    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
    [July 26, 2007]
    [Pages 1012-1021]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the American Legislative Exchange Council in Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania
    July 26, 2007

        Thank you very much. Thanks for the warm welcome. It's good to be
    back with my friends here at ALEC. Kenny,
    thanks. He was a silver-tongued devil when he was a State legislator; he
    still is as a United States Congressman. I appreciate Kenny Marchant
    coming from Washington with me today. It's not all that rough a trip
    when you're on Air Force One, Ken, so it's a--[laughter]. I'm glad to
    give him a hot cup of coffee and visit about the old days of working
    together in the State legislature--with the State legislature and about
    the challenges we face today. And I'm going to spend a little time
    talking to you all about those challenges. But I appreciate you coming,
    Ken.
        I'm also proud to be with two members of the Pennsylvania
    congressional delegation, the United States Senator, Arlen Specter--proud you're here, Senator; thanks for
    coming--Congressman Jim Gerlach. When
    Kenny and I were reminiscing about what it
    was like to be in Texas worrying about schools and budgets and criminal
    justice, I think they were somewhat amazed by the stories we were
    telling.
        Speaking about the Texas legislature, I am proud to be here with the
    speaker of the Texas House, a friend of mine
    from my old hometown of Midland, Texas, Tom Craddick. Proud you're here,
    Tommy--and his wife Nadine and his daughter
    Christi.
        Laura was just out in Midland, visiting her
    mother. That would be First Lady Laura Bush, who
    sends her greetings to you all. You know, I'm a really lucky guy to have
    a wife who is patient enough to put up with me as President of the
    United States, is wise enough to seize the moment, and is compassionate
    enough to worry about the lives of our fellow citizens. She's a fabulous
    First Lady, and I--[applause].
        The one thing I can assure the
    Craddicks, we always remember where we came
    from. And part of making good decisions in a complex world and in a
    complex environment is to make decisions based

    [[Page 1013]]

    upon basic principle, is to stand for something. I believe in that old
    Texas adage, if you don't stand for something, you don't believe in
    anything. And I believe in some certain principles that I hold
    inviolate, such as, there is an Almighty, and a great gift of that
    Almighty to each man, woman, and child on the face of Earth is liberty
    and freedom.
        I appreciate Dolores Mertz and all the
    leadership of ALEC. I appreciate Jerry Watson,
    the private sector chairman. Thank you all. Thank you for serving. Our
    government is only as good as the willingness of good people to serve.
    And it's not easy to serve in public life. Sometimes it can get a little
    testy. [Laughter] Sometimes people would rather throw a punch than put
    out a hand of fellowship. But that's okay. What matters is, is that our
    democracy flourish, that people have an opportunity to exchange ideas,
    that there be constructive debate. And that requires good people willing
    to sacrifice, to serve. And one of the reasons I wanted to come back
    today is to encourage you to continue serving your States, to continue
    representing the people.
        I urge you to not rely upon the latest opinion poll to tell you what
    to believe. I ask you to stand strong on your beliefs, and that will
    continue to make you a worthy public servant.
        I want to spend a little time talking about a couple of issues. I'd
    like to spend time talking about the budget and the economy, a little
    time talking about how we can educate our children, how best to educate
    our children. And then I'd like to spend some time talking about a
    serious obligation that I have and the people in Washington have, and
    that is to protect the American people from harm.
        First, the budget--there's an interesting philosophical debate
    that's now playing out in the United States Congress, and it really
    boils down to how much money we need and who do we trust to handle the
    people's money. A basic principle from which I have operated as Governor
    and now as President is this: I think it's wise for government and
    government officials to trust the people to spend their money. See, I
    think you can spend your money, and I think you know how to save your
    money better than the Federal Government knows how to spend your money.
        And that's what I've acted on. That's been the basis of a lot of our
    fiscal policy in Washington, DC. I also acted on the belief that if
    there is more money circulating in the economy, if more families have
    more money of their own to spend, and if small businesses have more
    money in their treasury, it is more likely that an economy can recover
    from difficult times. And we have faced some difficult times since I've
    been your President. We had a recession right after I got in office. We
    had a terrorist attack that affected our economy. We had corporate
    scandals that sent a chill throughout the investment community and
    caused some citizens to wonder whether or not their savings were being
    treated with the respect that they should be. We had uncertainty.
        But I acted. I acted with the--at that time, a Republican-controlled
    Congress, on the principle that if we can get more money in circulation,
    if we can let the people have more of their own money to save, invest,
    and spend, we would overcome these difficulties. And it worked. We cut
    the taxes on everybody who pays taxes in the United States of America.
        On average, our taxpayers this year will save--this is on average,
    now--amongst all the taxpayers, they'll save about $2,200 on their
    taxes. Now, Washington, we spend--we throw out a lot of big numbers. In
    the statehouse, you talk millions; Washington, we talk trillions. But
    2,200, it may not sound like a lot when we're talking big numbers in
    Washington, but you ask the family that's trying to save for a child's
    education whether $2,200 means a lot, and they'll tell you, it sure
    does. You talk about the working family that's struggling to get

