[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 49 (Monday, December 10, 2007)]
[Pages 1555-1564]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

December 4, 2007

    The President. Good morning. I appreciate the fact that the United 
States Senate is going to take up the free trade agreement with Peru 
today. This agreement will level the playing field for American goods 
and services. It will create new opportunities for investment. It will 
strengthen our friendship with a fellow democracy. The House of 
Representatives has passed this bill. I congratulate the House 
leadership. And I certainly hope the Senate will pass it as well. This 
will be a very positive step.
    But Congress still has a lot to do and doesn't have very much time 
to do it. Three weeks from today, Americans will celebrate Christmas, 
and three groups of Americans are waiting on Congress to act. The first 
group are the troops. Our troops are waiting on Congress to fund them in 
their operations overseas. Nearly 10 months ago, I submitted a detailed 
funding request. Congress has not acted. Our men and women shouldn't 
have to wait any longer.
    Second, our intelligence professionals are waiting for Congress to 
act. The legislation Congress approved early this year to make sure our 
intelligence professionals can continue to effectively monitor terrorist 
communications is set to expire in February. Allowing this law to lapse 
would open gaps in our intelligence and increase the danger to our 
country. Our intelligence professionals need these tools to keep our 
people safe, and they need Congress to ensure that these tools are not 
taken away.
    Third, American taxpayers are waiting on Congress to act. Congress 
has failed to pass legislation that will protect middle class families 
from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax. If Congress doesn't act, 
millions of Americans will be hit with an unexpected tax bill. And even 
if Congress does act by the end of the year, this action could delay the 
delivery of about $75 billion worth of tax refund checks. Congress 
expects Americans to pay their taxes on time, and the least the Congress 
can do is make sure Americans get their refunds on time.

[[Page 1556]]

    Americans also expect their tax dollars to be spent wisely. Yet 
today, 11 of the 12 annual spending bills that fund the day-to-day 
operations of the Federal Government remain unfinished. And now, 
congressional leaders are talking about piling these bills into one 
monstrous piece of legislation which they will load up with billions of 
dollars in earmarks and wasteful spending. Taxpayers deserve better. And 
if the Congress passes an irresponsible spending bill, I'm going to veto 
it.
    The holidays are approaching, and the clock is ticking for the 
United States Congress. Based on the record so far, Americans could be 
forgiven for thinking that Santa will have slipped down their chimney on 
Christmas Eve before Congress finishes its work. Let's hope they're 
wrong.
    And now I'll be glad to answer some questions, starting with Terry 
Hunt [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Iran/National Intelligence Estimate

    Q. Mr. President, a new intelligence report says that Iran halted 
its nuclear weapons program 4 years ago and that it remains frozen. Are 
you still convinced that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb? And do 
the new findings take the military option that you've talked about off 
the table?
    The President. Here's what we know. We know that they're still 
trying to learn how to enrich uranium. We know that enriching uranium is 
an important step in a country whose desire it was to develop a weapon. 
We know they had a program. We know the program was halted.
    I think it is very important for the international community to 
recognize the fact that if Iran were to develop the knowledge that they 
could transfer to a clandestine program it would create a danger for the 
world. And so I view this report as a warning signal that they had the 
program; they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning 
signal is that they could restart it. And the thing that would make a 
restarted program effective and dangerous is the ability to enrich 
uranium, the knowledge of which could be passed on to a hidden program.
    And so it's a--to me, the NIE provides an opportunity for us to 
rally the international community--continue to rally the community to 
pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program.
    You know, the NIE also said that such pressure was effective, and 
that's what our Government has been explaining to our other partners in 
keeping the international pressure on Iran. The best diplomacy, 
effective diplomacy, is one in which all options are on the table.

