[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 13 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Pages 377-385]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association

March 28, 2007

    Alright. Thanks for having me. Thank you. Please be seated. Not a 
bad introduction by a cowboy. [Laughter] Thanks for having me. Welcome 
to Washington. I'm glad to be with you. I was telling Laura this 
morning, I'm really looking forward to going over to talk to the 
Nation's cattlemen. I appreciate being with people who understand the 
importance of faith, family, hard work, good values. I like to remind 
people, every day is Earth Day if you make a living off the land. It's 
good to be with fellow conservationists.
    I'm going to talk a little bit about two big priorities: one, how to 
keep this economy strong so people can make a living; and secondly, how 
this country needs to stay resolved and firm in protecting the security 
of our country. And I appreciate you giving me a chance to come over and 
visit.

[[Page 378]]

    I do want to thank John Queen. I want to thank the board of 
directors. Thanks for being here and making your voices heard. You can 
influence the debate in Washington. And this is a town where people do 
listen to other people's voices. I've got a few suggestions for you when 
you go up to Capitol Hill. [Laughter] But before I give them, I do want 
to recognize Senator Craig Thomas from the State of Wyoming and Marilyn 
Musgrave from Colorado. Appreciate you both being here.
    Let me talk about how to keep this economy growing. You know, one of 
the main jobs of government is to create the conditions for economic 
growth. A main job of government is not to try to create wealth. In 
other words, the fundamental question we've got to ask here in 
Washington is, what do we need to do to encourage investment and risk-
takers and to encourage entrepreneurship? And I believe the heart of 
good economic policy is keeping people's taxes low.
    You know, I--[applause]. The reason I say that is, there's a 
fundamental debate in Washington, when you really get down to it, and 
the debate is who best to spend your money. [Laughter] And I believe a 
cattleman can spend their money better than the government can. Now, 
obviously, we need some amount of money here, and that's called setting 
priorities. But beyond that, the best way to keep this economy growing 
is to let you keep more of your own tax money. The tax cuts we passed 
are working.
    You know, when you cut the individual tax rates, you affect farmers 
and ranchers. Many farmers and ranchers are subchapter S corporations or 
limited partnerships or sole proprietorships, which means you pay tax at 
the individual income-tax level. And if you're worried about a vibrant 
agricultural economy, it makes sense to let those who work the land keep 
more of their own money so they can invest, so they can make the 
necessary changes so that their businesses can remain vibrant.
    I say, the tax cuts work. Since we enacted major tax reform in 2003, 
in response to recession and a terrorist attack, this economy of ours 
has created more than 7 million jobs, new jobs, and it's expanded 13 
percent. The tax cuts are working, and the United States Congress needs 
to make those tax cuts permanent.
    Now, one of the taxes that concerns you a lot, I know, is the death 
tax. It should. You get taxed while you're living, and then you get 
taxed after you die. It's double taxation at its worst. We put the death 
tax on the road to extinction. Notice I didn't say, ``It is going to be 
extinct.'' Under current law, it will come back into effect in 2011, 
which puts people in an awkward position in 2010. [Laughter]
    I really believe Congress needs to pay attention to the effects of 
the death tax on our farmers and ranchers. If people are concerned about 
keeping land in the hands of the family rancher, the best way to do so 
is to get rid of the death tax for those who ranch the land, once and 
for all.
    When you're working the Halls of Congress, I hope you work hard on 
the death tax issue. There's no excuse not to get rid of it. Now, you'll 
hear people say, ``We don't want to give tax relief to the 
billionaires.'' Okay, fine, but let's put a bill on the President's desk 
that respects the ranchers of the United States of America and the 
farmers and the small-business owners, and I'll sign it.
    To keep the economy growing, we've got to be wise about our budgets. 
Now what you'll hear here in Washington is, we have got to raise your 
taxes in order to balance the budget. That's not the way Washington, DC, 
works. They will raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your 
money. [Laughter] All I do is ask you to look at the budget that the 
Senate just recently passed. You know, we changed hands here in 
Washington in the Senate and the House. And the new leadership there in 
the Senate passed a new budget which raises taxes so they can increase 
spending, and the House is looking at the same type of approach.
    I have a different view. My attitude is, keep the taxes low so the 
economy grows to generate more tax revenues, and don't overspend; to set 
priorities with the people's money, not try to be all things to all 
people. And so I submitted a budget to the House and the Senate that 
balances the budget in 5 years without raising one dime on the working 
people of the United States of America.

