Text 5043, 615 rader
Skriven 2007-07-26 23:30:56 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0707262) for Thu, 2007 Jul 26
====================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Addresses the American Legislative Exchange Council,
Discusses Budget, Education and War on Terror
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary July 26, 2007

President Bush Addresses the American Legislative Exchange Council,
Discusses Budget, Education and War on Terror Philadelphia Marriott
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

˙ /news/releases/2007/07/20070726-2.wm.v.html ˙˙Presidential Remarks
˙˙Audio ˙˙Photos


9:11 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thanks for the warm welcome. It's good
to be back with my friends here at ALEC. Kenny, thanks. He was a
silver-tongued devil when he was a state legislator, he still is as a
United States Congressman. I appreciate Kenny Marchant coming from
Washington with me today. It's not all that rough a trip when you're on Air
Force One, Ken. (Laughter.) I'm glad to get my hot cup of coffee, and visit
about the old days of working together in the state -- with the state
legislature, and about the challenges we face today. And I'm going to spend
a little time talking to you all about those challenges. But I appreciate
you coming, Ken.

I'm also proud to be with two members of the Pennsylvania congressional
delegation, United States Senator Arlen Specter -- proud you're here,
Senator, thanks for coming -- and Congressman Jim Gerlach. (Applause.) When
Kenny and I were reminiscing about what it was like to be in Texas worrying
about schools and budgets and criminal justice, I think they were somewhat
amazed by the stories we were telling.

Speaking about the Texas legislature, I am proud to be here with the
Speaker of the Texas House, a friend of mine from my old hometown of
Midland, Texas, Tom Craddick. Proud you're here, Tom. (Applause.) And his
wife, Nadine. (Applause.) And his daughter, Christi.

Laura was just out in Midland, visiting her mother. That would be First
Lady Laura Bush, who sends her greetings to you all. You know, I'm a really
lucky guy to have a wife who is patient enough to put up with me as
President of the United States, is wise enough to seize the moment, and is
compassionate enough to worry about the lives of our fellow citizens. She's
a fabulous First Lady. (Applause.)

One thing I can assure the Craddicks, we always remember where we came
from. And part of making good decisions in a complex world and in a complex
environment is to make decisions based upon basic principles, is to stand
for something. I believe in that old Texas adage, if you don't stand for
something, you don't believe in anything. (Applause.) And I believe in some
certain principles that I hold inviolate, such as, there is an Almighty,
and a great gift of that Almighty to each man, woman and child on the face
of Earth is liberty and freedom. (Applause.)

I appreciate Dolores Mertz and all the leadership of ALEC. I appreciate
Jerry Watson, the Private Sector Chairman. Thank you all. Thank you for
serving. Our government is only as good as the willingness of good people
to serve. And it's not easy to serve in public life. Sometimes it can get a
little testy. (Laughter.) Sometimes people would rather throw a punch than
put out a hand of fellowship. But that's okay. What matters is, is that our
democracy flourish, that people have an opportunity to exchange ideas, that
there be constructive debate. And that requires good people willing to
sacrifice to serve. And one of the reasons I wanted to come back today is
to encourage you to continue serving your states, to continue representing
the people.

I urge you to not rely upon the latest opinion poll to tell you what to
believe. I ask you to stand strong on your beliefs, and that will continue
to make you a worthy public servant.

I want to spend a little time talking about a couple of issues. I'd like to
spend time talking about the budget and the economy, a little time talking
about how to educate our children -- how best to educate our children. And
then I'd like to spend some time talking about a serious obligation that I
have and the people in Washington have, and that is to protect the American
people from harm.

First, the budget. There's an interesting philosophical debate that's now
playing out in the United States Congress, and it really boils down to how
much money we need and who do we trust to handle the people's money. A
basic principle from which I have operated as governor and now as President
is this: I think it's wise for government and government officials to trust
the people to spend their money. See, I think you can spend your money, and
I think you know how to save your money better than the federal government
knows how to spend your money. (Applause.)

