Text 3492, 902 rader
Skriven 2006-10-25 23:31:40 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (061025) for Wed, 2006 Oct 25
===================================================

===========================================================================
Press Conference by the President
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 25, 2006

Press Conference by the President
The East Room

President's Remarks view


10:31 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. I'm going to spend a little more
time on my opening comments than I usually do, but I'll save plenty of time
for questions.

Over the past three years I have often addressed the American people to
explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were encouraging,
such as the capture of Saddam Hussein, the elections in which 12 million
Iraqis defied the terrorists and voted for a free future, and the demise of
the brutal terrorist Zarqawi. Other developments were not encouraging, such
as the bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did
not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss
of some of America's finest sons and daughters.

Recently, American and Iraqi forces have launched some of the most
aggressive operations on enemy forces in Baghdad since the war began.
They've cleared neighborhoods of terrorists and death squads, and uncovered
large caches of weapons, including sniper scopes and mortars and powerful
bombs. There has been heavy fighting. Many enemy fighters have been killed
or captured, and we've suffered casualties of our own. This month we've
lost 93 American service members in Iraq, the most since October of 2005.
During roughly the same period, more than 300 Iraqi security personnel have
given their lives in battle. Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable
violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias,
armed groups, and criminals.

The events of the past month have been a serious concern to me, and a
serious concern to the American people. Today I will explain how we're
adapting our tactics to help the Iraqi government gain control of the
security situation. I'll also explain why, despite the difficulties and
bloodshed, it remains critical that America defeat the enemy in Iraq by
helping the Iraqis build a free nation that can sustain itself and defend
itself.

Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the war on
terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan under the
Taliban. The enemy we face in Iraq has evolved over the past three years.
After the fall of Saddam Hussein, a sophisticated and a violent insurgency
took root. Early on this insurgency was made up of remnants of Saddam
Hussein's Baath Party, as well as criminals released by the regime. The
insurgency was fueled by al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists, who focused
most of their attention on high-profile attacks against coalition forces
and international institutions.

We learned some key lessons from that early phase in the war. We saw how
quickly al Qaeda and other extremist groups would come to Iraq to fight and
try to drive us out. We overestimated the capability of the civil service
in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the Iraqi people. We
did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican Guard, to melt away
in the way that it did in the phase of advancing coalition forces.

Despite these early setbacks, some very important progress was made, in the
midst of an incredibly violent period. Iraqis formed an interim government
that assumed sovereignty. The Iraqi people elected a transitional
government, drafted and adopted the most progressive democratic
constitution in the Arab world, braved the car bombs and assassins to
choose a permanent government under that constitution, and slowly began to
build a capable national army.

Al Qaeda and insurgents were unable to stop this progress. They tried to
stand up to our forces in places like Fallujah, and they were routed. So
they changed their tactics. In an intercepted letter to Osama bin Laden,
the terrorist Zarqawi laid out his strategy to drag Iraq's Shia population
into a sectarian war. To the credit of the Shia population, they resisted
responding to the horrific violence against them for a long time.

Yet the persistent attacks, particularly last February's bombing of the
Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of Shia Islam's most holy shrines, eventually
resulted in sectarian reprisals. The cycle of violence, in which al Qaeda
insurgents attacked Shia civilians and Shia death squads retaliated against
Sunnis, has sharply increased in recent months, particularly in Baghdad.

As the enemy shifts tactics, we are shifting our tactics, as well.
Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or
standing in the crossfire between rival factions. Our mission is to help
the elected government in Iraq defeat common enemies, to bring peace and
stability to Iraq, and make our nation more secure. Our goals are
unchanging. We are flexible in our methods to achieving those goals.

On the military side, our commanders on the ground are constantly adjusting
our tactics to stay ahead of our enemies. We are refining our training
strategy for the Iraqi security forces so we can help more of those forces
take the lead in the fight, and provide them better equipment and fire
power to be successful. We've increased the number of coalition advisors in
the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior so they can better plan and
execute security operations against the enemy.

We have changed our force structure so we can better respond to the
conditions on the ground. For example, during the Iraqi elections, we
increased our force levels to more than 150,000 troops to ensure people
could vote. Most recently, we have moved additional coalition and Iraqi
forces into Baghdad so they can help secure the city and reduce sectarian
violence.

After some initial successes, our operations to secure Baghdad have
encountered greater resistance. Some of the Iraqi security forces have
performed below expectations. Many have performed well and are fighting
bravely in some of Baghdad's toughest neighborhoods. Once again, American
troops are performing superbly under very difficult conditions. Together,
with the Iraqis, they've conducted hundreds of missions throughout Baghdad.
They've rounded up or killed key insurgents and death squad leaders.