[[Page 379]]

    I'm looking forward to working with you on a farm bill that's good 
and decent and fair. I just put up a--submitted some ideas through our 
Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns. I want to remind you that in the 
bill we've submitted to Congress, we asked for a $17 billion increase in 
conservation spending over a 10-year period. That's an increase over the 
last farm bill. That includes money for CRP and a 30-percent increase 
for equip, plus one point three-quarters billion dollars on water 
conservation programs. I think this is a wise use of our money.
    I'm interested in a farm bill that enhances conservation, that 
recognizes the contribution our ranchers make, that is fair, that is 
reform oriented, and helps us compete in the global marketplace. I 
appreciate your efforts to work on a good farm bill. I'm looking forward 
to working with you on it.
    Finally, to keep the economy growing, we ought to open up markets 
for U.S. goods and services. If you're interested in economic vitality 
and growth, the way to encourage that growth is to find new markets for 
U.S. products. And I want to spend a little time talking about trade 
today.
    Last year, the United States exported $1.4 trillion worth of goods 
and services. That makes us the largest exporter in the world. To me, 
that says, is that when we have opportunities that are fair, we produce 
the kinds of goods and services people want to buy. Every time we break 
down a barrier to trade, it makes it more likely somebody who's raising 
a cow will have an opportunity to sell that cow into a better market. 
Free trade lowers consumer prices. In other words, when you open up 
trade, it's good for consumers.
    Trade is good for people working. I don't know if you realize this 
or not, but jobs exported by--supported by exports pay wages that are 13 
to 18 percent higher than the average. If you manufacture a good that is 
sold overseas, you're making more money than somebody who's not 
exporting. Isn't that an interesting fact?
    I happen to believe competition is good. I believe competition 
brings out the best in everybody. So I don't mind competition, so long 
as the playing rules are fair. My attitude on trade is, you treat us the 
way we treat you, and then let's compete. America is 5 percent of the 
world's population, which means 95 percent of the rest of the world are 
potential customers for things that we grow or manufacture.
    I think it's good business to open up trade agreements. When I came 
into office, we only had trade agreements with 3 nations; now we have 11 
of them in force and more on the way. The countries that America has 
free trade agreements with represent 7 percent of the world's GDP, yet 
they account for 43 percent of our exports. The reason I bring this up 
to you is, there's a lot of room for expansion when it comes to trade. 
There's a lot of opportunity.
    And so this administration is committed to open up markets. And 
there's a vital vote getting ready to come up in front of the--up to the 
Congress, and that is agreements that we have cut with Peru, Colombia, 
and Panama. I believe these are important markets for you and important 
markets for U.S. goods and services. Congress needs to make sure that 
they send an affirmative message when it comes to trade on these three 
agreements.
    Now, trade obviously creates issues. We end up with disputes and 
opportunities for people to make mischief when it comes to trade, people 
to use excuses for not opening up markets. And we went through one of 
those periods with you all, and that is with the BSE issue. BSE was 
discovered in 2003, and we worked with our cattle folks aggressively to 
address the issue, to prevent further introduction and spread of the 
disease. In other words, there was a proactive effort by government and 
the cattle raisers to address the issue.
    During the last 3 years, we've conducted over 800,000 tests to 
assess the health of our cattle herds. Thanks to these and other 
science-based measures, we've helped the farmers and ranchers manage any 
possible BSE risk in the cattle population. And today, because of our 
collaborative efforts and a strong scientific approach to dealing with 
BSE, we can say to global consumers with complete assurance, ``American 
beef is safe, and it is good to eat.''
    And the word is getting out. In 2006, exports of beef and beef 
products totaled more

[[Page 380]]

