[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
[September 20, 2007]
[Pages 1213-1222]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
The President's News Conference
September 20, 2007
The President. Good morning. In just 10 days, the State Children's
Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, is set to expire. This
important program helps children whose families cannot afford private
health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid to get coverage they
need.
I have strongly supported SCHIP as a Governor, and I have done so as
President. My 2008 budget proposed to increase SCHIP funding by $5
billion over 5 years. It's a 20-percent increase over current levels of
funding. Unfortunately, instead of working with the administration to
enact this funding increase for children's health, Democrats in Congress
have decided to pass a bill they know that will be vetoed. One of their
leaders has even said such a veto would be,
quote, ``a political victory.''
As if this weren't irresponsible enough, Congress is waiting until
the SCHIP program is just about to expire before getting a final bill
passed. In other words, Members of Congress are putting health coverage
for poor children at risk so they can score political points in
Washington. The legislation would raise taxes on working people and
would raise spending by between $35 to $50 billion. Their proposal would
result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it
into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to
$83,000 a year.
The proposal would move millions of American children who now have
private health insurance into Government-run health care. Our goals
should be for children who have no health insurance to be able to get
private coverage, not for children who already have private health
insurance to be able to get Government coverage.
What I'm describing here is a philosophical divide that exists in
Washington over the best approach for health care. Democratic leaders in
Congress want to put more power in the hands of Government by expanding
Federal health care programs. Their SCHIP plan is an incremental step
toward the goal of Government-run health care for every American.
I have a different view. I believe the best approach is to put more
power in the hands of individuals by empowering people and their doctors
to make health care decisions that are right for them. Instead of
expanding SCHIP beyond its original purpose, we should return it to its
original focus, and that is helping poor children, those who are most in
need. And instead of encouraging people to drop private coverage in
favor of Government plans, we should work to make basic private health
insurance affordable and accessible for all Americans.
My administration will continue working with Congress to pass a
responsible SCHIP bill. In the meantime, Congress has an obligation to
make sure health insurance for poor children does not lapse. If they
fail to do so, more than a million children could lose health coverage.
Health coverage for these children should not be held hostage while
political ads are being made and new polls are being taken. Congress
must pass a clean, temporary extension of the current SCHIP program that
I can sign
[[Page 1214]]
by September the 30th. And that's the date when the program expires.
I've instructed Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike
Leavitt, who has joined us today, to work
with States on ways to mitigate the damage that would result if Congress
allows this program to lapse. Our goal in passing legislation should be
getting something done for those in need, not getting nothing done so
politicians in Washington can claim a political victory.
Mike Leavitt is going to answer
questions, if you have any, after my press conference. You looked a
little concerned as to whether or not I'd ask--answer any questions. And
now I'm happy to take any questions you have, starting with Terry
[Terence Hunt, Associated Press].
National Economy/Federal Budget
Q. Mr. President, economists say that the Nation is at increasing
risk of recession. What do you say?
The President. I say that the fundamentals of our Nation's economy
are strong. Inflation is down. Job markets are steady and strong. After
all, the national unemployment rate is 4.6 percent. Corporate profits
appear to be strong. Exports are up. There is no question that there is
some unsettling times in the housing market and credits associated with
the housing market. And that's why I look forward to working with
Congress to modernize the FHA loans so that people can refinance their
homes and to change the Tax Code so that if somebody renegotiates a
loan, they don't have to pay a penalty, a tax penalty, in so doing.
I'm optimistic about our economy. I would be pessimistic, however,
if the Congress has its way and raises taxes. I believe the worst thing
that can happen now is to allow the Congress to do that which they have
said they want to do, which is to raise the taxes on people, and--
because I think taking money out of the hands of investors and consumers
and small-business owners would weaken the economy.
And so, as I say, I'm optimistic. But I would be pessimistic if I
thought Congress was going to get their way. And they're not; they're
not going to raise taxes.
Q. Do you think there's a risk of a recession? How do you rate that?
The President. You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I
got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low--
[laughter]--and being fiscally responsible with the people's money.
We've submitted a plan that will enable this budget to become balanced
by 2012 so long as Congress learns to set priorities. And we can balance
the budget without raising taxes.
Caren [Caren Bohan, Reuters].
Iran
Q. Thank you. The French Foreign Minister has raised the possibility
of war with Iran. Is there a risk that the escalating rhetoric over Iran
could increase the chances of war, and what would be your message to the
U.N. next week regarding Iran?
