For Immediate Release Office of the
Press Secretary March 29, 2006
President Discusses Democracy in Iraq with Freedom House
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill Washington, D.C.
Fact
Sheet: Strategy for Victory: Freedom in Iraq
In Focus: Renewal in
Iraq
12:53 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please be seated. I shouldn't be so
instructive to the Diplomatic Corps. (Laughter.) Peter, thank you
for your warm introduction. Thank you for your commitment to
freedom. It turns out freedom runs pretty deep in Peter's family. I
don't know if you know this, or not, but his son is a Marine First
Lieutenant, named Elliot Ackerman. He fought in the battle of
Fallujah. I know you're proud of your son, and I'm proud to be the
Commander-in-Chief of men and women who volunteer to defend our own
freedom.
I appreciate very much the men and women of
Freedom House. For more than 60 years, this organization has been a
tireless champion for liberty. You've been a clear voice for the
oppressed across the world. At Freedom House you understand that the
only path to lasting peace is the expansion of freedom and liberty.
Free societies are peaceful societies. When governments are
accountable to their own citizens, when people are free to speak and
assemble, when minorities are protected, then justice prevails. And
so does the cause of peace.
Freedom House was founded on the principle that no nation is
exempt from the demands of human dignity. And you're carrying that
message across the world, from Africa to China to Belarus and
beyond. At Freedom House, you also understand free societies do not
take root overnight, especially in countries that suffer from
decades of tyranny and repression. You understand that free
elections are an instrument of change; yet they're only the first
step. So as you press for democratic change across the world you're
helping new democracies build free institutions they need to
overcome the legacies of tyranny and dictatorship.
I want to thank you for your work. You're making a significant
contribution to the security of our country. I'm also honored that
we've got distinguished members of the legislative body with us,
particularly Senator John Warner, who is the Chairman of the Armed
Services Committee; Senator Dick Lugar, who is the Chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and, of course, Senator Ted
Stevens. I thank the members from the House and Senate who have
joined these distinguished senators. I appreciate you taking time to
come and listen to me. Just listen to me a little more often.
(Laughter.)
I particularly want to pay homage to Ambassador Max Kampelman.
Thank you very much. (Applause.) I was telling the Ambassador, right
before I came over I was having a little visit with my Chief of
Staff-to-be, Josh Bolten. It turns out that Josh's dad and the
Ambassador were lifelong friends. And as I came over here, he said,
you make sure that you say hello to one of the finest men our
country has ever produced. So, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of a grateful
President and a grateful Chief of Staff-to-be, thank you for serving
our country. (Applause.)
I appreciate the other members of the
Freedom House Board of Trustees, and I thank the Diplomatic Corps
for joining us, as well.
We meet at a time of war, but also at a moment of great hope. In
our world, and due in part to our efforts, freedom is taking root in
places where liberty was unimaginable a couple of years ago. Just 25
years ago, at the start of the 1980s, there were only 45 democracies
on the face of the Earth. Today, Freedom House reports there are 122
democracies, and more people now live in liberty than ever before.
The advance of freedom is the story of our time, and we're seeing
new chapters written before our eyes. Since the beginning of 2005,
we've witnessed remarkable democratic changes across the globe. The
people of Afghanistan have elected their first democratic parliament
in more than a generation. The people of Lebanon have recovered
their independence and chosen their leaders in free elections. The
people of Kyrgyzstan have driven a corrupt regime from power and
voted for democratic change. The people of Liberia have overcome
decades of violence and are now led by the first woman elected as a
head of state in any African nation. And the courageous people of
Iraq have gone to the polls not once, not twice, but three times,
choosing a transitional government, a democratic constitution, and a
new government under that constitution.
Each of these countries still faces enormous challenges that will
take patience and the support of the international community to
overcome. Yet, Freedom House has declared the year 2005 was one of
the most successful years for freedom since the Freedom House began
measuring world freedom more than 30 years ago. From Kabul to
Baghdad to Beirut and beyond, freedom's tide is rising, and we
should not rest, and we must not rest, until the promise of liberty
reaches every people and every nation.
In our history, most democratic progress has come with the end of
a war. After the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the
collapse of communism in the Cold War, scores of nations cleared
away the rubble of tyranny and laid the foundations of freedom and
democracy.
Today, the situation is very different. Liberty is advancing not
in a time of peace, but in the midst of a war, at a moment when a
global movement of great brutality and ambition is fighting
freedom's progress with all the hateful violence they can muster. In
this new century, the advance of freedom is a vital element of our
strategy to protect the American people, and to secure the peace for
generations to come. We're fighting the terrorists across the world
because we know that if America were not fighting this enemy in
other lands, we'd be facing them here in our own land.
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw the
violence and the hatred of a vicious enemy, and the future that they
intend for us. That day I made a decision: America will not wait to
be attacked again. We will confront this mortal danger. We will stay
on the offensive. America will defend our freedom.
We're pursuing the terrorists on many battlefronts. Today, the
central front in the war on terror is Iraq. This month I've given a
series of speeches on recent events in Iraq and how we're adapting
our approach to deal with the events on the ground. At George
Washington University I reported on the progress we have made in
training the Iraqi security forces, the growing number of Iraqi
units that are taking the lead in the fight, the territory we're
handing over to them, and the performance they turned in after the
bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.
Last week in Cleveland, I told the American people about the
northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar, which was once a key base of
operations for al Qaeda and is now a free city that gives us reason
to hope for a free Iraq. I explained how the story of Tal Afar gives
me confidence in our strategy, because in that city we see the
outlines of the Iraq we've been fighting for, a free and secure
people who are getting back on their feet, who are participating in
government and civic life, and are becoming allies in the fight
against the terrorists.
Today, I'm going to discuss the stakes in Iraq and our efforts to
help the Iraqi people overcome past divisions and form a lasting
democracy, and why it is vital to the security of the American
people that we help them succeed.
In the wake of recent violence in Iraq, many Americans are asking
legitimate questions: Why are Iraqis so divided? And did America
cause the instability by removing Saddam Hussein from power? They
ask, after three elections, why are the Iraqi people having such a
hard time coming together? And can a country with so many divisions
ever build a stable democracy? They ask why we can't bring our
troops home now and let the Iraqis sort out their differences on
their own.
These are fair questions, and today, I'll do my best to answer
them. I'll discuss some of the reasons for the instability we're
seeing in Iraq, why democracy is the only force that can overcome
these divisions, why I believe the vast majority of Iraqis want to
live in freedom and peace, and why the security of our nation
depends on the success of a free Iraq.
Today, some Americans ask whether removing
Saddam caused the divisions and instability we're now seeing. In
fact, much of the animosity and violence we now see is the legacy of
Saddam Hussein. He is a tyrant who exacerbated sectarian divisions
to keep himself in power. Iraq is a nation with many ethnic and
religious and sectarian and regional and tribal divisions. Before
Saddam Hussein, Iraqis from different communities managed to live
together. Even today, many Iraqi tribes have both Sunni and Shia
branches. And in many small towns with mixed populations, there's
often only one mosque where Sunni and Shia worship together.
Intermarriage is also common with mixed families that include Arabs
and Kurds and Sunnis and Shia and Turkmen, Assyrians, and Chaldeans.
To prevent these different groups from coming to challenge his
regime, Saddam Hussein undertook a deliberate strategy of
maintaining control by dividing the Iraqi people. He stayed on top
by brutally repressing different Iraqi communities and pitting them
one against the other. He forced hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out
of their homes using expulsion as a weapon to subdue and punish any
group that resisted his rule. By displacing Iraqi communities and
dividing the Iraqi people, he sought to establish himself as the
only force that could hold the country together.
