[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 15 (Monday, April 17, 2006)]
[Pages 671-686]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies 
and a Question-and-Answer Session

April 10, 2006

    The President. Thank you. Please be seated. Bill, thanks for the 
kind introduction. I'm pleased to be here at this school, which bears 
the name of one of America's greatest statesmen. Paul Nitze served as a 
trusted adviser to six Presidents, from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald 
Reagan. He was one of a small group of men who shaped the world that 
emerged from the Allied victory in World War II. He encouraged our 
Nation to continue the--its noble and essential role as freedom's 
defender. He was the principal author of NSC-68, the strategic blueprint 
for America's victory in the cold war. At a time when some wanted to 
wish away the Soviet threat, Paul Nitze insisted that the cold war was, 
in his words, ``in fact, a real war in which the survival of the free 
world is at stake.'' He helped rally America to confront this mortal 
danger, and his strategic vision helped secure the triumph of freedom in 
that great struggle of the 20th century.

[[Page 672]]

    At the start of this young century, America is once again engaged in 
a real war that is testing our Nation's resolve. While there are 
important distinctions, today's war on terror is like the cold war. It 
is an ideological struggle with an enemy that despises freedom and 
pursues totalitarian aims. Like the cold war, our adversary is 
dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in 
liberty are weak and decadent, they lack the resolve to defend our way 
of life. Like the cold war, America is once again answering history's 
call with confidence. And like the cold war, freedom will prevail.
    I thank Dr. Bill Brody; I thank Jessica Einhorn. Thank you all for 
having me here. I appreciate all those who teach here. I appreciate the 
students letting me come to speak. Glad to provide a convenient excuse 
to skip class. [Laughter] I want to thank Bill Nitze, adjunct professor, 
son of a great man. I know how you feel. [Laughter] I appreciate Mike 
Chertoff being here. I'm proud to see a lot of folks who wear the 
Nation's uniform for joining us. Welcome.
    I thought I'd give a speech, but a short speech, much to your 
relief, and then I'll be glad to answer some questions.
    Yesterday our Nation marked the third anniversary of a great moment 
in the history of freedom; it was the liberation of Iraq. Three years 
ago, coalition forces entered the gates of Baghdad, fought their way 
into the center of the city, and helped Iraqis pull down the statue of 
Saddam Hussein. What they found in Baghdad horrified our troops. One 
marine describes how Iraqis led his unit to a children's prison where 
more than 100 youngsters were being held. Some of the children had 
reportedly been jailed because they refused to join the Ba'athist Party 
Youth Organization. He says, ``It was really something. The children 
just streamed out of the gates, and their parents just started to 
embrace us.''
    Under Saddam's brutal regime, the Iraqi people lived lives of fear 
and desperation. Innocent civilians were executed in public squares; 
they were massacred and piled into mass graves. Saddam's regime denied 
people food and medicine while building elaborate palaces from which to 
rule with an iron hand. Saddam sponsored terrorism; he pursued and used 
weapons of mass destruction; he fired at U.S. and British air crews 
patrolling the no-fly zones; he defied more than a dozen U.N. Security 
Council resolutions. Today, because America and a great coalition acted, 
the regime is no longer in power, is no longer sponsoring terrorists, is 
no longer destabilizing the region, is no longer undermining the 
credibility of the United Nations, is no longer threatening the world. 
Because we acted, 25 million Iraqis now taste freedom.
    The decision by the United States and our coalition partners to 
remove Saddam Hussein was a really difficult decision. It was the right 
decision. After September the 11th, America decided that we would fight 
the war on terror on the offense, and that we would confront threats 
before they fully materialized. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the 
United States of America. America is safer today because Saddam Hussein 
is no longer in power.
    Coalition forces drove Saddam from power, and a U.S. Army unit, led 
by a graduate of this school--Colonel James Hickey, class of 1992--
captured Saddam when he was hiding in a hole in the ground. Today, 
thanks to our courageous men and women in uniform, the former Iraqi 
dictator is sitting in a courtroom instead of a palace, and he's now 
facing justice for his crimes.
    The past 3 years since liberation, the Iraqi people have begun the 
difficult process of recovering from Saddam's repression. They're 
beginning to build a democracy on the rubble of his tyranny. They still 
face brutal and determined enemies: members of the deposed regime who 
dream of returning to power; other insurgents; and foreign terrorists 
who dream of turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a 
safe haven from which to plot and plan new attacks against America and 
our allies. The enemies of a free Iraq are determined to ignite a civil 
war, put the Iraqi people--to pit the Iraqi people against one another, 
and to stop the country's democratic progress. Yet the Iraqi people are 
determined to live in freedom, and America is determined to defeat the 
terrorists, and we're determined to help the Iraqi people succeed.
    America is doing our part to help the Iraqis build a democracy. Our 
Nation can be proud

[[Page 673]]

