[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 34 (Monday, August 28, 2006)]
[Pages 1480-1493]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

August 21, 2006

    The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Fancy digs you got 
here. Thanks for your hospitality. It's good to visit with you. I look 
forward to taking some of your questions. I do want to talk to you about 
the latest developments in Lebanon and what we're doing to ensure U.N. 
Security Council 1701 is implemented and its words are quickly put into 
action.
    Resolution 1701 authorizes an effective international force to 
deploy to Lebanon, which is essential to peace in the region, and it's 
essential to the freedom of Lebanon. An effective international force 
will help ensure the cessation of hostilities holds in southern Lebanon 
once the Israeli troops withdraw. An effective international force will 
help the Lebanese Army meet its responsibility to secure Lebanon's 
borders and stop them from acting as--and stop Hizballah from acting as 
a state within a state. An effective international force will help give 
displaced people in both Lebanon and Israel the confidence to return to 
their homes and begin rebuilding their lives without fear of renewed 
violence and terror.
    An international force requires international commitment. Previous 
resolutions have failed in Lebanon because they were not implemented by 
the international community, and in this case, did not prevent Hizballah 
and their sponsors from instigating violence. The new resolution 
authorizes a force of up to 15,000 troops. It gives this force an 
expanded mandate. The need is urgent. The international community must 
now designate the leadership of this new international force, give it 
robust rules of engagement, and deploy it as quickly as possible to 
secure the peace.
    America will do our part. We will assist the new international force 
with logistic support, command and control, communications, and 
intelligence. Lebanon, Israel, and our allies agreed that this would be 
the most effective contribution we can make at this time. We will also 
work with the leadership in the international force, once it's 
identified, to ensure that the United States is doing all we can to make 
this mission a success.
    Deployment of this new international force will also help speed 
delivery of humanitarian assistance. Our Nation is wasting no time in 
helping the people of Lebanon. In other words, we're acting before the 
force gets in there. We've been on the ground in Beirut for weeks, and 
I've already distributed more than half of our $50 million pledge of 
disaster relief to the Lebanese people who have lost their homes in the 
current conflict. Secretary Rice has led the diplomatic efforts to 
establish humanitarian corridors so that relief convoys can get through, 
to reopen the Beirut airport to passenger and humanitarian aid flights, 
and to ensure a steady fuel supply

[[Page 1481]]

for Lebanese powerplants and automobiles. I directed 25,000 tons of 
wheat be delivered in Lebanon in the coming weeks.

    But we'll do even more. Today I'm announcing that America will send 
more aid to support humanitarian and reconstruction work in Lebanon, for 
a total of more than $230 million. These funds will help the Lebanese 
people rebuild their homes and return to their towns and communities. 
The funds will help the Lebanese people restore key bridges and roads. 
The funds will help the Lebanese people rehabilitate schools so the 
children can start their school year on time this fall.

    I've directed that an oil spill response team be sent to assist the 
Lebanese Government in cleaning up an oil slick that is endangering 
coastal communities; proposing a $42 million package to help train and 
equip Lebanon's armed forces. I will soon be sending a Presidential 
delegation of private-sector leaders to Lebanon to identify ways that we 
can tap into the generosity of American businesses and non-profits to 
continue to help the people of Lebanon.

    We take these steps--and I'll also work closely with Congress to 
extend the availability of loan guarantees to help rebuild 
infrastructure in Israel, infrastructure damaged by Hizballah's rockets.

    America is making a long-term commitment to help the people of 
Lebanon because we believe every person deserves to live in a free, open 
society that respects the rights of all. We reject the killing of 
innocents to achieve a radical and violent agenda.
    The terrorists and their state sponsors, Iran and Syria, have a much 
darker vision. They're working to thwart the efforts of the Lebanese 
people to break free from foreign domination and build their own 
democratic future. The terrorists and their sponsors are not going to 
succeed. The Lebanese people have made it clear: They want to live in 
freedom. And now it's up to their friends and allies to help them do so.
    I'll be glad to answer some questions, starting with you, Terry 
[Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Progress in Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last 
month, the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you 
disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity Government in 
bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?
    The President. No. I am aware that extremists and terrorists are 
doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing 
stronger. That's what I'm aware of. And therefore, we have a plan to 
help them--``them,'' the Iraqis--achieve their objectives. Part of the 
plan is political, and that is to help the Maliki Government work on 
reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community. The other 
part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the 
flexibility they need to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi 
Government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people. 
And that includes a very robust security plan for Baghdad.
    We've, as you may or may not know, Terry, moved troops from Mosul, 
Stryker Brigade, into Baghdad, all aiming to help the Iraqi Government 
succeed.
    You know, I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm concerned about 
that, of course, and I've talked to a lot of people about it. And what 
I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country, and 
that the Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the efforts of the 
extremists and the radicals and Al Qaida, and that the security forces 
remain united behind the Government. And one thing is clear: The Iraqi 
people are showing incredible courage.
    The United States of America must understand, it's in our interests 
that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our 
interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their 
objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century. A 
failed Iraq would make America less secure. A failed Iraq in the heart 
of the Middle East will provide safe haven for terrorists and 
extremists. It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the 
ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and 
extremists an additional tool besides

[[Page 1482]]

safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.
    You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America, about 
how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people--good, decent 
people saying, ``Withdraw now.'' They're absolutely wrong. It would be a 
huge mistake for this country. If you think problems are tough now, 
imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this 
Government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself, and listen to 
the--and answer to the will of the people.
    Patsy [Patricia Wilson, Reuters]. We're working our way here 
everybody.

