[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 15 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Pages 435-442]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at American Legion Post 177 in Fairfax, VA

April 10, 2007

    Thank you all. Good morning. Please be seated. Thank you for your 
warm hospitality. It's a pleasure to be here at Legion Post 177, 
Fairfax, Virginia. I appreciate you inviting me. And I've come to share 
some thoughts about service to our country, this war we

[[Page 436]]

face, and the need for the United States Congress to make sure our 
troops have what is necessary to complete their mission.
    Bob Sussan greeted me coming in. I appreciate you, Commander, 
greeting a fellow from Post 77--we dropped the ``1'' in Houston. 
[Laughter] He not only presented me with a cake; he gave me a chance to 
express my gratitude to the Legion, its members, and the service you 
provide for those who wear the uniform today.
    I appreciate the example you have set. You know, there's something 
to be said for a country where people serve something greater than 
themselves, where people in this era volunteer in the face of danger to 
defend the United States of America. And those who have worn the uniform 
in the past have set such a powerful example for our brave men and women 
who wear the uniform today, and I thank you for that a lot. I don't know 
if you know that or not, but the example of our veterans have inspired 
many to wear the uniform today.
    I find the history of this post interesting, Bob. In November of 
1944, a group of World War I veterans gathered here in Fairfax to form 
an organization to help the troops returning from the battlefield in 
Word War II. Veterans said, ``What can I do to help a fellow veteran?'' 
The founders rallied support for the soldiers and the sailor and the 
airmen and the marines. In other words, these veterans understood what 
it meant to be in war, what it meant to be far from home, and they 
provided necessary support for our troops.
    And when they came back from war, they helped make the transition to 
civilian life. In other words, there was somebody there available to 
help them, somebody to say, ``Brother or sister, how can I help you? 
What can I do to help you after you have served our country?'' It's a 
proud American tradition and a tradition being carried on here at Post 
177, and I thank you for that a lot.
    Today, the men and women at this post visit the wounded in our 
military hospitals, and I thank you for going to Walter Reed in 
Bethesda. You know, we're going to make sure that the care is superb 
care. I went over there the other day, and I made it clear to the 
caregivers that there were some bureaucratic snafus that were 
unacceptable. Secretary Gates and our military folks will clean that up. 
But the care that our troops get from the doctors and nurses is superb 
care, and we owe those people in the frontlines of providing care for 
the wounded a real debt of gratitude, just like we owe the families and 
the soldiers the best health care possible.
    I appreciate very much the ROTC scholarships you provide, 
particularly for George Mason University students. I'm a big believer in 
education; I know you are as well. But rather than talking on the 
subject, you're acting, and I appreciate that a lot. But, more 
importantly, the students do too.
    And thanks for sending the care packages to our troops. It matters. 
Iraq and Afghanistan are far away from home--a little different from the 
wars you fought, however; there is e-mail today--[laughter]--and cell 
phones. But, nevertheless, there is a sense of loneliness that can 
sometimes affect our troops, and the fact that you would take time to 
send them care packages to remind those who wear the uniform that you 
support them, a stranger reaches out to them and offers support--I thank 
you a lot for that.
    This is an unusual era in which we live, defined on September the 
11th, 2001. See, that's a date that reminded us the world had changed 
significantly from what we thought the world was. We thought that oceans 
and friendly neighbors could protect us from attack. And yet, on that 
day, less than 20 miles from this post, an airplane crashed into the 
Pentagon and killed 184 men, women, and children. An airplane driven by 
fanatics and extremists and murderers crashed into the Pentagon. And as 
you know, on that day nearly 3,000 people died in New York that day. And 
more would have died had not the people on United Flight 93 showed 
incredible courage and saved no telling how many lives here in 
Washington, DC, by taking that plane to the ground.
    My attitude about the world changed, and I know the attitude about 
the world from a lot of folks here in--America's attitude changed. It 
reminded me that the most solemn duty of your Federal Government is to 
protect the American people from harm. The most solemn duty we have is 
to protect this homeland. I vowed that day that we would go on the 
offense against an enemy, that the

