[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 13 (Monday, April 3, 2006)]
[Pages 586-604]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to Freedom House and a Question-and-Answer Session

March 29, 2006

    The President. Thank you. Please be seated. I shouldn't be so 
instructive to the diplomatic corps. [Laughter] Peter, thank you for 
your warm introduction. Thank you for your commitment to freedom. It 
turns out freedom runs pretty deep in Peter's family. I don't know if 
you know this or not, but his son is a Marine First Lieutenant named 
Elliot Ackerman. He fought in the battle of Fallujah. I know you're 
proud of your son, and I'm proud to be the Commander in Chief of men and 
women who volunteer to defend our own freedom.
    I appreciate very much the men and women of Freedom House. For more 
than 60 years, this organization has been a tireless champion for 
liberty. You've been a clear voice for the oppressed across the world. 
At Freedom House, you understand that the only path to lasting peace is 
the expansion of freedom and liberty.
    Free societies are peaceful societies. When governments are 
accountable to their own citizens, when people are free to speak and 
assemble, when minorities are protected, then justice prevails. And so 
does the cause of peace.
    Freedom House was founded on the principle that no nation is exempt 
from the demands of human dignity. And you're carrying that message 
across the world, from Africa to China to Belarus and beyond. At Freedom 
House, you also understand free societies do not take root overnight, 
especially in countries that suffer from decades of tyranny and 
repression. You understand that free elections are an instrument of 
change; yet they're only the first step. So as you press for democratic 
change across the world, you're helping new democracies build free 
institutions they need to overcome the legacies of tyranny and 
dictatorship.
    I want to thank you for your vital work. You're making a significant 
contribution to the security of our country. I'm also honored that we've 
got distinguished members of the legislative body with us, particularly 
Senators--John Warner, who is the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee; Senator Dick Lugar, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee; and, of course, Senator Ted Stevens. I thank the 
Members from the House and Senate who have joined these distinguished 
Senators. I appreciate you taking time to come and listen to me. Just 
listen to me a little more often. [Laughter]
    I particularly want to pay homage to Ambassador Max Kampelman. Thank 
you very much. I was telling the Ambassador, right before I came over I 
was having a little visit with my Chief of Staff-to-be, Josh Bolten. It 
turns out that Josh's dad and the Ambassador were lifelong friends. And 
as I came over here, he said, ``You make sure that you say hello to one 
of the finest men our country has ever produced.'' So, Mr. Chairman, on 
behalf of a grateful President and a grateful Chief of Staff-to-be, 
thank you for serving our country.
    I appreciate the other members of the Freedom House Board of 
Trustees, and I thank the diplomatic corps for joining us as well.
    We meet at a time of war but also at a moment of great hope. In our 
world and due in part to our efforts, freedom is taking root in places 
where liberty was unimaginable a couple of years ago. Just 25 years ago, 
at the start of the 1980s, there were only 45 democracies on the face of 
the Earth. Today, Freedom House reports there are 122 democracies, and 
more people now live in liberty than ever before.
    The advance of freedom is the story of our time, and we're seeing 
new chapters written before our eyes. Since the beginning of 2005, we've 
witnessed remarkable democratic changes across the globe. The people of 
Afghanistan have elected their first democratic Parliament in more than 
a generation. The people of Lebanon have recovered their independence 
and chosen their leaders in free elections. The people of Kyrgyzstan 
have driven a corrupt regime from power and voted for democratic change. 
The people of Liberia have overcome decades of violence and are now led 
by the first woman elected as a head of state in any African nation. And 
the courageous people of Iraq have gone to the polls not once, not 
twice, but three times, choosing a transitional government, a

[[Page 587]]

democratic Constitution, and a new Government under that Constitution.
    Each of these countries still faces enormous challenges that will 
take patience and the support of the international community to 
overcome. Yet Freedom House has declared, the year 2005 was one of the 
most successful years for freedom since the Freedom House began 
measuring world freedom more than 30 years ago. From Kabul to Baghdad to 
Beirut and beyond, freedom's tide is rising, and we should not rest, and 
we must not rest, until the promise of liberty reaches every people and 
every nation.
    In our history, most democratic progress has come with the end of a 
war. After the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the 
collapse of communism in the cold war, scores of nations cleared away 
the rubble of tyranny and laid the foundations of freedom and democracy.
    Today, the situation is very different. Liberty is advancing not in 
a time of peace but in the midst of a war, at a moment when a global 
movement of great brutality and ambition is fighting freedom's progress 
with all the hateful violence they can muster. In this new century, the 
advance of freedom is a vital element of our strategy to protect the 
American people and to secure the peace for generations to come. We're 
fighting the terrorists across the world because we know that if America 
were not fighting this enemy in other lands, we'd be facing them here in 
our own land.
    On September the 11th, 2001, we saw the violence and the hatred of a 
vicious enemy and the future that they intend for us. That day I made a 
decision: America will not wait to be attacked again. We will confront 
this mortal danger. We will stay on the offensive. America will defend 
our freedom.
    We're pursuing the terrorists on many battlefronts. Today, the 
central front in the war on terror is Iraq. This month I've given a 
series of speeches on recent events in Iraq and how we're adapting our 
approach to deal with the events on the ground. At George Washington 
University, I reported on the progress we have made in training the 
Iraqi security forces, the growing number of Iraqi units that are taking 
the lead in the fight, the territory we're handing over to them, and the 
performance they turned in after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in 
Samarra.
    Last week in Cleveland, I told the American people about the 
northern Iraqi city of Tall `Afar, which was once a key base of 
operations for Al Qaida and is now a free city that gives us reason to 
hope for a free Iraq. I explained how the story of Tall `Afar gives me 
confidence in our strategy, because in that city, we see the outlines of 
the Iraq we've been fighting for, a free and secure people who are 
getting back on their feet, who are participating in government and 
civic life, and are becoming allies in the fight against the terrorists.
    Today I'm going to discuss the stakes in Iraq and our efforts to 
help the Iraqi people overcome past divisions and form a lasting 
democracy, and why it is vital to the security of the American people 
that we help them succeed.
    In the wake of recent violence in Iraq, many Americans are asking 
legitimate questions: Why are Iraqis so divided? And did America cause 
the instability by removing Saddam Hussein from power? They ask, after 
three elections, why are the Iraqi people having such a hard time coming 
together? And can a country with so many divisions ever build a stable 
democracy? They ask why we can't bring our troops home now and let the 
Iraqis sort out their differences on their own.
    These are fair questions, and today I'll do my best to answer them. 
I'll discuss some of the reasons for the instability we're seeing in 
Iraq, why democracy is the only force that can overcome these divisions, 
why I believe the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in freedom and 
peace, and why the security of our Nation depends on the success of a 
free Iraq.
    Today, some Americans ask whether removing Saddam caused the 
divisions and instability we're now seeing. In fact, much of the 
animosity and violence we now see is the legacy of Saddam Hussein. He is 
a tyrant who exacerbated sectarian divisions to keep himself in power. 
Iraq is a nation with many ethnic and religious and sectarian and 
regional and tribal divisions. Before Saddam Hussein, Iraqis from 
different communities managed to live together. Even today, many Iraqi 
tribes have both Sunni and Shi'a branches.

