Text 4311, 622 rader
Skriven 2007-04-03 23:31:42 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (070403) for Tue, 2007 Apr 3
==================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Makes Remarks on the Emergency Supplemental
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 3, 2007

President Bush Makes Remarks on the Emergency Supplemental The Rose Garden

˙ Video (Windows) ˙˙Presidential Remarks
˙˙Audio

˙˙˙˙˙ Setting The Record Straight: Sen. Reid's Misleading Comments About
Iraq Funding ˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: Renewal in Iraq ˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: Defense

10:09 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I've just had a good meeting with Secretary of
Defense Bob Gates, and General Pete Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. Secretary Gates and General Pace updated me on the deployment of
American reinforcements to Iraq.

At this moment, two of the five additional U.S. Army brigades we are
sending for this mission are operating in Baghdad. A third brigade is now
moving from Kuwait, and will be fully operational in Baghdad in the coming
weeks. And the remaining two brigades will deploy in April and May. It will
be early June before all U.S. forces dedicated to the operation are in
place. So this operation is still in its beginning stages.

The reinforcements we've sent to Baghdad are having a impact. They're
making a difference. And as more of those reinforcements arrive in the
months ahead, their impact will continue to grow. But to succeed in their
mission, our troops need Congress to provide the resources, funds, and
equipment they need to fight our enemies.

It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency
funds for our troops. Instead of passing clean bills that fund our troops
on the front lines, the House and Senate have spent this time debating
bills that undercut the troops, by substituting the judgment of politicians
in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground, setting an
arbitrary deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, and spending billions of
dollars on pork barrel projects completely unrelated to the war.

I made it clear for weeks that if either the House or Senate version of
this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it. And it is also clear from the
strong support for this position in both Houses that the veto would be
sustained. The only way the Democrats were able to pass their bill in the
first place was to load the bill with pork and other spending that has
nothing to do with the war.

There was -- one leading Democrat in the House said, "A lot of things had
to go into that bill that certainly those of us who respect great
legislation did not want there." That's an honest appraisal of the process
that we just witnessed. Still, the Democrats in Congress continue to pursue
their bills, and now they have left Washington for spring recess without
finishing the work.

Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political
battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight
the battles in Iraq. If Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a
political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as
quickly as possible when they come back. I'll veto it, and then Congress
can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and
without delay.

If Congress fails to act in the next few weeks, it will have significant
consequences for our men and women in the Armed Forces. As the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, recently stated during his
testimony before a House subcommittee, if Congress fails to pass a bill I
can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on
equipment, equipment repair, and quality of life initiatives for our Guard
and reserve forces. These cuts would be necessary because the money will
have to be shifted to support the troops on the front lines.

The Army also would be forced to consider curtailing some training for
Guard and reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness and
could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Afghanistan and
Iraq. If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems
grow even more acute. The Army would be forced to consider slowing or even
freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops depend on
is repaired. They will also have to consider delaying or curtailing the
training of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of these
forces to deploy overseas. If this happens, some of the forces now deployed
in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended because other units are not
ready to take their places.

If Congress does not act, the Army may also have to delay the formation of
new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those troops into the
pool of forces that are available to deploy. If these new teams are
unavailable, we would have to ask other units to extend into the theater.

In a letter to Congress, Army Chief of Staff General Pete Schoomaker put it
this way: "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be
forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army
readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."

In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership --
Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our
troops in combat are waiting for the funds. The bottom line is this:
Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that
some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to
return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed
back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I
believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

Members of Congress say they support the troops. Now they need to show that
support in deed, as well as in word. Members of Congress are entitled to
their views and should express them. Yet debating these differences should
not come at the expense of funding our troops.

Congress's most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment
and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation. They're
now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not change course in the
coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and
their loved ones.

I'll now answer some questions, starting with Jennifer Loven.

Q Thank you, sir. You agreed to talk to Syria in the context of --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me?

