For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 21, 2006
Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room
In Focus: Peace in the Middle East
10:02 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Fancy digs you
got here. Thanks for your hospitality. It's good to visit with you. I
look forward to taking some of your questions. I do want to talk to you
about the latest developments in Lebanon, and what we're doing to ensure
U.N. Security Council 1701 is implemented and its words are quickly put
into action.
Resolution 1701 authorizes an effective international force to
deploy to Lebanon, which is essential to peace in the region and it's
essential to the freedom of Lebanon. An effective international force
will help ensure the cessation of hostilities hold in Lebanon once the
Israeli troops withdraw. An effective international force will help the
Lebanese army meet its responsibility to secure Lebanon's borders and
stop them from acting as -- and stop Hezbollah from acting as a state
within a state. An effective international force will help give
displaced people in both Lebanon and Israel the confidence to return to
their homes and begin rebuilding their lives without fear of renewed
violence and terror.
An international force requires international commitment. Previous
resolutions have failed in Lebanon because they were not implemented by
the international community, and in this case, did not prevent Hezbollah
and their sponsors from instigating violence. The new resolution
authorizes a force of up to 15,000 troops. It gives this force an
expanded mandate. The need is urgent. The international community must
now designate the leadership of this new international force, give it
robust rules of engagement, and deploy it as quickly as possible to
secure the peace.
America will do our part. We will assist a new international force
with logistic support, command and control, communications and
intelligence. Lebanon, Israel and our allies agreed that this would be
the most effective contribution we can make at this time. We will also
work with the leadership in the international force, once it's
identified, to ensure that the United States is doing all we can to make
this mission a success.
Deployment of this new international force will also help speed
delivery of humanitarian assistance. Our nation is wasting no time in
helping the people of Lebanon. In other words, we're acting before the
force gets in there. We've been on the ground in Beirut for weeks, and
I've already distributed more than half of our $50 million pledge of
disaster relief to the Lebanese people who have lost their homes in the
current conflict. Secretary Rice has led the diplomatic efforts to
establish humanitarian corridors so that relief convoys can get through,
to reopen the Beirut airport to passenger and humanitarian aid flights,
and to ensure a steady fuel supply for Lebanese power plants and
automobiles. I directed 25,000 tons of wheat be delivered in Lebanon in
the coming weeks.
But we'll do even more. Today, I'm announcing that America will
send more aid to support humanitarian and reconstruction work in
Lebanon, for a total of more than $230 million. These funds will help
the Lebanese people rebuild their homes and return to their towns and
communities. The funds will help the Lebanese people restore key
bridges and roads. The funds will help the Lebanese people rehabilitate
schools so the children can start their school year on time this fall.
I directed that an oil spill response team be sent to assist the
Lebanese government in cleaning up an oil slick that is endangering
coastal communities; proposing a $42 million package to help train and
equip Lebanon's armed forces. I will soon be sending a presidential
delegation of private sector leaders to Lebanon to identify ways that we
can tap into the generosity of American businesses and non-profits to
continue to help the people of Lebanon.
We take these steps -- and I'll also work closely with Congress to
extend the availability of loan guarantees to help rebuild
infrastructure in Israel, infrastructure damaged by Hezbollah's rockets.
America is making a long-term commitment to help the people of
Lebanon because we believe every person deserves to live in a free, open
society that respects the rights of all. We reject the killing of
innocents to achieve a radical and violent agenda.
The terrorists and their state sponsors, Iran and Syria, have a
much darker vision. They're working to thwart the efforts of the
Lebanese people to break free from foreign domination and build their
own democratic future. The terrorists and their sponsors are not going
to succeed. The Lebanese people have made it clear they want to live in
freedom. And now it's up to their friends and allies to help them do
so.
I'll be glad to answer some questions, starting with you, Terry.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed
last month, the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are
you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in
bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I am aware that extremists and terrorists are
doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing
stronger. That's what I'm aware of. And, therefore, we have a plan to
help them -- "them," the Iraqis -- achieve their objectives. Part of
the plan is political; that is the help the Maliki government work on
reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community. The other
part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the
flexibility they need to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi
government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people.
And that includes a very robust security plan for Baghdad.
We've, as you may or may not know, Terry, moved troops from Mosul,
the Stryker Brigade, into Baghdad, all aiming to help the Iraqi
government succeed.