As we fight this enemy, we're working with the Iraqi government to perform
the performance -- to improve the performance of their security forces, so
they can regain control of the nation's capital, and eventually resume
primary responsibility for their country's security.

A military solution alone will not stop violence. In the end, the Iraqi
people and their government will have to make the difficult decisions
necessary to solve these problems. So, in addition to refining our military
tactics to defeat the enemy, we're also working to help the Iraqi
government achieve a political solution that brings together Shia and
Sunnis and Kurds and other ethnic and religious groups.

Yesterday, our Ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad laid out a three-step
approach. First, we're working with political and religious leaders across
Iraq, urging them to take steps to restrain their followers and stop
sectarian violence.

Second, we're helping Iraqi leaders to complete work on a national compact
to resolve the most difficult issues dividing their country. The new Iraqi
government has condemned violence from all quarters and agreed to a
schedule for resolving issues, such as disarming illegal militias and death
squads, sharing oil revenues, amending the Iraqi constitution, and
reforming the de-Baathification process.

Third, we're reaching out to Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and
Jordan, and asking them to support the Iraqi government's efforts to
persuade Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms and accept national
reconciliation. The international community is also supporting the
international compact that outlines the support that will be provided to
Iraq as it moves forward with its own program of reform.

These are difficult tasks for any government. It is important for Americans
to recognize that Prime Minister Maliki's unity government has been in
office for just over five months. Think about that. This young government
has to solve a host of problems created by decades of tyrannical rule. And
they have to do it in the midst of raging conflict, against extremists from
outside and inside the country who are doing everything they can to stop
this government from succeeding.

We're pressing Iraq's leaders to take bold measures to save their country.
We're making it clear that America's patient [sic] is not unlimited. Yet we
also understand the difficult challenges Iraq's leaders face, and we will
not put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it can bear. The way to
succeed in Iraq is to help Iraq's government grow in strength and assume
more control over its country as quickly as possible.

I know the American people understand the stakes in Iraq. They want to win.
They will support the war as long as they see a path to victory. Americans
can have confidence that we will prevail because thousands of smart,
dedicated military and civilian personnel are risking their lives and are
working around the clock to ensure our success. A distinguished independent
panel of Republicans and Democrats, led by former Secretary of State Jim
Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, is taking a fresh look at the
situation in Iraq and will make recommendations to help achieve our goals.
I welcome all these efforts. My administration will carefully consider any
proposal that will help us achieve victory.

It's my responsibility to provide the American people with a candid
assessment on the way forward. There is tough fighting ahead. The road to
victory will not be easy. We should not expect a simple solution. The fact
that the fighting is tough does not mean our efforts in Iraq are not worth
it. To the contrary; the consequences in Iraq will have a decisive impact
on the security of our country, because defeating the terrorists in Iraq is
essential to turning back the cause of extremism in the Middle East. If we
do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in Iraq, they will gain access
to vast oil reserves, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate
governments across the broader Middle East. They will launch new attacks on
America from this new safe haven. They will pursue their goal of a radical
Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia.

I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I'm not
satisfied, either. And that is why we're taking new steps to help secure
Baghdad, and constantly adjusting our tactics across the country to meet
the changing threat. But we cannot allow our dissatisfaction to turn into
disillusionment about our purpose in this war. We must not look at every
success of the enemy as a mistake on our part, cause for an investigation,
or a reason to call for our troops to come home. We must not fall prey to
the sophisticated propaganda by the enemy, who is trying to undermine our
confidence and make us believe that our presence in Iraq is the cause of
all its problems

If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's security, I'd
bring our troops home tomorrow. I met too many wives and husbands who have
lost their partners in life, too many children who won't ever see their mom
and dad again. I owe it to them and to the families who still have loved
ones in harm's way to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.

Our country has faced adversity before during times of war. In past wars,
we've lost young Americans who gave everything to protect our freedom and
way of life. In this war, we've lost good men and women who've given their
lives for a cause that is necessary and it is just. We mourn every loss,
and we must gird ourselves for the sacrifices that are yet to come.
America's men and women in uniform are the finest in the world. I'm awed by
their strength and their character. As General Casey reported yesterday in
Iraq, "the men and women of the Armed Forces... have never lost a battle in
over three years in the war." Every American can take pride in our troops,
and the vital work they are doing to protect us.

Our troops are fighting a war that will set the course for this new
century. The outcome will determine the destiny of millions across the
world. Defeating the terrorists and extremists is the challenge of our time
and the calling of this generation. I'm confident this generation will
answer that call and defeat an ideology that is bent on destroying America
and all that we stand for.

And now I'll be glad to answer some of your questions. Terry.