And that's what I've acted on. That's been the basis of a lot of our fiscal
policy in Washington, D.C. I also acted on the belief that if there is more
money in the economy, if more families have more money of their own to
spend, and if small businesses have more money in their treasury, it is
more likely that an economy can recover from difficult times. And we have
faced some difficult times since I've been your President. We had a
recession right after I got in office. We had a terrorist attack that
affected our economy. We had corporate scandals that sent a chill
throughout the investment community and caused some citizens to wonder
whether or not their savings were being treated with the respect that they
should be. We had uncertainty.

But I acted. I acted with the -- at that time, a Republican-controlled
Congress, on the principle that if we can get more money in circulation, if
we can let the people have more of their own money to save, invest and
spend, we would overcome these difficulties. And it worked. We cut the
taxes on everybody who pays taxes in the United States of America.
(Applause.)

On average, our taxpayers this year will save -- this is on average, now --
amongst all the taxpayers, they'll save about $2,200 on their taxes. Now,
Washington, we spend -- we throw out a lot of big numbers. In the
statehouse you talk millions; Washington, we talk trillions. But $2,200 --
it may not sound like a lot when we're talking big numbers in Washington,
but you ask the family that's trying to save for a child's education
whether $2,200 means a lot and they'll tell you, it sure does. You talk
about the working family that's struggling to get ahead, that $2,200 means
a lot. You talk about the farmer out there who's worried about making crop,
that $2,200 means a lot. It may sound small to the opiners in Washington,
but you ask the average American family, would they rather have the $2,200
to spend on their own, or would they rather send it to Washington, D.C.,
they'll say, let me have my money, I can do a good job with it. (Applause.)

Since August of 2003, when these tax cuts took full effect, we've increased
new jobs by 8.2 million. In other words, people are working. Unemployment
rates and -- are pretty low around the United States of America. Real wages
are going up; inflation is relatively stable. In other words, this economy
is strong. And I would argue with the doubters and the skeptics that one of
the reason is because of the tax cuts we passed. (Applause.) And the
fundamental question facing this Congress is will they be wise enough to
keep taxes low.

Now, let me talk about the deficit and the budget. You know, there's an
argument in Washington that says, well, we've got to raise the taxes in
order to balance the budget. Well, you all know how government tends to
work -- generally, when you raise the taxes, those monies don't go to
balance the budget, they tend to go to new programs. They tend to expand
the size and scope of government.

We have a different strategy in Washington, and that is, rather than raise
taxes to balance the budget, we believe you ought to keep taxes low to
balance the budget. And here's why. Low taxes have yielded a strong
economy; a strong economy produces more tax revenues. As a matter of fact,
tax revenue increase this year are -- the federal tax revenues this year
are expected to rise $167 billion higher than last year. In other words, we
kept the taxes low; the economy was strong; and we're receiving about $167
billion more tax revenues.

Then all of a sudden, you begin to get a sense of our strategy on how to
handle the deficit: Keep the economy growing by keeping taxes low, which is
yielding more tax revenues. But we've got to be wise on how we spend the
money. We've held the growth of domestic discretionary spending below the
rate of inflation for the past three years, which has enabled us to report
to the country that the deficit is down to $205 billion. That is 1.5
percent of GDP; that is lower than the national average over the last 10
years.

And then we submitted another budget that showed you can keep taxes low,
prioritize federal spending, and be getting surplus by $33 billion by 2012.
The best way to balance this budget is to keep the economy strong by
letting you keep your money, and being wise about how we spend your money
in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

As you know, we've had a change in leadership in Washington, D.C. That was
not my first choice. (Laughter.) But nevertheless, it is a situation that
we're dealing with. And I would remind those who are now running the
Congress that they have a responsibility when it comes to leadership. They
have proposed a budget -- and I told you there's a debate raging in
Washington, and I'd like to share with you why I said that. Earlier this
year, the Democrats passed a resolution calling for $205 billion in
additional domestic spending over the next five years. That's what their
budget resolution said. I just told you what our budget proposal was, and
there's a different approach. There's a different feeling in Washington
among some -- good people, fine people, they just have a different
philosophy than I do, and they proposed $205 billion additional dollars in
spending over a five-year period.

