's what people wish. But there is no 
easy way out. The easy road would be the wrong road, in my opinion. 
Leaving now would be short term--would bring short-term satisfaction at 
the cost of long-term disaster. The outcome in Iraq will have a direct 
impact on the security of our people here at home. And no matter how 
tempting it might be, it would be unforgivable for leaders in Washington 
to allow politics and impatience to stand in the way of protecting the 
American people.
    Success in this fight is going to be difficult. It will require 
sacrifice. It's going to require time. But for all the--all we hear 
about the consequences of failure in Iraq, we also shouldn't forget the 
consequences of success. I share with people--and I do this quite 
often--but I find it incredibly ironic that during my time as President, 
certainly one of my best friends, and soon to be another best friend, 
are--were the Prime Ministers of Japan. I 
had a very close personal relationship with Prime Minister Koizumi. And 
last weekend at Camp David, I--Laura and I had a chance to--at the White 
House, and then eventually at Camp David, we hosted Prime Minister 
Abe. At--you know, my dad fought the Japanese. He was an 18-year-old kid right out 
of high school, went into the Navy, was a torpedo bomber. Many of your 
relatives did the same thing. They fought the Japanese with all their 
soul and all their might in a bloody, bloody conflict. Japan was a sworn 
enemy of the United States of America. I doubt in 1948 or '49 anybody 
could have hardly predicted that a President would stand up and say: I 
have found that these two Prime Ministers of Japan are good to work with 
to achieve peace.
    It's an interesting statement--isn't it?--about the possibilities of 
liberty to change history. And so with Prime Minister Koizumi and Prime Minister Abe, we 
talked about security. We talked about working closely together to 
convince the leader of North Korea to give up his 
nuclear weapons ambitions and programs. We talked about helping the 
young democracy of Iraq survive in the midst of the Middle East. We 
fully understand that the long-term way to protect America is to defeat 
an ideology of hate with an ideology of hope. I learned firsthand the 
power of liberty to transform an enemy into an ally.
    I firmly believe that a democracy can survive in the Middle East, 
and I believe it is a necessary part of laying a foundation of peace for 
generations to come.

[[Page 526]]

    Good to be with you. [Applause] Thank you all. Sit down. Thank you. 
I'll take some questions. Yes, sir. You get to start since you're the 
boss. [Laughter]

Military Operations in Iraq/Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

    Q. Thank you. In May of 2006, my second cousin was on his second 
tour in Iraq. Corporal Cory Palmer--he's a--in the Marines--he was on 
patrol in a Humvee, and they ran over a roadside bomb. He and three 
others in that Humvee perished. What do I need to do--what do we need to 
do to help you, so that my second cousin and others like him have not 
died or been injured in vain?
    The President. Thank you. The horrors of war come home to every--to 
a lot of families in America. Yesterday I had the honor of meeting with 
moms and dads and wives, in this case, who--children, who have lost a 
loved one. And I've met with a lot of families, sadly enough. Most of 
the time, I hear that very question. Actually, it's not a question; it's 
a statement.
    Here's what I've heard: One, my loved one died doing what he or she 
wanted to do. Two, do not allow that loved one to have died in vain. In 
other words, it is an interesting spirit amongst the--now, listen, I 
visited with some who said: ``Get out; I wish you hadn't have done this 
in the first place.'' But by far the vast majority reflect what you 
asked: What does it take?
    First of all, it takes, in order to make sure your loved one doesn't 
die--didn't die in vain, is to have the will and determination necessary 
to succeed. One of the reasons I've come to speak to you is because I 
must continually explain to the American people the stakes in this war, 
the consequences of failure, and the consequences of success. In order 
for me to do my part to make sure your second cousin and anybody else who lost a loved one in Iraq didn't die 
in vain, is to continue to take the case to the American people, why 
what happens in Iraq matters to them.
    Secondly, one way to make sure that your second cousin didn't die in vain is to remind legislators that 
regardless of their position on the war, that they have got to fund our 
troops, that they have got to make sure that--without conditions of--
that say you've got to withdraw by a certain date.
    Now, here's the reason that doesn't make any sense. I'm sure a lot 
of Americans know intuitively it doesn't make any sense for people on 
Capitol Hill to say, ``You must withdraw.'' The reason why is, first of 
all, we ought to rely upon conditions on the ground, and we ought to 
rely upon our military commanders and our diplomats on the ground to 
give us advice. It's the best way to conduct a war.
    Secondly, imagine what a thinking enemy is doing when they hear 
timetables. Oh, you've got to be out by a certain date? Well, why don't 
we just wait. [Laughter]
    Thirdly, what does it say to the Iraqis? Remember, there are a lot 
of people who basically wonder whether or not a coalition is going to 
stand with them as they make difficult choices. And you're--if you're an 
Iraqi thinking, ``Well, I may have some support; I may not. And if not, 
I better start hedging my bet.'' The Government isn't quite ready to 
provide the security necessary for people to be comfortable with a 
reduced coalition presence.
    And therefore it--and, by the way, in order to make a unified 
government work, there has to be people willing to commit to that 
government. There have to be people willing to commit to civil society. 
Remember, these people are recovering from a brutal tyrant, and they 
have to make a--they've got to commit, in their soul that it's 
worthwhile, that this Government is worthwhile. And they're not willing 
to make that commitment yet because they're uncertain about their 
future.
    And so a artificial timetable of withdrawal is--really affects the 
psychology of the Iraqis as well. That's why I vetoed the bill. And I 
believe we can work together

