    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 40, Number 16 (Monday, April 19, 2004)]
    [Pages 580-592]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    The President's News Conference

    April 13, 2004

        The President. Good evening. Before I take your questions, let me
    speak with the American people about the situation in Iraq.
        This has been tough weeks in that country. Coalition forces have
    encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq. Our military
    commanders report that this violence is being instigated by three
    groups: Some remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, along with Islamic
    militants, have attacked coalition forces in the city of Fallujah;
    terrorists from other countries have infiltrated Iraq to incite and
    organize attacks; in the south of Iraq, coalition forces face riots and
    attacks that are being incited by a radical cleric named Al Sadr. He has
    assembled some of his supporters into an illegal militia and publicly
    supported the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Al Sadr's methods of
    violence and intimidation are widely repudiated by other Iraqi Shi'a.
    He's been indicted by Iraqi authorities for the murder of a prominent
    Shi'a cleric.
        Although these instigations of violence come from different
    factions, they share common goals. They want to run us out of Iraq and
    destroy the democratic hopes of the Iraqi people. The violence we have
    seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements. It's not a
    civil war. It's not a popular uprising.
        Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis, by far, reject
    violence and oppose dictatorship. In forums where Iraqis have met to
    discuss their political future and in all the proceedings of the Iraqi
    Governing Council, Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. They want
    strong protections for individual rights. They want their independence,
    and they want their freedom.
        America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our
    ideals and required by our interests. Iraq will either be a peaceful,
    democratic country, or it will again be a source of violence, a haven
    for terror, and a threat to America and to the world. By helping to
    secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country are protecting
    their fellow citizens. Our Nation is grateful to them all and to their
    families that face hardship and long separation.
        This weekend, at a Fort Hood hospital, I presented a Purple Heart to
    some of our wounded, had the honor of thanking them on behalf of all
    Americans. Other men and women have paid an even greater cost. Our
    Nation honors the memory of those who have been killed, and we pray that
    their families will find God's comfort in the midst of their grief. As I
    have said to those who have lost loved ones, we will finish the work of
    the fallen.
        America's Armed Forces are performing brilliantly, with all the
    skill and honor we expect of them. We're constantly reviewing their
    needs. Troop strength, now and in the future, is determined by the
    situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send
    them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. The
    people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform,
    and this Government will

    [[Page 581]]

    do all that is necessary to assure the success of their historic
    mission.
        One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of
    sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June
    30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and
    independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and
    neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as
    Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in
    Europe and Asia can attest as well. America's objective in Iraq is
    limited, and it is firm: We seek an independent, free, and secure Iraq.
        Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th pledge, many
    Iraqis would question our intentions and feel their hopes betrayed. And
    those in Iraq who trade in hatred and conspiracy theories would find a
    larger audience and gain a stronger hand. We will not step back from our
    pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands.
        Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It requires
    Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future. Iraqi authorities
    are now confronting the security challenge of the last several weeks. In
    Fallujah, coalition forces have suspended offensive operations, allowing
    members of the Iraqi Governing Council and local leaders to work on the
    restoration of central authority in that city. These leaders are
    communicating with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that
    city to Iraqi forces, so that the resumption of military action does not
    become necessary. They're also insisting that those who killed and
    mutilated four American contract workers be handed over for trial and
    punishment. In addition, members of the Governing Council are seeking to
    resolve the situation in the south. Al Sadr must answer the charges
    against him and disband his illegal militia.
        Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they
    establish growing authority in their country. The transition to
    sovereignty requires that we demonstrate confidence in Iraqis, and we
    have that confidence. Many Iraqi leaders are showing great personal
    courage, and their example will bring out the same quality in others.
    The transition to sovereignty also requires an atmosphere of security,
    and our coalition is working to provide that security. We will continue
    taking the greatest care to prevent harm to innocent civilians, yet we
    will not permit the spread of chaos and violence. I have directed our
    military commanders to make every preparation to use decisive force, if
    necessary, to maintain order and to protect our troops.
        The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and Iraqis and
    Americans will see evidence in the months to come. On June 30th, when
    the flag of free Iraq is raised, Iraqi officials will assume full
    responsibility for the ministries of Government. On that day, the
    transitional administrative law, including a bill of rights that is
    unprecedented in the Arab world, will take full effect.
        The United States and all the nations of our coalition will
    establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi Government. An
    American Embassy will open, and an American Ambassador will be posted.
        According to the schedule already approved by the Governing Council,
    Iraq will hold elections for a national assembly no later than next
    January. That assembly will draft a new, permanent constitution which
    will be presented to the Iraqi people in a national referendum held in
    October of next year. Iraqis will then elect a permanent Government by
    December 15th, 2005, an event that will mark the completion of Iraq's
    transition from dictatorship to freedom.
        Other nations and international institutions are stepping up to
    their responsibilities in building a free and secure Iraq. We're working
    closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis
    to determine the exact form of the Government that will receive
    sovereignty on June 30th. The United Nations election assistance team,
    headed by Karina Parelli, is in Iraq, developing plans for next
    January's election.
        NATO is providing support for the Polish-led multinational division
    in Iraq. And 17 of NATO's 26 members are contributing forces to maintain
    security. Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and
    a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are exploring a more
    formal role for

