[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
[July 19, 2007]
[Pages 982-1000]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
Remarks on the Federal Budget and a Question-and-Answer Session in
Nashville, Tennessee
July 19, 2007
The President. Thank you all. Please sit down. Thank you all for
coming. I'm glad you're here. Thanks, Darrell. Are you sure you want the Federal Government moving to
Nashville? [Laughter]
Thanks for the invitation. I've got some thoughts I'd like to share
with you, and then if you've got some questions, I'd love to answer
some. My job is the Commander in Chief, and my job is the educator in
chief. And part of being the educator in chief is to help our fellow
citizens understand why I've made some of the decisions I've made that
are--have affected your lives. And so thanks for letting me come.
Here we are in the Presidential ballroom--smart move,
Darrell, to pick a Presidential
ballroom. [Laughter] I'm sorry Laura is not with
me. She is, first of all, a fabulous woman. She is a patient woman. And
she is doing a marvelous job as the First Lady.
I want to thank Ralph Schulz, the
president and CEO of the Nashville Area Chamber. I thank the business
leaders who have allowed me to come and visit with you. You do have an
exciting city here. This, of course, is not my first time here. I can
remember being here in the Opryland hotel complex when I was the owner
of the Texas Rangers baseball team. And I can remember coming here for
my mother and father's 50th wedding anniversary. They had a bunch of country
and western singers sing to honor the 50th wedding anniversary, and it
was a special time. And you're right: You've got a fabulous city here.
I have just come from the Harrington's
company, a small business here, the Nashville
Bun Company. It was a--[applause]. And I know that some of the employees
from the Nashville Bun Company are here. Thank you for being here today.
It's quite an operation. It's a--I love going to small businesses
because the small-business sector of our economy is really what drives
new job growth. If the small businesses are
[[Page 983]]
doing well in America, America is doing well.
And so I went by to see this operation, and I want to spend a little
time talking about small-business growth, if you don't mind. And so I
want to thank the Harringtons;
they're good, solid Tennessee citizens who
are entrepreneurs, risk-takers, dreamers.
I don't intend to talk about this war against radicals and extremism
in my remarks. If you've got questions, I'll be glad to answer them. I
do want to, though, pay homage to those who wear the uniform. I'm
honored to be with you. Thanks for serving the country.
Cordia asked me in the limousine
coming over here, ``Have you had any amazing experiences as the
President?'' And, yes. [Laughter] I told her there's no more amazing
experience than to meet those who have served in harm's way and to
realize the strength of spirit of American citizens who volunteer during
a time of danger. And one of the young men I have met during my
Presidency--I did so in my home State of Texas--who is with us today, a
man who is recovering from terrible injury but has never lost the spirit
of life, Kevin Downs. He's a good man. We're
going to get him some new legs, and if he hurries up, he can outrun me
on the South Lawn of the White House. Proud that Kevin's mom and dad are here with us too.
I want to spend a little time on the economy and, more particularly,
the budget. You've got to worry about your budgets; we've got to worry
about your budget too, since you're paying for it. [Laughter] There's a
philosophical debate in Washington, and really it's kind of to calibrate
how much money we need and how much money you need. Some say we need
more of your money to expand the size and scope of government, or, they
would argue, more of your money to balance the budget. Then there are
those of me--like me in Washington who say, there's ample money in
Washington to meet priorities, and the more money you have in your
pocket, the better off the economy is. In other words, let me put it
bluntly: I think you can spend your money better than the Federal
Government can spend your money.
Part of my job is to deal with problems. And I try to do so with a
set of principles in mind. A principle is, you can spend your money
better than the government can, but a further principle is, if you have
more of your money in your pocket to save, invest, or spend, the economy
is likely to--more likely to grow.
We were confronted--this administration has confronted some
difficult economic times, particularly earlier in this administration.
There was a recession. There were the terrorist attacks that affected
the economy in a very direct way. There were corporate scandals which
created some thousand--uncertainty about us--our system that needed to
be corrected. And we responded to those problems by cutting taxes.
See, if you believe in the principle, the more money you have--and
all of a sudden, you see some rough economic times, you act on the
principle. So I worked with Congress, and we cut taxes on everybody who
pays taxes. On one of these tax cuts, we said, okay, you deserve a tax
cut, but you don't deserve a tax cut. It was the belief that everybody
who pays taxes ought to get tax relief.
And as you can see from this chart here, this is what the tax cuts
have met--meant in 2007. But ever since they have been enacted, it has
got the same type of effect. So if you're a average taxpayer, you're
receiving $2,200 of tax relief. Some receive more; some receive less;
but the average for all taxpayers is $2,216.
See--and the fundamental question is, does it make sense to have the
average taxpayer have that money in his or her pocket? I think it does
for a lot of reasons. It encourages consumerism; it encourages
investment; it enables people to be able to put money aside for a
family's priorities.
[[Page 984]]
You don't want the government setting your priorities; you set your own
priorities. And if college happens to be a priority of yours, if you
want to save for your little guys coming up, here's some money for you
to put aside. That's what the tax relief meant.
There's obviously more tax relief for married families with children
because there's the child credit. I thought it makes sense to say, if
you've got a child, you ought to get credit for that child when it comes
to the Tax Code to help you raise the children. You know, we put the--
did something on the marriage penalty. Imagine a Tax Code that penalizes
marriage. That's what the code did early on, and we mitigated the
marriage penalty and the Tax Code. We ought to be encouraging marriage
not discouraging marriage through bad tax policy.
The Nashville Bun Company folks are organized so that they pay tax
at the individual income tax level. A lot of small-business owners know
what I'm talking about. If you're a LLC or a subchapter S, you don't pay
corporate tax; you pay tax at the individual income tax rates so that
when you cut taxes on all who paid income taxes, you're really cutting
taxes on small-business owners as well. And if most new jobs are created
by small businesses, it makes a lot of sense if you're dealing with
economic problems to cut the taxes on those who are creating new jobs.
The more money in the small business's treasury, the more likely it
is they'll be able to expand. And when they expand, the more likely it
is they'll be hiring new people. We also put incentives in the Tax Code
that said if you purchase equipment--you're a small-business owner and
you purchase equipment, like the English muffin rolling deal or whatever
you want to call it--[laughter]--getting out of my lane here--
[laughter]--we provide an incentive in the Tax Code to encourage you to
purchase equipment. That not only helps your business become more
productive and more competitive; the more productive and competitive you
become, the more likely it is you'll be able to sustain growth and,
therefore, continue hiring.
But it also means that the English muffin manufacturing company--
English muffin machine manufacturing company is more likely to have
work. In other words, there's an effect; the Tax Code can affect
commerce. And that's exactly what we did, and we cut the taxes, and it's
worked. This economy is strong. Unemployment has dropped. Since April
of--August of 2003, we've added over 8.2 million new jobs. Productivity
is up. People are working.