In Saddam's campaign of repression and division, no Iraqi group
was spared. In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein unleashed a brutal
ethnic cleansing operation against Kurds in northern Iraq. Kurdish
towns and villages were destroyed. Tens of thousands of Kurds
disappeared or were killed. In his effort to terrorize the Kurds
into submission, Saddam dropped chemical weapons on scores of
Kurdish villages. In one village alone, a town called Halabja, his
regime killed thousands of innocent men and women and children,
using mustard gas and nerve agents. Saddam also forcibly removed
hundreds of thousands of Kurds from their homes, and then he moved
Arabs into those homes and onto the properties of the people who
were forced to leave. As a result of this strategy deep tensions
persist to this day.
Saddam also waged a brutal campaign of suppression and genocide
against the Shia in the south of Iraq. He targeted prominent Shia
clerics for assassination. He destroyed Shia mosques and holy sites.
He killed thousands of innocent men, women and children. He piled
their bodies into mass graves. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War,
Saddam brutally crushed a Shia uprising. Many Shia fled to the
marshes of southern Iraq. They hid in the wetlands that could not be
easily reached by Saddam's army.
The wetlands, by the way, were also home to the Marsh Arabs, an
ancient civilization that traces its roots back 5,000 years. So
Saddam destroyed the Marsh Arabs, and those who hid in the marshes,
by draining the marshes where they lived. In less than a decade, the
majority of these lush wetlands were turned into barren desert, and
most of the Marsh Arabs were driven from their ancestral home. It is
no wonder that deep divisions and scars exist in much of the Shia
population.
Saddam also oppressed his fellow Sunnis. One of the great
misperceptions about Iraq is that every Sunni enjoyed a privileged
status under Saddam's regime. In truth, Saddam trusted few outside
his family and his tribe. He installed his sons and his brothers and
his cousins in key positions. Almost everyone was considered
suspect, and often those suspicions led to brutal violence.
In one instance, Saddam's security services tortured to death a
pilot from a prominent Sunni tribe, and then dumped his headless
body in front of his family's house. It caused riots that he then
brutally suppressed. In the mid-1990s, Saddam rounded up scores of
prominent Sunni economists and lawyers and retired army officers and
former government officials. Many were never heard from again.
It is hard to overstate the effects of Saddam's brutality on the
Iraqi nation. Here's what one Marine recalls when he was on the
streets of the Iraqi capital. He said, quote, "I had an Iraqi
citizen come up to me. She opened her mouth and she had no tongue.
She was pointing at the statue. There were people with no fingers
waving at the statue of Saddam, telling us he tortured them. People
were showing us scars on their back." Iraq is a nation that is
physically and emotionally scarred by three decades of Saddam's
tyranny, and these wounds will take time to heal. As one Marsh Arab
put it, "Saddam did everything he could to kill us. You cannot
recover from that right away."
These are the kinds of tensions Iraqis are dealing with today.
They are the divisions that Saddam aggravated through deliberate
policies of ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence. As one Middle
East scholar has put it, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "a society
slowly and systematically poisoned by political terror. The toxic
atmosphere in today's Iraq bears witness to his terrible handiwork."
The argument that Iraq was stable under Saddam and that stability
is now in danger because we removed him is wrong. While liberation
has brought its own set of challenges, Saddam Hussein's removal from
power was the necessary first step in restoring stability and
freedom to the people of Iraq.
Today some Americans are asking why the Iraqi people are having
such a hard time building a democracy. The reason is that the
terrorists and former regime elements are exploiting the wounds
inflicted under Saddam's tyranny. The enemies of a free Iraq are
employing the same tactics Saddam used -- killing and terrorizing
the Iraqi people in an effort to foment sectarian division.
For the Saddamists, provoking sectarian strife is business as
usual. And we know from the terrorists' own words that they're using
the same tactics with the goal of inciting a civil war. Two years
ago, we intercepted a letter to Osama bin Laden from the terrorist
Zarqawi, in which he explains his plan to stop the advance of
democracy in Iraq. Zarqawi wrote: "If we succeed in dragging the
Shia into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to
waken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger. The only
solution is for us to strike the religious and military and other
cadres among the Shia with blow after blow."
The terrorists and Saddamists have been brutal in the pursuit of
this strategy. They target innocent civilians; they blow up police
officers; they attack mosques; and they commit other acts of
horrific violence for the cameras. Their objective is to stop Iraq's
democratic progress. They tried to stop the transfer of sovereignty.
They tried to stop millions of Iraqis from voting in the January
2005 elections. They tried to stop Sunnis from participating in the
October referendum on the constitution. And they tried to stop
millions from voting in the December elections to form a government
under that constitution.
And in each case, they failed. With every election, participation
was larger and broader than the one that came before. And in
December, almost 12 million people -- more than 75 percent of
eligible voters -- defied the terrorists to cast their ballots. With
their votes, the Iraqi people have spoken and made their intentions
clear: They want to live in liberty and unity, and they're
determined to chart their own destiny.
Now the elements of a free Iraq are trying to stop the -- the
enemies of a free Iraq are trying to stop the formation of unity
government. They've learned they cannot succeed by facing coalition
and Iraqi forces on the battlefield, so they've taken their violence
to a new level, by attacking one of Shia Islam's holiest sites. They
blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra in the hope that this
outrageous act would provoke the Shia masses into widespread
reprisals which would provoke Sunnis to retaliate and drag the
nation into a civil war.
Yet, despite massive provocations, Iraq has not descended into
civil war. Most Iraqis have not turned to violence. The Iraqi
security forces have not broken up into sectarian groups waging war
against each other. Instead, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish soldiers stood
together to protect religious sites, enforce a curfew, and restore
civil order.
In recent weeks, these forces passed another important test when
they successfully protected millions of Shia pilgrims who marched to
the cities of Karbala and Najaf for an annual religious holiday. In
2004, the terrorists launched coordinated strikes against the
pilgrims, killing scores of innocent worshipers. This year, the
pilgrimage was largely peaceful, thanks to the courage and the unity
of the Iraqi security forces. In the midst of today's sectarian
tension, the ability of Iraqis to hold a peaceful gathering by
millions of people is a hopeful sign for the future of Iraq.
In these last few weeks, we've also seen terrible acts of
violence. The kidnapings and brutal executions and beheadings are
very disturbing. There's no place in a free and democratic Iraq for
armed groups operating outside the law. It's vital to the security
of a free Iraq that the police are free of militia influence. And so
we're working with Iraqi leaders to find and remove leaders from the
national police who show evidence of loyalties to militias. We're
partnering U.S. battalions with Iraqi national police to teach them
about the role of a professional police force in a democratic
society. We're making clear to Iraqi leaders that reining in the
illegal militias must be a top priority of Iraq's new government
when it takes office.
The violence we're seeing is showing the Iraqi leaders the danger
of sectarian division, and underscoring the urgency of forming a
national unity government. Today, Iraqi leaders from every major
ethnic and religious community are working to construct the path
forward. Our Ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad, is helping Iraq's
leaders reach out across political and religious and sectarian
lines, so they can form a government that will earn the trust and
the confidence of all Iraqis.
Putting aside differences to build a democracy that reflects the
country's diversity is a difficult thing to do. It's even more
difficult when enemies are working daily to stop your progress and
divide your nation. Yet Iraqis are rising to the moment. They
deserve enormous credit for their courage, and their determination
to succeed.
Iraqi leaders are coming to grips with an important truth: The
only practical way to overcome the divisions of three decades of
tyranny is through democracy. Democracy is the only form of
government where every person has a say in the governance of a
country. It's the only form of government that will yield to a
peaceful Middle East. So Iraqis are working to overcome past
divisions and build a free society that protects the rights of all
its citizens. They're undertaking this progress with just a year's
experience in democratic politics.
Many of the institutions and traditions we take for granted here
in America -- from party structures to centuries' experience with
peaceful transitions of power -- are new to Iraq, so we should not
be surprised if Iraqis make mistakes or face setbacks in their
efforts to build a government that unites the Iraqi people.
