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

[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
[July 12, 2007]
[Pages 951-965]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

The President's News Conference
July 12, 2007

The President. Good morning. Thank you. Yesterday America lost an
extraordinary First Lady and a fine Texan, Lady Bird Johnson. She brought grace to the White House
and beauty to our country. On behalf of the American people, Laura and I send our condolences to her daughters,
Lynda and Luci, and we offer our prayers to the Johnson family.
Before I answer some of your questions, today I'd like to provide
the American people with an update on the situation in Iraq. Since
America began military operations in Iraq, the conflict there has gone
through four major phases. The first phase was the liberation of Iraq
from Saddam Hussein. The second phase was the return of sovereignty to
the Iraqi people and the holding of free elections. The third phase was
the tragic escalation of sectarian violence sparked by the bombing of
the Golden Mosque in Samarra.
We've entered a fourth phase: deploying reinforcements and launching
new operations to help Iraqis bring security to their people. I'm going
to explain why the success of this new strategy is vital for protecting
our people and bringing our troops home, which is a goal shared by all
Americans. I'll brief you on the report we are sending to Congress. I'll
discuss why a drawdown of forces that is not linked to the success of
our operations would be a disaster.
As President, my most solemn responsibility is to keep the American
people safe. So on my orders, good men and women are now fighting the
terrorists on the frontlines in Iraq. I've given our troops in Iraq
clear objectives. And as they risk their lives to achieve these
objectives, they need to know they have the unwavering support from the
Commander in Chief, and they do. And they need the enemy to know that
America is not going to back down. So when I speak to the American
people about Iraq, I often emphasize the importance of maintaining our
resolve and meeting our objectives.
As a result, sometimes the debate over Iraq is cast as a
disagreement between those who want to keep our troops in Iraq and those
who want to bring our troops home. And this is not the real debate. I
don't know anyone who doesn't want to see the day when our brave service
men and women can start coming home.
In my address to the Nation in January, I put it this way: If we
increase our support at this crucial moment, we can hasten the day our
troops begin coming home. The real debate over Iraq is between those who
think the fight is lost or not worth the cost and those who believe the
fight can be won and that, as difficult as the fight is, the cost of
defeat would be far higher.

[[Page 952]]

I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must. So we're
working to defeat Al Qaida and other extremists and aid the rise of an
Iraqi Government that can protect its people, deliver basic services,
and be an ally in the war against these extremists and radicals. By
doing this, we'll create the conditions that would allow our troops to
begin coming home, while securing our long-term national interest in
Iraq and in the region.
When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will because our
military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not
because pollsters say it will be good politics. The strategy I announced
in January is designed to seize the initiative and create those
conditions. It's aimed at helping the Iraqis strengthen their Government
so that it can function even amid violence. It seeks to open space for
Iraq's political leaders to advance the difficult process of national
reconciliation, which is essential to lasting security and stability. It
is focused on applying sustained military pressure to rout out terrorist
networks in Baghdad and surrounding areas. It is committed to using
diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's
democratic Government.
But doing all these things is intended to make possible a more
limited role in Iraq for the United States. It's the goal outlined by
the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It's the goal shared by the Iraqis and
our coalition partners. It is the goal that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus
and our troops are working hard to make a reality.
Our top priority is to help the Iraqis protect their population. So
we have launched an offensive in and around Baghdad to go after
extremists, to buy more time for Iraqi forces to develop, and to help
normal life and civil society take root in communities and neighborhoods
throughout the country.
We're helping enhance the size, capabilities, and effectiveness of
the Iraqi security forces so the Iraqis can take over the defense of
their own country. We're helping the Iraqis take back their
neighborhoods from the extremists. In Anbar Province, Sunni tribes that
were once fighting alongside Al Qaida against our coalition are now
fighting alongside our coalition against Al Qaida. We're working to
replicate the success in Anbar and other parts of the country.
Two months ago, in the supplemental appropriations bill funding our
troops, Congress established 18 benchmarks to gauge the progress of the
Iraqi Government. They required we submit a full report to Congress by
September the 15th. Today my administration has submitted to Congress an
interim report that requires us to assess--and I quote the bill--
``whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is or is
not being achieved.''
Of the 18 benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report
that satisfactory progress is being made in 8 areas. For example, Iraqis
provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around
Baghdad. And the Iraqi Government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from
its own funds this year to train, equip, and modernize its forces. In
eight other areas, the Iraqis have much more work to do. For example,
they have not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law
to share oil revenues. And in two remaining areas, progress was too
mixed to be characterized one way or the other.
Those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will likely point
to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks.
Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the
satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a
cause for optimism. Our strategy is built on a premise that progress on
security will pave the way for political progress. So it's not
surprising that political progress is lagging behind the security gains
we are seeing. Economic development funds are critical to helping Iraq

