[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 14 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Pages 409-417]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

April 3, 2007

    The President. Good morning. I've just had a good meeting with 
Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and General Pete Pace, the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary Gates and General Pace updated me 
on the deployment of American reinforcements to Iraq.
    At this moment, two of the five additional U.S. Army brigades we are 
sending for this mission are operating in Baghdad. A third brigade is 
now moving from Kuwait and will be fully operational in Baghdad in the 
coming weeks. And the remaining two brigades will deploy in April and 
May. It will be early June before all U.S. forces dedicated to the 
operation are in place, so this operation is still in its beginning 
stages.
    The reinforcements we've sent to Baghdad are having a impact. 
They're making a difference. And as more of those reinforcements arrive 
in the months ahead, their impact will continue to grow. But to succeed 
in their mission, our troops need Congress to provide the resources, 
funds, and equipment they need to fight our enemies.
    It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass 
emergency funds for our troops. Instead of passing clean bills that fund 
our troops on the frontlines, the House and Senate have spent this time 
debating bills that undercut the troops by substituting

[[Page 410]]

the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our 
commanders on the ground, setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal 
from Iraq, and spending billions of dollars on porkbarrel projects 
completely unrelated to the war.
    I made it clear for weeks that if either the House or Senate version 
of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it. And it is also clear from 
the strong support for this position in both Houses that the veto would 
be sustained. The only way the Democrats were able to pass their bill in 
the first place was to load the bill with pork and other spending that 
has nothing to do with the war.
    Here's what one leading Democrat in the House said, quote, ``A lot 
of things had to go into that bill that certainly those of us who 
respect great legislation did not want there.'' That's an honest 
appraisal of the process that we just witnessed. Still, the Democrats in 
Congress continue to pursue their bills, and now they have left 
Washington for spring recess without finishing the work.
    Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting 
political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they 
need to fight the battles in Iraq. If Democrat leaders in Congress are 
bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this 
unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back. I'll veto 
it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops 
without strings and without delay.
    If Congress fails to act in the next few weeks, it will have 
significant consequences for our men and women in the Armed Forces. As 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, recently stated 
during his testimony before a House subcommittee, if Congress fails to 
pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider 
cutting back on equipment, equipment repair, and quality of life 
initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. These cuts would be 
necessary because the money will have to be shifted to support the 
troops on the frontlines.
    The Army also would be forced to consider curtailing some training 
for Guard and Reserve units here at home. This would reduce their 
readiness and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by 
mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army would be forced to 
consider slowing or even freezing funding for its depots, where the 
equipment our troops depend on is repaired. They will also have to 
consider delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces, 
reducing the availability of these forces to deploy overseas. If this 
happens, some of the forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may 
need to be extended because other units are not ready to take their 
places.
    If Congress does not act, the Army may also have to delay the 
formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those 
troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy. If these 
new teams are unavailable, we would have to ask other units to extend in 
the theater.
    In a letter to Congress, Army Chief of Staff General Pete Schoomaker 
put it this way: ``Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, 
we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will 
impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their 
families.''
    In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership 
in--Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while 
our troops in combat are waiting for the funds. The bottom line is this: 
Congress's failure to fund our troops on the frontlines will mean that 
some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to 
return from the frontlines, and others could see their loved ones headed 
back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, 
and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.
    Members of Congress say they support the troops. Now they need to 
show that support in deed as well as in word. Members of Congress are 
entitled to their views and should express them. Yet debating these 
differences should not come at the expense of funding our troops.
    Congress's most basic responsibility is to give our troops the 
equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our 
Nation. They're now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not 
change course

[[Page 411]]

in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our 
troops and their loved ones.
    I'll now answer some questions, starting with Jennifer Loven 
[Associated Press].

