[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 16 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Pages 469-485]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at Tippecanoe High School and a Question-and-Answer Session in 
Tipp City, Ohio

April 19, 2007

    The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you. Sit down. 
Thanks for coming. I'm honored you're here. Steve, thank you for the 
invitation. It's a real pleasure to be with you. What I thought I would 
do is share some thoughts with you about a couple of subjects, primarily 
Iraq, and then I'd like to answer some of your questions, on any topic 
that you'd like to ask me about.
    Before I do, I do want to thank Steve and the chamber of commerce 
for giving me a chance to dialog with you and, hopefully, giving the 
students here at this high school a chance to hear from the President 
firsthand. I know there are students who will be listening. My mission 
is to not only share with you what's on my mind and why I have made some 
of the decisions I have made, but another mission is to convince you 
that serving the public--that public service is worthwhile; that you can 
go into politics or you can feed the hungry or you can serve in the 
military, and it's a fulfilling part of a person's life and a necessary 
part, in my judgment, of a country that is a complete country.
    So I want to thank the high school folks. I want to thank Chuck 
Wray, the principal, for greeting me. I appreciated you letting me come 
to this center of learning. I particularly want to thank the teachers 
for teaching. There is no more noble profession than to be a teacher, 
and I'm honored to be in your midst.
    I want to thank the mayor, George Lovett--George L. [Laughter] Thank 
you, George--George W. [Laughter]
    I'm traveling today with the leader in the House for the Republican 
Party, John Boehner. John is a--[applause]--I've found him to be a good, 
solid, honest person. I know he is providing strong leadership in the 
House of Representatives. And I know he cares a lot about this district. 
I've seen John work issues. I've heard him speak in depth about what he 
believes. And I appreciate his leadership, and I appreciate him joining 
me today.
    I wish I was traveling here with Laura. The best thing about my 
family is my wife. She is a great First Lady. I know that sounds not 
very objective, but that's how I feel. And she's also patient. Putting 
up with me requires a lot of patience. But she sends her best; she's in 
New Orleans today.
    And I will tell you, one reason--this may sound counterintuitive, 
but a good marriage is really good after serving together in Washington, 
DC. It's been an amazing experience to be a husband and then a dad as 
President of the United States. And I emphasize, that is the priority 
for me as the President. It's my faith, my family, and my country. And I 
am pleased to report that our family is doing great, particularly since 
my wife is such a fantastic person. And she sends her very best.
    Let me say something about Virginia Tech, and I want to first thank 
Steve for the moment of silence. You know, it's a--there is--the 
President spends time at disasters. It's--part of the job of the 
Presidency is to help people heal from hurt. And the amazing thing is, 
though, when you go down to a scene like Virginia Tech, you can't help 
but be buoyed by the spirit, that out of the tragedy comes a certain 
sense of resolve.
    One of the things I try to assure the families and the students and 
the faculty of that fine university was that there are a lot of people 
around our country who are praying for them. It's interesting, here in 
Tipp City, the first thing that happened was a moment of silence, a 
moment of prayer, to provide--at least my prayer was, please comfort and 
strengthen those whose lives were affected by this horrible incident. It 
really speaks to

[[Page 470]]

the strength of this country, doesn't it, that total strangers here in 
Ohio are willing to hold up people in Virginia in prayer, and I thank 
you for that. And my message to the folks who still hurt in--at Virginia 
Tech is that a lot of people care about you, and a lot of people think 
about you, a lot of people grieve with you, and a lot of people hope you 
find sustenance in a power higher than yourself, and a lot of us believe 
you will.
    My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision--if the job 
description were, what do you do, it's decisionmaker. And I make a lot 
of big ones, and I make a lot of little ones. Interestingly enough, the 
first decision I made happened right before I got sworn in as President. 
I was at the Blair House, which is across the street from the White 
House, getting ready to give my Inaugural Address. And the phone rang, 
and the head usher at the White House said, ``President-elect Bush.'' I 
said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``What color rug do you want in the Oval 
Office?'' [Laughter] I said, this is going to be a decisionmaking 
experience. [Laughter]
    The first lesson about decisionmaking is, if you're short on a 
subject, ask for help. So if you're a student listening and you're not 
very good at math, ask for help. Don't be afraid to admit that you need 
help when it comes to life. I wasn't afraid to admit I wasn't sure how 
to design a rug, so I called Laura. [Laughter] I said, ``They've asked 
me to design a rug in the Oval Office. I don't know anything about rug 
designing; will you help me?'' She said, ``Of course.'' But I said, ``I 
want it to say something''--the President has got to be a strategic 
thinker--and I said to her, ``Make sure the rug says, optimistic person 
comes to work.'' [Laughter] Because you can't make decisions unless 
you're optimistic that the decisions you make will lead to a better 
tomorrow. And so if you were to come in the Oval Office, what you would 
see is this fantastic rug that looks like the sun. And it just sets the 
tone for the Oval Office.
    I share that with you because I make a lot of decisions, and I'm 
optimistic that the decisions I have made will yield a better tomorrow. 
The hardest decision you make is whether or not to commit troops into 
combat--people like this young man, people who've served our country 
with great distinction, people who volunteered to say, ``I want to serve 
the United States.'' The hardest decision a President makes is to ask 
those men and women to go into harm's way.
    My decisionmaking was deeply affected by the attack of September the 
11th, 2001. It was a moment that defined a dangerous world to me with 
absolute clarity. I realized then that this country was no longer 
invulnerable to attack from what may be happening overseas.
    I realized that there is an enemy of the United States that is 
active and is lethal. At further study of that enemy, I realized that 
they share an ideology, that these weren't--that the--and when you 
really think about it, the September the 11th attack was not the first 
attack. There was a 1993 World Trade Center attack; there was attacks on 
our Embassies in East Africa; there was an attack on the USS Cole; there 
have been other attacks on U.S. citizens. And that these attacks were 
instigated and carried out by coldblooded killers who have a belief 
system. They are threatened by free societies. They can't stand the 
thought of freedom being the prevailing attitude in the world because 
their view is, if you don't believe in what I believe in, you probably 
shouldn't be around.
    This enemy is smart, capable, and unpredictable. They have defined a 
war on the United States, and I believe we're at war. I believe the 
attack on America made it clear that we're at war. I wish that wasn't 
the case. Nobody ought to ever hope to be a war President or a 
Presidency--a President during war. But that's how I see the world. And 
I made a vow that I would do everything I could, and work with Members 
of Congress to do everything they could, to protect the United States. 
It is the most solemn duty of our country, is to protect our country 
from harm.
    A lesson learned was that--at least in my opinion--that in order to 
protect us, we must aggressively pursue the enemy and defeat them 
elsewhere so we don't have to face them here. In other words, if what 
happens overseas matters to the United States, therefore, the best way 
to protect us is to deal with threats overseas. In other words, we just 
can't let a threat idle; we can't hope that a