People are working. And that's what we want. We want people to say,
I'm making a living for my family, and I've got more money in my pocket
so I can make decisions for the best of my family. And I'm going to
spend a little time, if you've got any questions, on how to keep it
going strong.
But I now want to talk about the budget. People say, you can't
balance the budget if you cut taxes. That's one of the arguments in
Washington, DC. I think all of us would like to balance the budget. But
they're saying, ``I'm going to raise your money--raise your taxes so we
can balance the budget.'' There's a flaw in that argument, and that is,
most of the time they raise taxes on you, they figure out new ways to
spend the money, as opposed to reckon it to deficit reduction. I've got
a better idea that I want to share with you and share with the American
people, and that is, the best way to balance the budget is to keep taxes
low, growing the economy, which will yield more tax revenue into the
economy. And it works, so long as you hold spending down. And that's the
most important thing, is to keep taxes low and spending down.
And I got a chart here I'm about to show you. Yes, there you go. And
so I submitted a budget based upon no tax increases and being fiscally
wise with your money. And here's the record of that plan. As you can see
there, we had a deficit
[[Page 985]]
of $413 billion in 2004. This economy started picking up steam, kept the
taxes low, and tax revenues started coming in, and then the deficit
dropped to 318, and it dropped to 245, and it's anticipated it's going
to be 205 in the year 2007. You can see the projection. We've done this
without raising your taxes. We've done this by saying, keep taxes low;
keep the economy growing; and be wise about how we spend your money.
I project--we project if we can continue to have fiscal sanity in
Washington, DC, that we'll be in surplus by the year 2012. That's where
we're headed. And I believe we can do so without penalizing the small-
business sector--or the large-business sector, for that matter. And
particularly, we can do so without penalizing the families and the
individual taxpayers in the country. But that's the argument.
Now, the Democrats have submitted their budget. Put up the next
chart. Oops, that's my budget. This is nondefense discretionary
spending. This is what we propose, see. We go to Congress and say,
here's our budget proposals. We're going to make sure our troops have
what it takes to win this war against these extremists and radicals.
That's what the American people expect. But this is--[applause].
So this is my proposal, and I'd like to show you what the Democrats
have proposed. Here's their proposal. They've added billions of dollars
in new spending on the budget they submitted. The reason I'm--this is
not a--I'm not bashing anybody. I'm just--what I'm here to do is educate
you on the different approaches to how we're dealing with your money
when it comes to the Federal budget. And as you notice, there is a--
quite a disparity about the different approaches of how much money ought
to be spent. You can't pay for the red lines unless you're willing to
raise taxes on the American people. I would call that a return to the
tax-and-spend days. I have showed you our budget to get to surplus, and
it requires this level of increase in spending--the blue.
The people now in charge of the House and the Senate have submitted
their own budgets, their own blueprint for how we should spend your
money, and it's reflected in the red lines. Now, you can't grow the
economy fast enough to get to the red lines. And therefore, the only way
to do so is to run up your taxes.
I'd like you to see the next chart, if you don't mind. This is a--
the tax increases inherent in a different approach. As you can see, will
raise taxes 392 billion over 5 years and with a $1.8 trillion increase
in taxes in order to make the budget projections that they have spent. I
would warn the Nashville Bun Company to be very careful with this kind
of approach because you can't keep making buns if the Democrats take all
your dough. [Laughter]
I don't disparage anybody; there's just a difference of opinion.
Part of my job is to make it clear to people that there are choices to
make. And people got to understand this budget process. You know, we're
throwing around huge numbers in Washington, DC. And the reason I've come
today is to clarify the difference of opinion so you can make your own
choice about the right approach. I've obviously got my choice, but the
American people need to know the facts so they can make up their mind as
the best approach to dealing with the finances of the United States
today and tomorrow and for the next decade to come. This is the tax
increases that will be required under one vision of dealing with your
money, and here's my view of what we ought to do on taxes--and of
course, the comparison. [Laughter]
We don't need to raise your taxes in order to balance the budget. We
shouldn't raise your taxes in order to balance the budget. As a matter
of fact, we ought to keep your taxes as low as possible to make sure
this economy continues to grow. So you'll watch this budget process and
the appropriations process unfold here. And it's
[[Page 986]]
really important for the leadership in Congress to pass the
appropriations bills--that's the spending bills--as quickly as possible.
There's 12 spending bills that are supposed to get to the President's
desk.
And they need to be passing these things; they need to be doing the
people's business in Washington, DC. They need to have an honest debate
about the appropriations for the different departments that they're
dealing with--an open, honest debate. They ought not to be trying to
slip special spending measures in there without full transparency and
full debate; those are called entitlements. And they ought to be wise
about how they spend your money. And they ought to get these
appropriations bills to my desk as quickly as possible and not delay.
Now, I will tell you that there's an interesting relationship
between the President and the Congress. The President [Congress]* has
got the right to initiate spending bills, and they do; they've got the
right to decide how much money is spent. And I've got the right to
accept whether or not the amount of money they spend is the right
amount. That's what's called the veto. If they overspend or if they try
to raise your taxes, I'm going to veto their bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*White House correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I'd like--that's why I appreciate you letting me come and give
you a little budget discussion. And--but I thought it would be
appropriate, if you don't mind, to answer some of your questions, any
question; I'd be glad to answer them. I've been there for 6\1/2\ years;
if I can't answer them, I can figure out how not to answer them.
[Laughter]
Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman.
Health Care Reform/Energy
Q. Your administration has been pro-small business. How do we
continue that philosophy in Washington?
The President. Look, here's the thing that the country--first of
all, tax policy helps small businesses. It's--if a small-business owner
has got certainty in the Tax Code that taxes will remain low, it causes
people to be more interested in investment.
The biggest issue I hear facing small-business owners, however, is
health care. We got--a lot of small-business owners are really having
problems dealing with the rising cost of health care. When I talk to
risk takers and entrepreneurs, I find that people have a lot of anxiety
about how to deal with health care for two reasons: one, whether they
can afford it; and two, they have this great sense of obligation and--to
their employees. In other words, they want their employees--really good
CEOs or owners of small businesses care deeply about the life of their
employees.
There is a, as you can imagine--and this is the great thing about
our democracy--there tends to be differences of opinion. And we got a
big difference of opinion on health care. And I would like to tell you
where I'm worried--my worries and my recommendations. I'm worried that
there are people in Washington who want to expand the scope of the
Federal Government in making health care decisions on behalf of
businesses and individuals. There is a debate in Washington, DC, now
taking place on whether or not to expand what's called SCHIP, which is a
health care program designed primarily for poor children. I support the
concept of providing health care to help poor children, just like I
support the concept of Medicaid to help provide health care for the
poor.