Q You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the international
conferences on Iraq. What's so different or wrong about Speaker Pelosi
having her own meetings there? And are you worried that she might be
preempting your own efforts?

THE PRESIDENT: We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether
they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals
-- signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad.
And by that, I mean, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President
Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream
of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of
terror; when, in fact, they're helping expedite -- or at least not stopping
the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq; when, in fact, they
have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hezbollah; and
when, in fact, they destabilize the Lebanese democracy.

There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President Assad --
some Americans, but a lot of European leaders and high-ranking officials.
And yet we haven't seen action. In other words, he hasn't responded. It's
one thing to send a message; it's another thing to have the person
receiving the message actually do something. So the position of this
administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad or
people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global
community to help change his behavior. But sending delegations hasn't
worked. It's just simply been counterproductive.

Steve.

Q Thank you, sir. Would the U.S. be willing to give up five Iranians held
in Iraq if it would help persuade Iran to give up the 15 British sailors?

THE PRESIDENT: Steven, I said the other day that -- first of all, the
seizure of the sailors is indefensible by the Iranians, and that I support
the Blair government's attempts to solve this issue peacefully. So we're in
close consultation with the British government. I also strongly support the
Prime Minister's declaration that there should be no quid pro quo's when it
comes to the hostages.

Let's see here -- Baker, Baker. Are you here? Yes, there you are.

Q Sir, your administration evaluated all 93 U.S. attorneys, in part on the
basis of loyalty. That was one of the criteria that was used. What role
should loyalty to you play in the evaluation of those charged with
administering justice and enforcing the law?

THE PRESIDENT: Peter, obviously, when you name a U.S. attorney you want
somebody who can do the job. That's the most important criterion, somebody
who is qualified, somebody who can get a job done. The President names the
U.S. attorneys, and the President has the right to remove U.S. attorneys.
And on this particular issue, the one you're referring to, I believe it's
the current issue of the eight U.S. attorneys, they serve at my pleasure,
they have served four-year terms, and we have every right to replace them.
And --

Q And what --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish, please. I am genuinely concerned about their
reputations, now that this has become a Washington, D.C. focus. I'm sorry
it's come to this. On the other hand, there had been no credible evidence
of any wrongdoing. And that's what the American people have got to
understand. We had a right to remove them; we did remove them. And there
will be more hearings to determine what I've just said, no credible
evidence of wrongdoing.

Bill.

Q Mr. President, a lot of the disagreement over --

THE PRESIDENT: Wrong Bill.

Q Which one, him?

THE PRESIDENT: No, you. The cute-looking one. (Laughter.)

Q Thanks so much. A lot of the disagreement, sir, over the way you're
handling Iraq, disagreements from the public and Congress, stems from the
belief that things are not working, despite the surge. The Iraqis have met
few, if any, of the benchmarks that were laid down for them so far. Senator
McCain walked in the Baghdad marketplace with air cover and a company of
troops. But people don't believe that this can work, and they question the
continued sacrifice of U.S. troops to help make it work.

THE PRESIDENT: Bill, I'm very aware that there are a group of people that
don't think we should be there in the first place. There are some who don't
believe that this strategy will work. I've listened carefully to their
complaints. Obviously, I listened to these concerns prior to deciding to
reinforce. This is precisely the debate we had inside the White House: Can
we succeed? I know there are some who have basically said it is impossible
to succeed. I strongly disagree with those people. I believe not only can
we succeed, I know we must succeed.

And so I decided to, at the recommendation of military commanders, decided
to send reinforcements. As opposed to leaving Baghdad and watching the
country go up in flames, I chose a different route, which was to send more
troops into Baghdad. And General Petraeus, who is a reasoned, sober man,
says there is some progress being made. And he cites murders and -- in
other words, there's some calm coming to the capital. But he also fully
recognizes, as do I, it's still dangerous. In other words, suiciders are
willing to kill innocent life in order to send the projection that this is
an impossible mission.

