[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 21 (Monday, May 29, 2006)]
[Pages 1020-1031]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

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

May 25, 2006

    President Bush. Thank you all. Good evening. I want to thank Prime 
Minister Tony Blair for coming to Washington to discuss his recent visit 
to Iraq. The Prime Minister met with key leaders of the new Iraqi 
Government that represents the will of the Iraqi people and reflects 
their nation's diversity. As Prime Minister Blair will tell you, Iraqi 
Prime Minister Maliki outlined an aggressive agenda to bring security to 
the Iraqi people, to improve electricity and other essential services, 
and to pursue a strategy for national reconciliation.
    The agenda that Prime Minister Maliki has outlined demonstrates that 
Iraq's new Government understands its duty to deliver real improvements 
in the daily lives of the Iraqi people. The formation of a new 
government represents a new beginning for Iraq and a new beginning for 
the relationship between Iraq and our coalition. The United States and 
Great Britain will work together to help this new democracy succeed. 
We'll take advantage of this moment of opportunity and work with Iraq's 
new Government to strengthen its young democracy and achieve victory 
over our common enemies.
    As we celebrate this historic moment, it's important to recall how 
we got there and take stock on how far we've come over the last 3 years. 
The violence and bloodshed in Iraq has been difficult for the civilized 
world to comprehend. The United States and Great Britain have lost some 
of our finest men and women in combat. The car bombings and suicide 
attacks and other terrorist acts have also inflicted great suffering on 
the Iraqi people. And Iraqis have increasingly become the principal 
victims of terror and sectarian reprisal.
    Yet in the face of this ongoing violence, each time the Iraqi people 
voiced their opinion, they chose freedom. In three different elections, 
millions of Iraqis turned out to the polls and cast their ballots. 
Because of their courage, the Iraqis now have a government of their 
choosing, elected under the most modern and democratic Constitution in 
the Arab world.
    The birth of a free and democratic Iraq was made possible by the 
removal of a cruel dictator. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein from 
power was controversial. We did not find the weapons of mass destruction 
that we all believed were there, and that's raised questions about 
whether the sacrifice in Iraq has been worth it. Despite setbacks and 
missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing. 
Saddam Hussein was a menace to his people; he was a state sponsor of 
terror; he invaded his neighbors. Investigations proved he was 
systematically gaming the Oil-For-Food Programme in an effort to 
undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs 
once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked away. If Saddam 
Hussein were in power today, his regime would be richer, more dangerous, 
and a bigger threat to the region and

[[Page 1021]]

the civilized world. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was right.
    But not everything since liberation has turned out as the way we had 
expected or hoped. We've learned from our mistakes, adjusted our 
methods, and have built on our successes. From changing the way we train 
the Iraqi security forces to rethinking the way we do reconstruction, 
our commanders and our diplomats in Iraq are constantly adapting to the 
realities on the ground. We've adapted our tactics, yet the heart of our 
strategy remains the same: to support the emergence of a free Iraq that 
can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.
    All our efforts over the past 3 years have been aimed towards this 
goal. This past weekend, the world watched as Iraqis stood up a free and 
democratic government in the heart of the Middle East. With our help, 
Iraq will be a powerful force for good in a troubled region and a 
steadfast ally in the war on terror.
    With the emergence of this Government, something fundamental changed 
in Iraq last weekend. While we can expect more violence in the days and 
weeks ahead, the terrorists are now fighting a free and constitutional 
government. They're at war with the people of Iraq, and the Iraqi people 
are determined to defeat this enemy, and so are Iraq's new leaders, and 
so are the United States and Great Britain.
    It is vital that Iraq's new Government seize this opportunity to 
heal old wounds and set aside sectarian differences and move forward as 
one nation. As Prime Minister Maliki has made his priorities clear, we 
have learned they're the right priorities. He's said he will focus on 
improving the security situation in Baghdad and other parts of the 
country. He has declared he will use maximum force to defeat the 
terrorists. He's vowed to eliminate illegal militias and armed gangs. He 
wants to accelerate the training of the Iraqi security forces so they 
can take responsibility from coalition forces for security throughout 
Iraq. He wants to improve health care and housing and jobs, so the 
benefits of a free society will reach every Iraqi citizen.
    Our coalition will seize this moment as well. I look forward for 
continued indepth discussions with Tony Blair, so we can develop the 
best approach in helping the new Iraqi Government achieve its 
objectives. The new Government of Iraq will have the full support of our 
two countries and our coalition, and we will work to engage other 
nations around the world to ensure that constitutional democracy in Iraq 
succeeds and the terrorists are defeated.
    Mr. Prime Minister.
    Prime Minister Blair. Thank you, Mr. President, and can I say what a 
pleasure it is to be with you again at the White House. And thank you 
for your welcome.
    As everyone knows, I was in Iraq earlier in this week, in Baghdad. 
And I was able to discuss with the new leaders of Iraq, firsthand, their 
experience and their hopes and expectations for the future. And I came 
away thinking that the challenge is still immense, but I also came away 
more certain than ever that we should rise to it. And though it is at 
times daunting, it is also utterly inspiring to see people from all the 
different parts of the community in Iraq--the Sunni, the Shi'a, the 
Kurds--sitting down together, all of them democratic leaders--
democratically elected by their people--elected for a 4-year term; 
elected and choosing to come together as a government of national unity, 
and completely determined to run their country in a different way for 
the future.
    Anybody who studies the program of the Iraqi Government can't fail 
to see the similarities with the type of program that any of us would 
want to see for our countries. And what is remarkable about it is that 
they put the emphasis, of course, on the issues to do with economic 
recovery and reconstruction and all the problems of infrastructure that 
they have in their country, but they also very clearly commit themselves 
to reconciliation between the different parts of the country, to the 
fight against sectarianism, and to the defeat of terrorism.
    And I think what is important now is to say that after 3 years, 
which have been very, very difficult indeed, and when, at times, it 
looked impossible for the democratic process to work--I think after 
these 3 years and the democratic process working and producing this 
Government, then it is our duty, but it

