[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 42 (Monday, October 23, 2006)]
[Pages 1856-1862]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at a National Republican Senatorial Committee Reception

October 20, 2006

    Thanks for coming. Please be seated. I appreciate you being here. On 
the way down, Mr. McConnell said, ``Keep it short; they haven't had 
their food yet.'' [Laughter]
    But I want to thank you all for coming. As you well know, we're 
heading down the stretch here in this important political season. I want 
to thank you for helping our Senate candidates. It means a lot. I don't 
know about you, but I am absolutely confident that Mitch McConnell will 
be the leader of the United States Senate in 2007.
    I appreciate Mitch's leadership, and I appreciate the leadership of 
Elizabeth Dole as well. These are two of the finest United States 
Senators we have.
    Laura sends her best. She is a patient woman. [Laughter] She is 
doing just fine. I'm real proud of her. She is a fabulous First Lady.
    Oh, there's going to be a lot of noise here at the end of the 
campaign. There always is. And sometimes it's all meant to obscure the 
main issues. Sometimes folks don't really want to talk about the core 
issues that will affect the future of this country. I think there are 
two big issues that we need to stay focused on and I know our candidates 
are talking about, and they're issues in which there are big differences 
of opinion. And the first issue is taxes.
    There is a difference of opinion between--what we ought to be doing 
with your money, see. There are people in the Democrat Party who think 
they can spend your money far better than you can. And we believe that 
you're plenty capable of spending your own money. As a matter of fact, 
we believe that when you have more of your own money in your pocket to 
save, invest, or spend, all of us benefit; that the economy grows; that 
hope expands; that the entrepreneurial spirit is invigorated.
    And so in times of economic difficulty, I worked with Members of the 
United States Senate and the United States House to pass

[[Page 1857]]

the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was President of the United 
States. We didn't think the Tax Code ought to penalize marriage, so we 
reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes for small businesses. There's 
a reason why we cut taxes for small businesses--because we understand 
that 70 percent of new jobs in America are created by small-business 
owners.
    We cut the taxes on capital gains and dividends, because we wanted 
to encourage investment. We understand that when people invest, it means 
that someone is more likely to be able to find a job. We cut the taxes 
on--we doubled the child tax credit. In other words, we cut the taxes on 
families with children. We put the death tax on the road to extinction. 
We don't think it's fair to tax you twice, once while you're living and 
once after you're dead. As a matter of fact, we cut taxes on everybody 
who pays taxes. [Laughter] We don't believe in this selective tax 
cutting. We said, if you're going to pay income taxes, you ought to get 
relief.
    And we had a spirited debate about whether or not the tax cuts made 
sense. A lot of the Democrats in the United States Senate said, ``These 
tax cuts are going to make the economy worse.'' They went around the 
United States saying tax cuts don't make any sense, but they did make 
sense.
    We've created 6.6 million new jobs since August of 2003. This week a 
new report showed that real wages grew 2.2 percent over the past 12 
months. That's faster than the average for the 1990s. Because of our 
progrowth economic policies, this economy is strong. People are working. 
The entrepreneurial spirit is up. People are buying homes. Our plan 
works, and our candidates have something to run on coming this November.
    There's a difference of opinion here in Washington, and I'm going to 
continue reminding people of the clear difference of opinion in this 
campaign. Let me tell you what the recent--the top leader, the Democrat 
leader in the House of Representatives said recently. This is a person 
who aspires to be the Speaker of the House. She said, ``We love tax 
cuts.'' She actually said that. Given her record, she must be a secret 
admirer. [Laughter] Over the past 5 years, she and her Democrat 
colleagues voted against every major tax cut that we passed. Time and 
time again, when she had her opportunity to show her love for tax cuts, 
she voted no. If this is the Democrats' idea of love, I wouldn't want to 
see what hate looks like. [Laughter]
    Now they're trotting out their old lines. I'm sure Elizabeth and 
Mitch will tell you what they're hearing out there. They're saying, 
``Listen, we're just going to tax the rich.'' It is the same old, tired 
excuse for raising taxes. It sounds good, but that's not what they 
believe. Look at the record. In 1992, when they took over the White 
House and they campaigned on middle class tax cuts, when they got the 
capacity to deliver on their promises, they passed one of the largest 
tax increases in American history.
    Raising taxes is what the Democrats want to do; make no mistake 
about it. If they take over the Senate, they will run up your taxes. 
Raising your taxes would hurt our economy. Raising our taxes would 
diminish the entrepreneurial spirit. Raising taxes would be bad for 
small-business owners. Raising taxes is a Democrat idea of growing the 
economy, and it won't work. The best way to keep this economy strong is 
to make the tax cuts we passed permanent.
    The other issue in this campaign is which party, which group of 
leaders can keep America safe. We are at war, and it's a tough war, but 
it's a war that is necessary to protect you. Our most important job, the 
solemn responsibility of those of us who are honored to serve you in 
Washington, DC, is to do everything in our power to protect the American 
people from further attack.
    There is an enemy which--[applause]--we face a coldblooded enemy. 
You can't negotiate with these people. You cannot hope for the best, 
because they are ideologues bound by the desire to inflict damage on 
nations which love freedom. They will murder the innocent. They have no 
conscience. And they murder to achieve an objective, and that's what's 
important for our fellow citizens to understand. It may sound farfetched 
to some Americans out there, but this group of ideologues wants to 
establish a caliphate, a governing body, a--they want to spread their 
ideology of hate from Indonesia to Spain. That's what they have so 
declared. And they