[[Page 471]]

threat doesn't come home to hurt us. A lesson of that terrible day was, 
threats overseas can come home to hurt us. And so the fundamental 
question--and this has led to constructive debate--it's, what do you do 
about it?
    I've chosen a path that says, we will go overseas and defeat them 
there. I also know full well that it's important for us if we're facing 
an ideology, if we're facing ideologues, if we're confronting people who 
believe something, that we have got to defeat their belief system with a 
better belief system. Forms of government matter, in my opinion. It 
matters how--the nature of the government in which people live. And 
therefore, I have put as part of our foreign policy not only an 
aggressive plan to find extremists and radicals and bring them to 
justice before they hurt us but also to help people live in liberty--
free societies as the great alternative to people living under a tyrant, 
for example.
    And so my decisionmaking was based upon those principles. And now 
we're involved in a--I call it a global war against terror. You can call 
it a global war against extremists, a global war against radicals, a 
global war against people who want to hurt America; you can call it 
whatever you want, but it is a global effort. And by the way, the United 
States is not alone in this effort. We're helping lead an effort. And 
the major battlefield in this global war is Iraq, and I want to spend 
some time talking about Iraq.
    Living under a tyrant must be just brutal, and living under the 
reign of Saddam Hussein was incredibly brutal. A lot of innocent people 
were killed; a lot of people were cowed by the state. There really 
wasn't much in terms of a civil structure that would enable people to 
have a kind of a form of a representative government. People were kept 
apart through violence, in many ways. People were pitted against each 
other. A lot of people were given favored treatment.
    The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a difficult decision, I 
think a necessary decision. If you want to talk about that later on, we 
can. And what has happened since then is that we are trying to help a 
young democracy survive in the heart of the Middle East and, at the same 
time, prevent our stated enemies from establishing safe haven from which 
to attack us again.
    Now I say that--preventing our enemies from establishing a safe 
haven from which to attack us again--because that is their stated 
objective in Iraq. That's what Al Qaida says. Al Qaida is the same group 
of folks that attacked us on September the 11th. They have said their 
objective is to drive the United States out of Iraq in order to 
establish safe haven. And why would they need safe haven? They would 
need safe haven from which to plot and plan and train to attack again. 
They have an objective, and that is to spread their ideology throughout 
the Middle East. That is what they have stated. That's their objectives.
    Our objective is to deny them safe haven, is to prevent Al Qaida 
from being able to do in Iraq that which they did in Afghanistan, which 
is where they trained thousands of young men to come and kill--to 
eventually kill innocent people.
    Our objective also is to help a young democracy flourish in a part 
of the world that desperately needs liberty, in a part of the world 
where government--forms of government will provide hope so as eventually 
to discourage the type of mentality that says 19 kids should get on 
airplanes and kill 3,000 people.
    And it's incredibly hard work, but I have come to the conclusion, 
obviously, that it's necessary work. It's necessary work for peace.
    In 2005, the Iraqi people went to the polls; 12 million voted. I 
view that as a statement that says--by the way, I wasn't surprised that 
12 million people, if given a chance to vote, voted. I was pleased, but 
I wasn't surprised. And the reason I wasn't surprised is because I 
believe in this principle: I believe liberty is universal. I don't 
believe freedom is just confined to America. I think there is a 
universal principle that all people desire and want and should be free, 
that it's not just an American ideal; it is universal.
    I think back, for example, right after World War II--people might 
have argued after fighting the Japanese that they don't want to be free. 
They're the enemy; they killed a lot of people; they attacked the United 
States; why should we work to help them be

[[Page 472]]

free? Except those people were--didn't quite understand, not only do 
people want to be free, that when free societies emerge, they're more 
likely to yield the peace.
    And so it's a--this country began to evolve, and it started with 
elections. And it's easy to forget the elections because of all the 
violence. In 2006, I was convinced that we would be able to reposition 
our troops and have fewer troops in Iraq because the Iraqis want to take 
on the security themselves. This is a sovereign government. People got 
elected. They want to be--showing the people of Iraq that they can run 
their own Government. I don't know if you get that sense on your TV 
screens or not, but I certainly get that sense when I talk to the Prime 
Minister, with whom I speak quite frequently.
    And yet they--and yet the enemy--and the enemy--when I say 
``enemy,'' these are enemies of free societies, primarily Al Qaida 
inspired--blew up the great religious shrine in '06, a year ago--all 
aiming to create a sense of sectarian violence, all aiming to exacerbate 
the religious tensions that sometimes were exacerbated under Saddam 
Hussein, all aiming at preventing this young democracy from succeeding. 
And they succeeded. The enemy succeeded in causing there to be sectarian 
strife. In other words, the Government wasn't ready to provide the 
security. People started taking matters into their own hands. ``I'm 
going to protect myself, or I'm going to rely upon somebody else to 
protect me,'' they would say.
    So I have a decision point to make, last fall. And the decision 
point was whether or not to either scale back or increase our presence 
in Iraq. And that was a difficult decision. It's difficult any time, as 
I told you, you put a soldier in harm's way. I understand the 
consequence of committing people into war. The interesting thing is, I'm 
the Commander in Chief of an incredibly amazing group of men and women 
who also understand that consequence and yet are willing to volunteer.
    The question was, do we increase our--I call it reinforce; you can 
call it surge; there's all kind of words for it--or do we pull back? As 
you know, I made a decision to reinforce. And I did because I believe 
the Iraqis want to have a peaceful society. I believe Iraqi mothers want 
their children to grow up in peace, just like American mothers do. I 
think, if given a chance, that society can emerge into a free society. I 
felt strongly that if violence erupted, sectarian violence erupted in 
the capital, it would make it impossible to achieve the objective, and 
that is to help this free society. Listen, there are people--or let it 
emerge into a free society.
    And the goal is a country that is stable enough for the Government 
to work, that can defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on 
terror, that won't be a safe haven, that will deny the extremists and 
the radicals. I happen to think there will be an additional dividend 
when we succeed. Remember the rug? I'm optimistic we can succeed. I 
wouldn't ask families to have their troops there if I didn't think, one, 
it was necessary, and two, we could succeed. I believe we're going to 
succeed, and I believe success will embolden other moderate people that 
said, they're going to reject extremists and radicals in their midst.
    There's a good group of people in Washington, fair, decent, 
honorable people--and by the way, in this political discourse, we should 
never question anybody's patriotism if they don't happen to agree with 
the President. That's not the American way. The American way is, we 
ought to have a honest and open dialog. There are good people, patriotic 
people who didn't believe that additional troops would make that big a 
difference, and therefore, we should not increase but, in some cases, 
pull out, in some cases, pull back. Either case, having weighed the 
options, I didn't think it was viable, and I didn't think it would work.
    A couple of points I want to make, and then I promise to stop 
talking and answer your questions. [Laughter] People often ask me, what 
are we seeing on TV? What's happening with the violence? Here's my best 
analysis: One, the spectaculars you see are Al Qaida inspired. They 
claim credit for a lot of the big bombings. The bombing of the 
Parliament was Al Qaida; the bombing of the Golden Samarra was Al Qaida. 
These are the Sunni extremists inspired by Usama bin Laden, who attacked 
the United States. I keep repeating that because I want you to 
understand, what matters overseas, in my