Q Mr. President, the war in Iraq has lasted almost as long as World War II
for the United States. And as you mentioned, October was the deadliest
month for American forces this year -- in a year. Do you think we're
winning, and why?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, this is a different kind of war than a war
against the fascists in World War II. We were facing a nation state -- two
nation states -- three nation states in World War II. We were able to find
an enemy by locating its ships, or aircraft, or soldiers on the ground.
This is a war against extremists and radicals who kill innocent people to
achieve political objectives. It has a multiple of fronts.

Afghanistan was a front in this war against the terrorists. Iraq is now the
central front in the war against the terrorists. This war is more than just
finding people and bringing them to justice; this war is an ideological
conflict between a radical ideology that can't stand freedom, and moderate,
reasonable people that hope to live in a peaceful society.

And so it's going to take a long time, Terry. I am confident we will
succeed. I am confident we'll succeed in Iraq. And the reason I'm confident
we'll succeed in Iraq is because the Iraqis want to succeed in Iraq. The
ultimate victory in Iraq, which is a government that can sustain itself,
govern itself, and defend itself, depends upon the Iraqi citizens and the
Iraqi government doing the hard work necessary to protect their country.
And our job is to help them achieve that objective. As a matter of fact, my
view is the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done.

And I'm confident we can succeed in the broader war on terror, this
ideological conflict. I'm confident because I believe the power of liberty
will defeat the ideology of hate every time, if given a chance. I believe
that the radicals represent the few in the Middle East. I believe the
majority of people want to live in a peaceful world. That's what I believe.

And I know it's incumbent upon our government and others who enjoy the
blessings of liberty to help those moderates succeed because, otherwise,
we're looking at the potential of this kind of world: a world in which
radical forms of Islam compete for power; a world in which moderate
governments get toppled by people willing to murder the innocent; a world
in which oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order to extract
blackmail from the West; a world in which Iran has a nuclear weapon. And if
that were to occur, people would look back at this day and age and say,
what happened to those people in 2006? How come they couldn't see the
threat to a future generation of people?

Defeat will only come if the United States becomes isolationist and refuses
to, one, protect ourselves, and, two, help those who desire to become -- to
live in a moderate, peaceful world. And it's a hard struggle, no question
about it. And it's a different struggle.

Q Are we winning?

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely, we're winning. Al Qaeda is on the run. As a
matter of fact, the mastermind, or the people who they think is the
mastermind of the September the 11th attacks is in our custody. We've now
got a procedure for this person to go on trial, to be held for his account.
Most of al Qaeda that planned the attacks on September the 11th have been
brought to justice.

Extremists have now played their hand; the world can clearly see their
ambitions. You know, when a Palestinian state began to show progress,
extremists attacked Israel to stop the advance of a Palestinian state. They
can't stand democracies. Extremists and radicals want to undermine fragile
democracy because it's a defeat for their way of life, their ideology.

People now understand the stakes. We're winning, and we will win, unless we
leave before the job is done. And the crucial battle right now is Iraq. And
as I said in my statement, I understand how tough it is, really tough. It's
tough for a reason; because people understand the stakes of success in
Iraq. And my point to the American people is, is that we're constantly
adjusting our tactics to achieve victory.

Steve.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Are you considering sending more U.S. troops to
Iraq? What would be the justification for it? And how reliable is this new
timetable of 12 to 18 months?

THE PRESIDENT: I will send more troops to Iraq if General Casey says, I
need more troops in Iraq to achieve victory. And that's the way I've been
running this war. I have great faith in General Casey. I have great faith
in Ambassador Khalilzad. I trust our commanders on the ground to give the
best advice about how to achieve victory. I want to remind you, victory is
a government that can sustain itself, govern itself -- a country that can
govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and serves as an ally in
the war on terror -- which stands in stark contrast to a government that
would be chaotic, that would be a safe haven for the enemy to launch
attacks on us.

One way for the American people to understand what Iraq could look like is
what Afghanistan looked like under the Taliban, a place where there was no
freedom; a place where women were taken to the public square and beaten if
they did not adhere to the strict, intolerant guidelines of the Taliban; a
place where thousands trained to attack America and our allies. Afghanistan
doesn't have nearly the resources that Iraq has. Imagine a safe haven for
an enemy that ended up with the resources that it had.

It is -- and so this is a war where I say to our generals, do you have what
it takes to win. Now, General Casey talked about part of our strategy, and
part of the strategy is to give the Iraq government the tools necessary to
protect itself, to defend itself. If you're able to defend yourself, you're
more likely to be able to govern yourself, as well. But politics -- the
political way forward and the military way forward must go hand in hand.

And what the General was saying yesterday is that there is a three-step
process to enable the Iraqi forces to be able to help this government bring
security. One was to train and equip. The goal is 325,000 troops; 137,000
military and the balance, police.

Second was to put the Iraqi security forces in the lead. Six of ten
divisions now are in the lead in helping this government defend itself. The
strategy has been to embed U.S. personnel, officers and non-com officers,
into these forces to help them gain the confidence and the capacity to be
effective when they're in the lead.

