[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 40, Number 27 (Monday, July 5, 2004)]
[Pages 1170-1177]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Tony Blair of the 
United Kingdom in Istanbul

June 28, 2004

Transfer of Sovereignty in Iraq

    President Bush. Good afternoon. Earlier today, 15 months after the 
liberation of Iraq, and 2 days ahead of schedule, the world witnessed 
the arrival of a free and sovereign Iraqi Government. Iraqi officials 
informed us that they are ready to assume power, and Prime Minister 
Alawi believes that making this transition now is best for his country. 
After decades of brutal rule by a terror regime, the Iraqi people have 
their country back.
    This is a day of great hope for Iraqis and a day that terrorist 
enemies hoped never to see. The terrorists are doing all they can to 
stop the rise of a free Iraq. But their bombs and attacks have not 
prevented Iraqi sovereignty, and they will not prevent Iraqi democracy. 
Iraqi sovereignty is a tribute to the will of the Iraqi people and the 
courage of Iraqi leaders.
    This day also marks a proud moral achievement for members of our 
coalition. We pledged to end a dangerous regime, to free the oppressed, 
and to restore sovereignty. We have kept our word.
    Fifteen months ago, Saddam's regime was an enemy of America and the 
civilized world. Today Iraq's Government is an ally of both. Fifteen 
months ago, Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. Today Iraq's leaders, 
with our support, are systematically fighting terrorists across their 
country. Fifteen months ago, we faced the threat of a dictator with a 
history of using weapons of mass destruction. Today the dictator is a 
threat to no one, from the cell he now occupies. Fifteen months ago, the 
regime in Baghdad was the most aggressive in the Middle East and a 
constant source of fear and alarm for Iraq's neighbors. Today Iraq 
threatens no other country, and its democratic progress will be an 
example to the broader Middle East. Fifteen months ago, Iraq was ruled 
by a regime that brutalized and tortured its own people, murdered 
hundreds of thousands, and buried them in mass graves. Today Iraqis live 
under a Government that strives for justice, upholds the

[[Page 1171]]

rule of law, and defends the dignity of every citizen.
    Iraq today still has many challenges to overcome. We recognize that. 
But it is a world away from the tormented, exhausted, and isolated 
country we found last year. Now the transfer of sovereignty begins a new 
phase in Iraq's progress toward full democracy. Together with the Iraqi 
Government, we're moving forward on every element of our five-part plan 
for Iraqi self-government.
    Iraq's Interim Government has gained broad international support and 
has been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. The United States and 
our coalition partners are helping prepare Iraqis for the defense of 
their own country, and we appreciate NATO's decision to approve Prime 
Minister Alawi's request for assistance in training Iraqi security 
forces--in training the Iraqi security forces. We're helping Iraqis 
rebuild their country's infrastructure, and Iraq will move--continue 
moving toward free elections, with important assistance from the United 
Nations.
    All this progress is being attacked by foreign terrorists and by 
thugs from the fallen regime. The terrorists know they face defeat 
unless they break the spirit and commitment of the civilized world. The 
civilized world will not be frightened or intimidated. And Iraq's new 
leaders have made their position clear: Prime Minister Alawi recently 
said that ``The insurgents are trying to destroy our country, and we're 
not going to allow this.''
    The struggle is, first and foremost, an Iraqi struggle. The Prime 
Minister said of his people, ``We're prepared to fight and, if 
necessary, die for these objectives.'' America, Great Britain, our 
coalition respect that spirit, and the Iraqi people will not stand 
alone.
    The United States military and our coalition partners have made a 
clear, specific, and continuing mission in Iraq. As we train Iraqi 
security forces, we'll help those forces to find and destroy the 
killers. We'll protect infrastructure from the attacks. We'll provide 
security for the upcoming elections. Operating in a sovereign nation, 
our military will act in close consultation with the Iraqi Government. 
Yet coalition forces will remain under coalition command. Iraq's Prime 
Minister and President have told me that their goal is to eventually 
take full responsibility for the security of their country, and America 
wants Iraqi forces to take that role. Our military will stay as long as 
the stability of Iraq requires and only as long as their presence is 
needed and requested by the Iraqi Government.
    Today, at the moment sovereignty was transferred, the mission of the 
Coalition Provisional Authority came to an end. Ambassador Jerry Bremer 
has been tireless and dedicated, and he returns home with the thanks of 
his country. Thousands of American civilians have labored for progress 
in Iraq under difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions. They also 
have our gratitude.
    From the first hours of Operation Iraqi Freedom and to this very 
hour, in their battles against the terrorists, America's men and women 
in uniform have been unrelenting in the performance of their duty. 
They've had staunch allies, like Great Britain, at their side. We asked 
a lot of our military, and there's still much hard work ahead. We're 
grateful for the sacrifice of all who've served. We honor the memory of 
all who've died. The courage of our military has brought us to this 
hopeful day, and the continued service of our military assures the 
success of our cause.
    In Iraq, we're serving the cause of liberty, and liberty is always 
worth fighting for. In Iraq, we're serving the cause of peace by 
promoting progress and hope in the Middle East as the alternative to 
stagnation and hatred and violence for export. In Iraq, we're serving 
the cause of our own security, striking the terrorists where we find 
them, instead of waiting for them to strike us at home.
    For all these reasons, we accepted a difficult task in Iraq, and for 
all these reasons, we will finish that task.
    Mr. Prime Minister.
    Prime Minister Blair. Thank you, Mr. President.
    Today is, obviously, an important staging post on the journey of the 
people of Iraq towards a new future, one in which democracy replaces 
dictatorship, in which freedom replaces repression, and of which all the 
people of Iraq can look forward to the possibility