The whole strategy is to give the Iraqi government time to reconcile, time
to unify the country, time to respond to the demands of the 12 million
people that voted.

You've said the Iraqis haven't met any obligations; I would disagree with
your characterization. They have said that they will send Iraqi forces into
Baghdad to take the lead, along with U.S. troops, to bring security to
Baghdad, and they've done that. They said they'd name a commander for
Baghdad; they have done that. They said they'd send up -- they'd send
troops out into the neighborhoods to clear and hold and then build; they're
doing that. They send they would send a budget up that would spend a
considerable amount of their money on reconstruction; they have done that.
They're working on an oil law that is in progress.

As a matter of fact, I spoke to the Prime Minister yesterday about progress
on the oil law. He reminded me that sometimes the legislature doesn't do
what the executive branch wants them to do. I reminded him, I understand
what he's talking about. But, nevertheless, I strongly agree that we've got
to continue to make it clear to the Iraqi government that this is -- the
solution to Iraq, an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend
itself, is more than a military mission -- precisely the reason why I sent
more troops into Baghdad, to be able to provide some breathing space for
this democratically-elected government to succeed. And it's hard work, and
I understand it's hard work.

Secondly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, Bill, there's only 40
percent of our troops that are there on the ground. And so I find it
somewhat astounding that people in Congress would start calling for
withdrawal even before all the troops have made it to Baghdad.

Let's see here -- Rutenberg. Jim Rutenberg.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Matthew Dowd, your chief campaign strategist in
2004, kind of issued a strong critique of you and your administration this
weekend. I'm wondering if you were personally stunned, and if you worry
about losing support of people -- of him and people like him?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I respect Matthew. I've known him for a while;
as you mentioned, he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign. I have not
talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless, I understand his
anguish over war. I understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew,
as it is a lot of other people in our country. Matthew's case, as I
understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In
other words, he's got a son in the U.S. Armed Forces, and I can understand
Matthew's concerns.

I would hope that people who share Matthew's point of view would understand
my concern about what failure would mean to the security of the United
States. What I'm worried about is that we leave before the mission is done

-- and that is a country that is able to govern, sustain and defend itself
-- and that Iraq becomes a cauldron of chaos which will embolden
extremists, whether they be Shia or Sunni extremists; which would enable
extremists to have safe haven from which to plot attacks on America; which
could provide new resources for an enemy that wants to harm us.

And so, on the one hand, I do fully understand the anguish people go
through about this war. And it's not just Matthew, there's a lot of our
citizens who are concerned about this war. But I also hope that people will
take a sober look at the consequences of failure in Iraq. My main job is to
protect the people, and I firmly believe that if we were to leave before
the job is done, the enemy would follow us here. And what makes Iraq
different from previous struggles is that September the 11th showed that
chaos in another part of the world, and/or safe haven for killers, for
radicals, affects the security of the United States.

Martha.

Q Back to Iran, sir. ABC has been reporting that Iran will be capable of
building a nuclear bomb within two years. Have you seen evidence that Iran
is accelerating its nuclear program?

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen the report that you just referred to. I do
share concerns about Iranian intention to have a nuclear weapon. I firmly
believe that if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, it would be a seriously
destablizing influence in the Middle East. And therefore, we have worked to
build a international coalition to try to convince the Iranians to give up
their weapon, to make it clear that they have choices to make -- whether
the choice be isolation, or missed opportunity to grow their economies. And
so we take your -- we take the

-- we take seriously the attempts of the Iranians to gain a nuclear weapon.

Q Have you seen an acceleration, though?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to talk about any intelligence that I've seen
one way or the other. But I do want you to know how seriously we take the
Iranian nuclear issue. As a matter of fact, it is the cornerstone of our
Iranian policy. It is -- and that's why we spend a lot of time in working
with friends, allies, concerned people to rally international support, to
make it clear to the Iranian people that there is a better option for them.

Now, we have no problem, no beef with the Iranian people. We value their
history; we value their traditions. But their government is making some
choices that will continue to isolate them and deprive them of a better
economic future. So we take the issue very seriously.

