THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. I'm going to
spend a little more time on my opening comments than I usually do, but
I'll save plenty of time for questions.
Over the past three years I have often addressed the American people
to explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were
encouraging, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein, the elections in
which 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and voted for a free
future, and the demise of the brutal terrorist Zarqawi. Other
developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N.
Headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of
weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's
finest sons and daughters.
Recently, American and Iraqi forces have launched some of the
most aggressive operations on enemy forces in Baghdad since the war
began. They've cleared neighborhoods of terrorists and death squads, and
uncovered large caches of weapons, including sniper scopes and mortars
and powerful bombs. There has been heavy fighting. Many enemy fighters
have been killed or captured, and we've suffered casualties of our own.
This month we've lost 93 American service members in Iraq, the most
since October of 2005. During roughly the same period, more than 300
Iraqi security personnel have given their lives in battle. Iraqi
civilians have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the
terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups, and criminals.
The events of the past month have been a serious concern to me, and a
serious concern to the American people. Today I will explain how we're
adapting our tactics to help the Iraqi government gain control of the
security situation. I'll also explain why, despite the difficulties and
bloodshed, it remains critical that America defeat the enemy in Iraq by
helping the Iraqis build a free nation that can sustain itself and
defend itself.
Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the
war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan
under the Taliban. The enemy we face in Iraq has evolved over the past
three years. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, a sophisticated and a
violent insurgency took root. Early on this insurgency was made up of
remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, as well as criminals released
by the regime. The insurgency was fueled by al Qaeda and other foreign
terrorists, who focused most of their attention on high-profile attacks
against coalition forces and international institutions.
We learned some key lessons from that early phase in the war. We saw
how quickly al Qaeda and other extremist groups would come to Iraq to
fight and try to drive us out. We overestimated the capability of the
civil service in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the
Iraqi people. We did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican
Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the phase of advancing
coalition forces.
Despite these early setbacks, some very important progress was
made, in the midst of an incredibly violent period. Iraqis formed an
interim government that assumed sovereignty. The Iraqi people elected a
transitional government, drafted and adopted the most progressive
democratic constitution in the Arab world, braved the car bombs and
assassins to choose a permanent government under that constitution, and
slowly began to build a capable national army.
Al Qaeda and insurgents were unable to stop this progress. They tried
to stand up to our forces in places like Fallujah, and they were routed.
So they changed their tactics. In an intercepted letter to Osama bin
Laden, the terrorist Zarqawi laid out his strategy to drag Iraq's Shia
population into a sectarian war. To the credit of the Shia population,
they resisted responding to the horrific violence against them for a
long time.
Yet the persistent attacks, particularly last February's bombing of
the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of Shia Islam's most holy shrines,
eventually resulted in sectarian reprisals. The cycle of violence, in
which al Qaeda insurgents attacked Shia civilians and Shia death squads
retaliated against Sunnis, has sharply increased in recent months,
particularly in Baghdad.
As the enemy shifts tactics, we are shifting our tactics, as well.
Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or
standing in the crossfire between rival factions. Our mission is to help
the elected government in Iraq defeat common enemies, to bring peace and
stability to Iraq, and make our nation more secure. Our goals are
unchanging. We are flexible in our methods to achieving those goals.
On the military side, our commanders on the ground are constantly
adjusting our tactics to stay ahead of our enemies. We are refining our
training strategy for the Iraqi security forces so we can help more of
those forces take the lead in the fight, and provide them better
equipment and fire power to be successful. We've increased the number of
coalition advisors in the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior so
they can better plan and execute security operations against the enemy.
We have changed our force structure so we can better respond to the
conditions on the ground. For example, during the Iraqi elections, we
increased our force levels to more than 150,000 troops to ensure people
could vote. Most recently, we have moved additional coalition and Iraqi
forces into Baghdad so they can help secure the city and reduce
sectarian violence.
After some initial successes, our operations to secure Baghdad
have encountered greater resistance. Some of the Iraqi security forces
have performed below expectations. Many have performed well and are
fighting bravely in some of Baghdad's toughest neighborhoods. Once
again, American troops are performing superbly under very difficult
conditions. Together, with the Iraqis, they've conducted hundreds of
missions throughout Baghdad. They've rounded up or killed key insurgents
and death squad leaders.
As we fight this enemy, we're working with the Iraqi government to
perform the performance -- to improve the performance of their security
forces, so they can regain control of the nation's capital, and
eventually resume primary responsibility for their country's security.
A military solution alone will not stop violence. In the end, the
Iraqi people and their government will have to make the difficult
decisions necessary to solve these problems. So, in addition to refining
our military tactics to defeat the enemy, we're also working to help the
Iraqi government achieve a political solution that brings together Shia
and Sunnis and Kurds and other ethnic and religious groups.
Yesterday, our Ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad laid out a
three-step approach. First, we're working with political and religious
leaders across Iraq, urging them to take steps to restrain their
followers and stop sectarian violence.
Second, we're helping Iraqi leaders to complete work on a national
compact to resolve the most difficult issues dividing their country. The
new Iraqi government has condemned violence from all quarters and agreed
to a schedule for resolving issues, such as disarming illegal militias
and death squads, sharing oil revenues, amending the Iraqi constitution,
and reforming the de-Baathification process.