of what our courageous men and women in uniform have accomplished in the 
past 3 years. Since liberation, our forces have captured or killed 
thousands of Al Qaida terrorists and other enemy fighters; we've freed 
Fallujah and Tall `Afar and other Iraqi cities from the grip of the 
terrorists and the insurgents; we've trained Iraqi security forces so 
they increasingly can take the lead in the fight and eventually assume 
responsibility for the security of their country.
    We've learned from our mistakes. We've adjusted our approach to meet 
the changing circumstances on the ground. We've adjusted depending upon 
the actions of the enemy. By pursuing a clear and flexible strategy in 
Iraq, we helped make it possible for Iraqis to choose their leaders and 
begin to assume the responsibilities of self-government and self-
defense. In the past 3 years, our troops in Iraq have done everything 
expected of them and more. They've brought freedom to Iraq, security to 
our country, and pride to the uniform, and they have the gratitude of 
all Americans.
    In the past 3 years, the Iraqi people have done their part. They 
defied death threats from the terrorists to cast ballots not one time, 
not twice, but three times, and each election saw larger and broader 
turnout than the one that came before. Iraqis chose a Transitional 
Government, drafted the most progressive Constitution in the Arab world, 
approved that Constitution in a nationwide referendum, and voted for a 
new Government under the new Constitution. And in December elections for 
this Government, despite the threats of violence and efforts to 
discourage Sunni participation, nearly 12 million Iraqis--that's more 
than 75 percent of eligible voters--turned out at the polls.
    The Iraqi people have begun building a free society, with a thriving 
free press and hundreds of independent newspapers and magazines and talk 
radio shows where Iraqis openly debate the future course of their 
country. The Iraqi people have begun building a free economy, with an 
independent central bank and thousands of small businesses and a 
relatively stable currency. Iraqi people have stepped forward to fight 
for their freedom as well. Despite repeated attacks on military and 
police recruiting stations, more than 250,000 Iraqis have volunteered to 
wear their country's uniform. These brave Iraqis are increasingly taking 
the lead in the fight against the terrorists and the insurgents. Today, 
there are more than 130 Iraqi Army and police combat battalions in the 
fight, with more than 70 Iraqi battalions taking the lead. Iraqi units 
have assumed primary responsibility for more than 30,000 square miles of 
Iraq. We expect that Iraqi units will control more territory than the 
coalition by the end of 2006.
    Iraqis are fighting bravely, and many have given their lives in the 
battle for freedom for their country. And by their courage and 
sacrifice, the Iraqi soldiers and civilians have shown they want to live 
in freedom, and they're not going to let the terrorists take away their 
opportunity to live in a free society.
    Now it's time for the Iraqi leaders to do their part and finish the 
job of forming a unity government. The people of Iraq have made their 
intentions clear. At great personal risk, they went to the polls to 
choose leaders in free elections. And now the leaders they've elected 
have a responsibility to come together to form a Government that unifies 
all Iraqis. Secretary Rice was just in Baghdad, where she delivered a 
strong message from me: Iraq leaders need to rise to the moment, to put 
aside their personal agendas, and take charge of their destiny.
    Iraqi leaders have taken some important steps forward. They've 
agreed to an agenda for the new Government to take up once it assumes 
office, including tough issues such as demobilization of the militias, 
protecting the rights of women, restoring Iraq's infrastructure, and 
building national institutions that will effectively represent all 
Iraqis. Iraqi leaders have also agreed to form a new national security 
council that includes all major political groups and representatives of 
the executive and legislative branches. And now they must take the next 
step and fill key leadership posts so that a new Government can begin 
its essential work.
    I understand that putting aside differences to form a Government is 
difficult. Pretty hard for our country. Our first governing charter, the 
Articles of Confederation, failed, and it

[[Page 674]]

took us 8 years before we adopted our Constitution and elected our first 
President under that Constitution. Iraqis are going to make mistakes as 
well. They are undertaking a difficult process with little democratic 
experience and with the scars of nearly three decades of Saddam Hussein 
still fresh on their mind. Moving beyond past divisions to build a 
strong democracy requires strong leadership, and now is the time for 
Iraqis to step up and show the leadership.
    The Iraqi people have a right to expect it, and so do the American 
people. Americans have made great sacrifices to help Iraq get to this 
point. Iraqi voters risked their lives to go to the polls. Iraqi 
soldiers and police have given their time to make this moment possible. 
And so Americans and Iraqis alike are waiting and watching to see what 
this sacrifice will produce, and we both expect results. In the words of 
one Iraqi newspaper, ``The time has come for our politicians to save 
people from their suffering and crisis. The Iraqi people are more sacred 
than government positions.''
    Forming a unity government is critical to defeating the terrorists 
and securing the peace. The terrorists and insurgents thrive in a 
political vacuum, and the delay in forming a Government is creating a 
vacuum that the terrorists and insurgents are working to exploit. The 
enemies of a free Iraq blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra in the hope 
that this outrageous act would provoke reprisals and drag the nation 
into a civil war. This past Friday, suicide bombers blew up another 
Shi'a mosque in northern Baghdad. The longer Iraq's leaders delay in 
forming a unity government, the greater the risk that the terrorists and 
former regime elements will succeed in their efforts to foment division 
and to stop the progress of an Iraq democracy.
    The terrorists know that the greatest threat to their aspirations is 
Iraqi self-government. And we know this from the terrorists' own words. 
In 2004, we intercepted a letter from Zarqawi to Usama bin Laden. In it, 
Zarqawi expressed his concern about ``the gap that will emerge between 
us and the people of the land.'' He declared, ``Democracy is coming.'' 
He went on to say, this will mean ``suffocation'' for the terrorists. 
Zarqawi laid out his strategy to stop democracy from taking root in 
Iraq. He 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 for us is to strike the 
religious, military, and other cadres among the Shi'a with blow after 
blow.''
    The advance of democracy is the terrorists' greatest fear. It's an 
interesting question, isn't it: Why would they fear democracy? What is 
it about freedom that frightens these killers? What is it about a 
liberty that causes these people to kill innocent women and children? To 
defeat them, Iraq needs a democratic government that represents all 
Iraq, that reins in illegal militias, and earns the trust and confidence 
of all Iraqi communities. When Iraqis have such a Government to lead and 
unite them, they will be in a stronger position to defeat their enemies 
and secure the future with a free country. When Iraqis have a democratic 
government in place, it will be a major victory for the cause of 
freedom. It will be a major defeat for the terrorists' aspirations to 
dominate the region and advance their hateful vision.
    Once a Government is formed, the international community must also 
do its part to help this young democracy succeed. Iraq needs greater 
international support, particularly from its Arab neighbors. Arab 
leaders need to recognize that the choice in Iraq is between democracy 
and terrorism, and there is no middle ground. Success of Iraqi democracy 
is in their vital interests because if the terrorists prevail in Iraq, 
they will target other Arab nations.
    The broader international community has responsibilities as well. So 
far, other nations and international organizations have pledged more 
than $13 billion in assistance to Iraq. Iraqis are grateful for the 
promised aid, and so is the United States. Yet many nations have been 
slow to make good on their commitments. I call on all Governments that 
have pledged assistance to follow through with their promises as quickly 
as possible so that the people of the--across the Middle East will see 
that democracy leads to a better life and a brighter future. The success 
of a free Iraq is in the interests of all free nations, and none can 
afford to sit on the sidelines.

