Text 2909, 348 rader
Skriven 2006-06-27 23:34:52 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0606278) for Tue, 2006 Jun 27
====================================================
===========================================================================
Remarks by the Vice Presidentat a Luncheon for Congressional Candidate
Adrian Smith
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
June 27, 2006

Remarks by the Vice Presidentat a Luncheon for Congressional Candidate
Adrian Smith
Midtown Holiday Inn Convention Center Grand Island
Grand Island, Nebraska



THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you very much, a welcome like that is almost enough to make me want
to run again. (Laughter.) Almost.

But I appreciate your kind words, Adrian, and the warm welcome. I want to
thank your new governor, Dave Heineman, of course for being here today to
join us. And I want to thank all of you for coming. I've been looking
forward to this trip back to the heartland, to join all of you in
supporting the next congressman for the third district in Nebraska, Adrian
Smith. (Applause.)

Although I've spent much of my life in Wyoming, of course, I was born in
Nebraska. (Applause.) Just reflecting back this morning on the way out that
some four generations of Cheneys lived here in Nebraska, my great
grandfather homesteaded in Amherst after the Civil War. And my grandfather
spent most of his life in Sumner. My earliest memories are of Sumner
because when Dad went into the Navy during World War II, he sent my mother,
my brother and me home to Sumner to live with my grandparents until he got
out of the Navy. And so I have many, many fond memories for this part of
the country. I used to joke with Doug Bereuter -- we got elected to
Congress together -- I was from Wyoming and he was from Lincoln. But I used
to tell Doug that if I hadn't moved when I was 13 years old, I'd have that
congressional seat and he wouldn't. (Laughter.) And he never bought that.
He always challenged me with it.

But we've still got a lot of friends in the state. It's always great to
come back, and it always feels like coming home. It's a terrific part of
the country, of course, and Nebraska is rightly proud of its incredibly
productive farms and ranches and businesses, the diverse industries, the
respected colleges and universities, and the decent, hard-working people
who call Nebraska home. It's a pleasure to be in your company. And I bring
good wishes to everybody from our President, George W. Bush.

The President and I want all of you, as well, to know that your former
governor, Mike Johanns, is doing an outstanding job in the Cabinet as
Secretary of Agriculture. He's not home much, but he's earning his pay.
We're delighted to have him as part of the team.

We also appreciated the opportunity to work with the current congressman
from the third district, the fine public servant, patriot and congressman,
of course, and that's Tom Osborne. He did a great job for all of us.
(Applause.) Not a bad coach, either. (Laughter.)

Our party has nominated a worthy successor to Congressman Osborne, and I'm
delighted to give our support to Adrian Smith in this campaign. Adrian is
obviously an experienced public servant, a man with deep roots in Nebraska
-- has all the energy and common sense that you deserve in a Congressman.
He's made a name for himself in both the private and public sectors -_ as a
hardworking small businessman, city council member, legislator, and a
committed, active citizen of his community. Adrian is the kind of public
servant who thinks about the future. He understands that government's role
is to preserve freedom, to protect the nation, to keep alive the spirit of
free enterprise that has made America the most prosperous nation on Earth.
This is the kind of man who belongs in the United States Congress, and
there's no doubt in my mind that he is on the road to victory on the 7th of
November. (Applause.)

It's important that we elect public servants like Adrian because these are
times of incredible consequence for the nation. In the last five-and-a-half
years we have seen a series of unprecedented challenges. We've experienced
war, national emergency, economic recession, corporate scandals, and
historic natural disasters. Yet we've faced up to those challenges. We've
shown our strength as a people. And America is a stronger and a better
nation thanks in no small part to the leadership of our President, George
W. Bush.

When the President and I came into office, we inherited an economy that was
headed into recession. But we took bold action to turn it around -_ and
because we acted, the nation's economy today is healthy and vigorous. In
2005 it grew faster than any other major industrialized nation in the
world. Since August of '03, America has created over 5.3 million new jobs.
The national unemployment rate is 4.6 percent _- lower than the average
rate in the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s. Productivity is strong.
Household net worth is at an all-time, record high.

The current expansion is also translating into higher than projected
federal revenues, as we knew would happen. Yet even as revenue grows, we
have a responsibility to be good stewards of the taxpayer's dollar. Wise
stewardship means taking a second look at the way business has often been
done in the Nation's Capital. We commend the House of Representatives for
passing a constitutional line-item veto, a critical tool to help protect
American taxpayers. And we look forward to having the Senate take similar
action, as well. And as the congressional leadership has stated, we also
need reforms in the way projects are earmarked for funding. And we look
forward to working with members on the Hill on earmark reform in the months
ahead. Government has a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely, or not spend
them at all. Your next congressman understands this very well. He'll be a
strong voice for spending discipline; we need more people like him in
Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

We have a full agenda for 2006 and beyond. President Bush understands that
every decision he makes will affect the lives of millions of Americans far
into the future. He's going to lead the effort to develop comprehensive
immigration reform, to make the system rational, and to gain control of our
borders. And he will continue appointing solid judges to the federal bench
like John Roberts and Sam Alito.

Above all else, President Bush never loses sight of his most fundamental
duty -_ to defend this nation and to protect our people.

There is still hard work ahead in the war on terror, because we are dealing
with enemies who have declared an intention to bring great harm to any
nation that opposes their aims. And the prime targets are the United States
and the American people.

In the face of such enemies, we have to consider a few basic questions:
First, whether to confront them on our terms, or their terms; second,
whether to face them on their territory, or our territory; and third,
whether to wage this war on offense or defense. America and the civilized
world have made our decision: Wherever terrorists operate, we will find
them where they dwell, stop them in their planning, bring them to justice,
and stay in the fight until the fight is won. (Applause.)

We remain on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. We can
expect further acts of violence and destruction by the enemies of freedom.
But progress has been steady -_ and there should be no discounting the
hopeful signs in that part of the world. In less than two years' time the
Iraqi people have regained their sovereignty; voted for a transitional
government; drafted a progressive, democratic constitution in the heart of
the Arab world; and then approved the document in a national referendum and
elected a new government under the provisions of that new constitution. And
Iraq now has a unity government that is committed to a future of freedom
and progress for all Iraqis. They have made a strong stand for their own
liberty, and the United States is proud to stand at their side.

Our coalition is also helping to build an Iraqi security force that is well
trained and well equipped. As that force grows in strength and the
political process continues to advance, we'll be able to decrease troop
levels without losing our capacity to defeat the terrorists.

There's a vigorous debate taking place right now about the way forward in
Iraq. It's always good to have such a discussion, because it directly
involves the security of the nation -_ the very issue that all of us,
Democrat and Republican, care most about. We've reached the point where a
number of well known Democrats, including their most recent presidential
nominee, talk about setting a firm deadline for withdrawal. You might
recall that Senator Kerry was for the war before he was against it.
Somebody should do the guy a favor and tell him the election's over so he
can stop flip-flopping. (Laughter and applause.)

Seriously, following Senator Kerry's prescription _- giving up and setting
a hard deadline _- is a terrible idea, and the Senate was correct last week
when they gave it only 13 votes. First, such a move would signal to the
Iraqi people that America does not keep its word. Second, it completely
disregards the opinions of our commanders in charge of the military effort
in Iraq. Americans and our Iraqi allies need to know that decisions about
troop levels will be driven by conditions on the ground and by the
judgments of our military commanders -_ not by artificial timelines set by
politicians in Washington, D.C.

Another prominent Democrat, a good friend of mine, Congressman Jack Murtha,
has been on TV recently with his own plan for withdrawal. He said we can
deal with the Iraqi situation by redeploying forces to Okinawa. (Laughter.)
That's what he said. The Pacific Ocean is a long way from the Persian Gulf,
obviously. But the most troubling aspect of Jack's proposal is this: He
cited two previous instances of American military withdrawal, and suggested
they would be good models for us to follow now in Iraq. The first was
America's exit from Beirut in 1983, and the second, our withdrawal from
Somalia in 1993.

I've known Jack a long time. We worked closely together when I was
Secretary of Defense and he chaired the defense appropriations
subcommittee. I've got great respect for him, but he's dead wrong on this
issue. His proposal is contrary to the national interest. And he draws
exactly the wrong lessons from the examples of Beirut and Somalia. If you
look back at the years before 9/11, you'll see case after case of
terrorists hitting America -_ and America failing to hit back hard enough.

In Beirut terrorists killed 241 of our servicemen with a suicide truck
bomber in 1983. Somalia -- we lost 19 Americans in a battle in Mogadishu in
1993. In both cases, the United States responded to those attacks by
withdrawing our forces. But by doing so, we simply invited more danger,
because the terrorists concluded that if they killed enough Americans, they
could change American policy -- because they had. And so they continued to
wage attacks against America and American interests.

We had the bombing at the World Trade Center in New York in 1993; the
murders at the Saudi National Guard Training Center in Riyadh in 1995; the
attack on the Khobar Towers in 1996; the simultaneous bombings of our
embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, the bombing of the USS Cole in
2000; and, of course, ultimately, the attacks here at home on the Pentagon
and New York when we lost 3,000 on 9/11.

If we follow Congressman Murtha's advice and withdraw from Iraq the same
way we withdrew from Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993, we will simply
validate the al Qaeda strategy and invite more terrorist attacks in the
future.

In the decade prior to 9/11, we spent more than two trillion dollars on
national security. Yet we lost nearly 3,000 Americans at the hands of 19
men armed with box cutters and airline tickets. In the case of al-Qaeda we
are not dealing with large armies that we can track, or uniforms we can
see, or men with territory of their own to defend. Their preferred tactic,
which they boldly proclaim, is to slip into countries, blend in among the
innocent, and kill without mercy and without restraint. They have
intelligence and counterintelligence operations of their own. They are
using the most sophisticated communications technology they can get their
hands on.

In pursuit of their objectives, they have carried out a number of attacks
since 9/11 _- in Casablanca, Jakarta, Mombassa, Bali, Riyadh, Baghdad,
Istanbul, Madrid, London, Sharm al-Sheikh, and elsewhere. Here in the U.S.,
we have not had another 9/11. Obviously, no one can guarantee that we won't
be hit again. But the relative safety of these past nearly five years now
did not come about by accident. We've been protected by sensible policy
decisions by the President, by decisive action at home and abroad, and by
round-the-clock efforts on the part of the people in our armed forces, law
enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security.

Some in the press, in particular The New York Times, have made the job of
defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on
publishing detailed information about vital national security programs.

The first was the terrorist surveillance program. Sometimes the press calls
it domestic surveillance, it is not domestic surveillance. It's a program
aimed at the communications that are international in nature -- at least
one end of the communication has to be outside the United States, and one
end has to be affiliated with or associated with al Qaeda.

The second program that The New York Times has now disclosed is the
terrorist financial tracking program, just within about the last week or
so. These are both good programs. They provide valuable intelligence. They
are very carefully managed to safeguard the civil liberties of the American
people. They have been successful in helping break up terrorist plots. They
are done in accordance with the Constitution, and there has in both cases
-- both programs have been properly notified to the appropriate officials
in the United States Congress.

The New York Times has now twice -- two separate occasions -- disclosed
programs both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by
senior administration officials. They went ahead anyway. The leaks to The
New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging. The
ability to intercept al Qaeda communications and to track their sources of
financing are essential if we're going to successfully prosecute the global
war on terror. Our capabilities in these areas help explain why we have
been so successful in preventing further attacks like 9/11. The New York
Times has now made it more difficult for us to prevent attacks in the
future. Publishing this highly classified information about our sources and
methods for collecting intelligence will enable the terrorists to look for
ways to defeat our efforts. These kinds of stories also adversely affect
our relationships with people who work with us against the terrorists. In
the future, they will be less likely to cooperate if they think the United
States is incapable of keeping a secret.

