[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 7 (Monday, February 19, 2007)]
[Pages 150-162]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

February 14, 2007

    The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Thanks for coming in 
on an icy day. I have just finished a conversation with General David 
Petraeus. He gave me his first briefing from Iraq. He talked about the 
Baghdad security plan. It's the plan that I described to the Nation last 
January, and it's a plan that's beginning to take shape. General 
Petraeus and General Odierno talked about how the fact that the Iraqi 
Government is following through on its commitment to deploy three 
additional army brigades, Iraqi Army brigades in the capital. We talked 
about where those troops are being deployed, the position of U.S. troops 
with them, as well as the ``embeds'' with the Iraqi troops. And we 
talked about the plan.
    He also talked about the new Iraqi commander. The commander who 
Prime Minister Maliki picked to operate the Baghdad security plan is in 
place. They're setting up a headquarters, and they're in the process of 
being in a position to be able to coordinate all forces. In other words, 
there's still some work to be done there to get the command and control 
center up and running in Baghdad.
    We talked about the fact that our coalition troops that are heading 
into Baghdad will be arriving on time. In other words, I'm paying 
attention to the schedule of troop deployments to make sure that they're 
there, so that General Petraeus will have the troops to do the job--the 
number of troops to do the job that we've asked him to do.
    We talked about the coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces. 
And I would characterize their assessment as--the coordination is good. 
In other words, there's good conversation, constant conversation between 
the commanders of our troops and their troops, and that's a positive 
development.
    The operation to secure Baghdad is going to take time, and there 
will be violence. As we saw on our TV screens, the terrorists will send 
car bombs into crowded markets. In other words, these are people that 
will kill innocent men, women, and children to achieve their objective, 
which is to discourage the Iraqi people, to foment sectarian violence, 
and to, frankly, discourage us from helping this Government do its job.
    Yesterday there was a suicide bomber. In other words, there's an 
active strategy to undermine the Maliki Government and its Baghdad 
security plan. And our generals understand that; they know that they're 
all aimed at, frankly, causing people here in America to say it's not 
worth it. And I can understand why people are concerned when they turn 
on the TV screens and see this violence. It's disturbing to people, and 
it's disturbing to the Iraqi people. But it reminds me of how important 
it is for us to help them succeed. If you think the violence is bad now, 
imagine what it would look like if we don't help them secure the city--
the capital city of Baghdad.
    I fully recognize we're not going to be able to stop all suicide 
bombers. I know that. But we can help secure that capital, help the 
Iraqis secure that capital so that people have

[[Page 151]]

a sense of normalcy--in other words, that they're able to get a better 
sense that this Government of theirs will provide security. People want 
to live in peace; they want to grow up in a peaceful environment. And 
the decision I made is going to help the Iraqi Government do that.
    When General Petraeus' nomination was considered 3 weeks ago, the 
United States Senate voted unanimously to confirm him, and I appreciated 
that vote by the Senators. And now Members of the House of 
Representatives are debating a resolution that would express disapproval 
of the plan that General Petraeus is carrying out. You know, in recent 
months, I've discussed our strategy in Iraq with Members of Congress 
from both political parties. Many have told me that they're dissatisfied 
with the situation in Iraq. I told them I was dissatisfied with the 
situation in Iraq. And that's why I ordered a comprehensive review of 
our strategy.
    I've listened to a lot of voices; people in my administration heard 
a lot of voices. We weighed every option, and I concluded that to step 
back from the fight in Baghdad would have disastrous consequences for 
people in America. That's the conclusion I came to; it's the conclusion 
members of my staff came to; it's the conclusion that a lot in the 
military came to.
    And the reason why I say ``disastrous consequences,'' the Iraqi 
Government could collapse; chaos would spread; there would be a vacuum, 
into the vacuum would flow more extremists, more radicals, people who 
have stated intent to hurt our people. I believe that success in Baghdad 
will have success in helping us secure the homeland.
    What's different about this conflict than some others is that if we 
fail there, the enemy will follow us here. I firmly believe that. And 
that's one of the main reasons why I made the decision I made. And so we 
will help this Iraqi Government succeed.
    And the first step for success is to do something about the 
sectarian violence in Baghdad so they can have breathing space in order 
to do the political work necessary to assure the different factions in 
Baghdad--factions that are recovering from years of tyranny--that there 
is a hopeful future for them and their families. I would call that 
political breathing space. And by providing this political breathing 
space--in other words, giving the Maliki Government a chance to 
reconcile and do the work necessary to achieve reconciliation--it'll 
hasten the day in which we can change our force posture in Iraq.

    A successful strategy obviously--a successful security strategy in 
Baghdad requires more than just military action. I mean, people have to 
see tangible results in their lives. I mean, they have to see something 
better. They not only have to feel secure where they live, but they've 
got to see positive things taking place.

    The other day, the Iraqi Government passed a $41 billion budget, 10 
billion of which is for reconstruction and capital investment. There's a 
lot of talk in Washington about benchmarks. I agree--``benchmarks'' 
meaning that the Iraqi Government said they're going to do this--for 
example, have an oil law as a benchmark. But one of the benchmarks they 
laid out, besides committing troops to the Iraqi security plan, was that 
they'll pass a budget in which there's $10 billion of their own money 
available for reconstruction and help. And they met the benchmark, and 
now, obviously, it's important they spend the money wisely.