You know, I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm concerned
about that, of course, and I've talked to a lot of people about it. And
what I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified
country, and that the Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the
efforts of the extremists and the radicals and al Qaeda, and that the
security forces remain united behind the government. And one thing is
clear: The Iraqi people are showing incredible courage.
The United States of America must understand it's in our interests
that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our
interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their
objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century. A
failed Iraq would make America less secure. A failed Iraq in the heart
of the Middle East will provide safe haven for terrorists and
extremists. It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the
ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and
extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues
from oil sales.
You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about
how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent
people, saying, withdraw now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a
huge mistake for this country. If you think problems are tough now,
imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this
government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself, and listen to
the -- and answer to the will of the people.
Patsy. We're working our way here.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Iran has indicated that it will
defy the U.N. on nuclear enrichment. It's been holding military
exercises, sending weapons and money to Hezbollah. Is Tehran's
influence in the region growing, despite your efforts to curb it?
THE PRESIDENT: The final history in the region has yet to be
written. And what's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and
the violence in Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all
groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy.
They're trying to thwart the will of millions who simply want a normal,
hopeful life. That's what we're seeing. And it's up to the
international community to understand the threat.
I remember right after Hezbollah launched its rocket attacks on
Israel, I said, this is a clarifying moment. It's a chance for the
world to see the threats of the 21st century, the challenge we face.
And so, to answer your question on Iran, Iran is obviously part of
the -- part of the problem. They sponsor Hezbollah. They encourage a
radical brand of Islam. Imagine how difficult this issue would be if
Iran had a nuclear weapon. And so, therefore, it's up to the
international community, including the United States, to work in concert
to -- for effective diplomacy. And that begins at the United Nations
Security Council.
We have passed one Security Council resolution, demanding that Iran
cease its enrichment activities. We will see what the response is.
We're beginning to get some indication, but we'll wait until they have a
formal response. The U.N. resolution calls for us to come back together
on the 31st of August. The dates -- dates are fine, but what really
matters is will. And one of the things I will continue to remind our
friends and allies is the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.
But, no, you're right, this is a -- they're a central part of
creating instability, trying to stop reformers from realizing dreams.
And the question facing this country is, will -- do we, one, understand
the threat to America? In other words, do we understand that a failed
-- failed states in the Middle East are a direct threat to our country's
security? And secondly, will we continue to stay engaged in helping
reformers, in working to advance liberty, to defeat an ideology that
doesn't believe in freedom?
And my answer is, so long as I'm the President, we will. I clearly
see the challenge. I see the challenge to what these threats pose to
our homeland, and I see the challenge -- what these threats pose to the
world.
Helen. (Laughter.) What's so funny about me saying "Helen"?
(Laughter.) It's the anticipation of your question, I guess.
Q Israel broke its word twice on a truce. And you mentioned
Hezbollah rockets, but it's -- Israeli bombs have destroyed Lebanon.
Why do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on breaking of
your oath for a truce?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. I like to remind people about how
this started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which
bothers me -- but, again, what caused this.
Q Why drop bombs on --
THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish -- let -- ma'am. Ma'am, please let
me finish the question. It's a great question to begin with. The
follow-up was a little difficult, but anyway. (Laughter.) I know
you're waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath.
This never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a
state within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From
the beginning, Helen, I said that Israel, one, has a right to defend
herself, but Israel ought to be cautious about how she defends herself.
Israel is a democratically elected government. They make decisions on
their own sovereignty. It's their decision-making that is -- what leads
to the tactics they chose.
But the world must understand that now is the time to come together
to address the root cause of the problem. And the problem was you have
a state within a state. You have people launch attacks on a sovereign
nation without the consent of the government in the country in which
they are lodged.
And that's why it's very important for all of us, those of us who
are involved in this process, to get an international force into Lebanon
to help the Lebanese government achieve some objectives. One is their
ability to exert control over the entire country; secondly is to make
sure that the Hezbollah forces don't rearm, don't get arms from Syria or
Iran through Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.
Let's see -- we'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be
patient.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) It's kind of like dancing
together, isn't it? (Laughter.)
Q Yes, kind of. (Laughter.)
Q Very close quarters.
THE PRESIDENT: If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery
I'll call on you. (Laughter.) By the way, seersucker is coming back.