And the third step is for the Iraqi security forces to be able to operate
independently. And this, perhaps, is going to be one of the most difficult
aspects of having the Iraqis ready to go, because that means they have to
be able to drive themselves, maintain their vehicles, provide logistics,
have combat service support. And that's what General Casey was describing.

The key is that our commanders feel that there -- they have got enough
flexibility to design the program to meet the conditions on the ground. You
know, last spring, I thought for a period of time we'd be able to reduce
our troop presence early next year. That's what I felt. But because we
didn't have a fixed timetable, and because General Casey and General
Abizaid and the other generals there understand that the way we're running
this war is to give them flexibility, have the confidence necessary to come
and make the right recommendations here in Washington, D.C., they decided
that that wasn't going to happen. And so what he was describing to you was
the way forward to make sure that the Iraqis are fully prepared to defend
themselves.

Q What about the 12 to 18 month estimate?

THE PRESIDENT: It's a condition, a base estimate. And that's important for
the American people to know. This notion about, you know, fixed timetable
of withdrawal, in my judgment, is a -- means defeat. You can't leave until
the job is done. Our mission is to get the job done as quickly as possible.

Let's see here -- David.

Q Mr. President, for several years you have been saying that America will
stay the course in Iraq; you were committed to the policy. And now you say
that, no, you're not saying, stay the course, that you're adapting to win,
that you're showing flexibility. And as you mentioned, out of Baghdad we're
now hearing about benchmarks and timetables from the Iraqi government, as
relayed by American officials, to stop the sectarian violence.

In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about
benchmarks and timetables were labeled as defeatists, defeat-o-crats, or
people who wanted to cut and run. So why shouldn't the American people
conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic, rhetorical
games and all politics two weeks before an election?

THE PRESIDENT: David, there is a significant difference between benchmarks
for a government to achieve and a timetable for withdrawal. You're talking
about -- when you're talking about the benchmarks, he's talking about the
fact that we're working with the Iraqi government to have certain
benchmarks to meet as a way to determine whether or not they're making the
hard decisions necessary to achieve peace. I believe that's what you're
referring to. And we're working with the Iraqi government to come up with
benchmarks.

Listen, this is a sovereign government. It was elected by the people of
Iraq. What we're asking them to do is to say, when do you think you're
going to get this done, when can you get this done, so the people
themselves in Iraq can see that the government is moving forward with a
reconciliation plan and plans necessary to unify this government.

That is substantially different, David, from people saying, we want a time
certain to get out of Iraq. As a matter of fact, the benchmarks will make
it more likely we win. Withdrawing on an artificial timetable means we
lose.

Now, I'm giving the speech -- you're asking me why I'm giving this speech
today -- because there's -- I think I owe an explanation to the American
people, and will continue to make explanations. The people need to know
that we have a plan for victory. Like I said in my opening comments, I
fully understand if the people think we don't have a plan for victory,
they're not going to support the effort. And so I'll continue to speak out
about our way forward.

Jessica.

Q Sir, you've called Iran part of the "axis of evil" and Syria a "state
sponsor of terrorism." You said earlier today that your administration will
consider any proposal that will help us achieve victory. So I'm wondering,
if it's determined that Iran and Syria could help you achieve victory in
Iraq, would you be willing to work with them?

THE PRESIDENT: Iran and Syria understand full well that the world expects
them to help Iraq. We've made that very clear to them.

Let me talk about the Iranian issue. We've got a lot of issues with Iran.
First is whether or not they will help this young democracy succeed. The
second issue, of course, is whether or not they will help the Lebanese
democracy succeed -- the Siniora government, which is -- a priority of this
government is to help that Siniora government. The big issue right now is
whether or not Iran will end up with a nuclear weapon. And so our issues
with Iran are many. And our position is very clear to the Iranians: There
is a better way forward for the government and the people than to be
isolated.

And we will continue to work to make it clear to the Iranian government
that all three accounts and the sponsor of terrorists will cause more
isolation. We've got a very active diplomatic effort taking place. The
Iranians know our position on Iraq, and they know it clearly. More
importantly, they know the Iraqis' position relative to Iran. We're helping
a sovereign government succeed. And the Iraqis have sent messages to the
Iranians: To help us succeed, don't interfere in the internal affairs.

As to Syria, our message to Syria is consistent: Do not undermine the
Siniora government in Lebanon; help us get back the -- help Israel get back
the prisoner that was captured by Hamas; don't allow Hamas and Hezbollah to
plot attacks against democracies in the Middle East; help inside of Iraq.
They know our position, as well, Jessica.

Q May I just follow? James Baker has, himself, said that he believes the
U.S. should work with Iran. So would you be willing to work with Iran in a
way that allows some sort of negotiations in Iraq, even if they don't come
to the table in the P-3 and P-5 negotiations?

