For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 11, 2006
President Participates in Discussion on the Global War on Terror
Kentucky International Convention Center
Louisville, Kentucky
In Focus: National Security
In Focus: Renewal in Iraq
1:18 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please sit down. I think I will.
(Laughter.) I'm glad to be here. Thanks for having me. What I thought
I'd do is maybe make some opening comments and answer any questions you
got. I probably can't stay here all day since I've got a job to do, but
I'm interested in your opinions and your point of view.
I hope the questions are broader than the war on terror -- if you want; you
can ask me anything you want. We got an economy that's going good, and
perhaps you want to know what we're going to do to keep it growing. You
know, we got a health care system that needs reform. We got an energy
problem in the United States. We've got a lot of issues that I'll be more
than happy to talk about.
I do want to talk about how to secure this country and keep the peace.
Before I do, I want to thank Joe. He stole my line Reagan-Bush --
(laughter.) It was going to work just fine, until he took it. (Laughter.)
But thank you for setting this up. Thanks a lot for the sponsors. I
appreciate you all taking time out of your day, and I appreciate your
interest.
Before I begin I do want to say I married well. I'm sorry the First Lady
isn't with me. She is a heck of a person. I love her dearly, and she
sends her very best to our friends here in Louisville, Kentucky.
I thank the Governor for being here, and the Lieutenant Governor. And I
want to thank your Mayor. The Mayor showed me a pair of cufflinks that my
dad gave him when he was the President and the Mayor was the Mayor.
(Laughter.) It looks like the Mayor is going to outlast both Bushes.
(Laughter and applause.)
I also want to thank Congresswoman Anne Northup -- I call her a friend
because she is one. She brings a lot of dignity to the halls of the United
States Congress. I'm sure there are some folks here who don't necessarily
agree with the party she's picked, and that's okay. But one thing you've
got to agree with is she's honest, she's capable, and she's a decent,
honorable soul. And I appreciate you. (Applause.)
I want to thank Ron Lewis. He's a Congressman from Kentucky, as well. And
you let somebody slide across the border in Congressman Mike Sodrel. I
appreciate both the Congressmen being here, as well. I'm looking forward
to -- (applause) -- I'm looking forward to working with you in the year
2006. We've got a lot to do.
Let me -- I wish I didn't have to say this, but we're still at war. And
that's important for the citizens of this commonwealth to understand. You
know, no President ever wants to be President during war. But this war
came to us, not as a result of actions we took, it came to us as a result
of actions an enemy took on September the 11th, 2001. And I -- (applause)
-- and I vowed that day, starting when I was in Florida and got on the
airplane to head across the country, that I would use everything in my
power -- obviously, within the Constitution -- but everything in my power
to protect the American people. That is the most solemn duty of
government, is to protect our people from harm.
And I vowed that we'd find those killers and bring them to justice. And
that's what we're doing. We're on the hunt for an enemy that still lurks.
I know, because I'm briefed on a daily basis about the threats that face
the United States of America. And my duty is to assess this world the way
it is, not the way we'd like it to be. And there's a danger that lurks --
and there's a danger that lurks because we face an enemy which cannot stand
freedom. It's an enemy which has an ideology that does not believe in free
speech, free religion, free dissent, does not believe in women's rights,
and they have a desire to impose their ideology on much of the world.
Secondly, after September the 11th, not only did I vow to use our assets to
protect the people by staying on the offense, by defeating an enemy
elsewhere so we don't have to face them here at home, I also said that if
you harbor a terrorist, if you provide safe haven to a terrorist, you're
equally as guilty as the terrorist. And I meant it. And the Taliban in
Afghanistan -- a barbaric group of individuals who suppressed women,
suppressed religious freedom, suppressed young girls -- had harbored these
terrorists; they provided safe haven. These folks were there plotting and
planning a vicious attack against the United States of America in a safe
haven called Afghanistan.
And so we took action. We took action because the Taliban refused to expel
al Qaeda. And we took action because when an American President says
something, he better mean it. In order to be able to keep the peace, in
order to be able to have credibility in this world, when we speak, we
better mean what we say. And I meant what we said. And we sent some brave
souls into Afghanistan to liberate that country from the Taliban.
I also said, after September the 11th, that oceans no longer protected us.
You know, when I was growing up, or other baby boomers here were growing
up, we felt safe because we had these vast oceans that could protect us
from harm's way. September the 11th changed all that. And so I vowed that
we would take threats seriously. If we saw a threat, we would take threats
seriously before they fully materialized. And I saw a threat in Saddam
Hussein.
I understand that the intelligence didn't turn out the way a lot of the
world thought it would be. And that was disappointing, and we've done
something about it. We've reformed our intelligence services. But Saddam
Hussein was a sworn enemy of the United States. He was on the nations that
sponsor terror list for a reason. I didn't put him on the list; previous
Presidents put him on the list. And the reason why is because he was
sponsoring terrorism. He was shooting at our airplanes. He had attacked
his own people with chemical weapons. I mean, the guy was a threat.
I went to the United Nations -- some of you were probably concerned here in
Kentucky that it seemed like the President was spending a little too much
time in the United Nations. But I felt it was important to say to the
world that this international body that we want to be effective, spoke loud
and clear not once, but 15 odd times to Saddam Hussein -- said, disarm, get
rid of your weapons, don't be the threat that you are, or face serious
consequences. That's what the international body said. And my view is, is
that in order for the world to be effective, when it says something, it
must mean it.
We gave the opportunity to Saddam Hussein to open his country up. It was
his choice. He chose war, and he got war. And he's not in power, and the
world is better off for it. (Applause.)
The hardest decision I made as your President is to put troops into harm's
way, because I understand the consequences. I see the consequences when I
go to the hospitals. I see the consequences when I try to comfort the
loved ones who have lost a son or a daughter in combat. I understand that
full -- firsthand: War is brutal. And so I didn't take the decision
lightly. Now that I've made the decision, we must succeed in Iraq. I've
tried to explain to my fellow citizens, I can understand folks who said, I
wish you hadn't done that. We don't agree with your decision. Now that
we're there, in my humble opinion, we have got to succeed. (Applause.)
I said I'd try to be short and answer your questions. I'm getting a little
windy. (Laughter.) But let me talk real quick about the goals in Iraq.
The goal is victory, nothing short of victory. When you put these kids in
harm's way, we owe them the best equipment, the best training, and a
strategy for victory. And victory is a country that -- where the
Saddamists and the terrorists can't unwind the democracy. Victory is when
Iraq is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists. Victory is -- will be
achieved when the Iraqis are able to defend their democracy.
