[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 2 (Monday, January 16, 2006)]
[Pages 40-56]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on the War on Terror and a Question-and-Answer Session in 
Louisville, Kentucky

January 11, 2006

    The President. Thank you all. Please sit down. I think I will. Bad 
view. [Laughter] Thanks for having me. What I thought I'd do is maybe 
make some opening comments and answer any questions you got. I probably 
can't stay here all day, since I've got a job to do, but I'm interested 
in your opinions and your point of view.
    I hope the questions are broader than the war on terror--if you 
want, you can ask me anything you want. We got an economy that's going 
good, and perhaps you want to know what we're going to do to keep it 
growing. You know, we got a health care system that needs reform. We got 
an energy problem in the United States. I mean, there's a lot of issues 
that I'd be more than happy to talk about.
    I do want to talk about how to secure this country and keep the 
peace. Before I do, I want to thank Joe. He stole my line ``Reagan-
Bush''--[laughter]. It was going to work just fine, until he took it. 
[Laughter] But thank you for setting this up. Thanks a lot for the 
sponsors. I appreciate you all taking time out of your day, and I 
appreciate your interest.
    Before I begin, I do want to say I married well. I'm sorry the First 
Lady isn't with me. She is a heck of a person. I love her dearly, and 
she sends her very best to our friends here in Louisville, Kentucky.

[[Page 41]]

    I thank the Governor for being here, and the Lieutenant Governor. 
And I want to thank your mayor. The mayor showed me a pair of cufflinks 
that my dad gave him when he was the President and the mayor was the 
mayor. [Laughter] It looks like the mayor is going to outlast both 
Bushes. [Laughter]
    I also want to thank Congresswoman Anne Northup. I call her a friend 
because she is one. She brings a lot of dignity to the halls of the 
United States Congress. I'm sure there are some folks here who don't 
necessarily agree with the party she's picked, and that's okay. But one 
thing you've got to agree with is she's honest; she's capable; and she's 
a decent, honorable soul. And I appreciate you. I want to thank Ron 
Lewis. He's a Congressman from Kentucky as well. And you let somebody 
slide across the border in Congressman Mike Sodrel. I appreciate both 
the Congressmen being here as well. I'm looking forward to working with 
you in the year 2006. We've got a lot to do.
    Let me--I wish I didn't have to say this, but we're still at war, 
and that's important for the citizens of this Commonwealth to 
understand. You know, no President ever wants to be President during 
war. But this war came to us, not as a result of actions we took--it 
came to us as a result of actions an enemy took on September the 11th, 
2001. And I vowed that day, starting when I was in Florida and got on 
the airplane to head across the country, that I would use everything in 
my power--obviously, within the Constitution--but everything in my power 
to protect the American people. That is the most solemn duty of 
Government, is to protect our people from harm.
    And I vowed that we'd find those killers and bring them to justice, 
and that's what we're doing. We're on the hunt for an enemy that still 
lurks. I know because I'm briefed on a daily basis about the threats 
that face the United States of America. And my duty is to assess this 
world the way it is, not the way we'd like it to be. And there's a 
danger that lurks--and there's a danger that lurks because we face an 
enemy which cannot stand freedom. It's an enemy which has an ideology 
that does not believe in free speech, free religion, free dissent, does 
not believe in women's rights, and they have a desire to impose their 
ideology on much of the world.
    Secondly, after September the 11th, not only did I vow to use our 
assets to protect the people by staying on the offense, by defeating an 
enemy elsewhere so we don't have to face them here at home, I also said 
that, ``If you harbor a terrorist, if you provide safe haven to a 
terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist.'' And I meant it. 
And the Taliban in Afghanistan--a barbaric group of individuals who 
suppressed women, suppressed religious freedom, suppressed young girls--
had harbored these terrorists. They provided safe haven. These folks 
were there plotting and planning a vicious attack against the United 
States of America in a safe haven called Afghanistan.
    And so we took action. We took action because the Taliban refused to 
expel Al Qaida. And we took action because when an American President 
says something, he better mean it. In order to be able to keep the 
peace, in order to be able to have credibility in this world, when we 
speak, we better mean what we say, and I meant what we said. And we sent 
some brave souls into Afghanistan to liberate that country from the 
Taliban.
    I also said, after September the 11th, that oceans no longer 
protected us. You know, when I was growing up, or other baby boomers 
here were growing up, we felt safe because we had these vast oceans that 
could protect us from harm's way. September the 11th changed all that. 
And so I vowed that we would take threats seriously. If we saw a threat, 
we would take threats seriously before they fully materialized, and I 
saw a threat in Saddam Hussein.
    I understand that the intelligence didn't turn out the way a lot of 
the world thought it would be. And that was disappointing, and we've 
done something about it. We've reformed our intelligence services. But 
Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of the United States. He was on the 
nations-that-sponsor-terror list for a reason. I didn't put him on the 
list; previous Presidents put him on the list. And the reason why is 
because he was sponsoring terrorism. He was shooting at our airplanes. 
He had attacked his own people with chemical weapons. I mean, the guy 
was a threat.

[[Page 42]]