THE PRESIDENT: Jessica, Iran has a chance to come to the table with the
United States to discuss a variety of issues. And the way forward is one
that I had made clear at previous press conferences, and that is, if they
would verifiably stop their enrichment, the United States will be at the
table with them. In the meantime, they understand our position, and they
understand, more importantly, the Iraqi position about their interference
inside their country.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Prime Minister Maliki apparently gave his own
news conference this morning, where he seemed to be referring to Ambassador
Khalilzad and General Casey yesterday, when he said, nobody has the right
to set any timetables in Iraq -- and also, seemed to be upset about the
raid in Sadr City, saying he wasn't consulted. And I believe the quote was,
"It will not be repeated." Do you still have full, complete and total
confidence in Prime Minister Maliki as a partner in Iraq? And what can you
tell the American people about his ability to rein in the militias since he
seems to derive much of his power from them?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First, this is back to the question that David asked
about benchmarks. You called it "timetables."

Q He did, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, he called it "timetables," excuse me. I think he was
referring to the benchmarks that we're developing that show a way forward
to the Iraqi people, and the American people for that matter, about how
this unity government is going to solve problems and bring the people
together. And if his point is, is that those benchmarks, or the way forward
can't be imposed upon Iraq by an outside force, he's right. This is a
sovereign government. But we're working closely with the government to be
able to say, here's what's going to happen then, here's what we expect to
happen now, here's what should be expected in the future.

Second part of your question?

Q I was wondering, first of all, he seemed to be pushing back with --

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on the sectarian -- on the militias. I heard that, and I
asked to see his complete transcript of this press conference, where he
made it very clear that militias harm the stability of his country.
Militias -- people out -- who operate outside the law will be dealt with.
That's what the Prime Minister said in his press conference. The idea that
we need to coordinate with him is a -- makes sense to me. And there's a lot
of operations taking place, which means that sometimes communications may
not be as good as they should be. And we'll continue to work very closely
with the government to make sure that the communications are solid.

I do believe Prime Minister Maliki is the right man to achieve the goal in
Iraq. He's got a hard job. He's been there for five months, a little over
five months, and there's a lot of pressure on him, pressure from inside his
country. He's got to deal with sectarian violence; he's got to deal with
criminals; he's got to deal with al Qaeda -- all of whom are lethal. These
are people that will kill. And he wants to achieve the same objective I
want to achieve, and he's making tough decisions.

I'm impressed, for example, by the way he has got religious leaders, both
Sunni and Shia, to start working together. I appreciate the fact that he
has made a very clear statement on militias. And, by the way, death squad
members are being brought to justice in this -- during these operations in
Baghdad.

I speak to him quite frequently, and I remind him we're with him, so long
as he continues to make tough decisions. That's what we expect. We expect
that the Iraqi government will make the hard decisions necessary to unite
the country and listen to the will of the 12 million people.

Let's see here. Yes, sir, Bret.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. North Korean leaders apparently today warned
South Korea against joining international sanctions, saying South Korea
would pay a high price if they did so. Are you still confident that South
Korea and China will implement the full force of the U.N.-passed sanctions?
And what happens if North Korea continues to thumb its nose at the world?

THE PRESIDENT: I believe that -- first of all, I've been briefed on this
subject recently by the Secretary of State, who just came back from the Far
East. She met with the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Chinese and the
Russians. Her report is that all countries understand we must work closely
together to solve this problem peacefully. And that means adhering to the
latest United Nations Security Council resolution that was passed.

The leader of North Korea likes to threaten. In my judgment, what he's
doing is just testing the will of the five countries that are working
together to convince him there is a better way forward for his people. I
don't know the exact words he used, but he is -- this is not the first time
that he's issued threats. And our goal is to continue to remind our
partners that when we work together, we're more likely to be able to
achieve the objective, which is to solve this problem diplomatically. And
so I would report to you the coalition remains firm, and we will continue
to work to see to it that it does remain firm.

Baker.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for taking questions today.

THE PRESIDENT: What was that?

Q Thank you for taking questions today.

THE PRESIDENT: Baker, I'm just happy to be able to do so, brother.
(Laughter.) I can't tell you how joyful it is. (Laughter.)

Q When you first ran for President, sir, you talked about the importance of
accountability. We learned from Bob Woodward's recent book that Secretary
Card, on two occasions, suggested that you replace Secretary Rumsfeld, and
both times you said, no. Given that the war in Iraq is not going as well as
you want, and given that you're not satisfied as you just told us today,
why hasn't anybody been held accountable? Should somebody be held
accountable?

THE PRESIDENT: Peter, you're asking me why I believe Secretary Rumsfeld is
doing a good job, I think, if I might decipher through the Washington code.

