[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 14 (Monday, April 10, 2006)]
[Pages 641-658]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on the War on Terror and a Question-and-Answer Session in 
Charlotte, North Carolina

April 6, 2006

    The President. Thank you. Firoz, thanks a lot. So I said, ``That's 
an interesting name.'' He said, ``I've lived in seven countries,'' but 
he also said, he's proud to be an American. And we're proud you're an 
American. Thank you very much for inviting me.
    You know, I was just standing here, listening to Firoz; one of the 
great things about our country is that you can come, and you can enjoy 
the great blessings of liberty, and you can be equally American if 
you've been here for one generation or 10 generations. I thought it was 
neat that somebody who has been--you've been here 27 years though, 
right? Yes. Well, seven countries, 27 years here, introducing the 
President, though. I think it says a lot about the United States of 
America. Thanks for having me.
    I'm looking forward to sharing with you what's on my mind. I look 
forward to hearing what's on yours as well. First thing is, Laura sends 
her best to the folks of Charlotte. She sends her best, Tony, to you and 
your bride. Thank you for having us here, to Central Piedmont. I 
appreciate your involvement in education. I married well; she's a really 
patient person too. [Laughter]
    I traveled down here with Congressman Robin Hayes, the Congressman 
from this district. Congressman, thank you for being here, appreciate 
it.
    I've known your mayor for a long time. He's a man of accomplishment. 
I know he was particularly proud to land the NASCAR Hall of Fame. Pretty 
big deal, you know? It's a pretty big deal. Thank you all for coming. I 
want to thank the others who serve on the City Council who are here. The 
mayor was telling me a lot of the council members are here. I appreciate 
your service to your city.
    I think one of the things I'd like to tell you about is why and how 
I made some decisions I made. My friends from Texas who, once they get 
over the shock that I'm actually the President--[laughter]--like to ask 
me what it's like to be President. And I guess the simple job 
description would be, it is a decisionmaking experience. And I make a 
lot of decisions. Some of them you see; some of them you don't see. 
Decisionmaking requires knowing who you are and what you believe. I've 
learned enough about Washington to know you can't make decisions unless 
you make them on principle. And once you make a decision based upon 
principle, you stand by what you decide.
    In order to make good decisions, you've got to rely upon good 
people. People have got to feel comfortable about coming in the Oval 
Office and tell you what's on their mind. There's nothing worse than 
people walking in and say, ``Well, I'm a little nervous around the guy; 
I think I'd better tell him what he thinks he needs to hear.'' You can't 
do the country justice, you can't make good decisions unless you've got 
a lot of good, competent people around you, and I do--Condoleezza Rice, 
Secretary of State; Don Rumsfeld; Vice President.
    These are people who have seen good times, and they've seen tough 
times. But in all times, they're capable of walking in and telling me 
what's on their mind. That's what you need as the President. And then 
once you make up your mind, they say, ``Yes, sir, Mr. President, I'll 
get it done.''
    The biggest decision I've had to make since I've been your President 
is putting kids in harm's way. It's a decision no President wants to 
make. It's a decision I wish I did

[[Page 642]]

not have to make. But I'd like to share with you why I made the decision 
I made.
    First of all, war came to our shores on September the 11th, 2001. It 
was a war we did not ask for. It's a war we did not want, but it is a 
war that I intend to deal with so long as I'm your President. In order 
to deal with this war on terror, you've got to understand the nature of 
the enemy. And I'll share my thoughts with--about this enemy we face.
    They're an enemy bound together by an ideology. These are not folks 
scattered around that are kind of angry and lash out at an opportune 
moment. These are people that are--believe something, and their beliefs 
are totalitarian in nature. They believe you should not be able to 
worship freely. They believe that young girls should not go to school. 
They've got a perverted sense of justice. They believe in the use of 
violence to achieve their objectives. Their stated objectives, their 
stated goals are to spread their totalitarian view throughout the Middle 
East. That's what they want to do.
    They have made it abundantly clear that they believe folks who live 
in America are weak, that we don't have the will to compete with their 
philosophy. That's what they believe. I'm just telling you what they 
said. I think it's really important in a time of war for the President 
to take the words of the enemy very seriously. And I do.
    They think that the use of violence will cause us to lose our nerve 
and retreat. And they have stated that they want safe haven from which 
to not only topple moderate governments in the Middle East but from 
which to launch attacks against the United States. Given that in mind, 
I'd like to share some of the lessons learned. One lesson is the nature 
of the enemy.
    Another lesson is, is that we must defeat the enemy overseas so we 
don't have to face them here again. And that requires a strategy that is 
offensive in mind: press the enemy, find the enemy, bring the enemy to 
justice, never relent, never give them quarter, understand you cannot 
negotiate with these people, you can't rationalize with these people, 
that you must stay on the hunt and bring them to justice. This is 
precisely what we're doing.
    One obviously immediate target is to dismantle Al Qaida. They hide 
in kind of the far reaches of the world. They plot and plan, however, 
from the far reaches of the world. They're good at communications. 
They're good at deception. They're good at propaganda. And they want to 
strike again. We have done a good job of dismantling the operating 
structure of Al Qaida--Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh--a 
series of these folks that have become the operating element of Al 
Qaida. Obviously, Usama bin Laden and his sidekick Zawahiri is still at 
large. We understand that. But we're looking, and we're listening, and 
we're working with allies like President Musharraf of Pakistan, 
President Karzai of Afghanistan to bring this--to bring the head of Al 
Qaida to justice.
    The second lesson learned is that unlike previous wars, these 
folks--this kind of terrorist network that is ideologically bound needs 
safe haven. They need a place to hide. They need a symbiotic 
relationship with governments that will enable them to plot, plan, and 
attack.
    So early on in the conflict, I not only vowed that we would use our 
fierce determination to protect this country by staying on the offense 
but that we would deny safe haven to these terrorists. And so I said, 
``If you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the 
terrorist.'' And one thing that I think is really important for our 
citizens to understand is that when the President says something, he 
better mean what he says. In order to be effective, in order to maintain 
credibility, words have got to mean something. You just can't say things 
in the job I'm in and not mean what you say.
    And I meant what I said. And so we said to the Taliban, ``Get rid of 
the Al Qaida.'' They chose not to. I made my first decision to send our 
kids into harm's way and liberate Afghanistan. The decision to liberate 
Afghanistan was based first and foremost on the need to enforce the 
doctrine that I thought was necessary to protect the American people. 
One of the benefits of sending our kids into harm's way was that we 
liberated 25 million people from the clutches of one of the most 
barbaric regimes known to the history of man.

