THE
PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated.
Sanjiv, thanks for the introduction. He called me on the phone and said,
listen, we believe in free speech, so you're going to come and give us a
speech for free. (Laughter.) Thanks for the invitation, thanks for the
warm welcome. It's good to be here at the City Club of Cleveland.
For almost a century, you have provided an important forum for debate
and discussion on the issues of the day. And I have come to discuss a
vital issue of the day, which is the safety and security of every
American -- and our need to achieve victory in the war on terror.
I want to thank the Mayor for joining us. Mr. Mayor, appreciate you
being here. (Applause.) It must make you feel pretty good to get the
"Most Liveable City" award. (Laughter.) I want to thank all the members
of the City Club for graciously inviting me to come. I want to thank the
students who are here. Thanks for your interest in your government. I
look forward to giving you a speech and then answering questions, if you
have any.
The central front on the war on terror is Iraq. And in the past few
weeks, we've seen horrific images coming out of that country. We've seen
a great house of worship -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in ruins
after a brutal terrorist attack. We have seen reprisal attacks by armed
militia on Sunni mosques. We have seen car bombs take the lives of
shoppers in a crowded market in Sadr City. We've seen the bodies of
scores of Iraqi men brutally executed or beaten to death.
The enemies of a free Iraq attacked the Golden Mosque for a reason:
They know they lack the military strength to challenge Iraqi and
coalition forces in a direct battle, so they're trying to provoke a
civil war. By attacking one of Shia Islam's holiest sites, they hoped to
incite violence that would drive Iraqis apart and stop their progress on
the path to a free society.
The timing of the attack in Samarra is no accident. It comes at a
moment when Iraq's elected leaders are working to form a unity
government. Last December, four short months ago, more than 11 million
people expressed their opinion. They said loud and clear at the ballot
box that they desire a future of freedom and unity. And now it is time
for the leaders to put aside their differences, reach out across
political, religious, and sectarian lines, and form a unity government
that will earn the trust and the confidence of all Iraqis. My
administration, led by Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, is helping, and will
continue to help the Iraqis achieve this goal.
The situation on the ground remains tense. And in the face of
continued reports about killings and reprisals, I understand how some
Americans have had their confidence shaken. Others look at the violence
they see each night on their television screens, and they wonder how I
can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq. They
wonder what I see that they don't. So today I'd like to share a concrete
example of progress in Iraq that most Americans do not see every day in
their newspapers and on their television screens. I'm going to tell you
the story of a northern Iraqi city called Tal Afar, which was once a key
base of operations for al Qaeda and is today a free city that gives
reason for hope for a free Iraq.
Tal Afar is a city of more than 200,000 residents, roughly the
population of Akron, Ohio. In many ways, Tal Afar is a microcosm of
Iraq: It has dozens of tribes of different ethnicity and religion. Most
of the city residents are Sunnis of Turkmen origin. Tal Afar sits just
35 miles from the Syrian border. It was a strategic location for al
Qaeda and their leader, Zarqawi. Now, it's important to remember what Al
Qaeda has told us, their stated objectives. Their goal is to drive us
out of Iraq so they can take the country over. Their goal is to
overthrow moderate Muslim governments throughout the region. Their goal
is to use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America.
To achieve this goal, they're recruiting terrorists from the Middle East
to come into Iraq to infiltrate its cities, and to sow violence and
destruction so that no legitimate government can exercise control. And
Tal Afar was a key way station for their operations in Iraq.
After we removed Saddam Hussein in April 2003, the terrorists began
moving into the city. They sought to divide Tal Afar's many ethnic and
religious groups, and forged an alliance of convenience with those who
benefitted from Saddam's regime and others with their own grievances.
They skillfully used propaganda to foment hostility toward the coalition
and the new Iraqi government. They exploited a weak economy to recruit
young men to their cause. And by September 2004, the terrorists and
insurgents had basically seized control of Tal Afar.
We recognized the situation was unacceptable. So we launched a
military operation against them. After three days of heavy fighting, the
terrorists and the insurgents fled the city. Our strategy at the time
was to stay after the terrorists and keep them on the run. So coalition
forces kept moving, kept pursuing the enemy and routing out the
terrorists in other parts of Iraq.
Unfortunately, in 2004 the local security forces there in Tal Afar
weren't able to maintain order, and so the terrorists and the insurgents
eventually moved back into the town. Because the terrorists threatened
to murder the families of Tal Afar's police, its members rarely ventured
out from the headquarters in an old Ottoman fortress. The terrorists
also took over local mosques, forcing local imams out and insisting that
the terrorist message of hatred and intolerance and violence be spread
from the mosques. The same happened in Tal Afar's schools, where the
terrorists eliminated real education and instead indoctrinated young men
in their hateful ideology. By November 2004, two months after our
operation to clear the city, the terrorists had returned to continue
their brutal campaign of intimidation.
The return of al Qaeda meant the innocent civilians in Tal Afar were
in a difficult position. Just put yourself in the shoes of the citizens
of Tal Afar as all this was happening. On the one side, you hear
coalition and Iraqi forces saying they're coming to protect you -- but
they'd already come in once, and they had not stopped the terrorists
from coming back. You worry that when the coalition goes after the
terrorists, you or your family may be caught in the crossfire, and your
city might be destroyed. You don't trust the police. You badly want to
believe the coalition forces really can help you out, but three decades
of Saddam's brutal rule have taught you a lesson: Don't stick your neck
out for anybody.
On the other side, you see the terrorists and the insurgents. You
know they mean business. They control the only hospital in town. You see
that the mayor and other political figures are collaborating with the
terrorists. You see how the people who worked as interpreters for the
coalition forces are beheaded. You see a popular city councilman gunned
down in front of his horrified wife and children. You see a respected
Sheik and an Imam kidnapped and murdered. You see the terrorists
deliberately firing mortars into playgrounds and soccer fields filled
with children. You see communities becoming armed enclaves. If you are
in a part of Tal Afar that was not considered friendly, you see that the
terrorists cut off your basic services like electricity and water. You
and your family feel besieged and you see no way out.
The savagery of the terrorists and insurgents who controlled Tal Afar
is really hard for Americans to imagine. They enforced their rule
through fear and intimidation -- and women and children were not spared.
In one grim incident, the terrorists kidnapped a young boy from the
hospital and killed him. And then they booby-trapped his body and placed
him along a road where his family would see him. And when the boy's
father came to retrieve his son's body, he was blown up. These weren't
random acts of violence; these were deliberate and highly organized
attempts to maintain control through intimidation. In Tal Afar, the
terrorists had schools for kidnapping and beheading and laying IEDs. And
they sent a clear message to the citizens of the city: Anyone who dares
oppose their reign of terror will be murdered.
As they enforced their rule by targeting civilians, they also preyed
upon adolescents craving affirmation. Our troops found one Iraqi
teenager who was taken from his family by the terrorists. The terrorists
routinely abused him and violated his dignity. The terrorists offered
him a chance to prove his manhood -- by holding the legs of captives as
they were beheaded. When our forces interviewed this boy, he told them
that his greatest aspiration was to be promoted to the killer who would
behead the bound captives. Al Qaeda's idea of manhood may be fanatical
and perverse, but it served two clear purposes: It helped provide
recruits willing to commit any atrocity, and it enforced the rule of
fear.