The problem, as I see it, is this: that the people--some in
Washington want to expand the eligibility for those available for SCHIP,
in some instances up to $80,000 per family, which really means, if you
think about it, that there will be an incentive for people to switch
from private health insurance to government health insurance. I view
this as the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the Federal
Government on the health care system. Now, the Federal Government has
got a huge role in
[[Page 987]]
health care--as I say, Medicare, Veterans Affairs, Medicaid, poor
children. But I am deeply worried about--further expansion will really
lead to the undermining of the private health care system, which would
take the greatest health care system in the world and convert it into a
mediocre health care system.
Now, you can't--I am not only am I against what they're trying to
do; I am for something else, and I'd like to share with you what it is.
First, there is a common goal, and we all share the goal in Washington--
is to make sure health care is available and affordable. If you're
worried about available and affordable health care, there are some
practical things you can do, like stopping these junk lawsuits that are
running good doctors out of practice and forcing professionals to
practice defensive medicine so they can defend themselves in a court of
law.
Secondly, small businesses ought to have the right to pool risk
across jurisdictional boundaries. If you're a restaurant owner in
Nashville, Tennessee, you ought to be allowed to pool risk. In other
words, you ought to be allowed to put your employees in a larger risk
pool with a restaurant, say, in Texas or in Minnesota. Part of the
problem small businesses have is they unable to get the economies of
purchase that big businesses are able to get because they have got such
a small number of employees. And so we ought to be--encourage the
pooling of asset--the pooling of risk so small businesses can buy
insurance at the same discounts that big businesses get to do.
Thirdly, I'm a strong proponent of health savings accounts. Health
savings accounts are--is an insurance product that has got high-risk
deductibles or high deductibles for catastrophic illness, plus the
ability for an employee to be able to put money in--with employer's
help--put money into the account tax free, save tax free, and withdraw
money tax free. And the reason I am is because I believe one of the real
problems we have in health care is that there is no market, in essence.
In other words, somebody else pays your bills; we have a third-party
payer system. I think you know what I'm talking about. You submit your
claims; somebody else pays the bills.
I don't know many of you have ever asked the doc, ``What's your
price?'' Or, you know, ``How good are you?'' Or, ``What's your
neighbor's price?'' You certainly do that in most aspects of your
consumer decisionmaking; you think about price and you think about
quality, but not in health care. And the reason why is, is that somebody
else has been paying the bills under our traditional system. What health
savings accounts do--and products like it--is that it puts the consumer,
the patient in charge in the decisionmaking. And in order to make that
effective, there needs to be more price transparency and more quality
transparency in the marketplace. In other words, when people shop, it
helps affect the cost of a good, or a service in this case.
And so since we're such huge health care providers, one of the
things we're working with is large corporations and entities to say,
look, you've got to post your price to providers and hospitals. It
creates some angst, but nevertheless, it is a much better alternative
than the Federal Government making all decisions. So one of the things
we're trying to do from a philosophical perspective is to encourage more
consumerism in health care.
Another thing that needs to happen in health care is there needs to
be better information technology in health care. The way I like to make
this point is that this is an industry that still--where a lot of the
paperwork is still filled out by hand. Most businesses have been able to
use these fantastic new technologies to be able to make their companies
more productive--but not health care. You got doctors writing
prescriptions. They don't know how to write very well anyway, and
secondly, it's easy to lose paperwork.
[[Page 988]]
And so the health care industry lags behind when it comes to the
modernization of--that a lot of other industries have been through by
the advent of information technology. There's a role for the Government.
Remember, we're huge providers of health care. The Veterans Affairs
Department, for example, now has got electronic medical records for each
person covered through Veterans Affairs. So somebody can just take your
chip, show it into the--run it into the computer, and out comes the
medical records. And they estimate that as we help develop a common
language so that IT can take hold in the health care system, that we can
save up to 30 percent of the costs in the current system.
But finally, I want to share another idea with you. They've got--
those folks up there who want to spread further government into health
care have got their ideas--and you've got to beat a bad idea with a good
idea, in my judgment. And I want to share with you another idea that
seems to make sense.
If you work for a corporation, you get your health care free.
There's a tax break for you. If you're an individual, you have to pay
for your health care. People are not treated the same in the Tax Code.
If you're working for a big company, you come out pretty good when it
comes to health care. It's a tax-free benefit. If you're out there on
your own, you got to purchase your health care. It's an after-tax
purchase. If you're working for a small business that has trouble
affording health care and they have copayments, for example, a lot of
times the employee is not treated as fairly in the Tax Code as someone
who works for a larger company.
And so I propose that we change the Tax Code, we treat everybody
fairly. For example, if you're a married couple--a married couple, yes,
you ought to get a $15,000 deduction, no matter where you get your
health care, so long as you then use the savings to purchase health
care. If you're single, you ought to get a $7,500 tax deduction. So it's
like a mortgage deduction off your income tax. But it levels the playing
field. And then what ends up happening is the market starts to respond
as more individual decisionmakers are now able to use the fairness in
the Tax Code to demand product.
Part of the problem we have is there is no individual market that is
developed. If you're out there trying to find your health care on your
own, it's very difficult to find competitive--something that you can
live with, something that's competitive. And we believe that changing
the Tax Code will help. There are some in Congress who believe a better
approach would be a tax credit. I happen to believe that deductions are
a better way to go, but I know that either approach is better than the
nationalization of health care. And so one of the real issues that we
got--[applause]--anyway, thanks for the question.
Don't get me started on energy. If you're a small-business person,
you better worry about the cost of energy. And that's why I have said
that it is in our national interest to diversify away from oil. It's in
our national interest to promote alternative fuels, and I believe we can
do so with current technology and new technology. It's in our national
security interests that we're not heavily dependent on oil. I think you
know what I mean by that. I mean, there's a lot of parts of the world
where we buy oil that don't like us. That's not in the national security
interest of the country.
It's in our economic security interest to diversify because when the
demand for crude oil goes up in a developing country, for example, it
causes the price of crude oil to go up, unless there's a corresponding
increase in supply. And when that price of crude goes up, it runs up the
price of your gasoline. And therefore, it is interest--in our interest
to promote ethanol, for example, or biodiesel as ways to power our
automobiles. It also happens to be good for the environment that we
diversify away from crude oil.
[[Page 989]]
On the electricity side, I'm a big proponent of nuclear power. I
think if you're genuinely interested in dealing with climate change, you
have to be a supporter of nuclear power because nuclear power will
enable us to grow our economy. And if we grow our economy, it'll mean
we'll be able to afford new technologies, and at the same time, there
are zero greenhouse gas emissions.
