[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 39, Number 31 (Monday, August 4, 2003)]
[Pages 1003-1015]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
<R04>
The President's News Conference
July 30, 2003
The President. Thank you. Good morning. I was hoping it would be a
little hotter here to prepare the traveling team for the Crawford
experience this August. But thank you for coming.
I'm looking forward to going down to Texas, and I know the Members
will be going back to their districts. As I travel around the country
from Crawford, I'm going to be focused on two vital concerns for our
country: first, the safety of the American people, and
[[Page 1004]]
the economic security of the American people.
On national security front, it has been 90 days since the end of the
major combat operations in Iraq. The nation has been liberated from
tyranny and is on the path to self-government and peace. The Iraqi
Governing Council is meeting regularly. Local police forces are now
being trained. And citizens are being recruited into a new Iraqi
military, a military that will protect the Iraqi people instead of
intimidating them. Soon, representatives of the people will begin
drafting a new constitution, and free elections will follow. After
decades of oppression, the people of Iraq are reclaiming their country
and are reclaiming their future.
Conditions in most of Iraq are growing more peaceful. Some areas,
however, the violent remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, joined by
terrorists and criminals, are making a last attempt to frighten the
Iraqi people and to undermine the resolve of our coalition. They will
fail. Our coalition forces are taking the fight to the enemy in an
unrelenting campaign that is bringing daily results. Saddam Hussein's
sons did not escape the raids, and neither will other members of that
despicable regime.
By taking the offensive against desperate killers, Americans in
uniform are assuming great risks for our country. The American people
are proud of our Armed Forces, and we are grateful for their sacrifice
and their service in fighting the war on terror. We also appreciate the
military families who share in the hardship and uncertainties of this
essential mission.
The rise of a free and peaceful Iraq is critical to the stability of
the Middle East, and a stable Middle East is critical to the security of
the American people. As the blanket of fear is lifted, as Iraqis gain
confidence that the former regime is gone forever, we will gain more
cooperation in our search for the truth in Iraq.
We know that Saddam Hussein produced and possessed chemical and
biological weapons and has used chemical weapons. We know that. He also
spent years hiding his weapons of mass destruction programs from the
world. We now have teams of investigators who are hard at work to
uncover the truth.
The success of a free Iraq will also demonstrate to other countries
in that region that national prosperity and dignity are found in
representative government and free institutions. They are not found in
tyranny, resentment, and for support of terrorism. As freedom advances
in the Middle East, those societies will be less likely to produce
ideologies of hatred and produce recruits for terror.
The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq,
and we'll complete our mission in Afghanistan. We'll keep our word to
the peoples of those nations. We'll wage the war on terror against every
enemy who plots against our forces and our people. I will never assume
the restraint and good will of dangerous enemies when lives of our
American citizens are at risk.
My administration is also acting to ensure the economic security of
the American people. Paychecks are already reflecting the reduction in
income tax rates, which is providing relief to millions of taxpayers and
small businesses. American families have begun to receive checks from a
$400-per-child increase in the child tax credit. This time, when we say
the check's in the mail, we mean it.
Through our higher expense deduction, small businesses have an
incentive to speed up purchases of new equipment. We're beginning to see
hopeful signs of faster growth in the economy, which over time will
yield new jobs. Yet the unemployment rate is still too high. And we will
not rest until Americans looking for work can find a job.
To strengthen the economic security of the people, Congress needs to
pass a sound energy bill to make sure that our households and businesses
have a reliable, affordable supply of energy. Congress needs to pass
legal reforms to cut down on the frivolous lawsuits that provide a drag
to our economy. Congress needs to approve reemployment accounts to help
citizens who have the toughest time finding work. Congress needs to make
sure that the child credit is refundable for lower-income families. We
must continue pursuing an aggressive, progrowth strategy that creates
jobs throughout our economy.
Economic security for America's seniors is threatened by the rising
cost of prescription
[[Page 1005]]
drugs. I'm pleased that both Houses of Congress have responded by
passing separate bills providing prescription drug coverage under
Medicare. It's absolutely essential that the House and the Senate
resolve their differences and enact a piece of legislation I can sign.
The lack of coverage for prescription drugs and many preventative
treatments is a major gap in Medicare that denies some of our seniors
the latest and best medicine. We must keep the promise of Medicare by
giving our seniors better coverage and better choices.
I congratulate the House and the Senate on a productive legislative
session--so far. I also look forward to working with the Members this
coming fall on the priorities for the American people.
And now I'll be glad to answer some questions. Tom [Tom Raum,
Associated Press], and we'll work our way around. There's no need for
any unrestrained yelling. [Laughter]
Military Operations in Iraq
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, now with the deaths of
the sons of Saddam Hussein and the capture of his chief bodyguard, what
can you tell us about how close we might be to actually capturing or
killing Saddam himself? And how important would that be to ending the
war and stopping the violence against American troops? And what do you
say to those troops who fought long and hard and now are eager to come
home, given the fact that it's hard to find other countries to send in
troops that could serve as replacements?