We're beginning to see the signs of progress. Earlier this month,
Iraqi leaders announced they had reached an agreement on the need to
address critical issues such as de-Baathification in the operation
of security ministries, and the distribution of oil revenues in the
spirit of national unity. They agreed to form a new national
security council that will improve coordination within the
government on these and other difficult issues. This council will
include representatives from all major political groups, as well as
leaders from Iraq's executive, judicial and legislative branches. As
a result of this council's considered advice, the Iraqi government
that emerges will be more effective and more unified.
Another important sign of progress is that Saddam Hussein is now
being called to account for his crimes by the free citizens of a
free Iraq. Millions of Iraqis are seeing their independent judiciary
in action. At the former dictator's trial, Iraqis recently saw
something that's got to be truly amazing to them. When Saddam
Hussein stood up and began to give a political speech, the presiding
judge gaveled him down. Saddam growled at the judge, declaring, "I'm
the head of state." The judge replied, "You used to be the head of
the state. And now you're a defendant."
Three years ago any Iraqi who addressed Saddam in this way would
have been killed on the spot. Now the former dictator is answering
to a judge, instead of meting out arbitrary justice, and Iraqis are
replacing the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.
Finally, some Americans are asking if it's time to pull out our
troops and leave the Iraqis to settle their own differences. I know
the work in Iraq is really difficult, but I strongly feel it's vital
to the security of our country. The terrorists are killing and
maiming and fighting desperately to stop the formation of a unity
government because they understand what a free Iraq in the heart of
the Middle East means for them and their ideology. They know that
when freedom sets root in Iraq, it will be a mortal blow to their
aspirations to dominate the region and advance their hateful vision.
So they're determined to stop the advance of a free Iraq, and we
must be equally determined to stop them.
The irony is that the enemy seems to have a much clearer sense of
what's at stake than some of the politicians here in Washington,
D.C. One member of Congress who has proposed an immediate withdrawal
of American forces in Iraq recently explained that what would happen
after American forces pulled out was this: He said, "They'll fight
each other, somebody will win, they'll settle it for themselves."
While it might sound attractive to some, it would have disastrous
consequences for American security. The Iraqi government is still in
transition, and the Iraqi security forces are still gathering
capacity. If we leave Iraq before they're capable of defending their
own democracy, the terrorists will win. They will achieve their
stated goal. This is what the terrorists have told us they want to
achieve. They will turn Iraq into a safe haven. They will seek to
arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. They will use Iraq
as a base to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East. They
will use Iraq as a base from which to launch further attacks against
the United States of America.
Mindful of recent history, I ask you to think about what happened
in Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the United States helped Afghan
freedom fighters drive the Soviet Red Army from Kabul, and once the
Soviets withdrew, we decided our work was finished and left the
Afghans to defend [sic] for themselves. Soon the terrorists moved in
to fill the vacuum. They took over the country; they turned it into
a safe haven from which they planned and launched the attacks of
September the 11th.
If we leave Iraq before the job is done, the terrorists will move
in and fill the vacuum, and they will use that failed state to bring
murder and destruction to freedom-loving nations.
I know some in our country disagree with my decision to liberate
Iraq. Whatever one thought about the decision to remove Saddam from
power, I hope we should all agree that pulling our troops out
prematurely would be a disaster. If we were to let the terrorists
drive us out of Iraq, we would signal to the world that America
cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of
our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We
would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed
resolve and tighten their repressive grip. The global terrorist
movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever. For the
security of our citizens and the peace of the world, we will not
turn the future of Iraq over to the followers of a failed dictator,
or to evil men like bin Laden and Zarqawi.
America will leave Iraq, but we will not retreat from Iraq. We
will leave because Iraqi forces have gained in strength, not because
America's will has weakened. We will complete the mission in Iraq
because the security of the American people is linked to the success
in Iraq.
We're pursuing a clear strategy for victory. Victory requires an
integrated strategy: political, economic and security. These three
elements depend on and reinforce one another. By working with Iraqi
leaders to build the foundations of a strong democracy, we will
ensure they have the popular support they need to defeat the
terrorists. By going after the terrorists, coalition and Iraqi
forces are creating the conditions that allow the Iraqi people to
begin rebuilding their lives and their country. By helping Iraqis
with economic reconstruction, we're giving every citizen a real
stake in the success of a free Iraq. And as all this happens, the
terrorists, those who offer nothing but death and destruction, are
becoming isolated from the population.
I wish I could tell you the violence in Iraq is waning and that
all the tough days in the struggle are behind us. They're not. There
will be more tough fighting ahead with difficult days that test the
patience and the resolve of our country. Yet, we can have faith in
the final outcome because we've seen freedom overcome the darkness
of tyranny and terror and secure the peace before. And in this
century, freedom is going to prevail again.
In 1941, the year the Freedom House began its work, the future of
freedom seemed bleak. There were about a dozen lonely democracies in
the world. The Soviet Union was led by the tyrant Stalin who
massacred millions. Hitler was leading Nazi Germany in a campaign to
dominate Europe and eliminate the Jewish people from the face of the
Earth. An imperial Japan launched a brutal surprise attack on
America. Today, six decades later, the Soviet empire is no more;
Germany and Japan are free nations, and they are allies in the cause
of peace; and the majority of the world's governments are
democracies.
There were doubters six decades ago who said that freedom could
not prevail. History has proved them wrong. In this young century,
the doubters are still with us; but so is the unstoppable power of
freedom. In Afghanistan and Iraq and other nations, that power is
replacing tyranny with hope, and no one should bet against it.
One of the greatest forces for freedom in the history of the
world is the United States Armed Forces. In the past four-and-a-half
years, our troops have liberated more people than at any time since
World War II. Because of the men and women who wear our nation's
uniform, 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan have tasted
freedom, and their liberation has inspired millions more across the
broader Middle East to believe that freedom is theirs, as well.
This is going to be freedom's century. Thank you for giving me a
chance to come and visit with you. May God bless. (Applause.)
Okay, sit down, please. All right, I'll be glad to answer some
questions.
Yes, sir. Yes, please.
Q I have a question. I am from Mali. A couple of years ago, the
Millennium Challenge Account was created to help countries that were
already on the path to democracy. Looking at a country like Mali in
West Africa, where just yesterday we celebrated 15 years of freedom,
we haven't seen any money yet. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I like a good lobbyist. (Laughter.)
Q Well, isn't it cheaper and easier for people -- people from
Mali and all throughout Africa, who already are in love with
America, and isn't it easier politically to you and show to your
critics that, look, in Iraq, maybe we need some -- we're in there,
but in places like Mali that have freedom, we can step in and help
them without expecting something back? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that. I -- he's referring to a
foreign policy initiative of mine called the Millennium Challenge
Account. I want to thank the members of Congress who have been
strong supporters of the Millennium Challenge Account. I would hope
they would continue to support the Millennium Challenge Account.
The Millennium Challenge Account, the idea behind it was, is that
nations are capable of defeating corruption; they are capable of
investing in health and education for their citizens; and they are
capable about supporting market-oriented economies. If you believe
that, then why shouldn't our aid say, you get aid in return for
fighting corruption, investing in the health and education of your
citizens, and putting market-oriented economic measures in place?
We started the process recognizing that a lot of people would
raise their hands, including Mali, by saying we'll start with the
poorest nations first. I must confess that our Millennium Challenge
Account, while funded in its first year, was a little slow to get
going. We've changed the structure to make sure money gets out the
door, so that other nations such as Mali will be eligible for
application and consideration.