And so to answer your question--obviously, a little long-winded--
[laughter]--is, good tax policy, good health care policy, and good
energy policy will make it more likely that these--this small-business
sector of ours will remain strong.
Yes, sir. Go ahead and scream. You don't have to----
Immigration Reform
Q. Sir, thank you very much for your service to our country so far.
The President. Thank you.
Q. We appreciate that very much.
The President. Appreciate it.
Q. My question is, in light of the immigration bill, I'm not
understanding exactly how if, with the amnesty of this many people
coming in and then with the still concern about the borders being
somewhat porous, how do we really achieve your desired effect in this,
which, you know, would be, I guess, for obviously taking care of them,
but yet afford not to be a big bulk----
The President. Yes.
Q. ----sort of expense and the lack of the safety of the border?
The President. Thank you for bringing that question up. It's a very
important question that the Nation is confronting. You can sit down.
[Laughter]
Here are the commonsense objectives that need to be addressed when
it comes to immigration. First, we need to enforce the border. A
sovereign state--[applause]--it is the job of a state, of a nation, to
enforce its borders. That's not an easy task. I'm real familiar with the
border. I was a border-State Governor. I understand how difficult it is
to fully enforce a border. But nevertheless, as a result of
congressional action and the administration working with the Congress,
we're making substantial progress on modernizing the border.
Now--and the--you go down to Arizona, for example; you can't find
the border. Man, it's just desert. It is, like, wide open desert. And so
what you're beginning to see is new infrastructure, new technologies,
some fencing, berms to prevent automobiles from moving, all aimed at
making the Border Patrol agency, which we are now doubling on the
border, more effective, okay? And we're making progress. The number of
arrests over the last 12 months are down significantly. That is one way
to measure whether or not people are making it into our country
illegally. Last year, we arrested and sent back 1.1 million people on
the southern border. Now, you divide that by 365. There is active
participation on the border to do that which the American people expect
us to do.
Secondly, you're about to find--I think the country is about to find
out that we're going to need hard-working, decent people to do jobs that
Americans aren't doing. And it's--that is why, for the sake of the
economy, I am--support a temporary-worker plan.
There are people who are coming--look, let me start over. There are
people in our hemisphere whose families are really hungry, particularly
compared to the lifestyle we have in America, and they want to work to
feed their families. And--but they're willing to do jobs Americans don't
want to do. That's just--that's reality. Some say, ``Well, force
Americans to do the jobs they're unwilling to do.'' Well, that's not the
way the system works. And yet there are people willing to come, to get
in the fields and the agricultural sector. There are people willing to
pick apples in Washington, you know, hitting those vegetable fields in
California. And they want to do so because they want to feed their
families.
[[Page 990]]
And the interesting problem we have, sir, is that because they're
motivated by the same thing you're motivated by, I suspect--love of
family and desire to provide for your family--they will go to great
lengths to get into the country. You think about somebody who's willing
to get stuffed in the bottom of an 18-wheeler and pay one of these thugs
that are smuggling them into the country to do work Americans aren't
doing. So I've always felt like a temporary-worker program will be--
recognize an economic reality and also help keep pressure off the
border. It's a long, hard border to enforce.
By the way, in my State of Texas, when it comes to the fencing, I
would strongly urge those who advocate it not to go down there and go
face to face with some of these Texas ranchers down there. They're
really not interested in having the Federal Government on their
property. See, most of our property down in Texas is private land. The
farther you go west, it's Federal land.
And the reason I say that, it just shows how difficult it is to do
what some assume can be done, which is, like, totally seal off the
border. One way to make it easier for our Border Patrol is to have this
temporary-worker program with verifiable identification and say, yes,
you can come for a limited period of time, and then you're going home.
Now, the--I suspect I'm all right so far with some of those who
worry about immigration reform. The other question is that--I'm not
trying to elicit applause--[laughter]--the other question is, there are
about 11 million people who have been here over time who are working--
some not working--but they're here. And what do we do with them? Now,
you--some would say that if you don't kick them out, that's called
amnesty. I disagree.
First of all, I think it's impractical to kick somebody out. I feel
like if you make a person pay a fine--in other words, a cost for having
broken our law--I agree with those who say that if you're an automatic
citizen, it undermines the rule of law; I agree with that argument. I
have a little problem with the argument, though, that says, if you pay a
fine, if you prove you're a good citizen, if you've paid your back
taxes, if you go home and reregister and come back, that you ought to be
allowed to get in the back of the line. I don't think that's amnesty,
but that's a lot of where the argument came.
This is a difficult subject for a lot of folks. And I understand
it's difficult. I was disappointed, of course, that the Senate bill
didn't get moving. I think it's incumbent upon those of us in
Washington, DC, to deal with hard problems now and not pass them on to
future Congresses. And so, as you know, the bill failed, and I can't
make a prediction to you at this point, sir, where it's going to head. I
can make you a prediction, though, that pretty shortly, people are going
to be knocking on people's doors saying, ``Man, we're running out of
workers.'' This economy is strong. Remember, we've got a national
unemployment rate of 4.5 percent. A lot of Americans are working, and
there are still jobs Americans don't want to do. And the fundamental
question is, will we be able to figure out a way to deal with the
problem?
Let me say one other point. I feel strongly about this issue. I do
not like a system that has encouraged predators to treat people as
chattel. We have a system that has encouraged the onset of coyotes--
those are the smugglers--and they prey upon these poor people. And they
charge them a lot of money to smuggle through routes. And as a result of
that system, there is innkeepers that charge exorbitant fees. There's
document forgers. You're a small-business guy out here in Tennessee, and
you're trying to run your nursery or whatever it is, and somebody shows
up--you're not a document checker; the Government can't expect the
small-business owners to be able to determine whether or not the Social
Security card has been forged or not. We
[[Page 991]]
need a new system. The system we've got is broken. And therefore, the
fundamental question is, are we going to be able to deal with it?
Let me say one other thing, and this is important for America to
remember too. We have been a fabulous country when it comes to
assimilating people. You know, ours is a country that has got such a
fabulous spirit to it that the newcomer can come, work hard, obey law,
and realize dreams. And that's what America has been about. And in my
judgment, that's what America should always be about: the idea of people
realizing dreams. And that's what--so the question people say is,
``Well, certain people can't assimilate.'' But there has been that
argument throughout our history, that certain people of certain
ethnicity or certain backgrounds can't assimilate. We must never lose
faith in our capacity for people to assimilate. It's what has made us
great in the past and what will make us great in the future.
And so thank you for bringing up a tough subject for people in
Washington.
Yes, sir.
Music Industry
Q. Mr. President, Al McCree with Altissimo Records representing the
music industry. Music is one of our largest exports the country has.
Currently, every country in the world--except China, Iran, North Korea,
Rwanda, and the United States--pay a statutory royalty to the performing
artists for radio and television air play. Would your administration
consider changing our laws to align it with the rest of the country--the
world?