[[Page 473]]

judgment, affects the security of the United States of America in this 
new era.
    Their objective is twofold: One, shake the confidence of the average 
Iraqi that their Government is incapable of providing security, and 
therefore, people will turn to militias in order to protect themselves; 
their second objective is to shake our confidence. It's an interesting 
war, isn't it, where asymmetrical warfare is--and that means people 
being able to use suicide bombers--not only, obviously, kills a lot of 
innocent people, like which happened yesterday in Iraq, but also helps 
define whether or not we're successful.
    If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide 
bombers, we'll never be successful. We will have handed Al Qaida 
``that's what it takes'' in order to determine whether or not these 
young democracies, for example, can survive. Think about that. If our 
definition is no more suiciders, you've just basically said to the 
suiciders, go ahead.
    Iran is influential inside of Iraq. They are influential by 
providing advanced weaponry. They are influential by dealing with some 
militias, tend to be Shi'a militias, all aiming to create discomfort, 
all aiming to kind of--according to some--to create enough discomfort 
for the United States, but in doing so, they're making it harder for 
this young democracy to emerge. Isn't it interesting, when you really 
take a step back and think about what I just said, that Al Qaida is 
making serious moves in Iraq, as is surrogates for Iran.
    Two of the biggest issues we face for the security of this country 
today and tomorrow is Al Qaida and Iran. And yet their influence is 
being played out in Iraq. I believe that if we were to leave before this 
country had an opportunity to stabilize, to grow--and by the way, I 
fully understand and completely agree with those who say, this is not 
just a military mission alone. That is too much, to ask our military to 
be able to achieve objectives without there being a corresponding 
political avenue, political strategy being fulfilled by the Iraqis. I 
fully expect them to reconcile. I fully expect them--and I made it clear 
to the Prime Minister that they should pass different de-Ba'athification 
law, that they ought to have local elections, that they ought to share 
their oil wells so people feel a common--you know, a common bond to 
something bigger than provincialism.
    They have to do work. They know they have to do work. I told that to 
Prime Minister Maliki this week on a secure video: You have an 
obligation to your people, and to our people, for that matter, to do the 
hard work necessary, to show people that you're capable of getting your 
Government to move forward with political reconciliation. There has to 
be reconstruction money spent, their reconstruction money. They've 
dedicated $10 billion out of their budget, and now they've got to spend 
that money wisely to show people that the Government can be for all the 
people.
    But if we were to leave before that were to happen, I will share a 
scenario that I'm fearful of. One, that the very radicals and extremists 
who attack us would be emboldened. It would confirm their sense that the 
United States is incapable of long-term commitments, incapable of--it 
would confirm their commitment that they think we're soft, let me put it 
to you that way. That's what they think.
    That doesn't necessarily mean that the United States has to kind of 
muscle up for the sake of muscling up. That's not what I'm trying to 
say. But I do believe it is risky to have an enemy that has attacked us 
before to not take the United States seriously for the long run.
    Secondly, there would be a violence--level of violence that would 
spill out beyond just the capital, could spill out beyond Iraq. And then 
you would have ancient feuds fueled by extremists and radicals competing 
for power--radical Shi'a, radical, extreme Sunnis, all competing for 
power. They would happen to share two enemies: one, the United States 
and Israel, for starters, and every other moderate person in the Middle 
East.
    Imagine a scenario where the oil wealth of certain countries became 
controlled--came under the control of a radical, extremist group. And 
then all of a sudden, you'd be dealing not only with safe haven for 
potential violent attack; you'd be dealing with the economic 
consequences of people who didn't share the values of the West, for 
example.

[[Page 474]]

    Iran wants to--they've stated they'd like to have--let me just say, 
we believe they would like to have a nuclear weapon. Part of our 
diplomacy is to prevent them from doing so. If the United States were to 
leave a chaotic Iraq, not only would the vacuum of our failure there to 
help this young Government enable extremists to move more freely and 
embolden them, but I also believe it would--it could cause the Middle 
East to enter into a nuclear arms race.
    The scenario I'm beginning to describe to you, I believe, is a real 
scenario, a real possibility for a scenario. And I believe if this were 
to happen, people would look back 30 years from now or 20 years from 
now, and say, what happened to them in 2007; how come they couldn't see 
the threat?
    And so I want to share that with you because--these thoughts with 
you, because as a person whose job it is to make decisions, you've got 
to understand that I'm making them on what I believe is solid ground. 
These are necessary decisions for the country.
    We're having an interesting debate in Washington. John and I spent 
some time talking about it, and that is this supplemental funding. In 
other words, I sent up a request to make sure our troops had the money 
necessary to do the missions that they have been asked to do. I want to 
share a couple thoughts with you on that, and then I'll answer some 
questions.
    First, I think it's a mistake--and I've made it clear that the 
Congress should not have artificial timetables for withdrawal in a 
funding mission--funding statement. I'll tell you why. [Applause] Thank 
you. Thank you. The reason why is, if you're a young commander on the 
ground or an Iraqi soldier and you've been tasked with a mission to help 
provide security for a city and an enemy hears that you're leaving soon, 
it affects your capacity to do your job. It sends a signal to a 
dangerous part of the world that it's just a matter of time, things will 
happen.
    I think it's a mistake for Congress to tell the military how to do 
its job. We've got fantastic generals and colonels and captains who are 
trained to carry on military missions; that's their responsibility. And 
it's very important that they be given the resources and the flexibility 
necessary to carry out that which the Commander in Chief has asked them 
to do.
    I fully understand the debate, and again, I repeat to you. It's an 
important debate. I would hope it would be conducted with civil tone to 
bring honor to the process. Sometimes it gets a little out of hand there 
in Washington, I admit. But my message to the Congress has been, don't 
put our troops in between the debate; let's get them the money, let's 
get the commanders the flexibility, and we can debate Iraq policy 
without shorting the capacity for these troops to do their jobs.
    These are--I would call these times consequential times. I believe 
we're in a long, ideological struggle. And I believe the struggle will 
determine whether or not this country is secure. People ask me--you 
know, I've been reading a lot of history. People ask me, ``Can you think 
of any historical parallels?'' Well, clearly the cold war is an 
interesting parallel. There's a--by the way, every new phase of history 
has its own unique features to it. For example, you've got a kid in the 
battlefield, and he's e-mailing home every day, or 24-hour news cycles. 
I mean, there's a lot of war--asymmetrical warfare, or $50 weapons are 
sometimes used to defeat expensive vehicles. In other words, these are 
different times.
    But there are some parallels. One is, of course, the ideological 
standoff during the cold war, eventually won by freedom, the forces of 
freedom. For some, that sounds, maybe, corny. But it's true. It's an 
historical truth. And in my judgment, it requires people to have faith 
in that universal principle of liberty.
    I like to remind people that my dad was a 18-year-old kid when he 
signed up to--for the United States Navy in World War II and went off to 
combat in a really bloody war. And yet his son becomes the President, 
and one of his best friends in the international scene was the Prime 
Minister of Japan. Prime Minister Koizumi was a partner in peace. Isn't 
it interesting? I think there's a historical lesson there, that liberty 
has got the capacity to transform enemies to allies.
    I think there's a lesson in Korea. I think if you were to ask 
somebody to predict in 1953 what the world would look like in the

[[Page 475]]