[[Page 1858]]

recognize in order to do that, they must inflict serious damage on 
America to the point where we're willing to retreat from the Middle 
East--so they can topple moderate governments.
    Imagine a world in which radical extremists not only topple moderate 
governments so they can have territory from which to plan, plot, and 
attack America and our allies but they have the capacity to control oil 
resources, which they would be more than willing to use in order to 
blackmail America and our allies into further retreat. You can imagine a 
circumstance in which these radicals say, ``We'll run up the price of 
oil by denying oil on the markets unless you abandon your allies such as 
Israel, or unless you further withdraw from the world.'' And compound 
that with a nuclear Iran, and the world 20 or 30 years from now is going 
to say, ``What happened to them in 2006? How come they couldn't see the 
threat? What blinded these people in order that they did not do their 
job?''
    One of the key issues in this election is who best sees the future 
and who best has the plan to deal with it? I firmly see the threats we 
face, and the best way for America to protect ourselves is to go on the 
offense and to stay on the offense. [Applause] Thank you all.
    However, going on the offense is not going to be enough to protect 
you. It's a part of a comprehensive strategy. You know, we've got to be 
right 100 percent of the time in protecting this homeland from those who 
still want to attack, and the enemy has got to be right one time. And 
therefore, I felt it was vital that our professionals who are in charge 
of protecting you have all the tools necessary to do so. And so right 
after September the 11th, we worked with Congress, in some cases--and in 
some cases, we felt like we didn't need to--to put tools in the hands of 
professionals.
    One such tool was to tear down a wall that prevented law enforcement 
from talking to intelligence. I know that's hard to believe, but that's 
the reality of what had happened in our country; that's what grew up to 
be the case. How can you protect our country when you've got people 
gathering intelligence and they can't tell the law enforcement who are 
in charge of protecting you what they know?
    And so after September the 11th, I went to the United States 
Congress and said, ``Let's pass what we call the PATRIOT Act.'' It was a 
chance to make sure that we gave our folks on the frontlines of 
protecting you all the tools necessary to do so. Right after September 
the 11th, both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill, 
but the bill needed to be reauthorized some years later. And when it 
came up for reauthorization, Democrat Members of the United States 
Senate tried to kill the bill--they, what we call here in Washington, 
filibustered. They didn't want to give that tool necessary to those who 
protect you.
    There's just a difference of opinion. We believe we're at war and we 
should give all the folks protecting you the tools necessary to do so. 
Evidently, Democrats don't. As a matter of fact, the Democrat leader, 
the person who aspires to be the majority leader in the United States 
Senate, when asked about his filibuster, he said--he proudly proclaimed 
he killed the bill. And a reporter gave him a chance to recant--he said, 
``No, I'm proud of that.''
    I don't think that's the kind of attitude that is necessary--we can 
afford if the biggest job we have in Washington, DC, is to protect you. 
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and I was able to sign the 
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, thanks to people like Mitch 
McConnell and Elizabeth Dole.
    I felt it was important that our professionals at the Central 
Intelligence Agency questioned people we picked up on the battlefield, 
in order to find out what they know, see. If you're at war, you need to 
make sure that you get as much information as possible, in order to 
protect you. It's a different kind of war. We can't measure the size of 
an infantry against these people; we don't go out and count the number 
of airplanes they have. This is a war that requires precise 
intelligence, good information, if the task is to protect you before an 
attack comes.
    And so, yes, sir, I set up a program that gave our CIA professionals 
the opportunity to question people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 
person our intelligence officials