Q -- or someone else --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's start with Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld. I've
asked him to do some difficult tasks as the Secretary of Defense -- one,
wage war in two different theaters of this war on terror, Afghanistan and
Iraq, and at the same time, asked him to transform our military posture
around the world and our military readiness here at home. In other words,
the transformation effort into itself is a big project for any Secretary to
handle. But to compound the job he has, he's got to do that and, at the
same time, wage war. And I'm satisfied of how he's done all his jobs.

He is a smart, tough, capable administrator. As importantly, he understands
that the best way to fight this war, whether it be in Iraq or anywhere else
around the world, is to make sure our troops are ready, that morale is
high, that we transform the nature of our military to meet the threats, and
that we give our commanders on the ground the flexibility necessary to make
the tactical changes to achieve victory.

This is a tough war in Iraq. I mean, it's a hard fight, no question about
it. All you've got to do is turn on your TV. But I believe that the
military strategy we have is going to work. That's what I believe, Peter.
And so we've made changes throughout the war, we'll continue to make
changes throughout the war. But the important thing is whether or not we
have the right strategy and the tactics necessary to achieve that goal. And
I believe we do.

Dick.

Q And from the --

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, let me say -- the ultimate accountability,
Peter, rests with me. That's the ultimate -- you're asking about
accountability, that's -- rests right here. It's what the 2004 campaign was
about. If people want to -- if people are unhappy about it, look right to
the President. I believe our generals are doing the job I asked them to do.
They're competent, smart, capable men and women. And this country owes them
a lot of gratitude and support.

Yes, now Dick, sorry.

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: It was a clever little follow-up you slipped in there.
Sorry, Gregory. I mean, look -- Gregory is still mad he didn't get the
follow-up, but it's okay.

Q You've said, Mr. President, several times here this morning that the
definition of failure in Iraq would be to leave before the job was done.
But you also said that you have no intention of seeing our troops standing
in the crossfire of a sectarian war within that country. With many
observers on the ground saying that civil war in Iraq is as close as it's
ever been, how do you reconcile those two statements? And what happens if a
full-fledged civil war breaks out?

THE PRESIDENT: Dick, our job is to prevent the full-scale civil war from
happening in the first place. It's one of the missions, is to work with the
Maliki government to make sure that there is a political way forward that
says to the people of Iraq, it's not worth it. Civil war is not worth the
effort -- by them. That's the whole objective, is to help this government
be able to defend itself and sustain itself, so that the 12 million people
that voted -- they didn't vote for civil war, they voted to live under a
constitution that was passed. And so we will work to prevent that from
happening. I --

Q What about --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. I view that this is a struggle between
radicals and extremists who are trying to prevent there to be a democracy,
for a variety of reasons. And it's in our interest that the forces of
moderation prevail in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. A defeat there
-- in other words, if we were to withdraw before the job is done, it would
embolden extremists. They would say, you know, we were right about America
in the first place, that America did not have the will necessary to do the
hard work. That's precisely what Osama bin Laden has said, for example. A
defeat there would make it easier for people to be able to recruit
extremists and kids, to be able to use their tactics to destroy innocent
life. A defeat there would dispirit people throughout the Middle East who
wonder whether America is genuine in our commitment to moderation and
democracy.

And I told you what the scenario, Dick, could look like, 20 or 30 years
from now, if we leave before the job is done. It's a serious business. And
that's why I say it's the call of this generation. And I understand how
tough it is, see, but I also said in my remarks, just because the enemy has
been able to make some progress doesn't mean we should leave. Quite the
contrary; we ought to do everything we can to help prevent them from making
progress. And that is what our strategy is.

Elaine.

Q What if there is a civil war?

THE PRESIDENT: You're asking me hypotheticals. Our job is to make sure
there's not one, see. You been around here five-and-a-half years, you know
I won't answer hypotheticals. Occasionally slip up, but --

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You talk about the U.S. government and the
Iraqi government working closely together on benchmarks. I'm wondering,
sir, why was Prime Minister Maliki not at the news conference yesterday
with General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad? Would that not have sent a
strong message about there being a very close level of cooperation between
the two governments?

THE PRESIDENT: Elaine, I have no idea why he wasn't there.

Q Was he invited, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I'm not the scheduler of news conferences. I
do know they work very closely together, and they've got a very close
working relationship, and that's important.

Q May I ask you, sir, following up, when you say that you're not satisfied
with the way things are going in Iraq, why should that not be interpreted
by some to mean that you are dissatisfied with Prime Minister Maliki's
performance?