    I went to the United Nations--some of you were probably concerned 
here in Kentucky that it seemed like the President was spending a little 
too much time in the United Nations. But I felt it was important to say 
to the world that this international body that we want to be effective, 
spoke loud and clear not once, but 15-odd times to Saddam Hussein--said, 
``Disarm. Get rid of your weapons. Don't be the threat that you are, or 
face serious consequences.'' That's what the international body said. 
And my view is, is that in order for the world to be effective, when it 
says something, it must mean it.
    We gave the opportunity to Saddam Hussein to open his country up. It 
was his choice. He chose war, and he got war. And he's not in power, and 
the world is better off for it.
    The hardest decision I made as your President is to put troops into 
harm's way because I understand the consequences. I see the consequences 
when I go to the hospitals. I see the consequences when I try to comfort 
the loved ones who have lost a son or a daughter in combat. I understand 
that full--firsthand: War is brutal. And so I didn't take the decision 
lightly. Now that I've made the decision, we must succeed in Iraq. I've 
tried to explain to my fellow citizens, I can understand folks who said, 
``I wish you hadn't done that. We don't agree with your decision.'' Now 
that we're there, in my humble opinion, we have got to succeed.
    I said I'd try to be short and answer your questions. I'm getting a 
little windy. [Laughter] But let me talk real quick about the goals in 
Iraq. The goal is victory, nothing short of victory. When you put these 
kids in harm's way, we owe them the best equipment, the best training, 
and a strategy for victory. And victory is a country that--where the 
Saddamists and the terrorists can't unwind the democracy. Victory is 
when Iraq is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists. Victory is--will 
be achieved when the Iraqis are able to defend their democracy.
    In the last couple of weeks, I've been talking about the strategy to 
achieve victory. It's one thing to say we want victory; the other thing 
is, can you get there? And the answer is, absolutely, we can get there. 
And the strategy is threefold. One, there's a political strategy. First, 
let me make sure you understand the enemy. The enemy is, in our 
judgment, my judgment, three types of people. One, we call them 
rejectionists--these are Sunnis who had privileged status under Saddam 
Hussein, even though they were in the minority in the country. They had 
a pretty good deal because the tyrant was a Sunni and made sure that the 
Sunnis got special treatment, as opposed to the Shi'a or the Kurds. And 
they liked that kind of special treatment. They liked privileged status.
    The second group is the Saddam loyalists. These are the thugs and 
people that basically robbed the country blind, and not only had 
privileged status but they were the all-powerful. And needless to say, 
they don't like it with their man sitting in prison and them no longer 
being able to exploit the people of Iraq. They're irritated.
    Finally, the third group, and this is a dangerous group--it's Al 
Qaida and its affiliates. A guy named Zarqawi is the chief operating 
officer in Iraq on behalf of Al Qaida. Al Qaida has made it very clear 
their intentions in Iraq, which is to drive the United States out so 
they will have a base from which to operate to spread their ideology. 
That's what they have said. This is what Mr. Zawahiri said. It's 
important for those of us involved in trying to protect you to take the 
enemy seriously, to listen to their words closely. In other words, Al 
Qaida has made Iraq a front in the war on terror, and that's why we've 
developed a strategy for victory.
    The first part of it is to have a political process that 
marginalizes the rejectionists and isolates the dissenters. And it's 
happening. Under any objective measurement, what took place last year in 
Iraq was remarkable, when you think about it. This country is a country 
that lived under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and last 
year they had elections for a Transitional Government. They wrote a 
Constitution and got the Constitution approved, and then had elections 
for a permanent Government under the new Constitution--all in one year. 
And every election had more participants. And most importantly, in the 
last election, the rejectionists who had sat out the first couple of 
elections--many Sunnis had sat out; they said, ``We're not going to be 
involved in the political process''--got involved. Slowly but

[[Page 43]]

surely, those who were trying to stop the advance of democracy are 
becoming marginalized.
    Secondly, this is a country, obviously, that has got brutal action--
this enemy we face has got no conscience. They will kill innocent people 
in a heartbeat in order to achieve their objectives. And it's hard for 
Americans to deal with that. I understand that. It's hard for me to 
believe that there is such brutality in the world where people going to 
a funeral to mourn the dead, and a suicider shows up and kills people. 
It's hard for me to believe that we've got soldiers passing out candy to 
young kids, and a killer comes and kills the kids and the soldiers. It 
is beyond the imagination of most Americans, but it should say something 
about this enemy. They will go to no ends to defeat us, but they can't 
beat us on the battlefield. The only thing they can do is create these 
brutal scenes.
    And they're trying to drive us out of Iraq, as I mentioned. And the 
best way to deal with them is train Iraqis so they can deal with them. 
And that's what's happening. There are two aspects of our training. And, 
listen, the training hasn't gone smoothly all the time. I mean, this is 
a war. And you're constantly adjusting your strategies and tactics--not 
strategies--tactics on the ground to meet an enemy which is changing.
    And so the army is getting on its feet. We've turned over a lot of 
territory to the army. And they're good fighters; they really are. I 
spent a great deal of time with General Abizaid and General Casey--they 
were in Washington this past week--these are generals, you'd be happy to 
hear, who tell me the way it is, not the way they think I would like it 
to be. I can't tell you how good the caliber of our military brass and 
those in the field, by the way, all the way up and down the line, are 
good--they are good people. [Inaudible]--better trained, not just 
numbers. I'm talking about capacity to take the fight and stay in the 
fight. And as I've said, as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. So 
the strategy, the security strategy is to let the Iraqis do the 
fighting. It's their country. The people have shown they want 
democracy--millions voted. And now part of the mission is to give this 
Government a security force which will help fight off the few who are 
trying to stop the hopes of the many.
    One of the places where we've lagged is training police. There are 
three types of police. There's a national police force, kind of like a 
SWAT team, a national SWAT team, that can move--they're pretty well 
trained. They need some human rights training. In other words, part of 
the problem in Iraq is you've got people that are plenty irritated at 
what took place in the past, and they're going to use their positions of 
power to take revenge. You can't have a democracy in which the police 
don't enforce the rule of law but enforce their view of revenge. And so 
you got ethics training, rule of law training, all done by good troops 
who are embedded, who are side by side with this Iraqi police force. And 
it's getting better; it really is.
    Secondly, you've got the Border Patrol. The reason why the border is 
necessary is because there's suiciders coming in from Syria into Iraq. 
And the Iraqis have got to be able to enforce their border in order to 
be able to protect their democracy.
    And thirdly, you've got local police, and we're lagging in the local 
police. And the local police--it's just that, local. And so what we're 
going to do is use what worked in the Balkans and embed people in the 
local police units to teach them how to--effective enforcements of the 
law. And so, 2006 you're going to see a lot of police training and a lot 
of police focus.
    Finally, there's the economic and reconstruction front. We started 
up grand projects in Iraq when we first got there, said we're going to 
build some grand projects. It turns out, a more effective use of 
reconstruction money was localized projects to empower those who were 
willing to take a risk for democracy with the capacity to say, ``Follow 
me, your life is going to be better.'' By the way, democracy works in 
Iraq just like it does here--you're going to vote for somebody who 
thinks that they can bring character to the office and they're going to 
help your life. Same anywhere else. You're out there campaigning; they 
want to know what are you going to do for me. And so part of the 
reconstruction effort was to focus on local reconstruction projects.

[[Page 44]]