[[Page 953]]

make this political progress. Today I'm exercising the waiver authority
granted me by Congress to release a substantial portion of those funds.
The bottom line is that this is a preliminary report, and it comes
less than a month after the final reinforcements arrived in Iraq. This
September, as Congress has required, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will
return to Washington to provide a more comprehensive assessment. By that
time, we hope to see further improvement in the positive areas, the
beginning of improvement in the negative areas. We'll also have a
clearer picture of how the new strategy is unfolding and be in a better
position to judge where we need to make any adjustments.
I will rely on General Petraeus to
give me his recommendations for the appropriate troop levels in Iraq. I
will discuss the recommendation with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will continue
consultations with Members of the United States Congress from both sides
of the aisle, and then I'll make a decision.
I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now.
To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be
dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would
mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaida. It would mean that
we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd
allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the
one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability
that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront
an enemy that is even more dangerous.
The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that's unfolding
across the region. The same region in Iran--the same regime in Iran that
is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map
is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq, who are
using them to kill American soldiers. The same Hizballah terrorists who
are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training
extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq. The same
Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic Jihad and
Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers
headed to Iraq. All these extremist groups would be emboldened by a
precipitous American withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten
friends and allies in the region.
Nations throughout the Middle East have a stake in a stable Iraq. To
protect our interests and to show our commitment to our friends in the
region, we are enhancing our military presence, improving our bilateral
security ties, and supporting those fighting the extremists across the
Middle East. We're also using the tools of diplomacy to strengthen
regional and international support for Iraq's democratic Government.
So I'm sending Secretary Gates and
Secretary Rice to the region in early
August. They will meet with our allies, reemphasize our commitment to
the International Compact of Sharm el-Sheikh, reassure our friends that
the Middle East remains a vital strategic priority for the United
States.
There is a conversion of visions between what Iraqi leaders want,
what our partners want, and what our friends in the region want and the
vision articulated by my administration, the Iraq Study Group, and
others here at home. The Iraqis do not want U.S. troops patrolling their
cities forever, any more than the American people do. But we need to
ensure that when U.S. forces do pull back, that terrorists and
extremists cannot take control.
The strategy that General Petraeus and
the troops he commands are now carrying out is the best opportunity to
bring us to this point. So I ask Congress to provide them with the time
and resources they need. The men and women of the United States military
have made enormous sacrifices in Iraq. They have achieved great

[[Page 954]]

things, and the best way to begin bringing them home is to make sure our
new strategy succeeds.
And now I'll be glad to answer a few questions, starting with Ms.
Thomas [Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers].

Military Operations in Iraq

Q. Mr. President, you started this war, a war of your choosing, and
you can end it alone, today, at this point--bring in peacekeepers, U.N.
peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees.
Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don't
you understand, you brought the Al Qaida into Iraq.
The President. Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue
diplomatically. That's why I went to the United Nations and worked with
the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a
resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.
That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the
course.
Q. But didn't we go into Iraq----
The President. It was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a
difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with
coalition troops, into Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off
without Saddam Hussein in power. Now the fundamental question facing
America is, will we stand with this young democracy? Will we help them
achieve stability? Will we help them become an ally in this war against
extremists and radicals that is not only evident in Iraq, but it's
evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and Afghanistan?
We're at the beginning stages of a great ideological conflict
between those who yearn for peace and those who want their children to
grow up in a normal, decent society and radicals and extremists who want
to impose their dark vision on people throughout the world. Iraq is
obviously--Helen, it's got the attention of the American people, as it
should. This is a difficult war, and it's a tough war. But as I have
consistently stated throughout this Presidency, it is a necessary war to
secure our peace.
I find it interesting that as this young democracy has taken hold,
radicals and extremists kill innocent people to stop its advance. And
that ought to be a clear signal to the American people that these are
dangerous people. And their ambition is not just contained to Iraq;
their ambition is to continue to hurt the American people. So my
attitude is, we ought to defeat them there so we don't have to face them
here, and that we ought to defeat their ideology with a more hopeful
form of government.
Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Congressional Opinion on Iraq

Q. Mr. President, you're facing a rebellion from Republican--key
Republican Senators who want you to change course and begin reducing the
U.S. combat role. Given the mixed report that you present today, how do
you persuade Republicans to stick with you as they look ahead to the
next elections?
The President. A couple of things--first of all, I respect those
Republicans that you're referring to. I presume you're referring to
friends of mine, like Lugar--or Senator Lugar, Domenici, yes. These are
good, honorable people. I've spoken to them, and I listen very carefully
to what they have to say.
First of all, they share my concern that a precipitous withdrawal would embolden
Al Qaida. And they also understand that we can't let Al Qaida gain safe
haven inside of Iraq. I appreciate their calls, and I appreciate their
desire to work with the White House to be in a position where we can
sustain a presence in Iraq.
What I tell them is this--just what I've told you--is that as the
Commander in Chief of the greatest military ever, I have an obligation,
a sincere and serious obligation, to hear out my commander on the

[[Page 955]]

ground. And I will take his recommendation and--as I mentioned--to talk
to Bob Gates about it, as well as the Joint
Chiefs about it, as well as consult with Members of the Congress, both
Republicans and Democrats, as I make a decision about the way forward in
Iraq.
And so I--you know, I value the advice of those Senators. I appreciate their
concerns about the situation in Iraq, and I am going to continue
listening to them.
Toby [Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters].