The President. Help. [Laughter] Maybe you've never had a President
say this--I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about.
[Laughter] Sounds like we're keeping interesting company, you know?
[Laughter]
Look, I'll give you the old classic: Contact my office, will you?
[Laughter] I really don't--I'm totally out of my lane. I like listening
to country music, if that helps. [Laughter]
You've got a question? Yes. You can yell at this thing.
War on Terror/Progress in Iraq/Spread of Democracy
Q. Mr. President, I appreciate your position on the war in Iraq.
We've got a debate that's going on as much about should we stay or
should we come home. Is there a way to change the tenor of the debate to
determine how we win in Iraq?
The President. Thank you. The hardest decision a President makes are
the decisions of war and peace, are putting kids, men and women in
harm's way. And I have made two such decisions after we were attacked.
And I did so because I firmly believe we're at war with ideologues who
use murder as a tool to achieve political objectives, and that the most
important responsibility is to protect--for the Government is to protect
the American people from harm and, therefore, went on the offense
against these radicals and extremists.
We went on the offense wherever we can find them; we are on the
offense wherever we can find them. And of course, in two theaters in
this global war, we have sent troops--a lot of troops into harm's way.
Afghanistan still is a part of this war on terror, and a lot of the
debate in Washington, of course, is focused on Iraq, as it should be.
But I do want our fellow citizens to understand we've still got men and
women in uniform sacrificing in Afghanistan, and their families are just
as worried about them as the families of those in Iraq.
The short-term solution against this enemy is to keep the pressure
on them, keep them on the move, and bring them to justice overseas so we
don't have to face them here. In other words, no quarter--[applause].
[[Page 992]]
I would just tell you, you can't hope for the best with these
people. You can't assume that if we keep the pressure off, everything
will be fine. Quite the contrary. When there wasn't enough pressure on,
they were able to bunch up in safe haven and plot and plan attacks that
killed 3,000 of our citizens. And they have been active ever since--not
here on our soil, but they've got a global reach. They have been trying
to kill the innocent.
Of course, I made the decision to go in to remove Saddam Hussein. I
firmly believe that this world is better off without Saddam Hussein in
power, and I believe America is more secure.
The long-term solution for your grandkids' sake is to defeat their
ideology of hate with an ideology of light, and that's called liberty
and democracy. The fight in Iraq is evolving. We've been through several
stages in this difficult theater. First was the liberation stage.
Secondly was a--the nascent political movement, reflected in the fact
that 12 million Iraqis went to the polls under a modern Constitution.
And then a thinking enemy, primarily Al Qaida, blew up--used their
violent tactics to blow up holy sites of religious people trying to
incent--incite sectarian violence, and they succeeded. In other words,
at the end of 2005, when the 12 million people voted, and we were
training the Iraqis to take more responsibility, I felt like we would be
in a much different force posture as the year went on. That's what I
felt.
But the Commander in Chief always, one, listens to the military
commanders on the ground, and two, remains flexible in the
decisionmaking. The enemy succeeded in causing there to be murderous
outrage. And so I had a decision to make, and that was, do we step back
from this capital of this new democracy--remember, forums of government
will ultimately determine the peace, and that a government based upon
the principles of democracy and liberty is the best way to defeat those
killers who incited this sectarian violence in Iraq, the same ones--
people ask me, ``Are these really Al Qaida?'' Well, they have sworn
allegiance to Usama bin Laden; what else are
they? They are coldblooded killers who have declared publicly that they
would like to drive us out of Iraq to develop a safe haven from which to
launch further attacks. And I believe we better be taking their word
seriously in order to do our duty to defend.
And so we're now watching this democracy unfold. The decision I had
to make was, do we continue to stand and help this democracy grow, or do
we stand back and hope that the violence that was happening in the
capital doesn't spread anywhere else? I made the decision that it was in
our interest, the Nation's security interest, instead of stepping back
from the capital, to actually send more troops into the capital to help
this young democracy have time to grow and to make hard decisions so it
can become an ally in the war on terror not a safe haven from which Al
Qaida could launch further attacks.
And it's hard work, and it's tough work. And it's tough work because
there are ruthless people who have declared their intent to attack us
again, trying to prevent success.
And I can understand why the American people are tired of this.
Nobody likes war. Nobody likes to turn on their TV set and see needless
death at the hands of these extremists. But I want to remind our fellow
citizens that much of the violence they're seeing on their TV screens in
Iraq is perpetuated by the very same people that came and killed 3,000
of our citizens. People sworn--not the exact same person; those are dead
who got on the airplanes--but they have sworn allegiance to Usama, just
like the killers in Iraq have sworn allegiance to Usama bin Laden. And so I listen to David Petraeus, and of course, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Secretary of Defense have made the
recommendation to send more in.
Victory is--I remember a guy asking me at one of these town halls,
he said, ``Well,
[[Page 993]]
when are you going to, like--when are they going to surrender,'' or
``When is this thing going to end?'' He looked like an older fellow, I
think, and it was like he was remembering the USS Missouri. This is an
ideological struggle, more akin to the cold war. What makes it different
is, is that we have an enemy that is murderous and is willing to use
asymmetrical warfare.
And so there is not a moment of ending. But there will be a moment
in Afghanistan and Iraq where these Governments will be more able to
support their people, more able to provide basic services, more able to
defend their neighborhoods against radical killers. It's going to be a
while though. And there's a lot of debate in Washington; yes, so how do
you change the debate? Just keep talking about it. Today David
Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, who is our Ambassador in Iraq, are briefing Congress about
the difficulties we face and the progress we're making.
Let me give you one example. I'm optimistic. We'll succeed unless we
lose our nerve. We will succeed. Liberty has got the capacity to conquer
tyranny every time. Every time we've tried, it has worked. It takes a
while--[applause]--here's the definition of success. The enemy, by the
way, defines success as, can they pull off a car bombing. If we ever
allow ourselves to get in a position where it's ``no car bombings,
therefore we're successful,'' we've just handed these killers a great
victory.
So there's a Province called Anbar Province, and this is the
Province out in western Iraq, where it's mainly Sunni and where Al Qaida
had declared its intention to really drive us out and establish a safe
haven, with the declared intention of spreading--using it as a base to
spread their ideology throughout the Middle East, as well as a safe
haven from which to make sure that they inflicted enough pain on us that
we actually help them by leaving. I know this is farfetched for some
Americans to think that people think this way; this is the nature of the
enemy. And they are an enemy, and they're real, and they're active.