    The Iraqi economy has got a great chance to succeed. They got oil 
and gas revenues. They had been having trouble getting some oil and gas 
revenues up to the levels we anticipated because of the infrastructure 
damage--done by Saddam Hussein, by the way--and because the terrorists, 
every time there's some progress, tend to blow things up. Now, having 
said that, they got these surveys--and I must confess I'm not much of a 
survey guy, but they got them--and most Iraqis are optimistic about the 
future. And as I said yesterday, they're willing to live with 
intermittent darkness, as opposed to the darkness--and freedom--as 
opposed to the darkness of tyranny. That's what you're seeing.
    But this economy is going. Small businesses are flourishing. They 
got a--they had to deal with gasoline subsidies. Saddam Hussein, in 
order to make sure people kept him around and thought he was all right--
they didn't have much choice, by the way, because he had a force behind 
him--but nevertheless, he subsidized gasoline, which meant a lot of the 
central budget was going for subsidization of fuel, as opposed to 
education and health. And so the new Government made a difficult 
decision, they started floating that price of gasoline up a little 
higher, to take the pressure off their budget and to introduce markets, 
market-based forces into the economy.
    It's not going to happen overnight. You can't go from a tightly 
controlled economy to an open market overnight, but it's happening. In 
other words, the Government is making difficult choices to help the 
entrepreneurial spirit begin to flourish.
    And so things are good. I'm confident we'll succeed. And it's tough, 
though. The enemy has got one weapon--I repeat to you--and that's to 
shake our will. I just want to tell you, whether you agree with me or 
not, they're not going to shake my will. We're doing the right thing.
    A couple of quick points, then I'll answer your questions. You hear 
a lot of talk about troop levels. I'd just like to give you my thinking 
on troop levels. I know a lot of people want our troops to come home--I 
do too. But I don't want us to come home without achieving the victory. 
I mentioned to you--[applause]--we owe that to the mothers and fathers 
and husbands and wives who have lost a loved one. That's what I feel. I 
feel strongly that we cannot let the sacrifice--we can't let their 
sacrifice go in vain.
    Secondly, I--these troop levels will be decided by our commanders. 
If you run a business, you know what I'm talking about when I say--it's 
called delegating. You count on people to give you good advice. The best 
people to give any politician advice about whether or not we're 
achieving a military objective is the people you put out there on the 
ground. I told you I've got good confidence in these generals and the 
people who report to them. These are honest, honorable, decent, very 
capable, smart people, and they'll decide the troop levels. They hear 
from me: Victory. And I say to them, ``What do you need to achieve 
victory?''
    I don't know if you've noticed recently, but we're beginning to 
reduce presence in Iraq based upon the recommendation of our commanders. 
We've gone from 17 to 15 battalions. We kept up to about 60,000--160,000 
troops in Iraq for the elections. We held over about 25,000 or so on a--
that were to rotate out--to help in the elections. Those 25,000 are 
coming back, plus the reduced battalions. And people say, ``Well, how 
about more for the rest of the year?'' And the answer to that is, I'm 
going to do what they tell me to do. And that depends upon the capacity 
of the Iraqis to help us achieve victory.
    And why is victory important? Let me just conclude by this point. 
You know, it's hard for some to--in our country to connect the rise of 
democracy with peace. This is an ideological struggle, as far as I'm 
concerned, and you defeat an ideology of darkness with an ideology of 
light and hope. History has proven that democracies yield the peace. If 
you really look at some of the past struggles where--in which the United 
States has been involved, the ultimate outcome, the final product, was 
peace based upon freedom. Europe is whole, free, and at peace because of 
democracy.
    One of the examples I like to share with people in order to make the 
connection between that which we're doing in Iraq today, and laying--
what I call, laying the foundation of peace, is my relationship with 
Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. And the reason I like

[[Page 45]]

to bring up this story is I find it amazing that my dad--old Number 41--
at the age of 18, fought the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy of the 
United States. Many in this audience, I know, had relatives in that war. 
They were the bitter enemy. They had attacked us, just like we were 
attacked on September the 11th. People in America said, ``We'll do 
everything we can to defeat this enemy,'' and thousands of people lost 
their lives.
    Laura and I were over in the Far East recently. I was sitting down 
at the table with the Prime Minister of our former enemy talking about 
how to keep the peace. We were talking about the spread of democracy in 
Iraq and in the Middle East as a way to counter an ideology that is 
backwards and hateful. We were talking about North Korea, how to keep 
the peace on the Korean Peninsula.
    Isn't it amazing--at least it is to me--that some 60 years after an 
18-year-old fighter pilot joined the Navy to fight the Japanese, his son 
is talking with the Prime Minister of the former enemy about keeping the 
peace. Something happened. And what happened was, Japan adopted a 
Japanese-style democracy. Democracies yield the peace. And I firmly 
believe, I firmly believe that years from now people are going to look 
back and say, ``Thank goodness the new generation of Americans who rose 
to the challenge of a war against terror had faith in the capacity of 
freedom to help change the world.'' And someday, an American President 
is going to be talking to a duly elected leader from Iraq, talking about 
how to keep the peace for a generation to come.
    I want to thank you all. That is the definition of a short speech. 
[Laughter] Probably hate to hear a long one. [Laughter] All right, I'll 
answer some questions. Start us off.

Progress in the War on Terror/Democracy

    Mr. Joe Reagan. Mr. President, thank you very much. As I told you, 
we'd like to have some tough and challenging questions----
    The President. ----Washington, DC, press conference?
    Mr. Reagan. I thought you'd be at home here with that. We do want to 
keep these questions respectful, and we really do thank you for making 
the time to share this dialog with us--we really do.
    You've talked a lot about history. In your State of the Union after 
September 11th, you defined this war as a war on terror. In history, our 
parents' generations had V-E Day and V-J Day. And in our time, we've 
seen the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war. If you 
define this as a war on terror, will there ever be a V-T Day? And, if 
not, what do you need to do to prepare us to be able to go the duration?
    The President. I also said that this is a different kind of war, the 
kind of war we've never faced before. We're not facing a nation-state 
per se; we're facing a shadowy network of people bound together by a 
common ideology that--by the way, the enemy knows no rules of war. They 
just--they kill innocent people.
    And so, you're right, I did say it's a war. It's the first war of 
the 21st century, but I've been emphasizing it's a different kind of 
war. So I don't envision a signing ceremony on the U.S.S. Missouri. As a 
matter of fact, this is a war in which the enemy is going to have to be 
defeated by a competing system in the long run.
    The short-term objective is to use our intelligence and our allies 
to hunt these people down. And we're getting--we're doing it. And we're 
on the--we got brave, brave souls, who, every single day, are trying to 
find the Al Qaida leadership and the network. We're doing--we've done a 
good job so far. If Usama bin Laden were the top guy, and Mr. Zawahiri--
he was the person that put out the strategy, by the way, for Al Qaida, 
for everybody to see. I don't think he put it out for everybody to see. 
It just happened to be exposed for everybody to see eventually. But Abu 
Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad--there's a series of chief operators 
who are no longer a threat to the United States. I mean, we are 
dismantling the operators. And when we find them, we bring them to 
justice as quickly as we can.
    That's the short-term strategy. There's also the strategy of making 
it clear, if you harbor a terrorist--the short-term strategy of dealing 
with threats before they come to hurt us--I say, before they fully 
materialize. One of the lessons of September the 11th is, when

[[Page 46]]

you see a threat out there, you can't assume that it's not going to come 
to our shore anymore. And so we've got to deal with it.
    Obviously, the best way to deal with these kinds of threats is 
diplomatically. We're doing so in Iran. If somebody has got a question 
on Iran, I'll be glad to answer it in a minute. But that's what we're 
trying to get done. The military option is always the last option. The 
long-term victory will come by defeating the hopelessness and despair 
that these killers exploit with a system that is open and hopeful, and 
the only such system is a free system.
    And I have got faith in the capacity of people to self-govern. Now, 
there is a point of view in this world by some that say, ``Well, maybe 
certain kind of people can't self-govern''--which, by the way, was the 
attitude of some right after World War II--``The enemy can't possibly 
self-govern.'' The attitude was somewhat blinded by the fact that we 
were so angry at the Japanese that no one could see a hopeful tomorrow 
for them.
    I believe everybody desires to be free. That's what I believe, and I 
believe everybody has the capacity to self-govern. I'm not--never have I 
said nor do I believe that we are trying to impose our style of 
democracy on another country. It won't work. Each country has got its 
own cultures and own history and own tradition, and they ought to have 
their own style of democracy. But I do know that tyrants breed 
resentment and hatred. And I do know that if a person is--if they want 
to be free and not allowed to express their belief, it causes 
resentment, the breeding grounds for a terrorist movement which exploits 
the unsettled attitudes of the people.
    So, in other words, it's not going to be that kind of--it's not the 
kind of war that you talked about earlier, and so the peace won't be the 
kind of peace that we're used to.
    Thank you. Good question. Okay.