Public Opinion on Iraq/Progress in Iraq

Q. Mr. President, in addition to members of your own party, the
American public is clamoring for a change of course in Iraq. Why are you
so resistant to that idea, and how much longer are you willing to give
the surge to work before considering a change in this policy?
The President. First, I understand why the American people are--you
know, they're tired of the war. There is--people are--there is a war
fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology. I've said this
before. I understand that this is an ugly war. It's a war in which an
enemy will kill innocent men, women, and children in order to achieve a
political objective. It doesn't surprise me that there is deep concern
amongst our people.
Part of that concern is whether or not we can win, whether or not
the objective is achievable. People don't want our troops in harm's way
if that which we are trying to achieve can't be accomplished. I feel the
same way. I cannot look a mother and father of a troop in the eye and
say, ``I'm sending your kid into combat, but I don't think we can
achieve the objective.'' I wouldn't do that to a parent or a husband or
a wife of a soldier.
I believe we can succeed, and I believe we are making security
progress that will enable the political tract to succeed as well. And
the report, by the way, which is, as accurately noted, is being
submitted today, is written a little less than a month after the full
complement of troops arrived.
I went to the country in January and said, I have made this
decision. I said what was happening on the ground was unsatisfactory in
Iraq. In consultation with a lot of folks, I came to the conclusion that
we needed to send more troops into Iraq, not less, in order to provide
stability, in order to be able to enhance the security of the people
there. And David asked for a certain
number of troops--David Petraeus asked for a certain number--General
Petraeus asked for a certain number of troops, and he just got them a
couple of weeks ago.
Military--it takes a while to move our troops, as the experts know.
You just can't load them all in one airplane or one big ship and get
them into theater. We had to stage the arrival of our troops. And after
they arrived in Iraq, it took a while to get them into their missions.
Since the reinforcements arrived, things have changed.
For example, I would remind you that Anbar Province was considered
lost. Maybe some of you reported on that last fall. And yet today,
because of what we call bottom-up reconciliation, Anbar Province has
changed dramatically. The same thing is now beginning to happen in
Diyala Province. There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where violence is
down. There are still car bombs, most of which have the Al Qaida
signature on them, but they're declining. In other words, so there's
some measurable progress.
And you asked, how long does one wait? I will repeat, as the
Commander in Chief of a great military who has supported this military
and will continue to support this military, not only with my--with
insisting that we get resources to them but with--by respecting the
command structure, I'm going to wait for David to come back--David
Petraeus to come back and give us the
report on what he sees. And then we'll use that data that--his report to
work with the rest of the military chain of command

[[Page 956]]

and Members of Congress to make another decision if need be.
Yes, Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News].

War on Terror Strategy

Q. You talk about all the troops now being in place and only in
place the last 3 weeks or a month. Yet three-quarters of the troops for
the surge were in place during the period when this July interim report
was written. Are you willing to keep the surge going, no matter what
General Petraeus says, if there is no substantial Iraqi political
progress by September?
The President. Thank you. You're asking me to speculate on what my
frame of mind will be in September, and I would just ask that you give
General Petraeus to come back and brief
me. And then, of course, I'll be glad to answer your questions along
that line.
Q. But there has been no substantial political progress, even with
three-quarters of the troops in there.
The President. Well, as I mentioned----
Q. So will you keep that going through September even if there
isn't?
The President. Martha, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have
felt all along that the security situation needed to change in order for
there to be political progress. It's very hard for a young democracy to
function with the violence that was raging. Secondly, there's a lot of
the past that needs to be worked through the system. I mean, there's--
living under the brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein created a lot of anxiety
and a lot of tensions and a lot of rivalry, and it's just--it's going to
take a while to work it through. But they couldn't work through those
tensions and rivalries in the midst of serious violence.
And so the strategy was, move in more troops to cause the violence
to abate. And that's what David Petraeus
will be reporting on.
Yes, Jim [Jim Axelrod, CBS News].

Congressional Input Into the War on Terror Strategy

Q. Thank you, Mr. Bush. A question for you about the process you're
describing of your decisionmaking as Commander in Chief. Have you
entertained the idea that at some point, Congress may take some of that
sole decisionmaking power away through legislation? And can you tell us,
are you still committed to vetoing any troop withdrawal deadline?
The President. You mean in this interim period? Yes, absolutely. I
don't think Congress ought to be running the war; I think they ought to
be funding our troops. I'm certainly interested in their opinion, but
trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure, as
far as I'm concerned, and we can't afford to fail.
I'll work with Congress; I'll listen to Congress. Congress has got
all the right to appropriate money. But the idea of telling our military
how to conduct operations, for example, or how to deal with troop
strength is--I don't think it makes sense. I don't think it makes sense
today, nor do I think it's a good precedent for the future. And so the
role of the Commander in Chief is, of course, to consult with Congress.
Q. So if Reed-Levin or anything like it were to pass and set a----
The President. Well, I would hope they wouldn't pass, Jim. But I----
Q. But what if they've got----
The President. Let me make sure you understand what I'm saying.
Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main
involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops. What
you're asking is whether or not Congress ought to be basically
determining how troops are positioned or troop strength. And I just--I
don't think that would be good for the country.
David [David Gregory, NBC News].