In the last couple of weeks, I've been talking about the strategy to
achieve victory. It's one thing to say we want victory; the other thing
is, can you get there? And the answer is, absolutely, we can get there.
And the strategy is threefold. One, there's a political strategy. First
let me make sure you understand the enemy. The enemy is, in our judgment,
my judgment, three types of people. One, we call them rejectionists --
these are Sunnis who had privileged status under Saddam Hussein, even
though they were in the minority the country. They had a pretty good deal
because the tyrant was a Sunni, and made sure that the Sunnis got special
treatment, as opposed to the Shia or the Kurds. And they liked that kind
of special treatment. They liked privileged status.
The second group is the Saddam loyalists. These are the thugs and people
that basically robbed the country blind, and not only got privilege status,
but they were the all-powerful. And needless to say, they don't like it
with their man sitting in prison and them no longer being able to exploit
the people of Iraq. They're irritated.
Finally, the third group, and this is a dangerous group -- it's al Qaeda
and its affiliates. A guy named Zarqawi is the chief operating officer in
Iraq on behalf of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has made it very clear their
intentions in Iraq, which is to drive the United States out so they will
have a base from which to operate to spread their ideology. That's what
they have said. This is what Mr. Zawahiri said. It's important for those
of us involved in trying to protect you to take the enemy seriously, to
listen to their words closely. In other words, al Qaeda has made Iraq a
front in the war on terror. And that's why we've developed a strategy for
victory.
The first part of it is to have a political process that marginalizes the
rejectionists and isolates the dissenters. And it's happening. Under any
objective measurement, what took place last year in Iraq was remarkable,
when you think about it. This country is a country that lived under the
brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and last year they had elections for
a transitional government, they wrote a constitution and got the
constitution approved, and then had elections for a permanent government
under the new constitution -- all in one year. (Applause.) And every
election had more participants. And most importantly, in the last
election, the rejectionists who had sat out the first couple of elections
-- many Sunnis had sat out; they said, we're not going to be involved in
the political process -- got involved. Slowly but surely, those who were
trying to stop the advance of democracy are becoming marginalized.
Secondly, this is a country, obviously, that has got brutal action -- this
enemy we face has got no conscience. They will kill innocent people in a
heartbeat in order to achieve their objectives. And it's hard for
Americans to deal with that. I understand that. It's hard for me to
believe that there is such brutality in the world where people going to a
funeral to mourn the dead, and a suicider shows up and kills people. It's
hard for me to believe that we've got soldiers passing out candy to young
kids, and a killer comes and kills the kids and the soldiers. It is beyond
the imagination of most Americans, but it should say something about this
enemy. They will go to no ends to defeat us. But they can't beat us on
the battlefield. The only thing they can do is create these brutal scenes.
And they're trying to drive us out of Iraq, as I mentioned. And the best
way to deal with them is train Iraqis so they can deal with them. And
that's what's happening. There are two aspects of our training. And,
listen, the training hasn't gone smoothly all the time. I mean, this is a
war. And you're constantly adjusting your strategies and tactics -- not
strategies -- tactics on the ground to meet an enemy which is changing.
And so the army is getting on its feet. We've turned over a lot of
territory to the army. And they're good fighters, they really are. I
spent a great deal of time with General Abizaid and General Casey -- they
were in Washington this past week -- these are generals, you'd be happy to
hear, who tell me the way it is, not the way they think I would like it to
be. I can't tell you how good the caliber of our military brass -- and
those in the field, by the way, all the way up and down the line, are good,
they are good people -- (applause) -- better trained, not just numbers, I'm
talking about capacity to take the fight and stay in the fight. And as
I've said, as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. So the strategy, the
security strategy is to let the Iraqis do the fighting. It's their
country. The people have shown they want democracy. Millions voted. And
now part of the mission is to give this government a security force which
will help fight off the few who are trying to stop the hopes of the many.
One of the places where we've lagged is training police. There are three
types of police. There's a national police force, kind of like a swat
team, a national swat team, that can move -- they're pretty well trained.
They need some human rights training. In other words, part of the problem
in Iraq is you've got people that are plenty irritated at what took place
in the past and they're going to use their positions of power to take
revenge. You can't have a democracy in which the police don't enforce the
rule of law, but enforce their view of revenge. And so you got ethics
training, rule of law training -- all done by good troops who are embedded
-- who are side-by-side with this Iraqi police force. And it's getting
better, it really is.
Secondly, you've got the border patrol. The reason why the border is
necessary is because there's suiciders coming in from Syria into Iraq. And
the Iraqis have got to be able to enforce their border in order to be able
to protect their democracy.
And thirdly, you've got local police, and we're lagging in the local
police. And the local police -- it's just that, local. And so what we're
going to do is use what worked in the Balkans and embed people in the local
police units to teach them how to -- effective enforcements of the law.
And so, 2006 you're going to see a lot of police training and a lot of
police focus.
Finally, there's the economic and reconstruction front. We started up
grand projects in Iraq when we first got there, said we're going to build
some grand projects. It turns out a more effective use of reconstruction
money was localize projects to empower those who were willing to take a
risk for democracy with the capacity to say, follow me, your life is going
to be better. By the way, democracy works in Iraq just like it does here --
you're going to vote for somebody who thinks that they can bring character
to the office and they're going to help your life. Same anywhere else.
You're out there campaigning; they want to know what are you going to do
for me. And so part of the reconstruction effort was to focus on local
reconstruction projects.
The Iraqi economy has got a great chance to succeed. They got oil and gas
revenues. They had been having trouble getting some oil and gas revenues
up to the levels we anticipated because of the infrastructure damage --
done by Saddam Hussein, by the way, and because the terrorists, every time
there's some progress, tend to blow things up. Now, having said that, they
got these surveys -- and I must confess I'm not much of a survey guy, but
they got them, and most Iraqis are optimistic about the future. And as I
said yesterday, they're willing to live with intermittent darkness, as
opposed to the darkness -- and freedom -- as opposed to the darkness of
tyranny. That's what you're seeing.
But this economy is going. Small businesses are flourishing. They got a
-- they had to deal with gasoline subsidies. Saddam Hussein, in order to
make sure people kept him around and thought he was all right -- they
didn't have much choice, by the way, because he had a force behind him --
but nevertheless, he subsidized gasoline, which meant a lot of the central
budget was going for subsidization of fuel, as opposed to education and
health. And so the new government made a difficult decision, they started
floating that price of gasoline up a little higher, to take the pressure
off their budget and to introduce markets, market-based forces into the
economy.