[[Page 588]]

And in many small towns with mixed populations, there's often only one 
mosque, where Sunni and Shi'a worship together. Intermarriage is also 
common with mixed families that include Arabs and Kurds and Sunnis and 
Shi'a and Turkmen and Assyrians and Chaldeans.
    To prevent these different groups from coming to challenge his 
regime, Saddam Hussein undertook a deliberate strategy of maintaining 
control by dividing the Iraqi people. He stayed on top by brutally 
repressing different Iraqi communities and pitting them one against the 
other. He forced hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of their homes, 
using expulsion as a weapon to subdue and punish any group that resisted 
his rule. By displacing Iraqi communities and dividing the Iraqi people, 
he sought to establish himself as the only force that could hold the 
country together.
    In Saddam's campaign of repression and division, no Iraqi group was 
spared. In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein unleashed a brutal ethnic 
cleansing operation against Kurds in northern Iraq. Kurdish towns and 
villages were destroyed. Tens of thousands of Kurds disappeared or were 
killed. In his effort to terrorize the Kurds into submission, Saddam 
dropped chemical weapons on scores of Kurdish villages. In one village 
alone, a town called Halabja, his regime killed thousands of innocent 
men and women and children, using mustard gas and nerve agents. Saddam 
also forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of Kurds from their homes, 
and then he moved Arabs into those homes and onto the properties of the 
people who were forced to leave. As a result of his strategy, deep 
tensions persist to this day.
    Saddam also waged a brutal campaign of suppression and genocide 
against the Shi'a in the south of Iraq. He targeted prominent Shi'a 
clerics for assassination. He destroyed Shi'a mosques and holy sites. He 
killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. He piled their 
bodies into mass graves. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Saddam 
brutally crushed a Shi'a uprising. Many Shi'a fled to the marshes of 
southern Iraq. They hid in the wetlands that could not be easily reached 
by Saddam's army.
    The wetlands, by the way, were also home to the Marsh Arabs, an 
ancient civilization that traces its roots back 5,000 years. So Saddam 
destroyed the Marsh Arabs and those who hid in the marshes by draining 
the marshes where they lived. In less than a decade, the majority of 
these lush wetlands were turned into barren desert, and most of the 
Marsh Arabs were driven from their ancestral home. It is no wonder that 
deep divisions and scars exist in much of the Shi'a population.
    Saddam also oppressed his fellow Sunnis. One of the great 
misperceptions about Iraq is that every Sunni enjoyed a privileged 
status under Saddam's regime. In truth, Saddam trusted few outside his 
family and his tribe. He installed his sons and his brothers and his 
cousins in key positions. Almost everyone was considered suspect, and 
often those suspicions led to brutal violence.
    In one instance, Saddam's security services tortured to death a 
pilot from a prominent Sunni tribe and then dumped his headless body in 
front of his family's house. It caused riots that he then brutally 
suppressed. In the mid-1990s, Saddam rounded up scores of prominent 
Sunni economists and lawyers and retired army officers and former 
government officials. Many were never heard from again.
    It is hard to overstate the effects of Saddam's brutality on the 
Iraqi nation. Here's what one marine recalls when he was on the streets 
of the Iraqi capital. He said, quote, ``I had an Iraqi citizen come up 
to me. She opened her mouth, and she had no tongue. She was pointing at 
the statue. There were people with no fingers waving at the statue of 
Saddam, telling us he tortured them. People were showing us scars on 
their back.'' Iraq is a nation that is physically and emotionally 
scarred by three decades of Saddam's tyranny, and these wounds will take 
time to heal. As one Marsh Arab put it, ``Saddam did everything he could 
to kill us. You cannot recover from that right away.''
    These are the kinds of tensions Iraqis are dealing with today. They 
are the divisions that Saddam aggravated through deliberate policies of 
ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence. As one Middle East scholar has 
put it, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was ``a society

[[Page 589]]

slowly and systematically poisoned by political terror. The toxic 
atmosphere in today's Iraq bears witness to his terrible handiwork.''
    The argument that Iraq was stable under Saddam and that stability is 
now in danger because we removed him is wrong. While liberation has 
brought its own set of challenges, Saddam Hussein's removal from power 
was the necessary first step in restoring stability and freedom to the 
people of Iraq.
    Today, some Americans are asking why the Iraqi people are having 
such a hard time building a democracy. The reason is that the terrorists 
and former regime elements are exploiting the wounds inflicted under 
Saddam's tyranny. The enemies of a free Iraq are employing the same 
tactics Saddam used--killing and terrorizing the Iraqi people in an 
effort to foment sectarian division.
    For the Saddamists, provoking sectarian strife is business as usual. 
And we know from the terrorists' own words that they're using the same 
tactics with the goal of inciting a civil war. Two years ago, we 
intercepted a letter to Usama bin Laden from the terrorist Zarqawi, in 
which he explains his plan to stop the advance of democracy in Iraq. 
Zarqawi wrote: ``If we succeed in dragging the Shi'a into the arena of 
sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis 
as they feel imminent danger. The only solution is for us to strike the 
religious and military and other cadres among the Shi'a with blow after 
blow.''
    The terrorists and Saddamists have been brutal in the pursuit of 
this strategy. They target innocent civilians; they blow up police 
officers; they attack mosques; and they commit other acts of horrific 
violence for the cameras. Their objective is to stop Iraq's democratic 
progress. They tried to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They tried to 
stop millions of Iraqis from voting in the January 2005 elections. They 
tried to stop Sunnis from participating in the October referendum on the 
Constitution. And they tried to stop millions from voting in the 
December elections to form a Government under that Constitution.
    And in each case, they failed. With every election, participation 
was larger and broader than the one that came before. And in December, 
almost 12 million people--more than 75 percent of eligible voters--
defied the terrorists to cast their ballots. With their votes, the Iraqi 
people have spoken and made their intentions clear: They want to live in 
liberty and unity, and they're determined to chart their own destiny.
    Now the elements of a free Iraq are trying to stop the--the enemies 
of a free Iraq are trying to stop the formation of unity government. 
They've learned they cannot succeed by facing coalition and Iraqi forces 
on the battlefield, so they've taken their violence to a new level by 
attacking one of Shi'a Islam's holiest sites. They blew up the Golden 
Mosque in Samarra in the hope that this outrageous act would provoke the 
Shi'a masses into widespread reprisals which would provoke Sunnis to 
retaliate and drag the nation into a civil war.
    Yet despite massive provocations, Iraq has not descended into civil 
war. Most Iraqis have not turned to violence. The Iraqi security forces 
have not broken up into sectarian groups waging war against each other. 
Instead, Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurdish soldiers stood together to protect 
religious sites, enforce a curfew, and restore civil order.
    In recent weeks, these forces passed another important test when 
they successfully protected millions of Shi'a pilgrims who marched to 
the cities of Karbala and Najaf for an annual religious holiday. In 
2004, the terrorists launched coordinated strikes against the pilgrims, 
killing scores of innocent worshipers. This year, the pilgrimage was 
largely peaceful, thanks to the courage and the unity of the Iraqi 
security forces. In the midst of today's sectarian tension, the ability 
of Iraqis to hold a peaceful gathering by millions of people is a 
hopeful sign for the future of Iraq.
    In these last few weeks, we've also seen terrible acts of violence. 
The kidnapings and brutal executions and beheadings are very disturbing. 
There's no place in a free and democratic Iraq for armed groups 
operating outside the law. It's vital to the security of a free Iraq 
that the police are free of militia influence. And so we're working with 
Iraqi leaders to find and remove leaders from the national police who 
show evidence of loyalties to militias. We're partnering U.S. battalions 
with Iraqi national police to teach them

[[Page 590]]

about the role of a professional police force in a democratic society. 
We're making clear to Iraqi leaders that reining in the illegal militias 
must be a top priority of Iraq's new government when it takes office.
    The violence we're seeing is showing the Iraqi leaders the danger of 
sectarian division and underscoring the urgency of forming a national 
unity government. Today, Iraqi leaders from every major ethnic and 
religious community are working to construct the path forward. Our 
Ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad, is helping Iraq's leaders reach out 
across political and religious and sectarian lines, so they can form a 
government that will earn the trust and the confidence of all Iraqis.
    Putting aside differences to build a democracy that reflects the 
country's diversity is a difficult thing to do. It's even more difficult 
when enemies are working daily to stop your progress and divide your 
nation. Yet Iraqis are rising to the moment. They deserve enormous 
credit for their courage and their determination to succeed.
    Iraqi leaders are coming to grips with an important truth: The only 
practical way to overcome the divisions of three decades of tyranny is 
through democracy. Democracy is the only form of government where every 
person has a say in the governance of a country. It's the only form of 
government that will yield to a peaceful Middle East. So Iraqis are 
working to overcome past divisions and build a free society that 
protects the rights of all its citizens. They're undertaking this 
progress with just a year's experience in democratic politics.
    Many of the institutions and traditions we take for granted here in 
America--from party structures to centuries' experience with peaceful 
transitions of power--are new to Iraq, so we should not be surprised if 
Iraqis make mistakes or face setbacks in their efforts to build a 
government that unites the Iraqi people.
    We're beginning to see the signs of progress. Earlier this month, 
Iraqi leaders announced they had reached an agreement on the need to 
address critical issues, such as de-Baathification in the operation of 
security ministries and the distribution of oil revenues, in the spirit 
of national unity. They agreed to form a new national security council 
that will improve coordination within the government on these and other 
difficult issues. This council will include representatives from all 
major political groups, as well as leaders from Iraq's executive, 
judicial, and legislative branches. As a result of this council's 
considered advice, the Iraqi Government that emerges will be more 
effective and more unified.
    Another important sign of progress is that Saddam Hussein is now 
being called to account for his crimes by the free citizens of a free 
Iraq. Millions of Iraqis are seeing their independent judiciary in 
action. At the former dictator's trial, Iraqis recently saw something 
that's got to be truly amazing to them. When Saddam Hussein stood up and 
began to give a political speech, the presiding judge gaveled him down. 
Saddam growled at the judge, declaring, ``I'm the head of state.'' The 
judge replied, ``You used to be the head of the state. And now you're a 
defendant.'' Three years ago, any Iraqi who addressed Saddam in this way 
would have been killed on the spot. Now the former dictator is answering 
to a judge instead of meting out arbitrary justice, and Iraqis are 
replacing the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.
    Finally, some Americans are asking if it's time to pull out our 
troops and leave the Iraqis to settle their own differences. I know the 
work in Iraq is really difficult, but I strongly feel it's vital to the 
security of our country. The terrorists are killing and maiming and 
fighting desperately to stop the formation of a unity government because 
they understand what a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East means 
for them and their ideology. They know that when freedom sets root in 
Iraq, it will be a mortal blow to their aspirations to dominate the 
region and advance their hateful vision. So they're determined to stop 
the advance of a free Iraq, and we must be equally determined to stop 
them.
    The irony is that the enemy seems to have a much clearer sense of 
what's at stake than some of the politicians here in Washington, DC. One 
Member of Congress who has proposed an immediate withdrawal of American 
forces in Iraq recently explained that what would happen after American 
forces pulled