Third, we're reaching out to Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, the
UAE and Jordan, and asking them to support the Iraqi government's
efforts to persuade Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms and accept
national reconciliation. The international community is also supporting
the international compact that outlines the support that will be
provided to Iraq as it moves forward with its own program of reform.
These are difficult tasks for any government. It is important for
Americans to recognize that Prime Minister Maliki's unity government has
been in office for just over five months. Think about that. This young
government has to solve a host of problems created by decades of
tyrannical rule. And they have to do it in the midst of raging conflict,
against extremists from outside and inside the country who are doing
everything they can to stop this government from succeeding.
We're pressing Iraq's leaders to take bold measures to save their
country. We're making it clear that America's patient [sic] is not
unlimited. Yet we also understand the difficult challenges Iraq's
leaders face, and we will not put more pressure on the Iraqi government
than it can bear. The way to succeed in Iraq is to help Iraq's
government grow in strength and assume more control over its country as
quickly as possible.
I know the American people understand the stakes in Iraq. They want
to win. They will support the war as long as they see a path to victory.
Americans can have confidence that we will prevail because thousands of
smart, dedicated military and civilian personnel are risking their lives
and are working around the clock to ensure our success. A distinguished
independent panel of Republicans and Democrats, led by former Secretary
of State Jim Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, is taking a
fresh look at the situation in Iraq and will make recommendations to
help achieve our goals. I welcome all these efforts. My administration
will carefully consider any proposal that will help us achieve victory.
It's my responsibility to provide the American people with a candid
assessment on the way forward. There is tough fighting ahead. The road
to victory will not be easy. We should not expect a simple solution. The
fact that the fighting is tough does not mean our efforts in Iraq are
not worth it. To the contrary; the consequences in Iraq will have a
decisive impact on the security of our country, because defeating the
terrorists in Iraq is essential to turning back the cause of extremism
in the Middle East. If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in
Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves, and use Iraq as a base
to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East. They
will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will
pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain
to Indonesia.
I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq.
I'm not satisfied, either. And that is why we're taking new steps to
help secure Baghdad, and constantly adjusting our tactics across the
country to meet the changing threat. But we cannot allow our
dissatisfaction to turn into disillusionment about our purpose in this
war. We must not look at every success of the enemy as a mistake on our
part, cause for an investigation, or a reason to call for our troops to
come home. We must not fall prey to the sophisticated propaganda by the
enemy, who is trying to undermine our confidence and make us believe
that our presence in Iraq is the cause of all its problems
If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's
security, I'd bring our troops home tomorrow. I met too many wives and
husbands who have lost their partners in life, too many children who
won't ever see their mom and dad again. I owe it to them and to the
families who still have loved ones in harm's way to ensure that their
sacrifices are not in vain.
Our country has faced adversity before during times of war. In past
wars, we've lost young Americans who gave everything to protect our
freedom and way of life. In this war, we've lost good men and women
who've given their lives for a cause that is necessary and it is just.
We mourn every loss, and we must gird ourselves for the sacrifices that
are yet to come. America's men and women in uniform are the finest in
the world. I'm awed by their strength and their character. As General
Casey reported yesterday in Iraq, "the men and women of the Armed
Forces... have never lost a battle in over three years in the war."
Every American can take pride in our troops, and the vital work they are
doing to protect us.
Our troops are fighting a war that will set the course for this new
century. The outcome will determine the destiny of millions across the
world. Defeating the terrorists and extremists is the challenge of our
time and the calling of this generation. I'm confident this generation
will answer that call and defeat an ideology that is bent on destroying
America and all that we stand for.
And now I'll be glad to answer some of your questions. Terry.
Q Mr. President, the war in Iraq has lasted almost as long as World
War II for the United States. And as you mentioned, October was the
deadliest month for American forces this year -- in a year. Do you think
we're winning, and why?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, this is a different kind of war than a
war against the fascists in World War II. We were facing a nation state
-- two nation states -- three nation states in World War II. We were
able to find an enemy by locating its ships, or aircraft, or soldiers on
the ground. This is a war against extremists and radicals who kill
innocent people to achieve political objectives. It has a multiple of
fronts.
Afghanistan was a front in this war against the terrorists. Iraq is
now the central front in the war against the terrorists. This war is
more than just finding people and bringing them to justice; this war is
an ideological conflict between a radical ideology that can't stand
freedom, and moderate, reasonable people that hope to live in a peaceful
society.
And so it's going to take a long time, Terry. I am confident we will
succeed. I am confident we'll succeed in Iraq. And the reason I'm
confident we'll succeed in Iraq is because the Iraqis want to succeed in
Iraq. The ultimate victory in Iraq, which is a government that can
sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself, depends upon the Iraqi
citizens and the Iraqi government doing the hard work necessary to
protect their country. And our job is to help them achieve that
objective. As a matter of fact, my view is the only way we lose in Iraq
is if we leave before the job is done.
And I'm confident we can succeed in the broader war on terror, this
ideological conflict. I'm confident because I believe the power of
liberty will defeat the ideology of hate every time, if given a chance.
I believe that the radicals represent the few in the Middle East. I
believe the majority of people want to live in a peaceful world. That's
what I believe.