NSA Wiretaps/PATRIOT Act

    Q. I'd like to ask, recently in the media, you've been catching a 
lot of flak about that National Security Agency thing.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. There's people in our States and there's people that are in DC 
that will take and jeopardize what I feel is our national security and 
our troops' safety today for partisan advantage, for political 
advantage. They're starting an investigation in the Justice Department 
about the--looking into this, where these leaks came from. Is the 
Justice Department going to follow through and, if necessary, go after 
the media to take and get the answers and to shut these leaks up?
    The President. First, let me talk about the issue you brought up, 
and it's a very serious issue. I did say to the National--it's called 
the NSA, National Security Agency, that they should protect America by 
taking the phone numbers of known Al Qaida and/or affiliates and find 
out why they're making phone calls into the United States, and vice 
versa. And I did so because the enemy still wants to hurt us. And it 
seems like to me that if somebody is talking to Al Qaida, we want to 
know why.
    Now, I--look, I understand people's concerns about Government 
eavesdropping, and I share those concerns as well. So obviously I had to 
make the difficult decision between balancing civil liberties and, on a 
limited basis--and I mean limited basis--try to find out the intention 
of the enemy. In order to safeguard the civil liberties of the people, 
we have this program fully scrutinized on a regular basis. It's been 
authorized, reauthorized many times. We got lawyers looking at it from 
different branches of Government.
    We have briefed the leadership of the United States Congress, both 
Republican and Democrat, as well as the leaders of the intelligence 
committees, both Republicans and Democrats, about the nature of this 
program. We gave them a chance to express their disapproval or approval 
of a limited program taking known Al Qaida numbers--numbers from known 
Al Qaida people--and just trying to find out why the phone calls are 
being made.
    I can understand concerns about this program. Before I went forward, 
I wanted to make sure I had all the legal authority necessary to make 
this decision as your President. We are a rule--a country of law. We 
have a Constitution, which guides the sharing of power. And I take 
that--I put that hand on the Bible, and I meant it when I said I'm going 
to uphold the Constitution. I also mean

[[Page 47]]

it when I'm going to protect the American people.
    I have the right as the Commander in Chief in a time of war to take 
action necessary to protect the American people. And secondly, the 
Congress, in the authorization, basically said the President ought to--
in authorization of the use of troops--ought to protect us. Well, one 
way to protect us is to understand the nature of the enemy. Part of 
being able to deal with this kind of enemy in a different kind of war is 
to understand why they're making decisions they're making inside our 
country.
    So I want to thank you for bringing that up. There will be a lot of 
hearings and talk about that, but that's good for democracy--just so 
long as the hearings, as they explore whether or not I have the 
prerogative to make the decision I made doesn't tell the enemy what 
we're doing. See, that's the danger.
    The PATRIOT Act is up for renewal. That's another piece of 
legislation which is important to protect. Do you realize that the 
PATRIOT Act has given our FBI and intelligence services the same tools 
of sharing information that we have given to people that are fighting 
drug lords? In other words, much of the authorities that we ask for in 
the PATRIOT Act to be able to fight and win the war on terror has 
already been in practice when it comes to dealing with drug lords. And I 
can't tell you how important it is to reauthorize the legislation.
    There's a lot of investigation, you're right, in Washington--which 
is okay. That's part of holding people to account in a democracy. But at 
one point in time the Government got accused of not connecting the dots. 
You might remember that debate--we didn't connect the dots. And all of a 
sudden, we start connecting the dots through the PATRIOT Act and the NSA 
decision, and we're being criticized. Now, you know, I got the message 
early: Why don't you connect dots? And we're going to. And we're going 
to safeguard the civil liberties of the people. That's what you've got 
to know.
    That was a great question, thank you for asking it. I'm going to 
avoid the part on the press. [Laughter]

Threat of Terrorism/Separation of Church and State

    Q. Mr. President, we hear a common expert opinion all the time that 
the terrorists are going to attack us--it's not a question of whether; 
it's a question of when. And, yes, that might happen. But the facts are 
that since 9/11, we haven't had any, so thank you.
    And now to my question. You have said many a time to all those who 
will listen that the two major pillars of democracy are free and fair 
elections and the separation of church and state. However, historically 
and to date, a vast majority of the Islamists across nations do not 
believe in that simple fact of separation between church and state. 
Therefore, how can we help change their belief, that for democracy to 
succeed, certain elements must be in place? Thank you.
    The President. It's a great question. First, let me say that the 
enemy hasn't attacked us, but they attacked others. Since September the 
11th, there have been multiple attacks around the world. These guys are 
active. You might remember Beslan, an attack on Russian schoolchildren, 
just killed them coldblooded. I remember going to the G-8, and there 
were the attacks in London. You know, there's--are they Al Qaida, not Al 
Qaida? These are people that are inspired, at the very minimum, by Al 
Qaida. The enemy is active. They are. And we're just going to do 
everything we can to protect you.
    Look, there have been--when you think about the Far East, democracy 
didn't exist for a long period of time. And so principles, such as 
separation of church and state, were foreign to a lot of people where 
democracy doesn't exist, until democracy begins to exist, and then it 
becomes a logical extension of democracy.
    I made a foreign policy decision in the Middle East that said, ``We 
can't tolerate the status quo any longer for the sake of inexpensive 
energy.'' In other words, there was a period of time when people said, 
``Let's just kind of deal with the situation as it is,'' sometimes 
tolerating strong men for a economic objective. I changed our foreign 
policy that said, that attitude of kind of accepting the things the way 
they are is going to lead to the conditions that will allow the enemy to

[[Page 48]]

continue to breed hatred and find suiciders and soldiers in their 
attempt to do harm.
    What I'm telling you is, is that the part of the world where we've 
started this democracy initiative hasn't known democracy, except for in 
Israel and Lebanon. So to answer your question, it's going to be the 
spread of democracy, itself, that shows folks the importance of 
separation of church and state. And that is why the Constitution written 
in Iraq is an important Constitution, because it separates church and 
state for the first time in a modern-day constitution in Iraq.
    The Iraqi example is going to spread. I believe that--one of the big 
issues in the Middle East is women's rights, the freedom of women, that 
they're not treated fairly. And yet, when you're guaranteed rights under 
a Constitution and people are able to see that life is improving, it 
will cause others to say, ``I want the same kind of right.''
    Part of our strategy in order to keep the peace is to encourage the 
spread of democracy, and the enemy understands that. The enemy knows 
that a democracy, as it spreads, will help deal with issues such as the 
separation of--it will encourage the separation of church and state, 
will encourage women to rise up and say, ``We want to be treated 
equally,'' will mean that mothers will be able to have confidence that 
their young daughter will have an opportunity to achieve the same as a 
young son. And those thoughts frighten the enemy. It's hard to believe, 
but it does.
    So to answer your question, concepts that we take for granted in 
democracy are foreign because the system of government has yet to take 
hold. But when it takes hold, it will become--people will begin to 
understand the wisdom of that part of the democratic process.
    Let's see, let me--kind of searching around. Yes, sir?