I can remember when I first put in the Millennium Challenge
Account. People were somewhat aghast that the United States would
dare ask for conditions for its money. Those are the defeatists in
the world, those who believe that certain people can't fight
corruption. We believe opposite of that in America. We believe in
high standards, and the taxpayers sure believe in accountability for
our foreign dollars.
So thank you for bringing it up. I appreciate a man who is
willing to stand up and defend his country in front of the President
and all the cameras. (Laughter.)
Yes, sir.
Q Mr. President, I'm from The Economist Magazine. I understand,
Mr. President, you met with President Obasanjo of Nigeria today. I
wonder if you could tell us what you discussed, and also if --
THE PRESIDENT: No, but keep going. (Laughter.)
Q Okay. Are you now confident --
THE PRESIDENT: I can tell you what I discussed.
Q Are you now confident that Charles Taylor, the recently
recaptured Liberian warlord, will stand trial?
THE PRESIDENT: I am much more confident today than I was
yesterday. (Laughter.) This is what we call embedding. (Laughter.) I
talked to the President about a variety of things, one of which, of
course, was Charles Taylor. There is a process to get Charles Taylor
to the court in the Netherlands. Such a process will require a
United Nations Security Council resolution. Secretary Rice, who was
in the meeting, told me that she thought that might happen
relatively quickly. And so, therefore, I think he is headed for
where he belongs, which is trial.
I spoke to President Sirleaf about this issue, as well. She was
deeply concerned that Charles Taylor could be in a position to
disturb this young democracy. I must tell you that I was most
impressed by the leader from Liberia. I think America is going to be
-- should be very anxious to work with her and help this country
overcome years of violence.
But I do believe that he is headed for trial. We certainly will
do our efforts in the diplomatic channels to see to it that that's
the case.
We also talked about Sudan. I'm deeply worried about the human
conditions in Darfur. Ours is a government that spoke out about
genocide, and we meant it. I thanked President Obasanjo for the AU
presence in the Sudan. I told him, however, I did not think the
presence was robust enough. I do believe there needs to be a blue
helmeting of not only the AU forces, but additional forces with a
NATO overlay. And the reason I believe that NATO ought to be a part
of the operation is twofold: One, to provide logistical and command
and control and airlift capability, but also to send a clear signal
to parties involved that the West is determined to help a settlement
-- to help affect in a settlement, that this is serious business,
that we're just not playing a diplomatic holding game, but that when
we say, genocide, we mean that the genocide needs to be stopped.
Secondly, we talked about the need for a parallel track, a peace
process to go forward, that there needs to be unity amongst the
rebel groups. The President told me he has met with the rebel
groups, trying to come up with a focused message that can then be
used to negotiate with the government of Sudan. There is a pretty
good template to go by, a resource-sharing arrangement. There's a
governing structure that, if implemented, would be -- in the
north/south -- because of the north/south agreement, could be a
go-by for the Darfur region. But those are the two main things I
talked to him about.
Yes, sir. Are you embedded? (Laughter.)
Q From Australia. I've got a question about global warming -- in
the Australian Parliament, Tony Blair called for greater action. And
this seems to be something that the U.S. President could make a
major difference on. There's a virtual consensus that the planet is
warming. If you addressed issues like emissions, fuel efficiency,
issues to do with alternative energy in your last few years as
President, it could make a significant difference I think to the --
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate you bringing that up.
Q -- and I suppose I want to know, what is your plan?
THE PRESIDENT: Good. We -- first of all, there is -- the globe is
warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural. Put that
aside. It is in our interests that we use technologies that will not
only clean the air, but make us less dependent on oil. That's what I
said in my State of the Union the other day. I said, look -- and I
know it came as quite a shock to -- for people to hear a Texan stand
up and say, we've got a national problem, we're addicted to oil. But
I meant what I said.
Being addicted to oil is a problem for our economy. In a global
economy, when burgeoning economies like India and China use more
fossil fuels, it affects the price of gasoline here in America. In a
world in which sometimes people have got the oil we need, or don't
like us -- it's kind of a undiplomatic way of putting it -- it means
we've got a national security issue.
I have -- much of my position was defined early on in my
presidency when I told the world I thought that Kyoto was a lousy
deal for America. And I tell you why it was a lousy deal for
America. It meant that we had to cut emissions below 1990 levels,
which would have meant I would have presided over massive layoffs
and economic destruction. I believe the best way to put technologies
in place that will not only achieve national objectives like less
addiction to oil, but also help clean the air, is to be wealthy
enough to invest in technologies, and then to share those
technologies with parts of the world that were excluded from the
Kyoto Protocol.
And so I guess I should have started differently when I first
became President, and said, we will invest in new technologies that
will enable us to use fossil fuels in a much wiser way. And what
does that mean? Well, it means that we've got to figure out how to
use ethanol more in our cars. Ethanol is produced mainly by cane and
corn. But we're near some breakthroughs that we can use sawgrass and
biomass to be able to produce ethanol
That means we got to continue investing in hybrid batteries. Ours
is a country where many people live in urban centers, like
Washington, D.C., and it's possible to have a hybrid battery
breakthrough which says that the first 40 miles of an automobile can
be used by electricity alone. Right now the hybrid vehicles, as you
know, switch between gasoline and electrical power. But that
consumes gasoline, which means we're still reliant upon oil. The
idea is to get off of oil.
On the electricity front, we need to be using nuclear power more
in this country, in my judgment. It is a renewable source of energy
that has zero gas emissions. We've got a great natural resource here
in America called coal. We have 250-plus years of coal reserves. But
we also recognize that by -- burning coal causes environmental
problems, and so we're spending billions on research to come up with
clean coal technologies. And we'd like to share those technologies
with other nations of the world that are beginning to grow so that
they are good stewards of the environment, as well.
And so I got a comprehensive plan that uses technologies to help
this nation from a national and economic perspective, but also will
help improve the global economy -- the environment from those new,
burgeoning economies that are -- like China and India, to be exact.
Yes.
Q Mr. President, first, thank you for your remarks and your
commitment to advance freedom and the courage to use your office to
follow through with it. My question is about Iraq. And I wonder if
you could tell us, to what degree do you think the insurgency inside
Iraq is dependent -- dependent on foreign support, particularly from
regional powers --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q -- and what are we doing, or what could we do more to prevent
that?
THE PRESIDENT: There are three elements of the insurgency. One
are the rejectionists. Those are the Sunnis that didn't feel like
they were going to get a fair shake in what they viewed would be a
Shia-led government. They are slowly but surely recognizing that
democracy is their best hope. Then there are the Saddamists. Those
are the folks that received enormous privilege under Saddam Hussein,
and they're furious that they don't have those privileges. And the
last group, of course, is al Qaeda. Now, al Qaeda has stated clearly
what I told you during the speech. They have made it abundantly
clear that their ambitions are to drive us from the country. They're
the ones that we worry about were receiving foreign assistance --
money, as well as safe haven.
The two countries that worry us the most, of course, are the two
neighboring countries next to Iraq. That would be Syria and Iran.
And we are making it abundantly clear to both that we think it's in
their interests to let an Iraqi democracy develop.
Syria has been a -- Syria is a complicated issue because of
Lebanon. It's not complicated, actually, it's quite clear what needs
to be done. Our first focus with Syria, besides stopping
cross-border infiltration -- that, frankly, has required our --
required us to adjust our tactics on the ground and spend a lot of
time training people to stop the cross-border infiltration, because
there's some doubt as to whether or not we're getting much
cooperation on the other side of the border. But we spend a lot of
time working with particularly France in making it abundantly clear
we expect the Syrians to allow the Lebanese democracy to evolve.
I guess it's kind of hard to give up on a country on which you've
had a stranglehold. There was a troop withdrawal, as you know. My
main concern is to whether or not they withdraw more than just
troops, whether they withdraw intelligence services, and people that
were in a position to influence the future of the country.