[[Page 957]]

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden/Situation
in Iraq

Q. Mr. President, you've said many times this war at this stage is
about the Iraqi Government creating a self-sustaining, stable
government. Last November, your own CIA Director, according to the
Washington Post, told you about that Government, quote, ``The inability
of the Government to govern seems irreversible.'' He could not point to
any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around. And he
said, in talking about the Government, that it's balanced, but it cannot
function.
The President. Yes.
Q. When you heard that, since that point, you think of how many
hundreds of soldiers have been killed, how much money has been spent.
Why shouldn't people conclude that you are either stubborn, in denial,
but certainly not realistic about the strategy that you've pursued since
then?
The President. You know, it's interesting; it turns out, Mike
Hayden--I think you're quoting Mike Hayden there--was in this morning to
give me his weekly briefing, and I asked him about that newspaper
article from which you quote. His answer was--his comments to the Iraq
Study Group was a little more nuanced than the quotation you read.
He said that he made it clear the current strategy in Iraq wasn't
working--this is his recollection of the briefing to the Iraq Study
Group. He briefed them to the fact it wasn't working and that we needed
a change of direction. He also said that those who suggest that we back
away and let the Iraqi's Government do it--this is in November 2006--let
the Iraqis handle it, don't understand the inability of the Iraq
Government at that time to take on that responsibility.
He then went on to say--this is what he--his recollection of his
conversation--was that our strategy needed to help get the violence down
so that there could be political reconciliation from the top down as
well as the bottom up.
There has been political reconciliation, Martha, from the bottom up.
Anbar Province is a place where the experts had--an expert had said that
it was impossible for us to achieve our objective. This was the part of
the country of Iraq where Al Qaida had made it clear that they would
like to establish a safe haven from which to plan, plot further attacks
and to spread their ideology throughout the Middle East. Since then,
since this November 2006 report and since that statement to the Iraq
Study Group, things have changed appreciably on the ground in Anbar
Province.
And they're beginning to have the same change, because the people on
the ground there are sick and tired of violence and being threatened by
people like Al Qaida, who have no positive vision for the future. And
there's been a significant turn, where now Sunni sheikhs and Sunni
citizens are working with the coalition to bring justice to Al Qaida
killers. And that same approach is being taken in Diyala.
And so there's a lot of focus, and should be frankly on oil laws or
elections. But remember, there's another political reconciliation track
taking place as well, and that's the one that's taking place at the
grassroots level. Mike Hayden talked about that as well.
Q. But you think you've been realistic about the strategy and what's
possible?
The President. Well--thank you for the followup--nothing has changed
in the new room. Anyway--yes. I mean, as I told you last November, right
about this time, I was part of that group of Americans who didn't
approve of what was taking place in Iraq, because it looked like all the
efforts that we had taken to that point in time were about to fail. In
other words, sectarian violence was really raging. And I had a choice to
make, and that was to pull back, as some suggested, and hope that the
chaos and violence that might occur in the capital would not spill out
across the country or send

[[Page 958]]

more troops in to prevent the chaos and violence from happening in the
first place, and that's the decision I made. So it was a realistic
appraisal, by me.
What's realistic, as well, is to understand the consequences of what
will happen if we fail in Iraq. In other words, it's--people aren't just
going to be content with driving America out of Iraq. Al Qaida wants to
hurt us here. That's their objective. That's what they would like to do.
They have got an ideology that they believe that the world ought to live
under, and that one way to help spread that ideology is to harm the
American people, harm American interests. The same folks that are
bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America
on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to
the security here at home.
So I've been realistic about the consequences of failure. I have
been realistic about what needs to happen on the ground in order for
there to be success. And it's been hard work, and the American people
see it as hard work. And one of the reasons it is hard work is because
on our TV screens are these violent killings perpetuated by people who
have done us harm in the past. And that ought to be a lesson for the
American people, to understand that what happens in Iraq and overseas
matters to the security of the United States of America.
Yes, ma'am.

Al Qaida in Iraq

Q. But, sir, on that point, what evidence can you present to the
American people that the people who attacked the United States on
September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for
the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And
also, are you saying, sir, that Al Qaida in Iraq is the same
organization being run by Usama bin Laden himself?
The President. Al Qaida in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Usama bin
Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the
attacks on America--obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and
the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the
people in Iraq, Al Qaida in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Usama bin
Laden. And we need to take Al Qaida in Iraq seriously, just like we need
to take Al Qaida anywhere in the world seriously.
Let's see here. Working my way around here. Sheryl [Sheryl Gay
Stolberg, New York Times].

Confidence in the Iraqi Government

Q. Mr. President, in Jordan in November, you stood by Prime Minister
Maliki and said, he's the right guy for Iraq. Given this report card
today and given the lack of top-down political reconciliation, can you
tell the American people that you still believe he's the right guy for
Iraq?
The President. I believe that he
understands that there needs to be serious reconciliation, and they need
to get law passed; firmly believe that. I have had a series of
conference calls with the Prime Minister as well as the Presidency
Council. The Presidency Council, you would have the President, Talabani, you'd have the two Vice Presidents, Al-
Mahdi and Hashimi, as well as the Prime Minister. And I have urged them to work
together to get law passed. It's not easy to get law passed through
certain legislatures, like theirs. There's a lot of work that has to be
done. And I will continue to urge, but----
Q. Do you have confidence in them?
The President. Let me--I'm almost through with the first one; I'll
come back to the second one.
And so I'll continue to urge the Iraqis to show us that they're
capable of passing legislation. But it's not just us; it's the Iraqi
people. And what really matters is whether or not life is improving for
the Iraqi people on the ground.
And yes, I've got confidence in them, but I also understand how
difficult it is.

[[Page 959]]

I'm not making any excuses, but it is hard. It's hard work for them to
get law passed. And it's--sometimes it's hard work for people to get law
passed here. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to work to
achieve an objective, which is a government that is able to provide
security for its people and to provide basic services and, as
importantly, serve as an ally against these extremists and radicals.
Yes, sir.

I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby

Q. Thank you, Mr. President----
The President. No, not you. Michael [Michael Abramowitz, Washington
Post].
Q. Oh. [Laughter]
The President. Okay. Was that harsh?
Q. Yes.
The President. Like the new hall, I should have been more gentle.
[Laughter] Do we ever use ``kinder and gentler''? No.
Go ahead, Michael. And then you're next.
Q. If I could just switch subjects for a second to another big
decision you made recently, which was in the Scooter Libby case.
The President. Yes.
Q. You spoke very soberly and seriously in your statement about how
you weighed different legal questions in coming to your decision on that
commutation. But one issue that you did not address was the issue of the
morality of your most senior advisers leaking the name of a confidential
intelligence operator. Now that the case is over--it's not something
you've ever spoken to--can you say whether you're at all disappointed in
the behavior of those senior advisers? And have you communicated that
disappointment to them in any way?
The President. Michael, I--first of all, the Scooter Libby decision
was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision. Secondly, I haven't spent
a lot of time talking about the testimony that people throughout my
administration were forced to give as a result of the Special
Prosecutor. I didn't ask them during
the time, and I haven't asked them since.
I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration
did disclose the name of that person, and I've often thought about what
would have happened had that person come forth and said, ``I did it.''
Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a
lot of money being spent on this matter? And--but it's been a tough
issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course,
and now we're going to move on.
Wendell [Wendell Goler, FOX News Channel].

Military Operations in Iraq

Q. Mr. President, you have spoken passionately----
The President. Oh, I'm sorry, Jon [Jon Ward, Washington Times].
Okay, yes.
Q. Are you taking it away from me?
The President. I am. This is----
Q. After doing the ``fair and balanced,'' you're going to take it
away from me. [Laughter].
Q. Ohhh. [Laughter]
Q. That was just a tease.
Q. You're going to come back to me, sir?
The President. You got the mike, then, Jon, you're next--a
possession deal, you know what I'm saying? [Laughter]
Q. Thank you, sir. You have spoken passionately about the
consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send
enough troops there at the start, failed to keep Al Qaida from stepping
into the void created by the collapse of Saddam's army, failed to put
enough pressure on Iraq's Government to make the political
reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is
suffering from now from occurring. So why should the American people
feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir?
The President. Those are all legitimate questions that I'm sure
historians will analyze. I mean, one of the questions is,

[[Page 960]]

