[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 33 (Monday, August 21, 2006)]
[Pages 1457-1462]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks Following a Meeting With Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and 
the Foreign Policy Team and an Exchange With Reporters

August 14, 2006

    The President. Good afternoon. Today I met with members of my 
national security team, both here at the State Department and at the 
Pentagon. I want to, first of all, thank the leadership of Secretary 
Condi Rice and Secretary Don Rumsfeld.
    During those discussions, we talked about the need to transform our 
military to meet the threats of the 21st century. We discussed the 
global war on terror. We discussed the situation on the ground in three 
fronts of the global war on terror--in Lebanon and Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Friday's U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon is an important 
step forward that will help bring an end to the violence. The resolution 
calls for a robust international force to deploy to the southern part of 
the country to help Lebanon's legitimate armed forces restore the 
sovereignty of its democratic Government over all Lebanese territory. As 
well, the resolution is intended to stop Hizballah from acting as a 
state within the state.
    We're now working with our international partners to turn the words 
of this resolution into action. We must help people in both Lebanon and 
Israel return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives without 
fear of renewed violence and terror.
    America recognizes that civilians in Lebanon and Israel have 
suffered from the current violence, and we recognize that responsibility 
for this suffering lies with Hizballah. It was an unprovoked attack by 
Hizballah on Israel that started this conflict. Hizballah terrorists 
targeted Israeli civilians with daily rocket attacks. Hizballah 
terrorists used Lebanese civilians as human shields, sacrificing the 
innocent in an effort to protect themselves from Israeli response.
    Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies 
with Hizballah's state sponsors, Iran and Syria. The regime in Iran 
provides Hizballah with financial support, weapons, and training. Iran 
has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel. We can only 
imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the 
nuclear weapon it seeks.
    Syria is another state sponsor of Hizballah. Syria allows Iranian 
weapons to pass through its territory into Lebanon. Syria permits 
Hizballah's leaders to operate out of Damascus and gives political 
support to Hizballah's cause. Syria supports Hizballah because it wants 
to undermine Lebanon's democratic Government and regain its position of 
dominance in the country. That would be a great tragedy for the Lebanese 
people and for the cause of peace in the Middle East.
    Hizballah and its foreign sponsors also seek to undermine the 
prospects for peace in the Middle East. Hizballah terrorists kidnaped 
two Israeli soldiers; Hamas kidnaped another Israeli soldier for a 
reason--Hizballah and Hamas reject the vision of two democratic states, 
Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Both 
groups want to disrupt the progress being made toward that vision by 
Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas and others in the region. We 
must not allow terrorists to prevent elected leaders from working 
together toward a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East.
    The conflict in Lebanon is part of a broader struggle between 
freedom and terror that is unfolding across the region. For decades, 
American policy sought to achieve peace in the Middle East by promoting 
stability in the Middle East. Yet the lack of freedom in the region 
meant anger and resentment grew, radicalism thrived, and terrorists 
found willing recruits. We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 
2001, when terrorists brought death and destruction to our country, 
killing nearly 3,000 of our citizens.
    So we've launched a forward strategy of freedom in the broader 
Middle East. And that strategy has helped bring hope to millions and 
fostered the birth of young democracies from Baghdad to Beirut. Forces 
of terror see the changes that are taking place in their midst. They 
understand that the advance of liberty, the freedom to worship, the 
freedom to dissent, and the protection of human rights would be a defeat 
for their hateful ideology. But they also know that young democracies 
are fragile and that this