Immigration/Mexico-U.S. Border

    The President. Hola--en Mexico?
    Q. Monterrey. We went for Christmas, to spend Christmas with my 
family in Mexico. And, you know, my family, friends, media, President 
Fox, they're talking about the wall that the United States wants to 
build across the border with Mexico. My question for you is, what is 
your opinion or your position about that wall? And, you know, when 
people ask me how can I justify the answer to build a wall, other than 
saying, ``We don't want you here,'' you know?
    The President. Yes, great question.
    Q. Thank you.
    The President. His question is on immigration. Let me talk about 
immigration. We have an obligation to enforce our borders. There are 
people--[applause]--hold on--let me just--save it for a full answer. 
[Laughter] And we do for a lot of reasons. The main reason is security 
reasons, seems like to me. And security means more than just a terrorist 
slipping in. It means drugs. The mayor was telling me that there's a lot 
of crime around the country--he's been studying this--because of drug 
use. And who knows if they're being smuggled in from Mexico, but drugs 
do get smuggled in. So it's a security issue. It's more than just the 
war on terror security issue. It's the issue of being able to try to 
secure the lifestyle of our country from the use of drugs, drug 
importation, for example. A lot of things get smuggled across. 
Generally, when you're smuggling something, it's against the law. So we 
have an obligation of enforcing the border. That's what the American 
people expect.
    Now, you mentioned wall. The intent is to use fencing in some areas, 
particularly in urban centers, where people have found it easy to cross 
illegally into the country. It is impractical to build a wall all the 
way up and down the border. Look, I was the old Governor of Texas--you 
can't build a wall up and down the entire length of the border of the 
United States. But you can find those border crossing points in high 
urban areas and use some construction. You can be able to put berms up 
in order to prevent people from smuggling people across the border. 
There are ways to use electronics to be able to help our Border Patrol 
agents detect people who are illegally coming into the country. And 
we're getting--we're kind of modernizing the border, I guess is the best 
way to put it.
    I mean, there is an electronic wall, to a certain extent, on parts 
of our border where there may be an unmanned drone flying along that 
radios to a Border Patrol center that says, ``Hey, we've got people 
sneaking

[[Page 49]]

across illegally; find them.'' The second aspect--and so we are going to 
enforce the border as best as we possibly can. It's our duty.
    Secondly, one of the problems we've faced is that people get 
stopped, and they get let back out in society and say, ``Come on back 
for your hearing.'' But guess what? They don't come back for the 
hearing. That's the catch-and-release. And we're trying to change that, 
particularly for those from Central America who've come up from Central 
America through Mexico and the United States.
    The reason most people come is to work. I always have said that 
family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River. There are some jobs 
Americans will not do that are being filled by people who want to feed 
their families. And that's what's happening. And my attitude about that 
is, is that when you find a willing worker and a company who can't find 
an American to do the job, there ought to be a legal way, on a temporary 
basis, to fill that job.
    And so let me finish real quick. It is compassionate--by the way, it 
is important to enforce the border. President Fox understands he's got 
to enforce his border in the south of Mexico, by the way, from people 
coming up from the south. It is compassionate to recognize why most 
people are here, and they're here to work.
    It also makes sense to take pressure off the border by giving people 
a legal means, on a temporary basis, to come here, so they don't have to 
sneak across. Now, some of you all may be old enough to remember the 
days of Prohibition. I'm not. [Laughter] But remember, we illegalized 
whisky, and guess what? People found all kinds of ways to make it and to 
run it. NASCAR got started--positive thing that came out of all that. 
[Laughter]
    What you're having here is, you've created a--you've made it illegal 
for people to come here to work, that other Americans won't do, and 
guess what has happened? A horrible industry has grown up. You've got 
folks right here in Kentucky who are hiring people to do jobs Americans 
won't do, and you say, ``Show me your papers,'' and they've been forged, 
and the employer doesn't know about it.
    Part of making sure that immigration policy works is, you hold 
employers to account. But how can you hold them to account when they're 
being presented with forged documents? A whole forgery industry has 
grown up around this. We've got good, honorable people coming to work to 
put food on their tables, being stuffed in the back of 18-wheelers. 
We've got people being smuggled by what they call coyotes into the 
deserts and asked to walk across. And they're dying because they're 
trying to get to work, and they're being mistreated. In other words, 
this underground industry is creating a human condition that any 
American wouldn't accept. I mean, it's just not right.
    And so I think, yes, absolutely enforce the border but, at the same 
time, have a recognition that people are going to come here to work if 
an American won't do the job, so let's make it legal on a temporary 
basis. And I mean a temporary-workers' card that's tamper proof, that 
gives the employer satisfaction they're not breaking the law, that says, 
``You can come here for a period of time, and you go home.''
    Now, the big issue on this--besides enforcing the border--is 
amnesty. I am against amnesty. And the reason I am against amnesty--
amnesty means automatic citizenship--I'm against automatic citizenship, 
in all due respect to others in our country that believe it's a good 
thing. And I'm against it because all that, in my judgment, would do 
would cause another 8 to 11 million people to come here to try to be 
able to get the same--hopefully put the pressure on the system to create 
automatic citizenship. So I think the best solution is the one I just 
described. And it's an issue that's going to be important for the 
American people to conduct in a way that honors our values.
    We value--every life is important. We hold everybody up to respect. 
We should, you know? But we're going to enforce our laws at the same 
time. And I think you can do both in a compassionate way. I appreciate 
you asking that question. Thank you.
    Yes, ma'am.