The result of this barbarity was a city where normal life had
virtually ceased. Colonel H.R. McMaster of the Third Armored Cavalry
Regiment described it this way: "When you come into a place in the grip
of al Qaeda, you see a ghost town. There are no children playing in the
streets. Shops are closed and boarded. All construction is stopped.
People stay inside, prisoners in their own homes." This is the brutal
reality that al Qaeda wishes to impose on all the people of Iraq.
The ability of al Qaeda and its associates to retake Tal Afar was an
example of something we saw elsewhere in Iraq. We recognized the
problem, and we changed our strategy. Instead of coming in and removing
the terrorists, and then moving on, the Iraqi government and the
coalition adopted a new approach called clear, hold, and build. This new
approach was made possible because of the significant gains made in
training large numbers of highly capable Iraqi security forces. Under
this new approach, Iraq and coalition -- Iraqi and coalition forces
would clear a city of the terrorists, leave well-trained Iraqi units
behind to hold the city, and work with local leaders to build the
economic and political infrastructure Iraqis need to live in freedom.
One of the first tests of this new approach was Tal Afar. In May
2005, Colonel McMaster's unit was given responsibility for the western
part of Nineva Province where Tal Afar is located, and two months later
Iraq's national government announced that a major offensive to clear the
city of the terrorists and insurgents would soon be launched. Iraqi and
coalition forces first met with tribal leaders and local residents to
listen to their grievances. One of the biggest complaints was the police
force, which rarely ventured out of its headquarters. When it did
venture, it was mostly to carry out sectarian reprisals. And so the
national government sent out new leaders to head the force. The new
leaders set about getting rid of the bad elements, and building a
professional police force that all sides could have confidence in. We
recognized it was important to listen to the representatives of Tal
Afar's many ethnic and religious groups. It's an important part of
helping to remove one of the leading sources of mistrust.
Next, Iraqi and army coalition forces spent weeks preparing for what
they knew would be a tough military offensive. They built an 8-foot
high, 12-mile long dirt wall that ringed the city. This wall was
designed to cut off any escape for terrorists trying to evade security
checkpoints. Iraqi and coalition forces also built temporary housing
outside the city, so that Tal Afar's people would have places to go when
the fighting started. Before the assault on the city, Iraqi and
coalition forces initiated a series of operations in surrounding towns
to eliminate safe havens and make it harder for fleeing terrorists to
hide. These steps took time, but as life returned to these outlying
towns, these operations helped persuade the population of Tal Afar that
Iraqi and coalition forces were on their side against a common enemy:
the extremists who had taken control of their city and their lives.
Only after all these steps did Iraqi and coalition authorities launch
Operation Restoring Rights to clear the city of the terrorists. Iraqi
forces took the lead. The primary force was 10 Iraqi battalions, backed
by three coalition battalions. Many Iraqi units conducted their own
anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battle space, hunting
for the enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods block by block.
Throughout the operation, Iraqi and coalition forces were careful to
hold their fire to let civilians pass safely out of the city. By
focusing on securing the safety of Tal Afar's population, the Iraqi and
coalition forces begin to win the trust of the city's residents -- which
is critical to defeating the terrorists who were hiding among them.
After about two weeks of intense activity, coalition and Iraqi forces
had killed about 150 terrorists and captured 850 more. The operation
uncovered weapons caches loaded with small arms ammunition and ski
masks, RPG rockets, grenade and machine gun ammunition, and fuses and
batteries for making IEDs. In one cache we found an axe inscribed with
the names of the victims the terrorists had beheaded. And the operation
accomplished all this while protecting innocent civilians and inflicting
minimal damage on the city.
After the main combat operations were over, Iraqi forces moved in to
hold the city. Iraqis' government deployed more than a thousand Iraqi
army soldiers and emergency police to keep order, and they were
supported by a newly restored police force that would eventually grow to
about 1,700 officers. As part of the new strategy we embedded coalition
forces with the Iraqi police and with the army units patrolling Tal Afar
to work with their Iraqi counterparts and to help them become more
capable and more professional. In the weeks and months that followed,
the Iraqi police built stations throughout Tal Afar -- and city
residents began stepping forward to offer testimony against captured
terrorists, and inform soldiers about where the remaining terrorists
were hiding.
Inside the old Ottoman fortress, a Joint Coordination Center manned
by Iraqi army and Iraqi police and coalition forces answers the many
phone calls that now come into a new tip line. As a result of the tips,
when someone tries to plant an IED in Tal Afar, it's often reported and
disabled before it can do any harm. The Iraqi forces patrolling the
cities are effective because they know the people, they know the
language and they know the culture. And by turning control of these
cities over to capable Iraqi troops and police, we give Iraqis
confidence that they can determine their own destiny -- and that frees
up coalition forces to hunt the high-value targets like Zarqawi.
The recent elections show us how Iraqis respond when they know
they're safe. Tal Afar is the largest city in Western Nineveh Province.
In the elections held in January 2005, of about 190,000 registered
voters, only 32,000 people went to the polls. Only Fallujah had a lower
participation rate. By the time of the October referendum on the
constitution and the December elections, Iraqi and coalition forces had
secured Tal Afar and surrounding areas. The number of registered voters
rose to about 204,000 -- and more than 175,000 turned out to vote in
each election, more than 85 percent of the eligible voters in Western
Nineva Province. These citizens turned out because they were determined
to have a say in their nation's future, and they cast their ballots at
polling stations that were guarded and secured by fellow Iraqis.
One young teacher described the change this way: "What you see here
is hope -- the hope that Iraq will become safer and fairer. I feel very
confident when I see so many people voting."
The confidence that has been restored to the people of Tal Afar is
crucial to their efforts to rebuild their city. Immediately following
the military operations, we helped the Iraqis set up humanitarian relief
for the civilian population. We also set up a fund to reimburse innocent
Iraqi families for damage done to their homes and businesses in the
fight against the terrorists. The Iraqi government pledged $50 million
to help reconstruct Tal Afar by paving roads, and rebuilding hospitals
and schools, and by improving infrastructure from the electric grid to
sewer and water systems. With their city now more secure, the people of
Tal Afar are beginning to rebuild a better future for themselves and
their children.
See, if you're a resident of Tal Afar today, this is what you're
going to see: You see that the terrorist who once exercised brutal
control over every aspect of your city has been killed or captured, or
driven out, or put on the run. You see your children going to school and
playing safely in the streets. You see the electricity and water service
restored throughout the city. You see a police force that better
reflects the ethnic and religious diversity of the communities they
patrol. You see markets opening, and you hear the sound of construction
equipment as buildings go up and homes are remade. In short, you see a
city that is coming back to life.
The success of Tal Afar also shows how the three elements of our
strategy in Iraq -- political, security, and economic -- depend on and
reinforce one another. By working with local leaders to address
community grievances, Iraqi and coalition forces helped build the
political support needed to make the military operation a success. The
military success against the terrorists helped give the citizens of Tal
Afar security, and this allowed them to vote in the elections and begin
to rebuild their city. And the economic rebuilding that is beginning to
take place is giving Tal Afar residents a real stake in the success of a
free Iraq. And as all this happens, the terrorists, those who offer
nothing but destruction and death, are becoming marginalized.