The President. I have consistently stated that I'm hopeful that we
can convince the Iranian regime to give up any ambitions it has in
developing a weapons program, and do so peacefully. And that ought to be
the objective of any diplomacy. And to this end, we are working with
allies and friends to send a consistent message to the Iranians that
there is a better way forward for them than isolation--financial
isolation and/or economic sanctions.
I believe it's imperative that we continue to work in a multilateral
fashion to send that message. And one place to do so is at the United
Nations. We're also talking to different Finance Ministers about how we
can send a message to the Iranian Government that the free world is just
not going to tolerate the development of know-how in how to build a
weapon or at least gain the ability to make a weapon.
[[Page 1215]]
And the reason why is, is because it's very important for us to take
the threats coming out of the mouth of the President of Iran very seriously. He's a person that is, you
know--constantly talks about the use of force to--on Israel, for
example, and Israel is our very firm and strong ally.
I also--it's very important for the Iranian people to know that
our--the United States recognizes the grand tradition and history of
Iran and that we respect the people of Iran. We just believe that their
Government has made choices that make it difficult for them to realize
their dreams, to realize their full potential. The Iranian economy is
suffering, some of it through mismanagement, some of it as a result of
international pressures. And the people of Iran have got to know that
some of the suffering that they're having inside their country is caused
by their Government, its inability to work with the world in a
responsible way regarding their desire to enrich uranium. And so we'll
keep the pressure on them, and again, the objective, of course, is to
solve this peacefully.
David [David Gregory, NBC News]. Welcome back.
Israel and Syria
Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
The President. Where have you been?
Q. I've been around.
The President. You've been doing those shows. [Laughter]
Q. Sir, Israeli Opposition Leader Netanyahu has now spoken openly
about Israel's bombing raid on a target in Syria earlier in the month. I
wonder if you could tell us what the target was, whether you supported
this bombing raid, and what do you think it does to change the dynamic
in an already hot region, in terms of Syria and Iran and the dispute
with Israel and whether the U.S. could be drawn into any of this?
The President. I'm not going to comment on the matter. Would you
like another question?
Q. Did you support it?
The President. I'm not going to comment on the matter.
Q. Can you comment about your concerns that come out of it at all,
about for the region?
The President. No. Saying I'm not going to comment on the matter
means I'm not going to comment on the matter. You're welcome to ask
another question, if you'd like to, on a different subject.
Iraq
Q. I'll ask you about Iraq. Efforts to curtail the deployment of
troops is an ongoing debate right now. One of the things you spoke about
in your address last week had to do with impatience with the Iraqi
Government. And you spoke about that, but not in much detail. How is
that dynamic changing, your level of frustration with the lack of
political progress? And how long can Americans reasonably expect you to
wait before you take some kind of action that really forces the Iraqi
Government's hand to reach the goals of reconciliation that you set for
them?
The President. In my speech, I made it clear that there has to be a
change in security for there to be reconciliation. And I also said that
progress will yield fewer troops. In other words, return on success is
what I said.
There are two types of reconciliation, David. One is that
reconciliation, that very visible reconciliation that happens through
the passage of law. In other words, it's reconciliation that shows the
Iraqi people that people from different backgrounds can get along and,
at the same time, that Government can function. Clearly, there needs to
be work there. In other words, there needs to be the passage of law. For
example, we strongly believe that an oil revenue sharing law will send a
message to Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurd alike that there is an effort at the
national level to achieve reconciliation.
Having said that, however, there is a functioning government. And
the reason I
[[Page 1216]]
bring--I guess my point is this, that in spite of the fact they haven't
passed a law, there is the sharing of oil revenues on a relatively
equitable basis. The other--and so we'll continue to work with the
Government to insist and impress upon them the need for there to be the
passage of law, whether it be Provincial election laws or de-
Ba'athification law or the oil law.
There is local reconciliation taking place. I had a fascinating
conversation in the Roosevelt Room earlier this week with members of
Provincial Reconstruction Teams from around Iraq, who talked about how
people are sick and tired of murder and violence and that they expect
their local governments and their central Government to be more
responsive to their needs. And local governments are beginning to
respond.
Part of the reason why there is not this kind of instant democracy
in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's
brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody
said to me--I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead because Saddam Hussein
killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up
and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there's a
psychological recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for
them. And I understand it's hard work for them. Having said that, I'm
not going to give them a pass when it comes to the central Government's
reconciliation efforts.