It's not going to happen overnight. You can't go from a tightly controlled
economy to an open market overnight, but it's happening. In other words,
the government is making difficult choices to help the entrepreneurial
spirit begin to flourish.
And so things are good. I'm confident we'll succeed. And it's tough,
though. The enemy has got one weapon -- I repeat to you -- and that's to
shake our will. I just want to tell you, whether you agree with me, or
not, they're not going to shake my will. We're doing the right thing.
(Applause.)
A couple of quick points, then I'll answer your questions. You hear a lot
of talk about troop levels. I'd just like to give you my thinking on troop
levels. I know a lot of people want our troops to come home -- I do, too.
But I don't want us to come home without achieving the victory.
(Applause.) We owe that to the mothers and fathers and husbands and wives
who have lost a loved one. That's what I feel. I feel strongly that we
cannot let the sacrifice -- (applause) -- we can't let their sacrifice go
in vain.
Secondly, I -- these troop levels will be decided by our commanders. If
you run a business, you know what I'm talking about when I say -- it's
called delegating. You count on people to give you good advice. The best
people to give any politician advice about whether or not we're achieving a
military objective is the people you put out there on the ground. I told
you I've got good confidence in these generals and the people who report to
them. These are honest, honorable, decent, very capable, smart people, and
they'll decide the troop levels. They hear from me: Victory. And I say
to them: What do you need to achieve victory? (Applause.)
I don't know if you've noticed recently, but we're beginning to reduce
presence in Iraq based upon the recommendation of our commanders. We've
gone from 17 to 15 battalions. We kept up to about 60,000 -- 160,000
troops in Iraq for the elections. We held over about 25,000 or so on a --
that were to rotate out to help in the elections. Those 25,000 are coming
back, plus the reduced battalions. And people say, well, how about more
for the rest of the year? And the answer to that is, I'm going to do what
they tell me to do. And that depends upon the capacity of the Iraqis to
help us achieve victory.
And why is victory important? Let me just conclude by this point. You
know, it's hard for some to -- in our country to connect the rise of
democracy with peace. This is an ideological struggle, as far as I'm
concerned, and you defeat an ideology of darkness with an ideology of light
and hope. History has proven that democracies yield the peace. If you
really look at some of the past struggles where -- in which the United
States has been involved, the ultimate outcome, the final product, was
peace based upon freedom. Europe is whole, free, and at peace because of
democracy.
One of the examples I like to share with people in order to make the
connection between that which we're doing in Iraq today, and laying -- what
I call, laying the foundation of peace, is my relationship with Prime
Minister Koizumi of Japan. And the reason I like to bring up this story is
I find it amazing that my dad -- old number 41 -- at the age of 18, fought
the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy of the United States. Many in
this audience, I know, had relatives in that war. They were the bitter
enemy. They had attacked us, just like we were attacked on September the
11th. People in America said, we'll do everything we can to defeat this
enemy, and thousands of people lost their lives.
Laura and I were over in the Far East recently. I was sitting down at the
table with the Prime Minister of our former enemy talking about how to keep
the peace. We were talking about the spread of democracy in Iraq and in
the Middle East as a way to counter an ideology that is backwards and
hateful. We were talking about North Korea, how to keep the peace on the
Korean Peninsula.
Isn't it amazing -- at least it is to me -- that some 60 years after an
18-year-old fighter pilot joined the Navy to fight the Japanese, his son is
talking with the Prime Minister of the former enemy about keeping the
peace. Something happened. And what happened was Japan adopted a
Japanese-style democracy. Democracies yield the peace. And I firmly
believe -- I firmly believe that years from now people are going to look
back and say, thank goodness the new generation of Americans who rose to
the challenge of a war against terror had faith in the capacity of freedom
to help change the world. And someday an American President is going to be
talking to a duly elected leader from Iraq, talking about how to keep the
peace for a generation to come. (Applause.)
I want to thank you all. That is the definition of a short speech.
(Laughter.) Probably hate to hear a long one. (Laughter.) All right,
I'll answer some questions. Start us off.
MR. REAGAN: Mr. President, thank you very much. As I told you, we'd like
to have some tough and challenging questions --
THE PRESIDENT: -- Washington, D.C. press conference?
MR. REAGAN: I thought you'd be at home here with that. We do want to keep
these questions respectful, and we really do thank you for making the time
to share this dialogue with us, we really do.
You've talked a lot about history. In your State of the Union after
September 11th, you defined this war as a war on terror. In history, our
parents' generation had V.E. Day and V.J. Day. And in our time, we've seen
the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. If you define
this as a war on terror, will there ever be a V.T. Day? And, if not, what
do you need to do to prepare us to be able to go the duration?
THE PRESIDENT: I also said that this is a different kind of war, the kind
of war we've never faced before. We're not facing a nation-state per se.
We're facing a shadowy network of people bound together by a common
ideology that -- by the way, the enemy knows no rules of war. They just --
they kill innocent people.
And so, you're right, I did say it's a war, the first war of the 21st
century, but I've been emphasizing it's a different kind of war. So I
don't envision a signing ceremony on the USS Missouri. As a matter of
fact, this is a war in which the enemy is going to have to be defeated by a
competing system in the long run.
The short-term objective is to use our intelligence and our allies to hunt
these people down. And we're getting -- we're doing it. And we're on the
-- we got brave, brave souls, who, every single day, are trying to find the
al Qaeda leadership and the network. We're doing -- we've done a good job
so far. If Osama bin Laden were the top guy, and Mr. Zawahiri -- he was
the person that put out the strategy, by the way, for al Qaeda, for
everybody to see. I don't think he put it out for everybody to see. It
just happened to be exposed for everybody to see eventually. But Abu
Zubaydah, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- there's a series of chief operators who
are no longer a threat to the United States. I mean, we are dismantling
the operators. And when we find them, we bring them to justice as quickly
as we can.
That's the short-term strategy. There's also the strategy of making it
clear, if you harbor a terrorist -- the short-term strategy of dealing with
threats before they come to hurt us -- I say, before they fully
materialize. One of the lessons of September the 11th is, when you see a
threat out there, you can't assume that it's not going to come to our shore
anymore. And so we've got to deal with it.