should we have sent more in the beginning? Well, I asked that question,
``Do you need more?'' to General Tommy Franks. In the first phase of this operation, General Franks was
obviously in charge--and during our discussions in the runup to the
decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council
resolutions. My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what
it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you
succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes.
Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there
might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only
thing I can tell you, Wendell, is that I relied upon our military
commander to make the proper decision about troop strength. And I can
remember a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, who said, ``We've reviewed the
plan.'' I remember--and seemed satisfied with it. I remember sitting in
the PEOC, or the Situation Room, downstairs here at the White House, and
I went to commander and commander that were all responsible of different
aspects of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them,
do you have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy? And the
answer was, yes.
We have worked hard to help this country reconcile. After all, they
do have a modern Constitution, which is kind of a framework for
reconciliation. And after all, there was a significant series of votes
where the people were given a chance to express their desire to live in
a free society. As a matter of fact, 12 million Iraqis went to the
polls.
Wendell, what happened then, of course, is that the enemy, Al Qaida,
attacks the Samarra mosque, which, of course, created anxiety and anger
amongst the Shi'a. And then all of a sudden, the sectarian violence
began to spiral. Reconciliation hadn't taken hold deep enough in society
to prevent this violence from taking hold. And so I have a--you know,
I've got to decide whether or not it's okay for that violence to
continue or whether or not it makes sense for us to try to send more
troops in to quell the violence, to give the reconciliation process
further time to advance.
My concern is, is that as a result of violence and killing, there
would be chaos. Now, that's a state of affairs that thugs like Al Qaida
need to survive. They like chaos. As a matter of fact, they like to
create chaos in order to create conditions of fear and anxiety and
doubt. And out of that chaos would come--could come a further escalation
of violence in the Middle East. And this is what's important for the
American people to understand: that violence and that chaos would
embolden extremist groups, whether they be Shi'a or Sunni, and they
would then begin into competition with each other.
Such chaos and violence would send a mixed signal to the Iranians,
who have stated that they believe Israel ought to be wiped off the map.
People would begin to wonder about America's resolve. Al Qaida would
certainly be in a better position to raise money and recruit. And what
makes all this scenario doubly dangerous is that they have proven
themselves able to attack us and kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens. And
they would like to do it again.
And therefore, the strategy has got to be to help this Government
become an ally against these people. What happens in Iraq--and I
understand how difficult it's been. It's been hard. I have received a
lot of inspiration, however, from meeting with our troops, who
understand the stakes of this fight, and meeting with their families.
And we owe it to our troops to support our commanders, smart, capable
people who are devising a strategy that will enable us to succeed and
prevent the conditions I just talked about from happening.
Ed [Edwin Chen, Bloomberg News]--no, Jon. Just kidding there.

Situation in Iraq

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has cited Al Qaida
leaders,

[[Page 961]]

such as Zawahiri, as saying that if we leave prematurely, it would be a
glorious victory for Al Qaida. But the reason that we can't leave or
haven't been able to leave is not because we're getting defeated in any
way militarily; it's because the Iraqis can't get it together so far. So
why can't we counter those messages and, obviously, not withdraw
precipitously, but begin some sort of gradual withdrawal that prevents
ethnic cleansing, but also allows our military to get out?
The President. Well, there's a lot of discussion about a scenario in
which our troop posture would be to guard the territorial integrity of
the country of Iraq, to embed and train, to help the Iraqi security
forces deal with violent elements in their society, as well as keep
enough Special Forces there to chase down Al Qaida. As a matter of fact,
that is something that I've spoken in public about, said that's a
position I'd like to see us in. However, I felt like we needed to send
more troops to be able to get the situation to quiet down enough to be
able to end in that position.
And in terms of my own decisionmaking, as I mentioned earlier, I
definitely need to be in consultation, and will be, with General David
Petraeus, who asked for the additional
troops in the first place, troops which have been in place--fully in
place for about 3 weeks.
And so I would ask Members of Congress to give the general a chance
to come back and to give us a full assessment of whether this is
succeeding or not. And it's at that point in time that I will consult
with Members of Congress and make a decision about the way forward, all
aiming to succeed in making sure that Al Qaida and other extremists do
not benefit from a decision I might have to make.
Mark [Mark Silva, Chicago Tribune].

Homeland Security/Democracy in the Middle East

Q. Yes, sir, Mr. President.
The President. Yes, sir----
Q. How----
The President. ----Mark. [Laughter]
Q. Thank you. Thank you, sir. How comfortable are you--sir, how
comfortable are you with your Homeland Security Secretary saying, in the
face of no credible intelligence of an imminent threat against the
United States, that he has a gut feeling that one is coming this summer?
And, sir, what does your gut tell you?
The President. My gut tells me that--which my head tells me as
well--is that when we find a credible threat, I'll share it with people
to make sure that we protect the homeland. My head also tells me that Al
Qaida is a serious threat to our homeland, and we've got to continue
making sure we've got good intelligence, good response mechanisms in
place; that we've got to make sure we don't embolden them with--by
failing in certain theaters of war where they're confronting us; that we
ought to continue to keep the pressure on them. We need to chase them
down and bring them to justice before they come home to hurt us again.
And so it's a--this is a serious issue that is going to outlast my
Presidency. As I say, this is the beginning stages of what I believe is
a ideological conflict that--where you've got a competing visions about
what the world ought to be like. What makes this more difficult than
previous conflicts is that there's the asymmetrical use of power. In
other words, IEDs and suicide bombers are the main tactical device used
by these thugs to try to achieve strategic objectives.
Their objective is to impose their vision on the world. Their
objective is to drive the United States out of parts of the world. They
want safe haven. They love a society where women have no rights, just
like the society that they worked to impose with the Taliban on the
women of Afghanistan. That's their vision. And it's in our interests to
defend ourselves by staying on the offense against them. And it's in our
interest to spread an alternative ideology.

