[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 44, Number 50 (Monday, December 22, 2008)]
[Pages 1525-1531]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Members of the White House Press Pool

December 14, 2008

Audience Disruption at the Signing Ceremony With Prime Minister Nuri al-
Maliki of Iraq

    Q. Quick ducking there, sir.
    The President. I was worried about you. I thought you were going to 
have a heart attack.
    Q. I thought I was too. [Laughter] I'm with you on that.
    The President. Okay, my opening statement: I didn't know what the 
guy said, but I saw his sole. [Laughter] You were more concerned than I 
was. I was watching your faces.
    Q. I saw something black and round go by my face.
    Q. Just to see that----
    The President. ----his first--other than shoes. [Laughter]
    Q. ----to duck. [Laughter]

[[Page 1526]]

    The President. I'm pretty good at ducking, as most of you will 
know----

    Q. You were quick.
    Q. ----ducking----
    The President. I'm talking about ducking your questions. [Laughter]
    Q. So you weren't a lame duck. [Groans]

    The President. That bad? You know, I--look, I mean it was just a 
bizarre moment, but I've had other bizarre moments in the Presidency. I 
remember when Hu Jintao was here. Remember we had the big event? He's 
speaking, and all of a sudden I hear this noise; had no earthly idea 
what was taking place, but it was the Falun Gong woman screaming at the 
top of her lungs. It was kind of an odd moment.

    Questions? We're going to Afghanistan now, in case you hadn't been 
told. You probably thought we were going home, but, no. Then we're going 
to go to--never mind. [Laughter]
    Q. Well, not to belabor the point too much, on this man, but I have 
a serious question about it. Obviously, he's expressing a vein of anger 
that exists in Iraq, and----

    The President. How do you know? I mean, how do we know what he's 
expressing? Who----

    Q. We had a translator who said he shouted about the widows and 
orphans.

    The President. I don't know. I've heard all kinds of stories. I 
heard he was representing a Baathist TV station. I don't know the facts, 
but let's find out the facts. All I'm telling you, it was a bizarre 
moment.

    Q. I wanted to ask something broader.

    The President. I don't think you can take one guy throwing shoes and 
say this represents a broad movement in Iraq. You can try to do that if 
you want to. I don't think it would be accurate.

    Q. Well, then, separately from him----
    The President. That's exactly what he wanted you to do. Like, I 
answered on your question, what he wanted you to do was to pay attention 
to him. And sure enough, you did. Now, look, I'm not suggesting you 
can't avoid it. But it----

U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Iraq/Progress in Iraq

    Q. Well, how do you--how well do you think Iraq will transition from 
U.S. forces moving out of cities, pulling out, taking over----
    The President. Well, obviously, I think it's going to be that the 
gains we have made are strong enough to accept the movement of troops 
into--out of cities into bases by June of this year. But more 
importantly, that's what General Odierno thinks is possible.
    Q. ----at this point about when you look at Iraq, and you still have 
over 140,000 troops. What are the challenges you see?
    The President. I think the challenges--many of the challenges are 
political. In other words, the first big challenge is to have Provincial 
elections that enable people to vote and feel a part of the system, 
followed by national elections. That's a challenge. This is a challenge, 
however, that the Iraqis have met before. And obviously, you know, like 
the SOFA debate, it was a challenge to get SOFA through the--and SFA 
through the Council of Representatives because of the politics. But 
nevertheless, they came together.
    Young democracies, when they debate big issues, sometimes can be 
strained. For example, there's a big debate going on between the central 
Government and the Provincial governments. But we went through the same 
debates ourselves. And as the society matures, they're going to be able 
to handle these debates in better fashion. So one of the important 
things was the success of the SFA/SOFA.
    I remember the headlines: falling apart; may not make; confident it 
will happen; not confident it will happen. I mean, there was a lot of 
different opinions about whether or not this would eventually happen. 
And one reason why is because many of the people from the outside 
covering the debate on the inside were perplexed by the politics that 
was going on. But this is a democratic society. So I think the political 
process will be a challenge.

Progress in Iraq

    Q. Sir, you got your first look at a part of Baghdad that wasn't the 
green zone and

[[Page 1527]]

wasn't a military base. What did you think of it?
    The President. You know, Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio], look, I 
can't look at a stretch of road and draw a conclusion. I can only really 
react to what the people who have been here for a period of time tell 
me. And I mean, the statistics tell you one thing. Obviously, when you 
look at the violence chart, it's down. But what's more important from my 
perspective is: Can a government meet the needs of its people? Can they 
get beyond differences and come together and meet the needs of its 
people? As well as: Are the Iraqi forces becoming more capable of 
providing more security? Is command and control structure better? Are 
the training missions better? Are they able to move from point A to 
point B in a way that is--enable them to have successful missions? When 
there's actionable intelligence, can they move?
    And when you couple that with a political process that is relatively 
new compared to older democracies and the need to provide basic services 
for its people, one of the things that struck me was not the road, but 
was the amount of electricity there was inside Baghdad. It looked like a 
pretty well-lit city.
    The other thing that struck me was, there was a lot of activity on 
the ground. Now, you got to remember, my frame of reference is different 
from you all, you who have been there. I saw a lot of kids playing 
soccer; I saw a lot of activity, a lot of street activity on the route 
we took. And General Odierno said a while ago that wouldn't have been 
the case.

U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Iraq

    Q. You've always urged patience in withdrawing troops, coming out; 
you move slowly on that based on conditions on the ground. Now you're 
talking about within 6 months, that we'll be drawing combat brigades 
from the city.
    The President. Cities, right.
    Q. Do you think that the Iraqis are ready to step up to that now? Do 
you think that there are flaws or there--not flaws, but potential 
conflicts----
    The President. First of all, I strongly objected to a politics 
timetable. The debate over the timetable of withdrawal was a--was one 
that was unilateral in nature proposed by people who didn't think we 
ought to be in Iraq in the first place.
    Secondly, I agreed to the terms of the SOFA because General Petraeus 
and General Odierno said that these terms are reasonable terms, and that 
is, we'll be moving troops out of cities into bases, close by to help if 
need be. Just because a troop is on a base doesn't mean that that troop 
won't be available to help the Iraqi forces. So they've come to the 
considered judgment that in the cities, the Iraqis are capable of 
providing security.
    There is a plan in place that has been executed--successfully 
executed--that now the Iraqis can assume and continue to fulfill. That's 
a lot different than it was 18 months ago, when the plan was on paper 
and hadn't been executed yet. And so there's been a model for success.

Presidential Transition/Iraq Policy/Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA)/
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

    Q. Is that what you meant by a bipartisan foundation now looking 
ahead to the next Presidency?
    The President. I meant by a bipartisan foundation that the debates 
on whether or not it was the right thing or not are past; the need to 
make sure that we continue the successes can be a bipartisan--can be 
bipartisan and should be bipartisan.
    President-elect Obama has now got a seasoned general in Baghdad with 
a SFA/SOFA agreed to by the United States and Iraq, and by the way, has 
been kept abreast upon election about what the SOFA--or the SFA/SOFA 
means.
    And one of the challenges for the Iraqis is going to be--for the 
U.S. is to get up to our committees and get working on the SFA, which 
we're going to do. Part of my mission here was to remind the Iraqi 
Government that there is still a lot of work to be done on SFA/SOFA; our 
embassy agrees with that as well. And that--but I also told them that 
I--that our transition is going to be a seamless transition, and that--
I'm never going to put words into President-elect Obama's mouth, but by 
the decisions he made with Secretary Gates, for example, I believe he

[[Page 1528]]

understands the strategic importance of Iraq. And now he's got a 
framework from which to make decisions.