So Anbar Province was declared lost by some last November. And
literally, we were--there was an intel report that came out, and the
person was not very encouraging, and some of the press, it was the
beginning of the end for the policy in Iraq. And we started working the
issue hard. That's why I sent some more marines into Anbar Province. It
turns out that people were sick and tired of Al Qaida. Al Qaida had no
vision. You see, our citizens have got to remember that most mothers
want their children to grow up in peace; that's universal. Most mothers
want something--it's just something instinctive when it comes to
motherhood and children, where they want a child to have a chance to
succeed in life, to have a chance to grow up in a peaceful world.
Well, it turns out that many people in Anbar hate violence. They
want something better. They may not--they may distrust their central
Government because it's new. Remember, Saddam Hussein sowed great seeds
of distrust during his time as a tyrant. It takes time to get over
distrust and to develop trust with a citizen.
But there's something instinctive involved with people when it comes
to normal life. And they got sick of this Al Qaida threat and bullying
and torturing. These people don't remain in power because they're loved;
they remain in power because they're feared. And all of a sudden, tribal
sheikhs begin to turn on them. And Al Qaida is now on the run in Anbar
Province. What's happening is there's two types of political
reconciliation, one from the bottom up, where grassroots people just get
sick of something, and with our help, they're dealing with the problem.
And then there's reconciliation from the top down, as you watch
Government wrestle with the different factions inside their legislature.
And we expect progress on both fronts because the military can't do it
alone. But the decision I made was that neither front
[[Page 994]]
will work, neither aspect of reconciliation will work if there was
violence in the country's capital. And that's what you're seeing unfold.
And so you'll see a debate in Washington, DC, here about troop
levels and funding those troop levels. First, whatever the troop level
is, it needs to be funded by the United States Congress. Our troops need
all the support they can get when they're in harm's way. And secondly,
most Americans, I hope, understand that the best way to make decisions
on troop levels is based upon the sound advice of people in the field,
not based upon the latest focus group or political poll.
I'd like to share a story with you, and then I'll answer some
questions. I'm not attempting to have just a few questions by giving you
really long answers. It's called the filibuster. [Laughter] You know
what's interesting about my Presidency, another interesting aspect of
the Presidency, is the friendship I had with Prime Minister
Koizumi of Japan and his successor, a man
named Prime Minister Abe. What makes it
interesting, to me at least, is the fact that my dad fought the Japanese as a young guy. I think he--I know
he went in right after high school, became a Navy fighter pilot, went
overseas, and fought them. They were the sworn enemy. He was willing to
risk his life, like thousands of others did, because the Japanese were
our bitter enemy.
And here we are, 60 years later or so, that I am at the table with
the leader of the former enemy working to keep the peace, whether it be
in North Korea, or--[applause]--let me finish here--or thanking the--or
working with the Japanese who committed self-defense forces to help the
young democracy in Iraq because they understand the power of liberty to
be transformative. Liberty has got the ability to change an enemy into
an ally. Liberty has got a powerful ability to transform regions from
hostility and hopelessness to regions of hope. And it's hard work, and
it takes a long time, but it has been repeated throughout modern
history, whether it be on the continent of Europe or in the Far East.
And it can happen again if Americans don't lose faith in the great power
of freedom.
And so this is an interesting time. We're in the beginning--trying
to get to your question--we're in the beginning of a long ideological
struggle that's going to take patience, perseverance, and faith in
certain basic values. I'm a big believer in the universality of liberty.
I believe deep in everybody's soul--I'll take it a step further--I
believe in an Almighty, and I believe a gift from that Almighty to each
man, woman, and child is the desire to be free. And I believe that
exists in everybody's soul is the desire to be free. I wasn't surprised
when the 12 million people showed up. I was pleased, but I wasn't
surprised, because I believe, if given a chance, people will take a--
will choose liberty. Now, having a form of government that reflects that
is hard work, and it takes time. And not every democracy, of course,
will look like us, nor should it. But there's just some basic principles
inherent in free governments that will enable us to be more likely to be
secure and peaceful over the next years. And that's what I've been
thinking about.
Yes, sir.
Border Security/War on Terror
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. Thank you, sir.
Q. ----the last, I'd say about 15 or 20 minutes about terrorism and
Al Qaida, and I expect--[inaudible]--feel very bullish when it comes to
that subject. But what I want to know is, this is an open society,
right? It's supposed to be open society. People come from every which
way, most of them very decent and stuff, but like you say, Al Qaida and
the terrorists. What about the borders? I always see on TV they jumping
the borders, Spanish people jumping at borders, and could it be some
time--
[[Page 995]]
it could be Al Qaida jumping the borders----
The President. Yes.
Q. ----with--[inaudible]--or anything. Our borders are not secure,
like they should be, I don't think. I mean, it's up to you; you're my
President. I'm supposed to ask you.
The President. Okay, you are. [Laughter] Well, listen, thank you
very much for that. Listen, the reason--one--a reason to have a
verifiable temporary-worker card is to make it more likely that if Al
Qaida does try to come across the border illegally, that we can catch
them.
You ask a very good question. The other half of the equation, by the
way, in securing the homeland, is to take measures necessary to catch
people--know who's coming in and why, and catch them before they come
in. It's a very legitimate question. On one hand, we stay on the
offense; in the long run, defeat their ideology with a better ideology.
But we got to secure the homeland, and we're working hard to do so. One
of the interesting management challenges was when we merged these
different Departments all into the Department of Homeland Security, and
I must say, it's gone pretty well. It's hard to take separate cultures
and merge them into a common culture, working for a common purpose,
but--it takes time again--but we're making good progress on that, we
really are. Are we perfect? No. Are there flaws? Yes. But we're making--
can I say, the country is more secure than it was before 9/11?
Absolutely.
Now it's interesting, sir. I have made some--I made one--a couple
controversial decisions about how to better find information about who
might be coming to our country so that we can anticipate. The best way
to be able to protect ourselves from Al Qaida--no question, good border
control, but it's through good intelligence as well. I mean, if we can
learn intention before somebody begins to make a move, we're more likely
to be able to say we're a lot more--we'll be able to say we're a lot
more secure.
And that's why one of the controversial programs that I suggested
was that we take a known phone number from one of these Al Qaida types
or affiliates--and you can find them. We get them all kinds of ways.
We're picking people up off the battlefield, for example, in one of
these theaters I just describe to you. They may have a laptop. On the
laptop might be some phone numbers. Off the phone numbers may be
somebody else's. I mean, there's ways to get information as a result of
some of the operations we have taken overseas. And my attitude is, if we
do have a number of a suspected Al Qaida and/or affiliate and that
person is making a phone call to someone in the United States, we ought
to understand why; we ought to know.
And so the reason I bring this up to you is that, yes, enforcing the
border and being wise about how we enforce the border is an important of
trying to detect--find out whether terrorists are coming into our
country to inflict harm. Same with airports. You got to take off the
shoes? Well, there's a reason. It's because we're doing our job that you
expect us to do about--trying to affect the security of all ports of
entry. But as well, we're beefing up our intelligence and trying to get
a better handle on the actions somebody may be taking before they do so.