[[Page 1172]]

and the hope of an Iraq that genuinely guarantees a future for people 
from whatever part of Iraq they come.
    I think it's just worth reflecting for a moment on what we now have 
before us, because today, of course, is extremely important. It's the 
transfer of real and full sovereignty to the people and the Government 
of Iraq. From now on, the coalition changes. We are there in support of 
the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people.
    And what you have very clearly, therefore, is on one side you have 
the Iraqi Government, the Iraqi people, the international community that 
has now spoken through the United Nations, who want a free, stable, 
pluralist, democratic Iraq. And on the other hand you have some of the 
former Saddam supporters; you have outside terrorists; you have fanatics 
and extremists of one sort or another who want to stop the possibility 
of that new Iraq happening.
    And of course, it's going to carry on being difficult and dangerous. 
There was the tragic loss of a British soldier today, and many American 
servicemen have died. Many Iraqi civilians have died. Many of those who 
are joining up to the new Iraqi security services have died, have given 
their lives. But they've all given their lives in the cause of trying to 
provide a different and better future for the people of Iraq.
    And I think what is interesting about this situation is that for 
those people who are there in Iraq causing this death and destruction, 
they have a very, very clear and simple objective. And the objective is 
not just to destabilize Iraq, to produce chaos, to produce bloodshed, to 
try and prevent democracy. The strategy of these terrorists is to try 
and prevent Iraq becoming a symbol of hope not just for the Iraqi people 
but, actually, for that region and the wider world.
    And that is why, in a very real sense, because Al Qaida and other 
terrorist groups are actually there in Iraq now, what is happening in 
Iraq, the battle in Iraq, the battle for Iraq and its future, if you 
like, is, in a genuine sense, the frontline of the battle against 
terrorism and the new security threat that we face.
    And that security threat is what has dominated our discussion here 
at the NATO Summit. And that security threat, which is about this new 
and poisonous and evil form of extremism linked to a perversion of the 
true faith of Islam and repressive, unstable states that proliferate in 
and deal in chemical, biological, nuclear weapons--that security threat 
is the threat of our times.
    And the reason why it is so important that NATO fulfills its 
functions in respect of Afghanistan and Iraq is that in both those 
countries, the same struggle for democracy and freedom is going on. And 
you can see in Afghanistan--yes, of course, there are still tremendous 
difficulties--but 2\1/2\ million refugees have returned there; girls are 
now allowed to go to school--several million of them at school were 
banned from school under the Taliban; economic growth rates of 30 
percent last year, 20 percent this year.
    What is the struggle? The struggle in Afghanistan is the struggle 
between the majority of Afghans, 4 million of whom have already 
registered to vote, against Taliban elements, Al Qaida elements, people 
who want to drag the country backwards, who want to turn it back into a 
failed and repressive state.
    And so that's why it's right for NATO to step up to the mark today 
and say, ``We are going to extend the role of the security force.'' It's 
quite right for us to say, as the U.K., ``We will make a contribution in 
putting the ARRC force forward in 2006 to allow NATO to continue with 
its responsibilities.'' It's why it's right for us to look at the 
measures we need urgently in order to give the protection for the 
Afghans as they approach their September election date.
    And in respect to Iraq, exactly the same issues arise. As I say, 
there again--you have people trying to get towards freedom and democracy 
and people trying to stop them. And so our job's got to be, again as an 
international community, to give them help. And that's why it's 
important that NATO helps with the training of the Iraqi security 
forces.
    And everybody knows that ultimately we can be there in support, but 
as the Iraqis themselves will tell you, they know that ultimately their 
task, their responsibility is to make their country safe. And they want 
us to help. So that's what we're going to do, help with the training and 
equipping of the Iraqi security forces.

