THE
PRESIDENT: Thank you. Firoz, thanks a lot. So I said, that's an
interesting name. He said, I've lived in seven countries. But he also
said he's proud to be an American. And we're proud you're an American.
Thank you very much for inviting me. (Applause.)
You know, I was just standing here, listening to Firoz; one of
the great things about our country is that you can come and you can
enjoy the great blessings of liberty and you can be equally American if
you've been here for one generation or 10 generations. I thought it was
neat that somebody who has been -- you've been here 27 years though,
right? Yes. Well, seven countries, 27 years here, introducing the
President though. I think it says a lot about the United States of
America. Thanks for having me.
I'm looking forward to sharing with you what's on my mind. I look
forward to hearing what's on yours, as well. First thing is, Laura sends
her best to the folks of Charlotte. She sends her best, Tony, to you and
your bride. Thank you for having us here, to the Central Piedmont. I
appreciate your involvement in education. I married well; she's a really
patient person, too. (Laughter.)
I traveled down here with Congressman Robin Hayes, the Congressman
from this district. Congressman, thank you for being here, appreciate
it. (Applause.) I've known your Mayor for a long time. He's a man of
accomplishment. I know he was particularly proud to land the NASCAR Hall
of Fame. (Applause.) Pretty big deal, you know? It's a pretty big deal.
Thank you all for coming. I want to thank the others who serve on the
City Council who are here. The Mayor was telling me a lot of the council
members are here. I appreciate your service to your city.
I think one of the things I'd like to tell you about is why and how I
made some decisions I made. My friends from Texas who, once they get
over the shock that I'm actually the President -- (laughter) -- like to
ask me what it's like to be President. And I guess the simple job
description would be, it is a decision-making experience. And I make a
lot of decisions. Some of them you see, some of them you don't see.
Decision making requires knowing who you are and what you believe. I've
learned enough about Washington to know you can't make decisions unless
you make them on principle. And once you make a decision based upon
principle, you stand by what you decide.
In order to make good decisions, you've got to rely upon good people.
People have got to feel comfortable about coming in the Oval Office and
tell you what's on their mind. There's nothing worse than people walking
in, say, well, I'm a little nervous around the guy, I think I'd better
tell him what he thinks he needs to hear.
You can't do the country justice, you can't make good decisions
unless you've got a lot of good, competent people around you, and I do
-- Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State; Don Rumsfeld -- (applause) --
the Vice President. These are people who have seen good times, and
they've seen tough times. But in all times, they're capable of walking
in and telling me what's on their mind. That's what you need as the
President. And then once you make up your mind, they say, yes -- yes,
sir, Mr. President, I'll get it done.
The biggest decision I've had to make since I've been your President
is putting kids in harm's way. It's a decision no President wants to
make. It's a decision I wish I did not have to make. But I'd like to
share with you why I made the decision I made.
First of all, war came to our shores on September the 11th, 2001. It
was a war we did not ask for, it's a war we did not want, but it is a
war that I intend to deal with so long as I'm your President.
(Applause.) In order to deal with this war on terror, you've got to
understand the nature of the enemy. And I'll share my thoughts with --
about this enemy we face.
They're an enemy bound together by an ideology. These are not folks
scattered around that are kind of angry and lash out at an opportune
moment. These are people that are -- believe something, and their
beliefs are totalitarian in nature. They believe you should not be able
to worship freely. They believe that young girls should not go to
school. They've got a perverted sense of justice. They believe in the
use of violence to achieve their objectives. Their stated objectives,
their stated goals are to spread their totalitarian view throughout the
Middle East. That's what they want to do.
They have made it abundantly clear that they believe folks who live
in America are weak, that we don't have the will to compete with their
philosophy. That's what they believe. I'm just telling you what they
said. I think it's really important in a time of war for the President
to take the words of the enemy very seriously. And I do.
They think that the use of violence will cause us to lose our nerve
and retreat. And they have stated that they want safe haven from which
to not only topple moderate governments in the Middle East, but from
which to launch attacks against the United States. Given that in mind,
I'd like to share some of the lessons learned. One lesson is the nature
of the enemy.
Another lesson is, is that we must defeat the enemy overseas so we
don't have to face them here again. And that requires a strategy that is
offensive in mind: press the enemy, find the enemy, bring the enemy to
justice, never relent, never give them quarter, understand you cannot
negotiate with these people. You can't rationalize with these people,
that you must stay on the hunt and bring them to justice. This is
precisely what we're doing.
One, obviously, immediate target is to dismantle al Qaeda. They hide
in kind of the far reaches of the world. They plot and plan, however,
from the far reaches of the world. They're good at communications.
They're good at deception. They're good at propaganda. And they want to
strike again. We have done a good job of dismantling the operating
structure of al Qaeda -- Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Ramzi Binalshibh -- a
series of these folks that have become the operating element of al
Qaeda. Obviously Osama bin Laden and his sidekick Zawahiri is still at
large. We understand that. But we're looking, and we're listening, and
we're working with allies like President Musharraf of Pakistan,
President Karzai of Afghanistan to bring this -- to bring the head of al
Qaeda to justice.
The second lesson learned is that unlike previous wars, these folks
-- this kind of terrorist network that is ideologically bound needs safe
haven. They need a place to hide. They need a symbiotic relationship
with governments that will enable them to plot, plan and attack.
So early on in the conflict, I not only vowed that we would use our
fierce determination to protect this country by staying on the offense,
but that we would deny safe haven to these terrorists. And so I said, if
you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. And
one thing that I think is really important for our citizens to
understand is that when the President says something, he better mean
what he says. In order to be effective, in order to maintain
credibility, words have got to mean something. You just can't say things
in the job I'm in and not mean what you say.
And I meant what I said. And so we said to the Taliban, get rid of
the Taliban. They chose not to. I made my first decision to send our
kids into harm's way and liberate Afghanistan. The decision to liberate
Afghanistan was based first and foremost on the need to enforce the
doctrine that I thought was necessary to protect the American people.
One of the benefits of sending our kids into harm's way was that we
liberated 25 million people from the clutches of one of the most
barbaric regimes known to the history of man.
Laura and I went over to that fledgling democracy. We went to see
President Karzai. It was a remarkable experience. It's hard to describe.
You know, I'm not -- I'm not such a good poet. Let me put it to you this
way: My spirits were lifted to see people committed to democracy,
recognizing that democracy stands in stark contrast to the life these
people had to live under the Taliban.
The task now is to continue to fight off the Taliban and al Qaeda
that would continue to try to disrupt the march of the new democracy,
help this country survive and thrive and grow, and help the Afghan
citizens realize the dreams of men and women that they can live in a
free and peaceful world. Remember, these folks have voted for a
President and voted for a parliament. I'm proud of the progress we're
making there. It's an historic achievement for our country and for our
troops. And it was a necessary achievement to enforce the doctrines that
we said were necessary to protect our people.
Another lesson -- this is an important lesson for the country. It's
one that kind of sometimes can get obscured in the politics of
Washington, but it's one that I'm confident when I tell you it's
necessary for this country to adhere to. It's going to be necessary for
me or whoever follows me. When we see a threat, we have got to take the
threat seriously before it comes to hurt us.