[[Page 591]]

out was this: He said, ``They'll fight each other; somebody will win; 
they'll settle it for themselves.'' While it might sound attractive to 
some, it would have disastrous consequences for American security. The 
Iraqi Government is still in transition, and the Iraqi security forces 
are still gathering capacity. If we leave Iraq before they're capable of 
defending their own democracy, the terrorists will win. They will 
achieve their stated goal. This is what the terrorists have told us they 
want to achieve. They will turn Iraq into a safe haven. They will seek 
to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. They will use Iraq 
as a base to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East. They 
will use Iraq as a base from which to launch further attacks against the 
United States of America.
    Mindful of recent history, I ask you to think about what happened in 
Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the United States helped Afghan freedom 
fighters drive the Soviet Red Army from Kabul, and once the Soviets 
withdrew, we decided our work was finished and left the Afghans to 
defend themselves. Soon the terrorists moved in to fill the vacuum. They 
took over the country; they turned it into a safe haven from which they 
planned and launched the attacks of September the 11th.
    If we leave Iraq before the job is done, the terrorists will move in 
and fill the vacuum, and they will use that failed state to bring murder 
and destruction to freedom-loving nations.
    I know some in our country disagree with my decision to liberate 
Iraq. Whatever one thought about the decision to remove Saddam from 
power, I hope we should all agree that pulling our troops out 
prematurely would be a disaster. If we were to let the terrorists drive 
us out of Iraq, we would signal to the world that America cannot be 
trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by 
betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the 
tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve and tighten 
their repressive grip. The global terrorist movement would be emboldened 
and more dangerous than ever. For the security of our citizens and the 
peace of the world, we will not turn the future of Iraq over to the 
followers of a failed dictator or to evil men like bin Laden and 
Zarqawi.
    America will leave Iraq, but we will not retreat from Iraq. We will 
leave because Iraqi forces have gained in strength, not because 
America's will has weakened. We will complete the mission in Iraq, 
because the security of the American people is linked to the success in 
Iraq.
    We're pursuing a clear strategy for victory. Victory requires an 
integrated strategy: political, economic, and security. These three 
elements depend on and reinforce one another. By working with Iraqi 
leaders to build the foundations of a strong democracy, we will ensure 
they have the popular support they need to defeat the terrorists. By 
going after the terrorists, coalition and Iraqi forces are creating the 
conditions that allow the Iraqi people to begin rebuilding their lives 
and their country. By helping Iraqis with economic reconstruction, we're 
giving every citizen a real stake in the success of a free Iraq. And as 
all this happens, the terrorists, those who offer nothing but death and 
destruction, are becoming isolated from the population.
    I wish I could tell you the violence in Iraq is waning and that all 
the tough days in the struggle are behind us. They're not. There will be 
more tough fighting ahead with difficult days that test the patience and 
the resolve of our country. Yet we can have faith in the final outcome 
because we've seen freedom overcome the darkness of tyranny and terror 
and secure the peace before. And in this century, freedom is going to 
prevail again.
    In 1941, the year the Freedom House began its work, the future of 
freedom seemed bleak. There were about a dozen lonely democracies in the 
world. The Soviet Union was led by the tyrant Stalin, who massacred 
millions. Hitler was leading Nazi Germany in a campaign to dominate 
Europe and eliminate the Jewish people from the face of the Earth. An 
imperial Japan launched a brutal surprise attack on America. Today, six 
decades later, the Soviet Empire is no more; Germany and Japan are free 
nations, and they are allies in the cause of peace; and the majority of 
the world's governments are democracies.

[[Page 592]]

    There were doubters six decades ago who said that freedom could not 
prevail. History has proved them wrong. In this young century, the 
doubters are still with us but so is the unstoppable power of freedom. 
In Afghanistan and Iraq and other nations, that power is replacing 
tyranny with hope, and no one should bet against it.
    One of the greatest forces for freedom in the history of the world 
is the United States Armed Forces. In the past 4\1/2\ years, our troops 
have liberated more people than at any time since World War II. Because 
of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform, 50 million people in 
Iraq and Afghanistan have tasted freedom, and their liberation has 
inspired millions more across the broader Middle East to believe that 
freedom is theirs as well.
    This is going to be freedom's century. Thank you for giving me a 
chance to come and visit with you. May God bless. [Applause]
    Okay, sit down, please. All right, I'll be glad to answer some 
questions.
    Yes, sir. Yes, please.

Millennium Challenge Account

    Q. I have a question. I am from Mali. A couple of years ago, the 
Millennium Challenge Account was created to help countries that were 
already on the path to democracy. Looking at a country like Mali in West 
Africa, where just yesterday we celebrated our 15 years of freedom--we 
haven't seen any money yet. [Laughter]
    The President. I like a good lobbyist. [Laughter]
    Q. Well, isn't it cheaper and easier for people--people from Mali 
and all throughout Africa, who already are in love with America, and 
isn't it easier politically to you and show to your critics that, look, 
in Iraq, maybe we need some [inaudible]--we're in there, but in places 
like Mali that have freedom, we can step in and help them without 
expecting something back? Thank you.
    The President. No, I appreciate that. I--he's referring to a foreign 
policy initiative of mine called the Millennium Challenge Account. I 
want to thank the Members of Congress who have been strong supporters of 
the Millennium Challenge Account. I would hope they would continue to 
support the Millennium Challenge Account.
    The Millennium Challenge Account, the idea behind it was, is that 
nations are capable of defeating corruption; they are capable of 
investing in health and education for their citizens; and they are 
capable about supporting market-oriented economies. If you believe that, 
then why shouldn't our aid say, you get aid in return for fighting 
corruption, investing in the health and education of your citizens, and 
putting market-oriented economic measures in place?
    We started the process recognizing that a lot of people would raise 
their hands, including Mali, by saying we'll start with the poorest 
nations first. I must confess that our Millennium Challenge Account, 
while funded in its first year, was a little slow to get going. We've 
changed the structure to make sure money gets out the door so that other 
nations such as Mali will be eligible for application and consideration.
    I can remember when I first put in the Millennium Challenge Account. 
People were somewhat aghast that the United States would dare ask for 
conditions for its money. Those are the defeatists in the world, those 
who believe that certain people can't fight corruption. We believe 
opposite of that in America. We believe in high standards, and the 
taxpayers sure believe in accountability for our foreign dollars.
    So thank you for bringing it up. I appreciate a man who is willing 
to stand up and defend his country in front of the President and all the 
cameras. [Laughter]
    Yes, sir.

Liberia/Sudan

    Q. Mr. President, I'm from The Economist magazine. I understand, Mr. 
President, you met with President Obasanjo of Nigeria today. I wonder if 
you could tell us what you discussed and also if----
    The President. No, but keep going. [Laughter]
    Q. Okay. Are you now confident----
    The President. I can tell you what I discussed.
    Q. Are you now confident that Charles Taylor, the recently 
recaptured Liberian warlord, will stand trial?

[[Page 593]]

    The President. I am much more confident today than I was yesterday. 
[Laughter] This is what we call embedding. [Laughter] I talked to the 
President about a variety of things, one of which, of course, was 
Charles Taylor. There is a process to get Charles Taylor to the court in 
the Netherlands. Such a process will require a United Nations Security 
Council resolution. Secretary Rice, who was in the meeting, told me that 
she thought that might happen relatively quickly. And so therefore, I 
think he is headed for where he belongs, which is trial.
    I spoke to President Sirleaf about this issue as well. She was 
deeply concerned that Charles Taylor could be in a position to disturb 
this young democracy. I must tell you that I was most impressed by the 
leader from Liberia. I think America is going to be--should be very 
anxious to work with her and help this country overcome years of 
violence.
    But I do believe that he is headed for trial. We certainly will do 
our efforts in the diplomatic channels to see to it that that's the 
case.
    We also talked about Sudan. I'm deeply worried about the human 
conditions in Darfur. Ours is a government that spoke out about 
genocide, and we meant it. I thanked President Obasanjo for the AU 
presence in the Sudan. I told him, however, I did not think the presence 
was robust enough. I do believe there needs to be a blue helmeting of 
not only the AU forces but additional forces with a NATO overlay. And 
the reason I believe that NATO ought to be a part of the operation is 
twofold: One, to provide logistical and command and control and airlift 
capability but also to send a clear signal to parties involved that the 
West is determined to help a settlement--to help affect in a settlement, 
that this is serious business, that we're just not playing a diplomatic 
holding game, but that when we say ``genocide,'' we mean that the 
genocide needs to be stopped.
    Secondly, we talked about the need for a parallel track, a peace 
process to go forward, that there needs to be unity amongst the rebel 
groups. The President told me he has met with the rebel groups, trying 
to come up with a focused message that can then be used to negotiate 
with the Government of Sudan. There is a pretty good template to go by, 
a resource-sharing arrangement. There's a governing structure that, if 
implemented, would be--in the north/south--because of the north/south 
agreement, could be a go-by for the Darfur region. But those are the two 
main things I talked to him about.
    Yes, sir. Are you embedded? [Laughter]

Environment/Alternative Fuel Sources

    Q. From Australia. I've got a question about global warming: A 
couple of days ago, in the Australian Parliament, Tony Blair called for 
greater action. And this seems to be something that the U.S. President 
could make a major difference on. There's a virtual consensus that the 
planet is warming. If you addressed issues like emissions, fuel 
efficiency, issues to do with alternative energy in your last few years 
as President, it could make a significant difference, I think, to the--
--
    The President. I appreciate you bringing that up.
    Q. ----and I suppose I want to know, what is your plan?
    The President. Good. We--first of all, there is--the globe is 
warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural? Put that 
aside. It is in our interests that we use technologies that will not 
only clean the air but make us less dependent on oil. That's what I said 
in my State of the Union the other day. I said, look--and I know it came 
as quite a shock to--for people to hear a Texan stand up and say, 
``We've got a national problem; we're addicted to oil.'' But I meant 
what I said.
    Being addicted to oil is a problem for our economy. In a global 
economy, when burgeoning economies like India and China use more fossil 
fuels, it affects the price of gasoline here in America. In a world in 
which sometimes people have got the oil we need, don't like us--kind of 
a undiplomatic way of putting it--it means we've got a national security 
issue.
    I have--much of my position was defined early on in my Presidency 
when I told the world I thought that Kyoto was a lousy deal for America. 
And I tell you why it was a lousy deal for America. It meant that we had 
to cut emissions below 1990 levels, which would

[[Page 594]]

have meant I would have presided over massive layoffs and economic 
destruction. I believe the best way to put technologies in place that 
will not only achieve national objectives like less addiction to oil but 
also help clean the air, is to be wealthy enough to invest in 
technologies and then to share those technologies with parts of the 
world that were excluded from the Kyoto Protocol.
    And so I guess I should have started differently when I first became 
President, and said, ``We will invest in new technologies that will 
enable us to use fossil fuels in a much wiser way.'' And what does that 
mean? Well, it means that we've got to figure out how to use ethanol 
more in our cars. Ethanol is produced mainly by cane and corn. But we're 
near some breakthroughs--that we can use sawgrass and biomass to be able 
to produce ethanol.
    It means we got to continue investing in hybrid batteries. Ours is a 
country where many people live in urban centers, like Washington, DC. 
And it's possible to have a hybrid battery breakthrough which says that 
the first 40 miles of an automobile can be used by electricity alone. 
Right now the hybrid vehicles, as you know, switch between gasoline and 
electrical power. But that consumes gasoline, which means we're still 
reliant upon oil. The idea is to get off of oil.
    On the electricity front, we need to be using nuclear power more in 
this country, in my judgment. It is a renewable source of energy that 
has zero gas emissions. We've got a great natural resource here in 
America called coal. We have 250-plus years of coal reserves. But we 
also recognize that by--burning coal causes environmental problems, and 
so we're spending billions on research to come up with clean coal 
technologies. And we'd like to share those technologies with other 
nations of the world that are beginning to grow, so that they are good 
stewards of the environment as well.
    And so I got a comprehensive plan that uses technologies to help 
this Nation from a national and economic perspective but also will help 
improve the global economy--the environment from those new, burgeoning 
economies that are--like China and India, to be exact.
    Yes.

Iraq/Syria/Iran

    Q. Mr. President, first, thank you for your remarks and your 
commitment to advance freedom and the courage to use your office to 
follow through with it. My question is about Iraq. And I wonder if you 
could tell us, to what degree do you think the insurgency inside Iraq is 
dependent--dependent on foreign support, particularly from regional 
powers----
    The President. Yes.
    Q. ----and what are we doing, or what could we do more to prevent 
that?
    The President. There are three elements of the insurgency. One are 
the rejectionists. Those are the Sunnis that didn't feel like they were 
going to get a fair shake in what they viewed would be a Shi'a-led 
government. They are slowly but surely recognizing that democracy is 
their best hope. Then there are the Saddamists. Those are the folks that 
received enormous privilege under Saddam Hussein, and they're furious 
that they don't have those privileges. And the last group, of course, is 
Al Qaida. Now, Al Qaida has stated clearly what I told you during the 
speech. They have made it abundantly clear that their ambitions are to 
drive us from the country. They're the ones that we worry about--were 
receiving foreign assistance--money, as well as safe haven.
    The two countries that worry us the most, of course, are the two 
neighboring countries next to Iraq. That would be Syria and Iran. And we 
are making it abundantly clear to both that we think it's in their 
interests to let an Iraqi democracy develop.
    Syria has been a--Syria is a complicated issue because of Lebanon. 
It's not complicated; actually, it's quite clear what needs to be done. 
Our first focus with Syria, besides stopping cross-border infiltration--
that, frankly, has required our--required us to adjust our tactics on 
the ground and spend a lot of time training people to stop the cross-
border infiltration, because there's some doubt as to whether or not 
we're getting much cooperation on the other side of the border. But we 
spend a lot of time working with particularly France in making it 
abundantly clear, we expect the Syrians to allow the Lebanese democracy 
to evolve.