It is very important that there be full cooperation in the
investigation of the death of Mr. Hariri. But our message to Bashar
Asad is that we expect -- if they want to be a welcomed country into
the world, that they have got to free [sic] Lebanon, shut down
cross-border infiltration, and stop allowing Hezbollah, PIJ and
other terrorist groups to meet inside the country.
The Iranian issue is more -- in dealing with Iran, we're dealing
with more than just influence into the formation of a national unity
government. I happen to believe that ultimately the Iraqis will say,
we want to have our own government. We want to be on our own feet.
We've had a little problem with Iran in the past and, therefore, let
us kind of manage our own affairs. No question right now we're
concerned, however, about influencing the formation of the
government, but also, obviously, we're deeply concerned about
whether or not the Iranians have the wherewithal and/or the
knowledge about building a nuclear weapon.
My negotiation strategy on this issue is that I believe it is
better for the Iranians to hear from more than one voice as to
whether or not the world accepts them as a viable nation in the
international affairs. And so we have asked Germany and France and
Great Britain to take the lead, to send a clear message to the
Iranian government.
It's difficult to negotiate with non-transparent societies. It's
easier for a non-transparent society to try to negotiate with
countries in which there's a free press and a free political
opposition and a place where people can express their opinions,
because it sometimes causes people to play their cards publicly. In
negotiating with non-transparent societies, it's important to keep
your counsel.
But I am pleased with the progress we have made on the diplomatic
front. As you know, there are now talks of a presidential letter out
of the United Nations, and my Secretary of State, working with
Ambassador John Bolton, are constructing such a letter and trying to
make sure that there is common consensus, particularly amongst the
P5 plus Germany. As a matter of fact, Condi leaves I think today, if
not tomorrow, for Europe to sit down with the P5 plus Germany to
continue keeping people knitted up on our strategy. Obviously,
there's some cross pressures to some members of the P5. There's a
lot of politics in Europe -- which is a good thing, by the way, that
people are questioning whether or not it's worth it to try to stop
the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon. I just believe strongly
it's worth it. Now is the time to deal with these problems before
they become acute.
I'm troubled by a non-transparent regime having a weapon which
could be used to blackmail freedom-loving nations. I'm troubled by a
president who has declared his intentions to destroy our ally
Israel. And we need to take these admonitions and these threats very
seriously in order to keep the peace.
So issues around Iraq are complicated and necessary, and that's
why my administration spends a lot of time on them.
Yes, sir. You're going to ask me if I read the book. (Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, as you noted at the beginning -- I'm with
Freedom House, and I gave the President a copy of our annual report,
Freedom in the World, before he took the stage. And as you noted,
our reports have --
THE PRESIDENT: Little print, no pictures. Go ahead. (Laughter.)
Q It's the bible of freedom, yes. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I'm the funny guy. Go ahead. (Laughter.)
Q Our publications have confirmed that freedom is advancing
overall in the world during the years of your administration. There
is one big important country, however, in which freedom has declined
year-by-year the last several years, and that's Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: Correct.
Q You have a big summit coming up in July with the G8 in St.
Petersburg. There's been an increasing crackdown on civil society
and political parties in Russia, and I'm wondering if in the time
between now and the St. Petersburg summit, what you and the
administration can do to raise these issues and try to help the
defenders of freedom in Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. The G8 will raise the issue.
That's the interesting thing about kind of meetings and moments. And
I have worked very hard to convince Vladimir Putin that it's in his
interest to adopt Western-style values and universal values -- rule
of law, freedom of religion, the right to people to assemble,
political parties, free press.
My strategy with Vladimir Putin is to be in a position where I
can talk frankly to him. I've heard some say, don't go to the G8. I
think that would be a mistake for the United States not to go to the
G8. I remember very -- because I need to be in a position where I
can sit down with him and be very frank about our concerns.
I remember meeting with the human rights groups in Russia. And I
asked them what strategy should I take as the President of the
United States. Should I be in a position where I can engage the
President in frank discussion? Or should I publicly scold him, in
which case he may turn a deaf ear? And the universal consensus for
them kind of played to my own instincts, which is that I think it's
important for the United States to be in a position to be able to
express our concerns.
Listen, we work with Russia on a variety of issues. Nunn-Lugar is
an issue where we work with Russia, for example. But I spend a lot
of time with the President making it clear that he should not fear
democracy on his border, nor should he fear democracy within his
borders. I like to make the case to him that democracies don't war
with each other. You don't need to remind him about the brutal
history that the Soviet Union went through in World War II. But I do
think it's illustrative to point out -- like I pointed out in the
speech -- that Europe is now free, whole and at peace, and there's a
reason why.
` It's what Americans have got to understand. We tend to forget.
Ours is a society where things are like instant, so therefore,
history almost is like so far back it doesn't count. But it counts
when you really think about life lost on the continent of Africa and
wonder why they're no war today. And there's a reason why there's no
war today. And that's because history has proven democracies don't
war with each other.
And so in my explanation to different events that are taking
place to the President, I try to point to historical truths, that
it's in an interest of a country like Russia to understand and
welcome democracy. It's in an interest for the country to give
people the freedom to express themselves.
I do spend time with him in private talking about issues like the
NGO law. And as you noticed, we changed the laws -- obviously now
the -- how laws get implemented matters. But I'm confident that will
be a topic of discussion.
I haven't given up on Russia. I still think Russia understands
that it's in her interest to be West, to work with the West, and to
act in concert with the West. Nobody is saying to Russia, you must
look like the United States of America. But we are saying there's
just some basic institutions that ought to be adopted. And I will
continue making that case.
I do think it's important for me to go to the G8 so I can make
the case. One of the things that I find is that nations oftentimes
approach me at these different meetings we go to and say, hey, pass
the message for me, will you? We need you to pass a message, Mr.
President. You're the person who can best make the case. And so I'm
pretty confident in these countries' interest that I be in a
position where I'm able to walk into the room with the President of
Russia and him not throw me out. And, in fact, that he -- you know,
we've got a relationship -- personal relationship such that there is
the possibility for candid conversation.
The other big opportunity for democracy, of course, is China.
President Hu Jintao is coming to our country, as you know. I will
continue to remind him ours is a complex relationship and that we
would hope that he would not fear a free society, just like it
doesn't appear that he's fearing a free market. I happen to believe
free markets eventually yield free societies. One of the most -- one
of the most pure forms of democracy is the marketplace, where demand
causes something to happen. Excess demand causes prices to -- the
supply causes prices to go up, and vice versa. That stands in
contrast to governments that felt like they could set price and
control demand.
One of the things that I think should be a part of any foreign
policy is to shine the spotlight, is to open societies. You heard me
talk about what it's like to deal with non-transparent societies. I
think a useful tool of foreign policy for our country is, try to let
the sun shine in. I think China has recently read the book on Mao.
It's an amazing history of a couple of things -- one, about how
fooled much of the world was, and how brutal this country was. And
yet, now there's more transparency into China.
I will make it clear, of course, to the President that our
relationship is vital on a variety of fronts. One such front is the
economy, and we expect that country to treat us fairly. We expect
there to be strong adherence to intellectual property rights. We
believe that we grow pretty good crops and grow good beef, and
perhaps it's in their interest to open up their markets to our
agricultural products. We expect our manufacturers to be treated
fairly. We don't believe in state subsidization of industry to give
unfair advantage to state-owned enterprise. In other words, there's
a variety of things we'll talk about, and one of them is freedom.
I have been -- I don't hesitate to talk to him about my visits
with the Dalai Lama who is -- comes and sees me in the White House;
nor do I hesitate to talk about the concerns of the Catholic Church.
I'm anxious to talk to him about the evangelicals' concerns inside
of China, reminding him that a whole society is one that's just more
than open markets. There's institutions and common values that are
necessary.