[[Page 643]]

    Laura and I went over to that fledgling democracy. We went to see 
President Karzai. It was a remarkable experience. It's hard to describe. 
You know, I'm not such a good poet. Let me put it to you this way: My 
spirits were lifted to see people committed to democracy, recognizing 
that democracy stands in stark contrast to the life these people had to 
live under the Taliban.
    The task now is to continue to fight off the Taliban and Al Qaida 
that would continue to try to disrupt the march of the new democracy, 
help this country survive and thrive and grow, and help the Afghan 
citizens realize the dreams of men and women that they can live in a 
free and peaceful world. Remember, these folks have voted for a 
President and voted for a Parliament. I'm proud of the progress we're 
making there. It's an historic achievement for our country and for our 
troops. And it was a necessary achievement to enforce the doctrines that 
we said were necessary to protect our people.
    Another lesson--this is an important lesson for the country. It's 
one that, kind of, sometimes can get obscured in the politics of 
Washington, but it's one that I'm confident when I tell you it's 
necessary for this country to adhere to. It's going to be necessary for 
me or whoever follows me. When we see a threat, we have got to take the 
threat seriously before it comes to hurt us.
    You know, growing up in Midland, Texas, we all felt pretty secure as 
a kid, mainly because we thought oceans could protect us. Now in my 
case, we were really far away from oceans too, but nevertheless, it's--
when you think about it, though, if you're a baby boomer like me, you 
think about what it was like growing up. We knew there was a nuclear 
threat. Of course, we had put forth an interesting sounding strategy 
called ``mutually assured destruction,'' which provided an umbrella for 
security and safety.
    But nevertheless, we never really felt anybody would invade us, did 
we? We never felt there would be another attack like Pearl Harbor on our 
lands. And yet September the 11th changed all that. More people died on 
September the 11th because of an attack by an enemy on our shore than 
died at Pearl Harbor. The biggest threat we face is when a terrorist 
network is able to acquire weapons even stronger than airplanes. If the 
terrorist network were ever to get weapons of mass destruction, one of 
their stated objectives, our country and the free world would face a 
serious threat.
    I saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did I see a threat in Iraq, the 
previous administration saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did the 
previous--which, by the way, passed a resolution in the United States 
Congress that said, we ought to have a regime change in Iraq. Not only 
did the previous administration see a threat in Iraq, members of both 
political parties, in both Chambers during my time as President saw a 
threat in Iraq. And the reason we saw threats is because the 
intelligence said that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass 
destruction.
    But it wasn't just U.S. intelligence that said that; there was--the 
worldwide intelligence network felt like he had weapons of mass 
destruction. After all, when I took the case to the United Nations 
Security Council, the Security Council voted 15 to nothing to say loud 
and clear, ``Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.'' That's 
not what the United States said alone. This is what France and Great 
Britain, China, Russia, and members of the Security Council said, 
because the world felt like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass 
destruction. And after 9/11 it was abundantly clear that a state sponsor 
of terror, which is what he had been declared by previous 
administrations, and the idea of weapons of mass destruction, and the 
fact that he was at least, at the very minimum, a stated enemy of the 
United States of America posed a serious threat for our country.
    My biggest job is to protect the American people. That became 
abundantly clear on September the 11th. It's important to pass good 
reform for education; it's important to support the community college 
system; it's important to work for, you know, a Medicare plan that meets 
the needs. My biggest job is to protect you--at least that's how I see 
the job. Much of my decisionmaking, by the way, is based upon what 
happened on September the 11th. It had an effect on me, just like it had 
an effect on the country. I've never forgotten that day. I've never 
forgotten the lessons learned, and so when we saw a threat, we got to 
take it seriously. Oceans could no

[[Page 644]]

longer protect us. The enemy was able to strike us and kill, and they 
were dangerous.
    And before a President ever commits troops, you got to try diplomacy 
at all costs. I'm going to say to you what I said before: Putting those 
kids in harm's way is a tough, difficult decision. And nobody should 
ever want to do it, because I understand fully the consequences of the 
decision. And so as I told you, I went to the diplomatic route. I was 
hoping that when the world spoke with that one voice at the United 
Nations Security Council, Saddam Hussein would see the reason of the 
free world. But he didn't.
    I felt all along the decision was his to make. He said--the world 
said, ``Disclose, disarm.'' In the meantime, I want you to remember, he 
was deceiving inspectors. It's a logical question to ask: Why would 
somebody want to deceive inspectors? I also told you earlier that when 
America speaks, we got to mean what we said. I meant what we said when 
we embraced that resolution that said, ``Disclose, disarm, or face 
serious consequences.'' Words mean something in this world, if you're 
trying to protect the American people.
    I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as 
disappointed as everybody else is. But what wasn't wrong was Saddam 
Hussein had invaded a country. He had used weapons of mass destruction. 
He had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He was 
firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam 
Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our 
country.
    Iraq is now the central front on the war on terror. The war on 
terror is broader than Iraq, but Iraq is the key battlefield right now. 
And the enemy has made it so.
    The advance of democracy frightens the totalitarians that oppose us. 
Mr. Zarqawi, who is there in Iraq, is Al Qaida. He's not Iraqi, by the 
way. He is there representing the Al Qaida network, trying to stop the 
advance of democracy. It's an interesting question, isn't it, why would 
somebody want to stop democracy? Like, what's wrong with democracy; 
Mister, why are you afraid of it? Are you threatened by the fact that 
people get to speak and you don't get to dictate? Are you threatened by 
the fact that people should be able to worship the Almighty freely? What 
about democracy that bothers--I think it's a legitimate question we all 
ought to be asking.
    But nevertheless, he's tough, and he's mean, and he'll kill innocent 
people in order to shake our will. They have stated, clearly stated--
they being Al Qaida--that it's just a matter of time for the United 
States to lose its nerve. They recognize they cannot beat us on the 
battlefield; they cannot militarily defeat the United States of America. 
But they can affect our conscience. And I can understand why. Nobody 
likes to see violence on the TV screens. Nobody wants to see little 
children blown up when a U.S. soldier is trying to give them candy. 
Nobody likes to see innocent women die at the hands of suicide bombers. 
It breaks our heart.
    The United States of America is an incredibly compassionate nation. 
We value human life, whether it be here at home or whether it be abroad. 
It's one of the really noble features of our country, I think. Nobody 
likes to see that, and the enemy understands that, however. They know 
that if we lose our nerve and retreat from Iraq, they win.
    We've got a strategy for victory in Iraq. It's important for you to 
know that victory will be achieved with a democracy that can sustain 
itself, a country that will be able to defend itself from those who will 
try to defeat democracy at home, a country that will be an ally in the 
war on terror, and a country that will deny Al Qaida and the enemies 
that face America the safe haven they want. Those are the four 
categories for victory. And they're clear, and our command structure and 
our diplomats in Iraq understand the definition of victory.
    And we're moving that way. We're moving that way. We've got a plan 
to help rebuild Iraq. You know, when we first went in there--by the way, 
every war plan or every plan is fine, until it meets the enemy. But 
you've got to adjust. You've got to be able to say on the ground, 
``Well, this is working; this isn't working.'' The enemy is not a--they 
think differently; they make different decisions; they come up with 
different tactics to try to defeat us. And it's very important for us--
for me to say to our commanders and our diplomats, ``Devise that 
strategy on the

[[Page 645]]

