[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 16 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Pages 487-502]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan and a Question-
and-Answer Session in East Grand Rapids, Michigan

April 20, 2007

    The President. Thank you all very much. I'm glad to be back in Grand 
Rapids. I appreciate the opportunity to address the World Affairs 
Council of Western Michigan. I was leaving the White House today, Laura 
said, ``Where are you headed?'' I said, ``To the west coast.'' 
[Laughter] She said, ``Make sure you take your suntan lotion.'' 
[Laughter] I said, ``The west coast of Michigan''--[laughter]--and I'm 
glad to be with you.
    You can't help but think about Gerald Ford when you come to Grand 
Rapids, Michigan. You know, our country was blessed to have such a 
decent, honorable, kind, courageous leader in Gerald R. Ford, and we 
miss him a lot.
    I appreciate Dixie Anderson, who is the executive director of the 
World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. I thank Barbara Propes, who 
is the president of the World Affairs Council of America. I want to 
thank Ping Liang, president, board of directors of the World Affairs 
Council of Western Michigan, and a fellow Yale Bulldog.
    I appreciate my friend, Ambassador Pete Secchia for joining us 
today. He was the Ambassador to Italy under 41. I appreciate Sara 
Shubel, who is the superintendent of the East Grand Rapids Public 
Schools. Thank you very much for allowing me to come to this beautiful 
auditorium here in East Grand Rapids High School. I appreciate Jenny 
Fee, the associate principal, as well as Larry Fisher.
    My purpose of coming is to instruct, is to talk about the issues 
that our world is facing, particularly the issue of Iraq. And I 
appreciate the chance to come to this high school to do so.
    I thank Congressman Vern Ehlers, Congressman from this district. I 
appreciate you being here, Vern, and thank you for joining me and 
Congressman Pete Hoekstra on Air Force One. It's probably quite 
convenient for you to fly from Washington on Air Force One. [Laughter] 
Glad to provide the transportation. [Laughter] Both these men are really 
honorable folks who serve western Michigan well in Congress, and I want 
to thank you for your service.
    I thank the Michigan Attorney General, Michael Cox, for joining us. 
Mike, thanks for coming today. Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn 
Land. She heard this was a foreign policy speech. [Laughter] I 
appreciate Mayor Cindy Bartman, city of East Grand Rapids; Mayor George 
Heartwell, city of Grand Rapids. Thank you all for serving. I appreciate 
your willingness to become public servants.

[[Page 488]]

    One of the messages I hope that I can convey to the high school 
students who are here, no matter what your political beliefs may be, 
that it's important to serve. It's important to serve the community in 
which you live. And you can do so all kinds of ways. You can run for 
mayor at some point in time, or you can feed the hungry. But service is 
noble, and service is necessary. I see we've got some who wear the 
uniform of the United States military. In this day and age, that's the 
ultimate service, as far as I'm concerned, and I appreciate you 
volunteering.
    For more than a half century, the World Affairs Council of Western 
Michigan has been a forum for lively and important debate. I understand 
this council was set up in 1949. It's been an important forum for people 
to talk about the big questions facing our country. There is no bigger 
question than what course our Nation should pursue in Iraq, and that's 
what I'm here to talk about.
    Three months ago, my administration completed an extensive review of 
that very question. I ordered major changes to our strategy in Iraq. And 
to lead this new strategy, I named General David Petraeus, an expert who 
wrote the Army's new manual on counterinsurgency warfare.
    This new strategy is fundamentally different from the previous 
strategy. It recognizes that our top priority must be to help Iraq's 
elected leaders secure their population, especially in Baghdad, because 
Iraqis will not be able to make the political and economic progress they 
need until they have a basic measure of security. Iraq's leaders are 
committed to providing that security, but at this point, they cannot do 
it on their own.
    And so I ordered American reinforcements to help the Iraqis secure 
their population, to go after the terrorists and insurgents that are 
inciting sectarian violence, and to get their capital under control. As 
our troops take on this mission, they will continue to train and mentor 
the Iraqi security forces for the day they can take full responsibility 
for the security of their own country.
    General Petraeus has been carrying out this new strategy for just 
over 2 months. He reports that it will be later this year before we can 
judge the potential of success. Yet the first indicators are beginning 
to emerge, and they show that so far, the operation is meeting 
expectations. There are still horrific attacks in Iraq, such as the 
bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, but the direction of the fight is 
beginning to shift.
    In the coming months, I'll deliver regular updates on our 
operations. Today I want to share some details about how this effort is 
unfolding in three areas: Baghdad; Anbar Province; and the outskirts of 
Baghdad, where terrorists and extremists are making a stand.
    The most significant element of our new strategy is being carried 
out in Baghdad. Baghdad has been the site of most of the sectarian 
violence; it is the destination for most of our reinforcements. So far, 
three additional American brigades totaling about 12,000 troops have 
reached the Baghdad area; another brigade is in Kuwait preparing to 
deploy; and one more will arrive in Kuwait next month. The Iraqi 
Government is also meeting its pledge to boost its force levels in the 
city. For every American combat soldier deployed to Baghdad, there are 
now about three Iraqi security forces--giving us a combined total of 
nearly 80,000 combat forces in the Baghdad area.
    My point is, is that the American combat forces are not alone in the 
effort to secure the nation's capital. And just as important as the 
growing number of troops is their changing position in the city. I 
direct your attention to a map showing our troop presence around Baghdad 
late last year. This is how we were positioned. Most troops were at 
bases on the outskirts of the city. They would move into Baghdad to 
clear out neighborhoods during the day, and then they would return to 
their bases at night. The problem was that when our troops moved back to 
the bases, the extremists, the radicals, the killers moved back to the 
neighborhoods.
    And we're changing. Part of our strategy change, part of the new 
mission in Baghdad is for American troops to live and work side by side 
with Iraqi forces at small neighborhood posts called joint security 
stations. You can see from this map, there are now more than two dozen 
joint security stations located throughout Baghdad; more are planned. 
From these stations, Iraqi and American forces work together to clear 
out and then