[[Page 1859]]

think is responsible for the killings on September the 11th--the 
mastermind. You could imagine my thought processes--they tell me they 
captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; my first question was, ``What does he 
know? Does he know anything else that we need to know?''
    And so as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, I took this bill to 
the United States Senate. The Court said, work with the Senate to set up 
a military tribunal. I felt it was important for us to give these 
killers the justice that they had denied others. But as a result of that 
bill, we also worked with the Senate to put legislation in place that 
would make it clear to our professionals that they could interrogate.
    I view this as a clarifying moment for the country, a chance for 
Republicans, Democrats, and independents to learn firsthand the 
differences of opinion we have in Washington, DC, because 70 percent of 
the people in the United States Senate who call themselves Democrat 
voted against giving our professionals the tools necessary to question 
people so we can prevent attacks. These are fine people; they're 
patriotic people; but they're wrong. They don't understand the stakes in 
the war on terror. In order to protect America, we must stay on the 
offense against the enemy and give our professionals the tools necessary 
to protect you.
    It is interesting what's happened to the Democrat Party. I'm reading 
a lot of history these days, and I read about Franklin Roosevelt, who 
was strong in his confrontation of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. His 
strength of character, his vision helped set the course for victory in 
World War II--strong wartime leader. It was a Democrat, President Harry 
Truman, who confronted the rise of Soviet communism, and he set the 
course for victory in the cold war. John F. Kennedy declared America's 
commitment to, in his words, ``pay any price and bear any burden'' in 
the defense of freedom. These Presidents understood the challenges of 
their time and were willing to confront those challenges with strong 
leadership. And at the same time, they had great faith in the power of 
liberty and freedom.
    And then something began to change. In 1972, the Democrats nominated 
a Presidential candidate who declared, ``I don't like communism, but I 
don't think we have any great obligation to save the world from it.'' It 
was a--it began a slow shift of philosophy in the Democrat Party. A few 
years later, at the height of the cold war, a Democrat President told 
the country that America had gotten over, quote, ``inordinate fear of 
communism.'' In the mid-1980s, a Senator from Massachusetts, whom 
Democrats would later choose as their Presidential nominee, declared 
that Americans should, quote, ``abandon the kind of thinking that 
suggests we can gain a meaningful advantage over the Soviet Union in the 
nuclear arms race.''
    In other words, this is a different attitude. The philosophy of that 
party began to shift. Fortunately, in the 1980s, America had a 
Republican President who saw things differently. Ronald Reagan declared, 
``My theory of the cold war is that we win and they lose.''
    By this time, the Democrat Party did not share his optimism or his 
strategy for victory. See, they'd gotten to the point where they didn't 
think that we could win. Many of their leaders fought the Reagan defense 
buildup; they fought his strategic defense initiative; they opposed the 
liberation of Grenada; they didn't like America's support for freedom 
fighters resisting Soviet puppet regimes; they heaped scorn on him; they 
mocked him when he called the Soviet Union an ``evil empire.'' Despite 
all the opposition that the President faced from the Democrats, he 
didn't waver. He stood for what he believed, and history will remember 
Ronald Reagan as the man who brought down the Soviet Union and won the 
cold war.
    And now we're involved in what I have called the great ideological 
struggle of the 21st century. It's a struggle between the forces of 
liberty and the forces of a tyrannical vision that does not believe in 
freedom. It's a struggle between moderates who want to live in peace in 
the Middle East and extremists and radicals who will use murder to 
achieve their objective.
    This is going to be a long struggle, but in order to prevail, it 
requires perseverance and determination and a strong belief in the power 
of liberty to conquer the ideology of hate. The Democrat Party that has 
evolved