Obviously, the best way to deal with these kinds of threats is
diplomatically. We're doing so in Iran. If somebody has got a question on
Iran, I'll be glad to answer it in a minute. But that's what we're trying
to get done. The military option is always the last option. The long-term
victory will come by defeating the hopelessness and despair that these
killers exploit with a system that is open and hopeful. and the only such
system is a free system.
And I have got faith in the capacity of people to self-govern. Now, there
is a point of view in this world by some that say, well, maybe certain kind
of people can't self-govern -- which, by the way, was the attitude of some
right after World War II: The enemy can't possibly self-govern. The
attitude was somewhat blinded by the fact that we were so angry at the
Japanese that no one could see a hopeful tomorrow for them.
I believe everybody desires to be free. That's what I believe. And I
believe everybody has the capacity to self-govern. I'm not -- never have I
said, nor do I believe, that we are trying to impose our style of democracy
on another country. It won't work. Each country has got its own cultures
and own history and own tradition, and they ought to have their own style
of democracy. But I do know that tyrants breed resentment and hatred. And
I do know that if a person is -- if they want to be free and not allowed to
express their belief, it causes resentment, the breeding grounds for a
terrorist movement which exploits the unsettled attitudes of the people.
So, in other words, it's not going to be that kind of -- it's not the kind
of war that you talked about earlier, and so the peace won't be the kind of
peace that we're used to.
Thank you. Good question. Okay.
Q I'd like to ask, recently in the media, you've been catching a lot of
flak about that National Security Agency thing.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q There's people in our states and there's people that are in D.C. that
will take and jeopardize what I feel is our national security and our
troops' safety today for partisan advantage, for political advantage.
They're starting an investigation in the Justice Department about the --
looking into this, where these leaks came from. Is the Justice Department
going to follow through and, if necessary, go after the media to take and
get the answers and to shut these leaks up?
THE PRESIDENT: First let me talk about the issue you brought up -- and
it's a very serious issue. I did say to the National -- it's called the
NSA, National Security Agency, that they should protect America by taking
the phone numbers of known al Qaeda and/or affiliates and find out why
they're making phone calls into the United States, and vice versa. And I
did so because the enemy still wants to hurt us. And it seems like to me
that if somebody is talking to al Qaeda, we want to know why.
Now, I -- look, I understand people's concerns about government
eavesdropping. And I share those concerns, as well. So obviously I had to
make the difficult decision between balancing civil liberties and, on a
limited basis -- and I mean limited basis -- try to find out the intention
of the enemy. In order to safeguard the civil liberties of the people, we
have this program full scrutinized on a regular basis. It's been
authorized, reauthorized many times. We got lawyers looking at it from
different branches of government.
We have briefed the leadership of the United States Congress, both
Republican and Democrat, as well as the leaders of the intelligence
committees, both Republicans and Democrats, about the nature of this
program. We gave them a chance to express their disapproval or approval of
a limited program taking known al Qaeda numbers -- numbers from known al
Qaeda people -- and just trying to find out why the phone calls are being
made.
I can understand concerns about this program. Before I went forward, I
wanted to make sure I had all the legal authority necessary to make this
decision as your President. We are a rule -- a country of law. We have a
Constitution, which guides the sharing of power. And I take that -- I put
that hand on the Bible, and I meant it when I said I'm going to uphold the
Constitution. I also mean it when I'm going to protect the American
people.
I have the right as the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war to take action
necessary to protect the American people. And secondly, the Congress, in
the authorization, basically said the President ought to -- in
authorization of the use of troops -- ought to protect us. Well, one way
to protect us is to understand the nature of the enemy. Part of being able
to deal with this kind of enemy in a different kind of war is to understand
why they're making decisions they're making inside our country.
So I want to thank you for bringing that up. There will be a lot of
hearings and talk about that, but that's good for democracy -- just so long
as the hearings, as they explore whether or not I have the prerogative to
make the decision I made doesn't tell the enemy what we're doing. See,
that's the danger. (Applause.)
The Patriot Act is up for renewal. That's another piece of legislation
which is important to protect. Do you realize that the Patriot Act has
given our FBI and intelligence services the same tools of sharing
information that we have given to people that are fighting drug lords. In
other words, much of the authorities that we ask for in the Patriot Act to
be able to fight and win the war on terror has already been in practice
when it comes to dealing with drug lords. And I can't tell you how
important it is to reauthorize the legislation.
There's a lot of investigation, you're right, in Washington -- which is
okay. That's part of holding people to account in a democracy. But at one
point in time the government got accused of not connecting the dots. You
might remember that debate -- we didn't connect the dots. And all of a
sudden, we start connecting the dots through the Patriot Act and the NSA
decision, and we're being criticized. Now, you know, I got the message
early: Why don't you connect dots? And we're going to. (Applause.) And
we're going to safeguard the civil liberties of the people. That's what
you've got to know.
That was a great question, thank you for asking it. I'm going to avoid the
part on the press. (Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, we hear a common expert opinion all the time that the
terrorists are going to attack us -- it's not a question of whether, it's a
question of when. And, yes, that might happen. But the facts are that
since 9/11 we haven't had any, so thank you. (Applause.)
And now to my question. You have said many a time to all those who will
listen that the two major pillars of democracy are free and fair elections,
and the separation of church and state. However, historically, and to date,
a vast majority of the Islamists across nations do not believe in that
simple fact of separation between church and state. Therefore, how can we
help change their belief, that for democracy to succeed, certain elements
must be in place? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: It's a great question. First, let me say that the enemy
hasn't attacked us, but they attacked others. Since September the 11th,
there have been multiple attacks around the world. These guys are active.
You might remember Beslan, an attack on Russian schoolchildren, just killed
them cold-blooded. I remember going to the G8, and there were the attacks
in London. You know, there's -- are they al Qaeda, not al Qaeda? These
are people that are inspired, at the very minimum, by al Qaeda.
The enemy is active. They are. And we're just going to do everything we
can to protect you. Look, there have been -- when you think about the Far
East, democracy didn't exist for a long period of time. And so principles,
such as separation of church and state, were foreign to a lot of people
where democracy doesn't exist, until democracy begins to exist, and then it
becomes a logical extension of democracy.
I made a foreign policy decision in the Middle East that said, we can't
tolerate the status quo any longer for the sake of inexpensive energy. In
other words, there was a period of time when people said, let's just kind
of deal with the situation as it is, sometimes tolerating strong men for a
economic objective. I changed our foreign policy that said, that attitude
of kind of accepting the things the way they are is going to lead to the
conditions that will allow the enemy to continue to breed hatred and find
suiciders and soldiers in their attempt to do harm.