    [[Page 1014]]

    ahead, that $2,200 means a lot. You talk about the farmer out there
    who's worried about making crop, that $2,200 means a lot. It may sound
    small to the opiners in Washington, but you ask the average American
    family, would they rather have the $2,200 to spend on their own or would
    they rather send it to Washington, DC, they'll say, ``Let me have my
    money. I can do a good job with it.''
        Since August of 2003, when these tax cuts took full effect, we've
    increased new jobs by 8.2 million. In other words, people are working.
    Unemployment rates and--are pretty low around the United States of
    America. Real wages are going up; inflation is relatively stable. In
    other words, this economy is strong. And I would argue with the doubters
    and the skeptics that one of the reason is because of the tax cuts we
    passed. And the fundamental question facing this Congress is, will they
    be wise enough to keep taxes low?
        Now, let me talk about the deficit and the budget. You know, there's
    an argument in Washington that says, well, we've got to raise the taxes
    in order to balance the budget. Well, you all know how government tends
    to work. Generally, when you raise the taxes, those monies don't go to
    balance the budget; they tend to go to new programs. They tend to expand
    the size and scope of government.
        We have a different strategy in Washington, and that is, rather than
    raise taxes to balance the budget, we believe you ought to keep taxes
    low to balance the budget. And here's why. Low taxes have yielded a
    strong economy; a strong economy produces more tax revenues. As a matter
    of fact, tax revenue increase this year are--the Federal tax revenues
    this year are expected to rise $167 billion higher than last year. In
    other words, we kept the taxes low; the economy was strong; and we're
    receiving about $167 billion more tax revenues.
        Then all of a sudden, you begin to get a sense of our strategy on
    how to handle the deficit: Keep the economy growing by keeping taxes
    low, which is yielding more tax revenues. But we've got to be wise on
    how we spend the money. We've held the growth of domestic discretionary
    spending below the rate of inflation for the past 3 years, which has
    enabled us to report to the country that the deficit is down to $205
    billion. That is 1.5 percent of GDP; that is lower than the national
    average over the last 10 years.
        And then we submitted another budget that showed you can keep taxes
    low, prioritize Federal spending, and be getting surplus by $33 billion
    by 2012. The best way to balance this budget is to keep the economy
    strong by letting you keep your money and being wise about how we spend
    your money in Washington, DC.
        As you know, we've had a change of leadership in Washington, DC.
    That was not my first choice. [Laughter] But nevertheless, it is a
    situation that we're dealing with. And I would remind those who are now
    running the Congress that they have a responsibility when it comes to
    leadership. They have proposed a budget--and I told you there's a debate
    raging in Washington, and I'd like to share with you why I said that.
    Earlier this year, the Democrats passed a resolution calling for $205
    billion in additional domestic spending over the next 5 years. That's
    what their budget resolution said. I just told you what our budget
    proposal was, and there's a different approach. There's a different
    feeling in Washington among some good people, fine people; they just
    have a different philosophy than I do, and they proposed 205 billion
    additional dollars in spending over a 5-year period.
        The problem is, is that spending promises out of the Nation's
    Capital have a way of shrinking American wallets in the heartland
    because you've got to figure out how to pay for that spending increase.
    And so it's no surprise that their budget framework

