[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.