The problem is, is that spending promises out of the nation's capital have
a way of shrinking American wallets in the heartland, because you've got to
figure out how to pay for that spending increase. And so it's no surprise
that their budget framework includes the largest tax increase in American
history. In order to pay for the promises they have made, their budget
framework includes the largest tax increase -- not the second largest or
close to the largest -- the largest tax increase in American history.

Here's what that would mean. It means if you have a child, your taxes would
go up by $500 per child. Remember, we cut the -- we increased the child tax
credit from $500 to $1,000. Their plan would reduce it to $500. I don't
agree with that approach. I think it's important to help people with
children, by keeping taxes low. If you're a family making $60,000 a year,
and you have two children, your taxes would go up by more than $1,800.
Under their plan that would increase federal spending by over $200 billion,
the average American family of four, making $60,000, would see their bill
go up by $1,800.

Twenty-six million small business owners would see their taxes increase by
an average of $4,000. You see, one of the reasons why I thought it was
important to cut taxes was to stimulate the small business sector of our
economy. Now, most small businesses pay tax at the -- many small businesses
pay tax at the individual income tax rate. You talk to your average small
business owner in your state, many of them will be Subchapter-S
corporations, or limited liability partnerships. In other words, they pay
tax at the individual income tax rate, so when you heard me talking about
reducing individual income taxes, you're really stimulating the small
business sector.

And that's important, because about 70 percent of new jobs in America are
created by small business owners. When the small business sector is strong,
America is strong. And cutting taxes on small businesses was good policy.
And the Democrats, under their budget resolution, would raise small
business taxes by about $4,000, on average, for 26 million small
businesses. And more than 5 million low-income Americans who now pay no
income taxes because of our relief would once again pay.

What I'm telling you is, is that there's a philosophical debate in
Washington, and the bunch now running Congress want to return to the
tax-and-spend policies of the past that did not work then and will not work
in the future. And that's why I plan on using my veto to keep your taxes
low. (Applause.)

Not only has the leadership proposed their idea on the budget, they have a
responsibility to set an agenda that will get the spending bills to my
desk, one at a time, in a reasonable time frame. In other words, they're
now in charge; it's important that they exercise their responsibility.
That's what the American people expect.

And part of that responsibility is to get the 12 basic spending bills that
are needed to keep the federal government running to my desk in a timely
fashion. Unfortunately, they've been dragging their feet on these bills.
They're now getting ready to leave for their August recess without having
passed a single spending bill. The legislative process is complicated, no
doubt. But in a time of war, one spending bill should take precedence over
all the rest. And so at the very least, members of Congress ought to finish
the spending bill for the Department of Defense before they go on recess,
so I can sign it into law.

We got troops in harm's way. They need to exercise their responsibility and
get this defense bill passed. There's time to do it. I'll hang around if
they want me to -- (laughter) -- to get the bill passed. And when members
come back in September, they need to pass the rest of the basic spending
bills, to keep the federal government running.

Now, I believe these bills need to be passed one at a time because the
alternative is to pass a massive spending bill that no one can read, and
into which anyone can hide wasteful spending. They need to get the work
done before the fiscal year ends on September the 30th. If they're
responsible leaders, that's what they will do.

The other thing we need to do is confront this business about earmarks. You
know, earmarks are these special spending projects that get stuck in these
bills that really never see the light of day. Somebody has got a good idea
about how to spend your money and they just put it in the bill. This year I
proposed reforms that would make the earmark process more transparent, that
would end the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language;
that would eliminate wasteful earmarks and cut the overall number by at
least half.

There's been some agreement on this issue in Washington -- Democrats and
Republicans have taken a good step by agreeing to list all earmarks before
the bills are passed. You see, we want the public to see them. I believe in
accountability when it comes to spending your money. We want there to be
transparency. We want there to be a chance for lawmakers to strike them out
if they think that they're frivolous and don't meet national concerns.
Congress needs to uphold its commitments and the Senate needs to make
transparency a part of its formal rules.

