[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 18 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Pages 562-574]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to the Associated General Contractors of America and a Question-

and-Answer Session

May 2, 2007

    The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Please be seated. 
Steve, unlike you, I have trouble finding the front end of a front-end 
loader. [Laughter] Thanks for having me. I'm proud to be here with the 
AGC. It's the oldest and largest construction trade association in our 
country. I understand I'm not the first Bush to have ever addressed the 
AGC convention; a person I now refer to as 41 addressed you. [Laughter] 
And I appreciated your hospitality to him then, and I appreciate your 
hospitality to me today.
    I want to talk about--a little bit about our economy, and I want to 
talk a lot about our security. And I thank you for giving me a chance to 
come by. What I thought I would do is try to keep my remarks relatively 
brief and then maybe give you all some time to ask some questions.
    First, I want to thank Steve. Steve is a Virginia Tech grad, and our 
hearts are still heavy as a result of that terrible incident there on 
the campus. And yet, the amazing thing about that campus--and a lot of 
other places around the country--is we've got a great resiliency; people 
bounce back from tragedy. So, Steve, you can tell the Virginia Tech 
community, we're still thinking about them and appreciate very much the 
great kind of strength of spirit there--at least I saw that there in 
Blacksburg, Virginia.
    I want to thank two Members of the Senate who have joined us. First, 
John Warner,

[[Page 563]]

from Virginia. Senator, thank you for coming; ranking member of the 
House Military Committee he is a--Armed Services Committee--he's a 
strong supporter of the troops. And I appreciate Senator Joe Lieberman. 
John is a Republican; Senator Lieberman is an independent. Joe Lieberman 
is one of these--I would call him a unique soul who followed his 
conscience, stood for what he believed in, in the face of a political 
firestorm. And he proved that if you stand on conviction, the people 
will follow. And I look forward to working with these two really fine 
public servants to make the decisions necessary to protect the United 
States. And I'm honored you all are here, and thank you for coming.
    I like to be in the room of builders and doers and problemsolvers 
and entrepreneurs. And I thank you for what you do every day. Your job 
is to improve infrastructure and provide work for people. Our job is to 
provide an environment so that you can build infrastructure and provide 
work for people. Our job is not to try to create wealth in government. 
Our job is to create an environment that encourages small businesses and 
entrepreneurials--and entrepreneurs.
    I believe this administration has done that, particularly since we 
cut taxes. You know, most small businesses and self-employed people, 
people in your line of work, or many of them, are not corporations. 
They're sole proprietorships or subchapter S corporations or limited 
partnerships that pay tax at the individual income-tax level.
    And therefore, when you cut taxes, we not only--individual rates, 
we're not only cutting them on the people who work for you or work with 
you; we're cutting them on you. And my attitude is the more money you 
have in your treasuries, the more likely it is you'll be able to expand. 
The more incentive you have to buy a piece of equipment, the more likely 
it is you'll buy one, which means that somebody is going to have to 
build it for you.
    The best way to enhance progrowth economic policies is to cut the 
taxes on the American people, and that's exactly what we did. These 
taxes are set to expire. In my judgment, if Congress really wants to 
create a progrowth attitude for a long time coming, they ought to make 
the tax relief we passed permanent. They ought not to let them expire.
    My attitude is this about the budget: The best way to balance the 
budget is to keep taxes low, encourage growth, which enhances tax 
revenues, and be wise about how we spend money. I worry about the 
attitude, ``Don't worry; we're just going to raise the taxes on some to 
balance the budget.'' No, they'll raise the tax on some and figure out 
new ways to spend the money. And we're proving that progrowth economic 
policies with fiscal discipline can work, and our budgets are shrinking. 
The best way to keep them shrinking is keep the economy growing and be 
wise about--and setting priorities with your money.
    There's other things we can do in Washington. We've got to make sure 
health care is affordable and available, without inviting the Federal 
Government to run the health care system. Got to do something about 
these junk lawsuits that I'm sure you're concerned about. We've got to 
continue to invest in the Nation's infrastructure.
    We also need an immigration system that upholds the rule of law and 
treats people with respect. We need an immigration system that secures 
our borders and meets the needs of our economy. As I said in the speech 
down in Florida the other day, we need an immigration system without 
amnesty and without animosity. In other words, we need a comprehensive 
immigration reform. I want to thank you for the stand you have taken in 
working with Congress on comprehensive immigration reform. I join you.
    I will work with both Republicans and Democrats to get a bill to my 
desk before the summer is out, hopefully. And I thank the leadership in 
the Senate that's working through this issue. I want to thank Senator 
Jon Kyl of Arizona for working hard on this, Mel Martinez, Arlen 
Specter, Lindsey Graham. There's a series of Senators who are working 
with Ted Kennedy, who is a strong advocate for comprehensive immigration 
reform. And I appreciate the leadership he's taken, along with Ken 
Salazar of Colorado. We're making progress. There's a lot more work to 
be done, and your help is important. And so I want to thank you for 
coming up with a rational, reasonable, logical plan.