[[Page 50]]

Education/No Child Left Behind Act

    Q. President Bush, I've been an educator in five States for 36 
years.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. Thank you. Right up there with national security, I think, is the 
issue of education of every single person in the United States. It's of 
crucial importance to our future. And given the challenges in the world, 
the fact that we have to keep this Nation secure in the future and that 
we have to deal with all sorts of threats--many of which we don't know--
what do you think we need to do better in education to provide a well-
educated citizenry that will meet those challenges and keep us secure?
    The President. No, I appreciate it. Listen, part of security is 
economic security. And one way to make sure we're economically secure in 
a competitive world is to make sure every child gets a good education. 
It's a huge issue for America to make sure the public school system 
functions.
    First, let me just say, the public school system is important for 
our country, and we want it to work. The public school system in the 
past has provided an avenue for success, and we've got to make sure we 
continue to do so.
    Let me start with grades K through 12. We passed what's called the 
No Child Left Behind Act. It is a really good piece of legislation--at 
least, in my humble opinion. And the reason why is, it says every child 
can learn, and we expect every child to learn. In other words, in return 
for Federal money--and we've increased spending for Title I kids up 
somewhere about 40-something percent, and elementary and secondary 
school programs gone up 41 percent--listen, I'm a local control guy. But 
I also am a results person, and I said we're spending a lot of money, 
particularly on poor kids. And I think it makes sense for the taxpayers 
to know whether or not those kids can read and write and add and 
subtract.
    And so we said, ``In return for receiving this money, you've got to 
test''--not the Federal Government is going to test--``You test. You 
design the test,'' Governors can figure out the right way to test, to 
determine whether or not children can read and write and add and 
subtract.
    You can't solve a problem until you diagnose it. And I was worried--
when I was the Governor of my own State, I was worried about a system 
that did not test. And so we were just kind of hoping things went well, 
and we're just going to shuffle through. And guess who gets shuffled 
through? Poor black kids get shuffled through. Young Latinos get 
shuffled through. You know, let's just kind of socially promote them. 
And so step one of making sure that the education system works is to 
measure to determine whether it is working.
    Step two is to correct problems early, before it's late. And so part 
of the No Child Left Behind bill is supplemental services money, per 
child, to help a child get up to speed at grade level by the appropriate 
time.
    Step three is to be able to use the accountability system to 
determine whether the curriculum you're using is working. I don't know 
if you've had these debates here in Kentucky, but I can remember them a 
while ago--we were debating what kind of reading instruction works, and 
it was a hot debate. Everybody had their opinion. The best way to 
determine what kind of reading program works is to measure to determine 
what kind of reading program works.
    Four, you've got to have your parents involved in your schools. The 
best way--one good way to get your parents involved is to put the scores 
out there for everybody to see. It's amazing how many people go to 
schools and say, ``Gosh, my kid is going to a fabulous school,'' until 
they see the score for the school next door may be better.
    Step five is--on the accountability system is what we call 
disaggregate results. Do you realize in the old accountability systems, 
they didn't bother to look at the African American kids stand-alone? 
They just kind of looked at everybody and assumed everybody was doing 
good. That is not good enough for the future of this country. If we 
expect every child to learn, we got to measure every child and analyze 
whether or not those children are learning.
    Step six is to make sure local folks run the schools. I can remember 
talking about No Child Left Behind. I saw a lot of my friends in Texas 
glaze over: ``He's going to Washington, and he's going to change. He's 
going

[[Page 51]]

to start telling us how to run the schools.'' Quite the contrary. The No 
Child Left Behind Act actually devolves power to the local level. All we 
say is, ``You measure. You show us. And if there's something wrong, you 
figure out how to correct it.'' You don't want Washington, DC, telling 
people how to run their schools. And it's working. No Child Left Behind 
is working.
    And how do we know? Because we're measuring. There's an achievement 
gap in America that's not right. And that's wrong. Not enough African 
American 4th grade kids could read at grade level. But it's increasing 
dramatically. Something is happening out there, thanks to good 
principals and good teachers and concerned parents and a system--and a 
system--that focuses on results. We've got to extend this to high 
schools.
    Now, we've got a problem when it comes to math and science. Our kids 
test fine. Math and science 8th grade test lousy--math and science in 
high school--and that's a problem. In my State of the Union, I'm going 
to address this. I'm going to hold a little back here. But in order for 
us to be competitive, we better make darn sure our future has got the 
skills to fill the jobs of the 21st century.
    It was one thing in the past to go to a public school, become 
literate, and then go out there and make a living with your back. That's 
not what's going to happen in the next 30 or 40 years. We've got to have 
children that are Internet savvy. We've got to have kids that are the 
best in science and engineering and math; otherwise, jobs are going to 
go to where the workforce is that got those skills. And that's the real 
challenge facing us.
    Fantastic question. Thanks. I'm pandering, I know, but it is really 
one of the most important challenges we face.
    And I'm looking forward to working with Congress to, one, build on 
No Child Left Behind. I will refuse to allow any weakening of 
accountability. I remember people saying to me, ``It's racist to 
measure.'' I'm telling you, it's racist not to measure. That's what I 
think. They say, ``You're teaching the test''--I'm telling you if a 
child can read, it can pass a reading comprehensive test. And so 
accountability coupled with a smart use of resources to focus on math 
and science, I think, is the proper strategy to help deal with an issue 
that is an important issue for the future of this country.
    Yes, ma'am.

National Economy/Social Security Reform

    Q. Hello, Mr. President. You just made a very poignant--about math 
and science. I am a--number one, I'd like to thank you for taking time 
to be here. I think all of us would reiterate that. I am a 
businessowner, and I am living the American Dream. And I would like to 
personally thank you for having a will that will not be broken, and the 
men and women of the Armed Forces that protect the freedoms that we have 
had and that we oftentimes take for granted and give us this way of 
life.
    So as a businessowner, though, my greatest challenge is, I worked 20 
years in the civil engineering arena before starting my companies. And 
the thing that is really frightening to me is our--we have a true 
weakness, a wave that's coming in both the engineering arena, the 
sciences, as well as construction--construction inspectors. There's 
going to be a huge--these baby boomers that are starting to retire, that 
knowledge base that's getting ready to go away, and there is no one to 
replace it that's compelling enough. What could you suggest that 
corporate America can do to help in this deficit?
    The President. No, I appreciate it. First, thanks for owning your 
own business. I love being the President of a country where people can--
I'm not saying you started with nothing, but, you know, have a dream and 
end up with owning your own business. As a matter of fact, the small-
business sector of America is really the job creators of America. Things 
are going good when it comes to job creation, 4.5 million new jobs since 
April of 2003. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the 
entrepreneurial spirit is strong and vibrant and alive.
    Corporate America--big corporate America does a good job of training 
people. It's in their interest. It would be helpful if they didn't have 
to spend so much time on training people by having a literate workforce 
to begin with--literate in math, literate in science, literate in all 
different aspects of