Syria

    Q. Thank you, sir. You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of 
these international conferences on Iraq----
    The President. Excuse me?
    Q. You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the 
international conferences on Iraq. What's so different or wrong about 
Speaker Pelosi having her own meetings there? And are you worried that 
she might be preempting your own efforts?
    The President. We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, 
whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends 
mixed signals--signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to 
President Asad. And by that, I mean, photo opportunities and/or meetings 
with President Asad lead the Asad Government to believe they're part of 
the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a 
state sponsor of terror; when, in fact, they're helping expedite--or at 
least not stopping the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into 
Iraq; when, in fact, they have done little to nothing to rein in 
militant Hamas and Hizballah; and when, in fact, they destabilize the 
Lebanese democracy.
    There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President 
Asad--some Americans, but a lot of European leaders, high-ranking 
officials. And yet we haven't seen action. In other words, he hasn't 
responded. It's one thing to send a message; it's another thing to have 
the person receiving the message actually do something. So the position 
of this administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like 
Asad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the 
global community to help change his behavior. But sending delegations 
hasn't worked. It's just simply been counterproductive.
    Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

British Military Personnel Held in Iran

    Q. Thank you, sir. Would the U.S. be willing to give up 5 Iranians 
held in Iraq if it would help persuade Iran to give up the 15 British 
sailors?
    The President. Steven, I said the other day that--first of all, the 
seizure of the sailors is indefensible by the Iranians and that I 
support the Blair Government's attempts to solve this issue peacefully. 
So we're in close consultation with the British Government. I also 
strongly support the Prime Minister's declaration that there should be 
no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.
    Let's see here--Baker, Baker [Peter Baker, Washington Post]. Are you 
here? Yes, there you are.

Department of Justice

    Q. Sir, your administration evaluated all 93 U.S. attorneys, in part 
on the basis of loyalty. That was one of the criteria that was used. 
What role should loyalty to you play in the evaluation of those charged 
with administering justice and enforcing the law?
    The President. Peter, obviously, when you name a U.S. attorney, you 
want somebody who can do the job. That's the most important criterion, 
somebody who is qualified, somebody who can get a job done. The 
President names the U.S. attorneys, and the President has the right to 
remove U.S. attorneys. And on this particular issue, the one you're 
referring to, I believe it's the current issue of the U.S.--eight U.S. 
attorneys. They serve at my pleasure. They have served 4-year terms, and 
we have every right to replace them. And----
    Q. And what----
    The President. Let me finish, please. I am genuinely concerned about 
their reputations, now that this has become a Washington, DC, focus. I'm 
sorry it's come to this. On the other hand, there had been no credible 
evidence of any wrongdoing. And that's what the American people have got 
to understand. We had a right to remove them; we did remove them. And 
there will be more hearings to determine what I've just said, no 
credible evidence of wrongdoing.
    Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].

[[Page 412]]

Iraq/Situation in Baghdad

    Q. Mr. President, a lot of the disagreement over----
    The President. Wrong Bill.
    Q. Which one, him?
    The President. No, you. The cute-looking one. [Laughter]
    Q. Thanks so much. A lot of the disagreement, sir, over the way 
you're handling Iraq, disagreements from the public and Congress, stems 
from the belief that things are not working, despite the surge. The 
Iraqis have met few, if any, of the benchmarks that were laid down for 
them so far. Senator McCain walked in the Baghdad marketplace with air 
cover and a company of troops. But people don't believe that this can 
work, and they question the continued sacrifice of U.S. troops to help 
make it work.
    The President. Yes. Bill, I'm very aware that there are a group of 
people that don't think we should be there in the first place. There are 
some who don't believe that this strategy will work. I've listened 
carefully to their complaints. Obviously, I listened to these concerns 
prior to deciding to reinforce. This is precisely the debate we had 
inside the White House: Can we succeed? I know there are some who have 
basically said, it is impossible to succeed. I strongly disagree with 
those people. I believe not only can we succeed; I know we must succeed.
    And so I decided to, at the recommendation of military commanders, 
decided to send reinforcements. As opposed to leaving Baghdad and 
watching the country go up in flames, I chose a different route, which 
is to send more troops into Baghdad. And General Petraeus, who is a 
reasoned, sober man, says there is some progress being made. And he 
cites murders and--in other words, there's some calm coming to the 
capital. But he also fully recognizes, as do I, it's still dangerous. In 
other words, suiciders are willing to kill innocent life in order to 
send the projection that this is an impossible mission.
    The whole strategy is to give the Iraqi Government time to 
reconcile, time to unify the country, time to respond to the demands of 
the 12 million people that voted.
    You've said the Iraqis haven't met any obligations; I would disagree 
with your characterization. They have said that they will send Iraqi 
forces into Baghdad to take the lead, along with U.S. troops, to bring 
security to Baghdad, and they've done that. They said they'd name a 
commander for Baghdad; they have done that. They said they'd send up--
they'd send troops out into the neighborhoods to clear and hold and then 
build; they're doing that. They said they would send a budget up that 
would spend a considerable amount of their money on reconstruction; they 
have done that. They're working on an oil law that is in progress.
    As a matter of fact, I spoke to the Prime Minister yesterday about 
progress on the oil law. He reminded me that sometimes the legislature 
doesn't do what the executive branch wants them to do. I reminded him, I 
understand what he's talking about. But, nevertheless, I strongly agree 
that we've got to continue to make it clear to the Iraqi Government that 
this is--the solution to Iraq, an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain 
itself, and defend itself, is more than a military mission--precisely 
the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad, to be able to provide 
some breathing space for this democratically elected Government to 
succeed. And it's hard work, and I understand it's hard work.
    Secondly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, Bill, there's only 
40 percent of our troops that are there on the ground. And that's why I 
find it somewhat astounding that people in Congress would start calling 
for withdrawal even before all the troops have made it to Baghdad.
    Let's see here--Rutenberg. Jim Rutenberg [New York Times].