    [[Page 582]]

    NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and
    giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.
        Iraqis' neighbors also have responsibilities to make their region
    more stable. So I am sending Deputy Secretary of State Armitage to the
    Middle East to discuss with these nations our common interest in a free
    and independent Iraq and how they can help achieve this goal.
        As we've made clear all along, our commitment to the success and
    security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st and beyond, our
    reconstruction assistance will continue, and our military commitment
    will continue. Having helped Iraqis establish a new Government,
    coalition military forces will help Iraqis to protect their Government
    from external aggression and internal subversion.
        The success of free Government in Iraq is vital for many reasons. A
    free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis have as much right to live
    in freedom as we do. A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers
    across the Middle East. A free Iraq will show that America is on the
    side of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we have already shown in
    Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan. A free Iraq will confirm to a
    watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon even
    in the toughest times.
        Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the
    defeat of violence and terror elsewhere and vital, therefore, to the
    safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place,
    in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the
    civilized world. We must not waver.
        The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorist who
    takes hostages or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the
    same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid
    and murders children on buses in Jerusalem and blows up a nightclub in
    Bali and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew. We've seen
    the same ideology of murder in the killing of 241 marines in Beirut, the
    first attack on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two
    Embassies in Africa, in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and in the
    merciless horror inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and women and
    children on September the 11th, 2001.
        None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a
    fanatical political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny
    in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women.
    They seek the death of Jews and Christians and every Muslim who desires
    peace over theocratic terror. They seek to intimidate America into panic
    and retreat and to set free nations against each other. And they seek
    weapons of mass destruction to blackmail and murder on a massive scale.
        Over the last several decades, we've seen that any concession or
    retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more
    bloodshed. And the enemy has seen, over the last 31 months, that we will
    no longer live in denial or seek to appease them. For the first time,
    the civilized world has provided a concerted response to the ideology of
    terror, a series of powerful, effective blows. The terrorists have lost
    the shelter of the Taliban and the training camps in Afghanistan.
    They've lost safe havens in Pakistan. They lost an ally in Baghdad, and
    Libya has turned its back on terror. They've lost many leaders in an
    unrelenting international manhunt. And perhaps most frightening to these
    men and their movement, the terrorists are seeing the advance of freedom
    and reform in the greater Middle East.
        A desperate enemy is also a dangerous enemy, and our work may become
    more difficult before it is finished. No one can predict all the hazards
    that lie ahead or the costs they will bring. Yet, in this conflict,
    there is no safe alternative to resolute action. The consequences of
    failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend of America in Iraq
    would be betrayed to prison and murder, as a new tyranny arose. Every
    enemy of America in the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness
    and decadence and using that victory to recruit a new generation of
    killers.
        We will succeed in Iraq. We're carrying out a decision that has
    already been made and will not change: Iraq will be a free, independent
    country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it.
    Our coalition has the means and the will to prevail.

    [[Page 583]]

    We serve the cause of liberty, and that is always and everywhere a cause
    worth serving.
        Now, I'll be glad to take your questions. I will start with you.

    Vietnam Analogy

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April is turning into
    the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people
    are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show
    that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of
    Americans now support it. What does that say to you, and how do you
    answer the Vietnam comparison?
        The President. Yes. I think the analogy is false. I also happen to
    think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the
    wrong message to the enemy. Look, this is hard work. It's hard to
    advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And
    yet, we must stay the course, because the end result is in our Nation's
    interest. A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change
    the world and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the midst of the
    Middle East will have incredible change. It's hard--freedom is not easy
    to achieve. We had a little trouble in our own country achieving
    freedom.
        And we've been there a year, Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].
    I know it seems like a long time. It seems like a long time to the loved
    ones whose troops have been overseas, but when you think about where the
    country has come from, it's a relatively short period of time. And we're
    making progress.
        There's no question it's been a tough, tough series of weeks for the
    American people. It's been really tough for the families. I understand
    that. It's been tough on this administration, but we're doing the right
    thing.
        And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't.
    I just don't make decisions that way. I fully understand the
    consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world. And the
    world will be better off, and America will be more secure as a result of
    the actions we're taking.