[[Page 437]]

best way to defeat this enemy is to find them overseas and bring them to 
justice so they will not hurt the folks here at home.
    In other words, we don't have the luxury of hoping for the best, of 
sitting back and being passive in the face of this threat. In the past 
we would say, oceans would protect us and, therefore, what happened 
overseas may not matter here at home. That's what changed on September 
the 11th. What happens overseas affects the security of the United 
States. And it's in this Nation's interest that we go on the offense and 
stay on the offense. We want to defeat them there so we don't have to 
face them here.
    On 9/11, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive 
state 7,000 miles away can bring death to our citizens. I vowed that if 
you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. 
That's a doctrine. In order for this country to be credible, when the 
President says something, he must mean it. I meant it, and the Taliban 
found out that we meant what we said. And therefore, we ended Al Qaida's 
safe haven in a failed state.
    The two points I want to make is, doctrine matters, and secondly, a 
failed state can lead to severe consequences for the American people. 
And therefore, it's in our interests not only to pursue the enemy 
overseas so we don't have to face them here; it's in our interest to 
spread an alternative ideology to their hateful ideology.
    These folks do not believe in the freedom to worship. They don't 
believe that women have got an equal place in society. They don't 
believe in human rights and human dignity. We believe that people have 
the right to worship the way they see fit. We believe all humans are 
created equal. We believe in dissent. We believe in public discourse. 
Our ideology is based upon freedom and liberty; theirs is based upon 
oppression.
    And the best way to secure this country in the long run is to offer 
up an alternative that stands in stark contrast to theirs. And that's 
the hard work we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan the 
Taliban that ran that country and provided safe haven to Al Qaida--where 
thousands of people were able to train in order to be able to launch 
attacks on innocent people, innocent Americans, for example--that 
Taliban no longer is in power.
    And, in fact, there is a young, struggling democracy in Afghanistan. 
The people in Afghanistan went to the polls and voted. President Karzai 
is now representing a government of and by and for the people. It's an 
unimaginable sequence of events. Had you asked people in the mid-1990s, 
``Is it possible for there to be a democracy in Afghanistan?''--of 
course not. But there is a democracy in place, and it's in our interest 
to deny Al Qaida and the Taliban and the radicals and the extremists a 
safe haven. And it's in our interest to stand with this young democracy 
as it begins to spread its wings in Afghanistan.
    And then we're doing the hard work in Iraq. I made a decision to 
remove a dictator, a tyrant who was a threat to the United States, a 
threat to the free world, and a threat to the Iraq people. And the world 
is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.
    And now we're undertaking the difficult and dangerous work of 
helping the Iraqi people establish a functioning democracy. I think it's 
necessary work to help them establish a functioning democracy. It's 
necessary because it is important for the moderate people--people who 
want to live in peace and security--to see what is possible in the 
Middle East. It is hard work because we face an enemy that understands 
the consequences of liberty taking root and are willing to kill innocent 
lives in order to achieve their political objectives.
    A minority--and I emphasize ``minority''--of violent extremists have 
declared that they want to turn that country into a terrorist base from 
which to launch an ideological war in the Middle East and attacks on the 
United States of America. That is the stated objective of Al Qaida in 
Iraq. It's important that we listen to the enemy. It's important we take 
their threats seriously.
    In contrast, however, the vast majority of Iraqis have made it clear 
they want to live in peace. After all, about 12 million of them went to 
the polls--a feat that was, again, unimaginable in the mid-1990s. If you 
had said, ``Can you imagine Iraqis being able to vote for a Constitution 
and then a Government under that Constitution,'' in the mid-1990s,