Public Opinion/War in Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Matthew Dowd, your chief campaign 
strategist in 2004, kind of issued a strong critique of you and your 
administration this weekend. I'm wondering if you were personally stung, 
and if you worry about losing support of people--of him and people like 
him?
    The President. First of all, I respect Matthew. I've known him for 
awhile. As you mentioned, he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign. I 
have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless, I 
understand his anguish over war. I understand that this is an emotional 
issue for Matthew, as

[[Page 413]]

it is a lot of other people in our country. Matthew's case, as I 
understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. 
In other words, he's got a son in the U.S. Armed Forces, and, I mean, I 
can understand Matthew's concerns.
    I would hope that people who share Matthew's point of view would 
understand my concern about what failure would mean to the security of 
the United States. What I'm worried about is that we leave before the 
mission is done--and that is a country that is able to govern, sustain, 
and defend itself--and that Iraq becomes a cauldron of chaos, which will 
embolden extremists, whether they be Shi'a or Sunni extremists; which 
would enable extremists to have safe haven from which to plot attacks on 
America; which could provide new resources for an enemy that wants to 
harm us.
    And so, on the one hand, I do fully understand the anguish people go 
through about this war. And it's not just Matthew; there's a lot of our 
citizens who are concerned about this war. But I also hope that people 
will take a sober look at the consequences of failure in Iraq. My main 
job is to protect the people, and I firmly believe that if we were to 
leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here. And what 
makes Iraq different from previous struggles is that September the 11th 
showed that chaos in another part of the world--and/or safe haven for 
killers, for radicals--affects the security of the United States.
    Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News].

Iran

    Q. Back to Iran, sir. ABC has been reporting that Iran will be 
capable of building a nuclear bomb within 2 years. Have you seen 
evidence that Iran is accelerating its nuclear program?
    The President. I haven't seen the report that you just referred to. 
I do share concerns about Iranian intention to have a nuclear weapon. I 
firmly believe that if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, it would be a 
seriously destablizing influence in the Middle East. And therefore, we 
have worked to build a international coalition to try to convince the 
Iranians to give up their weapon, to make it clear that they have 
choices to make--whether the choice be isolation or missed opportunity 
to grow their economies. And so we take your--we take seriously the 
attempts of the Iranians to gain a nuclear weapon.
    Q. Have you seen evidence of an acceleration, though?
    The President. You know, I'm not going to talk about any 
intelligence that I've seen, one way or the other. But I do want you to 
know how seriously we take the Iranian nuclear issue. As a matter of 
fact, it is the cornerstone of our Iranian policy. It is--and that's why 
we spend a lot of time in working with friends, allies, concerned people 
to rally international support, to make it clear to the Iranian people 
that there is a better option for them.
    Now, we have no problem, no beef with the Iranian people. We value 
their history; we value their traditions. But their Government is making 
some choices that will continue to isolate them and deprive them of a 
better economic future. So we take the issue very seriously.
    Ken Herman [Cox News].