than $2 billion. That's a--nearly a 50-percent increase from 2005. It's 
not at the levels we want, but there has been some improvement in sales. 
And that's important for you. The more markets there are that are open 
for your product, the easier it's going to be for you to make a living. 
And I understand that, and it's important for Congress to understand 
that as well.
    Today, more than 100 countries have fully or partially opened their 
markets to U.S. beef. The objective of this administration, however, is 
to make sure that they're better than partially opened; they're fully 
opened, including to countries like Japan and Korea. We're also working 
to open up markets that have still got a ban on our imports. In other 
words, this is an important part of our foreign policy. When I'm talking 
to leaders and they've got an issue with American beef, it's on the 
agenda. I say, ``If you want to get the attention of the American people 
in a positive way, you open up your markets to U.S. beef.'' People 
understand that, when it comes to being treated fairly in the world 
marketplace.
    We got an opportunity to expand further--open up further markets by 
expanding trade through the Doha round of the World Trade Organization. 
It gives us a chance to level the playing field. It gives us a chance so 
that I can say to our cattle raisers and others that, ``You'll be 
treated fairly.'' Now, you got to compete; you got to grow some product 
that somebody wants. But you should be treated fairly. The rules will 
treat you fairly. That's all you can expect.
    And so I want you to know that we're going to work hard to bring 
Doha to a successful conclusion. It's hard work. This weekend, the 
President of Brazil is coming to see me, and we'll be talking about how 
we can work together to open up markets, and at the same time, address 
their concerns about our farm issues.
    The only way that we can complete Doha and make headway on other 
trade agreements, however, is for Congress to extend trade promotion 
authority. This authority allows the President to negotiate complicated 
trade deals and then send them to the United States Congress for an up-
or-down vote on the whole agreement. Presidents of both parties have 
considered this a incredibly important tool for completing trade 
agreements. In other words, our trade partners have got to say, ``If 
that's the deal we negotiate, that's the one that somebody is going to 
have to vote up or down on.'' You can't negotiate a deal in fairness 
with the United States if you think it's going to be changed on the 
floor of the Congress. So the up-or-down vote is important to get, and 
that's what you get when you get trade promotion authority.
    And yet this authority will expire on July the 1st unless Congress 
acts. And I want to thank the National Cattlemen's Beef Association for 
joining with the administration and other organizations in urging the 
Congress to renew trade promotion authority.
    Look, there's going to be a vigorous debate about trade in Congress, 
and I thank you for engaging in that debate. And you know, trashing 
trade will make a good sound bite on the evening news--[laughter]--but 
walling off America from the rest of the world would harm this economy, 
and it would harm our cattle raisers. The road to protectionism may seem 
broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline. So I urge 
Congress to reject protectionism and to keep this economy open to 
tremendous opportunities that the world has to offer for our ranchers 
and farmers and entrepreneurs.
    Just as our prosperity depends on rejecting economic isolationism, 
so too our security depends on rejecting calls for America to abandon 
its leadership in this world. September the 11th is an important moment 
in this country's history. It's a sad moment, but it should serve as a 
wake-up call to the realities of the world in which we live.
    On September the 11th, we saw problems originating in a failed state 
some 7,000 miles away that affected how we live. See, September the 11th 
was not only a day we were attacked; it is a day that our country must 
never forget. And the lessons of that day must never be forgot, that 
what happens overseas matters here at home. It may be tempting to say, 
``Oh, just let it run its natural course.'' But for me, allowing the 
world to run its natural course, which could lead to more violence and 
hatred, would end up reducing the security of the United States, not 
enhancing the security. And our biggest job

[[Page 381]]