Intelligence Reform/Iran

    Q. Mr. President, Iraq's WMD turned out not to be there, and now 
Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003. Are you concerned that the 
United States is losing credibility in the world and now may be seen as 
the boy who cried--who called wolf?
    The President. Actually, I am--I want to compliment the intelligence 
community for their good work. Right after the failure of intelligence 
in Iraq, we reformed the intel community so that there was a lot of 
serious considerations of NIEs in a way that would give us confidence. 
And here's a, I think, a very important product that is a result of the 
reforms we've put in place. As a matter of fact, the American people 
should have confidence that the reforms are working and that this work 
on the intel community is important work.
    People said, ``Well, why is it that you can't get exact knowledge 
quicker?'' Well, the answer is, is because we're dealing with a regime 
that is not very transparent, and frankly, we haven't had a very good 
presence in Iran since 1979. And that's why I instructed the intel 
community to beef up its intelligence on Iran. So we could have a better 
sense for what they're thinking and what they're doing. And this product 
is a result of intelligence reform and, more importantly, the good, hard 
work of our intelligence community.
    One of the reasons why this is out in the public arena is because I 
wanted--and our administration believed that, one, it was important for 
people to know the facts as we see them. Secondly, that members of my 
administration had been very clear about the weapons program earlier 
this year. And therefore, it's important for the American people to see 
that there has been a reevaluation of the Iranian issue.

[[Page 1557]]

    David [David Gregory, NBC News].

Intelligence Analysis/Iran

    Q. Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you 
talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a 
mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, 
you said in October--on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of 
world war III, when months before you made that statement, this 
intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had 
already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of 
hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. 
credibility?
    The President. David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter 
such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, 
I think it was, John McConnell--Mike McConnell came in and said, ``We 
have some new information.'' He didn't tell me what the information was; 
he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you 
take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's 
not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you 
have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the 
intelligence they gathered. If they think it's real, then what does it 
mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that 
is now public.
    And the second part of your question has to do with this: Look, Iran 
was dangerous; Iran is dangerous; and Iran will be dangerous if they 
have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. The NIE says that 
Iran had a hidden--a covert nuclear weapons program. That's what it 
said. What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons 
program? And the best way to ensure that the world is peaceful in the 
future is for the international community to continue to work together 
to say to the Iranians, we're going to isolate you. However, there is a 
better way forward for the Iranians.
    Now, in 2003, the Iranian Government began to come to the table in 
discussions with the EU-3, facilitated by the United States. In other 
words, we said to the EU-3, we'll support your efforts to say to the 
Iranians, you have a choice to make: You can continue to do policy that 
will isolate you, or there's a better way forward. So that was the 
sticks-and-carrots approach.
    You might remember, the United States said at that point in time, 
we'll put the WTO on the table for consideration, or we'll help you with 
spare parts for your airplanes. It was all an attempt to take advantage 
of what we thought was a more openminded Iranian regime at the time--a 
willingness of this regime to talk about a way forward. And then the 
Iranians had elections, and Ahmadi-nejad announced that--to the IAEA 
that he was going to--this is after, by the way, the Iranians had 
suspended their enrichment program--he said, ``We're going to stop the 
suspension; we'll start up the program again.'' And that's where we are 
today.
    My point is, is that there is a better way forward for the Iranians. 
There has been a moment during my Presidency in which diplomacy provided 
a way forward for the Iranians. And our hope is we can get back on that 
path again. But what is certain is that if Iran ever had the knowledge 
to develop a nuclear weapon and they passed that knowledge on to a 
covert program, which at one time in their history has existed, the 
world would be more dangerous. And now is the time for the international 
community to work together.

Iran/National Intelligence Estimate

    Q. Mr. President, thank you. Just to follow, I understand what 
you're saying about when you were informed about the NIE. Are you saying 
at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as ``world war III'' was 
making it into conversation, at no point nobody from your intelligence 
team or your administration was saying, maybe you want to back it down a 
little bit?
    The President. No, nobody ever told me that. Having said--having 
laid that out, I still feel strongly that Iran is a danger. Nothing has 
changed in this NIE that says, okay, why don't we just stop worrying 
about it. Quite the contrary. I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran 
needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn't 
changed.
    And I just explained, Jim [Jim Axelrod, CBS News], that if you want 
to avoid a really

[[Page 1558]]

problematic situation in the Middle East, now is the time to continue to 
work together. That's our message to our allies, and it's an important 
message for them to hear. And here's the reason why: In order for a 
nation to develop a nuclear weapons program, they must have the 
materials from which to make a bomb, the know-how on how to take that 
material and make it explode, and a delivery system.
    Now, the Iranians--the most difficult aspect of developing a weapons 
program, or as some would say, the long pole in the tent, is enriching 
uranium. This is a nation--Iran is a nation that is testing ballistic 
missiles. And it is a nation that is trying to enrich uranium. The NIE 
says this is a country that had a covert nuclear weapons program, which, 
by the way, they have failed to disclose, even today. They have never 
admitted the program existed in the first place.
    The danger is, is that they can enrich, play like they got a 
civilian program--or have a civilian program, or claim it's a civilian 
program--and pass the knowledge to a covert military program. And then 
the danger is, is at some point in the future, they show up with a 
weapon. And my comments are, now is the time to work together to prevent 
that scenario from taking place. It's in our interests.
    Yes, ma'am.

Iran

    Q. Mr. Bush, how can you say nothing has changed? You may see it 
this way, but the rest of the world is going to see the lead as the fact 
that the nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003.
    The President. Right.
    Q. When you first saw this, weren't you angry? You didn't know about 
Syria. In 2005, you had the same assessment, ``with high confidence that 
Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons.'' And now, 
quite the opposite. How can you possibly think the rest of the world is 
going to continue--to the degree it did--to rally around you and your 
intelligence?
    The President. Because many in the world understand that if Iran 
developed a nuclear weapon, the world would be a very dangerous place. 
Secondly, many of the world are going to take heart in noting that it's 
diplomatic pressure that caused them to change their mind. And plenty of 
people understand that if they learn how to enrich, that knowledge can 
be transferred to a weapons program, if Iran so chooses.
    And I think this is a--it's a--to me, it's a way for us to continue 
to rally our partners. That's why I'm working the phones, and Condi Rice 
is working the phones. All of us are calling our partners. And I 
appreciate many of the comments that have come out of the capitals.
    One thing is for certain. The NIE talks about how a carrot-and-stick 
approach can work. And this is heartening news to people who believe 
that, on the one hand, we should exert pressure, and on the other hand, 
we should provide the Iranians a way forward. And it was working until 
Ahmadi-nejad came in. And our hope is that the Iranians will get 
diplomacy back on track.
    Yes, ma'am.

Intelligence Analysis

    Q. Why should you trust this intelligence since it's different than 
2005? Why should we trust it any more?
    The President. Well, you know, I'm--without getting into sources and 
methods, I believe that the intelligence community has made a great 
discovery. And they've analyzed the discovery, and it's now part of our 
Government policy.
    Toby [Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters], I apologize for getting 
immediately to the TV people. That's just bad protocol; I should have 
called on you.
    Q. She went already; didn't she?
    The President. Oh, she already has--[inaudible].
    Q. Yes, you're getting on to TV. [Laughter]
    Q. Yes, I've got another question though.
    The President. I'm having such a good time, I forgot the past.
    Q. I have more questions. You're just afraid I'll ask another 
followup, which I'd love to.
    The President. No, but you're just kind of belting them out. 
[Laughter] Yes.
    Q. Okay, 2005, why--the poll says----
    Q. Thank you----

[[Page 1559]]

    The President. Ed [Ed Henry, Cable News Network].
    Q. ----Mr. President.
    The President. Excuse me, Toby.

Saudi Arabian Sexual Assault Case

    Q. Thank you. Another issue--on another issue of credibility in the 
Mideast, at the Annapolis summit, you used your influence to get Saudi 
Arabia to the table. But I wonder whether now you will use your 
influence to do something about the Saudi rape case that's gotten so 
much international attention. What goes through your mind when you hear 
about a 19-year-old Saudi woman getting gang-raped by 7 men and 
basically a Saudi court blames the victim and sentence her to 200 
lashes? You spoke to King Abdullah by telephone in the last couple of 
weeks. Did you press him on this case? If so, what did you say? And if 
not, are you giving him a pass?
    The President. My first thoughts were these: What happens if this 
happened to my daughter? How would I react? And I would have been--I 
would have been--I'd have been very emotional, of course. I'd have been 
angry at those who committed the crime, and I'd be angry at a state that 
didn't support the victim. And our opinions were expressed by Dana 
Perino from the podium and----
    Q. But did you press King Abdullah about it personally?
    The President. I talked to King Abdullah about the Middle Eastern 
peace. I don't remember if that subject came up.
    Q. But if it's that important to you, why wouldn't you bring it--at 
that level, bring it directly up to King Abdullah?
    The President. We'll have plenty of time. He knows our position loud 
and clear.
    McKinnon [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].