[[Page 1022]]

is also the duty of the whole of the international community, to get 
behind this Government and support it, because the other thing that came 
across to me very strongly from talking to them was that the reason 
there is bloodshed and violence in Iraq is that the very forces that we 
are confronting everywhere, including in our own countries, who want to 
destroy our way of life, also want to destroy their hope of having the 
same type of life. In other words, the very forces that are creating 
this violence and bloodshed and terrorism in Iraq are those that are 
doing it in order to destroy the hope of that country and its people to 
achieve democracy, the rule of law, and liberty.
    And I think there is a pattern here for us in the international 
community. I know the decision to remove Saddam was deeply divisive for 
the international community, and deeply controversial. And there's no 
point in rehearsing those arguments over and over again. But whatever 
people's views about the wisdom of that decision, now that there is a 
democratic Government in Iraq, elected by its people, and now they are 
confronted with those whose mission it is to destroy the hope of 
democracy, then our sense of mission should be equal to that, and we 
should be determined to help them defeat this terrorism and violence.
    And I believe very, very strongly indeed--even more so having talked 
to the leaders there and now coming back and examining our own situation 
and how we help--I'm more than ever convinced that what is important for 
them in Iraq is to know that we will stand firm with them in defeating 
these forces of reaction.
    I believe the same, incidentally, is true of the struggle in 
Afghanistan, where again, exactly the same forces of terrorism and 
reaction want to defeat the hopes of people for progress. I would also 
like to think--and this is something the President and I were discussing 
earlier--we will carry on discussing over tonight and tomorrow--and that 
is the importance of trying to unite the international community behind 
an agenda that means, for example, action on global poverty in Africa 
and issues like Sudan; it means a good outcome to the world trade round, 
which is vital for the whole of the civilized world, vital for 
developing countries but also vital for countries such as ourselves; for 
progress in the Middle East; and for ensuring that the global values 
that people are actually struggling for today in Iraq are global values 
we take everywhere and fight for everywhere that we can in our world 
today.
    So I would like to pay tribute also to the work that our forces do 
there. I think both our countries can be immensely proud of their 
heroism and their commitment and their dedication.
    But one very interesting thing happened to me when I was there and 
talking to some of our Armed Forces and talking, also, to the Iraqi 
soldiers that were working alongside them, and that is, for all the 
differences in culture and background and nationality, both of them were 
working together in a common cause, and that was to help a country that 
was once a brutalized dictatorship become a country that enjoys the same 
rights and the same freedoms that we take for granted here and in the 
United Kingdom. And for all the hardship and the challenge of the past 
few years, I still think that is a cause worth standing up for.
    Thank you, Mr. President.
    President Bush. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Timetables for Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, Pentagon officials have talked about prospects for 
reducing American forces in Iraq to about 100,000 by year's end. Does 
the formation of a unity government in Iraq put you on a sound footing 
to achieve that number?
    And Mr. Prime Minister, is it realistic to think that Iraqi forces 
will be able to take control of all Iraq by the end of next year as Mr. 
Maliki suggests?
    President Bush. First of all, we're going to work with our partners 
in Iraq, the new Government, to determine the best way forward in 
achieving an objective, which is an Iraq that can govern itself and 
sustain itself and defend itself.
    I have said to the American people, as the Iraqis stand up, we'll 
stand down. But I've also said that our commanders on the ground will 
make that decision. And I have--we'll talk to General Casey once he is--
conferred

