Text 2454, 856 rader
Skriven 2006-04-10 23:33:40 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0604101) for Mon, 2006 Apr 10
====================================================
===========================================================================
President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 10, 2006

President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror
The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
The Johns Hopkins University
Washington, D.C.

President's Remarks view

˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: Renewal in Iraq ˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: National Security

10:36 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please be seated. Bill, thanks for the kind
introduction. I'm pleased to be at this school, which bears the name of one
of America's greatest statesmen. Paul Nitze served as a trusted advisor to
six Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. He was one of a
small group of men who shaped the world that emerged from the Allied
victory in World War II. He encouraged our nation to continue the -- its
noble and essential role as freedom's defender. He was the principal author
of NSC-68 -- the strategic blueprint for America's victory in the Cold War.
At a time when some wanted to wish away the Soviet threat, Paul Nitze
insisted that the Cold War was, in his words, "in fact, a real war in which
the survival of the free world is at stake." He helped rally America to
confront this mortal danger -- and his strategic vision helped secure the
triumph of freedom in that great struggle of the 20th century.

At the start of this young century, America is once again engaged in a real
war that is testing our nation's resolve. While there are important
distinctions, today's war on terror is like the Cold War. It is an
ideological struggle with an enemy that despises freedom and pursues
totalitarian aims. Like the Cold War, our adversary is dismissive of free
peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and
decadent -- and they lack the resolve to defend our way of life. Like the
Cold War, America is once again answering history's call with confidence --
and like the Cold War, freedom will prevail.

I thank Dr. Bill Brody; I thank Jessica Einhorn. Thank you all for having
me here. I appreciate all those who teach here. I appreciate the students
letting me come to speak. Glad to provide a convenient excuse to skip
class. (Laughter.) I want to thank Bill Nitze, Adjunct Professor, son of a
great man. I know how you feel. (Laughter.) I appreciate Mike Chertoff
being here. I'm proud to see a lot of folks who wear the nation's uniform
for joining us. Welcome.

I thought I'd give a speech, but a short speech, much to your relief, and
then I'll be glad to answer some questions.

Yesterday, our nation marked the third anniversary of a great moment in the
history of freedom -- it was the liberation of Iraq. Three years ago,
coalition forces entered the gates of Baghdad, fought their way into the
center of the city, and helped Iraqis pull down the statue of Saddam
Hussein. What they found in Baghdad horrified our troops. One Marine
describes how Iraqis led his unit to a children's prison where more than
100 youngsters were being held -- some of the children had reportedly been
jailed because they refused to join the Baathist Party Youth Organization.
He says: "It was really something, the children just streamed out of the
gates and their parents just started to embrace us."

Under Saddam's brutal regime, the Iraqi people lived lives of fear and
desperation. Innocent civilians were executed in public squares, they were
massacred and piled into mass graves. Saddam's regime denied people food
and medicine while building elaborate palaces from which to rule with an
iron hand. Saddam sponsored terrorism; he pursued and used weapons of mass
destruction; he fired at U.S. and British air crews patrolling the no-fly
zones; he defied more than a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Today, because America and a great coalition acted, the regime is no longer
in power, is no longer sponsoring terrorists, is no longer destabilizing
the region, is no longer undermining the credibility of the United Nations,
is no longer threatening the world. Because we acted, 25 million Iraqis now
taste freedom.

The decision by the United States and our coalition partners to remove
Saddam Hussein was a really difficult decision -- it was the right
decision. After September the 11th, America decided that we would fight the
war on terror on the offense -- and that we would confront threats before
they fully materialized. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States
of America. America is safer today because Saddam Hussein is no longer in
power.

Coalition forces drove Saddam Hussein from power, and a U.S. Army unit, led
by a graduate of this school -- Colonel James Hickey, class of 1992 --
captured Saddam when he was hiding in a hole in the ground. Today, thanks
to our courageous men and women in uniform, the former Iraqi dictator is
sitting in a courtroom instead of a palace -- and he's now facing justice
for his crimes.

The past three years since liberation, the Iraqi people have begun the
difficult process of recovering from Saddam's repression. They're beginning
to build a democracy on the rubble of his tyranny. They still face brutal
and determined enemies: members of the deposed regime who dream of
returning to power, other insurgents and foreign terrorists who dream of
turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban -- a safe haven
from which to plot and plan new attacks against America and our allies. The
enemies of a free Iraq are determined to ignite a civil war, put the Iraqi
people -- to pit the Iraqi people against one another, and to stop the
country's democratic progress. Yet the Iraqi people are determined to live
in freedom -- and America is determined to defeat the terrorists and we're
determined to help the Iraqi people succeed.

America is doing its part to help the Iraqis build a democracy. Our nation
can be proud of what our courageous men and women in uniform have
accomplished in the past three years. Since liberation, our forces have
captured or killed thousands of al Qaeda terrorists and other enemy
fighters; we've freed Fallujah and Tal Afar and other Iraqi cities from the
grip of the terrorists and the insurgents; we've trained Iraqi security
forces so they increasingly can take the lead in the fight -- and
eventually assume responsibility for the security of their country.

We have learned from our mistakes. We've adjusted our approach to meet the
changing circumstances on the ground; we've adjusted depending upon the
actions of the enemy. By pursuing a clear and flexible strategy in Iraq, we
helped make it possible for Iraqis to choose their leaders and begin to
assume the responsibilities of self-government and self-defense. In the
past three years, our troops in Iraq have done everything expected of them,
and more. They've brought freedom to Iraq, security to our country, and
pride to the uniform -- and they have the gratitude of all Americans.

In the past three years, the Iraqi people have done their part. They defied
death threats from the terrorists to cast ballots not one time, not twice,
but three times -- and each election saw larger and broader turnout than
the one that came before. Iraqis chose a transitional government, drafted
the most progressive constitution in the Arab world, approved that
constitution in a nationwide referendum, and voted for a new government
under the new constitution. And in December elections for this government,
despite the threats of violence and efforts to discourage Sunni
participation, nearly 12 million Iraqis -- that's more than 75 percent of
eligible voters -- turned out at the polls.

The Iraqi people have begun building a free society -- with a thriving free
press, and hundreds of independent newspapers and magazines and talk radio
shows where Iraqis openly debate the future course of their country. The
Iraqi people have begun building a free economy -- with an independent
central bank, and thousands of small businesses and a relatively stable
currency. Iraqi people have stepped forward to fight for their freedom, as
well. Despite repeated attacks on military and police recruiting stations,
more than 250,000 Iraqis have volunteered to wear their country's uniform.
These brave Iraqis are increasingly taking the lead in the fight against
the terrorists and the insurgents. Today, there are more than 130 Iraqi
Army and police combat battalions in the fight -- with more than 70 Iraqi
battalions taking the lead. Iraqi units have assumed primary responsibility
for more than 30,000 square miles of Iraq. We expect that Iraqi units will
control more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006.

Iraqis are fighting bravely -- and many have given their lives in the
battle for freedom for their country. And by their courage and sacrifice,
the Iraqi soldiers and civilians have shown that they want to live in
freedom -- and they're not going to let the terrorists take away their
opportunity to live in a free society.

Now it's time for the Iraqi leaders to do their part and finish the job of
forming a unity government. The people of Iraq have made their intentions
clear. At great personal risk, they went to the polls to choose leaders in
free elections. And now the leaders they've elected have a responsibility
to come together to form a government that unifies all Iraqis. Secretary
Rice was just in Baghdad, where she delivered a strong message from me:
Iraq leaders need to rise to the moment, to put aside their personal
agendas, and take charge of their destiny.

Iraqi leaders have taken some important steps forward. They have agreed to
an agenda for the new government to take up once it assumes office --
including tough issues such as demobilization of the militias, protecting
the rights of women, restoring Iraq's infrastructure, and building national
institutions that will effectively represent all Iraqis. Iraqi leaders have
also agreed to form a new national security council that includes all major
political groups and representatives of the executive and legislative
branches. And now they must take the next step and fill key leadership
posts, so that a new government can begin its essential work.

I understand that putting aside differences to form a government is
difficult. It was pretty hard for our country. Our first governing charter,
the Articles of Confederation, failed, and it took us eight years before we
adopted our Constitution and elected our first president under that
Constitution. Iraqis are going to make mistakes, as well. They are
undertaking a difficult process with little democratic experience and with
the scars of nearly three decades of Saddam Hussein still fresh on their
mind. Moving beyond past divisions to build a strong democracy requires
strong leadership -- and now is the time for Iraqis to step up and show the
leadership.

The Iraqi people have a right to expect it, and so do the American people.
Americans have made great sacrifices to help Iraq get to this point. Iraqi
voters risked their lives to go to the polls. Iraqi soldiers and police
have given their time to make this moment possible. And so Americans and
Iraqis alike are waiting and watching to see what this sacrifice will
produce -- and we both expect results. In the words of one Iraqi newspaper,
"The time has come for our politicians to save people from their suffering
and crises. The Iraqi people are more sacred than government positions."

Forming a unity government is critical to defeating the terrorists and
securing the peace. The terrorists and insurgents thrive in a political
vacuum -- and the delay in forming a government is creating a vacuum that
the terrorists and insurgents are working to exploit. The enemies of a free
Iraq blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra in the hope that this outrageous
act would provoke reprisals and drag the nation into a civil war. This past
Friday, suicide bombers blew up another Shia mosque in northern Baghdad.
The longer Iraq's leaders delay in forming a unity government, the greater
the risk that the terrorists and former regime elements will succeed in
their efforts to foment division and to stop the progress of an Iraq
democracy.

The terrorists know that the greatest threat to their aspirations is Iraqi
self-government. And we know this from the terrorists' own words. In 2004,
we intercepted a letter from Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden. In it, Zarqawi
expressed his concern about "the gap that will emerge between us and the
people of the land." He declared "democracy is coming." He went on to say,
this will mean "suffocation" for the terrorists. Zarqawi laid out his
strategy to stop democracy from taking root in Iraq. He wrote, "If we
succeed in dragging the Shia into the arena of sectarian war, it will
become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent
danger ... the only solution for us is to strike the religious, military,
and other cadres among the Shia with blow after blow."

The advance of democracy is the terrorists' greatest fear. That's an
interesting question, isn't it -- why would they fear democracy? What is it
about freedom that frightens these killers? What is it about a liberty that
causes these people to kill innocent women and children? To defeat them,
Iraq needs a democratic government that represents all Iraq, that reins in
illegal militias, and earns the trust and confidence of all Iraqi
communities. When Iraqis have such a government to lead and unite them,
they will be in a stronger position to defeat their enemies and secure the
future with a free country. When Iraqis have a democratic government in
place, it will be a major victory for the cause of freedom. It will be a
major defeat for the terrorists' aspirations to dominate the region and
advance their hateful vision.

Once a government is formed, the international community must also do its
part to help this young democracy succeed. Iraq needs greater international
support -- particularly from its Arab neighbors. Arab leaders need to
recognize that the choice in Iraq is between democracy and terrorism, and
there is no middle ground. Success of Iraqi democracy is in their vital
interests -- because if the terrorists prevail in Iraq, they will target
other Arab nations.

The broader international community has responsibilities as well. So far,
other nations and international organizations have pledged more than $13
billion in assistance to Iraq. Iraqis are grateful for the promised aid --
and so is the United States. Yet many nations have been slow to make good
on their commitments. I call on all governments that have pledged
assistance to follow through with their promises as quickly as possible --
so that the people across the Middle East will see that democracy leads to
a better life and a brighter future. The success of a free Iraq is in the
interests of all free nations -- and none can afford to sit on the
sidelines.

The formation of a unity government is a critical step -- but it's not
going to bring an immediate end to the violence Americans are seeing on
their TV screens. The terrorists are going to continue to spread chaos and
carnage in Iraq, because they know the images of car bombs and beheadings
horrify the American people. They know they can't defeat us on the
battlefield -- and that the only way to win in Iraq is to break our will,
and force us into an early retreat. Our enemies know what's at stake, and
they are determined to stop the rise of a democratic Iraq -- and I am
equally determined to stop them.

The decision to go to war is one of the most difficult a President can
make. And in three years since our forces liberated Iraq, we've seen many
contradictory images that are difficult for Americans to reconcile. On the
one hand, we have seen images of great hope -- boys and girls back in
school, and millions of Iraqis dipping their fingers in purple ink, or
dancing in the streets, or celebrating their freedom. On the other hand, we
have seen images of unimaginable despair -- bombs destroying hospitals, and
hostages bound and executed. And this raises the question in the minds of
many Americans -- which image will prevail? I'll give you my opinion: I
believe that freedom will prevail in Iraq. I believe moms and dads
everywhere want their children to grow up in safety and freedom. I believe
freedom will prevail because the terrorists have nothing to offer the Iraqi
people. I believe freedom will prevail because once people have tasted
freedom, they will not accept a return to tyranny.

It's important for Americans to understand the stakes in Iraq. A free Iraq
will be an ally in the war on terror. A free Iraq will be a partner in the
struggle for peace and moderation in the Muslim world. A free Iraq will
inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, and send a signal
across the broader Middle East that the future belongs not to terrorism but
to freedom. A free Iraq will show the power of liberty to change the world.
And as the Middle East grows in liberty and prosperity and hope, the
terrorists will lose their safe havens and recruits, and America and other
free nations will be more secure.

Today Iraq is free and sovereign -- and that freedom and sovereignty has
come at a great price. Because Americans and Iraqis and troops from 17
other nations gave up their own futures so the Iraqi people could have a
future of freedom, this world is better off, because of their sacrifice.
America will honor their sacrifice by completing the mission in Iraq -- and
Iraqi leaders have a responsibility to the fallen as well. By working
together, we'll build a future of freedom for both our people. We're laying
the foundation of peace for generations to come.

I appreciate your attention, and now I'll be glad to answer some questions.
(Applause.) Please.

