[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 28 (Monday, July 16, 2007)]
[Pages 944-956]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

July 12, 2007

    The President. Good morning. Thank you. Yesterday America lost an 
extraordinary First Lady and a fine Texan, Lady Bird Johnson. She 
brought grace to the White House and beauty to our country. On behalf of 
the American people, Laura and I send our condolences to her daughters, 
Linda and Luci, and we offer our prayers to the Johnson family.
    Before I answer some of your questions, today I'd like to provide 
the American people with an update on the situation in Iraq. Since 
America began military operations in Iraq, the conflict there has gone 
through four major phases. The first phase was the liberation of Iraq 
from Saddam Hussein. The second phase was the return of sovereignty to 
the Iraqi people and the holding of free elections. The third phase was 
the tragic escalation of sectarian violence sparked by the bombing of 
the Golden Mosque in Samarra.
    We've entered a fourth phase: deploying reinforcements and launching 
new operations to help Iraqis bring security to their people. I'm going 
to explain why the success of this new strategy is vital for protecting 
our people and bringing our troops home, which is a goal shared by all 
Americans. I'll brief you on the report we are sending to Congress. I'll 
discuss why a drawdown of forces that is not linked to the success of 
our operations would be a disaster.
    As President, my most solemn responsibility is to keep the American 
people safe. So on my orders, good men and women are now fighting the 
terrorists on the frontlines in Iraq. I've given our troops in Iraq 
clear objectives. And as they risk their lives to achieve these 
objectives, they need to know they have the unwavering support from the 
Commander in Chief, and they do. And they need the enemy to know that 
America is not going to back down. So when I speak to the American 
people about Iraq, I often emphasize the importance of maintaining our 
resolve and meeting our objectives.
    As a result, sometimes the debate over Iraq is cast as a 
disagreement between those who want to keep our troops in Iraq and those 
who want to bring our troops home. And this is not the real debate. I 
don't know anyone who doesn't want to see the day when our brave service 
men and women can start coming home.
    In my address to the Nation in January, I put it this way: If we 
increase our support at this crucial moment, we can hasten the day our 
troops begin coming home. The real debate over Iraq is between those who 
think the fight is lost or not worth the cost and those who believe the 
fight can be won and that, as difficult as the fight is, the cost of 
defeat would be far higher.
    I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must. So we're 
working to defeat Al Qaida and other extremists and aid the rise of an 
Iraqi Government that can protect its people, deliver basic services, 
and be an ally in the war against these extremists and radicals. By 
doing this, we'll create the conditions that would allow our troops to 
begin coming home, while securing our long-term national interest in 
Iraq and in the region.
    When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will because our 
military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not 
because pollsters say it will be good politics. The strategy I announced 
in

[[Page 945]]

January is designed to seize the initiative and create those conditions. 
It's aimed at helping the Iraqis strengthen their Government so that it 
can function even amid violence. It seeks to open space for Iraq's 
political leaders to advance the difficult process of national 
reconciliation, which is essential to lasting security and stability. It 
is focused on applying sustained military pressure to rout out terrorist 
networks in Baghdad and surrounding areas. It is committed to using 
diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's 
democratic Government.
    But doing all these things is intended to make possible a more 
limited role in Iraq for the United States. It's the goal outlined by 
the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It's the goal shared by the Iraqis and 
our coalition partners. It is the goal that Ambassador Crocker and 
General Petraeus and our troops are working hard to make a reality.
    Our top priority is to help the Iraqis protect their population. So 
we have launched an offensive in and around Baghdad to go after 
extremists, to buy more time for Iraqi forces to develop, and to help 
normal life and civil society take root in communities and neighborhoods 
throughout the country.
    We're helping enhance the size, capabilities, and effectiveness of 
the Iraqi security forces so the Iraqis can take over the defense of 
their own country. We're helping the Iraqis take back their 
neighborhoods from the extremists. In Anbar Province, Sunni tribes that 
were once fighting alongside Al Qaida against our coalition are now 
fighting alongside our coalition against Al Qaida. We're working to 
replicate the success in Anbar and other parts of the country.
    Two months ago, in the supplemental appropriations bill funding our 
troops, Congress established 18 benchmarks to gauge the progress of the 
Iraqi Government. They required we submit a full report to Congress by 
September the 15th. Today my administration has submitted to Congress an 
interim report that requires us to assess--and I quote the bill--
``whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is or is 
not being achieved.''
    Of the 18 benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report 
that satisfactory progress is being made in 8 areas. For example, Iraqis 
provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around 
Baghdad. And the Iraqi Government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from 
its own funds this year to train, equip, and modernize its forces. In 
eight other areas, the Iraqis have much more work to do. For example, 
they have not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law 
to share oil revenues. And in two remaining areas, progress was too 
mixed to be characterized one way or the other.
    Those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will likely point 
to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. 
Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the 
satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a 
cause for optimism. Our strategy is built on a premise that progress on 
security will pave the way for political progress. So it's not 
surprising that political progress is lagging behind the security gains 
we are seeing. Economic development funds are critical to helping Iraq 
make this political progress. Today I'm exercising the waiver authority 
granted me by Congress to release a substantial portion of those funds.
    The bottom line is that this is a preliminary report, and it comes 
less than a month after the final reinforcements arrived in Iraq. This 
September, as Congress has required, General Petraeus and Ambassador 
Crocker will return to Washington to provide a more comprehensive 
assessment. By that time, we hope to see further improvement in the 
positive areas, the beginning of improvement in the negative areas. 
We'll also have a clearer picture of how the new strategy is unfolding 
and be in a better position to judge where we need to make any 
adjustments.
    I will rely on General Petraeus to give me his recommendations for 
the appropriate troop levels in Iraq. I will discuss the recommendation 
with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will 
continue consultations with Members of the United States Congress from 
both sides of the aisle, and then I'll make a decision.
    I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. 
To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be 
dangerous for Iraq, for