    [[Page 1015]]

    includes the largest tax increase in American history. In order to pay
    for the promises they have made, their budget framework includes the
    largest tax increase--not the second largest or close to the largest--
    the largest tax increase in American history.
        Here's what that would mean. It means if you have a child, your
    taxes would go up by $500 per child. Remember, we cut the--we increased
    the child tax credit from 500 to 1,000. Their plan would reduce it to
    500. I don't agree with that approach. I think it's important to help
    people with children by keeping taxes low. If you're a family making
    $60,000 a year and you have two children, your taxes would go up by more
    than $1,800. Under their plan that would increase Federal spending by
    over $200 billion, the average American family making--of four making
    $60,000 would see their bill go up by $1,800.
        Twenty-six million small-business owners would see their taxes
    increase by an average of $4,000. You see, one of the reasons why I
    thought it was important to cut taxes was to stimulate the small-
    business sector of our economy. Now, most small businesses pay tax at
    the--or many small businesses pay tax at the individual income tax rate.
    You talk to your average small-business owner in your State, many of
    them will be subchapter S corporations or limited liability
    partnerships. In other words, they pay tax at the individual income tax
    rate, so when you heard me talking about reducing individual income
    taxes, you're really stimulating the small-business sector.
        And that's important because about 70 percent of new jobs in America
    are created by small-business owners. When the small-business sector is
    strong, America is strong. And cutting taxes on small businesses was
    good policy. And the Democrats, under their budget resolution, would
    raise small-business taxes by about $4,000, on average, for 26 million
    small businesses. And more than 5 million low-income Americans who now
    pay no income taxes because of our relief would once again pay.
        What I'm telling you is, is that there's a philosophical debate in
    Washington, and the bunch now running Congress want to return to the
    tax-and-spend policies of the past that did not work then and will not
    work in the future. And that's why I plan on using my veto to keep your
    taxes low.
        Not only has the leadership proposed their idea on the budget; they
    have a responsibility to set an agenda that will get the spending bills
    to my desk, one at a time, in a reasonable time frame. In other words,
    they're now in charge, and it's important that they exercise their
    responsibility. That's what the American people expect.
        And part of that responsibility is to get the 12 basic spending
    bills that are needed to keep the Federal Government running to my desk
    in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, they've been dragging their feet on
    these bills. They're now getting ready to leave for their August recess
    without having passed a single spending bill. Look, the legislative
    process is complicated, no doubt. But in a time of war, one spending
    bill should take precedence over all the rest. And so at the very least,
    Members of Congress ought to finish the spending bill for the Department
    of Defense before they go on recess, so I can sign it into law.
        We got troops in harm's way. They need to exercise their
    responsibility and get this defense bill passed. There's time to do it.
    I'll hang around if they want me to--[laughter]--to get the bill passed.
    And when Members come back in September, they need to pass the rest of
    the basic spending bills to keep the Federal Government running.
        Now, I believe these bills need to be passed one at a time because
    the alternative is to pass a massive spending bill that no one can read
    and into which anyone can hide wasteful spending. They need to get the
    work done before the fiscal year ends on September the 30th. If they're
    responsible leaders, that's what they will do.

    [[Page 1016]]