[[Page 1023]]

with the new Government of Iraq. They don't have a defense minister yet; 
they're in the process of getting a defense minister. So it probably 
makes a lot of sense for our commander on the ground to wait until their 
defense structure is set up before we discuss with them, and he with me, 
the force levels necessary to achieve our objective.
    Q. So the 100,000----
    President Bush. That's some speculation in the press that I--they 
haven't talked to me about. And as the Commander in Chief, they 
eventually will talk to me about it. But the American people need to 
know that we'll keep the force level there necessary to win. And it's 
important for the American people to know that politics isn't going to 
make the decision as to the size of our force level; the conditions on 
the ground will make the decision. And part of the conditions on the 
ground, Terry, is a new government, and we believe the new Government is 
going to make a big difference in the lives of the Iraqi people.
    I told you earlier that when you attack an Iraqi now, you're at war 
with an Iraqi Government that's constitutionally elected. And that's a 
different attitude from the way it's been in the past.
    Prime Minister Blair. I think it's possible for the Iraqi security 
forces to take control progressively of their country. That's exactly 
the strategy we've outlined at the beginning. And I think it's possible 
to happen in the way that Prime Minister Maliki said. For that to 
happen, obviously, the first thing that we need is a strong government 
in Baghdad that is prepared to enforce its writ throughout the country. 
My very strong feeling, having talked to the leaders there, is that they 
intend theirs to be such a government.
    Secondly, what they intend is to come down very hard on those people 
who want to create the circumstances where it's difficult for the Iraqi 
forces to be in control. And the truth of the matter is, there is no 
excuse now for anyone to engage in violence in Iraq. I mean, if people's 
worry is to do with being excluded from the political process, everybody 
has got their place in the political process today. And, obviously, 
there are still issues to do with the capability of the Iraqi forces, 
but all the time they are building up, both in number and in capability, 
and we've got to support that all the way through.
    But I'll tell you one interesting thing from talking to all the 
different groups--because sometimes, certainly in our country, the 
impression is given that the Iraqi people wish that we were gone from 
Iraq and weren't there any longer in support of the Iraqi Government or 
the Iraqi forces. Not a single one of the people I talked to, not one of 
the political leaders from whatever part of the spectrum, in Iraq, that 
I talked to--and these are all people from all the different communities 
elected by their people--not one of them wanted us to pull out 
precipitately. All of them wanted us to stick with it and see the job 
done.
    Now, of course, they want to take back control of their own country 
fully, and we want them to do that. But when the Prime Minister Maliki 
talked about an objective timetable, what he meant was, a timetable 
governed by conditions on the ground. And we will be working with them 
now over the coming period of time to see how we can put that framework 
together. But they have a very, very clear sense of what they want the 
multinational force to do. They want us there in support until they've 
got the capability, and then they want us to leave and them to take full 
charge of their country. And I believe that can happen.
    Yes, Adam.

United Nations

    Q. One gets a clear sense of your mutual relief that a Government 
has now been formed, an elected Government has been formed in Iraq. But, 
nonetheless, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations has 
said that he believes that the invasion of Iraq was probably illegal. 
When you look at your legacy and you look ahead to the reforms of the 
United Nations you want to see, are you really saying that what you'd 
actually like to see is a United Nations which could take preemptive 
action legally?
    Prime Minister Blair. I think what we need to do is to recognize 
that there are threats in our world today that require us to act earlier 
and more effectively. And I think we can debate the institutional 
structure within which that should happen in the

[[Page 1024]]

United Nations and elsewhere. But I also think that when we look at this 
global terrorism that we face, there is--to me, at any rate--a very 
clear link between the terrorism that is afflicting virtually every 
country in the Western world, either in actuality or potentially, the 
terrorism that is happening all over different countries of the Middle 
East and in Asia and elsewhere, and the terrorism that is there in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
    And one of the things, I think, certainly for our people, they find 
most difficult to understand is, they will say, ``Well, is it--can it be 
worth everything that we are doing? I mean, it's such a huge sacrifice 
that is being made. Can it be worth it?'' And I think the answer to that 
is, it is worth it to those engaged in this violence and terrorism to 
try to stop us, and we should have the same faith and confidence in our 
determination to succeed as they have in their determination to make us 
fail.
    And I think that is an issue for the whole of the international 
community, because I've got no doubt at all that if we do succeed, as I 
believe that we will in Iraq, difficult though it will be, and we 
succeed in Afghanistan, then the whole of this global terrorism will 
suffer a defeat. And that's why I think we need an international 
community that's capable of recognizing these problems and acting on 
them.
    President Bush. I'd like to see a United Nations that's effective, 
one that joins us in trying to rid the world of tyranny; one that is 
willing to advance human rights and human dignity at its core; one 
that's an unabashed organization--is unabashed in their desire to spread 
freedom. That's what I'd like to see, because I believe that freedom 
will yield the peace. I also believe freedom is universal. I don't 
believe freedom is just a concept only for America or Great Britain; 
it's a universal concept. And it troubles me to know that there are 
people locked in tyrannical societies that suffer. And the United 
Nations ought to be clear about its desire to liberate people from the 
clutches of tyranny. That's what the United Nations ought to be doing, 
as far as I'm concerned.
    Yes, Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