I also said in my speech, local politics will drive national
politics. And I believe that. I believe that as more reconciliation
takes place at the local level, you'll see a more responsive central
Government.
Yes. Axelrod [Jim Axelrod, CBS News].
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates/Iraq
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your Defense Secretary, Robert Gates,
was recently asked by New York Times columnist David Brooks if knowing
what he knows now, invading Iraq was a good idea. And I believe your
Defense Secretary answered, ``I don't know.'' Does that represent
daylight with you? Is that second-guessing? Have you spoken to the
Defense Secretary? And does that change your mind at all?
The President. I think he made it pretty clear the removal of
Saddam--I don't know about this column, but I know his previous
statements, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right
decision. But I haven't talked to him about the column. If I had to ask
everybody in my Government to respond to columns and news stories,
that's all I'd be doing, is talking to people in my Government.
I am absolutely convinced Secretary Gates knows that removing Saddam
was the right thing, and I'm absolutely convinced he believes we will
succeed in Iraq. And so I've got a lot of trust in the man. He's doing a
fine job as the Secretary.
Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News].
Israel and Syria
Q. You won't comment on what the Israelis may or may not have done--
--
The President. That's an accurate statement. I hope you got that
from my answer. Now you're afraid--yes, of course, now Gregory is
worried I'm actually going to comment, see.
Q. That's what I'm hoping.
The President. Well, I'm not going to, so you might want to go to
another subject.
North Korea
Q. I know you won't comment on that. But let's talk about whether or
not you believe that North Korea is aiding Syria with a nuclear program.
The President. We have made it clear and will continue to make it
clear to the North Koreans through the six-party talks
[[Page 1217]]
that we expect them to honor their commitment to give up weapons and
weapons programs. And to the extent that they are proliferating, we
expect them to stop that proliferation, if they want the six-party talks
to be successful.
In other words, whether it be the exportation of information and/or
materials is an important part--it doesn't matter to us whether they
do--in terms of the six-party talks, because they're both equally
important, I guess is the best way to say it. In other words, we want--
it does matter whether--let me rephrase that--it matters whether they
are, but the concept of proliferation is equally important as getting
rid of programs and weapons.
Q. So you believe they are aiding Syria?
The President. It's a general statement that we expect them not to
be proliferating.
Race Relations/Situation in Jena, Louisiana
Q. Mr. President, thousands of people are marching today in Jena,
Louisiana, in a racially charged case involving six black students for
beating a white student. Also, not far from the White House recently,
there was a noose that was found hanging from a tree at a college
campus. You have worked very hard to bring blacks and Hispanics into
your party, but the fallout from the immigration debate and even some
Republican Presidential candidates' refusal to go to debates at
Univision as well as Morgan State calls into question whether or not the
state of race relations is deteriorating in this country and
specifically in your party. Your thoughts?
The President. My advice to whoever will be our nominee is to reach
out to the African American community as well as other communities,
because I believe that we've got a very strong record when it comes to
empowerment, when it comes to education or homeownership or small-
business formation.
The events in Louisiana are--have saddened me. I understand the
emotions. The Justice Department and the FBI are monitoring the
situation down there, and all of us in America want there to be fairness
when it comes to justice. We've got a good record to run on, and my
advice to our candidate would be to run on it.
Q. Do you think this is a defining moment in race relations?
President Ahmadi-nejad of Iran's
Upcoming Visit to New York City
Q. Mr. President, Iran's President, Ahmadi-nejad, says he wants to
go to Ground Zero and place a wreath there. There is some objection to
that in New York. What are your thoughts?
The President. My thoughts are that the local police will make the
proper decision and that if they decide for him not to go--like it looks
like they have--I can understand why they would not want somebody who is
running a country who is a state sponsor of terror down there at the
site.
Roger [Roger Runningen, Bloomberg News].
National Economy/Federal Budget
Q. Mr. President, back to the economy for a moment. The Fed took its
half-point rate cut the other day. Do you think that was enough to stave
off recession? And if not, are there other steps you're prepared to do
financially?
The President. Roger, I do not comment on the decisions made by the
Fed. I will comment on Ben Bernanke; I think
he's doing a fine job. The White House and the Congress are responsible
for fiscal policy. The worst decision the Congress could make would be
to raise taxes during this period. We don't need to raise taxes in order
to fund budget priorities. We have submitted a budget that shows we can
get to balance by 2012 without raising taxes, and its one of the reasons
I feel so strongly about--that's why I'm not going to let the taxes be
raised.