And I know it's incumbent upon our government and others who enjoy
the blessings of liberty to help those moderates succeed because,
otherwise, we're looking at the potential of this kind of world: a world
in which radical forms of Islam compete for power; a world in which
moderate governments get toppled by people willing to murder the
innocent; a world in which oil reserves are controlled by radicals in
order to extract blackmail from the West; a world in which Iran has a
nuclear weapon. And if that were to occur, people would look back at
this day and age and say, what happened to those people in 2006? How
come they couldn't see the threat to a future generation of people?
Defeat will only come if the United States becomes isolationist and
refuses to, one, protect ourselves, and, two, help those who desire to
become -- to live in a moderate, peaceful world. And it's a hard
struggle, no question about it. And it's a different struggle.
Q Are we winning?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely, we're winning. Al Qaeda is on the run. As
a matter of fact, the mastermind, or the people who they think is the
mastermind of the September the 11th attacks is in our custody. We've
now got a procedure for this person to go on trial, to be held for his
account. Most of al Qaeda that planned the attacks on September the 11th
have been brought to justice.
Extremists have now played their hand; the world can clearly see
their ambitions. You know, when a Palestinian state began to show
progress, extremists attacked Israel to stop the advance of a
Palestinian state. They can't stand democracies. Extremists and radicals
want to undermine fragile democracy because it's a defeat for their way
of life, their ideology.
People now understand the stakes. We're winning, and we will win,
unless we leave before the job is done. And the crucial battle right now
is Iraq. And as I said in my statement, I understand how tough it is,
really tough. It's tough for a reason; because people understand the
stakes of success in Iraq. And my point to the American people is, is
that we're constantly adjusting our tactics to achieve victory.
Steve.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Are you considering sending more U.S.
troops to Iraq? What would be the justification for it? And how reliable
is this new timetable of 12 to 18 months?
THE PRESIDENT: I will send more troops to Iraq if General Casey says,
I need more troops in Iraq to achieve victory. And that's the way I've
been running this war. I have great faith in General Casey. I have great
faith in Ambassador Khalilzad. I trust our commanders on the ground to
give the best advice about how to achieve victory. I want to remind you,
victory is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself -- a
country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and
serves as an ally in the war on terror -- which stands in stark contrast
to a government that would be chaotic, that would be a safe haven for
the enemy to launch attacks on us.
One way for the American people to understand what Iraq could look
like is what Afghanistan looked like under the Taliban, a place where
there was no freedom; a place where women were taken to the public
square and beaten if they did not adhere to the strict, intolerant
guidelines of the Taliban; a place where thousands trained to attack
America and our allies. Afghanistan doesn't have nearly the resources
that Iraq has. Imagine a safe haven for an enemy that ended up with the
resources that it had.
It is -- and so this is a war where I say to our generals, do you
have what it takes to win. Now, General Casey talked about part of our
strategy, and part of the strategy is to give the Iraq government the
tools necessary to protect itself, to defend itself. If you're able to
defend yourself, you're more likely to be able to govern yourself, as
well. But politics -- the political way forward and the military way
forward must go hand in hand.
And what the General was saying yesterday is that there is a
three-step process to enable the Iraqi forces to be able to help this
government bring security. One was to train and equip. The goal is
325,000 troops; 137,000 military and the balance, police.
Second was to put the Iraqi security forces in the lead. Six of ten
divisions now are in the lead in helping this government defend itself.
The strategy has been to embed U.S. personnel, officers and non-com
officers, into these forces to help them gain the confidence and the
capacity to be effective when they're in the lead.
And the third step is for the Iraqi security forces to be able to
operate independently. And this, perhaps, is going to be one of the most
difficult aspects of having the Iraqis ready to go, because that means
they have to be able to drive themselves, maintain their vehicles,
provide logistics, have combat service support. And that's what General
Casey was describing.
The key is that our commanders feel that there -- they have got
enough flexibility to design the program to meet the conditions on the
ground. You know, last spring, I thought for a period of time we'd be
able to reduce our troop presence early next year. That's what I felt.
But because we didn't have a fixed timetable, and because General Casey
and General Abizaid and the other generals there understand that the way
we're running this war is to give them flexibility, have the confidence
necessary to come and make the right recommendations here in Washington,
D.C., they decided that that wasn't going to happen. And so what he was
describing to you was the way forward to make sure that the Iraqis are
fully prepared to defend themselves.
Q What about the 12 to 18 month estimate?
THE PRESIDENT: It's a condition, a base estimate. And that's
important for the American people to know. This notion about, you know,
fixed timetable of withdrawal, in my judgment, is a -- means defeat. You
can't leave until the job is done. Our mission is to get the job done as
quickly as possible.
Let's see here -- David.
Q Mr. President, for several years you have been saying that America
will stay the course in Iraq; you were committed to the policy. And now
you say that, no, you're not saying, stay the course, that you're
adapting to win, that you're showing flexibility. And as you mentioned,
out of Baghdad we're now hearing about benchmarks and timetables from
the Iraqi government, as relayed by American officials, to stop the
sectarian violence.