[[Page 52]]

what is going to be necessary to fill the skill base of the 21st 
century.
    One of my initiatives, and one that I hope you're taking advantage 
of here in Kentucky, is the use of the community college system. The 
community college system is really an interesting part of our education 
network and fabric because the community colleges are available--in 
other words, they're plentiful. They are affordable, relative to the 
different kinds of higher-education institutions. And interestingly 
enough, I'd like to describe them as they're market-driven, if run 
properly. In other words, their curriculum can adjust.
    And what you want is a community college system that works with the 
local industry and says--just take the health care industry. You know, 
we need a certain type of nurse practitioner, for example. Or we need x-
ray technologists, or whatever. And that you have a community college 
system that will help design the system that will enable a person to go 
from one industry to the next, where there's a bright future. So a lot 
of job training to make sure that people have the skills that you're 
talking about, they are transferable and trainable skills. But there 
needs to be the place where they can find those skills, particularly 
those who have already gotten out of college.
    Do you realize that between age 18 and 38, it's estimated that a 
person will change jobs 10 times, coming down the future, which means 
that there's a lot of activity in our economy, a lot of vibrancy. But 
the danger is, is that people aren't going to have the skills that fill 
the jobs that keep us competitive. And the community college system is a 
wonderful opportunity. The Federal Government can provide job training 
grants, which we do, 125 million last budget cycle--I'm asking for the 
same this budget cycle, if you don't mind, Members of Congress. 
[Laughter]
    Let me talk about small businesses real quick. In order for America 
to be competitive, not only do we need a skilled workforce, we've got to 
have certainty in our Tax Code. In order to get this economy going out 
of a recession and a stock market collapse and scandals, I had called 
upon Congress, and they delivered meaningful tax relief. The worst thing 
that could happen when you're trying to plan your small business, or any 
business, is to wonder what the taxes are going to be like. You know, 
when old George W. leaves, are the taxes going to go--I mean, how do we 
plan for the future? I strongly urge the United States Congress, this 
year, to make all the tax relief we passed permanent.
    People will say, ``Well, how are you going to balance the budget?'' 
Well, let me warn you that raising taxes doesn't necessarily equate to 
balancing budgets. As a matter of fact, in my judgment, if we raise the 
taxes, all that will mean is Congress will increase spending. The way to 
balance the budget is to set priorities and to hold people to account in 
Washington, which is what we're doing.
    Now, the biggest increases in the budget, however, are not the 
discretionary accounts--they're what's called mandatory accounts. And 
that's the increase of Medicare and Social Security. And this is a big 
issue that I know you didn't ask me about, but I'm going to tell you 
anyway, my opinion. Because you mentioned baby boomer, and that happens 
to be me. And a lot of people like me, my age, are fixing to retire. I'm 
going to be 62 in 2008, which is a convenient year to turn 62. 
[Laughter] And a lot of them--and there are fewer people paying into the 
system. And the benefits I've been promised are going up faster than the 
rate of inflation. And we can't afford it, and we need to do something 
about it now.
    One of the real drains and real threats to our economy is the 
inability of Congress to be able to confront the Medicare and Social 
Security issue, the unwillingness to take on the tough political job. I 
worked hard last year. I laid out a lot of solutions that I think will 
work. It didn't work. We've still got a problem. I'm going to keep 
talking about it. My job is to confront problems, as your President, and 
not just hope they go away. This one is not going away. And so we need 
to deal with the fact that a bunch of baby boomers are retiring with 
fewer workers paying into the system in order to make sure we're 
competitive, in order to make sure that we can balance the budgets.
    Now, Congress took a good step in cutting mandatory spending by $40 
billion over the next years. And that's important. By the way,

[[Page 53]]

that was just reforming the systems. It wasn't cutting meat out of the 
systems; it was reforming the systems so they work better. And then when 
you get back, you need to pass that--I know you will--in order to show 
the country that you've got the will necessary to take on the tough 
issues. And so, you didn't ask, and I told you. Anyway. [Laughter] Hope 
I can do something about it. I'm going to keep talking about it until we 
can get something done. It's really important. One of these days, more 
and more Americans are going to realize that the Congress has got to 
make something happen, otherwise we're going to pass on a disaster for 
our kids. And that's just the truth. And, you know, the truth wins out 
when it's all said and done. So don't be surprised if I keep talking 
about it.
    Yes, sir, and then I'll get the little guy up there.

Health Care Reform

    Q. Mr. President, we'd like to talk about health care a little bit.
    The President. Okay.
    Q. As a small-business owner, like a lot of people in this room, we 
look at the dramatic cost increase that has been passed along, and that 
we all really struggle with: How do we provide our employees with health 
insurance that's comprehensive? And we all view you as a very pragmatic 
problem solver, and we'd like you to take this one on, sir.
    The President. Okay, I am. Thank you. Here's my view of the role of 
the Federal Government. The Federal Government needs to help the poor, 
and we do that through a program called Medicaid. I was just talking to 
the Governor today about how best to get the Medicaid program in 
Kentucky able to meet the needs, both budget needs, but more 
importantly, the social needs.
    The Federal Government made a commitment when Lyndon Baines Johnson 
was the President that we would take care of the elderly when it came to 
health care, and that's why it was important to reform Medicare, to make 
sure the Medicare system was a modern system.
    There's two different issues in Medicare. One is the long-term 
structural problem of paying for Medicare as more baby boomers retire 
and fewer people paying in the system. But the short-term issue was to 
have a Medicare system that frankly was not modern enough. If you're 
going to make a commitment to your seniors, you've got to make sure the 
seniors have got modern medicine. And part of modern medicine was 
prescription drugs.
    And so the new Medicare law that came into being in January of this 
year, for the first time incorporates prescription drug coverage 
available in Medicare, as a modernization of the system. The rest of the 
people ought to be encouraged to have affordable health care that really 
does put the consumer and the provider in touch with each other, I guess 
is the best way to put it. We need a more consumer-driven pricing 
mechanism in health care in order to be able to properly deal with the 
inflation you're talking about. One aspect of it is, people make 
purchases in the health care without really realizing there may be other 
options available to them.
    We need to make sure we expand information technology. I am told--a 
lot of health care guys here can tell you--that the modernization of 
health care, when it comes to information technology, should save up to 
20 to 25 percent of cost, as well as reducing a lot of medical errors. 
By that I mean, everybody ought to have an electronic medical record 
that you're able to transfer from provider to provider. You know, the 
day of a person carrying these thick files of medical paper, and most of 
the time it's hard to read because doctors can't write hardly at all, 
and--but it needs to be modernized. There's a lot of inefficiency, what 
I'm telling you, in the health care field, particularly when it comes to 
information sharing.
    Thirdly, it seems like to me, and this is a--health care is a 
particular problem for small businesses, and I fully understand that. 
It's becoming an unmanageable cost, putting our CEOs of small businesses 
in the unfortunate position of saying, ``I can't pay for you anymore.''
    Three ideas. First, health savings accounts, which is a new product 
passed as part of the new Medicare bill, which is an evolving product 
that enables a business and/or worker to be able to buy a catastrophic 
plan and put