The President. Okay. Tom, I'm getting a little older, so when you
ask four or five questions, it's hard for me to remember every question.
First, we do have a good rotation plan in place now for our troops.
The 3d ID, which has conducted a lot of the major military operations at
the beginning of the war, has now got a definite time in which they are
coming home. And that in itself is a positive development. There was
some concern amongst family members of the 3d ID that they were getting
mixed signals, and I understand that. And now it's clear as to their
rotation plan.
And by the way, as we rotate, we'll be changing the nature of the
military configuration to be more of a--to have more of a--the capacity
to move very quickly and to strike quickly, because our intelligence is
getting better on the ground as we're able to pick targets, able to
enrich targets and move quickly on the targets.
What other aspects of the--I told you--I warned you, I'm getting
older.
Deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein
Q. I asked you how close we are to catching----
The President. Catching Saddam Hussein, that's right. Yes.
Q. ----and how important it is to----
The President. Listen--right, thank you. Of course, it's important
that the--that Saddam's sons were brought to justice. It changes
attitudes in Iraq. People didn't believe that the Ba'athist regime was
going to be gone forever. They felt like they--you would hear reports of
Ba'athists, former Ba'athist officials saying to Iraqi citizens,
``Listen, the Americans will grow stale and tired. They'll leave and, by
the way, we'll come back. And when we come back, we'll come back with a
vengeance if you help in the reconstruction of the country.'' So,
needless to say, when two of the most despicable henchmen of the Saddam
Hussein regime met their fate, the Ba'athist claim that at least these
two will come back and haunt the citizen is--rings hollow.
I don't know how close we are to getting Saddam Hussein. You know,
I--it's closer than we were yesterday, I guess. All I know is we're on
the hunt. It's like if you had asked me right before we got his sons how
close we were to get his sons, I'd say I don't know, but we're on the
hunt.
And so we're making progress. It's slowly but surely making progress
of bringing the--those who terrorize their fellow citizens to justice
and making progress about convincing the Iraqi people that freedom is
real. And as they become more convinced that freedom is real, they'll
begin to assume more responsibilities that are required in a free
society.
Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].
[[Page 1006]]
War on Terror/Possible Terrorist Attacks
Q. Thank you, sir. Homeland Security is warning against possible
hijackings this summer. How serious is this threat, and what can you do
about it? How can Americans feel safe?
The President. Yes. Well, first of all, the war on terror goes on,
as I continually remind people. In other words, there are still Al Qaida
remnants that have designs on America. The good news is that we are,
one, dismantling the Al Qaida organization, and two, we're learning more
information about their plans as we capture more people.
And the threat is a real threat. It's a threat that where--we
obviously don't have specific data; we don't know when, where, what. But
we do know a couple of things. We do know that Al Qaida tends to use the
methodologies that worked in the past. That's kind of their mindset. And
we have got some data that indicates that they would like to use
flights, international flights, for example.
Now, what we can do is we can be--obviously, at home, continue to be
diligent on the inspection process of baggage as well as making sure
those who board aircraft are properly screened. And obviously, we're
talking to foreign governments and foreign airlines to indicate to them
the reality of the threat. We're conscious * of folks flying--getting
lists of people flying into our country and matching them now with a
much improved database. International flights coming into America must
have hardened cockpit doors, which is a positive development.
* White House correction.
Being on alert means that we contact all who are responsible, who
have got positions of responsibility. And so we're focusing on the
airline industry right now. And we've got reason to do so. And I'm
confident we will thwart the attempts.
You know, let me talk about Al Qaida just for a second. I made the
statement that we're dismantling senior management, and we are. Our
people have done a really good job of hauling in a lot of the key
operators: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi--Ramzi al-Shibh or
whatever the guy's name was--[laughter]--sorry, Ramzi, if I got it
wrong--[laughter]--bin al-Shibh, excuse me. ``Swift Sword'' is dead,
thanks to the Saudis. Abu Bakr is now captured by the Saudis. We're
dismantling the operating--decisionmakers.
We've got more to do. And the American people need to know, we're
not stopping. We've got better intelligence-gathering, better
intelligence-sharing, and we're on the hunt. And we will stay on the
hunt. The threat that you asked about, Steve, reminds us that we need to
be on the hunt, and--because the war on terror goes on.
John [John King, Cable News Network].
Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the September 11, 2001, Terrorist
Attacks
Q. Mr. President, thank you. You met yesterday with the Saudi
Foreign Minister, who wants the administration to declassify these 27 or
28 pages about his Government in this report on 9/11. Many Members of
Congress, including several Republicans, say they see nothing--or at
least most of the materials, in their view, could be made public. Can
you tell us, is there any compromise in sight on this, and could you at
least summarize the material in that classified document? Is there, as
some Members of Congress say, material that you could read and have an
incriminating view of the Saudi Government when it comes to 9/11?
The President. John, the Foreign Minister did come and speak to me.
And I told him this: I said, we have an ongoing investigation about what
may or may not have taken place prior to September the 11th. And
therefore, it is important for us to hold this information close so that
those who are being investigated aren't alerted.
I also told him, in the document, that if we were to reveal the
content of the document--by the way, 29 pages of a near 900-page
report--it would reveal sources and methods. By that I mean it would
show people how we collect information and on whom we're collecting
information, which, in my judgment and in the judgment of senior law
enforcement officials in my administration, would be harmful on the war
against terror.
I just described to you that there is a threat to the United States.
And I also said, we're doing a better job of sharing intelligence and
collecting data so we're able to find--able
[[Page 1007]]
to anticipate. And what we really don't want to do, it doesn't make
sense to me--doesn't seem like to me, is to reveal those sources and
methods.
Now, at some point in time, as we make progress on the investigation
and as a threat to our national security diminishes, perhaps we can put
out the document. But in my judgment, now is not the time to do so.
And I made that clear to him. And I will be glad--I'm making it
clear to Members of Congress. I want to remind you that--sure, some have
spoken out, but others have agreed with my position, like the chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee. So there's a different point of
view. My point of view, however, since I'm in charge of fighting the war
on terror, is that we won't reveal sources and methods that will
compromise our efforts to succeed.
Campbell [Campbell Brown, NBC News].
Saddam Hussein's Links to Al Qaida
Q. Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to Al Qaida were a key part of your
justification for war. Yet, your own intelligence report, the NIE,
defined it as, quote, ``low confidence that Saddam would give weapons to
Al Qaida.'' Were those links exaggerated to justify war? Or can you
finally offer us some definitive evidence that Saddam was working with
Al Qaida terrorists?
The President. Yes. I think, first of all, remember I just said
we've been there for 90 days since the cessation of major military
operations. Now, I know in our world where news comes and goes and
there's this kind of instant news, and you must have done this, you must
do this yesterday, that there's a level of frustration by some in the
media. I'm not suggesting you're frustrated. You don't look frustrated
to me at all. But it's going to take time for us to gather the evidence,
the--analyze the mounds of evidence, literally, the miles of documents
that we have uncovered.
David Kaye came to see me yesterday. He's going to testify in closed
hearing tomorrow, which in Washington may not be so closed, as you know.
And he was telling me the process that they were going through to
analyze all the documentation. And that's not only to analyze the
documentation on the weapons programs that Saddam Hussein had but also
the documentation as to terrorist links.
And it's just going to take a while, and I'm confident the truth
will come out. And there is no doubt in my mind, Campbell, that Saddam
Hussein was a threat to the United States security and a threat to peace
in the region. And there's no doubt in my mind that a free Iraq is
important. It's got strategic consequences for not only achieving peace
in the Middle East, but a free Iraq will help change the habits of other
nations in the region who will make it--which will make America much
more secure.
John [John Roberts, CBS News].
Decision To Go to War in Iraq
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Building sort of on that idea, it's
impossible to deny that the world is a better place in the region,
certainly a better place without Saddam Hussein. But there's a sense
here in this country and a feeling around the world that the U.S. has
lost credibility by building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy or,
some people have complained, nonexistent evidence. I'm just wondering,
sir, why did you choose to take the world to war in that way?
The President. Yes. You know, look, in my line of work, it's always
best to produce results, and I understand that. The--for a while the
questions were, ``Could you conceivably achieve a military victory in
Iraq? You know, the dust storms have slowed you down.'' And I was a
patient man, because I realized that we would be successful in achieving
our military objective.
Now, of course, the question is, will Iraq ever be free, and will it
be peaceful? And I believe it will. I remind some of my friends that it
took us a while to go from the Articles of Confederation to the United
States Constitution. Even our own experiment with democracy didn't
happen overnight. I never have expected Thomas Jefferson to emerge in
Iraq in a 90-day period.
And so, this is going to take time. And the world will see what I
mean when I say, a free Iraq will help peace in the Middle East, and a
free Iraq will be important for changing the attitudes of the people in
the Middle East. A free Iraq will show what is possible
[[Page 1008]]
in a world that needs freedom, in a part of the world that needs
freedom.
Let me finish for a minute, John, please. Just getting warmed up.