In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about
benchmarks and timetables were labeled as defeatists, defeat-o-crats, or
people who wanted to cut and run. So why shouldn't the American people
conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic, rhetorical
games and all politics two weeks before an election?
THE PRESIDENT: David, there is a significant difference between
benchmarks for a government to achieve and a timetable for withdrawal.
You're talking about -- when you're talking about the benchmarks, he's
talking about the fact that we're working with the Iraqi government to
have certain benchmarks to meet as a way to determine whether or not
they're making the hard decisions necessary to achieve peace. I believe
that's what you're referring to. And we're working with the Iraqi
government to come up with benchmarks.
Listen, this is a sovereign government. It was elected by the people
of Iraq. What we're asking them to do is to say, when do you think
you're going to get this done, when can you get this done, so the people
themselves in Iraq can see that the government is moving forward with a
reconciliation plan and plans necessary to unify this government.
That is substantially different, David, from people saying, we want a
time certain to get out of Iraq. As a matter of fact, the benchmarks
will make it more likely we win. Withdrawing on an artificial timetable
means we lose.
Now, I'm giving the speech -- you're asking me why I'm giving this
speech today -- because there's -- I think I owe an explanation to the
American people, and will continue to make explanations. The people need
to know that we have a plan for victory. Like I said in my opening
comments, I fully understand if the people think we don't have a plan
for victory, they're not going to support the effort. And so I'll
continue to speak out about our way forward.
Jessica.
Q Sir, you've called Iran part of the "axis of evil" and Syria a
"state sponsor of terrorism." You said earlier today that your
administration will consider any proposal that will help us achieve
victory. So I'm wondering, if it's determined that Iran and Syria could
help you achieve victory in Iraq, would you be willing to work with
them?
THE PRESIDENT: Iran and Syria understand full well that the world
expects them to help Iraq. We've made that very clear to them.
Let me talk about the Iranian issue. We've got a lot of issues with
Iran. First is whether or not they will help this young democracy
succeed. The second issue, of course, is whether or not they will help
the Lebanese democracy succeed -- the Siniora government, which is -- a
priority of this government is to help that Siniora government. The big
issue right now is whether or not Iran will end up with a nuclear
weapon. And so our issues with Iran are many. And our position is very
clear to the Iranians: There is a better way forward for the government
and the people than to be isolated.
And we will continue to work to make it clear to the Iranian
government that all three accounts and the sponsor of terrorists will
cause more isolation. We've got a very active diplomatic effort taking
place. The Iranians know our position on Iraq, and they know it clearly.
More importantly, they know the Iraqis' position relative to Iran. We're
helping a sovereign government succeed. And the Iraqis have sent
messages to the Iranians: To help us succeed, don't interfere in the
internal affairs.
As to Syria, our message to Syria is consistent: Do not undermine the
Siniora government in Lebanon; help us get back the -- help Israel get
back the prisoner that was captured by Hamas; don't allow Hamas and
Hezbollah to plot attacks against democracies in the Middle East; help
inside of Iraq. They know our position, as well, Jessica.
Q May I just follow? James Baker has, himself, said that he believes
the U.S. should work with Iran. So would you be willing to work with
Iran in a way that allows some sort of negotiations in Iraq, even if
they don't come to the table in the P-3 and P-5 negotiations?
THE PRESIDENT: Jessica, Iran has a chance to come to the table with
the United States to discuss a variety of issues. And the way forward is
one that I had made clear at previous press conferences, and that is, if
they would verifiably stop their enrichment, the United States will be
at the table with them. In the meantime, they understand our position,
and they understand, more importantly, the Iraqi position about their
interference inside their country.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Prime Minister Maliki apparently gave his
own news conference this morning, where he seemed to be referring to
Ambassador Khalilzad and General Casey yesterday, when he said, nobody
has the right to set any timetables in Iraq -- and also, seemed to be
upset about the raid in Sadr City, saying he wasn't consulted. And I
believe the quote was, "It will not be repeated." Do you still have
full, complete and total confidence in Prime Minister Maliki as a
partner in Iraq? And what can you tell the American people about his
ability to rein in the militias since he seems to derive much of his
power from them?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First, this is back to the question that David
asked about benchmarks. You called it "timetables."
Q He did, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, he called it "timetables," excuse me. I think he
was referring to the benchmarks that we're developing that show a way
forward to the Iraqi people, and the American people for that matter,
about how this unity government is going to solve problems and bring the
people together. And if his point is, is that those benchmarks, or the
way forward can't be imposed upon Iraq by an outside force, he's right.
This is a sovereign government. But we're working closely with the
government to be able to say, here's what's going to happen then, here's
what we expect to happen now, here's what should be expected in the
future.
Second part of your question?
Q I was wondering, first of all, he seemed to be pushing back with --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on the sectarian -- on the militias. I heard that,
and I asked to see his complete transcript of this press conference,
where he made it very clear that militias harm the stability of his
country. Militias -- people out -- who operate outside the law will be
dealt with. That's what the Prime Minister said in his press conference.
The idea that we need to coordinate with him is a -- makes sense to me.
And there's a lot of operations taking place, which means that sometimes
communications may not be as good as they should be. And we'll continue
to work very closely with the government to make sure that the
communications are solid.