[[Page 489]]

secure neighborhoods--all aimed at providing security for the people of 
Baghdad. If a heavy fight breaks out, our forces will step in, and Iraqi 
forces learn valuable skills from American troops. They'll fight 
shoulder to shoulder with the finest military every assembled.
    By living in Baghdad neighborhoods, American forces get to know the 
culture and concerns of local residents. Equally important, the local 
residents get to know them. When Iraqi civilians see a large presence of 
professional soldiers and police patrolling their streets, they grow in 
confidence and trust. They become less likely to turn to militias for 
protection. People want security in their lives, and they tend to turn 
to the most apparently effective security force. And as people gain 
confidence in the ability of the Iraqi troops, along with the United 
States, to provide security, they begin to cooperate. In fact, Iraqi and 
American forces have received more tips in the past 3 months than during 
any 3-month period on record. These are tips provided by local citizens 
about where to find terrorists and insurgents.
    Most people--the vast majority of people want to live in peace. 
Iraqi mothers want their children to grow up in peace. And if given the 
opportunity and given the confidence, civilians turn in the terrorists 
and extremists and murderers to help achieve that peace.
    This new approach to securing Baghdad brings risks. When I announced 
the new operation, I cautioned that more troops conducting more 
operations in more neighborhoods would likely to--bring more casualties. 
Since the security operation began, we have seen some of the highest 
casualty levels of the war. And as the number of troops in Baghdad grows 
and operations move into even more dangerous neighborhoods, we can 
expect the pattern to continue.
    We must also expect the terrorists and insurgents to continue 
mounting terrible attacks. Here is a photo of the devastation caused by 
a car bomb at a bus stop in Baghdad on Wednesday. The victims of this 
attack were innocent men and women who were simply coming home from 
work. Yet this was hardly a random act of murder. It has all the 
hallmarks of an Al Qaida attack. The terrorists bombed the buses at rush 
hour, with the specific intent to kill as many people as possible. This 
has been long a pattern of Al Qaida in Iraq; this is what they do. They 
carried out the spectacular attack on the United Nations headquarters in 
Baghdad. They bombed the Jordanian Embassy in Iraq. They claimed credit 
for the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Samarra. Just last week, they 
sent a suicide bomber to attack the Iraqi Parliament building.
    Al Qaida believes that its best chance to achieve its objectives, 
which is to drive the United States out of Iraq and prevent the 
emergence of a free society in the Middle East, is to defeat the 
security operation by conducting spectacular attacks that provoke Iraqis 
into taking violence into their own hands and lead Americans to conclude 
that the sectarian killing will never be contained. This strategy is 
merciless, but it is not without logic. It's important for all Iraqis, 
Sunnis and Shi'a alike, to understand that Al Qaida is the greatest 
threat to peace in their country. And the question is whether we and the 
Iraqis will give in and to--respond the way Al Qaida wants. Because of 
the lessons of September the 11th, the answer is, the United States 
Government will not give in to what Al Qaida wants. And the Iraqis must 
not give in to Al Qaida if they want to have a peaceful society.
    The nature of a strategy aimed at securing the population is that 
the most important gains are often the least dramatic. Day by day, block 
by block, Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains in 
Baghdad. Thanks to more troops on the streets and more cooperation from 
residents, the average number of weapons stockpiles seized each week has 
jumped 50 percent since the beginning of the new strategy. American and 
Iraqi forces tracked down and captured the leaders of a major car bomb 
ring. We found and cleared a warehouse where terrorists were storing 
chemicals to make weapons. We captured members of a death squad that had 
terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood. As a result, 
displaced families are beginning to return home. And the number of 
sectarian murders in Baghdad has dropped by half since the operation 
began.

[[Page 490]]

    The results of the security operation are uneven across the city. In 
some areas, there have been sharp declines in sectarian killing, while 
in other areas, the level of violence is still far too high. Yet even in 
volatile districts like Sadr City, our new approach is beginning to make 
a difference. A report last month in the Grand Rapids Press quoted an 
Iraqi resident of Sadr City. Perhaps you read it. If you didn't, here's 
what it said: ``They thanked us''--they're talking about our forces and 
Iraqi forces--``They thanked us with respect and a smile.'' This 
resident said, ``I'm happy that such a campaign is done in my 
neighborhood.'' People want security, and they want to live in peace.
    Developments like these are not as spectacular as a terrorist bomb. 
When a family decides to stop depending on militias to protect them or a 
young man rejects insurgency and joins the Iraqi Army, it doesn't 
usually make the evening news. Yet small, individual choices like these 
are vital to the success of our campaign. They show that despite all the 
violence, the vast majority of Iraqis want security; they want to live 
in peace. I know I've said that more than once. It's important for our 
citizens to understand that people around the world are anxious for 
peace, and yet there are extremists and radicals and murderers who will 
do anything they can to prevent it from happening.
    The Iraqi security forces are growing in maturity and gaining trust, 
and that's important. Our men and women in uniform are showing great 
courage and skill, and that's important to the Iraqi people as well.
    Another significant element of our new strategy is being carried out 
in Anbar Province, a largely Sunni area west of Baghdad. For much of the 
past 4 years, Anbar has been a hotbed for insurgents and Al Qaida 
terrorists. Remember, Al Qaida is Sunni in nature. According to a 
captured Al Qaida document, according to what Al Qaida has made clear, 
their goal is to take over the Anbar Province and make it their home 
base for Iraq. That would bring them closer to their stated objective of 
taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and 
having safe haven from which to launch attacks on the United States' 
citizens here at home or abroad. That is what Al Qaida has stated. That 
is their objective, and Anbar Province is where they're trying to 
achieve their objective. Al Qaida has pursued this goal through a 
ruthless campaign of violence, and they grew in power. They were 
succeeding.
    And then something began to change. The people of Anbar began to 
realize their life was not the paradise Al Qaida promised--as a matter 
of fact, it was a nightmare. So courageous tribal sheiks launched a 
movement called ``The Awakening'' and began cooperating with American 
and Iraqi forces. The sheiks and their followers knew exactly who the 
terrorists were, and they began providing highly specific intelligence. 
To help capitalize on this opportunity, I sent more troops into Anbar 
Province. Alongside the Iraqi Army and police, U.S. marines and Special 
Operations forces have been striking terrible blows against Al Qaida.
    The maps show the dramatic changes taking place in Ramadi, which 
happens to be the capital of Anbar Province. The red-shaded areas in the 
first map show the concentration of Al Qaida terrorists in the city 2 
months ago. The second map shows the concentration of the terrorists 
now. Their presence has declined substantially. Here is how one reporter 
described the changes: ``A year ago, Ramadi's police force had virtually 
been wiped out, leaving only a couple dozen officers and a lawless city 
with nowhere to turn for help. Now guerrilla fighters have begun to 
disappear; schools and shops have reopened; and civilians have begun 
walking in previously deserted streets.''
    Anbar Province is still not safe. Al Qaida has responded to these 
changes with sickening brutality. They have bombed fellow Sunnis in 
prayer at a mosque; they send death squads into neighborhoods; they have 
recruited children as young as 12 years old to help carry out suicide 
attacks. But this time, local Sunnis are refusing to be intimidated. 
With the encouragement of their tribal leaders, they're stepping forward 
to protect their families and drive out the terrorists. They're stepping 
forward to prevent Al Qaida--the people who attacked us on September the 
11th, 2001--from establishing safe haven in Anbar Province. And I 
believe strongly it's in the interest of the United States of America to 
help them.