ground; keep adjusting, so that we achieve the victory that we want.''
    So when we first got into Iraq, we went with big rebuilding 
projects. You know, ``We're going to help them do this and help them do 
that,'' big electricity projects. And the enemy blew them up. And so 
what we've done now is we've gone to a more rational strategy to provide 
money for local folks, including our military, to help smaller projects, 
but projects that are able to connect with the people on the ground. You 
know, jobs helps a lot, if you're trying to say, democracy is worth it.
    Second aspect of our plan was to promote democracy. And I know 4 
months in the way these news cycles work seems like a decade--at least 
it does to me at times, you know? [Laughter] Four months ago, 12 million 
people went to the polls. It was an amazing event, wasn't it, I mean, 
really think about it. If you can project back to the amazement, 
surprise, exhilaration that happened when, given a chance to vote for 
the third time in one year, the Iraqi people having had suffered under 
the tyranny of Saddam Hussein said, ``I want to be free. That's what we 
want to be.'' That's what they said. Twelve million people, in the face 
of incredible threats and potential suicide bombers--and ugly words 
coming out of those who fear democracy--said, ``Give me a chance.'' It 
was an amazing experience. It was a--in my judgment, a moment that is 
historic.
    Part of the task now is to say to the Iraqis' leaders, ``The people 
said something, now you need to get--you need to act. You need to get a 
unity government together.'' And that's what we're watching right now. 
It takes a while for people to overcome the effects of tyranny, and 
there's a lot of politics happening in Iraq. It's a little different 
from what used to be the place. It's a little different from other 
countries in that part of the world where one person makes a decision, 
and everybody kind of either likes it or doesn't like it, but you keep 
your mouth shut if you don't like it.
    Here you're watching people kind of edging for responsibility and 
working it, and we're very much involved. I know you know Condi went 
over there the other day, and her message was, let's get moving. The 
people want there to be a unity government. The people want there to be 
a democracy, and it requires leadership, for people to stand up and take 
the lead. And so we're working with them to get this unit government up 
and running.
    And then there's the security side. You can't have a democracy 
unless the people are confident in the capacity of the state to protect 
them from those who want to stop the advance of democracy. The enemy for 
a while tried to shake our nerve. They can't shake my nerve. They just 
can't shake it. So long as I think I'm doing the right thing, and so 
long as we can win, I'm going to leave our kids there because it's 
necessary for the security of this country. If I didn't think that we 
could win, I'd pull them out. You just got to know that. I cannot sit 
with the mothers and fathers of our troops in harm's way and not feel 
like victory is necessary and victory will be achieved.
    Part of my decisionmaking process about whether they're there is 
based upon whether or not the goal is necessary and attainable. It's 
necessary to protect this country--I'm going to talk about it a little 
later--and it is attainable. It's attainable because the Iraqis on the 
political side have said, ``You bet. Give us a chance.'' They wrote a 
Constitution; they ratified the Constitution. Twelve million went to the 
polls. That's a high voter turnout, by the way. On the security side, 
our goal, our mission is to let the Iraqis take the fight. And as I--
I've always been saying, ``They stand up; we stand down.'' That means, 
we train the Iraqis to take the fight to those who want to disrupt their 
country.
    And we're making good progress on the military side. By the way, we 
had to change our tactics. When we first got there, we said, why don't 
we train us an army that will be able to protect from an outside threat. 
It turned out there wasn't much of an outside threat compared to the 
inside threat. And so now the training mission has adapted to the 
tactics of the enemy on the ground. We're embedding our guys with the 
Iraqi Army. They're becoming more efficient. There's over 200,000 
trained, and we're constantly monitoring the quality of effort. And as 
the quality of the forces improves, they take over more territory. The 
idea is to have the Iraqi

[[Page 646]]

face in front, making the--helping the folks get the confidence in their 
Government.
    We lagged in police training. And so General Casey, as he--who is 
our general on the ground there, told me, he said, ``You know, this is 
going to be the year of training the police so they can bring confidence 
to people.''
    The enemy shifted its tactics, as you know, and has tried to create 
a civil war. And they blew up the--one of the holiest sites in Samarra, 
trying to get the Sunnis to get after the Shi'a, and vice versa. This 
has been an objective for awhile. First it was, go after coalition 
troops. There is still danger for our troops, don't get me wrong. But 
they really tried to incite a civil war. And what was interesting to 
watch is to watch the reaction for the--by the Government. The 
Government, including many of the religious leaders, stood up and said, 
``No, we don't want to go there; we're not interested in a civil war.''
    The Iraqi troops did a good job of getting between some mosques and 
crowds, and they got in between competing elements and stood their 
ground. And as I put it awhile ago, they said, the Iraqi people looked 
into the abyss and didn't like what they saw. And it's still 
troublesome, of course. There's still sectarian violence. You can't have 
a free state if you've got militia taking the law into their own hands.
    Now remember, this is a society adjusting to being free after a 
tyranny. And Saddam Hussein's tactics to keep the country in check was 
to pit one group of people against another and say, ``I'm the only 
stabilizing force for you.'' He was brutal on Shi'a; he destroyed, with 
chemical weapons, many Kurds; and he was tough on Sunnis too. But he 
created a kind of--this sense of rivalry.
    And so you can understand why there's revenge after years of this 
kind of tension he created. Our job and the job of rational Iraqi 
leaders is to prevent these sectarian reprisal attacks from going on. 
And it's tough work, but I want you to know, we understand the problem. 
More importantly, General Casey understands the problem.
    We're adjusting our tactics to be able to help these Iraqis secure 
their country so that democracy can flourish. They want democracy. 
That's what they've said. The troops, time and time again, have shown 
that they're better trained than before. And we've got more work to do 
on that, I readily concede. There's a lot of debate and a lot of 
questions about what's happening, I understand that.
    Again, I repeat to you, I know what violence does to people. First 
of all, I'm confident--people are saying, I wonder if these people can 
ever get their act together and self-govern? The answer is, I'm 
confident they can if we don't lose our nerve.
    One of the decision--principles--a principle on which I made 
decisions is this: I believe that freedom is universal. America was 
founded on the natural rights of men and women, which speaks to the 
universality of freedom. And if you believe in the universality of 
freedom, then you have confidence that if given a chance, people will 
seize that opportunity. No question the Iraqis need help after living 
under the thumb of a tyrant.
    But freedom is embedded, I believe, in the souls of men and women 
all over the Earth. You know, you don't demand freedom just--more than 
Methodists demand freedom, let me put it to you that way. I'm a 
Methodist. [Laughter] There's an interesting debate: Is it imposing 
one's values to encourage others to live in freedom? I argue the answer 
to that question is: Absolutely not, if you believe in the universality 
of freedom.
    And so while thrilled to see the vote, I was--I wasn't shocked. 
People want to be free. I know you're thinking about, ``Well, when's he 
going to get our troops out of there?'' There's a debate going on in 
Washington, DC, which it should, and it's an important debate about our 
troop levels. Here's my answer to you: I'm not going to make decisions 
based upon polls and focus groups; I'm going to make my decisions based 
upon the recommendations of our generals on the ground. They're the ones 
who decide how to achieve the victory I just described. They're the ones 
who give me the information.
    I remember coming up in the Vietnam war, and it seemed like that 
there was a--during the Vietnam war, there was a lot of politicization 
of the military decisions. That's not going to be the case under my 
administration. They say, ``Well, does George Casey

[[Page 647]]