[[Page 54]]

the incidental costs of medicine into the plan on a tax-free basis. 
That's a lot of words. Look into it, is what I'm telling you. And I 
think Congress needs to expand HSAs and their use and their tax 
advantages, relative to corporate taxation when it comes to health care. 
Look at them. I'm not kidding you. Take a look at health savings 
accounts. Any small-business owner in Kentucky ought to be looking--and 
Indiana ought to be looking.
    Secondly, we must allow small businesses to pool risk across 
jurisdictional boundaries. These are called association health plans. In 
other words, a restauranteur in Kentucky ought to be allowed to put his 
or her employees in the same risk pool as a restauranteur in Texas in 
order to be able to get the economies of sharing risk, just like big 
companies are able to do. These are called association health plans.
    Thirdly, one of the reasons why the cost of medicine is going up and 
the availability of medicine is declining, particularly in specialty 
fields like ob-gyn, is because of lawsuits. Make no mistake about it, 
medical liability lawsuits is driving up the cost of your insurance. 
Now, when I went to Washington, I said, ``This is a local issue. This is 
something the Governors ought to figure out how to solve,'' until I 
began to analyze the cost of lawsuits on the Federal budget. And those 
costs go up as a result of increased premiums and what's called the 
defensive practice of medicine. If you're living in a society that's got 
a lot of lawsuits and you're worried about getting sued, you're going to 
practice extra medicine to make sure that if you do get sued, that you 
can say in the court of law, ``I did not only everything expected, I did 
double what was expected, Your Honor. I'm innocent.''
    So the defensive practice of medicine runs up the cost that you pay 
at the Federal level. And so I decided to do something about it and 
proposed a piece of legislation--it got out of the House, and I want to 
thank you all for passing it--that says, ``If you're injured, you're 
going to be taken care of,'' but we're not going to let these frivolous 
lawsuits run up the cost of medicine. There ought to be reasonable 
limits. There ought to be reasonableness in the legal system so that the 
small-business owner can get affordable health care.
    And so there are three ideas that should address--I think it will 
address--your concerns. There is a philosophical struggle in Washington 
on this issue. There are some really decent people who believe that the 
Federal Government ought to be the decider of health care--not just for 
the elderly, not just for the poor, but for all people. I strongly 
disagree. I believe the best health care system is one in which there is 
a direct connect between provider and customer, where there is 
transparency in the pricing system, where there is an information system 
that is modern and flows, and in which people are held to account for 
medical errors but not to the point where the cost of medicine has 
gotten out of control. Good question.
    Little guy, how old are you?

Public Support for the War on Terror/Responsible Debate

    Q. Seven.
    The President. See. That's good. [Laughter]
    Q. How can people help on the war on terror?
    The President. Well, that's the hardest question I've had all day. 
[Laughter]
    First of all, I expect there to be an honest debate about Iraq, and 
welcome it. People can help, however, by making sure the tone of this 
debate is respectful and is mindful about what messages out of the 
country can do to the morale of our troops.
    I fully expect in a democracy--I expect and, frankly, welcome the 
voices of people saying, you know, ``Mr. President, you shouldn't have 
made that decision,'' or, you know, ``You should have done it a better 
way.'' I understand that. What I don't like is when somebody said, ``He 
lied,'' or, ``They're in there for oil,'' or, ``They're doing it because 
of Israel.'' That's the kind of debate that basically says the mission 
and the sacrifice were based on false premise. It's one thing to have a 
philosophical difference, and I can understand people being abhorrent 
about war. War is terrible. But one way people can help as we're coming 
down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that 
rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's

[[Page 55]]

way and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an 
enemy.
    So that was a good question. Thank you.
    Let's see, yes, ma'am. I'm running out of time here. You're paying 
me a lot of money, and I've got to get back to work. [Laughter]

Progress in Iraq

    Q. Thank you for taking the time with us.
    The President. I'm thrilled to be here.
    Q. Along with the 7-year-old, my question is, how is it that the 
people of Iraq, when polled, have more hope about their future than the 
rest of the world has, with regard to what we're doing in Iraq? How can 
we get the positive things that are happening in Iraq--how can we get 
everybody to know what's happening out there?
    The President. Well, I appreciate that question. And obviously, I've 
thought long and hard about it. Part of my job is to make sure and to 
keep explaining and explaining and explaining in as realistic a way as 
possible about why we're there and why it's necessary, in order to 
remind the American people about the stakes involved. That's why I've 
come here, for example.
    You don't want your Government running your press. That would be the 
worst thing that could happen. That would mean we have just fallen prey 
to exactly that which we're trying to liberate people from in Iraq. And 
my own judgment is that action on the ground will win the day. I mean, 
results will ultimately trump kind of the short-term glimpse at things. 
So my job and the job of those of us in the administration, the job of 
those who have made the decision to go in there--not just me but Members 
of Congress that voted to support our military must continue to explain 
and keep the American people engaged.
    I am not surprised that Iraqis feel more confident about the future 
than Americans do. They were the ones who lived under the tyrant. They 
were the ones whose families got gassed by his chemical weapons. They 
were the ones who, if they spoke out, were harassed by a police state. 
It must be a magnificent feeling to be liberated from the clutches of a 
tyrant.
    Secondly, much of life is normal in Iraq. And you talk to people who 
go there, and they come back and tell you that change is significant and 
palpable. People can see the difference; there's vibrancy. What we see, 
of course, is isolated incidents of terror. And as I mentioned earlier 
to you, it hurts--it hits our conscience. America is a wonderful country 
because we're a country of conscience. It bothers us to see not only our 
own troops die but it bothers us to see an Iraqi kid killed. That's the 
nature of our society; we don't treat life in a cavalier way. We believe 
in America--and it's one of the really beautiful things about America--
that every life is precious. That's what we believe. And so I'm not 
surprised that there is a different attitude inside the country than our 
own.
    Ultimately, here in America, success on the ground in Iraq--and I've 
defined what victory means before--will buoy the spirits of our people. 
And in the meantime, I've got to go to places like Louisville, Kentucky, 
and sit down and spend time giving it my best shot to describe to you my 
decision-making process, the philosophy behind which this Government is 
operating, and my optimism about our capacity to achieve our objective.
    And my deep belief, my firm and deep belief is that the sacrifices 
being made today will inure to the benefit of our children and 
grandchildren. On the one hand, we have got to protect America, and 
we're working hard to do so. Every day you've got good citizens in your 
country making sacrifices to either find an enemy that's hiding 
somewhere or picking up information that we can use to protect us. In 
the long run, we have got to have faith in a great system of government 
that, over the ages, has proven to be the foundation for peace.
    Listen, I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. 
May God bless you all.

Note: The President spoke at 1:18 p.m. in the Kentucky International 
Convention Center. In his remarks, he referred to Joe Reagan, president 
and chief executive officer, Greater Louisville, Inc.; Gov. Ernie 
Fletcher and Lt. Gov. Stephen B. Pence of Kentucky; Mayor Jerry E. 
Abramson of Louisville, KY; former President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; 
Ayman Al-Zawahiri, founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and senior Al 
Qaida associate; Gen. John P. Abizaid, USA, combatant commander, U.S. 
Central Command; Gen. George W.

[[Page 56]]

Casey, Jr., USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Usama 
bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; Abu Zubaydah, 
senior Al Qaida associate, who was captured in Pakistan on March 28, 
2002; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader responsible for 
planning the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, who was captured in 
Pakistan on March 1, 2003; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; 
and President Vicente Fox of Mexico.