Fletch [Michael Fletcher, Washington Post].
[[Page 1218]]
Situation in Jena, Louisiana
Q. What do you say to those who criticize you for not speaking out
on the situation in Louisiana, particularly given your passionate
remarks after Hurricane Katrina about race? People say you've fallen
silent on this.
The President. As you know, this is an ongoing trial; there's
litigation taking place. I feel strongly that there ought to be fair
justice. And I just spoke out on it.
National Economy/Social Security Reform
Q. Mr. President, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently was
asked if he missed you. He said, no. [Laughter]
The President. Wait a minute. I miss him.
Q. Alan Greenspan has come out with a book, a recent book,
criticizing you for being fiscally irresponsible. And they're not the
first former Government officials to come out and be critical of you.
And I'm wondering two things. First, do you feel betrayed by some of
these people who have served you and then have come out and criticized
you? And then, more particularly, can you respond to Greenspan's
criticism?
The President. My feelings are not hurt. You might have been a
little selective in quoting Donald Rumsfeld, which I know you didn't mean to be, you know. I respect
Secretary Rumsfeld; I believe he did a fine job. And I respect Alan
Greenspan. I respectfully disagree with Alan
Greenspan when it comes to saying that this administration didn't handle
the fiscal issues we faced in good fashion. As a matter of fact, we did.
The deficit, as a percent of GDP, is low. It's lower than the 30-
year average. We have submitted a plan to balance the budget. We dealt
with a recession, a terrorist attack, and corporate scandals. And we did
it by cutting taxes. The tax cuts worked. The economy recovered. People
are working. Interest rates are low.
I'm a supply-sider. I believe supply-side economics, when properly
instituted, enables us to achieve certain objectives. One, there's
people finding work, and there's hope in the economy. Two, that supply-
side economics yields additional tax revenues. And if we're smart about
how we manage the fiscal budget, it leads to balance, and that's what we
have done. We are fighting a war at the same time that we're headed
toward balance. In other words, we're making sure our troops get the
money they need and veterans get the benefits they need.
The former Chairman Greenspan and I spent
a lot of time talking about the unfunded liabilities inherent in Social
Security and Medicare. And he's concerned about those unfunded
liabilities, as am I. And that's why I went in front of the Congress, in
more than one occasion, talking about how to reform Social Security so
that young people who are working aren't paying payroll taxes into a
system that's going broke.
I'm not going to give up on entitlement reform, but it can require
part--members of both parties to recognize we have a problem that ought
to be solved now. It's time to--I thought it was time to come together a
couple of years ago, and that wasn't the political will in Congress. And
I'm not so sure we're going to find it now, but I'm going to keep trying
because, like the Chairman, I understand that
the biggest issue we've got with the deficit are those deficits inherent
in these entitlement programs.
John [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].
Government of Dubai and NASDAQ Stock Market/Trade/U.S. Foreign Policy
Q. Mr. President, there's a deal taking shape this morning where the
Government of Dubai would buy a share of--a stake in the NASDAQ stock
market. And there is some concern being expressed on Capitol Hill about
this. It's another deal involving, you know, people overseas that we
might not trust. What's your reaction to it? And
[[Page 1219]]
also, what's your level of concern about protectionism in general?
The President. My reaction is, is that we have a reform process in
place that will be able to deal with this issue. In other words, we're
going to take a good look at it as to whether or not it has any national
security implications involved in the transaction. And I'm comfortable
that the process will go forward.
John, I'm also--I am concerned about protectionism. I'm concerned
about it because if the United States loses its confidence when it comes
to trading, it will make it less likely our economy would grow. And I
just told you, one of the underpinnings of our support is the fact that
exports--for economic vitality--is the fact that exports are up, and
workers benefit when we're selling products overseas. And I believe
these free trade agreements will be an interesting test of
protectionism, whether protectionism is real.
We've got four trade agreements that we've negotiated that we want
to get passed, and there's going to be some crucial votes coming up here
pretty soon in the Congress. And we'll work hard to get all four trade
agreements through. And if they don't get through, it is a sign that the
protectionists are beginning to be on the ascendancy here in Washington,
DC, and that would be a mistake. And for people who are deeply concerned
about poverty around the world like I am, the best way to help lift
people out of poverty is through free trade agreements. And that's why
we're dedicated to the Doha round that is--that Secretary Schwab is so actively engaged in--not Secretary Schwab,
trade negotiator Schwab. And we're committed to reach an accord with
these nations so that--because trade helps poor people realize a better
life. And it's a proven fact.