And then there's the issue of entitlements, as I'm going through the list
of the items that will make this budget process not only better and more
transparent. But I want Congress to understand that I'm going to continue
talking about big issues, because I firmly believe that we, those of us in
public office, have a responsibility to confront serious problems now and
not pass them on to future Congresses or future generations. And such a
serious problem is in our entitlement programs -- Social Security and
Medicare and Medicaid.

The programs are growing faster than our economy, faster than inflation,
and therefore, faster than our ability to pay. Old guys like me will be
taken care of in the system. I'm worried about younger people paying into a
system that won't be around for them. And we can solve these problems. It
takes political will and political courage. And I've called on Congress to
work with my administration to deal with these significant problems now, so
our children know they'll be paying in a system that is not bankrupt.
(Applause.)

Oh, there's a lot of issues we'll be working on over the next months. We'll
be working hard to make sure that our economy continues to run with good
energy policy. I firmly believe that we can use technologies to help change
our -- how we use energy. I think it's in the national interest to become
less dependent on foreign sources of oil. I know it's in our national --
our economic interest to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
After all, when demand for crude oil goes up in other parts of the world,
it causes the basic price of oil to go up if corresponding supply is not
found, which causes the price of gasoline to go up.

We're on the verge of some unbelievable technologies in this country. And I
believe that you'll be driving to work over the next couple of years in an
automobile that's powered by electricity and it won't have to look like a
golf cart. In other words, Tommy, we'll be driving pickup trucks that may
not be running on gasoline. I know they're going to be running on ethanol,
which, by the way, I like the idea of our farmers growing energy to help us
become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. (Applause.)

What I'm telling you is I'm optimistic about our future when it comes to
energy diversification, which, by the way, will enable us to be better
stewards of the environment. Optimistic things that are coming, and we're
spending a fair amount of taxpayers' money to be a part of these new
technologies, whether they be safe nuclear power, or clean coal
technologies, or the ability to explore for oil and gas in offshore regions
that, heretofore, were unimaginable for people to find energy. I mean,
we've got a comprehensive plan that says, technology and free enterprise
can help us achieve energy independence. That's what we want.

Another way to make sure this economy grows is to be smart about our
education system. The No Child Left Behind Act is an important piece of
legislation. I'm a big believer in it, and I'll tell you why. First of all,
as the Speaker will tell you, I'm a strong advocate for local control of
schools. I don't believe Washington ought to be telling local districts how
to run their school system. I do not believe that. (Applause.)

But I do believe this: I believe that when you spend money, you ought to
insist upon results. That's what I believe. I believe that every child can
learn, and I believe that we ought to expect every school to teach. And
when we spend money, I think it makes sense to ask simple questions: Can
the child you're educating read, write, add and subtract? I don't think
it's too much to ask. As a matter of fact, I think it's good for society
that we do ask. It's what I call challenging the soft bigotry of low
expectations. (Applause.) If you have low expectations, you've going to get
lousy results. If you have high expectations for every child, you're not
afraid to measure.

No Child Left Behind says we're going to spend federal money, and we want
you to develop an accountability system that will show the parents and
taxpayers that the schools are meeting high standards. That's what it says,
and it's working. You know, one of the real problems we have in America is
an achievement gap. I guess that's a fancy word for saying that generally
Anglo kids are doing better in the basics than African American or Latino
kids. And that's not good for this country, and it's not right. And it
seems like to me we've got to focus our efforts and energies on solving
that problem if we want this country to be a hopeful country with a strong
economy.

The economy is going to demand brain power as we head into the 21st
century, and therefore now is the time to make sure our 4th graders can
read, write, and add and subtract, and our 8th graders are more proficient
in math, and when you graduate from high school, your diploma means
something. And the best place to start is to measure. And when you see a
problem, fix it before it's too late. When you find an inner-city kid that
may not have the right curriculum to get he or she up to the grade level at
the 4th grade, let's solve it now; let's now wait. No Child Left Behind is
working, and it needs to be reauthorized by the United States Congress.
(Applause.)