[[Page 946]]

the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the 
future of Iraq to Al Qaida. It would mean that we'd be risking mass 
killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to 
establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in 
Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American 
troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that 
is even more dangerous.
    The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that's unfolding 
across the region. The same region in Iran--the same regime in Iran that 
is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map 
is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using 
them to kill American soldiers. The same Hizballah terrorists who are 
waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training 
extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq. The same 
Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic Jihad and 
Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers 
headed to Iraq. All these extremist groups would be emboldened by a 
precipitous American withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten 
friends and allies in the region.
    Nations throughout the Middle East have a stake in a stable Iraq. To 
protect our interests and to show our commitment to our friends in the 
region, we are enhancing our military presence, improving our bilateral 
security ties, and supporting those fighting the extremists across the 
Middle East. We're also using the tools of diplomacy to strengthen 
regional and international support for Iraq's democratic Government.
    So I'm sending Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice to the region in 
early August. They will meet with our allies, reemphasize our commitment 
to the International Compact of Sharm el-Sheikh, reassure our friends 
that the Middle East remains a vital strategic priority for the United 
States.
    There is a conversion of visions between what Iraqi leaders want, 
what our partners want, and what our friends in the region want and the 
vision articulated by my administration, the Iraq Study Group, and 
others here at home. The Iraqis do not want U.S. troops patrolling their 
cities forever, any more than the American people do. But we need to 
ensure that when U.S. forces do pull back, that terrorists and 
extremists cannot take control.
    The strategy that General Petraeus and the troops he commands are 
now carrying out is the best opportunity to bring us to this point. So I 
ask Congress to provide them with the time and resources they need. The 
men and women of the United States military have made enormous 
sacrifices in Iraq. They have achieved great things, and the best way to 
begin bringing them home is to make sure our new strategy succeeds.
    And now I'll be glad to answer a few questions, starting with Ms. 
Thomas [Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers].

War on Terror in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, you started this war, a war of your choosing, and 
you can end it alone, today, at this point--bring in peacekeepers, U.N. 
peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. 
Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don't 
you understand, you brought the Al Qaida into Iraq.
    The President. Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue 
diplomatically. That's why I went to the United Nations and worked with 
the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a 
resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. 
That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the 
course.
    Q. But didn't we go into Iraq----
    The President. It was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a 
difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with 
coalition troops, into Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off 
without Saddam Hussein in power. Now the fundamental question facing 
America is, will we stand with this young democracy? Will we help them 
achieve stability? Will we help them become an ally in this war against 
extremists and radicals that is not only evident in Iraq, but it's 
evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and Afghanistan?
    We're at the beginning stages of a great ideological conflict 
between those who yearn for peace and those who want their children to 
grow up in a normal, decent society and

[[Page 947]]

radicals and extremists who want to impose their dark vision on people 
throughout the world. Iraq is obviously--Helen, it's got the attention 
of the American people, as it should. This is a difficult war, and it's 
a tough war. But as I have consistently stated throughout this 
Presidency, it is a necessary war to secure our peace.
    I find it interesting that as this young democracy has taken hold, 
radicals and extremists kill innocent people to stop its advance. And 
that ought to be a clear signal to the American people that these are 
dangerous people. And their ambition is not just contained to Iraq; 
their ambition is to continue to hurt the American people. My attitude 
is, we ought to defeat them there so we don't have to face them here, 
and that we ought to defeat their ideology with a more hopeful form of 
government.
    Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Congressional Opinion on Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, you're facing a rebellion from Republican--key 
Republican Senators who want you to change course and begin reducing the 
U.S. combat role. Given the mixed report that you present today, how do 
you persuade Republicans to stick with you as they look ahead to the 
next elections?
    The President. A couple of things--first of all, I respect those 
Republicans that you're referring to. I presume you're referring to 
friends of mine, like Lugar--or Senator Lugar, Domenici, yes. These are 
good, honorable people. I've spoken to them, and I listen very carefully 
to what they have to say.
    First of all, they share my concern that a precipitous withdrawal 
would embolden Al Qaida. And they also understand that we can't let Al 
Qaida gain safe haven inside of Iraq. I appreciate their calls, and I 
appreciate their desire to work with the White House to be in a position 
where we can sustain a presence in Iraq.
    What I tell them is this--just what I've told you--is that as the 
Commander in Chief of the greatest military ever, I have an obligation, 
a sincere and serious obligation, to hear out my commander on the 
ground. And I will take his recommendation, and as I mentioned, to talk 
to Bob Gates about it, as well as the Joint Chiefs about it, as well as 
consult with Members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, as 
I make a decision about the way forward in Iraq.
    And so I--you know, I value the advice of those Senators. I 
appreciate their concerns about the situation in Iraq, and I am going to 
continue listening to them.
    Toby [Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters].