    Troop Strength/Timing of Withdrawal From Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. What's your best prediction on how long
    U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to
    add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?
        The President. Well, I--first of all, that's up to General Abizaid,
    and he's clearly indicating that he may want more troops. It's coming up
    through the chain of command. If that's what he wants, that's what he
    gets. Generally, we've had about 115,000 troops in Iraq. There's 135,000
    now, as a result of the changeover from one division to the next. If he
    wants to keep troops there to help, I'm more than willing to say, ``Yes,
    General Abizaid.''
        I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly asking
    him, does he have what he needs, whether it be in troop strength or in
    equipment. He and General Sanchez talk all the time, and if he makes the
    recommendation, he'll get it.
        In terms of how long we'll be there: as long as necessary, and not
    one day more. The Iraqi people need us there to help with security. They
    need us there to fight off these violent few who are doing everything
    they can to resist the advance of freedom, and I mentioned who they are.
        And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, our commanders on the
    ground have got the authorities necessary to deal with violence and
    will--will in firm fashion. And that's what, by far, the vast majority
    of the Iraqis want. They want security so they can advance toward a free
    society.
        Once we transfer sovereignty, we'll enter into a security agreement
    with the Government to which we pass sovereignty, the entity to which we
    pass sovereignty. And we'll need to be there for a while. We'll also
    need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I was disappointed in the
    performance of some of the troops. Some of the units performed
    brilliantly. Some of them didn't, and we need to find out why. If
    they're lacking equipment, we'll get them equipment. If there needs to
    be more intense training, we'll get more intense training. But
    eventually, Iraq's security is going to be handled by the Iraqi people,
    themselves.

    [[Page 584]]

        Let's see here--Terry [Terry Moran, ABC News].

     Decisionmaking on Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your
    administration made several claims about Iraq, that U.S. troops would be
    greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue
    would pay for most of the reconstruction, and that Iraq not only had
    weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said,
    ``We know where they are.'' How do you explain to Americans how you got
    that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you
    took this Nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a
    series a false premises?
        The President. Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior
    to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of September the 11th is, when
    this Nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with
    it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat
    we must take seriously.
        Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used
    weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because
    he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He
    was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That's
    the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that
    Congress made from the intelligence. That's the exact same assessment
    that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.
        I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, ``Either you take
    care of him, or we will.'' Anytime an American President says, ``If you
    don't, we will,'' we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I
    thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that
    when it says something, it means something, for the sake of security in
    the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We
    needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work, and
    therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are
    willing to kill indiscriminately.
        The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously
    that said, ``Disarm, or face serious consequences.'' And he refused to
    disarm.
        I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just
    came back--he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group--reported some
    interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things
    was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC
    and UNSCOM, deceptive in hiding things. We knew they were hiding things.
    A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting
    caught, and that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that. He
    also confirmed that Saddam had a--the ability to produce biological and
    chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. He had long-range
    missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations. He was a danger,
    and so we dealt with him.
        What else--part of the question--oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil
    revenues are--they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point
    in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of
    the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was
    concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oilfields would be
    destroyed, but they weren't. They're now up and running. And that money
    is--it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it
    to reconstruct the country.
        Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people--it's
    an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid of Saddam
    Hussein, and you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a
    killer, a maimer; there's mass graves. I mean, he was a horrible
    individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into
    kind of a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've
    seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were
    happy--they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were
    occupied either. They do want us there to help with security, and that's
    why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send, and
    it's why it's also important for them to hear we will stand with them
    until they become a free country.
        Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times].