Finally, I want to spend some time talking about securing this country.
September the 11th changed my way of thinking, and it should change the way
our country views the world, as well. We were attacked by a group of
ruthless killers who have an ideology. In other words, they believe
something. These people are -- it's hard for you and your constituents to
imagine a frame of mind that says, I'm going to kill innocent men, women
and children to achieve a political objective. That's the nature of this
enemy. That's exactly what they're like.

They prayed upon hopelessness to convince 19 kids to get on airplanes to
come and kill nearly 3,000 of our people. And when that happened, I vowed
that I would do everything in my power to protect the American people. And
we've got a strategy to do that. On the one hand, we have altered how we
view protecting the homeland. We've created a whole department of
government that brought disparate parts of our government together, with
the main aim of protecting the people.

But protection requires more than just making sure we know who is coming in
and out of the country, and who is leaving, and screening cargo, and making
people take off their shoes at airports. It requires more than that. I
believe it requires a relentless search, relentless pressure on an enemy
that wants to do us harm again. I would rather defeat them over there than
face them here. And that's why -- (applause.)

I say that because you can't negotiate with these people. You cannot hope
for the best that, oh, maybe if we don't pressure them then they'll just
retreat. These are determined adversaries that have stated their ambitions.
They would like to see their point of view spread as far and wide as
possible. When I talk about a caliphate that stretches from Spain to
Indonesia, that means that they want to impose their ideology on people.

And what would that mean? Well, I just want you to remember -- think what
it would be like to be a young girl growing up in Afghanistan, when they
were able to find their safe haven and impose their vision across that
country. You couldn't be educated, you were forced to be a second-class
citizen. If you stepped out of line, you were whipped. These people,
they're smart, they're tough, and we need to be tougher every single day.
The best way to protect you is to keep them on the run, is to keep the
pressure on them. And that is exactly what the United States of America is
doing and will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United
States. (Applause.)

But that's not enough to defeat them. I have told the American people we're
in an ideological struggle, and the best way to defeat their ideology of
darkness in the long-term is with an ideology of hope. The ideology of hope
is based upon the universality of liberty. I told you I believe in the
universality of liberty. I don't believe there's a debate on that. I
believe every man, woman and child wants to be free. And I know that free
societies yield the peace we want. And therefore, the strategy is -- the
short-term strategy of defeating them, is to finding them and bring them to
justice. And the long-term strategy is to help others realize the blessings
of liberty.

And this is a great challenge for the United States of America. It's a
different kind of war. It's akin to the Cold War in some ways, where we had
an ideological struggle. But in this war there's an enemy that uses
asymmetrical warfare, and they're propagandists. They kill the innocent to
affect the conscience of those of us who feel like we need to keep
pressuring them. See, they understand when they fill our TV screens with
death and misery it causes a compassionate people to recoil. They know that
we value human life, and therefore, when they take human life it affects
how the American people feel.

And so I understand the angst amongst the American people. I know that
people are weary of war. I fully understand that these hard images that
these killers get on our TV screens ask people -- causes people to question
whether or not the cause is worth it, and whether or not we can succeed.
Well, I believe the cause is worth it. I wouldn't ask a mother's child to
go into combat if I didn't think it was necessary to protect the American
people to stay on the offense. And I do believe we can succeed if we don't
lose our nerve. Because freedom has had the capacity over time to change
enemies to allies, and to lay the foundation of peace for generations to
come.

And right now what you're seeing is this global war against these
extremists and radicals unfolding in two major theaters, Afghanistan, where
we liberated 25 million people from the clutches of a barbaric regime that
had provided safe haven for al Qaeda killers who plotted and planned and
then killed 3,000 of our people, and in Iraq.

The Iraq theater has gone through several stages. The first stage was the
removal of Saddam Hussein. Let me just be as blunt as I can about that. It
was his choice to make as to whether or not he was able to survive in
power. The free world, through the United Nations, spoke clearly to Saddam
Hussein. He made the choice. We removed Saddam Hussein and the world is
better off without Saddam Hussein in power. (Applause.)