[[Page 1860]]

from one that was confident in its capacity to help deal with the 
problems of the world to one that is doubting today still has an 
approach of doubt and defeat. They believe that the war in Iraq is a 
diversion from the war on terror. I believe the war in Iraq is a central 
part in defeating the terrorists, in order that we protect ourselves.
    If you don't believe me and if the citizens of our country don't 
believe me, then they ought to at least listen to Usama bin Laden--
[laughter]--and the number-two man in Al Qaida, Mr. Zawahiri, both of 
whom have made it perfectly clear that Iraq is a central part of their 
strategy to establish their caliphate. They believe America is weak, and 
it's just a matter of time before we will lose our nerve and abandon 
that young democracy in the heart of the Middle East. That's what they 
firmly believe, and they have said so and stated it clearly.
    The same Democrats that doubt and don't believe this is a part of 
the war on terror also argue that we should pull out our troops before 
the job is done. The person I ran against for President said there ought 
to be a date certain for withdrawal. That means it doesn't matter what's 
happening on the ground; it just means, get out. You've had a leader in 
the House say, ``Well, the best way to deal with this is to put our 
troops on an island some 5,000 miles away from Iraq.'' There's all kinds 
of difference of opinions, but none of them are, ``Let's do the hard 
work necessary to secure America.''
    We have a difference of opinion. And that's why I have said that the 
Democrat Party, the party that--where some leaders have said we 
shouldn't spend another dime on Iraq; others have said, get out now; 
others said, get out in a couple of months--that's why they are the 
party of cut-and-run.
    It's a difference of opinion, but it's a fundamental issue in this 
campaign. The voters out there need to ask the question, which political 
party will support the brave men and women who wear our uniform when 
they do their job of protecting America? Which political party is 
willing to give our professionals the tools necessary to protect the 
American people? Which political party has a strategy for victory in 
this war on terror?
    Listen, I fully understand it's a tough fight in Iraq. I know it; 
you know it; and our troops know it. Last week--or earlier this week, I 
spoke with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki, and we 
discussed the violence in his country. I told him I was amazed at how 
tough the Iraqis are when it comes to violence. Think about that. They 
haven't abandoned their hopes for a government of, by, and for the 
people; 12 million people voted; they still long to live in a free 
society. Yet they're putting up with unspeakable violence.
    There's a reason why the violence is increasing. One reason is that 
our forces, coalition and Iraqi forces, are focused on operations to 
bring security in Baghdad. In other words, we're on the move. We're 
confronting those who would like to sow sectarian violence. We're 
confronting the criminals who are taking advantage of the situation. 
We're confronting the militias who are harming innocent people. We're 
operating in some of the city's most violent neighborhoods to disrupt 
and bring to justice Al Qaida and IED makers and death squad leaders. 
We're engaging the enemies, and they're putting up a tough fight.
    Another reason why is, the terrorists are trying to influence public 
opinion around the world and right here in the United States. They carry 
video cameras, film their atrocities, e-mail images and video clips to 
Middle Eastern cable networks like Al-Jazeera and opinion leaders 
throughout the West. They operate web sites where they say their goal is 
to, quote, ``carry out a media war that is parallel to the military 
war.''
    Our goal in Iraq is clear, and it's unchanging: a country that can 
sustain itself, a country that can govern itself, a country that can 
defend itself, and a country which will be an ally in the war against 
these extremists. Our strategy is threefold: to help rebuild that 
country, to help the political process move forward, and to help the 
Iraqis stand up security forces that are capable of defeating the enemy 
themselves.
    Our tactics are constantly changing. I talk to our generals who are 
in charge of these operations, and my message to them is: Whatever you 
need, we'll give you; and whatever tactics you think work on the ground,