    [[Page 585]]

    Hindsight on September 11

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. To move to the 9/11 Commission, you,
    yourself, have acknowledged that Usama bin Laden was not a central focus
    of the administration in the months before September 11th. ``I was not
    on point,'' you told the journalist Bob Woodward. ``I didn't feel that
    sense of urgency.'' Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of
    personal responsibility for September 11th?
        The President. Let me put that quote to Woodward in context. He had
    asked me if I was--something about killing bin Laden. That's what the
    question was. And I said, ``Compared to how I felt at the time, after
    the attack, I didn't have that.'' I also went on to say, ``My blood
    wasn't boiling,'' I think is what the quote said. I didn't see--I mean,
    I didn't have that great sense of outrage that I felt on September the
    11th. I was--on that day I was angry and sad, angry that Al Qaida had--
    well--[inaudible]--at the time, thought Al Qaida, found out shortly
    thereafter it was Al Qaida--had unleashed this attack, sad for those who
    lost their life.
        Your question, do I feel----
        Q. Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September
    11th?
        The President. I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family
    members, and I do quite frequently. I grieve for the incredible loss of
    life that they feel, the emptiness they feel.
        There are some things I wish we'd have done, when I look back. I
    mean, hindsight is easy. It's easy for a President to stand up and say,
    ``Now that I know what happened, it would have been nice if there were
    certain things in place,'' for example, a Homeland Security Department.
    And why I--I say that because it's--that provides the ability for our
    agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was
    before.
        I think the hearings will show that the PATRIOT Act is an important
    change in the law that will allow the FBI and the CIA to better share
    information together. We were kind of stove-piped, I guess is a way to
    describe it. There was kind of--Departments that at times didn't
    communicate, because of law, in the FBI's case.
        And the other thing I look back on and realize is that we weren't on
    a war footing. The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy
    was at war with us. And it's--it didn't take me long to put us on a war
    footing. And we've been on war ever since.
        The lessons of 9/11 that I--one lesson was, we must deal with
    gathering threats. And that's part of the reason I dealt with Iraq the
    way I did. The other lesson is, is that this country must go on the
    offense and stay on the offense. In order to secure the country, we must
    do everything in our power to find these killers and bring them to
    justice, before they hurt us again. I'm afraid they want to hurt us
    again. They're still there.
        They can be right one time; we've got to be right 100 percent of the
    time in order to protect the country. It's a mighty task. But our
    Government has changed since the 9/11 attacks. We're better equipped to
    respond. We're better at sharing intelligence, but we've still got a lot
    of work to do.
        Dave [David Gregory, NBC News].

    President's Perspective on Decisionmaking

        Q. Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these
    questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is
    that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the
    question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you
    never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe that
    there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those
    topics I brought up?
        The President. Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's--the country
    wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality,
    Dave. I mean, that's--that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11,
    because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that
    we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Usama bin Laden
    unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us. We knew he hated us. But
    there was a--nobody in our Government, at least, and I don't think the
    prior Government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such
    a massive scale.

    [[Page 586]]

        The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very
    clear about what I believed. And of course I want to know why we haven't
    found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and
    the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody
    can--maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe
    that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein--would be better off
    with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic
    opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the
    loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important,
    vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change
    the world for the better.
        Let's see--Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angeles Times].

    President's Daily Briefing

        Q. Mr. President, good evening. You've talked on the--I'd like to
    ask you about the August 6th PDB.
        The President. Sure.
        Q. You mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You said--you pointed
    out that it did not warn of hijacking of airplanes to crash into
    buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to, obviously, take hostages
    and to secure the release of extremists being held by the U.S. Did that
    trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration, since
    it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on
    the United States Government?
        The President. Ed, I asked for the briefing, and the reason I did is
    because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And
    so--part of it had to do with Genoa, the G-8 conference that I was going
    to attend. And I asked, at that point in time, ``Let's make sure we are
    paying attention here at home as well,'' and that's what triggered the
    report.
        The report, itself, I've characterized as mainly history, and I
    think when you look at it you'll see that it was talking about '97 and
    '98 and '99. It was also an indication, as you mentioned, that bin Laden
    might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a
    building but perhaps to release a person in jail--in other words, serve
    it as a blackmail.
        And of course that concerns me. All those reports concern me. As a
    matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the President when
    George Tenet came in to brief me. I mean, that's where I got my
    information. I changed the way that--the relationship between the
    President and the CIA Director. And I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office
    all the time, and we had briefings about terrorist threats. This was a
    summary.
        Now, in what's called the PDB, there was a warning about bin Laden's
    desires on America, but frankly, I didn't think that was anything new.
    Major newspapers had talked about bin Laden's desires on hurting
    America. What was interesting in there was that there was a report that
    the FBI was conducting field investigations. And I--that was good news,
    that they were doing their job.
        The way my administration worked, Ed, was that I met with Tenet all
    the time. I obviously met with my principals a lot. We talked about
    threats that had emerged. We had a counterterrorism group meeting on a
    regular basis to analyze the threats that came in. Had there been a
    threat that required action by anybody in the Government, I would have
    dealt with it. In other words, had they come up and said, ``This is
    where we see something happening,'' you can rest assured that the people
    of this Government would have responded and responded in a forceful way.
        I mean, one of the things about Elisabeth's question was, I've
    stepped back, and I've asked myself a lot, is there anything we could
    have done to stop the attacks? Of course I've asked that question, as
    have many people of my Government. Nobody wants this to happen to
    America. And the answer is that had I had any inkling whatsoever that
    the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have
    moved heaven and Earth to save the country, just like we're working hard
    to prevent a further attack.
        Let's see--Jim [Jim Angle, FOX News].