Q Mr. President, thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it. My
question to you, Mr. President -- I'll preface it with a comment. Many of
us here are aspiring policymakers. Many of us here hope to one day be in
positions of leadership. And some of us may be faced with decisions -- very
difficult decisions on the use of force and engaging in war. I was hoping
that from your experience, you could share with us some wisdom or some
insight -- not necessarily on tactics, but something we can take with us
through our careers, that we can apply maybe at some point. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for the question. I would encourage those of you
studying here to be a part of policymaking for our government. It's -- it
is a high honor to serve your country. And my first advice is, never use
force until you've exhausted all diplomacy. I -- my second advice is, if
you ever put anybody in harm's way, make sure they have got all the support
of the government. My third advice is, don't make decisions on polls. Stand
your ground if you think what you're doing [is] right.

Much of my decision about what we're discussing these days was affected by
an event. Look, I -- during the 2000 campaign, I don't remember ever
discussing with people what -- could I handle war, or could my opponent
handle war. The war wasn't on our mind. War came unexpectedly. We didn't
ask for the attack, but it came. And so much of the statements I make and
have made since that war were a result of that attack.

I vowed then that I would use all assets of our power to win the war on
terror. That's what I vowed. It -- the September 11th attacks affected me.
It affected my thinking deeply. The most important job of the government is
to protect the people from an attack. And so I said we were going to stay
on the offense two ways: one, hunt down the enemy and bring them to
justice, and take threats seriously; and two, spread freedom. And that's
what we've been doing, and that's what I'm going to continue to do as the
President.

I think about the war on terror all the time. Now, I understand there's a
difference of opinion in a country. Some view the attack as kind of an
isolated incident. I don't. I view it as a part of a strategy by a
totalitarian, ideologically based group of people who've announced their
intentions to spread that ideology and to attack us again. That's what
they've said they're going to do. And the most dangerous -- the biggest
danger facing our country is whether -- if the terrorists get a weapons of
mass destruction to use. Now, perhaps some in our country think it's a --
that's a pipedream; I don't. I think it is a very real threat, and
therefore, will spend my presidency rallying our assets -- intelligence
assets, military assets, financial assets, diplomatic initiatives -- to
keep the enemy off balance, and to bring them to justice.

Now, if you're going to be the President or a policymaker, you never know
what's going to come. That's the interesting thing about the world in which
we live. We're a influential nation, and so, therefore, many problems come
to the Oval Office. And you don't know what those problems are going to be,
which then argues for having smart people around. That's why you ought to
serve in government if you're not going to be the President. You have a
chance to influence policy by giving good recommendations to the President.

You got to listen in my line of work, and I listen a lot. Ours is a complex
organization that requires a management structure that lets people come
into the Oval Office and explain their positions. And I think it's to my
interest, by the way, that not everybody agree all the time. You can't make
good decisions unless there's a little -- kind of a little agitation in
there. (Laughter.) And sometimes we have.

But anyway, good question. I guess, my answer to your question is, is that
you got to be ready for the unexpected. And when you act, you base your
decisions on principles. I'll tell you one principle -- I'm not going to
filibuster, I promise -- but you got me going here, so -- (laughter.) I
want you to understand this principle, and it's an important debate and
it's worth debating here in this school, as to whether or not freedom is
universal, whether or not it's a universal right of all men and women. It's
an interesting part of the international dialogue today. And I think it is
universal. And if you believe it's universal, I believe this country has --
should act on that concept of universality. And the reason I do is because
I do believe freedom yields the peace.

And our foreign policy prior to my arrival was "if it seems okay, leave it
alone." In other words, if it's nice and placid out there on the surface,
it's okay, just let it sit. But unfortunately, beneath the surface was
resentment and hatred, and that kind of resentment and hatred provided
ample recruitment, fertile grounds for recruiting people that came and
killed over 3,000 of our citizens. And therefore, I believe the way to
defeat resentment is with freedom and liberty.

But if you don't believe it's universal, I can understand why you say,
what's he doing, why is he doing that? If there's no such thing as the
universality of freedom, then we might as well just isolate ourselves and
hope for the best.

And so -- anyway, kind of rambling here. (Laughter.) Yes.

Q Mr. President, thanks very much for your visit today. We're honored by
your visit. You mentioned the confluence of terror and weapons of mass
destruction as the greatest threat to American security. Will the United
States allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

THE PRESIDENT: Ah. (Laughter.) We do not want the Iranians to have a
nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge as
to how to make a nuclear weapon. That's our stated goal. It's also the
goal, fortunately, of other -- of friends and allies, starting with Great
Britain, Germany, and France.

One of the decisions I made early on was to have a multinational approach
to sending messages -- clear messages to the Iranians that -- that if they
want to be a part of the -- an accepted nation in the world, that they must
give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. And we're making pretty good
progress.

By the way, if you're studying how to achieve diplomatic ends, it might be
worthwhile noting -- I think at least -- with the United States being the
sole interlocutor between Iran, it makes it more difficult to achieve the
objective of having the Iranians give up their nuclear weapons ambitions.