[[Page 1458]]

may be their last and best opportunity to stop freedom's advance and 
steer newly free nations to the path of radical extremism. So the 
terrorists are striking back with all of the destructive power that they 
can muster. It's no coincidence that two nations that are building free 
societies in the heart of the Middle East, Lebanon and Iraq, are also 
the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity.
    Some say that America caused the current instability in the Middle 
East by pursuing a forward strategy of freedom, yet history shows 
otherwise. We didn't talk much about freedom or the freedom agenda in 
the Middle East before September the 11th, 2001; or before Al Qaida 
first attacked the World Trade Center and blew up our Embassies in Kenya 
and Tanzania in the 1990s; or before Hizballah killed hundreds of 
Americans in Beirut and Islamic radicals held American hostages in Iran 
in the 1980s. History is clear: The freedom agenda did not create the 
terrorists or their ideology. But the freedom agenda will help defeat 
them both.
    Some say that the violence and instability we see today means that 
the people of this troubled region are not ready for democracy. I 
disagree. Over the past 5 years, people across the Middle East have 
bravely defied the car bombers and assassins to show the world that they 
want to live in liberty. We see the universal desire for liberty in the 
12 million Iraqis who faced down the terrorists to cast their ballots 
and elected a free government under a democratic constitution. We see 
the universal desire for liberty in 8 million Afghans who lined up to 
vote for the first democratic Government in the long history of their 
country. We see the universal desire for liberty in the Lebanese people 
who took to the streets to demand their freedom and helped drive Syrian 
forces out of their country.
    The problem in the Middle East today is not that people lack the 
desire for freedom. The problem is that young democracies that they have 
established are still vulnerable to terrorists and their sponsors. One 
vulnerability is that many of the new democratic governments in the 
region have not yet established effective control over all their 
territory.
    In both Lebanon and Iraq, elected governments are contending with 
rogue armed groups that are seeking to undermine and destabilize them. 
In Lebanon, Hizballah declared war on Lebanon's neighbor, Israel, 
without the knowledge of the elected Government in Beirut. In Iraq, Al 
Qaida and death squads engage in brutal violence to undermine the unity 
Government. And in both these countries, Iran is backing armed groups in 
the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold.
    The message of this administration is clear: America will stay on 
the offense against Al Qaida; Iran must stop its support for terror; and 
the leaders of these armed groups must make a choice: If they want to 
participate in the political life of their countries, they must disarm. 
Elected leaders cannot have one foot in the camp of democracy and one 
foot in the camp of terror.
    The Middle East is at a pivotal moment in its history. The death and 
destruction we see shows how determined the extremists are to stop just 
and modern societies from emerging in the region. Yet millions of people 
in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan and elsewhere are equally determined 
to live in peace and freedom. They have tired of the false promises and 
grand illusions of radical extremists. They reject the hateful vision of 
the terrorists, and they dream of a better future for their children and 
their grandchildren. We're determined to help them achieve that dream.
    America's actions have never been guided by territorial ambition. We 
seek to advance the cause of freedom in the Middle East because we know 
the security of the region and our own security depend on it. We know 
that free nations are America's best partners for peace and the only 
true anchors for stability. So we'll continue to support reformers, 
inside and outside governments, who are working to build the 
institutions of liberty. We'll continue to confront terrorist 
organizations and their sponsors who destroy innocent lives. We'll 
continue to work for the day when a democratic Israel and a democratic 
Palestine are neighbors in a peaceful and secure Middle East.
    The way forward is going to be difficult. It will require more 
sacrifice. But we can be

[[Page 1459]]

confident of the outcome because we know and understand the unstoppable 
power of freedom. In a Middle East that grows in freedom and democracy, 
people will have a chance to raise their families and live in peace and 
build a better future. In a Middle East that grows in freedom and 
democracy, the terrorists will lose their recruits and lose their 
sponsors and lose safe havens from which to launch new attacks. In a 
Middle East that grows in freedom and democracy, there will be no room 
for tyranny and terror, and that will make America and other free 
nations more secure.
    Now I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Deb [Deb 
Riechmann, Associated Press].