The strategy that worked so well in Tal Afar did not emerge overnight
-- it came only after much trial and error. It took time to understand
and adjust to the brutality of the enemy in Iraq. Yet the strategy is
working. And we know it's working because the people of Tal Afar are
showing their gratitude for the good work that Americans have given on
their behalf. A recent television report followed a guy named Captain
Jesse Sellars on patrol, and described him as a "pied piper" with crowds
of Iraqi children happily chanting his name as he greets locals with the
words "Salaam alaikum," which mean "peace be with you."
When the newswoman asks the local merchant what would have happened a
few months earlier if he'd been seen talking with an American, his
answer was clear: "They'd have cut off my head, they would have beheaded
me." Like thousands of others in Tal Afar, this man knows the true
meaning of liberation.
Recently, Senator Joe Biden said that America cannot want peace for
Iraqis more than they want it for themselves. I agree with that. And the
story of Tal Afar shows that when Iraqis can count on a basic level of
safety and security, they can live together peacefully. We saw this in
Tal Afar after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. Unlike other
parts of Iraq, in Tal Afar the reaction was subdued, with few reports of
sectarian violence. Actually, on the Friday after the attack, more than
a thousand demonstrators gathered in Tal Afar to protest the attack
peacefully.
The terrorists have not given up in Tal Afar, and they may yet
succeed in exploding bomb or provoking acts of sectarian violence. The
people of the city still have many challenges to overcome, including
old-age [sic] resentments that still create suspicion, an economy that
needs to create jobs and opportunity for its young, and determined
enemies who will continue trying to foment a civil war to move back in.
But the people of Tal Afar have shown why spreading liberty and
democracy is at the heart of our strategy to defeat the terrorists. The
people of Tal Afar have shown that Iraqis do want peace and freedom, and
no one should underestimate them.
I wish I could tell you that the progress made in Tal Afar is the
same in every single part of Iraq. It's not. Though most of the country
has remained relatively peaceful, in some parts of Iraq the enemy is
carrying out savage acts of violence, particularly in Baghdad and the
surrounding areas of Baghdad. But the progress made in bringing more
Iraqi security forces online is helping to bring peace and stability to
Iraqi cities. The example of Tal Afar gives me confidence in our
strategy, because in this city we see the outlines of the Iraq that we
and the Iraqi people have been fighting for: a free and secure people
who are getting back on their feet, who are participating in government
and civic life, and who have become allies in the fight against the
terrorists.
I believe that as Iraqis continue to see the benefits of liberty they
will gain confidence in their future -- and they will work to ensure
that common purpose trumps narrow sectarianism. And by standing with
them in their hour of need, we're going to help the Iraqis build a
strong democracy that will be an inspiration throughout the Middle East;
a democracy that will be a partner in the global war against the
terrorists.
The kind of progress that we and the Iraqi people are making in
places like Tal Afar is not easy to capture in a short clip on the
evening news. Footage of children playing, or shops opening, and people
resuming their normal lives will never be as dramatic as the footage of
an IED explosion, or the destruction of a mosque, or soldiers and
civilians being killed or injured. The enemy understands this, and it
explains their continued acts of violence in Iraq. Yet the progress we
and the Iraqi people are making is also real. And those in a position to
know best are the Iraqis, themselves.
One of the most eloquent is the Mayor of Tal Afar, a courageous Iraqi
man named Najim. Mayor Najim arrived in the city in the midst of the al
Qaeda occupation, and he knows exactly what our troops have helped
accomplish. He calls our men and women in uniform "lion-hearts," and in
a letter to the troopers of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, he spoke
of a friendship sealed in blood and sacrifice. As Mayor Najim had this
to say to the families of our fallen: "To the families of those who have
given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and
to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They
are not dead, but alive, and their souls [are] hovering around us every
second of every minute. They will not be forgotten for giving their
precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see
them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this
land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their
sacrifice for humanity and life." America is proud of that sacrifice,
and we're proud to have allies like Mayor Najim on our side in the fight
for freedom.
Yesterday we marked the third anniversary of the start of Operation
Iraqi Freedom. At the time there is much to -- this time, there's much
discussion in our country about the removal of Saddam Hussein from power
and our remaining mission in Iraq. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein
was a difficult decision; the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the
right decision. (Applause.)
Before we acted, his regime was defying U.N. resolutions calling for
it to disarm; it was violating cease-fire agreements, was firing on
British and American pilots which were enforcing no-fly zones. Saddam
Hussein was a leader who brutalized his people, had pursued and used
weapons of mass destruction, and sponsored terrorism. Today Saddam
Hussein is no longer oppressing his people or threatening the world.
He's being tried for his crimes by the free citizens of a free Iraq --
and America and our allies are safer for it. (Applause.)
The last three years have tested our resolve. The fighting has been
tough. The enemy we face has proved to be brutal and relentless. We're
adapting our approach to reflect the hard realities on the ground. And
the sacrifice being made by our young men and women who wear our uniform
has been heartening and inspiring.
The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in
Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us
on September the 11th, 2001, those who blew up commuters in London and
Madrid, and those who murdered tourists in Bali, or workers in Riyadh,
or guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. In the war on terror we face a
global enemy -- and if we were not fighting this enemy in Iraq, they
would not be idle. They would be plotting and trying to kill Americans
across the world and within our own borders. Against this enemy, there
can be no compromise. So we will fight them in Iraq, we'll fight them
across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
In the long run, the best way to defeat this enemy and to ensure the
security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the
broader Middle East. We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the
peace before. In World War II, free nations came together to fight the
ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed. And today, Germany and Japan
are democracies -- and they are allies in securing the peace. In the
Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a
democratic movement that freed the nations of Central and Eastern Europe
from Soviet domination. And today, these nations are strong allies in
the war on terror.
In the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology
that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and
communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be
defeated. Freedom will prevail in Iraq; freedom will prevail in the
Middle East; and as the hope of freedom spreads to nations that have not
known it, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace.
The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the
Iraqi people -- and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer
threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide
for the safety of their citizens on their own, and when Iraq is not a
safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation. There
will be more days of sacrifice and tough fighting before the victory is
achieved. Yet by helping the Iraqis defeat the terrorists in their land,
we bring greater security to our own.
As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will continue to take more
responsibility for their own security, and fewer U.S. forces will be
needed to complete the mission. But it's important for the Iraqis to
hear this: The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave
that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack
us again. We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position
of strength, not weakness. Americans have never retreated in the face of
thugs and assassins, and we will not begin now. (Applause.)
Thanks for listening. (Applause.) And I'll be glad to answer some
questions, if you have any.
Yes, ma'am.
Q Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President, and to the City
Club. My question is that author and former Nixon administration
official Kevin Phillips, in his latest book, American Theocracy,
discusses what has been called radical Christianity and its growing
involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that
members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians
who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the
apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of
terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is -- I haven't really thought of it that
way. (Laughter.) Here's how I think of it. The first I've heard of that,
by the way. I guess I'm more of a practical fellow. I vowed after
September the 11th, that I would do everything I could to protect the
American people. And my attitude, of course, was affected by the
attacks. I knew we were at war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to
be sophisticated and lethal to fly hijacked airplanes into facilities
that would be killing thousands of people, innocent people, doing
nothing, just sitting there going to work.