    Terrorism Investigations in the PDB

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the PDB and the assurance
    you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The
    number they had used

    [[Page 587]]

    was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the
    Acting Director of the FBI at the time says--now says the FBI tells him
    that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your
    PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was
    exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that
    time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?
        The President. Yes. No, I heard about that today, obviously, and my
    response to that was, I expect to get valid information. As the ultimate
    decisionmaker for this country, I expect information that comes to my
    desk to be real and valid. And I presume the 9/11 Commission will find
    out--will follow up on his suggestions and his recollection and garner
    the truth. That is an important part of the 9/11 Commission's job, is to
    analyze what went on and what could have perhaps been done differently
    so that we can better secure America for the future.
        But of course, I expect to get valid information. I can't make good
    decisions unless I get valid information.
        Q. Has the FBI come back to you, sir?
        The President. No, I haven't talked to anybody today yet. I will,
    though. We'll find out.
        John [John Roberts, CBS News].

    Reaction to September 11

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, former counterterrorism
    official at the NSC Richard Clarke offered an unequivocal apology to the
    American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the
    American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be
    prepared to give them one?
        The President. Look, I can understand why people in my
    administration are anguished over the fact that people lost their life.
    I feel the same way. I mean, I'm sick when I think about the death that
    took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I've met with a lot of
    family members, and I do the best I do to console them about the loss of
    their loved one. As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could
    have done differently. I can assure the American people that had we had
    any inkling that this was going to happen, we would have done everything
    in our power to stop the attack.
        Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the
    attacks was Usama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing
    Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring
    people to justice.
        John [John King, CNN].

    Nature of the Coalition/Resolve of Coalition Leaders

        Q. Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO
    members are providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look
    at the numbers, 135,000 U.S. troops, 10 or 12,000 British troops, then
    the next largest, perhaps even the second largest contingent of guns on
    the ground are private contractors--literally, hired guns. Your critics,
    including your Democratic opponent, say that's proof to them your
    coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And
    can you assure the American people that post-sovereignty, when the
    handover takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies
    in terms of security forces?
        The President. Yes. John, my response is, I don't think people ought
    to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq. People are
    sacrificing their lives in Iraq, from different countries. We ought to
    honor that, and we ought to welcome that. I'm proud of the coalition
    that is there. This is a--these are people that have--the gut leaders
    have made the decision to put people in harm's way for the good of the
    world. And we appreciate that sacrifice in America. We appreciate that
    commitment.
        I think--one of the things you're seeing is more involvement by the
    United Nations in terms of the political process. That's helpful. I'd
    like to get another U.N. Security Council resolution out that will help
    other nations to decide to participate.
        One of the things I've found, John, is that in calling around,
    particularly during this week--I spoke to Prime Minister Berlusconi and
    President Kwasniewski--there is a resolve by these leaders that is a
    heartening resolve. Tony Blair is the same way. He understands, like I
    understand, that we cannot

    [[Page 588]]

    yield at this point in time, that we must remain steadfast and strong,
    that it's the intentions of the enemy to shake our will. That's what
    they want to do. They want us to leave, and we're not going to leave.
    We're going to do the job. And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow
    for terrorism. It will change the world. A free Iraq in the midst of the
    Middle East is vital to future peace and security.
        Maybe I can best put it this way, why I feel so strongly about this
    historic moment. I was having dinner with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we
    were talking about North Korea, about how we can work together to deal
    with the threat. The North Korea leader is a threat, and here are two
    friends now discussing what strategy to employ to prevent him from
    further developing and deploying a nuclear weapon. And it dawned on me
    that had we blown the peace in World War II, that perhaps this
    conversation would not have been taking place. It also dawned on me then
    that when we get it right in Iraq, at some point in time an American
    President will be sitting down with a duly-elected Iraqi leader talking
    about how to bring security to what has been a troubled part of the
    world.
        The legacy that our troops are going to leave behind is a legacy of
    lasting importance, as far as I'm concerned. It's a legacy that really
    is based upon our deep belief that people want to be free and that free
    societies are peaceful societies.
        Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't
    believe Iraq can be free, that if you're Muslim or perhaps brown-
    skinned, you can't be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with
    that. I reject that, because I believe that freedom is the deepest need
    of every human soul, and if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not
    only self-governing but a stable and free society.
        Let's see here, hold on. Michael [Mike Allen, Washington Post],
    you're next.