It requires enormous cooperation. We spend a lot of time in your
Government working with other nations. Curiously enough, as a result of
Al Qaida's activities in other countries, it's caused people to say, ``I
think we better work together more closely.'' And we do. There's a lot
of information sharing that goes on between governments; a lot of
intelligence sharing that goes on. And there's better communication now
between the intelligence services and the law enforcement services. And
one of
[[Page 996]]
the reasons why we had to pass the PATRIOT Act was because there was a
prohibition about people sharing information between intel and law, and
that made no sense in this new world in which we live.
I just want to assure you that I fully understand the need to make
sure assets are deployed properly to protect you, and I fully understand
the need to safeguard the civil liberties of the United States of
America. One of the worst things that would happen is this enemy, in
trying to respond to them, would force us to lose part of our very soul.
And I believe we're able to achieve the--take the necessary steps to
protect you and, at the same time, protect the civil liberties that
Americans hold so dearly to their heart.
Yes, ma'am.
U.S. Foreign Aid/Situation in Darfur
Q. Okay, thank you.
The President. The price is right. [Laughter]
Q. Come on down. [Laughter] I am here representing--Nashville is a
strong city of lots of communities of faith, and as a part of that,
there are lots of people going back and forth and caring about the
people of Africa. And I want to first thank you; I know that your
administration has taken lots of initiative on AIDS and malaria nets,
and we really appreciate that. And then I--my hard question is, what we
can we do to stop the genocide in Darfur?
The President. Thank you very much. For starters, the fact that
Americans care about people in faraway lands is a great testimony to our
compassion. I believe good foreign--you've heard about one aspect of our
foreign policy--two aspects, really, when you think about it. One is the
combination of military and diplomatic assets trying to achieve
objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Another is the working
coalitions. And by the way, there are a lot of other countries in
Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't get nearly the credit they deserve, but
a lot of other people besides us understand that this is the beginning
of a long ideological struggle, and now is the time to make the hard
decisions so little guys in the future don't have to deal with the
consequences of that.
The other aspect of foreign policy is, I believe to whom much is
given, much is required. And people say, ``Well, we got plenty of
problems in America. Why do you worry about something going on
overseas?'' First of all, we're wealthy. We're spending enormous sums of
money. If we set proper priorities, we can not only help our own
citizens, but I believe it helps our soul and our conscience, and I
believe we have a moral obligation to help others.
And so when it comes to--let met talk about HIV/AIDS. A lot of
people don't know what we're doing. And the United States has really
taken the lead in saying to other nations, here is a problem that we can
help solve, and therefore, follow us. We picked 17 of the most deeply
affected nations, most of which are on the continent of Africa, and you
provided $15 billion to get antiretroviral drugs in the hands of faith
givers, community givers, nurses, to save lives. And in 3 short years,
the United States of America has taken the lead to getting
antiretroviral to people, and it's gone from 30--50,000 people to over
1.1 million people receiving antiretroviral drugs.
It is--conditions of life matter in this struggle, by the way,
against extremists and radicals. Where you find repressive forms of
government, you're likely to find somebody who's frustrated. So they can
become recruited by these cynical murderers and then become suiciders.
Or where you find disease and pestilence or hunger, the conditions of
life matter at whether or not the future of the world is going to be
stable.
We're very much involved in a Malaria Initiative--Laura is really active in that--where the Government is
spending $1.6 billion aiming to get mosquito nets and sprays and
information to save lives. There
[[Page 997]]
are too many young babies around the world dying from something that we
can prevent, and it's in the national interest to do that.
Interestingly enough, a lot of the deliverers, those who are
delivering the help are the--are from the faith community, people who
are volunteering their time saying, what can I do? How can I love my
neighbor? And it's really heartwarming.
She asked about Darfur. First, we--as this administration has
proven, it's possible to achieve some success in Sudan with the north-
south agreement that we were able to achieve with Ambassador
Danforth at the time. We are now making--
working to make sure that holds by insisting that the revenue-sharing
agreement of the oil on Sudan is effective. She's referring to Darfur.
I made the decision not to send U.S. troops unilaterally into
Darfur. The threshold question was, if there is a problem, why don't you
just go take care of it? And I made the decision, in consultation with
allies, as well as consultation with Members of Congress and activists,
that--and I came to the conclusion that it would--it just wasn't the
right decision.
Therefore, what do you do? And the--if one is unwilling to take on
action individually, then that requires international collaboration, and
so we're now in the United Nations. And it doesn't seem--I talked to Ban
Ki-moon about this, and this is a slow, tedious
process, to hold a regime accountable for what only one nation in the
world has called a genocide, and that is us.
Now we have taken unilateral moves other than military moves. I
have--we have put serious economic sanctions on three individuals and--
that are involved with--two with the Government, one with one of the
rebel groups. We have sanctioned 29 companies that are involved in
Sudan. In other words, we're trying to be consequential. We're trying to
say that, you know, change, or there's consequences.
By the way, the same approach we're dealing with Iran on: We are
going to continue to press you hard until you change your behavior. And
so my challenge is to convince others to have that same sense of anxiety
that you have and that I have about the genocide that's taking place.
Ban Ki-moon actually gave a pretty
encouraging report when he talked about--see, the idea is that if
countries aren't going to--willing to do it unilaterally, in our case,
or other cases, then we try to get the AU force that's in place to get
complemented by further peacekeepers to the U.N. And that's what we're
working on. Good question on a tough, tough issue.
Yes, sir. There you go. Don't mean--you can sit down or stand up.
Border Security
Q. I personally admire the way you've conducted the Government, and
I admire your backbone, where you just stand and take a position. I'm
not happy about the influx from Mexico. Seems that far too many came
over in waves. I know that during the days of San Jacinto that they were
fighting, using rifles and everything, but this is the first time I've
ever seen an influx like this to try to take over our country. Now then,
thirdly, when they do these polls to determine how you're rated, how
come, if they have 1,000 people, they call 750 Democrats and only 25
Republicans? [Laughter]
The President. Thank you. I thought when you started talking about
Texas history, that you were going to say we couldn't have existed
without Tennessee. That's where I thought you were headed, you know.
[Laughter] You're a Texan? Where are you from?
Q. Waco.
The President. There you go. Right at Waco, Texas.
Q. This young lady in the red dress over here--[inaudible].
[[Page 998]]
The President. There you go. Your daddy. Well, as you know, Crawford
is not very far from Waco, same county.
Let's see, yes, ma'am. You guys got--one of them uniformed guys got
a question? No. Okay. I'm proud to be in there with you.
Q. Mr. President, welcome to Nashville.
The President. Thank you.