Price of Gasoline/Alternative Fuel Sources

    Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, are you aware of the current price 
of a gallon of gas? Can you explain why it's gone up so sharply in 
recent weeks? And is there anything in the near future indicating the 
prices might start coming down again before the heavy summer driving 
season?
    The President. About 2.60 plus. Gas----
    Q. Where are you shopping, sir? [Laughter]
    The President. Nationwide average. The price of gasoline, obviously, 
varies from region to region for a variety of reasons. Some has to do 
with the amount of taxation at the pump; some of it has to do with the 
boutique fuels that have been mandated on a State-by-State basis; but a 
lot of the price of gasoline depends on the price of crude oil.
    And the price of crude oil is on the rise, and the price of crude 
oil is on the rise because people get spooked, for example, when it 
looks like there may be a crisis with a crude oil-producing nation like 
Iran. But the whole point about rising crude oil prices and rising 
gasoline prices is that this country ought to

[[Page 414]]

work hard to get off our addiction to oil--all the more reason why 
Congress ought to pass the mandatory fuel standards that I set forth, 
which will reduce our use of gasoline by 20 percent over the next 10 
years. And there's two reasons why. One is for national security 
concerns, and two is for environmental concerns. And I hope that we can 
get this done with the Congress, get it out of the Congress to my desk 
as quickly as possible.
    Dancer. Dancing man. That would be David Gregory [NBC News]. For 
those of you not aware, Gregory put on a show the other----

Congressional Action on Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

    Q. Everybody's aware, Mr. President, thank you. [Laughter]
    The President. Well, maybe the listeners aren't.
    Q. Yes, that's all right.
    The President. That was a beautiful performance, seriously.
    Q. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. [Laughter] Mr. 
President, you say the Democrats are undercutting troops, the way they 
have voted. They're obviously trying to assert more control over foreign 
policy. Isn't that what the voters elected them to do, in November?
    The President. I think the voters in America want Congress to 
support our troops in--who are in harm's way. They want money to the 
troops. And they don't want politicians in Washington telling our 
generals how to fight a war. It's one thing to object to the policy, but 
it's another thing when you have troops in harm's way not to give them 
the funds they need.
    And no question there's been a political dance going on here in 
Washington. You've followed this closely; you know what I'm talking 
about. Not only was there a political dance going on--in other words, 
people were trying to appeal to one side of their party or another--but 
they then had to bring out new funding streams in order to attract votes 
to a emergency war supplemental.
    And my concern, David, is several. One, Congress shouldn't tell 
generals how to run the war; Congress should not shortchange our 
military; Congress should not use a emergency war spending measure as a 
vehicle to put pet spending projects on that have nothing to do with the 
war.
    Secondly, as I mentioned in these remarks, delays beyond mid-April 
and then into May will affect the readiness of the U.S. military. So my 
attitude is, enough politics. They need to come back, pass a bill. If 
they want to play politics, fine. They continue to do that; I will veto 
it. But they ought to do it quickly. They ought to get the bill to my 
desk as quickly as possible, and I'll veto it. And then we can get down 
to the business of funding our troops without strings and without 
withdrawal dates.
    It is amazing to me that, one, the United States Senate passed a--
confirmed General Petraeus overwhelmingly, after he testified as to what 
he thinks is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and then won't fund him. 
Secondly, we have put 40 percent of the reinforcements in place, and yet 
people already want to start withdrawing before the mission has had a 
chance to succeed.
    They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if 
it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork, I'll veto it. 
And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done, and 
we can do it quickly. It doesn't have to take a lot of time. And we can 
get the bill--get the troops funded, and we go about our business of 
winning this war.
    McKinnon [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. On climate change and the decision that 
was issued yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court, what's your reaction to 
that decision? And don't you think that this makes some kind of broad 
caps on greenhouse gas emissions more or less inevitable?
    The President. First of all, the decision of the Supreme Court is--
we take very seriously. It's the new law of the land. And secondly, 
we're taking some time to fully understand the details of the decision. 
As you know, this decision was focused on emissions that come from 
automobiles. My attitude is,