I'm also worried about isolationism. Isolationism tends to run hand
in hand with protectionism. You'll find isolationists are those who say
it's not our business what happens overseas, it doesn't matter if
there's a free society in the heart of the Middle East, as far as our
long-term security and peace. I just strongly reject that. I think it
does matter a lot that the United States is working with other nations
to promote liberty and freedom because I believe liberty is a change
agent. Liberty can help hostile parts of the world become peaceful parts
of the world.
You know, our strategy in dealing with these extremists who still
want to attack us is on the one hand, chase them and find them and bring
them to justice, and on the other hand, help change the conditions that
caused 19 kids to get on airplanes and come and kill nearly 3,000
citizens on our soil. The best way to do that is to be active with
foreign policy. It's not to lose faith in values, but to actively
promote universal values. And isolationists would say, it's not worth
it, doesn't matter to the United States of America. Well, I think it
does matter, and I think it matters a lot.
Herman [Ken Herman, Cox News], have you got a question?
2008 Presidential Elections
Q. Yes, sir, thank you.
The President. You're welcome.
Q. Mr. President, for Republicans seeking election next year are you
an asset or a liability?
The President. Strong asset. [Laughter] Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News].
Q. Can I follow?
The President. No. [Laughter] I knew I made a mistake calling on you
in the first place. [Laughter]
Q. He's known you a long time.
The President. Yes, he has.
Q. And you got an MBA?
The President. The problem is, I called him, and I've known him for
a long time.
Q. So you knew what you were getting into. [Laughter]
The President. Yes. Look, candidates who go out and say that the
United States is vulnerable to attack and we're going to make sure our
professionals have the tools
[[Page 1220]]
necessary to protect us are going to do well. Candidates who go out and
say that helping these Iraqis realize the benefits of democracy are
going to do well. Candidates who go out and say that it's very important
for the United States to have clear principles when it comes to foreign
policy, they'll do well. Candidates who say, we're not going to raise
your taxes will do well.
Ann.
Taxes/SCHIP Legislation
Q. Quick follow, if I may, Mr. President? [Laughter]
The President. No, you may not. [Laughter]
Q. Mr. President, back to your grade point average on holding the
line on taxes----
The President. Whew, I thought you were going to talk about the
actual grade point average. [Laughter] I remind people that, like when
I'm with Condi, I say, she's the Ph.D., and
I'm the C student. And just look at who's the President and who's the
adviser. But go ahead. [Laughter]
Q. If there is a tax increase on cigarettes to fund the SCHIP
program, is that a tax increase you oppose?
The President. It does. We don't need to raise taxes. What I want is
the Congress to be focused on making sure poor children get the health
insurance they were promised. Instead, Congress has made a decision to
expand the eligibility up to $80,000. That's not the intent of the
program. The program was, find poor children and help them with health
insurance. Their vision is, expand the eligibility so that people making
up to 80 will be eligible for this program. I believe this is a step
toward federalization of health care. I know that their proposal is
beyond the scope of the program, and that's why I'm going to veto the
bill.
Let's see, Mark [Mark Smith, Associated Press Radio].
Iraq/War on Terror
Q. Mr. President, in January, when you announced your troop surge,
you said that its goal was to get all 18 Iraqi Provinces, the security
for those Provinces into Iraqi hands by November of this year. The
Pentagon, pardon me, is now telling Congress that's not going to happen
until July at the earliest. Have the goalposts shifted once more?
The President. No, the goals are the same; achieving those goals
have been slower than we thought. And the question is, one, whether or
not it's worth it to try to achieve the goals. I believe it's worth it
for the security of the country. And the reason why I believe it's for
the security of the country is that if we were to leave before the job
was done, extremist groups like Al Qaida would be able to gain safe
haven. That's what they've said they want. They believe we won't have
the will to hang in there and help this Iraqi Government succeed. And
they want us out.
And so the goals of helping Iraqis provide their own securities
remain the same, and the goals are important toward achieving our
objective, and our objective is important for the security of the
country. I also believe that a democracy in the heart of the Middle East
will be a major blow to extremists or radicals wherever they live in the
Middle East. And just yesterday we saw an attack on an anti-Syrian/pro-
Lebanese democracy advocate. Now, I don't
know who did that, but I do know it is typical of this war we're
fighting in, when extremists kill innocent people in order to undermine
democracies.