[[Page 527]]

in Congress to get it done. I think that Senators would tell you there's 
an opportunity. And first of all, they got to fund the troops because 
the longer they wait in funding the troops, it's going to hurt our 
military. The military is spending money over in Iraq as we speak, and 
they need money. And if they don't get the money from the supplemental, 
they'll start taking it from other accounts, which could affect 
readiness. And it begins to affect the overall strength of our military.
    And that's one reason I keep explaining that to the American people, 
so that they understand that this--these delays, they make nice politics 
in some quarters, but it's lousy for our military and the military 
families.
    Anyway, good question; thanks for asking it. Yes, ma'am.

Freedom of the Press/War on Terror Strategy/Iraq Study Group

    Q. I'd like to know, like a lot of other people in this room; we 
have family members who are actively involved in the security of this 
country in various ways. From them, we've received positive information 
who we consider credible, who say about the success and the good things 
that are happening as a result of us being in Iraq. I would like to know 
why and what can be done about we, the American people, receiving some 
of that information more from the media, more from the overall media.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. [Inaudible]----
    The President. Probably ask--[applause]--if you're trying to goad me 
into attacking the media, you're crazy. [Laughter]
    It's interesting, people get their news all different kinds of ways. 
This is an interesting, different type of war. I mentioned asymmetrical 
warfare. That means an enemy can use inexpensive weapons to try to 
defeat expensive defensive armament. A car bomb, a suicide bomber, an 
IED: these are inexpensive weapons that create--help them achieve 
strategic objectives.
    It's also different in that this is a volunteer army that we have 
fielded. And therefore, the role of government is to make sure that our 
families are well supported--our military families are well supported, 
that the veterans get everything they deserve, and that the health care 
is perfect as possibly can be. And we're working toward it.
    By the way, I was proud of our Secretary of Defense the other day. When he found a inadequate health care, he 
responded, because he knows--and the Congress shares the same view--is 
that if--when we have somebody volunteering to be in combat, they and 
their families deserve the best that we can possibly provide.
    Thirdly, back to your question. You thought I was kind of doing one 
of these--[laughter]--Washington, DC, dodges. [Laughter] I talk to a lot 
of families who have got a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere 
else in this global war on terror, and they are in constant 
communication with their loved one. That's amazing; isn't it? You've got 
a kid in Iraq who is e-mailing mom daily, talking about the realities of 
what he or she sees. Information is moving--you know, nightly news is 
one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and 
through the Internets. It's amazing how many e-mails I see from people 
that are writing in what they think and what they hear.
    We've all got--believe--those of us who believe that we're doing the 
right thing must continually speak. Joe Lieberman's been great about continually speaking about the 
consequences. And--[applause]--wait--no, you didn't give me a chance to 
say something nice about Chairman Warner. 
[Laughter] He too has been strong.
    And I--[applause]--it's just a--I can't answer your question beyond 
that people just need to be--the best messenger, by the way, for us is 
David Petraeus, because he's actually 
there in Baghdad. And Ryan

[[Page 528]]