    They're in the process of finalizing a law that will allow for the 
sharing of all revenues among Iraq's peoples. In my talks with Members 
of Congress, some have agreed with what I'm doing; many who didn't--they 
all, though, believe it's important for the Iraqi Government to set 
benchmarks and achieve those benchmarks. And one benchmark we've all 
discussed was, making it clear to the Iraqi people that they have a 
stake in the future of their country by having a stake in the oil 
revenues. And so the Government is in the process of getting an oil 
revenue law that will help unify the country.

    The Iraqi Government is making progress on reforms that will allow 
more of its citizens to reenter political life. Obviously, I'm paying 
close attention to whether or not the Government is meeting these 
benchmarks, and will continue to remind Prime Minister Maliki that he 
must do so.

[[Page 152]]

    We've given our civilians and commanders greater flexibility to fund 
our economic assistance money. Part of the strategy in Baghdad is to 
clear and then to hold and then to build. We've been pretty good about 
clearing in the past; we haven't been good about holding--``we'' being 
the Iraqis and coalition forces. So we spent time today talking to 
General Petraeus about the need--his need and his understanding of the 
need to hold neighborhoods so that the people themselves in the capital 
city feel more secure.
    But also part of the strategy is to make sure that we build. And so 
we're giving our commanders flexibility with reconstruction money that 
they have at their disposal. We're also sending more PRTs, Provincial 
Reconstruction Teams, into Iraq. We're trying to speed up their arrival 
into Iraq so that the Iraqi people see tangible benefits from the 
Government that they elected under one of the most progressive 
Constitutions in the Middle East.
    Later this week, the House of Representatives will vote on a 
resolution that opposes our new plan in Iraq--before it has a chance to 
work. People are prejudging the outcome of this. They have every right 
to express their opinion, and it is a nonbinding resolution. Soon 
Congress is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation that is 
binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops. Our troops 
are counting on their elected leaders in Washington, DC, to provide them 
with the support they need to do their mission. We have a 
responsibility, all of us here in Washington, to make sure that our men 
and women in uniform have the resources and the flexibility they need to 
prevail.
    Before I'm going to take some questions, I'd like to comment about 
one other diplomatic development, and that took place in the Far East. 
At the six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea agreed to specific 
actions that will bring us closer to a Korea Peninsula that is free of 
nuclear weapons. Specifically, North Korea agreed that within 60 days, 
it will shut down and seal all operations at the primary nuclear 
facilities it has used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. It has agreed 
to allow international inspectors to verify and monitor this progress. 
It is committed to disclosing all of its nuclear programs as an initial 
step toward abandoning these programs.
    In exchange, five other parties at the table--that would be China, 
Russia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States--have got commitments. 
We will meet those commitments as this agreement is honored. Those 
commitments include economic, humanitarian, and energy assistance to the 
people of North Korea.
    This is a unique deal. First of all, unlike any other agreement, it 
brings together all of North Korea's neighbors in the region as well as 
the United States. The agreement is backed by a United Nations Security 
Council resolution. That resolution came about--the sanctions came about 
as a result of the resolution because of a unanimous vote on the 
Security Council.
    This is good progress. It is a good first step. There's a lot of 
work to be done to make sure that the commitments made in this agreement 
become a reality, but I believe it's an important step in the right 
direction.
    And with that, I'll be glad to take your questions, starting with 
you, Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Russia-U.S. Relations

    Q. Mr. President, on Russia--is the Vladimir Putin who said, ``The 
United States is undermining global security and provoking a new arms 
race,'' the same Vladimir Putin whose soul you looked into and found to 
be trustworthy? Has he changed? Are U.S.-Russian relations 
deteriorating?
    The President. I think the person who I was referring to in 2001 is 
the same strong-willed person. He is a person with whom I have had 
agreements and disagreements throughout the course of my Presidency and 
his. We've disagreed on the utility of NATO. I've tried to convince 
Vladimir that NATO is positive; it's a positive influence; that 
democracies on your border are good things to have. Democracies tend not 
to fight each other. And I firmly believe NATO is a stabilizing 
influence for the good, and that helps Russia. Evidently he disagrees 
with that assessment; part of his speech was expressing concerns about 
NATO.

[[Page 153]]

    There's a lot we can work together on, and that's what's important 
for American people to understand. We know that we've got common goals 
that make sense for both our peoples. Two such goals are Iran, 
convincing the Iranians to get rid of its nuclear weapons. And Russia's 
leadership on this issue is very important to getting a Chapter VII 
resolution out of the United Nations. And by the way, they were 
constructive, in terms of the resolution I just described about North 
Korea. In other words, where we have common interests and we work 
together on those common interests, we can accomplish important things 
for the security of our own people as well as the security of the world.
    And secondly, Russia and the United States work very closely on 
proliferation concerns. We're both concerned about the proliferation of 
technologies that could end up hurting our people and other people in 
the world.
    And so there's--it's a complicated relationship. It's a relationship 
in which there are disagreements, but there's also a relationship in 
which we can find common ground to solve problems. And that's the spirit 
I'll continue to work with Vladimir Putin on.
    Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