[[Page 595]]

    I guess it's kind of hard to give up on a country on which you've 
had a stranglehold. There was a troop withdrawal, as you know. My main 
concern is to whether or not they withdraw more than just troops, 
whether they draw intelligence services and people that were in a 
position to influence the future of the country.
    It is very important that there be full cooperation in the 
investigation of the death of Mr. Hariri. But our message to Bashar Asad 
is that we expect--if they want to be a welcomed country into the world, 
that they have got to free Lebanon, shut down cross-border infiltration, 
and stop allowing Hezbollah, PIJ, and other terrorist groups to meet 
inside the country.
    The Iranian issue is more--in dealing with Iran, we're dealing with 
more than just influence into the formation of a national unity 
government. I happen to believe that ultimately the Iraqis will say, we 
want to have our own government. We want to be on our own feet. We've 
had a little problem with Iran in the past, and therefore, let us, kind 
of, manage our own affairs. No question right now we're concerned, 
however, about influencing the formation of the government, but also, 
obviously, we're deeply concerned about whether or not the Iranians have 
the wherewithal and/or the knowledge about building a nuclear weapon.
    My negotiation strategy on this issue is that I believe it is better 
for the Iranians to hear from more than one voice as to whether or not 
the world accepts them as a viable nation in the international affairs. 
And so we have asked Germany and France and Great Britain to take the 
lead, to send a clear message to the Iranian Government.
    It's difficult to negotiate with nontransparent societies. It's 
easier for a nontransparent society to try to negotiate with countries 
in which there's a free press and a free political opposition and a 
place where people can express their opinions, because it sometimes 
causes people to play their cards publicly. In negotiating with 
nontransparent societies, it's important to keep your counsel.
    But I am pleased with the progress we have made on the diplomatic 
front. As you know, there are now talks of a Presidential letter out of 
the United Nations, and my Secretary of State, working with Ambassador 
John Bolton, are constructing such a letter and trying to make sure that 
there is common consensus, particularly amongst the P-5 plus Germany. As 
a matter of fact, Condi leaves, I think, today, if not tomorrow, for 
Europe to sit down with the P-5 plus Germany to continue keeping people 
knitted up on our strategy. Obviously, there's some cross pressures to 
some members of the P-5. There's a lot of politics in Europe, there's--
which is a good thing, by the way, that people are questioning whether 
or not it's worth it to try to stop the Iranians from having a nuclear 
weapon. I just believe strongly it's worth it. Now is the time to deal 
with these problems before they become acute.
    I'm troubled by a nontransparent regime having a weapon which could 
be used to blackmail freedom-loving nations. I'm troubled by a President 
who has declared his intentions to destroy our ally, Israel. And we need 
to take these admonitions and these threats very seriously in order to 
keep the peace.
    So issues around Iraq are complicated and necessary, and that's why 
my administration spends a lot of time on them.
    Yes, sir. You're going to ask me if I read the book. [Laughter]

Spread of Democracy/Russia/China

    Q. Mr. President, as you noted at the beginning--I'm with Freedom 
House, and I gave the President a copy of our annual report, ``Freedom 
in the World,'' before he took the stage. And as you noted, our reports 
have----
    The President. Little print, no pictures. Go ahead. [Laughter]
    Q. It's the bible of freedom, yes. [Laughter]
    The President. I'm the funny guy. Go ahead. [Laughter]
    Q. Our publications have confirmed that freedom is advancing overall 
in the world during the years of your administration. There is one big, 
important country, however, in which freedom has declined year by year 
the last several years, and that's Russia.
    The President. Correct.
    Q. You have a big summit coming up in July with the G-8 in St. 
Petersburg. There's

[[Page 596]]

been an increasing crackdown on civil society and political parties in 
Russia, and I'm wondering if the time between now and the St. Petersburg 
summit, what you and the administration can do to raise these issues and 
try to help the defenders of freedom in Russia?
    The President. I appreciate that. The G-8 will raise the issue. 
That's the interesting thing about, kind of, meetings and moments. And I 
have worked very hard to convince Vladimir Putin that it's in his 
interest to adopt Western-style values and universal values--rule of 
law, freedom of religion, the right to people to assemble, political 
parties, free press.
    My strategy with Vladimir Putin is to be in a position where I can 
talk frankly to him. I've heard some say, ``Don't go to the G-8.'' I 
think that would be a mistake for the United States not to go to the G-
8. I remember very--because I need to be in a position where I can sit 
down with him and be very frank about our concerns.
    I remember meeting with the human rights groups in Russia. And I 
asked them, ``What strategy should I take as the President of the United 
States? Should I be in a position where I can engage the President in 
frank discussion? Or should I publicly scold him, in which case he may 
turn a deaf ear?'' And the universal consensus for them kind of played 
to my own instincts, which is that I think it's important for the United 
States to be in a position to be able to express our concerns.
    Listen, we work with Russia on a variety of issues. Nunn-Lugar is an 
issue where we work with Russia, for example. But I spend a lot of time 
with the President making it clear that he should not fear democracy on 
his border, nor should he fear democracy within his borders. I like to 
make the case to him that democracies don't war with each other. You 
don't need to remind him about the brutal history that the Soviet Union 
went through in World War II. But I do think it's illustrative to point 
out--like I pointed out in the speech--that Europe is now free, whole, 
and at peace, and there's a reason why. It's what Americans have got to 
understand. We tend to forget. Ours is a society where things are, like, 
instant, so therefore, history almost is, like, so far back it doesn't 
count. But it counts when you really think about life lost on the 
continent of Africa and wonder why there's no war today. And there's a 
reason why there's no war today. And that's because history has proven 
democracies don't war with each other.
    And so in my explanation, to different events that are taking place, 
to the President, I try to point to historical truths, that it's in an 
interest of a country like Russia to understand and welcome democracy. 
It's in an interest for the country to give people the freedom to 
express themselves.
    I do spend time with him in private talking about issues like the 
NGO law. And as you noticed, they changed laws--obviously now the--it's 
how laws get implemented matters. But I'm confident that will be a topic 
of discussion.
    I haven't given up on Russia. I still think Russia understands that 
it's in her interest to be West, to work with the West, and to act in 
concert with the West. Nobody is saying to Russia, you must look like 
the United States of America. But we are saying there's just some basic 
institutions that ought to be adopted. And I will continue making that 
case.
    I do think it's important for me to go to the G-8 so I can make the 
case. One of the things that I find is that nations oftentimes approach 
me at these different meetings we go to and say, ``Hey, pass the message 
for me, will you? We need you to pass a message, Mr. President. You're 
the person who can best make the case.'' And so I'm pretty confidence in 
these countries' interest that I be in a position where I'm able to walk 
into the room with the President of Russia and him not throw me out. 
And, in fact, that he--you know, we've got a relationship--personal 
relationships such that there is the possibility for candid 
conversation.
    The other big opportunity for democracy, of course, is China. 
President Hu Jintao is coming to our country, as you know. I will 
continue to remind him, ours is a complex relationship and that we would 
hope that he would not fear a free society, just like it doesn't appear 
that he's fearing a free market. I happen to believe free markets 
eventually yield free societies. One of the most pure forms of democracy 
is the marketplace,

[[Page 597]]

where demand causes something to happen. Excess demand causes prices 
to--the supply causes prices to go up, and vice versa. That stands in 
contrast to governments that felt like they could set price and control 
demand.
    One of the things that I think should be a part of any foreign 
policy is to shine the spotlight, is to open societies. You heard me 
talk about what it's like to deal with nontransparent societies. I think 
a useful tool of foreign policy for our country is, try to let the sun 
shine in. China has recently read the book on Mao. It's an amazing 
history of a couple of things: one, about how fooled much of the world 
was, and how brutal this country was. And yet now there's more 
transparency into China.
    I will make it clear, of course, to the President that our 
relationship is vital on a variety of fronts. One such front is the 
economy, and we expect that country to treat us fairly. We expect there 
to be strong adherence to intellectual property rights. We believe that 
we grow pretty good crops and grow good beef, and perhaps it's in their 
interest to open up their markets to our agricultural products. We 
expect our manufacturers to be treated fairly. We don't believe in state 
subsidization of industry to give unfair advantage to state-owned 
enterprise. In other words, there's a variety of things we'll talk 
about, and one of them is freedom.
    I have been--I don't hesitate to talk to him about my visits with 
the Dalai Lama who is--comes and sees me in the White House; nor do I 
hesitate to talk about the concerns of the Catholic Church. I'm anxious 
to talk to him about the evangelicals' concerns inside of China, 
reminding him that a whole society is one that's just more than open 
markets; there's institutions and common values that are necessary.
    Some, of course--let me say, if I might make a philosophical 
statement about how I think. As Peter mentioned, there is a 
philosophical debate taking place in the world--at least I think it is--
and that is, whether freedom is universal, or whether, one way to put 
it, it just applies to only a handful of us. I believe in the 
universality of freedom. That's what I believe. Much of my foreign 
policy is driven by my firm belief that everybody desires to be free; 
that embedded in the soul of each man and woman on the face of the Earth 
is this deep desire to live in liberty. That's what I believe. I don't 
believe freedom is confined just to the United States of America, nor do 
I believe that we should shy away from expressing our deep desire for 
there to be universal liberty.
    You hear the debate, ``Well, they're just imposing their values. 
That's all they're doing.'' Well, those are the folks who must not think 
that freedom is universal. They're not American values. There's 
something universal about the notion of liberty--at least I think it is. 
And that's what's going to drive my foreign policy. I'll be unabashed 
about trying to work for more free societies. I believe that's the 
calling of the 21st century. I meant what I said, that in the 21st 
century, America ought to work to end tyranny in our world. It is a 
noble goal for the United States of America.
    I'm concerned about isolationist tendencies in our country that 
would say, ``Well, maybe this isn't--maybe we're not up to this task.'' 
Well, if we're not up to this task, who is up to the task? I'm concerned 
about protectionist policies in our country, which says to me, ``We 
don't have the confidence to compete anymore. Let us withdraw within our 
borders.'' I strongly reject isolationism and protectionism. It's not in 
our country's interest, nor is it in the world's interest.
    There's great talk about what you do as the American President with 
American influence. I believe American Presidents ought to confidently 
use American influence for the good of the world, and that includes 
demanding universal liberty and human rights and human dignity.
    Yes, sir.