[[Page 564]]

    I want to talk to you about the other main issue we have here in 
America, and that is your security. The most important job we have is to 
secure the United States of America. That's the most important job of 
the Federal Government. You expect us to spend enormous amounts of 
energy protecting you, and that's what we're doing. I vowed to the 
American people we would not tire when it came to protecting you, and 
we're not going to. Matter of fact, I spend a lot of time thinking about 
this issue. I wish I didn't have to spend time thinking about the issue, 
but I do because there's still an enemy out there that would like to do 
America harm. And therefore, at this hour, we've got men and women in 
uniform engaging our enemies around the world. Our strategy is, we've 
got to keep the pressure on them. We would rather fight them there so we 
don't have to face them here.
    And the most visible and violent front of this global war is Iraq. 
And it's a tough fight. It has been a difficult year for the American 
people, and I understand that. It reached--last year was, this battle 
reached its most difficult point to date. The terrorists and extremists 
and radicals set off a wave of sectarian violence that engulfed that 
young democracy's capital. It threatened to destabilize the entire 
country.
    So earlier this year, I laid out a new strategy in Iraq. I named a 
new commander to carry it out, General David Petraeus. I want to give 
you some facts about the new strategy and talk about why Iraq relates 
directly to the safety of the American people.
    The most important fact about our new strategy, it is fundamentally 
different from the previous strategy. The previous strategy wasn't 
working the way we wanted it to work. It's interesting; they run polls--
and I accept that--and it said, you know, ``We don't approve of what's 
happening in Iraq.'' That was what the poll said last fall and winter, 
you know. And had they polled me, I'd have said the same thing. 
[Laughter] I didn't approve of what was happening in Iraq, and so we put 
a new strategy in that was fundamentally different.
    First of all, Petraeus, General Petraeus is an expert on 
counterinsurgency, and his top priority is to help the Iraqi leaders--
who, by the way, were elected by nearly 12 million of their citizens--
secure their population. And the reason why is, is that this young 
democracy needed some time to make important political decisions to help 
reconcile the country. After a thorough review, we concluded the best 
way to help Iraq's leaders to provide security was to send more troops 
into the nation's capital, into the country; was to send reinforcements 
to those troops which were already there. And their job was to go after 
the extremists and radicals who were inciting sectarian violence. Their 
job was to help get Baghdad under control. And their job was to continue 
to train Iraqi forces for the day they can secure the country on their 
own.
    Last week, General Petraeus came to Washington, and he updated me, 
and he updated the Congress on the early stages of this new strategy--
and I repeat, early stages. He reminded us that not all the 
reinforcements he'd requested have arrived, that it's going to be at 
least until the end of this summer that he will know whether or not the 
new strategy has achieved successes. And that means the strategy is in 
early stages.
    My view is the Congress and the country ought to give General 
Petraeus time to see whether or not this works. And it's interesting, he 
goes up in front of the Senate and gets confirmed unanimously. And he 
said, ``I need more troops''--during his testimony--``send me more 
troops, and I will go implement a new plan.'' They said, okay, fine, we 
confirm you. And yet there are some doubts in Washington whether or not 
they ought to send the troops. The troops are going. The strategy is 
new. And the general said, ``Let's give it some time to work to see 
whether or not it's successful, and I'll be able to report back to the 
country by the end of this summer.''
    The most significant element of the new strategy is being carried 
out in the capital. The whole purpose is to secure the capital. My 
theory is, and it's a good one, is that if the capital is in chaos, the 
country can't--it's going to be difficult for the country to survive.
    The strategy is also being carried out in what's called surrounding 
belts. This is the areas that kind of arc around the capital, and

[[Page 565]]

it's a place where there's been a lot of planning and plotting and 
attacking. Three American brigades, totaling about 12,000 
reinforcements, have taken up their positions in the Baghdad area. The 
fourth brigade, fourth of five, is heading into Baghdad this week. And 
the fifth is on its way. In other words, you just don't take five 
brigades and move them in overnight. There's a sequencing that has to 
take place, and that sequencing is now being completed.
    The Iraqis, by the way, have increased their own forces. In other 
words, this is a joint operation. This is the Americans and coalition 
forces helping the Iraqis provide security so that the average person 
can live a peaceful life. That's what they want. And so we've got about 
a total of 80,000 combat forces now in the Baghdad area--U.S. combined 
with the Iraqi forces. The position of the forces is shifting. We used 
to have our forces live in bases outside the city. They would go in at 
night or during the day and then leave and go back home at night. They 
did a fine job, as you'd expect our U.S. forces to do or the Iraqi 
forces would do so. And then when they would leave, killers would move 
back in.
    And so now we've got American troops are now living and working in 
small neighborhood posts called joint security stations. This is what's 
fundamentally different from the strategy. Our troops, with the Iraqis, 
go into a neighborhood, and they stay. They operate side by side with 
the Iraqi forces.
    What's interesting is, is that the plan, General Petraeus's plan, is 
to help build trust. And when you build trust, you end up getting people 
buying into a centralized government, a unity government, a country that 
is united. And not only that, you end up getting cooperation from 
people. Remember, most people want to live peaceful lives. I hope this 
make sense to you because I firmly believe that Iraqi moms want their 
child to grow up in a peaceful world, just like American moms do.
    And so we're seeing some gains. The interesting thing about this is 
that the nature of this strategy is that the most important gains are 
often the least dramatic. It doesn't generate much attention when 
violence does not happen. Instead, some important indicators of progress 
in the security plan are less visible. I would like to share some with 
you.
    The level of cooperation from local residents is important; it's an 
indication as to whether or not we're making progress. Our ability to 
take weapons off the street and break up extremist groups; the 
willingness of Iraqis to join their security forces is an interesting 
measurement; and finally, it's important to measure the level of 
sectarian violence. If the objective is to bring security to the 
capital, one measurement is whether or not sectarian violence is 
declining. These measures are really not flashy. In other words, they're 
not headline-grabbing measures. They certainly can't compete with a car 
bomb or a suicide attack, but they are interesting indications. And as 
General Petraeus reported, these are heading in the right direction.
    For example, General Petraeus reports that American and Iraqi forces 
received more tips from local residents in the past 4 months than during 
any other 4-month period on record. People are beginning to have some 
confidence, and they're beginning to step forth with information, 
information that will help them live normal lives.
    Thanks to these tips the number of weapons caches that are being 
seized are growing each month. Better intelligence has led American and 
Iraqi forces in Baghdad and the surrounding belts to conduct operations 
against Sunni and Shi'a extremists. My attitude is, if murderers run 
free, it's going to be hard to convince the people of any society that 
the government is worth supporting. And therefore, the Iraqis and U.S. 
forces and coalition forces are after murderers, regardless of their 
religious affiliation.
    American and Iraqi forces captured the head of a major car bombing 
ring recently, the leader of a bombing network with ties to Iran, 
members of a death squad that terrorized a Baghdad neighborhood, the 
leader of a secret militia cell that kidnaped and executed American 
soldiers. These are just some examples of what happens when you start to 
earn the confidence of the people.
    Baghdad residents see actions, they grow more confident. 
Interestingly enough, General Petraeus reported that in his short time 
he's been there and in the short time that