What I'm telling you is, is that the part of the world where we've started
this democracy initiative hasn't known democracy, except for in Israel and
Lebanon. So to answer your question, it's going to be the spread of
democracy, itself, that shows folks the importance of separation of church
and state. And that is why the constitution written in Iraq is an
important constitution, because it separates church for the first time in a
modern day constitution in Iraq.
The Iraqi example is going to spread. I believe that -- one of the big
issues in the Middle East is women's rights, the freedom of women, that
they're not treated fairly. (Applause.) And, yet, when you're guaranteed
rights under a constitution and people are able to see that life is
improving, it will cause others to say, I want the same kind of right.
Part of our strategy in order to keep the peace is to encourage the spread
of democracy. And the enemy understands that. The enemy knows that a
democracy, as it spreads, will help deal with issues such as the separation
of -- it will encourage the separation of church and state; will encourage
women to rise up and say, we want to be treated equally; will mean that
mothers will be able to have confidence that their young daughter will have
an opportunity to achieve the same as a young son. And those thoughts
frighten the enemy. It's hard to believe, but it does.
So to answer your question, concepts that we take for granted in democracy
are foreign because the system of government has yet to take hold. But
when it takes hold, it will become -- people will begin to understand the
wisdom of that part of the democratic process.
Let's see, let me -- kind of searching around. Yes, sir?
Q Hi. My name is Mario --
THE PRESIDENT: Hola -- en Mexico?
Q Monterrey. We went for Christmas, to spend Christmas with my family
in Mexico. And, you know, my family, friends, media, President Fox,
they're talking about the wall that the United States wants to build across
the border with Mexico. My question for you is, what is your opinion or
your position about that wall? And, you know, when people ask me how can I
justify the answer to build a wall, other than saying, we don't want you
here, you know?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, great question.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: His question is on immigration. Let me talk about
immigration. We have an obligation to enforce our borders. (Applause.)
Let me just say the full answer. (Laughter.) And we do for a lot of
reasons. The main reason is security reasons, seems like to me. And
security means more than just a terrorist slipping in. It means drugs.
The Mayor was telling me that there's a lot of -- crime around the country
-- he's been studying this -- because of drug use. And who knows if
they're being smuggled in from Mexico, but drugs do get smuggled in. So
it's a security issue. It's more than just the war on terrorist security
issue. It's the issue of being able to try to secure the lifestyle of our
country from the use of drugs, drug importation, for example. A lot of
things get smuggled across. Generally, when you're smuggling something
it's against the law. So we have an obligation of enforcing the border.
That's what the American people expect.
Now, you mentioned "wall." The intent is to use fencing in some areas,
particularly in urban centers, where people have found it easy to cross
illegally into the country. It is impractical to build a wall all the way
up and down the border. Look, I was the old governor of Texas -- you can't
build a wall up and down the entire length of the border of the United
States. But you can find those border crossing points in high urban areas
and use some construction. You can be able to put berms up in order to
prevent people from smuggling people across the border. There are ways to
use electronics to be able to help our border patrol agents detect people
who are illegally coming into the country. And we're getting -- we're kind
of modernizing the border, I guess is the best way to put it.
There is an electronic wall, to a certain extent, on parts of our border
where there may be an unmanned drone flying along that radios to a border
patrol center that says, hey, we've got people sneaking across illegally;
find them. The second aspect -- and so we are going to enforce the border
as best as we possibly can; it's our duty.
Secondly, one of the problems we faced is that people get stopped and they
get let back out in society, and say, come on back for your hearing. But
guess what? They don't come back for the hearing. That's the
catch-and-release. And we're trying to change that, particularly for those
from Central America who've come up from Central America through Mexico and
the United States.
The reason most people come is to work. I always have said that family
values do not stop at the Rio Grande River. There are some jobs Americans
will not do that are being filled by people who want to feed their
families. And that's what's happening. And my attitude about that is, is
that when you find a willing worker and a company who can't find an
American to do the job, there ought to be a legal way, on a temporary
basis, to fill that job.
And so let me finish real quick. It is compassionate -- by the way, it is
important to enforce the border. President Fox understands he's got to
enforce his border in the south of Mexico, by the way, from people coming
up from the south. It is compassionate to recognize why most people are
here, and they're here to work.
It also makes sense to take pressure off the border by giving people a
legal means on a temporary basis to come here, so they don't have to sneak
across. Now, some of you all may be old enough to remember the days of
Prohibition. I'm not. (Laughter.) But remember, we illegalized whisky,
and guess what? People found all kinds of ways to make it, and to run it.
NASCAR got started -- positive thing that came out of all that.
(Laughter.)
What you're having here is you've created a -- you've made it illegal for
People to come here to work that other Americans won't do, and guess has
happened? A horrible industry has grown up. You've got folks right here
in Kentucky who are hiring people to do jobs Americans won't do, and you
say, show me your papers, and they've been forged, and the employer
doesn't know about it.
Part of making sure that immigration policy works is you hold employers to
account, but how can you hold them to account when they're being presented
with forged documents? A whole forgery industry has grown up around this.
We've got good honorable people coming to work to put food on their tables,
being stuffed in the back of 18-wheelers. We've got people being smuggled
by what they called coyotes into the deserts and asked to walk across. And
they're dying because they're trying to get to work, and they're being
mistreated. In other words, this underground industry is creating a human
condition that any American wouldn't accept. I mean, it's just not right.
And so I think, yes, absolutely enforce the border, but at the same time
have a recognition that people are going to come here to work if an
American won't do the job, so let's make it legal on a temporary basis.
And I mean a temporary workers' card that's tamper proof, that gives the
employer satisfaction they're not breaking the law, that says you can come
here for a period of time and you go home.
Now, the big issue on this -- besides enforcing the border
-- is amnesty. I am against amnesty. And the reason I am against amnesty
-- amnesty means automatic citizenship -- I'm against automatic
citizenship, in all due respect to others in our country that believe it's
a good thing, and I'm against it because all that, in my judgment, would do
would cause another 8 million to 11 million people to come here to try to
be able to get the same -- hopefully put the pressure on the system to
create automatic citizenship. So I think the best solution is the one I
just described. And it's an issue that's going to be important for the
American people to conduct in a way that honors our values.
We value -- every life is important. We hold everybody up to respect. We
should, you know? But we're going to enforce our laws at the same time.