tell you the truth?'' You bet he tells me the truth. When I talk to him, 
which I do quite frequently, I've got all the confidence in the world in 
this fine general. He's a smart guy; he's on the ground; he's making 
incredible sacrifices for our country. And he--if he says he needs more 
troops, he'll get them, and if he says he can live with fewer troops 
because the Iraqis are prepared to take the fight, that's the way it's 
going to be.
    There are some in Washington, DC, and around the country who are 
good folks, legitimate, decent folks, saying, ``Pull the troops out.'' 
That would be a huge mistake. It would be a huge--[applause]--hold on a 
second--it would be a huge mistake for these reasons: The enemy has said 
that they want us to leave Iraq in order to be able to regroup and 
attack us. If the American people--the American Government, not the 
people--were to leave prematurely, before victory is achieved, it would 
embolden the enemy.
    Now, I recognize some don't see the enemy like I do. There's kind of 
a different view of the enemy. That's a good thing about America, people 
can have different points of view, you know. And people should be 
allowed to express them, which is great.
    I see an enemy that is totalitarian in nature, that's clearly stated 
they want to attack us again, and they want safe haven from which to do 
so. That's why they're trying to stop democracy in Iraq. If we were to 
pull out our troops early, it would send a terrible signal to the 
Iraqis. Twelve million people said, ``I want to be free.'' And they need 
our help. We're helping the Iraqis achieve freedom. They watch these 
deals. They listen carefully to the debate in America. They need to 
watch, by the way, they need to watch this debate, which is good. It's 
what free societies do, they debate. But they're also listening very 
carefully about whether or not this country has got the will necessary 
to achieve the objective.
    Thirdly, if we left before the mission was complete, what would it 
say to our troops and the families, particularly those who have lost a 
loved one? I spend--let me say this about our military--the volunteer 
army is a necessary part of our society. We need to maintain the 
volunteer army. It is a really--we've got a magnificent group of men and 
women who serve our country. Do you realize most people who served, are 
serving today, volunteered after 9/11? They saw the stakes, and they 
said, ``I want to join the United States military.'' The retention rate 
is high, which means we've got people serving in uniform who not only 
volunteered and saw the stakes but have been involved in this conflict 
and said, ``I'd like to stay in the military.''
    It is a--the military is a vital part of securing this country in 
the war on terror. Now, if you don't think we're at war, then it 
probably doesn't matter that much. I not only think we're at war; I know 
we're at war. And it's going to require diligence and strength and a 
really--and a military that's well-paid, well-housed, well-trained, 
where morale is high. And pulling out before the mission is complete 
would send a terrible signal to the United States military.
    I welcome the debate, but I just want people here to know, we're 
going to complete the mission. We'll achieve victory. And I want to say 
this to the Iraqi people: We want to help you achieve your dreams. And 
the United States of America will not be intimidated by thugs and 
assassins.
    I got one more thing to say, then I--[applause]--I got one more 
thing to say. I know I'm getting a little windy. I want to talk to 
people about why it's important for us to succeed in Iraq--and 
Afghanistan, for that matter. I told you there's a short-term reason: 
Deny safe haven and help get allies in the war on terror to prevent this 
totalitarian movement from gaining a stronghold in places from which 
they can come hit us.
    There's a longer term reason as well, and that is, you defeat an 
ideology of darkness with an ideology of hope and light. And freedom and 
liberty are part of an ideology of light. Our foreign policy in the past 
has been one that said, well, if the waters look calm in parts of the 
world, even though there may not be freedom, that's okay. The problem 
with that foreign policy is below the surface there was resentment and 
anger and despair, which provided a fertile ground for a totalitarian 
group of folks to spread their poisonous philosophy and recruit.
    The way to defeat this notion of--their notion of society is one 
that is open, that is

[[Page 648]]

democratic, that is based upon liberty. This doesn't have to be an 
American-style democracy. It won't be. Democracy has got to reflect the 
tradition and the history of the countries in which it takes hold. I 
understand that. And nobody in the Middle East should think that when 
the President talks about liberty and democracy, he's saying you got to 
look just like America or act like America. Nobody is saying that.
    I am saying, though, trust your people; give them a chance to 
participate in society. I believe a society is a whole society in which 
women are free and are given equal rights. I believe there's a whole 
society in which young girls are given a chance to go to school and 
become educated. I believe it's a whole society when government actually 
responds to people not dictates to people. That's what I believe. And I 
believe that it's the best way in the long run to defeat an ideology 
that feels the opposite way. And we've seen it happen in our history 
before. It's happened in some of your lifetimes.
    One of the ways I like to describe what I'm trying to tell you is 
about my relationship with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. I say this 
all the time, as the press corps will tell you traveling with me--``When 
is he ever going to quit saying that?'' Well, it's the best example I 
can give you about what I'm trying to describe is happening today during 
these historic times. My dad fought the Japanese as an 18-year-old kid--
or 19--he went in at 18, I guess. But he was in combat. Many of your 
relatives fought the Japanese. It's hard to think back and kind of 
remember the bitterness that we had toward the Japanese. They attacked 
the United States of America and killed a lot of folks. And we want to 
war with them, and a lot of people died, and it was a bloody war.
    After the war--and by the way, it ended with an old doctrine of 
warfare, which is, destroy as many innocent people as you can to get the 
guilty to surrender. That's changed, by the way, with the precision 
nature of our military, and the way we're structured, and the way our 
troops think, is we now target the guilty and spare the innocent. That's 
another subject if you got a question. But anyway, today, my friend in 
keeping the peace is Prime Minister of Japan.
    Amazing, isn't it? Maybe you take it for granted. I don't. I think 
it's one of the really interesting parts of--one of the interesting 
stories of history, that 60 years after we fought the Japanese, I can 
tell you that I work with Prime Minister Koizumi on a variety of issues. 
It's amazing, I think. I know 60 seems like a long time. If I were six 
or seven, it would seem like a long time. At 59, it seems like a long 
time. [Laughter] Maybe when I'm 60, it will seem like a short time.
    Anyway, so what happened? What was it that caused something to 
change, an enemy to become an ally? I believe it's because the Japanese 
adopted a Japanese-style democracy. And I appreciate the fact that one 
of my predecessors, Harry S. Truman, had the foresight to see the 
capacity of freedom, the universal right of people to change the world, 
to make it so that, eventually, an American President would be able to 
say, we're working together to keep the peace. They're no longer an 
enemy; they're a friend. Democracies don't war.
    Europe is whole and free and at peace for a reason. We lost 
thousands of troops on the continent of Africa--on the continent of 
Europe since World War I. Thousands and thousands of young men and women 
lost their lives during that war. And today, there's peace. And the 
reason why is because democracies don't war with each other.
    I believe that one day an American President will be talking about 
the world in which he is making decisions or she is making decisions, 
and they'll look back and say, ``Thank goodness a generation of 
Americans understood the universality of liberty and the fact that 
freedom can change troubled parts in the world into peaceful parts of 
the world.''
    Is it worth it in Iraq? You bet it is. It's worth it to protect 
ourselves in the short run, but it's necessary and worth it to lay the 
foundation of peace for generations to come. And that's what's on my 
mind these days.
    I'll be glad to answer questions. Yes, ma'am.

Federal Budget/National Economy

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Good.
    Q. [Inaudible]

[[Page 649]]

    The President. Good. You're welcome here. [Laughter] This is not a 
political convention. [Laughter]
    Q. But more importantly, I'm an American, and my husband and I are 
proud parents of four children and five grandchildren, and I care very 
deeply, as you, about our future as a country and our place in the 
world.
    The President. Good.
    Q. I agree with you completely, that when war came to our borders, 
that we needed to defend our country against Al Qaida and was completely 
with you there. I agree that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, as many are 
across the world. But I am more concerned about the deficit that we are 
incurring in this country and the effect that that will have on my 
children and grandchildren and our present. My colleagues here on the 
city council and I were just talking about how we can't afford after-
school enrichment opportunities for the children of Charlotte because of 
cutbacks in the community development block grant. And I just----
    The President. That's a great question. Thank you.
    Q. ----think we need to secure our borders, to protect our ports, 
and to invest in the people of Charlotte and this country----
    The President. Good.
    Q. ----for a real national----
    The President. I got your question, thank you. It's a good question. 
She basically--no seriously, it's a legitimate question. What are you 
doing about the deficit? You know. There are two types of deficits that 
I want to describe to you. One is the current account deficit. It's the 
deficit that--that we're on plan to cut in half by 2009. There's an 
interesting debate in Washington about how do you deal with a current 
account deficit.
    By the way, we--and the area where we're able to affect the deficit 
the most is through some of the programs you described called 
discretionary spending. There's also discretionary sending and mandatory 
spending. Mandatory spending is a formula-driven spending that happens 
based upon conditions, not based upon, necessarily, legislation, 
although you can change mandatory spending through formula adjustment. 
Mandatory spending in Social Security, mandatory spending Medicare, 
mandatory spending Medicaid, programs like that; farm program is 
mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is some of the education 
programs you described. Discretionary spending is also military 
spending.
    We--I'm going to put this in a little larger context. I promise to 
answer your question. We were confronted with a series of hurdles to 
economic growth that we had to deal with in Washington. We had a stock 
market correction--a quite significant stock market correction, and we 
had a recession early in '01. And then the enemy attacked us, which hurt 
our economy. Obviously, my decision to go to war--people don't--you 
know, war is an unsettling thing. I fully understand that. Sometimes 
it's not conducive to risking capital during a time of war. We had a 
major natural disaster. All of this affected our economy.
    I made the decision to cut taxes, as you know. It was a decision 
based upon the principle that if people had more money in their pocket, 
they're likely to spend it, save it, or invest it. And therefore, I felt 
like the best way to address these economic hurdles was to stimulate our 
economy through progrowth economic policies, starting with a tax cut--
and a tax cut, by the way, for everybody. Everybody who paid taxes 
should get a cut. It's a tax cut that helped our small businesses. I 
firmly believe by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains, it 
stimulated investment.
    And our strategy has, I think, been proven by the numbers. We're 
growing at 3.4 percent--3.5 percent last year. The national unemployment 
rate is at 4.8 percent, 5 million jobs in 2\1/2\ years. I mean, I could 
go on--housing is up. There's a lot of positive economic news. And no 
question, however, we've been running a deficit.
    One reason we're running a deficit is because I'm going to make sure 
our troops have what it takes to do their job. In the harm's way--when 
they're in harm's way, you've got to be able to say to their families 
that we're going to give them all they got. You know, we want to help 
them.
    One of the interesting things about, for this war, is that we're 
saving a lot of lives through a health care system that is phenomenal, 
and we're pulling these kids off the