Iran/War in Iraq

    Q. Thank you, sir. General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq 
do not by themselves implicate Iran. What makes you so certain that the 
highest levels of Tehran's Government is responsible?
    The President. Yes----
    Q. And how can you retaliate against Iran without risking a war?
    The President. What we do know is that the Qods Force was 
instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. 
We know that. And we also know that the Qods Force is a part of the 
Iranian Government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not 
the head leaders of Iran ordered the Qods Force to do what they did.
    But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what 
matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the Government 
knew or that the Government didn't know? But the point I made in my 
initial speech in the White House about Iraq was, is that we know 
they're there, and we're going to protect our troops. When we find the 
networks that are enabling these weapons to end up in Iraq, we will deal 
with them. If we find agents who are moving these devices into Iraq, we 
will deal with them. I have put out the command to our troops--I mean, 
to the people who are commanders that we'll protect the people--the 
soldiers of the United States and innocent people in Iraq and will 
continue doing so.
    Now, let me step back on Iran itself. We have a comprehensive 
strategy to deal with Iraq [Iran]. * There's a variety of issues that we 
have with Iraq [Iran]. * One, of course, is influence inside of Iraq. 
Another is whether or not they end up with a nuclear weapon. And I 
believe an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous for world 
peace, and have worked with other nations of like mind. And it turns 
out, there's a lot of countries in the world that agree with that 
assessment. After all, we did get a Chapter VII resolution out of the 
United Nations that included EU-3 as well as Russia and China. That's a 
positive development.
    * White House correction.
    The message to the Iranian people is, is that your leaders are 
making decisions that are isolating you in the world, thereby denying 
you a brighter future. And I believe Iran is a unbelievably vital 
nation. It's got a great history; it's got wonderful traditions; it's 
got very capable, smart people. There is--I believe there's also a 
desire to not be isolated from the world. And our policies are all aimed 
at convincing the Iranian people there's a better way forward, and I 
hope their Government hears that message.
    Yes, anyway, that's a long answer to a short question, and now 
you're trying to get to me to another one, aren't you? Gregory [David 
Gregory, NBC News].
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
    The President. Excuse me, David. David.
    Q. Thank you, sir. I'd like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you 
are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to 
make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to 
be

[[Page 154]]

wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. 
Is that the case?
    The President. I can say with certainty that the Qods Force, a part 
of the Iranian Government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that 
have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat: I do not know whether or 
not the Qods Force was ordered from the top echelons of Government. But 
my point is, what's worse, them ordering it and it happening or them not 
ordering it and it's happening? And so we will continue to protect our 
troops.
    David, our strategy is comprehensive in order to resolve problems 
that will affect our own peace and the peace in the world. And the 
biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon. 
And as you know, we've been dealing with this issue ever since you've 
been covering me and pretty much ever since I've been the President. And 
we've made it very clear to the Iranians that if they would like to have 
a dialog with the United States, there needs to be a verifiable 
suspension of their program. I would hope that they would do that. I 
would like to be at the--have been given a chance for us to explain that 
we have no desire to harm the Iranian people.
    But my focus is on making sure that this weapon is dealt with--the 
program is dealt with in a constructive, peaceful way. And we'll 
continue to work toward achieving our common objectives with other 
nations in the world in a peaceful way.
    Sheryl [Sheryl Stolberg, New York Times].
    Q. ----using faulty intelligence to provoke Iran?
    The President. Well, no, I heard your question, and I told you, I 
was confident that the Qods Force, a part of the Iranian Government, was 
providing weaponry into Iraq. And to say it is provoking Iran is just a 
wrong way to characterize the Commander in Chief's decision to do what 
is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue 
to do so.
    Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News].

Six-Party Talks

    Q. Mr. President, on the North Korea deal, the former U.N. 
Ambassador, John Bolton, yesterday said, quote, ``It's a bad, 
disappointing deal, and the best thing you can say about it is that it 
will probably fall apart.'' This is from a man you repeatedly praised 
for his judgment and leadership at the United Nations. His main 
criticism is that the financial pressure led North Korea back to the 
table, and now it's being released. How do you respond to that?
    The President. I strongly disagree--strongly disagree with his 
assessment. I have told the American people, like the Iranian issue, I 
wanted to solve the North Korean issue peacefully, and that the 
President has an obligation to try all diplomatic means necessary to do 
so. I changed the dynamic on the North Korean issue by convincing other 
people to be at the table with us, on the theory that the best diplomacy 
is diplomacy in which there is more than one voice--that has got an 
equity in the issue--speaking.
    And so we had a breakthrough as a result of other voices than the 
United States saying to the North Koreans, ``We don't support your 
nuclear weapons program, and we urge you to get rid of it in a 
verifiable way.'' Perhaps the most significant voice that had been added 
to the table was China. But the South Korean voice was vital, as was the 
Japanese and Russian voices as well. So the assessment made by some that 
this is not a good deal is just flat wrong.
    Now, those who say the North Koreans have got to prove themselves by 
actually following through in the deal are right--and I'm one. This is a 
good first step. It will be a great deal for the North Korean people if 
their Government follows through with the agreement, which, by the way, 
started in September of 2005. The agreement that we announced the other 
day was a continuation of the initial agreement in September of 2005. 
And for those who say that, ``Well, this is an interesting moment, and 
now it's up to the North Koreans to do that which they say they will 
do,'' I couldn't agree more with you.
    And the first phase is to shut down and seal their facility, their 
main weapons manufacturing facility, and then disclose their programs. 
And for that, they'll receive some help from the South Koreans--the 
equivalent of 50,000 tons of fuel.