[[Page 1861]]

you put in place. Our goal hasn't changed, but the tactics are 
constantly adjusting to an enemy which is brutal and violent.
    My message to the United States of America is: Victory in Iraq is 
vital for the security of a generation of Americans who are coming up. 
And so we will stay in Iraq; we will fight in Iraq; and we will win in 
Iraq. [Applause]
    All right. Thank you. Sit down now. Thank you. I'm not through yet. 
[Laughter] I'm almost through. [Laughter] The waiter is signaling to me, 
you know, giving me one of these things. [Laughter]
    I want to tell you one other thing we believe in, and I believe it's 
a difference between the philosophies of our parties--is that I believe 
in the power of liberty to transform regions and countries and yield the 
peace we want. That's what I believe. I believe this is an ideological 
struggle, and the way you defeat an ideology of hate is with an ideology 
of hope. I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe there's an 
Almighty, and I believe a great gift of that Almighty to every man, 
woman, and child on the Earth is freedom.
    I believe people--I believe America should never condemn anybody to 
a society that does not embrace freedom. I believe in freedom so much 
that I wasn't surprised when 12 million people defied car bombers and 
said, ``I want to be free.'' And I believe free societies yield the 
peace we want.
    A story that I share all the time with people is the story about my 
relationship with the Prime Minister of Japan--former Prime Minister 
now, Prime Minister Koizumi. You might remember, the Prime Minister and 
I went down to Elvis's place--[laughter]--in Memphis, Tennessee. I went 
down there because I'd never been. [Laughter] He went down there--and 
asked me to take him down there because he liked Elvis. [Laughter]
    But I wanted to tell a story to the American people. You see, my dad 
fought the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy of the United States. And 
many of your relatives did the same thing. They attacked us; we 
responded with the full force and might of the United States. Kids 
signed up; many didn't come home. They volunteered to fight for our 
freedom, just like the kids are doing today, volunteering to fight for 
our freedom.
    One of them was an 18-year-old Navy fighter pilot. I find it really 
interesting that his son was on Air Force One with the Prime Minister of 
the former enemy, talking about the peace. See, going down to Memphis 
from Washington, we didn't spend a lot of time analyzing Elvis's songs. 
[Laughter] We talked about North Korea and how Japan and the United 
States could work together to convince the leader of North Korea to give 
up his nuclear weapons ambitions. We talked about the fact that Japan 
had 1,000 troops in Iraq.
    See, Prime Minister Koizumi knows what I know, that when you find a 
young democracy that's battling against extremists, it's in our 
interests to help that young democracy succeed. It's in the interests of 
not only this generation, who has got the charge of protecting ourselves 
from terrorists, but from future generations, to help democracies 
flourish. He understands what I know, that the reason we're talking 
about the peace is because something happened between World War II, when 
Japan was the sworn enemy of the United States, and 2006, when they're 
flying from Washington to Memphis on Air Force One. And what happened 
was, Japan adopted a Japanese-style democracy.
    The lesson is, liberty has the capacity to change an enemy into an 
ally. And someday, American Presidents will be sitting down with duly 
elected leaders from the Middle East talking about keeping the peace, 
and a generation of Americans will be better off for it.
    Thank you for your help. God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 11:53 a.m. at the Mayflower Hotel. In his 
remarks, he referred to Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida 
terrorist organization; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; former 
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; and Chairman Kim Jong Il of 
North Korea.

[[Page 1862]]