[[Page 566]]

this plan is being implemented--remember, it's not fully implemented; 
three of the brigades are present, are in place; the fourth brigade has 
just moved into Baghdad, and it will be in place relatively soon; and 
the fifth is on its way--that in spite of the fact that we haven't fully 
implemented the plan, the number of sectarian murders in Baghdad has 
dropped substantially.
    Even as the sectarian attacks have declined, the overall level of 
violence in Baghdad remains high. Illegal armed groups continue their 
attacks; insurgents remain deadly. In other words, as we report 
progress, it's very important for us to make sure that the American 
people understand there's still issues, there's still challenges. 
Illegal armed groups need to be dealt with, and we are.
    The primary reason for the high level of violence is this: Al Qaida 
has ratcheted up its campaign of high-profile attacks, including deadly 
suicide bombers carried out by foreign terrorists. In the past 3 weeks, 
Al Qaida has sent suicide bombers into the Iraqi Parliament. Or they 
send a suicide attack into an American military base. These attacks may 
seem like random killing; they're not. They're part of Al Qaida's 
calculated campaign to reignite sectarian violence in Baghdad, to 
discourage the Iraqi citizen, and to break support for the war here at 
home. This is what these murderers are trying to achieve.
    I don't need to remind you who Al Qaida is. Al Qaida is the group 
that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our 
soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who 
came and murdered our citizens. Now, I've got to tell you, that day 
deeply affected my decisionmaking. And I vowed that I would do anything 
that I possibly could, within the law, to protect the American citizens 
against further attack by these ideologues, by these murderers.
    And so when I'm talking about Al Qaida in Iraq, I fully recognize 
what happens in Iraq matters here at home. Despite their tremendous 
brutality, they failed to provoke the large-scale sectarian reprisals 
that Al Qaida wants. The recent attacks are not the revenge killings 
that some have called a civil war; they are a systematic assault on the 
entire nation. Al Qaida is public enemy number one in Iraq. And all 
people of that society ought to come together and recognize the threat, 
unite against the threat, and reconcile their differences.
    For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to 
take sides in a civil war; it's whether we stay in the fight against the 
same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11. I 
strongly believe it's in our national interest to stay in the fight.
    As you watch the developments in Baghdad, it's important to 
understand that we will not be able to prevent every Al Qaida attack. 
When a terrorist is willing to kill himself to kill others, it's really 
hard to stop him. Yet, over time, the security operation in Baghdad is 
designed to shrink the areas where Al Qaida can operate; it's designed 
to bring out more intelligence about their presence and designed to 
allow American and Iraqi forces to dismantle their network.
    We have a strategy to deal with Al Qaida in Iraq. But any time you 
say to a bunch of coldblooded killers, success depends on no violence, 
all that does is hand them the opportunity to be successful. And it's 
hard. I know it's hard for the American people to turn on their TV 
screens and see the horrific violence. It speaks volumes about the 
American desire to protect lives of innocent people, America's deep 
concern about human rights and human dignity. It also speaks volumes 
about Al Qaida, that they're willing to take innocent life to achieve 
political objectives.
    The terrorists will continue to fight back. In other words, they 
understand what they're doing. And casualties are likely to stay high. 
Yet, day by day, block by block, we are steadfast in helping Iraqi 
leaders counter the terrorists, protect their people, and reclaim the 
capital. And if I didn't think it was necessary for the security of the 
country, I wouldn't put our kids in harm's way.
    We're seeing significant progress from our new strategy in Anbar 
Province as well. That's a largely Sunni area west of Baghdad. It's been 
a hotbed for Al Qaida and insurgents. According to a captured Al Qaida 
document--in other words, according to what Al Qaida has said--and by 
the way, in a war to protect America, it's really important to