in America, the biggest job of this government is to protect you from 
harm.
    I think about it every day, and so do a lot of other good, decent 
citizens of this country. The best way to protect this country is to 
defeat the enemy overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. 
And for the long-term peace and security of this country, we must 
advance an ideology that stands in stark contrast to the ideology of the 
killers. The best way to secure this homeland is to stay on the offense, 
and in the meantime, encourage the spread of liberty as an alternative 
to tyranny.
    And it's hard work, but it is necessary work. We went into 
Afghanistan, and we did so to remove a vicious tyranny that had harbored 
terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks on our country. Our message was, 
if you provide safe haven, if you provide comfort to an enemy, you're 
just as guilty as the enemy. And so, along with allies, we captured or 
killed hundreds of Al Qaida and Taliban fighters; we closed down their 
training camps; we helped the people of Afghanistan replace the Taliban 
regime with a democratic government. And it's in our Nation's long-term 
interests that we help the people of Afghanistan survive the threats and 
onslaughts by people who want to reinstate tyranny.
    And then we went into Iraq, and we removed the dictator who was a 
threat to the United States and to the world. And now we're undertaking 
the difficult and dangerous work of helping the Iraqi people establish a 
functioning democracy that can protect their own people and serve as an 
ally in this global war against those who would do America harm.
    In 2005--I want you to remember--in 2005, the Iraqi people held 
three national elections. Oh, it seems like a decade ago, doesn't it? 
And yet in the march of history, it's not all that long ago that the 
Iraqi people showed up at the election box, after having lived under the 
thumb of a brutal and murderous tyrant, to express their will about the 
future of their country. They chose a transitional government. They 
adopted the most progressive, democratic Constitution in the Arab world, 
and then they elected a Government underneath that Constitution. Despite 
the endless threats from killers, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came 
out to vote, in a show of hope and solidarity that the United States 
should never forget.
    A thinking enemy watched all this. See, there are some who can't 
stand the thought of a free society emerging in their midst. And this 
enemy escalated attacks. Al Qaida is very active in Iraq. And they and 
other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shi'a 
Islam, the Golden Mosque of Samarra. Why did they do that? They did that 
to provoke retaliation. They did that to cause people to take up--arm 
themselves. And they succeeded. Radical Shi'a elements, some of whom 
have received support from Iran, increased their support of death 
squads, and then the situation began to escalate.
    And so I had a choice to make. Last fall, I looked at the facts; I 
consulted with a lot of folks in Congress and our military commanders. 
And my choice really boiled down to this: Do we withdraw our troops and 
let violence spiral out of control, let this young democracy fail, or do 
I send reinforcements to help the Iraqis quell the violence and secure 
their capital? In other words, do we give them breathing space to get on 
the path of reconciliation so that this young democracy could survive?
    Well, I weighed the options, and the military commanders and I 
concluded that the consequences of withdrawal would be disastrous for 
the United States of America. And let me tell you why. If we were to 
step back from Baghdad before it was more secure, before the Government 
could secure its own capital, it would leave a security vacuum. And into 
that vacuum could quickly come Sunni and Shi'a extremists, bolstered by 
outside forces. A contagion of violence could spill out across the 
country, and in time, the violence of these emboldened extremists could 
affect the entire region. The terrorists could emerge from chaos--see, 
they benefit when the situation is chaotic--with new safe havens to 
replace the one they had lost in Afghanistan.
    There's no doubt in my mind that their intention is to try to strike 
us again, and they need the resources and the safe haven to do so. If we 
were to abandon this young democracy to chaos, it would embolden these 
extremists, it would enable them to be able to

[[Page 382]]

recruit more, it would give them new resources from which to plot and 
plan. I believe the consequences of failure in Iraq affect the security 
of the United States of America, and that's why I made the decision I 
made.
    And so instead of retreating, we reinforced--troops led by a capable 
commander named General David Petraeus. The Iraqi Government saw our 
firm support, and they're now beginning to carry out an aggressive plan 
to secure their nation's capital. And the plan is still in the beginning 
stages. I mean, General Petraeus had been on the ground just for about 2 
months. Only half of the reinforcements that he needs have arrived. And 
he says it's going to be early June before all the troops that are 
dedicated to the operation are even in place. In other words, I've sent 
reinforcements into Baghdad with a new commander, with a plan to help 
the Iraqis secure the capital, a plan that we believe will be 
successful. He's been there for about 2 months; half the troops that he 
needs have arrived.
    And, look, I recognize it's going to require a sustained, determined 
effort to succeed; I know that. And there are some early signs that are 
encouraging. I mean, for example, the Iraqi leader has appointed a 
commander for Baghdad who is working closely with our generals. The last 
of the nine Iraqi surge battalions arrived in the Iraqi capital. In 
other words, they said, ``We're going to commit troops to this plan to 
secure the capital,'' and they're delivering. The Iraqis are showing up. 
Iraqi leaders have lifted restrictions that once prevented Iraqi and 
American forces from going into areas like Sadr City. You've been 
reading about Sadr City; well, my attitude is, murderers are murderers, 
and they ought to be brought to justice. And so any political 
restrictions preventing our people are being lifted. Iraqis are in the 
lead, and we're helping them.
    We're now setting up checkpoints across Baghdad. When I say ``we,'' 
that is the Iraqis with American help. They're hardening perimeters 
around markets and areas that have been targets for these spectacular 
attacks, all aimed at shaking the confidence of the American people and 
shaking the confidence of the Iraqi people. We've got joint security 
stations throughout the Iraqi capital. In the past, we would clear an 
area, and then we'd go home, and then the insurgents or killers would 
move back in. Now we've got a strategy of clear, hold--and that's what 
that means--and then using money to help reconstruct Iraq. By the way, 
most of the money is coming from the Iraqis--he's put out a $10 billion 
reconstruction budget. That's what we expect. A government of and by the 
people should be spending the people's money to help rebuild their 
country.
    American forces are now deployed 24 hours in these neighborhoods, 
and guess what's happening? The Iraqi people are beginning to gain 
confidence. Support from the Iraqi people can be measured by the tips 
our people are getting--in other words, people saying, ``So-and-so is 
over here; a cache of weapons over there.'' And we're using the tips to 
aggressively pursue. We've launched successful operations against Shi'a 
extremists. We've captured hundreds of fighters that are spreading 
sectarian violence. In other words, we're after killers. We're after--we 
don't say, this religious group or this religious group. We're saying, 
if you're trying to destabilize this young democracy, the Iraqis, with 
coalition help, are coming after you.
    Last week, we captured a Shi'a extremist leader and his associates 
who were implicated in the kidnaping and murder of five U.S. soldiers in 
Karbala. Last month, American and Iraqi forces uncovered more than 400 
weapons caches. We're conducting dozens and dozens of operations on a 
daily basis throughout that country with the Iraqi forces.
    See, ultimately, the Iraqis are going to have to defend themselves. 
Ultimately, it is their responsibility. That's what the 12 million 
people who voted want. We just need to give them some breathing space so 
they can gain their confidence and have the capabilities necessary to 
protect this country.
    We're destroying bomb factories. Just last week, we captured the 
head of the Al Qaida bomb network, responsible for some of the most 
horrific bombings in Baghdad. It's interesting, I mentioned Al Qaida; Al 
Qaida wants us to fail in Iraq. This is what their leaders have clearly 
said, and they're willing to kill innocent women and children to achieve 
their objectives.