Some, of course -- let me say, if I might make a philosophical
statement about how I think. As Peter mentioned, there is a
philosophical debate taking place in the world -- at least I think
it is -- and that is whether freedom is universal, or whether, one
way to put it, it just applies to only a handful of us. I believe in
the universality of freedom. That's what I believe. Much of my
foreign policy is driven by my firm belief that everybody desires to
be free; that embedded in the soul of each man and women on the face
of the Earth is this deep desire to live in liberty. That's what I
believe. I don't believe freedom is confined just to the United
States of America, nor do I believe that we should shy away from
expressing our deep desire for there to be universal liberty.
You hear the debate, well, they're just imposing their values.
That's all they're doing. Well, those are the folks who must not
think that freedom is universal. They're not American values.
There's something universal about the notion of liberty -- at least
I think it is. And that's what's going to drive my foreign policy.
I'll be unabashed about trying to work for more free societies. I
believe that's the calling of the 21st century. I meant what I said,
that in the 21st century, America ought to work to end tyranny in
our world. It is a noble goal for the United States of America.
I'm concerned about isolationist tendencies in our country that
would say, well, maybe this isn't -- maybe we're not up to this
task. Well, if we're not up to the task, who is up to the task? I'm
concerned about protectionist policies in our country, which says to
me, we don't have the confidence to compete anymore. Let us withdraw
within our borders. I strongly reject isolationism and
protectionism. It's not in our country's interest, nor is it in the
world's interest.
There's great talk about, what you do as the American President
with American influence. I believe American Presidents ought to
confidently use American influence for the good of the world, and
that includes demanding universal liberty and human rights and human
dignity.
Yes, sir.
Q Mr. President, I'm from the Public International Law and Policy
Group. I'm also from Egypt and I aspire to one day go back there and
join Egyptian politics. So my question is --
THE PRESIDENT: Go for President. (Laughter.)
Q I'm working on it, I'm working on it -- in 2017, everyone.
(Laughter.) But my question is, would you support the regime of
Gamal Mubarak if he takes over after President Mubarak?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a leading question. (Laughter.)
Q -- question.
THE PRESIDENT: No? That's a question I don't answer question.
(Laughter.) I support a country which does not fear political
movements, but is willing to compete with political movements.
That's the kind of country I support.
There's a -- first of all, I appreciate the fact that there were
elections in Egypt. That's positive. I think people in positions of
responsibility like mine ought to say, if there seems to be a
movement gaining ground on the streets, the question ought to be
why; not how can we repress it, but what is taking place? What is it
that's causing somebody to be in favor? What are they saying that
I'm not saying, or what are they doing that I'm not doing?
Competition for ideas and the votes of people are very healthy in
societies. As a matter of fact, it's one of the ways to defeat the
terrorists. Terrorists feed on resentment. When people don't feel
their voices are heard, they become resentful, and then they become
eligible for recruitment. If people don't feel like they have a
chance to express themselves and have the government listen to them,
they're likely to turn to people -- the false prophets, people who
subvert a great religion to play on people's frustrations and then
use that false prophecy to kill.
And so I -- the answer to your question is, is that I support an
openness in the political process. I think when -- I think Egypt is
a -- has a chance to be one of the leaders of the freedom movement
in the Middle East. I recognize that not everybody is going to
embrace this concept of democracy and freedom as firmly as I'd like
them to. But all of us have got to continue to advance progress.
One of the interesting debates we have about the freedom movement
is whether or not institutions have to be right before there's
elections. So in other words, kind of one of these interesting
philosophical debates that's taking place. My answer -- you heard my
answer -- my answer is, you got to have -- you can't wait for
perfect, because it's an excuse for the status quo.
Elections start the process. They're not the end of the process.
They're oftentimes the beginning of the process. And one of the
reasons I respect the Freedom House is because you understand that
you follow elections with institution-building and the creation of
civil society. But for those who say, well, we can't have elections
until everything is just right, or until we know the outcome of the
elections, are those who provide excuse, in my judgment, for a
foreign policy which in the past has said, it's okay, just so long
as energy is priced okay; and okay so there's no ruffles on the --
the sea looks calm. My problem with that attitude is, beneath the
surface, there's resentment and anger.
I'll also tell you another -- I'm not going to tell you your
business in the Freedom House, but I think a movement that must be
tapped into in order to advance freedom is the women's movement. I
just -- there is something universal about the desire to be treated
fairly and equally. And therefore, in societies in which women are
not being treated fairly and equally provides great opportunities to
advance the cause of freedom. We've got to be wise about how we do
it in the United States. Sometimes the stamp of America obviously
provides those who are trying to resist freedom, given them an
excuse not to. I understand that. But it's -- there are great
opportunities in the world.
The temptation in today's society is to say, it's not worth it.
Or, certain people can't self-govern. It's really part of the debate
in Iraq, isn't it, when you think about it -- is, can these people
self-govern? And I can understand why some in America say they
can't, because all they see is unbelievable violence. And we're a
country of deep compassion. We care. One of the great things about
America, one of the beauties of our country, is that when we see a
young, innocent child blown up by an IED, we cry. We don't care what
the child's religion may be, or where that child may live, we cry.
It upsets us. The enemy knows that, and they're willing to --
they're willing to kill to shake our confidence. That's what they're
trying to do.
They're not going to shake my confidence, I just want you to
know. I understand their tactics and I know their designs. But I
also believe that Iraqis can and want to self-govern. That's what I
believe. And so when you see me make decisions, or make statements
like I make, you've got to understand it's coming from a basic set
of beliefs. That's what I believe. And that's what a decision-maker
ought to do. The decision-maker ought to make decisions based upon
deep-seeded beliefs. You don't need a President chasing polls and
focus groups in order to make tough decisions. You need Presidents
who make decisions based upon sound principle.
Now, people may not agree with the decisions; I understand that.
But I hope after this talk, those of you who didn't agree at least
know I'm making my decisions based on something I believe deep in my
soul, and something that's worked in the past. Democracies have
yielded the peace. I believe 30 years form now, people are going to
look back at this moment and say, thank goodness a generation of
Americans stood up and said, we have faith in democracy, faith in
democracy to lay the foundation for peace, and an American President
will be discussing issues of peace with duly-elected leaders in the
Middle East, and our children will be better off for it.
And I want to tell you one anecdote now that you've got me wound
up. (Laughter.) I sit down at the table with Prime Minister Koizumi.
I tell this story all the time, because one of my jobs is to go out
and explain to the American people the consequences of the decisions
that I have made and why I think it's in our interests. Koizumi and
I are not only good friends, but we're partners in peace. We talk
about a variety of issues -- North Korea is an issue, we talk -- you
know, he's got 1,000 troops in Iraq. Isn't that amazing, when you
think about it? Because he understands the benefits of democracy in
the broader Middle East. We're close friends.
Sixty years ago -- it seems like an eternity for a lot of people,
I recognize that, but it's not that long ago -- my dad fought the
Japanese, and so did your relatives. They were the sworn enemy of
the United States of America. I find it an unbelievable part of
history that I am now sitting down at the table with the Prime
Minister of Japan talking about the peace, and my dad fought them.
And so what happened? What happened was, Japan adopted a
Japanese-style democracy. That's what happened. And now they're
peaceful. And they sit at the table with their former enemy. I think
that's a lesson worth listening to and understanding.
But I bet you after World War II there were great doubters as to
whether or not Harry Truman was doing the right thing to help Japan
become a democracy. I see Stevens nodding, he was there. Weren't
you? (Laughter.) Well, I wasn't. (Laughter.) But I'm reading a lot
about it. And I believe it's a lesson for all of us in this -- in
the 21st century. Spreading democracy is hard work. It's hard to
overcome sectarian division and torture. It's hard to overcome that.
But it's worth it, for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
Yes. Yes, ma'am. I'll get you over there. (Laughter.) Here in the
end zone. You're next.