[[Page 155]]

    And the second phase is to disable and abandon their facilities. In 
other words, this is a phased approach that will enable all of us to say 
to our respective populations, we're watching carefully and that there's 
a opportunity for the North Koreans to prove that this program can work.
    If they do the second phase, there is a--there will be about the 
equivalent of a million tons--minus the 50,000 tons--available of food, 
economic assistance, and fuel. I am particularly interested in helping 
get food to the North Korean people. Now, that's not going to happen 
until there's some verifiable measures that have been taken.
     The financial measures that you're speaking about are really a 
separate item, because it has everything to do with--it's a banking 
issue that our Treasury Department is analyzing to determine whether or 
not funds were illicitly moved through the bank.
    Let's see, yes, sir.

Iran/War in Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more 
time. You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the 
Iranian Government are, in fact, behind these explosives--that 
contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the 
highest levels of the Iranian Government were behind this. It also--it 
seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts 
with what your own Press Secretary said yesterday.
    The President. Can I--let me explain it to you, Ed [Ed Henry, Cable 
News Network]--I can't say it more plainly: There are weapons in Iraq 
that are harming U.S. troops because of the Qods Force. And as you know, 
I hope, that the Qods Force is a part of the Iranian Government. Whether 
Ahmadi-nejad ordered the Qods Force to do this, I don't think we know. 
But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about 
it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're 
going to protect our troops.
    Q. But given some of those contradictions, Mr. President----
    The President. There's no contradiction that the weapons are there 
and they were provided by the Qods Force, Ed.
    Q. What assurances can you give the American people that the 
intelligence this time will be accurate?
    The President. Ed, we know they're there; we know they're provided 
by the Qods Force; we know the Qods Force is a part of the Iranian 
Government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to 
the Qods Force, ``Go do this,'' but we know it's a vital part of the 
Iranian Government.
    What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow 
we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is 
preposterous, Ed. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find 
devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're 
going to do something about it, pure and simple.
    Now David says, ``Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for 
war?'' No, it means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that 
means. And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the 
Commander in Chief and those responsible for our troops on the ground. 
And we'll continue do so.
    Yes, ma'am. You're not a ``ma'am.'' Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC 
News].

Situation in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, do you agree with the National Intelligence 
Estimate that we are now in a civil war in Iraq? And also, you talk 
about victory, that you have to have victory in Iraq; it would be 
catastrophic if we didn't. You said again today that the enemy would 
come here, and yet you say it's not an open-ended commitment. How do you 
square those things?
    The President. You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like 
victory in World War II. And it's one of the challenges I have, to 
explain to the American people what Iraq will look like in a situation 
that will enable us to say, we have accomplished our mission.
    First, the--Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. 
I say ``relative peace'' because if it's, like, zero car bombings, it 
never will happen that way. It's like--I mean, the fundamental question 
is, can we help this Government have the security force level necessary 
to make sure that the ethnic

[[Page 156]]

cleansing that was taking place in certain neighborhoods has stopped?
    Look, there's criminality in Iraq as well as the ethnic violence. 
And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with 
criminals. There is an Al Qaida presence in Iraq, as you know. I believe 
some of the spectacular bombings have been caused by Al Qaida. As a 
matter of fact, Zarqawi--the terrorist Zarqawi, who is not an Iraqi, 
made it very clear that he intended to use violence to spur sectarian--
car bombings and spectacular violence--to spur sectarian violence. And 
he did a good job of it.
    And so there--and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who 
believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the 
Shi'a are the majority of the country. And they're willing to use 
violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.
    The reason I described that is that no matter what you call it, it's 
a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq. 
We've got people who say ``civil war''; we've got people on the ground 
who don't believe it's a civil war. But nevertheless, it is--it was 
dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it, so 
that a government that is bound by a constitution, where the country 
feels relatively secure as a result of a security force that is 
evenhanded in its application of security; a place where the vast 
resources of the country--this is a relatively wealthy country, in that 
they've got a lot of hydrocarbons--is shared equally amongst people; 
that there is a federalism that evolves under the Constitution, where 
the local Provinces have got authority as well; and where people who may 
have made a political decision in the past and yet weren't criminals can 
participate in the life of the country; and is an ally in the war on 
terror--in other words, that there is a bulwark for moderation as 
opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as 
successful.
    Q. Do you believe it's a civil war, sir?
    The President. I can only tell you what people on the ground, whose 
judgment--it's hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to 
give you an assessment--firsthand assessment. I haven't been there. You 
have; I haven't. But I do talk to people who are and people whose 
judgment I trust, and they would not qualify it as that. There are 
others who think it is. It is, however, a dangerous situation, thereby 
requiring action on my part.
    Listen, I considered several options--one, doing nothing--and that 
if you don't believe the situation was acceptable, then you should do 
something. And I didn't believe the situation was acceptable.
    Secondly, I could have listened to the advice of some and pulled 
back and hoped for the best. I felt that would be extraordinarily 
dangerous for this young democracy, that the violence in Baghdad could 
escalate mightily and then spill out across the country, creating chaos, 
vacuums into which extremism would flow--or make the decision I made, 
which is to reinforce the troops that were on the ground, to help this 
Iraqi Government and security force do what they're supposed to do.
    Sir. You dropped?
    Q. Bad hands. [Laughter]
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
    The President. Modern guy, you know--you got the Blackberry and 
everything there.