[[Page 1173]]

    Just one final point I want to make. I thought we had an interesting 
set of discussions this morning and at lunch today. But there was a very 
powerful speech that was made by the President of Latvia at our lunch 
today when we were discussing the question of what NATO should do to 
help Afghanistan and Iraq. And I think it's sometimes a very useful 
reminder for some of the newest democracies in our world to tell us, 
from a standpoint of immense moral force, just what democracy means to 
people who have faced repression for so many years. And she made a very 
powerful intervention that reminded us and reminded me, certainly, 
again, of what it is we are here to do. We know the security threat we 
face. We know the ultimate answer to it is not just force of arms and 
security measures; it is ultimately the values of democracy and freedom 
and justice and the rule of law. And that's what we're trying to do.
    And for NATO, after the end of the cold war, after all the changes 
that have happened, I think it has its role today. It is to support that 
process of transition and change, the world over, because ultimately our 
best guarantee of security lies in the values that are not values that 
are American or British or Western values but the values of humanity.
    Thank you.
    President Bush. We'll answer a couple of questions. Dick [Richard 
Keil, Bloomberg News], you got a question?
    Q. I do, Mr. President.
    President Bush. Why don't you ask it?

Possibility of Martial Law in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, Iraq's new Prime Minister has talked in recent 
days about the possibility of imposing martial law there as a way of 
restoring security. Is that something that you think a new, emerging 
Government should do, and particularly with the use of U.S. forces, who 
would have to be instrumental in doing it?
    President Bush. You know, Prime Minister Alawi has fought tyranny. 
He's a guy that stood up to Saddam Hussein. He's a patriot, and every 
conversation I've had with him has been one the recognizes human 
liberty, human rights. I mean, he's a man who is willing to risk his 
life for a democratic future for Iraq.
    Having said that, he may take tough security measures to deal with 
Zarqawi, but he may have to. Zarqawi is the guy who beheads people on 
TV. He's the person that orders suiciders to kill women and children. 
And so Prime Minister Alawi, as the head of a sovereign Government, may 
decide he's going to have to take some tough measures to deal with a 
brutal, coldblooded killer. And our job is to help the Iraqis stand up 
forces that are able to deal with these thugs.
    I mean, it's tough; there's no question about it. Look, they can't 
whip our militaries. They can't whip our militaries. What they can do is 
get on your TV screens and stand in front of your TV cameras and cut 
somebody's head off, in order to try to cause us to cringe and retreat. 
That's their strongest weapon. And we just--as Prime Minister Alawi has 
said publicly many times, he will not cower in the face of such brutal 
murder, and neither will we--neither will we.
    Prime Minister Blair. I think you've got to distinguish very 
carefully between two separate things. The first is, undoubtedly, the 
new Iraqi Government will want to take tough security measures. They 
have to. They've got a situation where they've got these terrorists who 
are prepared to kill any number of innocent people. And remember, the 
innocent Iraqis who are dying in Iraq today are dying because of these 
terrorist acts.
    On the other hand, I know perfectly well from the discussions I've 
had not just with the Prime Minister but with the other Iraqi ministers, 
their purpose is to take tough security measures but in order to 
guarantee freedom for people, not to take it away. So they're not going 
to be wanting to introduce martial law that takes away the basic 
freedoms of the people. On the contrary, they will be wanting to take 
tough security measures, and we will want to help train their forces 
able to guard and get after the people doing this killing. But it's not 
going to be about taking away people's freedoms. It's going to be about 
allowing those freedoms to happen.
    Andy.