Iran

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. How close are you to an agreement on a 
package of incentives for Iran? And what does Iran stand to gain if it 
were to give up its enrichment program? And why are you ignoring these 
recent back-channel overtures from Iran?
    President Bush. We spent a great deal of time talking about the 
Iranian issue, and one of the goals that Tony and I had was to convince 
others in the world that Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very 
dangerous, and therefore we do have a common goal. And this fundamental 
question is, how do you achieve that goal, obviously. We want to do it 
diplomatically.
    Right now we, as a matter of fact, spent a lot of time upstairs 
talking about how to convince the Iranians that this coalition we put 
together is very serious. One option, of course, is through the United 
Nations Security Council. And we strategized about how do we convince 
other partners that the Security Council is the way to go if the 
Iranians won't suspend like the EU-3 has asked them to do. The Iranians 
walked away from the table. They're the ones who've made the decision, 
and the choice is theirs. Now, if they would like to see an enhanced 
package, the first thing they've got to do is suspend their operations, 
for the good of the world. It's incredibly dangerous to think of an Iran 
with a nuclear weapon.
    And therefore, Steve, to answer your questions, of course, we'll 
look at all options, but it's their choice right now. They're the folks 
who walked away from the table. They're the ones who said that, ``Your 
demands don't mean anything to us.''
    Now, in terms of--you said back channels----
    Q. Back-channel overtures.
    President Bush. Well, I read the letter of the President, and I 
thought it was interesting. It was, like, 16 or 17 single-spaced typed 
pages of--but he didn't address the issue of whether or not they're 
going to continue to press for a nuclear weapon. That's the issue at 
hand.
    And so it's--we have no beef with the Iranian people. As a matter of 
fact, the United States respects the culture and history of Iran, and we 
want there to be an Iran that's

[[Page 1025]]

confident and an Iran that answers to the needs of the--we want women in 
Iran to be free. At the same time, we're going to continue to work with 
a government that is intransigent, that won't budge. And so we've got to 
continue to work to convince them that we're serious; that if they want 
to be isolated from the world, we will work to achieve that.
    Q. Should this enhanced package include a light-water reactor and a 
security guarantee?
    President Bush. Steve, you're responding to press speculation. I've 
just explained to you that the Iranians walked away from the table, and 
that I think we ought to be continuing to work on ways to make it clear 
to them that they will be isolated. And one way to do that is to 
continue to work together through the United Nations Security--if they 
suspend and have the IAEA in there making sure that the suspension is 
real, then, of course, we'll talk about ways forward, incentives.

United Nations/Iran

    Q. Prime Minister, you've both talked a little about the U.N. I know 
that you believe the U.N. needs vigorous leadership, and you're going to 
pick up on these themes in your speech tomorrow. Is that a job 
application? And if not----
    President Bush. Wait a minute. [Laughter]
    Q. ----do you both have a sense--do you have someone in mind? And if 
not, how are you going to get the reform of the U.N. you want to see?
    Prime Minister Blair. No, no, and I'm not sure--[laughter]--is the 
answer to those ones. Look, what we want to do is to make sure that the 
U.N. is an effective instrument of multilateral action. That's what 
everyone wants to see. And the fact is, there are multiple problems in 
the world; they require the international community to respond on a 
collective basis, but you've got to have an effective set of 
multilateral institutions to do that. And that's true whether you're 
tackling global poverty or trying to resolve disputes or, indeed, when 
you're dealing with issues like Iran.
    The whole point about the international community today is that 
these problems are urgent; they need to be tackled. If they're not 
tackled, the consequences are very quickly felt around the world, and 
you've got to have institutions that are capable of taking them on and 
tackling them and getting action taken.
    Now, we were just talking about Iran a moment ago. I mean, we want 
to have this resolved through the process of the multilateral 
institutions. There's a way we can do this. I mean, after all, we are 
the ones saying the Atomic Energy Authority--their duties and 
obligations they lay upon Iran should be adhered to. And we've got 
absolutely no quarrel with the Iranian people. The Iranian people are a 
great people; Iran is a great country. But it needs a government that is 
going to recognize that part of being a great country is to be in line 
with your international obligations and to cease supporting those people 
in different parts of the world who want, by terrorism and violence, to 
disrupt the process of democracy.
    So I think that our position with Iran is a very reasonable one. And 
we want to see how we can make progress and help them to do the things 
that we believe that they should do, but they must understand that the 
will of the international community is sure and is clear, and that is 
that the obligations that are upon them have got to be adhered to.
    President Bush. Stretch [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News].

Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow/National Economy

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
    President Bush. I call him Stretch.
    Q. And I've been called worse. [Laughter] Has Treasury Secretary 
Snow given you any indication that he intends to leave his job any time 
soon?
    President Bush. Secretary of Treasury Snow?
    Q. Has he given you any indication he intends to leave his job any 
time soon? And related to that, Americans--macroeconomic numbers are 
indeed good, but many Americans are concerned, increasingly concerned

