[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).