Public Opinion on Iraq/Progress in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, in addition to members of your own party, the 
American public is clamoring for a change of course in Iraq. Why are you 
so resistant to that idea, and how much longer are you willing to give 
the surge to work before considering a change in this policy?
    The President. First, I understand why the American people are--you 
know, they're tired of the war. There is--people are--there is a war 
fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology. I've said this 
before. I understand that this is an ugly war. It's a war in which an 
enemy will kill innocent men, women, and children in order to achieve a 
political objective. It doesn't surprise me that there is deep concern 
amongst our people.
    Part of that concern is whether or not we can win, whether or not 
the objective is achievable. People don't want our troops in harm's way 
if that which we are trying to achieve can't be accomplished. I feel the 
same way. I cannot look a mother and father of a troop in the eye and 
say, ``I'm sending your kid into combat, but I don't think we can 
achieve the objective.'' I wouldn't do that to a parent or a husband or 
a wife of a soldier.
    I believe we can succeed, and I believe we are making security 
progress that will enable the political tract to succeed as well. And 
the report, by the way, which is, as accurately noted, is being 
submitted today, is written a little less than a month after the full 
complement of troops arrived.
    I went to the country in January and said, I have made this 
decision. I said what was happening on the ground was unsatisfactory in 
Iraq. In consultation with a lot of folks, I came to the conclusion that 
we needed to send more troops into Iraq, not less in order to provide 
stability, in order to be able to enhance the security of the people 
there. And David asked for a certain number of

[[Page 948]]

troops--David Petraeus asked for a certain number--General Petraeus 
asked for a certain number of troops, and he just got them a couple of 
weeks ago.
    Military--it takes awhile to move our troops, as the experts know. 
You just can't load them all in one airplane or one big ship and get 
them into theater. We had to stage the arrival of our troops. And after 
they arrived in Iraq, it took awhile to get them into their missions. 
Since the reinforcements arrived, things have changed.
    For example, I would remind you that Anbar Province was considered 
lost. Maybe some of you reported that last fall. And yet today, because 
of what we call bottom-up reconciliation, Anbar Province has changed 
dramatically. The same thing is now beginning to happen in Diyala 
Province. There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where violence is down. 
There are still car bombs, most of which have the Al Qaida signature on 
them, but they're declining. In other words, so there's some measurable 
progress.
    And you asked, how long does one wait? I will repeat, as the 
Commander in Chief of a great military who has supported this military 
and will continue to support this military, not only with my--with 
insisting that we get resources to them but with--by respecting the 
command structure, I'm going to wait for David to come back--David 
Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees. And then 
we'll use that data that--his report to work with the rest of the 
military chain of command and Members of Congress to make another 
decision if need be.
    Yes, Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News].

War on Terror Strategy

    Q. You talk about all the troops now being in place and only in 
place the last 3 weeks or a month. Yet three-quarters of the troops for 
the surge were in place during the period when this July interim report 
was written. Are you willing to keep the surge going, no matter what 
General Petraeus says, if there is no substantial Iraqi political 
progress by September?
    The President. Thank you. You're asking me to speculate on what my 
frame of mind will be in September, and I would just ask that you give 
General Petraeus to come back and brief me. And then, of course, I'll be 
glad to answer your questions along that line.

    Q. But there has been no substantial political progress, even with 
three-quarters of the troops in there.

    The President. Well, as I mentioned----
    Q. So will you keep that going through September even if there 
isn't?

    The President. Martha, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have 
felt all along that the security situation needed to change in order for 
there to be political progress. It's very hard for a young democracy to 
function with the violence that was raging. Secondly, there's a lot of 
the past that needs to be worked through the system. I mean, there's--
living under the brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein created a lot of anxiety 
and a lot of tensions and a lot of rivalry, and it's just--it's going to 
take awhile to work it through. But they couldn't work through those 
tensions and rivalries in the midst of serious violence.

    And so the strategy was, move in more troops to cause the violence 
to abate. And that's what David Petraeus will be reporting on.

    Yes, Jim [Jim Axelrod, CBS News].

Congressional Input Into the War on Terror Strategy

    Q. Thank you, Mr. Bush. A question for you about the process you're 
describing of your decisionmaking as Commander in Chief. Have you 
entertained the idea that at some point, Congress may take some of that 
sole decisionmaking power away through legislation? And can you tell us, 
are you still committed to vetoing any troop withdrawal deadline?

    The President. You mean in this interim period? Yes, absolutely. I 
don't think Congress ought to be running the war; I think they ought to 
be funding our troops. I'm certainly interested in their opinion, but 
trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure, as 
far as I'm concerned, and we can't afford to fail.