I also knew this about this war on terror, that the farther we got
away from September the 11th, the more likely it is people would seek
comfort and not think about this global war on terror as a global war on
terror. And that's good, by the way. It's hard to take risk if you're a
small business owner, for example, if you're worried that the next
attack is going to come tomorrow. I understand that. But I also
understand my most important job, the most important job of any
President today, and I predict down the road, is to protect America.
And so I told the American people that we would find the terrorists
and bring them to justice, and that we needed to defeat them overseas so
we didn't have to face them here at home. I also understood that the war
on terror requires some clear doctrine. And one of the doctrines that I
laid out was, if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the
terrorist. And the first time that doctrine was really challenged was in
Afghanistan. I guess the Taliban didn't believe us -- or me. And so we
acted. Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is no
longer a safe haven for the terrorists.
And the other doctrine that's really important, and it's a change of
attitude -- it's going to require a change of attitude for a while -- is
that, when you see a threat, you got to deal with it before it hurts
you. Foreign policy used to be dictated by the fact we had two oceans
protecting us. If we saw a threat, you could deal with it if you needed
to, you think -- or not. But we'd be safe.
My most important job is to protect you, is to protect the American
people. Therefore, when we see threats, given the lesson of September
the 11th, we got to deal with them. That does not mean militarily,
necessarily. Obviously, the first option for a President has got to be
the full use of diplomacy. That's what you're watching in Iran right
now. I see a threat in Iran. I see it there -- I'm kind of getting off
subject here, not because I don't want to answer your question, but kind
of -- I guess, that's what happens in Washington, we get a little
long-winded. (Laughter.)
But now that I'm on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course -- (applause)
-- the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy
our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat
to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made
it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to
protect our ally, Israel, and -- (applause.)
At any rate, our objective is to solve this issue diplomatically. And
so our message must be a united message, a message from not only the
United States, but also Great Britain and France and Germany, as well as
Russia, hopefully, and China, in order to say, loud and clear to the
Iranians, this is unacceptable behavior. Your desire to have a nuclear
weapon is unacceptable.
And so, to answer your question, I take a practical view of doing the
job you want me to do -- which is how do we defeat an enemy that still
wants to hurt us; and how do we deal with threats before they fully
materialize; what do we do to protect us from harm? That's my job. And
that job came home on September the 11th, for me -- loud and clear. And
I think about my job of protecting you every day -- every single day of
the presidency, I'm concerned about the safety of the American people.
Yes, sir.
Q Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned
that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by
the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred
three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken.
Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for
going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq
was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had
purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to
be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans
may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are
getting now is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I
might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I
know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September
the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of
terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but
declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man
who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so
the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous
administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very
careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.
Like you, I asked that very same question, where did we go wrong on
intelligence. The truth of the matter is the whole world thought that
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't just my
administration, it was the previous administration. It wasn't just the
previous administration; you might remember, sir, there was a Security
Council vote of 15 to nothing that said to Saddam Hussein, disclose,
disarm, or face serious consequences. The basic premise was, you've got
weapons. That's what we thought.
When he didn't disclose, and when he didn't disarm, and when he
deceived inspectors, it sent a very disconcerting message to me, whose
job it is to protect the American people and to take threats before they
fully materialize. My view is, he was given the choice of whether or not
he would face reprisal. It was his decision to make. And so he chose to
not disclose, not disarm, as far as everybody was concerned.
Your question, however, the part that's really important is, how do
we regain credibility when it comes to intelligence? Obviously, the
Iranian issue is a classic case, where we've got to make sure that when
we speak there's credibility. And so, in other words, when the United
States rallies a coalition, or any other country that had felt that
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction is trying to rally a
coalition in dealing with one of these non-transparent societies, what
do we need to do to regain the trust of not only the American people,
but the world community?
And so what I did was I called together the Silberman-Robb Commission
-- Laurence Silberman and former Senator Chuck Robb -- to take a full
look at what went right and what went wrong on the intelligence, and how
do we structure an intelligence network that makes sure there's full
debate among the analysts? How do we make sure that there's a full
compilation of data points that can help decision-makers like myself
feel comfortable in the decision we make?
The war on terror requires the collection and analysis of good
intelligence. This is a different kind of war; we're dealing with an
enemy which hides in caves and plots and plans, an enemy which doesn't
move in flotillas, or battalions. And so, therefore, the
intelligence-gathering is not only important to make a diplomatic case,
it's really important to be able to find an enemy before they hurt us.
And so there was a reform process they went through, a full analysis
of what -- of how the operations worked, and out of that came the NDI,
John Negroponte and Mike Hayden. And their job is to better collate and
make sure that the intelligence-gathering is seamless across a variety
of gatherers and people that analyze. But the credibility of our country
is essential -- I agree with you.
Yes, sure.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome to Cleveland. It's an honor to
have you here. I represent the Cleveland Hungarian Revolution 50th
Anniversary --
THE PRESIDENT: That's good. I was there, by the way.
Q Thank you. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: At least for the celebration in Capitol -- with Tom
Lantos. But go ahead.
Q Mr. President, in the interest of free speech if you'll indulge me,
I have to give a little context of my question. On this third
anniversary of your -- I consider -- courageous initiative to bring
freedom and basic human dignity to the Iraqi people, the image of the
statue of the tyrant Saddam falling in Baghdad was very reminiscent of
another statue, another tyrant, Josef Stalin, who fell in Budapest 50
years ago at the hands of many young Hungarian freedom fighters who were
seeking to overthrow the tyranny of Soviet communism. Mr. President,
just like our brave fighting men and women today, and many Iraqi people,
those young Hungarian patriots paid a very heavy price for a few days of
freedom. But they lit the torch that eventually set the captive nations
on the path to achieving liberty. And so, Mr. President, our Cleveland
Hungarian community is planning a major event in Cleveland in October --
(laughter) --
THE PRESIDENT: The guy sees the moment, you know -- (laughter and
applause.)
Q Right.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not sure what I'm doing in October. Put me down as
a maybe. (Laughter and applause.) Sorry to interrupt.
Q Just like you came for the children's game in 2004, we hope to have
you hear for that, as well. Mr. President, just want to let you know, to
win the war on terror we feel that what was started in 1776, and
continued in 1956, must be remembered in 2006.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.)
Q I'm at the question now. Thanks for your indulgence.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. (Laughter.)
Q My basic question is, how can we help you, from the grassroots
level, how can we help you promote the cause of freedom and liberty for
all peoples throughout the world?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. My main job is to make sure I make
the case as plainly as I can why it's worth it. And I fully understand
-- I understand people being disheartened when they turn on their TV
screen and see the loss of innocent life. We're compassionate people.
Nobody likes beheadings and it -- nobody -- when innocent children get
car-bombed. So it's my job, sir, to make it clear about the connection
between Iraq and the war on terror. It's my job to remind people that
progress is being made, in spite of the violence they see. It's my job
to make it clear to the people the stakes.
I've spent time talking about what happens if we were to lose our
nerve, and Iraq would fall to al Qaeda. And the stakes are high. Look, I
understand some don't view that we're in a war against the terrorists. I
know that. And therefore, there's a sense that 9/11 might have been an
isolated incident. I just don't agree. And here's what I -- here's the
basis from which I made decisions. You heard one -- is that 9/11
affected the way I think. I know these are like totalitarian fascists;
they have an ideology, they have a desire to spread that ideology, and
they're willing to use tactics to achieve their strategy.