I hope everybody -- (laughter.) Never mind.
Q Kind of the Texas county commissioner look. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Martha. Sorry.
Q That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to
Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its
progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain
areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new
strategy? And if not, why not?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon, you
know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have
the flexibility from the White House to do so.
Q I'm talking about strategy --
THE PRESIDENT: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve
their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society.
That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its
important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not
leaving, so long as I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake.
It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the
region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the
conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe
haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would
embolden extremists.
No, we're not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this
government succeed. That's the strategic -- and not only to help the
government -- the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers
across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The
tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your
strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is
complete. And we're not going to leave before the mission is complete.
I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the
terrorists will follow us here.
And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the
flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with
Plan Baghdad. And that's when we moved troops from Mosul into Baghdad
and replaced them with the Stryker Brigade, so we increased troops
during this time of instability.
Suzanne.
Q Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy --
THE PRESIDENT: Sounded like the question to me.
Q You keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave. But
is your strategy to win working? Even if you don't want to leave?
You've gone into Baghdad before, these things have happened before.
THE PRESIDENT: If I didn't think it would work, I would change --
our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it
will work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government
has been in power for less than six months. And, yes, the people spoke.
I've cited that as a part of -- the reason I cite it is because it's
what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this
government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the
region. It's really the task. And we're going to stand with this
government.
Obviously, I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as
the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But,
incredibly enough, they show great courage, and they want our help. And
any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply
emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so
they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the
country.
This is a campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign
carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now;
vote for me, I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is
what they'll try to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It
would be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is
complete in Iraq.
Suzanne.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Back to Lebanon. The Lebanese
Prime Minister, over the weekend, said that Israel flagrantly violated
the cease-fire with its raid into Lebanon, and so far the European
allies who have committed forces, the U.N. security peacekeeping forces,
have expressed reservations; those Muslim nations who have offered
troops have been shunned by Israeli officials. Why shouldn't we see the
cease-fire as one that essentially is falling apart? And what makes
this more than a piece of paper if you don't have the will of the
international community to back it up?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, no, listen, all the more reason why we need to
help our friends and allies get the forces necessary to help the
Lebanese forces keep the cessation of hostilities in place, intact. And
that's why we're working with friends, with allies, with Security
Council members, to make sure the force that is committed is robust and
the rules of engagement are clear. And so it's an ongoing series of
conversations and discussions, and hopefully this will happen quite
quickly.
Q Will you pressure the French to contribute more troops?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're pressing on all. I was asked about the
French the other day at Camp David, and I
-- listen, France has had a very close relationship with Lebanon,
there's historical ties with Lebanon; I would hope they would put more
troops in. They understand the region as well as anybody. And so we're
working with a lot of folks, trying to get this force up and running.
Look, like you -- I mean, you sound somewhat frustrated by
diplomacy. Diplomacy can be a frustrating thing. I think the strategy
can work, so long as the force is robust and the rules of engagement are
clear.
Q Mr. President, as you mentioned, we're just 10 days from the
U.N. Security Council deadline on Iran. Judging by the public comments
from the Iranians, it appears at least highly unlikely that they're
going to stop or suspend their enrichment program. Are you confident
that the U.N. Security Council will move quickly on sanctions if Iran
thumbs its nose at the world again?
THE PRESIDENT: I certainly hope so. In order for the U.N. to be
effective, there must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the
United Nations Security Council. And we will work with people in the
Security Council to achieve that objective, and the objective is that
there's got to be a consequence for them basically ignoring what the
Security Council has suggested through resolution.
Q Understanding that diplomacy takes time, do you think that
this could drag out for a while?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I don't know. I certainly want to solve
this problem diplomatically, and I believe the best chance to do so is
for there to be more than one voice speaking clearly to the Iranians.
And I was pleased that we got a resolution, that there was a group of
nations willing to come together to send a message to the Iranians --
nations as diverse as China and Russia, plus the EU3 and the United
States.
Kelly.
Q Good morning, Mr. President. When you talked today about the
violence in Baghdad, first you mentioned extremists, radicals, and then
al Qaeda. It seems that al Qaeda and foreign fighters are much less of
a problem there, and that it really is Iraqi versus Iraqi. And when we
heard about your meeting the other day with experts and so forth, some
of the reporting out of that said you were frustrated, you were
surprised. And your spokesman said, no, you're determined. But
frustration seems like a very real emotion. Why wouldn't you be
frustrated, sir, about what's happening?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not -- I do remember the meeting; I don't
remember being surprised. I'm not sure what they meant by that.