[[Page 383]]

    The missions I described are only the opening salvos in what is 
going to be a 
sustained effort. Yet the Iraqi people are 
beginning to say--see positive changes. I want to share with you how two 
Iraqi bloggers--they have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got 
here--[laughter]--describe--``Displaced families are returning home. 
Marketplaces are seeing more activity. Stores that were long shuttered 
are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our 
people want to see this effort succeed. We hope the Governments in 
Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve.''
    I want to read something that Army Sergeant Major Chris Nadeau 
says--the guy is on his second tour in Iraq. He says, ``I'm not a 
Democrat or a Republican. I'm a soldier. The facts are the facts. Things 
are getting better. We're picking up momentum.''
    These are hopeful signs, and that's positive. Yet at the very moment 
that General Petraeus's strategy is beginning to show signs of success, 
the Democrats in the House of Representatives have passed an emergency 
war spending bill that undercuts him and the troops under his command. 
This bill would damage our effort in Iraq three ways.
    First, the House bill would impose restrictions on our commanders in 
Iraq, as well as rigid conditions and arbitrary deadlines on the Iraqi 
Government. It would mandate a precipitous withdrawal of American forces 
if every one of these conditions is not met by a date certain. Even if 
they are met, the bill would still require that most American forces 
begin retreating from Iraq by March 1st of next year, regardless of 
conditions on the ground. It's unclear what the military significance of 
this date is. What is clear is that the consequences of imposing such a 
specific and random date for withdrawal would be disastrous.
    If the House bill becomes law, our enemies in Iraq would simply have 
to mark their calendars. They'd spend the months ahead picking how to 
use their new--plotting how to use their new safe havens once we were to 
leave. It makes no sense for politicians in Washington, DC, to be 
dictating arbitrary timelines for our military commanders in a war zone 
6,000 miles away.
    I want to read to you what a major newspaper editorial page said--
and by the way, this editorial page, like, generally is not singing my 
praises--[laughter]--``Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to 
adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings--
or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to 
conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of 
congressional meddling in military strategy.''
    Second, the House bill also undermines the Iraqi Government and 
contradicts the Democrats' claim that they simply want to help the 
Iraqis solve their own problems. For example, the House bill would cut 
funding for the Iraqi security forces if Iraqi leaders did not meet 
arbitrary deadlines.
    The Democrats cannot have it both ways. They can't say that the 
Iraqis must do more, and then take away the funds that will help them do 
so. Iraq is a young democracy. It is fighting for its survival in a 
region that is vital to our security. The lesson of September the 11th 
must not be forgot. To cut off support for the security forces would put 
our own security at risk.
    Third, the House bill would add billions of dollars in domestic 
spending that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the bill 
includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach 
growers. These may be emergencies; they may be problems; but they can be 
addressed in the normal course of business. They don't need to be added 
on to a bill that's supporting our troops. There's $6.4 million for the 
House of Representatives's salaries and expenses account. I don't know 
what that is--[laughter]--but it is not related to the war and 
protecting the United States of America.
    This week, the Senate is considering a version that is no better. 
The Senate bill sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal. It also 
undermines the Iraqi Government's ability to take more responsibility 
for their own country by cutting funds for Iraqi reconstruction and law 
enforcement. And just like their colleagues in the House, Senate 
Democrats have loaded their bill with special interest spending.
    The bill includes $40 million for tree assistance. You know, all 
these matters may be