It's amazing that when we're in a bilateral position, or kind of just
negotiating one on one, somehow the world ends up turning the tables on us.
And I'm not going to put my country in that position -- our country in that
position. Also, I think it's more effective that the three of us -- the
four of us work closely together.

We've also included Russia into the dialogue. A couple of months back, you
might remember there was a discussion about whether or not the Russians
should be allowed to build -- or encouraged to build a civilian nuclear
power plant, but the fuel of which would be provided and collected by the
Russians. I supported that initiative. I thought it was difficult, on the
one hand, to say that civilian nuclear power is a sovereign right of a
nation, and on the other hand, not to then support the Russian initiative.
And I did so. I also did so because I want Russia to be a part of the --
part of the team, trying to convince the Iranians to give up its nuclear
weapons program.

Now, I want to emphasize this point, and that is, is that we're not only
making sure they don't have the means to develop the weapon, but the
knowledge. And that's why I was very strong in saying that they should not
have -- that there should not be a research component involved with the
Russian deal that will enable the Iranians to learn how to better enriched
-- enrich uranium.

But our objective is to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. And the
good news is, is that many in the world have come to that conclusion. I got
out a little early on the issue by saying, axis of evil. (Laughter.) But I
meant it. I saw it as a problem. And now, many others have -- have come to
the conclusion that the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon.

The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from
having a nuclear weapon. I know -- I know here in Washington prevention
means force. It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means
diplomacy. And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this
weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is
wild speculation, which is -- it's kind of a -- happens quite frequently
here in the nation's capital.

Yes. Please.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to have you here. I'm a
first-year student in South Asia studies. My question is in regards to
private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not
apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a
couple months ago what law governs their actions.

THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Help.
(Laughter.)

Q I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter.) Mr.
Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed
applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not
currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against -- over our
American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case,
this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President,
how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of
law?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I wasn't kidding -- (laughter.)
I was going to -- I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an
interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation -- I don't mean
to be dodging the question, although it's kind of convenient in this case,
but never -- (laughter.) I really will -- I'm going to call the Secretary
and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about
it? That's how I work. I'm -- thanks. (Laughter.)

Yes, ma'am.

Q Hello, Mr. President. I have a follow-up question on your comments on
polls. Your presidency has been a rather polarizing period in America. And
occasionally your attitude towards protestors and dissenters has been
perceived as being dismissive, and occasionally, then, cavalier. And I'm
wondering how you feel that's contributed to the polarization in politics
today, and if that approach will change, given that you have fallen
somewhat in the polls.

THE PRESIDENT: Well -- (laughter) -- I take protest seriously. I mean, I --
by the way, I get protested all the time. (Laughter.) And I welcome it. I
think this is the great thing about a democracy. There needs to be an
outlet. If people feel like their government is not listening to them or
doesn't agree with them, there ought to be an outlet for their discontent.

And so the protests really don't bother me. I hope that's not viewed as
cavalier, but it's just the way I feel. And it's -- in terms of polls, you
cannot have a President make decisions based upon the latest political
survey. You got to have people making decisions based upon principle. And
my attitude is, I'm going to do what I think is right.

I've got to be able to look at myself, by the way -- after the presidency
-- in the mirror and say, I didn't come to Washington, D.C. to try to chase
political opinion. I came to lead this country in a very historic time.

And you heard my discussion about my reaction after 9/11. That's what I
believe. And that's what I'm going -- those are some of the beliefs on
which I'm going to continue to make decisions.

But, no, I hear voices of discontent, and I'm just going to do the best I
can do based upon what I think is right. There's too much flattery, too
much ego, too much criticism, too much noise, too much politics, too much
that for a President to try to kind of grope his way around looking at the
latest public opinion poll. In my judgment, it doesn't serve the nation
well.

A while ago at a press conference, I remember uttering one wonderful piece
of wisdom, it's like a dog chasing his tail. It actually didn't fly that
good. But, nevertheless, my point -- (laughter.) But thank you, it's a
legitimate question. And so, to answer your question, yes, I hear the
protests. And I can understand why. I can understand why people are
concerned about war. Nobody likes war, particularly me. I knew exactly what
was going to happen when I committed these troops into harm's way. I knew
there would be -- people would lose their life. And I knew I'd be trying to
comfort mothers and fathers and grieving wives. I knew exactly what was
coming. And if I didn't think it was the right thing to do, I wouldn't have
sent them. And if I didn't think we could succeed in Iraq, I'd pull them
out.

And the good thing about a democracy is people can express themselves.
We're fixing to have a huge immigration march today. And it's a sign that
there's a -- this is an important issue that people feel strongly about.
And I repeat to you, I strongly believe that societies in which you're not
allowed to express yourself are societies which do breed resentment, and
kind of bottled-up anxiety causes people to become very frustrated. And
that's not healthy for a society.

Yes.

Q First let me say, thank you very much for being here and thank you for
taking questions. I know we appreciate that. I'm a second-year master's
student studying international energy policy.

THE PRESIDENT: International?

Q Energy policy.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, good.

Q Sorry. (Laughter.) My question, sir, is, well, as Anthony alluded to
earlier, and as you're aware, we have many students at SAIS who are
currently working for or considering working for the State Department, the
various intelligence agencies and such. And how do you respond to the
recent report by Prosecutor Fitzgerald that there is, in his words, a
concerted -- "evidence of a concerted effort by the White House to punish
Joseph Wilson" who, himself, has a distinguished record of government
service?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. No, I -- this is -- there's an ongoing legal proceeding
which precludes me from talking a lot about the case. There's also an
ongoing investigation that's a serious investigation. I will say this, that
after we liberated Iraq, there was questions in people's minds about the
basis on which I made statements, in other words, going into Iraq. And so I
decided to declassify the NIE for a reason. I wanted to see -- people to
see what some of those statements were based on. So I wanted to see -- I
wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for people to see
the truth. And that's why I declassified the document.

You can't talk about -- you're not supposed to talk about classified
information, and so I declassified the document. I thought it was important
for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in
my speeches. And I felt I could do so without jeopardizing ongoing
intelligence matters, and so I did.

And as far as the rest of the case goes, you're just going to have to let
Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case. And I hope you understand that. It's a
serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public
statements about it.

Yes, please.

Q Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you for coming here today. I'd like to
briefly turn you a moment -- turn your attention to the Asia Pacific, the
security situation in Asia right now. Secretary Rice, last March, met with
her counterparts in Japan and Australia in a security dialogue, discussing
security issues in Asia Pacific. And this made many countries in the region
very uncomfortable. They felt that this security dialogue may have been an
effort to contain the "China threat." And mostly our alliance partners in
South Korea, Singapore and Thailand have felt this uneasiness. Could you
possibly elucidate for us your administration's strategy towards Asia
Pacific, ahead of President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington? And was the
dialogue a prelude to a NATO-like security structure in Asia Pacific?

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for the question. We have worked hard to make sure
relations with Japan, China and South Korea are on firm footing, and they
are. First, the Japanese relationship is a close relationship. I'm
personally fond of Prime Minister Koizumi. We have a close relationship and
I've worked very closely with him on a variety of matters, starting with
making sure our force posture is such that can -- that the Japanese are
comfortable with.

I don't know if you saw the recent announcements about Okinawa, for
example. You're beginning to see a defense relationship and alliance that
stays intact, but is more attuned to the future. Secondly, he's committed
troops into Iraq. He believes like I believe, that democracy helps keep the
peace. We've worked closely in Afghanistan. In other words, we're partners
in peace.

The South Korean issue is one, obviously, that's dominated primarily by
North Korea. And I made the decision early on in the administration to
change the dynamics in that negotiation from the United States and North
Korea, to the United States, China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan, called
the six-party talks, all aiming to get people who have got a stake with
North Korea at the table, all aiming, again, to send a united voice to the
North Koreans.

I'm a little -- the North Korean nuclear issue disturbs me, but also
equally disturbs me is the fact that people are being starved to death. And
it should disturb the world. It should disturb all of us. The North Korea
issue dominates my discussions with South Korea. However, there's a --
South Korea and America has committed ourselves to the peace that comes, or
the balance that comes with the U.S. force presence there in South Korea,
although it's been reduced, as well. We did not reduce force; we reduced
manpower, as you probably know since you study it.

The issue that is on most Americans' mind, and the issue that really is the
issue of the future in many ways, is China. And I would call our
relationship with China very positive and complex. It's positive because we
do have dialogue. It's positive because the Chinese leadership -- Hu Jintao
and his predecessor -- were able to sit down and we had pretty frank
discussions about a variety of issues.

On our agenda, of course, is trade -- fairness in trade, as well as human
rights and freedom of religion. On their issue -- on their agenda has been
in the past Taiwan, of course, which is a predominate issue. I've worked
hard on that issue to make it clear that our position has not changed and
we do not expect either party to unilaterally change the status quo.

And one of the things, of course, we work on is to -- would be very helpful
if the Japanese and the Chinese had better relations, and the Japanese and
the South Koreans. So we're spending time on that issue, as well, to try to
bring a sense of -- to encourage more dialogue with -- amongst those
parties.

Our presence in the Far East is really important. And so, therefore, my
administration has been active in making sure we stay active in the region.
The visit of Hu Jintao will be an interesting and important visit. He's
coming into a country where there's an over $200-billion trade deficit and
a lot of Americans are wondering, where's the equity in trade? And
therefore, I think he could help the Americans understand the importance of
a free trading world if he were to maybe make a statement on his currency,
for example.

I believe it's important for Americans to see a society that goes from
being a -- having its economic growth driven by exports to one having its
economic growth more by consumer demand inside the country. That's an
important part of our dialogue with China.

It's very important for him to make a declaration on international property
rights -- IPR. It's difficult for a nation that likes to trade, like ours,
to go into a country uncertain as to whether or not patents will be
protected, or product will be protected from copy. And so it will be a wide
agenda.

The Far -- the Pacific area is a very important part of our foreign policy.
It's one where we've got a very active presence, and we'll continue to keep
one. We've got a free-trade agreement -- you mentioned Singapore -- we've
got a free-trade agreement with Singapore. And it's our -- my relationship
with these countries is based more than on just trade and commercialism.
Mine is to work toward more democracy and freedom, as well, in the region
so that we can keep the peace in the long run.

I keep repeating this, I know, but I firmly believe that one way you lay
the foundation for peace is to spread liberty and freedom. And there --
again, I understand there's a debate. There's a legitimate debate. I'm just
telling you what my position is. And I got something to say about it.

Yes.

Q Good morning, President Bush. I also feel very strongly about freedom,
although I see it in terms of human trafficking. Your administration takes
a very strong stance against prostitution. Because of that you do not
disperse funds to a lot of very effective NGOs around the world who
pragmatically combat sex trafficking by working with existing prostitution
networks. There's no evidence right now that proves either legalizing
prostitution or criminalizing prostitution has any effect in the change of
sex-trafficking cases. Have you considered changing your ideas about
prostitution for the purposes of helping either save or keep people from
being enslaved in sex prostitution?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate it. I'm -- it sounds like I'm dodging here,
but, again, you know more about this subject than I, and I will be glad to
call Condi and talk to her about our policy. I thought we had a very robust
strategy on exploitation of women and children, particularly around the
world. I think I addressed this subject at the United Nations and was the
only world leader to do. But as specifically about our position on
prostitution, I'm going to have to talk to the Secretary about it.

Yes.

Q Morning, Mr. President. I have a more general question about the United
States' work to democratize the rest of the world. Many have viewed the
United States' effort to democratize the world -- especially nations in the
Middle East -- as an imposition or invasion on their sovereign rights.
Considering that it was, in fact, the Prophet Mohammed who established the
first known constitution in the world -- I'm referring to the constitution
he wrote for the city of Medina --and that his life and the principles
outlined in his constitution, such as the championing of the welfare of
women, children and the poor, living as an equal among his people,
dissolving disputes between the warring clans in Arabia, giving any man or
woman in parliament the right to vote and guaranteeing respect for all
religions, ironically parallel those principles that we hold most precious
in our own Constitution. I'm wondering how might your recently formed Iraq
Study Group under the U.S. Institute for Peace explore these striking
similarities to forge a new relationship with Iraqis and educate Americans
about the democratic principles inherent in Islam?

THE PRESIDENT: Great question. I believe that the terrorists have hijacked
a peaceful religion in order to justify their behavior. I thank you for
bringing that to my attention. I will pass on your comments to James A.
Baker, who is one of the chairmen of the group going to Iraq.

See, you said something really interesting. Initially, you said, people
view America imposing its beliefs. And I hearken back to what I said
earlier -- this fellow's question here -- that if you believe that freedom
is not universal, then it could be viewed as an imposition of beliefs. I'm
not saying to countries, you've got to look like us or act like us, but I
am saying, you know, give your people a chance to be free. And I think it's
necessary for America to take the lead on this issue. I think it is -- I
think it is vital for our future that we encourage liberty, and in this
case, the Middle East. And as you said, it doesn't necessarily run contrary
to what the Prophet Mohammad said.

It's a -- and so how do you advance freedom? I mean, well, one thing you do
is you make sure that the Lebanese have a chance to self-govern freely
without Syrian interference. It's one thing you can do. Another thing you
can do is work for the establishment of a Palestinian state, which I'm
doing. I believe that there will be a Palestinian state that is at peace
with Israel. I believe it's going to have to be a democracy -- again, a
Palestinian-style democracy -- to achieve that. But in my -- early in my
presidency, I said it's in our interest that there be two states,
side-by-side in peace, and we're working toward that end.

You know, part of the debate here that I'm sure you're discussing is
whether or not the United States should insist upon elections before
everything is right. You hear the -- the civil society has to be just right
before you can have elections. I disagree strongly with that. I think
elections are the beginning of the process, not the end.

And I found the elections that Hamas won very instructive and very
interesting. It was -- to me, it was a final condemnation of the Arafat
era, where people said, we're sick of corruption; we want better health
care and better education; we want -- we actually want our leaders to focus
on the people, not on their self interests.

And because I believe in two states, side-by-side in peace, and therefore
expect the government of both to be peaceful toward each other, we're not
going to deal with a government that has announced that they want to
destroy Israel. On the other hand, we will help the Palestinian people. And
I believe a democracy will eventually yield the state necessary to be
side-by-side with Israel in peace.

The success of a democracy in Iraq -- and as I told you, I think we're
going to succeed; as a matter of fact, I know we are if we don't lose our
nerve -- will send a powerful signal. Imagine the signal it will send to
people in Iran that are not free right now. I believe the women's movement
is going to be the leading edge of changing the Middle East. I don't
believe women want to live as second-class citizens. I believe -- I believe
it's -- I believe there's a universal desire to be treated fairly and
equally.

And so I think -- look, I'm pleased with the progress. I was reading the
other day where Kuwaiti women are running for office. It's a positive sign,
you know? We've got to be realistic about what's possible, but we've got to
be firm in our belief that freedom is possible and necessary. Otherwise --
I'll repeat to you -- a system that says, okay, let's just tolerate the
tyrant so long as everything seems okay, didn't work.

That's one of the lessons of the attack on the United States. You know, the
world seemed fine, didn't it? It seemed kind of placid -- there was a
bubble here, a bubble there. But everything seemed all right. And yet,
beneath the surface, there was tremendous resentment. And it's now come to
the -- and so how do you defeat their -- now, if you don't think they have
a ideology or a point of view, and/or a strategy to impose it, you're not
going to understand why you think the United States ought not to be as
active as we are.

But I believe differently. I believe they're bound -- these folks are bound
by an ideology. I know that they have got desires. They say it. This is one
of -- this is a different -- this is a war in which the enemy actually
speaks out loud. You heard the letter I wrote -- read from -- they didn't
speak out loud on this one, but nevertheless, it's a -- we've got to take
their word seriously. When the enemy speaks, it makes sense for our
military, our intelligence, the President to take the word seriously so we
can adapt and adjust.

Anyway, very interesting question. Thanks for bringing that to my
attention. Yes, ma'am.

Q Hi, Mr. President. Thank you very much for coming to speak with us. I am
studying international development. And you have alluded much to tensions
beneath the surface of countries. A lot of times, this comes from economic
underdevelopment and lack of economic opportunities. You haven't spoken
directly about economic development this morning. And I would like to know
where economic development lies on your priority list? And also, looking at
countries that maybe haven't, in your words, gotten everything right in
terms of political stability or democratization, is holding development
funds -- keeping development funds from those countries actually
counterproductive? Because if you can help the country to develop
economically, maybe some of these underlying tensions might dissipate.

THE PRESIDENT: It's a great question. First of all, I'm a -- matter of
fact, I met this morning with Rob Portman, head of the USTR, about the Doha
Round of -- for the WTO. And the reason I did is because I'm a big believer
that trade helps lift people out of poverty. As a matter of fact, if you
really study the relationship between development aid versus capital and
the movement of capital and who -- and how a society benefits more, it's
because of trade and commerce.

And so we've been very active in this administration. AGOA, for example, is
a free trade agreement with Africa. President Clinton passed it. I was more
than happy to sign its extension, and we've been very hard [sic] in
implementing it on the recognition that trade is a vital way for -- to help
people get their economies up and running.

And so no question the economy is important. In the Palestinian
territories, Jim Wolfensohn went over with a plan -- prior to the election,
by the way -- with a plan to help the Palestinians develop their economy on
the -- on the exact premise that you talk about. Economic development
provides hope.

And so, you bet. It's an integral of our policy. We give a lot of aid out,
by the way. We give aid to countries that may like us, may not like us,
except in few instances. I have changed the development program, however,
from -- let me say, I added on to the development programs to what's called
the Millennium Challenge Account. And that is a conditional-based aid
program. It's condition based upon poverty level, but it's also condition
based upon behavior of government.

We should not be -- we should insist that governments fight corruption. It
seems like to me it's a rational thing to do with taxpayers' money. And so
part of the -- one of the criterion for the Millennium Challenge Account,
it says, you don't get money if you don't fight corruption. We should
insist that people invest in the health and education of their people. We
should insist on marketplace reforms, open markets, so that people have a
chance to realize the benefits of a growing economy. And we do. And so we
give aid.

But the Millennium Challenge account is an additional program that is no
question conditional-based, based upon I think rational criterion. I
remember having the discussion with some friends of mine from another --
from another part of the world. They said, how can you insist upon
conditions for the aid? I said, how can you not? Why does it not make sense
to say, get rid of your corruption? Unless you people think -- unless
people think that maybe the corruption is normal and necessary. It's not. A
lot of people -- a lot of countries have suffered as a result of
governments that didn't care about them.

The other thing we're doing aggressively is to fight hunger and disease.
Part of making sure th