You know, growing up in Midland, Texas, we all felt pretty secure as
a kid, mainly because we thought oceans could protect us. Now in my
case, we were really far away from oceans, too, but nevertheless, it's
-- when you think about it, though, if you're a baby boomer, like me,
you think about what it was like growing up, we knew there was a nuclear
threat. Of course we had put forth an interesting sounding strategy
called "mutually assured destruction," which provided an umbrella for
security and safety.
But nevertheless, we never really felt anybody would invade us, did
we? We never felt there would be another attack like Pearl Harbor on our
lands. And yet September the 11th changed all that. More people died on
September the 11th because of an attack by an enemy on our shore than
died at Pearl Harbor. The biggest threat we face is when a terrorist
network is able to acquire weapons even stronger than airplanes. If the
terrorist network were ever to get weapons of mass destruction, one of
their stated objectives, our country and the free world would face a
serious threat.
I saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did I see a threat in Iraq, the
previous administration saw a threat in Iraq. Not only did the previous
-- which, by the way, passed a resolution in the United States Congress
that said we ought to have a regime change in Iraq. Not only did the
previous administration see a threat in Iraq, members of both political
parties in both chambers during my time as President saw a threat in
Iraq. And the reason we saw threats is because the intelligence said
that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
But it wasn't just U.S. intelligence that said that, there was -- the
worldwide intelligence network felt like he had weapons of mass
destruction. After all, when I took the case to the United Nations
Security Council, the Security Council voted 15 to nothing to say loud
and clear: disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. That's not
what the United States said alone. This is what France and Great
Britain, China, Russia, and members of the Security Council said,
because the world felt like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction, and after 9/11 it was abundantly clear that a state sponsor
of terror, which is what he had been declared by previous
administrations, and the idea of weapons of mass destruction, and the
fact that he was at least, at the very minimum, a stated enemy of the
United States of America posed a serious threat for our country.
My biggest job is to protect the American people. That became
abundantly clear on September the 11th. It's important to pass good
reform for education, it's important to support the community college
system, it's important to work for, you know, a Medicare plan that meets
the needs. My biggest job is to protect you -- at least that's how I see
the job. Much of my decision-making, by the way, is based upon what
happened on September the 11th. It had an effect on me, just like it had
an effect on the country. I've never forgotten that day. I've never
forgotten the lessons learned, and so when we saw a threat, we got to
take it seriously. Oceans could no longer protect us. The enemy was able
to strike us and kill, and they were dangerous.
And before a President ever commits troops, you got to try diplomacy
at all costs. I'm going to say to you what I said before, putting those
kids in harm's way is a tough, difficult decision. And nobody should
ever want to do it, because I understand fully the consequences of the
decision. And so as I told you, I went to the diplomatic route. I was
hoping that when the world spoke with that one voice at the United
Nations Security Council, Saddam Hussein would see the reason of the
free world. But he didn't.
I felt all along the decision was his to make. He said -- the world
said, disclose, disarm. In the meantime, I want you to remember, he was
deceiving inspectors. It's a logical question to ask: Why would somebody
want to deceive inspectors? I also told you earlier that when America
speaks, we got to mean what we said. I meant what we said when we
embraced that resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious
consequences. Words mean something in this world if you're trying to
protect the American people.
I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as
disappointed as everybody else is. But what wasn't wrong was Saddam
Hussein had invaded a country. He had used weapons of mass destruction.
He had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He was
firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam
Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our
country. (Applause.)
Iraq is now the central front on the war on terror. The war on terror
is broader than Iraq, but Iraq is the key battlefield right now. And the
enemy has made it so.
The advance of democracy frightens the totalitarians that oppose us.
Mr. Zarqawi, who is there in Iraq, is al Qaeda. He's not Iraqi, by the
way. He is there representing the al Qaeda network, trying to stop the
advance of democracy. It's an interesting question, isn't it, why would
somebody want to stop democracy -- like, what's wrong with democracy;
Mister, why are you afraid of it? Are you threatened by the fact that
people get to speak and you don't get to dictate? Are you threatened by
the fact that people should be able to worship the Almighty freely? What
about democracy that bothers -- I think it's a legitimate question we
all ought to be asking.
But nevertheless, he's tough, and he's mean, and he'll kill innocent
people in order to shake our will. They have stated, clearly stated --
they being al Qaeda -- that it's just a matter of time for the United
States to lose its nerve. They recognize they cannot beat us on the
battlefield, they cannot militarily defeat the United States of America,
but they can affect our conscience. And I can understand why. Nobody
likes to see violence on the TV screens. Nobody wants to see little
children blown up when a U.S. soldier is trying to give them candy.
Nobody likes to see innocent women die at the hands of suicide bombers.
It breaks our heart.
The United States of America is an incredibly compassionate nation.
We value human life, whether it be here at home, or whether it be
abroad. It's one of the really noble features of our country, I think.
Nobody likes to see that, and the enemy understands that, however. They
know that if we lose our nerve and retreat from Iraq, they win.
We've got a strategy for victory in Iraq. It's important for you to
know that victory will be achieved with a democracy that can sustain
itself, a country that will be able to defend itself from those who will
try to defeat democracy at home, a country that will be an ally in the
war on terror, and a country that will deny al Qaeda and the enemies
that face America the safe haven they want. Those are the four
categories for victory. And they're clear, and our command structure and
our diplomats in Iraq understand the definition of victory.
And we're moving that way, we're moving that way. We've got a plan to
help rebuild Iraq. You know, when we first went in there -- by the way,
every war plan or every plan is fine, until it meets the enemy. But
you've got to adjust. You've got to be able to say on the ground, well,
this is working, this isn't working. The enemy is not a -- they think
differently, they make different decisions, they come up with different
tactics to try to defeat us. And it's very important for us -- for me to
say to our commanders and our diplomats, devise that strategy on the
ground; keep adjusting, so that we achieve the victory that we want.
So when we first got into Iraq, we went with big rebuilding projects.
You know, we're going to help them do this, and help them do that, big
electricity projects. And the enemy blew them up. And so what we've done
now is we've gone to a more rational strategy to provide money for local
folks, including our military, to help smaller projects, but projects
that are able to connect with the people on the ground. You know, jobs
helps a lot, if you're trying to say, democracy is worth it.
Second aspect of our plan was to promote democracy. And I know four
months in the way these news cycles work seems like a decade -- at least
it does to me at times, you know? (Laughter.) Four months ago, 12
million people went to the polls. It was an amazing event, wasn't it, I
mean, really think about it. You can project back to the amazement,
surprise, exhilaration that happened when, given a chance to vote for
the third time in one year, the Iraqi people having had suffered under
the tyranny of Saddam Hussein said, I want to be free. That's what we
want to be. That's what they said. Twelve million people, in the face of
incredible threats and potential suicide bombers -- and ugly words
coming out of those who fear democracy -- said, give me a chance. It was
an amazing experience. It was a -- in my judgment, a moment that is
historic.