One of the things I feel passionately about is for the United States
to recognize what a Middle East would be like if terrorists and
extremists were--would have safe haven and were emboldened by a U.S.
defeat. And that's why I'm--one, I believe we can succeed, and two, I
know we got to succeed--and therefore, have listened
[[Page 1221]]
carefully to our commanders and our diplomats as to whether or not they
think we can succeed, and if so, what do they need to do it. And that's
what I talked to the country about.
And so, Mark, yes, the goals are the same. And have we achieved them
as fast? No, we haven't. But however, having not achieved them doesn't
mean we ought to quit. It means we ought to work hard to achieve the
goals, because the end result is the same, whether the goal is done in
November or in July, and that is a country that can govern itself,
sustain itself, and defend itself and is an ally against these
extremists and radicals; a country which will deny safe haven to the
folks who have sworn allegiance to the crowd that attacked us on
September the 11th.
A couple of more, and then I'm going to let Leavitt come up here.
Blackwater USA Incident in Iraq
Q. A followup, sir?
The President. Yes, please.
Q. Thank you. You said earlier that people in Iraq are sick and
tired of the violence. To what extent has the recent Blackwater incident
frayed your relations with Prime Minister Maliki and his Government? And
why are outfits like Blackwater above the law in Iraq?
The President. First of all, I have yet to speak to the Prime
Minister about this subject. I'll see him in
New York next week at the U.N.; I'm confident he'll bring it up. I also
appreciate the fact that he's willing to work with the U.S. Government
to set up a commission to find out what actually happened. The folks
like Blackwater who provide security for the State Department are under
rules of engagement. In other words, they have certain rules. And this
commission will determine whether or not they violated those rules. And
I'm looking forward to finding out what the results are.
Q. Any regrets about that incident and the fact that there were----
The President. Well, let's find out what the facts are first.
Obviously, to the extent that innocent life was lost, you know, I'm
saddened. Our objective is to protect innocent life. And we've got a lot
of brave souls in the theater working hard to protect innocent life. And
evidently, some innocent lives were lost. My thoughts and prayers go out
to the families. I want to find out the facts about exactly what took
place there in the theater, and that's exactly what we're about to find
out.
A couple of more here. Wolffe [Richard Wolffe, Newsweek].
Oil Revenue Sharing in Iraq
Q. Thank you, sir.
The President. You looked asleep back there; that's why I was
calling on you.
Q. You recently spoke just earlier about the importance of oil
revenue sharing in Iraq. Recently, a company called Hunt Oil, run by one
of your long-time supporters, Ray Hunt, signed a deal with a Kurdish
regional government to drill for oil up there. That deal has come under
intense criticism from the national Government in Baghdad. They say it
undermines the discussions about oil legislation. What's your opinion of
that kind of deal and how it impacts this long-stalled legislation?
The President. Our Embassy also expressed concern about it. I knew
nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the
extent that it does undermine the ability for the Government to come up
with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously, if
it undermines it, I'm concerned.
Yes.
General David H. Petraeus
Q. Mr. President, thank you.
The President. Big Stretch [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News], he's
back.
Q. What is your reaction to the MoveOn.org ad that mocked General
Petraeus as General ``Betray Us'' and said that he cooked the books on
Iraq? And
[[Page 1222]]
secondly, would you like to see Democrats, including Presidential
candidates, repudiate that ad?
The President. I thought the ad was disgusting, and I felt like the
ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus but on the U.S. military.
And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke
out strongly against that kind of ad. And that leads me to come to this
conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing
group like MoveOn.org--or more afraid of irritating them than they are
of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal. And
it's one thing to attack me; it's another thing to attack somebody like
General Petraeus.
All right. Leavitt is going to answer
some questions, if you have any for him. Make sure they're--tone them
down a little bit; this is his first time in here. Martha, you and
Gregory be polite on him. Thank you for your time.
Michael.
Note: The President's news conference began at 10:46 a.m. in the James
S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he
referred to former President Nelson R. Mandela of South Africa; former
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan; Parliament Member
Antoine Ghanem of Lebanon, who was assassinated in Lebanon on September
19; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; and Gen. David H. Petraeus,
USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq. A reporter referred
to Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Bernard Kouchner of France.