Q Oh, I'm next.
THE PRESIDENT: No, you're not next -- she's next. (Laughter.)
Q I'm with Creative Associates, and we're one of the small
companies that has the honor to work in Iraq, so today is a real
honor to be here. As you were mentioning all the steps that we're
going to have to go through in the near future, I'm still very
concerned that we might not be concentrating on the suffering of the
children.
THE PRESIDENT: In Iraq?
Q In Iraq. So I would like to be sure that as the different
programs get processed that we don't give up on the children.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you very much. Our soldiers are good
Samaritans. They're unbelievable. I see pictures all the time from
family members of our soldiers in Iraq of their loved one showing
compassion to children. No question, I'm concerned about the
children in Iraq, as well. So our -- we've got people in the field
who care about the children, too. The truth of the matter is, if you
care about the children of Iraq, then you would want to make sure
that Iraq doesn't slip back into tyranny. Thousands of children lost
their parents because of Saddam Hussein.
And so I want to thank you for your work. It's very important for
the security situation to improve so that NGOs, people of
compassion, are able to help lift lives. But there's a lot of work
to be done. There's just a lot of work to be done. Same in
Afghanistan. First of all, we've rebuilt thousands of schools in
Iraq, as we have in Afghanistan, as well. And the world is more
hopeful as the result of the liberation of these people. Afghanistan
-- it's obvious -- when you have a society in which young girls
weren't allowed to go to school because the Taliban thought it was
like against humanity to send girls to school, and now they can,
there's an amazing change in that society.
But I readily can see there's a lot of work left to be done. It's
-- there's no such thing as instant success. I told you that -- and
by the way, after World War II, Germany and Japan took a while to
rebuild, and it took a while for those societies to become stable
societies. It just takes a while.
Our march, by the way, between revolution, liberation, and
Constitution wasn't all that smooth either. And, frankly, our
adhering to the full extent of the liberties embedded in the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence took a while. I realize
that when I talk to my Secretary of State. We were -- we had people
enslaved in the United States for a century. It takes a while. It's
hard work. And the fundamental question the American people have to
answer is, is it worth it? You've got my position. It absolutely is
worth it.
Freedom is contagious, by the way. As liberty begins to spread in
the Middle East more people will demand it. And we should not shirk
our duty, nor should we be afraid to encourage reformers. The worst
thing that could happen, in my judgment, for the peace of the world
is for the United States to lose our nerve and retreat. And there's
-- anyway.
Thank you. You've been very anxious. This better be a good one.
Yes, you've been waving and yelling over there. (Laughter.) Waving,
yelling, stomping your feet. It's a free society. That's what
happens. (Laughter.)
Q I'm Iraqi-American.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I think based on what -- over 30
years of Saddam's oppression and the regime in Iraq, and also based
on the belief that you have, as an Iraqi mother, Iraqi-American
mother and a woman -- and I went back two years ago -- I worked for
a year -- there's always that concern and still worrisome. These are
beautiful messages, yet there's a big gap that crosses that ocean.
It never gets to the Iraqi, to the simple man, Iraqis facing
despair, disillusionments, all kinds of things. I speak to Iraqi
friends and families on daily basis. This is what their message is.
We hear of these things, but we don't see it. It doesn't get to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, tangible results on the street, right.
Q But it's not only us, Mr. President. It's not only that. It
doesn't reach them in any kind of media, unfortunately. So how can
we do that? I've been wondering about this, and you are the only
person, I think, who can maybe do something.
THE PRESIDENT: Talk to the Iraqi people?
Q Talk to someone, talk to the Iraqi, relay that message that we
are honest, we have great beliefs, and we want to do something.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. First of all, I've got
great confidence in the people of Iraq. Iraqis are entrepreneurial,
they're well-educated, they're peace-loving. Iraq mothers want their
children to grow up in a peaceful world. That's what mothers want
all over the world.
And so I -- what my concern is, is that the tangible benefits of
democracy aren't reaching into people's pockets yet. I mean, there's
got to be a direct correlation with someone's lifestyle, someone's
standard of living, and a style of government. And that's one of the
things that people who push freedom understand. I mean, there's got
to be -- people got to see the direct benefits at some point in time
about being free. One direct benefit is that there's not going to be
a central government summarily pulling you out of society and
killing you if need be. That's the biggest benefit.
But there also has to be tangible benefits on the street. I try
to speak to the Iraqi people all the time. Sometimes the message
gets through the filters, sometimes it doesn't. I want them to hear
a couple of things. I want the Iraqi people to hear I've got great
confidence in their capacity to self-govern. I also want to hear the
-- the Iraqi people to hear it's about time you get a unity
government going. In other words, Americans understand newcomers to
the political arena, but pretty soon it's time to shut her down and
get governing.
I want the Iraqi people to hear that we care deeply about the
individuals in Iraq, regardless of their religion. That's what we
care about. And we want them to worship freely. I like the fact in
Iraq that there's a burgeoning free press, there's a lot of press,
which is a positive sign. It's a healthy indication. I also want the
Iraqis to hear that while there's a political debate going on here
in America, I believe in what we're doing, and we're not going to
leave prematurely; that we have got a mission, along with the
Iraqis, and that is to secure a country for its democracy and help
them defend themselves, deny al Qaeda a safe haven, and have an ally
in the war on terror.
And so I thank you for that admonition for me to speak out to the
Iraqi people. I try to do it as much as I possibly can.
Yes, ma'am. Ambassador, you want to ask a question next?
Q Good afternoon, Mr. President. I'm glad to see you here
speaking today. I have a question about the immigration issue that's
going on right now. And I'm just curious -- the Senate will probably
pass a measure, the House has already passed a measure. And I'm
curious what kinds of components are you looking for in an
immigration bill that you can support? And how do you reconcile a
guest worker for undocumented residents who are here, versus those
who are on line and in the system waiting five and 10 years to get
here?
THE PRESIDENT: No, that's a great question. Thanks. It's
obviously topic du jour. (Laughter.) Pretty fancy, huh? Topic du
jour? (Laughter.) I don't want to ruin the image. (Laughter.)
I believe there ought to be three components to good immigration
law. First of all, I hope we get a bill out of the Senate. There's
one out of the House. It goes to what's called conference. And
here's my suggestions: One, that we're a nation of law, and we ought
to enforce our borders. Both the House and the Senate passed good
border enforcement measures. We're modernizing or upgrading our
border. We recognize that it's important to have more Border Patrol,
which we do. But the Border Patrol needs additional tools in order
to do their job. We're talking about long borders. It's a subject
I'm quite familiar with since I was the governor of a state that had
a long border with Mexico. And so the American people have got to
know that we'll enforce law.
Secondly, we've got to enforce -- and by the way, part of
enforcing law means to make sure that when somebody is caught coming
into our country illegally, they're not let back out in society. We
had a real issue with detention beds, particularly for non-Mexican
illegal people coming in. We'd catch people from Central America.
And people worked hard. They spotted people being smuggled across.
They were detained -- the people being smuggled across. They said,
check in with your immigration officer in 15 days, and nobody did.
And so now we've added a number of detention beds and are working
for expedited removal procedures with the countries in Central
America. As far as the Mexican folks sneaking in the border, they're
sent back very quickly back into their country.
Since 2001, believe it or not, we've stopped six million people
trying to sneak into our country -- an amazing statistic. It's a
lot. Secondly, there's got to be better interior enforcement. But
it's very difficult to enforce -- get an employer to enforce the law
when the employer is uncertain as to whether or not the
documentation being presented for the needed worker is legal.
It turns out -- what's very interesting is that when you deny --
when you make something illegal and there's a demand for it, people
find ways around it. That's why you've got a whole smuggling
industry called coyotes. That's why you've got unbelievable document
forging going on. That's why there's tunnels. I mean, there's
imaginative ways by people -- by unscrupulous people to take
advantage of people who are coming here to do an honest day's work.