Part of the task now is to say to the Iraqis -- leaders, the people
said something, now you need to get -- you need to act. You need to get
a unity government together. And that's what we're watching right now.
It takes a while for people to overcome the effects of tyranny, and
there's just a lot of politics happening in Iraq. It's a little
different from what used to be the place. It's a little different from
other countries in that part of the world where one person makes a
decision, and everybody kind of either likes it or doesn't like it, but
you keep your mouth shut if you don't like it.
Here you're watching people kind of edging for responsibility and
working it, and we're very much involved. I know you know Condi went
over there the other day, and her message was, let's get moving. The
people want there to be a unity government. The people want there to be
a democracy, and it requires leadership for people to stand up and take
the lead. And so we're working with them to get this unit government up
and running.
And then there's the security side. You can't have a democracy unless
the people are confident in the capacity of the state to protect them
from those who want to stop the advance of democracy. The enemy for a
while tried to shake our nerve. They can't shake my nerve. They just
can't shake it. So long as I think I'm doing the right thing, and so
long as we can win, I'm going to leave our kids there because it's
necessary for the security of this country. If I didn't think that we
could win, I'd pull them out. You just got to know that. I cannot sit
with the mothers and fathers of our troops in harm's way and not feel
like victory is necessary and victory will be achieved.
Part of my decision-making process about whether they're there is
based upon whether or not the goal is necessary and attainable. It's
necessary to protect this country. I'm going to talk about it a little
later. And it is attainable. It's attainable because the Iraqis on the
political side have said, you bet. Give us a chance. They wrote a
constitution; they ratified the constitution. Twelve million went to the
polls. That's a high voter turnout, by the way. On the security side,
our goal, our mission is to let the Iraqis take the fight. And as I --
I've always been saying, they stand up, we stand down. That means, we
train the Iraqis to take the fight to those who want to disrupt their
country.
And we're making good progress on the military side. By the way, we
had to change our tactics. When we first got there, we said, why don't
we train us an army that will be able to protect from an outside threat.
It turned out there wasn't much of an outside threat compared to the
inside threat. And so now the training mission has adapted to the
tactics of the enemy on the ground. We're embedding our guys with the
Iraqi army. They're becoming more efficient. There's over 200,000
trained. And we're constantly monitoring the quality of effort. And as
the quality of the forces improves, they take over more territory. The
idea is to have the Iraqi face in front, making the -- helping the folks
get the confidence in their government.
We lagged in police training. And so General Casey, as he -- who is
our General on the ground there, told me, he said, you know, this is
going to be the year of training the police so they can bring confidence
to people.
The enemy shifted its tactics, as you know, and has tried to create a
civil war. And they blew up the -- one of the holiest sites in Samara,
trying to get the Sunnis to get after the Shia, and vice versa. It's
been an objective for awhile. First it was go after coalition troops.
They're still danger for our troops, don't get me wrong. But they really
tried to incite a civil war. And what was interesting to watch is to
watch the reaction for the -- by the government. The government,
including many of the religious leaders, stood up and said, no, we don't
want to go there; we're not interested in a civil war.
The Iraqi troops did a good job of getting between some mosques and
crowds, and they got in between competing elements and stood their
ground. And as I put it awhile ago, they said, the Iraqi people looked
into the abyss and didn't like what they saw. And it's still
troublesome, of course. There's still sectarian violence. You can't have
a free state if you've got militia taking the law into their own hands.
Now remember, this is a society adjusting to being free after a
tyranny. And Saddam Hussein's tactics to keep the country in check was
to pit one group of people against another and say, I'm the only
stabilizing force for you. He was brutal on Shia, he destroyed with
chemical weapons many Kurds, and he was tough on Sunnis, too. But he
created a kind of -- this sense of rivalry.
And so you can understand why there's revenge after years of this
kind of tension he created. Our job, and the job of rational Iraqi
leaders is to prevent these sectarian reprisal attacks from going on.
And it's tough work, but I want you to know, we understand the problem.
More importantly, General Casey understands the problem.
We're adjusting our tactics to be able to help these Iraqis secure
their country so that democracy can flourish. They want democracy.
That's what they've said. The troops, time and time again, have shown
that they're better trained than before. And we've got more work to do
on that, I readily concede. There's a lot of debate and a lot of
questions about what's happening, I understand that.
Again, I repeat to you, I know what violence does to people. First of
all, I'm confident -- people are saying, I wonder if these people can
ever get their act together and self-govern. The answer is, I'm
confident they can if we don't lose our nerve.
One of the decision -- principles -- a principle on which I made
decisions is this: I believe that freedom is universal. America was
founded on the natural rights of men and women, which speaks to the
universality of freedom. And if you believe in the universality of
freedom, then you have confidence that if given a chance, people will
seize that opportunity. No question the Iraqis need help after living
under the thumb of a tyrant.
But freedom is embedded, I believe, in the souls of men and women all
over the earth. You know, you don't demand freedom just -- more than
Methodists demand freedom, let me put it to you that way. I'm a
Methodist. (Laughter.) There's an interesting debate -- is it imposing
one's values to encourage others to live in freedom? I argue the answer
to that question is, absolutely not, if you believe in the universality
of freedom.
And so while thrilled to see the vote, I was -- I wasn't shocked.
People want to be free. I know you're thinking about, well, when's he
going to get our troops out of there? There's a debate going on in
Washington, D.C., which it should, and it's an important debate about
our troop levels. Here's my answer to you: I'm not going to make
decisions based upon polls and focus groups. I'm going to make my
decisions based upon the recommendations of our generals on the ground.
They're the ones who decide how to achieve the victory I just described.
They're the ones who give me the information.
I remember coming up in the Vietnam War and it seemed like that there
was a -- during the Vietnam War, there was a lot of politicization of
the military decisions. That's not going to be the case under my
administration. They say, well, does George Casey tell you the truth?
You bet he tells me the truth. When I talk to him, which I do quite
frequently, I've got all the confidence in the world in this fine
General. He's a smart guy, he's on the ground, he's making incredible
sacrifices for our country, and he -- if he says he needs more troops,
he'll get them, and if he says he can live with fewer troops because the
Iraqis are prepared to take the fight, that's the way it's going to be.
There are some in Washington, D.C. and around the country who are
good folks, legitimate, decent folks, saying, pull the troops out. That
would be a huge mistake. It would be a huge -- it would be a huge --
(applause) -- hold on a second -- it would be a huge mistake for these
reasons: The enemy has said that they want us to leave Iraq in order to
be able to regroup and attack us. If the American people -- the American
government, not the people -- were to leave prematurely before victory
is achieved, it would embolden the enemy.
Now, I recognize some don't see the enemy like I do. There's kind of
a different view of the enemy. That's a good thing about America, people
can have different points of view, you know? And people should be
allowed to express them, which is great.
I see an enemy that is totalitarian in nature, that's clearly stated
they want to attack us again, and they want safe haven from which to do
so. That's why they're trying to stop democracy in Iraq. If we were to
pull out our troops early, it would send a terrible signal to the
Iraqis. Twelve million people said, I want to be free. And they need our
help. We're helping the Iraqis achieve freedom. They watch these deals.