Ken Herman.

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, are you aware of the current price of a
gallon of gas? Can you explain why it's gone up so sharply in recent weeks?
And is there anything in the near future indicating that prices might start
coming down again before the heavy summer driving season?

THE PRESIDENT: About $2.60 plus.

Q Where are you shopping, sir? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Nationwide average. The price of gasoline, obviously, varies
from region to region for a variety of reasons. Some has to do with the
amount of taxation at the pump; some of it has to do with the boutique
fuels that have been mandated on a state-by-state basis. But a lot of the
price of gasoline depends on the price of crude oil.

And the price of crude oil is on the rise, and the price of crude oil is on
the rise because people get spooked, for example, when it looks like there
may be a crisis with a crude oil-producing nation, like Iran. But the whole
point about rising crude oil prices and rising gasoline prices is that this
country ought to work hard to get off our addiction to oil -- all the more
reason why Congress ought to pass the mandatory fuel standards that I set
forth, which will reduce our use of gasoline by 20 percent over the next 10
years. And there's two reasons why. One is for national security reasons,
and two is for environmental concerns. And I hope that we can get this done
with the Congress, get it out of the Congress to my desk as quickly as
possible.

Dancer. Dancing man. That would be David Gregory. For those of you not
aware, Gregory put on a show the --

Q Everybody's aware, Mr. President, thank you. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, maybe the listeners aren't.

Q Yes, that's all right.

THE PRESIDENT: That was a beautiful performance, seriously.

Q Thank you. Thank you very much. (Laughter.) Mr. President, you say the
Democrats are undercutting troops, they way they have voted. They're
obviously trying to assert more control over foreign policy. Isn't that
what the voters elected them to do in November?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the voters in America want Congress to support our
troops who are in harm's way. They want money to the troops. And they don't
want politicians in Washington telling our generals how to fight a war.
It's one thing to object to the policy, but it's another thing when you
have troops in harm's way not to give them the funds they need.

And no question there's been a political dance going on here in Washington.
You've followed this closely, you know what I'm talking about. Not only was
there a political dance going on -- in other words, people were trying to
appeal to one side of their party or another -- but they then had to bring
out new funding streams in order to attract votes to a emergency war
supplemental.

And my concern, David, is several. One, Congress shouldn't tell generals
how to run the war; Congress should not short-change our military; Congress
should not use a emergency war spending measure as a vehicle to put pet
spending projects on that have nothing to do with the war.

Secondly, as I mentioned in these remarks, delays beyond mid-April and then
into May will affect the readiness of the U.S. military. So my attitude is,
enough politics. They need to come back, pass a bill -- if they want to
play politics, fine; they continue to do that, I will veto it. But they
ought to do it quickly. They ought to get the bill to my desk as quickly as
possible, and I'll veto it. And then we can get down to the business of
funding our troops without strings and without withdrawal dates.

It is amazing to me that, one, the United States Senate passed a --
confirmed General Petraeus overwhelmingly, after he testified as to what he
thinks is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and then won't fund him. Secondly,
we have put 40 percent of the reinforcements in place, and yet people
already want to start withdrawing before the mission has had a chance to
succeed.

They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it's
got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I'll veto it. And then we
can get down to the business of getting this thing done. And we can do it
quickly. It doesn't have to take a lot of time. And we can get the bill --
get the troops funded, and we go about our business of winning this war.

McKinnon.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. On climate change and the decision that was
issued yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court, what's your reaction to that
decision? And don't you think that this makes some kind of broad caps on
greenhouse gas emissions more or less inevitable?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, the decision of the Supreme Court we take very
seriously. It's the new law of the land. And secondly, we're taking some
time to fully understand the details of the decision. As you know, this
decision was focused on emissions that come from automobiles. My attitude
is, is that we have laid out a plan that will affect greenhouse gases that
come from automobiles by having a mandatory fuel standard that insists upon
using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, which will reduce
our gasoline usage by 20 percent and halt the growth in greenhouse gases
that emanate from automobiles. In other words, there is a remedy available
for Congress. And I strongly hope that they pass this remedy quickly.

In terms of the broader issue, first of all, I've taken this issue very
seriously. I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man
is contributing greenhouse gases, that -- but here are the principles by
which I think we can get a good deal. One, anything that happens cannot
hurt economic growth. And I say that because, one, I care about the working
people of the country, but also because, in order to solve the greenhouse
gas issue over a longer period of time, it's going to require new
technologies, which tend to be expensive. And it's easier to afford
expensive technologies if you're prosperous.

Secondly, whatever we do must be in concert with what happens
internationally, because we could pass any number of measures that are now
being discussed in the Congress, but unless there is an accord with China,
China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a
brief period of time.

And so those are the principles that will guide our decision-making: How do
you encourage new technology? How do you grow the economy? And how do you
make sure that China is -- and India are a part of a rational solution?

Let's see here -- how about Bret Bair?

Q Mr. President, thank you. Since General Pace made his comments that got a
lot of attention about homosexuality, we haven't heard from you on that
issue. Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?

THE PRESIDENT: I will not be rendering judgment about individual
orientation. I do believe the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is good
policy.

Sammon, yes.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: You're standing out there, I can see you.

Q When Congress has linked war funding with a timetable you have argued
micromanagement. When they've linked it to unrelated spending, you've
argued pork barrel. But now there's talk from Harry Reid and others that if
you veto this bill, they may come back and just simply cut off funding.
Wouldn't that be a legitimate exercise of a congressional authority, which
is the power of the purse?

THE PRESIDENT: The Congress is exercising its legitimate authority as it
sees fit right now. I just disagree with their decisions. I think setting
an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. It is a --
it sends mixed signals and bad signals to the region, and to the Iraqi
citizens.

Listen, the Iraqis are wondering whether or not we're going to stay to
help. People in America wonder whether or not they've got the political
will to do the hard work -- that's what Plante was asking about. My
conversations with President [sic] Maliki, he seems dedicated to doing
that. And we will continue to work with him to achieve those objectives.
But they're wondering whether or not America is going to keep commitments.
And so when they hear withdrawal, and timetables, it, rightly so, sends
different kinds of signals.

It's interesting that Harry Reid, Leader Reid spoke out with a different
option. Whatever option they choose, I would hope they get home, get a
bill, and get it to my desk. And if it has artificial timetables of
withdrawal, or if it cuts off funding for troops, or if it tells our
generals how to run a war, I'll veto it. And then we can get about the
business of giving our troops what they need -- what our generals want them
to have, and give our generals the flexibility necessary to achieve the
objectives that we set out by reinforcing troops in Iraq.

You know, what's interesting is you don't hear a lot of debate about
Washington as to what will happen if there is failure. Again, Plante
mentioned that people don't think we can succeed -- in other words, there's
no chance of succeeding. That's a part of the debate. But what people also
have got to understand, what will happen if we fail. And the way you fail
is to leave before the job is done; in other words, just abandon this young
democracy -- say we're tired; we'll withdraw from Baghdad and hope there's
not chaos.

I believe that if this capital city were to fall into chaos, which is where
it was headed prior to reinforcing, that there would be no chance for this
young democracy to survive. That's why I made the decision I made. And the
reason why I believe it's important to help this young democracy survive is
so that the country has a chance to become a stabilizing influence in a
dangerous part of the world.

I also understand that if the country -- if the experience were to fail,
radicals would be emboldened. People that had been -- that can't stand
America would find new ways to recruit. There would be potentially
additional resources for them to use at their disposal.

The failure in Iraq would endanger American security. I have told the
American people often it is best to defeat them there so we don't have to
face them here, fully recognizing that what happens over there can affect
the security here. That's one of the major lessons of September the 11th.
In that case, there was safe haven found in a failed state, where killers
plotted and planned and trained, and came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
And I vowed we weren't going to let that happen again.

Secondly, the way to defeat the ideology that these people believe is
through a competing ideology, one based upon liberty and human rights and
human dignity. And there are some who, I guess, say that's impossible to
happen in the Middle East. I strongly disagree. I know it is hard work. I
believe it is necessary work to secure this country in the long run.

Ed.

Q Mr. President, the conservative newspaper columnist, Robert Novak,
recently wrote that in 50 years of covering Washington, he's never seen a
President more isolated than you are right now. What do you say to critics
like Novak who say that you are more isolated now than Richard Nixon was
during Watergate?

THE PRESIDENT: How did he define "isolated"?

Q He said you're isolated primarily from your own party, that Republican
leaders on the Hill were privately telling him that, on the Gonzales matter
in particular, you're very isolated.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you're going to find that the White House and the
Hill are going to work in close collaboration, starting with this
supplemental. When I announced that I will veto a bill with -- that
withdrew our troops, that set artificial timetables for withdrawal, or
micro-managed the war, the Republicans strongly supported that message. I
think you'll find us working together on energy. They know what I know,
that dependence on oil will affect the long-term national security of the
country. We'll work together on No Child Left Behind. We'll work together
on immigration reform. We'll work together, most importantly, on budget, to
make sure this budget gets balanced without raising taxes.

The other day, the Democrats submitted budgets that raised taxes on the
working people, in order to increase the amount of money they have
available for spending. That is a place where the Republicans and this
President are going to work very closely together. I adamantly oppose tax
increases, and so do the majority of members in the United States Congress.

Ed.

Q Mr. President, good morning. You've talked --

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Good morning, that's a good way to start.

Q You've talked about the consequences of failure in Iraq, and you've said
that enemies would follow us home. I wonder, given that, it seems like
that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of people who are charged with the
responsibility of keeping America safe. So what --

THE PRESIDENT: What was that again, Ed?

Q Well, you say that the enemies would follow us home --

THE PRESIDENT: I will -- that's what they'll do, just like September the
11th. They plotted, planned, and attacked.

Q So I wonder, in your own mind, how does that vision play out? How do they
follow us home? Because we've spent so much money and put so much resources
into making this country safer.

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I'm not going to predict to you the methodology they'll
use. Just you need to know they want to hit us again. We do everything we
can here at the homeland to protect us. That's why I've got a Homeland
Security Department. That's why we are inconveniencing air traffickers, to
make sure nobody is carrying weapons on airplanes. That's why we need
border enforcement, with a comprehensive immigration bill, by the way, to
make sure it's easier to enforce the border. I mean, we're doing a lot.
That's why we need to make sure our intelligence services coordinate
information better.

So we spend a lot of time trying to protect this country. But if they were
ever to have safe haven, it would make the efforts much harder. That's my
point. We cannot let them have safe haven again. The lesson of September
the 11th is, if these killers are able to find safe haven from which to
plot, plan and attack, they will do so.

So, Ed, I don't know what methodology they'll use. We're planning for the
worst. We cover all fronts. And it's hard to protect a big country like
this, and I applaud those who have done a fantastic job of protecting us
since September the 11th. But make no mistake about it, there's still an
enemy that would like to do us harm. And I believe, whether it be in
Afghanistan, or in Iraq, or anywhere else, if these enemy are able to find
safe haven, it will endanger the lives of our fellow citizens.

I also understand that the best way to defeat them in the long run is to
show people in the Middle East, for example, that there is a better
alternative to tyrannical societies, to societies that don't meet the hopes
and aspirations of the average people; and that is through a society that
is based upon the universal concept of liberty.

Iraq is a very important part of securing the homeland, and it's a very
important part of helping change the Middle East into a part of the world
that will not serve as a threat to the civilized world, to people like --
or to the developed world, to people like -- in the United States.

So thank you all very much for your interest. I hope you have a nice
holiday. Appreciate it.

END 10:44 A.M. EDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070403.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)