[[Page 567]]

take the words of the enemy very seriously--according to this document, 
the terrorists' goal is to take over Anbar and make it their home base 
in Iraq. According to the document we captured--that is a document from 
Al Qaida, the same people that attacked us in America--their objective 
is to find safe haven in this part of Iraq. They would bring them 
closer--that would bring them closer to their objective, their stated 
objective, which is to destroy the young Iraqi democracy, to help them 
build a radical Islamic empire based upon their dark ideology, and 
launch new attacks on the United States, at home and abroad. That's what 
they've said they want to do.
    Al Qaida has pursued their objective with a ruthless campaign of 
violence. They can't persuade people through logic; they have to 
terrorize people and force people to try to allow them to impose their 
point of view. And not long ago, it looked like they might prevail in 
Anbar--looked pretty grim, it really did. Then something began to change 
because we were steadfast, because our troops and our diplomats are 
courageous people. Tribal sheiks finally said, enough is enough. The 
local leaders said, we're tired of it. And they joined the fight against 
Al Qaida.
    The sheiks and their followers knew exactly who the terrorists were, 
and they began to provide highly specific intelligence to American and 
Iraqi forces. In asymmetrical warfare, you've got to have good 
intelligence in order to be able to deal with the enemy. In the old 
days, you could see platoons moving, you could see ships floating along, 
aircraft in formation flying to a location. In this war it's different. 
In this war you have to know specifically where a IED factory may be. 
You have to know in advance that somebody's getting ready to slide into 
society and kill innocent in order to achieve an objective. Intelligence 
is important. And so they began to provide intelligence, all aiming to 
secure their part of Iraq so they could live in peace.
    They began to encourage their young men to volunteer for the 
security forces. The number of Iraqi Army and police recruits in Anbar 
has skyrocketed. It's an interesting measurement, isn't it? There's a 
threat to the security of their people, the local leaders said, why 
don't you join up to help defend us, and the number of recruits is 
significant.
    Our commanders saw this as an opportunity to step up the pressure on 
Al Qaida. Our commanders made the recommendation from the field that 
they could use more troops to help secure Anbar. And so I ordered 
additional U.S. marines and special operation forces to Anbar; as part 
of our reinforcement package, 4,000 of the troops are going into Anbar.
    Together, American and Iraqi forces are striking powerful blows. 
We've cleared out terrorist strongholds like Ramadi and Fallujah. We're 
there with the Iraqis so that they can't take those cities back--
``they,'' the enemy. American and Iraqi forces are operating in places 
that have been too dangerous to go before, and people are beginning to 
see something change.
    In Ramadi, for example, our forces have seized nearly as many 
weapons caches in the past 4 months as they did in all of last year. 
We've captured key Al Qaida leaders. We're on the hunt. We're keeping 
the pressure on them, in Iraq and everywhere else in the world in which 
they try to hide. These Al Qaida leaders are revealing important details 
about how their network operates inside of Iraq.
    Al Qaida has responded with sickening brutality. They've bombed 
fellow Sunnis in prayer at a mosque. They murdered local residents with 
chlorine truck bombs. They recruited children as young as 12 years old 
to carry out suicide attacks. But this time, the Sunni tribes in Anbar 
are refusing to be intimidated.
    They are showing that Al Qaida's ideology lacks popular appeal and 
staying power. Ultimately, what matters is what you believe. The United 
States and our coalition and most Iraqis believe in liberty. Al Qaida 
believes in imposing their dark vision on others and are willing to use 
death and murder to do so.
    I appreciate the determination of the Iraqi people. I appreciate 
their courage. I appreciate the fact that these tribal sheiks have stood 
up in Anbar, and we will stand with them. Our men and women in uniform 
took Al Qaida's safe haven away in Afghanistan,

[[Page 568]]

and we're not going to let them reestablish a safe haven in Iraq.
    The military gains achieved by our new operations are designed to 
give Iraq's Government time to make political progress. We fully 
recognize that the military cannot solve this problem alone, that there 
has to be political reconciliation and economic process--progress.
    You know, the Iraq Government has been in office about a year, and 
they're beginning to make some progress toward political benchmarks it 
has set, political benchmarks I support. The legislature has passed a 
budget that commits $10 billion for reconstruction projects. That's $10 
billion of the Iraqi people's money--positive sign. The assembly met. 
They appropriated money for the good of the Iraqi people. They spent 
$7.3 billion to train and equip their own security forces. The council 
of ministers has approved legislation that would provide a framework for 
equitable sharing of oil resources. We strongly believe--by the way, 
both Republicans, Democrats, and independents believe strongly--that a 
good oil bill will help unite the country. That's why it's a benchmark. 
And they're making--this Government is making progress toward an 
important piece of legislation that would help the security track 
progress, as well as the political and economic track.
    The Government has formed a committee to organize Provincial 
elections. That's important. If you want people buying into government, 
there needs to be Provincial elections, so that when the money is 
distributed from the central government, there's a representative 
government there to spend the money. Leaders have taken initial steps 
toward an agreement on de-Ba'athification policy. That's an important 
piece of reconciliation that we think ought to go forward. A committee 
is meeting with all major Iraqi groups to review the Constitution. And 
there's a key conference tomorrow and Friday in Egypt, where Prime 
Minister Maliki will work to build greater support from Iraq's neighbors 
and the international community. It's in the world's interest that this 
young democracy survive. It's certainly in the interest of the 
neighborhood that Iraq be a country that can govern itself and sustain 
itself and defend itself, a Government which rejects radicalism. And 
it's in the world's interest.
    And so Condoleezza Rice--I talked to her last night on her way out 
of town--is heading over to Egypt. And she's going to represent our 
country--and she represents it well, by the way--and will do so in 
Egypt. It's going to be an important international conference, and I'm 
looking forward to seeing the outcome of that conference.
    Iraq's leaders still have got a lot to do, don't get me wrong. Yes, 
there's progress, but they've got a lot more to do. And the United 
States expects them to do it--just like I expect them to remain 
courageous and just like they expect us to keep our word. And so what's 
interesting is, is that the Iraqis are making a calculation: Will the 
United States of America keep its word? Because if not, they want to do 
something different. And I think it's going to be important for us to 
keep signaling them as they make progress, we appreciate the progress; 
more to do, no question about it, and we expect them to do it, but they 
can also count on us to keep our word.
    The stakes are high, really high in Iraq. General Petraeus is 
beginning to carry out the strategy, yet the Democrat leaders in 
Congress have chosen this time to try to force a precipitous withdrawal. 
In other words, I was presented a bill last night that said, ``There's a 
timetable. You had to leave--start leaving by July 1st and definitely be 
leaving by October 1st.'' That didn't make any sense to me, to impose 
the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military 
commanders in the field. So I vetoed the bill.
    That phase of the process is now over, and a new phase has begun. 
Later on this afternoon, leaders from both parties and both chambers are 
coming down to the White House. And I look forward to meeting with them. 
I am confident that with goodwill on both sides that we can move beyond 
political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds 
and the flexibility they need to do the job that we have asked them to 
do.
    As we move forward the debate, there are some other things that all 
of us in Washington should keep in mind. First of all, debate is good. I 
have no problem with debates.

[[Page 569]]

This issue of Iraq and this war on terror deserves a serious discussion 
across the United States. We don't agree on every issue, but one of the 
things I have heard here in Washington is that people understand the 
consequences of failure in Iraq.
    If we were to leave Iraq before the Government can defend itself, 
there would be a security vacuum. Extremists and radicals love vacuums 
and chaos. It gives them a chance to use their tactics, tactics of 
death, to spread their ideology. The more chaotic a region, for example, 
or the less control there is in a region, the more the state looks like 
a failed state, these people that attacked us on September the 11th can 
be emboldened. It will encourage them. It will enable them to achieve 
objectives. I'm deeply concerned about a vacuum in Iraq encouraging 
rival extremist factions to compete for power.
    I worry about a situation where if radicals took control of a 
country like Iraq, they would have oil resources to use at their 
disposal to try to achieve their objectives. You can attack a nation 
several ways. One, you can get 19 kids to fly airplanes into buildings, 
or you can gain control of something a country needs and deny that 
country access to that, in this case, oil, and run the price of oil up, 
all attempting to inflict serious economic damage.
    And by the way, an opportunity for radicals and extremists to gain 
resources would not only enable them to inflict economic damage, it 
would enable them to achieve other objectives. They'd have more 
resources at their disposal. All the radicals and extremists in Iraq 
don't want to attack America, I'm not saying that, but many do. And 
therein lies the danger to our country.
    Al Qaida terrorists who behead captives and order suicide bombings 
in Iraq would not simply be satisfied to see us gone. A retreat in Iraq 
would mean that they would likely follow us here. A retreat in Iraq 
would say to a lot of people around the world, particularly in the 
Middle East, America can't keep its word. It would certainly confirm Al 
Qaida's belief that we're weak and soft as a society. It would embolden 
them to be able to recruit. It would more likely enable them to find 
safe haven and sanctuary.
    No responsible leader in Washington has an interest in letting this 
happen. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, there is no benefit in 
allowing a widespread humanitarian nightmare to consume Iraq. There 
would be no benefit in allowing chaos to spill out of Iraq and into the 
broader Middle East. There would be no benefit in emboldening Iran and 
endangering our allies in the region. And there would be no benefit in 
allowing the same terrorist network that attacked America on 9/11 to 
gain a safe haven from which to attack us again. Even if you think it 
was a mistake to go into Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull 
out now.
    This is a frustrating war. Nobody likes war. You know, I know full 
well how many Americans react to what they see on their TV screens. I 
wish there was an easy way out; that's what people wish. But there is no 
easy way out. The easy road would be the wrong road, in my opinion. 
Leaving now would be short term but bring short-term satisfaction at the 
cost of long-term disaster. The outcome in Iraq will have a direct 
impact on the security of our people here at home. And no matter how 
tempting it might be, it would be unforgivable for leaders in Washington 
to allow politics and impatience to stand in the way of protecting the 
American people.
    Success in this fight is going to be difficult. It will require 
sacrifice. It's going to require time. But for all the--all we hear 
about the consequences of failure in Iraq, we also shouldn't forget the 
consequences of success. I share with people--and I do this quite 
often--but I find it incredibly ironic that during my time as President, 
certainly one of my best friends, and soon to be another best friend, 
are the Prime Ministers of Japan. I had a very close personal 
relationship with Prime Minister Koizumi. And last weekend at Camp 
David, Laura and I had a chance to--at the White House, and then 
eventually at Camp David, we hosted Prime Minister Abe. You know, my dad 
fought the Japanese. He was an 18-year-old kid, right out of high 
school, went into the Navy, was a torpedo bomber. Many of your relatives 
did the same thing. They fought the Japanese with all their soul and all 
their might in a bloody, bloody conflict. Japan was a sworn enemy of the 
United States of America. I doubt in 1948

[[Page 570]]

or '49 anybody could have hardly predicted that a President would stand 
up and say, I have found that these two Prime Ministers of Japan are 
good to work with to achieve peace.
    It's an interesting statement, isn't it, about the possibilities of 
liberty to change history. And so with Prime Minister Koizumi and Prime 
Minister Abe, we talked about security. We talked about working closely 
together to convince the leader of North Korea to give up his nuclear 
weapons ambitions and programs. We talked about helping the young 
democracy of Iraq survive in the midst of the Middle East. We fully 
understand that the long-term way to protect America is to defeat an 
ideology of hate with an ideology of hope. I learned firsthand the power 
of liberty to transform an enemy into an ally.
    I firmly believe that a democracy can survive in the Middle East, 
and I believe it is a necessary part of laying a foundation of peace for 
generations to come.
    Good to be with you. Thank you all. [Applause] Sit down. Thank you. 
I'll take some questions. Yes, sir. You get to start since you're the 
boss. [Laughter]