[[Page 650]]

battlefield and sending them to Walter Reed or Bethesda as quickly as 
possible, sparing no expense to save lives. But no question, it's been 
costly.
    Katrina--we're up to $100 billion on Katrina. I don't know if you've 
been over there. You know, it just breaks your heart to see the 
devastation done in the gulf coast of Mississippi and inside New 
Orleans. It's a gut-wrenching experience to see the devastation that 
went on, and the Federal Government has made a strong commitment to 
provide that money.
    That's background for--no question, we have a current account 
deficit. I have submitted a budget that says we can cut it in half by 
2009. Now, there is a debate in Washington. Some of them are saying, 
``Raise the taxes in order to balance the budget.'' In all due respect, 
that's not the way Washington works. Washington will raise the taxes and 
figure out new ways to spend the money. So my attitude is, let's leave 
the progrowth economic policies in place, which by the way, yielded a 
$100 billion-plus more money than anticipated last year, because a 
growing economy yields more tax revenues, and be tough on the spending.
    And I understand it creates some of the conditions you said, and I 
appreciate you bringing those to my attention. We're now in another 
budget discussion in Washington. And I submitted another tough budget. 
Now, people said, ``Why don't you veto the budgets?'' I'd like to 
explain that to you. So we sit down from the executive branch and 
negotiate--we come up with a budget that we think is necessary to meet 
goals. The goal is to cut the current account deficit in half by 2009, 
and then we negotiate with the Congress. We say, ``Here's the top line; 
here's what we want you to meet in order to meet the goals we think are 
necessary.''
    Thus far, they've hit the top line that we've suggested. Last year, 
as the councilwoman mentioned, the mayor pro tem mentioned, that there 
are some cutbacks in CDBG money. It's all aimed at trying to get this 
deficit under control. And the--and so Congress said last year, you're 
right. Here's the top line; we made it.
    And so the size of the pie was what we thought was necessary to 
achieve an objective. And so therefore, I'm confronted with a choice. I 
may not like the slices of the pie, but I like the size. And if I vetoed 
bills because of the slices, but it met the size, what would happen 
during the next budget negotiations? They'd say, ``Well, wait a minute; 
we hit your number; you vetoed the bills. How can we trust you in good 
faith?''
    The job of the President is to set a goal, which is to reduce that 
deficit in half by 2009. And if people want me to be able to deal with 
slices of the pie, just give me the line-item veto. And I think that 
will help make sure that--[applause]--let me talk about another thing. 
I'm sorry--this is a long answer to a very important question. I'm sorry 
I'm blowing on too much here, but the real deficit--I'll get you in a 
minute--the real deficit, another real deficit is the deficit inherent 
in Social Security and Medicare.
    There is a massive amount of unfunded liability inherent in those 
two very important programs. And the reason why is, is that baby boomers 
like me are getting ready to retire. And there's a lot of us, and we're 
living longer than the program initially anticipated, and we've been 
promised greater benefits, and fewer people per retiree paying into the 
system. And the system is going to go broke, and a lot of people are 
watching whether or not the United States has the will to address this 
problem because if we don't, future Presidents and future Congresses are 
going to have to raise taxes significantly, reduce benefits 
significantly, or reduce other programs significantly. This is a 
significant problem facing a future generation of Americans.
    As you know, I took the problem on last year. I might have been the 
only guy in Washington taking the problem on last year. [Laughter] My 
theory was, go out and explain to the American people we got a problem. 
And the people now understand, we got a problem, and the fundamental 
question is, how do you translate that to a program that Congress will 
act on?
    And so my second strategy has been--remember, we're always adapting 
our tactics--was to put together a bipartisan group, which we're in the 
process of doing, of members from both political parties, from both 
Chambers, to come up with common ground so we can say to the American 
people, here is

[[Page 651]]

a bipartisan approach to these very serious, unfunded liabilities that 
face future generations of Americans. It's a short-term account. It's 
very important--no question, Madam Councilperson. The long-term issue is 
equally, if not greater of importance, which is the unfunded liabilities 
inherent in Social Security and Medicare. I'm going to continue to take 
on the issue. It's a big issue, and I'm confident we can get it solved.
    Okay. Yes, sir.

Freedom of Religion

    Q. [Inaudible]--I want to thank you for coming back to Charlotte 
again. We certainly enjoyed your wife here a few weeks ago. Okay, thank 
you. But I just wanted not to ask a question but just to offer you a 
message of encouragement. I know many men and women in this room and 
around our region, both Democrat and Republican, continue to pray for 
wisdom and encouragement for you and strength during these times. So we 
just want to continue to encourage you.
    The President. Thank you. Appreciate you.
    I'd like to say one thing about religion--religion and politics, if 
you don't mind. The United States of America must never lose sight of 
this beautiful principle: You can worship or not worship, and you're 
equally American. You're equally American if you're a Christian, Jew, or 
Muslim, atheist, agnostic. We must never lose sight of that. That's what 
distinguishes us from the Taliban.
    Having said that, I cannot thank you all enough for the prayers. It 
means a lot to me and Laura. One of the most amazing aspects of the 
Presidency is to meet total strangers and they say, ``I pray for you.'' 
They don't say, ``I need a road or a bridge.'' [Laughter] The mayor 
might have said that--[laughter] --or a museum. They say, ``I pray for 
you, Mr. President.'' Thank you.
    Let's see. Yes, ma'am.