Military Families/U.S. Armed Forces

    Q. I'd like to ask you about troop morale.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. As you know, a growing number of troops are on their second, 
third, or fourth tour in Iraq. There have been a growing number of 
reports about declining morale among fighting men. I spoke personally to 
an infantry commander--tough guy, patriot--who says more and more of the 
troops are asking, questioning what they're doing here. Does this come 
as a surprise to you? Are you aware of this? Is it a minority opinion; 
is it a growing opinion; and does it concern you?
    The President. I am--what I hear from commanders is that the place 
where there is concern is with the family members, that our troops, who 
have volunteered to serve the country, are willing to go into combat 
multiple times, but that the concern is with the people on the 
homefront. And I can understand that. And I--and that's one reason I go 
out of my way to constantly thank the

[[Page 157]]

family members. You know, I'm asking--you're obviously talking to 
certain people--or a person. I'm talking to our commanders. Their job is 
to tell me what--the situation on the ground. And I have--I know there's 
concern about the homefront. I haven't heard deep concern about the 
morale of the troops in Iraq.
    Q. Would a commander tell you that? Would he--[inaudible]--because 
you're the President of the United States?
    The President. Yes, they'd tell me that. Sure, absolutely. Just like 
they told me that they thought they needed extra troops to do the job. 
Sure.
    Listen, I want our troops out of there as quickly as possible. But I 
also want to make sure that we get the job done, and I made the decision 
I made in order to do so.
    Jim [Jim Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times].

Iran/Diplomacy

    Q. You spoke positively about the role of diplomacy in North Korea, 
and you obviously gave it a long time to work. Where does diplomacy fit 
in, in terms of Iran, and do we have any leverage if we try diplomacy 
there?
    The President. Well, I guess you could call getting the EU-3, China, 
and Russia on the same page on a Chapter VII resolution successful 
diplomacy. I thought that was diplomacy. And it took a long time to get 
there. I mean, we're working hard to send a concerted message to the 
Iranians, a focused, unified message that the world believes you should 
not have a nuclear program. And so this is a multilateral approach to 
try to get the Government to alter its course on a nuclear weapons 
program.
    I can't think of any more robust diplomacy than to have more than 
one party at the table talking to the Iranians. And we did so through 
the United Nations at this case. If they want us at the table, we're 
more than willing to come, but there must be a verifiable suspension of 
this weapons program that is causing such grave concern.
    We'll continue to work with other nations. Matter of fact, I believe 
that it is easier for the United States to achieve certain diplomatic 
objectives when we work with other nations, which is precisely why we 
adopted the strategy we did in dealing with the Iranians.
    Sheryl.

U.S. Congress/Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it seems pretty clear 
where this Iraq vote in the House is headed. Your Press Secretary has 
said repeatedly that Members of Congress ought to watch what they say 
and be concerned about the message that they're sending to our enemy. 
I'm wondering, do you believe that a vote of disapproval of your policy 
emboldens the enemy? Does it undermine your ability to carry out your 
policies there? And also, what are you doing to persuade the Democratic 
leadership in Congress not to restrict your ability to spend money in 
Iraq?
    The President. Yes, thanks. A couple of points: One, that I 
understand the Congress is going to express their opinion, and it's very 
clear where the Democrats are, and some Republicans; I know that. They 
didn't like the decision I made. And by the way, that doesn't mean that 
I think that they're not good, honorable citizens of the country--just 
have a different opinion. I considered some of their opinions and felt 
like it would not lead to a country that could govern itself, sustain 
itself, and be an ally in the war on terror--one.
    Secondly, my hope, however, is that this nonbinding resolution 
doesn't try to turn into a binding policy that prevents our troops from 
doing that which I have asked them to do. That's why I keep reminding 
people, on the one hand, you vote for David Petraeus in a unanimous way, 
and then the other hand, you say that you're not going to fund the 
strategy that he thought was necessary to do his job, a strategy he 
testified to in front of the Senate. I'm going to make it very clear to 
the Members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our 
troops, and they need to make sure we have the flexibility necessary to 
get the job done.
    Secondly, I find it interesting that there is a declaration about a 
plan that they have not given a chance to work. Again, I understand; I 
understand. The other part of your question?
    Q. It emboldens the enemy----

[[Page 158]]