[[Page 949]]

    I'll work with Congress; I'll listen to Congress. Congress has got 
all the right to appropriate money. But the idea of telling our military 
how to conduct operations, for example, or how to deal with troop 
strength is--I don't think it makes sense. I don't think it makes sense 
today, nor do I think it's a good precedent for the future. And so the 
role of the Commander in Chief is, of course, to consult with Congress.
    Q. So if Reed-Levin or anything like it were to pass and set a----
    The President. Well, I would hope they wouldn't pass, Jim. But I----
    Q. But what if they've got----
    The President. Let me make sure you understand what I'm saying. 
Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main 
involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops. What 
you're asking is whether or not Congress ought to be basically 
determining how troops are positioned or troop strength. And I just--I 
don't think that would be good for the country.
    David [David Gregory, NBC News].

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden/Situation in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, you've said many times this war at this stage is 
about the Iraqi Government creating a self-sustaining, stable 
government. Last November, your own CIA Director, according to the 
Washington Post, told you about that government, quote: ``The inability 
of the Government to govern seems irreversible.'' He could not point to 
any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around. And he 
said, in talking about the Government, that it's balanced, but it cannot 
function.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. When you heard that, since that point, you think of how many 
hundreds of soldiers have been killed, how much money has been spent. 
Why shouldn't people conclude that you are either stubborn, in denial, 
but certainly not realistic about the strategy that you've pursued since 
then?
    The President. You know, it's interesting; it turns out, Mike 
Hayden--I think you're quoting Mike Hayden there--was in this morning to 
give me his weekly briefing, and I asked him about that newspaper 
article from which you quote. His answer was--his comments to the Iraq 
Study Group were a little more nuanced than the quotation you read.
    He said that he made it clear the current strategy in Iraq wasn't 
working--this is his recollection of the briefing to the Iraq Study 
Group. He briefed them to the fact it wasn't working and that we needed 
a change of direction. He also said that those who suggest that we back 
away and let the Iraqi Government do it--this is in November 2006--let 
the Iraqis handle it, don't understand the inability of the Iraq 
Government at that time to take on that responsibility.
    He then went on to say--this is what he--his recollection of his 
conversation--was that our strategy needed to help get the violence down 
so that there could be political reconciliation from the top down as 
well as the bottom up.
    There has been political reconciliation, Martha, from the bottom up. 
Anbar Province is a place where the experts had--an expert had said that 
it was impossible for us to achieve our objective. This was the part of 
the country of Iraq where Al Qaida had made it clear that they would 
like to establish a safe haven from which to plan, plot further attacks 
and to spread their ideology throughout the Middle East. Since then, 
since this November 2006 report and since that statement to the Iraq 
Study Group, things have changed appreciably on the ground in Anbar 
Province.
    And they're beginning to have the same change, because the people on 
the ground there are sick and tired of violence and being threatened by 
people like Al Qaida, who have no positive vision for the future. And 
there's been a significant turn, where now Sunni sheikhs and Sunni 
citizens are working with the coalition to bring justice to Al Qaida 
killers. And that same approach is being taken in Diyala.
    And so there's a lot of focus, and should be, frankly, on oil laws 
or elections. But remember, there's another political reconciliation 
track taking place as well, and that's the one that's taking place at 
the grassroots level. Mike Hayden talked about that as well.
    Q. But you think you've been realistic about the strategy and what's 
possible?

[[Page 950]]

    The President. Well--thank you for the followup--nothing has changed 
in the new room. Anyway--yes. I mean, as I told you last November, right 
about this time, I was part of that group of Americans who didn't 
approve of what was taking place in Iraq because it looked like all the 
efforts that we had taken to that point in time were about to fail. In 
other words, sectarian violence was really raging. And I had a choice to 
make, and that was to pull back, as some suggested, and hope that the 
chaos and violence that might occur in the capital would not spill out 
across the country or send more troops in to prevent the chaos and 
violence from happening in the first place, and that's the decision I 
made. So it was a realistic appraisal, by me.
    What's realistic, as well, is to understand the consequences of what 
will happen if we fail in Iraq. In other words, people aren't just going 
to be content with driving America out of Iraq. Al Qaida wants to hurt 
us here. That's their objective. That's what they would like to do. They 
have got an ideology that they believe that the world ought to live 
under, and that one way to help spread that ideology is to harm the 
American people, harm American interests. The same folks that are 
bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America 
on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to 
the security here at home.
    So I've been realistic about the consequences of failure. I have 
been realistic about what needs to happen on the ground in order for 
there to be success. And it's been hard work, and the American people 
see it as hard work. And one of the reason it is hard work is because on 
our TV screens are these violent killings perpetuated by people who have 
done us harm in the past. And that ought to be a lesson for the American 
people, to understand that what happens in Iraq and overseas matters to 
the security of the United States of America.
    Yes, ma'am.

Al Qaida in Iraq

    But, sir, on that point, what evidence can you present to the 
American people that the people who attacked the United States on 
September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for 
the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And 
also, are you saying, sir, that Al Qaida in Iraq is the same 
organization being run by Usama bin Laden himself?
    The President. Al Qaida in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Usama bin 
Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America--
obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many 
of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. 
But the people in Iraq, Al Qaida in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Usama 
bin Laden. And we need to take Al Qaida in Iraq seriously, just like we 
need to take Al Qaida anywhere in the world seriously.
    Let's see here. Working my way around here. Sheryl [Sheryl Gay 
Stolberg, New York Times].