The Presidency

    Q. A lot of people were betting that I wouldn't get a chance to ask 
you questions.
    The President. Why is that?
    Q. Just because there would be, you know, you might not choose me. 
[Laughter] Thank you very much.
    The President. Don't bet against yourself is lesson one.
    Q. Right. And I wanted to say to you, Mr. President, that on the war 
on terror, Social Security, the tax cuts, Dubai Ports, immigration, you 
have shown immense political courage. And I really think that you will 
be vindicated on all of those positions, as Ronald Reagan was, for 
example. And also I wanted to know what else would it take for me to get 
my picture taken with you? [Laughter]
    The President. My attitude is, about this job, is just do my job. 
Say what you think is right. There's an interesting sense about whether 
this poll or that poll--I'm just going to tell you something about the 
Presidency. You cannot make decisions based upon polls. [Applause] 
You've got to stand--I'm not trying to elicit applause here; I'm just 
trying to share with you what it's like, as best I can, to be your 
President, at least why I do what I do.
    And I am--I'm the kind of fellow that--it's like the Social Security 
issue. You know, they say, ``Well, you shouldn't have brought it up,'' 
you know. I can't live with myself if I see a problem and not willing to 
address it. I want, after 8 years, to be able to walk out of that office 
and say, I did what I thought was right.
    Now, you talk--an interesting thing is, I'm reading a lot of history 
these days, and it's--I've got some books to recommend, if you like 
them, you know. [Laughter] In contrary to what some of them think back 
there, it's not big print and pictures, either. [Laughter] Yes. Yes, I 
got you; thank you. [Laughter]
    I read three books on George Washington. I think it's really 
interesting, isn't it? Historians are still analyzing the first 
President of the United States. And history is--sometimes history 
doesn't record the immediate effects of a Presidency. And you just do 
what you think is right, and you don't have to--you can't worry about 
it, you know. If they're still writing about Washington, you know, who 
knows how long I will be gone before they're writing about me in a way 
where there's enough time between the day--the Presidency--and an 
objective look of what takes place.

[[Page 652]]

    You heard me quoting Harry Truman. I bet you when Harry Truman made 
the decision to help the Japanese become a democracy, there was some 
editorialization basically saying, how dare you work with an enemy. You 
know, I bet there was some of that. I bet there was a lot of skepticism, 
and I can understand that, you know. I can understand why people are 
skeptical about whether or not a democracy can take hold in a part of 
the world like the Middle East. My only point to you, it's necessary for 
the peace. It has worked in the past, and it's necessary. And we cannot 
lose confidence in--in these universal values.
    Let's see here. Yes. Yes. No, wait a minute. You're second. Excuse 
me. [Laughter] I beg your pardon.

Voluntarism

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Young people involved--thank you for that. That's a 
good question. She asked, what can young people do to get involved? 
First of all, the fact that you asked the question is an encouraging 
sign.
    I like to tell people that the true strength of America is the 
hearts and souls of our people. You know, our military might is strong; 
our wallets are fatter than anybody else's in the world, on an 
individual--per capita basis. But the true strength of our country is 
the fact that neighbors love neighbors.
    De Tocqueville saw this when he came to the United States in 1830s. 
He was a traveler, and he came and said, ``I'm coming to the land of the 
rugged individualist.'' And he discovered something interesting way back 
in 1832, I think it was, when he wrote his book. He discovered that 
Americans have a penchant, the desire to form voluntary associations to 
help a neighbor. And it's that spirit of helping a neighbor that 
Presidents should foster and encourage, because it really is the 
strength of the United States of America.
    When you really think about the community of Charlotte, in spite of 
the fact that the Federal Government has got influence or the city 
council has got influence, there are thousands of your fellow citizens 
teaching a child to read. And it doesn't require one law. There are 
people feeding the hungry. I bet you've got some of the great food 
pantry programs in the United States of America here. There are people 
providing shelter for the homeless. There are thousands of acts of 
kindness. The Boy Scout troops are active, I bet--the Girl Scouts. These 
are--the Little League programs, you know, the basketball programs. 
They--there's thousands of acts of kindness taking place on a daily 
basis.
    To answer your question, involvement can mean a lot of things. It 
can mean serving in the military; it can mean teaching a child to read; 
it can mean getting your classmates to volunteer to help feed the 
hungry. There's thousands of ways to contribute, and the fact that we 
have millions of Americans doing that is really a remarkable aspect of 
our country.
    One of the principles that has guided me is, to whom much is given, 
much is required. That's why I'm very proud of our Nation's effort to 
help lead the effort to solve the HIV/AIDS issue, particularly on the 
continent of Africa. We're an abundant nation. We're a blessed people in 
many ways, and yet there's a pandemic raging across the continent of 
Africa that's literally having the potential effect of wiping out a 
generation of people. And the stories are heartbreaking, and they're 
devastating to a civilization in many places. And yet, our Nation has 
made the commitment to spend $15 billion over a 5-year period of time to 
help provide antiretroviral drugs, to help provide prevention, to help 
the orphans who've been left alone. The program is being administered by 
the U.S. Government.
    And one aspect--there's a Global Fund as well. Another aspect--but 
the people on the ground, the foot soldiers, many are from the faith 
community, who have said, ``I want to help; what can I do to help a 
neighbor?'' The neighbor could be right around the corner, or the 
neighbor could be on the continent of Africa, in this case. We are a 
generous, compassionate people, and it's our true strength.
    Let's see here. Yes, sir. Yes, please.

Support for the President

    Q. Yes, sir. Actually, I'm bringing a statement to you for a friend. 
Sahara Bozanis a young Iraqi woman who just came to America last year. 
She grew up under Saddam, and she actually worked for the U.S. forces

[[Page 653]]

during the war as an interpreter. I talked to her this week. She wanted 
to make sure that she knew--that you knew that her family that's still 
there is grateful, that she thinks that even though there may be 
terrorists still going on, that they are safer now than they ever were 
before. And her goal is to one day meet you to thank you in person, 
because you have changed their lives. Even though we might not see that 
in the press, their lives are much better today than they were 3, 4 
years ago.
    The President. Thank you, sir.
    Q. So she wanted to thank you.
    The President. Say, wait a minute, I--I will keep my word here. Oh, 
there you are. Yes, sorry. You thought I forgot, didn't you? I beg your 
pardon; I did forget. [Laughter] You know how guys near 60, they begin 
to kind of--[laughter].

International Support for the War on Terror

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. A civics teacher, great, thank you. Thank you for 
teaching.
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. No, I appreciate--that's a very good question. First 
of all, thank you for teaching. By the way--as you grow up, the lady 
behind you--the girl behind you--as you grow up, one way to contribute 
is to teach, by the way.
    The global war on terror requires a global response, and inherent in 
this woman's question was: What are you doing to make sure that others 
join the United States, recognizing that we cannot do this alone? And I 
appreciate the question a lot.
    There is a lot of cooperation going on now. One of the great myths 
is that the United States is alone in the war on terror. Take, for 
example, Afghanistan. No question, we've got Special Forces there. No 
question, we've got a viable element of our military there to fight off 
Al Qaida or Taliban as they either sneak across the border or come from 
different provinces to try to do harm, but NATO is very actively 
involved there as well.
    The NATO presence is in the lead in many of the provinces. There's 
what's called Provincial Reconstruction Teams. It's kind of along the 
lines that I talked about earlier, about localizing the reconstruction 
efforts on a provincial basis. This is what's happening in Afghanistan, 
and there's reconstruction--Provincial Reconstruction Teams run by 
different countries. Germany has got a presence there. France has had--
has presence in Afghanistan. In other words, there is a global network 
there.
    In Iraq, as well, there's a lot of coalition forces, some small, 
some large. Great Britain, of course, is large. The Japanese had a 
thousand troops there. It's an amazing commitment by Prime Minister 
Koizumi when you think about the aftermath of World War II. The South 
Koreans have got a significant force there. The Poles have had a 
significant force there. There's a big international presence there. 
Many of the--and the NATO mission, by the way, is present in Iraq, as 
well, all aimed at helping train. They're very much involved in the 
training mission to give the Iraqi troops the skills necessary to do 
their jobs.
    The global war on terror is fought on more fronts than just the 
military front. For example, one of the really important parts of this 
war on terror is to share intelligence, is to be able to say, ``If you 
hear somebody or see somebody coming that you tell a counterpart in 
another agency--another intelligence service.'' And so we spend a lot of 
time, John Negroponte, for example, or Porter Goss, spends a lot of time 
with their counterparts constantly figuring out how best to share 
information.
    Again, in old war, people could measure movement by the enemy from--
by watching ships and tanks move across plains. Now we're dealing with 
people that are kind of moving around stealthily. And we've got to be in 
a position where we can share that intelligence.
    The third aspect of the global war on terror is to cut off their 
money. It turns out terrorists need money--just like the Federal 
Government spends money. And it's a--so we're--our Secretary of 
Treasury, John Snow, and others are constantly working to make sure that 
hawalas, for example, which are kind of a money transmitting entity, 
doesn't--includes terrorist financing. Or we worked with the Saudi 
Government to make