Crocker who's actually--he's the Ambassador 
who is there in Baghdad. And freedom of the press is a valuable freedom 
here, and it's just something that we've all got to live with and value 
it for what it is and just continue to speak the truth as best as we can 
without trying to gloss over the inherent dangers.
    The interesting thing I find is that our--as the president here mentioned, there have been multiple rotations. 
People have gone back to Iraq. In other words, they've reupped, and the 
reenlistment rate is high. People are signing up for the first time as 
well. And it's just an interesting statement--isn't it?--about the 
character of our military, a character which is--says that we've got 
people willing to serve a cause greater than themselves.
    I saw a marine yesterday and--came out of Anbar. His brother, who 
was in the Army, was lost. And I was comforting his family as best as I 
possibly can or could. And he said: ``We're making great progress in 
Anbar; I just wanted to tell you that, President.'' You know, is he the 
kind of guy that tells the President what he wants to hear? I don't 
know. All I can tell you is what he told me. And I told that to David 
Petraeus, who confirmed it.
    And--but slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll 
succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I 
described is sectarian violence down. Success is not ``no violence.'' 
There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of 
violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel 
comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying 
to achieve.
    I'm asked all the time about strategies. I liked what James A. 
Baker and Lee Hamilton reported back after a serious investigation of Iraq. I 
liked their ideas. And it's something that we should seriously consider. 
And their idea was, is that at some point in time, it makes sense to 
have a U.S. presence configured this way, embedded with Iraqi forces, 
training Iraqi forces, over-the-horizon presence to provide enough 
security to know that people will have help if they need it, but put 
the--more onus on a sovereign government of Iraq, a presence to keep the 
territorial integrity of Iraq intact, a special ops presence to go after 
these killers who have got their intentions on America. It's an 
interesting idea.
    By the way, in the report, it said, it is--the government may have 
to put in more troops to be able to get to that position. And that's 
what we did. We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be 
in some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision: 
the Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear: 
I'm a commander guy.
    Yes, sir.

Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq/President's Faith

    Q. We're General Contractors of America, and what are we doing--I 
don't hear anything about the reconstruction of Iraq.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Could you fill us in on that? Are we doing enough, as general 
contractors? And we are at your disposal.
    And second is a personal question: What do you pray about? And how 
we can we pray for you?
    The President. Thank you. The first question: Our reconstruction 
strategy initially was to do big projects, and then those big projects 
would be destroyed by the enemy. In other words, they blow them up. And 
it became very frustrating. And some of the big projects were 
successful; a lot of them weren't. So therefore we restructured, and we 
said that the best way to help the Iraq--remember, Iraq has now put out 
10 billion of their own money. So, step one, they're a sovereign 
government, and if you want to--if we want to do business with Iraq, we 
can figure out how you can go do it--business with Iraq. In other words,

[[Page 529]]

they're spending their own money. That's what's important to remember.
    And that's actually a hopeful sign, that they appropriated money in 
a constitutionally elected assembly, and hopefully, that money is spent 
in a way that encourages all Iraqis to have some faith that the central 
government can function rationally. I guess what I'm telling you is, the 
security situation was such that it made the initial phases of our 
reconstruction not as effective as we would have liked.
    Now we're giving reconstruction money to two different groups of--or 
two groups of people, not different--two groups. One, our military 
commanders. It's called CERP money. They go into a neighborhood in 
Baghdad that had been ravaged by sectarian violence; they bring order 
with the Iraqis; they stay in place; they gain the confidence of the 
people; and there is some reconstruction money to help provide jobs of 
cleaning up neighborhoods and rebuilding storefronts.
    The other reconstruction money goes to what's called Provincial 
Reconstruction Teams. These are teams of diplomats living out in the 
hinterlands, working with local folks to meet objectives of the local 
folks, so that the people begin to see that there is one, security; two, 
hope; and three, tangible benefits. And that's how we're using--I'm not 
exactly sure what a proper role could be for you. I just--I--the good 
news is, I can find out pretty quick--[laughter]--ly, quickly. 
[Laughter]
    The fact that you would ask the question: How can I pray for you? 
Speaks volumes about the United States of America. I have been amazed by 
the fact that millions of Americans of all faith, all political 
backgrounds, pray for me and Laura. And it is 
unbelievably sustaining; it is comforting. It is humbling to be prayed 
for. Wisdom and strength and my family is what I'd like for you to pray 
for.
    Yes, sir.

Spread of Democracy/Freedom Agenda

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Okay, we've got dueling questions. [Laughter] You 
just lost, because he's got the mic. [Laughter] It's the possession 
deal, you know. [Laughter]
    Q. You talked about the terror of 9/11, and what I wanted to share 
with you, my wife and I had our first child 2 months after 9/11. We 
named her Grace because we felt that the world needed some grace at the 
time. And what I wanted to--wish to bestow upon you--is the fact that 
our appreciation at keeping my family and all those families of America 
safe for the past 5 years is--[inaudible].
    The President. Thank you. Thank you. Grace will live--the question 
is, will Grace live in a peaceful world, today and tomorrow? Today, we 
will continue to stay on the pressure. And we're sharing intelligence, 
and we're on the offense. And my attitude is, is that if the United 
States ever let up, it would embolden; it would send the wrong signal. 
So we're pressuring. And I'm--I would hope whoever takes my place would 
have that same sense of urgency. I--you know, no matter what you may be 
hearing, it's--people, when they get in that Oval Office and take a look 
at the realities of the world will, I suspect, subscribe to the--that we 
just need to be not only vigilant but pressuring.
    You know, the interesting debate that we're now confronted with is 
this ideological debate about whether or not it's worth it to spread 
freedom. Should we spread freedom? Can the spread of freedom take root 
in dangerous parts of the world? And is it worth it? Does it make sense?
    I--as you can tell, I'm a strong proponent of spreading freedom, 
first of all. And I've got confidence that freedom can be spread in 
parts of the world where it may look difficult at this moment in history 
to see freedom take root.
    I've got confidence for a couple of reasons. One, I believe in the 
universality of

