President Bush Discusses Top Priorities for the U.S.
Press Conference of the President
10:33 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Good morning. I was hoping it would be
a little hotter here to prepare the traveling team for the Crawford
experience this August. But thank you for coming.
I'm looking forward to going down to Texas, and I know the members
will be going back to their districts. As I travel around the country
from Crawford I'm going to be focused on two vital concerns for our
country -- first, the safety of the American people, and the economic
security of the American people.
On national security front, it has been 90 days since the end of
the major combat operations in Iraq. The nation has been liberated
from tyranny and is on the path to self-government and peace. The
Iraqi governing council is meeting regularly. Local police forces are
now being trained. And citizens are being recruited into a new Iraqi
military -- a military that will protect the Iraqi people instead of
intimidating them. Soon representatives of the people will begin
drafting a new constitution and free elections will follow. After
decades of oppression, the people of Iraq are reclaiming their country
and are reclaiming their future.
Conditions in most of Iraq are growing more peaceful. Some areas,
however, the violent remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, joined by
terrorists and criminals, are making a last attempt to frighten the
Iraqi people and to undermine the resolve of our coalition. They will
fail. Our coalition forces are taking the fight to the enemy in an
unrelenting campaign that is bringing daily results. Saddam Hussein's
sons did not escape the raids, and neither will other members of that
despicable regime.
By taking the offensive against desperate killers, Americans in
uniform are assuming great risks for our country. The American people
are proud of our Armed Forces, and we are grateful for their sacrifice
and their service in fighting the war on terror. We also appreciate
the military families who share in the hardship and uncertainties of
this essential mission.
The rise of a free and peaceful Iraq is critical to the stability
of the Middle East, and a stable Middle East is critical to the
security of the American people. As the blanket of fear is lifted, as
Iraqis gain confidence that the former regime is gone forever, we will
gain more cooperation in our search for the truth in Iraq.
We know that Saddam Hussein produced and possessed chemical and
biological weapons, and has used chemical weapons. We know that. He
also spent years hiding his weapons of mass destruction programs from
the world. We now have teams of investigators who are hard at work to
uncover the truth.
The success of a free Iraq will also demonstrate to other countries
in that region that national prosperity and dignity are found in
representative government and free institutions. They are not found in
tyranny, resentment, and for support of terrorism. As freedom advances
in the Middle East, those societies will be less likely to produce
ideologies of hatred and produce recruits for terror.
The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq,
and we'll complete our mission in Afghanistan. We'll keep our word to
the peoples of those nations. We'll wage the war on terror against
every enemy who plots against our forces and our people. I will never
assume the restraint and goodwill of dangerous enemies when lives of
our American citizens are at risk.
My administration is also acting to ensure the economic security of
the American people. Paychecks are already reflecting the reduction in
income tax rates, which is providing relief to millions of taxpayers
and small businesses. American families have begun to receive checks
from a $400-per-child increase in the child tax credit. This time when
we say, the check is in the mail, we mean it.
Through our higher expense deduction, small businesses have an
incentive to speed up purchases of new equipment. We're beginning to
see hopeful signs of faster growth in the economy, which over time will
yield new jobs. Yet the unemployment rate is still too high. We will
not rest until Americans looking for work can find a job.
To strengthen the economic security of the people, Congress needs
to pass a sound energy bill, to make sure that our households and
businesses have a reliable, affordable supply of energy. Congress
needs to pass legal reforms to cut down on the frivolous lawsuits that
provide a drag to our economy. Congress needs to approve reemployment
accounts to help citizens who have the toughest time finding work.
Congress needs to make sure that the child credit is refundable for
lower-income families. We must continue pursuing an aggressive,
pro-growth strategy that creates jobs throughout our economy.
Economic security for America's seniors is threatened by the rising
cost of prescription drugs. I'm pleased that both houses of Congress
have responded by passing separate bills, providing prescription drug
coverage under Medicare. It's absolutely essential that the House and
the Senate resolve their differences and enact a piece of legislation I
can sign. The lack of coverage for prescription drugs and many
preventative treatments is a major gap in Medicare that denies some of
our seniors the latest and best medicine. We must keep the promise of
Medicare by giving our seniors better coverage and better choices.
I congratulate the House and the Senate on a productive legislative
session -- so far. I also look forward to working with the members
this coming fall on the priorities for the American people.
And now I'll be glad to answer some questions. Tom. And we'll
work our way around. There's no need for any unrestrained yelling.
(Laughter.)
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, now with the deaths
of the sons of Saddam Hussein and the capture of his chief bodyguard,
what can you tell us about how close we might be to actually capturing
or killing Saddam himself? And how important would that be to ending
the war and stopping the violence against American troops? And what do
you say to those troops who fought long and hard and now are eager to
come home, given the fact that it's hard to find other countries to
send in troops that could serve as replacements?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Tom, I'm getting a little older, so when you
ask four or five questions, it's hard for me to remember every
question.
First, we do have a good rotation plan in place now for our
troops. This 3rd I.D., which has conducted a lot of the major military
operations at the beginning of the war, has now got a definite time in
which they are coming home. And that in itself is a positive
development. There was some concern amongst family members of the 3rd
I.D. that they were getting mixed signals. And I understand that. And
now it's clear as to their rotation plan.
And, by the way, as we rotate, we'll be changing the nature of the
military configuration to be more of a -- to have more of a -- the
capacity to move very quickly and to strike quickly, because our
intelligence is getting better on the ground, as we're able to pick
targets, able to enrich targets and move quickly on the targets.
What other aspects of the -- I told you, I warned you, I'm getting
older.
Q I asked you how close we are to catching --
THE PRESIDENT: Catching Saddam Hussein, that's right. Yes.
Q -- and how important it is to --
THE PRESIDENT: Listen -- right, thank you. Of course, it's
important that the -- that Saddam's sons were brought to justice. It
changes attitudes in Iraq. People didn't believe that the Baathist
regime was going to be gone forever. They felt like -- you would hear
reports of Baathists, former Baathist officials saying to Iraqi
citizens, listen, the Americans will grow stale and tired, they'll
leave and, by the way, we'll come back. And when we come back, we'll
come back with a vengeance if you help in the reconstruction of the
country. So, needless to say, when two of the most despicable henchmen
of the Saddam Hussein regime met their fate, the Baathist claim that at
least these two will come back and haunt the citizen is -- rings
hollow.
I don't know how close we are to getting Saddam Hussein. You know
-- it's closer than we were yesterday, I guess. All I know is we're on
the hunt. It's like if you had asked me right before we got his sons
how close we were to get his sons, I'd say, I don't know, but we're on
the hunt.
And so we're making progress. It's slowly but surely making
progress of bringing the -- those who terrorize their fellow citizens
to justice, and making progress about convincing the Iraqi people that
freedom is real. And as they become more convinced that freedom is
real, they'll begin to assume more responsibilities that are required
in a free society.
Steve.
Q Thank you, sir. Homeland Security is warning against possible
hijackings this summer. How serious is this threat, and what can you
do about it? How can Americans feel safe?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, first of all, the war on terror goes
on, as I continually remind people. In other words, there are still al
Qaeda remnants that have designs on America. The good news is that we
are, one, dismantling the al Qaeda organization; and, two, we're
learning more information about their plans as we capture more people.
And the threat is a real threat. It's a threat that where -- we
obviously don't have specific data, we don't know when, where, what.
But we do know a couple of things. We do know that al Qaeda tends to
use the methodologies that worked in the past. That's kind of their
mind-set. And we have got some data that indicates that they would
like to use flights, international flights, for example.
Now, what we can do is we can be -- obviously, at home, continue to
be diligent on the inspection process of baggage, as well as making
sure those who board aircraft are properly screened. And, obviously,
we're talking to foreign governments and foreign airlines to indicate
to them the reality of the threat. We're conscience of folks flying --
getting lists of people flying into our country and matching them now
with a much improved database. International flights coming into
America must have hardened cockpit doors, which is a positive
development.
Being on alert means that we contact all who are responsible, who
have got positions of responsibility. And so we're focusing on the
airline industry right now. And we've got reason to do so. And I'm
confident we will thwart the attempts.
You know, let me talk about al Qaeda just for a second. I made the
statement that we're dismantling senior management, and we are. Our
people have done a really good job of hauling in a lot of the key
operators: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi -- Ramzi al
Shibh, or whatever the guy's name was. (Laughter.) Sorry, Ramzi, if I
got it wrong. (Laughter.) Binalshibh, excuse me. Swift Sword is
dead, thanks to the Saudis. Abu Bakr is now captured by the Saudis.
We're dismantling the operating -- decision-makers.
We've got more to do. And the American people need to know, we're
not stopping. We've got better intelligence-gathering, better
intelligence-sharing, and we're on the hunt. And we will stay on the
hunt. The threat that you asked about, Steve, reminds us that we need
to be on the hunt, because the war on terror goes on.
John.
Q Mr. President, thank you. You met yesterday with the Saudi
Foreign Minister, who wants the administration to declassify these 27
or 28 pages about his government in this report on 9/11. Many members
of Congress, including several Republicans, say they see nothing, or at
least most of the materials, in their view, could be made public. Can
you tell us, is there any compromise in sight on this, and could you at
least summarize the material in that classified document? Is there, as
some members of Congress say, material that you could read and have an
incriminating view of the Saudi government when it comes to 9/11?
THE PRESIDENT: John, the Foreign Minister did come and speak to
me. And I told him this: I said, we have an ongoing investigation
about what may or may not have taken place prior to September the
11th. And therefore, it is important for us to hold this information
close so that those who are being investigated aren't alerted.
I also told him, in the document, that if we were to reveal the
content of the document, 29-pages of a near 900-page report, it would
reveal sources and methods. By that, I mean it would show people how
we collect information and on whom we're collecting information, which,
in my judgment, and in the judgment of senior law enforcement officials
in my administration, would be harmful on the war against terror.
I just described to you that there is a threat to the United
States. And I also said, we're doing a better job of sharing
intelligence and collecting data so we're able to find -- able to
anticipate. And what we really don't want to do, it doesn't make sense
to me -- seem like to me is to reveal those sources and methods.
Now, at some point in time, as we make progress on the
investigation, and as a threat to our national security diminishes,
perhaps we can put out the document. But in my judgment, now is not
the time to do so.
And I made that clear to him. And I will be glad -- I'm making it
clear to members of Congress. I want to remind you that -- sure, some
have spoken out, but others have agreed with my position, like the
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. So there's a different
point of view. My point of view, however, since I'm in charge of
fighting the war on terror is that we won't reveal sources and methods
that will compromise our efforts to succeed.
Campbell.
Q Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al Qaeda were a key part of
your justification for war. Yet, your own intelligence report, the
NIE, defined it as -- quote -- "low confidence that Saddam would give
weapons to al Qaeda." Were those links exaggerated to justify war? Or
can you finally offer us some definitive evidence that Saddam was
working with al Qaeda terrorists?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think, first of all, remember I just said
we've been there for 90 days since the cessation of major military
operations. Now, I know in our world where news comes and goes and
there's this kind of instant -- instant news and you must have done
this, you must do this yesterday, that there's a level of frustration
by some in the media. I'm not suggesting you're frustrated. You don't
look frustrated to me at all. But it's going to take time for us to
gather the evidence and analyze the mounds of evidence, literally, the
miles of documents that we have uncovered.
David Kaye came to see me yesterday. He's going to testify in
closed hearing tomorrow -- which in Washington may not be so closed, as
you know. And he was telling me the process that they were going
through to analyze all the documentation. And that's not only to
analyze the documentation on the weapons programs that Saddam Hussein
had, but also the documentation as to terrorist links.
And it's just going to take awhile, and I'm confident the truth
will come out. And there is no doubt in my mind, Campbell, that Saddam
Hussein was a threat to the United States security, and a threat to
peace in the region. And there's no doubt in my mind that a free Iraq
is important. It's got strategic consequences for not only achieving
peace in the Middle East, but a free Iraq will help change the habits
of other nations in the region who will make it -- which will make
America much more secure.
John.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Building sort of on that idea,
it's impossible to deny that the world is a better place in the region,
certainly a better place without Saddam Hussein. But there's a sense
here in this country, and a feeling around the world, that the U.S. has
lost credibility by building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy
or, some people have complained, non-existent evidence. And I'm just
wondering, sir, why did you choose to take the world to war in that
way?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, look, in my line of work, it's always
best to produce results. And I understand that. The -- for a while
the questions were, could you conceivably achieve a military victory in
Iraq? You know, the dust storms have slowed you down. And I was a
patient man because I realized that we would be successful in achieving
our military objective.
Now, of course, the question is, will Iraq ever be free, and will
it be peaceful? And I believe it will. I remind some of my friends
that it took us a while to go from the Articles of Confederation to the
United States Constitution. Even our own experiment with democracy
didn't happen overnight. I never have expected Thomas Jefferson to
emerge in Iraq in a 90-day period.
And so, this is going to take time. And the world will see what I
mean when I say, a free Iraq will help peace in the Middle East, and a
free Iraq will be important for changing the attitudes of the people in
the Middle East. A free Iraq will show what is possible in a world
that needs freedom, in a part of the world that needs freedom.