Situation in the Middle East/Israel

    Q. Mr. President, both sides are claiming victory in a conflict 
that's killed more than 900 people. Who won, and do you think the cease-
fire will hold?
    The President. We certainly hope the cease-fire holds, because it is 
step one of making sure that Lebanon's democracy is strengthened. 
Lebanon can't be a strong democracy when there's a state within a state, 
and that's Hizballah.
    As I mentioned in my remarks, Hizballah attacked Israel without any 
knowledge of the Siniora Government. You can't run a government, you 
can't have a democracy if you've got a armed faction within your 
country. Hizballah attacked Israel. Hizballah started the crisis, and 
Hizballah suffered a defeat in this crisis. And the reason why is, is 
that first, there is a new--there's going to be a new power in the south 
of Lebanon, and that's going to be a Lebanese force with a robust 
international force to help them seize control of the country, that part 
of the country.
    Secondly, when people take a look-see, take a step back and realize 
how this started, they'll understand this was Hizballah's activities. 
This was Hizballah's choice to make.
    I believe that Israel is serious about upholding the cessation of 
hostilities. The reason I believe that is, I talked to the Prime 
Minister of Israel about it. And I know the Siniora Government is 
anxious that the hostilities stop and the country begin to rebuild.
    I can't speak for Hizballah. They're a terrorist organization. 
They're not a state. They act independently of, evidently, the Lebanese 
Government, and they do receive help from the outside.
    Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News].

Hizballah/War on Terror

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President----
    The President. It's good to see you. Thanks for breaking in with 
us--kind of a rough crowd here, hanging out with you.
    Q. Thank you. Despite what you've just said, there is a perception, 
a global perception, certainly in the Arab media and in many Western 
media as well, that Hizballah is really a winner here because they have 
proven that they could, as a guerrilla force, withstand the Israeli 
Army. They have been the sole source of humanitarian aid to many of the 
Lebanese people in the south. So they've improved their position 
politically, within Lebanon, and militarily and globally. They've gotten 
an aura of being able to stand up for so long against Israel. How do you 
combat that and the perception that we settled for less than we 
originally wanted in the U.N. resolution, a less robust force? And what 
actions can the United States or this international force take if Iran, 
for instance, tries to rearm Hizballah?
    The President. Yes. First of all, if I were Hizballah, I'd be 
claiming victory too. But the people around the region and the world 
need to take a step back and recognize that Hizballah's action created a 
very strong reaction that, unfortunately, caused some people to lose 
their life, innocent people to lose their life. But on the other hand, 
it was Hizballah that caused the destruction.
    People have got to understand--and it will take time, Andrea; it 
will take time for people to see the truth--that Hizballah hides behind 
innocent civilians as they attack. What's really interesting is a 
mindset--is the mindsets of this crisis. Israel, when they aimed at a 
target and killed innocent citizens, were upset. Its society was 
aggrieved. When Hizballah's rockets killed innocent Israelis, they 
celebrated. I think when people really take a look at the type of 
mentality that celebrates the loss of innocent life, they'll reject that 
type of mentality.

[[Page 1460]]

    And so Hizballah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine, 
and they're claiming victories and--but how can you claim victory when 
at one time you were a state within a state, safe within southern 
Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an 
international force? And that's what we're now working on, is to get the 
international force in southern Lebanon.
    None of this would have happened, by the way, had we--had 1559, U.N. 
Resolution 1559 been fully implemented. Now is the time to get it 
implemented. And it's going to take a lot of work, no question about it. 
And no question that it's a different kind of war than people are used 
to seeing. We're fighting the same kind of war. We don't fight the 
armies of nation-states; we fight terrorists who kill innocent people to 
achieve political objectives. And it's a hard fight. It requires 
different tactics, and it requires solid will from those of us who 
understand the stakes.
    The world got to see what it means to confront terrorism. I mean, 
it's the challenge of the 21st century. The fight against terror, a 
group of ideologs, by the way, who use terror to achieve an objective--
this is the challenge. And that's why, in my remarks, I spoke about the 
need for those of us who understand the blessings of liberty to help 
liberty prevail in the Middle East. And the fundamental question is, can 
it? And my answer is, absolutely; it can.
    I believe that universal--that freedom is a universal value. And by 
that I mean, I believe people want to be free. One way to put it is, I 
believe mothers around the world want to raise their children in a 
peaceful world. That's what I believe. And I believe that people want to 
be free to express themselves and free to worship the way they want to. 
And if you believe that, then you've got to have hope that, ultimately, 
freedom will prevail. But it's incredibly hard work, because there are 
terrorists who kill innocent people to stop the advance of liberty. And 
that's the challenge of the 21st century.
    And the fundamental question for this country is, do we understand 
the stakes and the challenge, and are we willing to support reformers 
and young democracies, and are we willing to confront terror and those 
who sponsor them? And this administration is willing to do so. And 
that's what we're doing.