I'm kind of finding my feet. [Laughter]
Saddam Hussein was a threat. The United Nations viewed him as a
threat. That's why they passed 12 resolutions. Predecessors of mine
viewed him as a threat. We gathered a lot of intelligence. That
intelligence was good, sound intelligence on which I made a decision.
And in order to placate the critics and the cynics about intentions
of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully
understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that which
I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program. I want to remind
you, he actually used his weapons program on his own people at one point
in time, which is pretty tangible evidence. But I'm confident history
will prove the decision we made to be the right decision.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. Hold on for a second. You're through, John.
Homosexuality/Definition of Marriage
Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, many of your supporters believe
that homosexuality is immoral. They believe that it's been given too
much acceptance in policy terms and culturally. As someone who's spoken
out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on homosexuality?
The President. Yes. I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I
caution those who may try to take a speck out of their neighbor's eye
when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our
society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts,
to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that
somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And
that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is
the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I
believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to
codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the
best way to do that.
Stevenson [Richard Stevenson, New York Times].
Tax Cuts/National Economy
Q. Thank you, sir. Since taking office, you've signed into law three
major tax cuts, two of which have had plenty of time to take effect, the
third of which, as you pointed out earlier, is taking effect now. Yet,
the unemployment rate has continued rising. We now have more evidence of
a massive budget deficit that taxpayers are going to be paying off for
years or decades to come. The economy continues to shed jobs. What
evidence can you point to that tax cuts, at least of the variety that
you have supported, are really working to help this economy? And do you
need to be thinking about some other approach?
The President. Yes. No, to answer the last part of your question.
First of all, let me--just a quick history, recent history. The stock
market started to decline in March of 2000. Then the first quarter of
2001 was a recession. And then we got attacked in 9/11. And then
corporate scandals started to bubble up to the surface, which created a
lack of confidence in the system. And then we had the drumbeat to war.
Remember on our TV screens--I'm not suggesting which network did this--
but it said ``March to War'' every day from last summer until the
spring--``March to War, March to War.'' That's not a very conducive
environment for people to take risk, when they hear ``March to War'' all
the time.
And yet our economy is growing. In other words, what I'm telling you
is, is that we had a lot of obstacles to overcome. The '01 tax cuts
affected the recession this way: It was a shallow recession. That's
positive, because I care about people being able to find a job. Someone
said, ``Well, maybe the recession should have been deeper in order for
the rebound to be quicker.'' My attitude is, a deeper recession means
more people would have been hurt. And I view the actions we've taken as
a jobs program, job creation program.
Secondly, there are hopeful signs. I mean, most economists believe
that over the next 18 months we'll see positive economic growth.
Interest rates are low. Housing starts are strong. Manufacturing indexes
are improving.
[[Page 1009]]
There are other things we can do in Washington. As I said, we need
an energy bill. We certainly need tort reform. I think the class action
reform that's moved out of the House and into the Senate is something
that can be done, and it ought to be done quickly. In other words, what
I'm saying to you is, is that there's still work to do. But I'm
optimistic about the future, and I believe you'll see more jobs created,
and that's going to be good for the country.
Yes. Jim Rosen [James Rosen, FOX News].
North Korea
Q. Thank you, sir. You just explained that your approach to your job
is to try to produce results. It has been roughly a year since North
Korea apprised the United States Government that it is seeking to
reactivate its nuclear weapons program. In that year, you and your aides
have repeatedly said that you seek a diplomatic approach to that
problem. And yet, over that year, all we've seen from the North Koreans
are more bellicose statements and more steps taken to add to their
stockpile of nuclear weapons that they already have. What can you point
to in the record over the last year by your administration for Americans
to look at and say, this President has produced results?
The President. Yes. I think that one of the things that is important
to understand in North Korea is that the past policy of trying to engage
bilaterally didn't work. In other words, the North Koreans were ready to
engage, but they didn't keep their word on their engagement. And that
ought to be a clear signal to policymakers of what to expect with North
Korea.
Secondly, in my judgment, the best way to convince the North Koreans
to change their attitude about a nuclear weapon program is to have
others in the neighborhood assume responsibility alongside the United
States. So this morning, interesting enough--I'm glad you asked that
question, because I can tell you that I talked to Hu Jintao this
morning--not anticipation of your question, but as part of an ongoing
process to encourage him to stay involved in the process of discussions
with Mr. Kim Chong-il, all attempting to say to him that it is a--it is
not in his nation's interest to continue developing these weapons and we
would like to see him dismantle those weapons programs.
As well as--I told President Hu that I think it's very important for
us to get Japan and South Korea and Russia involved as well. So the
progress that is being made is, we're actually beginning to make serious
progress about sharing responsibility on this issue in such a way that I
believe will lead to an attitudinal change by Kim Chong-il, which will
be very positive for peace in the region.
State of the Union Address
Q. Thank you, Mr. President----
The President. Kate [Kate Snow, ABC News].