War on Terror in Iraq/Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

    Q. Thank you. In May of 2006, my second cousin was on his second 
tour in Iraq. Corporal Cory Palmer--he's in the Marines--he was on 
patrol in a Humvee, and they ran over a roadside bomb. He and three 
others in that Humvee perished. What do I need to do, what do we need to 
do to help you so that my second cousin, and others like him, have not 
died or been injured in vain?
    The President. Thank you. The horrors of war come home to every--to 
a lot of families in America. Yesterday I had the honor of meeting with 
moms and dads and wives, in this case, children, who have lost a loved 
one. And I've met with a lot of families, sadly enough. Most of the 
time, I hear that very question. Actually, it's not a question; it's a 
statement.
    Here's what I've heard. One, my loved one died doing what he or she 
wanted to do. Two, do not allow that loved one to have died in vain. In 
other words, it is an interesting spirit amongst the--now, listen, I 
visit with some who say, ``Get out; I wish you hadn't have done this in 
the first place.'' But by far the vast majority reflect what you asked: 
What does it take?
    First of all, it takes, in order to make sure your loved one didn't 
die in vain, is to have the will and determination necessary to succeed. 
One of the reasons I've come to speak to you is because I must 
continually explain to the American people the stakes in this war, the 
consequences of failure, and the consequences of success. In order for 
me to do my part to make sure your second cousin and anybody else who 
lost a loved one in Iraq didn't die in vain, is to continue to take the 
case to the American people, why what happens in Iraq matters to them.
    Secondly, one way to make sure that your second cousin didn't die in 
vain is to remind legislators that regardless of their position on the 
war, that they have got to fund our troops, that they have got to make 
sure that--without conditions of--that say you've got to withdraw by a 
certain date.
    Now, here's the reason that doesn't make any sense. I'm sure a lot 
of Americans know intuitively it doesn't make any sense for people on 
Capitol Hill to say, ``You must withdraw.'' The reason why is, first of 
all, we ought to rely upon conditions on the ground, and we ought to 
rely upon our military commanders and our diplomats on the ground to 
give us advice. It's the best way to conduct a war.
    Secondly, imagine what a thinking enemy is doing when they hear 
timetables. Oh, you've got to be out by a certain date? Well, why don't 
we just wait. [Laughter]
    Thirdly, what does it say to the Iraqis? Remember, there are a lot 
of people who basically wonder whether or not a coalition is going to 
stand with them as they make difficult choices. And if you're an Iraqi 
thinking, ``Well, I may have some support; I may not. And if not, I 
better start hedging my bet.'' The Government isn't quite ready to 
provide the security necessary for people to be comfortable with a 
reduced coalition presence.
    And therefore--and by the way, in order to make a unified government 
work, there has to be people willing to commit to that government. There 
have to be people willing to commit to civil society. Remember, these

[[Page 571]]

people are recovering from a brutal tyrant, and they have to make a--
they've got to commit, in their soul that it's worthwhile, that this 
Government is worthwhile. And they're not willing to make that 
commitment yet because they're uncertain about their future.
    And so a artificial timetable of withdrawal is--really affects the 
psychology of the Iraqis as well. That's why I vetoed the bill. And I 
believe we can work together in Congress to get it done. I think that 
Senators would tell you there's an opportunity. And first of all, they 
got to fund the troops because the longer they wait in funding the 
troops, it's going to hurt our military. The military is spending money 
over in Iraq as we speak, and they need money. And if they don't get the 
money from the supplemental, they'll start taking it from other 
accounts, which could affect readiness. And it begins to affect the 
overall strength of our military.
    And that's one reason I keep explaining that to the American people, 
so that they understand that this--these delays, they make nice politics 
in some quarters, but it's lousy for our military and the military 
families.
    Anyway, good question, thanks for asking it. Yes, ma'am.

Freedom of the Press/War on Terror Strategy/Iraq Study Group

    Q. I'd like to know, like a lot of other people in this room, we 
have family members who are actively involved in the security of this 
country in various ways. From them, we've received positive information 
who we consider credible, who say about the success and the good things 
that are happening as a result of us being in Iraq. I would like to know 
why and what can be done about we, the American people, receiving some 
of that information more from the media, more from the overall media.
    The President. If you're trying to goad me into attacking the media, 
you're crazy. [Laughter]
    It's interesting, people get their news all different kinds of ways. 
This is an interesting, different type of war. I mentioned asymmetrical 
warfare. That means an enemy can use inexpensive weapons to try to 
defeat expensive defensive armament. A car bomb, a suicide bomber, an 
IED, these are inexpensive weapons that create--help them achieve 
strategic objectives.
    It's also different in that this is a volunteer army that we have 
fielded. And therefore, the role of government is to make sure that our 
families are well supported--our military families are well supported, 
that the veterans get everything they deserve, and that the health care 
is perfect as possibly can be. And we're working toward it.
    By the way, I was proud of our Secretary of Defense the other day. 
When he found a inadequate health care, he responded, because he knows--
and the Congress shares the same view--is that when we have somebody 
volunteering to be in combat, they and their families deserve the best 
that we can possibly provide.
    Thirdly, back to your question. You thought I was kind of doing one 
of these--[laughter]--Washington, DC, dodges. [Laughter] I talk to a lot 
of families who have got a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere 
else in this global war on terror, and they are in constant 
communication with their loved one. That's amazing, isn't it. You've got 
a kid in Iraq who is e-mailing mom daily, talking about the realities of 
what he or she sees. Information is moving--you know, nightly news is 
one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and 
through the Internets. It's amazing how many e-mails I see from people 
that are writing in what they think and what they hear.
    We've all got--those of us who believe that we're doing the right 
thing must continually speak. Joe Lieberman has been great about 
continually speaking about the consequences. [Applause] Wait a minute--
you didn't give me a chance to say something nice about Chairman Warner. 
[Laughter] He, too, has been strong.
    It's just a--I can't answer your question beyond that people just 
need to be--the best messenger, by the way, for us is David Petraeus, 
because he's actually there in Baghdad, and Ryan Crocker who is 
actually--he's the Ambassador who is there in Baghdad. And freedom of 
the press is a valuable freedom here, and it's just something that we've 
all got to live with and value it for what it is and just continue to 
speak the

