Text 4392, 854 rader
Skriven 2007-04-19 23:31:02 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0704193) for Thu, 2007 Apr 19
====================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Discusses the Global War on Terror in Tipp City, Ohio
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 19, 2007

President Bush Discusses the Global War on Terror in Tipp City, Ohio Tipp
City High School Tipp City, Ohio

˙˙White House News

˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: Defense

1:05 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. I'm honored you're here. Steve, thank you
for the invitation. It's a real pleasure to be with you. What I thought I
would do is share some thoughts with you about a couple of subjects,
primarily Iraq, and then I'd like to answer some of your questions, on any
topic you'd like to ask me about.

Before I do, I do want to thank Steve and the Chamber of Commerce for
giving me a chance to dialogue with you, and hopefully giving the students
here at this high school a chance to hear from the President firsthand. I
know there are students who will be listening. My mission is to not only
share with you what's on my mind, and why I have made some of the decisions
I have made, but another mission is to convince you that serving the
public, that public service is worthwhile; that you can go into politics or
you can feed the hungry or you can serve in the military, and it's a
fulfilling part of a person's life, and a necessary part, in my judgment,
of a country that is a complete country.

So I want to thank the high school folks. I want to thank Chuck Wray, the
Principal, for greeting me. I appreciate you letting me come to this center
of learning. I particularly want to thank the teachers for teaching. There
is no more noble profession than to be a teacher, and I'm honored to be in
your midst.

I want to thank the Mayor, George Lovett -- George L. (Laughter.) Thank
you, George -- George W. (Laughter.) I'm traveling today with the leader in
the House for the Republican Party, John Boehner. (Applause.) John is a --
I've found him to be a good, solid, honest person. I know he is providing
strong leadership in the House of Representatives. (Applause.) And I know
he cares a lot about this district. I've seen John work issues. I've heard
him speak in depth about what he believes. And I appreciate his leadership,
and I appreciate him joining me today.

I wish I was traveling here with Laura. The best thing about my family is
my wife. (Applause.) She is a great First Lady. I know that sounds not very
objective, but that's how I feel. And she's also patient. Putting up with
me requires a lot of patience. But she sends her best; she's in New Orleans
today.

And I will tell you, one reason -- this may sound counterintuitive, but a
good marriage is really good after serving together in Washington, D.C.
It's been an amazing experience to be a husband and then a dad as President
of the United States. I emphasize, that is the priority for me as the
President. It's my faith, my family, and my country. And I am pleased to
report that our family is doing great, particularly since my wife is such a
fantastic person. And she sends her very best.

Let me say something about Virginia Tech, and I want to first thank Steve
for the moment of silence. You know, it's a -- there is -- the President
spends time at disasters. Part of the job of the presidency is to help
people heal from hurt. And the amazing thing is, though, when you go down
to a scene like Virginia Tech, you can't help but be buoyed by the spirit
that out of the tragedy comes a certain sense of resolve.

One of the things I try to assure the families and the students and the
faculty of that fine university was that there are a lot of people around
our country who are praying for them. It's interesting here in Tipp City,
the first thing that happened was a moment of silence, a moment of prayer,
to provide -- at least my prayer was, please comfort and strengthen those
whose lives were affected by this horrible incident. It really speaks to
the strength of this country, doesn't it, that total strangers here in Ohio
are willing to hold up people in Virginia in prayer. And I thank you for
that. And my message to the folks who still hurt in -- at Virginia Tech is
that a lot of people care about you, and a lot of people think about you, a
lot of people grieve with you, and a lot of people hope you find sustenance
in a power higher than yourself. And a lot of us believe you will.

My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision -- if the job description
were, what do you do -- it's decision-maker. And I make a lot of big ones,
and I make a lot of little ones. Interestingly enough, the first decision I
made happened right before I got sworn in as President. I was at the Blair
House, which is across the street from the White House, getting ready to
give my inaugural address. And the phone rang, and the head usher at the
White House said, "President-elect Bush." I said, "Yes." He said, "What
color rug do you want in the Oval Office?" (Laughter.) I said, this is
going to be a decision-making experience. (Laughter.)

The first lesson about decision-making is, if you're short on a subject,
ask for help. So if you're a student listening and you're not very good at
math, ask for help. Don't be afraid to admit that you need help when it
comes to life. I wasn't afraid to admit I wasn't sure how to design a rug,
so I called Laura. (Laughter.) I said, they've asked me to design a rug in
the Oval Office; I don't know anything about rug designing; will you help
me? She said, of course. But I said, I want it to say something -- the
President has got to be a strategic thinker and I said to her, make sure
the rug says "optimistic person comes to work." Because you can't make
decisions unless you're optimistic that the decisions you make will lead to
a better tomorrow.

And so, if you were to come in the Oval Office, what you would see is this
fantastic rug that looks like the sun. And it just sets the tone for the
Oval Office.

I share that with you because I make a lot of decisions, and I'm optimistic
that the decisions I have made will yield a better tomorrow. The hardest
decision you make is whether or not to commit troops into combat -- people
like this young man, people who served our country with great distinction,
people who volunteer to say, I want to serve the United States. The hardest
decision a President makes is to ask those men and women to go into harm's
way.

My decision making was deeply affected by the attack of September the 11th,
2001. It was a -- it was a moment that defined a dangerous world to me with
absolute clarity. I realized then that this country was no longer
invulnerable to attack from what may be happening overseas.

I realized that there is an enemy of the United States that is active and
is lethal. At further study of that enemy, I realized that they share an
ideology, that these weren't -- that the -- and when you really think about
it, the September the 11th attack was not the first attack. There was a
1993 World Trade Center attack, there was attacks on our embassies in East
Africa, there was an attack on the USS Cole, there have been other attacks
on U.S. citizens, and that these attacks were instigated and carried out by
cold-blooded killers who have a belief system. They are threatened by free
societies. They can't stand the thought of freedom being the prevailing
attitude in the world because their view is, if you don't believe in what I
believe in, you probably shouldn't be around.

This enemy is smart, capable, and unpredictable. They have defined a war on
the United States, and I believe we're at war. I believe the attack on
America made it clear that we're at war. I wish that wasn't the case.
Nobody ought to ever hope to be a war President, or a presidency -- a
President during war.

But that's how I see the world. And I made a vow that I would do everything
I could, and work with members of Congress to do everything they could, to
protect the United States. It is the most solemn duty of our country, is to
protect our country from harm.

A lesson learned was that, at least in my opinion, that in order to protect
us, we must aggressively pursue the enemy and defeat them elsewhere so we
don't have to face them here. In other words, if what happens overseas
matters to the United States, therefore, the best way to protect us is to
deal with threats overseas. In other words, we just can't let a threat
idle; we can't hope that a threat doesn't come home to hurt us. A lesson of
that terrible day was, threats overseas can come home to hurt us. And so
the fundamental question -- and this has led to constructive debate --
it's, what do you do about it?

I've chosen a path that says we will go overseas and defeat them there. I
also know full well that it's important for us if we're facing an ideology,
if we're facing ideologues, if we're confronting people who believe
something, that we have got to defeat their belief system with a better
belief system. Forms of government matter, in my opinion. It matters how --
the nature of the government in which people live. And therefore, I have
put as part of our foreign policy not only an aggressive plan to find
extremists and radicals and bring them to justice before they hurt us, but
also to help people live in liberty -- free societies, as the great
alternative to people living under a tyrant, for example.

And so my decision making was based upon those principles. And now we're
involved in -- I call it a global war against terror. You can't call it a
global war against extremists, a global war against radicals, a global war
against people who want to hurt America; you can call it whatever you want,
but it is a global effort. And by the way, the United States is not alone
in this effort. We're helping lead an effort. And the major battlefield in
this global war is Iraq. And I want to spend some time talking about Iraq.

Living under a tyrant must be just brutal, and living under the reign of
Saddam Hussein was incredibly brutal. A lot of innocent people were killed,
a lot of people were cowed by the state. There really wasn't much in terms
of a civil structure that would enable people to have a form of a
representative government. People were kept apart through violence, in many
ways. People were pitted against each other. A lot of people were given
favored treatment.

The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a difficult decision, I think a
necessary decision. If you want to talk about that later on, we can. And
what has happened since then is that we are trying to help a young
democracy survive in the heart of the Middle East, and at the same time
prevent our stated enemies from establishing safe haven from which to
attack us again.

Now I say that -- preventing our enemies from establishing a safe haven
from which to attack us again -- because that is their stated objective in
Iraq. That's what al Qaeda says. Al Qaeda is the same group of folks that
attacked us on September the 11th. They have said their objective is to
drive the United States out of Iraq in order to establish safe haven. And
why would they need safe haven? They would need safe haven from which to
plot and plan and train to attack again. They have an objective, and that
is to spread their ideology throughout the Middle East. That is what they
have stated. That's their objectives.

Our objective is to deny them safe haven, is to prevent al Qaeda from being
able to do in Iraq that which they did in Afghanistan, which is where they
trained thousands of young men to come and kill -- to eventually kill
innocent people.

Our objective also is to help a young democracy flourish in a part of the
world that desperately needs liberty, in a part of the world where
government -- forms of government will provide hope so as eventually to
discourage the type of mentality that says 19 kids should get on airplanes
and kill 3,000 people.

And it's incredibly hard work, but I have come to the conclusion,
obviously, that it's necessary work. It's necessary work for peace.

In 2005, the Iraqi people went to the polls; 12 million voted. I view that
as a statement that says -- by the way, I wasn't surprised that 12 million
people, if given a chance to vote, voted. I was pleased, but I wasn't
surprised. And the reason I wasn't surprised is because I believe in this
principle: I believe liberty is universal. I don't believe freedom is just
confined to America. I think there is a universal principle that all people
desire and want and should be free, that it's not just an American ideal,
it is universal.

I think back, for example, right after World War II -- people might have
argued after fighting the Japanese that they don't want to be free, they're
the enemy; they killed a lot of people, they attacked the United States;
why should we work to help them be free? Except those people were -- didn't
quite understand not only do people want to be free, that when free
societies emerge they're more likely to yield the peace.

And so it's a -- this country began to evolve, and it started with
elections. It's easy to forget the elections because of all the violence.
In 2006, I was convinced that we would be able to reposition our troops and
have fewer troops in Iraq because the Iraqis want to take on the security
themselves. This is a sovereign government. People got elected. They want
to be -- showing the people of Iraq that they can run their own government.
I don't know if you get that sense on your TV screens or not, but I
certainly get that sense when I talk to the Prime Minister, with whom I
speak quite frequently.

And yet they -- and yet, the enemy -- and the enemy -- when I say, enemy,
these are enemies of free societies, primarily al Qaeda inspired -- blew up
the great religious shrine in '06, a year ago -- all aiming to create a
sense of sectarian violence, all aiming to exacerbate the religious
tensions that sometimes were exacerbated under Saddam Hussein, all aiming
at preventing this young democracy from succeeding. And they succeeded. The
enemy succeeded in causing there to be sectarian strife. In other words,
the government wasn't ready to provide security. People started taking
matters into their own hands. I'm going to protect myself, or I'm going to
rely upon somebody else to protect me, they would say.

So I have a decision point to make, last fall. And the decision point was
whether or not to either scale back or increase our presence in Iraq. And
that was a difficult decision. It's difficult any time, as I told you, you
put a soldier in harm's way. I understand the consequence of committing
people into war. The interesting thing is I'm the Commander-in-Chief of an
incredibly amazing group of men and women who also understand that
consequence, and yet are willing to volunteer.

The question was, do we increase our -- I call it, reinforce, you can call
it, surge, there's all kind of words for it -- or do we pull back? As you
know, I made a decision to reinforce. And I did because I believe the
Iraqis want to have a peaceful society. I believe Iraqi mothers want their
children to grow up in peace, just like American mothers do. I think, if
given a chance, that society can emerge into a free society. I felt
strongly that if violence erupted, sectarian violence erupted in the
capital, it would make it impossible to achieve the objective, and that is
to help this free society. Listen, there are -- or let it emerge into a
free society.

And the goal is a country that is stable enough for the government to work,
that can defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on terror, that
won't be a safe haven, that will deny the extremists and the radicals. I
happen to think there will be an additional dividend when we succeed --
remember the rug? I'm optimistic we can succeed. I wouldn't ask families to
have their troops there if I didn't think, one, it was necessary, and two,
we can succeed. I believe we're going to succeed. And I believe success
will embolden other moderate people that said, we're going to reject
extremists and radicals in their midst.

There's a good group of people in Washington, fair, decent, honorable
people -- and by the way, in this political discourse, we should never
question anybody's patriotism if they don't happen to agree with the
President. That's not the American way. The American way is we ought to
have a honest and open dialogue. There are good people, patriotic people
who didn't believe that additional troops would make that big a difference,
and therefore, we should not increase, but in some cases, pull out; in some
cases, pull back. Either case, having weighed the options, I didn't think
it was viable, and I didn't think it would work.

A couple of points I want to make, and then I promise to stop talking and
answer your questions. People often ask me, what are we seeing on TV?
What's happening with the violence? Here's my best analysis: One, the
spectaculars you see are al Qaeda inspired. They claim credit for a lot of
the big bombings. The bombing of the parliament was al Qaeda; the bombing
of the Golden Samarra was al Qaeda. These are the Sunni extremists inspired
by Osama bin Laden who attacked the United States. I keep repeating that
because I want you to understand what matters overseas, in my judgment,
affects the security of the United States of America in this new era.

Their objective is twofold: One, shake the confidence of the average Iraqi
that their government is incapable of providing security, and therefore,
people will turn to militias in order to protect themselves. Their second
objective is to shake our confidence. It's an interesting war, isn't it,
where asymmetrical warfare is -- and that means people being able to use
suicide bombers -- not only, obviously, kills a lot of innocent people,
like which happened yesterday in Iraq, but also helps define whether or not
we're successful.

If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide bombers,
we'll never be successful. We will have handed al Qaeda "that's what it
takes" in order to determine whether or not these young democracies, for
example, can survive. Think about that: if our definition is no more
suiciders, you've just basically said to the suiciders, go ahead.

Iran is influential inside of Iraq. They are influential by providing
advanced weaponry. They are influential by dealing with some militias, tend
to be Shia militias, all aiming to create discomfort, all aiming to kind of
-- according to some -- to create enough discomfort for the United States,
but in doing so, they're making it harder for this young democracy to
emerge. Isn't it interesting, when you really take a step back and think
about what I just said, that al Qaeda is making serious moves in Iraq, as
is surrogates for Iran.

Two of the biggest issues we face for the security of this country today
and tomorrow is al Qaeda and Iran. And yet their influence is being played
out in Iraq. I believe that if we were to leave before this country had an
opportunity to stabilize, to grow -- and by the way, I fully understand and
completely agree with those who say, this is not just a military mission
alone. That is too much to ask our military to be able to achieve
objectives without there being a corresponding political avenue, political
strategy being fulfilled by the Iraqis. I fully expect them to reconcile. I
fully expect them -- and I made it clear to the Prime Minister -- that they
should pass different de-Baathification law, that they ought to have local
elections, that they ought to share their oil wells so that people feel a
common -- you know, a common bound to something bigger than provincialism.

They have to do work. They know they have to do work. I told that to Prime
Minister Maliki this week on a secure video: You have an obligation to your
people, and to our people, for that matter, to do the hard work necessary,
to show people that you're capable of getting your government to move
forward with political reconciliation. There has to be reconstruction money
spent, their reconstruction money. They've dedicated $10 billion out of
their budget, and now they've got to spend that money wisely to show people
that the government can be for all the people.

But if we were to leave before that were to happen, I will share a scenario
that I'm fearful of. One, that the very radicals and extremists who attack
us would be emboldened. It would confirm their sense that the United States
is incapable of long-term commitments, incapable of -- it would confirm
their commitment that they think we're soft, let me put it to you that way.
That's what they think.

I didn't necessarily mean that the United States has to kind of muscle up
for the sake of muscling up. That's not what I'm trying to say. But I do
believe it is risky to have an enemy that has attacked us before to not
take the United States seriously for the long run.

Secondly, there would be a violence -- level of violence that would spill
out beyond just the capital, could spill out beyond Iraq. And then you
would have ancient feuds fueled by extremists and radicals competing for
power -- radical Shia, radical extreme Sunnis, all competing for power.
They would happen to share two enemies: one, the United States and Israel,
for starters, and every other moderate person in the Middle East.

Imagine a scenario where the oil wealth of certain countries became
controlled -- came under the control of a radical, extremist group. And
then all of a sudden you'd be dealing not only with safe haven for
potential violent attack, you'd be dealing with the economic consequences
of people who didn't share the values of the West, for example.

Iran wants to -- they've stated they'd like to have -- let me just say, we
believe they would like to have a nuclear weapon. Part of our diplomacy is
to prevent them from doing so. If the United States were to leave a chaotic
Iraq, not only would the vacuum of our failure there to help this young
government enable extremists to move more freely and embolden them, but I
also believe it would -- it could cause the Middle East to enter into a
nuclear arms race.

The scenario I'm beginning to describe to you I believe is a real scenario,
a real possibility for a scenario, and I believe if this were to happen,
people would look back 30 years from now, or 20 years from now, and say,
what happened to them in 2007; how come they couldn't see the threat?

And so I want to share that with you -- these thoughts with you, because as
a person whose job it is to make decisions, you've got to understand that
I'm making them on what I believe is solid ground. These are necessary
decisions for the country.

We're having an interesting debate in Washington. John and I spent some
time talking about it, and that is, this supplemental funding. I sent up a
request to make sure our troops had the money necessary to do the missions
that they have been asked to do. I want to share a couple thoughts with you
on that, and then I'll answer some questions.

First, I think it's a mistake -- and I've made it clear -- that the
Congress should not have artificial timetables for withdrawal in a funding
statement. I'll tell you why. (Applause.) Thank you. The reason why is, if
you're a young commander on the ground, or an Iraqi soldier, and you've
been tasked with a mission to help provide security for a city, and an
enemy hears that you're leaving soon, it affects your capacity to do your
job. It sends a signal to a dangerous part of the world that it's just a
matter of time things will happen.

I think it's a mistake for Congress to tell the military how to do its job.
We've got fantastic generals and colonels and captains who are trained to
carry on military missions; that's their responsibility. And it's very
important that they be given the resources and the flexibility necessary to
carry out that which the Commander-in-Chief has asked them to do.

I fully understand the debate, and again I repeat to you, it's an important
debate. I would hope it would be conducted with civil tone to bring honor
to the process. Sometimes it gets a little out of hand there in Washington,
I admit. But my message to the Congress has been, don't put our troops in
between the debate; let's get them the money, let's get the commanders the
flexibility, and we can debate Iraq policy without shorting the capacity
for these troops to do their jobs.

These are -- I would call these times consequential times. I believe we're
in a long, ideological struggle. And I believe the struggle will determine
whether or not this country is secure. People ask me -- you know, I've been
reading a lot of history. People ask me, can you think of any historical
parallels? Well, clearly the Cold War is an interesting parallel. There's a
-- by the way, every new phase of history has its own unique features to
it. For example, you've got a kid in the battlefield and he's emailing home
every day. Or, four-hour [sic] news cycles. There's a lot of --
asymmetrical warfare, or $50 weapons are sometimes used to defeat expensive
vehicles. In other words, these are different times.

But there are some parallels. One is, of course, the ideological standoff
during the Cold War, eventually won by freedom, the forces of freedom. For
some, that sounds maybe corny. But it's true. It's an historical truth. And
in my judgment, it requires people to have faith in that universal
principle of liberty.

I like to remind people that my dad was a 18-year-old kid when he signed up
to -- for the United States Navy in World War II, and went off to combat in
a really bloody war. And yet, his son becomes the President, and one of his
best friends in the international scene was the Prime Minister of Japan.
Prime Minister Koizumi was a partner in peace. Isn't it interesting? I
think there's a historical lesson there, that liberty has got the capacity
to transform enemies to allies.

I think there's a lesson in Korea. I think if you were to ask somebody to
predict in 1953 what the world would look like in the Far East, I don't
think they would have said, China would have a marketplace that was
growing, Korea would be our sixth largest trading partner -- I think it's
the sixth largest trading partner, but certainly a partner in peace. And
Japan would have been an ally, a strong ally that would have committed
troops to the young democracy of Iraq, to help this democracy. I don't
think people would have predicted that, but, in fact, it happened. It
happened because the United States provided enough stability so that
societies were able to evolve toward free societies, or freer societies.

We've got -- we face this -- we face a unique set of challenges, but I
think we can learn something from history when we think about those
challenges. I guess my conclusion is, I believe the decisions I have made
were not only necessary to protect the country, but are laying a foundation
of peace, the beginnings of laying that foundation of peace, so that
generations will look back and say, thank goodness -- thank goodness,
America didn't lose sight of basic principles, and thank goodness, America
stayed true to her beliefs, and thank goodness, America led.

So thanks for letting me share some thoughts with you. And now I'll be glad
to answer some questions. (Applause.)

Okay, thank you. Probably a nerve-wracking experience to think about asking
-- it's not a nerve-wracking experience. Go ahead.

Q -- what is your view of the opposing party --

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. He asked the question about, prior to the meeting
yesterday, there was some concern that I wouldn't listen, that I'd made up
my mind, and therefore, discussions weren't necessary. And I will tell you
we had a very cordial meeting. The Speaker and the Leader, and Minority
Leader and Senator McConnell all came down, along with others.

Clearly, there's different points of view, and that's fine. That's the
greatness about our society. In my discussions with the leaders, I said,
you have the authority to pass the funding legislation. That's your
authority, not mine. I submitted what the Pentagon thinks it needs. In
other words, the process works where I ask the Pentagon, how much do you
need? What do you need to do the job? And they submitted their request, and
then we, on behalf of the Pentagon, sent it up to Congress. And they have
the authority to pass the -- pass the bill any way they see fit.

I have the authority, in our Constitution, to veto the bill if I don't
think it meets certain criteria. They, then, have the authority to say,
well, we don't agree with the President's veto, and now we're going to
override the veto so that that which they passed becomes law. And here's
where we are. I said, get a bill to me as quickly as you can. And I believe
they committed to a bill late next week, or a week from next Monday, I
think is what they're aiming for. And therefore, we will sit back and hope
they get it done quickly. Time is of the essence. We need to get money to
the troops. It's important for them to get the money.

However, I did make it clear that in exercising your authority, if you put
timetables, or if you micro manage -- or artificial deadlines, or micro
manage the war, or insist upon using a war supplemental to load up with
items that are not related to the global war on terror, I will exercise my
constitutional authority, and then you will have the opportunity to
override my veto if you so choose.

My point to the leaders, and it was a very cordial meeting yesterday, by
the way, and people -- the positive news is that we don't -- the negative
thing is we don't agree 100 percent. That's not -- you shouldn't be
surprised. The positive news is that there was a cordial discussion. The
discussion was dignified, like you would hope it would be, and people were
free to express their minds.

And so my attitude is if they feel they've got to send this up there with
their strings, like they said, please do it in a hurry so I can veto it and
then we can get down to the business of getting the troops funded.
(Laughter and applause.)

Q Mr. President, how would you respond to the rather mistaken idea that the
war in Iraq is becoming a war in Vietnam?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. There's a lot of differences. First, the
Iraqi people voted for a modern constitution, and then set up a government
under that constitution. Secondly, the -- that's as opposed to two divided
countries: north and south. In my judgment, the vast majority of people
want to live underneath that constitution they passed. They want to live in
peace. And what you're seeing is radical on the fringe creating chaos in
order to either get the people to lose confidence in their government, or
for us to leave.

A major difference as far as here at home is concerned is that our military
is an all-volunteer army, and we need to keep it that way. By the way, the
way you keep it that way is to make sure our troops have all they need to
do their job, and to make sure their families are happy. (Applause.)

There are some similarities, of course -- death is terrible. Another
similarity, of course, is that Vietnam was the first time a war was brought
to our TV screens here in America on a regular basis. I'm looking around
looking for baby boomers; I see a few of us here. It's a different -- it
was the first time that the violence and horror of war was brought home.
That's the way it is today.

Americans, rightly so, are concerned about whether or not we can succeed in
Iraq. Nobody wants to be there if we can't succeed, especially me. And
these -- violence on our TV screens affects our frame of mind, probably
more so today than what took place in Vietnam. I want to remind you that
after Vietnam, after we left, the -- millions of people lost their life.
The Khmer Rouge, for example, in Cambodia. And my concern is there would be
a parallel there; that if we didn't help this government get going, stay on
its feet, be able to defend itself, the same thing would happen. There
would be the slaughter of a lot of innocent life. The difference, of
course, is that this time around the enemy wouldn't just be content to stay
in the Middle East, they'd follow us here.

It's interesting, I met with some congressman today, and one person
challenged that. He said, I don't necessarily agree with that. In other
words, I have told people that this is a unique war where an enemy will
follow us home, because I believe that. But if you give al Qaeda a safe
haven and enough time to plan and plot, I believe the risk is they will
come and get us. And I freely admit that much of my thinking was affected
on September the 11th, 2001, and the aftermath of September the 11th, 2001.
I wanted to share that with you and the American people so that they
understand that when I make decisions, why I'm making decisions. I can
assure you I'm not going to make any decisions in regard to anybody's life
based upon a poll or a focus group. (Applause.)

Sir. They don't want you to ask the question. They silenced you. Go ahead
and yell.

Q Would you speak, please, a little bit about --

THE PRESIDENT: Now you can use it.

Q Would you speak a little bit about the support, or lack of support that
we're getting from other countries, particularly those countries
surrounding Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Sure.

Q -- Saudi Arabia, so forth?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, sir. First, our mission is getting a lot of
support from the Iraqis. That's the place to first look. Are the Iraqis
willing to make sacrifices necessary for their own country? I think there's
a lot of Americans who wonder whether or not the Iraqis want to live in a
free society, and are willing to do that which is necessary to help their
country succeed. If I felt they weren't, I would not have our troops in
harm's way. Just so you know.

I believe they are. They have suffered unbelievable death and destruction.
Yesterday's bombing -- we don't have the intel on it; I suspect it's al
Qaeda. Al Qaeda convinces the suiciders to show up; al Qaeda understands
the effects of this kind of warfare on the minds of not only people in
Iraq, but here -- and elsewhere in the world.

And yet, the Iraqis continue to recruit for their army and their police
force. I thought it was interesting that the Sunni speaker of the house,
the day that the council chambers were bombed, said, we're going to meet.
These folks have gone through unbelievable horrors, they really have, and
yet they continue to show courage in the face of this kind of violence.

Secondly, there is -- there are nations who are concerned about whether or
not a Shia government in Iraq will end up being a surrogate for Iran, for
example. I think there are some Sunni nations -- Sunni-governed nations,
like Saudi and Jordan, that are concerned about a shift in the Middle East
toward Iran, and that they are -- wonder whether or not this government of
Iraq, which is a Shia government as a result of the fact that most people
in Iraq -- or the majority, the largest plurality of people in Iraq are
Shia. You wouldn't be surprised if people voted that that's what happened
as a result of the elections. And they wonder whether or not the government
is going to be of, by, and for the Iraqi people. And that concerns them.

And so one of the reasons we were working with the Iraqis on this
neighborhood conference is for people to hear firsthand that the Iraqi
government is, first and foremost, Iraqi. They're not interested in being
anybody else's surrogate.

We've got a lot of work to do there, and it's an interesting question you
asked. I was pleased, and I thank His Majesty that 80 percent of the debt
in Saudi -- I'll get you in a minute -- 80 percent of the Saudi debt in
Iraq was forgiven. I appreciated that. It's a strong gesture. But we have a
lot -- not we, the Iraqi government has a lot of work to do to convince
skeptical nations that, in fact, they're going to be a pluralistic society,
that they're not going to hold one group above another when it comes to
their society.

Iran -- I mentioned Iran. Iran is a serious problem. This is a nation that
has said they want to have a nuclear -- or we believe wants to have a
nuclear weapon. And to what end? They don't need a nuclear weapon. And it's
really important for the free world to work together to prevent them from
having a nuclear weapon.

I'm very worried about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It's not in
the interests of our children that that happens, for the sake of peace.
They have been unhelpful in Iraq, intentionally unhelpful in Iraq. And so I
obviously sent out the orders to our troops, commanders, that they will
protect themselves against Iranian influence -- or let me just say this --
threats to their lives based -- because of what Iran has done.

We have no beef with the Iranian people, which is really important for the
people of Iran to understand. We value the history of Iran. We respect the
traditions of Iran. It's the Iranian government that is making the
decisions that is causing you to be isolated. You're missing a opportunity
to be a great nation because your government has made decisions that is
causing the world to put economic sanctions on you and to isolate you. I
would hope the Iranian government would change their attitude. And the
Iranian people must understand that if they do -- if they don't -- if they
stop their enrichment process, that they can have a better relationship
with countries such as the United States. If they aren't meddling in Iraq,
they can have a better relationship with a country that wishes them no
harm.

Syria -- I don't know if I'm going too much, or not, but you asked.
(Laughter.) We have made it very clear to President Assad that there are a
series of gestures we'd like to see him make for the sake of peace. One
such gesture is to leave Lebanon alone; let the Lebanese democracy
flourish; stop interfering in this young democracy.

Isn't it interesting that it's the democracies of the Middle East that are
having the most problem with the extremists? I think it is. We have said to
the Syrians, stop harboring Hamas and Hezbollah -- violent, radical
organizations aimed at causing harm in the Middle East. And we have said to
President Assad, stop allowing the flow of suicide bombers through your
country into Iraq. You know, some have suggested that the United States
start diplomatic relations with Syria. My message is, the Syrian has got
the choice to make; the Syrian President must make the choice that will
stop isolating his regime. And the United States will continue to make it
clear to Syria, and work with other nations to make it clear to Syria, that
their behavior is unacceptable if we want peace in the Middle East.

And so that's a -- there will be meetings. The Iraq Compact group will be
meeting, as well as an Iraq neighbor group. And it's there that the
neighborhood can come together, all -- and Condi is going to -- Condi,
Secretary Rice will be representing us there -- all aiming to make it clear
that we hope that we can encourage nations to help this young democracy to
not only survive, but to thrive. And it's an interesting challenge given
the history of the region.

Yes, sir.

Q Mr. President, to kind of switch directions a little bit, illegal aliens
in this country apparently are putting a lot of pressure on our social
services. Could you comment on what the plans are in the future to take
care of that?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir. They are not apparently putting pressure on the
social services, they are putting pressure on the social services.

I believe it's in the interest of the United States to have a comprehensive
immigration plan that meets certain objectives: one, helps us better secure
our border; two, recognizes that people are doing work here that Americans
are not doing; three, that recognizes that we are a nation of immigrants,
and we ought to uphold that tradition in a way that honors the rule of law;
four, that it's in the interest of the country that people who are here be
assimilated in a way that -- with our traditions and history. In other
words, those who eventually become citizens be assimilated. In other words,
one of the great things about America is we've been able to assimilate
people from different backgrounds and different countries. I suspect some
of your relatives might be the kind of people I'm talking about.

Four, that we do not grant amnesty. I am very worried about automatic
citizenship being granted to people who have been here illegally. I think
that undermines rule of law -- (applause) -- I think it undermines the rule
of law, I also think it would create a condition, or send the signal that
it's okay for another X-millions of people to come.

Five, you can't kick people out. You may think you can kick people out, but
you can't. It's not going to work. It's impractical to think that you can
find 10 million people who have been here for a long period of time and
boot them out of the country.

Six, if you hire somebody who is an illegal alien, you ought to be held to
account. Now, those are the -- (applause) -- wait a minute. Those are the
principles. And we're working in Congress. The first step was to make it
clear to the American people that we would change our border policy. This
is a subject I'm real familiar with. As you might recall, I was the
governor of the great state of Texas, and we've been dealing with --
(applause) -- there you go. Always one in every crowd. (Laughter.)

A lot of Americans did not believe that this country was intent upon
enforcing our border. And a couple of years ago, working with John and
other members of Congress, we began a border modernization program. That
meant, for example, more Border Patrol agents, and we will have doubled
them -- I can't remember, I don't want to throw out facts, I may get them
wrong, but we're doubling the number of Border Patrol agents by 2008.

It means some barriers, whether they be vehicle barriers, or fencing,
different roads to make our enforcement folks be able to travel easier on
the border; UAVs -- unmanned aerial vehicles -- infrared detection devices.
In other words, this border is becoming modernized.

It's interesting, I went down to Yuma, Arizona, right after Easter, and
when I first went down there, there was a fence next to Mexico, and that
was it; kind of a rickety fence, it looked like. And one of the tactics --
one of the tactics was for people to storm over the fence and rush the
neighborhood on the other side. And the Border Patrol may pick up two or
three of them, and however many else got in. Now there is double fencing in
this area, with a wide area in between that our Border Patrol are able to
travel on. In other words, we're beginning to get a modernization program
that's pretty effective. As a matter of fact, the number of arrests are
down.

Another problem we had -- it's a long answer because it's a really
important topic. Another problem we had was catch and release; we would --
the Border Patrol would catch somebody, say, from Mexico, they'd send them
right back, but, say, from -- a lot of folks are coming from Central
America. By the way, the reason why is because they want to put food on the
table, and there are jobs Americans aren't doing. You know what I'm talking
about. Some of you -- if you're running a nursery, you know what I'm
talking about. If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory,
or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about. People have got
starving families and they want to come and work.

By the way, if I were a leader of a country where people were willing to
take risks like these people were, I'd be worried that I'd be losing an
incredibly good part of my work force -- hard-working people.

Anyway, they're coming across, and from Central America, they're paying
exorbitant sums, by the way. There's a whole industry based upon using
people as chattel. They're commodities to be exploited, frankly. And
they're coming up, and so we would catch up, but we didn't have enough beds
on the border. So they catch a fellow from El Salvador trying to sneak in,
and they say, check back in with us, you know, we don't have any room to
hold you. Come back in and we'll have the immigration judge. Well, guess
what happened? A guy wants to work, he's not interested in seeing the
immigration judge, off he goes; you'll never find him.

And so we've ended that practice by increasing the number of beds now on
the border. So when we get somebody from other than Mexico, we hold them,
and then send them back to their country. And the message is getting out
that the border is becoming more secure.

However, I think it's very important -- I'm getting to the meat here --
very important for us to have a temporary worker program if you really want
to enforce the border. Our border is long. It is hard to enforce to begin
with. It seems like to me that it's in our national interest to let people
come on a temporary basis to do jobs Americans are not doing, on a
temporary, verifiable basis, with a tamper-proof card, to let people come
and do jobs Americans aren't doing, and let them go home after that so that
they don't have to sneak across the border.

In other words, if there's a way for people to come in an orderly way, they
won't have to try to get in the bottom of the 18-wheeler and pay a person
thousands of dollars to smuggle them into the United States of America.
There are a lot of employers who are worried about losing labor here in the
United States. They don't know whether they're legal or illegal, by the
way, because not only is there a smuggling operation, there's a document
forging operation. In other words, the law that we have in place has
created an entire underground system of smugglers, inn keepers, and
document forgers. And that's not the American way, by the way.

And so these guys don't know what they're getting -- some card, it looks
legal, sure, let's go. You can work in my nursery, or go pick my -- help me
pick my lettuce. And they don't know whether they're looking at somebody
legal or illegal. We need a tamper-proof card that will enable an employer
to verify whether or not this person is here legally or not. Otherwise,
it's unfair to hold somebody to account. In other words, if we're enforcing
the law, saying you're employing somebody here illegally, we better make
sure that that employer is able to verify with certainty whether the person
is here legal or not.

Finally, the fundamental question is, what do you do with the -- right
there, everybody nervous up front -- the question is, what about the 10 to
12 million people who are already here? It's a tough issue. As I've told
you, my position is, not legal automatically. I'm also realistic enough to
know that you're just -- it may sound attractive in the political sound
byte world, just kick them out. It is not going to work. It's just not
going to work.

And so we're working with the Senate and the House to devise a plan that in
essence says that you have broken the law, and that you have an obligation
to pay a fine for having broken the law if you want to stay in the United
States, that there is a line for citizenship -- there's a lot of people in
that line right now -- and that after paying a penalty for breaking the
law, that you can get at the back of the line, not the front of the line;
that if you want to become a citizen, you've got to prove that you can
speak the language, that you can assimilate, that you have paid your taxes,
that you haven't broken the law -- (applause) -- that you haven't broken
the law, and then, if you choose, you have an opportunity to apply for
citizenship. But you don't get to jump ahead of people who have played by
the rules.

And this is a tough debate, and I appreciate John's leadership on this
issue. It's an emotional debate. I just ask our fellow citizens not to
forget that we are a nation of law, but we are also a humane country that
breaks our heart when we see people being abused and mistreated, and that I
believe that -- I know we need to have a civil debate on the subject. We're
immigrants. We're a nation of immigrants. And I happen to personally
believe, as well, that there's nothing better for society than to have it
renewed. When newcomers who come here legally realize the great benefits
that one can achieve through hard work, it renews our spirit, and renews
our soul, when people are given a chance to realize the great blessings of
the United States of America.

And so we're working on it. Thank you for bringing it up. It's going to be
an interesting, interesting legislative issue. I'm -- there's a lot of good
people in the Senate working hard to reach accord. And we're right in the
middle of them, trying to help them. And then if we can get a bill out of
the Senate, we'll take it to the House and see where we go. Good question.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: About time you asked a question. (Laughter.)

Q This is truly an honor. Thank you for coming today. My question is about
the U.S. military preparedness. I'm actually of a small manufacturing
company in Dayton where we manufacture a lot of parts for the up-armored
humvees -- gun turrets, and things like that --

THE PRESIDENT: This isn't like one of these self-interest questions, is it?
(Laughter.)

Q No, no, no. Here's my -- I'll get right to it. There's -- currently the
law is that only 50 percent of the military components have to be
U.S.-made. When we went into Afghanistan there was a gentleman in
Switzerland who refused to give us part of som