[[Page 962]]

We have done this before in our Nation's history. We have helped
people realize the blessings of liberty, even though they may have been
our enemy. And freedom has an amazing way of helping lay the foundation
for peace. And it's really important, as we head into this ideological
struggle in the 21st century, that we not forget that liberty can
transform societies.
Now, the interesting debate is whether or not a nation like Iraq can
self-govern, whether or not these people even care about liberty. As
you've heard me say before, I believe, strongly believe that freedom is
a universal value, that freedom isn't just for Americans or Methodists,
that freedom is universal in its application. And so when they voted in
'05, I wasn't surprised; I was pleased that the numbers were as big as
they were, to defy that many threats and car bombers, but I wasn't
surprised.
And this is the real challenge we face. And Iraq is just a part of a
broader war against these jihadists and extremists, Mark. It is a--
this--we will be dealing with this issue for a while, just like we dealt
with other ideologies for a while. It takes time for ideologies to take
root.
I firmly believe that you'll see the democracy movement continue to
advance throughout the Middle East if the United States doesn't become
isolationist. That's why I've told you that I'm making sure that we
continue to stay diplomatically involved in the region. Condi Rice and Bob Gates will be
traveling there in early August to continue to remind our friends and
allies that we're--one, we view them as strategic partners, and
secondly, that we want them to work toward a freer societies and to help
this Iraqi Government survive. It's in their interests that Iraq become
a stable partner.
And I believe we can achieve that objective. And not only do I
believe we can achieve; I know we've got to achieve the objective, so we
will have done our duty. This is hard work. And one of the things I
talked about in the opening comments was, do we do it now, or basically
pull back, let the Gallup Poll, or whatever poll there are, decide the
fate of the country? And my view is, is that if that were to happen, we
would then have to go back in with greater force in order to protect
ourselves, because one of the facts of the 21st century is that what
happens overseas matters to the security of our country.
Ed.

President's Upcoming Meeting With General David H. Petraeus

Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Given the events on the ground in
Iraq and the politics here at home, has U.S. military deployment to Iraq
reached the ceiling, or can you allow any further military escalation?
The President. You're trying to do what Martha very skillfully tried
to get me to do, and that was to----
Q. Can I have a followup?
The President. Yes, you can, because you're about to realize I'm not
going to answer your question--[laughter]--except to say this: There's
going to be great temptation to--not temptation, there would be--you
won't be tempted; you will actually ask me to speculate about what David
Petraeus will talk to us about when he comes home. And I just ask the
American people to understand that the Commander in Chief must rely upon
the wisdom and judgment of the military thinkers and planners. It's very
important that there be that solid connection of trust between me and
those who are in the field taking incredible risk.
And so, Ed, I'm going to wait to see what David has to say. I'm not
going to prejudge what he may say. I trust David Petraeus, his judgment.
He's an honest man. Those of you who have interviewed him know that he's
a straight shooter; he's an innovative thinker. I was briefed by members
of the CODEL that came back that said that it appeared to them that our

[[Page 963]]

troops have high respect for our commanders in Baghdad, as do I.
Now, do you have a followup, perhaps another subject, another area,
another----

Public Opinion/President's Decisionmaking

Q. Same subject.
The President. Same questions?
Q. Different approach.
The President. Different approach. Yes, okay. [Laughter]
Q. How hard is it for you to conduct the war without popular
support? For you personally, do you ever have trouble balancing the--
between doing what you think is the right thing and following the will
of the majority of the public, which is really the essence of democracy?
The President. Yes, it is. And, first of all, I can fully understand
why people are tired of the war. The question they have is, can we win
it? And of course I'm concerned about whether or not the American people
are in this fight. I believe, however, that when they really think about
the consequences if we were to precipitously withdraw, they begin to say
to themselves, maybe we ought to win this; maybe we ought to have a
stable Iraq.
Their question, it seems like to me, is, can we succeed? And that's
a very important, legitimate question for anybody to ask. I think many
people understand we must succeed, and I think a lot of people
understand we've got to wait for the generals to make these military
decisions. I suspect--I know this, Ed, that if our troops thought that I
was taking a poll to decide how to conduct this war, they would be very
concerned about the mission. In other words, if our troops said, ``Well,
here we are in combat, and we've got a Commander in Chief who is running
a focus group. In other words, politics would be--is more important to
him than our safety and/or our strategy,'' that would dispirit our
troops.
And there's a lot of constituencies in this fight. Clearly the
American people, who are paying for this, is the major constituency. And
I repeat to you, Ed, I understand that there--this violence has affected
them. And a lot of people don't think we can win. There's a lot of
people in Congress who don't think we can win as well, and therefore,
their attitude is, get out.
My concern with that strategy--something that Mike Hayden also discussed--is that just getting out may sound
simple, and it may affect polls, but it would have long-term, serious
security consequences for the United States. And so, Ed, sometimes you
just have to make the decisions based upon what you think is right. My
most important job is to help secure this country, and therefore, the
decisions in Iraq are all aimed at helping do that job. And that's what
I firmly believe.
A second constituency is the military. And I repeat to you: I'm
pretty confident our military do not want their Commander in Chief
making political decisions about their future.
A third constituency that matters to me a lot is the military
families. These are good folks who are making huge sacrifices, and they
support their loved ones. And I don't think they want their Commander in
Chief making decisions based upon popularity.
Another constituency group that is important for me to talk to is
the Iraqis. Obviously, I want the Iraqi Government to understand that we
expect there to be reconciliation top down, that we want to see laws
passed. I think they've got that message. They know full well that the
American Government and the American people expect to see tangible
evidence of working together. That's what the benchmarks are aimed to
do.
But they also need to know that I am making decisions based upon our
security interests, of course, but also helping them succeed, and that a
poll is not going to determine the course of action by the United
States. What will determine the course of actions is, will the decisions
that we have made help secure our country for the long run?