[[Page 415]]

is that we have laid out a plan that will affect greenhouse gases that 
come from automobiles by having a mandatory fuel standard that insists 
upon 35--using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, which 
will reduce our gasoline usage by 20 percent and halt the growth in 
greenhouse gases that emanate from automobiles. In other words, there is 
a remedy available for Congress, and I strongly hope that they pass this 
remedy quickly.
    In terms of the broader issue, first of all, I've taken this issue 
very seriously. I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize 
that man is contributing greenhouse gases, that--but here are the 
principles by which I think we can get a good deal. One, anything that 
happens cannot hurt economic growth. And I say that because, one, I care 
about the working people of the country, but also because, in order to 
solve the greenhouse gas issue over a longer period of time, it's going 
to require new technologies, which tend to be expensive. And it's easier 
to afford expensive technologies if you're prosperous.
    Secondly, whatever we do must be in concert with what happens 
internationally because we could pass any number of measures that are 
now being discussed in the Congress, but unless there is an accord with 
China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we 
do in a brief period of time.
    And so those are the principles that will guide our decisionmaking. 
How do you encourage new technology? How do you grow the economy? And 
how do you make sure that China is--and India are a part of a rational 
solution?
    Let's see here--how about Bret Baier [FOX News]?

Homosexual Persons in the Military

    Q. Mr. President, thank you. Since General Pace made his comments 
that got a lot of attention about homosexuality, we haven't heard from 
you on that issue. Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?
    The President. I will not be rendering judgment about individual 
orientation. I do believe the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy is good 
policy.
    Sammon [Bill Sammon, Washington Times], yes.

Congressional Action on Emergency Supplemental Appropriations/War on 
Terror

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
    The President. You're standing out there; I can see you.
    Q. When Congress has linked war funding with a timetable, you have 
argued micromanagement. When they've linked it to unrelated spending, 
you've argued porkbarrel. But now there's talk from Harry Reid and 
others that if you veto this bill, they may come back and just simply 
cut off funding. Wouldn't that be a legitimate exercise of a 
congressional authority, which is the power of the purse?
    The President. The Congress is exercising its legitimate authority 
as it sees fit right now. I just disagree with their decisions. I think 
setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. 
It is a--it sends mixed signals, bad signals to the region and to the 
Iraqi citizens.
    Listen, the Iraqis are wondering whether or not we're going to stay 
to help. People in America wonder whether or not they've got the 
political will to do the hard work--that's what Plante was asking about. 
My conversations with President [Prime Minister] * Maliki, he seems 
dedicated to doing that, and we will continue to work with him to 
achieve those objectives. But they're wondering whether or not America 
is going to keep commitments. And so when they hear withdrawal and 
timetables, it, rightly so, sends different kinds of signals.
    * White House correction.
    It's interesting that Harry Reid, Leader Reid spoke out with a 
different option. Whatever option they choose, I would hope they get 
home, get a bill, and get it to my desk. And if it has artificial 
timetables of withdrawal or if it cuts off funding for troops or if it 
tells our generals how to run a war, I'll veto it. And then we can get 
about the business of giving our troops what they need--what our 
generals want them to have, and give our generals the flexibility 
necessary to

[[Page 416]]

achieve the objectives that we set out by reinforcing troops in Iraq.
    You know, what's interesting is, you don't hear a lot of debate 
about Washington as to what will happen if there is failure. Again, 
Plante mentioned that people don't think we can succeed--in other words, 
there's no chance of succeeding. That's a part of the debate. But what 
people also have got to understand is what will happen if we fail. And 
the way you fail is to leave before the job is done; in other words, 
just abandon this young democracy--say, ``We're tired; we'll withdraw 
from Baghdad,'' and hope there's not chaos.
    I believe that if this capital city were to fall into chaos, which 
is where it was headed prior to reinforcing, that there would be no 
chance for this young democracy to survive. That's why I made the 
decision I made. And the reason why I believe it's important to help 
this young democracy survive is so that the country has a chance to 
become a stabilizing influence in a dangerous part of the world.
    I also understand that if the country--if the experience were to 
fail, radicals would be emboldened. People that had been--that can't 
stand America would find new ways to recruit. There would be potentially 
additional resources for them to use at their disposal.
    The failure in Iraq would endanger American security. I have told 
the American people often, it is best to defeat them there so we don't 
have to face them here, fully recognizing that what happens over there 
can affect the security here. That's one of the major lessons of 
September the 11th. In that case, there was safe haven found in a failed 
state, where killers plotted and planned and trained and came and killed 
3,000 of our citizens. And I vowed we weren't going to let that happen 
again.
    Secondly, the way to defeat the ideology that these people believe 
is through a competing ideology, one based upon liberty and human rights 
and human dignity. And there are some who, I guess, say that's 
impossible to happen in the Middle East. I strongly disagree. I know it 
is hard work. I believe it is necessary work to secure this country in 
the long run.
    Ed [Ed Henry, Cable News Network].