And then the society which had been traumatized by his tyranny did
something remarkable, and that is they went to the polls in three historic
elections and voted for a modern constitution, and expressed their desire
to have Iraqi-style freedom, Iraqi-style democracy. It was an amazing
moment. It seems like several decades ago -- to some. But that happened in
the end of 2005.

And then this enemy -- and the enemy, by the way, is comprised of people
who wish they were still in power, disgruntled militia that are trying to
make -- see if they can't take advantage of some chaos. But the enemy that
is causing the biggest spectaculars is al Qaeda.

Now, there's a debate in Washington -- I gave a speech about this in South
Carolina the other day -- well, is the al Qaeda in Iraq have anything to do
with the al Qaeda that's hiding out somewhere in the regions of Afghanistan
and Pakistan? There's some actually who say, well, they're different,
they're not to be -- we don't need to worry about them. All they care about
is Iraq. Well, I reminded the audience in that speech that the person who
started al Qaeda in Iraq was not an Iraqi, he was from Jordan. And after we
killed him, the next person was not from Iraq, that started al Qaeda in
Iraq -- he was from Egypt.

And they have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and they agree that Iraq
is the central part of this war on terror, with Osama bin Laden. And they
agree with his ambition to drive us out so they could have a safe haven
from which to plot further attacks. Yes, al Qaeda in Iraq is dangerous to
the United States of America. They blew up the holy shrine. They saw the
progress being made; they can't stand the thought of a free society that
will thwart their ambitions, and they blew up the shrine.

And why did they do it? They did it because they saw that progress was
being made, that the Iraqis might be actually able to have a government of,
by, and for the people, and they wanted to create sectarian violence. And
they were successful. In other words, there wasn't enough security at the
time -- in other words, enough confidence in the security at the time
amongst the Iraqi people to be able to stop people from fighting each
other.

And so I had a decision to make, and I made the decision -- rather than
pulling out and hoping for the best in the capital of the new democracy,
recognizing that in the long run, a system based upon liberty will be a
major defeat for these radical extremists, I sent more troops in. Rather
than say, let's hope for the best, I said, we can do a better job of
providing security to give this young government a chance to grow and
thrive, and to give the people confidence in the constitution that they
voted for.

And David Petraeus became a new general there on the ground -- the new
general on the ground. He's an expert in counterinsurgency. The mission is
to help protect Baghdad and the people inside Baghdad, and to keep
relentless pressure on those extremists who are trying to stop the advance
of democracy. And he's making progress. And I believe it's in the interests
of this country, for our own security, for the United States Congress to
fully support General Petraeus in his mission and to give him time to come
back and report to the United States Congress the progress that he's
making. (Applause.)

It's really interesting to watch this counterinsurgency strategy work. I
mean, when people on the ground begin to have confidence, they, all of a
sudden, start making good decisions for a state that will represent their
interests. There is such a thing as top-down reconciliation -- that's the
passage of law. And the Iraqi parliament has passed quite a few pieces of
legislation, and they're working, trying to work through their differences.
Sometimes legislative bodies aren't real smooth in getting out a piece of
legislation in timely fashion, as some of you might recognize. But
nevertheless, they're working hard to -- learning what it means to have a
parliament that functions.

But there's also bottom-up reconciliation. That's when people on the ground
begin to see things change, and start making decisions that will lead to
peace. See, I believe most Muslim mothers, for example, want their child to
grow up in peace. I believe there's something universal about motherhood. I
don't think mothers in America think necessarily different from mothers in
Iraq. I think the mother in Iraq says, gosh, I hope for the day when my
child can go outside and play and not fear violence; I want my child to be
educated; I have hopes that my child can grow up in a peaceful world. And
when people begin to see that these thugs that have a dark vision begin to
get defeated, people begin to change attitudes. And that's what's happened
in Anbar province.

Last November, many experts said that Anbar province, which al Qaeda in
Iraq has stated as their -- that they wanted as a safe haven -- this was
going to be where they were going to launch their caliphate from -- they
said, we can't win there. And all of a sudden, we put more Marines in, the
people saw things change on the ground, local leaders started turning in al
Qaeda -- they don't like to be -- people don't like to be intimidated by
thugs and murderers. And the whole situation is changing -- for the better.
Progress is being made there.

Now, I know that the car bombs that take place tend to cloud people's
vision. What I'm telling you is that we gave David Petraeus a mission, the
troops just fully got there one month ago, and he's accomplishing that
mission. And my point to you is, it's worth it, and necessary, because if
we were to leave before the job is done, these radicals like al Qaeda would
become emboldened, there would be chaos, mass casualties in Iraq. And that
chaos could spill out across the region. And if that were to happen, there
would be significant competition among radical groups, whether they be
Sunni or Shia, all aiming to destabilize the region in order to be able to
achieve power. But they would have one thing in common, and that would be
to inflict harm on the United States of America.

It's in our interests that there be a stable government that is an ally
against these extremists, not only in Iraq, but elsewhere. It's in our
long-term interest for peace and security. Failure in Iraq would undermine
that long-term interest. See, unlike some wars, this enemy wouldn't be
content to stay in Iraq. They would follow us here. They would use the
resources of Iraq to be able to acquire additional weaponry, or use
economic blackmail to achieve their objectives. They're dangerous in Iraq,
and they'll be dangerous here. And that is why we must defeat them in Iraq.
And we can. (Applause.)

I have spent a lot of time sharing this story with people, so I'm going to
share it with you. If you've heard me tell it, play like you hadn't heard
it. (Laughter.) One of my close friends in the international arena over the
last six-and-a-half years is Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. He was such a
close friend that Laura and I took him down to Elvis's place -- (laughter)
-- which was really fun. I'm also a close friend of his successor, Prime
Minister Abe.

The reason I bring this up is that, as you know -- or may not know -- my
dad, professionally known as 41, fought the Japanese. As a young kid, he
got out of high school, went down and trained in Corpus -- part of his
training mission -- and then fought the Japanese as the sworn enemy of the
United States of America. I'm sure some of your relatives did the same
thing.

And yet, here, some 60-odd years later, his son is sitting down at the
table with the head of the former enemy, talking about keeping the peace.
We were talking about, when I was visiting with Prime Minister Koizumi, and
now his successor, the fact that it's important to help these young
democracies survive in the face of this radicalism and extremism that can
affect our homelands. See, we share this great -- same philosophical belief
that liberty can prevail, and that we have a duty to help liberty to
prevail if we want there to be security.

I've always found that to be very interesting: My dad fought the Japanese,
and the son, one lifetime later, is talking about keeping the peace. We
talk about Afghanistan and helping that young democracy. Of course, we talk
about North Korea, to make sure that we deal with any weapons proliferation
that might be happening. We talk about a lot of issues, but they're issues
about peace. Something happened between the 18-year-old kid who joined up
to be in the Navy, and the 60-year-old son being the President. And what
happened is, is that liberty has got the capacity to convert an enemy into
an ally.

I don't know how many people would have been predicting in 1947 or '48, or
after the peace treaty was signed when President Truman was the President,
that there would be this kind of accommodation made between two former
enemies for the sake of peace. I'm not sure how many would have --
particularly right after World War II. I suspect a lot of people would say
this never would have happened. They were the enemy then, they'll be the
enemy now.

And the reason I tell you this story is that if you really look at history,
you'll find examples where liberty has transformed regions that were
warlike, where a lot of people died, into regions of peace. And that's
going to happen again, so long as we have faith in that fundamental
principle; so long as we don't lose our confidence in certain values --
that are not American values, but they're universal values.

I believe the most important priority of our government is to protect the
American people from further harm. And you just need to be reassured, and
so do your constituents, that a lot of good people are spending every hour
of every day doing just that. But I would remind you, in the long run, the
best way for your children and grandchildren to be able to say that when
given a tough task, this generation didn't flinch, and had certain faith --
had faith in certain values -- is that we stay strong when it comes to
liberty as a transformative agent to bring the peace we want.

Thanks for letting me come. God bless. (Applause.)

END 9:57 A.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070726-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)