[[Page 964]]

And finally, another constituency is the enemy, who are wondering
whether or not America has got the resolve and the determination to stay
after them. And so that's what I think about, Ed.
And, you know, I guess I'm like any other political figure;
everybody wants to be loved, just sometimes the decisions you make and
the consequences don't enable you to be loved. And so when it's all said
and done, Ed, when you've--if you ever come down and visit the old,
tired me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say, I looked in the
mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics.
And that's important to me.
Thank you all for your time. I loved being here at this new
building. Thank you.

Resurgence of Al Qaida

Q. Can we just ask you about the Al Qaida intelligence report,
please?
The President. What was that?
Q. The intelligence----
The President. This is amazing.
Q. I know, I know.
The President. The new me. [Laughter]
The Al Qaida intelligence report.
Q. The intelligence analysts are saying Al Qaida has reconstituted
in areas of Pakistan, saying the threat to the West is greater than ever
now, or as great as 2001. What's happening----
The President. Okay, here's----
Q. Okay, you tell us what the intelligence analysts say.
The President. I'm glad you asked; thank you. Thank you. I
appreciate that opportunity to----
Q. Thank you for coming back, sir.
The President. I'm happy to do it. This is not the new me. I mean,
this is just, like, an aberration. In other words----
Q. It's over next time.
The President. ----I'm not going to leave and then come back because
somebody yells something at me.
Q. Like China.
The President. Yes, exactly. [Laughter] Thank you. Thank you, David.
I appreciate that. Exactly.
There is a perception in the coverage that Al Qaida may be as strong
today as they were prior to September the 11th. That's just simply not
the case. I think the report will say, since 2001, not prior to
September the 11th, 2001.
Secondly, that because of the actions we have taken, Al Qaida is
weaker today than they would have been. They are still a threat. They
are still dangerous. And that is why it is important that we succeed in
Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere else we find them. And that's our
strategy, is to stay on the offense against Al Qaida.
Elaine [Elaine Quijano, Cable News Network] asked the question, is
it Al Qaida in Iraq? Yes, it is Al Qaida, just like it's Al Qaida in
parts of Pakistan. And I'm working with President Musharraf to be able to--he doesn't want them in his country; he
doesn't want foreign fighters in his outposts of his country. And so
we're working to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on Al
Qaida.
But no question, Al Qaida is dangerous for the American people, and
that's why--as well as other people that love freedom--and that's why
we're working hard with allies and friends to enhance our intelligence.
That's why we need terrorist surveillance programs. That's why it's
important for us to keep--another thing, I would hope Congress would
modernize that bill. And that's why we're keeping on the offense.
Ultimately, the way to defeat these radicals and extremists is to
offer alternative ways of life so that they're unable to recruit; that
they can use--they like to use frustration and hopelessness. The
societies that don't provide hope will become the societies where Al
Qaida has got the capacity to convince a youngster to go blow himself
up. What we need to do is help governments provide brighter futures for
their people so they won't sign up.

[[Page 965]]

And the fundamental question facing the world on this issue is
whether or not it makes sense to try to promote an alternative ideology.
I happen to think it does. They say, ``He's idealistic.'' Yes, I'm
idealistic, but I'm also realistic in understanding if there is not an
alternative ideology presented, these thugs will be able to continue to
recruit. They'll use hopelessness to be able to recruit. And so it's--
thank you for asking that question.
Thank you all.

Note: The President's news conference began at 10:31 a.m. in the James
S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he
referred to U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker; Gen. David H.
Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Secretary
of Defense Robert M. Gates; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida
terrorist organization; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader
responsible for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, who was
captured in Karachi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003; Prime Minister Nuri al-
Maliki, President Jalal Talabani, and Vice Presidents Adil Abd Al-Mahdi
and Tariq al-Hashimi of Iraq; former Chief of Staff to the Vice
President I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby; Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and Department of Justice
CIA leak investigation special prosecutor; Gen. Tommy R. Franks, USA
(Ret.), former commander, U.S. Central Command; and President Pervez
Musharraf of Pakistan. A reporter referred to Ayman Al-Zawahiri, founder
of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and senior Al Qaida associate. A reporter
also referred to the amendment by Sens. Jack Reed and Carl Levin to H.R.
1585. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a Spanish language
transcript of this news conference.