THE PRESIDENT: Because I know Prime Minister Maliki, I know how hard his
job is, and I understand that he is working to make the decisions necessary
to bring this country together. And he's -- look, we'll push him, but we're
not going to push him to the point where he can't achieve the objective.
And we'll continue to work with him. He represents a government formed by
the people of Iraq. It's a -- and he's got a tough job. I mean, think about
what his job is like. He's got to deal with political factions. He's got to
deal with the hatred that is left over from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

There's a lot of people still furious about what happened to them during
Saddam Hussein's period. You can imagine that. What happens if your brother
or sister had been assassinated by Saddam Hussein and his political party?
You'd be -- you wouldn't be happy about it. Reconciliation is difficult in
a society that had been divided and tortured by a tyrant.

And Prime Minister Maliki has got the difficult job of reconciling these
grievances, and different political parties on top of that, plus dealing
with violence. I've talked to him a lot. I like his spirit, I like his
attitude. He's confident we can achieve the mission. He's not -- he's
realistic about how difficult it is in Iraq.

It's in our government's interest that we help him succeed because he wants
a unified country. And I believe we will succeed. I know we're not going to
succeed, however, if we set artificial timetables for withdrawal, or we get
out of there, or we say to the enemy, just keep fighting, we'll leave soon.
That's not going to work. What will work is a strategy that's constantly --
tactics that constantly change to meet the enemy. And that's what I was
describing in my speech, we're constantly adjusting. As the enemy changes,
we change. War is not a -- this war, and other wars, they're not static.
They're dynamic events. And we must adjust to meet those events, and we
are.

Jim.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Does the United States want to maintain
permanent bases in Iraq? And I would follow that by asking, are you willing
to renounce a claim on permanent bases in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Jim, any decisions about permanency in Iraq will be made by
the Iraqi government. And, frankly, it's not in much of a position to be
thinking about what the world is going to look like five or 10 years from
now. They are working to make sure that we succeed in the short-term. And
they need our help. And that's where our focus is.

But remember, when you're talking about bases and troops, we're dealing
with a sovereign government. Now, we entered into an agreement with the
Karzai government. They weren't called permanent bases, but they were
called arrangements that will help this government understand that there
will be a U.S. presence so long as they want them there. And at the
appropriate time, I'm confident we'll be willing to sit down and discuss
the long-term security of Iraq. But right now we're discussing how to bring
security to Baghdad, and what do we do in al Anbar province, where al Qaeda
still uses violent methods to achieve political objectives.

You know, it's interesting, if you -- I'm sure people who watch your TV
screens think the entire country is embroiled in sectarian conflict and
that there's constant killing everywhere in Iraq. Well, if you listened to
General Casey yesterday, 90 percent of the action takes place in five of
the 18 provinces. And around Baghdad, it's limited to a 30-mile area. And
the reason I bring that up is that while it seems to our American citizens
that nothing normal is taking place -- and I can understand why, it's a
brutal environment there, particularly that which is on our TV screens --
that there is farmers farming, there are small businesses growing, there's
a currency that's relatively stable, there's an entrepreneurial class,
there's commerce. General Abizaid was describing to me what it was like to
go to Baghdad markets.

There's a lot of work to be done, don't get me wrong, but it is -- there
are people living relatively normal lives who I believe -- strongly believe
that they want to continue that normalcy, and it's up to Prime Minister
Maliki to do everything he can to make the situation as secure as possible.

Ann. Sorry, Rutenberg, you're through.

Q Thank you, sir. Is the coming election a referendum on Iraq? Should it
be?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the coming election is a referendum on these two
things: which party has got the plan that will enable our economy continue
-- to continue to grow, and which party has a plan to protect the American
people. And Iraq is part of the security of the United States. If we
succeed -- and when we succeed in Iraq, our country will be more secure. If
we don't succeed in Iraq, the country is less secure.

The security of this country -- and look, I understand here in Washington,
some people say we're not at war. I know that. They're just wrong in my
opinion.

The enemy still wants to strike us. The enemy still wants to achieve safe
haven from which to plot and plan. The enemy would like to have weapons of
mass destruction in order to attack us. These are lethal, cold-blooded
killers. And we must do everything we can to protect the American people,
including questioning detainees, or listening to their phone calls from
outside the country to inside the country. And there was -- as you know,
there was some recent votes on that issue. And the Democrats voted against
giving our professionals the skill -- the tools necessary to protect the
American people.

I will repeat, like I've said to you often, I do not question their
patriotism; I question whether or not they understand how dangerous this
world is. And this is a big issue in the campaign. Security of the country
is an issue, just like taxes are an issue. If you raise taxes, it will hurt
the economy. If you don't extend the tax cuts, if you don't make them -- in
other words, if you let the tax cuts expire, it will be a tax increase on
the American people.

Take the child tax credit; if it is not made permanent, in other words, if
it expires, and you got a family of four sitting around the breakfast
table, the taxpayers can be sure that their taxes will go up by $2,000 --
$500 for that child, $500 for the one right there, $500 for this one, and
$500 for that one. That is a tax increase. And taking $2,000 out of the
pockets of the working people will make it harder to sustain economic
growth.

So the two issues I see in the campaign can be boiled down to who best to
protect this country, and who best to keep taxes low. That's what the
referendum is about.

Let's see here -- David. Hold on for a minute. David.

Q Thank you, sir. You've long talked about the importance when the federal
government is involved in an effort, spending money and resources, of
measuring success, accountability, as Peter said. Now you've set some
benchmarks on the Maliki government. You've said that you're expecting him
to make tough decisions. Can you tell the American people how you plan to
measure his success in reaching those benchmarks, and what happens if he
doesn't hit those benchmarks?

THE PRESIDENT: David, the first objective is to develop benchmarks that the
government agrees with and that we think are important. You can't -- it's
really important for the American people to understand that to say, okay,
these are the benchmarks you must live with, is not going to work nearly as
effectively as if we have -- when we have buy-in from the government
itself, the sovereign government of Iraq.

And so the step is to say to the Maliki government, which we're doing, let
us work in concert to develop a series of benchmarks to achieve different
objectives. And the purpose of that is to assure the Iraqi people that this
unity government is going to work to -- for the improvement of the Iraqi
people. In other words, it will be beneficial for the government to say to
the Iraqi people, here is what we intend to do and here's when we intend to
do it.

It will also be beneficial for the American people to be able to see that
this Iraqi government is going to make the difficult decisions necessary to
move forward, to achieve the goal. And that's what we're talking about when
it comes to benchmarks. It's -- again, I repeat: One should not expect our
government to impose these benchmarks on a sovereign government. You'd
expect us to work closely with that government to come up with a way
forward that the government feels comfortable with. And there's probably
going to be some bones of contention during these discussions, but,
nevertheless, we'll respect the fact that the Iraq government is sovereign,
and they must respect the fact that we've got patience, but not unlimited
patience.

Q What happens if that patience runs out?

THE PRESIDENT: See, that's that hypothetical Keil is trying to get me to
answer. Why do we work to see to it that it doesn't work out -- run out?
That's the whole objective. That's what positive people do. They say, we're
going to put something in place and we'll work to achieve it.

Let's see here. Steven.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. With a Republican Congress, you failed to
achieve three major goals of your second term: Social Security reform, a
tax code overhaul, and a comprehensive immigration bill. Why shouldn't
Americans give Democrats a chance to work with you on those issues,
especially when divided government seemed to work in the late 1990s on the
budget?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a tricky little question there. (Laughter.) First, I
haven't given up on any of those issues. I've got two years left to achieve
them. And I firmly believe it is more likely to achieve those three
objectives with a Republican-controlled Congress and a
Republican-controlled Senate. And I believe I'll be working with a
Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican-controlled Senate.

I understand here in Washington people have already determined the outcome
of the election, like it's over even before the people actually start
heading -- voting. But that's not what I see when I'm on the campaign
trail. Yes, we've got some people dancing in the end zone here in
Washington, D.C.; they've got them measuring their drapes; they're going
over to the Capitol, and saying, my new office looks beautiful, I think I'm
going to have this size drape there, or this color. But the American people
are going to decide, and they're going to decide this race based upon who
best to protect the American people and who best to keep the taxes low.

Secondly, I'll tell you what I see -- you didn't ask, but I'm going to tell
you anyway. I see there's a lot of enthusiasm amongst the grassroots
activists. Our people are going out there to man the phones and to put up
the yard signs. You know, they're showing up when it comes time to -- these
absentee votes. We're organized. We've got a fantastic grassroots
organization to turn out the vote. This campaign has obviously got national
implications to it, no question about it -- the Iraq war, the security of
the country, economic vitality and growth. But each of these elections turn
out to be local in their scope and in their character.

And we've got good candidates running hard. And we're going to win. Now, I
know that defies conventional wisdom here. I'm not suggesting anybody in
this august crowd has determined the outcome of the election already, but
they're running profiles on who this person is going to be running this
office, or this one that's going to be -- magazines have got all kinds of
new stars emerging when they haven't won the votes yet.

And anyway, thanks for asking about the campaign. I'm enjoying it out
there. I like campaigning. It's what guys like me do in order to get here.
We campaign. We shake the hands, you know, and give the speeches. And Laura
is campaigning, too. From my perspective, our people are ready to go out
there and vote for -- vote our candidates back into power.

Let me see here, Michael Allen.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your comment earlier that last spring you
believed that troops would be able to come home early next year --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- I wonder if you could talk to us about how you came to believe that,
and over what period of time, or whether it was a single development
because you realized that wasn't feasible.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, look, Mike, here's the way it works. I meet with
our -- or talk to our generals all the time. And the security situation
looked like at that point in time