[[Page 675]]

    Formation of a unity government is a critical step, but it's not 
going to bring an immediate end to the violence Americans are seeing on 
their TV screens. The terrorists are going to continue to spread chaos 
and carnage in Iraq, because they know the images of car bombs and 
beheadings horrify the American people. They know they can't defeat us 
on the battlefield, and that the only way to win in Iraq is to break our 
will and force us into an early retreat. Our enemies know what's at 
stake, and they are determined to stop the rise of a democratic Iraq, 
and I am equally determined to stop them.
    The decision to go to war is one of the most difficult a President 
can make. And in 3 years since our forces liberated Iraq, we've seen 
many contradictory images that are difficult for Americans to reconcile. 
On the one hand, we've seen images of great hope--boys and girls back in 
school and millions of Iraqis dipping their fingers in purple ink or 
dancing in the streets or celebrating their freedom. On the other hand, 
we've seen images of unimaginable despair--bombs destroying hospitals, 
and hostages bound and executed. And this raises the question in the 
minds of many Americans: Which image will prevail? I'll give you my 
opinion: I believe that freedom will prevail in Iraq. I believe moms and 
dads everywhere want their children to grow up in safety and freedom. I 
believe freedom will prevail because the terrorists have nothing to 
offer the Iraqi people. I believe freedom will prevail because once 
people have tasted freedom, they will not accept a return to tyranny.
    It's important for Americans to understand the stakes in Iraq. A 
free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror. A free Iraq will be a 
partner in the struggle for peace and moderation in the Muslim world. A 
free Iraq will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran and 
send a signal across the broader Middle East that the future belongs not 
to terrorism but to freedom. A free Iraq will show the power of liberty 
to change the world. And as the Middle East grows in liberty and 
prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their safe havens and 
recruits, and America and other free nations will be more secure.
    Today, Iraq is free and sovereign, and that freedom and sovereignty 
has come at a great price. Because Americans and Iraqis and troops from 
17 other nations gave up their own futures so the Iraqi people could 
have a future of freedom, this world is better off because of their 
sacrifice. America will honor their sacrifice by completing the mission 
in Iraq. And Iraqi leaders have a responsibility to the fallen as well. 
By working together, we'll build a future of freedom for both our 
people. We're laying the foundation of peace for generations to come.
    I appreciate your attention, and now I'll be glad to answer some 
questions. Please.

President's Decisionmaking/War on Terror

    Q. Mr. President, thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it. 
I'm a strategic studies concentrator here at SAIS. My question to you, 
Mr. President--I'll preface it with a comment. Many of us here are 
aspiring policymakers. Many of us here hope to one day be in positions 
of leadership. And some of us may be faced with decisions, very 
difficult decisions on the use of force and engaging in war. I was 
hoping that from your experience, you could share with us some wisdom or 
some insight--not necessarily on tactics but something we can take with 
us through our careers, that we can apply maybe at some point. Thank 
you.
    The President. Thanks. Thanks for the question. I would encourage 
those of you studying here to be a part of policymaking for our 
Government. It is a high honor to serve your country. And my first 
advice is, never use force until you've exhausted all diplomacy. I--my 
second advice is, if you ever put anybody in harm's way, make sure they 
have got all the support of the Government. My third advice is, don't 
make decisions on polls. Stand your ground if you think what you're 
doing right.
    Much of my decision about what we're discussing these days was 
affected by an event. Look, I--during the 2000 campaign, I don't 
remember ever discussing with people what--could I handle war, or could 
my opponent handle war. The war wasn't on our mind. War came 
unexpectedly. We didn't ask for the attack, but it came. And so much of

[[Page 676]]

the statements I make and have made since that war were a result of that 
attack.
    I vowed then that I would use all assets of our power to win the war 
on terror. That's what I vowed. It--the September the 11th attacks 
affected me. It affected my thinking deeply. The most important job of 
the Government is to protect the people from an attack. And so I said, 
we were going to stay on the offense two ways: One, hunt down the enemy 
and bring them to justice, and take threats seriously; and two, spread 
freedom. And that's what we've been doing, and that's what I'm going to 
continue to do as the President.
    I think about the war on terror all the time. Now, I understand 
there's a difference of opinion in a country. Some view the attack as 
kind of an isolated incident; I don't. I view it as a part of a strategy 
by a totalitarian, ideologically based group of people who've announced 
their intentions to spread that ideology and to attack us again. That's 
what they've said they're going to do. And the most dangerous--the 
biggest danger facing our country is whether--if the terrorists get a 
weapons of mass destruction to use. Now, perhaps some in our country 
think it's a--that's a pipedream; I don't. I think it is a very real 
threat, and therefore, will spend my Presidency rallying our assets--
intelligence assets, military assets, financial assets, diplomatic 
initiatives--to keep the enemy off balance and to bring them to justice.
    Now, if you're going to be the President or a policymaker, you never 
know what's going to come. That's the interesting thing about the world 
in which we live. We're a influential nation, and so therefore, many 
problems come to the Oval Office. And you don't know what those problems 
are going to be, which then argues for having smart people around. 
That's why you ought to serve in Government if you're not going to be 
the President. You have a chance to influence policy by giving good 
recommendations to the President.
    You got to listen in my line of work, and I listen a lot. Ours is a 
complex organization that requires a management structure that lets 
people come into the Oval Office and explain their positions. And I 
think it's to my interest, by the way, that not everybody agree all the 
time. You can't make good decisions unless there's a little--kind of a 
little agitation in there. [Laughter] And sometimes we have.
    But anyway, good question. I guess, my answer to your question is, 
is that you got to be ready for the unexpected. And when you act, you 
base your decisions on principles. I'll tell you one principle--I'm not 
going to filibuster, I promise--but you got me going here, so--
[laughter]. I want you to understand this principle, and it's an 
important debate, and it's worth debating here in this school, as to 
whether or not freedom is universal, whether or not it's a universal 
right of all men and women. It's an interesting part of the 
international dialog today. And I think it is universal. And if you 
believe it's universal, I believe this country has--should act on that 
concept of universality. And the reason I do is because I do believe 
freedom yields the peace.
    And our foreign policy prior to my arrival was, ``If it seems okay, 
leave it alone.'' In other words, if it's nice and placid out there on 
the surface, it's okay; just let it sit. But unfortunately, beneath the 
surface was resentment and hatred, and that kind of resentment and 
hatred provided ample recruitment, fertile grounds for recruiting people 
that came and killed over 3,000 of our citizens. And therefore, I 
believe the way to defeat resentment is with freedom and liberty.
    But if you don't believe it's universal, I can understand why you 
say, ``What's he doing? Why is he doing that?'' If there's no such thing 
as the universality of freedom, then we might as well just isolate 
ourselves and hope for the best.
    And so--anyway, kind of rambling here. [Laughter] Yes.