[[Page 1174]]

Iraqi Government Action Against Terror/Germany and France

    Q. Andrew Martin, BBC. Could I ask both leaders, following on from 
that, do we, in some sense, then give the new Iraqi administration carte 
blanche to go after these people? The Iraqi Defense Minister was talking 
this morning about hunting down and eliminating the insurgents. And if I 
could also just ask, do you now regard Germany and, in particular, 
France as shoulder to shoulder alongside you, after the difficult times 
you've had with them over the past 18 months?
    Prime Minister Blair. On the first point, I don't think there's any 
question of the Iraqis--no Iraqi minister has said this to me, of 
wanting to hunt people down, in the sense of kill people without a 
proper trial and end up taking away people's basic liberties. They don't 
want that at all. But you've got to understand what they're faced with 
there. They're faced with a group of people who will kill any number of 
people and who will do the most terrible acts of barbarity. And why--in 
order to stop them getting a democratic and stable country.
    As I keep saying to people, there are lots of things that we thought 
might happen as a result of the conflict in Iraq. I mean, we were 
confident of military victory. But there were lots of things that we 
thought might happen. We thought there might be a humanitarian crisis, 
and we made a lot of provisions for that. We thought that maybe--and we 
were told this by many people, many so-called experts who said, ``Well, 
the Iraqis, they'll want a theological state. They won't want a proper 
democracy.'' These issues have actually either been dealt with or 
resolved themselves.
    What we've got is a very simple problem to describe and a 
complicated problem to overcome. We have groups of terrorists and 
insurgents who will use suicide bombs, who do not care in the least 
about killing innocent people, who will do whatever it takes to stop the 
country functioning properly.
     Now, in those circumstances, I don't blame at all the Iraqi 
ministers--any of us would be doing this, as politicians in the same 
situation--of wanting to get after those people and hunt them down. But 
they're not getting after them and hunting them down in defiance of 
basic freedoms but in order to help basic freedoms. And so I don't think 
we should set this new thing away that somehow the new Iraqi Government 
wants to--somehow wants to put aside democracy and freedom and all the 
rest of it. The reason they're trying to stop the terrorists is so that 
democracy and freedom can flourish in Iraq.
    Secondly, in relation to France and Germany, look, I mean, there's 
no point in thinking--we haven't overcome the disagreement there was 
about whether the conflict was justified. I mean, there's no point in us 
standing here and saying, ``All the previous disagreements have 
disappeared.'' They haven't. On the other hand, what is important is 
you've got a United Nations resolution that has blessed the new 
Government in Iraq, and you've got a situation in which we have accepted 
today that there is a good and sound NATO role, which is actually the 
only role we ever sought for NATO, of training and helping to train the 
Iraqis so that they can do their own security work, which is the request 
that they have made to us. And in that sense, I think the international 
community has come together, and I welcome it.
    President Bush. Yes, my sense is, is that there's a hope that we 
succeed with all the nations sitting around the table. Everybody 
understands the stakes. And the stakes are high, particularly for those 
of us who recognize that the long-term defeat of terror will happen when 
freedom takes hold in the broader Middle East. It's a long-term 
solution.
    And if you really think about what's happened since September the 
11th, there's been some amazing progress. Pakistan has now joined the 
battle against Al Qaida. President Musharraf has made a concerted 
decision to go after Al Qaida, which hides in remote regions of his 
country on the Afghanistan border. Libya has declared and produced its 
weapons programs that we're now destroying. You know, Turkey is solid. 
There's a solid democracy here in the broader Middle East which is a 
great example.
    Afghanistan, which was a terrorist haven--this is where the 
terrorists plotted and trained to come and kill, not only in America but 
elsewhere--is now heading toward elections. Who ever thought Afghanistan 
was