[[Page 491]]

    General Petraeus said earlier this month: ``In the latest recruiting 
effort, which used to draw minimal numbers of Iraqis willing to serve in 
the Iraqi Army or the Iraqi police in Anbar Province, there were over 
2,000 volunteers for the latest training.'' General Petraeus went on, 
``Frankly, it's a stunning development and reflects the frustration the 
Sunni Arab tribes have with what Al Qaida has done to them. It has 
really had a devastating effect.'' If given a chance, most people will 
reject extremists and radicals and murderers.
    The United States will help Sunni sheiks and will help their people. 
We will stay on the offense in Anbar Province. We and the Iraqi 
Government are carrying out our new strategy in Baghdad and Anbar, as 
well as the ``Baghdad belts''--these are areas on the outskirts of the 
capital that have been staging grounds for deadly attacks. I have 
discussed the capital city with you. I discussed a western Province with 
you. And I'm now going to talk about the belts around the capital city 
of Iraq.
    We have moved an additional Stryker battalion to Diyala Province, 
which is northeast of Baghdad, where our soldiers and Iraqi forces are 
conducting raids against Al Qaida and insurgents. We have sent 
reinforcements to Diwaniyah Province--Diwaniyah, a city of Diwaniyah, 
which is 80 miles south of Baghdad, where we're working with Iraqi 
forces to rout out militia and Shi'a extremists.
    In these and other parts of the Baghdad belts, Iraqi and American 
forces are fighting to clear and hold territory that the enemies of a 
free society considered their own. They're fighting back. As a result, 
violence is increasing. And as our forces move deeper into the 
territory, the violence could increase even more. Yet these operations 
are having an important impact on this young democracy. They're keeping 
the pressure on the terrorists and insurgents who have fled Anbar and 
Baghdad. They're helping cut off the supply of weapons and fighters to 
violent groups inside the capital. They're showing Iraqi citizens across 
the country, there will be no sanctuary for killers anywhere in a free 
Iraq.
    All of these military operations are designed to improve security 
for everyday folks. They're designed to reduce sectarian violence. And 
they're designed to open up breathing space for political progress by 
Iraq's Government.
    It may seem like decades ago, but it wasn't all that long ago that 
12 million Iraqi citizens voted for a free and democratic future for 
their country. And the Government they elected is in place--it hasn't 
been in place a year yet--and they're working hard to make progress on 
some key benchmarks, progress to help this country reconcile and unite 
after years of tyrannical and brutal rule.
    The Iraqi legislature passed a budget that commits $10 billion of 
their money for reconstruction projects, and now the Government must 
spend that money to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens. The Council of 
Ministers recently approved legislation that would provide a framework 
for an equitable sharing of oil resources, and now that legislation 
needs to go before their Parliament for approval. The Government has 
formed a committee to organize Provincial elections, and the next step 
is to set a date for those elections to be held. Iraqi leaders are 
taking steps toward agreement on a de-Ba'athification law that will 
allow more Iraqis to reenter their nation's civic life, and they need to 
agree on that measure and send it to the Parliament.
    Prime Minister Maliki is working to build greater support from 
Iraq's neighbors and the international community. I just talked to him 
the other day on secure video--I was in the White House, and he was in 
Baghdad--and we talked about this neighborhood conference, an 
opportunity to rally the international community to help support this 
young democracy's efforts to thrive and prosper. And at the conference 
in Egypt next month, he, along with Secretary Rice and other concerned 
leaders, will seek increased diplomatic and financial commitments for 
this country.
    Iraq's leaders have begun meeting their benchmarks, and they've got 
a lot left to do. As more breathing space is created by reducing the 
sectarian violence, Iraq's leaders have got to take advantage of that 
breathing space. I have made it abundantly clear to the Prime Minister 
that our patience is not unlimited, that we fully recognize that there 
has to be political progress and economic progress,

[[Page 492]]

along with military progress in order for that Government to succeed. 
And it's up to the Iraqi people and the Iraq-elected folks to show 
America and the world they're ready to do the hard work necessary to 
reconcile and move forward.
    It's important to understand that Iraq's Government is working hard 
in a difficult environment. The day after its building was bombed, the 
Iraqi Parliament held a special session. Its Speaker said the meeting 
sent ``a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare to 
try to stop this political process that we will sacrifice in order for 
it to continue.'' I found that to be a heartening statement; that here 
Al Qaida bombs their Parliament, and this man stands up and says, you're 
not going to scare us; we want to represent the will of the 12 million 
people who voted.
    You've just got to know my view of--the vast majority of Iraqis are 
courageous people. They've endured brutality as a result of murderers 
trying to stop their new country from--their new system of government 
from succeeding. And I'm impressed by their courage. And I believe this 
current Government under Prime Minister Maliki is committed to building 
a strong democracy. That's my judgment, having talked to him. I've 
watched a man begun to grow in office. I first talked to him in June, 
when he was named the Prime Minister. I've talked to him consistently 
ever since. I look to see whether or not he has courage to make the 
difficult decisions necessary to achieve peace. I'm looking to see 
whether or not he has got the capacity to reach out and help unify this 
country. He says, you know, sometimes it's hard to get the Parliament to 
do exactly what he thinks they ought to do. [Laughter] I know what he 
means. [Laughter]
    As we increase troop levels, we're also increasing our civilian 
presence. We're doubling the number of what's called Provincial 
Reconstruction Teams, which partner civilian experts with combat units 
to ensure that military operations are followed up with rapid economic 
assistance. These teams help local Iraqi leaders restore basic services 
and stimulate job creation and promote reconciliation. Their work 
highlights a sharp difference: The Iraqi and American Governments want 
to rebuild communities and improve lives; the extremists and terrorists 
want to destroy communities and take lives. And when ordinary Iraqis see 
this difference for themselves, they become more likely to stand with 
their elected leaders and help marginalize the extremists in this 
struggle.
    Here at home, a different kind of struggle is taking place, and its 
outcome will have a direct impact on the frontlines. Despite the initial 
signs of progress on the ground, despite the fact that many 
reinforcements have not even arrived, Democrat leadership of the 
Congress is pushing legislation that would undercut the strategy General 
David Petraeus has just started to pursue. They have passed bills in the 
House and Senate that would impose restrictions on our military 
commanders and mandate a precipitous withdrawal by an arbitrary date. 
They say, withdrawal, regardless of the conditions on the ground. That 
approach makes for a vivid contrast with the attitude in Iraq. A 
prominent Middle East scholar recently visited Iraq, described the 
difference: ``A traveler who moves between Baghdad and Washington is 
struck by the gloomy despair in Washington and the cautious sense of 
optimism in Baghdad.''
    We have honest differences of opinion in Washington and around this 
country, and I appreciate those differences. The ability to debate 
differences openly and frequently is what makes America a great country. 
Our men and women in uniform should never be caught in the middle of 
these debates. It has now been 74 days since I sent to Congress a 
request for emergency funding that our troops urgently need. The 
leadership in Congress have spent those 74 days trying to substitute 
their judgment for the judgment of our generals, without sending me 
legislation. And now, to cover ongoing Army operations, the Pentagon is 
being forced to transfer money from military personnel accounts.
    The delay in spending is beginning to affect the ability of the 
Pentagon to fund our troops and all our missions. On Wednesday, I met at 
the White House with congressional leaders from both parties. It was a 
very cordial meeting. I think you would have been pleased at the tone of 
the meeting in the Cabinet Room there at the White House--