[[Page 438]]

they would have said, ``You're too idealistic; that's impossible.'' And 
yet, that's what happened.
    The terrorists, recognizing that this country was headed toward a 
society based upon liberty, a society based upon an ideology that is the 
opposite of what they believe, struck. And they struck by blowing up the 
Golden Mosque of Samarra, which is a holy shrine, a holy site. It's a 
site that a lot of people hold dear in their heart. And they were 
attempting to provoke retaliation by a segment of that society--the 
Iraqi Shi'a. And they succeeded, and the result was a tragic escalation 
of violence.
    And in the face of the violence--in other words, there was reprisal, 
people said, ``We're going to get even; how dare these people do this.'' 
And in the face of this violence, I had a choice to make. See, we could 
withdraw our troops from the capital of Iraq and hope that violence 
would not spiral out of control, or we could send reinforcements into 
the capital in the hopes of quelling sectarian violence, in order to 
give this young democracy time to reconcile, time to deal with the 
politics necessary for a government that can sustain itself and defend 
itself to emerge.
    I made the decisions after--to reinforce, but I didn't do it in a 
vacuum. I called in our military commanders and experts, and I listened 
to a lot of opinions--and there's a lot of opinions in Washington, DC, 
in case you hadn't noticed. [Laughter] The opinions that matter a lot to 
me are what our military folks think. After all, this is a military 
operation, and as the Commander in Chief, you must listen to your 
military and trust their judgment on military matters. And that's what I 
did.
    They recognized what I recognized, and it's important for the 
American citizen to recognize this, that if we were to have stepped back 
from Baghdad before the Iraqis were capable of securing their capital, 
before they had the troops trained well enough to secure the capital, 
there would have been a vacuum that could have easily been filled by 
Sunni and Shi'a extremists, radicals that would be bolstered by outside 
forces. In other words, the lack of security would have created an 
opportunity for extremists to move in. Most people want to live in peace 
in Iraq. There are extremists who can't stand the thought of a free 
society, that would have taken advantage of the vacuum. A contagion of 
violence could spill out across the country, and in time, the violence 
could affect the entire region.
    What happens in the Middle East matters here in America. The 
terrorists would have emerged under this scenario more emboldened. They 
would have said, our enemy the United States, the enemy that we 
attacked, turns out to be what they thought, weak in the face of 
violence, weak in the face of challenge. They would have been able to 
more likely recruit. They would have had new safe haven from which to 
launch attacks. Imagine a scenario in which the extremists are able to 
control oil revenues to achieve economic blackmail, to achieve their 
objectives. This is all what they have stated. This is their ambition.
    If we retreat--were to retreat from Iraq, what's interesting and 
different about this war is that the enemy would follow us here. And 
that's why it's important we succeed in Iraq. If this scenario were to 
take place, 50 years from now people would look back and say, ``What 
happened to those folks in the year 2007? How come they couldn't see the 
danger of a Middle East spiraling out of control where extremists 
competed for power but they shared an objective which was to harm the 
United States of America? How come they couldn't remember the lesson of 
September the 11th, that we were no longer protected by oceans, and 
chaos and violence and extremism could end up being a serious danger to 
the homeland?''
    That's what went through my mind as I made a difficult decision, but 
a necessary decision. And so rather than retreat, I sent more troops in. 
Rather than pull back, I made the decision to help this young democracy 
bring order to its capital so there can be time for the hard work of 
reconciliation to take place after years of tyrannical rule, brutal 
tyrannical rule.
    And now it's time for these Iraqis, the Iraqi Government to stand up 
and start making some strong political moves. And they're beginning to. 
I speak to the Prime Minister quite often and remind him that here at

[[Page 439]]

home we expect them to do hard work; we want to help, but we expect them 
to do some hard work. And he reminds me, sometimes legislative bodies 
and parliaments don't move as quickly as the executive branch would 
like. [Laughter] But he understands.
    He understands we expect them to spend money on their 
reconstruction, and they've committed $10 billion to do so. They 
understand that when we said, ``We were going to send more troops in; 
you need to send more troops into Baghdad,'' that we expect them to, and 
they have. They understand that when we work together to set up a 
security plan where there is a top military figure in charge of 
Baghdad's security from the Iraq side, that we expect somebody there who 
is going to be nonsectarian and implement security for all the people of 
Baghdad, they responded. See, they understand that.
    And now we expect them to get an oil law that helps unify the 
country, to change the de-Ba'athification law so that, for example, 
Sunni teachers that had been banned from teaching are allowed back in 
the classroom, and that there be provincial elections. And we'll 
continue to remind them of that. In sending more troops--in other words, 
in sending troops in, it is--I recognize that this is more than a 
military mission. It requires a political response from the Iraqis as 
well.
    The Iraqi people, by the way, have already made a political 
response; they voted. [Laughter] I also sent a new commander in, General 
David Petraeus. He is an expert in counterinsurgency warfare. He's been 
in Baghdad 2 months. A little less than half of--only about half of the 
reinforcements that he's asked for have arrived. In other words, this 
operation is just getting started. There's kind of, I guess, a knowledge 
or a thought in Washington that all you got to say is, ``Send 21,000 
in,'' and they show up the next day. That's not the way it works. 
[Laughter] It takes a while for troops to be trained and readied and 
moved into theater, and that's what our military is doing now.
    And there are some encouraging signs. There's no question it's 
violent, no question the extremists are dangerous people. But there are 
encouraging signs. Iraqi and American forces have established joint 
security stations across Baghdad. As you might remember, we had a 
strategy of clear, hold, and build. Well, because we didn't have enough 
troops nor did the Iraqis have enough troops, we would do the clear 
part, but we didn't do the hold part, and so it made it hard to do the 
build part.
    And now because of our presence and more Iraqi troops along with 
coalition troops, they're deployed 24 hours a day in neighborhoods to 
help change the psychology of the capital that, for a while, was 
comfortable in its security, and then violence began to spiral out of 
control. That's the decision point I had to make, do you try to stop it? 
And what I'm telling you is, according to David Petraeus, with whom I 
speak on a weekly basis, we're beginning to see some progress toward the 
mission--toward completing the mission.
    Our troops are also training Iraqis. In other words, part of the 
effort is not only to provide security to neighborhoods, but we're 
constantly training Iraqis so that they can do this job. The leaders 
want to do the job. Prime Minister Maliki makes it clear he understands 
it's his responsibility. We just want to make sure that when they do the 
job, they've got a force structure that's capable of doing the job. So 
that's why I rely upon our commanders like General Petraeus that let me 
know how well the Iraqis are doing. So it's the combination of providing 
security in neighborhoods through these joint security stations and 
training that is the current mission we're going through, with a heavy 
emphasis on security in Baghdad.
    Iraqis see our forces out there, joint forces, both coalition and 
Iraqi forces, and they have confidence. And as a result of the 
confidence, they're now cooperating more against the extremists. Most 
people want to live in peace. Iraqi mothers, regardless of their 
religious affiliation, want their children to grow up in a peaceful 
world. They want there to be opportunities. They don't want their 
children to be subject to random murder. They expect their government to 
provide security, and when the government doesn't provide security, it 
causes a lack of confidence. And they're beginning to see more security, 
and so people are coming into the stations and talking about different--
giving different tips

[[Page 440]]