Q. That's right. Thank you, Mr. President.
The President. How long have you been--how long have you been in the
press corps? You look like you just came.
Q. Last week was my first week.
The President. Yes, congratulations.
Q. Thank you.
The President. Be careful whose company you're keeping, though.
[Laughter]
Q. Mr. President, you often speak about the need for accountability
in many areas. I wonder then, why is Dr. Condoleezza Rice not being held
accountable for the statement that your own White House has acknowledged
was a mistake in your State of the Union Address regarding Iraq's
attempts to purchase uranium? And also, do you take personal
responsibility for that inaccuracy?
The President. I take personal responsibility for everything I say,
of course. Absolutely. I also take responsibility for making decisions
on war and peace. And I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence--good,
solid, sound intelligence that led me to come to the conclusion that it
was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
We gave the world a chance to do it. We had--remember there's--
again, I don't want to get repetitive here, but it's important to remind
everybody that there was 12 resolutions that came out of the United
Nations because others recognized the threat of Saddam Hussein. Twelve
times the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions in
recognition of the threat that he posed. And the difference was, is that
some were not willing to act on those resolutions. We were,
[[Page 1010]]
along with a lot of other countries, because he posed a threat.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice is an honest, fabulous person, and America is
lucky to have her service. Period.
Michael Allen [Washington Post].
2004 Campaign
Q. Mr. President, with no opponent, how can you spend $170 million
or more on your primary campaign?
The President. Just watch. [Laughter] Keep going.
Q. Yes, sir. And with 15 fundraisers scheduled between--for the
summer months, do you worry about the perception that you're unduly
attentive to the interests of people who can afford to spend $2,000 to
see you?
The President. Michael, I think American people, now that they've
realized I'm going to seek reelection, expect me to seek reelection.
They expect me to actually do what candidates do. And so, you're right,
I'll be spending some time going out and asking the American people to
support me. But most of my time, as I say in my speeches--as I'm sure
you've been bored to tears listening to--is that there is a time for
politics, and that's going to be later on. I've got a lot to do. And I
will continue doing my job, and my job will be to work to make America
more secure.
Steve asked a question about this Al Qaida possible attack. Every
day I am reminded that our Nation is still vulnerable. Every day I'm
reminded about what 9/11 means to America. That's a lesson, by the way,
I'll never forget, the lesson of 9/11, because--and I remember right
after 9/11 saying that this will be a different kind of war, but it's a
war, and sometimes there will be action, and sometimes there won't, but
we're still threatened. And I see that almost every day, Mike. And
therefore, that is a major part of my job.
And the other part of my job that I talked about is the economic
security of the American people. And I spend a lot of time on the
economy, going out and talking to the American people about the economy
and will continue to do so.
But no, listen, since I've made the decision to run, of course I'm
going to do what candidates do. And we're having pretty good success,
which is--it's kind of an interesting barometer, early barometer, about
the support we're garnering.
Keil [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News], Jeanne [Jeanne Cummings, Wall
Street Journal], and then Larry [Larry McQuillan, USA Today]. Keil.
Stretch. Super Stretch.
Federal Deficit/National Economy
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. As you said just a few moments ago, and
say frequently in your speeches, the deficit was caused variously by the
war, by recession, by corporate scandals, the 9/11 attacks. But just a
couple of weeks ago, on July 15th, the Office of Management and Budget
put out a report saying that without the tax cuts that Congress passed,
the budget would be back in surplus by 2008, but with those tax cuts
factored in, we have deficits that year and further years out of at
least $200 billion, to use the phrase, as far as the eye can see. Aren't
tax cuts in part responsible for the deficits, and does that fact
concern you? Are we now in a period where we have deficits as far as the
eye can see?
The President. We would have had deficits with or without tax cuts,
for this reason: The slowdown in the economy, the decline in the stock
market starting March of 2000, plus the recession, reduced the amount of
revenues coming into the Federal Treasury. Secondly, we spent money on
the war, and we spent money on homeland security. My attitude is, if
we're going to put our troops into harm's way, they must have the very
best. And there's no doubt we increased our budgets on defense and
homeland security. So there would be recessions.
And so, given the--I mean, there would be deficits. So given the
fact that we're in a recession, which had it gone on longer than it did
could have caused even more revenues to be lost to the Treasury, I had a
policy decision to make. And I made the decision to address the
recession by a tax cut. And so part of the deficit, no question, was
caused by taxes--about 25 percent of the deficit, the other 75--50
percent caused by lack of revenues, and 25 percent caused by additional
spending on the war on terror.
[[Page 1011]]
Now, we have laid out a plan which shows that the deficit will be
cut in half over the next 5 years. And that's good progress toward
deficit reduction. That's assuming Congress holds the line on spending.