[[Page 530]]

freedom. That means I believe everybody desires to be free. I don't 
think freedom is uniquely American, nor do I think it's uniquely 
Methodist--[laughter]--I think it is universal.
    I told you--I also obviously believe in the universality of 
motherhood. I believe mothers in Iraq want their children to grow up in 
peace, just like mothers in America do. I also believe people in Iraq 
want to live in a free society. I am--my--I wasn't surprised; I was 
pleased when 12 million people went to the polls. That statement to me 
was: freedom.
    Secondly, can it take hold in parts of the world that some suspect 
that it can't root? I would remind people of, for example, of--I 
mentioned Japan. There are other examples in our history. One of the 
unique aspects of my Presidency is I can predict to you that--with 
relative certainty that a violent part of the world, the Far East, is 
stable and headed in the right direction, absent one spot.
    That--in 1950, that would have been a hard prediction to make. 
Shortly before 1950, I mentioned, thousands of U.S. citizens had died in 
a war with Japan. Mao Zedong was beginning an ascendancy where the form 
of government was repressed and that no such thing as a marketplace--was 
repressive, and there was no such thing as a marketplace. And Korea had 
just been--the Peninsula of Korea had just been torn asunder, where 
thousands of U.S. soldiers had died as well.
    Today, Japan, as I mentioned, is a strong ally, an important 
economic partner and security partner. South Korea is a strong ally, 
important trading partner, and important security partner--albeit their 
democracy went through a difficult period of time. Democracies don't 
emerge on a straight line; neither did ours. Our great democracy 
enslaved people for 100 years. All men were created equal, except some. 
We're reconfirming the belief that all men are created equal.
    And so it takes a while for freedom to take root. It's hard work for 
societies to adopt the habits necessary for a free society to emerge. 
Interesting enough, in China, there's certainly not a free society, but 
there is a free marketplace emerging. And in 1950, that would have been 
a difficult prediction to make.
    And so I believe liberty can take hold in parts of the world because 
history has shown it to be. Different time, no question; a different 
part of the world, no question. But if you have faith in the 
universality of freedom, and if you've seen history--liberty take hold 
before, it should give us confidence.
    Finally, it's necessary for free societies to emerge, free societies 
in the image of a country's own history and tradition. And why is it in 
our interest that that happen? There is a root cause. There is a reason 
why 19 kids got on an airplane to come and kill us, and that is because 
societies in that part of the world have bred resentment and lack of 
hope.
    I don't believe you can have a comfortable and secure society if 
half the people are not treated equally. There's something universal in 
our demands to be treated with respect. It matters what the form of 
government is, in terms of whether or not peace will emerge.
    And so I believe that the liberty agenda, freedom agenda can take 
root, and I know it's necessary to make sure Grace can live in peace. I 
think people will look back at this period of time and make one or two 
judgments. They'll either say: What happened to them in 2007? How come 
they couldn't see the impending dangers that the little Graces of 
America would have to live with? How come they couldn't spot the 
radicalism that would emerge even more violent than it had been? How 
come they couldn't see the fact that Iran would become emboldened if the 
United States of America didn't keep its commitments in Iraq? What was 
it that prevented them from recognizing that nations in the Middle

[[Page 531]]

East would tend to choose up sides and back violent regimes--violent 
groups in order to protect their ownselves? How come they couldn't 
remember the lesson of September the 11th--which said: What matters 
overseas, matters at home. Or they'll look back and say they had faith; 
they had faith in the ability of liberty to transform a region into a 
region of hope that yielded the peace so little Grace can be amazed that 
this generation has done its job.
    And those are the risks, and that's the task, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 9:44 a.m. at the Willard Hotel. In his 
remarks, he referred to Steve L. Massie, president, Associated General 
Contractors of America; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, 
Multi-National Force--Iraq; Haytham Kazim Abdallah Al-Shimari, head of 
the Rusafa Al Qaida-Iraq bomb network; Qais Khazali, member, Khazali 
network; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; former Prime Minister 
Junichiro Koizumi and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan; Chairman Kim 
Jong Il of North Korea; and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. He 
also referred to H.R. 1591.