And one of the tactics I said early on in the speech -- the stated
objectives of al Qaeda. This isn't my imagination of their strategy,
this is what they have told us. And I presume you want the
Commander-in-Chief to take the words of the enemy seriously. And they
have told us they believe that we're soft and that with time we'll
leave, and they'll fill the vacuum. And they want to plan and plot and
hurt Americans. That's what they have said. And I think it's really
important we take their words very seriously.
And so I will continue making the case, sir, but the best way you can
help is to support our troops. You find a family who's got a child in
the United States military, tell them you appreciate them. Ask them if
you can help them. You see somebody wearing a uniform, you walk up and
say, thanks for serving the country.
Ours is a remarkable country where -- (applause) -- where we've got
thousands of people signing up, volunteering for the United States
military, many of them after September the 11th, knowing full-well what
they were signing up for. And what's amazing about our military is that
retention rates are high, people are still signing up. They want to --
they want to defend the country. And for that, I am grateful.
But my job, sir, is to lay out the strategy -- and to connect the
notion of liberty with peace. And that's hard for some. Sometimes
there's a little bit of a -- kind of a point of view that says, well,
maybe certain people can't be free, maybe certain people can't
self-govern. I strongly believe that liberty is universal. I believe in
the natural rights of men and women. That was part of our founding. And
if you believe in that, if you believe in the universality of freedom,
then I believe those of us who are free have an obligation to help
others become free. (Applause.)
Yes, ma'am. I'm tied up in October, but you know -- (laughter.)
Q I'm a Marine mom --
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. Tell your -- (applause.)
Q My son signed up after 9/11, and I didn't raise a terrorist. And
let's face it, there's a continuum and a lack of clarity about who's
violent and who's a terrorist. And we really do want to use the word
"enemy" in a meaningful way. I think your speech has been very brave and
very important and very clarifying. And in the interest of clarifying
the purpose of our country to fight preventive war, which we know does
involve violence, it's very important for us to understand what you're
saying about your model community in Iraq. And my question is that you
are killing the bad guys, and that's very important that's the entire
story of the battle. And we want to know who the bad guys are. Do you
feel that Iraq is like a honeycomb, and that we can draw the al Qaeda
there so we can stand and fight them there? I'm really asking for
clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. I think in Iraq there are three types of folks
that are trying to stop democracy. First of all, I think it's very
important for people to understand one reason they're so violent and
desperate is because they're trying to stop a society based upon
liberty. And you got to ask why. And the reason why is because it's the
exact opposite of what they believe.
There are three types. One is al Qaeda and al Qaeda is headed into
there. Al Qaeda understands the danger of democracy spreading. And so
Zarqawi, this fellow named Zarqawi is in charge of al Qaeda inside of
Iraq which recruits foreign fighters. And they headed into Iraq because
they wanted to fight us. They wanted to stop democracy.
Secondly, there are Saddamists -- these were the folks that really
enjoyed a life of privilege. These are people that were top of the heap.
They were -- they represented a minority in the country, but they got
all the deal, they got all the goods. And they don't like it when Saddam
was removed. And so they are trying to regroup.
And the third group are rejectionists. These are essentially Sunnis,
as well, who really weren't sure as -- about whether or not it meant --
what it meant to have minority rights, whether or not they'd be
protected. You can understand. They didn't -- during Saddam, there was
no such thing as minority rights. And so as a new society emerged, they
were doubtful.
And it is those folks that I believe will become marginalized as
democracy advances. We're seeing the Sunnis change their mind about
things. They barely voted in the first January 2005 elections; they
participated overwhelmingly in the December 2005 elections. In just an
11-month period of time there was a change of attitude to participate in
the democratic process.
And the fundamental question that I know people ask is whether or not
democracy, one, can take hold in Iraq, and two, will it change people's
attitude about the future? And I believe it will. History has proven
that democracies can change societies. The classic case I like to cite
is Japan. Prime Minister Koizumi is one of my best buddies in the
international arena, and when we sit down, we talk the peace. I find it
interesting that he is a peacemaker with me on a variety of issues, and
yet my Dad fought the Japanese. And I'm sure many of your relatives did,
as well.
Sixty years ago, Japan was the sworn enemy of the United States.
Today, they're an ally in peace. And what took place? Well, what took
place was a Japanese-style democracy. I can't say I promise you this,
but I suspect that if somebody were standing up at the City Club of
Cleveland talking about, don't worry some day Japan is going to be
peaceful with the United States and the 43rd President is going to be
designing how keep the peace -- they'd say, get him off the stage.
(Laughter.) What's he thinking? They're the sworn enemy. And now they're
our ally. So I have faith in the capacity of democracies to help change
societies.
And again, I repeat to you, the debate -- one of the debates is
whether or not certain folks can self-govern. There's kind of a -- maybe
there are some in the world that aren't capable, say the skeptics. I
strongly disagree with that. I believe there's -- hold on a second -- I
believe there's a great desire for people to be free. I believe that.
And history has proven that democracies don't war with each other.
Again, I kind of glossed over this, but particularly for the students
here, look at what happened in Europe over a hundred-year period, from
the early 1900s to today. Europe was at war twice that cost Americans
thousands of lives. Today, they don't war because the systems of
government changed. Democracies are at peace. Europe is whole, free, and
at peace. And that's an important history lesson for those of us.
What I'm saying to you, ma'am, is that there is a battle for Iraq
now, but it's just a part of the war on terror. It's a theater in the
war on terror. Afghanistan was a theater. And we're in a global battle
which requires strong alliances, good cooperation, and a constant
reminder of the nature of this war. So today I met with the Secretary
General of NATO. And the first subject that came up was the war on
terror, and how much I appreciated NATO's contribution to helping
Afghanistan succeed. But it is -- the enemy in this case is disgruntled
folks inside of Iraq, coupled with an al Qaeda presence there that wants
to harm Americans again.
I don't know -- is your son still in the military?
Q Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. You tell him the Commander-in-Chief is proud
of him. You tell him to listen to his mother, too. (Applause.)
Yes. First, and then second, sir, you're next.
Q On behalf of the students here from various high school student
leadership programs, we thank you for speaking with us here at the City
Club of Cleveland.
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks -- I hope it's a convenient excuse to skip
school, but -- (laughter.)
Q Mr. President, with the war in Iraq costing $19,600 per U.S.
household, how do you expect a generation of young people such as
ourselves, to afford college a time like this, when we're paying for a
war Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well -- hold on for a minute. Hold on. We can do
more than one thing at one time. And when you grow your economy, like
we're growing our economy, there is an opportunity to not only protect
ourselves, but also to provide more Pell grants than any administration
in our nation's history, and increase the student loan program. So if
you take a look, I think you'll find that we're robust in helping -- at
the federal level, helping people go to college. And it's essential you
go to college. It's essential that there be a group of youngsters coming
up that are well-educated so that we can maintain our economic
leadership position in the world. We've got a robust program to do just
that.
But it's also essential that we keep policies in place that keep the
economy growing. This economy of ours is strong, and it's -- it is, in
my judgment, growing stronger. But it is possible to put policy in place
that would weaken it, such as raising taxes. I think we got to keep
taxes low to keep the economy moving. It's possible to put policy --
(applause) -- it's possible to put policy in place that would hurt this
economy, like protectionist policy. It's possible to -- if we keep suing
our people trying to risk capital, it's conceivable, we won't be the
leader. That's why we need good tort reform. We got to make sure that --
(applause.)
My point to you is economic growth enables us to do more than one
thing. And that's what we'll continue to do.
Yes, sir. Right. No, no, hold on for a minute. Hold on for a minute.
Q Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.
Q Every chief needs Indian on their side. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: How long were you working on that for? (Laughter and
applause.)
Q I applaud your vision and foresight to sign a long-term treaty with
India. But, sir, I am confused that, on one side, you're helping
democratic countries to flourish and establish democracy in the world
market, whereas how do we deal with country who has known to harbor
terrorism like Pakistan?
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you might be heading there. (Laughter.) I,
obviously, had a trip recently to India and Pakistan and Afghanistan,
and was able to say in India and in Pakistan both, it is a positive
development for America to be a friend of Pakistan -- it's a positive
development for India for America to be a friend of Pakistan, and it's a
positive development for Pakistan for America to be a friend of India.
It's an important accomplishment in order to help keep the peace.
I don't view our relationships with Pakistan and India as a zero-sum
relationship. As a matter of fact, I view our relationships with both
countries as different sets of issues and the need to nurture both
relationships to achieve common objectives. And we're in a position to
be able to do so now.
President Musharraf is a friend to the United States. President
Musharraf understands that he must help rout out al Qaeda, which is
hiding in parts of his country. President Musharraf was reminded of that
the four times al Qaeda tried to kill him. He is a -- and so I was able
to have a very good discussion with the President about our mutual
concerns in the war on terror. And it's important that that dialogue go
on. It's a very important part of our -- me doing my most important job,
which is to protect you.
He also said in a press conference that he understands that democracy
is important. So one of the conversations that I had with him in private
-- I feel comfortable saying this in public because he himself brought
it up -- was the need for democracy to advance in Pakistan. History has
-- showed us that democracies don't war.
What's interesting about the relationship between Pakistan and India
-- and I'll get to India in a minute, I want to say something on India,
so thanks for bringing it up -- is that when we first -- when I first
got into office, I remember asking Colin Powell to go get in between
India and Pakistan. There was a lot of noise -- you might remember, I
think it was '01 or '02, where there was deep concerns about -- I think
'01 -- deep concerns about a potential nuclear conflict. And so there
was shuttle diplomacy, back and forth between India and Pakistan,
including not only our -- Colin, but also Jack Straw, the Foreign
Minister of Great Britain. And you never know how dangerous one of these
situations can become until it's too late, but, nevertheless, we took it
very seriously.
And today you don't see the need for the United States shuffling, or
Britain shuffling diplomats back and forth, to walk back -- walk the two
countries back from a potential conflict which would be incredibly
damaging for the world. That's positive. In other words, it's -- and I
give Prime Minister -- President Musharraf credit, and I give the Indian
Prime Ministers -- both Vajpayee and the current Prime Minister --
credit for -- Prime Minister Singh -- for envisioning what is possible,
how is it possible to develop a relationship that's a peaceful
relationship with our neighbor.
And, sir, I think it's very important for the United States to stay
engaged with Pakistan and encourage them. We're trying to negotiate an
investment treaty with them, with the hopes of being able to eventually
develop more trade with Pakistan, in the belief that trade helps nations
develop stability, and prosperity is achieved through trade.
India -- the visit there was a very important visit. And I want to
describe to you right quick, so be careful on the questions. You're
going to have to -- you'll leave your hand up for a while, I agreed with
the Indian government that India ought to be encouraged to develop a
nuclear power industry. And that's a controversial decision on my part,
because it basically flies in the face of old Cold War attitudes, as
well as arm control thinking.
Let me just share the logic with you. First of all, in that we live
in a global economy, there is a demand for fossil fuels -- an increase
in the demand for fossil fuels in one part of the world affects the
price of gasoline in our world. We're connected. Whether people like it
or not, there is an interconnectedness today that affects our economy.
Somebody's decision overseas affects whether or not people are going to
be able to work here in America. So I think it makes sense for the
United States, as we ourselves become less addicted to oil and fossil
fuels, which I'm serious about, encourage others to do so, as well. And
one good way to do so, and to protect the environment at the same time,
is to encourage the use of safe nuclear power. It's in our interests,
our economic interests that we work an agreement with India to encourage
their expansion of civilian nuclear power.
Secondly, unlike Iran, for example, India is willing to join the IAEA.
They want to be a part of the global agreements around nuclear power.
Thirdly, India has got a record a nonproliferation. They've had 30 years
of not proliferating. Fourthly, India is a democracy and a transparent
society. You find out a lot about India because there's a free press.
There is openness. People run for office and are held to account.
There's committee hearings. It's an open process.
I feel very comfortable recommending to the United States Congress
that it's -- they ought to agree with the agreement that Prime Minister
Singh and I have reached. It's important -- it's important -- it's also
an important relationship. For too long, America and India were not
partners in peace. We didn't deal with each other because of the Cold
War. And now is the time to set the Cold War behind us. It's over,
folks. It no longer is. And let's think about the next 30 years.
And so my hope is some day somebody will be asking a question, aren't
you glad old George W. thought about entering into a strategic
relationship with India? And I believe it's in our country's interest
that we have such a relationship, and at the same time, maintain close
relations with Pakistan. And it's possible to do so. And we are doing
so.
Yes, sir.
How long do you usually ask questions here for? (Laughter and
applause.)
Q Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: The guy is supposed to smile over there. Yes.
Q Another theater in the war on terror is domestic. And there's a
controversy around warrantless wiretaps domestically.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Could you explain why living within the legislation that allowed
your administration to get a warrant from a secret court within 72 hours
after putting in a wiretap wouldn't be just as effective?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate the question. He's talking about the
terrorist surveillance program that was -- created quite a kerfuffle in
the press, and I owe an explanation to. Because our people -- first of
all, after September the 11th, I spoke to a variety of folks on the
front line of protecting us, and I said, is there anything more we could
be doing, given the current laws? And General Mike Hayden of the NSA
said there is. The FISA law -- he's referring to the FISA law, I believe
-- is -- was designed for a previous period, and is slow and cumbersome
in being able to do what Mike Hayden thinks is necessarily -- called hot
pursuit.
And so he designed a program that will enable us to listen from a
known al Qaeda, or suspected al Qaeda person and/or affiliate, from
making any phone call outside the United States in, or inside the United
States out -- with the idea of being able to pick up quickly information
for which to be able to respond in this environment that we're in. I was
concerned about the legality of the program, and so I asked lawyers --
which you got plenty of them in Washington -- (laughter) -- to determine
whether or not I could do this legally. And they came back and said,
yes. That's part of the debate which you're beginning to see.
I fully understood that Congress needed to be briefed. And so I had
Hayden and others brief members of the Congress, both Republicans and
Democrats, House members and senators, about the program. The program is
under constant review. I sign a reauthorization every -- I'm not exactly
sure -- 45 days, say. It's something like that. In other words, it's
constantly being reviewed. There's an IG that is very active at the NSA
to make sure that the program stays within the bounds that it was
designed.
I fully understand people's concerns about it, but ours is a town, by
the way, in Washington, where when you don't connect the dots, you're
held up to Congress, and when you do connect the dots, you're held up to
Congress. I believe what I'm doing is constitutional, and I know it's
necessary. And so we're going to keep doing it. (Applause.)
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your comments today about Iraq have been,
for me, very enlightening. And I greatly appreciate the level of clarity
that you've provided. But my question is about domestic policy. Today,
in our neighborhoods there are terrorists. Children cannot play in some
of our neighborhoods. Today, we've got -- when you see post-Katrina, our
country was startled at some of the images around poverty in some of our
cities. Can you be as clear about your domestic policy to address those
kinds of things?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Thanks. Let me start with education, which
I view as a vital part of providing hope and eradicating poverty.
(Applause.) I was disturbed, when I was the governor of Texas, disturbed
about a system that just moved kids through. There was kind of a
process-oriented world, that said, okay, if you're 10, you're supposed
to be here; you're 12, you're supposed to be here, and on through. It
was like -- without any sense of accountability. If you believe
education is one of the cornerstones to a hopeful world, then it seems
like to me, it makes sense that we've got to have a system that measures
so we know whether or not people are getting educated.
So when I got to Washington, I proposed what's called No Child Left
Behind, which passed with both Republican and Democrat votes. And the
whole spirit of No Child Left Behind is this: It says, in return for
increased federal money for particularly Title I students, we expect you
to measure grades three through eight. We want to see strong
accountability because we believe every child can learn, and we expect
every school to teach. That's the whole spirit of the No Child Left
Behind Act.
If you -- it turns out that if you can solve problems early, if you
can find out whether or not a curriculum is working or not early on in a
child's career, we can correct the problems. And so part of the No Child
Left Behind Act is when you measure and find somebody not up to
measuring to par, not meeting standards, there's extra money called
special service money available in the No Child Left Behind Act, to make
sure that there's early tutoring, to make sure that children are not
just simply shuffled through, to make sure an accountability system is
used properly -- which is to diagnose and solve problems.
The No Child Left Behind Act is beginning to work. You know why?
Because we measure. There was an achievement gap in America that's bad
for the country. It's an achievement gap between the difference between
some Anglo children and some African American children, particularly
inner city. That's beginning to close.
We need to apply the same rigor of No Child Left Behind, particularly
in middle age [sic] for math and science, to make sure that we're able
to compete for the jobs of the 21st century.
And so step one, in my judgment, to address exactly what you
described as true -- kind of this enlightenment that, uh-oh, there are
parts of our society in which people are, in fact, being completely left
behind -- is to make sure the education system is rigorously based upon
accountability. And when we find the status quo is unacceptable, have
the political courage to change -- demand high standards and change.
And the cornerstone of demanding change in a system that tends to
protect itself is measurement. And I realize there are people in my
party who want to undo No Child Left Behind. And I'm sure there are in
the other party. But my judgment is you can't achieve educational
excellence unless you measure and correct problems.
Now, there's another aspect to providing a hopeful society, and that
is to encourage ownership. One of the interesting things about Katrina,
as you well know, is many of the people displaced did not own their own
homes, that they were renters. One of the goals that I set for my
administration through a variety of pretty simple programs -- like
helping with down payment and education programs, recognizing that
interest rates drive most of the housing purchases -- was to encourage
minority home ownership. It's now at an all-time high.
I believe that the idea of empowering our faith-based institutions --
government can help, but government sometimes can't find -- well, it
just doesn't pass -- it's not a loving organization. And so I believe
strongly -- I believe strongly in empowering faith-based and
community-based programs all throughout America to help achieve certain
objectives.
Mentoring, for example, mentoring of children in prisoners -- whose
mother or dad may be in prison is an initiative I started. Drug
rehabilitation, giving those who are eligible for drug money a voucher,
money themselves, a scrip so they can redeem it at a program that they
choose, not that the government assigns them to. In other words, there's
a variety of social service programs aimed at lifting people up.
And so I -- look, many Americans kind of were -- didn't really
realize what's taking place in parts of the country that you've
described. And Katrina was a wake-up call for many Americans. And now
there's an opportunity, in my judgment, to take -- well, for people to
take notice and put in policy -- put policies in place that help those
who need help, like community health centers, or -- for health care --
or expand educational opportunities through rigorous accountability
systems, and, I repeat, demanding change where change is due -- needed,
and promoting ownership.
Thanks. Good question.
Q -- is no shrinking violet. First of all, I want to commend you on
your presentation today. And I tell you I'm 100 percent behind your
fight against terrorism. Also --
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you just leave it at that?
Q Oh, no. Oh, no. (Laughter and applause.)
I tell you, one of the reasons I'm qualified to say that, you
probably heard of Ernie Shavers, the boxer. I trained Ernie Shavers. He
fought Muhammad Ali, and Muhammad Ali say he hit him so hard he woke up
his ancestors in Africa. (Laughter.) So I know a little bit about boxing
and things. But I know in boxing -- and I taught over 3,300 children
over 13 years, two of them fought for world championships, including
Ernie Shavers. I taught them that the best defense is a good offense.
That's what you're doing over there now. And I commend you. (Applause.)
My mom and dad had moved from Alabama to Ohio in the mid '40s. They
were the parents of five sons. We all served in the military. I served
eight years, and we all served honorably. So I am Marine. I've also been
a Boy Scout and a firefighter. To lead in, the young person spoke about
domestic policy. This Wednesday coming, I'll be making my sixth trip to
the New Orleans, Mississippi area as a contractor. I'm president of the
Ohio Minority Contracting Association. I want to publicly thank Senator
Voinovich right now for directing me to Senator Trent Lott, who has
directed me to Haley Barbour, the Governor down there, who opened up
opportunities.
We got people doing debris removal, putting on roofs. And I got a
$600,000 proposal to feed 22,000 workers down there who have been
underfed. You've been down there. I have, too. People are working 14 and
16 hours a day. And I've never been so proud to be an American, to see
the outpouring of people out there helping one another, particularly the
faith-based community. So I thank you, appreciate you, and look forward
to putting this proposal in your hand. Thank you. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's see, I got an invitation and a proposal.
(Laughter.)
Yes, sir. Anybody work here in this town? (Laughter and applause.)
Q Sorry about that. Mr. President, I just finished Ambassador Paul
Bremer's book, and one of the things I just wanted to say to you and to
Ambassador Bremer is thank you for protecting us.
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. (Applause.)
You're next.
Q Okay, my question is --
THE PRESIDENT: We have dueling microphones here. Keep firing away.
Q Okay. My question is, since 9/11, one of the key things that we
need is immigration reform, including comprehensive immigration reform
that is right now in front of Senator Specter's committee in the
Judiciary. There are two principles I'm hoping that you would support:
One, the good people, the engineers, the PhDs, the doctors, the nurses,
the people in the system who have followed the rules, will go to the
head of the line in any form of immigration reform. That's Title IVz of
the bill.
Secondly, the illegals who have not followed the rules -- I
understand the debate, I appreciate your statements about immigration
reform, but isn't it better that we know who they are, have them
finger-printed and photographed, and allow some form of 245I to come
back so --
THE PRESIDENT: Tell people what that is. Tell people what 245I is.
Q Okay -- 245I is a partial amnesty program that expired back in
2001, in fact, was going to be voted on on 9/11, unfortunately. But
those -- it was a small segment of the illegal population where they
would pay the $1,000 fine and, for example, coming in illegally, then
marrying an American citizen, could somehow legalize their status.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Let me give you some broad principles on
immigration reform as I see them. First of all, we do need to know who's
coming into our country and whether they're coming in illegally, or not
legally -- legally or not legally -- and whether they're coming in or
going out. And part of reforms after September the 11th was a better
system of finding out who's coming here.
Secondly, we have a big border between Texas and Mexico that's really
hard to enforce. We got to do everything we can to enforce the border,
particularly in the south. I mean, it's the place where people are
pouring across in order to find work. We have a situation in our own
neighborhood where there are way -- disparities are huge, and there are
jobs in America that people won't do. That's just a fact. I met an onion
grower today at the airport when I arrived, and he said, you got to help
me find people that will grow onions -- pluck them, or whatever you do
with them, you know. (Laughter.) There are jobs that just simply aren't
getting done because Americans won't do them. And yet, if you're making
50 cents an hour in Mexico, and you can make a lot more in America, and
you got mouths to feed, you're going to come and try to find the work.
It's a big border, of which -- across which people are coming to provide
a living for their families.
Step one of any immigration policy is to enforce our border in
practical ways. We are spending additional resources to be able to use
different detection devices, unmanned UAVs, to help -- and expand Border
Patrol, by the way, expand the number of agents on the border, to make
sure we're getting them the tools necessary to stop people from coming
across in the first place.
Secondly, part of the issue we've had in the past is we've had -- for
lack of a better word -- catch and release; the Border Patrol would find
people sneaking in; they would then hold them for a period of time;
they'd say, come back and check in with us 45 days later, and then they
wouldn't check in 45 days later. And they would disappear in society to
do the work that some Americans will not do.
And so we're changing catch and release. We're particularly focusing
on those from Central America who are coming across Mexico's southern
border, ending up in our own -- it's a long answer, but it's an
important question: How do we protect our borders, and at the same time,
be a humane society?
Anyway, step one, focus on enforcing border; when we find people,
send them home, so that the work of our Border Patrol is productive
work.
Secondly, it seems like to me that part of having a border security
program is to say to people who are hiring people here illegally, we're
going to hold you to account. The problem is our employers don't know
whether they're hiring people illegally because there's a whole forgery
industry around people being smuggled into the United States. There's a
smuggling industry and a forgery industry. And it's hard to ask our
employers, the onion guy out there, whether or not he's got -- whether
or not the documents that he's being shown that look real are real.
And so here's a better proposal than what we're doing today, which is
to say, if you're going to come to do a job an American won't do, you
ought to be given a foolproof card that says you can come for a limited
period of time and do work in a job an American won't do. That's border
security because it means that people will be willing to come in legally
with a card to do work on a limited basis, and then go home. And so the
agents won't be chasing people being smuggled in 18-wheelers or across
the Arizona desert. They'll be able to focus on drugs and terrorists and
guns.
The fundamental question that he is referring to is, what do we do
about -- there's two questions -- one, should we have amnesty? And the
answer, in my judgment, is, no, we shouldn't have amnesty. In my
judgment, granting amnesty, automatic citizenship -- that's what amnesty
means -- would cause another 11 million people, or however many are
here, to come in the hopes of becoming a United States citizen. We
shouldn't have amnesty. We ought to have a program that says, you get in
line like everybody else gets in line; and that if the Congress feels
like there needs to be higher quotas on certain nationalities, raise the
quotas. But don't let people get in front of the line for somebody who
has been playing by the rules. (Applause.)
And so, anyway, that's my ideas on good immigration policy.
Obviously, there's going to be some questions we have to answer: What
about the person who's been here since 1987 -- '86 was the last attempt
at coming up with immigration reform -- been here for a long period of
time. They've raised a family here. And my only advice for the Congress
and for people in the debate is understand what made America. We're a
land of immigrants. This guy is from Hungary, you know. (Applause.) And
we got to treat people fairly. We've got to have a system of law that is
respectful for people.
I mean, the idea of having a program that causes people to get stuck
in the back of 18-wheelers, to risk their lives to sneak into America to
do work that some people won't do is just not American, in my judgment.
And so I would hope the debate would be civil and uphold the honor of
this country. And remember, we've been through these periods before,
where the immigration debate can get harsh. And it should not be harsh.
And I hope -- my call for people is to be rational about the debate and
thoughtful about what words can mean during this debate.
Final question, sir. You're paying me a lot of money and I got to go
back to work. (Laughter.)
Q My name is Jos Feliciano.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
Q Yes, it is. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- it's like the time I called a guy and said,
hey, this is George Bush calling. He said, come on, quit kidding me,
man. (Laughter.) Que quiere decir?
Q -- aqui. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: That's right.
Q And, actually, I'm chairman of the Hispanic Roundtable -- I was
going to ask you that same question. However, I'm going to ask you a
simple one now, and this relates to preemptive self-defense. How is it,
Mr. President, that Iran today is really different from what Iraq was
three years ago?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, there were 16 Security Council
resolutions. The world had spoken with a clear voice not one time, I
think 16 -- is that right, Stretch, 16? I'm asking a member of the press
corps. I like to, like, reverse roles sometimes -- (laughter and
applause.) Really checking to see if they're paying attention, you know.
(Laughter.) Halfway through they kind of start dozing off. (Laughter.)
But the world had spoken by a lot against Saddam Hussein. There was a
diplomatic process. You might remember that the Congress, I think in
'98, voted a resolution that there should be regime change. My
predecessor looked at the same intelligence I looked at and saw a
threat. But the difference -- one difference was that in Iraq there was
a series of unanimous resolutions that basically held the Iraqi
government to account, which Saddam Hussein ignored. It was like
resolution after resolution after resolution.
The Iranian issue is just beginning to play out. And my hope, of
course, is as I said earlier, that we're able to solve this issue
diplomatically. It's very important that the United States work with our
allies -- in this case, the lead group of negotiators has been Germany,
France, and Great Britain -- so that the Iranians hear a unified voice.
Now, the voice sometimes -- I mean, if you're one -- you're
negotiators, probably got some lawyers here who are good negotiators --
it's easier to negotiate one person versus six. I'm not suggesting
you're a lawyer, you know, but I kind of had the feeling you might have
been. (Laughter.)
And so it's very important for us to continue to make sure that they
hear one voice. Non-transparent societies have got an advantage over
those of us who are transparent, where every move is in the press, every
opinion is aired out. And so it's very important to work to make sure
that they hear the one voice. Now, you might have read in the newspapers
where our Ambassador in Iraq, Zal, has reached out to the Iranians to
make it clear to them about our concerns about involvement in Iraq --
it's very important, however for the Iranians to understand that the
discussion is limited to Iraq. We feel like they need to know our
position.
Ultimately, Iraq-Iranian relations will be negotiated between the
Iraqi government and the Iranian government. Ours is just -- we're using
this as an opportunity to make it clear about our concerns of
interference within a process that is -- a democratic process that is
evolving. Our position is still very clearly that the Iraqis -- Iranians
should not have a program to build a nuclear weapon, and/or the
capacity, the knowledge necessary to build something which could lead to
a nuclear weapon. And we're working closely with or allies and friends
to continue to make that clear to them.
So the issues are different. The issues are different stages of
diplomacy.
Listen, I've enjoyed this. I hope you have, as well. God bless.
(Applause.)