They listen carefully to the debate in America. They need to watch -- by
the way -- they need to watch this debate, which is good. It's what free
societies do, they debate. But they're also listening very carefully
about whether or not this country has got the will necessary to achieve
the objective.
Thirdly, if we left before the mission was complete, what would it
say to our troops and the families, particularly those who have lost a
loved one? I spend -- let me say this about our military -- the
volunteer army is a necessary part of our society. We need to maintain
the volunteer army. It is a really -- we've got a magnificent group of
men and women who serve our country. Do you realize most people who
served, are serving today, volunteered after 9/11? They saw the stakes,
and they said, I want to join the United States military. The retention
rate is high, which means we've got people serving in uniform who not
only volunteered and saw the stakes, but have been involved in this
conflict and said, I'd like to stay in the military.
It is a -- the military is a vital part of securing this country in
the war on terror. Now, if you don't think we're at war, then it
probably doesn't matter that much. I not only think we're at war, I know
we're at war. And it's going to require diligence and strength and a
really -- and a military that's well paid, well housed, well trained,
where morale is high. And pulling out before the mission is complete
would send a terrible signal to the United States military.
I welcome the debate, but I just want people here to know, we're
going to complete the mission. We'll achieve victory. And I want to say
this to the Iraqi people: We want to help you achieve your dreams. And
the United States of America will not be intimidated by thugs and
assassins. (Applause.)
I got one more thing to say, then I -- I got one more thing to say. I
know I'm getting a little windy. I want to talk to people about why it's
important for us to succeed in Iraq, and Afghanistan, for that matter. I
told you there's a short-term reason -- deny safe haven and help get
allies in the war on terror to prevent this totalitarian movement from
gaining a stronghold in places from which they can come hit us.
There's a longer term reason, as well, and that is, you defeat an
ideology of darkness with an ideology of hope and light. And freedom and
liberty are part of an ideology of light. Our foreign policy in the past
has been one that said, well, if the waters look calm in parts of the
world, even though there may not be freedom, that's okay. The problem
with that foreign policy is below the surface there was resentment and
anger and despair, which provided a fertile ground for a totalitarian
group of folks to spread their poisonous philosophy and recruit.
The way to defeat this notion of -- their notion of society is one
that is open, that is democratic, that is based upon liberty. This
doesn't have to be an American-style democracy. It won't be. Democracy
has got to reflect the tradition and the history of the countries in
which it takes hold. I understand that. And nobody in the Middle East
should think that when the President talks about liberty and democracy,
he's saying you got to look just like America, or act like America.
Nobody is saying that.
I am saying, though, trust your people; give them a chance to
participate in society. I believe a society is a whole society in which
women are free and are given equal rights. I believe there's a whole
society in which young girls are given a chance to go to school and
become educated. I believe it's a whole society when government actually
responds to people not dictates to people. That's what I believe. And I
believe that it's the best way in the long run to defeat an ideology
that feels the opposite way. And we've seen it happen in our history
before. It's happened in some of your lifetimes.
One of the ways I like to describe what I'm trying to tell you is
about my relationship with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. I say this
all the time, as the press corps will tell you traveling with me -- when
is he ever going to quit saying that? Well, it's the best example I can
give you about what I'm trying to describe is happening today during
these historic times. My dad fought the Japanese as an 18-year-old kid
-- or 19 -- he went in at 18, I guess. But he was in combat. Many of
your relatives fought the Japanese. It's hard to think back and kind of
remember the bitterness that we had toward the Japanese. They attacked
the United States of America and killed a lot of folks. And we want to
war with them, and a lot of people died, and it was a bloody war.
After the war -- and by the way, it ended with an old doctrine of
warfare, which is, destroy as many innocent people as you can to get the
guilty to surrender. That's changed, by the way, with the precision
nature of our military, and the way we're structured, and the way our
troops think, is we now target the guilty and spare the innocent. That's
another subject if you got a question. But anyway, today my friend in
keeping the peace is Prime Minister of Japan.
Amazing, isn't it? Maybe you take it for granted. I don't. I think
it's one of the really interesting parts of -- one of the interesting
stories of history, that 60 years after we fought the Japanese, I can
tell you that I work with Prime Minister Koizumi on a variety of issues.
It's amazing, I think. I know 60 seems like a long time. If I were six
or seven, it would seem like a long time. At 59, it seems like a long
time. (Laughter.) Maybe when I'm 60, it will seem like a short time.
Anyway, so what happened? What was it that caused something to
change, an enemy to become an ally? I believe it's because the Japanese
adopted a Japanese-style democracy. And I appreciate the fact that one
of my predecessors, Harry S. Truman, had the foresight to see the
capacity of freedom, the universal right of people to change the world,
to make it so that eventually an American President would be able to
say, we're working together to keep the peace. They're no longer an
enemy; they're a friend. Democracies don't war.
Europe is whole and free and at peace for a reason. We lost thousands
of troops on the continent of Africa -- on the continent of Europe since
World War I. Thousands and thousands of young men and women lost their
lives during that war. And today, there's peace. And the reason why is
because democracies don't war with each other.
I believe that one day an American President will be talking about
the world in which he is making decisions, or she is making decisions,
and they'll look back and say, thank goodness a generation of Americans
understood the universality of liberty and the fact that freedom can
change troubled parts of the world into peaceful parts of the world.
Is it worth it in Iraq? You bet it is. It's worth it to protect
ourselves in the short-run, but it's necessary and worth it to lay the
foundation of peace for generations to come. And that's what's on my
mind these days. (Applause.)
I'll be glad to answer questions. Yes, ma'am.
Q Mr. President, thank you so much for (inaudible). (Inaudible).
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
Q (Inaudible).
THE PRESIDENT: Good. You're welcome here. (Laughter.) This is not a
political convention. (Laughter.)
Q But more importantly, I'm American, and my husband and I are proud
parents of four children and five grandchildren, and I care very deeply,
as you, about our future as a country and our place in the world.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
Q I agree with you completely, that -- (inaudible) -- our borders,
that we needed to defend our country against al Qaeda and was completely
with you there. I agree that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, as many are --
(inaudible) -- the world. But I am more concerned about the deficit that
we are incurring in this country and the effect that that will have on
my children and grandchildren, and our present. My colleagues here on
the city council and I were just talking about how we can't afford
after-school enrichment opportunities for the children of Charlotte
because of cutbacks in the community development block grant. And I just
--
THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question, thank you.
Q That we need to secure our borders, to protect our ports, and to
invest in the people of Charlotte and this country --
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
Q -- for a real national --
THE PRESIDENT: I got your question, thank you. It's a good question.
She basically -- no seriously, it's a legitimate question. What are you
doing about the deficit? You know? There are two types of deficits that
I want to describe to you. One is the current account deficit. It's the
deficit that -- that we're on plan to cut in half by 2009. There's an
interesting debate in Washington about how do you deal with a current
account deficit?