Iran

    Q. Mr. President, thanks very much for your visit today. We're 
honored by your visit. I'm a first-semester MA student. You mentioned 
the confluence of terror and weapons of mass destruction as the greatest 
threat to American security. Will the United States allow Iran to 
develop nuclear weapons?
    The President. Ah--[laughter]--we do not want the Iranians to have a 
nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon,

[[Page 677]]

or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon. That's our stated 
goal. It's also the goal, fortunately, of other--of friends and allies, 
starting with Great Britain, Germany, and France.
    One of the decisions I made early on was to have a multinational 
approach to sending messages, clear messages to the Iranians that if 
they want to be a part of the--an accepted nation in the world, that 
they must give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. And we're making 
pretty good progress.
    By the way, if you're studying how to achieve diplomatic ends, it 
might be worthwhile noting that--I think at least--with the United 
States being the sole interlocutor between Iran, it makes it more 
difficult to achieve the objective of having the Iranians give up their 
nuclear weapons ambitions. It's amazing that when we're in a bilateral 
position, or kind of just negotiating one on one, somehow the world ends 
up turning the tables on us. And I'm not going to put my country in that 
position--our country in that position. Also, I think it's more 
effective that the three of us--the four of us work closely together.
    We've also included Russia into the dialog. A couple of months back, 
you might remember, there was a discussion about whether or not the 
Russians should be allowed to build--or encouraged to build a civilian 
nuclear powerplant, but the fuel of which would be provided and 
collected by the Russians. I supported that initiative. I thought it was 
difficult, on the one hand, to say that civilian nuclear power is a 
sovereign right of a nation, and on the other hand, not to then support 
the Russian initiative. And I did so. I also did so because I want 
Russia to be a part of the team, trying to convince the Iranians to give 
up its nuclear weapons program.
    Now, I want to emphasize this point, and that is, is that we're not 
only making sure they don't have the means to develop the weapon but the 
knowledge. And that's why I was very strong in saying that they should 
not have--that there should not be a research component involved with 
the Russian deal that will enable the Iranians to learn how to better 
enriched--enrich uranium.
    But our objective is to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. 
And the good news is, is that many in the world have come to that 
conclusion. I got out a little early on the issue by saying, ``axis of 
evil.'' [Laughter] But I meant it. I saw it as a problem. And now, many 
others have come to the conclusion that the Iranians should not have a 
nuclear weapon.
    The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the 
Iranians from having a nuclear weapon. I know here in Washington 
prevention means force. It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this 
case, it means diplomacy. And by the way, I read the articles in the 
newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What 
you're reading is wild speculation, which is--it's kind of a--happens 
quite frequently here in the Nation's Capital.
    Yes. Please.

Reconstruction in Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to have you here. I'm a 
first-year student in South Asian studies. My question is in regards to 
private military contractors. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does 
not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of 
Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions. Mr. 
Rumsfeld----
    The President. I was going to ask him. Go ahead. [Laughter] Help. 
[Laughter]
    Q. I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. 
[Laughter] Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws 
which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, 
Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less 
against--over our American military contractors. I would submit to you 
that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a 
solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private 
military contractors under a system of law?
    The President. Yes, I appreciate that very much. I wasn't kidding--
[laughter]. I was going to--I pick up the phone and say, ``Mr. 
Secretary, I've got an interesting question.'' [Laughter] This is what 
delegation--I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kind 
of convenient in this case, but never--[laughter]. I really will--I'm 
going to call the Secretary and say you brought up

[[Page 678]]

a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That's how I 
work. I'm--thanks. [Laughter]
    Yes, ma'am.

Public Opinion/Democracy

    Q. Hello, Mr. President. I have a followup question on your comments 
about polls. Your Presidency has been a rather polarizing period in 
America. And occasionally, your attitude towards protesters and 
dissenters has been perceived as being dismissive and occasionally, 
then, cavalier. And I'm wondering how you feel that's contributed to the 
polarization in politics today and if that approach will change, given 
that you have fallen somewhat in the polls?
    The President. Yes. Well--[laughter]--I take protest seriously. I 
mean, I--by the way, I get protested all the time. [Laughter] And I 
welcome it. I think this is the great thing about a democracy. There 
needs to be an outlet. If people feel like their government is not 
listening to them or doesn't agree with them, there ought to be an 
outlet for their discontent.
    And so the protests really don't bother me. I hope that's not viewed 
as cavalier, but it's just the way I feel. And it's a--in terms of 
polls, you cannot have a President make decisions based upon the latest 
political survey. It's just--you got to have people making decisions 
based upon principle. And my attitude is, I'm going to do what I think 
is right.
    I've got to be able to look at myself, by the way--after the 
Presidency--in the mirror and say, I didn't come to Washington, DC, to 
try to chase political opinion; I came to lead this country in a very 
historic time.
    And you heard my discussion about my reaction after 9/11. That's 
what I believe. And that's what I'm going--those are some of the beliefs 
on which I'm going to continue to make decisions.
    But, no, I hear voices of discontent, and I'm just going to do the 
best I can do based upon what I think is right. There's too much 
flattery, too much ego, too much criticism, too much noise, too much 
politics, too much that, for a President to try to kind of grope his way 
around looking at the latest public opinion poll. In my judgment, it 
doesn't serve the Nation well.
    A while ago at a press conference, I remember uttering one wonderful 
piece of wisdom: It's like a dog chasing his tail. It actually didn't 
fly that good. But nevertheless, my point--[laughter]. But thank you; 
it's a legitimate question. And so to answer your question, yes, I hear 
the protests. And I can understand why. I can understand why people are 
concerned about war. Nobody likes war, particularly me. I knew exactly 
what was going to happen when I committed these troops into harm's way. 
I knew there would be--people would lose their life. And I knew I'd be 
trying to comfort mothers and fathers and grieving wives. I knew exactly 
what was coming. And if I didn't think it was the right thing to do, I 
wouldn't have sent them. And if I didn't think we could succeed in Iraq, 
I'd pull them out.
    And the good thing about a democracy is, people can express 
themselves. We're fixing to have a huge immigration march today. And 
it's a sign that there's a--this is a important issue that people feel 
strongly about. And I repeat to you, I strongly believe that societies 
in which you're not allowed to express yourself are societies which do 
breed resentment, and, kind of, bottled-up anxiety causes people to 
become very frustrated. And that's not healthy for a society.
    Yes.