National Economy

    Q. Maybe we could switch to the economy just for one second, Mr. 
President.
    The President. Wait a minute. That's not a dis on the front row, is 
it?
    Q. Not at all, sir.
    The President. Okay. Well, they're not taking it that way, it 
doesn't look like----
    Q. You're misreading it. [Laughter]
    There's a lot of indications that people are increasingly concerned 
about the state of the economy and the outlook for the next couple of 
years. Your administration is considering a plan to help people out with 
their mortgage payments, but I wonder if there's anything else beyond 
that that you've got in mind? If you could just give us your thoughts 
about all this.
    The President. First of all, let me talk about the Paulson-Jackson 
initiative. They're working with lenders, service industry people, and 
investors to come up with a plan that would make it easier for qualified 
home buyers to stay in their homes. And I appreciate their efforts. And 
that's an important part of what I'm about to say, and that is this: 
First of all, the economy--basics in the economy are good. Inflation is 
low; job creation is good; interest rates are low; productivity is up; 
exports are up. In other words, the basic underpinnings of the economy 
are strong.
    Secondly, we are addressing the current issues, and homeownership is 
a current issue. And no question, it's a headwind; it's a part of why 
many people are saying that the economy is slowing down.
    Thirdly, Secretary Paulson has worked with the private sector on a 
credit reassurance fund.
    Fourthly, we have called consistently on Congress to pass measures 
that will help keep the economy strong. And one--such as the free trade 
agreement, which I heralded today. That's a signal, John, that as you 
keep opening up markets, it will help the psychology of the country. 
There's not going to be an immediate impact on Peru; I mean, it's not 
going to happen next month. But nevertheless, when the country is 
confident we'll continue to open up markets for goods and services, it 
should say that this administration is aggressively pursuing progrowth 
policies.
    And the main thing we're going to do is make it clear that Congress 
is not going to raise taxes during a time when this economy could be 
slowing down.
    So I'm optimistic. I recognize there's some serious issues--the 
credit crunch, as well as the home building industry. I am concerned 
about people who may not be able to stay in their homes. That's of 
concern to me and

[[Page 1560]]

our administration. That's why we're taking the action we're taking.
    Ed [Ed Chen, Bloomberg News].

Home Mortgage Industry

    Q. Mr. President, good morning.
    The President. Good morning, Ed. Thank you; appreciate that. A 
little ray of sunshine here. [Laughter]
    Q. We do all we can. [Laughter]
    Sir, was the Government too slow in this case to recognize the 
subprime mortgage problem? And what specific expects--do you expect to 
see with the economy on the proposals that will be coming later this 
week?
    The President. We've been working on this since August, Ed. And ours 
is a belief that, one, we shouldn't bail out lenders. And so--in other 
words, we shouldn't be using taxpayers' money to say, okay, you made a 
lousy loan; therefore, we're going to subsidize you.
    Secondly, that we recognize there's--this is a--the home mortgage 
industry is a little more complex than in the past. The old days, you'd 
go to your local savings and loans or your bank, get your home mortgage, 
and if you had a problem, you go back to the banker that loaned you the 
money and renegotiate if possible. Now what has happened, as you know, 
people have taken those mortgages and bundled them up as securities. And 
somebody else owns the mortgage--it's not the originating bank; it's 
somebody else owns the mortgage.
    And so Secretary Paulson is working with a more complex industry 
than we've had in the past. And that's why it's taken a while, Ed, 
because not only do you have the lender, you now have a whole service 
industry that has arisen that will hopefully help people stay in their 
homes--that's their job--but you've also got people all around the world 
who now own U.S. mortgages and assets that are U.S. mortgage--bundles of 
U.S. mortgages.
    And so it's a complex assignment. I'm pleased with the work that the 
Secretary is doing--both Secretaries are doing. I think they're making 
pretty good progress.

Iran

    Q. Mr. President, to go back to Iran for a minute, the Non-
Proliferation Treaty doesn't prohibit a country like Iran from having 
the knowledge to enrich uranium. Are you setting a different standard in 
this case and a different international obligation on Iran? And is that 
going to complicate the efforts to keep the pressure on when it comes to 
sanctions at the United Nations?
    The President. The problem that most of the world has seen in Iran 
stems from the fact that they hid their program. That's what the NIE 
says. The '68 agreement that Iran signed contemplated full transparency 
and openness. They didn't contemplate a regime that would have a covert 
nuclear weapons program--all the more reason for the international 
community to continue to work together. If somebody hid their program 
once, they could hide it again. If somebody defied the agreement that 
they signed, the codicils of the agreement they've signed, they could do 
it again. And most of the world understands that Iran with a nuclear 
weapon would be a serious danger to peace, and therefore, now is the 
time to work together to convince them to suspend their program.
    People say, ``Would you ever talk to Iran?'' For you veterans here, 
for those who have been following this administration for a while, you 
might remember that I have consistently said that we will be at the 
table with the EU-3 if Iran would verifiably suspend their program, and 
the offer still stands.
    What changed was the change of leadership in Iran. In other words, 
we had a diplomatic track going, and Ahmadi-nejad came along and took a 
different tone. And the Iranian people must understand that the tone and 
actions of their Government are that which is isolating them. There's a 
better way forward for Iran. There's a better way forward for the 
Iranian people than one in which they find themselves isolated in the 
world. Their economy can be stronger. But their leadership is going to 
have to understand that defiance and hiding programs and defying IAEA is 
not the way forward.
    And my hope is, is that the Iranian regime takes a look at their 
policies and changes their policies back to where we were prior to the 
election of Ahmadi-nejad, which was a hopeful period. They had suspended 
their program; they were at the table. The United States had made some 
very positive gestures

[[Page 1561]]

to convince them that there was a better way forward. And hopefully we 
can get back to that day.
    Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News].

Iran/National Intelligence Estimate

    Q. Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to ask for one clarification 
and one question, if I may.
    The President. Sure. Depends on what the clarification is.
    Q. The clarification is, are you saying that this NIE will not lead 
to a change in U.S. policy toward Iran or shift in focus?
    The President. I'm saying that I believed before the NIE that Iran 
was dangerous, and I believe after the NIE that Iran is dangerous. And I 
believe now is the time for the world to do the hard work necessary to 
convince the Iranians there is a better way forward. And I say, ``hard 
work''--here's why it's hard. One, many companies are fearful of losing 
market share in Iran to another company. It's one thing to get 
governments to speak out; it's another thing to convince private sector 
concerns that it's in our collective interests to pressure the Iranian 
regime economically.
    So I spend a fair amount of time trying to convince my counterparts 
that they need to convince the private sector folks that it is in their 
interests and in the--for the sake of peace that there be a common 
effort to convince the Iranians to change their ways and that there's a 
better way forward.
    So our policy remains the same. I see a danger. And many in the 
world see the same danger. This report is not a ``okay, everybody needs 
to relax and quit'' report. This is a report that says what has happened 
in the past could be repeated, and that the policies used to cause the 
regime to halt are effective policies, and let's keep them up; let's 
continue to work together.
    Question, please.

Venezuelan Referendum/Venezuela-U.S. Relations/Colombia-U.S. Free Trade 
Agreement

    Q. What does the vote in Venezuela mean for the U.S.? Obviously this 
is a major loss for Hugo Chavez, a leader who has repeatedly referred to 
you as the devil. Before his effort for this never-ending terms in 
office, he told a crowd confidently, quote, ``Anyone who votes `no' is 
voting for George W. Bush. Our true enemy is the U.S. empire, and on 
Sunday, December 2d, we're going to give another knockout to Bush.'' 
What's your reaction to Chavez's opponents winning?
    The President. The Venezuelan people rejected one-man rule. They 
voted for democracy. And the United States can make a difference in 
South America, in terms of Venezuelan influence. And here's how: The 
Congress can pass a free trade agreement with Colombia. People say, 
``Well, how does that affect U.S.-Venezuelan relations or the relations 
of Venezuela in South America with other countries?'' And here's how--
and I like to quote Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said, ``The 
biggest fear in South America is not the leader in Venezuela, but the 
biggest fear for stability is if the United States Congress rejects the 
free trade agreement with Colombia.''
    It would be an insult to a friend. It would send a contradictory 
message to a country led by a very strong leader who is working hard to 
deal with some very difficult problems, one of which is armed gangs of 
people that are ruthless and brutal, people who just kidnap innocent 
people for the sake of achieving political objectives.
    And so a vote for democracy took place, a very strong vote for 
democracy. And the United States policy can help promote democracies and 
stability. And again, I'm going to repeat to you: If the Congress does 
not pass the free trade agreement with Colombia, it will be a 
destabilizing moment.
    Olivier Knox [Agence France Press], yes.

Russia-U.S. Relations/Iran

    Q. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. This morning you spoke for, 
apparently, about 40 minutes with President Putin. I was wondering if 
you could shed a little light on what you talked about? Specifically, 
did you ask him to not go ahead with the sale of uranium or the shipment 
of uranium to----
    The President. I'm not going to get into the specifics of 
conversations I have with any world leader. Otherwise, the next time I 
have a phone call it might be a short one.
    Q. Do you have a message----

[[Page 1562]]

    The President.  But I'd be glad to talk about the themes.
    Q. Please do.
    The President. I don't particularly like when people read out my 
phone calls with them. Sometimes the words get mischaracterized. 
Sometimes what I say might not be exact--what they say I said might not 
be exactly what I said.
    But we did spend a lot of time on the Iranian issue. And one of the 
interesting tactical decisions that Russia has made that the United 
States supports is the notion that Iran has a sovereign right to have a 
civilian nuclear power program. What they don't have is our confidence 
that they should be able to enrich uranium so that those plants would 
work. Why? Because they had a covert weapons program that they did not 
declare and have yet to declare. Secondly, we understand that if they 
were to develop that weapons program, it would be a real danger.
    And so the Russians said, ``Well, would you support us on this 
notion, that because they're untrustworthy when it comes to the fuel 
cycle, we will provide the fuel, and we will collect the spent fuel?'' 
And I have, publicly. I'll say it again. And we discussed this part of 
our strategy.
    Secondly, I explained to him the content of the NIE and what it 
meant and how our working together has been effective. And thirdly, we 
talked about ongoing efforts to come up with another U.N. Security 
Council resolution if the Iranian regime doesn't suspend.

Russian Elections

    Q. Sir, did the elections come up, sir--the Russian elections?
    The President. They did. They did. And I said we were sincere in our 
expressions of concern about the elections.
    Wolf [Richard Wolf, USA Today].

2008 Presidential Election

    Q. A question on the upcoming elections that doesn't require you 
to----
    The President. Which ones would those be?
    Q. The ones that begin in January----
    The President. Of course.
    Q. ----that does not require you to take any--to take sides. What is 
your feeling right now about the tone of the campaign and, in 
particular, on the Republican side, some of the talk on immigration?
    The President. Wolf, for the next 3 months, you and your august 
colleagues are trying to get me to be pundit in chief. And I 
unfortunately practiced some punditry in the past; I'm not going to any 
further. I know, I know, it's just----
    Q. A little analysis, maybe? [Laughter]
    The President. You can ask another question. I really am going to--
look, we got--it's hard to believe--like, a month away from the Iowa 
caucuses, and it's going to get intense. And elections are intense. They 
are intense experiences, and they're intense on both sides. This is the 
first time in a long time that both parties haven't had, kind of, a 
clear nominee, and it's going to be interesting to watch.
    Q. Do you miss it?
    The President. Yes, I'm going to miss the campaigning. I like 
campaigning. And if somebody ever says they don't like campaigning, 
they're not telling you--either that, or they're a lousy candidate. I 
mean, it's fun. [Laughter] I enjoy it. I enjoy the crowds; I enjoy the 
noise; I enjoy giving that message; I enjoy the competition. And, yes, 
I'm going to miss it.
    On the other hand, what I'm not going to miss is what we all--some 
of us went through in 2000, which was getting out on an airplane and 
having my friend Candy Crowley pass a virus around and--[laughter]. I 
got a respiratory infection; so did half the press corps. They got off 
the plane; I didn't get to get off the plane. [Laughter] And it was 
tough; it was a tough experience. And--well, look, I'm not dissing 
Candy; I said, ``my friend.'' Look, it can happen to the best of them, 
you know.
    Yes, Wolf.

Cooperation With Congress/Legislative Agenda

    Q. I get another one. [Laughter] This is a good deal. Can you tell 
us whether you think your personal relationship with the Democratic 
leaders in Congress has had a negative impact on your ability to get 
your

[[Page 1563]]

legislation through? And how important is that personal relationship?
    The President. I have got cordial relations with the leaders when I 
talk to them. I saw Speaker Pelosi last night at the Congressional Ball 
at the White House, and we have very cordial relations. Here's--
Congress--the Democrats in Congress, in the House and the Senate, need 
to work out their differences before they come to the White House. You 
can imagine what it's like to try to deal on an important piece of 
legislation, and the Democrats in the House have one opinion, and the 
Democrats in the Senate have another opinion. FISA is a good example.
    And in order for us to be able to reach accord, they've got to come 
with one voice, one position. Nobody--like, the most disappointing thing 
about Washington has been the name-calling and this kind of--people go 
out in front of the mikes, and they just kind of unleash. And I've tried 
hard not to do that. I've tried to be respectful to all parties. And 
that's disappointing.
    On the other hand, I think we can get some things done. The Peruvian 
trade vote is one; there's an example. Congress needs to get their 
differences sorted. One of the worst ways to negotiate is to negotiate 
with one group. They pocket your negotiations, and then another group 
shows up and says, ``Well, you've said this to them; now give us this.''
    And hopefully, as we come down the stretch here, that they're 
capable of coming forward with, ``Here's what we believe; here's our 
plan; here's what we would like you to consider,'' as opposed to some 
examples, which is passing legislation for the sake of the headline, as 
opposed to passing legislation to get it passed. And SCHIP is a classic 
example. They knew I was going to veto the bill. They knew that was 
going to happen. They knew the veto would be sustained. But they ate up 
valuable time and passed the bill anyway.
    And so we sit here in the White House trying to figure out why. Why 
would you waste time? Why wouldn't you sit down and try to seriously 
negotiate an agreement on a bill that they knew was going to get vetoed 
and sustained?
    Now, hopefully in the next--however long they intend to stay here, 
that we're capable of working together. But if not, I'm going to stand 
strong for certain principles, and one of which is to make sure our 
troops get funded. We've got men and women in combat. We've got people 
risking their lives for the United States of America. And this Congress 
has yet to fund them, and it needs to. And it needs to fund them without 
telling our military how to conduct this war. Arbitrary dates for 
withdrawal are unacceptable, particularly given the fact that the 
strategy is working. It's working.
    And it seems like to me that this Congress ought to be 
congratulating our military commanders and our troops. And one way to 
send a congratulatory message is to give them the funds they need, and 
now is the time to do it.
    Let's see here, Mark Silva [Chicago Tribune].
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
    The President. That would be you back there.

Iran/National Intelligence Estimate

    Q. I may want to apologize in advance because I----
    The President. Please do.
    Q. ----I can't help but read your body language this morning, Mr. 
President. You seem somehow dispirited--somewhat dispirited.
    The President. I think you need to apologize for advance--
[laughter]. This is like--all of a sudden, it's like psychology 101, you 
know? [Laughter]
    Q. A question related to that, sir, is, twice now--on Iran and 
Iraq--the facts have failed you on things that you've been outspoken on 
telling the American people. Senator Harry Reid is saying on the war 
spending issue that, quote, ``The President is not leveling with the 
American people.''
    The President. On the war spending issue?
    Q. Yes. Are you, in fact, troubled by----
    The President. Why don't you clarify that for me?
    Q. Well, are you----
    The President. What aspect of it? That I don't think we ought to 
fund the troops?

[[Page 1564]]

    Q. No, sir.
    The President. I think we need to fund the troops. I submitted a 
supplemental last February. Anyway----
    Q. My question, sir, is, are you feeling troubled about your 
standing here today, about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the 
American people?
    The President. No, I'm feeling pretty spirited, pretty good about 
life, and have made the decision to come before you so I can explain the 
NIE. And I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything 
to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world. Quite the 
contrary, I'm using this NIE as an opportunity to continue to rally our 
colleagues and allies.
    Q. Do you think it----
    The President. It makes it--the NIE makes it clear that the strategy 
we have used in the past is effective. And the reason why we need to 
make sure that strategy goes forward for the future is because if Iran 
shows up with a nuclear weapon at some point in time, the world is going 
to say, what happened to them in 2007? How come they couldn't see the 
impending danger? What caused them not to understand that a country that 
once had a weapons program could reconstitute the weapons program? How 
come they couldn't see that the important first step in developing a 
weapon is the capacity to be able to enrich uranium? How come they 
didn't know that with that capacity, that knowledge could be passed on 
to a covert program? What blinded them to the realities of the world? 
And it's not going to happen on my watch, Mark.
    And so, kind of, psychology 101 ain't working. It's just not 
working. I understand the issues; I clearly see the problems. And I'm 
going to use the NIE to continue to rally the international community 
for the sake of peace.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's news conference began at 10:01 a.m. in the James 
S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he 
referred to President Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; King Abdallah bin Abd 
al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia; Prime Minister Stephen Harper of 
Canada; President Alvaro Uribe Velez of Colombia; and Cable News Network 
reporter Candy Crowley. Reporters referred to President Hugo Chavez 
Frias of Venezuela; and President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The Office 
of the Press Secretary also released a Spanish language transcript of 
this news conference.