By the way, we -- and the area where we're able to affect the deficit
the most, because through some of the programs you described called,
discretionary spending. There's also discretionary sending and mandatory
spending. Mandatory spending is a formula-driven spending that happens
based upon conditions, not based upon necessarily legislation, although
you can change mandatory spending through formula adjustment. Mandatory
spending in Social Security, mandatory spending Medicare, mandatory
spending Medicaid, programs like that, farm program is mandatory
spending. Discretionary spending is some of the education programs you
described. Discretionary spending is also military spending.
We -- I'm going to put this in a little larger context. I promise to
answer your question. We were confronted with a series of hurdles to
economic growth that we had to deal with in Washington. We had a stock
market correction -- a quite significant stock market correction, and we
had a recession early in '01. And then the enemy attacked us, which hurt
our economy. Obviously, my decision to go to war. People don't -- you
know, war is an unsettling thing. I fully understand that. Sometimes
it's not conducive to risking capital during a time of war. We had a
major natural disaster. All of this affected our economy.
I made the decision to cut taxes, as you know. It was a decision
based upon the principle that if people had more money in their pocket,
they're likely to spend it, save it, or invest it. And therefore, I felt
like the best way to address these economic hurdles was to stimulate our
economy through pro-growth economic policies, starting with a tax cut.
And a tax cut, by the way, for everybody. Everybody who paid taxes
should get a cut. It's a tax cut that helped our small businesses. I
firmly believe by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains it
stimulated investment.
And our strategy has, I think, been proven by the numbers. We're
going at 3.4 percent -- 3.5 percent last year. The national unemployment
rate is at 4.8 percent, 5 million jobs in two-and-a-half years. I mean,
I can go on -- housing is up. There's a lot of positive economic news.
And no question, however, we've been running a deficit.
One reason we're running a deficit is because I'm going to make sure
our troops have what it takes to do their job. In the harm's way -- when
they're in harm's way, you've got to be able to say to their families
that we're going to give them all they got. You know, we want to help
them.
One of the interesting things about, for this war, is that we're
saving a lot of lives through a health care system that is phenomenal
and we're pulling these kids off the battlefield and sending them to
Walter Reed or Bethesda as quickly as possible, sparing no expense to
save lives. But no question it's been costly.
Katrina -- we're up to $100 billion on Katrina. I don't know if
you've been over there. You know, it just breaks your heart to see the
devastation done in the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and inside New
Orleans. It's a gut-wrenching experience to see the devastation that
went on, and the federal government has made a strong commitment to
provide that money.
That's background for -- no question we have a current account
deficit. I have submitted a budget that says we can cut it in half by
2009. Now, there is a debate in Washington. Some of them are saying,
raise the taxes in order to balance the budget. In all due respect,
that's not the way Washington works. Washington will raise the taxes and
figure out new ways to spend the money. So my attitude is, let's leave
the pro-growth economic policies in place, which by the way, yielded a
$100 billion-plus more money than anticipated last year because a
growing economy yields more tax revenues, and be tough on the spending.
And I understand it creates some of the conditions you said, and I
appreciate you bringing those to my attention. We're now in another
budget discussion in Washington. And I submitted another tough budget.
Now, people said, why don't you veto the budgets? I'd like to explain
that to you. So we sit down from the executive branch and negotiate --
we come up with a budget that we think is necessary to meet goals. The
goal is to cut the current account deficit in half by 2009, and then we
negotiate with the Congress. We say, here's the top line, here's what we
want you to meet in order to meet the goals we think are necessary.
Thus far, they've hit the top line that we've suggested. Last year as
the Councilwoman mentioned, the Mayor pro tem mentioned, that there are
some cutbacks in CDBG money. It's all aimed at trying to get this
deficit under control. And the -- and so Congress said, last year,
you're right. Here's the top line. We made it.
And so the size of the pie was what we thought was necessary to
achieve an objective. And so therefore, I'm confronted with a choice. I
may not like the slices of the pie, but I like the size. And if I vetoed
bills because of the slices but it met the size, what would happen
during the next budget negotiations? They'd say, well, wait a minute, we
hit your number, you vetoed the bills. How can we trust you in good
faith?
The job of the President is to set a goal which is to reduce that
deficit in half by 2009. And if people want me to be able to deal with
slices of the pie, just give me the line-item veto. And I think that
will help make sure that -- (Applause.)
Let me talk about another thing. I'm sorry -- this is a long answer
to a very important question. I'm sorry I'm blowing on too much here,
but the real deficit -- I'll get you in a minute -- the real deficit,
another real deficit is the deficit inherent in Social Security and
Medicare.
There is a massive amount of unfunded liability inherent in those two
very important programs. And the reason why is, is that baby boomers
like me are getting ready to retire. And there's a lot of us, and we're
living longer than the program initially anticipated, and we've been
promised greater benefits, and fewer people per retiree paying into the
system. And the system is going to go broke, and a lot of people are
watching whether or not the United States has the will to address this
problem because if we don't, future Presidents and future Congresses are
going to have to raise taxes significantly, reduce benefits
significantly, or reduce other programs significantly. This is a
significant problem facing a future generation of Americans.
As you know, I took the problem on last year. I might have been the
only guy in Washington taking the problem on. (Laughter.) My theory was,
go out and explain to the American people we got a problem. And the
people now understand we got a problem, and the fundamental question is,
how do you translate that to a program that Congress will act on.
And so my second strategy has been -- remember we're always adapting
our tactics -- was to put together a bipartisan group, which we're in
the process of doing, of members from both political parties from both
chambers to come up with common ground so we can say to the American
people, here is a bipartisan approach to these very serious, unfunded
liabilities that face future generations of Americans. It's a short-term
account. It's very important -- no question, Madam Councilperson. The
long-term issue is equally, if not greater of importance, which is the
unfunded liabilities inherent in Social Security and Medicare. I'm going
to continue to take on the issue. It's a big issue, and I'm confident we
can get it solved.
Okay, yes, sir.
Q (Inaudible.) I want to thank you for coming back to Charlotte
again. We certainly enjoyed your wife here a few weeks ago. Okay, thank
you. But I just wanted not to ask a question, but just to offer you a
message of encouragement. I know many men and women in this room and
around our region -- both Democrat and Republican -- continue to pray
for wisdom and encouragement for you and strength during these times. So
we just want to continue to encourage you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Appreciate you. (Applause.)
I'd like to say one thing about religion -- religion and politics, if
you don't mind. The United States of America must never lose sight of
this beautiful principle: You can worship or not worship and you're
equally American. You're equally American if you're a Christian, Jew or
Muslim, atheist, agnostic. We must never lose sight of that. That's what
distinguishes us from the Taliban.
Having said that, I cannot thank you all enough for the prayers. It
means a lot to me and Laura. One of the most amazing aspects of the
presidency is to meet total strangers, and they say, I pray for you.
They don't say, I need a road or a bridge. (Laughter.) The Mayor might
have said that. (Laughter.) Or a museum. They say, I pray for you, Mr.
President. Thank you.
Let's see. Yes, ma'am.
Q -- I wouldn't get a chance to ask you questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Why is that?
Q Just because there would be -- you might not choose me. (Laughter.)
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't bet against yourself is lesson one.
Q Right. And I wanted to say to you, Mr. President, that on the war
on terror, Social Security, the tax cuts, Dubai Ports, immigration, you
have shown immense political courage. And I really think that you will
be vindicated on all of those positions, as Ronald Reagan was, for
example. And also I wanted to know what else would it take for me to get
my picture taken with you? (Laughter and applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: My attitude is, about this job, is just do my job. Say
what you think is right. There's an interesting sense about whether this
poll or that poll, I'm just going to tell you something about the
presidency. You cannot make decisions based upon polls. You've got to
stand -- I'm not trying to elicit applause here, I'm just trying to
share with you what it's like, as best I can, to be your President, at
least why I do what I do.
And I am -- I'm the kind of fellow that -- it's like the Social
Security issue. You know, they say, well, you shouldn't have brought it
up, you know. I can't live with myself if I see a problem and not
willing to address it. I want, after eight years, to be able to walk out
of that office and say, I did what I thought was right.
Now, you talk -- an interesting thing is, I'm reading a lot of
history these days, and it's -- I've got some books to recommend, if you
like them, you know. (Laughter.) In contrary to what some of them think
back there, it's not big print and pictures, either. (Laughter and
applause.) Yes. Yes, I got you, thank you. (Laughter.)
I read three books on George Washington. I think it's really
interesting, isn't it? Historians are still analyzing the first
President of the United States. And history is -- sometimes history
doesn't record the immediate effects of a presidency. And you just do
what you think is right, and you don't have to -- you can't worry about
it, you know. If they're still writing about Washington, you know, who
knows how long I will be gone before they're writing about me in a way
where there's enough time between the day -- the presidency -- and an
objective look of what takes place.
You heard me quoting Harry Truman. I bet you when Harry Truman made
the decision to help the Japanese become a democracy, there was some
editorialization basically saying, how dare you work with an enemy. You
know, I bet there was some of that. But there was a lot of skepticism,
and I can understand that, you know? I can understand why people are
skeptical about whether or not a democracy can take hold in a part of
the world like the Middle East. My only point to you, it's necessary for
the peace. It has worked in the past, and it's necessary. And we cannot
lose confidence in -- in these universal values.
Let's see here, yes. Yes. No, wait a minute. You're second. Excuse
me. (Laughter.) I beg your pardon.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: You have people involved. Thank you for that. That's a
good question. She asked, what can young people do to get involved?
First of all, the fact that you asked a question is an encouraging sign.
I like to tell people that the true strength of America is the hearts
and souls of our people. You know, our military might is strong; our
wallets are fatter than anybody else's in the world on an individual per
capita basis. But the true strength of our country is the fact that
neighbors love neighbors.
De Tocqueville saw this when he came to the United States in 1830s.
He was a traveler, and he came and said, I'm coming to the land of the
rugged individualist. And he discovered something interesting way back
in 1832, I think it was, when he wrote his book. He discovered that
Americans have a penchant, the desire to form voluntary associations to
help a neighbor. And it's that spirit of helping a neighbor that
Presidents should foster and encourage, because it really is the
strength of the United States of America.
When you really think about the community of Charlotte, in spite of
the fact that the federal government has got influence, or the City
Council has got influence, there are thousands of your fellow citizens
teaching a child to read. And it doesn't require one law. There are
people feeding the hungry. I bet you've got some of the great food
pantry programs in the United States of America here. There are people
providing shelter for the homeless. There are thousands of acts of
kindness. The Boy Scout troops are active, I bet. The Girl Scouts. These
are -- the little league programs, you know. The basketball programs.
They -- there's thousands of acts of kindness taking place on a daily
basis.
To answer your question, involvement can mean a lot of things. It can
mean serving in the military, it can mean teaching a child to read, it
can mean getting your classmates to volunteer to help feed the hungry.
There's thousands of ways to contribute, and the fact that we have
millions of Americans doing that is really a remarkable aspect of our
country.
One of the principles that has guided me is, to whom much is given,
much is required. That's why I'm very proud of our nation's effort to
help lead the effort to solve the HIV/AIDS issue, particularly on the
continent of Africa. We're an abundant nation. We're a blessed people in
many ways, and yet, there's a pandemic raging across the continent of
Africa that's literally having the potential affect of wiping out a
generation of people. And the stories are heartbreaking and they're
devastating to a civilization in many places. And yet, our nation has
made the commitment to spend $15 billion over a five-year period of time
to help provide anti-retroviral drugs to help provide prevention, to
help the orphans who've been left alone. The program is being
administered by the U.S. government.
And one aspect -- there's a Global Fund, as well. Another aspect --
but the people on the ground, the foot soldiers, many are from the faith
community who have said, I want to help; what can I do to help a
neighbor? The neighbor could be right around the corner, or the neighbor
could be on the continent of Africa, in this case. We are a generous,
compassionate people, and it's our true strength.
Let's see here. Yes, sir. Yes, please.
Q Yes, sir. Actually, I'm bringing a statement to you for a friend.
Sahara Bozan (phonetic) is a young Iraqi woman who just came to America
last year. She grew up under Saddam, and she actually worked for the
U.S. forces during the war as an interpreter. I talked to her this week.
She wanted to make sure that she knew -- that you knew that her family
that's still there is grateful, that she thinks that even though there
may be terrorists still going on, that they are safer now than they ever
were before. And her goal is to one day meet you to thank you in person,
because you have changed their lives. Even though we might not see that
in the press, their lives are much better today than they were three,
four years ago.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, sir.
Q So she wanted to thank you. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Say, wait a minute, I -- I will keep my word here. Oh
there you are. Yes, sorry. You thought I forgot, didn't you? I beg your
pardon, I did forget. (Laughter.) You know how guys near 60, they begin
to kind of -- (Laughter.)
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: A civics teacher, great, thank you. Thank you for
teaching.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate -- that's a very good question. First
of all, thank you for teaching. By the way -- (Applause.) As you grow
up, the lady behind you, the girl behind you, as you grow up, one way to
contribute is to teach, by the way.
The global war on terror requires a global response, and inherent in
this woman's question was: What are you doing to make sure that others
join the United States, recognizing that we cannot do this alone? And I
appreciate the question a lot.
There is a lot of cooperation going on now. One of the great myths is
that the United States is alone in the war on terror. Take, for example,
Afghanistan. No question we've got Special Forces there. No question
we've got a viable element of our military there to fight off al Qaeda
or Taliban as they either sneak across the border or come from different
provinces to try to do harm, but NATO is very actively involved there,
as well.
The NATO presence is in the lead in many of the provinces. There's
what's called provincial reconstruction teams. It's kind of along the
lines that I talked about earlier about localizing the reconstruction
efforts on a provincial basis. This is what's happening in Afghanistan,
and there's reconstruction -- provincial reconstruction teams run by
different countries. Germany has got a presence there. France has had --
has presence in Afghanistan. In other words, there is a global network
there.
In Iraq, as well, there's a lot of coalition forces, some small, some
large. Great Britain, of course, is large. The Japanese had a thousand
troops there. It's an amazing commitment by Prime Minister Koizumi when
you think about the aftermath of World War II. The South Koreans have
had a significant force there. The Poles have had a significant force
there. There's a big international presence there. Many of the -- and
the NATO mission, by the way, is present in Iraq, as well, all aimed at
helping train. They're very much involved in the training mission to
give the Iraqi troops the skills necessary to do their jobs.
The global war on terror is fought on more fronts than just the
military front. For example, one of the really important parts of this
war on terror is to share intelligence, is to be able to say, if you
hear somebody or see somebody coming that you tell a counterpart in
another agency -- another intelligence service. And so we spend a lot of
time, John Negroponte, for example, or Porter Goss spends a lot of time
with their counterparts constantly figuring out how best to share
information.
Again, in the old war, people could measure movement by the enemy
from -- by watching ships and tanks move across plains. Now we're
dealing with people that are kind of moving around stealthily. And we've
got to be in a position where we can share that intelligence.
The third aspect of the global war on terror is to cut off their
money. It turns out terrorists need money -- just like the federal
government spends money. And it's a -- so we're -- our Secretary of
Treasury, John Snow, and others are constantly working to make sure that
hawalas, for example, which are kind of a money transmitting entity,
doesn't -- includes terrorist financing. Or we worked with the Saudi
government to make it clear that the financing of terrorist activities
are not in our interest, obviously, or their interest.
By the way, the Saudi government has been very active in the war on
terror. They've got a list of al Qaeda potential killers, and they're
bringing them to justice. Pakistan has been a strong ally in the war on
terror. You might remember that President Musharraf was one of three
countries -- or that Pakistan under President Musharraf was one of three
countries that had recognized the Taliban. And so needless to say after
September the 11th, he was -- made a choice. Colin Powell did a
wonderful job of talking to President Musharraf in a very respectful and
dignified way, and basically said, who are you with? And he has been an
ally in the war on terror.
The interesting thing about President Musharraf is the enemy has
tried to kill him four times. There have been four assassination
attempts on him by al Qaeda, which causes him to be a strong ally in the
war on terror. (Laughter.)
And so it's a great question. I'm constantly working to remind people
about the stakes. I knew one of the real dangers after 9/11 was that
people would tend to forget the lessons learned. And that's normal. And
frankly, if you're the President of the United States, you want
normalcy. You want people to go back to their life as quickly as
possible.
And so it's -- my job is to travel the country, like I'm doing a lot
of, and saying, here are the stakes. Go ahead and live your life, and
risk capital and raise your families, let us worry about it. And it's
such a different kind of war that we're constantly having to work with
our allies, as well, to remind them about the stakes.
The enemy has reminded them about the stakes. Remember that ours
isn't the only country that's been attacked. There were attacks in
Madrid, there were attacks in London, attacks in Egypt, there's been a
series of attacks around the world -- Jordan. They go up -- al Qaeda
goes in and blows up a wedding. These are cold-blooded killers now.
These are people that will stop at nothing to achieve their objectives.
And so -- no, that's a great question. And the coalition is -- it's
been a large coalition, and we're constantly working it. Some countries
feel comfortable about helping in Afghanistan, some -- that same country
may not feel comfortable about Iraq. But either way, we're talking about
this war on terror on a regular basis.
Yes. Sir.
Q (Inaudible).
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, yes. Squeaky wheel? Okay, hold on. (Laughter.)
It'll work.
Q Mr. President, my name is --
THE PRESIDENT: I went with the tall guy first. (Laughter.)
Q It's an honor to stand here in front of you and ask you this
question. You talked a little bit about your decision-making ability,
and you've been steadfast as it relates to the global war on terror,
which I think is commendable. Another thing I look for in a leader is
their ability to look in hindsight and their ability to be -- a degree
of humility. And maybe wondering what could have been done differently?
I wonder if you look back and go, maybe I should have done this
differently? I'd just be curious to hear that.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. I'm constantly looking back to see
if things could be done differently or better. A classic example --
first of all, I meant what I said on the strategic objective in Iraq. I
said in the '04 campaign, I'm going to say it to you again: Knowing what
I know today, I'd have made the same decision.
The tactics of going in -- one of the interesting questions -- you
know, for example, the training of troops. We started training a
military from ground one, Iraqi military, as if there was going to be a
threat from outside its borders, which, in retrospect, we could have
done better. After all, the threat was not from outside the borders. The
threat was inside the borders as a result of Zarqawi coming in -- coming
in the country.
The police training has now begun in earnest in '06. The fundamental
question is, could we have sped that up, could we have done a better
job. The strategy, I'm convinced, is right, which is to give the Iraqis
the opportunity to defend themselves. The question is, are the tactics
in order to achieve that, could we have done a quicker job, and
expedited the idea of having the Iraqis standing up and us standing
down.
I mentioned the reconstruction projects. Again, these are all
necessary to look back to make sure that as we head out into the future,
that we're able to adjust quicker and better. And I spent a lot of time
reviewing decisions made.
There's a -- you know, there's a debate in Washington about the
strategic objective, however. That's different from the tactics on the
ground. I strongly believe what we're doing is the right thing. If I
didn't believe it -- I'm going to repeat what I said before -- I'd pull
the troops out, nor if I believed we could win [sic], I would pull the
troops out.
There is a -- the military are constantly taking a real-time analysis
based upon previous decisions and what they anticipate the needs to be.
And so they themselves are constantly evaluating what could have been
done differently.
Obviously, one classic case that hurt us that I wish were done
differently was Abu Ghraib, the prison. What took place there and the
pictures there just represented everything we didn't stand for. And it
hurt us. It hurt us in the international arena, particularly in the
Muslim world, where they said, look -- it gave the enemy a fantastic
opportunity to use it for propaganda reasons. Look at the United States
of America. Look what they're doing to these people. They're disgracing
-- they don't believe in the dignity of each person, and, in fact, we
do. I wish that could be done over. It was a disgraceful experience.
However, I'm proud to report that the people who made that decision are
being brought to justice, and there was a full investigation over why
something like that could have happened.
And so, yes, I do. Look, I fully understand there is -- I guess, my
reputation is, he sticks to his guns and -- it's a very legitimate
question, do you ever kind of understand that maybe that you've got to
be somewhat flexible?
I'm not flexible in my principles. I think if you're flexible in your
principles, you end up not making sound decision. But I do agree with
your question that a President has got to be capable of looking back and
learning from how things could have been done differently. Great
question. Thank you.
Okay, squeaky wheels. There's three of you up there. Is this like a
chorus? (Laughter.) Would you please decide among yourselves?
Q I've got the mike.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, yes, very good. (Laughter and applause.) Good
move.
Q You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But
while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to
tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to
preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating
safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to
make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my
own behalf. You are --
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and
applause.) Go on, what's your question?
Q Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that
I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more
frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by
the Senate, and --
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec -- let him speak.
Q And I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that
compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your
administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the
humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I
also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to
speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this
country is about.
THE PRESIDENT: It is, yes. (Applause.)
Q And I know that this doesn't come welcome to most of the people in
this room, but I do appreciate that.
THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate --
Q I don't have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to
you.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it, thank you. Let me --
Q Can I ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to start off with what you first said, if
you don't mind, you said that I tap your phones -- I think that's what
you said. You tapped your phone -- I tapped your phones. Yes. No, that's
right. Yes, no, let me finish.
I'd like to describe that decision I made about protecting this
country. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion is
I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance
program, and I'll tell you why. We were accused in Washington, D.C. of
not connecting the dots, that we didn't do everything we could to
protect you or others from the attack. And so I called in the people
responsible for helping to protect the American people and the homeland.
I said, is there anything more we could do.
And there -- out of this national -- NSA came the recommendation that
it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country,
inside the country from al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda in order to have
real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I
thought that made sense, so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may
not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers --
and we've got plenty of them in Washington -- but they made this
assessment that it was constitutional for me to make that decision.
I then, sir, took that decision to members of the United States
Congress from both political parties and briefed them on the decision
that was made in order to protect the American people. And so members of
both parties, both chambers, were fully aware of a program intended to
know whether or not al Qaeda was calling in or calling out of the
country. It seems like -- to make sense, if we're at war, we ought to be
using tools necessary within the Constitution, on a very limited basis,
a program that's reviewed constantly to protect us.
Now, you and I have a different -- of agreement on what is needed to
be protected. But you said, would I apologize for that? The answer --
answer is, absolutely not. (Applause.)
Q Mr. President, I was raised on a ranch in New Mexico. And my heroes
have always been cowboys.
THE PRESIDENT: There you go. Thank you, yes. (Laughter.) I'm not sure
I qualify as a cowboy. (Laughter.)
Q Thinking about our children's children, if the all-powerful granter
of the presidential request were to visit you this evening and give you
one of these three, of ongoing economic growth and security for America,
ridding the world of the security threat now posed by North Korea and
Iran, or establishing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,
which one --
THE PRESIDENT: Whew. (Laughter.) Back to back, you know? (Laughter.)
I don't -- that's not the way life works. You can do more than one thing
at one time. We can achieve peace with the -- we can win this war on
terror if we're steadfast and strong. It's not going to happen on my
watch. It's going to take awhile. We can spread liberty and freedom to
create peace. And we can work on the Palestinian-Israeli issue at the
same time. I am the first President to have articulated two states
living side-by-side in peace.
And I'm also a President who believed that the Palestinians needed to
have elections. There's an interesting debate in Washington, is do you
wait for the conditions to be perfect before elections, that the
institutions be in place before there are elections, or do you have
elections as a step toward a civil society and a democratic society? As
you know, I've taken the latter rather than the former, and encouraged
the Palestinian elections.
And what was interesting about those elections is that -- and since
then, by the way, the Israelis have had elections. The Palestinian
elections -- let me just step back. I think the Palestinians have been a
long-suffering people that deserve better government. The former
leadership turned out to be corrupt, like, stole money. And as a result
of his leadership, we never got very close to peace. There wasn't a
lasting -- there weren't lasting institutions in place. I believe
democracies don't war.
And so the election was really an interesting one, I think, recently.
Guess what the election -- was based on? Corruption. This is the
Palestinian elections. Anti-corruption campaigns; vote for me, we're not
going to steal your money; vote for me, we'll help educate your kids and
provide health care. The dilemma we're in -- it's not a dilemma. I made
the decision that if you believe in two states living side-by-side in
peace, then one of the parties in the state -- one of the parties cannot
declare their intentions to destroy the other party. That's not
peaceful. That is war-like.
And so our posture at this point in time is to say to the
Palestinians, Hamas, get rid of it; get rid of that platform. It's not a
peaceful platform. It's a war-like platform. We want there to be two
states side-by-side in peace.
We've also said, we'll help the people, but not the government. You
know, somebody said, well, you support elections. I said, yes, I do. I
don't necessarily have to like who wins. But I do think it was a
necessary part of the evolution of the state to have the Palestinian
people be able to say, we're sick of it. We're sick of the status quo.
We want something differently. We want a government that's honest, and
we want a government that listens to our demands. I thought it was a
positive development. And now, I would strongly urge the Hamas
government to change their tune and their rhetoric about Israel and
advocate the peace and work toward a civil society that will yield to
lasting peace.
Again, this is an issue where I'm -- progress is being made, but it
requires a steadfast support of our belief that democracies will yield
to peace.
I've got to go. I appreciate you. Yes, one last question. Yes, ma'am,
I promised you. I'm sorry.
Q Thank you. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I am Wihelmenia
Remert (phonetic). I serve as Vice Chair of the Board of County
Commission here in Mecklenburg County. I'm joined by my colleague,
Commissioner Dumont Clarke, and we welcome you to Mecklenburg County.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q I defer my own question to ask you a question of one of my students
at Winthrop University, where I'm a professor of social work, asked me
to bring to your attention, and that is, what can you, Mr. President,
and what will you do to help control the rising cost of fuel which is
really affecting the ability of many students to travel, and the rest of
us -- not just students -- to travel back and forth to work and to
school? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. (Applause.) I wish I could wave a
wand and say, we need more gasoline relative to demand. I don't have the
capacity to control the market. I do have the capacity to start leading
this country away from dependence on oil. And I believe that we need to
promote -- vigorously promote alternative sources of energy, starting
with ethanol, which could help the farmers around here, by the way.
There's a lot of ethanol -- ethanol basically right now is produced from
corn. In the Midwest, a lot of people are using more ethanol -- and to
promote technologies such as plug-in hybrid batteries. We're close to
some significant breakthroughs. By the way, this is where Republicans
and Democrats are working together in Washington, D.C. to provide the
funding necessary for technology to help lead us away from dependency on
oil.
And so this isn't going to help your person tomorrow -- I readily
concede. But it is going to -- it's going to, in the relatively near
future, be able to enable people to plug their car in and drive the
first 40 miles on battery, as opposed to using gasoline.
And so there is a real need -- that's why I put this in the State of
the Union -- a real need for us to diversify away from fossil fuels, not
only to protect the environment, Mister, but also for national and
economic security reasons. And the -- we're making progress.
I was able to make a decision right after Katrina that helped deal
with the -- what could have been a -- even stronger rise in the price of
gasoline. I was able to suspend EPA rules because of the natural
disaster that took place. And by suspending the blended rules that can
create disruption as these -- as the seasonal change, there's a
disruption in supply, by suspending those rules, it enabled us to import
more European gasoline. And that, in turn, provided stability in the
marketplace. And so we didn't have significant spikes.
I fully understand the effects of gasoline price raises on people who
are working. It's like a tax. Every time it goes up at the pump, people
are like paying a tax. And the long-term solution is to get off oil. And
we are aggressively doing so.
Thanks for your time. God bless. (Applause.)