[[Page 572]]

truth as best as we can without trying to gloss over the inherent 
dangers.
    The interesting thing I find is that our--as the president here 
mentioned, there have been multiple rotations. People have gone back to 
Iraq. In other words, they've re-upped. And the reenlistment rate is 
high. People are signing up for the first time as well. And it's just an 
interesting statement, isn't it, about the character of our military, a 
character which is--says that we've got people willing to serve a cause 
greater than themselves.
    I saw a marine yesterday--came out of Anbar. His brother, who was in 
the Army, was lost. And I was comforting his family as best as I 
possibly can, or could. And he said, ``We're making great progress in 
Anbar; I just wanted to tell you that, President.'' You know, is he the 
kind of guy that tells the President what he wants to hear? I don't 
know. All I can tell you is what he told me. And I told that to David 
Petraeus, who confirmed it.
    But slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll 
succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I 
described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There 
are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence 
to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel 
comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying 
to achieve.
    I'm asked all the time about strategies. I liked what James A. Baker 
and Lee Hamilton reported back after a serious investigation of Iraq. I 
liked their ideas. And it's something that we should seriously consider. 
And their idea was, is that at some point in time, it makes sense to 
have a U.S. presence configured this way, embedded with Iraqi forces, 
training Iraqi forces, over-the-horizon presence to provide enough 
security to know that people will have help if they need it, but put 
the--more onus on a sovereign government of Iraq, a presence to keep the 
territorial integrity of Iraq intact, a special ops presence to go after 
these killers who have got their intentions on America. It's an 
interesting idea.
    By the way, in the report it said, it is--the government may have to 
put in more troops to be able to get to that position. And that's what 
we did. We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be in 
some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision, the 
Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear--I'm a 
commander guy.
    Yes, sir.

Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq/President's Faith

    Q. We're General Contractors of America, and what are we doing--I 
don't hear anything about the reconstruction of Iraq. Could you fill us 
in on that? Are we doing enough, as general contractors? And we are at 
your disposal.
    And second is a personal question. What do you pray about, and how 
we can we pray for you?
    The President. Thank you. The first question, our reconstruction 
strategy initially was to do big projects, and then those big projects 
would be destroyed by the enemy. In other words, they blow them up. And 
it became very frustrating. And some of the big projects were 
successful; a lot of them weren't. So therefore we restructured, and we 
said that the best way to help the Iraq--remember, Iraq has now put out 
10 billion of their own money. So, step one, they're a sovereign 
government, and if we want to do business with Iraq, we can figure out 
how you can go do it--business with Iraq. They're spending their own 
money. That's what's important to remember.
    That's actually a hopeful sign, that they appropriated money in a 
constitutionally elected assembly, and hopefully that money is spent in 
a way that encourages all Iraqis to have some faith that the central 
government can function rationally. I guess what I'm telling you is, the 
security situation was such that it made the initial phases of our 
reconstruction not as effective as we would have liked.
    Now we're giving reconstruction money to two different groups--two 
groups of people, not different--two groups. One, our military 
commanders. It's called CERP money. They go into a neighborhood in 
Baghdad that had been ravaged by sectarian violence; they bring order 
with the Iraqis; they stay in place; they gain the confidence of the 
people; and

[[Page 573]]

there is some reconstruction money to help provide jobs of cleaning up 
neighborhoods and rebuilding storefronts.
    The other reconstruction money goes to what's called Provincial 
Reconstruction Teams. These are teams of diplomats living out in the 
hinterlands, working with local folks to meet objectives of the local 
folks, so that the people begin to see that there is one, security; two, 
hope; and three, tangible benefits. And that's how we're using--I'm not 
exactly sure what a proper role could be for you. The good news is I can 
find out pretty quick--[laughter]--``ly,'' quickly. [Laughter]
    The fact that you would ask the question, how can I pray for you, 
speaks volumes about the United States of America. I have been amazed by 
the fact that millions of Americans of all faith, all political 
backgrounds, pray for me and Laura. And it is an unbelievably 
sustaining. It is comforting. It is humbling to be prayed for. Wisdom 
and strength and my family, is what I'd like for you to pray for.
    Yes, sir.