    The President. Oh, yes. The only thing I can tell you is that when I 
speak, I'm very conscious about the audiences that are listening to my 
words. The first audience, obviously, is the American people. My second 
audience would be the troops and their families. That's why I appreciate 
the question about whether or not--about the troop morale; it gave me a 
chance to talk to the families and how proud we are of them.
    Third, no question, people are watching what happens here in 
America. The enemy listens to what's happening; the Iraqi people listen 
to the words, the Iranians. People are wondering; they're wondering 
about our commitment to this cause. And one reason they wonder is that 
in a violent society, the people sometimes don't take risks for peace if 
they're worried about having to choose between different sides, 
different violent factions. As to whether or not this particular 
resolution is going to impact enemy thought, I can't tell you that. But 
I can tell you that people are watching the debate.
    I do believe that the decision I made surprised people in the Middle 
East. And I think it's going to be very important, however, that the 
Iraqi Government understand that this decision was not an open-ended 
commitment, that we expect Prime Minister Maliki to continue to make the 
hard decisions he's making.
    Unlike some here, I'm a little more tolerant of a person who has 
been only in government for 7 months and hasn't had a lot of--and by the 
way, a Government that hasn't had a lot of experience with democracy. 
And on the other hand, it's important for him to know, and I believe he 
does know, that the American people want to see some action and some 
positive results. And listen, I share that same desire.
    The faster that the Maliki Government steps up security in Baghdad, 
the more quickly we can get to what Baker-Hamilton recommended, and that 
is embedding and training over the rise in presence, protection of the 
territorial integrity of Iraq, and a strong hunt for Al Qaida and 
terrorists who would try to use that country as safe haven. I thought 
the Baker-Hamilton made a lot of sense, their recommendations. We just 
weren't able to get there if the capital was up in flames. And that's 
why I made the decision I made.
    Yes, Peter [Peter Baker, Washington Post].

CIA Employee Identity Leak Investigation

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, we've now learned through sworn 
testimony that at least three members of your administration, other than 
Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media. None of 
these three is known to be under investigation. Without commenting on 
the Libby trial, then, can you tell us whether you authorized any of 
these three to do that----
    The President. Not going to talk about it.
    Q. ----or were they authorized without your permission?
    The President. Yes, thanks, Pete. I'm not going to talk about any of 
it. Thank you.
    Q. They're not under investigation, though, sir?
    The President. Peter, I'm not going to talk about any of it.
    Q. How about pardons, sir? Many people are asking whether you might 
pardon somebody----
    The President. Not going to talk about it, Peter. [Laughter] Would 
you like to think of another question? Being the kind man that I am, I 
will recycle you. [Laughter]
    John [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].

Economic Sanctions/Iran

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
    The President. Do you like that one--``recycling'' him? [Laughter]
    Q. That took care of one of my questions as well, sir, but----
    The President. If that's the case, sit down. Next question. 
[Laughter]
    Q. A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran, so 
I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the 
financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic 
pain for a lot of our allies?
    The President. Yes. It's an interesting question. One of the 
problems--not specifically on this issue, just in general--that--let's

[[Page 159]]

put it this way: Money trumps peace, sometimes. In other words, 
commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. 
And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a 
specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest 
that they forgo their own financial interest.
    And, John, that's why sometimes it's tough to get tough economic 
sanctions on countries. And I'm not making any comment about any 
particular country, but you touched on a very interesting point.
    And so therefore, we're constantly working with nations to convince 
them that what really matters in the long run is to have the environment 
so peace can flourish. In the Iranian case, I firmly believe that if 
they were to have a weapon, it would make it difficult for peace to 
flourish. And therefore, I'm working with people to make sure that that 
concern trumps whatever commercial interests may be preventing 
governments from acting. I make no specific accusation with that 
statement. It's a broad statement. But it's an accurate assessment of 
what sometimes can halt multilateral diplomacy from working.
    Let's see here. Ann [Ann Compton, ABC Radio].

Iraq/2008 Presidential Election

    Q. Thank you. Iraq is not only being debated in Congress, but it's 
going to be debated in the Presidential election that's coming ahead. Is 
that debate--is there a chance that that is going to hurt your progress 
in Iraq? And is it appropriate, at some point, perhaps, for the 
Government to brief the Presidential candidates so they have a better 
understanding of what it is you're trying to do?
    The President. Thank you for that question. I thought for a minute 
you were going to try to get me to comment on the Presidential race. And 
I'd just like to establish some ground rules here with those of you who 
are stuck following me for the next little less than 2 years: I will 
resist all temptation to become the pundit in chief and commenting upon 
every twist and turn of the Presidential campaign. As much as I like 
politics and am intrigued by the race--it's very similar to how I deftly 
handled Baker's question--I won't comment.
    Secondly, I remember a Member of Congress came to me before one of 
my speeches--I think it was the Iraq speech as opposed to the State of 
the Union speech--and said, ``You'd better be eloquent in order to 
convince the American people to support this plan.'' He didn't say 
``articulate''; he said ``eloquent.'' [Laughter] And my point to the 
person was, what really matters is what happens on the ground. I can 
talk all day long. But what really matters to the American people is to 
see progress--which leads to your point, Martha, and that is, progress 
can best be measured by whether or not the people can see noticeable 
changes of security inside the capital city. In this case, the Baghdad 
security plan has got to yield peace in certain mixed neighborhoods, for 
example.
    And so therefore, to the extent that it affects votes, speeches, 
perceptions, elections, what really is going to matter is what happens, 
ultimately. And that's all I really care to comment about it. You know, 
it's----
    Q. Do you think you could win reelection----
    The President. I'm not running. [Laughter] And I know that's going 
to disappoint some of you. But, anyway, that's pundit-in-chief-type 
questions, so I'm not going to answer those. Pundit in chief--trying to 
get me to be pundit in chief. No.
    Let's see here. Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, McClatchy].