[[Page 1026]]

about rising health care costs, costs of gasoline. And does that make it 
hard for your administration, Treasury Secretary Snow, and everyone else 
to continue to talk up the economy?
    President Bush. No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I 
think he's doing a fine job. After all, our economy is--it's strong. We 
grew at 3.5 percent last year; a good, strong first quarter this year. 
We added five--2.5 million new jobs; we've got 4.7 percent unemployment 
rate nationwide. Productivity is up; homeownership is high; small 
businesses are doing well. He's done a fine job.
    And our--obviously, people are concerned about rising fuel prices--
all the more reason to get off oil and to promote alternatives, such as 
ethanol or battery technologies that will enable us to drive the first 
40 miles on electricity. We're spending about $1.2 billion over the next 
10 years to develop hydrogen fuel cells. We want--we need to get away 
from hydrocarbons here in America for economic security, for national 
security, and for environmental reasons as well.
    One way we could help alleve gasoline prices here in America is for 
the Congress to pass some regulatory relief so we can actually expand 
refining capacity. We haven't built a new refinery here since the 1970s. 
And curiously enough, when demand for a product goes up with tight 
supply, price follows. And so we put out some logical ways for Congress 
to work with the administration to relieve price pressures on gasoline.
    As far as health care goes, there are some practical ways to deal 
with health care costs, and one of the most practical ways is to get rid 
of these junk lawsuits that are running good doctors out of practice and 
running up the price of medicine. Passed it out of the House; they can't 
get it out of the Senate because the lawyers won't let it out. But we 
put forth a commonsense practice to deal with rising health care costs 
as well.

Progress in Iraq

    Q. You both presented the Iraqi Government as a substantial 
vindication of the conflict. Do you also accept, as a matter of harsh 
political reality, that the Iraq conflict has also left both of you 
politically weakened and, whether justly or unjustly, less able to give 
the kind of moral leadership that you're discussing today?
    President Bush. No question that the Iraq war has created a sense of 
consternation here in America. I mean, when you turn on your TV screen 
and see innocent people die, day in and day out, it affects the 
mentality of our country.
    But here's what they're asking in America; they're asking, ``Can we 
win?'' That's what they want to know. Do we have a strategy for victory? 
And so the talk about the unity Government--you might remember, there 
was some--a lot of speculation as to whether there would even be a unity 
government. A couple of months ago, people were saying, ``Well, they 
can't even get a unity government going.'' But we have a unity 
government--a Kurd President, a Prime Minister who is a Shi'a, a Speaker 
who is a Sunni. These are strong leaders. It's an indication that 
progress is being made.
    Part of progress, of course, is on the political track. You know, we 
had elections in Iraq; 12 million people voted last December. Now, it 
seems like an eternity ago, I know, like a decade. But that's not all 
that long ago in the larger scope of things. Twelve million people said, 
we want to be free. It was an astounding moment. And this unity 
Government is now formed as a result of those elections, under a 
Constitution approved by the Iraqi people. That's progress. It's 
certainly a far sight from the days of a tyrant who killed hundreds of 
thousands of his own people and used weapons of mass destruction and 
threatened the neighborhood. I mean, that is progress.
    No question, however, that the suiciders and the killers and the 
IEDs and the deaths have an effect on the American people. But one of 
the reasons that I appreciate Tony coming is that he brings a fresh 
perspective of what he saw. And the American people need to know, we are 
making progress toward a goal of an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain 
itself, and govern itself; that will deny the terrorists a safe haven.
    You know, Al Qaida has made it clear what their intentions are in 
Iraq. I'm sure you've read some of the intercepts that are laid out 
there for people to see. And they have made

[[Page 1027]]

it clear that it's just a matter of time for countries like Great 
Britain and the United States to leave. In other words, if they make 
life miserable enough, we'll leave. And they want us to leave because 
they want a safe haven from which to launch attacks, not only on us but 
on moderate Muslim governments as well. These people are totalitarians. 
They're Islamic fascists. They have a point of view; they have a 
philosophy; and they want to impose that philosophy on the rest of the 
world. And Iraq just happens to be a--one of the battles in the war on 
terror.
    And Tony brings up a good point: Why are they resisting so hard; 
what is it about democracy they can't stand? Well, what they can't stand 
about democracy is this: Democracy is the exact opposite of what they 
believe. They believe they can impose their will; they believe there's 
no freedom of religion; they believe there's no women's rights. They 
have a dark vision of the world, and that's why they're resisting so 
mightily.
    So yes, I can understand why the American people are troubled by the 
war in Iraq. I understand that. But I also believe the sacrifice is 
worth it and is necessary. And I believe a free Iraq is not only going 
to make ourselves more secure, but it's going to serve as a powerful 
example in the Middle East.
    You know, foreign policy, for awhile, just basically said, if it 
seems okay on the surface, just let it be. And guess what happened? 
There was resentment and hatred that enabled these totalitarians to 
recruit and to kill, which they want to continue to do to achieve their 
objectives. And the best way to defeat them in the long run is through 
the spread of liberty.
    And liberty has had the capacity to change enemies to allies. 
Liberty has had the capacity to help Europe become whole, free, and at 
peace. History has proven that freedom has got the capacity to change 
the world for the better, and that's what you're seeing.
    You know, the amazing thing about dealing with Prime Minister Blair, 
has never once has he said to me on the phone, we better change our 
tactics because of the political opinion polls. And I appreciate that 
steadfast leadership. And I appreciate somebody who has got a vision, a 
shared vision for how to not only protect ourselves in the war on terror 
but how to make the world a better place.
    Prime Minister Blair. I don't really think it's a matter of our 
vindication. I think, in a way, that's the least important part of it. 
But I do think that occasionally, we should just take a step back and 
ask, why are we doing this? Why is it so important?
    Saddam was removed from power 3 years ago. Since then, incidentally, 
our forces have been there with the United Nations mandate and with the 
consent of the Iraqi Government itself--the Iraqi Government becoming 
progressively more the product of direct democracy.
    So whatever people thought about removing Saddam--you agree with it, 
you didn't agree with it--for these last 3 years, the issue in Iraq has 
not been, these people are here without any international support, 
because we haven't had any United Nations resolution governing our 
presence there. The issue is not, you're there, but the Iraqi people 
don't want you there, because the Iraqi Government and now this 
directly-elected Iraqi Government has said they want us to stay until 
the job is done.
    So why is it that for 3 years, we have had this violence and 
bloodshed? Now, people have tried to say it's because the Iraqi people--
you people, you don't understand; you went in with this Western concept 
of democracy, and you didn't understand that their whole culture was 
different; they weren't interested in these types of freedom. These 
people have gone out and voted--a higher turnout, I have to say--I'm 
afraid to say, I think, than either your election or mine. These people 
have gone out and voted----
    President Bush. Depends on which one--2000 or 2004? [Laughter]
    Prime Minister Blair. I think both of them.
    President Bush. I think you're right. [Laughter]
    Prime Minister Blair. They have gone out and voted despite 
terrorism, despite bloodshed, despite literally the prospect of death 
for exercising their democratic right. So they have kept faith with the 
very democratic values that we say we believe in, and the people trying 
to wrest that democracy

[[Page 1028]]

from them are opposed to absolutely everything we stand for and 
everything the Iraqi people stand for.
    So what do we do in response to this? And the problem we have is 
very, very simple. A large part of the perspective with which we look at 
this is to see every act of terrorism in Iraq, every piece of ghastly 
carnage on our television screens, every tragic loss of our own forces--
we see that as a setback and as a failure, when we should be seeing that 
as a renewed urgency for us to rise to the challenge of defeating these 
people who are committing this carnage. Because over these past 3 years, 
at every stage, the reason they have been fighting is not, as we can 
see, because Iraqi people don't believe in democracy; Iraqi people don't 
want liberty. It is precisely because they fear Iraqi people do want 
democracy; Iraqi people do want liberty.
    And if the idea became implanted in the minds of people in the Arab 
and Muslim world that democracy was as much their right as our right, 
where do these terrorists go? What do they do? How do they recruit? How 
do they say, America is the evil Satan? How do they say the purpose of 
the West is to spoil your lands, wreck your religion, take your wealth? 
How can they say that? They can't say that.
    So these people who are fighting us there know what is at stake. The 
question is, do we?
    President Bush. Must say, that was a great answer. [Laughter]
    Prime Minister Blair. Yours was pretty good too. [Laughter]
    Q. You have your chance now. [Laughter]
    President Bush. Another chance; good. Well, thank you, Martha 
[Martha Raddatz, ABC News].

Troop Levels in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, you have said time and time again, and again 
tonight, when Iraqi forces stand up, coalition forces can start standing 
down.
    President Bush. Right.
    Q. But the fact is, you have been standing up Iraqi forces in great 
numbers. The administration says you have hundreds of thousand trained 
and equipped, tens of thousand leading the fight. And yet during the 
same period they've been standing up, there has not been a substantial 
decrease in U.S. and coalition forces. So what does that tell us about 
how meaningful the figures are on Iraqi troops? And what does that tell 
us about a potential for a drawdown?
    President Bush. It tells you that the commanders on the ground are 
going to make the decision, that's what that tells you. And when they 
feel comfortable in recommending to me fewer troops, I will accept that. 
But they're going to make that recommendation based upon the conditions 
on the ground. I know I keep saying that, and it probably bores you that 
I keep giving the same answer, but I haven't changed my opinion.
    I talk to our commanders all the time. They feel strongly that the 
Iraqi Army is getting better. It's hard to have a command and control 
system with an Iraqi Army when you don't have a defense minister. And so 
Mr. Maliki is going to have to pick one soon. And then our commanders 
will gauge as to whether or not the command and control structure is 
sufficient to be able to enable the Iraqis to take more of the fight. 
They are taking more of the fight, by the way. They're in more provinces 
than ever before. They're taking over more territory. They're taking 
over more missions. There are some gaps that we need to continue to work 
on to fill. The transportation issue is going to need to be dealt with 
over time.
    All I can report to you is what General Casey--in whom I have got a 
lot of confidence--tells me, and that is, the Iraqis are becoming better 
and better fighters. And at some point in time, when he feels like the 
Government is ready to take on more responsibility and the Iraqi forces 
are able to help them do so, he will get on the telephone with me and 
say, ``Mr. President, I think we can do this with fewer troops.'' We've 
been up to 165,000 at one point; we're at about 135,000 now.
    Q.  [Inaudible]
    President Bush. Hold on for a second. Actually, he moved some 
additional troops from Kuwait into Baghdad. Conditions on the ground 
were such that we needed more support in Baghdad, to secure Baghdad, so 
he informed me, through Donald Rumsfeld,

[[Page 1029]]

that he wanted to move troops out of Kuwait into Baghdad.
    So these commanders--they need to have flexibility in order to 
achieve the objective. You don't want politicians making decisions based 
upon politics. You want the Commander in Chief making decisions based 
upon what the military thinks is the right way to achieve the objective. 
I've set the objective; it's clear for everybody--a country that can 
sustain itself, defend itself, and govern itself. And we're making 
progress on all fronts. But as to how many troops we have there will 
depend upon the generals and their commanders saying, ``This is what we 
need to do the job, Mr. President.'' And that's the way it's going to be 
so long as I'm standing here as the Commander in Chief, which is 2\1/2\ 
more years.
    Prime Minister Blair. I spoke to General Casey and to our own 
General Fry in Baghdad on Monday. We sat down and talked this very issue 
through. And I think what you will find is that progressively, there 
will be more and more parts of Iraq that are policed by the Iraqi 
security forces themselves, and their capability is improving. But I 
also think you will find, probably over the next few months, there will 
be a real attempt by the antidemocratic forces to test them very, very 
strongly. And remember, a lot of the attacks are now happening not on 
the multinational force, although those attacks continue, of course, but 
actually on the Iraqi forces themselves, on their police, on their army, 
and so on. And the purpose, of course, of that is to deter them from the 
very buildup of capability that we want to see.
    But over the course of the next few months, you will see 
progressively those provinces in Iraq coming under Iraqi control, and 
then, of course, it will be for the Iraqis to sort out that 
responsibility.
    President Bush. One thing, Martha, is that we want to make sure we 
complete the mission, that we achieve our objective. A loss in Iraq 
would make this world an incredibly dangerous place. Remember, there is 
not only sectarian violence, a hangover from Saddam's era, but there is 
an Al Qaida presence in the form of Zarqawi, who wants to sow as much 
havoc as possible to cause us to leave before the mission is complete.
    Listen, I want our troops out; don't get me wrong. I understand what 
it means to have troops in harm's way. And I know there's a lot of 
families making huge sacrifices here in America. I'll be going to a 
Memorial Day ceremony next Monday, paying tribute to those who have lost 
their life. I'm sure I will see families of the fallen. I fully 
understand the pressures being placed upon our military and their 
families. But I also understand that it is vital that we do the job; 
that we complete the mission. And it has been tough. It's been really 
tough, because we're fighting an unconventional enemy that is willing to 
kill innocent people. There are no rules of war for these people. But 
make no mistake about it, what you're seeing in Iraq could happen all 
over the world if we don't stand fast and achieve the objective.
    No, I had the followup answer; you can't have a followup question. 
Nice try, though.

Prime Minister Tony Blair

    Q. Prime Minister, this is possibly your last official visit to 
Washington as Prime Minister----
    President Bush. Wait a minute. [Laughter] Back-to-back disses.
    Q. At least the beginning of the end of your particular special 
relationship. Will you miss the President? What will you miss about him? 
[Laughter]
    And for the President, what will you miss about Tony Blair, and what 
are you looking for in an eventual replacement?
    President Bush. I'll miss those red ties, is what I'll miss. 
[Laughter] I'll say one thing--he can answer the question--don't count 
him out; let me tell it to you that way. I know a man of resolve and 
vision and courage. And my attitude is, I want him to be here so long as 
I'm the President.
    Prime Minister Blair. Well, what more can I say? [Laughter] Probably 
not wise to say anything more at all. [Laughter]
    You guys, come on, I want you to--the British delegation, ask a few 
serious questions. [Laughter]
    President Bush. Right.
    Prime Minister Blair. Or we'll go on to one of you guys. [Laughter]
    President Bush. Plante [Bill Plante, CBS News].

[[Page 1030]]

Iraq

    Q. Perhaps I can change the mood. Mr. President, you talk about 
setting the objective. But our people, my colleagues on the ground in 
Iraq, say that when they talk to American troops, the rank and file, 
they say they don't believe that they've had enough to do the job. They 
say further that while the Iraqi Army may be improving, there is 
absolutely no way to depend upon the police, who they say are corrupt 
and aligned with militias. All of this going on--what reason is there to 
believe that the new Government can do any better with these people than 
we've been able to do so far?
    President Bush. There are several tracks, Bill. One is the political 
track. I think it's very important for the Iraqi people to have a 
government that has been elected under a Constitution they approved. In 
other words, the political track has been a vital part of having a 
country that can govern itself and defend itself.
    There's a security track. And there's no question that there are a 
lot of Iraqis trained to fight, and many of them are good fighters--
117,000 have been trained and equipped. There needs to be more 
equipment; no question about that. The Iraqis--I think if you were to 
get a--at least the assessment I get, is that the Iraqi Army is moving 
well along and they're taking more and more of the territory over in 
order to defend their country.
    No question we've got a lot of work to do on the police. General 
Casey has said publicly that year 2006 is the year that we'll train the 
police up and running. Perhaps the place where there needs to be the 
most effective police force is in Baghdad. I just told you, we're moving 
more troops in. There's a--General Casey met today with the Prime 
Minister to talk about how to secure Baghdad. It's really important that 
Baghdad--that capital city become more secure. And there's plans to deal 
with the contingencies on the ground. All I can tell you is, is that 
we're making progress toward the goal.
    Prime Minister Blair. Can I just----and I'd like to say something, 
again, out of the discussions I had on Monday. I think that what is 
important is, try and get a sense of balance in this. Look, it would be 
completely foolish for us to say, there are no problems with either the 
police or the army; you've got a full force capability in the way that 
we want. And nobody is actually saying that.
    It would also be wrong to turn it around the other way, though, even 
in respect to the police. I had quite a detailed discussion, not, in 
fact, with the generals, but some of the ordinary soldiers who--British 
soldiers there, up in Baghdad, and also with some of the people who are 
working with the police at the moment. And what they said to me is, yes, 
there are real problems to do with corruption in parts of the police 
force, but actually, there is also another side to it, which there are 
people who are really dedicated and really committed to a nonsectarian 
Iraq, who also are playing their part.
    Now I think the whole question is whether this new Government can 
then grip this in the way, in a sense, that only they can. You see, I 
think this is where, inevitably, over time, we have to transfer 
responsibility. And that is, of course, what we wish to do, and part of 
that is because it is easier for an Iraqi interior minister who is the 
product of an Iraqi-elected Government, to go in and take the really 
tough measure sometimes that is necessary to sort some of these issues 
out.
    But I can assure you of two things: First of all, there is another, 
more positive side to the Iraqi forces--both the army and in parts of 
the police as well; and secondly, the Iraqi Government knows that this 
is the absolute prerequisite of success for them. It's just--one of the 
ministers said to me, he said, ``You should understand, our State was a 
completely failed state.'' The police--people didn't go to the police in 
Iraq if they had a problem under Saddam. They had a problem if they were 
in contact with the police because of the way the State was run.
    And so you're talking about literally building the institutions of a 
state from scratch. And I don't think it's, in one sense, very 
surprising that it is both difficult and taking time. But I think that 
they do know that this is of vital importance for them to succeed. And I 
think you may find that it is easier for Iraqis to do this themselves 
and take some of these measures necessary, than it is for us, although 
we would be there, obviously, in support of what they're doing.

[[Page 1031]]

Lessons Learned in the War on Terror

    Q. Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. 
Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most 
regret?
    President Bush. Sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here--saying 
``bring it on,'' kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong 
signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe 
in a little more sophisticated manner--you know, ``wanted dead or 
alive,'' that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was 
misinterpreted, and so I learned from that. And I think the biggest 
mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement 
in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of 
time. And it's--unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who 
committed those acts were brought to justice. They've been given a fair 
trial and tried and convicted.
    Prime Minister Blair. I think inevitably, some of the things that we 
thought were going to be the biggest challenge proved not to be, and 
some of the things we didn't expect to be challenges at all proved to be 
immense. I think that probably in retrospect--though at the time it was 
very difficult to argue this--we could have done the de-Baathification 
in a more differentiated way than we did.
    I think that the most difficult thing, however, has been the 
determination of people to move against the democratic process in Iraq 
in a way that, I think--as I was saying a moment or two ago--indicates 
our opponents' very clear view from a very early stage that they have to 
stop the democratic process working. And I think it's easy to go back 
over mistakes that we may have made, but the biggest reason why Iraq has 
been difficult is the determination of our opponents to defeat us. And I 
don't think we should be surprised at that.
    Maybe in retrospect, when we look back, it should have been very 
obvious to us, and is obvious still in Afghanistan, that for them, it is 
very clear. You know, they can't afford to have these countries turned 
round, and I think that probably, there was a whole series of things in 
Iraq that were bound to come out once you got Al Qaida and other groups 
operating in there to cause maximum destruction and damage. And 
therefore, I'm afraid in the end, we're always going to have to be 
prepared for the fall of Saddam not to be the rise of democratic Iraq; 
that it was going to be a more difficult process.
    President Bush. Mr. Prime Minister, can I buy you dinner?
    Prime Minister Blair. Certainly.

Note: The President's news conference began at 7:31 p.m. in the East 
Room at the White House. In his remarks, the President referred to Prime 
Minister Nuri al-Maliki, former President Saddam Hussein, President 
Jalal Talabani, and Speaker of the Council of Representatives Mahmoud 
al-Mashhadani of Iraq; Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., USA, commanding 
general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of 
Iran; and senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Prime Minister 
Blair referred to Lt. Gen. Sir Robert Fry, the Royal Marines, deputy 
commander, Multi-National Force--Iraq. A reporter referred to Secretary-
General Kofi Annan of the United Nations.