Q. And I want to thank you for the appointments or the nominations
for our Supreme Court. That will be a wonderful legacy for you.
The President. Thank you.
Texas Border Patrol Agents
Q. My question to you is this. There are two border guards presently
in jail. The Tennessee General Assembly passed a resolution, with 91
votes in the house and 30 in the senate, asking our Tennessee delegation
to support--to go to you asking for a pardon for these two men that were
tried, where information was left not with--was kept back from their
trial. And there's also a resolution in the house, H.R. 40, with a
number of our Tennessee delegation signed on to that. Will you pardon
these men that are unjustly imprisoned?
The President. I'm not going to make you that kind of promise in a
forum like this. Obviously, I am interested in facts. I know the
prosecutor very well, Johnny Sutton. He's a
dear friend of mine from Texas. He's a fair guy. He is an even-handed
guy. And I can't imagine--well, you've got a nice smile, but you can't
entice me into making a public statement--[laughter]--on something that
requires a very--I know this is an emotional issue, but people need to
look at the facts. These men were convicted by a jury of their peers
after listening to the facts as my friend Johnny Sutton presented them.
But anyway, no, I won't make you that promise.
Yes, ma'am.
President's Legacy
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry--[inaudible]--as the mother of a
6-month-old named after Sam Houston, a great person----
The President. You've got to be kidding me, awesome, yes. Is it
Houston or Sam?
Q. It's Houston----
The President. There you go.
Q. ----because we wanted somebody that was a great representative of
both Tennessee and Texas within our family. But while your Presidency
has been important to me, personally, I want to know about your legacy,
and I want to know what one policy would you hope would affect your
predecessor and he would continue on what maybe you might not be able to
finish by the time your term ends.
The President. Thank you. Freedom agenda--the only way to secure
America in the long term is to have great faith in the spread of
liberty. And it's--I really view it as the calling of our time. People
have--some people have said, ``Well, he is a hopeless idealist to
believe that liberty is transformative in a part of the world that just
seems so difficult.'' But I would like to remind fellow citizens that we
have had this sense of difficulty in parts of the world before, where
liberty has been transformative.
And so it's--I might--look, first of all, let me talk about
Presidential legacies. I'll be dead before--long gone before people
fully are able to capture the essence of--the full essence of a
Presidency. I'm still reading books about George Washington. My attitude
is, is they're writing about 1, 43 doesn't need to worry about it. So
it's--[laughter]. And so you know what the lesson is in life? Just do
what you think is right. Make decisions based upon principle. And that's
the only way I know to do it. I mean, I've disappointed this lady in the
red, I'm confident, because I won't tell her--but I can only tell you
what I think is the right thing to do. It's the only way
[[Page 999]]
I know how to live my life. And it's--for youngsters here, it's just
like--it's really important not to sacrifice principle to try to be the
popular person. It's important to--[applause].
Yes, sir. Semper Fi, there you go.
Media/War on Terror
Q. Semper Fi. First of all, Mr. President, I want to thank you,
personally, for your support for our veterans. My son was lost in Iraq,
and I want to thank you----
The President. Well, thanks.
Q. ----very much for your strength.
The President. Thanks. Thanks for sharing that.
Q. I also wish that there was some way that, as the press makes so
much to do about what goes on in areas around--pretty much a 50-mile
area around Baghdad, which is pretty much where everything is going on,
if there was some way to offset that with all of the great things that
are going on. I have had communication with a gentleman by the name of
Azzam Alwash, who is from Nasiriyah area, and what's going on there, the
building of water sheds and the building of new items and the fact that
they're building colleges in the Kurd area.
I wish that there was some way that your administration could offset
the negative press by a consistent influx of very positive press that's
going on in the majority of that country. Is there some way that could
be done?
The President. Well, thanks. I'm asked that a lot by people. The
interesting thing about this fight in Iraq is that the families and the
troops have got a really different view, in many ways, than a lot of
other folks do, because they're firsthand--they see what's happening.
And it's--I hear from--I talk to our people in the field a lot, talk to
people who have been to the field a lot, and these stories of just
incremental change that add up to something different over time, they're
just--it's just--they're prevalent. The best messengers are the people
who are actually there.
What's interesting about the world in which we live is, there's no
question there's the electronic media that people watch, but there's
also the blogosphere. You're on it, I know; you're hearing from people,
your son's comrades that are constantly e-mailing you. There's a lot of
information that's taking place that is causing people to have a
different picture of what they may be seeing on TV screens. See, this
enemy of ours is very effective; they're smart people. They're effective
about getting explosions and death on TV screens, and they know it
affects Americans because we're good people; we're compassionate; we
care about human life. Every life matters. And therefore, when human
life is taken through a car bomb, it causes people to say, is it worth
it? Does it matter what happens over there?
See, one of the interesting things about this war I forgot to tell
you is, unlike, say, the Vietnam war, that if we fail in Iraq, the enemy
won't be content to stay there. They will follow us here. That's what's
different about this struggle than some of the others we're had. What
happens overseas matters.
We ask this question a lot about how we can do a better job. As I
say, Ryan Crocker and David
Petraeus are briefing today. It's good to
have them on TV, on these talk shows and stuff like that, but they've
also got a job to do. And they're very credible people, because they see
firsthand what's going on. But they've got a lot of work to do over
there as they command these troops.
I hope you're doing okay. I'll tell you something interesting in
meeting with the families of the fallen. I get all kinds of opinions, of
course. But one of the most universal opinions I get is one, I'm proud
of my son; two, he was a volunteer; and three, do not let his life be in
vain, Mr. President; you complete the mission. [Applause] Thank you,
brother.
[[Page 1000]]
All right, guess what? You got to get to work. [Laughter] And so do
I. Thank you all for giving me a chance to come and visit with you. I
found this to be an interesting exchange. I appreciate your questions. I
hope you have a better sense for why and how I have made decisions that
have affected the individual lives of our citizens, as well as the life
of our Nation. I'm an optimistic person. I believe that those decisions
were not only necessary, but I firmly believe they will yield the peace
that we all want; peace of mind and peace of heart. God bless you.
Note: The President spoke at 11:35 a.m. at the Gaylord Opryland Resort
and Convention Center. In his remarks, he referred to Darrell Freeman,
Sr., executive committee chairman, Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce;
Cordia Harrington, chief executive officer, the Bun Companies; Al
McCree, owner and chief executive officer, Altissimo! Recordings; Usama
bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; Gen. David H.
Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Secretary
of Defense Robert M. Gates; former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
John C. Danforth; Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations;
and Johnny Sutton, U.S. District Attorney for the Western District of
Texas. A participant referred to Azzam Alwash, director, Eden Again
Project. A portion of these remarks could not be verified because the
tape was incomplete.