Support for Troops in Iraq

    Q. Morning.
    The President. Yes, thanks.
    Q. I think I'd like to follow on Sheryl's question about undermining 
the troops.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Do you have to support the war to support the warrior? I mean, if 
you're one of those Americans that thinks you've made a terrible 
mistake, that it's destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak 
out, are they by definition undermining the troops?
    The President. No, she actually asked ``the enemy,'' not ``the 
troops.'' But I'll be glad to answer your question. No, I don't think so 
at all. I think you can be against

[[Page 160]]

my decision and support the troops; absolutely. But the proof will be 
whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.
    I said early in my comment--my answer to Sheryl was that somebody 
who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am. 
And your question is valid. I mean, can somebody say, ``We disagree with 
your tactics or strategy, but we support the military''--absolutely, 
Ron, sure. But what's going to be interesting is if they don't provide 
the flexibility and support for our troops that are there to enforce the 
strategy that David Petraeus, the general on the ground, thinks is 
necessary to accomplish the mission.
    Michael [Michael Allen, Politico]. Michael, who do you work for? 
[Laughter]

Bipartisan Cooperation in Congress/Legislative Agenda

    Q. Mr. President, I work for politico.com.
    The President. Pardon me? Politico.com?
    Q. Yes, sir. Today. [Laughter]
    The President. Do you want a moment to explain to the American 
people exactly what--[laughter].
    Q. Mr. President, thank you for the question. [Laughter]
    The President. Quit being so evasive. [Laughter]
    Q. You should read it.
    The President. Is it good? You like it?
    Q. David Gregory endorsed----
    The President. David Gregory likes it. I can see the making of a 
testimonial. [Laughter] Anyway, go ahead, please.
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke hopefully about your ability 
to work with Democrats, their willingness to work with you in this new 
world. I wonder how that's going so far, what you've learned about how 
they think, and does the current debate constitute grounds for divorce?
    The President. Interesting way to put it. First of all, I think 
they're patriotic people who care about our country--back to Hutch's 
penetrating comment--or question. I do. I was very appreciative of the 
reception I got at the State of the Union. It was a cordial, respectful 
reception that gave me a chance to talk about what I believe. I was also 
very grateful for the reception I received at the Democratic retreat 
that I went to there in Virginia.
    You know, my impression of the meeting there was that we share a lot 
in common. We're people that actually put filing papers down and ran for 
office; we're willing to put our families through the grind of politics; 
we wanted to serve our country, that we care deeply about what takes 
place in Washington, America, and the world.
    My hope is, is that we can get positive pieces of legislation 
passed, because I think there's a lot of expectation that the difference 
of opinion on Iraq would make it impossible for us to work on other 
areas. I disagree with that assessment. And I hope I'm right, and the 
best way to determine whether I'm right is, will I be able to sign 
legislation that we have been able to work on?
    One such piece of policy is a balanced budget. There seems to be 
agreement that we should have a balanced budget. I laid out one way 
forward to achieve that balance, and it shows that we can balance the 
budget without raising taxes and do so in a 5-year horizon. And I would 
like to work with the Democrat leadership as well as, obviously, my 
Republican folks, to get it done.
    Secondly, an interesting opportunity is immigration. As you know, I 
strongly believe that we need to enforce our borders and that--and have 
taken steps to do so. But I also believe that in order to enforce the 
borders, we need a temporary-worker program so that people don't try to 
sneak in the country to work, that they can come in an orderly fashion, 
and take the pressure off the Border Patrol agents that we've got out 
there, so that the Border Patrol agents don't focus on workers that are 
doing jobs Americans aren't doing but are focusing on terrorists and 
criminal elements, gun runners, to keep the country--both our countries 
safe--Mexico and the United States safe.
    I also know that we need to deal with the people who are here--the 
12 million people who are here illegally. I have said multiple times 
that we can't kick them out of our country. It doesn't make any sense to 
me to try to do that, and I don't think--maybe some feel that way, but I 
don't feel that way. But I also don't believe we should give them 
automatic amnesty--automatic citizenship,

[[Page 161]]