[[Page 384]]

important matters; they don't need to be loaded on to a bill that is an 
emergency spending bill for our troops. There's $3.5 million for 
visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works. 
[Laughter] I'm not kidding you. [Laughter]
    Here's the bottom line: The House and Senate bills have too much 
pork, too many conditions on our commanders, and an artificial timetable 
for withdrawal. And I have made it clear for weeks, if either version 
comes to my desk, I'm going to veto it. It is also clear from the strong 
opposition in both Houses that my veto would be sustained. Yet Congress 
continues to pursue these bills, and as they do, the clock is ticking 
for our troops in the field. Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin 
to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making 
political statements and start providing vital funds for our troops. 
They need to get that bill to my desk so I can sign it into law.
    Now some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, 
they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I 
believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That's not going 
to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the 
frontlines, the American people will know who to hold responsible. Our 
troops in Iraq deserve the full support of the Congress and the full 
support of this Nation.
    I know when you see somebody in the uniform, you praise them, and I 
thank you for that. And we need to praise those military families too, 
that are strong, standing by their loved one in this mighty struggle to 
defend this country. They risk their lives to fight a brutal and 
determined enemy, an enemy that has no respect for human life.
    We saw that brutality in a recent attack. Just 2 weeks ago, 
terrorists in Baghdad put two children in the back of an explosive-laden 
car, and they used them to get the car past a security checkpoint. And 
once through, the terrorists fled the vehicle and detonated the car with 
the children inside. Some call this civil war; others call it emergency. 
I call it pure evil. And that evil that uses children in a terrorist 
attack in Iraq is the same evil that inspired and rejoiced in the 
attacks of September the 11th, 2001. And that evil must be defeated 
overseas so we don't have to face them here again.
    If we cannot muster the resolve to defeat this evil in Iraq, America 
will have lost its moral purpose in the world and we will endanger our 
citizens, because if we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy 
will follow us here. Prevailing in Iraq is not going to be easy. Four 
years after this war began, the nature of the fight has changed, but 
this is a fight that can be won. We can have confidence in the outcome, 
because this Nation has done this kind of work before.
    You know, following World War II, after we fought bitter enemies, we 
lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany and stood with them 
as they built their representative governments. We committed years and 
resources to this cause, and the effort has been repaid many times over 
in three generations of friendship and peace. After the Korean war, had 
you predicted that Korea would have been a major trading partner in the 
world or Japan would have been a major trading partner and vibrant 
economy or China would be developing an open market and the Far East 
would be relatively peaceful, they'd have called you a hopeless 
idealist. And yet, because of America presence and influence, the Far 
East has emerged as I've described it.
    The stakes are high in the efforts we're undertaking in Iraq. It's a 
part of a long ideological struggle against those who spread hatred and 
lack of hope and lack of opportunity. But I believe, with patience and 
resolve, we will succeed. The efforts we're undertaking today will 
affect a generation of Americans who are coming up in our society.
    You know, it's important for you to understand that the Iraqi people 
want to live in freedom and peace. I believe strongly in the 
universality of liberty. I believe people want to be free, and if given 
a chance, they will take the risks necessary to be free. And that's 
what's happened in Iraq. We see the desire for liberty in Iraqi soldiers 
who risk their lives every day. We see the desire in the shopkeepers and 
civic leaders who are working to reform their neighborhoods. We see it 
in the desire of Iraqi moms and dads who want

[[Page 385]]

the same thing for their children that we want for our children.
    If we stand by the Iraqi people today and help them develop their 
young Iraqi-style democracy, they're going to be able to take 
responsibility for their own security. And when that day comes, our 
forces can come home, and that we will leave behind a stable country 
that can serve as an example for others and be an ally in this global 
struggle against those who would do us harm. It's tough work, but it's 
necessary work--work the United States has done before, and work the 
United States will complete now.
    God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 10:13 a.m. at the Holiday Inn on the Hill. 
In his remarks, he referred to John M. Queen III, president-elect, 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association; President Luiz Inacio Lula da 
Silva of Brazil; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-
National Force--Iraq; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; Lt. Gen. 
Abboud Gambar, Iraqi commander of Baghdad, Iraqi Army; Qais Khazali, 
member, Khazali network, and Shi'a extremist leader; and Haytham Kazim 
Abdallah Al-Shimari, head of the Rusafa Al Qaida-Iraq bomb network.