Spread of Democracy/Egypt

    Q. Mr. President, I'm from the Public International Law and Policy 
Group. I'm also from Egypt, and I aspire to one day go back there and 
join Egyptian politics. So my question is----
    The President. Go for President. [Laughter]
    Q. I'm working on it; I'm working on it--in 2017, everyone. 
[Laughter] But my question is, would you support the regime of

[[Page 598]]

Gamal Mubarak if he takes over after President Mubarak?
    The President. That's a leading question. [Laughter]
    Q. ----question.
    The President. No. That's a ``question I don't answer'' question. 
[Laughter] I support a country which does not fear political movements 
but is willing to compete with political movements. That's the kind of 
country I support.
    There's a--first of all, I appreciate the fact that there were 
elections in Egypt. That's positive. I think people in positions of 
responsibility, like mine, ought to say, if there seems to be a movement 
gaining ground on the streets, the question ought to be why; not how can 
we repress it, but what is taking place? What is it that's causing 
somebody to be in favor? What are they saying that I'm not saying, or 
what are they doing that I'm not doing?
    Competition for ideas and the votes of people are very healthy in 
societies. As a matter of fact, it's one of the ways to defeat the 
terrorists. Terrorists feed on resentment. When people don't feel their 
voices are heard, they become resentful, and then they become eligible 
for recruitment. If people don't feel like they have a chance to express 
themselves and have a government listen to them, they're likely to turn 
to people--the false prophets, people who subvert a great religion to 
play on people's frustrations and then use that false prophecy to kill.
    And so I--to answer your question is, is that I support an openness 
in the political process. I think when--I think Egypt is a--has a chance 
to be one of the leaders of the freedom movement in the Middle East. And 
I recognize that not everybody is going to embrace this concept of 
democracy and freedom as firmly as I'd like them to. But all of us have 
got to continue to advance progress.
    One of the interesting debates we have about the freedom movement is 
whether or not institutions have to be right before there's elections. 
So in other words, kind of, one of these interesting philosophical 
debates that's taking place. My answer--you heard my answer--my answer 
is, you got to have--you can't wait for perfect, because it's an excuse 
for the status quo.
    Elections start the process; they're not the end of the process. 
They're oftentimes the beginning of the process. And one of the reasons 
I respect the Freedom House is because you understand that you follow 
elections with institution-building and the creation of civil society. 
But for those who say, ``Well, we can't have elections until everything 
is just right or until we know the outcome of the elections,'' are those 
who provide excuse, in my judgment, for a foreign policy which in the 
past has said, it's okay, just so long as energy is priced okay; and 
okay, so there's no ruffles on the--the sea looks calm. My problem with 
that attitude is, beneath the surface, there's resentment and anger.
    I'll also tell you another--I'm not going to tell you your business 
in the Freedom House, but I think a movement that must be tapped into in 
order to advance freedom is the women's movement. I just--there is 
something universal about the desire to be treated fairly and equally. 
And therefore, in societies in which women are not being treated fairly 
and equally--provides great opportunities to advance the cause of 
freedom. We've got to be wise about how we do it in the United States. 
Sometimes the stamp of America obviously provides those who are trying 
to resist freedom, giving them an excuse not to; I understand that. But 
it's--there are great opportunities in the world.
    The temptation in today's society is to say, it's not worth it, or, 
certain people can't self-govern. It's really part of the debate in 
Iraq, isn't it, when you think about it--is, can these people self-
govern? And I can understand why some in America say they can't, because 
all they see is unbelievable violence. And we're a country of deep 
compassion; we care. One of the great things about America, one of the 
beauties of our country, is that when we see a young, innocent child 
blown up by an IED, we cry. We don't care what the child's religion may 
be or where that child may live, we cry. It upsets us. The enemy knows 
that, and they're willing to kill to shake our confidence. That's what 
they're trying to do.
    They're not going to shake my confidence, I just want you to know. I 
understand their

[[Page 599]]

tactics, and I know their designs. But I also believe that Iraqis can 
and want to self-govern. That's what I believe. And so when you see me 
make decisions or make statements like I make, you've got to understand 
it's coming from a basic set of beliefs. That's what I believe. And 
that's what a decisionmaker ought to do. The decisionmaker ought to make 
decisions based upon deep-seated beliefs. You don't need a President 
chasing polls and focus groups in order to make tough decisions. You 
need Presidents who make decisions based upon sound principle.
    Now, people may not agree with the decisions; I understand that. But 
I hope after this talk, those of you who didn't agree at least know I'm 
making my decisions based on something I believe deep in my soul and 
something that's worked in the past. Democracies have yielded the peace. 
I believe 30 years form now, people are going to look back at this 
moment and say, thank goodness a generation of Americans stood up and 
said, ``We have faith in democracy, faith in democracy to lay the 
foundation for peace,'' and an American President will be discussing 
issues of peace with duly elected leaders in the Middle East, and our 
children will be better off for it.
    And I want to tell you one anecdote now that you've got me wound up. 
[Laughter] I sit down at the table with Prime Minister Koizumi. I tell 
this story all the time, because one of my jobs is to go out and explain 
to the American people the consequences of the decisions that I have 
made and why I think it's in our interests. Koizumi and I are not only 
good friends, but we're partners in peace. We talk about a variety of 
issues--North Korea is an issue, we talk--you know, he's got 1,000 
troops in Iraq. Isn't that amazing, when you think about it? Because he 
understands the benefits of democracy in the broader Middle East. We're 
close friends.
    Sixty years ago--it seems like an eternity for a lot of people, I 
recognize that, but it's not that long ago--my dad fought the Japanese, 
and so did your relatives. They were the sworn enemy of the United 
States of America. I find it unbelievable part of history that I am now 
sitting down at the table with the Prime Minister of Japan talking about 
the peace, and my dad fought them. And so what happened? What happened 
was, Japan adopted a Japanese-style democracy. That's what happened. And 
now they're peaceful. And they sit at the table with their former enemy. 
I think that's a lesson worth listening to and understanding.
    But I bet you after World War II, there were great doubters as to 
whether or not Harry Truman was doing the right thing to help Japan 
become a democracy. I see Stevens nodding; he was there. Weren't you? 
[Laughter] Well, I wasn't. [Laughter] But I'm reading a lot about it. 
And I believe it's a lesson for all of us in this--in the 21st century. 
Spreading democracy is hard work. It's hard to overcome sectarian 
division and torture. It's hard to overcome that. But it's worth it, for 
the sake of our children and grandchildren.
    Yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay, I'll get you over there. [Laughter] You're in 
the end zone. You're next.

Progress in Iraq

    Q. Oh, I'm next.
    The President. No, you're not next. She's next. [Laughter]
    Q. I'm with Creative Associates, and we're one of the small 
companies that has the honor to work in Iraq, so today is a real honor 
to be here. As you were mentioning all the steps that we're going to 
have to go through in the near future, I'm still very concerned that we 
might not be concentrating on the suffering of the children.
    The President. In Iraq?
    Q. In Iraq. So I would like to be sure that as the different 
programs get processed that we don't give up on the children.
    The President. Good, thank you very much. Our soldiers are good 
Samaritans. They're unbelievable. I see pictures all the time from 
family members of our soldiers in Iraq of their loved one showing 
compassion to children. No question, I'm concerned about the children in 
Iraq as well. So our--we've got people in the field who care about the 
children too. The truth of the matter is, if you care about the children 
of Iraq, then you would want to make sure that Iraq doesn't slip back 
into tyranny. Thousands of children lost their parents because of Saddam 
Hussein.

[[Page 600]]

    And so I want to thank you for your work. It's very important for 
the security situation to improve so that NGOs, people of compassion, 
are able to help lift lives. But there's a lot of work to be done. 
There's just a lot of work to be done--same in Afghanistan. First of 
all, we've rebuilt thousands of schools in Iraq, as we have in 
Afghanistan as well. And the world is more hopeful as the result of the 
liberation of these people. Afghanistan--it's obvious--when you have a 
society in which young girls weren't allowed to go to school because of 
the Taliban--thought it was, like, against humanity to send girls to 
school, and now they can. There's an amazing change in that society.
    But I readily concede there's a lot of work left to be done. It's--
there's no such thing as instant success. I told you that--and by the 
way, after World War II, Germany and Japan took awhile to rebuild, and 
it took awhile for those societies to become stable societies. It just 
takes awhile.
    Our march, by the way, between Revolution, liberation, and 
Constitution wasn't all that smooth either. And frankly, our adhering to 
the full extent of the liberties embedded in the Constitution and the 
Declaration of Independence took awhile. I realize that when I talk to 
my Secretary of State. We were--we had people enslaved in the United 
States for a century. It takes a while. It's hard work. And the 
fundamental question the American people have to answer is, is it worth 
it? You've got my position: It absolutely is worth it.
    Freedom is contagious, by the way. As liberty begins to spread in 
the Middle East, more people will demand it. And we should not shirk our 
duty, nor should we be afraid to encourage reformers. The worst thing 
that could happen, in my judgment, for the peace of the world is for the 
United States to lose our nerve and retreat. And there's--anyway. Yes.
    Thank you. You've been very anxious. This better be a good one. Yes, 
you've been waving and yelling over there--[laughter]--waving, yelling, 
stomping your feet. It's a free society. That's what happens. [Laughter]

Message to the People of Iraq

    Q. I'm Iraqi-American.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I think based on what--review over 30 
years of Saddam's oppression and the regime in Iraq, and also based on 
the belief that you have--as an Iraqi mother, Iraqi-American mother and 
a woman--and I went back 2 years ago without--I worked for a year--
there's always that concern and still worrisome. These are beautiful 
messages, yet there's a big gap that never crosses that ocean. It never 
gets to the Iraqi, to the simple man, the Iraqis facing despair, 
disillusionments, all kinds of things. I speak to Iraqi friends and 
families on daily basis. This is what their message is: We hear of these 
things, but we don't see it. It doesn't get to us.
    The President. Yes, tangible results on the street, right.
    Q. But it's not only us, Mr. President. It's not only that. It 
doesn't reach them in any kind of media, unfortunately. So how can we do 
that? I've been wondering about this, and you are the only person, I 
think, who can maybe do something.
    The President. Talk to the Iraqi people?
    Q. Talk to someone, talk to the Iraqi, relay that message that we 
are honest, we have great beliefs, and we want to do something.
    The President. Well, I appreciate that. First of all, I've got great 
confidence in the people of Iraq. Iraqis are entrepreneurial; they're 
well-educated; they're peace-loving. Iraqi mothers want their children 
to grow up in a peaceful world. That's what mothers want all over the 
world.
    And so I--what my concern is, is that the tangible benefits of 
democracy aren't reaching into people's pockets yet. I mean, there's got 
to be a direct correlation with someone's lifestyle, someone's standard 
of living, and a style of government. And that's one of the things that 
people who push freedom understand. I mean, there's got to be a--people 
got to see the direct benefits at some point in time about being free. 
One direct benefit is that there's not going to be a central government 
summarily pulling you out of society and killing you if need be. That's 
the biggest benefit.
    But there also has to be tangible benefits on the street. I try to 
speak to the Iraqi people all the time. Sometimes the message gets

[[Page 601]]

through the filters, sometimes it doesn't. I want them to hear a couple 
of things. I want the Iraqi people to hear I've got great confidence in 
their capacity to self-govern. I also want to hear--the Iraqi people to 
hear, it's about time you get a unity government going. In other words, 
Americans understand newcomers to the political arena, but pretty soon, 
it's time to shut her down and get governing.
    I want the Iraqi people to hear that we care deeply about the 
individuals in Iraq, regardless of their religion. That's what we care 
about. And we want them to worship freely. I like the fact in Iraq that 
there's a burgeoning free press; there's a lot of press, which is a 
positive sign. It's a healthy indication. I also want the Iraqis to hear 
that while there's a political debate going on here in America, I 
believe in what we're doing, and we're not going to leave prematurely, 
that we have got a mission, along with the Iraqis, and that is to secure 
a country for its democracy and to help them defend themselves, deny Al 
Qaida a safe haven, and have an ally in the war on terror.
    And so I thank you for that admonition for me to speak out to the 
Iraqi people. I try to do it as much as I possibly can.
    Yes, ma'am. No, not--[laughter]. Ambassador, you want to ask a 
question next? Yes, okay, fine.

Immigration Reform

    Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President. I'm glad to see you here speaking 
today. I have a question about the immigration issue that's going on 
right now. And I'm just curious--the Senate will probably pass a 
measure; the House has already passed a measure. And I'm curious, what 
kinds of components are you looking for in an immigration bill that you 
can support? And how do you reconcile a guest-worker program for 
undocumented residents who are here, versus those who are on line and in 
the system waiting 5 and 10 years to get here?
    The President. No, that's a great question. Thanks. It's obviously 
topic du jour and--[laughter]. Pretty fancy, huh? Topic du jour? 
[Laughter] I don't want to ruin the image. [Laughter]
    I believe there ought to be three components to good immigration 
law. First of all, I hope we get a bill out of the Senate. There's one 
out of the House. It goes to what's called conference. And here's my 
suggestions: One, that we're a nation of law, and we ought to enforce 
our borders. Both the House and the Senate passed good border 
enforcement measures. We're modernizing or upgrading our border. We 
recognize that it's important to have more Border Patrol, which we do. 
But the Border Patrol needs additional tools in order to do their job. 
We're talking about long borders. It's a subject I'm quite familiar with 
since I was the Governor of a State that had a long border with Mexico. 
And so the American people have got to know that we'll enforce law.
    Secondly, we've got to enforce--and by the way, part of enforcing 
law means to make sure that when somebody is caught coming into our 
country illegally, they're not let back out in society. We had a real 
issue with detention beds, particularly for non-Mexican illegal people 
coming in. We'd catch people from Central America. And people worked 
hard; they spotted people being smuggled across. They were detained--the 
people being smuggled across. They said, ``Check in with your 
immigration officer in 15 days,'' and nobody did. And so now we've added 
the number of detention beds and are working for expedited removal 
procedures with the countries in Central America. As far as the Mexican 
folks sneaking in the border, they're sent back very quickly, back into 
their country. Since 2001, believe it or not, we've stopped 6 million 
people trying to sneak into our country--an amazing statistic. It's a 
lot.
    Secondly, there's got to be better interior enforcement. But it's 
very difficult to enforce--get an employer to enforce the law when the 
employer is uncertain as to whether or not the documentation being 
presented for the needed worker is legal.
    It turns out--what's very interesting is that when you deny--when 
you make something illegal and there's a demand for it, people find ways 
around it. That's why you've got a whole smuggling industry called 
coyotes. That's why you've got unbelievable document forging going on. 
That's why there's tunnels. I mean, there's imaginative ways by