Far East, I don't think they would have said, China would have a 
marketplace that was growing; Korea would be our sixth largest trading 
partner--I think it's the sixth largest trading partner, but certainly a 
partner in peace; and Japan would have been an ally, a strong ally that 
would have committed troops to the young democracy of Iraq to help this 
democracy. I don't think people would have predicted that, but, in fact, 
it happened. It happened because the United States provided enough 
stability so that societies were able to evolve toward free societies, 
or freer societies.
    We've got--we face this--we face a unique set of challenges, but I 
think we can learn something from history when we think about those 
challenges. And I guess my conclusion is, I believe the decisions I have 
made were not only necessary to protect the country but are laying a 
foundation of peace, the beginnings of laying that foundation of peace, 
so that generations will look back and say, ``Thank goodness--thank 
goodness America didn't lose sight of basic principles, and thank 
goodness America stayed true to her beliefs, and thank goodness America 
led.''
    So thanks for letting me share some thoughts with you. And now I'll 
be glad to answer some questions. [Applause] Okay, thank you. Probably a 
nerve-wracking experience to think about asking--it's not a nerve-
wracking experience. Go ahead.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

    Q. Mr. President, what is your view of those who--in the opposing 
party who've you've advised to come to the White House to discuss 
solutions to the Iraq war and its funding who have expressed a 
reluctance to come and talk because of the perception that you would 
have a precondition or a no-negotiation on any points regarding the war?
    The President. No, thanks. He asked the question about--prior to the 
meeting yesterday, there was some concern that I wouldn't listen, that 
I'd made up my mind, and therefore, discussions weren't necessary. And I 
will tell you, we had a very cordial meeting. The Speaker and the leader 
and minority leader and Senator McConnell all came down, along with 
others.
    Clearly, there's different points of view, and that's fine. That's 
the greatness about our society. In my discussions with the leaders, I 
said, ``You have the authority to pass the funding legislation. That's 
your authority, not mine.'' I submitted what the Pentagon thinks it 
needs. In other words, the process works where I ask the Pentagon, how 
much do you need? What do you need to do the job? And they submitted 
their request, and then we, on behalf of the Pentagon, sent it up to 
Congress. And they had the authority to pass that--pass the bill any way 
they see fit.
    I have the authority, in our Constitution, to veto the bill if I 
don't think it meets certain criteria. They, then, have the authority to 
say, ``Well, we don't agree with the President's veto, and now we're 
going to override the veto,'' so that that which they passed becomes 
law. And here's where we are. I said, ``Get a bill to me as quickly as 
you can.'' And I believe they committed to a bill late next week, or a 
week from next Monday, I think is what they're aiming for. And 
therefore, we will sit back and hope they get it done quickly. Time is 
of the essence. We need to get money to the troops. It's important for 
them to get the money.
    However, I did make it clear that in exercising your authority, if 
you put timetables, or if you micromanage--or artificial deadlines or 
micromanage the war or insist upon using a war supplemental to load up 
with items that are not related to the global war on terror, I will 
exercise my constitutional authority, and then you will have the 
opportunity to override my veto if you so choose.
    My point to the leaders--and it was a very cordial meeting 
yesterday, by the way, and people--the positive news is that we don't--
the negative thing is we don't agree 100 percent. That's not--you 
shouldn't be surprised. The positive news is that there was a cordial 
discussion. The discussion was dignified, like you would hope it would 
be, and people were free to express their minds.
    And so my attitude is, if they feel like they've got to send this up 
there with their strings, like they said, please do it in a hurry so I 
can veto it, and then we can get down to the business of getting the 
troops funded. [Laughter]
    Sir.

[[Page 476]]

Public Opinion on Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, how would you respond to the rather mistaken idea 
that the war in Iraq is becoming a war--in Vietnam?
    The President. Yes, thank you. There's a lot of differences. First, 
the Iraqi people voted for a modern constitution, and then set up a 
Government under that Constitution. Secondly, the--that's as opposed to 
two divided countries, north and south. In my judgment, the vast 
majority of people want to live underneath that Constitution they 
passed. They want to live in peace. And what you're seeing is radical on 
the fringe creating chaos in order to either get the people to lose 
confidence in their Government or for us to leave.
    A major difference as far as here at home is concerned is that our 
military is an all-volunteer army, and we need to keep it that way. By 
the way, the way you keep it that way is to make sure our troops have 
all they need to do their job and to make sure their families are happy.
    There are some similarities, of course; death is terrible. Another 
similarity, of course, is that Vietnam was the first time a war was 
brought onto our TV screens here in America on a regular basis. I'm 
looking around looking for baby boomers; I see a few of us here. It's a 
different--it was the first time that the violence and horror of war was 
brought home. That's the way it is today.
    Americans, rightly so, are concerned about whether or not we can 
succeed in Iraq. Nobody wants to be there if we can't succeed, 
especially me. And these--violence on our TV screens affects our frame 
of mind, probably more so today than what took place in Vietnam. I want 
to remind you that after Vietnam, after we left, the--millions of people 
lost their life--the Khmer Rouge, for example, in Cambodia. And my 
concern is, there would be a parallel there; that if we didn't help this 
Government get going, stay on its feet, be able to defend itself, the 
same thing would happen. There would be the slaughter of a lot of 
innocent life. The difference, of course, is that this time around the 
enemy wouldn't just be content to stay in the Middle East; they'd follow 
us here.
    It's interesting, I met with some Congressmen today, and one person 
challenged that. He said, ``I don't necessarily agree with that.'' In 
other words, I have told people that this is a unique war, where an 
enemy will follow us home, because I believe that. But if you give Al 
Qaida a safe haven and enough time to plan and plot, I believe the risk 
is, they will come and get us. And I freely admit that much of my 
thinking was affected on September the 11th, 2001, and the aftermath of 
September the 11th, 2001. And I wanted to share that with you and the 
American people so that they understand that when I make decisions, why 
I'm making decisions. I can assure you, I'm not going to make any 
decisions in regard to anybody's life based upon a poll or a focus 
group.
    Sir. They don't want you to ask the question. [Laughter] They 
silenced you. Go ahead and yell. [Laughter]

International Support for Iraq/Iran and Syria

    Q. Would you speak, please, a little bit about----
    The President. Now you can use it.
    Q. Would you speak a little bit about the support or lack of support 
that we're getting from other countries, particularly those countries 
surrounding Iraq----
    The President. Sure.
    Q. ----Saudi Arabia, so forth?
    The President. Thank you, sir. First, our mission is getting a lot 
of support from the Iraqis. That's the place to first look. Are the 
Iraqis willing to make sacrifices necessary for their own country? I 
think there's a lot of Americans who wonder whether or not the Iraqis 
want to live in a free society and are willing to do that which is 
necessary to help their country succeed. If I felt they weren't, I would 
not have our troops in harm's way, just so you know.
    I believe they are. They have suffered unbelievable death and 
destruction. Yesterday's bombing--I don't--we don't have the intel on 
it; I suspect it's Al Qaida. Al Qaida convinces the suiciders to show 
up. Al Qaida understands the effects of this kind of warfare on the 
minds of not only people in Iraq but here and elsewhere in the world. 
And yet the Iraqis continue to recruit for their army and their police 
force. I thought it was interesting that the Sunni Speaker of the House,

[[Page 477]]

the day that the council chambers were bombed, said, ``We're going to 
meet.'' These folks have gone through unbelievable horrors--they really 
have--and yet they continue to show courage in the face of this kind of 
violence.
    Secondly, there is--there are nations who are concerned about 
whether or not a Shi'a government in Iraq will end up being a surrogate 
for Iran, for example. I think there are some Sunni nations--Sunni-
governed nations, like Saudi and Jordan, that are concerned about a 
shift in the Middle East toward Iran, and that they are--wonder whether 
or not this Government of Iraq, which is a Shi'a government as a result 
of the fact that most people in Iraq--or the majority, the largest 
plurality of people in Iraq are Shi'a--you wouldn't be surprised if 
people voted that; that's what happened as a result of the elections. 
And they wonder whether or not the Government is going to be of and by 
and for the Iraqi people. And that concerns them.
    And so one of the reasons we were working with the Iraqis on this 
neighborhood conference is for people to hear firsthand that the Iraqi 
Government is, first and foremost, Iraqi. They're not interested in 
being anybody else's surrogate.
    We've got a lot of work to do there, and it's an interesting 
question you asked. I was pleased, and I thank His Majesty, that 80 
percent of the debt in Saudi--I'll get you in a minute--is--80 percent 
of the Saudi debt in Iraq was forgiven. I appreciated that. It's a 
strong gesture. But we have a lot--not we, the Iraqi Government has a 
lot of work to do to convince skeptical nations that, in fact, they're 
going to be a pluralistic society, that they're not going to hold one 
group above another when it comes to their society.
    Iran--I mentioned Iran. Iran is a serious problem. This is a nation 
that has said they want to have a nuclear--or we believe wants to have a 
nuclear weapon. And to what end? They don't need a nuclear weapon. And 
it's really important for the free world to work together to prevent 
them from having a nuclear weapon.
    I'm very worried about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It's 
not in the interests of our children that that happens, for the sake of 
peace. They have been unhelpful in Iraq, intentionally unhelpful in 
Iraq. And so I obviously sent out the orders to our troops, commanders, 
that they will protect themselves against Iranian influence--or let me 
just say this--threats to their lives based--because of what Iran has 
done.
    We have no beef with the Iranian people, which is really important 
for the people of Iran to understand. We value the history of Iran. We 
respect the traditions of Iran. It's the Iranian Government that is 
making the decisions that is causing you to be isolated. You're missing 
a opportunity to be a great nation because your Government has made 
decisions that is causing the world to put economic sanctions on you and 
to isolate you. I would hope the Iranian Government would change their 
attitude. And the Iranian people must understand that if they do--if 
they don't--if they stop their enrichment process, that they can have a 
better relationship with countries such as the United States. If they 
aren't meddling in Iraq, they can have a better relationship with a 
country that wishes them no harm.
    Syria--I don't know if I'm going too much or not, but you asked. 
[Laughter] We have made it very clear to President Asad that there are a 
series of gestures we'd like to see him make for the sake of peace. One 
such gesture is to leave Lebanon alone; let the Lebanese democracy 
flourish; stop interfering in this young democracy.
    Isn't it interesting that it's the democracies of the Middle East 
that are having the most problem with the extremists? I think it is. We 
have said to the Syrians, ``Stop harboring Hamas and Hizballah''--
violent, radical organizations aimed at causing harm in the Middle East. 
And we have said to President Asad, ``Stop allowing the flow of suicide 
bombers through your country into Iraq.''
    You know, some have suggested that the United States start 
diplomatic relations with Syria. My message is, the Syrian has got the 
choice to make; the Syrian President must make the choice that will stop 
isolating his regime. And the United States will continue to make it 
clear to Syria, and work with other nations to make it clear to Syria, 
that their behavior is unacceptable if we want peace in the Middle East.

[[Page 478]]

    And so that's a--there will be meetings. I think the Iraq Compact 
group will be meeting as will an Iraq neighbor group. And it's there 
that the neighborhood can come together, all--and Condi is going to--
Condi, Secretary Rice will be representing us there--all aiming to make 
it clear that we hope that we can encourage nations to help this young 
democracy to not only survive but to thrive. And it's an interesting 
challenge given the history of the region.
    Yes, sir.

Immigration Reform/Border Security

    Q. Mr. President, to kind of switch directions a little bit, illegal 
aliens in this country apparently are putting a lot of pressure on our 
social services. Could you comment on what the plans are in the future 
to take care of that?
    The President. Yes, sir. They are not apparently putting pressure on 
the social services; they are putting pressure on the social services. 
[Laughter]
    I believe it's in the interest of the United States to have a 
comprehensive immigration plan that meets certain objectives: one, helps 
us better secure our border; two, recognizes that people are doing work 
here that Americans are not doing; three, that recognizes that we are a 
nation of immigrants, and we ought to uphold that tradition in a way 
that honors the rule of law; four, that it's in the interest of the 
country that people who are here be assimilated in a way that--with our 
traditions and history--in other words, those who eventually become 
citizens be assimilated. In other words, one of the great things about 
America is, we've been able to assimilate people from different 
backgrounds and different countries. I suspect some of your relatives 
might be the kind of people I'm talking about.
    Four, that we do not grant amnesty. I am very worried about 
automatic citizenship being granted to people who have been here 
illegally. I think it undermines the rule of law. I also think it would 
create a condition or, indeed, send the signal that it's okay for 
another X millions of people to come.
    Five, you can't kick people out. You may think you can kick people 
out, but you can't. It's not going to work. It's impractical to think 
that you can find 10 million people who have been here for a long period 
of time and boot them out of the country.
    Six, if you hire somebody who is an illegal alien, you ought to be 
held to account. Now, those are the principles--[applause]--wait a 
minute. Those are the principles. And we're working in Congress. The 
first step was to make it clear to the American people that we would 
change our border policy. This is a subject I'm real familiar with. As 
you might recall, I was the Governor of the great State of Texas, and 
we've been dealing with immigration--[applause]--there you go. Always 
one in every crowd. [Laughter]
    A lot of Americans did not believe that this country was intent upon 
enforcing our border. And a couple of years ago, working with John and 
other Members of Congress, we began a border modernization program. And 
that meant, for example, more Border Patrol agents, and we will have 
doubled them, I think--I can't remember; I don't want to throw out 
facts; I may get them wrong, but we're doubling the number of Border 
Patrol agents by 2008.
    It means some barriers, whether they be vehicle barriers or fencing, 
different roads to make our enforcement folks be able to travel easier 
on the border, UAVs--unmanned aerial vehicles--infrared detection 
devices. In other words, this border is becoming modernized.
    It's interesting, I went down to Yuma, Arizona, right after Easter. 
And when I first went down there, there was a fence next to Mexico, and 
that was it; kind of a rickety fence, it looked like. And one of the 
tactics was for people to storm over the fence and rush the neighborhood 
on the other side, and the Border Patrol may pick up two or three of 
them, and however many else got in. Now there is double fencing in this 
area, with a wide area in between that our Border Patrol are able to 
travel on. In other words, we're beginning to get a modernization 
program that's pretty effective. As a matter of fact, the number of 
arrests are down.
    Another problem we had--it's a long answer because it's a really 
important topic. Another problem we had was catch-and-release. We 
would--the Border Patrol would catch

[[Page 479]]

somebody, say, from Mexico; they'd send them right back, but, say, 
from--a lot of folks are coming from Central America. But by the way, 
the reason why is because they want to put food on the table, and there 
are jobs Americans aren't doing. You know what I'm talking about. Some 
of you--if you're running a nursery, you know what I'm talking about. If 
you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever 
you call them, you know what I'm talking about. People have got starving 
families, and they want to come and work.
    By the way, if I were a leader of a country where people were 
willing to take risks like these people were, I'd be worried that I'd be 
losing an incredibly good part of my workforce--hard-working people.
    Anyway, they're coming across--and from Central America; they're 
paying exorbitant sums, by the way. There's a whole industry based upon 
using people as chattel. They're commodities to be exploited, frankly. 
And they're coming up, and so we would catch them, but we didn't have 
enough beds on the border. So they catch a fellow from El Salvador 
trying to sneak in, and they say, ``Check back in with us, you know; we 
don't have any room to hold you. Come back in, and we'll have the 
immigration judge.'' Well, guess what happened? A guy wants to work; 
he's not interested in seeing the immigration judge; off he goes; you'll 
never find him.
    And so we've ended that practice by increasing the number of beds 
now on the border. So when we get somebody from other than Mexico, we 
hold them, and then send them back to their country. And the message is 
getting out that the border is becoming more secure.
    However, I think it's very important--I'm getting to the meat here--
very important for us to have a temporary-worker program if you really 
want to enforce the border. Our border is long. It is hard to enforce to 
begin with. It seems like to me that it's in our national interest to 
let people come on a temporary basis to do jobs Americans are not doing, 
on a temporary, verifiable basis, with a tamper-proof card, to let 
people come and do jobs Americans aren't doing and let them go home 
after that so that they don't have to sneak across the border. In other 
words, if there's a way for people to come in an orderly way, they won't 
have to try to get in the bottom of the 18-wheeler and pay a person 
thousands of dollars to smuggle them into the United States of America.
    There are a lot of employers who are worried about losing labor here 
in the United States. They don't know whether they're legal or illegal, 
by the way, because not only is there a smuggling operation; there's a 
document forging operation. In other words, the law that we have in 
place has created an entire underground system of smugglers, inn 
keepers, and document forgers. And that's not the American way, by the 
way.
    And so these guys don't know what they're getting--some card, it 
looks legal; ``Sure, let's go; you can work in my nursery or go pick 
my--help me pick my lettuce.'' And they don't know whether they're 
looking at somebody legal or illegal. We need a tamper-proof card that 
will enable an employer to verify whether or not this person is here 
legally or not. Otherwise, it's unfair to hold somebody to account. In 
other words, if we're enforcing the law, saying you're employing 
somebody here illegally, we better make sure that that employer is able 
to verify with certainty whether the person is here legal or not.
    Finally, the fundamental question is, what do you do with the--you 
right there; everybody nervous up front--[laughter]--the question is, 
what about the 10 to 12 million people who are already here? It's a 
tough issue. As I've told you, my position is, not legal automatically. 
I'm also realistic enough to know that you're just--it may sound 
attractive in the political sound-bite world--just kick them out. It is 
not going to work. It's just not going to work.
    And so we're working with the Senate and the House to devise a plan 
that, in essence, says that you have broken the law and that you have an 
obligation to pay a fine for having broken the law if you want to stay 
in the United States; that there is a line for citizenship--there are a 
lot of people in that line right now--and that after paying a penalty 
for breaking the law, that you can get at the back of the line, not the 
front of the line; that if you want to become a citizen, you've got to 
prove that you can speak the language, that you can assimilate, that you 
have paid

[[Page 480]]

your taxes, that you haven't broken the law--[applause]--that you 
haven't broken the law, and then, if you choose, you have an opportunity 
to apply for citizenship, but you don't get to jump ahead of people who 
have played by the rules.
    And this is a tough debate, and I appreciate John's leadership on 
this issue. It's an emotional debate. I just ask our fellow citizens not 
to forget that we are a nation of law, but we are also a humane country 
that breaks our heart when we see people being abused and mistreated, 
and that I believe that--I know we need to have a civil debate on the 
subject. We're immigrants. We're a nation of immigrants. And I happen to 
personally believe as well, that there's nothing better for society than 
to have it renewed. When newcomers who come here legally realize the 
great benefits that one can achieve through hard work, it renews our 
spirit and renews our soul, when people are given a chance to realize 
the great blessings of the United States of America.
    And so we're working on it. Thank you for bringing it up. It's going 
to be an interesting, interesting legislative issue. I'm--there's--a lot 
of good people in the Senate are working hard to reach accord. And we're 
right in the middle of them trying to help them. And then if we can get 
a bill out of the Senate, we'll take it to the House and see where we 
go. Good question.
    Yes, sir.

U.S. Armed Forces/Iraq Study Group/Health Care of Wounded Soldiers and 
Veterans

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President----
    The President. About time you asked a question. [Laughter]
    Q. This is truly an honor. Thank you for coming today. My question 
is about the U.S. military preparedness. I'm actually of a small 
manufacturing company in Dayton where we manufacture a lot of parts for 
the up-armored Humvees, gun turrets, and things like that----
    The President. This isn't, like, one of these self-interest 
questions, is it? [Laughter]
    Q. No, no, no. There's my--I'll get right to it. There's--currently 
the law is that only 50 percent of the military components have to be 
U.S.-made. When we went into Afghanistan, there was a gentleman in 
Switzerland who refused to give us part of something for the NORDAM bomb 
that we had--he refused to make it because it was made over there. And 
my question is about increasing that percentage and keeping a prepared 
military, that we don't have to rely on other countries to defend 
ourselves.
    The President. Right. My answer is, I'm really not sure what you're 
talking about, and I'll look into it. [Laughter] But I can tell you, 
we're going to spend a lot of money on this military because we're 
worried about whether or not this military will have the supplies 
necessary, the equipment necessary after multiple rotations.
    I want to assure parents whose loved one may be in the military, 
we're not going to put your son or daughter over there unless they're 
ready. And no question, multiple rotations have been hard on our 
families. And as you know, recently, Secretary Gates recommended to me, 
and I accepted, saying with certainty to our troops, ``Your tours will 
be up to 15 months, and you'll be home for a guaranteed 12 months.'' And 
the reason why he did that is that we had some people deployed for what 
they thought might be 12 months and were asked to stay in theater. And 
what's the most important thing we can do for this volunteer army is to 
provide certainty for our families.
    In other words, you sign--you volunteer to be in the military, and 
you're deployed--we want to make sure there's certainty so that families 
can prepare. The worst thing that can happen, according to our military 
experts there, is for somebody's hopes to be dashed, that there's not 
clarity about what's expected of our troops. And so we did that.
    There is--the term of art is called reset--that is to make sure that 
we reset our military. And there is an area where there is good common 
ground with Members of Congress--the Democrat leadership understands 
that reset is an important part of keeping this military ready and 
active.
    Let me say one thing I forgot to tell you before. I don't know if 
you remember the Baker-Hamilton report. James A. Baker, the Secretary of 
State, Lee Hamilton--two distinguished people, real good people; the 
kind