about where we may be able to find the extremists or radicals who kill 
innocent people to achieve political objectives.
    We're using the information wisely. And I say ``we''--every time I 
say ``we,'' it's just not American troops, there are brave Iraqi troops 
with us. Our forces have launched successful operations against 
extremists, both Shi'a and Sunni. My attitude is, if you're a murderer, 
you're a murderer and you ought to be held to account. Recently, Iraqi 
and American forces captured the head of a Baghdad car bomb network that 
was responsible for the attacks that you see on your TV screens--some of 
the attacks you see on your TV screen.
    Look, these people are smart people, these killers. They know that 
if they can continue the spectacular suicide bombings, they will cause 
the American people to say, ``Is it worth it? Can we win? Is it possible 
to succeed?'' And that really speaks to the heart of the American 
people, I think. I mean, we are a compassionate people. We care about 
human life. And when we see the wanton destruction of innocent life, it 
causes us to wonder whether or not it is possible to succeed. I 
understand that.
    But I also understand the mentality of an enemy that is trying to 
achieve a victory over us by causing us to lose our will. Yet we're 
after these car bombers. In other words, slowly but surely, these 
extremists are being brought to justice by Iraqis, with our help. 
Violence in Baghdad, sectarian violence in Baghdad, that violence that 
was beginning to spiral out of control is beginning to subside. And as 
the violence decreases, people have more confidence, and if people have 
more confidence, they're then willing to make difficult decisions of 
reconciliation necessary for Baghdad to be secure and this country to 
survive and thrive as a democracy.
    The reinforcements are having an impact, and as more reinforcements 
go in, it will have a greater impact. Remember, only about half of the 
folks we've asked to go in are there.
    It's now been 64 days since I have requested that Congress pass 
emergency funding for these troops. We don't have all of them there. 
About half more are going to head in. We're making some progress. And 64 
days ago, I said to the United States Congress, these troops need 
funding. And instead of proving that vital funding, the Democrat 
leadership in Congress has spent the past 64 days pushing legislation 
that would undercut our troops, just as we're beginning to make progress 
in Baghdad. In both the House and the Senate, majorities have passed 
bills that substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the 
judgment of our commanders on the ground. They set arbitrary deadlines 
for withdrawal from Iraq, and they spend billions of dollars on 
porkbarrel projects and spending that are completely unrelated to this 
war.
    Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, 
and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to 
pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our 
troops in the field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying 
this money. In the coming days, our military leaders will notify 
Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other 
military accounts to cover the shortfall caused by Congress's failure to 
fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take 
money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army 
operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
    This $1.6 billion in transfers come on top of another $1.7 billion 
in transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last 
month. In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take 
money from military personnel accounts, weapons and communications 
systems so we can continue to fund programs to protect our soldiers and 
marines from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-
resistant vehicles to our troops on the frontlines. These actions are 
only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact 
on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be.
    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, 
recently testified that if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by 
mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment 
repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. 
The Army will also be forced to consider curtailing some training for 
Guard and Reserve units here at home. This

[[Page 441]]

would reduce their readiness and could delay their availability to 
mobilize for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems 
grow even more acute. The Army will be forced to consider slowing or 
even freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops 
depend on is repaired. They will have to consider delaying or curtailing 
the training of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of 
those forces to deploy overseas. And 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.
    So what does that mean? These things happen: Some of our forces now 
deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended because other 
units are not ready to take their places. In a letter to Congress, the 
Army Chief of Staff, Pete Schoomaker, recently warned, ``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.''
    The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will 
mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their 
loved ones to return from the frontlines. Others could see their loved 
ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. 
It's unacceptable to me. It's unacceptable to our veterans. It's 
unacceptable to our military families. And it's unacceptable to many in 
this country.
    The United States Senate has come back from its spring recess today. 
The House will return next week. When it comes to funding our troops, we 
have no time to waste. It's time for them to get the job done. So I'm 
inviting congressional leaders from both parties--both political 
parties--to meet with me at the White House next week. At this meeting, 
the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency 
spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that 
is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial 
timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the 
ground.
    I'm hopeful we'll see some results soon from the Congress. I know we 
have our differences over the best course in Iraq. These differences 
should not prevent us from getting our troops the funding they need 
without withdrawal and without giving our commanders flexibility.
    The Democrat leaders in--Democratic leaders in Congress are bent on 
using a bill that funds our troops to make a political statement about 
the war. They need to do it quickly and get it to my desk so I can veto 
it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our 
troops, without strings and without further delay.
    We are at war. It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in 
Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are 
waiting for the funds they need to succeed. As the national commander of 
the American Legion, Paul Morin, recently put it, ``The men and women of 
the Armed Forces in the theater of operations are dependent on this 
funding to sustain and achieve their military missions. This funding is 
absolutely critical to their success and individual well being,'' end 
quote. I thank the commander and the American Legion for their strong 
support on this issue. You do not make a political statement; you're 
making a statement about what is necessary for our troops in the field, 
and I am grateful.
    I'm always amazed at the men and women who wear our uniform. Last 
week, before I went down to Crawford--for a snowy Easter, I might add--
[laughter]--I was in California at Fort Irwin. And I had a chance to 
visit with some who had just come back from Iraq and some who were going 
over to Iraq, and it just amazes me that these young men and women know 
the stakes, they understand what we're doing, and they have volunteered 
to serve. We're really a remarkable country and a remarkable military, 
and therefore, we owe it to the families and to those who wear the 
uniform to make sure that this remarkable group of men and women are 
strongly supported--strongly supported, by the way, during their time in 
uniform and then after their time in uniform, through the Veterans 
Administration.
    I tried to put this war into a historical context for them. In other 
words, I told them