    New Iraqi Government/Upcoming Appearance Before the 9/11 Commission

        Q. Mr. President, why are you and the Vice President insisting on
    appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And Mr. President, who
    will you be handing the Iraqi Government over to on June 30th?
        The President. We will find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi
    is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing
    sovereignty over.
        And secondly, because the 9/11 Commission wants to ask us questions,
    that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and
    answering their questions.
        Q. I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than
    separately, which was their request.
        The President. Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer
    questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and
    I'm looking forward to answering them.
        Let's see----
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Hold on for a minute.
        Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. I've got some ``must calls,'' I'm sorry.

    Threat Assessment

        Q. You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far
    but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you
    respond to that general criticism? And secondly, in the wake of these
    two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in
    perhaps other situations going forward?
        The President. Yes. I guess there have been some that said, ``Well,
    we should have taken preemptive action in Afghanistan,'' and then turned
    around and said, ``We shouldn't have taken preemptive action in Iraq.''
    And my answer to that question is, is that--again I repeat what I said
    earlier--prior to 9/11 the country really wasn't on a war footing. And
    the--frankly, mood of the world would have been astounded had the United
    States acted unilaterally in trying to deal with Al Qaida in that part
    of the world.
        It would have been awfully hard to do as well, by the way. We would
    have had to--we hadn't got our relationship right with Pakistan yet. The
    Caucus area would have been very difficult from which to base. It just
    seemed an impractical strategy at the time, and frankly, I didn't
    contemplate it.

    [[Page 589]]

        I did contemplate a larger strategy as to how to deal with Al Qaida.
    We were shooting cruise missiles and with little effect. And I said,
    ``If we're going to go after Al Qaida, let's have a comprehensive
    strategy as to how to deal with it, with that entity.''
        After 9/11, the world changed for me and, I think, changed for the
    country. It changed for me because, like many, we assumed oceans would
    protect us from harm, and that's not the case. It's not the reality of
    the 21st century. Oceans don't protect us. They don't protect us from
    killers. We're an open country, and we're a country that values our
    openness. And we're a hard country to defend. And therefore, when we see
    threats overseas, we've got to take them--look at them in a new light.
    And I've given my explanation of Iraq.
        Your further question was, how do you justify any other preemptive
    action? The American people need to know my last choice is the use of
    military power. It is something that--it is a decision that is--it's a
    tough decision to make for any President, because I fully understand the
    consequences of the decision. And therefore, we'll use all other means
    necessary, when we see a threat, to deal with a threat that may
    materialize, but we'll never take the military off the table.
        We've had some success, Bill [Bill Sammon, Washington Times], as a
    result of the decision I took. Take Libya, for example. Libya was a
    nation that had--we viewed as a terrorist--a nation that sponsored
    terror, a nation that was dangerous because of weapons. And Colonel
    Qadhafi made the decision, and rightly so, to disclose and disarm for
    the good of the world. By the way, they found, I think, 50 tons of
    mustard gas, I believe it was, in a turkey farm, only because he was
    willing to disclose where the mustard gas was. But that made the world
    safer.
        The A.Q. Khan bust, the network that we uncovered, thanks to the
    hard work of our intelligence-gathering agencies and the cooperation of
    the British, was another victory in the war against terror. This was a
    shadowy network of folks that were willing to sell state secrets to the
    highest bidder. And that, therefore, made the world more unstable and
    more dangerous. You've often heard me talk about my worry about weapons
    of mass destruction ending up in the hands of the wrong people. Well,
    you can understand why I feel that way, having seen the works of A.Q.
    Khan. It's a dangerous--it was a dangerous network that we unraveled,
    and the world is better for it.
        And so what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes we use military as
    a last resort, but other times we use our influence, diplomatic
    pressure, and our alliances to unravel, uncover, expose people who want
    to do harm against the civilized world. We're at war. Iraq is a part of
    the war on terror. It is not the war on terror; it is a theater in the
    war on terror. And it's essential we win this battle in the war on
    terror. By winning this battle, it will make other victories more
    certain in the war against the terrorists.
        Let's see here--Judy [Judy Keen, USA Today].