[[Page 493]]

at least I was. I urged the people around the table to put politics 
aside and to send a bill that funds our troops, without arbitrary 
deadlines, without wasteful spending, and without handcuffing our 
commanders.
    There is ample time to debate this war. We need to get the troops 
the money. When we debate the war on terror, it can be convenient to 
divide up the fight by location. And so we hear about, quote, ``the war 
in Afghanistan'' and, quote, ``the war in Iraq,'' if they were something 
separate. This is a natural way to talk about a complicated subject--I 
don't think it's accurate. Our enemies make no distinction based on 
borders. They view the world as a giant battlefield and will strike 
wherever they can. The killers who behead captives and order suicide 
bombings in Iraq are followers of the same radical ideology as those who 
destroy markets in Afghanistan, or they set off car bombs in Algeria, 
and blow up subway trains in London. The men who attacked Iraq's 
Parliament last week swear allegiance to the same terrorist network as 
those who attacked America on September the 11th, 2001.
    The fight in Iraq has been long and is trying. It's a difficult 
period in our Nation's history. I also say it's a consequential moment 
in our Nation's history as well. It's natural to wish there was an easy 
way out, that we could just pack up and bring our troops home and be 
safe. Yet in Iraq, the easy road would be a road to disaster. If we were 
to leave Iraq before that Government can defend itself and be an ally in 
this war against extremists and radicals and be able to deny safe haven 
from people who want to hurt the United States, the consequences for 
this country would be grave.
    There would be a security vacuum in Iraq. Extremists and radicals 
love vacuums in which to spread chaos. The world would see different 
factions of radicals, different groups of extremists competing for 
influence and power. The extremists who emerge from this battle would 
turn the country into a new radical regime in the Middle East. I told 
you they want to launch new attacks on America, and they need safe haven 
from which to do so.
    Not every enemy we face in Iraq wants to attack us here at home, but 
many of them do. And I believe it's in the interest of this country to 
take those threats seriously. We don't have to imagine what might happen 
if a group of terrorists gained safe haven. We've learned that lesson, I 
hope--precisely what happened in Afghanistan--it's really important for 
our memories not to dim. At least it's important for my memory not to 
dim, because my most important job is to protect the American people. 
The lesson of 9/11 is that when you allow extremists and radicals and 
killers to find a sanctuary anywhere in the world, that can have deadly 
consequences on the streets of our own cities. What happens overseas 
matters here in the United States of America. It's one of the 
fundamental lessons of September the 11th, 2001.
    Those who advocate pulling out of Iraq claim they are proposing an 
alternative strategy to deal with the situation there. Withdrawal is not 
a strategy. Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent violence from 
spilling out across that country and plunging Iraq into chaos and 
anarchy. Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent Al Qaida from taking 
advantage of the chaos to seize control of a nation with some of the 
world's largest oil resources. Withdrawal would embolden these radicals 
and extremists. Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent Al Qaida from 
using Iraq as a base to overthrow other moderate countries. Withdrawal 
would do nothing to prevent Iran from exploiting the chaos in Iraq to 
destabilize the region, expand its radical influence, threaten Israel, 
and further its ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons.
    If anything, withdrawal would make each of these dangerous 
developments more likely. Withdrawal would embolden enemies and confirm 
their belief that America is weak and does not have the stomach to do 
what is necessary to lay the foundations for peace. Ultimately, 
withdrawal would increase the probability that American troops would 
have to return to Iraq and confront an enemy that is even more 
dangerous.
    So no matter how frustrating the fight in Iraq can be, no matter how 
much we wish the war was over, the security of our country depends 
directly on the outcome of Iraq. The price of giving up there would be 
paid in American lives for years to come. I firmly

[[Page 494]]

believe that historians would look back on that decision to withdraw, 
and say, ``What happened to them in the year 2007; how come they could 
not see the dangers to the United States of America?''
    No one understands the stakes in Iraq more clearly than our troops. 
Every man and woman in our military volunteered for the job. They make 
us proud every day. Michael Evans is a specialist from Sumner, Illinois. 
His unit is part of the new operation to secure Baghdad. He said, quote, 
``It is a great feeling to know we're contributing to getting insurgents 
off the streets, so the people do not have to live in fear.'' He went on 
to say, ``I'll be coming away from this knowing that I was doing 
something to help the American people--so that what happened on 9/11 
never happens again.''
    I agree with him. Specialist Evans represents the greatness of our 
country: decent citizens volunteering to protect you. You know, for all 
we hear about the consequences of failure in Iraq, we should not forget 
the consequences of success in Iraq. Success in Iraq would bring 
something powerful and new, a democracy at the heart of the Middle East, 
a nation that fights terrorists instead of harboring them, and a 
powerful example for others of the power of liberty to overcome an 
ideology of hate.
    We have done this kind of work in the United States of America 
before. I am--you know, I marvel at the fact that on the one hand, my 
dad joined the Navy at 18 to fight a sworn enemy, the Japanese, and on 
the other hand, his son, some 55 years later, best friend and keeping 
the peace with the Prime Minister of Japan. I find that an amazing fact 
of history: 41 fights them; 43 works with them to lay the foundation for 
peace, including working with Japan to deploy Japanese troops in Iraq. 
It's amazing to me. But it shows the power of liberty to transform 
enemies into allies.
    We have done the hard work before of helping young democracies. As a 
matter of fact, we did so after a brutal World War II, in helping 
Germany and Japan get back on their feet and establish forms of 
government that yield peace. We did so after the Korean war. I suspect 
it would be hard to find anybody in 1953 to predict that an American 
President would one day be reporting to the World Affairs Council of 
Western Michigan that relations in the Far East are solid for the United 
States of America and that that part of the world is relatively peaceful 
compared to other troubled parts of the world. In '53 they would have 
been thinking about all the lives lost in Japan or in Korea. In '53 they 
would have seen a Communist China gaining strength.
    And yet, in 2007, we've got a Korea that went through difficult 
times to get to the democracy she's now in and is now a major trading 
partner of the United States. We've got a China with an open 
marketplace, based upon the principles where consumers get to decide 
things, not the state. The political system has got a long way to go, 
but the marketplace is beginning to redefine that society. Or how about 
Japan, a place where we lost thousands of lives, and yet now they're a 
partner in peace.
    America has done the hard work necessary to give liberty a chance to 
prevail. And it's in my opinion and in the opinion of people like 
Specialist Evans that we do so in the Middle East for the sake of peace 
for a young generation of Americans.
    Thank you.
    I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions, on any subject. Yes, 
sir.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations/
War on Terror Strategy