    And you asked about Iran? What did you say about them? My answer was 
too long to remember the third part of your multipart question.

Syria and Iran/Sponsorship of Hizballah

    Q. I'm sorry. How can the international force or the United States, 
if necessary, prevent Iran from resupplying Hizballah?

    The President. The first step is--and part of the mandate in the 
U.N. resolution was to secure Syria's borders. Iran is able to ship 
weapons to Hizballah through Syria. Secondly is to deal--is to help seal 
off the ports around Lebanon. In other words, there's--part of the 
mandate and part of the mission of the troops, the UNIFIL troops will be 
to seal off the Syrian border.

    But, as well, there's a diplomatic mission that needs to be 
accomplished. In other words, the world must now recognize that it's 
Iranian sponsorship of Hizballah that exacerbated the situation in the 
Middle East. People are greatly concerned about the loss of innocent 
life, as are the Americans--American people. We care deeply about that, 
the fact that innocents lost their life. But it's very important to 
remember how this all happened. And Hizballah has been emboldened 
because of its state sponsors. I know they claim they didn't have 
anything to do with it, but sophisticated weaponry ended up in the hands 
of Hizballah fighters, and many assume and many believe that that 
weaponry came from Iran through Syria.

    And so the task is more than just helping the Siniora Government; 
the task is also--and the task is not just America's alone; the task is 
the world's--and that is to continually remind the Iranians of their 
obligations, their obligations not to develop a nuclear weapons program, 
their obligations not to foster terrorism and promote terrorism.

    And we'll continue working with our partners to do that, just that.

    Yes, Michael [Michael Allen, Time].

[[Page 1461]]

Prevention of Terrorist Attacks in the United Kingdom/Security Measures

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Until the other day, few Americans 
thought about liquid explosives when they got on a plane. What are the 
other emerging or evolving threats to the homeland that are most on your 
mind? That is, what else needs to be hardened as convincingly as 
cockpits have been hardened?
    The President. Michael, we will take the actions that are necessary 
based upon the intelligence we gather. And obviously, if we find out 
that terrorist groups are planning and plotting against our citizens--or 
any other citizens, for that matter--we will notify the proper 
authorities and the people themselves of actions that we're taking.
    Uncovering this terrorist plot was accomplished through the hard and 
good work of British authorities as well as our folks. And the 
coordination was very strong, and the cooperation, interagency and with 
the Brits, was really good. And I congratulate the Blair Government and 
the hard-working folks in Great Britain. And, by the way, they're still 
analyzing; they're still dealing with potential threats. And I want to 
thank our folks too. It was a really good effort.
    But my point to you is that if we find out or if we believe that the 
terrorists will strike using a certain type of weapon or tactic, we will 
take the necessary precautions, just like we did when it came to liquids 
on airplanes.
    Okay. Yes.

Israel

    Q. The U.N. resolution says that Israel must stop all offensive 
action. What do you view as defensive action? If Hizballah----
    The President. Somebody shoots at an Israeli soldier.
    Q. They can respond in what way?
    The President. Absolutely.
    Q. Any way Israel responds to that, if they start another ground 
offensive, that is all defensive?
    The President. I'm not going to--I keep getting asked a lot about 
Israel's military decisions, and we don't advise Israel on its military 
options. But as far as I'm concerned, if somebody shoots at an Israeli 
soldier, tries to kill a soldier from Israel, then Israel has the right 
to defend herself, has a right to try to suppress that kind of fire. And 
that's how I read the resolution. And that's how Ms. Rice reads the 
resolution.