Confidence in the Iraqi Government

    Q. Mr. President, in Jordan in November, you stood by Prime Minister 
Maliki and said, he's the right guy for Iraq. Given this report card 
today and given the lack of top-down political reconciliation, can you 
tell the American people that you still believe he's the right guy for 
Iraq?
    The President. I believe that he understands that there needs to be 
serious reconciliation, and they need to get law passed; firmly believe 
that. I have had a series of conference calls with the Prime Minister as 
well as the Presidency Council. The Presidency Council, you would have 
the President, Talabani, you'd have the two Vice Presidents, Al-Mahdi 
and Hashimi, as well as the Prime Minister. And I have urged them to 
work together to get law passed. It's not easy to get law passed through 
certain legislatures, like theirs. There's a lot of work that has to be 
done. And I will continue to urge, but----
    Q. Do you have confidence in them?
    The President. Let me--I'm almost through with the first one; I'll 
come back to the second one.
    And so I'll continue to urge the Iraqis to show us that they're 
capable of passing legislation. But it's not just us; it's the Iraqi 
people. And what really matters is whether or

[[Page 951]]

not life is improving for the Iraqi people on the ground.
    And, yes, I've got confidence in them, but I also understand how 
difficult it is. I'm not making excuses, but it is hard. It's hard work 
for them to get law passed. And sometimes it's hard work for people to 
get law passed here. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to 
work to achieve an objective, which is a government that is able to 
provide security for its people and to provide basic services and, as 
importantly, serve as an ally against these extremists and radicals.
    Yes, sir.

I. Lewis Libby

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President----
    The President. No, not you. Michael [Michael Abramowitz, Washington 
Post].
    Q. Oh. [Laughter]
    The President. Okay. Was that harsh?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. Like the new hall, I should have been more gentle. 
[Laughter] Do we ever use ``kinder and gentler''? No.
    Go ahead, Michael. And then you're next.
    Q. If I could just switch subjects for a second to another big 
decision you made recently, which was in the Scooter Libby case.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. You spoke very soberly and seriously in your statement about how 
you weighed different legal questions in coming to your decision on that 
commutation. But one issue that you did not address was the issue of the 
morality of your most senior advisers leaking the name of a confidential 
intelligence operator. Now that the case is over--it's not something 
you've ever spoken to--can you say whether you're at all disappointed in 
the behavior of those senior advisers? And have you communicated that 
disappointment to them in any way?
    The President. Michael, I--first of all, the Scooter Libby decision 
was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision. Secondly, I haven't spent 
a lot of time talking about the testimony that people throughout my 
administration were forced to give as a result of the Special 
Prosecutor. I didn't ask them during the time, and I haven't asked them 
since.
    I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration 
did disclose the name of that person, and I've often thought about what 
would have happened had that person come forth and said, ``I did it.'' 
Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a 
lot of money being spent on this matter? But it's been a tough issue for 
a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course, and now 
we're going to move on.
    Wendell [Wendell Goler, Fox News Channel].

War on Terror in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, you have spoken passionately----
    The President. Oh, I'm sorry, Jon [Jon Ward, Washington Times]. 
Okay, yes.
    Q. Are you taking it away from me?
    The President. I am. This is----
    Q. After doing the ``fair and balanced,'' you're going to take it 
away from me. [Laughter].
    Q. Ohhh. [Laughter]
    Q. That was just a tease.
    Q. You're going to come back to me, sir?
    The President. You got the mike, then, Jon, you're next--a 
possession deal, you know what I'm saying? [Laughter]
    Q. Thank you, sir. You have spoken passionately about the 
consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send 
enough troops there at the start, failed to keep Al Qaida from stepping 
into the void created by the collapse of Saddam's army, failed to put 
enough pressure on Iraq's Government to make the political 
reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is 
suffering from now from occurring. So why should the American people 
feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir?
    The President. Those are all legitimate questions that I'm sure 
historians will analyze. I mean, one of the questions is, should we have 
sent more in the beginning? Well, I asked that question, ``Do you need 
more?'' to General Tommy Franks. In the first phase of this operation, 
General Franks was obviously in charge--and during our discussions in 
the runup to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the 
Security Council resolutions. My primary question to

[[Page 952]]

General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you 
have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam 
Hussein? And his answer was, yes.
    Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there 
might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only 
thing I can tell you, Wendell, is that I relied upon our military 
commander to make the proper decision about troop strength. And I can 
remember a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, who said, ``We've reviewed the 
plan.'' I remember--and seemed satisfied with it. I remember sitting in 
the PEOC, or the Situation Room, downstairs here at the White House, and 
I went to commander and commander that were all responsible of different 
aspects of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them, 
do you have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy? And the 
answer was, yes.
    We have worked hard to help this country reconcile. After all, they 
do have a modern Constitution, which is kind of a framework for 
reconciliation. And after all, there was a significant series of votes 
where the people were given a chance to express their desire to live in 
a free society. As a matter of fact, 12 million Iraqis went to the 
polls.
    Wendell, what happened then, of course, is that the enemy, Al Qaida, 
attacks the Samarra mosque, which, of course, created anxiety and anger 
amongst the Shi'a. And then all of a sudden, the sectarian violence 
began to spiral. Reconciliation hadn't taken hold deep enough in society 
to prevent this violence from taking hold. And so I have a--you know, 
I've got to decide whether or not it's okay for that violence to 
continue or whether or not it makes sense for us to try to send more 
troops in to quell the violence, to give the reconciliation process 
further time to advance.
    My concern is, is that as a result of violence and killing, there 
would be chaos. Now, that's a state of affairs that thugs like Al Qaida 
need to survive. They like chaos. As a matter of fact, they like to 
create chaos in order to create conditions of fear and anxiety and 
doubt. And out of that chaos would come--could come a further escalation 
of violence in the Middle East. And this is what's important for the 
American people to understand: That violence and that chaos would 
embolden extremist groups, whether they be Shi'a or Sunni, and they 
would then begin into competition with each other.
    Such chaos and violence would send a mixed signal to the Iranians, 
who have stated that they believe Israel ought to be wiped off the map. 
People would begin to wonder about America's resolve. Al Qaida would 
certainly be in a better position to raise money and recruit. And what 
makes all this scenario doubly dangerous is that they have proven 
themselves able to attack us and kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens. And 
they would like to do it again.
    And therefore, the strategy has got to be to help this Government 
become an ally against these people. What happens in Iraq--and I 
understand how difficult it's been. It's been hard. I have received a 
lot of inspiration, however, from meeting with our troops, who 
understand the stakes of this fight, and meeting with their families. 
And we owe it to our troops to support our commanders, smart, capable 
people who are devising a strategy that will enable us to succeed and 
prevent the conditions I just talked about from happening.
    Ed [Ed Chen, Bloomberg News]--no, Jon. Just kidding there.

Situation in Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has cited Al Qaida 
leaders, such as Zawahiri, as saying that if we leave prematurely, it 
would be a glorious victory for Al Qaida. But the reason that we can't 
leave or haven't been able to leave is not because we're getting 
defeated in any way militarily; it's because the Iraqis can't get it 
together so far. So why can't we counter those messages and, obviously, 
not withdraw precipitously, but begin some sort of gradual withdrawal 
that prevents ethnic cleansing, but also allows our military to get out?
    The President. Well, there's a lot of discussion about a scenario in 
which our troop posture would be to guard the territorial integrity of 
the country of Iraq, to embed and train, to help the Iraqi security 
forces deal with violent elements in their society, as well

[[Page 953]]

as keep enough Special Forces there to chase down Al Qaida. As a matter 
of fact, that is something that I've spoken in public about, said that's 
a position I'd like to see us in. However, I felt like we needed to send 
more troops to be able to get the situation to quiet down enough to be 
able to end in that position.
    And in terms of my own decisionmaking, as I mentioned earlier, I 
definitely need to be in consultation, and will be, with General David 
Petraeus, who asked for the additional troops in the first place, troops 
which have been in place--fully in place for about 3 weeks.
    And so I would ask Members of Congress to give the general a chance 
to come back and to give us a full assessment of whether this is 
succeeding or not. And it's at that point in time that I will consult 
with Members of Congress and make a decision about the way forward, all 
aiming to succeed in making sure that Al Qaida and other extremists do 
not benefit from a decision I might have to make.
    Mark [Mark Silva, Chicago Tribune].

Homeland Security/Democracy in the Middle East

    Q. Yes, sir, Mr. President.
    The President. Yes, sir----
    Q. How----
    The President. ----Mark. [Laughter]
    Q. Thank you. Thank you, sir. How comfortable are you--sir, how 
comfortable are you with your Homeland Security Secretary saying, in the 
face of no credible intelligence of an imminent threat against the 
United States, that he has a gut feeling that one is coming this summer? 
And, sir, what does your gut tell you?
    The President. My gut tells me that--which my head tells me as 
well--is that when we find a credible threat, I'll share it with people 
to make sure that we protect the homeland. My head also tells me that Al 
Qaida is a serious threat to our homeland, and we've got to continue 
making sure we've got good intelligence, good response mechanisms in 
place; that we've got to make sure we don't embolden them with--by 
failing in certain theaters of war where they're confronting us; that we 
ought to continue to keep the pressure on them. We need to chase them 
down and bring them to justice before they come home to hurt us again.
    And so it's a--this is a serious issue that is going to outlast my 
Presidency. As I say, this is the beginning stages of what I believe is 
a ideological conflict that--where you've got a competing visions about 
what the world ought to be like. What makes this more difficult than 
previous conflicts is that there's the asymmetrical use of power. In 
other words, IEDs and suicide bombers are the main tactical device used 
by these thugs to try to achieve strategic objectives.
    Their objective is to impose their vision on the world. Their 
objective is to drive the United States out of parts of the world. They 
want safe haven. They love a society where women have no rights, just 
like the society that they worked to impose with the Taliban on the 
women of Afghanistan. That's their vision. And it's in our interests to 
defend ourselves by staying on the offense against them. And it's in our 
interest to spread an alternative ideology.
    We have done this before in our Nation's history. We have helped 
people realize the blessings of liberty, even though they may have been 
our enemy. And freedom has an amazing way of helping lay the foundation 
for peace. And it's really important, as we head into this ideological 
struggle in the 21st century, that we not forget that liberty can 
transform societies.
    Now, the interesting debate is whether or not a nation like Iraq can 
self-govern, whether or not these people even care about liberty. As 
you've heard me say before, I believe--strongly believe that freedom is 
a universal value, that freedom isn't just for Americans or Methodists, 
that freedom is universal in its application. And so when they voted in 
'05, I wasn't surprised; I was pleased that the numbers were as big as 
they were, to defy that many threats and car bombers, but I wasn't 
surprised.
    And this is the real challenge we face. And Iraq is just a part of a 
broader war against these jihadists and extremists, Mark. It is a--we 
will be dealing with this issue for awhile, just like we dealt with 
other ideologies for awhile. It takes time for ideologies to take root.

[[Page 954]]

    I firmly believe that you'll see the democracy movement continue to 
advance throughout the Middle East if the United States doesn't become 
isolationist. That's why I've told you that I'm making sure that we 
continue to stay diplomatically involved in the region. Condi Rice and 
Bob Gates will be traveling there in early August to continue to remind 
our friends and allies that we're--one, we view them as strategic 
partners; and secondly, that we want them to work toward a freer 
societies and to help this Iraqi Government survive. It's in their 
interests that Iraq become a stable partner.
    And I believe we can achieve that objective. And not only do I 
believe we can achieve; I know we've got to achieve the objective, so we 
will have done our duty. This is hard work. And one of the things I 
talked about in the opening comments was, do we do it now, or basically 
pull back, let the Gallup Poll, or whatever poll there are, decide the 
fate of the country? And my view is, is that if that were to happen, we 
would then have to go back in with greater force in order to protect 
ourselves, because one of the facts of the 21st century is that what 
happens overseas matters to the security of our country.
    Ed.

President's Upcoming Meeting With General David H. Petraeus

    Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Given the events on the ground in 
Iraq and the politics here at home, has U.S. military deployment to Iraq 
reached the ceiling, or can you allow any further military escalation?
    The President. You're trying to do what Martha very skillfully tried 
to get me to do, and that was to----
    Q. Can I have a followup?
    The President. Yes, you can, because you're about to realize I'm not 
going to answer your question--[laughter]--except to say this: There's 
going to be great temptation to--not temptation, there would be--you 
won't be tempted; you will actually ask me to speculate about what David 
Petraeus will talk to us about when he comes home. And I just ask the 
American people to understand that the Commander in Chief must rely upon 
the wisdom and judgment of the military thinkers and planners. It's very 
important that there be that solid connection of trust between me and 
those who are in the field taking incredible risk.
    And so, Ed, I'm going to wait to see what David has to say. I'm not 
going to prejudge what he may say. I trust David Petraeus, his judgment. 
He's an honest man. Those of you who have interviewed him know that he's 
a straight shooter; he's an innovative thinker. I was briefed by members 
of the CODEL that came back that said that it appeared to them that our 
troops have high respect for our commanders in Baghdad, as do I.
    Now, do you have a followup, perhaps another subject, another area, 
another----

Public Opinion/President's Decisionmaking

    Q. Same subject.
    The President. Same questions?
    Q. Different approach.
    The President. Different approach. Yes, okay. [Laughter]
    Q. How hard is it for you to conduct the war without popular 
support? For you personally, do you ever have trouble balancing between 
doing what you think is the right thing and following the will of the 
majority of the public, which is really the essence of democracy?
    The President. Yes, it is. And, first of all, I can fully understand 
why people are tired of the war. The question they have is, can we win 
it? And of course I'm concerned about whether or not the American people 
are in this fight. I believe, however, that when they really think about 
the consequences if we were to precipitously withdraw, they begin to say 
to themselves, maybe we ought to win this; maybe we ought to have a 
stable Iraq.
    Their question, it seems like to me, is, can we succeed? And that's 
a very important, legitimate question for anybody to ask. I think many 
people understand we must succeed, and I think a lot of people 
understand we've got to wait for the generals to make these military 
decisions. I suspect--I know this, Ed, that if our troops thought that I 
was taking a poll to decide how to conduct this war, they would be very 
concerned about the mission. In other words, if our troops said, ``Well,

[[Page 955]]

here we are in combat, and we've got a Commander in Chief who is running 
a focus group. In other words, politics would be--is more important to 
him than our safety and/or our strategy,'' that would dispirit our 
troops.
    And there's a lot of constituencies in this fight. Clearly the 
American people, who are paying for this, is the major constituency. And 
I repeat to you, Ed, I understand that there--this violence has affected 
them. And a lot of people don't think we can win. There's a lot of 
people in Congress who don't think we can win as well, and therefore, 
their attitude is, get out.
    My concern with that strategy--something that Mike Hayden also 
discussed--is that just getting out may sound simple, and it may affect 
polls, but it would have long-term, serious security consequences for 
the United States. And so, Ed, sometimes you just have to make the 
decisions based upon what you think is right. My most important job is 
to help secure this country, and therefore, the decisions in Iraq are 
all aimed at helping do that job. And that's what I firmly believe.
    A second constituency is the military. And I repeat to you: I'm 
pretty confident our military do not want their Commander in Chief 
making political decisions about their future.
    A third constituency that matters to me a lot is the military 
families. These are good folks who are making huge sacrifices, and they 
support their loved ones. And I don't think they want their Commander in 
Chief making decisions based upon popularity.
    Another constituency group that is important for me to talk to is 
the Iraqis. Obviously, I want the Iraqi Government to understand that we 
expect there to be reconciliation top-down, that we want to see laws 
passed. I think they've got that message. They know full well that the 
American Government and the American people expect to see tangible 
evidence of working together. That's what the benchmarks are aimed to 
do.
    But they also need to know that I am making decisions based upon our 
security interests, of course, but also helping them succeed, and that a 
poll is not going to determine the course of action by the United 
States. What will determine the course of actions is, will the decisions 
that we have made help secure our country for the long run?
    And finally, another constituency is the enemy, who are wondering 
whether or not America has got the resolve and the determination to stay 
after them. And so that's what I think about, Ed.
    And, you know, I guess I'm like any other political figure; 
everybody wants to be loved, just sometimes the decisions you make and 
the consequences don't enable you to be loved. And so when it's all said 
and done, Ed, when you've--if you ever come down and visit the old, 
tired me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say, I looked in the 
mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics. 
And that's important to me.
    Thank you all for your time. I loved being here at this new 
building. Thank you.

Resurgence of Al Qaida

    Q. Can we just ask you about the Al Qaida intelligence report, 
please?
    The President. What was that?
    Q. The intelligence----
    The President. This is amazing.
    Q. I know, I know.
    The President. The new me. [Laughter]
    The Al Qaida intelligence report.
    Q. The intelligence analysts are saying Al Qaida has reconstituted 
in areas of Pakistan, saying the threat to the West is greater than ever 
now, or as great as 2001. What's happening----
    The President. Okay, here's----
    Q. Okay, you tell us what the intelligence analysts say.
    The President. I'm glad you asked; thank you. Thank you. I 
appreciate that opportunity to----
    Q. Thank you for coming back, sir.
    The President. I'm happy to do it. This is not the new me. I mean, 
this is just, like, an aberration. In other words----
    Q. It's over next time.
    The President. ----I'm not going to leave and then come back because 
somebody yells something at me.
    Q. Like China.
    The President. Yes, exactly. [Laughter] Thank you. Thank you, David. 
I appreciate that. Exactly.

[[Page 956]]

    There is a perception in the coverage that Al Qaida may be as strong 
today as they were prior to September the 11th. That's just simply not 
the case. I think the report will say, since 2001, not prior to 
September the 11th, 2001.
    Secondly, that because of the actions we have taken, Al Qaida is 
weaker today than they would have been. They are still a threat. They 
are still dangerous. And that is why it is important that we succeed in 
Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere else we find them. And that's our 
strategy, is to stay on the offense against Al Qaida.
    Elaine [Elaine Quijano, Cable News Network] asked the question, is 
it Al Qaida in Iraq? Yes, it is Al Qaida, just like it's Al Qaida in 
parts of Pakistan. And I'm working with President Musharraf to be able 
to--he doesn't want them in his country; he doesn't want foreign 
fighters in his outposts of his country. And so we're working to make 
sure that we continue to keep the pressure on Al Qaida.
    But no question, Al Qaida is dangerous for the American people, and 
that's why--as well as other people that love freedom--and that's why 
we're working hard with allies and friends to enhance our intelligence. 
That's why we need terrorist surveillance programs. That's why it's 
important for us to keep--another thing, I would hope Congress would 
modernize that bill. And that's why we're keeping on the offense.
    Ultimately, the way to defeat these radicals and extremists is to 
offer alternative ways of life so that they're unable to recruit; that 
they can use--they like to use frustration and hopelessness. The 
societies that don't provide hope will become the societies where Al 
Qaida has got the capacity to convince a youngster to go blow himself 
up. What we need to do is help governments provide brighter futures for 
their people so they won't sign up.
    And the fundamental question facing the world on this issue is 
whether or not it makes sense to try to promote an alternative ideology. 
I happen to think it does. They say, ``He's idealistic.'' Yes, I'm 
idealistic, but I'm also realistic in understanding if there is not an 
alternative ideology presented, these thugs will be able to continue to 
recruit. They'll use hopelessness to be able to recruit. And so it's--
thank you for asking that question.
    Thank you all.

Note: The President's news conference began at 10:31 a.m. in the James 
S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he 
referred to U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker; Secretary of 
Defense Robert M. Gates; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida 
terrorist organization; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, President Jalal 
Talabani, and Vice Presidents Adil Abd Al-Mahdi and Tariq al-Hashimi of 
Iraq; former Chief of Staff to the Vice President I. Lewis Libby; Gen. 
Tommy R. Franks, USA (Ret.), former combatant commander, U.S. Central 
Command; and President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. The President also 
referred to the amendment by Senators Harry Reid and Carl Levin to H.R. 
2206. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a Spanish language 
transcript of this news conference.