        The other thing we need to do is confront this business about
    earmarks. You know, earmarks are these special spending projects that
    get stuck in these bills, that really never see the light of day.
    Somebody has got a good idea about how to spend your money, and they
    just put it in the bill. This year, I proposed reforms that would make
    the earmark process more transparent, that would end the practice of
    concealing earmarks in so-called report language, that would eliminate
    wasteful earmarks and cut the overall number by at least half.
        There's been some agreement on this issue in Washington. Democrats
    and Republicans have taken a good step by agreeing to list all earmarks
    before the bills are passed. You see, we want the public to see them. I
    believe in accountability when it comes to spending your money. We want
    there to be transparency. We want there to be a chance for lawmakers to
    strike them out if they think that they're frivolous and don't meet
    national concerns. Congress needs to uphold its commitments, and the
    Senate needs to make transparency a part of its formal rules.
        And then there's the issue of entitlements--in other words, I'm
    going through the list of the items that will make this budget process
    not only better and more transparent. But I want Congress to understand
    that I'm going to continue talking about big issues because I firmly
    believe that we, those of us in public office, have a responsibility to
    confront serious problems now and not pass them on to future Congresses
    or future generations. And such a serious problem is in our entitlement
    programs, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.
        The programs are growing faster than our economy, faster than
    inflation and, therefore, faster than our ability to pay. Old guys like
    me will be taken care of in the system. I'm worried about younger people
    paying into a system that won't be around for them. And we can solve
    these problems. It takes political will and political courage. And I've
    called on Congress to work with my administration to deal with these
    significant problems now, so our children know they'll be paying in a
    system that is not bankrupt.
        Oh, there's a lot of issues we'll be working on over the next
    months. We'll be working hard to make sure that our economy continues to
    run with good energy policy. I firmly believe that we can use
    technologies to help change our--how we use energy. I think it's in the
    national interest to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. I
    know it's in our national--our economic interest to become less
    dependent on foreign sources of oil. After all, when demand for crude
    oil goes up in other parts of the world, it causes the basic price of
    oil to go up if corresponding supply is not found, which causes the
    price of gasoline to go up.
        We're on the verge of some unbelievable technologies in this
    country. And I believe that you'll be driving to work over the next
    couple of years in a automobile that's powered by electricity, and it
    won't have to look like a golf cart. In other words, Tommy, we'll be driving pickup trucks that may not be running on
    gasoline. I know they're going to be running on ethanol, which, by the
    way, I like the idea of our farmers growing energy that help us become
    less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
        What I'm telling you is, I'm optimistic about our future when it
    comes to energy diversification, which, by the way, will enable us to be
    better stewards of the environment. Some optimistic things that are
    coming, and we're spending a fair amount of taxpayers' money to be a
    part of these new technologies, whether they be safe nuclear power or
    clean coal technologies or the ability to explore for oil and gas in
    offshore regions that, heretofore, were unimaginable for people to find
    energy. I mean, we've got a comprehensive plan that says, technology and
    free enterprise can

    [[Page 1017]]

    help us achieve energy independence. That's what we want.
        Another way to make sure this economy grows is to be smart about our
    education system. The No Child Left Behind Act is an important piece of
    legislation. I'm a big believer in it, and I'll tell you why. First of
    all, as the speaker will tell you, I'm a strong
    advocate for local control of schools. I don't believe Washington ought
    to be telling local districts how to run their school system. I do not
    believe that.
        But I do believe this: I believe that when you spend money, you
    ought to insist upon results. That's what I believe. I believe that
    every child can learn, and I believe that we ought to expect every
    school to teach. And when we spend money, I think it makes sense to ask
    simple questions. Can the child you're educating read, write, add, and
    subtract? I don't think it's too much to ask. As a matter of fact, I
    think it's good for society that we do ask. It's what I call challenging
    the soft bigotry of low expectations. If you have low expectations,
    you're going to get lousy results. If you have high expectations for
    every child, you're not afraid to measure.
        No Child Left Behind says, we're going to spend Federal money, and
    we want you to develop an accountability system that will show the
    parents and taxpayers that the schools are meeting high standards.
    That's what it says, and it's working.
        You know, one of the real problems we have in America is an
    achievement gap. I guess that's a fancy word for saying that, generally,
    Anglo kids are doing better in the basics than African American or
    Latino kids. And that's not good for this country, and it's not right.
    And it seems like to me, we've got to focus our efforts and energies on
    solving that problem if we want this country to be a hopeful country
    with a strong economy.
        See, the economy is going to demand brainpower as we head into the
    21st century, and therefore, now is the time to make sure our fourth
    graders can read, write, and add and subtract and our eighth graders are
    more proficient in math and when you graduate from high school, your
    diploma means something. And the best place to start is to measure. And
    when you see a problem, fix it, before it's too late. When you find an
    inner-city kid that may not have the right curriculum to get he or she
    up to the grade level at the fourth grade, let's solve it now; let's not
    wait. No Child Left Behind is working, and it needs to be reauthorized
    by the United States Congress.
        Finally, I want to spend some time talking about securing this
    country. September the 11th changed my way of thinking, and it should
    change the way our country views the world as well. We were attacked by
    a group of ruthless killers who have an ideology. In other words, they
    believe something. These people are--it's hard for you and your
    constituents to imagine a frame of mind that says, ``I'm going to kill
    innocent men, women, and children to achieve a political objective.''
    But that's the nature of this enemy. That's exactly what they're like.
        They preyed upon hopelessness to convince 19 kids to get on
    airplanes to come and kill nearly 3,000 of our people. And when that
    happened, I vowed that I would do everything in my power to protect the
    American people. And we've got a strategy to do that. On the one hand,
    we have altered how we view protecting the homeland. We've created a
    whole Department of Government that brought disparate parts of our
    Government together, with the main aim of protecting the people.
        But protection requires more than just making sure we know who is
    coming in and out of the country and who is leaving and screening cargo
    and making people take off their shoes at airports. It requires more
    than that. I believe it requires a relentless search, relentless
    pressure on an enemy that wants to do us harm again. I would rather
    defeat them over there than

    [[Page 1018]]

    face them here. And that's why--[applause].
        I say that because you can't negotiate with these people. You cannot
    hope for the best, that, oh, maybe if we don't pressure them, then
    they'll just retreat. These are determined adversaries that have stated
    their ambitions. They would like to see their point of view spread as
    far and wide as possible. That's--when I talk about a caliphate that
    stretches from Spain to Indonesia, that means that they want to impose
    their ideology on people.
        And what would that mean? Well, I just want you to remember--think
    back what it--think what it would be like to be a young girl growing up
    in Afghanistan, when they were able to find their safe haven and impose
    their vision across that country. I mean, you couldn't be educated; you
    were forced to be a second-class citizen. If you stepped out of line,
    you were whipped. These people are--they're smart; they're tough. And we
    need to be tougher every single day. The best way to protect you is to
    keep them on the run, is to keep the pressure on them. And that is
    exactly what the United States of America is doing and will continue to
    do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.
        But that's not enough to defeat them. I have told the American
    people, we're in an ideological struggle, and the best way to defeat
    their ideology of darkness in the long term is with an ideology of hope.
    The ideology of hope is based upon the universality of liberty. I told
    you, I believe in the universality of liberty. I don't believe there's a
    debate on that. I believe every man, woman, and child wants to be free.
    And I know that free societies yield the peace we want. And therefore,
    the strategy is on--the short-term strategy of defeating them is to
    finding them and bringing them to justice. And the long-term strategy is
    to help others realize the blessings of liberty.
        And this is a great challenge for the United States of America. It's
    a different kind of war. It's akin to the cold war in some ways, where
    we had an ideological struggle. But in this war, there's an enemy that
    uses asymmetrical warfare, and they're propagandists. They kill the
    innocent to affect the conscience of those of us who feel like we need
    to keep pressuring them. See, they understand when they fill our TV
    screens with death and misery, it causes a compassionate people to
    recoil. They know that we value human life, and therefore, when they
    take human life, it affects how the American people feel.
        And so I understand the angst amongst the American people. I know
    that people are weary of war. I fully understand that these hard images
    that these killers get on our TV screens ask people--causes people to
    question whether or not the cause is worth it and whether or not we can
    succeed. Well, I believe the cause is worth it. I wouldn't ask a
    mother's child to go into combat if I didn't think it was necessary to
    protect the American people, to stay on the offense. And I do believe we
    can succeed if we don't lose our nerve, because freedom has had the
    capacity over time to change enemies to allies and to lay the foundation
    of peace for generations to come.
        And right now what you're seeing is this global war against these
    extremists and radicals unfolding in two major theaters: Afghanistan,
    where we liberated 25 million people from the clutches of a barbaric
    regime that had provided safe haven for Al Qaida killers who plotted and
    planned and then killed 3,000 of our people, and in Iraq.
        The Iraq theater has gone through several stages. The first stage
    was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Let me just be as blunt as I can
    about that. It was his choice to make as to whether or not he was able
    to survive in power. The free world, through the United Nations, spoke
    clearly to Saddam Hussein. He made the choice. We removed Saddam
    Hussein, and the

    [[Page 1019]]

    world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.
        And then the society which had been traumatized by his tyranny did
    something remarkable, and that is, they went to the polls in three
    historic elections and voted for a modern Constitution and expressed
    their desire to have Iraqi-style freedom, Iraqi-style democracy. It was
    an amazing moment. It seems like several decades ago to some, but that
    happened in the end of 2005.
        And then this enemy--and the enemy, by the way, is comprised of
    people who wish they were still in power, disgruntled militia that are
    trying to make--see if they can't take advantage of some chaos. But the
    enemy that is causing the biggest spectaculars is Al Qaida.
        Now, there's a debate in Washington--I gave a speech about this in
    South Carolina the other day--is, well--is the Al Qaida in Iraq have
    anything to do with the Al Qaida that's hiding out somewhere in the
    regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan? There's some actually who say,
    ``Well, they're different; they're not to be--we don't need to worry
    about them. All they care about is Iraq.'' Well, I reminded the audience
    in that speech that the person who started Al Qaida in Iraq was not an
    Iraqi; he was from Jordan. And after we killed him, the next person was
    not from Iraq, that started Al Qaida in Iraq; he was from Egypt.
        And they have sworn allegiance to Usama bin Laden, and they agree that Iraq is the central part of this
    war on terror, with Usama bin Laden. And they agree with his ambition to
    drive us out so they could have a safe haven from which to plot further
    attacks. Yes, Al Qaida in Iraq is dangerous to the United States of
    America. They blew up the holy shrine. They saw the progress being made.
    They can't stand the thought of a free society that will thwart their
    ambitions, and they blew up the shrine.
        And why did they do it? They did it because they saw that progress
    was being made, that the Iraqis might be actually able to have a
    government of, by, and for the people, and they wanted to create
    sectarian violence. And they were successful. In other words, there
    wasn't enough security at the time--in other words, enough confidence in
    the security at the time amongst the Iraqi people to be able to stop
    people from fighting each other.
        And so I had a decision to make, and I made the decision: It's
    rather than pulling out and hoping for the best in the capital of this
    new democracy, recognizing that in the long run, a system based upon
    liberty will be a major defeat for these radical extremists, I sent more
    troops in. Rather than say, let's hope for the best, I said, we can do a
    better job of providing security to give this young Government a chance
    to grow and thrive and to give the people confidence in the Constitution
    that they voted for.
        And David Petraeus became a new
    general there on the ground--the new general on the ground. He's a
    expert in counterinsurgency. The mission is to help protect Baghdad and
    the people inside Baghdad and to keep relentless pressure on those
    extremists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy. And he's
    making progress. And I believe it's in the interests of this country,
    for our own security, for the United States Congress to fully support
    General Petraeus in his mission and to give him time to come back and
    report to the United States Congress the progress that he's making.
        It's really interesting to watch this counterinsurgency strategy
    work. I mean, when people on the ground begin to have confidence, they,
    all of a sudden, start making good decisions for a state that will
    represent their interests. There is such thing as top-down
    reconciliation. That's the passage of law. And the Iraqi parliament has
    passed quite a few pieces of legislation, and they're working--trying to
    work through their differences. Sometimes legislative bodies aren't real
    smooth in getting out

    [[Page 1020]]

    a piece of legislation in timely fashion, as some of you might
    recognize. But nevertheless, they're working hard to--learning what it
    means to have a parliament that functions.
        But there's also bottom-up reconciliation. That's when people on the
    ground begin to see things change and start making decisions that will
    lead to peace. See, I believe most Muslim mothers, for example, want
    their child to grow up in peace. I believe there's something universal
    about motherhood. I don't think mothers in America think necessarily
    different from mothers in Iraq. I think the mother in Iraq says, ``Gosh,
    I hope for the day when my child can go outside and play and not fear
    violence. I want my child to be educated. I have hopes that my child can
    grow up in a peaceful world.'' And when people begin to see that these
    thugs that have a dark vision begin to get defeated, people begin to
    change attitudes. And that's what's happened in Anbar Province.
        Last November, many experts said that Anbar Province, which Al Qaida
    in Iraq had stated as their--that they wanted as a safe haven--this was
    going to be where they were going to launch their caliphate from--they
    said, we can't win there. And all of a sudden, we put more marines in;
    the people saw things change on the ground; local leaders started
    turning in Al Qaida--they don't like to be--people don't like to be
    intimidated by thugs and murderers. And the whole situation is changing
    for the better. Progress is being made there.
        Now, I know that the car bombs that take place tend to cloud
    people's vision. What I'm telling you is that we gave David
    Petraeus a mission--the troops just fully
    got there 1 month ago--and he's accomplishing that mission. And my point
    to you is, it's worth it and necessary, because if we were to leave
    before the job is done, these radicals like Al Qaida would become
    emboldened, there would be chaos, mass casualties in Iraq. And that
    chaos could spill out across the region. And if that were to happen,
    there would be significant competition among radical groups, whether
    they be Sunni or Shi'a, all aiming to destabilize the region in order to
    be able to achieve power. But they would have one thing in common, and
    that would be to inflict harm on the United States of America.
        It's in our interests that there be a stable government that is an
    ally against these extremists, not only in Iraq but elsewhere. It's in
    our long-term interest for peace and security. Failure in Iraq would
    undermine that long-term interests. See, unlike some wars, this enemy
    wouldn't be content to stay in Iraq. They would follow us here. They
    would use the resources of Iraq to be able to acquire additional
    weaponry or use economic blackmail to achieve their objectives. They're
    dangerous in Iraq, and they'll be dangerous here. And that is why we
    must defeat them in Iraq. And we can.
        I have spent a lot of time sharing this story with people, so I'm
    going to share it with you. If you've heard me tell it, play like you
    hadn't heard it. [Laughter] One of my close friends in the international
    arena over the last 6\1/2\ years is Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. He was such a close friend that
    Laura and I took him down to Elvis's place--
    [laughter]--which was really fun. I'm also a close friend of his
    successor, Prime Minister Abe.
        The reason I bring this up is that, as you know--or may not know--my
    dad, professionally known as 41, fought the
    Japanese. As a young kid, he got out of high school, went down and
    trained in Corpus--part of his training mission--and then fought the
    Japanese as the sworn enemy of the United States of America. I'm sure
    some of your relatives did the same thing.
        And yet here, some 60-odd years later, his son is sitting down at
    the table with the head of the former enemy talking about keeping the
    peace. We were talking about--when I was visiting with Prime Minister
    Koizumi, and now his successor--

    [[Page 1021]]

    the fact that it's important to help these young democracies survive in
    the face of this radicalism and extremism that can affect our homelands.
    See, we share this great--same philosophical belief that liberty can
    prevail, and that we have a duty to help liberty to prevail if we want
    there to be security.
        I've always found that to be very interesting. My dad fought the Japanese, and the son, one lifetime later, is
    talking about keeping the peace. We talk about Afghanistan and helping
    that young democracy. Of course, we talk about North Korea, to make sure
    that we deal with any weapons proliferation that might be happening. We
    talk about a lot of issues, but they're issues about peace. Something
    happened between the 18-year-old kid who joined up to be in the Navy and
    the 60-year-old son being the President. And what happened is, is that
    liberty has got the capacity to convert an enemy into an ally.
        I don't know how many people would have been predicting in 1947 or
    '48 or after the peace treaty was signed when President Truman was the
    President that there would be this kind of accommodation made between
    two former enemies for the sake of peace. I'm not sure how many would
    have, particularly right after World War II. I suspect a lot of people
    would say this never would have happened. They were the enemy then;
    they'll be the enemy now.
        And the reason I tell you this story is that if you really look at
    history, you'll find examples where liberty has transformed regions that
    were warlike, where a lot of people died, into regions of peace. And
    that's going to happen again, so long as we have faith in that
    fundamental principle, so long as we don't lose our confidence in
    certain values that are not American values, but they're universal
    values.
        I believe the most important priority of our Government is to
    protect the American people from further harm. And you just need to be
    reassured and so do your constituents that a lot of good people are
    spending every hour of every day doing just that. But I would remind
    you, in the long run, the best way for your children and grandchildren
    to be able to say that when given a tough task, this generation didn't
    flinch and had certain faith--had faith in certain values, is that we
    stay strong when it comes to liberty as a transformative agent to bring
    the peace we want.
        Thanks for letting me come. God bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 9:11 a.m. at the Philadelphia Marriott. In
    his remarks, he referred to Dolores Mertz, executive board of directors
    national chair, and Jerry Watson, private enterprise board chairman,
    American Legislative Exchange Council; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al
    Qaida terrorist organization; and Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA,
    commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq.