Text 3142, 960 rader
Skriven 2006-08-21 23:31:26 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (060821) for Mon, 2006 Aug 21
===================================================
===========================================================================
Press Conference by the President
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 21, 2006

Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

President's Remarks view

˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: Peace in the Middle East

10:02 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Fancy digs you got here.
Thanks for your hospitality. It's good to visit with you. I look forward to
taking some of your questions. I do want to talk to you about the latest
developments in Lebanon, and what we're doing to ensure U.N. Security
Council 1701 is implemented and its words are quickly put into action.

Resolution 1701 authorizes an effective international force to deploy to
Lebanon, which is essential to peace in the region and it's essential to
the freedom of Lebanon. An effective international force will help ensure
the cessation of hostilities hold in Lebanon once the Israeli troops
withdraw. An effective international force will help the Lebanese army meet
its responsibility to secure Lebanon's borders and stop them from acting as
-- and stop Hezbollah from acting as a state within a state. An effective
international force will help give displaced people in both Lebanon and
Israel the confidence to return to their homes and begin rebuilding their
lives without fear of renewed violence and terror.

An international force requires international commitment. Previous
resolutions have failed in Lebanon because they were not implemented by the
international community, and in this case, did not prevent Hezbollah and
their sponsors from instigating violence. The new resolution authorizes a
force of up to 15,000 troops. It gives this force an expanded mandate. The
need is urgent. The international community must now designate the
leadership of this new international force, give it robust rules of
engagement, and deploy it as quickly as possible to secure the peace.

America will do our part. We will assist a new international force with
logistic support, command and control, communications and intelligence.
Lebanon, Israel and our allies agreed that this would be the most effective
contribution we can make at this time. We will also work with the
leadership in the international force, once it's identified, to ensure that
the United States is doing all we can to make this mission a success.

Deployment of this new international force will also help speed delivery of
humanitarian assistance. Our nation is wasting no time in helping the
people of Lebanon. In other words, we're acting before the force gets in
there. We've been on the ground in Beirut for weeks, and I've already
distributed more than half of our $50 million pledge of disaster relief to
the Lebanese people who have lost their homes in the current conflict.
Secretary Rice has led the diplomatic efforts to establish humanitarian
corridors so that relief convoys can get through, to reopen the Beirut
airport to passenger and humanitarian aid flights, and to ensure a steady
fuel supply for Lebanese power plants and automobiles. I directed 25,000
tons of wheat be delivered in Lebanon in the coming weeks.

But we'll do even more. Today, I'm announcing that America will send more
aid to support humanitarian and reconstruction work in Lebanon, for a total
of more than $230 million. These funds will help the Lebanese people
rebuild their homes and return to their towns and communities. The funds
will help the Lebanese people restore key bridges and roads. The funds will
help the Lebanese people rehabilitate schools so the children can start
their school year on time this fall.

I directed that an oil spill response team be sent to assist the Lebanese
government in cleaning up an oil slick that is endangering coastal
communities; proposing a $42 million package to help train and equip
Lebanon's armed forces. I will soon be sending a presidential delegation of
private sector leaders to Lebanon to identify ways that we can tap into the
generosity of American businesses and non-profits to continue to help the
people of Lebanon.

We take these steps -- and I'll also work closely with Congress to extend
the availability of loan guarantees to help rebuild infrastructure in
Israel, infrastructure damaged by Hezbollah's rockets.

America is making a long-term commitment to help the people of Lebanon
because we believe every person deserves to live in a free, open society
that respects the rights of all. We reject the killing of innocents to
achieve a radical and violent agenda.

The terrorists and their state sponsors, Iran and Syria, have a much darker
vision. They're working to thwart the efforts of the Lebanese people to
break free from foreign domination and build their own democratic future.
The terrorists and their sponsors are not going to succeed. The Lebanese
people have made it clear they want to live in freedom. And now it's up to
their friends and allies to help them do so.

I'll be glad to answer some questions, starting with you, Terry.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month,
the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed
with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together
the sectarian and ethnic groups?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing
everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger.
That's what I'm aware of. And, therefore, we have a plan to help them --
"them," the Iraqis -- achieve their objectives. Part of the plan is
political; that is the help the Maliki government work on reconciliation
and to work on rehabilitating the community. The other part is, of course,
security. And I have given our commanders all the flexibility they need to
adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi government defeat those who
want to thwart the ambitions of the people. And that includes a very robust
security plan for Baghdad.

We've, as you may or may not know, Terry, moved troops from Mosul, the
Stryker Brigade, into Baghdad, all aiming to help the Iraqi government
succeed.

You know, I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm concerned about that,
of course, and I've talked to a lot of people about it. And what I've found
from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country, and that the
Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the efforts of the extremists and
the radicals and al Qaeda, and that the security forces remain united
behind the government. And one thing is clear: The Iraqi people are showing
incredible courage.

The United States of America must understand it's in our interests that we
help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our interests
that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives.
This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century. A failed Iraq would
make America less secure. A failed Iraq in the heart of the Middle East
will provide safe haven for terrorists and extremists. It will embolden
those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it
would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe
haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.

You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we
ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent people,
saying, withdraw now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake
for this country. If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it
would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a
chance to defend herself, govern herself, and listen to the -- and answer
to the will of the people.

Patsy. We're working our way here.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Iran has indicated that it will defy the U.N.
on nuclear enrichment. It's been holding military exercises, sending
weapons and money to Hezbollah. Is Tehran's influence in the region
growing, despite your efforts to curb it?

THE PRESIDENT: The final history in the region has yet to be written. And
what's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and the violence in
Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all groups of terrorists
who are trying to stop the advance of democracy. They're trying to thwart
the will of millions who simply want a normal, hopeful life. That's what
we're seeing. And it's up to the international community to understand the
threat.

I remember right after Hezbollah launched its rocket attacks on Israel, I
said, this is a clarifying moment. It's a chance for the world to see the
threats of the 21st century, the challenge we face.

And so, to answer your question on Iran, Iran is obviously part of the --
part of the problem. They sponsor Hezbollah. They encourage a radical brand
of Islam. Imagine how difficult this issue would be if Iran had a nuclear
weapon. And so, therefore, it's up to the international community,
including the United States, to work in concert to -- for effective
diplomacy. And that begins at the United Nations Security Council.

We have passed one Security Council resolution, demanding that Iran cease
its enrichment activities. We will see what the response is. We're
beginning to get some indication, but we'll wait until they have a formal
response. The U.N. resolution calls for us to come back together on the
31st of August. The dates -- dates are fine, but what really matters is
will. And one of the things I will continue to remind our friends and
allies is the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.

But, no, you're right, this is a -- they're a central part of creating
instability, trying to stop reformers from realizing dreams. And the
question facing this country is, will -- do we, one, understand the threat
to America? In other words, do we understand that a failed -- failed states
in the Middle East are a direct threat to our country's security? And
secondly, will we continue to stay engaged in helping reformers, in working
to advance liberty, to defeat an ideology that doesn't believe in freedom?

And my answer is, so long as I'm the President, we will. I clearly see the
challenge. I see the challenge to what these threats pose to our homeland,
and I see the challenge -- what these threats pose to the world.

Helen. (Laughter.) What's so funny about me saying "Helen"? (Laughter.)
It's the anticipation of your question, I guess.

Q Israel broke its word twice on a truce. And you mentioned Hezbollah
rockets, but it's -- Israeli bombs have destroyed Lebanon. Why do you
always give them a pass? And what's your view on breaking of your oath for
a truce?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. I like to remind people about how this
started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which bothers
me -- but, again, what caused this.

Q Why drop bombs on --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish -- let -- ma'am. Ma'am, please let me finish
the question. It's a great question to begin with. The follow-up was a
little difficult, but anyway. (Laughter.) I know you're waiting for my
answer, aren't you, with bated breath.

This never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state within
a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From the beginning,
Helen, I said that Israel, one, has a right to defend herself, but Israel
ought to be cautious about how she defends herself. Israel is a
democratically elected government. They make decisions on their own
sovereignty. It's their decision-making that is -- what leads to the
tactics they chose.

But the world must understand that now is the time to come together to
address the root cause of the problem. And the problem was you have a state
within a state. You have people launch attacks on a sovereign nation
without the consent of the government in the country in which they are
lodged.

And that's why it's very important for all of us, those of us who are
involved in this process, to get an international force into Lebanon to
help the Lebanese government achieve some objectives. One is their ability
to exert control over the entire country; secondly is to make sure that the
Hezbollah forces don't rearm, don't get arms from Syria or Iran through
Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.

Let's see -- we'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be patient.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) It's kind of like dancing together, isn't
it? (Laughter.)

Q Yes, kind of. (Laughter.)

Q Very close quarters.

THE PRESIDENT: If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery I'll call
on you. (Laughter.) By the way, seersucker is coming back. I hope everybody
-- (laughter.) Never mind.

Q Kind of the Texas county commissioner look. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Martha. Sorry.

Q That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq.
You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in
Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You've had to
go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why
not?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon, you know that
the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the
flexibility from the White House to do so.

Q I'm talking about strategy --

THE PRESIDENT: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their
objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the
strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay
there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the
President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably
terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've
abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would
give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would
embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

No, we're not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government
succeed. That's the strategic -- and not only to help the government -- the
reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region
succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which
change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective,
it means you're leaving before the mission is complete. And we're not going
to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We
leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.

And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility
necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with Plan Baghdad. And
that's when we moved troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replaced them with
the Stryker Brigade, so we increased troops during this time of
instability.

Suzanne.

Q Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy --

THE PRESIDENT: Sounded like the question to me.

Q You keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave. But is your
strategy to win working? Even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into
Baghdad before, these things have happened before.

THE PRESIDENT: If I didn't think it would work, I would change -- our
commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it will
work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government has been
in power for less than six months. And, yes, the people spoke. I've cited
that as a part of -- the reason I cite it is because it's what the Iraqi
people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether
or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really the
task. And we're going to stand with this government.

Obviously, I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi
citizens would wish the violence would go down. But, incredibly enough,
they show great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says
we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and
creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk
necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.

This is a campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully.
There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now; vote for me, I
will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they'll try to
do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It would be wrong, in my
judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq.

Suzanne.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Back to Lebanon. The Lebanese Prime Minister,
over the weekend, said that Israel flagrantly violated the cease-fire with
its raid into Lebanon, and so far the European allies who have committed
forces, the U.N. security peacekeeping forces, have expressed reservations;
those Muslim nations who have offered troops have been shunned by Israeli
officials. Why shouldn't we see the cease-fire as one that essentially is
falling apart? And what makes this more than a piece of paper if you don't
have the will of the international community to back it up?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, no, listen, all the more reason why we need to help our
friends and allies get the forces necessary to help the Lebanese forces
keep the cessation of hostilities in place, intact. And that's why we're
working with friends, with allies, with Security Council members, to make
sure the force that is committed is robust and the rules of engagement are
clear. And so it's an ongoing series of conversations and discussions, and
hopefully this will happen quite quickly.

Q Will you pressure the French to contribute more troops?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're pressing on all. I was asked about the French
the other day at Camp David, and I

-- listen, France has had a very close relationship with Lebanon, there's
historical ties with Lebanon; I would hope they would put more troops in.
They understand the region as well as anybody. And so we're working with a
lot of folks, trying to get this force up and running.

Look, like you -- I mean, you sound somewhat frustrated by diplomacy.
Diplomacy can be a frustrating thing. I think the strategy can work, so
long as the force is robust and the rules of engagement are clear.

Q Mr. President, as you mentioned, we're just 10 days from the U.N.
Security Council deadline on Iran. Judging by the public comments from the
Iranians, it appears at least highly unlikely that they're going to stop or
suspend their enrichment program. Are you confident that the U.N. Security
Council will move quickly on sanctions if Iran thumbs its nose at the world
again?

THE PRESIDENT: I certainly hope so. In order for the U.N. to be effective,
there must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations
Security Council. And we will work with people in the Security Council to
achieve that objective, and the objective is that there's got to be a
consequence for them basically ignoring what the Security Council has
suggested through resolution.

Q Understanding that diplomacy takes time, do you think that this could
drag out for a while?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I don't know. I certainly want to solve this
problem diplomatically, and I believe the best chance to do so is for there
to be more than one voice speaking clearly to the Iranians. And I was
pleased that we got a resolution, that there was a group of nations willing
to come together to send a message to the Iranians -- nations as diverse as
China and Russia, plus the EU3 and the United States.

Kelly.

Q Good morning, Mr. President. When you talked today about the violence in
Baghdad, first you mentioned extremists, radicals, and then al Qaeda. It
seems that al Qaeda and foreign fighters are much less of a problem there,
and that it really is Iraqi versus Iraqi. And when we heard about your
meeting the other day with experts and so forth, some of the reporting out
of that said you were frustrated, you were surprised. And your spokesman
said, no, you're determined. But frustration seems like a very real
emotion. Why wouldn't you be frustrated, sir, about what's happening?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not -- I do remember the meeting; I don't remember being
surprised. I'm not sure what they meant by that.

Q About the lack of gratitude among the Iraqi people.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh. No, I think -- first of all, to the first part of your
question, if you look back at the words of Zarqawi before he was brought to
justice, he made it clear that the intent of their tactics in Iraq was to
create civil strife. In other words, look at what he said. He said, let's
kill Shia to get Shia to seek revenge, and therefore, to create this kind
of -- hopefully, a cycle of violence.

Secondly, it's pretty clear that at least the evidence indicates that the
bombing of the shrine was an al Qaeda plot, all intending to create
sectarian violence. No, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. As a matter
of fact some of the more -- I would guess, I would surmise that some of the
more spectacular bombings are done by al Qaeda suiciders.

No question there's sectarian violence, as well. And the challenge is to
provide a security plan such that a political process can go forward. And I
know -- I'm sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12 million Iraqis
voted, but it's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free
society. That's what that means.

And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long-term is to defeat it
through another ideology, a competing ideology, one where government
responds to the will of the people. And that's really -- really the
fundamental question we face here in the beginning of this 21st century is
whether or not we believe as a nation, and others believe, it is possible
to defeat this ideology.

Now, I recognize some say that these folks are not ideologically bound. I
strongly disagree. I think not only do they have an ideology, they have
tactics necessary to spread their ideology. And it would be a huge mistake
for the United States to leave the region, to concede territory to the
terrorists, to not confront them. And the best way to confront them is to
help those who want to live in free society.

Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to it that
they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our job. Our job
is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their police be able to
deal with these extremists, and to help their government succeed.

Q But are you frustrated, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised.
Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't
joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and
they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know,
nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV
on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by terrorists. And our question is,
do we have the capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these
terrorists, and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That's the
question. And my answer to that question is, we must. We owe it to future
generations to do so.

Bill.

Q Mr. President, as you have reminded us a number of times, it was
Hezbollah that started the confrontation between Israel and Lebanon. But
you were supportive of the holding off of any kind of cease-fire until
Israel had a chance to clear out the Hezbollah weapons. By all accounts,
they did not exactly succeed in doing that. And by all accounts, the
Lebanese army, as it moved into southern Lebanon, had a wink-and-a-nod
arrangement with Hezbollah not to disturb anything, to just leave things as
they are, a situation not unknown in the Middle East. Do you demand that
the peacekeeping force, if and when it gets up and running, disarm
Hezbollah?

THE PRESIDENT: The truth of the matter is, if 1559, that's the United
Nations Security Council resolution number, had been fully implemented, we
wouldn't be in the situation we were in to begin with. There will be
another resolution coming out of the United Nations giving further
instructions to the international force. First things first; is to get the
rules of engagement clear, so that the force will be robust to help the
Lebanese.

One thing is for certain -- is that when this force goes into help Lebanon,
Hezbollah won't have that safe haven, or that kind of freedom to run in
Lebanon's southern border. In other words, there's an opportunity to create
a cushion, a security cushion. Hopefully, over time, Hezbollah will disarm.
You can't have a democracy with an armed political party willing to bomb
its neighbor without the consent of its government, or deciding, well,
let's create enough chaos and discord by lobbing rockets.

And so the reality is, in order for Lebanon to succeed -- and we want
Lebanon's democracy to succeed -- the process is going to -- the Lebanese
government is eventually going to have to deal with Hezbollah.

Q But it's the status quo if there's no disarming.

THE PRESIDENT: Not really. I mean, yes, eventually, you're right. But in
the meantime, there will be a -- there's a security zone, something to --
where the Lebanese army and the UNIFIL force are more robust, UNIFIL force
can create a security zone between Lebanon and Israel. That would be
helpful.

But, ultimately, you're right. Your question is, shouldn't Hezbollah
disarm, and ultimately, they should. And it's necessary, for the Lebanese
government to succeed.

The cornerstone of our policy in that part of the world is to help
democracies. Lebanon is a democracy; we want the Siniora government to
succeed. Part of our aid package is going to be help strengthen the army of
Lebanon so when the government speaks, when the government commits its
troops, they do so in an effective way.

Knoller.

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: How are you feeling?

Q I'm good, sir. It's good to be back.

THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you. Yes, it's good to see you. Sorry we didn't
spend more time in Crawford. I knew you were anxious to do so.

Q Always am.

THE PRESIDENT: That's good. (Laughter.) That's why we love seeing you.

Q Thanks. Let me ask you about presidential pardons. Last week, you issued
17 of them. That brought the number of pardons you've issued in your
presidency to 97, and that's far fewer than most of your recent
predecessors, except your dad. And I want to ask you, do you consider
yourself to be stingy when it comes to pardons? What is your philosophy on
granting presidential pardons?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I don't have the criterion in front of me, Mark,
but we have a strict criterion that we utilize -- we being the Justice
Department and the White House Counsel. And I, frankly, haven't compared
the number of pardons I've given to any other President. Perhaps I should.
But I don't think a scorecard should, necessarily, be the guidepost for
pardoning people.

McKinnon. I'm going to go to you, Jackson, and kind of work around.

Q Thanks. Mr. President, what do you say to people who are losing patience
with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you
think you're paying for that right now?

THE PRESIDENT: I've been talking about gas prices ever since they got high,
starting with this -- look, I understand gas prices are like a hidden tax.
Not a hidden tax, it's a tax -- it's taking money out of people's pockets.
I know that. All the more reason for us to diversify away from crude oil.
That's not going to happen overnight. We passed law that encouraged
consumption through different purchasing habits, like hybrid vehicles

-- you buy a hybrid, you get a tax credit. We've encouraged the spread of
ethanol as an alternative to crude oil. We have asked for Congress to pass
regulatory relief so we can build more refineries to increase the supply of
gasoline, hopefully taking the pressure off of price.

And so the strategy is to recognize that dependency upon crude oil is -- in
a global market affects us economically here at home, and therefore, we
need to diversify away as quickly as possible.

Jackson.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, the one-year anniversary of
Katrina is coming up. And there are a lot of retrospectives about what went
wrong down there last year. Specifically, what has your administration done
in the past year to help the folks down there, and what remains to be done?

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. You know, I went to New Orleans, in Jackson Square,
and made a commitment that we would help the people there recover. I also
want the people down there to understand that it's going to take a while to
recover. This was a huge storm.

First things -- the first thing that's necessary to help the recovery is
money. And our government has committed over $110 billion to help. Of that,
a lot of money went to -- went out the door to help people adjust from
having to be moved because of the storm. And then there's rental
assistance, infrastructure repair, debris removal. Mississippi removed
about 97 percent, 98 percent of its -- what they call dry debris. We're now
in the process of getting debris from the water removed. Louisiana is
slower in terms of getting debris removed. The money is available to help
remove that debris. People can get after it, and I would hope they would.

Q What --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. Thank you.

We provided about $1.8 billion for education. That money has gone out the
door. We want those schools up and running. As I understand, the schools
are running now in New Orleans, a lot of schools are. Flood insurance,
we're spending money on flood insurance. There is more work to be done,
particularly when it comes to housing. We've spent about -- appropriated
about $16 billion, $17 billion for direct housing grants to people in the
Gulf Coast and in Louisiana.

I made the decision, along with the local authorities, that each state
ought to develop a housing recovery plan. That's what they call the LRA in
Louisiana. They're responsible for taking the federal money and getting it
to the people. Same in -- Mississippi has developed its own plan.

I thought it would be best that there be a local plan developed and
implemented by local folks. And so there's now, as I mentioned, $16 billion
of direct housing grants. Each state has developed its own plan, how much
money goes to each homeowner to help these people rebuild their lives. And
so I think the area where people will see the most effect in their lives is
when they start getting this individualized CDBG grant money.

Q Has anything disappointed you about the recovery, the federal response?

THE PRESIDENT: I was concerned at first about how much Congress and the
taxpayers would be willing to appropriate and spend. I think $110 billion
is a strong commitment, and I'm pleased with that. Any time -- I named a
man named Don Powell to go down there, and the thing that's most important
is for the government to eliminate any bureaucratic obstacles when we find
something that's not moving quick enough.

I think, for example, about the debris removal. There was the issue of
whether or not the government would pay for debris removal on private
property, or not. So we worked out a plan with the local mayors and local
county commissioners, local parish presidents to be able to designate
certain property as a health hazard. And when they did so, then government
money could pay for it. In other words, we're trying to be flexible with
the rules and regulations we have to deal with.

But the place where people, I'm sure, are going to be most frustrated is
whether or not they're going to get the money to rebuild their homes. And
my attitude is we've appropriated the money, and now we'll work with states
to get the money.

April, I suspect you have a follow-up on this.

Q Yes, I do, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you let her go?

Q And another question, sir. The follow-up: Some have a concern that you've
given all of this money, but the federal government has moved away to let
the local government, particularly in New Orleans, handle everything, and
things are not moving like they expected. And that's one of the concerns.
And another question, if you --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me address that, and I promise you can ask that
other one.

As I mentioned to you, the strategy from the get-go was to work with the
local folks in Mississippi and Louisiana, and they would then submit their
plans to the federal government, particularly for housing, and that upon
approval, we would then disburse the appropriated monies -- in this case,
about $17 billion for housing grants. And so each state came up with a
grant formula, and I can't give you all the details. But it's -- the whole
purpose is intended to get money into people's pockets to help them
rebuild. And once the strategy is developed at the state and local level,
it makes sense for the monies to be appropriated at the state and local
level. And if there's a -- if there's a level of frustration there, we will
work with the LRA in this case.

Second question.

Q Well, I have one follow-up on that. Do you think --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, how many -- are you trying to dominate this thing?
(Laughter.)

Q No, sir, but I don't get a chance to talk to you as much as the others.

THE PRESIDENT: That's not -- wait a minute. (Laughter.)

Q But a follow-up real quick. Do you think that more needs to be done? Does
the federal government need to put its hands on what's going on? Because
New Orleans is not moving --

THE PRESIDENT: I think the best way to do this is for the federal
government's representative, Don Powell, to continue to work with Mayor
Nagin and Governor Blanco to get the money into the hands of the people.
The money has been appropriated, the formula is in place, and now it's time
to move forward.

Now, you have another question, I presume.

Q Yes, sir. Chinese officials are saying that you need to get involved in
the six-party talks, and that ultimately you have to be a part of the
six-party talks in dealing with North Korea. And also they're saying that
you need to stop dealing with the issue of money laundering and deal with
the real issue of ballistic missiles. What are your thoughts?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, counterfeiting U.S. dollars is an issue that every
President ought to be concerned about. And when you catch people
counterfeiting your money, you need to do something about it.

We are very much involved in the six-party talks. As a matter of fact, I
talked to Hu Jintao this morning about the six-party talks, and about the
need for us to continue to work together to send a clear message to the
North Korean leader that there is a better choice for him than to continue
to develop a nuclear weapon. The six-party talks are -- is an important
part of our -- the six-party talks are an important part of our strategy of
dealing with Kim Jong-il. And the North Korean -- the Chinese President
recognized that in the phone call. And so we talked about how we'll
continue to collaborate and work together.

Jim.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier. Do you
agree with those in your party, including the Vice President, who have said
or implied that Democratic voters emboldened al Qaeda types by choosing Ned
Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and then as a message that how Americans vote
will send messages to terrorists abroad? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome. What all of us in this administration have
been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send
the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world.
That's what we're saying. It's an honest debate and it's an important
debate for Americans to listen to and to be engaged in. In our judgment,
the consequences for defeat in Iraq are unacceptable.

I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the
first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq
would look like if the United States leaves before this government can
defend itself and sustain itself. Chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in
the region. Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that
America really is no longer engaged, nor cares about the form of
governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would send
a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it.
Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're
saying.

I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me.
This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with
understanding the world in which we live. It's like the other day I was
critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about the
terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion, and
that's why we're appealing it. And I have no -- look, I understand how
democracy works: quite a little bit of criticism in it, which is fine;
that's fine, it's part of the process. But I have every right, as do my
administration, to make it clear what the consequences would be of policy,
and if we think somebody is wrong or doesn't see the world the way it is,
we'll continue to point that out to people.

And, therefore, those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement
the tools necessary to protect the American people simply don't see the
world the way we do. They see, maybe these are kind of isolated incidents.
These aren't isolated incidents, they're tied together. There is a global
war going on. And somebody said, well, this is law enforcement. No, this
isn't law enforcement, in my judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a
simple, singular response to the problem. This is a global war on terror.
We're facing extremists that believe something, and they want to achieve
objectives. And therefore, the United States must use all our assets, and
we must work with others to defeat this enemy. That's the call. And we --
in the short run, we've got to stop them from attacking us. That's why I
give the Tony Blair government great credit, and their intelligence
officers, and our own government credit for working with the Brits to stop
this attack.

But you know something -- it's an amazing town, isn't it, where they say,
on the one hand, you can't have the tools necessary -- we herald the fact
that you won't have the tools necessary to defend the people, and sure
enough, an attack would occur, and they say, how come you don't have the
tools necessary to defend the people? That's the way -- that's the way we
think around this town.

And so we'll -- Jim, we'll continue to speak out, in a respectful way,
never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize their
strategies or their point of view. And, you know, for those who say that,
well, all they're trying to say is, we're not patriotic, simply don't
listen to our words very carefully, do they?

What matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different point
of view. And there are a lot of people in the Democrat Party who believe
that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done,
period. And they're wrong. And the American people have got to understand
the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're not going to
leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete the mission in Iraq.
I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done, but I do know that
it's important for us to support the Iraqi people, who have shown
incredible courage in their desire to live in a free society. And if we
ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have
lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned.

Ann.

Q Is that a make-or-break issue for you in terms of domestic politics?
There's a Republican in Pennsylvania who says he doesn't think the troops
should -- would you campaign for Mike Fitzpatrick?

THE PRESIDENT: I already have.

Q And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose Republican
candidate may support you, but he supports you, too, on Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to stay out of Connecticut. (Laughter.)

Q You were born there.

THE PRESIDENT: Shhh. (Laughter.) I may be the only person -- the only
presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was born. Do
you think that's right, Herman? Of course, you would have researched that
and dropped it out for everybody to see -- particularly since I dissed that
just ridiculous looking outfit. (Laughter.)

Q Your mother raised you better than that, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: That is -- so I'm not going to say it --

Q There is Al Gore.

THE PRESIDENT: I don't want anybody to know that I think it's ridiculous.
Look, I'm not through yet.

Q -- make-or-break issue for you?

THE PRESIDENT: And by the way, I'm staying out of Connecticut because
that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of Connecticut. And
plus, there's a better place to spend our money, time, and resources --

Q But you're the head --

THE PRESIDENT: Right, I've listened to them very carefully. I'm a
thoughtful guy, I listen to people. (Laughter.) I'm open-minded. I'm all
the things that you know I am.

The other part of your question? Look, issues are won based upon whether or
not you can keep this economy strong -- elections are won based upon
economic issues and national security issues. And there's a fundamental
difference between many of the Democrats and my party, and that is, they
want to leave before the job is completed in Iraq. And again, I repeat,
these are decent people. They're just as American as I am. I just happen to
strongly disagree with them. And it's very important for the American
people to understand the consequences of leaving Iraq before the job is
done.

This is a global war on terror. I repeat what our major general said -- or
leading general said in the region. He said, "If we withdraw before the job
is done, the enemy will follow us here." I strongly agree with that. And if
you believe that the job of the federal government is to secure this
country, it's really important for you to understand that success in Iraq
is part of securing the country.