    Yes, Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701

    Q. Mr. President, to much of the rest of the world, the United 
States appeared to tolerate the bloodshed and ongoing fighting for a 
long time before assertively stepping in, and in the process, perhaps 
earned the further enmity of a lot of people in the rest of the world, 
particularly the Arab and Muslim world. What is your thought about that?

    The President. My thought is that, first of all, we, from the 
beginning, urged caution on both sides so that innocent life would be 
protected. And secondly, I think most leaders around the world would 
give Condoleezza Rice and her team great credit for finally getting a 
U.N. resolution passed. We were working hard on a U.N. resolution pretty 
quickly, and it can be a painful process; diplomacy can be a painful 
process. And it took a while to get the resolution done. But most 
objective observers would give the United States credit for helping to 
lead the effort to get a resolution that addressed the root cause of the 
problem. Of course, we could have got a resolution right off the bat 
that didn't address the root cause. Everybody would have felt better for 
a quick period of time, and then the violence would have erupted again.

    And our hope is that this series of resolutions that gets passed 
gets after the root cause. We want peace, Bill. We're not interested in 
process; what we want is results. And so--look, America gets accused of 
all kinds of things. I understand that. But if people analyze the facts, 
they were to find two things: One, we urged caution; and two, secondly, 
that we worked on a diplomatic process that we believe has got the best 
chance of achieving a long-term objective, which is peace.

    Final question, then I got to go.

[[Page 1462]]

Homeland Security/Prevention of Terrorist Attacks in the United Kingdom

    Q. Mr. President, 4 days later, now do you believe that the U.K. 
terror plot was developed by Al Qaida leaders? Do you believe that there 
are terror cells operating within the U.S.? And along with Michael's 
question, what do you say to critics who say there are giant loopholes 
in homeland security?
    The President. Well, first I would say that--I don't know the 
loophole question. Maybe you can give me some specific loopholes. But it 
sounded like to me Homeland Security did a good job, along with 
intelligence services and FBI, in working with the British to shut down 
a major plot that could have killed Americans.
    First part of the question? That's what happens when you get 60.
    Q. Do you believe the terror plot was developed by Al Qaida leaders?
    The President. We certainly--I stand by the statements that 
initially came out of Chertoff, which was, it sure looks like it. It 
looks like something Al Qaida would do. But before we actually claim Al 
Qaida, we want to make sure that we have--we could prove it to you. Of 
course, the minute I say it's Al Qaida, then you're going to step up and 
say, prove it. So therefore, I'm not going to say it until we have 
absolute proof. But it looks like the kind of thing Al Qaida would do, 
and----
    Q. As far as terrorist cells inside the U.S.?
    The President. Any time we get a hint that there might be a 
terrorist cell in the United States, we move on it. And we're listening; 
we're looking. And one thing that's important is for us to make sure 
that those people who are trying to disrupt terrorist cells in the 
United States have the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution 
of the United States, see.
    One of the things we better make sure is, we better not call upon 
the Federal Government and people on the frontlines of fighting terror 
to do their job and disrupt cells without giving people the necessary 
tools to disrupt terrorist plots before they strike. And that's what 
we're doing here in this Government.
    And that's why the terrorist surveillance program exists, a program 
that some in Washington would like to dismantle. That's why we passed 
the PATRIOT Act, to give our folks the tools necessary to be able to 
defend America. The lessons of the past week is that there's still a war 
on terror going on, and there's still individuals that would like to 
kill innocent Americans to achieve political objectives. That's the 
lesson. And the lesson for those of us in Washington, DC, is to set 
aside politics and give our people the tools necessary to protect the 
American people.
    Thank you.

Note: The President spoke at 3:40 p.m. at the State Department. In his 
remarks, he referred to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel; President 
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) of the Palestinian Authority; Prime Minister 
Fuad Siniora of Lebanon; and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United 
Kingdom.