CIA Employee Identity Disclosure Investigation

    Q. First let me say, thank you very much for being here, and thank 
you for taking questions. I know we appreciate that. I'm a second-year 
master's student studying international energy policy.
    The President. International?
    Q. Energy policy.
    The President. Oh, good.
    Q. Sorry. [Laughter] My question, sir, is, well, as Anthony alluded 
to earlier and as you're aware, we have many students at SAIS who are 
currently working for or considering working for the State Department, 
the various intelligence agencies, and such. And how do you respond to 
recent--the recent report by Prosecutor Fitzgerald that there is, in his 
words, ``a concerted--evidence of a

[[Page 679]]

concerted effort by the White House to punish Joseph Wilson'' who 
himself, has a distinguished record of government service?
    The President. Yes. No, I--this is--there's an ongoing legal 
proceeding which precludes me from talking a lot about the case. There's 
also an ongoing investigation that's a serious investigation. I will say 
this, that after we liberated Iraq, there was questions in people's 
minds about the basis on which I made statements, in other words, going 
into Iraq. And so I decided to declassify the NIE for a reason. I wanted 
to see--people to see what some of those statements were based on. So I 
wanted to see--I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made 
sense for people to see the truth. And that's why I declassified the 
document.
    You can't talk about--you're not supposed to talk about classified 
information, and so I declassified the document. I thought it was 
important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I 
was saying in my speeches. And I felt I could do so without jeopardizing 
ongoing intelligence matters, and so I did.
    And as far as the rest of the case goes, you're just going to have 
to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case. And I hope you understand that. 
It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making 
public statements about it.
    Yes, please.

Asia-Pacific Countries

    Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you for coming here today. I'm 
a second-year SAIS student studying strategic studies. And I'd like to 
briefly turn you a moment--turn your attention to the Asia-Pacific, the 
security situation in Asia right now. Secretary Rice, last March, met 
with her counterparts in Japan and Australia in a security dialog, 
discussing security issues in Asia-Pacific. And this made many countries 
in the region very uncomfortable. They felt that this security dialog 
may have been an effort to contain the quote unquote ``China threat.'' 
And mostly our alliance partners in South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand 
have felt this uneasiness. Could you possibly elucidate for us your 
administration's strategy towards Asia-Pacific, ahead of President Hu 
Jintao's visit to Washington? And was the dialog a prelude to a NATO-
like security structure in Asia-Pacific?
    The President. Thanks for the question. We have worked hard to make 
sure relations with Japan, China, and South Korea are on firm footing, 
and they are. First, the Japanese relationship is a close relationship. 
I'm personally fond of Prime Minister Koizumi. We have a close 
relationship, and I've worked very closely with him on a variety of 
matters, starting with making sure our force posture is such that can--
that the Japanese are comfortable with.
    I don't know if you saw the recent announcements about Okinawa, for 
example. You're beginning to see a defense relationship and alliance 
that stays intact but is more attuned to the future. Secondly, he's 
committed troops into Iraq. He believes, like I believe, that democracy 
helps keep the peace. We've worked closely in Afghanistan. In other 
words, we're partners in peace.
    The South Korean issue is one, obviously, that's dominated primarily 
by North Korea. And I made the decision early on in the administration 
to change the dynamics in that negotiation from the United States and 
North Korea to the United States, China, Russia, South Korea, and 
Japan--called the six-party talks, all aiming to get people who have got 
a stake with North Korea at the table, all aiming, again, to send a 
united voice to the North Koreans.
    I'm a little--the North Korean nuclear issue disturbs me, but also 
equally disturbs me is the fact that people are being starved to death. 
And it should disturb the world. It should disturb all of us. The North 
Korea issue dominates my discussions with South Korea. However, there's 
a--South Korea and America has committed ourselves to the peace that 
comes--or the balance that comes with the U.S. force presence there in 
South Korea, although it's been reduced as well. We did not reduce 
force; we reduced manpower, as you probably know since you study it.
    The issue that is on most Americans' mind, and the issue that really 
is the issue of the future in many ways, is China. And I would call our 
relationship with China very positive and complex. It's positive because 
we do have dialog. It's positive because the Chinese

[[Page 680]]

leadership--Hu Jintao and his predecessor--were able to sit down, and we 
had pretty frank discussions about a variety of issues.
    On our agenda, of course, is trade--fairness in trade, as well as 
human rights and freedom of religion. On their issue--on their agenda 
has been in the past Taiwan, of course, which is a predominate issue. 
I've worked hard on that issue to make it clear that our position has 
not changed, and we do not expect either party to unilaterally change 
the status quo.
    And one of the things, of course, we work on is to--would be very 
helpful if the Japanese and the Chinese had better relations, and the 
Japanese and the South Koreans. So we're spending time on that issue, as 
well, to try to bring a sense of--to encourage more dialog with--amongst 
those parties.
    Our presence in the Far East is really important. And so, therefore, 
my administration has been active in making sure we stay active in the 
region. The visit of Hu Jintao will be an interesting and important 
visit. He's coming into a country where there's an over $200-billion 
trade deficit, and a lot of Americans are wondering, where's the equity 
in trade? And therefore, I think he could help the Americans understand 
the importance of a free trading world if he were to maybe make a 
statement on his currency, for example.
    I believe it's important for Americans to see a society that goes 
from being a--have its economic growth driven by exports to one having 
its economic growth more by consumer demand inside the country. That's 
an important part of our dialog with China.
    It's very important for him to make a declaration on international 
property rights--IPR. It's difficult for a nation that likes to trade, 
like ours, to go into a country uncertain as to whether or not patents 
will be protected or product will be protected from copy. And so it will 
be a wide agenda.
    The Far--the Pacific area is a very important part of our foreign 
policy. It's one where we've got a very active presence, and we'll 
continue to keep one. We've got a free-trade agreement--you mentioned 
Singapore--we've got a free-trade agreement with Singapore. And it's 
our--my relationship with these countries is based more than on just 
trade and commercialism. Mine is to work toward more democracy and 
freedom as well, in the region, so that we can keep the peace in the 
long run.
    I keep repeating this, I know, but I firmly believe that one way you 
lay the foundation for peace is to spread liberty and freedom. And 
there--again, I understand there's a debate. There's a legitimate 
debate. I'm just telling you what my position is. And I got something to 
say about it.
    Yes.

Human Trafficking

    Q. Good morning, President Bush. I also feel very strongly about 
freedom, although I see it in terms of human trafficking. Your 
administration takes a very strong stance against prostitution. And 
because of that you do not disperse funds to a lot of very effective 
NGOs around the world who pragmatically combat sex trafficking by 
working with existing prostitution networks. There's no evidence right 
now that proves either legalizing prostitution or criminalizing 
prostitution has any effect in the change of sex-trafficking cases. Have 
you considered changing your ideas about prostitution for the purposes 
of helping either save or keep people from being enslaved in sex 
prostitution?
    The President. No, I appreciate it. I'm--it sounds like I'm dodging 
here, but again, you know more about this subject than I, and I will be 
glad to call Condi and talk to her about our policy. I thought we had a 
very robust strategy on exploitation of women and children, particularly 
around the world. I think I addressed this subject at the United Nations 
and was the only world leader to do. But as specifically about our 
position on prostitution, I'm going to have to talk to the Secretary 
about it.
    Yes.