I presented them with a 4-percent increase in the discretionary budget
to help them hold the line on spending. They passed the budget. Now
they've got to meet the budget in their appropriations process.
My first concern, Dick, was for those folks who couldn't find a job.
And I addressed unemployment and addressed economic stagnancy with a tax
cut that affected growth or the lack of growth in a positive way. And
I'm optimistic about our economy. But I'm not going to stop working
until people can find a job who are looking for work.
Jeanne.
Workforce and Technology
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Staying with that theme, although there
are some signs of improvement in the economy, there are sectors in the
workforce who feel like they're being left behind. They're concerned
about jobs going overseas, that technology is taking over jobs. And
these people are finding difficulty finding work. And although you're
recommitted yourself to your tax cut policy, do you have any ideas or
any plans within the administration of what you might do for these
people who feel like there are fundamental changes happening in the
workforce and in the economy?
The President. Sure. Listen, I fully understand what you're saying.
In other words, as technology races through the economy, a lot of times
worker skills don't keep up with technological change. And that's a
significant issue that we've got to address in the country.
I think my idea of reemployment accounts makes a lot of sense. In
essence, it says that you get $3,000 from the Federal Government to help
you with training, daycare, transportation, perhaps moving to another
city. And if, within a period of time, you're able to find a job, you
keep the balance as a reemployment bonus.
I know the community colleges provide a very important role in
worker training, worker retraining. I look forward to working with our
community colleges through the Department of Education, coordinate
closely with States, particularly in those States in which technology is
changing the nature of the job force. I've always found the community
college--and this is from my days as the Governor of Texas--found the
community college to be a very appropriate place for job training
programs because they're more adaptable; their curriculums are easier to
change; they're accessible. Community colleges are all over the place.
And--but you're right. I mean, I think we need to make sure that
people get the training necessary to keep up with the nature of the jobs
as jobs change.
Laurence, USA Today.
Middle East Peace Process
Q. Mr. President, you've been involved now in the Mideast peace
process and have certainly learned firsthand how developments like
creation of a fence can complicate progress. Based on that, when you
stood there about a year ago and proposed your roadmap, you spoke about
a Palestinian state in 2005. I mean, do you think that goal is still
realistic, or is it likely to slide just because it's so hard to make
headway?
The President. I do think it's realistic. I also know when we start
sliding goals, it makes progress less realistic. Absolutely, I think
it's realistic, and I think we're making pretty good progress in a short
period of time.
I'm impressed by Prime Minister Abbas' vision of a peaceful
Palestinian state. I believe him when he says that we must rout out
terror in order for a Palestinian state to exist. I believe he's true. I
think Mr. Dahlan, his Security Chief, also recognizes that.
And we've got to help those two leaders in a couple of ways to
realize that vision of a peaceful Palestinian state. One is to provide
help and strategy to Mr. Dahlan so that he can lead Palestinian security
forces to the dismantlement of bomb-making factories, rocket-making
factories inside Gaza and the West Bank. That's going to be a very
important part of earning the confidence of the world, for that matter.
We've also got to recognize that there are things that can happen on the
ground that will strengthen Mr. Abbas' hand,
[[Page 1012]]
relative to the competition, moving--for example, movement throughout
the country.
So I spent time talking to Prime Minister Sharon yesterday about
checkpoints. We discussed the difference between a checkpoint for
security purposes and a checkpoint that might be there that's--that
isn't--there for inconvenience purposes; let me put it to you that way.
We talked about all the thorny issues.
But the most important thing is that we now have an interlocutor in
Mr. Abbas who is committed to peace and who believes in the aspirations
of the Palestinian people.
One of the most interesting visits I've had on this issue took place
in the Oval Office there with the Finance Minister of the Palestinian
Authority. I was pleased to discover that he--I think he received a
degree from the University of Texas, which gave me even more confidence
when he spoke. But he is a--he talked about how a free state, free
country, will flourish when the Palestinians are just given a chance.
See, he believes in the Palestinian people to the point where he's
willing to take risks for peace. As I understand it, he's put the
Palestinian budget on the web page. That's--that's what we call
transparency in the diplomatic world. It means that he's willing to show
the finances to make it clear they're not stealing money--is another way
to put it. That's a positive development, Larry.
So I--what I first look at is attitudes. I also believe Prime
Minister Sharon is committed to a peaceful Palestinian state. He's
committed because he understands that I will in no way compromise the
security of the Israeli people--or the Palestinian people, for that
matter--to terror, that he knows when I say we're willing to fight
terror, we mean it, because we proved it.
I thought it was interesting yesterday, by the way, that he spoke
clearly about Iraq and the importance of Iraq in terms of Middle Eastern
peace as well. And I believe he's right on that. I believe that a free
Iraq will make it easier to achieve peace in that part of the world. I
also know that we've got to get others in the neighborhood to continue
to remind certain countries that it will be frowned upon if they
destabilize the process.