I do believe Prime Minister Maliki is the right man to achieve the
goal in Iraq. He's got a hard job. He's been there for five months, a
little over five months, and there's a lot of pressure on him, pressure
from inside his country. He's got to deal with sectarian violence; he's
got to deal with criminals; he's got to deal with al Qaeda -- all of
whom are lethal. These are people that will kill. And he wants to
achieve the same objective I want to achieve, and he's making tough
decisions.
I'm impressed, for example, by the way he has got religious leaders,
both Sunni and Shia, to start working together. I appreciate the fact
that he has made a very clear statement on militias. And, by the way,
death squad members are being brought to justice in this -- during these
operations in Baghdad.
I speak to him quite frequently, and I remind him we're with him, so
long as he continues to make tough decisions. That's what we expect. We
expect that the Iraqi government will make the hard decisions necessary
to unite the country and listen to the will of the 12 million people.
Let's see here. Yes, sir, Bret.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. North Korean leaders apparently today
warned South Korea against joining international sanctions, saying South
Korea would pay a high price if they did so. Are you still confident
that South Korea and China will implement the full force of the
U.N.-passed sanctions? And what happens if North Korea continues to
thumb its nose at the world?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe that -- first of all, I've been briefed on
this subject recently by the Secretary of State, who just came back from
the Far East. She met with the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Chinese
and the Russians. Her report is that all countries understand we must
work closely together to solve this problem peacefully. And that means
adhering to the latest United Nations Security Council resolution that
was passed.
The leader of North Korea likes to threaten. In my judgment, what
he's doing is just testing the will of the five countries that are
working together to convince him there is a better way forward for his
people. I don't know the exact words he used, but he is -- this is not
the first time that he's issued threats. And our goal is to continue to
remind our partners that when we work together, we're more likely to be
able to achieve the objective, which is to solve this problem
diplomatically. And so I would report to you the coalition remains firm,
and we will continue to work to see to it that it does remain firm.
Baker.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for taking questions today.
THE PRESIDENT: What was that?
Q Thank you for taking questions today.
THE PRESIDENT: Baker, I'm just happy to be able to do so, brother.
(Laughter.) I can't tell you how joyful it is. (Laughter.)
Q When you first ran for President, sir, you talked about the
importance of accountability. We learned from Bob Woodward's recent book
that Secretary Card, on two occasions, suggested that you replace
Secretary Rumsfeld, and both times you said, no. Given that the war in
Iraq is not going as well as you want, and given that you're not
satisfied as you just told us today, why hasn't anybody been held
accountable? Should somebody be held accountable?
THE PRESIDENT: Peter, you're asking me why I believe Secretary
Rumsfeld is doing a good job, I think, if I might decipher through the
Washington code.
Q -- or someone else --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's start with Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld.
I've asked him to do some difficult tasks as the Secretary of Defense --
one, wage war in two different theaters of this war on terror,
Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the same time, asked him to transform our
military posture around the world and our military readiness here at
home. In other words, the transformation effort into itself is a big
project for any Secretary to handle. But to compound the job he has,
he's got to do that and, at the same time, wage war. And I'm satisfied
of how he's done all his jobs.
He is a smart, tough, capable administrator. As importantly, he
understands that the best way to fight this war, whether it be in Iraq
or anywhere else around the world, is to make sure our troops are ready,
that morale is high, that we transform the nature of our military to
meet the threats, and that we give our commanders on the ground the
flexibility necessary to make the tactical changes to achieve victory.
This is a tough war in Iraq. I mean, it's a hard fight, no question
about it. All you've got to do is turn on your TV. But I believe that
the military strategy we have is going to work. That's what I believe,
Peter. And so we've made changes throughout the war, we'll continue to
make changes throughout the war. But the important thing is whether or
not we have the right strategy and the tactics necessary to achieve that
goal. And I believe we do.
Dick.
Q And from the --
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, let me say -- the ultimate
accountability, Peter, rests with me. That's the ultimate -- you're
asking about accountability, that's -- rests right here. It's what the
2004 campaign was about. If people want to -- if people are unhappy
about it, look right to the President. I believe our generals are doing
the job I asked them to do. They're competent, smart, capable men and
women. And this country owes them a lot of gratitude and support.
Yes, now Dick, sorry.
Q Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: It was a clever little follow-up you slipped in there.
Sorry, Gregory. I mean, look -- Gregory is still mad he didn't get the
follow-up, but it's okay.
Q You've said, Mr. President, several times here this morning that
the definition of failure in Iraq would be to leave before the job was
done. But you also said that you have no intention of seeing our troops
standing in the crossfire of a sectarian war within that country. With
many observers on the ground saying that civil war in Iraq is as close
as it's ever been, how do you reconcile those two statements? And what
happens if a full-fledged civil war breaks out?
THE PRESIDENT: Dick, our job is to prevent the full-scale civil war
from happening in the first place. It's one of the missions, is to work
with the Maliki government to make sure that there is a political way
forward that says to the people of Iraq, it's not worth it. Civil war is
not worth the effort -- by them. That's the whole objective, is to help
this government be able to defend itself and sustain itself, so that the
12 million people that voted -- they didn't vote for civil war, they
voted to live under a constitution that was passed. And so we will work
to prevent that from happening. I --
Q What about --
THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. I view that this is a struggle between
radicals and extremists who are trying to prevent there to be a
democracy, for a variety of reasons. And it's in our interest that the
forces of moderation prevail in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. A
defeat there -- in other words, if we were to withdraw before the job is
done, it would embolden extremists. They would say, you know, we were
right about America in the first place, that America did not have the
will necessary to do the hard work. That's precisely what Osama bin
Laden has said, for example. A defeat there would make it easier for
people to be able to recruit extremists and kids, to be able to use
their tactics to destroy innocent life. A defeat there would dispirit
people throughout the Middle East who wonder whether America is genuine
in our commitment to moderation and democracy.
And I told you what the scenario, Dick, could look like, 20 or 30
years from now, if we leave before the job is done. It's a serious
business. And that's why I say it's the call of this generation. And I
understand how tough it is, see, but I also said in my remarks, just
because the enemy has been able to make some progress doesn't mean we
should leave. Quite the contrary; we ought to do everything we can to
help prevent them from making progress. And that is what our strategy
is.
Elaine.
Q What if there is a civil war?
THE PRESIDENT: You're asking me hypotheticals. Our job is to make
sure there's not one, see. You been around here five-and-a-half years,
you know I won't answer hypotheticals. Occasionally slip up, but --
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You talk about the U.S. government and
the Iraqi government working closely together on benchmarks. I'm
wondering, sir, why was Prime Minister Maliki not at the news conference
yesterday with General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad? Would that not
have sent a strong message about there being a very close level of
cooperation between the two governments?
THE PRESIDENT: Elaine, I have no idea why he wasn't there.
Q Was he invited, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I'm not the scheduler of news
conferences. I do know they work very closely together, and they've got
a very close working relationship, and that's important.
Q May I ask you, sir, following up, when you say that you're not
satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq, why should that not be
interpreted by some to mean that you are dissatisfied with Prime
Minister Maliki's performance?
THE PRESIDENT: Because I know Prime Minister Maliki, I know how hard
his job is, and I understand that he is working to make the decisions
necessary to bring this country together. And he's -- look, we'll push
him, but we're not going to push him to the point where he can't achieve
the objective. And we'll continue to work with him. He represents a
government formed by the people of Iraq. It's a -- and he's got a tough
job. I mean, think about what his job is like. He's got to deal with
political factions. He's got to deal with the hatred that is left over
from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
There's a lot of people still furious about what happened to them
during Saddam Hussein's period. You can imagine that. What happens if
your brother or sister had been assassinated by Saddam Hussein and his
political party? You'd be -- you wouldn't be happy about it.
Reconciliation is difficult in a society that had been divided and
tortured by a tyrant.
And Prime Minister Maliki has got the difficult job of reconciling
these grievances, and different political parties on top of that, plus
dealing with violence. I've talked to him a lot. I like his spirit, I
like his attitude. He's confident we can achieve the mission. He's not
-- he's realistic about how difficult it is in Iraq.
It's in our government's interest that we help him succeed because he
wants a unified country. And I believe we will succeed. I know we're not
going to succeed, however, if we set artificial timetables for
withdrawal, or we get out of there, or we say to the enemy, just keep
fighting, we'll leave soon. That's not going to work. What will work is
a strategy that's constantly -- tactics that constantly change to meet
the enemy. And that's what I was describing in my speech, we're
constantly adjusting. As the enemy changes, we change. War is not a --
this war, and other wars, they're not static. They're dynamic events.
And we must adjust to meet those events, and we are.
Jim.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Does the United States want to maintain
permanent bases in Iraq? And I would follow that by asking, are you
willing to renounce a claim on permanent bases in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: Jim, any decisions about permanency in Iraq will be
made by the Iraqi government. And, frankly, it's not in much of a
position to be thinking about what the world is going to look like five
or 10 years from now. They are working to make sure that we succeed in
the short-term. And they need our help. And that's where our focus is.
But remember, when you're talking about bases and troops, we're
dealing with a sovereign government. Now, we entered into an agreement
with the Karzai government. They weren't called permanent bases, but
they were called arrangements that will help this government understand
that there will be a U.S. presence so long as they want them there. And
at the appropriate time, I'm confident we'll be willing to sit down and
discuss the long-term security of Iraq. But right now we're discussing
how to bring security to Baghdad, and what do we do in al Anbar
province, where al Qaeda still uses violent methods to achieve political
objectives.
You know, it's interesting, if you -- I'm sure people who watch your
TV screens think the entire country is embroiled in sectarian conflict
and that there's constant killing everywhere in Iraq. Well, if you
listened to General Casey yesterday, 90 percent of the action takes
place in five of the 18 provinces. And around Baghdad, it's limited to a
30-mile area. And the reason I bring that up is that while it seems to
our American citizens that nothing normal is taking place -- and I can
understand why, it's a brutal environment there, particularly that which
is on our TV screens -- that there is farmers farming, there are small
businesses growing, there's a currency that's relatively stable, there's
an entrepreneurial class, there's commerce. General Abizaid was
describing to me what it was like to go to Baghdad markets.
There's a lot of work to be done, don't get me wrong, but it is --
there are people living relatively normal lives who I believe --
strongly believe that they want to continue that normalcy, and it's up
to Prime Minister Maliki to do everything he can to make the situation
as secure as possible.
Ann. Sorry, Rutenberg, you're through.
Q Thank you, sir. Is the coming election a referendum on Iraq? Should
it be?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the coming election is a referendum on these
two things: which party has got the plan that will enable our economy
continue -- to continue to grow, and which party has a plan to protect
the American people. And Iraq is part of the security of the United
States. If we succeed -- and when we succeed in Iraq, our country will
be more secure. If we don't succeed in Iraq, the country is less secure.
The security of this country -- and look, I understand here in
Washington, some people say we're not at war. I know that. They're just
wrong in my opinion.
The enemy still wants to strike us. The enemy still wants to achieve
safe haven from which to plot and plan. The enemy would like to have
weapons of mass destruction in order to attack us. These are lethal,
cold-blooded killers. And we must do everything we can to protect the
American people, including questioning detainees, or listening to their
phone calls from outside the country to inside the country. And there
was -- as you know, there was some recent votes on that issue. And the
Democrats voted against giving our professionals the skill -- the tools
necessary to protect the American people.
I will repeat, like I've said to you often, I do not question their
patriotism; I question whether or not they understand how dangerous this
world is. And this is a big issue in the campaign. Security of the
country is an issue, just like taxes are an issue. If you raise taxes,
it will hurt the economy. If you don't extend the tax cuts, if you don't
make them -- in other words, if you let the tax cuts expire, it will be
a tax increase on the American people.
Take the child tax credit; if it is not made permanent, in other
words, if it expires, and you got a family of four sitting around the
breakfast table, the taxpayers can be sure that their taxes will go up
by $2,000 -- $500 for that child, $500 for the one right there, $500 for
this one, and $500 for that one. That is a tax increase. And taking
$2,000 out of the pockets of the working people will make it harder to
sustain economic growth.
So the two issues I see in the campaign can be boiled down to who
best to protect this country, and who best to keep taxes low. That's
what the referendum is about.
Let's see here -- David. Hold on for a minute. David.
Q Thank you, sir. You've long talked about the importance when the
federal government is involved in an effort, spending money and
resources, of measuring success, accountability, as Peter said. Now
you've set some benchmarks on the Maliki government. You've said that
you're expecting him to make tough decisions. Can you tell the American
people how you plan to measure his success in reaching those benchmarks,
and what happens if he doesn't hit those benchmarks?
THE PRESIDENT: David, the first objective is to develop benchmarks
that the government agrees with and that we think are important. You
can't -- it's really important for the American people to understand
that to say, okay, these are the benchmarks you must live with, is not
going to work nearly as effectively as if we have -- when we have buy-in
from the government itself, the sovereign government of Iraq.
And so the step is to say to the Maliki government, which we're
doing, let us work in concert to develop a series of benchmarks to
achieve different objectives. And the purpose of that is to assure the
Iraqi people that this unity government is going to work to -- for the
improvement of the Iraqi people. In other words, it will be beneficial
for the government to say to the Iraqi people, here is what we intend to
do and here's when we intend to do it.
It will also be beneficial for the American people to be able to see
that this Iraqi government is going to make the difficult decisions
necessary to move forward, to achieve the goal. And that's what we're
talking about when it comes to benchmarks. It's -- again, I repeat: One
should not expect our government to impose these benchmarks on a
sovereign government. You'd expect us to work closely with that
government to come up with a way forward that the government feels
comfortable with. And there's probably going to be some bones of
contention during these discussions, but, nevertheless, we'll respect
the fact that the Iraq government is sovereign, and they must respect
the fact that we've got patience, but not unlimited patience.
Q What happens if that patience runs out?
THE PRESIDENT: See, that's that hypothetical Keil is trying to get me
to answer. Why do we work to see to it that it doesn't work out -- run
out? That's the whole objective. That's what positive people do. They
say, we're going to put something in place and we'll work to achieve it.
Let's see here. Steven.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. With a Republican Congress, you failed to
achieve three major goals of your second term: Social Security reform, a
tax code overhaul, and a comprehensive immigration bill. Why shouldn't
Americans give Democrats a chance to work with you on those issues,
especially when divided government seemed to work in the late 1990s on
the budget?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a tricky little question there. (Laughter.)
First, I haven't given up on any of those issues. I've got two years
left to achieve them. And I firmly believe it is more likely to achieve
those three objectives with a Republican-controlled Congress and a
Republican-controlled Senate. And I believe I'll be working with a
Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican-controlled Senate.
I understand here in Washington people have already determined the
outcome of the election, like it's over even before the people actually
start heading -- voting. But that's not what I see when I'm on the
campaign trail. Yes, we've got some people dancing in the end zone here
in Washington, D.C.; they've got them measuring their drapes; they're
going over to the Capitol, and saying, my new office looks beautiful, I
think I'm going to have this size drape there, or this color. But the
American people are going to decide, and they're going to decide this
race based upon who best to protect the American people and who best to
keep the taxes low.
Secondly, I'll tell you what I see -- you didn't ask, but I'm going
to tell you anyway. I see there's a lot of enthusiasm amongst the
grassroots activists. Our people are going out there to man the phones
and to put up the yard signs. You know, they're showing up when it comes
time to -- these absentee votes. We're organized. We've got a fantastic
grassroots organization to turn out the vote. This campaign has
obviously got national implications to it, no question about it -- the
Iraq war, the security of the country, economic vitality and growth. But
each of these elections turn out to be local in their scope and in their
character.
And we've got good candidates running hard. And we're going to win.
Now, I know that defies conventional wisdom here. I'm not suggesting
anybody in this august crowd has determined the outcome of the election
already, but they're running profiles on who this person is going to be
running this office, or this one that's going to be -- magazines have
got all kinds of new stars emerging when they haven't won the votes yet.
And anyway, thanks for asking about the campaign. I'm enjoying it out
there. I like campaigning. It's what guys like me do in order to get
here. We campaign. We shake the hands, you know, and give the speeches.
And Laura is campaigning, too. From my perspective, our people are ready
to go out there and vote for -- vote our candidates back into power.
Let me see here, Michael Allen.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your comment earlier that last spring you
believed that troops would be able to come home early next year --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q -- I wonder if you could talk to us about how you came to believe
that, and over what period of time, or whether it was a single
development because you realized that wasn't feasible.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, look, Mike, here's the way it works. I
meet with our -- or talk to our generals all the time. And the security
situation looked like at that point in time that beginning next year, we
could reduce our troop presence. That's what we felt -- until the
conditions on the ground changed. And when they changed, our generals
changed their attitude. And when their attitude changed, my attitude
changed.
Look, I want to get our troops home as fast as we can. But I do not
want to leave before we achieve victory. And the best way to do that is
to make sure we have a strategy that works, tactics that adjust to the
enemy, and commanders that feel confident making recommendations to the
Secretary and to the Commander-in-Chief. And that's how that happened.
In other words, they're saying it looks like things are positive, things
are stepping up. The security situation is -- looks like it could be
this way. And then when it change, we changed. And that's important for
the American people to know, that we're constantly changing tactics to
meet the situation on the ground.
Knoller.
Q Excuse me --
THE PRESIDENT: No.
Q May I follow up?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you're taking Wolffe's time. Is this your
question, Wolffe?
Q No, sir, it's not.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, okay.
Q But I yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it's your question.
Q Only for a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q I just wanted to ask you quickly, sir, if you believe that Iraq
will be able to defend, sustain and govern itself by the time you leave
office?
THE PRESIDENT: Mike, I believe Iraq will be able to defend, govern
and sustain itself; otherwise, I'd pull our troops out. See, you all got
to understand that. And the parents of our troops must understand, that
if I didn't believe we could succeed, and didn't believe it was
necessary for the security of this country to succeed, I wouldn't have
your loved ones there. That's what I want these parents to hear.
And that's a backhanded way of getting me to put a timetable. My
answer is, we'll work as fast as we can get the job done.
Mark and then Richard.
Q Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: That way it will give you time to --
Q I understand why you would claim or assert that the Republicans
will win the midterm elections. But if in your heart of hearts you
really didn't think that, would you tell us so? (Laughter.) And are you
resentful that some Republican candidates seem to be distancing
themselves from you?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, no, I'm not resentful, nor am I resentful
that a lot of Democrats are using my picture. All I ask is that they
pick out a good one. (Laughter.) Make me look good, at least, on the
picture.
Mark, the first part of your question, the serious part, if I thought
we were going to lose, would I tell you -- we're not going to lose, in
my heart of hearts. (Laughter.) No, again, I understand how -- look, I
read the -- look at the newspapers around here. I can see why you would
think that I'm concealing something in my heart of hearts. The race is
over as far as a lot of the punditry goes. They've got it all figured
out. And they just -- as I said, they're dancing in the end zone. They
just haven't scored the touchdown, Mark, you know, there's a lot of time
left. And these candidates are working hard out there. And my message to
them is, keep talking about the security of the United States and
keeping taxes low, and you'll come back here.
Last question, Richard.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Back in 2000, you campaigned around the
country saying you wanted to usher in the responsibility era, to end the
days when people said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a
problem, blame somebody else.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q Yet over the last several months, we've seen many members of your
own party in Congress embroiled in one scandal or another and all too
ready to blame somebody else, whether prosecutors, or Democrats, or even
the media. So I'm wondering, why do you think it is so many people in
your own party have failed to live up to the standards of the
responsibility era?
THE PRESIDENT: If any person in any party fails to live up to high
standards, they ought to be held to account, Richard. It's important for
there to be trust in the halls of Congress and in the White House, and
throughout government. People got to trust elected leaders in order for
democracy to work to its fullest extent. And I fully expect people to be
held to account if there's wrongdoing, just like I expect corporate
executives to be held to account for wrongdoing; just like I expect
people throughout our society to be held to account for wrongdoing.
People do have to take responsibility for the decisions they make in
life. I take responsibility for the decisions I make. I also understand
that those of us in positions of responsibility have the duty to bring
honor to the offices we hold. People don't have to agree with somebody's
opinion, there's all kinds of opinions here. But in order to make this
country work, and to make democracy succeed, there's got to be high
standards, and people must be held to account to achieve those
standards.
I thank you for your time. See you on the campaign trail. |