We're talking about a long-term issue here, as well, Ann. In the
short-term, we've got to have the tools necessary to stop terrorist attack.
That means good intel, good intelligence-sharing, the capacity to know
whether al Qaeda is calling into this country and why. We've got to have
all those tools -- the Patriot Act, tearing down those walls between intel
and law enforcement are a necessary part of protecting the country. But in
the long-term, the only way to defeat this terrorist bunch is through the
spread of liberty and freedom.

And that's a big challenge. I understand it's a challenge. It requires
commitment and patience and persistence. I believe it's a challenge of this
-- the challenge for this generation. I believe we owe it to our children
and grandchildren to stay engaged and to help spread liberty, and to help
reformers.

Now, ultimately, success is going to be up to the reformers. Just like in
Iraq, it's going to require Iraqis -- the will of Iraqis to succeed. I
understand that. And that's why our strategy is to give them to tools
necessary to defend themselves and help them defend themselves, in this
case, right now, mainly in Baghdad, but, as well, around the country.

At home, if I were a candidate, if I were running, I'd say, look at what
the economy has done. It's strong. We created a lot of jobs -- let me
finish my question, please. These hands going up. I'm not -- I'm kind of
getting old, and just getting into my peroration. (Laughter.) Look it up.
(Laughter.)

I'd be telling people that the Democrats will raise your taxes. That's what
they said. I'd be reminding people that tax cuts have worked in terms of
stimulating the economy. I'd be reminding people there's a philosophical
difference between those who want to raise taxes and have the government
spend the money, and those of us who say, you get to spend the money the
way you see fit, it's your money. I'd remind people that pro-growth
economic policies have helped us cut that deficit faster than we thought.

I'd also remind people if I were running that the long-term problem facing
the budget is Social Security and Medicare. And they look -- Republican or
Democrat ought to say, I look forward to working with the President to
solve the problem. People expect us to come here to solve problems, and
thus far, the attitude has been, let's just kind of ignore what the
President has said and just hope somebody else comes and solves it for us.
That's what I'd be running on. I'd be running on the economy, and I'd be
running on national security. But since I'm not running, I can only serve
as an advisor to those who are.

Yes, Herman.

Q Thank you, sir. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I don't need to, now that you've stood up and everybody can
clearly see for themselves. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the war in
Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your belief that
long-term results will vindicate your strategy and people will change their
mind about it, or is this the kind of thing you're doing because you think
it's right and you don't care if you ever gain public support for it? Thank
you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Look, Presidents care about whether people
support their policies. I don't mean to say, I don't care. Of course, I
care. But I understand why people are discouraged about Iraq, I can
understand that. We live in a world in which people hope things happen
quickly, and this is a situation where things don't happen quickly, because
there's a very tough group of people using tactics, mainly the killing of
innocent people, to achieve their objective. And they're skillful about how
they do this, and they also know the impact of what it means on the
consciousness of those of us who live in the free world. They know that.

And so, yes, I care, I really do. I wish -- and so, therefore, I'm going to
spend a lot of time trying to explain as best I can why it's important for
us to succeed in Iraq.

Q Can I follow --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. On the other hand, Ken, I don't think you've
ever heard me say -- and you've now been covering me for quite a while, 12
years -- I don't think I've -- 12 years? Yes. I don't think you've ever
heard me say, gosh, I'd better change positions because the polls say this
or that. I've been here long enough to understand you cannot make good
decisions if you're trying to chase a poll. And so the second part of your
question is, look, I'm going to do what I think is right, and if people
don't like me for it, that's just the way it is.

Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out
seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How
do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam
Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was
paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with
Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea
is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we
went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass
destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make
weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in
Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my
question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in
which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of
the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came
and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we
arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It
just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked
us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in
the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever
suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.
Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they
fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of
September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that
resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists
who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have
made that case.

And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best
way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq
that we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully
materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to
remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without
him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed
by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political
process are suggesting.

Last question. Stretch. Who are you working for, Stretch?

Q Washington Examiner.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, good. Glad you found work. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you very much. Mr. President, some pro-life groups are worried that
your choice of FDA Commissioner will approve o