Spread of Democracy/Freedom Agenda

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Okay, we've got dueling questions. [Laughter] You 
just lost, because he's got the mike. [Laughter] It's the possession 
deal, you know? [Laughter]
    Q. You talked about the terror of 9/11, and what I wanted to share 
with you, my wife and I had our first child 2 months after 
9/11. We named her Grace because we felt that the world needed some 
grace at the time. And what I wanted to--[inaudible]--is the fact that 
our appreciation and keeping my family and also the families of America 
safe for the past 5 years is--[inaudible].
    The President. Thank you. Thank you. Grace will live--the question 
is, will Grace live in a peaceful world, today and tomorrow? Today, we 
will continue to stay on the pressure. And we're sharing intelligence, 
and we're on the offense. And my attitude is, is that if the United 
States ever let up, it would embolden, it would send the wrong signal. 
So we're pressuring. And I'm--I would hope whoever takes my place would 
have that same sense of urgency. You know, no matter what you may be 
hearing, it's--people, when they get in that Oval Office and take a look 
at the realities of the world will, I suspect, subscribe to the--that we 
just need to be not only vigilant but pressuring.
    You know, the interesting debate that we're now confronted with is 
this ideological debate about whether or not it's worth it to spread 
freedom. Should we spread freedom? Can the spread of freedom take root 
in dangerous parts of the world? And is it worth it? Does it make sense?
    As you can tell, I'm a strong proponent of spreading freedom. First 
of all--and I've got confidence that freedom can be spread in parts of 
the world where it may look difficult at this moment in history to see 
freedom take root.
    I've got confidence for a couple of reasons. One, I believe in the 
universality of freedom. That means I believe everybody desires to be 
free. I don't think freedom is uniquely American, nor do I think it's 
uniquely Methodist. [Laughter] I think it is universal.
    I told you--I also, obviously, believe in the universality of 
motherhood. I believe mothers in Iraq want their children to grow up in 
peace, just like mothers in America do. I also believe people in Iraq 
want to live in a free society. I wasn't surprised; I was pleased when 
12 million people went to the polls. That statement to me was: freedom.
    Secondly, can it take hold in parts of the world that some suspect 
that it can't root? I would remind people of, for example, of--I 
mentioned Japan. There are other examples in our history. One of the 
unique aspects of my Presidency is I can predict to you that--with 
relative certainty that a violent part of the world, the Far East, is 
stable and headed in the right direction, absent one spot.
    In 1950, that would have been a hard prediction to make. Shortly 
before 1950, I mentioned, thousands of U.S. citizens had died in a war 
with Japan; Mao Zedong was beginning an ascendancy where the form of 
government was repressed and that no such thing as a marketplace--was 
repressive, and there was no such thing as a marketplace. And Korea had 
just been--the Peninsula of Korea had just been torn asunder, where 
thousands of U.S. soldiers had died as well.

[[Page 574]]

    Today, Japan, as I mentioned, is a strong ally, an important 
economic partner and security partner. South Korea is a strong ally, 
important trading partner, and important security partner--albeit their 
democracy went through a difficult period of time. Democracies don't 
emerge on a straight line. Neither did ours. Our great democracy 
enslaved people for 100 years. All men were created equal, except some. 
We're reconfirming that belief that all men are created equal.
    And so it takes a while for freedom to take root. It's hard work for 
societies to adopt the habits necessary for a free society to emerge. 
Interesting enough, in China, there's certainly not a free society, but 
there is a free marketplace emerging. And in 1950, that would have been 
a difficult prediction to make.
    And so I believe liberty can take hold in parts of the world because 
history has shown it to be. Different time, no question; a different 
part of the world, no question. But if you have faith in the 
universality of freedom, and if you've seen history--liberty take hold 
before, it should give us confidence.
    Finally, it's necessary for free societies to emerge--free societies 
in the image of a country's own history and tradition. And why is it in 
our interest that that happen? There is a root cause, there is a reason 
why 19 kids got on an airplane to come and kill us, and that is because 
societies in that part of the world have bred resentment and lack of 
hope.
    I don't believe you can have a comfortable and secure society if 
half the people are not treated equally. There's something universal in 
our demands to be treated with respect. It matters what the form of 
government is, in terms of whether or not peace will emerge.
    And so I believe that the liberty agenda, freedom agenda can take 
root, and I know it's necessary to make sure Grace can live in peace. I 
think people will look back at this period of time and make one or two 
judgments. They'll either say, what happened to them in 2007; how come 
they couldn't see the impending dangers that the little Graces of 
America would have to live with; how come they couldn't spot the 
radicalism that would emerge even more violent than it had been; how 
come they couldn't see the fact that Iran would become emboldened if the 
United States of America didn't keep its commitments in Iraq; what was 
it that prevented them from recognizing that nations in the Middle East 
would tend to choose up sides and back violent regimes--violent groups 
in order to protect their own selves; how come they couldn't remember 
the lesson of September the 11th, which said, what matters overseas 
matters at home? Or they'll look back and say, they had faith; they had 
faith in the ability of liberty to transform a region into a region of 
hope that yielded the peace so little Grace can be amazed that this 
generation has done its job.
    And those are the risks, and that's the task, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 9:44 a.m. at the Willard Hotel. In his 
remarks, he referred to Steve L. Massie, chief executive officer, Jack 
L. Massie Contractor, Inc.; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding 
general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Haytham Kazim Abdallah Al-Shimari, 
head of the Rusafa Al Qaida-Iraq bomb network; Qais Khazali, member, 
Khazali network, and Shi'a extremist leader; Prime Minister Nuri al-
Maliki of Iraq; former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Prime 
Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan; Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea; and 
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. He also referred to H.R. 1591.