The stated objective of Iran is the destruction of Israel, for
example. And we've got to work in a collective way with other nations to
remind Iran that they shouldn't develop a nuclear weapon. It's going to
require more than one voice saying that, however. It's going to require
a collective effort of the Europeans, for example, to recognize the true
threat of an armed Iran to achieving peace in the Middle East. And--but
I'm pleased by the attitudes.
You know, when I was in Aqaba, I don't know if you remember, but I
asked Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Abbas to go outside. I
wanted to watch the body language, first and foremost, just to make sure
we weren't fooling ourselves, that when leaders commit to being able to
work with each other, you can get a pretty good sense of that
commitment.
What was also interesting on the outside meeting--I mean, it was a
very cordial discussion, and there was the desire for these leaders to
talk. And they have talked since the Aqaba meeting, and that's a
positive development. But what was also interesting, as Condi reported
to me later, to watch the discussions between the different--both
Cabinets. And we were watching carefully to determine if there's the
will for peace. We have found a person who has got the will to work for
peace, and that's Prime Minister Abbas.
We'll work through the issues that are nettlesome. And there will be
some big issues that come along. But the first thing that has to happen
is, the Palestinian people have got to realize there's hope in a free
society. And if they choose the leader that is most likely to--choose to
back the leader that is most likely to deliver that hope.
Carl [Carl Cannon, National Journal].
HIV/AIDS Initiative
Q. I want to ask you about something else in your State of the
Union.
The President. Okay.
Q. You spoke and got great applause from both sides of the aisle
about a new initiative in Africa for AIDS and mentioned the figure, $15
billion over 3 years. When the AIDS community and some of the activists
got into the budget, they said when they saw your budget, they said it
was really a little less
[[Page 1013]]
than that. And these conversations have gone back and forth, and they
said, really more like $10 billion in new money. And then somebody told
me it was really more like $400 million for the first year. I want to
ask you here, in the Rose Garden, will you reiterate that $15-billion
figure and make sure, personally, that it's really delivered to Africa?
The President. Yes, I will, Carl, absolutely, $15 billion. Now,
that's not new money. The person who said, it's $15 billion on top of
that which we're already--$10 billion on top of that which we're already
spending equals the $15 billion. Secondly, there is some discussion
about the first-year budget. In other words, we didn't send up a
budget--$15 billion over 5--we didn't send up $3 billion. We sent up
something less than $3 billion, because we didn't think the program
could ramp up fast enough to absorb that amount of money early.
So it's not--people then say, ``Well, wait a minute. He doesn't
believe what he said.'' Well, that's just simply not true. As a matter
of fact, after my trip to Africa, I know we're doing the right thing,
even more.
But the OMB came up with a plan that allows for a smaller amount in
the beginning. I think it's about a little less than $2.5 billion
initially, and it ramps up more in the out-years as the program is
capable of absorbing a lot of money.
You know, one of the things we looked for over there in Africa was
whether or not countries could absorb money. In other words, whether--
for example, was the distribution system for antiretrovirals in place?
It doesn't make any sense to load up on antiretrovirals if the
distribution system won't get them out. In other words, there's some
things some countries have to do to prepare for the arrival of a lot of
money, and we recognize that, Carl.
The commitment is there, absolutely. And a matter of fact, we're
doing the right thing in Africa. The American people have got to
understand that we're a blessed country, and when we find the kind of
suffering that exists in Africa, we will help. And we are.
Liberia
Q. Liberia question?
The President. You want to ask a Liberian question? Please do.
Q. Thank you. Do you expect American troops to be landing in any
large force in Liberia soon? And how far can the U.S. go in other
international conflicts? When are we stretched too thin?
The President. Yes, very good question. First of all, the conditions
that I laid out for the Liberian rescue mission still exist. Charles
Taylor must go; the cease-fire must be in place; and we will be there to
help ECOWAS. And so we're working to get those conditions in place. And
we will continue working to get them in place until they are in place,
at which point we will then take the necessary steps to get ECOWAS in
place, so that we can deliver aid and help to suffering Liberians.
I also want to remind you, I also said the troop strength will be
limited, and the timeframe will be limited. And we're working on that.
The idea, of course, is to go in, stabilize the situation, get the NGOs
moving back in to--to their positions to be able to help deliver aid,
and then work immediately with the United Nations to provide blue
helmets--maybe blue helmets, some of the ECOWAS forces in place, provide
other blue helmets, and that the United Nations would then take up the
peacekeeping mission as well as the political mission, in order to
provide the framework for a transition to democracy. And hopefully, that
will help stabilize the situation. I think it will.
Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder].
Iran
Q. I wanted to ask you about Iran, one of your other countries in
the axis of evil. One of the things we learned from that ``March to
War'' is that when you start warning countries, they better pay
attention. Are we now in the early stages of a ``March to War'' in Iran?
Or are they more like in the category of North Korea?
The President. No, I--look, Hutch, I remember right after Iraq the
first thing that happened out of--out of some writers' pens was that,
``Oh, no, they're getting ready to attack either Syria or Iran.'' You
know, the ``March to War'' is a campaign that's just going to march
everywhere.
[[Page 1014]]
I--all options remain on the table. I believe that the best way to
deal with the Iranians at this point in time is to convince others to
join us in a clear declaration that the development of a nuclear weapon
is not in their interests. I believe a free Iraq will affect the lives
of Iranians. I want to thank the diaspora here in the United States,
particularly in L.A.--which reminds me, my last question is going to Ed
[Ed Chen, Los Angeles Times]. And--so you can prepare for it, Ed. We've
got a lot of our fellow citizens who are in e-mail contact, phone
contact with people who live throughout Iran. And I want to thank them
for that.
Interestingly enough, there's a TV station that I think has been--
people have read about that is broadcast out of L.A. by one of our
citizens. He's--he or she has footed the bill. It's widely watched. The
people of Iran are interested in freedom, and we stand by their side. We
stand on the side of those who are desperate for freedom in Iran. We
understand their frustrations in living in a society that is
totalitarian in nature. And now is the time for the world to come
together, Ron, to send a clear message.
And so I spent time with Prime Minister Berlusconi on the ranch, and
I talked to him about the need for the EU to send a very clear message,
along with the United States. As you know--some of you have been on the
trips with me to Russia, and you remember me talking with my friend
Vladimir Putin about the need to be mindful of the Iranians' desire to
have a nuclear weapon. We're making progress there. I really believe
that we can solve this issue peacefully, but this is an issue that's
going to require a concerted effort by nations around the world to work
with the United States, particularly in Europe, to speak clearly to the
Iranian administration.
The other thing that's interesting about Iran is that they do have
Al Qaida. They've admitted they got Al Qaida. Now, that's positive, that
the Al Qaida is not talking to anybody. I mean, I would rather them be
held somewhere other than out moving around, plotting and planning. And
I would just hope the Iranians would listen to the request of countries
in their neighborhood to turn them over. In other words, some of the
countries of origin for these Al Qaida operatives have asked for those
Al Qaida detainees to be sent back to the country of origin. It would be
very helpful for the Iranians to make that decision.
Ed, last question.
Q. Mr. President----
The President. Hold on for a minute, please. Ed.
California Recall Campaign
Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Since California is on your mind,
I'd like to ask you about the recall campaign. Since you're not only the
leader of this country, but as someone who came into office under
extraordinarily partisan circumstances, do you view this recall, which
was funded almost entirely by one wealthy Republican who would like to
be Governor, as a legitimate, democratic exercise? And do you have a
candidate in this fight, since one of the potential successors is
somebody you've backed before?
The President. Ed, let me tell you how I view it. I've got a lot of
things on my mind, and I view it like a interested political observer
would view it. You know, it's kind of a--we're not used to recalls in
Texas, for example, thankfully. I think that--I think the most important
opinion is not mine, but it's the people of California. Their opinion is
what matters on a recall. It's their decision to decide whether or not
there will be a recall, which they decided. Now they get to decide who
the Governor is going to be. And that's really my only comment I've got.
Listen, thank you all very much for giving me a chance to come and
answer some of your questions. For those of you who are traveling to
Crawford, gosh, did you luck out. And we look forward to seeing you
there. [Laughter] Thank you.
Note: The President's news conference began at 10:33 a.m. in the Rose
Garden at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to former
President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Uday and Qusay Hussein, sons of former
President Hussein, who were killed July 22 by U.S. military forces in
Mosul, Iraq; Khalid Sheik Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader responsible
for planning the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, who was captured
in Pakistan on March 1; Abu Zubaydah, a leader of the Al Qaida terrorist
organization who was captured March 28; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, an Al Qaida
operative suspected of helping to plan
[[Page 1015]]
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, who was captured in Karachi,
Pakistan; Abu Bakr Al Azdi, senior Al Qaida associate responsible for
the May 12 bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Foreign Minister Saud al-
Faysal al Saud of Saudi Arabia; former United Nations weapons inspector
David Kaye; President Hu Jintao of China; Chairman Kim Chong-il of North
Korea; Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), Minister of State for
Security Affairs Mohammed Dahlan, and Finance Minister Salam Fayyad of
the Palestinian Authority; Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel;
President Charles Taylor of Liberia; Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of
Italy; and President Vladimir Putin of Russia.