[[Page 1175]]

going to have elections? Three years ago you said, ``Gosh, you think 
Afghanistan is going to have elections,'' I probably would have said, 
``No.'' And so is Iraq--Iraq is headed towards elections too. It's 
substantial change in a quick period of time. And I think everybody 
sitting around the table is hopeful that democracy will serve as an 
agent of change in this part of the world.
    In terms of hunting them down, look, I think the Iraqis understand 
what we know, that the best way to defend yourself is to go on the 
offense and find the killers before they kill. I presume that's what he 
was saying; I haven't asked him his language. I have sometimes used that 
language myself. And I've used it because my most solemn duty is to 
defend my country, is to defend it from people that obviously are 
willing to kill innocent life just like that. And my position is, is the 
best way to defend yourself is to find the few, the few--and I believe 
that's what he's saying--that we're going to find those few before they 
continue to bomb whoever happens to be in their way. And we'll support 
him. We'll help him.
    Let's see--Jim [Jim Angle, FOX News].

Opposition to Coalition Action in Iraq

    Q. We were reminded by the anniversary of D-day that 60 years ago it 
took an massive invasion to end the occupation of France and other 
European nations. Now, in Iraq, the coalition has gladly and willingly 
returned sovereignty to the Iraqis. And I wonder, is there any sign that 
this has changed the views of your more skeptical NATO brethren, any 
evidence that the critics are now persuaded to the view that you both 
argued, that it was, in fact, a liberation? Or at this point, does it 
matter to each of you what the critics say?
    President Bush. Yes, it matters to me what you say. I mean, it 
matters to me what--[laughter]--sorry. [Laughter] Just a little humor. 
[Laughter] Yes, it matters. It matters because it is important for 
nations that are blessed by freedom to come together to help nations 
that are struggling to be free, and that's why it matters. The more 
people participating in the process, the better off it is. The more 
reconstruction there is, the more people willing to help with the 
education of children, the more people willing to help rebuild 
hospitals, the more people willing to help to rebuild this destroyed 
infrastructure, infrastructure destroyed by the Taliban or by Saddam 
Hussein, the better off the world will be.
    And so, yes, the more people who say this is worthwhile, the more 
likely it is 50 million people are going to realize the blessings that 
we have, and the world will be better off for it.
    And the examples of free societies in their neighborhoods are going 
to make a huge difference in the lives of others. Listen, there are 
people inside of Iran who are watching what's happening, young, vibrant, 
professional people who want to be free, and they're wondering whether 
or not they'll have that opportunity. And I think a free Iraq and a free 
Afghanistan are going to set such a vibrant, bright example for others.
    And so, yes, it matters. And I think people are beginning to see 
that we were, in fact, liberators and that we're not only going to 
liberate, we'll follow through, no matter how tough it gets on the 
ground.
    Prime Minister Blair. I think, speaking as someone with a largely 
uncritical media--[laughter]--I think that, sure--I'm not sure that we 
will have persuaded all our critics, no. But I think that--I think it's 
just worth emphasizing the degree to which our own strategy has evolved, 
post-September the 11th. Sometimes people talk about this issue to do 
with international terrorism today as if somehow it was because of what 
we have done in Afghanistan or Iraq that this terrorist threat exists. 
This terrorist threat was building up there for a long time. September 
the 11th did--and should have--changed our thinking. And the way our 
strategy has evolved is that I think we know now that it is important 
not simply to go in and get after the Taliban in Afghanistan but also to 
say, ``No, we're going to do something else. We're also going to give 
that country democracy and freedom, because that is actually part of the 
battle against terrorism as well.''
    And that's why it's important to see this as a whole picture. The 
fact is, if Iraq becomes a stable and democratic country--and I'm not 
underestimating for a single instant the difficulties in doing that, 
incidentally--

[[Page 1176]]