[[Page 602]]

people--by unscrupulous people to take advantage of people who are 
coming here to do an honest day's work.
    Thirdly, my judgment is, you cannot enforce the border without 
having a temporary-guest-worker program. The two go hand in hand. There 
are people doing jobs Americans will not do. Many people who have come 
into our country are helping our economy grow. That's just a fact of 
life. And I believe that we ought to say to somebody doing a job an 
American won't do, here is a tamper-proof identity card that will enable 
you to be here for a period of time. And if that person wants to become 
a citizen of the United States, because we're a nation of law, they get 
at the end of the line, not the beginning of the line.
    I also believe--and the Senate is working through different measures 
to say to the person getting into the line, there's a consequence for 
being here illegally. Now, if Congress believes that the line is too 
long or that we should facilitate people's capacity to then get a green 
card and become a citizen, increase the number of green cards. But 
people who have been here legally should not be penalized by someone 
who's been here illegally.
    And so I'd like to tell the American people, we are a nation of law 
but that doesn't preclude us from being a welcoming nation. I think a 
system which forces people underground and into the shadows of our 
society, which causes people to have to sneak across our border and risk 
their life, is a system that needs to be changed.
    I also know--and I used to tell this to people down there in Texas--
family values don't stop at the Rio Grande River. If you're a mother or 
a father who's worried about putting food on the table and you're living 
in an impoverished area and you know there's a job that Americans won't 
do here, you'll come to do it for the sake of your family. And 
therefore, I think it makes sense to have a temporary-worker program 
that says, you're not an automatic citizen, to help, one, enforce the 
border, and two, uphold the decency of America. If our Border Patrol 
agents don't have to focus on people trying to sneak across to get a 
job, they will be able to be more focused on people smuggling drugs, 
smuggling guns, smuggling terrorists.
    And so I look forward to the debate. I'm going to say again what 
I've said before on this debate. It's very important for all of us in 
this debate to conduct ourselves with the following principles in mind: 
One, we're a nation of immigrants; two, our soul is refreshed by 
newcomers to our society; three, we love the idea of people starting 
with nothing and ending up with something in America; four, we value 
family values, no matter where they may be; and five, we've got to be 
careful about the language we use when it comes to debating this 
important subject. People should not pit neighbor against neighbor, 
group of people against group of people in our country. Ours is a nation 
that's able to assimilate people because we believe in human rights and 
human dignity of all.
    Final question.

Palestinian Government/Israel

    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Okay, two questions. Please, ma'am. You're last. 
You're the last guy. You're the closer. [Laughter] It's a baseball term. 
Yes, you're the closer. You've been persistent. [Laughter]
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President, and I think I sprained my arm trying to 
get your attention. But the main reason for that is because I think I 
speak for the unheard people. I'm a Palestinian, and I come from a 
refugee camp, and I'm currently working at the World Bank.
    The President. Welcome.
    Q. Thank you. What can I say to my cousins, my friends, people in 
the streets who are asking, why is the United States punishing us and 
cutting funds for people who choose fair and free elections? I think the 
National Endowment for Democracy has characterized it as the textbook, 
fair and free elections. Then why are we punishing the people of--I 
don't mean the government--the people of Palestine--the refugees, the 
poor, the malnourished mothers and children?
    The President. No, great question. Thank you for asking it. Just to 
step back, I believe I'm the first President to have articulated the--my 
desires for there to be a Palestinian state living at peace with Israel. 
And I still think it's a real possibility for that to happen. I believe 
democracies don't war with each

[[Page 603]]

other, and I believe a Palestinian democracy is in the interests of the 
Palestinian people, the Israelis, and the rest of the world.
    Secondly, I think that aid should go to suffering Palestinians, but 
nor should it go to a government, however, which has expressed its 
desire to destroy its neighbor. If the goal of the United States is two 
states living side by side in peace, and one government elected says, 
``We want to destroy one of the parties,'' it makes no sense for us to 
support that government. We support the election process. We support 
democracy, but that doesn't mean we have to support governments that get 
elected as a result of democracy.
    Now, Palestinians must make a choice as to whether or not it makes 
sense for them to have a government that says they want to destroy their 
neighbor. I don't think it does. As a matter of fact, I think it's 
important for governments to say, we want to work out our differences in 
a peaceful way. But I am concerned about the suffering Palestinian 
people. I think the U.S. Government has got aid that goes directly to 
people. And I know that we'll continue to call upon governments in the 
region to support the Palestinian people.
    I weep about the suffering of the Palestinians. I particularly weep 
about the fact that the leadership has let them down for year after year 
after year. And now is the time for strong leaders to stand up and say, 
we want the people to decide. And I was pleased that there was an 
election in the Palestinian territories, and I agree with you that the 
elections were good elections. And--but now the government has to make a 
choice, and we will continue to watch very carefully about the choice 
they make.
    Final question. Then I'm going down to be with the President of 
Mexico and the Prime Minister with Canada--Cancun. [Laughter] No Speedo 
suit here. [Laughter] Thankfully. [Laughter]

Progress in Iraq

    Q. You ready?
    The President. Yes. Sorry to interrupt you. Just testing your 
concentration. [Laughter]
    Q. Mr. President, I am on the board of trustees of Freedom House.
    The President. Thank you for having me.
    Q. And my--you mentioned about Iraq.
    The President. Iraq?
    Q. About Iraq, the effect of leaving prematurely and the issue it 
would cause--is there an opportunity right now to perhaps supplement the 
American forces and perhaps finally to replace them with a strong, 
large, broad-based troops, security forces of Muslim countries from 
North Africa, from Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, which could 
go in there and then perhaps help in the situation? Because Iraq--a 
disaster in Iraq is a disaster for the whole region.
    The President. That's a really good question. I think the preferred 
strategy is to spend time and efforts on getting the Iraqis stood up so 
they can defend themselves. At some point in time, the Iraqi citizens 
are going to have to make the conscious decision that democracy is worth 
defending. And I appreciate the efforts of some in the Arab world to 
help train Iraqi police, like the Jordanian academy. There is support 
for training amongst different Arab nations, as there is from NATO. And 
the fundamental question is, what will expedite the situation so that 
the Iraqis are fully prepared to do their job?
    So the question--I would reverse your question and say, are we 
prepared to have others help the Iraqis defend themselves? And the 
answer is, absolutely. But the Iraqis must be encouraged to continue to 
take the lead. And that's a measurable part of our progress on the 
ground, more territories controlled by Iraqis. The march I just 
described to you was policed by, or guarded by Iraqi units who were in 
the lead. That Tall `Afar example I used the other day talked about the 
Iraqi divisions in the lead that helped secure this city.
    The ultimate solution for Iraq is for there to be a unity government 
which brings people confidence, one that unites different factions, 
thereby marginalizing the rejectionists, but also making sure the Iraqi 
Army is prepared to do what it needs to do, as well as a police force.
    When we first got in there, we said, ``Well, let's prepare an Iraqi 
Army for an outside threat.'' It turns out it wasn't necessary. The 
biggest threat was inside the country. And so we adjusted our strategy 
and started training Iraqis so that they are prepared to be

[[Page 604]]

able to defend sectors of their country. And now the big--Senator Warner 
came and briefed us at the White House the other day. He said--and this 
is what the General is telling me as well--we've made good progress in 
training the Iraqi Army. The problem is the Iraqi police force. And 
there is a national police force, which is more efficient than local 
police forces. It still needs to make sure there are coalition troops 
embedded in the police force to make sure that these police understand 
that there's--you don't seek reprisal as a police force. You've got to 
earn the confidence of all people, no matter what their religion is. And 
we're still working with local police forces.

    So in due respect, I think the question is, how do we expedite more 
Iraqis to earn the confidence of the Iraqi people. We're dealing with a 
shattered confidence. There's a sense that, well, they may leave us, or 
our guys aren't prepared to provide security. And the quicker we can get 
the Iraqis stood up and trained, the faster the Iraqi people will have 
confidence, not only in their own security situation but in their 
government.

    And so thanks for the suggestion. Listen, I've enjoyed it; I hope 
you have. God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 12:53 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Capitol 
Hill. In his remarks, he referred to Peter Ackerman, chairman of the 
board, Freedom House; President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia; Usama 
bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; senior Al 
Qaida associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi; President Olusegun Obasanjo of 
Nigeria; former President Charles Taylor of Liberia, who was arrested on 
March 29 in Nigeria on United Nations war crimes charges; President 
Bashar al-Asad of Syria; President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran; 
President Vladimir Putin of Russia; President Hu Jintao of China; Prime 
Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; former President Saddam Hussein of 
Iraq; President Vicente Fox of Mexico; and Prime Minister Stephen Harper 
of Canada. Participants referred to Prime Minister Tony Blair of the 
United Kingdom; and Gamal Mubarak, son of President Hosni Mubarak of 
Egypt.