    Q. How do you think the new Democratic Congress will--[inaudible].
    The President. Yes, thanks. First of all, I just want you to know 
that even though I'm quite critical of the delay in the supplemental 
funding, I respect the Democratic leadership in Washington. We have 
fundamental disagreements about whether or not helping this young 
democracy is--the consequences of failure or success, let's put it that 
way. It's also very important in this debate to understand that even 
though we have our policy differences--particularly as the young lad 
that you are--that we don't think either of us are not patriotic 
citizens, okay?
    So when you hear the debate, in my perspective, it's because of--I 
just disagree with the notion that when we have troops in harm's way 
that there ought to be a kind of

[[Page 495]]

political process with strings attached to a piece of legislation that 
goes to fund our troops. As I say, there's ample time to discuss right 
or wrong. I don't believe there's ample time to delay funding for men 
and women who have volunteered.
    Secondly, I feel very strongly--wait a minute--[applause]--this is a 
sober forum--or a forum of sober people, I hope. [Laughter] There is a--
I have a fundamental problem with a--look, a lot of people didn't like 
the strategy. In other words, people said, ``You shouldn't have done 
that, Mr. President.'' And I fully understand that aspect of it. I also 
found it quite ironic that the general I asked to lead the strategy, a 
counterinsurgency expert, David Petraeus, gets approved by the United 
States Senate 81 to nothing, and then, on his way over, they begin to 
micromanage his ability to follow through on the strategy.
    So we have just a policy difference. When it's all said and done, I 
believe these troops will get the money they need. I think you're going 
to see there to be a continual debate on this subject. Interestingly 
enough, I said in a forum yesterday in Ohio and I'll share with you now, 
I thought at this point this year, I would be announcing troop 
reductions in Iraq, because I felt--this is, again, a year ago--I felt 
that the Iraqi Government was better prepared to be able to handle their 
own security. And by the way, they want to handle their own security. 
The Prime Minister is constantly saying, ``Let me do more of it.'' We 
just believe he's not quite ready to do so and that it's in our interest 
to help him to be able to take on more of the security challenges. And I 
thought we'd be reducing troops.
    And then what happened was, the Samarra bombing took place by Al 
Qaida, which caused there to be a sectarian outrage. And because the 
Government was ill-prepared to provide enough security in the capital, 
people began to use militias to provide security. And the sectarian 
outrage, the killing started to get out of hand. And I had a decision to 
make: withdraw from the capital and just kind of hope for the burnout 
theory--as you know, I was worried about chaos, and into chaos comes 
more extremists--or reinforce. I chose to reinforce, all aiming to get 
to a position where we'll be able to reposition our forces.
    I liked what James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton suggested. I thought 
that was a good suggestion. And that is to be in a position at some 
point in time where our troops are embedded with the Iraqi units--in 
other words, there's Iraqi units providing security with a handful of 
U.S. troops helping them learn what it means to be a good military. 
That's not a given. It's hard to have a good military. It's hard to have 
a chain of command with logistical support and maintenance support. And 
we're good at it, and we can help others become good at it. And 
embedding troops and training troops makes sense for me. I like the idea 
of having our troops on the over-horizon presence, to be able to help 
bail out extreme situations. I really want to make sure that our special 
ops stays on the hunt for Al Qaida in Iraq. We can't let Al Qaida 
develop another safe haven. Listen, we spent a lot of energy to drive Al 
Qaida out of Afghanistan; we don't want them to be able to establish a 
same type of safe haven in Iraq. That's where I would like to be.
    I made the judgment, along with our military commanders, we could 
not get there until we provided enough security. And I fully understand 
this is a rough war. As I mentioned in my speech--let me put it more 
bluntly: The enemy has got an advantage. They know that a spectacular 
bombing is going to make it on the news, and it shakes people's 
conscience, and it should. Ours is a nation that has deep compassion for 
human life and human dignity.
    But they also know it makes people question whether or not we can 
succeed in Iraq. Remember, we believe most of the spectaculars, like the 
ones you saw--we don't have--I can't tell you for certain Wednesday's 
bombing was Al Qaida. In other words, I don't have the--I can speculate. 
But I can tell you a lot of the spectacular bombings have been Al Qaida. 
A lot of the suicide bombings have been Al Qaida. That's why I said Al 
Qaida is the main threat for peace, because what they're trying to do is 
shake the confidence of the Iraqi people and their Government and the 
coalition's ability to provide security, and shake our confidence.

[[Page 496]]

    And, you know, as I say, it is tempting to think, well, just pull 
out of there and everything is going to be fine. I firmly believe, 
however, that one of the lessons of September the 11th is that if we 
were to concede Iraq to basically Al Qaida, in a sense, that they would 
follow us here, that oceans no longer protect us. And it's also 
important for you to know that my thinking was deeply affected on 
September the 11th, 2001. And therefore, a lot of the core of my 
thinking is to work to protect the United States as my most solemn 
obligation.
    Yes, sir.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. No, thank you. Good question. His question was, one, 
the relationship with Tony Blair; two, they have reduced their troops in 
Basra, in southern Iraq, and has that affected our relationship.
    First, I have found Tony Blair to be a stand-up man. He's the kind 
of person who keeps his word. He's a strategic thinker. He thinks beyond 
the moment, to be able to try to project out beyond the current, so that 
the decisions that we have made jointly are decisions that end up 
yielding a long-term peace.
    He, of course, like a good ally, informed me of his Government's 
intentions to reduce their presence in Basra. I concurred with him 
because the conditions on the ground were such that he didn't need to 
keep as many troops there as were initially stationed there. Secondly, 
what's interesting, as he made the announcement on Basra, he also made 
the announcement that they're going to send more troops into 
Afghanistan. Blair knows what I know--Prime Minister Blair knows what I 
know, that we're in a global war and that we think about Afghanistan and 
Iraq as separate wars--they're of the same war; they're just different 
theaters of this war.
    He also knows what I know, that we have got to work really closely 
and share intelligence, and that's one of the reasons I appreciate Pete 
so much. He understands the intelligence business as a key component of 
keeping the country safe. We've got to share intelligence. This is--Tony 
Blair is the Prime Minister of a country which has been attacked; so has 
ours. And--no, I appreciate you bringing him up; he's solid. And in my 
judgment, the world needs courageous leadership, people like Tony Blair.
    Yes, sir.

Iran and Syria/Spread of Democracy in the Middle East

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. What's the next step for the United 
States, or even the United Nations, in dealing with the belligerent 
behavior of Iran with regards to nuclear development?
    The President. Yes, thank you. Excellent question. You go to school 
here?
    Q. No. [Laughter]
    The President. I was going to say, give the man an ``A.''
    First of all, you do understand Iran is a Shi'a nation primarily. 
Interestingly enough, though, only 50 percent of the nation is Persian. 
A great portion of Iran is Azeri, Baloch, other kinds of nationalities 
make up their country.
    The Iranians have defied international organizations in an attempt 
to enrich uranium and--we believe, because they want to have a nuclear 
weapon. And I believe this challenge is one of the most significant 
challenges we face--``we,'' the free world, face. There's a lot of 
reasons why.
    One, just as an example, you really don't want a regime that funds 
terrorist organizations like Hizballah to have a nuclear weapon as a 
part of their capacity to create the conditions, for example, of 
diplomatic blackmail. Secondly, the current leader of Iran has--I can't 
remember exactly his words, but the sum of them were that the 
destruction of one of our allies was important to them--that would be 
Israel.
    Third, it's ironic, isn't it, that any time a democracy begins to 
take hold in the Middle East, extremist groups prevent that democracy 
from moving forward. One such democracy is Lebanon, a wonderful little 
country. And yet there is a Syrian influence--Syria uses not only their 
own agents inside the country but Hizballah to destabilize this young 
democracy. And Hizballah is funded by Iran. In other words, the Iranian 
regime's

[[Page 497]]

current posture is to destabilize young democracies, and they're doing 
so in Iraq as well.
    So our objective is to rally the world to make it clear to the 
current regime that if they continue their practices they will continue 
to be isolated. And we're making interesting progress. We've passed 
several U.N. Security Council resolutions, the primary benefit of which 
is to say to the Iranian regime, and equally importantly the Iranian 
people, that countries as diverse as the United States and China and 
Russia and parts of Europe will isolate you, will deny you, the Iranian 
people, the benefits that you deserve. Iran is a proud country with a 
great tradition and good, hard-working people. And yet their Government 
is making decisions that endanger peace and, at the same time, will 
continue to lead to isolation. And so, should the Iranian people worry 
about isolation? I think so, because you're missing economic 
opportunities. You're missing the chance to improve your lives. You're 
missing the chance to enhance your country's great history.
    The choice is up to the Iranian Government as to whether or not they 
will be accepted into the family of nations, all aimed at promoting 
peace and economic prosperity. They've made a bad choice up to now. And 
so we'll continue to work hard with the rest of the world, all aiming at 
solving this very difficult problem diplomatically.
    Yes, ma'am.

Iraq Study Group/Situation in the Middle East

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Sure.
    Q. I think that's a great idea. I was wondering, we did have a 
group--a commission, I believe, here, that was discussing how to solve 
our Iraq problems, but we really haven't implemented the advice from----
    The President. Baker-Hamilton.
    Q. ----Baker-Hamilton commission. I was wondering how we were going 
to be able to convince the countries that participate in this conference 
in Egypt that we will actually consider implementing their advice----
    The President. That's a good question. First, there was a couple of 
aspects of Baker-Hamilton--a lot of it had to do with troop posture. And 
Baker-Hamilton recommended that, as I described, a troop presence to 
help keep the territorial integrity of Iraq, to embed, to train, to be 
over the horizon, to chase down extremists. That's pretty much what they 
recommended, and I agree. The problem is--and by the way, on, like, page 
70-something in their book, they said: And the United States may have to 
increase troop levels necessary to be able to get there. And that's what 
I did. [Applause] Wait a minute, wait a minute--because I realize that 
we couldn't be in a position on the troop postures they recommended if 
the capital went into flames. That's a judgment I made.
    By the way, with the advice of a lot of people--and just so you 
know, I spend a lot of time listening to our military. I trust our 
military; I like our military; I'm impressed by our military. I spend a 
lot of time talking to Condi Rice. I spend a lot of time talking to 
allies in the Congress, and I spend a lot of time listening to and 
talking to people who have a different point of view.
    It was after this considered judgment that I made that decision, all 
aiming at some point in time. Now, the problem is, the Congress, many of 
whom think that it's a good idea, however are unwilling to allow 
conditions on the ground to make the decisions as to when we can ever 
get there. I don't have that luxury. I must allow conditions on the 
ground to dictate our position in order to make decisions.
    Now, a lot of what Baker-Hamilton talked about was--or some of what 
they talked about was the diplomatic initiatives. There were--they 
talked about a regional conference, and we're happy to participate. They 
also suggested that the United States enter into bilateral negotiations 
with Syria, for example. And this is where I have a disagreement. As you 
know--as you may or may not know, when I was a younger lad, Jimmy Baker 
was in Houston and a good friend of my family's, and in spite of my deep 
affection for him, I invited him into the Oval Office and said, ``I 
disagree with you.'' And he said, ``Fine, I disagree with you.'' 
[Laughter]
    And the reason I do is because--now, there's a difference between a 
regional conference, in my judgment, and--I'll tell you

[[Page 498]]

what I hope we can gain out of that--but I do want to address why it's--
I think it would be counterproductive at this point to sit down with the 
Syrians, because Syria knows exactly what it takes to get better 
relations with the United States. It's not as if they haven't heard what 
we're for, and we're for making sure they leave the Lebanese democracy 
alone. They have undermined Lebanon's democracy. When the United States 
and France worked together on a U.N. resolution, the U.N. demanded that 
they leave Lebanon. They did, but they're still meddling.
    Secondly, there's a man who was assassinated, named Hariri. It's 
very important that there be a full investigation of the Hariri murder, 
and they know we expect them to support that investigation. We believe 
they're hindering that investigation right now. Thirdly, they're 
providing safe haven for--I'll just say they've got--Hamas and Hizballah 
have got centers of influence in Damascus. That's unacceptable to the 
United States. We have made it clear to them that in order for them to 
have better relations that they must rid their capital of these 
organizations, all aimed at wreaking havoc in the Middle East and 
preventing, for example, the development of a peaceful Palestinian state 
that can live with Israel, side by side in peace.
    And finally, Syria is a transit way for suicide bombers heading into 
Iraq. In sum, they have been particularly unhelpful in achieving peace 
we want. Now what happens when people go sit down with Bashar Asad, the 
President of Syria, he walks out and holds a press conference, and says, 
``Look how important I am; people are coming to see me; people think I'm 
vital.'' But he hasn't delivered on one request by the free world.
    I asked our security folks, the national security folks to give me a 
list of all the foreign advisers and foreign secretaries of state and 
all the people that have gone to see Bashar Asad. And every time they 
send one in there, we say, why, why are you sending somebody there; what 
is your intention; what have you asked them to do? They all say 
basically what I just said, and nothing has happened. And my attitude 
is, is that I think talks would be counterproductive. I'm interested not 
in process. I'm interested in results. I'm interested in this leader 
turning Syria into a positive influence for peace, not an obstructionist 
to peace.
    On Iran, I said we'll talk to Iran, but they've got to suspend their 
enrichment. Diplomacy works when people sit down at the table and need 
something from you. That's how diplomacy works. It is, in my judgment, 
just talking for the sake of talking doesn't yield positive results 
often. As a matter of fact, it can reaffirm behavior that is not in our 
interests. So we've said to the Iranians, we will talk with you, but 
first do what the world has asked you to do, and suspend the enrichment 
of uranium.
    As I said in my talk here, and I'm speaking to you--I'm also 
speaking to the Iranian people. They must know that our beef with Iran 
is not with the people of Iran; it's with the Government of Iran that 
continues to make decisions that isolates you from the opportunities of 
a fantastic world.
    Now, what do we hope to gain out of the regional conference? It's 
very important for us, first of all, for the Iraqi democracy to gain 
acceptance. This is a new Government. Remember, these folks were run by 
a tyrant for years, and now we're watching the emergence of a new 
government that has not been in office for a year yet, by the way. We've 
been there for more than a year, but the Constitution was passed in '05, 
late '05; the new Government was seated in June of '06. So Prime 
Minister Maliki--and it's important, I think, for the world to 
recognize, or the region to recognize that he was duly elected by the 
people of Iraq and represents the will of the Iraqi citizens. It's 
important for people to express their support for this new Government.
    Let me just talk about a couple of countries. One, Saudi Arabia. My 
friend, His Majesty, the King, kindly forgave 80 percent of the debt in 
the run-up to this conference; 80 percent of Saudi debt to Iraq was 
forgiven. That's a strong gesture. It's a gesture that I'm confident 
will spread good will in Iraq. And so the conference can be a success on 
that alone.
    I will tell you, however, that His Majesty is skeptical about the 
Shi'a government in Iraq. And it's going to be very important for Prime 
Minister Maliki to follow through on

[[Page 499]]

the new de-Ba'athification law, for example, which reaches out to 
Sunnis. People say, what does that mean? Well, the law was passed that 
basically said, if you were a member of the Ba'ath party, you couldn't 
participate in much of civil society. And in some Provinces, that is--
that's precluded people from being school teachers. In other words, in 
order to be a teacher, you had to sign up for Saddam's deal, and yet you 
might not have been a political person. And so what a lot of folks are 
watching is to see whether or not there's going to be a reconciliation 
with the Sunnis who have been affected by the de-Ba'athification.
    The oil revenue sharing is a very interesting aspect, and this is 
what people are watching for, because most of the oil is in Shi'a land 
or with the Kurds. And therefore, an equitable sharing agreement of the 
people's resources throughout society will send a signal that this 
Government is not going to take unnecessary retribution against peaceful 
Sunnis. And so the benchmarks that I described are important for 
America, but they're also important to make sure that further regional 
conferences are successful.
    And so I talked to Condi about this last night--as a matter of fact, 
this very subject, about what constitutes success. And first of all, 
it's successful to have people come to the table and discuss Iraq and 
its new form of government. In other words, the region recognizes there 
is a new government when they come, and that's vital. And then we'll see 
whether or not some of the pledges, reconstruction pledges, will be met. 
Excellent question.
    Yes, sir.

Public Opinion on Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, thanks for coming to the west coast, first.
    The President. Looking for the surfboard. [Laughter]
    Q. You mentioned in your comments, sir, about the American patience. 
What's the Prime Minister's take on that? What is his understanding of 
American patience?
    The President. Well, he is--you know, I don't know, I think he's 
concerned about his own country's patience, first and foremost. He's 
having a tough time. I will give you my take on patience. I think that 
if the American people fully understand the stakes of failure, they'll 
understand why we're doing what we're doing. And my own view of patience 
is that a President--and I believe Tony Blair agrees with this--must 
make decisions on certain principles and not try to chase opinion polls. 
If you make decisions based upon the latest opinion poll, you won't be 
thinking long-term strategy on behalf of the American people.
    And Tony Blair understands that as well. At least that's what I get 
from him. That's--when I talk to him, that's the impression I get.
    There weren't opinion polls when Abraham Lincoln was the President. 
Believe me, I'm not comparing myself to him, but I just don't think a 
President like Abraham Lincoln made a decision about whether all men 
were created equal based upon an opinion poll. [Laughter] Nor do I make 
an opinion about my strong belief that freedom is universal, and there's 
no debate. I believe in the universality of liberty, and I believe 
liberty has got the capacity to help transform parts of the world into 
peaceful parts of the world.
    That's what I described to you at the end of--what happened at the 
end of World War II and at the end of the Korean conflict. I firmly 
believe in the power of freedom, and I firmly believe that everybody 
wants to be free. As a matter of fact, to take it a step further, I 
believe there's an Almighty, and I believe a great gift to each man, 
woman, and child in this world is freedom. That's what I believe. It is 
a principle from which I will not deviate.
    People said to me--the guy asked a question the other day, you don't 
like the opinion polls and all that stuff--I said, any politician who 
says they don't want to be popular, you know--you can't win if, like, 
50-plus-one don't like you for a moment. [Laughter] You can't make your 
decisions, however, based on something that just changes; it just, poof. 
And when it's all said and done, I fully understand that some of the 
decisions I have made have created a lot of national debate. But I want 
you to know something, that when I go home and look in the mirror in 
Crawford, Texas, after my time, I will be able to have said, he didn't 
change his principles

[[Page 500]]

to be the popular guy, you know, he stood for what he believed.

Spread of Democracy in the Middle East/U.S. Foreign Policy

    Q. Mr. President, I really appreciate your emphasis on the 
universality of freedom. I'm wondering if and how the United States can 
promote liberal democratic reform in countries like Saudi Arabia and 
whether you could address specifically whether it is, perhaps, American 
support for these autocratic regimes that are creating such an Islamic 
backlash against the United States?
    The President. That is a--boy, I don't want to be Mr. Gratuitous, 
say, fabulous question, but it's really one of the fundamental questions 
that has caused a lot of debate in Washington, DC, about my freedom 
agenda.
    There are some who say that promoting democracy and liberty in the 
Middle East is a waste of time. I happen to believe that, kind of, 
managing stability doesn't address the root cause of the problems that 
caused 19 kids to get on an airplane and kill 3,000 of our citizens. And 
so part of our strategy to defend the country is the promotion of 
freedom around the world. I also, in my second Inaugural Address, 
believe in the interests of the United States to challenge tyranny 
wherever we find it. As an aside, and I'm not suggesting my friends 
here, the scribblers over here are saying this, but some have called him 
hopelessly idealistic to believe in the power of freedom to transform 
parts of the world that seem impervious to liberty.
    I believe it is the only realistic way to protect ourselves in the 
long term, and that is to address the conditions that create hatred, 
envy, and violence.
    The other thing that's important to note is that societies, 
depending upon their past, take a while to achieve freedom as we define 
it. In other words, some move at snail's pace, some move, obviously, 
quicker. And all the societies will reflect their own traditions and 
histories. So when you hear me talk about the freedom agenda, it's not 
like, I expect Jefferson democracy to be blooming in the desert.
    Secondly, friendship with leaders makes it easier to have a frank 
and candid discussion in a way that doesn't offend. And my friend--I do 
have a good, very close relationship with King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, 
and I'm proud of that relationship. It gives me a chance to be able to 
share with him ideas about--in a private way, obviously not so private 
now--[laughter]--why I believe giving people more voice in the affairs 
of their Government is in the interests of their Government. Same with 
my friend President Mubarak of Egypt. I have made it clear, for example, 
that--and by the way, the Egyptians had a Presidential election that was 
quite modern and different. And I don't believe that it's going to be 
possible to be able to have a less-free Presidential election during the 
next round.
    And so there is progress being made toward more liberty, in a part 
of the world that most people said had no chance to be a place for 
democracy to take hold. I will give you the--in Yemen there was an 
election that was supervised by international bodies. They came out and 
said, it's a fair election. There are women now serving in Kuwait 
Parliament. Jordan, the King of Jordan is making moves toward 
liberalizing his society. I think, slowly but surely--and by the way, 
this is a long process. Remember, I talked about the aftermath of the 
Korean war. This is like--we're talking 55 years later. It takes a 
while.
    And the fundamental question facing the country is, will we be 
engaged in the Middle East helping moderates defeat and fight off 
radicals--hopefully not militarily every single time, hopefully rarely 
militarily--but by defeating an ideology with forms of government. And 
it's really going to be an interesting debate. I have staked my claim 
for the first part of the 21st century. I will tell you, I am worried 
about our country becoming isolationist and protectionist. We have been 
through isolationist and protectionist spells in our history. One of my 
concerns is that people say, ``It is not worth it to be engaged as 
heavily as we are in parts of the world,'' particularly the Middle East. 
I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned because I believe it will be 
missed opportunity to help people realize that--if you've got a Muslim 
brotherhood doing a better job of providing health care and education, 
the way to deal with that is to do a better job than they are, as 
opposed

[[Page 501]]

to ignoring the realities on the ground. And that's what open societies 
that have got an election process force people to do.
    I was criticized by some that upon insisting that the Palestinian 
elections go forward. I believe elections are the beginning of the 
reform process, not the end. I believe elections have the capacity to 
show the elite what's right and what's wrong. And I believe the Hamas 
elections in the Middle East made it clear that the Palestinians are 
sick and tired of corruption and government that was not responding to 
their needs.
    I wasn't happy with the outcome of the election--sometimes that 
happens, you're not happy with the outcome of elections. [Laughter] But 
I was inspired by the fact that the Palestinians went to the polls and 
said, in the fairest way possible, ``We're sick of it. Arafat has let us 
down; no peace. We want to live in peace. Where's the prosperity? Let's 
get us another bunch in there and see if they can do the job.'' The 
problem is, is that the new crowd they have in there refuses to 
recognize Israel's right to exist, which runs contrary to our policy. 
And therefore, we will continue to take the posture we're taken, because 
we're interested in peace.
    I'm interested in helping the Palestinians develop a Palestinian 
state. It's all along the same agenda, by the way, which is the freedom 
agenda. I believe the only way for Israel to have secure peace in the 
long run is for there to be a democracy living side by side with Israel 
in peace. I'm afraid that Israel will ultimately be overrun by 
demographics in order for her to remain a Jewish democratic state. And 
yet Hamas wins. And you can't expect a Israeli democratic elected 
official to negotiate with a group of people who have avowed to destroy 
them.
    And hopefully, at some point in time, the situation will get 
clarified, if the Palestinian people have another right to express 
themselves, and that right ought to be, are you for a state or not for a 
state? Are you going to have people that prevent a better future for 
emerging from you? By the way, this all started with the elections. And 
they said, ``Oh, you shouldn't have elections; you shouldn't have been 
fighting against them.'' Why would I fight against elections? I'm for 
elections. I think elections are important for society. I think--and I 
think they're equally important here as they are in the Middle East.
    And the fundamental question, really, facing in the long term on 
this is, will the United States believe that the value system that has 
enabled our country, by the way, to emerge--and it took us 100 years to 
get rid of slavery, for example. Far be it from us to say we're perfect. 
We had a great Constitution, but our history has been scarred by 
treating people like chattel, with slavery, which is an abhorrent part 
of our past. But nevertheless, it takes a while, and it takes patience. 
But it also takes great faith and certain value systems to help 
societies emerge.
    The other question is on trade. And by the way, I happen to believe 
isolationism and protectionism go hand in hand. As you know, I'm an 
open-market trader. I believe in free trade. I think competition and 
trade not only helps the United States, I think it's the best way to 
alleviate poverty around the world. And that doesn't mean you don't 
enforce trade agreements. Recently we've enforced trade agreements with 
China--not trying to shutdown trade, but trying to enhance trade, trying 
to make trade more palatable to people in the United States, recognizing 
that there is such thing as fair trade as well as free trade.
    But I'm concerned about people saying, ``Well, it's just not worth 
it; shut her down; let's make it harder to trade.'' There's going to be 
some interesting trade votes coming up in front of the Congress here--
free trade agreement with Peru and Colombia are coming up. And we'll 
find out whether or not the leadership and both Republicans and 
Democrats are truly committed to not only our neighborhood but trading 
in a way that enhances prosperity for both sides of the equation.
    We're in the middle of negotiations on the Doha round of WTO. I hope 
some of you are concerned about world poverty. I certainly am. And the 
best way to deal with world poverty is to encourage prosperity through 
trade and opening up markets. And we're in complex negotiations, and I'm 
dedicated to getting this round completed in a way that meets our 
interests, but also meets other interests.

[[Page 502]]

    I want to share with you one other thing, then I've got to get out 
of here. You know, Laura says, ``You get up there and all you do is 
talk, and you love to hear yourself talk.'' [Laughter] I want to share 
one other aspect of our foreign policy. I believe to whom much is given, 
much is required. And I want to share something about this great, 
generous nation, for which you deserve a lot of credit.
    Whether it be on HIV/AIDS or malaria, the United States is in the 
lead. And when I got elected, I was deeply concerned about the fact that 
an entire generation of folks on the continent of Africa could be wiped 
out by a disease that we could not cure but halt. And I set up what's 
called the Global Fund for AIDS. And yet it kind of sat there empty. It 
was a deal where everybody could contribute, and then the United States 
would match to try to encourage commitments, but it didn't fill up. And 
so I went to Congress and asked that they spend your money on a 
unilateral initiative where we would take on I think the 17 most or 19 
most affected countries in the world and deliver antiretroviral drugs.
    Foreign policy is more than military. It is more than just spreading 
freedom. It's also, in my judgment, in our interest to base it upon that 
admonition, if you're blessed, you ought to help others. And as a result 
of the American people, we spread antiretrovirals or got antiretrovirals 
to 850,000 people. That's up from 50,000 in 3 years.
    We're all interconnected in this world. What happens overseas 
matters here at home, from a security perspective, but I also believe it 
matters here at home from the perspective of keeping our spirits strong. 
It's in the interest of this country that we be engaged in freeing 
people from tyranny, the tyranny of government and the tyranny of 
disease and hunger.
    I appreciate you giving me a chance to come and visit with you. God 
bless.

Note: The President spoke at 1:02 p.m. at East Grand Rapids High School. 
In his remarks, he referred to Larry Fisher, associate prinicpal, East 
Grand Rapids High School; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding 
general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of 
Iraq; Mahmud al-Mashhadani, Speaker of the Iraqi House of 
Representatives; Fouad Ajami, director, Middle East Studies Program, 
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins 
University; former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; President 
Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; and King Abdallah II of Jordan.