but if it does, that is a huge blow to the propaganda and to the effort 
of the extremists. That's, in fact, why sometimes I think they have a 
clearer idea of how important it is to stop us than sometimes the 
Western world has of why it's so important that we get there with Iraq 
and with the Iraqi people.
    And so the Greater Middle East Initiative and the idea of spreading 
democracy there, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the basis of 
two states, both democratic states--because what we want for the 
Palestinians is not just their own state; we want a democratic state for 
them, where they have proper freedoms as well.
    So I think that you can see this as part of an evolving strategy, 
where we realize we've got to be prepared to take tough security 
measures and tough action where necessary, but we know that that is not 
all that it's about. It's also about trying to show that there is a 
value system there that isn't related to any religion or one religion, 
one civilization. It's about these basic values of humanity that, 
wherever they're implemented and tried, you get greater security, 
because basically democracies--well, they have to fight sometimes when 
they have to defend themselves, but they don't have the same aggressive 
intent that these unstable or extreme or fanatical regimes do.
    So part of what we're trying to do--and yes, it's tough at the 
moment, and of course, you get into a situation where people will fight 
us very hard. That's in the nature of any of these struggles that you 
undertake, but our honest belief is the world will be a safer place if 
we're able to make this work. And I don't know whether we've convinced 
people of this or not, but I do think--the one thing that interests me 
is occasionally when people who opposed our action in Iraq will say, 
``The really important thing now is to get those democratic elections.'' 
And I think that's fantastic, but let's be clear: We wouldn't be talking 
about democratic elections in Iraq if Saddam was still there.

Timing of Transfer of Sovereignty in Iraq

    Q. A question for both of you. How do you counter the impression 
you've created today that you couldn't hand over the burden of Iraq 
quickly enough and the way that it was done is proof, is a symbol, if 
you like, of a shambles in Iraq?
    Prime Minister Blair. It's a little bit tough there, Bill--I mean, 
you know--[laughter].
    President Bush. Well, let me try it then. You know that last Friday 
we handed over the final ministry to the Iraqi interim government. In 
other words, we have been making a transfer of sovereignty all along. 
And the--actually, we've been contemplating this move for a while. But 
the final decision was by Prime Minister Alawi, and he thought it would 
strengthen his hand. And so that's why the handover took place today, as 
opposed to 48 hours later. And so, not only is there full sovereignty in 
the hands of the Government, but all the ministries have been 
transferred, and they're up and running.
    I supported the decision. I thought it was a smart thing to do, 
primarily because the Prime Minister was ready for it. And it's a sign 
of confidence. It's a sign that we're ready to go, and it's a proud 
moment--it really is--for the Iraqi people. And frankly, I feel 
comfortable in making the decision, because I feel comfortable about 
Prime Minister Alawi and President al-Yawr. These are strong people. 
They're gutsy. They're courageous. They're, as we say in Texas, standup 
guys. You know, they'll lead. They'll lead their people to a better day. 
And it's going to be very hard for them and very trying, but they just--
they and the Iraqi people need to hear, loud and clear, they'll have our 
friendship and our support, no matter how tough it gets.
    Prime Minister Blair. I think it's worth just pointing out as well--
I agree, obviously, with what's just been said, but I think you've got 
somewhere in the region of, is it 10 or 11 ministries that are already 
effectively run by the Iraqis themselves. I mean, their health and 
education ministries are already run by Iraqis. But it's a sign of their 
confidence and their desire to get on with it. They want to do it. They 
know that in the end, they've got to do it. They want that 
responsibility.
    And I think one of the exciting things about the last few weeks is 
that the Iraqi people, in a sense, through their Prime Minister and 
President, have indicated, ``We want the responsibility.'' Now, we then 
stay and support, however, and we're not walking out of

[[Page 1177]]

this at all. We stay and support them, and we'll stay for as long as it 
takes to make sure that that support is there for them, so that we help 
them to that freedom and democracy they want to see. And it's a--I think 
that, in a way, the relationship between us and the Iraqi Government has 
been--it's a healthier, better relationship now that there's this 
transfer of sovereignty there, and where they really want the 
responsibility of running their own country. But they know the practical 
fact is, for the moment, until their own security forces are built up 
properly, they need our support, and they have our support.
    President Bush. Thank you all very much.

Note: The President's news conference began at 4:55 p.m. at the Hilton 
Istanbul. In his remarks, he referred to Prime Minister Ayad al-Alawi 
and President Ghazi al-Ujayl al-Yawr of Iraq; L. Paul Bremer III, former 
Presidential Envoy to Iraq; former President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; 
senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi; and President Pervez 
Musharraf of Pakistan. Prime Minister Blair referred to President Vaira 
Vike-Freiberga of Latvia. A reporter referred to Minister of Defense 
Hazim Qutran al-Khuzai al-Shalan of Iraq.