[[Page 654]]

it clear that the financing of terrorist activities are not in our 
interest, obviously, or their interest.
    By the way, the Saudi Government has been very active in the war on 
terror. They've got a list of Al Qaida potential killers, and they're 
bringing them to justice. Pakistan has been a strong ally in the war on 
terror. You might remember that President Musharraf was one of three 
countries--or that Pakistan under President Musharraf was one of three 
countries that had recognized the Taliban. And so needless to say after 
September the 11th, he was--made a choice. Colin Powell did a wonderful 
job of talking to President Musharraf in a very respectful and dignified 
way, and basically said, ``Who are you with?'' And he has been an ally 
in the war on terror.
    The interesting thing about President Musharraf is, the enemy has 
tried to kill him four times. There have been four assassination 
attempts on him by Al Qaida, which causes him to be a strong ally in the 
war on terror. [Laughter]
    And so it's a great question. I'm constantly working to remind 
people about the stakes. I knew one of the real dangers after 9/11 was 
that people would tend to forget the lessons learned. And that's normal. 
And frankly, if you're the President of the United States, you want 
normalcy. You want people to go back to their life as quickly as 
possible.
    And so it's--my job is to travel the country, like I'm doing a lot 
of, and saying, ``Here are the stakes. Go ahead and live your life and 
risk capital and raise your families--let us worry about it.'' And it's 
such a different kind of war that we're constantly having to work with 
our allies, as well, to remind them about the stakes.
    The enemy has reminded them about the stakes. Remember that ours 
isn't the only country that's been attacked. There were attacks in 
Madrid; there were attacks in London; attacks in Egypt; there's been a 
series of attacks around the world--Jordan. They go up--Al Qaida goes in 
and blows up a wedding. These are coldblooded killers, now. These are 
people that will stop at nothing to achieve their objectives.
    And so--no, that's a great question. And the coalition is--it's been 
a large coalition, and we're constantly working it. Some countries feel 
comfortable about helping in Afghanistan; some--that same country may 
not feel comfortable about Iraq. But either way, we're talking about 
this war on terror on a regular basis.
    Yes. Sir.

Progress in Iraq/Lessons Learned

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Okay, yes. Squeaky wheel? Okay, hold on. [Laughter] 
It'll work.
    Q. Mr. President, my name is----
    The President. I went with the tall guy first. [Laughter]
    Q. It's an honor to stand here in front of you and ask you this 
question. You talked a little bit about your decisionmaking ability, and 
you've been steadfast as it relates to the global war on terror, which I 
think is commendable. Another thing I look for in a leader is their 
ability to look in hindsight and their ability to be--a degree of 
humility. And maybe wondering--what could have been done differently? I 
wonder if you look back and go, maybe I should have done this 
differently? I'd just be curious to hear that.
    The President. I appreciate that. I'm constantly looking back to see 
if things could be done differently or better. A classic example--first 
of all, I meant what I said on the strategic objective in Iraq. I said 
in the '04 campaign; I'm going to say it to you again: Knowing what I 
know today, I'd have made the same decision.
    The tactics of going in--one of the interesting questions--you know, 
for example, the training of troops. We started training a military from 
ground one, Iraqi military, as if there was going to be a threat from 
outside its borders, which, in retrospect, we could have done better. 
After all, the threat was not from outside the borders; the threat was 
inside the borders as a result of Zarqawi coming in--coming in the 
country.
    The police training has now begun in earnest in '06. The fundamental 
question is, could we have sped that up; could we have done a better 
job? The strategy, I'm convinced, is right, which is to give the Iraqis 
the opportunity to defend themselves. The question is, are the tactics--
in order to achieve that, could we have done a quicker

[[Page 655]]

job and expedited the idea of having the Iraqis standing up and us 
standing down?
    I mentioned the reconstruction projects. Again, these are all 
necessary to look back to make sure that, as we head out into the 
future, that we're able to adjust quicker and better. And I spent a lot 
of time reviewing decisions made.
    There's a--you know, there's a debate in Washington about the 
strategic objective, however. That's different from the tactics on the 
ground. I strongly believe what we're doing is the right thing. If I 
didn't believe it--I'm going to repeat what I said before--I'd pull the 
troops out, nor if I believed we could win, I would pull the troops out.
    There is a--the military are constantly taking a real-time analysis 
based upon previous decisions and what they anticipate the needs to be. 
And so they themselves are constantly evaluating what could have been 
done differently.
    Obviously, one classic case that hurt us that I wish were done 
differently was Abu Ghraib, the prison. What took place there and the 
pictures there just represented everything we didn't stand for. And it 
hurt us. It hurt us in the international arena, particularly in the 
Muslim world, where they said, look--it gave the enemy a fantastic 
opportunity to use it for propaganda reasons. ``Look at the United 
States of America. Look what they're doing to these people. They're 
disgracing--they don't believe in the dignity of each person,'' and, in 
fact, we do. I wish that could be done over. It was a disgraceful 
experience. However, I'm proud to report that the people who made that 
decision are being brought to justice, and there was a full 
investigation over why something like that could have happened.
    And so, yes, I do. Look, I fully understand there is--I guess, my 
reputation is, he sticks to his guns and--it's a very legitimate 
question, do you ever kind of understand that maybe--that you've got to 
be somewhat flexible?
    I'm not flexible in my principles. I think if you're flexible in 
your principles, you end up not making sound decision. But I do agree 
with your question that a President has got to be capable of looking 
back and learning from how things could have been done differently. 
Great question. Thank you.
    Okay, squeaky wheels. There's three of you up there. Is this like a 
chorus? [Laughter] Would you please decide among yourselves?

Terrorist Surveillance Program

    Q. I've got the mike.
    The President. Okay, yes, very good. [Laughter] Good move.
    Q. You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But 
while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to 
tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to 
preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating 
safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to 
make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my 
own behalf. You are----
    The President. I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. [Laughter] Go 
on, what's your question?
    Q. Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is 
that I--in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of nor more 
frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the Presidency, by 
the Senate, and----
    Audience members. Boo-o-o!
    The President. No, wait a sec--let him speak.
    Q. And I would hope--I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that 
compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your 
administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the 
humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself, inside yourself. And I 
also want to say, I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to 
speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this 
country is about.
    The President. It is, yes.
    Q. And I know that this doesn't come welcome to most of the people 
in this room, but I do appreciate that.
    The President. Appreciate----
    Q. I don't have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment 
to you.
    The President. I appreciate it, thank you. Let me--I'm going to 
start off with what you first said, if you don't mind. You said that

[[Page 656]]

I tap your phones--I think that's what you said. You tapped your phone--
I tapped your phones. Yes. No, that's right. Yes, no, let me finish.
    I'd like to describe that decision I made about protecting this 
country. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion 
is, I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist 
surveillance program, and I'll tell you why. We were accused in 
Washington, DC, of not connecting the dots, that we didn't do everything 
we could to protect you or others from the attack. And so I called in 
the people responsible for helping to protect the American people and 
the homeland. I said, is there anything more we could do?
    And there--out of this national--NSA, came the recommendation that 
it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country, 
inside the country from Al Qaida or suspected Al Qaida in order to have 
real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I 
thought that made sense so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may 
not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers--and 
we've got plenty of them in Washington--but they made this assessment 
that it was constitutional for me to make that decision.
    I then, sir, took that decision to Members of the United States 
Congress from both political parties and briefed them on the decision 
that was made in order to protect the American people. And so members of 
both parties, both Chambers, were fully aware of a program intended to 
know whether or not Al Qaida was calling in or calling out of the 
country. It seems like--to make sense, if we're at war, we ought to be 
using tools necessary within the Constitution, on a very limited basis, 
a program that's reviewed constantly, to protect us.
    Now, you and I have a different--of agreement on what is needed to 
be protected. But you said, would I apologize for that? The answer--
answer is, absolutely not.

Palestinian Elections/Israel

    Q. Mr. President--[inaudible]--I was raised on a ranch in New 
Mexico, and my heroes have always been cowboys.
    The President. There you go. Thank you, yes. [Laughter] I'm not sure 
I qualify as a cowboy. [Laughter]
    Q. Thinking about our children's children, if the all-powerful 
granter of the Presidential request were to visit you this evening and 
give you one of these three: of ongoing economic growth and security for 
America, ridding the world of the security threat now posed by North 
Korea and Iran, or establishing peace between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians, which one----
    The President. Whew. [Laughter] Back to back, you know? [Laughter] I 
don't--that's not the way life works. You can do more than one thing at 
one time. We can achieve peace with the--we can win this war on terror 
if we're steadfast and strong. It's not going to happen on my watch. 
It's going to take awhile. We can spread liberty and freedom to create 
peace. And we can work on the Palestinian-Israeli issue at the same 
time. I am the first President to have articulated two states living 
side by side in peace.
    And I'm also a President who believed that the Palestinians needed 
to have elections. There's an interesting debate in Washington, is do 
you wait for the conditions to be perfect before elections, that the 
institutions be in place before there are elections, or do you have 
elections as a step toward a civil society and a democratic society? As 
you know, I've taken the latter rather than the former, and encouraged 
the Palestinian elections.
    And what was interesting about those elections is that--and since 
then, by the way, the Israelis have had elections. The Palestinian 
elections--let me just step back. I think the Palestinians have been a 
long-suffering people that deserve better government. The former 
leadership turned out to be corrupt--like, stole money. And as a result 
of his leadership, we never got very close to peace. There wasn't a 
lasting--there weren't lasting institutions in place. I believe 
democracies don't war.
    And so the election was really an interesting one, I think, 
recently. Guess what the election was based on? Corruption. This is the 
Palestinian elections. Anticorruption campaigns, ``Vote for me; we're 
not going to steal your money. Vote for me; we'll help educate your kids 
and provide health care.''

[[Page 657]]

The dilemma we're in--it's not a dilemma. I made the decision that if 
you believe in two states living side by side in peace, then one of the 
parties in the state--one of the parties cannot declare their intentions 
to destroy the other party. That's not peaceful. That is warlike.
    And so our posture at this point in time is to say to the 
Palestinians, Hamas, get rid of it; get rid of that platform. It's not a 
peaceful platform. It's a warlike platform. We want there to be two 
states side by side in peace.
    We've also said, we'll help the people but not the Government. You 
know, somebody said, ``Well, you support elections.'' I said, yes, I do. 
I don't necessarily have to like who wins. But I do think it was a 
necessary part of the evolution of the state to have the Palestinian 
people be able to say, ``We're sick of it. We're sick of the status quo. 
We want something differently. We want a Government that's honest, and 
we want a Government that listens to our demands.'' I thought it was a 
positive development. And now, I would strongly urge the Hamas 
Government to change their tune and their rhetoric about Israel and 
advocate the peace and work toward a civil society that will yield a 
lasting peace.
    Again, this is an issue where I'm--progress is being made, but it 
requires a steadfast support of our belief that democracies will yield 
to peace.
    I've got to go. I appreciate you. Yes, one last question. Yes, 
ma'am, I promised you. I'm sorry.

Alternative Fuel Sources

    Q. Thank you. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I am Wilhelmenia 
Rembert. I serve as vice chair of the Board of County Commission here in 
Mecklenburg County. I'm joined by my colleague, Commissioner Dumont 
Clarke, and we welcome you to Mecklenburg County.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. I defer my own question to ask you a question of one of my 
students at Winthrop University, where I'm a professor of social work, 
asked me to bring to your attention. And that is, what can you, Mr. 
President, and what will you do to help control the rising cost of fuel 
which is really affecting the ability of many students to travel and the 
rest of us--not just students--to travel back and forth to work and to 
school? Thank you.
    The President. I appreciate that. I wish I could wave a wand and 
say, we need more gasoline relative to demand. I don't have the capacity 
to control the market. I do have the capacity to start leading this 
country away from dependence on oil. And I believe that we need to 
promote--vigorously promote alternative sources of energy, starting with 
ethanol, which could help the farmers around here, by the way. There's a 
lot of ethanol--ethanol basically right now is produced from corn. In 
the Midwest, a lot of people are using more ethanol--and to promote 
technologies such as plug-in hybrid batteries. We're close to some 
significant breakthroughs. By the way, this is where Republicans and 
Democrats are working together in Washington, DC, to provide the funding 
necessary for technology to help lead us away from dependency upon oil.
    And so this isn't going to help your person tomorrow--I readily 
concede. But it is going to--it's going to, in the relatively near 
future, be able to enable people to plug their car in and drive the 
first 40 miles on battery, as opposed to using gasoline.
    And so there is a real need--that's why I put this in the State of 
the Union--a real need for us to diversify away from fossil fuels, not 
only to protect the environment, Mister, but also for national and 
economic security reasons. And the--we're making progress.
    I was able to make a decision right after Katrina that helped deal 
with the--what could have been a--even stronger rise in the price of 
gasoline. I was able to suspend EPA rules because of the natural 
disaster that took place. And by suspending the blended rules, that can 
create disruption as these--as the seasonal change, there's a disruption 
in supply. By suspending those rules, it enabled us to import more 
European gasoline. And that, in turn, provided stability in the 
marketplace. And so we didn't have significant spikes.
    I fully understand the effects of gasoline price raises on people 
who are working. It's like a tax. Every time it goes up at the pump, 
people are, like, paying a tax. And the long-term solution is to get off 
oil. And we are aggressively doing so.

[[Page 658]]

    Thanks for your time. God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 10:45 a.m. at Central Piedmont Community 
College. In his remarks, he referred to Firoz Peera, chair, World 
Affairs Council of Charlotte; P. Anthony Zeiss, president, Central 
Piedmont Community College, and his wife, Beth; Mayor Patrick McCrory of 
Charlotte, NC; 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; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, an Al 
Qaida operative suspected of helping to plan the September 11, 2001, 
terrorist attack, who was captured in Karachi, Pakistan, September 11, 
2002; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; 
Ayman Al-Zawahiri, founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and senior Al 
Qaida associate; President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan; President Hamid 
Karzai of Afghanistan; former President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; senior 
Al Qaida associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi; Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., USA, 
commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Prime Minister Junichiro 
Koizumi of Japan; and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.