What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward
with these stories, but they've been rewarded for it, for example, in the
case of the terrorist surveillance program, by being awarded the Pulitzer
Prize for outstanding journalism. I think that is a disgrace.

The nation is pursuing a clear and a necessary course of action against the
terrorists. First, we are absolutely determined to prevent attacks before
they occur, so we're working with other countries to break up terror cells,
to track down terrorist operatives, to put heavy pressure on their ability
to organize and plan attacks. The work is difficult and very often
perilous, and there is much yet to do. But we have made tremendous progress
against the enemy that dwells in the shadows.

Second, we're determined to deny safe haven to the terrorists. Since the
day our country was attacked, we have applied the Bush Doctrine: Any person
or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit
in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account.

Third, we are working to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction to keep those weapons out of the hands of killers.

Fourth, we're determined to deny the terrorists control of any nation,
which they would use as a home base and staging area for terrorist attacks
on others. That's why we continue to fight Taliban remnants and al Qaeda
forces in Afghanistan. That's why we are working with President Musharraf
to oppose and isolate the terrorist element in Pakistan. And that is why we
are fighting the Saddam remnants and al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Because
our coalition has stood by our commitments to the Afghani and Iraqi
peoples, some 50 million men, women, and children who lived under dictators
now live in freedom. Afghanistan is a rising democracy, with the first
fully elected government in its 5,000-year history. Iraq has the most
progressive constitution and the strongest democratic mandate in the entire
Arab world. And the people now on duty in that part of the world can be
proud of their service for the rest of their lives.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it is critically important that we keep issues of
national security at the top of the agenda of this year's election. The
President and I welcome the discussion, because every voter in America
needs to know where the President and I stand, and where Adrian Smith
stands, as well as how the leaders of the Democratic Party view the global
war on terror. Their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, boasted recently of
his efforts to kill the Patriot Act. The Chairman of the Democratic Party,
Howard Dean, said the capture of Saddam Hussein "didn't make America
safer." Other Democrats like Russ Feingold of Wisconsin have introduced a
resolution to censure the President over the terrorist surveillance
program, even though it is absolutely essential to national security and is
conducted in accordance with the laws of the land. And those who now
advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq are counseling the very kind of
retreat that has been tried in the past and would only heighten the
long-term danger to the United States. For the sake of our security, this
nation must reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of
determined enemies.

We have to face the simple truth. The enemies that struck America are
weakened and fractured, but they are still lethal, still desperately trying
to hit us again. Only days ago, thanks to the efforts of superb men and
women, the Justice Department secured the indictments of seven men for
plotting further catastrophic attacks inside the country. This is the group
arrested in Miami with allegedly aspirations of blowing up the Sears Tower
in Chicago. Either we are serious about fighting this war, or we are not.
And with George W. Bush leading this nation, we are serious and we will not
let down our guard. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, in these five-and-a-half years we've been through a
great deal as a nation. Yet with each test, the American people have
displayed the true character of our country. We've built for ourselves an
economy and a standard of living that are the envy of the world. We've
faced dangers with resolve. And we have been defended by some of the
bravest men and women this nation has ever produced. (Applause.) When
future generations look back on our time, they will know that we met our
moment with courage and clear thinking. And they will know that America
became a better nation _- stronger, more prosperous, and more secure _-
under the leadership of our President.

We'll continue making progress for the American people _- and it's vital
that we have strong partners like Adrian Smith in the Congress of the
United States. (Applause.) The President and I have tremendous confidence
in him, and we're proud to stand with all of you in supporting this
outstanding candidate. Send him to Washington; he'll make you proud each
and every day.

Thank you. (Applause.)

END 2.31 P.M. CDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060627-8.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)