Iran/Democracy in the Middle East

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Iran has indicated that it will defy 
the U.N. on nuclear enrichment. It's been holding military exercises, 
sending weapons and money to Hizballah. Isn't Tehran's influence in the 
region growing despite your efforts to curb it?
    The President. The final history in the region has yet to be 
written. And what's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and 
the violence in Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all 
groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy. 
They're trying to thwart the will of millions who simply want a normal, 
hopeful life. That's what we're seeing. And it's up to the international 
community to understand the threat.
    I remember, right after Hizballah launched its rocket attacks on 
Israel, I said, this is a clarifying moment. It's a chance for the world 
to see the threats of the 21st century, the challenge we face.
    And so to answer your question on Iran, Iran is obviously part of 
the problem. They sponsor Hizballah. They encourage a radical brand of 
Islam. Imagine how difficult this issue would be if Iran had a nuclear 
weapon. And so therefore, it's up to the international community, 
including the United States, to work in concert to--for effective 
diplomacy. And that begins at the United Nations Security Council.
    We have passed one Security Council resolution, demanding that Iran 
cease its enrichment activities. We will see what their response is. 
We're beginning to get some indication, but we'll--let's wait until they 
have a formal response. The U.N. resolution calls for us to come back 
together on the 31st of August. The dates--dates are fine, but what 
really matters is will. And one of the things I will continue to remind 
our friends and allies is the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.
    But, no, you're right; this is a--they're a central part of creating 
instability, trying to stop reformers from realizing dreams. And the 
question facing this country is, will--do we, one, understand the threat 
to America? In other words, do we understand that a failed--failed 
states in the Middle East are a direct threat to our country's security? 
And secondly, will we continue to stay engaged in helping reformers, in 
working to advance liberty, to defeat an ideology that doesn't believe 
in freedom? And my answer is, so long as I'm the President, we will. I 
clearly see the challenge. I see the challenge to what these threats 
pose to our homeland, and I see the challenge--what these threats pose 
to the world.
    Helen [Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers]. [Laughter] What's so funny 
about me saying ``Helen''? [Laughter] It's the anticipation of your 
question, I guess.

Situation in the Middle East

    Q. Israel broke its word twice on a truce. And you mentioned 
Hizballah rockets, but it's--Israeli bombs have destroyed Lebanon. Why 
do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on breaking of your 
oath for a truce?
    The President. Yes, thank you. I like to remind people about how 
this started, how this whole--how the damage to innocent life, which 
bothers me--but again, what caused this?
    Q. Why drop bombs on----
    The President. Let me finish--let--ma'am, let me--ma'am, please let 
me finish the question. It's a great question, to begin with. The 
followup was a little difficult, but anyway. [Laughter] I know you're 
waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath. There you go.
    This never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state 
within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From the 
beginning, Helen, I said that Israel, one,

[[Page 1483]]

has a right to defend herself, but Israel ought to be cautious about how 
she defends herself. Israel is a democratically elected government. They 
make decisions on their own sovereignty. It's their decisionmaking that 
is--what leads to the tactics they chose.
    But the world must understand that now is the time to come together 
to address the root cause of the problem. And the problem was, you have 
a state within a state. You had people launch attacks on a sovereign 
nation without the consent of the Government in the country in which 
they are lodged.
    And that's why it's very important for all of us, those of us who 
are involved in this process, to get an international force into Lebanon 
to help the Lebanese Government achieve some objectives. One is their 
ability to exert control over the entire country; secondly is to make 
sure that the Hizballah forces don't rearm, don't get arms from Syria or 
Iran through Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.
    Let's see--we'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be 
patient.
    Q. Thank you.
    The President. Yes. [Laughter] It's kind of like dancing together, 
isn't it? [Laughter]
    Q. Yes, kind of. [Laughter]
    Q. Very close quarters.
    The President. If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery, 
I'll call on you, Herman [Ken Herman, Cox]. [Laughter] By the way, 
seersucker is coming back. I hope everybody gets--[laughter]--never 
mind.
    Q. It's the summertime east Texas county commissioner look. 
[Laughter]
    The President. Yes. Yes, Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News]. Sorry.