Q About the lack of gratitude among the Iraqi people.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh. No, I think -- first of all, to the first part
of your question, if you look back at the words of Zarqawi before he was
brought to justice, he made it clear that the intent of their tactics in
Iraq was to create civil strife. In other words, look at what he said.
He said, let's kill Shia to get Shia to seek revenge, and therefore, to
create this kind of -- hopefully, a cycle of violence.
Secondly, it's pretty clear that at least the evidence indicates
that the bombing of the shrine was an al Qaeda plot, all intending to
create sectarian violence. No, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq.
As a matter of fact some of the more -- I would guess, I would surmise
that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by al Qaeda
suiciders.
No question there's sectarian violence, as well. And the challenge
is to provide a security plan such that a political process can go
forward. And I know -- I'm sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12
million Iraqis voted, but it's an indication about the desire for people
to live in a free society. That's what that means.
And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long-term is to
defeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology, one where
government responds to the will of the people. And that's really --
really the fundamental question we face here in the beginning of this
21st century is whether or not we believe as a nation, and others
believe, it is possible to defeat this ideology.
Now, I recognize some say that these folks are not ideologically
bound. I strongly disagree. I think not only do they have an ideology,
they have tactics necessary to spread their ideology. And it would be a
huge mistake for the United States to leave the region, to concede
territory to the terrorists, to not confront them. And the best way to
confront them is to help those who want to live in free society.
Look, eventually Iraq will succeed because the Iraqis will see to
it that they succeed. And our job is to help them succeed. That's our
job. Our job is to help their forces be better equipped, to help their
police be able to deal with these extremists, and to help their
government succeed.
Q But are you frustrated, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely
surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of
joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and
they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our
country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent
people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see
havoc wrought by terrorists. And our question is, do we have the
capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these terrorists,
and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That's the question.
And my answer to that question is, we must. We owe it to future
generations to do so.
Bill.
Q Mr. President, as you have reminded us a number of times, it
was Hezbollah that started the confrontation between Israel and Lebanon.
But you were supportive of the holding off of any kind of cease-fire
until Israel had a chance to clear out the Hezbollah weapons. By all
accounts, they did not exactly succeed in doing that. And by all
accounts, the Lebanese army, as it moved into southern Lebanon, had a
wink-and-a-nod arrangement with Hezbollah not to disturb anything, to
just leave things as they are, a situation not unknown in the Middle
East. Do you demand that the peacekeeping force, if and when it gets up
and running, disarm Hezbollah?
THE PRESIDENT: The truth of the matter is, if 1559, that's the
United Nations Security Council resolution number, had been fully
implemented, we wouldn't be in the situation we were in to begin with.
There will be another resolution coming out of the United Nations giving
further instructions to the international force. First things first; is
to get the rules of engagement clear, so that the force will be robust
to help the Lebanese.
One thing is for certain -- is that when this force goes into help
Lebanon, Hezbollah won't have that safe haven, or that kind of freedom
to run in Lebanon's southern border. In other words, there's an
opportunity to create a cushion, a security cushion. Hopefully, over
time, Hezbollah will disarm. You can't have a democracy with an armed
political party willing to bomb its neighbor without the consent of its
government, or deciding, well, let's create enough chaos and discord by
lobbing rockets.
And so the reality is, in order for Lebanon to succeed -- and we
want Lebanon's democracy to succeed -- the process is going to -- the
Lebanese government is eventually going to have to deal with Hezbollah.
Q But it's the status quo if there's no disarming.
THE PRESIDENT: Not really. I mean, yes, eventually, you're right.
But in the meantime, there will be a -- there's a security zone,
something to -- where the Lebanese army and the UNIFIL force are more
robust, UNIFIL force can create a security zone between Lebanon and
Israel. That would be helpful.
But, ultimately, you're right. Your question is, shouldn't
Hezbollah disarm, and ultimately, they should. And it's necessary, for
the Lebanese government to succeed.
The cornerstone of our policy in that part of the world is to help
democracies. Lebanon is a democracy; we want the Siniora government to
succeed. Part of our aid package is going to be help strengthen the
army of Lebanon so when the government speaks, when the government
commits its troops, they do so in an effective way.
Knoller.
Q Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: How are you feeling?
Q I'm good, sir. It's good to be back.
THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you. Yes, it's good to see you. Sorry
we didn't spend more time in Crawford. I knew you were anxious to do
so.
Q Always am.
THE PRESIDENT: That's good. (Laughter.) That's why we love
seeing you.
Q Thanks. Let me ask you about presidential pardons. Last
week, you issued 17 of them. That brought the number of pardons you've
issued in your presidency to 97, and that's far fewer than most of your
recent predecessors, except your dad. And I want to ask you, do you
consider yourself to be stingy when it comes to pardons? What is your
philosophy on granting presidential pardons?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I don't have the criterion in front of
me, Mark, but we have a strict criterion that we utilize -- we being the
Justice Department and the White House Counsel. And I, frankly, haven't
compared the number of pardons I've given to any other President.
Perhaps I should. But I don't think a scorecard should, necessarily, be
the guidepost for pardoning people.
McKinnon. I'm going to go to you, Jackson, and kind of work
around.
Q Thanks. Mr. President, what do you say to people who are
losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a
political price do you think you're paying for that right now?
THE PRESIDENT: I've been talking about gas prices ever since they
got high, starting with this -- look, I understand gas prices are like a
hidden tax. Not a hidden tax, it's a tax -- it's taking money out of
people's pockets. I know that. All the more reason for us to diversify
away from crude oil. That's not going to happen overnight. We passed
law that encouraged consumption through different purchasing habits,
like hybrid vehicles
-- you buy a hybrid, you get a tax credit. We've encouraged the spread
of ethanol as an alternative to crude oil. We have asked for Congress
to pass regulatory relief so we can build more refineries to increase
the supply of gasoline, hopefully taking the pressure off of price.
And so the strategy is to recognize that dependency upon crude oil
is -- in a global market affects us economically here at home, and
therefore, we need to diversify away as quickly as possible.
Jackson.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, the one-year
anniversary of Katrina is coming up. And there are a lot of
retrospectives about what went wrong down there last year.
Specifically, what has your administration done in the past year to help
the folks down there, and what remains to be done?
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. You know, I went to New Orleans, in
Jackson Square, and made a commitment that we would help the people
there recover. I also want the people down there to understand that
it's going to take a while to recover. This was a huge storm.
First things -- the first thing that's necessary to help the
recovery is money. And our government has committed over $110 billion
to help. Of that, a lot of money went to -- went out the door to help
people adjust from having to be moved because of the storm. And then
there's rental assistance, infrastructure repair, debris removal.
Mississippi removed about 97 percent, 98 percent of its -- what they
call dry debris. We're now in the process of getting debris from the
water removed. Louisiana is slower in terms of getting debris removed.
The money is available to help remove that debris. People can get after
it, and I would hope they would.
Q What --
THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. Thank you.
We provided about $1.8 billion for education. That money has gone
out the door. We want those schools up and running. As I understand,
the schools are running now in New Orleans, a lot of schools are. Flood
insurance, we're spending money on flood insurance. There is more work
to be done, particularly when it comes to housing. We've spent about --
appropriated about $16 billion, $17 billion for direct housing grants to
people in the Gulf Coast and in Louisiana.
I made the decision, along with the local authorities, that each
state ought to develop a housing recovery plan. That's what they call
the LRA in Louisiana. They're responsible for taking the federal money
and getting it to the people. Same in -- Mississippi has developed its
own plan.
I thought it would be best that there be a local plan developed and
implemented by local folks. And so there's now, as I mentioned, $16
billion of direct housing grants. Each state has developed its own
plan, how much money goes to each homeowner to help these people rebuild
their lives. And so I think the area where people will see the most
effect in their lives is when they start getting this individualized
CDBG grant money.
Q Has anything disappointed you about the recovery, the federal
response?
THE PRESIDENT: I was concerned at first about how much Congress
and the taxpayers would be willing to appropriate and spend. I think
$110 billion is a strong commitment, and I'm pleased with that. Any
time -- I named a man named Don Powell to go down there, and the thing
that's most important is for the government to eliminate any
bureaucratic obstacles when we find something that's not moving quick
enough.
I think, for example, about the debris removal. There was the
issue of whether or not the government would pay for debris removal on
private property, or not. So we worked out a plan with the local mayors
and local county commissioners, local parish presidents to be able to
designate certain property as a health hazard. And when they did so,
then government money could pay for it. In other words, we're trying to
be flexible with the rules and regulations we have to deal with.
But the place where people, I'm sure, are going to be most
frustrated is whether or not they're going to get the money to rebuild
their homes. And my attitude is we've appropriated the money, and now
we'll work with states to get the money.
April, I suspect you have a follow-up on this.
Q Yes, I do, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you let her go?
Q And another question, sir. The follow-up: Some have a
concern that you've given all of this money, but the federal government
has moved away to let the local government, particularly in New Orleans,
handle everything, and things are not moving like they expected. And
that's one of the concerns. And another question, if you --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me address that, and I promise you can
ask that other one.
As I mentioned to you, the strategy from the get-go was to work
with the local folks in Mississippi and Louisiana, and they would then
submit their plans to the federal government, particularly for housing,
and that upon approval, we would then disburse the appropriated monies
-- in this case, about $17 billion for housing grants. And so each
state came up with a grant formula, and I can't give you all the
details. But it's -- the whole purpose is intended to get money into
people's pockets to help them rebuild. And once the strategy is
developed at the state and local level, it makes sense for the monies to
be appropriated at the state and local level. And if there's a -- if
there's a level of frustration there, we will work with the LRA in this
case.
Second question.
Q Well, I have one follow-up on that. Do you think --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how many -- are you trying to dominate this
thing? (Laughter.)
Q No, sir, but I don't get a chance to talk to you as much as
the others.
THE PRESIDENT: That's not -- wait a minute. (Laughter.)
Q But a follow-up real quick. Do you think that more needs to
be done? Does the federal government need to put its hands on what's
going on? Because New Orleans is not moving --
THE PRESIDENT: I think the best way to do this is for the federal
government's representative, Don Powell, to continue to work with Mayor
Nagin and Governor Blanco to get the money into the hands of the people.
The money has been appropriated, the formula is in place, and now it's
time to move forward.
Now, you have another question, I presume.
Q Yes, sir. Chinese officials are saying that you need to get
involved in the six-party talks, and that ultimately you have to be a
part of the six-party talks in dealing with North Korea. And also
they're saying that you need to stop dealing with the issue of money
laundering and deal with the real issue of ballistic missiles. What are
your thoughts?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counterfeiting U.S. dollars is an issue that
every President ought to be concerned about. And when you catch people
counterfeiting your money, you need to do something about it.
We are very much involved in the six-party talks. As a matter of
fact, I talked to Hu Jintao this morning about the six-party talks, and
about the need for us to continue to work together to send a clear
message to the North Korean leader that there is a better choice for him
than to continue to develop a nuclear weapon. The six-party talks are
-- is an important part of our -- the six-party talks are an important
part of our strategy of dealing with Kim Jong-il. And the North Korean
-- the Chinese President recognized that in the phone call. And so we
talked about how we'll continue to collaborate and work together.
Jim.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the campaign earlier.
Do you agree with those in your party, including the Vice President, who
have said or implied that Democratic voters emboldened al Qaeda types by
choosing Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, and then as a message that how
Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome. What all of us in this
administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission
is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a
more dangerous world. That's what we're saying. It's an honest debate
and it's an important debate for Americans to listen to and to be
engaged in. In our judgment, the consequences for defeat in Iraq are
unacceptable.
I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there
in the first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine
what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this
government can defend itself and sustain itself. Chaos in Iraq would be
very unsettling in the region. Leaving before the job would be done
would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares
about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the
job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they
made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a
disaster, and that's what we're saying.
I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with
me. This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do
with understanding the world in which we live. It's like the other day
I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about
the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible
opinion, and that's why we're appealing it. And I have no -- look, I
understand how democracy works: quite a little bit of criticism in it,
which is fine; that's fine, it's part of the process. But I have every
right, as do my administration, to make it clear what the consequences
would be of policy, and if we think somebody is wrong or doesn't see the
world the way it is, we'll continue to point that out to people.
And, therefore, those who heralded the decision not to give law
enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people simply
don't see the world the way we do. They see, maybe these are kind of
isolated incidents. These aren't isolated incidents, they're tied
together. There is a global war going on. And somebody said, well,
this is law enforcement. No, this isn't law enforcement, in my
judgment. Law enforcement means kind of a simple, singular response to
the problem. This is a global war on terror. We're facing extremists
that believe something, and they want to achieve objectives. And
therefore, the United States must use all our assets, and we must work
with others to defeat this enemy. That's the call. And we -- in the
short run, we've got to stop them from attacking us. That's why I give
the Tony Blair government great credit, and their intelligence officers,
and our own government credit for working with the Brits to stop this
attack.
But you know something -- it's an amazing town, isn't it, where
they say, on the one hand, you can't have the tools necessary -- we
herald the fact that you won't have the tools necessary to defend the
people, and sure enough, an attack would occur, and they say, how come
you don't have the tools necessary to defend the people? That's the way
-- that's the way we think around this town.
And so we'll -- Jim, we'll continue to speak out, in a respectful
way, never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize
their strategies or their point of view. And, you know, for those who
say that, well, all they're trying to say is, we're not patriotic,
simply don't listen to our words very carefully, do they?
What matters is that in this campaign that we clarify the different
point of view. And there are a lot of people in the Democrat Party who
believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job
is done, period. And they're wrong. And the American people have got
to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done.
We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done, and we'll complete
the mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be
done, but I do know that it's important for us to support the Iraqi
people, who have shown incredible courage in their desire to live in a
free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live
in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm
concerned.
Ann.
Q Is that a make-or-break issue for you in terms of domestic
politics? There's a Republican in Pennsylvania who says he doesn't
think the troops should -- would you campaign for Mike Fitzpatrick?
THE PRESIDENT: I already have.
Q And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose
Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you, too, on Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to stay out of Connecticut. (Laughter.)
Q You were born there.
THE PRESIDENT: Shhh. (Laughter.) I may be the only person -- the
only presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was
born. Do you think that's right, Herman? Of course, you would have
researched that and dropped it out for everybody to see -- particularly
since I dissed that just ridiculous looking outfit. (Laughter.)
Q Your mother raised you better than that, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: That is -- so I'm not going to say it --
Q There is Al Gore.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't want anybody to know that I think it's
ridiculous. Look, I'm not through yet.
Q -- make-or-break issue for you?
THE PRESIDENT: And by the way, I'm staying out of Connecticut
because that's what the party suggested, the Republican Party of
Connecticut. And plus, there's a better place to spend our money, time,
and resources --
Q But you're the head --
THE PRESIDENT: Right, I've listened to them very carefully. I'm a
thoughtful guy, I listen to people. (Laughter.) I'm open-minded. I'm
all the things that you know I am.
The other part of your question? Look, issues are won based upon
whether or not you can keep this economy strong -- elections are won
based upon economic issues and national security issues. And there's a
fundamental difference between many of the Democrats and my party, and
that is, they want to leave before the job is completed in Iraq. And
again, I repeat, these are decent people. They're just as American as I
am. I just happen to strongly disagree with them. And it's very
important for the American people to understand the consequences of
leaving Iraq before the job is done.
This is a global war on terror. I repeat what our major general
said -- or leading general said in the region. He said, "If we withdraw
before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here." I strongly
agree with that. And if you believe that the job of the federal
government is to secure this country, it's really important for you to
understand that success in Iraq is part of securing the country.
We're talking about a long-term issue here, as well, Ann. In the
short-term, we've got to have the tools necessary to stop terrorist
attack. That means good intel, good intelligence-sharing, the capacity
to know whether al Qaeda is calling into this country and why. We've
got to have all those tools -- the Patriot Act, tearing down those walls
between intel and law enforcement are a necessary part of protecting the
country. But in the long-term, the only way to defeat this terrorist
bunch is through the spread of liberty and freedom.
And that's a big challenge. I understand it's a challenge. It
requires commitment and patience and persistence. I believe it's a
challenge of this -- the challenge for this generation. I believe we
owe it to our children and grandchildren to stay engaged and to help
spread liberty, and to help reformers.
Now, ultimately, success is going to be up to the reformers. Just
like in Iraq, it's going to require Iraqis -- the will of Iraqis to
succeed. I understand that. And that's why our strategy is to give
them to tools necessary to defend themselves and help them defend
themselves, in this case, right now, mainly in Baghdad, but, as well,
around the country.
At home, if I were a candidate, if I were running, I'd say, look at
what the economy has done. It's strong. We created a lot of jobs --
let me finish my question, please. These hands going up. I'm not --
I'm kind of getting old, and just getting into my peroration.
(Laughter.) Look it up. (Laughter.)
I'd be telling people that the Democrats will raise your taxes.
That's what they said. I'd be reminding people that tax cuts have
worked in terms of stimulating the economy. I'd be reminding people
there's a philosophical difference between those who want to raise taxes
and have the government spend the money, and those of us who say, you
get to spend the money the way you see fit, it's your money. I'd remind
people that pro-growth economic policies have helped us cut that deficit
faster than we thought.
I'd also remind people if I were running that the long-term problem
facing the budget is Social Security and Medicare. And they look --
Republican or Democrat ought to say, I look forward to working with the
President to solve the problem. People expect us to come here to solve
problems, and thus far, the attitude has been, let's just kind of ignore
what the President has said and just hope somebody else comes and solves
it for us. That's what I'd be running on. I'd be running on the
economy, and I'd be running on national security. But since I'm not
running, I can only serve as an advisor to those who are.
Yes, Herman.
Q Thank you, sir. Go ahead. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I don't need to, now that you've stood up and
everybody can clearly see for themselves. (Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the
war in Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your
belief that long-term results will vindicate your strategy and people
will change their mind about it, or is this the kind of thing you're
doing because you think it's right and you don't care if you ever gain
public support for it? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Look, Presidents care about whether
people support their policies. I don't mean to say, I don't care. Of
course, I care. But I understand why people are discouraged about Iraq,
I can understand that. We live in a world in which people hope things
happen quickly, and this is a situation where things don't happen
quickly, because there's a very tough group of people using tactics,
mainly the killing of innocent people, to achieve their objective. And
they're skillful about how they do this, and they also know the impact
of what it means on the consciousness of those of us who live in the
free world. They know that.
And so, yes, I care, I really do. I wish -- and so, therefore, I'm
going to spend a lot of time trying to explain as best I can why it's
important for us to succeed in Iraq.
Q Can I follow --
THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. On the other hand, Ken, I don't
think you've ever heard me say -- and you've now been covering me for
quite a while, 12 years -- I don't think I've -- 12 years? Yes. I
don't think you've ever heard me say, gosh, I'd better change positions
because the polls say this or that. I've been here long enough to
understand you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a
poll. And so the second part of your question is, look, I'm going to do
what I think is right, and if people don't like me for it, that's just
the way it is.
Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for
pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we
hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you
had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass
destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would
-- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like
with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main
reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to
make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human
suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom
agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that,
imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more
trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much
hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine
until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest"
theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The
terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we
started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Q What did Iraq have to do with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has
ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the
attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats
before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the
attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested,
however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding
grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to
achieve an objective. I have made that case.
And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And
the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said
going into Iraq that we've got to take these threats seriously before
they fully materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the
right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world
is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in
Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete,
like some in this political process are suggesting.
Last question. Stretch. Who are you working for, Stretch?
Q Washington Examiner.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, good. Glad you found work. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you very much. Mr. President, some pro-life groups are
worried that your choice of FDA Commissioner will approve over the
counter sales of Plan B, a pill that, they say, essentially can cause
early-term abortions. Do you stand by this choice, and how do you feel
about Plan B in general?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe that Plan B ought to be -- ought to
require a prescription for minors, is what I believe. And I support
Andy's decision.
Thanks for letting me come by the new digs here. They may be a
little too fancy for you.
Q We'd be happy to go back.
Q Are we coming back?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely, you're coming back.
Q Can we hold you to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Coming back to the bosom of the White House.
(Laughter.) I'm looking forward to hugging you when you come back,
everybody. When are you coming back?
Q You tell us.
Q May.
THE PRESIDENT: May, is that when it is scheduled?
Q They've sealed off of our -- they sealed off the door. We're
wondering if we're really coming back or not.
Q The decision will be made by commanders on the ground.
(Laughter.)
Q There's no timetable.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you think this is, a correspondents dinner
or something? (Laughter.)
Thank you all.
Q Thank you.
Q Are you going to come visit our workspace?
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.)
END 10:58 A.M. EDT
|