which I view as amnesty. And we look forward to working with Democrats 
and Republicans to have a comprehensive immigration plan.
    Energy is an opportunity for us to work together. We've done a lot 
of work in the past on promoting alternative sources of energy. America 
has done more than any nation in the world in promoting alternatives and 
renewables, all aiming to make sure our economy grows, that we have 
energy independence, and that we're good stewards of the environment. 
And I look forward to working with the Democrats on the energy 
independence initiative I laid out.
    One such initiative was the mandatory fuel standards that relies 
upon alternative fuel to power automobiles. Ethanol is the first and 
most notable place where we can start, but we also need to spend monies 
to develop technologies that will enable us to make energy out of 
products other than corn--switch grass or wood chips, for example.
    The problem with relying only on corn is that--by the way, when your 
demand for corn stays high, the price tends to go up, and your hog 
farmer gets disgruntled with the alternative energy plan. And therefore, 
what's going to matter is that new technologies come on line as quickly 
as possible to take the pressure off of corn ethanol--or corn, as a 
result of being used in ethanol, and we can work with Congress to do 
that. That's an area we can work.
    Health care--I got a letter the other day from a group of Republican 
and Democrat Senators talking about the desire to work on health care. 
And they liked some of my ideas. But my only point is, is that there's 
an opportunity for us to work together to help the uninsured have 
private insurance so they can be--so they can get good health care. And 
there's an opportunity to work together there.
    The Governors are coming into town soon. And I'm going to have 
Secretary Leavitt describe to them the affordable grants program that is 
a part of our comprehensive approach, including rewriting the Tax Code.
    Finally, No Child Left Behind needs to be reauthorized. I fully 
understand that if you read your newspaper articles--which I do, 
sometimes--and listen carefully, you'll hear voices in both parties 
saying they don't like No Child Left Behind--it's too much testing, or 
we don't want to be held to account, or whatever they say. The bill is 
working. It makes a lot of sense.
    There's an income gap in America that I talked about when I went to 
Wall Street. And what's clear to me is that our kids have got to have 
education so that in this global economy, the jobs of the 21st century 
stay here at home. And it starts with good education. And therefore, I 
will argue vociferously that No Child Left Behind Act needs to be 
reauthorized--it's working; it's an important piece of legislation--and 
will reach out to Democrat Members, as well as Republican Members, to 
get this bill reauthorized.
    And so there's a lot of areas, Mike. I'd say it's a little early in 
the process. This is a 2-year term. We've got time to work together to 
get important pieces of legislation done. And I like the start. As a 
matter of fact, this afternoon I've got members of both parties, both 
Chambers coming down to visit about how we can continue to work together 
to get some legislation done.
    As I told the Democrats, and as the Democrats have made clear to me 
in my visits, that neither of us are going to abandon our principles, 
that I don't expect them to change their principles, and they shouldn't 
expect me to. But there's ways for us to work together to achieve 
legislative successes for the common good. That's what the American 
people want to see, and that's what I believe we can do. Is it going to 
take work? Yes, it's going to take work, but it's okay. That's why you 
pay us all this money.
    Richard [Richard Wolffe, Newsweek].

Iran

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
    The President. Last question, then I've got to go have lunch with 
Bob Gates, Secretary of the Defense.
    What are you looking at there? Checking the time? For the viewer out 
there--you're getting a big--timekeeper and everything. [Laughter]
    Q. I don't mean to interrupt. [Laughter]
    The President. I just thought he was looking at the watch because he 
was getting bored. I wasn't sure, you know?

[[Page 162]]

    Q. I'm never bored.
    The President. Remember the debates?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. Yes. [Laughter]
    Q. Mr. President, Republican and Democratic Presidents before you 
sat down for face-to-face talks with the Soviet Union, a nation that was 
clearly hostile, tyrannical, and had a huge nuclear arsenal. Why do you 
think that face-to-face talks between yourself and the leadership of 
Iran would be any more compromising for you?
    The President. Richard, if I thought we could achieve success, I 
would sit down, but I don't think we can achieve success right now. And 
therefore, we'll want to work with other nations. I think that we're 
more likely to achieve our goals when others are involved as well. I 
really don't want to put the situation--listen, let me put it this way: 
I want to make sure that in the Iranian issue that the whole world stays 
engaged, because I believe that's a more effective way of convincing the 
Iranians that--to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. That's why.
    Look, I know this is a world in which--and I'm not suggesting you're 
this way--but this is a world in which people say, ``Meet; sit down and 
meet.'' And my answer is, ``If it yields results, that's what I'm 
interested in.'' And so I believe the strategy that--and by the way, I 
remember this during the North Korean issue, debate. People kept saying, 
``Well, all you've got to do is sit down with the guy.'' And I kept 
saying, ``Well, I think it's going to be more effective if we have other 
people at the table with us saying the same thing, so that just in case 
he decides not to honor the agreement, there will be other people saying 
the same thing I'll say, which is, `You said one thing; you did 
another.' '' It will make it easier for us to send that message that the 
world, pretty well united in solving this problem peacefully.
    And so that's why I made the decision I made. It sounds tempting for 
somebody to say, ``All you've got to do is sit down with the people.'' 
I'm in a little different position in that I'm trying to achieve certain 
objectives. And we are making progress on the Iranian issue. If you step 
back to early on in the process, there was doubt as to whether or not 
the world would come together, sometimes because of the reason John 
mentioned--in other words, the conflicting interests. And I believe we 
are making good progress toward solving this issue peacefully.
    And we'll continue to try to solve the issue peacefully. It's an 
important issue whether or not Iran ends up with a nuclear weapon. It's 
one of these issues that people are going to look back and say, ``You 
know, how come they couldn't see the impending danger? What happened to 
them?'' You've heard me say that often about what would happen if we 
don't--if we were to abandon our efforts in the Middle East for 
stability and peace through forms of government that are more likely to 
defeat an extremist ideology that would like to be able to prevail.
    And it's a--at any rate, that's why I made the decision I made. 
Presidents have to weigh different options all the time. Look, I fully 
understand there are some who are--don't agree with every decision I 
make. I hope the American people understand I make those decisions 
because I believe it's going to yield the peace that we all want.
    Listen, thank you for your time. Enjoyed it very much.

Note: The President's news conference began at 11:01 a.m. in the East 
Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Lt. Gen. David 
H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Lt. 
Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Corps--
Iraq; Lt. Gen. Abboud Gambar, commander, Iraqi Army; Prime Minister Nuri 
al-Maliki of Iraq; President Vladimir Putin of Russia; President Mahmud 
Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; and Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Reporters 
referred to Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow; and I. Lewis Libby, former Chief 
of Staff to the Vice President.