[[Page 481]]

of Americans that have served with distinction and are still serving. 
They proposed an interesting idea, which was for the United States to be 
postured at some point in time with the following force posture: one, 
embedded with Iraqi troops, not only as a training mission but to help 
them understand chain of command issues and the issues of a modern 
military; that our troops be stationed in a over-the-horizon position so 
we could respond to a particular situation, so it didn't get out of 
control; that we helped defend the territorial integrity of Iraq; and 
that we chase down Al Qaida.
    It's an interesting force posture to be in. Frankly, I was hopeful, 
as I mentioned to you, that we could be in that kind of force posture a 
year ago. I really thought we were going to be there until the sectarian 
violence got out of control. They also said that the United States may 
have to increase troops in order to be able to get there. And that's 
what you're seeing happen. And that's where I'd like to be. And I'd like 
to be in a position so that the certainty of our troop deployments, like 
we've come, is just etched in everybody's mind.
    I'm watching our military very carefully. I love our military, for 
starters. And I want to make sure that during these difficult times, 
that we help them on their needs. One of my concerns is that the health 
care not be as good as it can possibly be.
    I will tell you that we had a bureaucracy problem at Walter Reed. 
What we didn't have is a compassion problem at Walter Reed. We've got 
some unbelievably good docs and nurses who work around the clock to help 
the trooper--troops and their families. But our bureaucracy, that 
sometimes can be large and cumbersome at the Federal level, didn't 
respond. And I appreciate the way Secretary Gates got control of the 
situation.
    Just so you know, I am concerned that a soldier getting out of--or a 
marine getting out of uniform and stays in the Defense--is transferred 
seamlessly from the Defense health system to the Veterans health system. 
In other words, one of my concerns is that there is a gap. And we owe it 
to these families and these soldiers and marines to make sure that that 
service is seamless. And that's why I asked Bob Dole and Donna Shalala 
to make sure that those two bureaucracies don't create the conditions 
where somebody isn't getting the help they need.
    I know that's on people's minds. One of the areas where we do agree 
is that we got to make sure our veterans are treated as good as we can 
possibly treat them. We've asked a lot of these troops, and we will do 
the best to make sure the Veterans Administration and the Defense health 
systems work well.
    Yes, sir.

President's Principles

    Q. Mr. President, I admire your stay-to-it-iveness. You mentioned 
earlier about not using polls and focus groups. But I have to ask you 
personally, with respect to economics, with respect to the war, with 
respect to the war on terror and Iraq and immigration, when you go to 
bed at night and you see these polls--everybody and their brother does a 
poll now--how does it make you feel?
    The President. That's an interesting question. You know, I'm--I've 
been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times. I 
mean, they're a moment; that they are--let me put it to you this way: 
When it's all said and done, when Laura and I head back home--which at 
this moment will be Crawford, Texas--I will get there and look in the 
mirror, and I will say, ``I came with a set of principles, and I didn't 
try to change my principles to make me popular.'' You can't make good 
decisions--[applause].
    As I mentioned to you, this is a decisionmaking experience, and you 
cannot make good decisions if you're not making decisions on a 
consistent set of principles. It's impossible. Oh, you can make 
decisions, all right, but they're inconsistent. What I think is 
important is consistency during difficult and troubled times, so that 
people--they may not agree, but they know where I'm coming from.
    And I'll share some of the principles. You've heard one--I believe 
freedom is universal. I believe that. Let me put it another way: I 
believe there's an Almighty, and I believe a gift from the Almighty to 
every man and woman and child on this Earth is freedom. That's what I 
believe.

[[Page 482]]

    Secondly, I believe you can spend your money better than the 
government can spend your money. Oh, I know that sounds like a sound 
bite, but it's a principle by which you set budgets. For example, I 
believe that cutting taxes helped this country overcome a recession and 
a war. And the reason why is, is that markets flourish when people have 
more money. Employers, small businesses do better when you have more 
money. When your treasury is more likely to have money, you're more 
likely to take risk. And that's what tax cuts do.
    And by the way, it's another issue that we're facing. In all due 
respect to the Democrats, if you look at their budget, they want to 
raise your taxes. I believe Congress needs to keep your taxes low. I 
believe, by the way--let me--[applause]. Thank you. I'm not trying to 
rally; I'm just trying to explain. [Laughter]
    I believe we have proven that the best way to balance the budget--
and I know many of you are concerned about a balanced budget--is to grow 
the economy through low taxes, which means enhanced revenues, and be 
wise about spending your money. In other words, progrowth economic 
policies have proven to work. And it turns out that when the economy 
grows, taxes increase. And therefore, the corollary is to make sure we 
don't overspend.
    The temptation in Washington is to spend; it just is, and--every 
idea sounds like a great idea. But we are proving that you can balance 
the budget by keeping taxes low. As a matter of fact, I think it was 167 
billion--the deficit was 167 billion less than anticipated because of--
over the last 2 years--because of low taxes. I said we'd cut the deficit 
in half by 5 years or 4 years, and we've done it 3 years quicker. Now 
we've submitted a new budget that shows we can balance the budget 
without raising taxes. That's a principle.
    I believe, for example, that the government ought to trust people to 
make decisions. And so how does that--like health care; that's a big 
issue for all of us. One of the ways that I think--was that your 
question? Good, okay. I'll ask it for you--what are you going to do on 
health care? Anyway--[laughter]. The Tax Code discriminates against an 
individual on health care decisions. And I believe that we ought to 
change the Tax Code so an employee of a corporation is treated equally 
as somebody who is self-employed. In other words, the tax treatment 
ought to be the same, all aimed at encouraging individual decisionmaking 
in the marketplace. I'm a big believer in health savings accounts, 
because health savings accounts means you are the decisionmaker, along 
with your doc.
    Health care--like Medicare, we changed Medicare for the better. 
Medicare--I remind people, Medicare had changed--medicine had changed; 
Medicare hadn't. Prescription drugs became an integral part of medicine, 
and yet the senior was not covered with prescription drugs in Medicare. 
It didn't make any sense to me to pay thousands for an ulcer operation 
but not a dime for the prescription drugs that could have prevented the 
ulcer from happening in the first place.
    And so we modernized Medicare with the prescription drug benefit, 
but we also did something unique when it came to Government programs. We 
gave seniors choices. In other words, we created more of a marketplace. 
It's amazing what happens when people demand something: People provide 
for it in the marketplace. Competition helps keep price low. It was 
estimated that we would spend some 600 billion additional money through 
Medicare, and yet the cost to the Government and you, more particularly, 
is substantially lower because of competition. That's a principle.
    When it comes to pension plans, I think you ought to be managing 
your money. I don't think you ought to be relying upon government to 
tell you what your benefit is. I think you ought to be in a position to 
take your own money and manage it on a tax advantage basis.
    In other words, my point is, the principle is that we ought to trust 
people to make decisions. To whom much is given, much is required. I'm 
glad you asked this question; thank you. [Laughter] Listen--Laura says, 
``You love to hear yourself talk, don't you?'' [Laughter]
    I want to share this story with you, though, because I believe an 
important principle is, to whom much is given, much is required. The 
United States of America has been given

[[Page 483]]

a lot. We are a blessed nation. For--those of you who travel around the 
world know exactly what I'm talking about, about what a great life we 
have here compared to a lot of other folks.
    When I first came into office, I was deeply concerned about the 
pandemic of HIV/AIDS, particularly on the continent of Africa. I was 
concerned because during the 21st century, an entire--it was possible 
that an entire generation could be wiped out by a disease for which we 
could do something about.
    I went to Congress; I went to you. I asked for a substantial sum of 
money to help fund a campaign to save lives on the most 19 affected 
nations on Earth. I asked a former CEO of Eli Lilly, Randy Tobias, to 
run the program. As a result of your generosity based upon the 
principle, to whom much is given, much is required, over 850,000 people 
receive antiretroviral drugs today. That's up from 50,000, 3 years ago.
    Is it in our Nation's interest to do that? I believe it is. If what 
happens overseas matters here at home, then I do think it's important to 
help address issues like starvation and disease. But I also think it's 
in the interest of the soul of the Nation to adhere to an important 
principle. And I think we're adding to a glorious chapter in our history 
to say that the people of the United States have helped save thousands 
of lives that otherwise might have been lost to HIV/AIDS.
    And so those are some of the principles. And you asked a question, 
what do I think? I think it's important to stand on principle. I think 
it's important to make decisions based upon a core set of beliefs. 
That's what I think. And politics comes and goes, but your principles 
don't. And everybody wants to be loved--not everybody, but--[laughter]--
you run for office, I guess you do. [Laughter] You never heard anybody 
say, ``I want to be despised; I'm running for office.'' [Laughter] But I 
believe, sir, in my soul, that I have made the right decisions for this 
country when it comes to prosperity and peace. That's what I believe.
    I want to share something with you about history. I'm reading a lot 
of history, I mentioned to you. I read three histories on George 
Washington last year. The year 2006, I read three histories about our 
first President. My attitude is, if they're still writing about 1, 43 
doesn't need to worry about it. [Laughter]
    Yes, ma'am.

Shootings at Virginia Tech/School Safety

    Q. This is in regards to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Being a high 
school student----
    The President. Go ahead. Go ahead. Let's get the mike there.
    Q. Sorry.
    The President. Thanks.
    Q. This is in regards to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Being a high 
school student, I was wondering what's being done to ensure safety in 
schools?
    The President. I think that--first of all, I don't know your 
principal very well--I met him. I will tell you, though, that his 
biggest concern, besides you learning to read, write, add, and subtract 
and be a student who can contribute to society, is your safety.
    One of the lessons of these tragedies is to make sure that when 
people see somebody or know somebody who is exhibiting abnormal 
behavior, to do something about it, to suggest that somebody take a 
look; that if you are a parent and your child is doing strange things on 
the Internet, pay attention to it and not be afraid to ask for help and 
not be afraid to say, ``I am concerned about what I'm seeing.''
    I think there's a tendency at times for people--and I fully 
understand this--is to respect somebody's privacy, you know, and not 
share concerns. But some of the lessons of the shootings have been that 
it is--and I don't know about this case--and by the way, they're still 
digging out the facts, so I think it's very important for us not to 
comment until it's all said and done--but that other cases, there have 
been warning signals, that if an adult, for example, had taken those 
signals seriously, perhaps tragedy could have been avoided.
    And so the lesson is, is that--and I know you're--the lesson is, is 
that the principals and teachers and adults of this school must be on 
alert, and I know they are.
    And as I--I repeat to you: You're lucky--all of us--a lot of these 
high schools are really lucky to have people who care about you.

[[Page 484]]

I mean the--unfortunately, in a complex society, the teacher's job and 
the principal's job is more than just teaching; it is safety. And yet 
that is a vital concern, I know, to the folks who run this school.
    Okay, yes, ma'am.

War on Terror

    Q. [Inaudible]--misconception about scaling back in Iraq.
    The President. Sure, go ahead. Wait, I want this question recorded. 
A little hustle there. [Laughter] Thank you.
    Q. I believe there's a big misconception that scaling back in Iraq 
will cost less in the long run than to go in and get the job done. How 
do you get that message across to America and especially to Congress?
    The President. Yes, I appreciate that. Her concern is that a scale 
back will either save money or save lives or save headache, and how do 
you get the message out? Coming here is part of getting the message out. 
The President has got to be educator in chief, and I've just got to keep 
talking about it. I've spent a lot of time on this subject. This is a 
subject that has concerned a lot of our fellow citizens. They are deeply 
worried about whether or not it is possible for us to succeed, and that 
there needs to be an explanation of the violence.
    And my answer is, is that the--there is a political process that's 
ongoing, an economic process that's ongoing, a rebuilding process that's 
ongoing, and a security process that's ongoing, and that you can't have 
the former unless you have security. And therefore, it's in the 
interest--if a failed state creates violence and chaos that eventually 
could come and hurt us, it's in our interest to help succeed.
    And therefore, the troop levels need to be commensurate with the 
capacity of that society to protect itself. The objective is to have the 
Iraqis take over their own security. It's just that they weren't ready 
to do so. And I appreciate your question.
    It's very important--I think some really are--I know a lot of people 
are tired of it. People get pretty tired of war, and I understand that. 
It's really important as we--that we have a sober discussion and 
understand what will be the consequences of failure.
    As I told you, on the rug--the reason I brought up the rug was to 
not only kind of break the ice but also to talk about strategic thought. 
The President's job is to think not only about today but tomorrow. The 
President's job is not only think about the short-term security of the 
United States but to think about the little guys, you know--what the 
world will look like 20 or 30 or 40 years from now.
    And I appreciate your question because I will continue to work hard 
to explain the consequences of this world in which we live; that what 
happens overseas matters here at home in the 21st century, and that we 
are in the beginning of a long struggle that will have, hopefully, not a 
lot of military action, would be my hope for future Presidents. But it 
is a struggle akin to other struggles we have been through.
    The ideological struggle of the cold war is a potential parallel. 
It's freedom versus communism. This is a--this is a struggle with 
freedom versus extreme radicalism. There have been--how do you allow a 
society, or how do you encourage societies to evolve after struggle, 
after conflict? There are other historical parallels. And my job is to 
continue to explain the consequences--consequences of success, which I 
believe will be peace; the consequences of failure, which I believe will 
be creating a more dangerous situation here in the United States.
    Boehner is a busy man. He is busy representing the people of this 
district. He is now giving me the signal--[laughter]. I'm feeling his 
vibes. [Laughter] I'm going to fly him back to Washington.
    I'm honored that you gave me a chance to come and visit with you. I 
ask for God's blessings on our troops and their families, on the people 
of Virginia Tech, and on the people of the United States. Thank you for 
your time.

Note: The President spoke at 1:05 p.m. In his remarks, he referred to 
Steve Bruns, former president, Tipp City Area Chamber of Commerce; Prime 
Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida 
terrorist organization; Mahmud al-Mashhadani, Speaker of the Iraqi House 
of Representatives; King Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi 
Arabia; President Bashar al-Asad of Syria; Secretary of Defense

[[Page 485]]

Robert M. Gates; and Bob Dole and Donna E. Shalala, Cochairs, 
President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors.