[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 30 (Monday, July 30, 2007)]
[Pages 1011-1019]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
<R04>
Remarks to the American Legislative Exchange Council in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
July 26, 2007
Thank you very much. Thanks for the warm welcome. It's good to be
back with my friends here at ALEC. Kenny, thanks. He was a silver-
tongued devil when he was a State legislator; he still is as a United
States Congressman. I appreciate Kenny Marchant coming from Washington
with me today. It's not all that rough a trip when you're on Air Force
One, Ken, so it's a--[laughter]. I'm glad to get my hot cup of coffee
and visit about the old days of working together in the State
legislator--with the State legislature and about the challenges we face
today. And I'm going to spend a little time talking to you all about
those challenges. But I appreciate you coming, Ken.
I'm also proud to be with two members of the Pennsylvania
congressional delegation, the United States Senator, Arlen Specter--
proud you're here, Senator; thanks for coming--Congressman Jim Gerlach.
When Kenny and I were reminiscing about what it was like to be in Texas
worrying about schools and budgets and criminal justice, I think they
were somewhat amazed by the stories we were telling.
Speaking about the Texas legislature, I am proud to be here with the
speaker of the Texas House, a friend of mine from my old hometown of
Midland, Texas, Tom Craddick. Proud you're here, Tom--and his wife,
Nadine, and his daughter, Christi.
Laura was just out in Midland, visiting her mother. That would be
First Lady Laura Bush, who sends her greetings to you all. You know, I'm
a really lucky guy to have a wife who is patient enough to put up with
me as President of the United States, is wise enough to seize the
moment, and is compassionate enough to worry about the lives of
[[Page 1012]]
our fellow citizens. She's a fabulous First Lady, and I--[applause].
The one thing I can assure the Craddicks, we always remember where
we came from. And part of making good decisions in a complex world and
in a complex environment is to make decisions based upon basic
principle, is to stand for something. I believe in that old Texas adage,
if you don't stand for something, you don't believe in anything. And I
believe in some certain principles that I hold inviolate, such as, there
is an Almighty, and a great gift of that Almighty to each man, woman,
and child on the face of Earth is liberty and freedom.
I appreciate Dolores Mertz and all the leadership of ALEC. I
appreciate Jerry Watson, the private sector chairman. Thank you all.
Thank you for serving. Our government is only as good as the willingness
of good people to serve. And it's not easy to serve in public life.
Sometimes it can get a little testy. [Laughter] Sometimes people would
rather throw a punch than put out a hand of fellowship. But that's okay.
What matters is, is that our democracy flourish, that people have an
opportunity to exchange ideas, that there be constructive debate. And
that requires good people willing to sacrifice, to serve. And one of the
reasons I wanted to come back today is to encourage you to continue
serving your States, to continue representing the people.
I urge you to not rely upon the latest opinion poll to tell you what
to believe. I ask you to stand strong on your beliefs, and that will
continue to make you a worthy public servant.
I want to spend a little time talking about a couple of issues. I'd
like to spend time talking about the budget and the economy, a little
time talking about how we can educate our children, how best to educate
our children. And then I'd like to spend some time talking about a
serious obligation that I have and the people in Washington have, and
that is to protect the American people from harm.
First, the budget--there's an interesting philosophical debate
that's now playing out in the United States Congress, and it really
boils down to how much money we need and who do we trust to handle the
people's money. A basic principle from which I have operated as Governor
and now as President is this: I think it's wise for government and
government officials to trust the people to spend their money. See, I
think you can spend your money, and I think you know how to save your
money better than the Federal Government knows how to spend your money.
And that's what I've acted on. That's been the basis of a lot of our
fiscal policy in Washington, DC. I also acted on the belief that if
there is more money circulating in the economy, if more families have
more money of their own to spend, and if small businesses have more
money in their treasury, it is more likely that an economy can recover
from difficult times. And we have faced some difficult times since I've
been your President. We had a recession right after I got in office. We
had a terrorist attack that affected our economy. We had corporate
scandals that sent a chill throughout the investment community and
caused some citizens to wonder whether or not their savings were being
treated with the respect that they should be. We had uncertainty.
But I acted. I acted with the--at that time, a Republican-controlled
Congress on the principle that if we can get more money in circulation,
if we can let the people have more of their own money to save, invest,
and spend, we would overcome these difficulties. And it worked. We cut
the taxes on everybody who pays taxes in the United States of America.
On average, our taxpayers this year will save--this is on average,
now--amongst all the taxpayers, they'll save about $2,200 on their
taxes. Now, Washington, we spend--we throw out a lot of big numbers. In
the statehouse you talk millions; Washington, we talk trillions. But
2,200--it may not sound like a lot when we're talking big numbers in
Washington, but you ask the family that's trying to save for a child's
education whether $2,200 means a lot, and they'll tell you, it sure
does. You talk about the working family that's struggling to get ahead,
that $2,200 means a lot. You talk about the farmer out there who's
worried about making crop, that $2,200 means a lot. It may sound small
to the opiners in Washington, but you ask the average American family,
would they rather
[[Page 1013]]
have the $2,200 to spend on their own or would they rather send it to
Washington, DC, they'll say, ``Let me have my money; I can do a good job
with it.''
Since August of 2003, when these tax cuts took full effect, we've
increased new jobs by 8.2 million. In other words, people are working.
Unemployment rates and--are pretty low around the United States of
America. Real wages are going up; inflation is relatively stable. In
other words, this economy is strong. And I would argue with the doubters
and the skeptics that one of the reason is because of the tax cuts we
passed. And the fundamental question facing this Congress is, will they
be wise enough to keep taxes low?
Now, let me talk about the deficit and the budget. You know, there's
an argument in Washington that says, well, we've got to raise the taxes
in order to balance the budget. Well, you all know how government tends
to work. Generally, when you raise the taxes, those monies don't go to
balance the budget; they tend to go to new programs. They tend to expand
the size and scope of government.
We have a different strategy in Washington, and that is, rather than
raise taxes to balance the budget, we believe you ought to keep taxes
low to balance the budget. And here's why. Low taxes have yielded a
strong economy; a strong economy produces more tax revenues. As a matter
of fact, tax revenue increase this year are--the Federal tax revenues
this year are expected to rise $167 billion higher than last year. In
other words, we kept the taxes low; the economy was strong; and we're
receiving about $167 billion more tax revenues.
Then all of a sudden, you begin to get a sense of our strategy on
how to handle the deficit: Keep the economy growing by keeping taxes
low, which is yielding more tax revenues. But we've got to be wise on
how we spend the money. We've held the growth of domestic discretionary
spending below the rate of inflation for the past 3 years, which has
enabled us to report to the country that the deficit is down to $205
billion. That is 1.5 percent of GDP; that is lower than the national
average over the last 10 years.
And then we submitted another budget that showed you can keep taxes
low, prioritize Federal spending, and be getting surplus by $33 billion
by 2012. The best way to balance this budget is to keep the economy
strong by letting you keep your money and being wise about how we spend
your money in Washington, DC.
As you know, we've had a change of leadership in Washington, DC.
That was not my first choice. [Laughter] But nevertheless, it is a
situation that we're dealing with. And I would remind those who are now
running the Congress that they have a responsibility when it comes to
leadership. They have proposed a budget--and I told you there's a debate
raging in Washington, and I'd like to share with you why I said that.
Earlier this year, the Democrats passed a resolution calling for $205
billion in additional domestic spending over the next 5 years. That's
what their budget resolution said. I just told you what our budget
proposal was, and there's a different approach. There's a different
feeling in Washington among some--good people, fine people, they just
have a different philosophy than I do, and they proposed 205 billion
additional dollars in spending over a 5-year period.
The problem is, is that spending promises out of the Nation's
Capital have a way of shrinking American wallets in the heartland
because you've got to figure out how to pay for that spending increase.
And so it's no surprise that their budget framework includes the largest
tax increase in American history. In order to pay for the promises they
have made, their budget framework includes the largest tax increase--not
the second largest or close to the largest--the largest tax increase in
American history.
Here's what that would mean. It means if you have a child, your
taxes would go up by $500 per child. Remember, we cut the--we increased
the child tax credit from 500 to 1,000. Their plan would reduce it to
500. I don't agree with that approach. I think it's important to help
people with children by keeping taxes low. If you're a family making
$60,000 a year and you have two children, your taxes would go up by more
than $1,800. Under their plan that would increase Federal spending by
over $200 billion, the average American family making--of four making
$60,000 would see their bill go up by $1,800.
[[Page 1014]]
Twenty-six million small-business owners would see their taxes
increase by an average of $4,000. You see, one of the reasons why I
thought it was important to cut taxes was to stimulate the small-
business sector of our economy. Now, most small businesses pay tax at
the--or many small businesses pay tax at the individual income tax rate.
You talk to your average small-business owner in your State, many of
them will be subchapter S corporations or limited liability
partnerships. In other words, they pay tax at the individual income tax
rate, so when you heard me talking about reducing individual income
taxes, you're really stimulating the small-business sector.
And that's important because about 70 percent of new jobs in America
are created by small-business owners. When the small-business sector is
strong, America is strong. And cutting taxes on small businesses was
good policy. And the Democrats, under their budget resolution, would
raise small-business taxes by about $4,000, on average, for 26 million
small businesses. And more than 5 million low-income Americans who now
pay no income taxes because of our relief would once again pay.
What I'm telling you is, is that there's a philosophical debate in
Washington, and the bunch now running Congress want to return to the
tax-and-spend policies of the past that did not work then and will not
work in the future. And that's why I plan on using my veto to keep your
taxes low.
Not only has the leadership proposed their idea on the budget; they
have a responsibility to set an agenda that will get the spending bills
to my desk, one at a time, in a reasonable time frame. In other words,
they're now in charge, and it's important that they exercise their
responsibility. That's what the American people expect.
And part of that responsibility is to get the 12 basic spending
bills that are needed to keep the Federal Government running to my desk
in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, they've been dragging their feet on
these bills. They're now getting ready to leave for their August recess
without having passed a single spending bill. Look, the legislative
process is complicated, no doubt. But in a time of war, one spending
bill should take precedence over all the rest. And so at the very least,
Members of Congress ought to finish the spending bill for the Department
of Defense before they go on recess, so I can sign it into law.
We got troops in harm's way. They need to exercise their
responsibility and get this defense bill passed. There's time to do it.
I'll hang around if they want me to--[laughter]--to get the bill passed.
And when Members come back in September, they need to pass the rest of
the basic spending bills to keep the Federal Government running.
Now, I believe these bills need to be passed one at a time because
the alternative is to pass a massive spending bill that no one can read
and into which anyone can hide wasteful spending. They need to get the
work done before the fiscal year ends on September the 30th. If they're
responsible leaders, that's what they will do.
The other thing we need to do is confront this business about
earmarks. You know, earmarks are these special spending projects that
get stuck in these bills, that really never see the light of day.
Somebody has got a good idea about how to spend your money, and they
just put it in the bill. This year, I proposed reforms that would make
the earmark process more transparent, that would end the practice of
concealing earmarks in so-called report language, that would eliminate
wasteful earmarks and cut the overall number by at least half.
There's been some agreement on this issue in Washington. Democrats
and Republicans have taken a good step by agreeing to list all earmarks
before the bills are passed. You see, we want the public to see them. I
believe in accountability when it comes to spending your money. We want
there to be transparency. We want there to be a chance for lawmakers to
strike them out if they think that they're frivolous and don't meet
national concerns. Congress needs to uphold its commitments, and the
Senate needs to make transparency a part of its formal rules.
And then there's the issue of entitlements--in other words, I'm
going through the list of the items that will make this budget process
not only better and more transparent. But I want Congress to understand
that I'm going to continue talking about big
[[Page 1015]]
issues because I firmly believe that we, those of us in public office,
have a responsibility to confront serious problems now and not pass them
on to future Congresses or future generations. And such a serious
problem is in our entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare and
Medicaid.
The programs are growing faster than our economy, faster than
inflation and, therefore, faster than our ability to pay. Old guys like
me will be taken care of in the system. I'm worried about younger people
paying into a system that won't be around for them. And we can solve
these problems. It takes political will and political courage. And I've
called on Congress to work with my administration to deal with these
significant problems now, so our children know they'll be paying in a
system that is not bankrupt.
Oh, there's a lot of issues we'll be working on over the next
months. We'll be working hard to make sure that our economy continues to
run with good energy policy. I firmly believe that we can use
technologies to help change our--how we use energy. I think it's in the
national interest to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. I
know it's in our national--our economic interest to become less
dependent on foreign sources of oil. After all, when demand for crude
oil goes up in other parts of the world, it causes the basic price of
oil to go up if corresponding supply is not found, which causes the
price of gasoline to go up.
We're on the verge of some unbelievable technologies in this
country. And I believe that you'll be driving to work over the next
couple of years in a automobile that's powered by electricity, and it
won't have to look like a golf cart. In other words, Tommy, we'll be
driving pickup trucks that may not be running on gasoline. I know
they're going to be running on ethanol, which, by the way, I like the
idea of our farmers growing energy that help us become less dependent on
foreign sources of oil.
What I'm telling you is, I'm optimistic about our future when it
comes to energy diversification, which, by the way, will enable us to be
better stewards of the environment. Some optimistic things that are
coming, and we're spending a fair amount of taxpayers' money to be a
part of these new technologies, whether they be safe nuclear power or
clean coal technologies or the ability to explore for oil and gas in
offshore regions that, heretofore, were unimaginable for people to find
energy. I mean, we've got a comprehensive plan that says, technology and
free enterprise can help us achieve energy independence. That's what we
want.
Another way to make sure this economy grows is to be smart about our
education system. The No Child Left Behind Act is an important piece of
legislation. I'm a big believer in it, and I'll tell you why. First of
all, as the speaker will tell you, I'm a strong advocate for local
control of schools. I don't believe Washington ought to be telling local
districts how to run their school system. I do not believe that.
But I do believe this: I believe that when you spend money, you
ought to insist upon results. That's what I believe. I believe that
every child can learn, and I believe that we ought to expect every
school to teach. And when we spend money, I think it makes sense to ask
simple questions. Can the child you're educating read, write, add, and
subtract? I don't think it's too much to ask. As a matter of fact, I
think it's good for society that we do ask. It's what I call challenging
the soft bigotry of low expectations. If you have low expectations,
you're going to get lousy results. If you have high expectations for
every child, you're not afraid to measure.
No Child Left Behind says, we're going to spend Federal money, and
we want you to develop an accountability system that will show the
parents and taxpayers that the schools are meeting high standards.
That's what it says, and it's working.
You know, one of the real problems we have in America is an
achievement gap. I guess that's a fancy word for saying that, generally,
Anglo kids are doing better in the basics than African American or
Latino kids. And that's not good for this country, and it's not right.
And it seems like to me, we've got to focus our efforts and energies on
solving that problem if we want this country to be a hopeful country
with a strong economy.
See, the economy is going to demand brainpower as we head into the
21st century, and therefore, now is the time to make sure our fourth
graders can read, write, and add
[[Page 1016]]
and subtract and our eighth graders are more proficient in math and when
you graduate from high school, your diploma means something. And the
best place to start is to measure. And when you see a problem, fix it,
before it's too late. When you find an inner-city kid that may not have
the right curriculum to get he or she up to the grade level at the
fourth grade, let's solve it now; let's not wait. No Child Left Behind
is working, and it needs to be reauthorized by the United States
Congress.
Finally, I want to spend some time talking about securing this
country. September the 11th changed my way of thinking, and it should
change the way our country views the world as well. We were attacked by
a group of ruthless killers who have an ideology. In other words, they
believe something. These people are--it's hard for you and your
constituents to imagine a frame of mind that says, ``I'm going to kill
innocent men, women, and children to achieve a political objective.''
But that's the nature of this enemy. That's exactly what they're like.
They preyed upon hopelessness to convince 19 kids to get on
airplanes to come and kill nearly 3,000 of our people. And when that
happened, I vowed that I would do everything in my power to protect the
American people. And we've got a strategy to do that. On the one hand,
we have altered how we view protecting the homeland. We've created a
whole Department of Government that brought disparate parts of our
Government together, with the main aim of protecting the people.
But protection requires more than just making sure we know who is
coming in and out of the country and who is leaving and screening cargo
and making people take off their shoes at airports. It requires more
than that. I believe it requires a relentless search, relentless
pressure on an enemy that wants to do us harm again. I would rather
defeat them over there than face them here. And that's why--[applause].
I say that because you can't negotiate with these people. You cannot
hope for the best, that, oh, maybe if we don't pressure them, then
they'll just retreat. These are determined adversaries that have stated
their ambitions. They would like to see their point of view spread as
far and wide as possible. That's when I talk about a caliphate that
stretches from Spain to Indonesia, that means that they want to impose
their ideology on people.
And what would that mean? Well, I just want you to remember--think
back what it--think what it would be like to be a young girl growing up
in Afghanistan, when they were able to find their safe haven and impose
their vision across that country. I mean, you couldn't be educated; you
were forced to be a second-class citizen. If you stepped out of line,
you were whipped. These people are--they're smart; they're tough. And we
need to be tougher every single day. The best way to protect you is to
keep them on the run, is to keep the pressure on them. And that is
exactly what the United States of America is doing and will continue to
do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.
But that's not enough to defeat them. I have told the American
people, we're in an ideological struggle, and the best way to defeat
their ideology of darkness in the long term is with an ideology of hope.
The ideology of hope is based upon the universality of liberty. I told
you, I believe in the universality of liberty. I don't believe there's a
debate on that. I believe every man, woman, and child wants to be free.
And I know that free societies yield the peace we want. And therefore,
the strategy is on--the short-term strategy of defeating them is to
finding them and bringing them to justice. And the long-term strategy is
to help others realize the blessings of liberty.
And this is a great challenge for the United States of America. It's
a different kind of war. It's akin to the cold war in some ways, where
we had an ideological struggle. But in this war, there's an enemy that
uses asymmetrical warfare, and they're propagandists. They kill the
innocent to affect the conscience of those of us who feel like we need
to keep pressuring them. See, they understand when they fill our TV
screens with death and misery, it causes a compassionate people to
recoil. They know that we value human life, and therefore, when they
take human life, it affects how the American people feel.
And so I understand the angst amongst the American people. I know
that people are
[[Page 1017]]
weary of war. I fully understand that these hard images that these
killers get on our TV screens ask people--causes people to question
whether or not the cause is worth it and whether or not we can succeed.
Well, I believe the cause is worth it. I wouldn't ask a mother's child
to go into combat if I didn't think it was necessary to protect the
American people, to stay on the offense. And I do believe we can succeed
if we don't lose our nerve. Because freedom has had the capacity over
time to change enemies to allies and to lay the foundation of peace for
generations to come.
And right now what you're seeing is this global war against these
extremists and radicals unfolding in two major theaters: Afghanistan,
where we liberated 25 million people from the clutches of a barbaric
regime that had provided safe haven for Al Qaida killers who plotted and
planned and then killed 3,000 of our people, and in Iraq.
The Iraq theater has gone through several stages. The first stage
was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Let me just be as blunt as I can
about that. It was his choice to make as to whether or not he was able
to survive in power. The free world, through the United Nations, spoke
clearly to Saddam Hussein. He made the choice. We removed Saddam
Hussein, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.
And then the society which had been traumatized by his tyranny did
something remarkable, and that is, they went to the polls in three
historic elections and voted for a modern Constitution and expressed
their desire to have Iraqi-style freedom, Iraqi-style democracy. It was
an amazing moment. It seems like several decades ago to some, but that
happened in the end of 2005.
And then this enemy--and the enemy, by the way, is comprised of
people who wish they were still in power, disgruntled militia that are
trying to make--see if they can't take advantage of some chaos. But the
enemy that is causing the biggest spectaculars is Al Qaida.
Now, there's a debate in Washington--I gave a speech about this in
South Carolina the other day--is, well, is the Al Qaida in Iraq have
anything to do with the Al Qaida that's hiding out somewhere in the
regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan? There's some actually who say,
``Well, they're different; they're not to be--we don't need to worry
about them. All they care about is Iraq.'' Well, I reminded the audience
in that speech that the person who started Al Qaida in Iraq was not an
Iraqi; he was from Jordan. And after we killed him, the next person was
not from Iraq, that started Al Qaida in Iraq; he was from Egypt.
And they have sworn allegiance to Usama bin Laden, and they agree
that Iraq is the central part of this war on terror, with Usama bin
Laden. And they agree with his ambition to drive us out so they could
have a safe haven from which to plot further attacks. Yes, Al Qaida in
Iraq is dangerous to the United States of America. They blew up the holy
shrine. They saw the progress being made. They can't stand the thought
of a free society that will thwart their ambitions, and they blew up the
shrine.
And why did they do it? They did it because they saw that progress
was being made, that the Iraqis might be actually able to have a
government of, by, and for the people, and they wanted to create
sectarian violence. And they were successful. In other words, there
wasn't enough security at the time--in other words, enough confidence in
the security at the time amongst the Iraqi people to be able to stop
people from fighting each other.
And so I had a decision to make, and I made the decision--it's
rather than pulling out and hoping for the best in the capital of this
new democracy, recognizing that in the long run, a system based upon
liberty will be a major defeat for these radical extremists, I sent more
troops in. Rather than say, let's hope for the best, I said, we can do a
better job of providing security to give this young Government a chance
to grow and thrive and to give the people confidence in the Constitution
that they voted for.
And David Petraeus became a new general there on the ground--the new
general on the ground. He's a expert in counterinsurgency. The mission
is to help protect Baghdad and the people inside Baghdad and to keep
relentless pressure on those extremists who are trying to stop the
advance of democracy. And he's making progress.
[[Page 1018]]
And I believe it's in the interests of this country, for our own
security, for the United States Congress to fully support General
Petraeus in his mission and to give him time to come back and report to
the United States Congress the progress that he's making.
It's really interesting to watch this counterinsurgency strategy
work. I mean, when people on the ground begin to have confidence, they,
all of a sudden, start making good decisions for a state that will
represent their interests. There is such thing as top-down
reconciliation. That's the passage of law. And the Iraqi Parliament has
passed quite a few pieces of legislation, and they're working, trying to
work through their differences. Sometimes legislative bodies aren't real
smooth in getting out a piece of legislation in timely fashion, as some
of you might recognize. But nevertheless, they're working hard to--
learning what it means to have a Parliament that functions.
But there's also bottom-up reconciliation. That's when people on the
ground begin to see things change and start making decisions that will
lead to peace. See, I believe most Muslim mothers, for example, want
their child to grow up in peace. I believe there's something universal
about motherhood. I don't think mothers in America think necessarily
different from mothers in Iraq. I think the mother in Iraq says, ``Gosh,
I hope for the day when my child can go outside and play and not fear
violence. I want my child to be educated. I have hopes that my child can
grow up in a peaceful world.'' And when people begin to see that these
thugs that have a dark vision begin to get defeated, people begin to
change attitudes. And that's what's happened in Anbar Province.
Last November, many experts said that Anbar Province, which Al Qaida
in Iraq had stated as their--that they wanted as a safe haven--this was
going to be where they were going to launch their caliphate from--they
said, we can't win there. And all of a sudden, we put more marines in;
the people saw things change on the ground; local leaders started
turning in Al Qaida--they don't like to be--people don't like to be
intimidated by thugs and murderers. And the whole situation is changing
for the better. Progress is being made there.
Now, I know that the car bombs that take place tend to cloud
people's vision. What I'm telling you is that we gave David Petraeus a
mission--the troops just fully got there one month ago--and he's
accomplishing that mission. And my point to you is, it's worth it and
necessary because if we were to leave before the job is done, these
radicals like Al Qaida would become emboldened, there would be chaos,
mass casualties in Iraq. And that chaos could spill out across the
region. And if that were to happen, there would be significant
competition among radical groups, whether they be Sunni or Shi'a, all
aiming to destabilize the region in order to be able to achieve power.
But they would have one thing in common, and that would be to inflict
harm on the United States of America.
It's in our interests that there be a stable government that is an
ally against these extremists, not only in Iraq but elsewhere. It's in
our long-term interest for peace and security. Failure in Iraq would
undermine that long-term interests. See, unlike some wars, this enemy
wouldn't be content to stay in Iraq. They would follow us here. They
would use the resources of Iraq to be able to acquire additional
weaponry or use economic blackmail to achieve their objectives. They're
dangerous in Iraq, and they'll be dangerous here. And that is why we
must defeat them in Iraq. And we can.
I have spent a lot of time sharing this story with people, so I'm
going to share it with you. If you've heard me tell it, play like you
hadn't heard it. [Laughter] One of my close friends in the international
arena over the last 6\1/2\ years is Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. He
was such a close friend that Laura and I took him down to Elvis's
place--[laughter]--which was really fun. I'm also a close friend of his
successor, Prime Minister Abe.
The reason I bring this up is that, as you know--or may not know--my
dad, professionally known as 41, fought the Japanese. As a young kid, he
got out of high school, went down and trained in Corpus--part of his
training mission--and then fought the Japanese as the sworn enemy of the
United States of America. I'm sure some of your relatives did the same
thing.
[[Page 1019]]
And yet, here, some 60-odd years later, his son is sitting down at
the table with the head of the former enemy talking about keeping the
peace. We were talking about, when I was visiting with Prime Minister
Koizumi, and now his successor, the fact that it's important to help
these young democracies survive in the face of this radicalism and
extremism that can affect our homelands. See, we share this great--same
philosophical belief that liberty can prevail, and that we have a duty
to help liberty to prevail if we want there to be security.
I've always found that to be very interesting. My dad fought the
Japanese, and the son, one lifetime later, is talking about keeping the
peace. We talk about Afghanistan and helping that young democracy. Of
course, we talk about North Korea, to make sure that we deal with any
weapons proliferation that might be happening. We talk about a lot of
issues, but they're issues about peace. Something happened between the
18-year-old kid who joined up to be in the Navy and the 60-year-old son
being the President. And what happened is, is that liberty has got the
capacity to convert an enemy into an ally.
I don't know how many people would have been predicting in 1947 or
'48 or after the peace treaty was signed when President Truman was the
President that there would be this kind of accommodation made between
two former enemies for the sake of peace. I'm not sure how many would
have--particularly right after World War II. I suspect a lot of people
would say this never would have happened. They were the enemy then;
they'll be the enemy now.
And the reason I tell you this story is that if you really look at
history, you'll find examples where liberty has transformed regions that
were warlike, where a lot of people died, into regions of peace. And
that's going to happen again, so long as we have faith in that
fundamental principle, so long as we don't lose our confidence in
certain values--that are not American values, but they're universal
values.
I believe the most important priority of our Government is to
protect the American people from further harm. And you just need to be
reassured and so do your constituents that a lot of good people are
spending every hour of every day doing just that. But I would remind
you, in the long run, the best way for your children and grandchildren
to be able to say that when given a tough task, this generation didn't
flinch and had certain faith--had faith in certain values, is that we
stay strong when it comes to liberty as a transformative agent to bring
the peace we want.
Thanks for letting me come. God bless.
Note: The President spoke at 9:11 a.m. at the Philadelphia Marriott. In
his remarks, he referred to Dolores Mertz, executive board of directors
national chair, and Jerry Watson, private enterprise board chairman,
American Legislative Exchange Council; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al
Qaida terrorist organization; and Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA,
commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq.