Text 4493, 854 rader
Skriven 2007-05-02 23:30:52 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0705022) for Wed, 2007 May 2
===================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Discusses War on Terror, Economy with Associated General
Contractors of America
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary May 2, 2007

President Bush Discusses War on Terror, Economy with Associated General
Contractors of America Willard Hotel Washington, D.C.

˙ /news/releases/2007/05/20070502-2.wm.v.html ˙˙White House News


9:44 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all; please be seated. Steve, unlike you, I have
trouble finding the front end of a front-end loader. (Laughter.) Thanks for
having me. I'm proud to be here with the AGC. It's the oldest and largest
construction trade association in our country. I understand I'm not the
first Bush to have ever addressed the AGC convention -- a person I now
refer to as "41" addressed you. (Laughter.) And I appreciated your
hospitality to him then, and I appreciate your hospitality to me today.

I want to talk about -- a little bit about our economy and I want to talk a
lot about our security. And I thank you for giving me a chance to come by.
What I thought I would do is try to keep my remarks relatively brief and
then maybe give you all some time to ask some questions.

First, I want to thank Steve. Steve is a Virginia Tech grad, and our hearts
are still heavy as a result of that terrible incident there on the campus.
And, yet, the amazing thing about that campus -- and a lot of other places
around the country -- is we've got a great resiliency; people bounce back
from tragedy. So, Steve, you can tell the Virginia Tech community we're
still thinking about them and appreciate very much the great kind of
strength of spirit there -- at least I saw that there in Blacksburg,
Virginia.

I want to thank two members of the Senate who have joined us. First, John
Warner, from Virginia. Senator, thank you for coming; ranking member of the
House Military Committee -- Armed Services Committee -- he's a strong
supporter of the troops. And I appreciate Senator Joe Lieberman. John is a
Republican, Senator Lieberman is an independent. Joe Lieberman is one of
these -- I would call him a unique soul who followed his conscience, stood
for what he believed in, in the face of a political firestorm. And he
proved that if you stand on conviction, the people will follow. And I look
forward to working with these two really fine public servants to make the
decisions necessary to protect the United States. And I'm honored you all
are here and thank you for coming. (Applause.)

I like to be in the room of builders and doers and problem solvers and
entrepreneurs. And I thank you for what you do every day. Your job is to
improve infrastructure and provide work for people. Our job is to provide
an environment so that you can build infrastructure and provide work for
people. Our job is not to try to create wealth in government. Our job is to
create an environment that encourages small businesses and entrepreneurial
-- and entrepreneurs.

I believe this administration has done that, particularly since we cut
taxes. You know, most small businesses and self-employed people, people in
your line of work, or many of them, are not corporations. They've sole
proprietorships, or subchapter S corporations, or limited partnerships that
pay tax at the individual income tax level.

And, therefore, when you cut taxes, we not only -- individual rates, we're
not only cutting them on the people who work for you or work with you,
we're cutting them on you. And my attitude is the more money you have in
your treasuries, the more likely it is you'll be able to expand. The more
incentive you have to buy a piece of equipment, the more likely it is
you'll buy one, which means that somebody is going to have to build it for
you.

The best way to enhance pro-growth economic policies is to cut the taxes on
the American people. And that's exactly what we did. These taxes are set to
expire. In my judgment, if Congress really wants to create a pro-growth
attitude for a long time coming, they ought to make the tax relief we
passed permanent. They ought not to let them expire. (Applause.)

My attitude is this about the budget: The best way to balance the budget is
to keep taxes low, encourage growth, which enhances tax revenues, and be
wise about how we spend money. I worry about the attitude, don't worry,
we're just going to raise the taxes on some to balance the budget. No,
they'll raise the tax on some and figure out new ways to spend the money.

And we're proving that pro-growth economic policies with fiscal discipline
can work. And our budgets are shrinking [sic]. The best way to keep them
shrinking is keep the economy growing and be wise about -- and setting
priorities with your money.

There's other things we can do in Washington. We've got to make sure health
care is affordable and available, without inviting the federal government
to run the health care system. Got to do something about these junk
lawsuits that I'm sure you're concerned about. We've got to continue to
invest in the nation's infrastructure. We also need an immigration system
that upholds the rule of law and treats people with respect. We need an
immigration system that secures our borders and meets the needs of our
economy. As I said in the speech down in Florida the other day, we need an
immigration system without amnesty and without animosity. In other words,
we need a comprehensive immigration reform.

I want to thank you for the stand you have taken in working with Congress
on comprehensive immigration reform. I join you. I will work with both
Republicans and Democrats to get a bill to my desk before the summer is
out, hopefully. And I thank the leadership in the Senate that's working
through this issue. I want to thank Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona for working
hard on this, Mel Martinez, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham. There's a series
of senators who are working with Ted Kennedy, who is a strong advocate for
comprehensive immigration reform. And I appreciate the leadership he's
taken, along with Ken Salazar of Colorado.

We're making progress. There's a lot more work to be done, and your help is
important. And so I want to thank you for coming up with a rational,
reasonable, logical plan.

I want to talk to you about the other main issue we have here in America,
and that is your security. The most important job we have is to secure the
United States of America. That's the most important job of the federal
government. You expect us to spend enormous amounts of energy protecting
you, and that's what we're doing. I vowed to the American people we would
not tire when it came to protecting you, and we're not going to. Matter of
fact, I spend a lot of time thinking about this issue. I wish I didn't have
to spend time thinking about the issue, but I do, because there's still an
enemy out there that would like to do America harm. And, therefore, at this
hour, we've got men and women in uniform engaging our enemies around the
world. Our strategy is, we've got to keep the pressure on them. We would
rather fight them there, so we don't have to face them here. (Applause.)

And the most visible and violent front of this global war is Iraq. And it's
a tough fight. It has been a difficult year for the American people, I
understand that. It reached -- last year was, this battle reached its most
difficult point to date. The terrorists and extremists and radicals set off
a wave of sectarian violence that engulfed that young democracy's capital.
It threatened to destabilize the entire country.

So earlier this year I laid out a new strategy in Iraq. I named a new
commander to carry it out, General David Petraeus. I want to give you some
facts about the new strategy, and talk about why Iraq relates directly to
the safety of the American people.

The most important fact about our new strategy, it is fundamentally
different from the previous strategy. The previous strategy wasn't working
the way we wanted it to work. It's interesting, they run polls -- and I
accept that -- and it said, you know, we don't approve of what's happening
in Iraq. That was what the poll said last fall and winter, you know. And
had they polled me, I'd have said the same thing. (Laughter.) I didn't
approve of what was happening in Iraq. And so we put a new strategy in that
was fundamentally different.

First of all, Petraeus, General Petraeus is an expert on counterinsurgency,
and his top priority is to help the Iraqi leaders -- who, by the way, were
elected by nearly 12 million of their citizens -- secure their population.
And the reason why is, is that this young democracy needed some time to
make important political decisions to help reconcile the country. After a
thorough review, we concluded the best way to help Iraq's leaders to
provide security was to send more troops into the nation's capital, into
the country; was to send reinforcements to those troops which were already
there. And their job was to go after the extremists and radicals who were
inciting sectarian violence. Their job was to help get Baghdad under
control. And their job was to continue to train Iraqi forces for the day
they can secure the country on their own.

Last week, General Petraeus came to Washington, and he updated me and he
updated the Congress on the early stages of this new strategy -- and I
repeat, early stages. He reminded us that not all the reinforcements he'd
requested have arrived, that it's going to be at least until the end of
this summer that he will know whether or not the new strategy has achieved
successes.

And that means the strategy is in early stages. My view is the Congress and
the country ought to give General Petraeus time to see whether or not this
works. And it's interesting, he goes up in front of the Senate and gets
confirmed unanimously. And he said, I need more troops, during his
testimony; send me more troops and I will go implement a new plan. They
said, okay, fine, we confirm you. And yet there are some doubts in
Washington whether or not they ought to send the troops.

The troops are going, the strategy is new, and the General said, let's give
it some time to work to see whether or not it's successful, and I'll be
able to report back to the country by the end of this summer.

The most significant element of the new strategy is being carried out in
the capital. The whole purpose is to secure the capital. My theory is, and
it's a good one, is that if the capital is in chaos, the country can't --
it's going to be difficult for the country to survive.

The strategy is also being carried out in what's called surrounding belts.
This is the areas that kind of arc around the capital, and it's a place
where there's been a lot of planning and plotting and attacking. Three
American brigades, totaling about 12,000 reinforcements, have taken up
their positions in the Baghdad area. The fourth brigade, fourth of five, is
heading into Baghdad this week. And the fifth is on its way. In other
words, you just don't take five brigades and move them in overnight.
There's a sequencing that has to take place, and that sequencing is now
being completed.

The Iraqis, by the way, have increased their own forces. In other words,
this is a joint operation. This is the Americans and coalition forces
helping the Iraqis provide security so that the average person can live a
peaceful life. That's what they want. And so we've got about a total of
80,000 combat forces now in the Baghdad area -- U.S., combined with the
Iraqi forces. The position of the forces is shifting. We used to have our
forces live in bases outside the city. They would go in at night or during
the day and then leave and go back home at night. They did a fine job, as
we expect our U.S. forces to do, the Iraqi forces would do so. And then
when they would leave, killers would move back in.

And so now we've got American troops are now living and working in small
neighborhood posts called joint security stations. This is what's
fundamentally different from the strategy. Our troops, with the Iraqis, go
into a neighborhood, and they stay. They operate side by side with the
Iraqi forces.

What's interesting is, is that the plan, General Petraeus's plan, is to
help build trust. And when you build trust, you end up getting people
buying into a centralized government, a unity government, a country that is
united. And not only that, you end up getting cooperation from people.
Remember, most people want to live peaceful lives. I hope this make sense
to you, because I firmly believe that Iraqi moms want their child to grow
up in a peaceful world, just like American moms do.

And so we're seeing some gains. The interesting thing about this is that
the nature of this strategy is that the most important gains are often the
least dramatic. It doesn't generate much attention when violence does not
happen. Instead, some important indicators of progress in the security plan
are less visible. I would like to share some with you.

The level of cooperation from local residents is important. It's an
indication as to whether or not we're making progress: our ability to take
weapons off the street and break up extremist groups; the willingness of
Iraqis to join their security forces is an interesting measurement. And,
finally, it's important to measure the level of sectarian violence. If the
objective is to bring security to the capital, one measurement is whether
or not sectarian violence is declining. These measures are really not
flashy. In other words, they're not headline-grabbing measures. They
certainly can't compete with a car bomb or a suicide attack. But they are
interesting indications. And as General Petraeus reported, these are
heading in the right direction.

For example, General Petraeus reports that American and Iraqi forces
received more tips from local residents in the past four months than during
any other four-month period on record. People are beginning to have some
confidence and they're beginning to step forth with information,
information that will help them live normal lives.

Thanks to these tips the number of weapons caches that are being seized are
growing each month. Better intelligence has led American and Iraqi forces
in Baghdad and the surrounding belts to conduct operations against Sunni
and Shia extremists. My attitude is, if murderers run free, it's going to
be hard to convince the people of any society that the government is worth
supporting. And, therefore, the Iraqis and U.S. forces and coalition forces
are after murderers regardless of their religious affiliation.

American and Iraqi forces captured the head of a major car bombing ring
recently, the leader of a bombing network with ties to Iran, members of a
death squad that terrorized a Baghdad neighborhood, the leader of a secret
militia cell that kidnapped and executed American soldiers. These are just
some examples of what happens when you start to earn the confidence of the
people.

Baghdad residents see actions, they grow more confident. Interestingly
enough, General Petraeus reported that in his short time he's been there,
and in the short time that this plan is being implemented -- remember, it's
not fully implemented: three of the brigades are present, are in place; the
fourth brigade has just moved into Baghdad and it will be in place
relatively soon, and the fifth is on its way -- that in spite of the fact
that we haven't fully implemented the plan, the number of sectarian murders
in Baghdad has dropped substantially.

Even as the sectarian attacks have declined, the overall level of violence
in Baghdad remains high. Illegal armed groups continue their attacks;
insurgents remain deadly. In other words, as we report progress, it's very
important for us to make sure that the American people understand there's
still issues, there's still challenges. Illegal armed groups need to be
dealt with, and we are.

The primary reason for the high level of violence is this: al Qaeda has
ratcheted up its campaign of high-profile attacks, including deadly suicide
bombers carried out by foreign terrorists. In the past three weeks, al
Qaeda has sent suicide bombers into the Iraqi parliament. Or they send a
suicide attack into an American military base. These attacks may seem like
random killing; they're not. They're part of al Qaeda's calculated campaign
to reignite sectarian violence in Baghdad, to discourage the Iraqi citizen,
and to break support for the war here at home. This is what these murderers
are trying to achieve.

I don't need to remind you who al Qaeda is. Al Qaeda is the group that plot
and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our soil. The
same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and
murdered our citizens. I've got to tell you, that day deeply affected my
decision-making. And I vowed that I would do anything that I possibly could
within the law to protect the American citizens against further attack by
these ideologues, by these murderers.

And so while I'm talking about al Qaeda in Iraq, I fully recognize what
happens in Iraq matters here at home. Despite their tremendous brutality,
they failed to provoke the large-scale sectarian reprisals that al Qaeda
wants. The recent attacks are not the revenge killings that some have
called a civil war. They are a systematic assault on the entire nation. Al
Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq. And all people of that society
ought to come together and recognize the threat, unite against the threat
and reconcile their differences.

For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take
sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same
international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11. I strongly
believe it's in our national interest to stay in the fight. (Applause.)

As you watch the developments in Baghdad, it's important to understand that
we will not be able to prevent every al Qaeda attack. When a terrorist is
willing to kill himself to kill others, it's really hard to stop him. Yet,
over time, the security operation in Baghdad is designed to shrink the
areas where al Qaeda can operate, it's designed to bring out more
intelligence about their presence, and designed to allow American and Iraqi
forces to dismantle their network.

We have a strategy to deal with al Qaeda in Iraq. But any time you say to a
bunch of cold-blooded killers, success depends on no violence, all that
does is hand them the opportunity to be successful. And it's hard. I know
it's hard for the American people to turn on their TV screens and see the
horrific violence. It speaks volumes about the American desire to protect
lives of innocent people, America's deep concern about human rights and
human dignity. It also speaks volumes about al Qaeda, that they're willing
to take innocent life to achieve political objectives.

The terrorists will continue to fight back. In other words, they understand
what they're doing. And casualties are likely to stay high. Yet, day by
day, block by block, we are steadfast in helping Iraqi leaders counter the
terrorists, protect their people, and reclaim the capital. And if I didn't
think it was necessary for the security of the country, I wouldn't put our
kids in harm's way.

We're seeing significant progress from our new strategy in Anbar province,
as well. That's a largely Sunni area west of Baghdad. It's been a hotbed
for al Qaeda and insurgents. According to a captured al Qaeda document --
in other words, according to what al Qaeda has said -- and by the way, in a
war to protect America, it's really important to take the words of the
enemy very seriously -- according to this document, the terrorists' goal is
to take over Anbar and make it their home base in Iraq. According to the
document we captured -- that is a document from al Qaeda, the same people
that attacked us in America -- their objective is to find safe haven in
this part of Iraq. They would bring them closer -- that would bring them
closer to their objective, their stated objective, which is to destroy the
young Iraqi democracy, to help them build a radical Islamic empire based
upon their dark ideology, and launch new attacks on the United States, at
home and abroad. That's what they've said they want to do.

Al Qaeda has pursued their objective with a ruthless campaign of violence.
They can't persuade people through logic. They have to terrorize people and
force people to try to allow them to impose their point of view. And not
long ago, it looked like they might prevail in Anbar -- looked pretty grim,
it really did. Then something began to change, because we were steadfast,
because our troops and our diplomats are courageous people . Tribal sheikhs
finally said, enough is enough. The local leaders said, we're tired of it.
And they joined the fight against al Qaeda.

The sheikhs and their followers knew exactly who the terrorists were, and
they began to provide highly specific intelligence to American and Iraqi
forces. In asymmetrical warfare, you've got to have good intelligence in
order to be able to deal with the enemy. In the old days, you could see
platoons moving, you could see ships floating along, aircraft in formation
flying to a location. In this war it's different. In this war you have to
know specifically where an IED factory may be. You have to know in advance
that somebody's getting ready to slide into society and kill innocent in
order to achieve an objective. Intelligence is important. And so they began
to provide intelligence, all aiming to secure their part of Iraq so they
could live in peace.

They began to encourage their young men to volunteer for the security
forces. The number of Iraqi army and police recruits in Anbar has
skyrocketed. It's an interesting measurement, isn't it? There's a threat to
the security of their people, the local leader said, why don't you join up
to help defend us, and the number of recruits is significant.

Our commanders saw this as an opportunity to step up the pressure on al
Qaeda. Our commanders made the recommendation from the field that they
could use more troops to help secure Anbar. And so I ordered additional
U.S. Marines and special operation forces to Anbar as part of our
reinforcement package; 4,000 of the troops are going into Anbar.

Together, American and Iraqi forces are striking powerful blows. We've
cleared out terrorist strongholds like Ramadi and Fallujah. We're there
with the Iraqis so that they can't take those cities back -- "they," the
enemy. American and Iraqi forces are operating in places that have been too
dangerous to go before, and people are beginning to see something change.

In Ramadi, for example, our forces have seized nearly as many weapons
caches in the past four months as they did in all of last year. We've
captured key al Qaeda leaders. We're on the hunt. We're keeping the
pressure on them, in Iraq and everywhere else in the world in which they
try to hide. These al Qaeda leaders are revealing important details about
how their network operates inside of Iraq.

Al Qaeda has responded with sickening brutality. They've bombed fellow
Sunnis in prayer at a mosque. They murdered local residents with chlorine
truck bombs. They recruited children as young as 12-years-old to carry out
suicide attacks. But this time, the Sunni tribes in Anbar are refusing to
be intimidated.

They are showing that al Qaeda's ideology lacks popular appeal and staying
power. Ultimately, what matters is what you believe. The United States and
our coalition and most Iraqis believe in liberty. Al Qaeda believes in
imposing their dark vision on others, and are willing to use death and
murder to do so.

I appreciate the determination of the Iraqi people. I appreciate their
courage. I appreciate the fact that these tribal sheiks have stood up in
Anbar, and we will stand with them. Our men and women in uniform took al
Qaeda's safe haven away in Afghanistan, and we're not going to let them
reestablish a safe haven in Iraq. (Applause.)

The military gains achieved by new operations are designed to give Iraq's
government time to make political progress. We fully recognize that the
military cannot solve this problem alone, that there has to be political
reconciliation, and economic process -- progress.

You know, the Iraq government has been in office about a year. And they're
beginning to make some progress toward political benchmarks it has set,
political benchmarks I support. The legislature has passed a budget that
commits $10 billion for reconstruction projects. That's $10 billion of the
Iraqi people's money -- positive sign -- the assembly met, they
appropriated money for the good of the Iraqi people. They spent $7.3
billion to train and equip their own security forces. The council of
ministers has approved legislation that would provide a framework for
equitable sharing of oil resources. We strongly believe -- by the way, both
Republicans, Democrats, and independents -- believe strongly that a good
oil bill will help unite the country. That's why it's a benchmark. And
they're making -- this government is making progress toward an important
piece of legislation that would help the security track progress, as well
as the political and economic track.

The government has formed a committee to organize provincial elections.
That's important. If you want people buying into government, there needs to
be provincial elections, so that when the money is distributed from the
central government, there's a representative government there to spend the
money. Leaders have taken initial steps toward an agreement on
de-Baathification policy. That's an important piece of reconciliation that
we think ought to go forward. A committee is meeting with all major Iraqi
groups to review the constitution. And there's a key conference tomorrow
and Friday in Egypt, where Prime Minister Maliki will work to build greater
support from Iraq's neighbors and the international community. It's in the
world's interest that this young democracy survive. It's certainly in the
interest of the neighborhood that Iraq be a country that can govern itself
and sustain itself and defend itself, a government which rejects
radicalism. And it's in the world's interest.

And so Condoleezza Rice -- I talked to her last night on her way out of
town -- is heading over to Egypt. And she's going to represent our country
-- and she represents it well, by the way -- and will do so in Egypt. It's
going to be an important international conference. And I'm looking forward
to seeing the outcome of that conference.

Iraq's leaders still have got a lot to do, don't get me wrong. Yes, there's
progress, but they've got a lot more to do. And the United States expects
them to do it; just like I expect them to remain courageous, and just like
they expect us to keep our word. What's interesting is, is that the Iraqis
are making a calculation: Will the United States of America keep its word?
Because if not, they want to do something different. And I think it's going
to be important for us to keep signaling them as they make progress, we
appreciate the progress; more to do, no question about it, and we expect
them to do it, but they can also count on us to keep our word.

The stakes are high, really high in Iraq. General Petraeus is beginning to
carry out the strategy, yet the Democrat leaders in Congress have chosen
this time to try to force a precipitous withdrawal. In other words, I was
presented a bill last night that said, there's a timetable, you had to
leave -- start leaving by July 1st and definitely be leaving by October
1st. That didn't make any sense to me, to impose the will of politicians
over the recommendations of our military commanders in the field. So I
vetoed the bill. (Applause.)

That phase of the process is now over, and a new phase has begun. Later on
this afternoon, leaders from both parties and both chambers are coming down
to the White House. And I look forward to meeting with them. I am confident
that with goodwill on both sides, that we can move beyond political
statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and the
flexibility they need to do the job that we have asked them to do.

As we move forward the debate, there are some other things that all of us
in Washington should keep in mind. First of all, debate is good. I have no
problem with debates. This issue of Iraq and this war on terror deserves a
serious discussion across the United States. We don't agree on every issue,
but one of the things I have heard here in Washington is that people
understand the consequences of failure in Iraq. If we were to leave Iraq
before the government can defend itself, there would be a security vacuum.

Extremists and radicals love vacuums and chaos. It gives them a chance to
use their tactics, tactics of death, to spread their ideology. The more
chaotic a region, for example, or the less control there is in a region,
the more the state looks like a failed state, these people that attacked us
on September the 11th can be emboldened, it will encourage them. It will
enable them to achieve objectives. I'm deeply concerned about a vacuum in
Iraq encouraging rival extremist factions to compete for power.

I worry about a situation where if radicals took control of a country like
Iraq, they would have oil resources to use at their disposal to try to
achieve their objectives. You can attack a nation several ways. One, you
can get 19 kids to fly airplanes into buildings, or you can gain control of
something a country needs and deny that country access to that, in this
case, oil, and run the price of oil up, all attempting to inflict serious
economic damage.

And by the way, an opportunity for radicals and extremists to gain
resources would not only enable them to inflict economic damage, it would
enable them to achieve other objectives. They'd have more resources at
their disposal. All the radicals and extremists in Iraq don't want to
attack America, I'm not saying that, but many do. And therein lies the
danger to our country.

Al Qaeda terrorists who behead captives and order suicide bombings in Iraq
would not simply be satisfied to see us gone. A retreat in Iraq would mean
that they would likely follow us here. A retreat in Iraq would say to a lot
of people around the world, particularly in the Middle East, America can't
keep its word. It would certainly confirm al Qaeda's belief that we're weak
and soft as a society. It would embolden them to be able to recruit. It
would more likely enable them to find safe haven and sanctuary.

No responsible leader in Washington has an interest in letting this happen.
Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, there is no benefit in allowing a
widespread humanitarian nightmare to consume Iraq. There would be no
benefit in allowing chaos to spill out of Iraq and into the broader Middle
East. There would be no benefit in emboldening Iran and endangering our
allies in the region. And there would be no benefit in allowing the same
terrorist network that attacked America on 9/11 to gain a safe haven from
which to attack us again. Even if you think it was a mistake to go into
Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull out now. (Applause.)

This is a frustrating war. Nobody likes war. You know, I know full well how
many Americans react to what they see on their TV screens. I wish there was
an easy way out -- that's what people wish. But there is no easy way out.
The easy road would be the wrong road, in my opinion. Leaving now would be
short-term, but bring short-term satisfaction at the cost of long-term
disaster. The outcome in Iraq will have a direct impact on the security of
our people here at home. And no matter how tempting it might be, it would
be unforgivable for leaders in Washington to allow politics and impatience
to stand in the way of protecting the American people.

Success in this fight is going to be difficult. It will require sacrifice.
It's going to require time. But for all the -- all we hear about the
consequences of failure in Iraq, we also shouldn't forget the consequences
of success. I share with people -- and I do this quite often -- but I find
it incredibly ironic that during my time as President, certainly one of my
best friends, and soon to be another best friend, are the prime ministers
of Japan. I had a very close personal relationship with Prime Minister
Koizumi.

And last weekend at Camp David, Laura and I had a chance to -- at the White
House, and then eventually at Camp David, we hosted Prime Minister Abe. You
know, my dad fought the Japanese. He was an 18-year-old kid, right out of
high school, went into the Navy, was a torpedo bomber. Many of your
relatives did the same thing. They fought the Japanese with all their soul
and all their might in a bloody, bloody conflict. Japan was a sworn enemy
of the United States of America. I doubt in 1948 or '49 anybody could have
hardly predicted that a President would stand up and say, I have found that
these two prime ministers of Japan are good to work with to achieve peace.

It's an interesting statement, isn't it, about the possibilities of liberty
to change history. And so with Prime Minister Koizumi and Prime Minister
Abe, we talked about security. We talked about working closely together to
convince the leader of North Korea to give up his nuclear weapons ambitions
and programs. We talked about helping the young democracy of Iraq survive
in the midst of the Middle East. We fully understand that the long-term way
to protect America is to defeat an ideology of hate with an ideology of
hope. I learned firsthand the power of liberty to transform an enemy into
an ally.

I firmly believe that a democracy can survive in the Middle East, and I
believe it is a necessary part of laying a foundation of peace for
generations to come.

Good to be with you. (Applause.)

Thank you all. Sit down. I'll take some questions. Yes, sir. You get to
start since you're the boss. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. In May of 2006, my second cousin was on his second tour in
Iraq. Corporal Cory Palmer, he's in the Marines, he was on patrol in a
Humvee, and they ran over a roadside bomb. He and many others in that
Humvee perished. What do I need to do, what does the media need to do to
help you, so that my second cousin, and others like him, have not died or
been injured in vain?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. The horrors of war come home to every -- to a lot
of families in America. Yesterday I had the honor of meeting with moms and
dads and wives, in this case, children, who have lost a loved one. And I've
met with a lot of families, sadly enough. Most of the time, I hear that
very question. Actually, it's not a question, it's a statement.

Here's what I've heard. One, my loved one died doing what he or she wanted
to do. Two, do not allow that loved one to have died in vain. In other
words, it is an interesting spirit amongst the -- now, listen, I visit with
some who say, get out; I wish you hadn't have done this in the first place.
But by far the vast majority reflect what you asked: What does it take?

First of all, it takes, in order to make sure your loved one didn't die in
vain, is to have the will and determination necessary to succeed. One of
the reasons I've come to speak to you is because I must continually explain
to the American people the stakes in this war, the consequences of failure,
and the consequences of success.

In order for me to do my part to make sure your second cousin and anybody
else who lost a loved one in Iraq didn't die in vain, is to continue to
take the case to the American people why what happens in Iraq matters to
them.

Secondly, one way to make sure that your second cousin didn't die in vain
is to remind legislators that regardless of their position on the war, that
they have got to fund our troops, that they have got to make sure that --
(applause) -- without conditions of -- that say you've got to withdraw by a
certain date.

Now, here's the reason that doesn't make any sense. I'm sure a lot of
Americans know intuitively it doesn't make any sense for people on Capitol
Hill to say, you must withdraw. The reason why is, first of all, we ought
to rely upon conditions on the ground, and we ought to rely upon our
military commanders and our diplomats on the ground to give us advice. It's
the best way to conduct a war.

Secondly, imagine what a thinking enemy is doing when they hear timetables.
Oh, you've got to be out by a certain date? Well, why don't we just wait.

Thirdly, what does it say to the Iraqis? Remember, there are a lot of
people who basically wonder whether or not a coalition is going to stand
with them as they make difficult choices. And if you're an Iraqi thinking,
well, I may have some support, I may not, and if not, I better start
hedging my bet. The government isn't quite ready to provide the security
necessary for people to be comfortable with a reduced coalition presence.

And therefore -- and by the way, in order to make a unified government
work, there has to be people willing to commit to that government. There
have to be people willing to commit to civil society. Remember, these
people are recovering from a brutal tyrant, and they have to make a --
they've got to commit in their soul that it's worthwhile, that this
government is worthwhile. And they're not willing to make that commitment
yet because they're uncertain about their future.

And so an artificial timetable of withdrawal is -- really affects the
psychology of the Iraqis, as well. That's why I vetoed the bill. And I
believe we can work together in Congress to get it done. I think that
senators would tell you there's an opportunity. And first of all, they got
to fund the troops, because the longer they wait in funding the troops,
it's going to hurt our military. The military is spending money over in
Iraq as we speak, and they need money. And if they don't get the money from
the supplemental, they'll start taking it from accounts, which could affect
readiness. And it begins to affect the overall strength of our military.

And that's one reason I keep explaining that to the American people, so
that they understand that this -- the delays, they make nice politics in
some quarters, but it's lousy for our military and the military families.

Anyway, good question, thanks for asking it. Yes, ma'am.

Q I'd like to know, like a lot of other people in this room, we have family
members -- we have family members who are actively involved in the security
of this country in various ways. From them, we've received positive
information that we consider credible, who say about the success and the
good things that are happening as a result of us being in Iraq. I would
like to know why and what can be done about we, the American people,
receiving some of that information more from the media, or (inaudible.)
(Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: If you're trying to goad me into attacking the media, you're
crazy. (Laughter.)

It's interesting, people get their news all different kinds of ways. This
is an interesting, different type of war. I mentioned asymmetrical warfare.
That means an enemy can use inexpensive weapons to try to defeat expensive
defensive armament. A car bomb, a suicide bomber, an IED, these are
inexpensive weapons that help them achieve strategic objectives.

It's also different in that this is a volunteer army that we have fielded.
And, therefore, the role of government is to make sure that our families
are well-supported -- our military families are well-supported, that the
veterans get everything they deserve, and that the health care is perfect
as possibly can be. And we're working toward it.

By the way, I was proud of our Secretary of Defense the other day. When he
found inadequate health care, he responded, because he knows -- and the
Congress shares the same view -- is that when we have somebody volunteering
to be in combat, they and their families deserve the best that we can
possibly provide.

Thirdly, back to your question. You thought I was kind of doing one of
these -- (laughter) -- Washington, D.C. dodges. (Laughter.) I talk to a lot
of families who have got a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere
else in this global war on terror, and they are in constant communication
with their loved one. That's amazing, isn't it. You've got a kid in Iraq
who is emailing mom daily, talking about the realities of what he or she
sees. Information is moving -- you know, nightly news is one way, of
course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the
Internets. It's amazing how many emails I see from people that are writing
in what they think and what they hear.

We've all got -- those of us who believe that we're doing the right thing
must continually speak. Joe Lieberman has been great about continually
speaking about the consequences. (Applause.) Wait a minute -- you didn't
give me a chance to say something nice about Chairman Warner. (Laughter.)
He, too, has been strong. (Applause.)

It's just a -- I can't answer your question beyond that people just need to
be -- the best messenger, by the way, for us is David Petraeus, because
he's actually there in Baghdad, and Ryan Crocker who is actually -- he's
the ambassador who is there in Baghdad. And freedom of the press is a
valuable freedom here, and it's just something that we've all got to live
with and value it for what it is, and just continue to speak the truth as
best as we can without trying to -- without trying to gloss over the
inherent dangers.

The interesting thing I find is that our -- as the president here
mentioned, there have been multiple rotations. People have gone back to
Iraq. In other words, they've re-upped. And the re-enlistment rate is high.
People are signing up for the first time, as well. And it's just an
interesting statement, isn't it, about the character of our military, a
character which is -- says that we've got people willing to serve a cause
greater than themselves.

I saw a Marine yesterday -- came out of Anbar. His brother, who was in the
Army, was lost. And I was comforting his family as best as I possibly can,
or could. And he said, we're making great progress in Anbar, I just wanted
to tell you that, President. You know, is he the kind of guy that tells the
President what he wants to hear? I don't know. All I can tell you is what
he told me. And I told that to David Petraeus, who confirmed it.

But slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll succeed, or we
won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian
violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own
country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a
level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their
daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve.

I'm asked all the time about strategies. I liked what James A. Baker and
Lee Hamilton reported back after a serious investigation of Iraq. I liked
their ideas. And it's something that we should seriously consider. And
their idea was, is that at some point in time, it makes sense to have a
U.S. presence configured this way, embedded with Iraqi forces, training
Iraqi forces, over-the-horizon presence to provide enough security to know
that people will have help if they need it, but put the -- more onus on a
sovereign government of Iraq, a presence to keep the territorial integrity
of Iraq intact, a special ops presence to go after these killers who have
got their intentions on America. It's an interesting idea.

By the way, in the report it said, it is -- the government may have to put
in more troops to be able to get to that position. And that's what we do.
We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be in some other
place. The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or
the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm the commander
guy.

Yes, sir.

Q We're General Contractors of America, and what are we doing -- I don't
hear anything about the reconstruction of Iraq. Could you fill us in on
that? Are we doing enough, as general contractors? And we are at your
disposal.

And second is a personal question. What do you pray about, and how we can
we pray for you?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. The first question, our reconstruction strategy
initially was to do big projects, and then those big projects would be
destroyed by the enemy. In other words, they blow them up. And it became
very frustrating. And some of the big projects were successful; a lot of
them weren't. So therefore we restructured, and we said that the best way
to help the Iraq -- remember, Iraq has now put out $10 billion of their own
money. So, step one, they're a sovereign government, and if we want to do
business with Iraq, we can figure out how you can go do it -- business with
Iraq. They're spending their own money. That's what's important to
remember.

That's actually a hopeful sign, that they appropriated money in a
constitutionally elected assembly, and hopefully that money is spent in a
way that encourages all Iraqis to have some faith that the central
government can function rationally. I guess what I'm telling you is, the
security situation was such that it made the initial phases of our
reconstruction not as effective as we would have liked.

Now we're giving reconstruction money to two different groups -- two groups
of people, not different -- two groups. One, our military commanders. It's
called CERF money. They go into a neighborhood in Baghdad that had been
ravaged by sectarian violence, they bring order with the Iraqis, they stay
in place, they gain the confidence of the people, and there is some
reconstruction money to help provide jobs of cleaning up neighborhoods and
rebuilding storefronts.

The other reconstruction money goes to what's called provincial
reconstruction teams. These are teams of diplomats living out in the
hinterlands, working with local folks to meet objectives of the local
folks, so that the people begin to see that there is one, security; two,
hope; and three, tangible benefits. And that's how we're using -- I'm not
exactly sure what a proper role could be for you. The good news is I can
find out pretty quick -- (laughter) -- "ly," quickly. (Laughter.)

The fact that you would ask the question, how can I pray for you, speaks
volumes about the United States of America. I have been amazed by the fact
that millions of Americans of all faith, all political backgrounds, pray
for me and Laura. And it is unbelievably sustaining. It is comforting. It
is humbling to be prayed for. Wisdom and strength, and my family, is what
I'd like for you to pray for.

Yes, sir.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, we've got dueling questions. (Laughter.) You just
lost, because he's got the mic. (Laughter.) It's the possession deal, you
know? (Laughter.)

Q You talked about the terror of 9/11, and what I wanted to share with you,
my wife and I had our first child two months after 9/11. We named her
Grace, because we felt that the world needed some grace at the time. And
what I wanted to (inaudible) is the fact that our appreciation and keeping
my family and also the families of America safe for the past five years is
(inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Grace will live -- the
question is, will Grace live in a peaceful world, today and tomorrow?
Today, we will continue to stay on the pressure. And we're sharing
intelligence and we're on the offense. And my attitude is, is that if the
United States ever let up, it would embolden, it would send the wrong
signal. So we're pressuring. And I'm -- I would hope whoever takes my place
would have that same sense of urgency. You know, no matter what you may be
hearing, it's -- people, when they get in that Oval Office and take a look
at the realities of the world will, I suspect, subscribe to the -- that we
just need to be not only vigilant, but pressuring.

You know, the interesting debate that we're now confronted with is this
ideological debate about whether or not it's worth it to spread freedom.
Should we spread freedom? Can the spread of freedom take root in dangerous
parts of the world? And is it worth it? Does it make sense?

As you can tell, I'm a strong proponent of spreading freedom. First of all
-- and I've got confidence that freedom can be spread in parts of the world
where it may look -- may look difficult at this moment in history to see
freedom take root.

I've got confidence for a couple of reasons. One, I believe in the
universality of freedom. That means I believe everybody desires to be free.
I don't think freedom is uniquely American, nor do I think it's uniquely
Methodist. (Laughter.) I think it is universal.

I told you -- I also, obviously, believe in the universality of motherhood.
I believe mothers in Iraq want their children to grow up in peace, just
like mothers in America do. I also believe people in Iraq want to live in a
free society. I wasn't surprised -- I was pleased when 12 million people
went to the polls. That statement to me was: freedom.

Secondly, can it take hold in parts of the world that some suspect that it
can't root? I would remind people, for example, of -- I mentioned Japan.
There are other examples in our history. One of the unique aspects of my
presidency is I can predict to you that -- with relative certainty that a
violent part of the world, the Far East, is stable and headed in the right
direction, absent one spot.

In 1950, that would have been a hard prediction to make. Shortly