    Iraq/2004 Elections

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, you've made it very clear tonight
    that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq. Yet, as Terry
    pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it, and
    this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose
    your job because of it?
        The President. I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the
    American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I
    believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes. But nobody
    likes to see dead people on their television screens. I don't. It's a
    tough time for the American people to see that. It's gut-wrenching. One
    of my hardest parts of my job is to console the family members who have
    lost their life. It is a--it's a chance to hug and weep and to console
    and to remind the loved ones that the sacrifice of their loved one was
    done in the name of security for America and freedom for the world.
        And one of the things that's very important, Judy, as far as I'm
    concerned, is to never allow our youngsters to die in vain. And I've
    made that pledge to their parents. Withdrawing from the battlefield of
    Iraq would be just that, and it's not going to happen under my watch.
        The American people may decide to change. That's democracy. I don't
    think so.

    [[Page 590]]

    I don't think so, and I look forward to making my case. I'm looking
    forward to the campaign. Now is the time to talk about winning this war
    on terror. Now is the time to make sure that the American people
    understand the stakes and the historic significance of what we're doing.
    And no matter where they may stand on this war, the thing I appreciate
    most about our country is the strong support given to the men and women
    in uniform, and it's vital support. It's important for those soldiers to
    know America stands with them. And we weep when they die, and we're
    proud of the victories they achieve.
        One of the things I'm also proud of is what I hear from our
    soldiers. As I mentioned, I pinned the Purple Heart on some of the
    troops at the hospital there at Fort Hood, Texas. A guy looks at me and
    says, ``I can't wait to get back to my unit and fulfill the mission, Mr.
    President.'' The spirit is incredible. Our soldiers who have volunteered
    to go there understand the stakes, and I'm incredibly proud of them.
        John [John Dickerson, TIME].

    Evaluation of Past Decisions

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a
    question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used
    to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back
    before
    9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your
    biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned
    from it?
        The President. I wish you would have given me this written question
    ahead of time, so I could plan for it. [Laughter] John, I'm sure
    historians will look back and say, ``Gosh, he could have done it better
    this way or that way.'' You know, I just--I'm sure something will pop
    into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the
    pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hasn't yet.
        I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan.
    Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still
    would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I
    happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's
    why we've sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing
    the truth, exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could
    be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.
        One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was
    surprised at the level of intimidation he found amongst people who
    should know about weapons and their fear of talking about them because
    they don't want to be killed. There's a terror still in the soul of some
    of the people in Iraq. They're worried about getting killed, and
    therefore, they're not going to talk.
        But it will all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the
    weapons at some point in time. However, the fact that he had the
    capacity to make them bothers me today, just like it would have bothered
    me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually--not only had
    weapons of mass destruction--the reason I can say that with certainty is
    because he used them. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like
    to have inflicted harm or paid people to inflict harm or trained people
    to inflict harm on America, because he hated us.
        I hope I--I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm
    confident I have. I just haven't--you just put me under the spot here,
    and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with
    one.
        Yes, Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News].

    Intelligence Reform/President's Goals

        Q. Looking forward about keeping the United States safe, a group
    representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your
    administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the
    counterterrorism, because they say it ties their hands, it gives them
    blinders--[inaudible]. Yet, you mentioned yesterday that you think
    perhaps the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't
    happen without real leadership from the White House. Will you, and how
    will you?
        The President. Well, you're talking about one aspect of possible--I
    think you're referring to what they call the MI-5. And I heard a summary
    of that from Director Mueller, who feels strongly that we--and he'll
    testify to that effect, I guess, tomorrow. I shouldn't

    [[Page 591]]