Iraq

    Q. That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to 
Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new Government, its 
progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain 
areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new 
strategy? And if not, why not?
    The President. You know, Martha; you've covered the Pentagon; you 
know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have 
the flexibility from the White House to do so.
    Q. I'm talking about strategy----
    The President. The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve 
their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's 
the strategy. The tactics--now, either you say, yes, it's important we 
stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as 
I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an 
unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would 
say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create 
terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch 
attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.
    No, we're not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this 
Government succeed. That's the strategic--and not only to help the 
Government--the reformers in Iraq succeed but to help the reformers 
across the region succeed, to fight off the elements of extremism. The 
tactics are--which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your 
strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is 
complete. And we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I 
agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the 
terrorists will follow us here.
    And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the 
flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with 
Plan Baghdad. And that's when we moved troops from Mosul into Baghdad 
and replaced them with the Stryker Brigade. So in essence, we increased 
troops during this time of instability.
    Suzanne [Suzanne Malveaux, Cable News Network].
    Q. Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy----
    The President. Sounded like the question to me.
    Q. You keep saying that you don't want to leave. But is your 
strategy to win working? Even if you don't want to leave--you've gone 
into Baghdad before; these things have happened before.
    The President. If I didn't think it would work, I would change the--
our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it 
will work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki Government

[[Page 1484]]

has been in power for less than 6 months. And, yes, the people spoke. 
I've cited that as a part of--the reason I cite it is because it's what 
the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this 
Government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the 
region. It's really the task. And we're going to stand with this 
Government.
    Obviously, I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the 
Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But, incredibly 
enough, they showed great courage, and they want our help. And any sign 
that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens 
terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they 
won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the 
country.
    This is a campaign--I'm sure they're watching the campaign 
carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, ``Get out now; 
vote for me; I will do everything I can to''--I guess, cut off money is 
how--is what they'll try to do to get our troops out. It's a big 
mistake. It would be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the 
mission is complete in Iraq.
    Suzanne.

Situation in the Middle East/United Nations Security Council Resolution 
1701

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Back to Lebanon. The Lebanese Prime 
Minister, over the weekend, said that Israel flagrantly violated the 
cease-fire with its raid into Lebanon. And so far, the European allies 
who've committed forces, the U.N. security peacekeeping forces, have 
expressed reservations; those Muslim nations who've offered troops have 
been shunned by Israeli officials. Why shouldn't we see the cease-fire 
as one that essentially is falling apart? And what makes this more than 
a piece of paper if you don't have the will of the international 
community to back it up?
    The President. Yes. No, listen--all the more reason why we need to 
help our friends and allies get the forces necessary to help the 
Lebanese forces keep the cessation of hostilities in place, intact. And 
that's why we're working with friends, with allies, with Security 
Council members, to make sure the force that is committed is robust and 
the rules of engagement are clear. And so it's an ongoing series of 
conversations and discussions, and hopefully, this will happen quite 
quickly.
    Q. Will you pressure the French to contribute more troops?
    The President. Well, we're pressing on all. I was asked about the 
French the other day at Camp David, and I--listen, France has had a very 
close relationship with Lebanon; there's historical ties with Lebanon. I 
would hope they would put more troops in. I mean, they understand the 
region as well as anybody. And so we're working with a lot of folks, 
trying to get this force up and running.
    Look, like you--I mean, you sound somewhat frustrated by diplomacy. 
Diplomacy can be a frustrating thing. I think the strategy can work, so 
long as the force is robust and the rules of engagement are clear.

Iran/United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696

    Q. Mr. President, as you mentioned, we're just 10 days from the U.N. 
Security Council deadline on Iran. Judging by the public comments from 
the Iranians, it appears, at least, highly unlikely that they're going 
to stop or suspend their enrichment program. Are you confident that the 
U.N. Security Council will move quickly on sanctions if Iran thumbs its 
nose at the world again?
    The President. I certainly hope so. In order for the U.N. to be 
effective, there must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the 
United Nations Security Council. And we will work with people in the 
Security Council to achieve that objective, and the objective is that 
there's got to be a consequence for them basically ignoring what the 
Security Council has suggested through resolution.
    Q. Understanding that diplomacy takes time, do you think that this 
could drag out for a while?
    The President. You know, I don't know. I certainly want to solve 
this problem diplomatically, and I believe the best chance to do so is 
for there to be more than one voice speaking clearly to the Iranians. 
And I was pleased that we got a resolution, that there

[[Page 1485]]

was a group of nations willing to come together to send a message to the 
Iranians--nations as diverse as China and Russia, plus the EU-3 and the 
United States.
    Kelly [Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News].

Iraq/War on Terror

    Q. Morning, Mr. President. When you talked today about the violence 
in Baghdad, first you mentioned extremists, radicals, and then Al Qaida. 
It seems that Al Qaida and foreign fighters are much less of a problem 
there, and that it really is Iraqi versus Iraqi. And when we heard about 
your meeting the other day with experts and so forth, some of the 
reporting out of that said you were frustrated; you were surprised. And 
your spokesman said, no, you're determined. But frustration seems like a 
very real emotion. Why wouldn't you be frustrated, sir, about what's 
happening?
    The President. I'm not--I do remember the meeting; I don't remember 
being surprised. I'm not sure what they meant by that.
    Q. About the lack of gratitude among the Iraqi people.
    The President. Oh. No, I think--first of all, to the first part of 
your question, if you look back at the words of Zarqawi before he was 
brought to justice, he made it clear that the intent of their tactics in 
Iraq was to create civil strife. In other words, if you--look at what he 
said. He said, ``Let's kill Shi'a to get Shi'a to seek revenge,'' and 
therefore, to create this kind of--hopefully, cycle of violence.
    Secondly, it's pretty clear that--at least the evidence indicates 
that the bombing of the shrine was--it was an Al Qaida plot, all 
intending to create sectarian violence. No, Al Qaida is still very 
active in Iraq. As a matter of fact, some of the more--I would guess, I 
would surmise that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by Al 
Qaida suiciders.
    No question there's sectarian violence as well. And the challenge is 
to provide a security plan such that a political process can go forward. 
And I know--I'm sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12 million 
Iraqis voted, but it's an indication about the desire for people to live 
in a free society. That's what that means, see.
    And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long term is to 
defeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology, one that--
where Government responds to the will of the people. And that's really--
really the fundamental question we face here in the beginning of this 
21st century is whether or not we believe as a nation, and others 
believe, it is possible to defeat this ideology.
    Now, I recognize, some say that these folks are not ideologically 
bound. I strongly disagree. I think not only do they have an ideology; 
they have tactics necessary to spread their ideology. And it would be a 
huge mistake for the United States to leave the region, to concede 
territory to the terrorists, to not confront them. And the best way to 
confront them is to help those who want to live in free society.
    Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to it 
that they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our job. 
Our job is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their police 
be able to deal with these extremists, and to help their Government 
succeed.
    Q. But are you frustrated, sir?
    The President. Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated--rarely 
surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is--but war is not a time of joy. 
These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're 
difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I 
understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. 
Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought 
by terrorists. And our question is, do we have the capacity and the 
desire to spread peace by confronting these terrorists and supporting 
those who want to live in liberty? That's the question. And my answer to 
that question is, we must. We owe it to future generations to do so.
    Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

Situation in the Middle East/United Nations Security Council Resolution 
1559

    Q. Mr. President, as you have reminded us a number of times, it was 
Hizballah that started the confrontation between Israel and Lebanon. But 
you were supportive of the holding off of any kind of cease-fire until

[[Page 1486]]

Israel had a chance to clear out the Hizballah weapons. By all accounts, 
they did not exactly succeed in doing that. And by all accounts, the 
Lebanese Army, as it moved into southern Lebanon, had a wink-and-a-nod 
arrangement with Hizballah not to disturb anything, to just leave things 
as they are, a situation not unknown in the Middle East. Do you demand 
that the peacekeeping force, if and when it gets up and running, disarm 
Hizballah?
    The President. The truth of the matter is, if 1559, that's the 
United Nations Security Council resolution number, had been fully 
implemented, we wouldn't be in the situation we were in to begin with. 
There is--there will be another resolution coming out of the United 
Nations giving further instructions to the international force. First 
things first--is to get the rules of engagement clear so that the force 
will be robust, to help the Lebanese.
    One thing is for certain--is that when this force goes in to help 
Lebanon, Hizballah won't have that safe haven or that kind of freedom to 
run on the--in Lebanon's southern border. In other words, there's an 
opportunity to create a cushion, a security cushion. Hopefully, over 
time, Hizballah will disarm. You can't have a democracy with a armed 
political party willing to bomb its neighbor without the consent of its 
Government, or just deciding, well, ``Let's just create enough chaos and 
discord by lobbing rockets.''
    And so the reality is, in order for Lebanon to succeed--and we want 
Lebanon's democracy to succeed--the process is going to--the Lebanese 
Government is eventually going to have to deal with Hizballah.
    Q. But it's the status quo if there's no disarming.
    The President. Not really. I mean, yes, eventually, you're right. 
But in the meantime, there will be a--there's a security zone, something 
to--where the Lebanese Army and the UNIFIL force are more robust, UNIFIL 
force can create a security zone between Lebanon and Israel. That would 
be helpful.
    But, ultimately, you're right. Your question is, shouldn't Hizballah 
disarm, and ultimately, they should. And it's necessary for the Lebanese 
Government to succeed.
    The cornerstone of our policy in that part of the world is to help 
democracies. Lebanon is a democracy; we want the Siniora Government to 
succeed. Part of our aid package is going to be, help strengthen the 
Army of Lebanon so when the Government speaks, when the Government 
commits its troops, they do so in an effective way.
    Knoller [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

Presidential Pardons

    Q. Yes, sir.
    The President. How are you feeling?
    Q. I'm good, sir. It's good to be back.
    The President. Good to see you. Yes, it's good to see you. Sorry we 
didn't spend more time in Crawford. I knew you were anxious to do so.
    Q. Always am.
    The President. That's good. [Laughter] That's why we love seeing 
you.
    Q. Thanks. Let me ask you about Presidential pardons. Last week, you 
issued 17 of them. That brought the number of pardons you've issued in 
your Presidency to 97, and that's far fewer than most of your recent 
predecessors, except your dad. And I want to ask you, do you consider 
yourself to be stingy when it comes to pardons? What is your philosophy 
on granting Presidential pardons?
    The President. You know, I don't have the criterion in front of me, 
Mark, but we have a strict criterion that we utilize--``we'' being the 
Justice Department and the White House Counsel. And I, frankly, haven't 
compared the number of pardons I've given, to any other President. 
Perhaps I should. But I don't think a scorecard should, necessarily, be 
the guidepost for pardoning people.
    McKinnon [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal]. I'm going to go to 
you, Jackson [David Jackson, USA Today], and kind of work around.

Energy/Alternative Fuel Sources

    Q. Thanks. Mr. President, what do you say to people who are losing 
patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political 
price do you think you're paying for that right now?
    The President. I've been talking about gas prices ever since they 
got high, starting with

[[Page 1487]]

this--look, I understand gas prices are like a hidden tax--not a hidden 
tax, it's a tax--it's taking money out of people's pockets. I know that. 
All the more reason for us to diversify away from crude oil. That's not 
going to happen overnight. We passed law that encouraged consumption 
through different purchasing habits, like hybrid vehicles--you buy a 
hybrid; you get a tax credit. We've encouraged the spread of ethanol as 
an alternative to crude oil. We have asked for Congress to pass 
regulatory relief so we can build more refineries to increase the supply 
of gasoline, hopefully taking the pressure off of price.
    And so the strategy is to recognize that dependency upon crude oil 
is--in a global market affects us economically here at home, and 
therefore, we need to diversify away as quickly as possible.
    Jackson.

Hurricane Katrina Recovery Efforts

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, the one-year anniversary 
of Katrina is coming up. And there are a lot of retrospectives about 
what went wrong down there last year. Specifically, what has your 
administration done in the past year to help the folks down there, and 
what remains to be done?
    The President. Yes, thanks. You know, I went to New Orleans, in 
Jackson Square, and made a commitment that we would help the people 
there recover. I also want the people down there to understand that it's 
going to take awhile to recover. This was a huge storm.
    First things--the first thing that's necessary to help the recovery 
is money. And our Government has committed over $110 billion to help. Of 
that, a lot of money went to--went out the door to help people adjust 
from having to be moved because of the storm. And then there's rental 
assistance, infrastructure repair, debris removal. Mississippi removed 
about 97 percent, 98 percent of its--what they call dry debris. We're 
now in the process of getting debris from the waters removed. Louisiana 
is slower in terms of getting debris removed. The money is available to 
help remove that debris. People can get after it, and I would hope they 
would.
    Q. What----
    The President. Let me finish. Thank you.
    We provided about $1.8 billion for education. That money has gone 
out the door. We want those schools up and running. As I understand, the 
schools are running now in New Orleans; a lot of schools are. Flood 
insurance--we're spending money on flood insurance. There is more work 
to be done, particularly when it comes to housing. We've spent about--or 
appropriated about 16 billion, $17 billion for direct housing grants to 
people in the gulf coast and in Louisiana.
    I made the decision, along with the local authorities, that each 
State ought to develop a housing recovery plan. That's what they call 
the LRA in Louisiana. They're responsible for taking the Federal money 
and getting it to the people. Same in--Mississippi has developed its own 
plan.
    I thought it would be best that there be a local plan developed and 
implemented by local folks. And so there's now, as I mentioned, $16 
billion of direct housing grants. Each State has developed its own plan, 
how much money goes to each homeowner to help these people rebuild their 
lives. And so I think the area where people will see the most effect in 
their lives is when they start getting this individualized CDBG grant 
money.
    Q. Is there anything that's disappointed you about the recovery, the 
Federal response?
    The President. I was concerned at first about how much Congress and 
the taxpayers would be willing to appropriate and spend. I think $110 
billion is a strong commitment, and I'm pleased with that. Any time we--
I named a man named Don Powell to go down there, and the thing that's 
most important is for the Government to eliminate any bureaucratic 
obstacles when we find something that's not moving quick enough.
    I think, for example, about debris removal. There was the issue of 
whether or not the Government would pay for debris removal on private 
property, or not. So we worked out a plan with the local mayors and 
local county commissioners, local parish presidents to be able to 
designate certain property

[[Page 1488]]

as a health hazard. And when they did so, then Government money could 
pay for it. In other words, we're trying to be flexible with the rules 
and regulations we have to deal with.
    But the place where people, I'm sure, are going to be most 
frustrated is whether or not they're going to get the money to rebuild 
their homes. And my attitude is, we've appropriated the money, and now 
we'll work with the States to get the money.
    April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks], I suspect you 
have a followup on this.

State and Local Government Role in Hurricane Recovery

    Q. Yes, I do, sir.
    The President. Why don't you let her go?
    Q. And another question, sir. The followup: Some have a concern that 
you've given all of this money, but the Federal Government has moved 
away to let the local government, particularly in New Orleans, handle 
everything, and things are not moving like they expected. And that's one 
of the concerns. And another question, if you----
    The President. Well, let me address that, and I promise you can ask 
that other one.
    As I mentioned to you, the strategy from the get-go was to work with 
the local folks in Mississippi and Louisiana, and they would then submit 
their plans to the Federal Government, particularly for housing. And 
that upon approval, we would then disburse the appropriated monies--in 
this case, about $17 billion for housing grants. And so each State came 
up with a grant formula, and I can't give you all the details. But 
it's--the whole purpose is intended to get money into people's pockets 
to help them rebuild. And once the strategy is developed at the State 
and local level, it makes sense for the monies to be appropriated at the 
State and local level. And if there's a level of frustration there, we 
will work with the LRA in this case.
    Second question.
    Q. Well, I have one followup on that. Do you think----
    The President. Well, how many--are you trying to dominate this 
thing? [Laughter]
    Q. No, sir, but I don't get a chance to talk to you as much as the 
others.
    The President. That's not--wait a minute. [Laughter]
    Q. But a followup real quick. Do you think that more needs to be 
done? Does the Federal Government need to put its hands on what's going 
on? Because New Orleans is not moving----
    The President. I think the best way to do this is for the Federal 
Government's representative, Don Powell, to continue to work with Mayor 
Nagin and Governor Blanco to get the money into the hands of the people. 
The money has been appropriated; the formula is in place; and now it's 
time to move forward.
    Now, you have another question, I presume.

North Korea

    Q. Yes, sir. And this is it, sir. Chinese officials are saying that 
you need to get involved in the six-party talks, and that ultimately, 
you have to be a part of the six-party talks in dealing with North 
Korea. And also, they're saying that you need to stop dealing with the 
issue of money laundering and deal with the real issue of ballistic 
missiles. What are your thoughts?
    The President. Well, counterfeiting U.S. dollars is an issue that 
every President ought to be concerned about. And when you catch people 
counterfeiting your money, you need to do something about it.
    We are very much involved in the six-party talks. As a matter of 
fact, I talked to Hu Jintao this morning about the six-party talks and 
about the need for us to continue to work together to send a clear 
message to the North Korean leader that there is a better choice for him 
than to continue to develop a nuclear weapon. The six-party talks are--
is an important part of our--the six-party talks are an important part 
of our strategy of dealing with Kim Jong Il. And the North Korean--the 
Chinese President recognized that in the phone call today. And so we 
talked about how we'll continue to collaborate and work together.
    Jim [Jim Rutenberg, New York Times].

War on Terror/Public Debate

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier. Do 
you agree

[[Page 1489]]

with those in your party, including the Vice President, who have said or 
implied that Democratic voters emboldened Al Qaida types by choosing Ned 
Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and then as a message that--how Americans 
vote will send messages to terrorists abroad? Thank you.
    The President. You're welcome. What all of us in this administration 
have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete 
will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more 
dangerous world. That's what we're saying. It's an honest debate, and 
it's an important debate for Americans to listen to and to be engaged 
in. In our judgment, the consequences for defeat in Iraq are 
unacceptable.
    And I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in 
there in the first place. But defeat--if you think it's bad now, imagine 
what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this 
Government can defend itself and sustain itself. Chaos in Iraq would be 
very unsettling in the region. Leaving before the job would be done 
would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares 
about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job 
was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made 
were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, 
and that's what we're saying.
    I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with 
me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with 
understanding the world in which we live. It's like the other day; I was 
critical of those who heralded the Federal judge's opinion about the 
terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion, and 
that's why we're appealing it. And I have no--look, I understand how 
democracy works--quite a little bit of criticism in it, which is fine; 
that's fine; it's part of the process. But I have every right, as do my 
administration, to make it clear what the consequences would be of 
policy. And if we think somebody is wrong or doesn't see the world the 
way it is, we'll continue to point that out to people.
    And therefore, those who heralded the decision not to give law 
enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people simply 
don't see the world the way we do. They see, maybe these are kind of 
isolated incidents. These aren't isolated incidents; they're tied 
together. There is a global war going on. And somebody said, ``Well, 
this is law enforcement.'' No, this isn't law enforcement, in my 
judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a simple, singular response to 
the problem. This is a global war on terror. We're facing extremists 
that believe something, and they want to achieve objectives. And 
therefore, the United States must use all our assets, and we must work 
with others to defeat this enemy. That's the call. And we--in the short 
run, we've got to stop them from attacking us. That's why I give the 
Tony Blair Government great credit, and their intelligence officers, and 
our own Government credit for working with the Brits to stop this 
attack.
    But you know something--it's an amazing town, isn't it, where they 
say, on the one hand, ``You can't have the tools necessary--we herald 
the fact that you won't have the tools necessary to defend the people,'' 
and sure enough, an attack would occur, and say, ``How come you don't 
have the tools necessary to defend the people?'' That's the way we think 
around this town.
    And so, yes, we'll continue--Jim, we'll continue to speak out in a 
respectful way, never challenging somebody's love for America when you 
criticize their strategies or their point of view. And, you know, for 
those who say that, well, all they're trying to say is, we're not 
patriotic, simply don't listen to our words very carefully, do they?
    What matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different 
point of view. And there are a lot of people in the Democrat Party who 
believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job 
is done, period. And they're wrong. And the American people have got to 
understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're 
not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the 
mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done, 
but I do know that it's important for us to support the Iraqi people, 
who have shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a free 
society. And if we

[[Page 1490]]

ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have 
lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned.
    Ann [Ann Compton, ABC Radio].

Mid-Term Elections/Iraq

    Q. Is that a make-or-break issue for you in terms of domestic 
politics? There's a Republican in Pennsylvania who says he doesn't think 
the troops should--would you campaign for Mike Fitzpatrick?
    The President. I already have.
    Q. And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose 
Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you too, on Iraq?
    The President. I'm going to stay out of Connecticut. [Laughter]
    Q. It's your native State, Mr. President. You were born there.
    The President. Shhh. [Laughter] I may be the only person--the only 
Presidential candidate who never carried the State in which he was born. 
Do you think that's right, Herman? Of course, you would have researched 
that and dropped it out for everybody to see--particularly since I 
dissed that just ridiculous looking outfit. [Laughter]
    Q. Your mother raised you better than that, Mr. President.
    The President. That is--so I'm not going to say it----
    Q. There is Al Gore.
    The President. I don't want anybody to know that I think it's 
ridiculous. Look, I'm not through yet.
    Q. ----make-or-break issue for you?
    The President. And by the way, I'm staying out of Connecticut 
because that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of 
Connecticut. And plus, there's a better place to spend our money, time, 
and resources----
    Q. But you're the head of the party.
    The President. Right. I've listened to them very carefully. I'm a 
thoughtful guy. I listen to people. [Laughter] I'm openminded. I'm all 
the things that you know I am.
    The other part of your question? Look, issues are won based upon 
whether or not you can keep this economy strong--elections are won based 
upon economic issues and national security issues. And there's a 
fundamental difference between many of the Democrats and my party, and 
that is, they want to leave before the job is completed in Iraq. And 
again, I repeat, these are decent people. They're just as American as I 
am. I just happen to strongly disagree with them. And it's very 
important for the American people to understand the consequences of 
leaving Iraq before the job is done.
    This is a global war on terror. I repeat what our major general 
said--or leading general said, in the region. He said, ``If we withdraw 
before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here.'' I strongly 
agree with that. And if you believe that the job of the Federal 
Government is to secure this country, it's really important for you to 
understand that success in Iraq is part of securing the country.
    We're talking about a long-term issue here as well, Ann. In the 
short term, we've got to have the tools necessary to stop terrorist 
attack. That means good intel, good intelligence sharing, the capacity 
to know whether Al Qaida is calling into this country and why. We've got 
to have all those tools--the PATRIOT Act, the tearing down those walls 
between intel and law enforcement are a necessary part of protecting the 
country. But in the long term, the only way to defeat this terrorist 
bunch is through the spread of liberty and freedom.
    And that's a big challenge. I understand it's a challenge. It 
requires commitment and patience and persistence. I believe it's the 
challenge of this--the challenge for this generation. I believe we owe 
it to our children and grandchildren to stay engaged and to help spread 
liberty and to help reformers.
    Now, ultimately, success is going to be up to the reformers. Just 
like in Iraq, it's going to require Iraqis--the will of Iraqis to 
succeed. I understand that. And that's why our strategy is to give them 
the tools necessary to defend themselves and help them defend 
themselves, in this case, right now, mainly in Baghdad, but, as well, 
around the country.
    At home, if I were a candidate, if I were running, I'd say, look at 
what the economy has done. It's strong. We created a lot of jobs--let me 
finish my question, please. These hands going up--I'm not--I'm kind of 
getting old and just getting into my peroration. [Laughter] Look it up. 
[Laughter] I'd be telling people that the Democrats will

[[Page 1491]]

raise your taxes. That's what they said. I'd be reminding people that 
tax cuts have worked in terms of stimulating the economy. I'd be 
reminding people, there's a philosophical difference between those who 
want to raise taxes and have the Government spend the money, and those 
of us who say, you get to spend the money the way you want to--see fit; 
it's your money. I'd remind people that progrowth economic policies have 
helped us cut that deficit faster than we thought.
    I'd also remind people, if I were running, that the long-term 
problem facing the budget is Social Security and Medicare. And they 
look--Republican or Democrat ought to say, ``I look forward to working 
with the President to solve the problem. People expect us to come here 
to solve problems, and thus far, the attitude has been, let's just kind 
of ignore what the President has said and just hope somebody else comes 
and solves it for us.''
    And that's what I'd be running on. I'd be running on the economy, 
and I'd be running on national security. But since I'm not running, I 
can only serve as an adviser to those who are.
    Yes, Herman.

Public Opinion Polls/Iraq

    Q. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. [Laughter]
    The President. I don't need to, now that you've stood up and 
everybody can clearly see for themselves. [Laughter]
    Q. Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the war 
in Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your 
belief that long-term results will vindicate your strategy and people 
will change their mind about it, or is this the kind of thing you're 
doing because you think it's right and you don't care if you ever gain 
public support for it? Thank you.
    The President. Thank you. Look, I mean, Presidents care about 
whether people support their policies. I don't mean to say, I don't 
care; of course I care. But I understand why people are discouraged 
about Iraq--I can understand that. There is--we live in a world in which 
people, I guess, hope things happen quickly, and this is a situation 
where things don't happen quickly because there's a very tough group of 
people using tactics, mainly the killing of innocent people, to achieve 
their objective. And they're skillful about how they do this, and they 
also know the impact of what it means on the consciousness of those of 
us who live in the free world. They know that.
    And so, yes, I care; I really do. I wish--and so therefore, I'm 
going to spend a lot of time trying to explain as best as I can why it's 
important for us to succeed in Iraq.
    Q. Can I follow----
    The President. Let me finish. On the other hand, Ken, I don't think 
you've ever heard me say--and you've now been covering me for quite 
awhile, 12 years--I don't think I've--12 years? Yes. Exactly. Yes. I 
don't think you've ever heard me say, ``Gosh, I'd better change 
positions because the polls say this or that.'' I've been here long 
enough to understand, you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to 
chase a poll. And so the second part of your question is, look, I'm 
going to do what I think is right, and if people don't like me for it, 
that's just the way it is.

War on Terror/Spread of Democracy in the Middle East

    Q. Quick followup. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for 
pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we 
hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
    The President. I square it because, imagine a world in which you had 
Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass 
destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would--
who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like 
with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
    Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was--the main reason 
we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass 
destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make 
weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering 
in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so 
my question--my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in 
which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part 
of the world that had so

[[Page 1492]]

much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of 
our citizens.
    You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine 
until we arrived, and then--kind of the ``stir up the hornet's nest'' 
theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The 
terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we 
started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
    Q. What did Iraq have to do with that?
    The President. What did Iraq have to do with what?
    Q. The attack on the World Trade Center?
    The President. Nothing, except for it's part of--and nobody has ever 
suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. 
Iraq was a--the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before 
they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks 
of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, 
that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for 
terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an 
objective. I have made that case.
    And one way to defeat that--defeat resentment is with hope. And the 
best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going 
into Iraq, we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully 
materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision 
to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off 
without him. Now the question is, how do we succeed in Iraq? And you 
don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in 
this political process are suggesting.
    Last question. Stretch [Bill Sammon, Washington Examiner]. Who are 
you working for, Stretch?

Food and Drug Administration

    Q. Washington Examiner.
    The President. Oh, good. I'm glad you found work. [Laughter]
    Q. Thank you very much. Mr. President, some pro-life groups are 
worried that your choice of FDA Commissioner will approve over the 
counter sales of Plan B, a pill that, they say, essentially can cause 
early-term abortions. Do you stand by this choice, and how do you feel 
about Plan B in general?
    The President. I believe that Plan B ought to be--ought to require a 
prescription for minors; that's what I believe. And I support Andy's 
decision.

James S. Brady Briefing Room Renovation

    Thanks for letting me come by the new digs here.
    Q. Do you like them?
    The President. They may be a little too fancy for you.
    Q. We'd be happy to go back.
    Q. Are we coming back?
    Q. Ever?
    The President. Absolutely, you're coming back.
    Q. Can we hold you to that?
    The President. Coming back to the bosom of the White House. 
[Laughter] I'm looking forward to hugging you when you come back, 
everybody. When are you coming back?
    Q. As soon as they can have us.
    Q. You tell us.
    Q. May.
    The President. May, is that when it is scheduled?
    Q. They've sealed off of our--they sealed off the door. We're 
wondering if we're really coming back or not.
    Q. The decision will be made by commanders on the ground, sir. 
[Laughter]
    Q. There's no timetable.
    The President. What do you think this is, a correspondents dinner or 
something? [Laughter]
    Thank you all.
    Q. Thank you, sir.
    Q. Want to come down and see our workspace?
    The President. No. [Laughter]

Note: The President's news conference began at 10:02 a.m. at the White 
House Conference Center Briefing Room. In his remarks, he referred to 
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and former President Saddam Hussein of 
Iraq; Gen. John P. Abizaid, USA, combatant commander, U.S. Central 
Command; Prime Minister Fuad Siniora of Lebanon; Mayor C. Ray Nagin of 
New Orleans, LA; Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana; President 
Hu Jintao of China; Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea; U.S. District 
Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan Anna

[[Page 1493]]

Diggs Taylor; and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom. 
Reporters referred to senatorial candidates Ned Lamont and Alan 
Schlesinger of Connecticut; and former Vice President Al Gore.