Spread of Democracy

    Q. Morning, Mr. President. I have a more general question about the 
United States' work to democratize the rest of the world. Many have 
viewed the United States' effort to democratize the world, especially 
nations in the Middle East, as an imposition or invasion on their 
sovereign rights. Considering that it was, in fact, the Prophet Mohammed

[[Page 681]]

who established the first known constitution in the world--I'm referring 
to the constitution he wrote for the city of Medina--and that his life 
and the principles outlined in his constitution, such as the championing 
of the welfare of women, children, and the poor, living as an equal 
among his people, dissolving disputes between the warring clans in 
Arabia, giving any man or woman in parliament the right to vote and 
guaranteeing respect for all religions, ironically parallel those 
principles that we hold most precious in our own Constitution. I'm 
wondering how might your recently formed Iraq Study Group under the U.S. 
Institute for Peace explore these striking similarities to forge a new 
relationship with Iraqis and educate Americans about the democratic 
principles inherent in Islam?
    The President. Great question. I believe that the terrorists have 
hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their behavior. I thank 
you for bringing that to my attention.
    I will pass on your comments to James A. Baker, who is one of the 
chairmen of the group going to Iraq.
    See, you said something really interesting. Initially, you said 
people view America imposing its beliefs. And I hearken back to what I 
said earlier--this fellow's question here--that if you believe that 
freedom is not universal, then it could be viewed as an imposition of 
beliefs. I'm not saying to countries, ``You've got to look like us or 
act like us,'' but I am saying, you know, ``Give your people a chance to 
be free.'' And I think it's necessary for America to take the lead on 
this issue. I think it is--I think it is vital for our future that we 
encourage liberty and--in this case, the Middle East. And as you said, 
it doesn't necessarily run contrary to what the Prophet Mohammed said.
    It's a--and so how do you advance freedom? I mean, well, one thing 
you do is, you make sure that the Lebanese have a chance to self-govern 
freely without Syrian interference. It's one thing you can do. Another 
thing you can do is work for the establishment of a Palestinian state, 
which I'm doing. I believe that there will be a Palestinian state that 
is at peace with Israel. I believe it's going to have to be a 
democracy--again, a Palestinian-style democracy--to achieve that. But in 
my--early in my Presidency, I said, it's in our interest that there be 
two states, side by side in peace, and we're working toward that end.
    You know, part of the debate here that I'm sure you're discussing is 
whether or not the United States should insist upon elections before 
everything is right. You hear the--the civil society has to be just 
right before you can have elections. I disagree strongly with that. I 
think elections are the beginning of the process, not the end.
    And I found the elections that Hamas won very instructive and very 
interesting. It was--to me, it was a final condemnation of the Arafat 
era, where people said, ``We're sick of corruption; we want better 
health care and better education; we want--we actually want our leaders 
to focus on the people, not on their self interests.''
    And because I believe in two states, side by side in peace, and 
therefore, expect the Government of both to be peaceful toward each 
other, we're not going to deal with a Government that has announced that 
they want to destroy Israel. On the other hand, we will help the 
Palestinian people. And I believe a democracy will eventually yield the 
state necessary to be side by side with Israel in peace.
    The success of a democracy in Iraq--and as I told you, I think we're 
going to succeed; as a matter of fact, I know we are if we don't lose 
our nerve--will send a powerful signal. Imagine the signal it will send 
to people in Iran that are not free right now. I believe the women's 
movement is going to be the leading edge of changing the Middle East. I 
don't believe women want to live as second-class citizens. I believe 
it's--I believe there's a universal desire to be treated fairly and 
equally.
    And so I think--look, I'm pleased with the progress. I was reading 
the other day where Kuwaiti women are running for office. It's a 
positive sign, you know? We've got to be realistic about what's 
possible, but we've got to be firm in our belief that freedom is 
possible and necessary. Otherwise--I'll repeat to you--a system that 
says, ``Okay, let's just tolerate the tyrant so long as everything seems 
okay,'' didn't work.

[[Page 682]]

    That's one of the lessons of the attack on the United States. You 
know, the world seemed fine, didn't it? It seemed kind of placid--there 
was a bubble here, a bubble there. But everything seemed all right. And 
yet, beneath the surface, there was tremendous resentment. And it's now 
come to full, and so how do you defeat their--now, if you don't think 
they have a ideology or a point of view, and/or a strategy to impose it, 
then I can understand why you think the United States ought not to be as 
active as we are.
    But I believe differently. I believe they're bound--these folks are 
bound by an ideology. I know that they have got desires. They say it. 
This is one of--this is a different--this is a war in which the enemy 
actually speaks out loud. You heard the letter I wrote--read from--they 
didn't speak out loud on this one, but nevertheless, it's a--we've got 
to take their word seriously. When the enemy speaks, it makes sense for 
our military, our intelligence, the President to take the word seriously 
so we can adapt and adjust.
    Anyway, very interesting question. Thanks for bringing that to my 
attention. Yes, ma'am.

Millennium Challenge Account

    Q. Hi, Mr. President. Thank you very much for coming to speak with 
us. I am studying international development. And you have alluded much 
to tensions beneath the surface of countries. A lot of times, this comes 
from economic underdevelopment and lack of economic opportunities. You 
haven't spoken directly about economic development this morning. And I 
would like to know where economic development lies on your priority 
list? And also, looking at countries that maybe haven't, in your words, 
gotten everything right in terms of political stability or 
democratization, is holding development funds--keeping development funds 
from those countries actually counterproductive? Because if you can help 
the country to develop economically, maybe some of these underlying 
tensions might dissipate.
    The President. No, it's a great question. First of all, I'm a--
matter of fact, I met this morning with Rob Portman, head of the USTR, 
about the Doha round of--for the WTO. And the reason I did is because 
I'm a big believer that trade helps lift people out of poverty. As a 
matter of fact, if you really study the relationship between development 
aid versus capital and the movement of capital and who--and how a 
society benefits more, it's because of trade and commerce.

    And so we've been very active in this administration. AGOA, for 
example, is a free trade agreement with Africa. President Clinton passed 
it. I was more than happy to sign its extension, and we've been very 
hard in implementing it on the recognition that trade is a vital way 
for--to help people get their economies up and running.

    And so, no question, the economy is important. In the Palestinian 
territories, Jim Wolfensohn went over with a plan--prior to the 
election, by the way--with a plan to help the Palestinians develop their 
economy on the--on the exact premise that you talk about. Economic 
development provides hope.

    And so, you bet. It's an integral of our policy. We give a lot of 
aid out, by the way. We give aid to countries that may like us, may not 
like us, except in few instances. I have changed the development 
program, however, from--let me say, I added on to the development 
program through what's called the Millennium Challenge Account. And that 
is a conditional-based aid program. It's condition-based upon poverty 
level, but it's also condition-based upon behavior of government.

    We should not be--we should insist that governments fight 
corruption. It seems like to me, it's a rational thing to do with 
taxpayers' money. And so part of the--one of the criterion for the 
Millennium Challenge Account, it says, ``You don't get money if you 
don't fight corruption.'' We should insist that people invest in the 
health and education of their people. We should insist on marketplace 
reforms, open markets, so that people have a chance to realize the 
benefits of a growing economy. And we do. And so we give aid.

    But the Millennium Challenge Account is an additional program that 
is no question

[[Page 683]]

conditional-based, based upon, I think, rational criterion. I remember 
having the discussion with some friends of mine from another--from 
another part of the world. They said, ``How can you insist upon 
conditions for the aid?'' I said, ``How can you not?'' Why does it not 
make sense to say, get rid of your corruption? Unless you people think--
unless people think that maybe the corruption is normal and necessary. 
It's not. A lot of people--a lot of countries have suffered as a result 
of governments that didn't care about them.
    The other thing we're doing aggressively is to fight hunger and 
disease. Part of making sure that an economy can take hold is a--for 
example, for AGOA to be effective, there's got to be--we got to do 
something about HIV/AIDS, and we are. We're spending about $15 billion--
or will have spent $15 billion over 5 years. And it's beginning to make 
a difference. And I'm real proud of our country, and I'm real proud of 
our friends and partners on the ground to get antiretroviral drugs to 
people, to help with prevention, to help take care of the orphans. And 
we feed a lot of people too. Ours is a generous nation.
    So the development program is more than just passing out aid. It is 
trade. It is insistent upon habits of Government, and it's also fighting 
disease and hunger.
    Yes.

2008 Elections/President's Second-Term Agenda

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President, for coming to SAIS today. I'm a first-
year master's candidate. In 2 years, the American political system will 
face a unique moment in its history, for, in fact, a sitting Vice 
President will decline the nomination for the Presidency. What are the 
implications for the Republican Party, your legacy, and, if you could 
choose, who would your successor be? Thank you. [Laughter]
    The President. I'm not through yet, you know. [Laughter] It is--I'm 
glad my Vice President is not running for President. Not that he would 
make a great President, but that it certainly changes the dynamics 
inside the White House. And it is an amazing moment, you're right. I 
guess it's the most wide-open race ever. Oh, it can't be ``ever.'' 
``Ever'' is too long. [Laughter] But in a long time. [Laughter]
    I am going to spend 2\1/2\ years charging as hard as I possibly 
can--I want to sprint out of office. And I will be a interested 
observer, and I'm sure I'll be roped into moments after our party 
nominates a candidate, but I'm just going to let the politics run its 
course.
    And I've got a lot to do. We've got--listen, here are some of the 
challenges we face. We got to get off Middle Eastern oil, and therefore, 
we need to stay focused on a research and development initiative that 
helps us get away from fossil fuels but also helps countries like India 
diversify away from fossil fuels. And that's why the agreement I reached 
with India is a very important agreement--I thought that's what you were 
going to ask. [Laughter]
    And many of you are--you look a lot younger than me--[laughter]--and 
so, therefore, you better be worried about Social Security and Medicare. 
Our balance sheet is, no question, affected by a current account 
deficit. But a looming issue is the unfunded liabilities inherent in 
Social Security. And the Government needs to deal with it. The problem 
is, Washington is so political that it's--so far, it's--well, if 
somebody looks good, somebody looks bad. And so I'm going to stay 
focused on that, as well, and hopefully get a bipartisan solution up on 
Social Security and Medicare, so that we can say to a younger 
generation, ``We did our duty; we did something that's really hard to 
do.'' But we'd better get it done. The system is going broke, and you're 
going to pay a lot.
    The immigration debate is an important debate. I don't--my point 
is--and I'll be glad to opine on it if you like. I think we need to be 
a--understand that we're a nation of immigrants, that we ought to be 
compassionate about this debate and provide a--obviously, we've got to 
secure the border and enforce the law. But one way to do so is to make 
sure that people who are coming in here to work have a legal--get a card 
so they don't have to try to sneak across the border, which takes 
pressure off our border.
    People ought to be here on--be able to work on a temporary basis, 
and if they want

[[Page 684]]

to become a citizen, after a series of steps they got to take--they get 
in line like everybody else--not at the head of the line but the end of 
the line. And if Congress wants to say, ``Well, we need more people from 
a certain country,'' they expand the number of green cards available.
    My point to you is, I got a lot to do, and you're the beginning--
you're the leading edge of what's going to happen. I know--particularly 
from our friends in the press corps, they're going to be asking these 
questions a lot, ``So-and-so said this, what do you say about that, or 
so-and-so--who are you for on this?'' And I'm going to do my job as the 
President.
    Yes.

Spread of Democracy/Trade

    Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you for coming. I agree with 
your assertion that Iraq is going to serve as a model for reformers, 
democratic reformers in the Middle East. But at the same time, I believe 
that whenever the seas are rough, the despots of the Middle East keep 
their heads down until the winds blow, and then they continue to do the 
exact same thing they've been doing for generations. I'm wondering what 
pressures are we putting--or planning to put on these despots, some of 
whom are allies?
    And one point of correction to Kent--the first constitution was 
written by Hammurabi in Samaria, modern-day Iraq. [Laughter]
    The President. I was going to say that, you know, but I wanted to--
[laughter]. Each President has his own style about how we deal with 
different leaders. I believe that it's very important for people to be--
to listen. And therefore, I'm a person who does a lot of my work in 
private with these different leaders.
    I talk frankly with people, but you can't have a frank discussion 
with somebody if you--if they feel like you're going to hold them up for 
public ridicule or public criticism. And so for those of you who are 
thinking about being President or being involved with diplomacy, you've 
got to think about how you deal with somebody you don't necessarily 
agree with and how best to be effective.
    And so I just will tell you, however, I'm constantly talking about 
the need for there to be democracy and reform. And there's plenty of 
leverage throughout our Government. The President is not the sole voice 
when it comes to advancing the democracy agenda. You might notice Madam 
Secretary occasionally is outspoken in her--as she travels the world, 
which is positive. But there are other ways to send the message, as 
well, that we believe strongly that countries ought to adapt democratic 
habits.
    I mentioned to you the notion of the women's movement in the Middle 
East. There is a way where the United States can effectively use NGOs--
and I recognize--let me just say, I recognize sometimes if it says 
``Made in the USA'' on it, it makes it more difficult to achieve certain 
reforms. And so we got to be wise about how we convince others to 
understand the importance of freedom. But we're--I can just assure you 
that we're constant dialog.
    And I have had a lot of dialog with the leaders that come to see me 
and reminding them that whole societies are those that recognize the 
importance of giving people a chance to express themselves. And you'll 
find in the Middle East, there's--some people will say, ``Well, what 
about such and such a group; they appear to be dangerous.''
    My answer is, if they've got support on the street, there's a 
reason. And if I were you, I would listen to the people better than they 
listen to the people. There's a reason why grass roots movements start. 
And one thing about democracy is, is that it forces the grass roots 
movement out in the open so people compete for ideas and for the will of 
the people in an open forum, not a closed forum. And it's those leaders 
that say, ``I fear the grass root movement,'' are those that eventually 
are going to get whipped unless they outcompete them--outcompete them in 
a good sense, outcompete them for services, outcompete those who are 
stirring up the anxieties on the street by listening to the people and 
actually responding.
    I know that's a foreign concept at some times, but nevertheless, 
it's a concept that ends up leading to a more whole society. And it's 
not easy work. We live in a world today

[[Page 685]]

where everything is supposed to happen yesterday. If you really think 
about Iraq, and it's tough--I fully recognize it's difficult. And I know 
people are anxious and their hearts break when they see the loss of 
innocent life. But it was 4 months ago that there was one of the most 
amazing elections in the history of the Middle East--4 short months ago. 
It seems like a decade, doesn't it? At least it does to me. [Laughter]
    And so we're in a world where everything is, like, supposed to 
happen that way. But that's not the way it works. I believe what we're 
doing is putting those seeds in the ground. And it's important for 
future administrations to follow up, it seems like to me. And I said--I 
thought I laid out a pretty good marker for the United States in my 
second Inaugural Address, that said, why don't we work to end tyranny--
it's a noble goal--under the belief that people desire to be free. And 
people should live in freedom.
    I told you, listen, I'm deeply concerned about societies in which 
people are starving to death, in which people are ravaged by HIV/AIDS. 
That's why we've taken the initiative in this country. And it's very 
important for the American people to feel good about that initiative as 
well. It's not George Bush's initiative; it's the American people's 
initiative.
    One of the principles that guides my policy is: To whom much is 
given, much is required. And I believe that's an essential part of the 
United States foreign policy.
    I'll tell you another issue, now that I'm getting wound up, that you 
better consider and think about as future policymakers, is whether or 
not this country is going to succumb to protectionism and isolationism. 
And it's an interesting moment in our country's history. I put it in the 
State of the Union for a reason. I decided not to go with ``here's the 
42 things we're going to do to you or for you.'' [Laughter] It's--I 
talked about--I talked about the themes. I'm serious about this now. And 
as young policymakers, you need to seriously consider whether or not 
this country of ours is going to be confident enough to continue to 
lead. If we become isolationist, then we basically say, ``Let them 
suffer.'' If we become isolationist, then we say, ``It doesn't matter if 
people live in freedom or not.'' If we become protectionist, we say, 
``Trade is okay, but we're more worried about competing in the world 
stage than we are helping developed nations grow.''
    And this is a serious debate that needs to be taken--my position is 
clear. I'm absolutely for this United States of America staying engaged 
to the world. And we've got to be confident in the values--listen, we 
were formed on the natural rights of men and women. Those weren't 
American rights. They were natural rights. There's something greater in 
our founding that speaks to, kind of, the universality of liberty.
    And we ought to be confident about our ability to compete in trade. 
And I know it's difficult. I know it's hard if you're living in the 
Midwest and you lost your job, and somebody tells you, ``You lost your 
job because of free trade.'' It's difficult for people. I know that. On 
the other hand, my judgment is if we put up walls and aren't willing to 
have free and fair trade, it will hurt the world economy, and it will 
cause people to suffer here at home and abroad.
    But this is a defining moment, in my judgment, on these debates. 
I've got a pretty good antennae. I'm able to--see, I get a pretty good 
sense of how people are trending. And it's--and I would hope that out of 
this school comes people who are confident in American values and 
confident in our ability to compete.
    Now, we've got to do smart things, and we've got an economic debate 
going on here. I think if we run up taxes, it will hurt our economy and 
make us less competitive. I know we've got to do something about energy 
to make us competitive in the 21st century. We really have to make sure 
we've got kids who've got the skill set necessary to fill the jobs of 
the 21st century. I mean, there are things we've got to do to make sure 
we remain competitive. It just doesn't happen. But nevertheless, we 
shouldn't fear it. We shouldn't fear competition. Competition is good.
    And so I just hope--I hope--look, I'm not telling you what your 
curriculum is, but it's something worth talking about. These are--these 
happen to be the big trends of our society. And it's going to take, in 
my judgment, a future generation of people standing up,

[[Page 686]]

not losing our confidence. Look at the 1920s in our country's history. 
We shut down immigration; we had huge trade tariffs; and we were 
isolationist. And it didn't serve our country well, in my judgment.
    All right, I've got to go to work. [Laughter] This isn't work; this 
is enjoyable. I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by 
and visit with you. Thanks for considering serving our country. It's a 
noble calling. It's a noble calling and worthwhile.
    God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 10:36 a.m. at Johns Hopkins University. In 
his remarks, he referred to William R. Brody, president, Johns Hopkins 
University; Jessica P. Einhorn, dean, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced 
International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Lt. Col. Fred Padilla, 
USMC, commander, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; senior Al Qaida associate 
Abu Musab Al Zarqawi; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist 
organization; Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern 
District of Illinois and Department of Justice CIA leak investigation 
Special Prosecutor; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; President 
Hu Jintao of China; James A. Baker III, cochair, Iraq Study Group, U.S. 
Institute for Peace; and James D. Wolfensohn, Quartet Special Envoy for 
Gaza Disengagement. A participant referred to former Ambassador Joseph 
C. Wilson IV, who served as CIA envoy to Niger in February 2002.