Thirdly, my judgment is you cannot enforce the border without
having a temporary guest worker program. The two go hand-in-hand.
There are people doing jobs Americans will not do. Many people who
have come into our country are helping our economy grow. That's just
a fact of life. And I believe that we ought to say to somebody doing
a job an American won't do, here is a tamper-proof identity card
that will enable you to be here for a period of time. And if that
person wants to become a citizen of the United States, because we're
a nation of law, they get at the end of the line, not the beginning
of the line.
I also believe -- and the Senate is working through different
measures to say to the person getting in the line, there's a
consequence for being here illegally. Now, if Congress believes that
the line is too long, or that we should facilitate people's capacity
to then get a green card and become a citizen, increase the number
of green cards. But people who have been here legally should not be
penalized by someone who's been here illegally.
And so I'd like to tell the American people we are a nation of
law, but that doesn't preclude us from being a welcoming nation. I
think a system which forces people underground and into the shadows
of our society, which causes people to have to sneak across our
border and risk their life, is a system that needs to be changed.
I also know -- and I used to tell this to people down there in
Texas -- family values don't stop at the Rio Grande River. If you're
a mother or a father who's worried about putting food on the table
and you're living in an impoverished America and you know there's a
job that Americans won't do here, you'll come to do it, for the sake
of your family. And therefore, I think it makes sense to have a
temporary worker program that says you're not an automatic citizen,
to help, one, enforce the border, and two, uphold the decency of
America. If our Border Patrol agents don't have to focus on people
trying to sneak across to get a job, they will be able to be more
focused on people smuggling drugs, smuggling guns, smuggling
terrorists.
And so I look forward to the debate. I'm going to say again what
I've said before on this debate. It's very important for all of us
in this debate to conduct ourselves with the following principles in
mind: One, we're a nation of immigrants; two, our soul is refreshed
by newcomers to our society; three, we love the idea of people
starting with nothing and ending up with something in America; four,
we value family values, no matter where they may be; and five, we've
got to be careful about the language we use when it comes to
debating this important subject. People should not pit neighbor
against neighbor, group of people against group of people in our
country. Ours is a nation that's able to assimilate people because
we believe in human rights and human dignity of all.
Final question.
Q Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, two questions. Please, ma'am. You're last.
You're the last guy. You're the closer. (Laughter.) It's a baseball
term. Yes, you're the closer. You've been persistent. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you, Mr. President, and I think I sprained my arm trying
to get your attention. The main reason for that is because I think I
speak for the unheard people. I'm a Palestinian. My name is Bushra
(phonetic) and I come from a refugee camp and I'm currently working
at the World Bank.
THE PRESIDENT: Welcome.
Q Thank you. What can I say to my cousins, my friends, people in
the streets who are asking, why is the United States punishing us
and cutting funds for people who choose fair and free elections? I
think the National Endowment for Democracy has characterized it as
the text book, fair and free elections. Then why are we punishing
the people -- I don't mean the government -- the people of Palestine
-- the refugees, the poor, the malnourished mothers and children?
THE PRESIDENT: Great question. Thank you for asking it. Just to
step back, I believe I'm the first President to have articulated the
-- my desires for there to be a Palestinian state living at peace
with Israel. And I still think it's a real possibility for that to
happen. I believe democracies don't war with each other, and I
believe a Palestinian democracy is in the interests of the
Palestinian people, the Israelis, and the rest of the world.
Secondly, I think that aid should go to suffering Palestinians,
but nor should it go to a government, however, which has expressed
its desire to destroy its neighbor. If the goal of the United States
is two states living side-by-side in peace, and one government
elected says, we want to destroy one of the parties, it makes no
sense for us to support that government. We support the election
process, we support democracy, but that doesn't mean we have to
support governments that get elected as a result of democracy.
Now, the Palestinians must make a choice as to whether or not it
makes sense for them to have a government that says they want to
destroy their neighbor. I don't think it does. As a matter of fact,
I think it's important for governments to say, we want to work out
our differences in a peaceful way. But I am concerned about the
suffering Palestinian people. I think the U.S. government has got
aid that goes directly to people. And I know that we'll continue to
call upon governments in the region to support the Palestinian
people.
I weep about the suffering of the Palestinians. I particularly
weep about the fact that the leadership has let them down for year
after year after year. And now is the time for strong leaders to
stand up and say, we want the people to -- we want the people to
decide. And I was pleased that there was an election in the
Palestinian territories, and I agree with you that the elections
were good elections. And -- but now the government has to make a
choice, and we will continue to watch very carefully about the
choice they make.
Final question. Then I'm going down to be with the President of
Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada -- Cancun. (Laughter.) No
Speedo suit here. (Laughter.) Thankfully. (Laughter.)
Q Ready?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sorry to interrupt you. Just testing your
concentration. (Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, I am on the board of trustees of Freedom House.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for having me.
Q My -- you mentioned about Iraq.
THE PRESIDENT: Iraq?
Q About Iraq, the effect of leaving prematurely and the issue it
would cause. Is there an opportunity right now to perhaps supplement
the American forces and perhaps finally to replace them with a
strong, large, broad-based troops, security forces of Muslim
countries from North Africa, from Middle East, South Asia, Southeast
Asia, who could go in there and then perhaps help in the situation?
Because Iraq -- a disaster in Iraq is a disaster for the whole
region.
THE PRESIDENT: That's a really good question. I think the
preferred strategy is to spend time and efforts on getting the
Iraqis stood up so they can defend themselves. At some point in
time, the Iraqi citizens are going to have to make the conscious
decision that democracy is worth defending. And I appreciate the
efforts of some in the Arab world to help train Iraqi police, like
the Jordanian academy. There is support for training amongst
different Arab nations, as there is from NATO. And the fundamental
question is, what will expedite the situation so that the Iraqis are
fully prepared to do their job?
So the question -- I would reverse your question and say, are we
prepared to have others help the Iraqis defend themselves? And the
answer is, absolutely. But the Iraqis must be encouraged to continue
to take the lead. And that's a measurable part of our progress on
the ground, more territories controlled by Iraqis. The marsh I just
described to you was policed by, or guarded by Iraqi units who were
in the lead. That Tal Afar example I used the other day talked about
the Iraqi divisions in the lead that helped secure this city.
The ultimate solution for Iraq is for there to be a unity
government which brings people confidence, one that unites different
factions, thereby marginalizing the rejectionists, but also making
sure the Iraqi army is prepared to do what is needs to do, as well
as a police force.
When we first got in there, we said, well, let's prepare an Iraqi
army for an outside threat. It turns out it wasn't necessary. The
biggest threat was inside the country. And so we adjusted our
strategy and started training Iraqis so that they are prepared to be
able to defend sectors of their country. And now the big -- Senator
Warner came and briefed us at the White House the other day. He said
-- and this is what the General is telling me, as well -- we've made
good progress in training the Iraqi army. The problem is the Iraqi
police force. And there is a national police force, which is more
efficient that local police forces. It still needs to make sure
there are coalition troops embedded in the police force to make sure
that these police understand that there's -- you don't seek reprisal
as a police force. You've got to earn the confidence of all people,
no matter what their religion is. And we're still working with local
police forces.
So in due respect, I think the question is, how do we expedite
more Iraqis to earn the confidence of the Iraqi people. We're
dealing with a shattered confidence. There's a sense that, they may
leave us, or our guys aren't prepared to provide security. And the
quicker we can get the Iraqis stood up and trained, the faster the
Iraqi people will have confidence not only in their own security
situation, but in their government.
And so thanks for the suggestion. Listen, I've enjoyed it, I hope
you have. God bless. (Applause.)
END 2:22 P.M. EST
|