    be prejudging his testimony. But what my point was is that I'm open for
    suggestions. I look forward to seeing what the 9/11 Commission comes up
    with. I look forward to seeing what the Silberman/Robb Commission comes
    up with. I'm confident Congress will have some suggestions. What I'm
    saying is, ``Let the discussions begin,'' and I won't prejudge the
    conclusion. As the President, I will encourage and foster these kinds of
    discussions, because one of the jobs of the President is to leave behind
    a legacy that will enable other Presidents to better deal with the
    threat that we face.
        We are in a long war. The war on terror is not going to end
    immediately. This is a war against people who have no guilt in killing
    innocent people. That's what they're willing to do. They kill on a
    moment's notice because they're trying to shake our will, they're trying
    to create fear, they're trying to affect people's behaviors. And we're
    simply not going to let them do that.
        And my fear, of course, is that this will go on for a while, and
    therefore, it's incumbent upon us to learn from lessons or mistakes and
    leave behind a better foundation for Presidents to deal with the threats
    we face. This is the war that other Presidents will be facing as we head
    into the 21st century.
        One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking
    questions, is, ``Can you ever win the war on terror?'' Of course you
    can. That's why it's important for us to spread freedom throughout the
    Middle East. Free societies are hopeful societies. A hopeful society is
    one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who
    are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology. A
    free society is a society in which somebody is more likely to be able to
    make a living. A free society is a society in which someone is more
    likely to be able to raise their child in a comfortable environment and
    see to it that that child gets an education.
        That's why I'm pressing the Greater Middle East Reform Initiative,
    to work to spread freedom. And we will continue on that. So long as I'm
    the President, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the
    power of freedom. You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work
    right here in our own country.
        I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this
    country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man
    and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the
    Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an
    obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it
    interesting that we're providing food for the North Korea people who
    starve. We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa, and
    we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our
    obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm
    concerned.
        And my job as the President is to lead this Nation into making the
    world a better place, and that's exactly what we're doing. Weeks such as
    we've had in Iraq make some doubt whether or not we're making progress.
    I understand that. It was a tough, tough period, but we are making
    progress.
        And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course;
    we'll complete the job. My message to our troops is: We will stay the
    course and complete the job, and you'll have what you need. And my
    message to the loved ones who are worried about their sons, daughters,
    husbands, wives, is: Your loved one is performing a noble service for
    the cause of freedom and peace.
        Let's see, last question here. Hold on for a second. Those who yell
    will not be asked. I'll tell you a guy who I've never heard from--Don
    [Don Gonyea, National Public Radio].
        Q. I appreciate it.
        The President. It's a well-received--[laughter].

    Iraq/2004 Election

        Q. Following on both Judy and John's questions, and it comes out of
    what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies
    in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past
    couple of months, I guess I'd like to know if you feel in any way that
    you've failed as a communicator on this topic? Because----
        The President. Gosh, I don't know. I mean----

    [[Page 592]]

        Q. Well, you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain
    similar phrases, and they vary very little from one to the next. And
    they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going,
    with the exception of tonight's pretty somber assessment, this evening.
        The President. It's a pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes.
        Q. I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any
    way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in
    this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the
    case to the American public?
        The President. I guess if you put it into a political context,
    that's the kind of thing the voters will decide next November. That's
    what elections are about. They'll take a look at me and my opponent and
    say, ``Let's see, which one of them can better win the war on terror?
    Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges as a free society?''
        Don, if I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls, I think
    I'd be pretty ineffective. I know I would be disappointed in myself. I
    hope today you've got a sense of my conviction about what we're doing.
    If you don't, maybe I need to learn to communicate better.
        I feel strongly about what we're doing. I feel strongly that the
    course this administration has taken will make America more secure and
    the world more free and, therefore, the world more peaceful. It's a
    conviction that's deep in my soul. And I will say it as best as I
    possibly can to the American people.
        I look forward to the debate and the campaign. I look forward to
    helping--for the American people to hear what is a proper use of
    American power. Do we have an obligation to lead, or should we shirk
    responsibility? That's how I view this debate. And I look forward to
    making it, Don. I'll do it the best I possibly can. I'll give it the
    best shot. I'll speak as plainly as I can.
        One thing is for certain, though, about me--and the world has
    learned this--when I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of
    the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and
    freedom.
        Thank you all very much.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 8:31 p.m. in the East
    Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to former President
    Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Muqtada Al Sadr, Iraqi Shiite cleric whose
    militia engaged in an uprising in Iraq in early April; Lakhdar Brahimi,
    Special Adviser to the U.N. Secretary-General; Gen. John P. Abizaid,
    USA, combatant commander, U.S. Central Command; Lt. Gen. Ricardo S.
    Sanchez, USA, commander, Coalition Joint Task Force Seven; Thomas J.
    Pickard, former Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Prime
    Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy; President Aleksander Kwasniewski of
    Poland; Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom; Prime Minister
    Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; Chairman Kim Chong-il of North Korea; Col.
    Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi, leader of Libya; A.Q. Khan, former head
    of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program; and professional baseball player
    Sammy Sosa. The President also referred to the National Commission on
    Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission); and the
    Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States
    Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (Silberman/Robb Commission).