Cooperation With Congress/Legislative Agenda

    Q. Mr. President, the conservative newspaper columnist, Robert 
Novak, recently wrote that in 50 years of covering Washington, he's 
never seen a President more isolated than you are right now. What do you 
say to critics like Novak who say that you are more isolated now than 
Richard Nixon was during Watergate?
    The President. How did he define isolated?
    Q. He said you're isolated primarily from your own party, that 
Republican leaders on the Hill were privately telling him that, on the 
Gonzales matter in particular, you're very isolated.
    The President. I think you're going to find that the White House and 
the Hill are going to work in close collaboration, starting with this 
supplemental. When I announced that I will veto a bill with--that 
withdrew our troops, that set artificial timetables for withdrawal or 
micromanaged the war, the Republicans strongly supported that message. I 
think you'll find us working together on energy. They know what I know, 
that dependence on oil will affect the long-term national security of 
the country. We'll work together on No Child Left Behind. We'll work 
together on immigration reform. We'll work together, most importantly, 
on budget, to make sure this budget gets balanced without raising taxes.
    The other day, the Democrats submitted budgets that raised taxes on 
the working people, in order to increase the amount of money they have 
available for spending. That is a place where the Republicans and this 
President are going to work very closely together. I adamantly oppose 
tax increases, and so do the majority of Members in the United States 
Congress.
    Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angeles Times].

Homeland Security

    Q. Mr. President, good morning. You've talked----
    The President. Good morning. ``Good morning,'' that's a good way to 
start.
    Q. You've talked about the consequences of failure in Iraq, and 
you've said that enemies would follow us home. I wonder, given

[[Page 417]]

that, it seems like that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of people 
who are charged with the responsibility of keeping America safe. So 
what----
    The President. What was that again, Ed?
    Q. Well, you say that the enemies would follow us home if----
    The President. I will--that's what they'll do, just like September 
the 11th. They plotted, planned, and attacked.
    Q. So I wonder, in your own mind, how does that vision play out? How 
do they follow us home? Because we've spent so much money and put so 
much resources into making this country safer.
    The President. Ed, I'm not going to predict to you the methodology 
they'll use. Just you need to know they want to hit us again. We do 
everything we can here at the homeland to protect us. That's why I've 
got a Homeland Security Department. That's why we are inconveniencing 
air traffickers, to make sure nobody is carrying weapons on airplanes. 
That's why we need border enforcement, with a comprehensive immigration 
bill, by the way, to make sure it's easier to enforce the border. I 
mean, we're doing a lot. That's why we need to make sure our 
intelligence services coordinate information better.
    So we spend a lot of time trying to protect this country. But if 
they were ever to have safe haven, it would make the efforts much 
harder. That's my point. We cannot let them have safe haven again. The 
lesson of September the 11th is, if these killers are able to find safe 
haven from which to plot, plan, and attack, they would do so.
    So, Ed, I don't know what methodology they'll use. We're planning 
for the worst. We cover all fronts. And it's hard to protect a big 
country like this, and I applaud those who have done a fantastic job of 
protecting us since September the 11th. But make no mistake about it, 
there's still an enemy that would like to do us harm. And I believe, 
whether it be in Afghanistan or in Iraq or anywhere else, if these enemy 
is able to find safe haven, it will endanger the lives of our fellow 
citizens.
    I also understand that the best way to defeat them in the long run 
is to show people in the Middle East, for example, that there is a 
better alternative to tyrannical societies, to societies that don't meet 
the hopes and aspirations of the average people. And that is through a 
society that is based upon the universal concept of liberty.
    Iraq is a very important part of securing the homeland, and it's a 
very important part of helping change the Middle East into a part of the 
world that will not serve as a threat to the civilized world, to people 
like--or to the developed world, to people like--in the United States.
    So thank you all very much for your interest. I hope you have a nice 
holiday. Appreciate it.

Note: The President's news conference began at 10:09 a.m. in the Rose 
Garden at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to President 
Bashar al-Asad of Syria; Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United 
Kingdom; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National 
Force--Iraq; Lt. Gen. Abboud Gambar, Iraqi commander of Baghdad, Iraqi 
Army; and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq. The Office of the Press 
Secretary also released a Spanish language transcript of these remarks.