National Economy/American Auto Industry

    Q. Mr. President, Iraq is obviously a big concern for Americans, but 
the economy seems to be even more of a concern. The automakers are in 
dire straits. How soon do you think your administration will be coming 
out with its plan for emergency aid? And are you leaning towards dipping 
into TARP to help----
    The President. No question that the economy is number one on 
people's mind, and it should be. We're in a recession. These are serious 
economic times. People are concerned about their jobs; people are 
concerned about their value of their 401(k)s. This is a very difficult 
period.
    We took note that there was a majority in the House and the Senate 
that voted for a package for the autos that would have caused them to 
begin to show how they're going to be viable. In other words, I have 
made this statement that given the status of the financial system, an 
abrupt bankruptcy for the autos could be devastating for the economy. 
And therefore, we've tried to work with Congress to accomplish the 
objective of not cratering the economy as well as making sure good money 
doesn't go after bad.
    So we're now in the process of working through with the stakeholders 
a way forward, and we're not quite ready to announce that yet.
    Q. Do you have any timetable, though, that you're looking at?
    The President. Obviously, we're--this will not be a long process 
because of the economic--the fragility of the autos.

Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)

    Q. And, sir, are you leaning towards using the TARP money?
    The President. I signaled that that's a possibility.
    Press Secretary Dana Perino. You guys have 8 minutes left. You're 
going to Afghanistan. You might want to ask----
    Q. ----talk about it.
    The President. Is that where we're going?

War on Terror in Afghanistan

    Q. I think so. That's what you said. And I trust you with that. Can 
you tell me what--define the mission of the troops going in there in 
January and those who Secretary Gates wants in by the summer, the 
additional----
    The President. The mission we had before, which is help this young 
democracy develop the institutions so it can survive on its own; to not 
repeat the mistakes of the 1980s, which is achieve an objective and 
leave, and deny a safe haven for Al Qaida.
    Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News] asked me the question about the 
conditions in Afghanistan. No question, the violence is up. But one 
reason why the violence is up is that we're now putting troops into 
places where there hadn't been troops; begin to press these guys in 
places where they hadn't been pressed.
    Just like the surge. You might remember, violence went up when we 
went into Iraq with more troops. And so the objective is to provide 
enough security so that a political system can develop that will be a--
provide a stable platform for economic viability, and get a good 
education and good health.
    Now the degree of difficulty in Afghanistan is high. This is a 
significantly larger country than Iraq and significantly poorer. The 
infrastructure is difficult. But nevertheless, the mission is essential; 
and that is, we cannot achieve our objective of removing Al Qaida safe 
havens by kicking out Taliban and saying, ``Okay, now let's leave.''
    And so I recognize we needed more troops. You know, President-elect 
Obama is going to be making decisions on troops, and we've been calling 
upon our NATO allies to put in more troops. One of the things that 
when--was barely noticed was the quiet surge in Afghanistan. We had kind 
of level platform of troops; then we moved in quite a few number and so 
did our NATO allies. And now there's going to be--ramp up some more.

Pakistan/War on Terror in Afghanistan

    Q. In Pakistan, I know that there are plans being worked up that 
combine--that you have to look at Pakistan and Afghanistan as

[[Page 1529]]

the problem. Can you talk a little bit about that?
    The President. Obviously, if Pakistan is a place from which people 
feel comfortable attacking infrastructure, citizens, troops, then it's 
still going--it's going to make it difficult to succeed in Afghanistan. 
That's why we're working with the Pakistan Government to keep the 
pressure on the extremists. And the more that we can get Pakistan and 
Afghanistan to cooperate, the easier it will be to enforce that part of 
the border region.
    Q. What's your assessment of how Pakistan is doing on that front? 
Are they----
    The President. Well, first of all, the first question is, is there a 
determination----

[At this point, there was a slight disturbance aboard Air Force One.]

    The President. ----the other shoe just dropped. [Laughter] Look, I'm 
going to be thinking of shoe jokes for a long time. [Laughter]
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Are you?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. I haven't heard any good ones yet.
    President Zardari is determined; he's said so publicly, and he's 
said so to me privately. He looked at me in the eye and said, ``You 
don't need to talk to me about extremist violence; after all, my wife 
got killed by extremists.'' Like a lot of other situations in which 
you're trying to deal with extremists who get embedded in the 
population, there are two aspects: one is to pressure them and to bring 
them to justice; and simultaneously, try to win the hearts and minds of 
the local folks, which is what is happening Iraq.
    See, in Iraq, just remember, we did a clear, semi-build, and no 
hold. And it's the same concept in Afghanistan: clear, build, and hold; 
and it required 30,000 more troops to get that done, plus the training 
mission in Iraq to get enough troops to hold. Obviously, our commanders 
believe that the hold part is good enough for us to be able to move our 
troops. You understand the reason I moved troops out of cities into 
bases is to enhance the credibility of the Government.
    Well, in Afghanistan, the same principle applies. We have cleared 
and we have built some, but in certain Provinces we have not held. So 
now more troops will go in, and as they start to move, you'll see 
violence tick up because they're clearing new areas. PRTs, which were 
very successful in Iraq, are now being increased in Afghanistan. That's 
part of the build part. And training up Afghanis to be a part of the 
hold is going to take a while. But nevertheless, there's optimism there 
because the Afghan fighters are good fighters; they're proud to be in 
the military, and we're headed toward 135,000.

Pakistan/War on Terror

    Q. You said there were two elements to Pakistan's work though. You 
said one was whether Zardari was determined; you said he was. What was 
the----
    The President. That's the press--find them and get them, press them 
hard, and then win the hearts and minds of the locals through economic 
development.

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Afghanistan-Pakistan Border Regions

    Q. Sir, was that made more difficult by the use of UAVs? Are you and 
Hamid Karzai on the same page on that?
    The President. Well, as you know--you know very well that when it 
comes to certain matters, the U.S. Government doesn't discuss 
operations.

Support for President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan/Free Elections

    Q. Sir, Afghanistan is made up of a lot of different ethnic groups.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. A lot of them do not support Hamid Karzai. Is he the right person 
to lead the country through the next----
    The President. Well, that will be determined by the Afghanistan 
people. That's the great thing about elections. He got 55 percent. You 
know, some of us would have loved to have 55 percent. [Laughter] And 
51.5, not bad.
    So the way you resolve a question like that is to have open and 
transparent elections. I

[[Page 1530]]

believe strongly in the election process because it is the best way to 
determine for certain what people think. You know, a controversial 
decision of mine was to press forward with the elections in the 
Palestinian territories. I was told, ``Well, the wrong side may win.'' 
My attitude is, the best way to determine what the people think is to 
let them vote.
    And Hamas didn't win because they said we promise you violence; 
Hamas said we'd win because we promise you better services. So my answer 
to the losers of the election is, if they have credibility at providing 
better services, why don't you figure out how you can do a better job 
and respond to the people? That's what elections do.
    So the election process in Afghanistan will once again provide 
people an opportunity to say, ``We're tired of this, or we appreciate 
that.'' And it's the good public servant who listens to what the people 
say.

Middle East

    Q. Mr. President, if there was one--I'm sorry, go ahead.
    Q. You mentioned the Middle East. Is there any more to do in your 
remaining 37 days on that?
    The President. Ed [Ed Chen, Bloomberg News], we've--Condi is working 
a U.N. Security Council that affirms the Annapolis process. The question 
would be, will President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert want to lay out 
a specific state? And that's to be determined. But there is a way 
forward now.
    The big sea change in the Middle East on this issue is that by far 
the majority of people recognize that the only way to peace is two 
states. And in 2001, that was not the case. In 2001, most of the Israeli 
political class believed that ``greater Israel'' was the only way to 
have security. And the Palestinian Authority was run by a person who 
could not deliver peace and was not trustworthy. So now you've got a 
Palestinian President who recognizes Israel's right to exist, and a 
Israeli political class that says, ``If we want security, if we want 
peace, we've got to work for a Palestinian state.'' So the framework is 
there.
    And the other point--the other significant change was that Annapolis 
brought many in the Arab world to the table. And in order for there to 
ever be a Palestinian state, any Palestinian leader is going to have to 
have strong backing from the neighboring states, which was one of the 
reasons why Camp David fell apart under my predecessor. In other words, 
the other reason why is because the interlocutor on the Palestinian side 
just was--failed the Palestinian people. Not President--this was not 
President Clinton's fault.
    Ms. Perino. Going to take one more.

End of Presidential Term/North Korea

    Q. Just--in fact, it's sort of a wrap-up question----
    The President. I'm going to go take a nap. Anybody--[laughter].
    Q. If there is one thing you wish----
    The President. Steven Lee [Steven Lee Myers, The New York Times], 
you want to take a nap?
    Q. No, I'm all right.
    Q. He doesn't need sleep.
    The President. You look a little--[laughter]. Mind if I call you 
Jimmy Lee?
    Q. Steven Lee.
    The President. Stevie Lee, I mean.
    Q. Stevie. [Laughter]
    Q. If there is anything, when you look at this last month or so you 
have left, that you wish you could accomplish, in the foreign policy 
arena, or anything you want to say? If you had a single thing that you 
want to accomplish, what would it be?
    The President. Last month? Well, it's to solidify the frameworks 
that will enable problems to be solved.
    Take, for example, the North Korean issue. It is much easier to 
solve a problem diplomatically when there is more than one voice 
speaking to the leader of North Korea. And a success of this 
administration is to put a framework in place that has China, the United 
States, and South Korea and Russia and Japan all at the table, all 
saying the same thing. In this case, the message is, we need to have a 
verifiable process in place to determine whether or not you're 
fulfilling your obligations.
    Secondly, in the old process it used to be, we will give you what 
you ask for and hope that you respond. Now it is, here's what you must 
do if you want our help. We've reversed

[[Page 1531]]

the process. And it's not just the United States speaking. So right now 
what you're watching is that the leader of North Korea is trying to test 
the process. First he said something Japan, and now he's saying 
something about so-and-so. And so the objective is to keep our partners 
firm on the understanding that the six-party process is the best way to 
solve the North Korean issue.
    So he'll test--and this isn't the first time he's tested. He signed 
an agreement in September of 2005. Everybody said, ``Great, looks like 
we're on our way to having the problem solved.'' And then he tested and 
changed his mind and did this, that, and the other. And the key is to be 
firm and patient with a structure that will enable the next President or 
the next President after that to be able to solve the problem 
diplomatically.
    So there's one area right there that we're working on. Obviously, 
the Security Council resolution on dealing with the Annapolis process. 
We got the SOFA--SFA/SOFA done on Iraq.
    Q. You got India done.
    The President. Well, India was done, but she said the last month.

End of Presidential Term/Afghanistan

    Q. Anything on Iraq, sir, in the last month?
    Q. Afghanistan?
    The President. Well, I think I should travel to Afghanistan in the 
last month of my Presidency, although it's not exactly the last month. 
So what's the date?
    Ms. Perino. The 14th.
    The President. Fourteen. Seventeen plus 17--37 days.
    Q. Why is it you want to be in Afghanistan?
    The President. I want to be in Afghanistan to say thank you to 
President Karzai, to let the people of Afghanistan know that the United 
States has stood with them and will stand with them. See, it's--if you 
notice, Steven Lee asked a good question--bipartisan foundation. These 
nations need to know that the United States has been with them, is with 
them, and will be with them. So the trip is a way to, say thanks to 
leaders that I have been working with for a long period of time.
    By the way, both leaders in my last conversations, or the last 
couple of them, have been saying, ``You must come and visit us before 
you leave.'' And of course, I never committed until however long it was 
ago, 48 hours ago.
    So, okay, I'm going to go take a nap.

Note: The interview began at 11:39 p.m. aboard Air Force One en route to 
Afghanistan. In his remarks, the President referred to President Hu 
Jintao of China; Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, USA, commanding general, 
Multi-National Corps--Iraq; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commander, U.S. 
Central Command; President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan; former Prime 
Minister and Opposition Leader Benazir Bhutto, who was killed in a 
suicide attack in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on December 27, 2007; Secretary 
of State Condoleezza Rice; President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) of the 
Palestinian Authority; Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel; and 
Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea. The transcript was released by the 
Office of the Press Secretary on December 15. A tape was not available 
for verification of the content of this interview.