[[Page 442]]

that they're laying the foundation of peace. In other words, the work 
we're doing today really will yield peace for a generation to come. And 
part of my discussion with them was I wanted them to think back to the 
work after World War II. After World War II, we defeated--after we 
defeated Germany and Japan, this country went about the business of 
helping these countries develop into democracies. Isn't it interesting a 
country would go to--have a bloody conflict with two nations, and then 
help democracy succeed. Why? Because our predecessors understood that 
forms of government help yield peace. In other words, it matters what 
happens in distant lands.
    And so today, I can report to you that Japan is a strong ally of the 
United States. I've always found that very ironic that my dad, like many 
of your relatives, fought the Japanese as the sworn enemy, and today, 
one of the strongest allies in keeping the peace is the Prime Minister 
of Japan. Something happened between when old George H. W. Bush was a 
Navy fighter pilot and his boy is the President of the United States. 
Well, what happened was the form of government changed. Liberty can 
transform enemies into allies. The hard work done after World War II 
helped lay the foundation of peace.
    How about after the Korean war? Some of you are Korean vets, I know. 
I bet it would have been hard for you to predict, if you can think back 
to the early fifties, to predict that an American President would say 
that we've got great relations with South Korea, great relations with 
Japan, that China is an emerging marketplace economy, and that the 
region is peaceful. This is a part of the world where we lost thousands 
of young American soldiers, and yet there's peace.
    I believe that U.S. presence there has given people the time 
necessary to develop systems of government that make that part of the 
world a peaceful part of the world, to lay the foundation for peace. And 
that's the work our soldiers are doing in the Middle East today, and 
it's necessary work. It is necessary because what happens in the Middle 
East, for example, can affect the security of the United States of 
America. And it's hard work, and we've lost some fantastic young men and 
women, and we pray for their families, and we honor their service and 
their sacrifice by completing the mission, by helping a generation of 
Americans grow up in a peaceful world.
    I cannot tell you how honored I am to meet with the families of the 
fallen. They bear an unbelievable pain in their heart. And it's very 
important for me to make it clear to them that I believe the sacrifice 
is necessary to achieve the peace we all long for.
    I thank you for supporting our troops. I thank you for setting such 
a fantastic example for a great group of men and women who have 
volunteered to serve our country, and thanks for being such fine 
Americans.
    God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 10:23 a.m. In his remarks, he referred to 
Bob Sussan, commander, American Legion Post 177; Secretary of Defense 
Robert M. Gates; President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan; Prime Minister 
Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding 
general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Lt. Gen. Abboud Gambar, Iraqi 
commander of Baghdad, Iraqi Army; Haytham Kazim Abdallah Al-Shimari, 
head of the Rusafa Al Qaida-Iraq bomb network; and Prime Minister Shinzo 
Abe of Japan.