And I think you can do both in a compassionate way. I appreciate you
asking that question. Thank you. (Applause.)
Yes.
Q President Bush, I've been an educator in five states for 36 years.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Thank you. (Applause.) Right up there with national security I think
is the issue of education of every single person in the United States.
It's of crucial importance to our future. And given the challenges in the
world, the fact that we have to keep this nation secure in the future, and
that we have to deal with all sorts of threats -- many of which we don't
know -- what do you think we need to do better in education to provide a
well educated citizenry that will meet those challenges and keep us secure?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate it. Listen, part of security is economic
security. And one way to make sure we're economically secure in a
competitive world is to make sure every child gets a good education. It's
a huge issue for America to make sure the public school system functions.
First, let me just say, the public school system is important for our
country, and we want it to work. The public school system in the past has
provided an avenue for success. And we've got to make sure we continue to
do so.
Let me start with grades K through 12. We passed what's called the No
Child Left Behind Act. It is a really good piece of legislation -- at
least, in my humble opinion. And the reason why is, it says every child
can learn, and we expect every child to learn. In other words, in return
for federal money -- and we've increased spending for Title I kids up
somewhere about 40-something percent, and elementary and secondary school
programs gone up 41 percent -- listen, I'm a local control guy. But I also
am a results person, and I say we're spending a lot of money, particularly
on poor kids. And I think it makes sense for the taxpayers to know whether
or not those kids can read and write and add and subtract.
And so we said, in return for receiving this money, you've got to test.
Not the federal government is going to test. You test. You design the
test, the Governor can figure out the right way to test, to determine
whether or not children can read and write and add and subtract.
You can't solve a problem until you diagnose it. And I was worried -- when
I was the governor of my own state, I was worried about a system that did
not test. And so we were just kind of hoping things went well, and we're
just going to shuffle through. And guess who gets shuffled through? Poor
black kids get shuffled through. Young Latinos get shuffled through. You
know, let's just kind of socially promote them. And so step one of making
sure that the education system works is to measure to determine whether it
is working.
Step two is to correct problems early before it's late. And so part of the
No Child Left Behind bill is supplemental services money, per child, to
help a child get up to speed at grade level by the appropriate time.
Step three is to be able to use the accountability system to determine
whether the curriculum you're using is working. I don't know if you've had
these debates here in Kentucky, but I can remember them awhile ago, we were
debating, what kind of reading instruction works? And it was a hot debate.
Everybody had their opinion. The best way to determine what kind of
reading program works is to measure to determine what kind of reading
program works.
Four, you've got to have your parents involved in your schools. The best
way -- one good way to get your parents involved is to put the scores out
there for everybody to see. It's amazing how many people go to schools and
say, gosh, my kid is going to a fabulous school, until they see the score
for the school next door may be better.
Step five is -- on the accountability system is what we call disaggregate
results. Do you realize in the old accountability systems, they didn't
bother to look at the African American kids stand-alone. They just kind of
looked at everything and assumed everybody was doing good. That is not
good enough for the future of this country. If we expect every child to
learn, we got to measure every child and analyze whether or not those
children are learning.
Step six is to make sure local folks run the schools. I can remember
talking about No Child Left Behind, I saw a lot of my friends in Texas
glaze over -- he's going to Washington, and he's going to change. He's
going to start telling us how to run the schools. Quite the contrary. The
No Child Left Behind Act actually devolves power to the local level. All
we say is you measure. You show us. And if there's something wrong, you
figure out how to correct it. You don't want Washington, D.C. telling
people how to run their schools. And it's working. No Child Left Behind
is working.
And how do we know? Because we're measuring. There's an achievement gap
in America that's not right. And that's wrong. Not enough African
American 4th grade kids could read at grade level. But it's increasing
dramatically. Something is happening out there, thanks to good principals
and good teachers and concerned parents and a system -- and a system that
focuses on results. We've got to extend this to high schools.
Now, we've got a problem when it comes to math and science. Our kids test
fine. Math and science 8th grade test lousy, math and science in high
school, and that's a problem. In my State of the Union I'm going to
address this. I'm going to hold a little back here. But in order for us
to be competitive, we better make darn sure our future has got the skills
to fill the jobs of the 21st century.
It was one thing in the past to go to a public school, become literate and
then go out there and make a living with your back. That's not what's
going to happen in the next 30 or 40 years. We've got to have children
that are Internet savvy. We've got to have kids that are the best in
science and engineering and math, otherwise jobs are going to go to where
the workforce is that have got those skills. And that's the real challenge
facing. Fantastic question. Thanks. I'm pandering, I know, but it is
really one of the most important challenges we face.
And I'm looking forward to working with Congress to, one, build on No Child
Left Behind. I will refuse to allow any weakening of accountability. I
remember people saying to me, it's racist to measure. I'm telling you it's
racist not to measure. That's what I think. (Applause.) You're teaching
the test. I'm telling you if a child can read, it can pass a reading
comprehensive test. And so accountability coupled with a smart use of
resources to focus on math and science I think is the proper strategy to
help deal with an issue that is an important issue for the future of this
country.
Yes, ma'am.
Q Hello, Mr. President. You just made a very poignant -- about math and
science. I am a -- number one, I'd like to thank you for taking time to be
here. I think all of us would reiterate that. I am a business owner and I
am living the American Dream, and I would like to personally thank you for
having a will that will not be broken. And the men and women of the armed
forces that protect the freedoms that we have had and that we oftentimes
take for granted and give us this way of life. So as a business owner,
though, my greatest challenge is, I worked 20 years in the civil
engineering arena before starting my company. And the thing that is really
frightening to me is our -- we have a true weakness, a wave that's coming
in both the engineering arena, the sciences, as well as construction --
construction inspectors. There's going to be a huge -- these baby boomers
that are starting to retire, that knowledge base that's getting ready to go
away, and there is no one to replace it that's compelling enough. What
could you suggest that corporate America can do to help in this deficit?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate it. First, thanks for owning your own
business. I love being the President of a country where people can -- I'm
not saying you started with nothing, but, you know, have a dream and end up
with owning your own business. As a matter of fact, the small business
sector of America is really the job creators of America. Things are going
good when it comes to job creation, 4.5 million new jobs since April of
2003. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the entrepreneurial spirit
is strong and vibrant and alive.
Corporate America -- big corporate America does a good job of training
people. It's in their interest. It would be helpful if they didn't have
to spend so much time on training people by having a literate workforce to
begin with, literate in math, literate in science, literate in all
different aspects of what is going to be necessary to fill the skill base
of the 21st century.
One of my initiatives and one that I hope you're taking advantage of here
in Kentucky is the use of the community college system. The community
college system is really an interesting part of our education network and
fabric because the community colleges are available -- in other words,
they're plentiful. They are affordable, relative to the different kinds of
higher education institutions. And, interestingly enough, I'd like to
describe them as they're market-driven if run properly. In other words,
their curriculum can adjust.
And what you want is a community college system that works with the local
industry and says -- just take the health care industry. You know, we need
a certain type of nurse practitioner, for example. Or we need x-ray
technologists, whatever. And that you have a community college system that
will help design the system that will enable a person to go from one
industry to the next, where there's a bright future. So a lot of job
training to make sure that people have the skills that you're talking
about, they are transferable and trainable skills. But there needs to be
the place where they can find those skills, particularly those who have
already gotten out of college.
Do you realize that between age 18 and 38 it's estimated that a person will
change jobs 10 times, coming down the future. Which means that there's a
lot of activity in our economy, a lot of vibrancy -- but the danger is, is
that people aren't going to have the skills that fill the jobs that keep us
competitive. And the community college system is a wonderful opportunity.
The federal government can provide job training grants, which we do, $125
million last budget cycle -- I'm asking for the same this budget cycle, if
you don't mind, members of Congress. (Laughter.)
Let me talk about small businesses real quick. In order for America to be
competitive, not only do we need a skilled workforce, we've got to have
certainty in our tax code. In order to get this economy going out of a
recession and a stock market collapse and scandals, I had called upon
Congress and they delivered meaningful tax relief. The worse thing that
could happen when you're trying to plan your small business, or any
business, is to wonder what the taxes are going to be like. You know, when
old George W. leaves, are the taxes going to go -- I mean, how do we plan
for the future. I strongly urge the United States Congress, this year, to
make all the tax relief we passed permanent. (Applause.)
People will say, well, how are you going to balance the budget? Well, let
me warn you that raising taxes doesn't necessarily equate to balancing
budgets. As a matter of fact, in my judgment, if we raise the taxes all
that will mean is Congress will increase spending. (Applause.) The way to
balance the budget is to set priorities and to hold people to account in
Washington, which is what we're doing.
Now, the biggest increases in the budget, however, are not the
discretionary accounts, they're what's called mandatory accounts. And
that's the increase of Medicare and Social Security. And this is a big
issue that I know you didn't ask me about, but I'm going to tell you
anyway, my opinion. Because you mentioned baby boomer and that happens to
be me. And a lot of people like me, my age, are fixing to retire. I'm
going to be 62 in 2008, which is a convenient year to turn 62. (Laughter.)
And a lot of them. And there are fewer people paying into the system.
And the benefits I've been promised are going up faster than the rate of
inflation. And we can't afford it. And we need to do something about it
now.
One of the real drains and real threats to our economy is the inability of
Congress to be able to confront the Medicare and Social Security issue, the
unwillingness to take on the tough political job. I worked hard last year.
I laid out a lot of solutions that I think will work. It didn't work.
We've still got a problem. I'm going to keep talking about it. My job is
to confront problems, as your President, and not just hope they go away.
This one is not going away. And so we need to deal with the fact that a
bunch of baby boomers are retiring with fewer workers paying into the
system in order to make sure we're competitive, in order to make sure that
we can balance the budgets.
Now, Congress took a good step in cutting mandatory spending by $40 billion
over the next years. And that's important. By the way, that was just
reforming the systems. It wasn't cutting meat out of the systems; it was
reforming the systems so they work better. And then when you get back, you
need to pass that
-- I know you will -- in order to show the country that you've got the will
necessary to take on the tough issues.
And so, you didn't ask, and I told you. Anyway. (Laughter.) Hope I can
do something about it. I'm going to keep talking about it until we can get
something done. It's really important. One of these days, more and more
Americans are going to realize that the Congress has got to make something
happen, otherwise we're going to pass on a disaster for our kids. And
that's just the truth. And, you know, the truth wins out when it's all
said and done. So don't be surprised if I keep talking about it.
Yes, sir, and then I'll get the little guy up there.
Q Mr. President, we'd like to talk about health care a little bit.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q As a small business owner, like a lot of people in this room, we look
at the dramatic cost increases that have been passed along, and that we all
really struggle with how do we provide our employees with health insurance
that's comprehensive? And we all view you as a very pragmatic problem
solver, and we'd like you to take this one on, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, I am. Thank you. Here's my view of the role of the
federal government. The federal government needs to help the poor, and we
do that through a program called Medicaid. I was just talking to the
Governor today about how best to get the Medicaid program in Kentucky able
to meet the needs, both budget needs, but more importantly, the social
needs.
The federal government made a commitment when Lyndon Baines Johnson was the
President that we would take care of the elderly when it came to health
care, and that's why it was important to reform Medicare, to make sure the
Medicare system was a modern system.
There's two different issues in Medicare. One is the long-term structural
problem of paying for Medicare as more baby boomers retire and fewer people
paying in the system. But the short-term issue was to have a Medicare
system that frankly was not modern enough. If you're going to make a
commitment to your seniors, you've got to make sure the seniors have got
modern medicine. And part of modern medicine was prescription drugs.
And so the new Medicare law that came into being in January of this year,
for the first time, incorporates prescription drug coverage available in
Medicare as a modernization of the system. The rest of the people ought to
be encouraged to have affordable care that really does put the consumer and
the provider in touch with each other, I guess is the best way to put it.
We need a more consumer-driven pricing mechanism in health care in order to
be able to properly deal with the inflation you're talking about. One
aspect of it is, people make purchases in the health care without really
realizing there may be other options available to them.
We need to make sure we expand information technology. I am told -- a lot
of health care guys here can tell you -- that the modernization of health
care when it comes to information technology should save up to 20 to 25
percent of cost, as well as reducing a lot of medical errors. By that I
mean, everybody ought to have an electronic medical record that you're able
to transfer from provider to provider. You know, the day of a person
carrying these thick files of medical paper, and most of the time it's hard
to read because doctors can't write hardly at all, and -- but it needs to
be modernized. There's a lot of inefficiency, what I'm telling you, in the
health care field, particularly when it comes to information sharing.
Thirdly, it seems like to me, and this is a -- health care is a particular
problem for small businesses, and I fully understand that. It's becoming
an unmanageable cost, putting our CEOs of small businesses in the
unfortunate position of saying, I can't pay for you anymore.
Three ideas. First, health savings accounts, which is a new product passed
as part of the new Medicare bill, which is an evolving product, that
enables a business and/or worker to be able to buy a catastrophic plan and
put the incidental cost of medicine into the plan on a tax-free basis.
That's a lot of words. Look into it, is what I'm telling you. And I think
Congress needs to expand HSAs, and their use, and their tax advantages,
relative to corporate taxation when it comes to health care. (Applause.)
Look at them. I'm not kidding you. Take a look at health savings
accounts. Any small business owner in Kentucky ought to be looking -- and
Indiana, ought to be looking.
Secondly, we must allow small businesses to pool risk across jurisdictional
boundaries. These are called association health plans. In other words, a
restaurateur in Kentucky ought to be allowed to put his or her employees in
the same risk pool as a restaurateur in Texas in order to be able to get
the economies of sharing risk, just like big companies are able to do.
These are called association health plans.
Thirdly, one of the reasons why the cost of medicine is going up and the
availability of medicine is declining, particularly in specialty fields
like OB/GYN, is because of lawsuits. Make no mistake about it, medical
liability lawsuits is driving up the cost of your insurance. Now, when I
went to Washington, I said, this is a local issue. This is something the
governors ought to figure out how to solve, until I began to analyze the
cost of lawsuits on the federal budget. And those costs go up as a result
of increased premiums and what's called the defensive practice of medicine.
If you're living in a society that's got a lot of lawsuits and you're
worried about getting sued, you're going to practice extra medicine to make
sure that if you do get sued, that you can say in the court of law, "I did
not only everything expected, I did double what was expected, Your Honor.
I'm innocent."
So the defensive practice of medicine runs up the cost that you pay at the
federal level. And so I decided to do something about it and proposed a
piece of legislation -- it got out of the House, and I want to thank you
all for passing it -- that says if you're injured, you're going to be taken
care of; but we're not going to let these frivolous lawsuits run up the
cost of medicine. There ought to be reasonable limits. There ought to be
reasonableness in the legal system so that the small business owner can get
affordable health care.
And so there are three ideas that should address -- I think it will address
-- your concerns. There is a philosophical struggle in Washington on this
issue. There are some really decent people who believe that the federal
government ought to be the decider of health care -- not just for the
elderly, not just for the poor, but for all people. I strongly disagree.
I believe the best health care system is one in which there is a direct
connect between provider and customer; where there is transparency in the
pricing system; where there is an information system that is modern and
flows; and in which people are held to account for medical errors, but not
to the point where the cost of medicine has gotten out of control.
(Applause.) Good question.
How old are you?
Q Seven.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. That's good. (Laughter.)
Q How can people help on the war on terror?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's the hardest question I've had all day.
(Laughter.)
First of all, I expect there to be an honest debate about Iraq, and welcome
it. People can help, however, by making sure the tone of this debate is
respectful and is mindful about what messages out of the country can do to
the morale of our troops. (Applause.)
I fully expect in a democracy -- I expect and, frankly, welcome the voices
of people saying, you know, Mr. President, you shouldn't have made that
decision, or, you know, you should have done it a better way. I understand
that. What I don't like is when somebody said, he lied. Or, they're in
there for oil. Or they're doing it because of Israel. That's the kind of
debate that basically says the mission and the sacrifice were based on
false premise. It's one thing to have a philosophical difference -- and I
can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible. But one
way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is
remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and
the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy.
So that was a good question. Thank you. (Applause.)
Let's see, yes, ma'am. I'm running out of time here. You're paying me a
lot of money, and I've got to get back to work. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you for taking the time with us.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm thrilled to be here.
Q Along with the seven-year-old, my question is, how is it that the
people of Iraq when polled have more hope about their future than the rest
of the -- than the rest of the world has, with regard to what we're doing
in Iraq? How can we get the positive things that are happening in Iraq --
how can we get everybody to know what's happening out there?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that question. And obviously, I've
thought long and hard about it. Part of my job is to make sure and to keep
explaining and explaining and explaining in as realistic a way as possible
about why we're there, and why it's necessary in order to remind the
American people about the stakes involved. That's why I've come here, for
example.
You don't want your government running your press. That would be the worst
thing that could happen. That would mean we have just fallen prey to
exactly that which we're trying to liberate people from in Iraq. And my
own judgment is that action on the ground will win the day. I mean,
results will ultimately trump kind of the short-term glimpse at things. So
my job and the job of those of us in the administration, the job of those
who have made the decisions to go in there -- not just me, but members of
Congress that voted to support our military must continue to explain and
keep the American people engaged.
I am not surprised that Iraqis feel more confident about the future than
Americans do. They were the ones who lived under the tyrant. They were
the ones whose families got gassed by his chemical weapons. They were the
ones who, if they spoke out, were harassed by a police state. It must be a
magnificent feeling to be liberated from the clutches of a tyrant.
Secondly, much of life is normal in Iraq. And you talk to people who go
there and they come back and tell you that the change is significant and
palpable; people can see the difference; there's vibrancy. What we see, of
course, is isolated incidents of terror. And as I mentioned earlier to
you, it hurts -- it hits our conscience. America is a wonderful country
because we're a country of conscience. It bothers us to see not only our
own troops die, but it bothers us to see an Iraqi kid killed. That's the
nature of our society; we don't treat life in a cavalier way. We believe
in America -- and it's one of the really beautiful things about America --
that every life is precious. That's what we believe. And so I'm not
surprised that there is a different attitude inside the country than our
own.
Ultimately, here in America, success on the ground in Iraq
-- and I've defined what victory means before -- will buoy the spirits of
our people. And in the meantime, I've got to go to places like Louisville,
Kentucky, and sit down and spend time giving it my best shot to describe to
you my decision-making process, the philosophy behind which this government
is operating, and my optimism about our capacity to achieve our objective.
And my deep belief, my firm and deep belief is that the sacrifices being
made today will inure to the benefit of our children and grandchildren. On
the one hand, we have got to protect America, and we're working hard to do
so. Every day you've got good citizens in your country making sacrifices
to either find an enemy that's hiding somewhere, or picking up information
that we can use to protect us. In the long run, we have got to have faith
in a great system of government that, over the ages, has proven to be the
foundation for peace.
Listen, I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. May God
bless you all. (Applause.)
END 2:32 P.M. EST
|