Let me finish for a minute, John, please. Just getting warmed up.
I'm kind of finding my feet. (Laughter.)
Saddam Hussein was a threat. The United Nations viewed him as a
threat. That's why they passed 12 resolutions. Predecessors of mine
viewed him as a threat. We gathered a lot of intelligence. That
intelligence was good, sound intelligence on which I made a decision.
And in order to placate the critics and the cynics about intentions
of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully
understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that
which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program. I want to
remind you, he actually used his weapons program on his own people at
one point in time, which is pretty tangible evidence. But I'm
confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right
decision.
Hold on for a second. You're through. John.
Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, many of your supporters
believe that homosexuality is immoral. They believe that it's been
given too much acceptance in policy terms and culturally. As someone
who's spoken out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on
homosexuality?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I
caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye
when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our
society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts,
to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that
somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And
that's really where the issue is heading here in Washington, and that
is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage.
I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we
ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers
looking at the best way to do that.
Stevenson.
Q Thank you, sir. Since taking office you signed into law three
major tax cuts -- two of which have had plenty of time to take effect,
the third of which, as you pointed out earlier, is taking effect now.
Yet, the unemployment rate has continued rising. We now have more
evidence of a massive budget deficit that taxpayers are going to be
paying off for years or decades to come; the economy continues to shed
jobs. What evidence can you point to that tax cuts, at least of the
variety that you have supported, are really working to help this
economy? And do you need to be thinking about some other approach?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. No, to answer the last part of your
question. First of all, let me -- just a quick history, recent
history. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. Then
the first quarter of 2001 was a recession. And then we got attacked in
9/11. And then corporate scandals started to bubble up to the surface,
which created a -- a lack of confidence in the system. And then we had
the drumbeat to war. Remember on our TV screens -- I'm not suggesting
which network did this -- but it said, "March to War," every day from
last summer until the spring -- "March to War, March to War." That's
not a very conducive environment for people to take risk, when they
hear, "March to War" all the time.
And yet our economy is growing. In other words, what I'm telling
you is, is that we had a lot of obstacles to overcome. The '01 tax
cuts affected the recession this way, it was a shallow recession.
That's positive, because I care about people being able to find a job.
Someone said, well, maybe the recession should have been deeper in
order for the rebound to be quicker. My attitude is, a deeper
recession means more people would have been hurt. And I view the
actions we've taken as a jobs program, job creation program.
Secondly, there are hopeful signs. I mean, most economists believe
that over the next 18 months we'll see positive economic growth.
Interest rates are low; housing starts are strong; manufacturing
indexes are improving.
There are other things we can do in Washington. As I said, we need
an energy bill. We certainly need tort reform. I think the class
action reform that's moved out of the House and into the Senate is
something can be done, and it ought to be done quickly. In other
words, what I'm saying to you is, is that there's still work to do.
But I'm optimistic about the future, and I believe you'll see more jobs
created, and that's going to be good for the country.
Jim Rosen.
Q Thank you, sir. You just explained that your approach to
your job is to try to produce results. It has been roughly a year
since North Korea apprised the United States government that it is
seeking to reactivate its nuclear weapons program. In that year, you
and your aides have repeatedly said that you seek a diplomatic approach
to that problem. And yet, over that year, all we've seen from the
North Koreans are more bellicose statements and more steps taken to add
to their stockpile of nuclear weapons that they already have. What can
you point to in the record over the last year by your administration,
for Americans to look at and say, this President has produced results?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think that one of the things that is
important to understand in North Korea is that the past policy of
trying to engage bilaterally didn't work. In other words, the North
Koreans were ready to engage, but they didn't keep their word on their
engagement. And that ought to be a clear signal to policymakers of
what to expect with North Korea.
Secondly, in my judgment, the best way to convince the North
Koreans to change their attitude about a nuclear weapons program is to
have others in the neighborhood assume responsibility, alongside the
United States. So this morning, interesting enough -- I'm glad you
asked that question, because I can tell you that I talked to Hu Jintao
this morning -- not anticipation of your question, but as part of an
ongoing process to encourage him to stay involved in the process of
discussions with Mr. Kim Jong-il, all attempting to say to him that it
is a -- it is not in his nation's interest to continue developing these
weapons and we would like to see him dismantle those weapons programs.
As well as, I told President Hu that I think it's very important
for us to get Japan and South Korea and Russia involved, as well. So
the progress that is being made is we're actually beginning to make
serious progress about sharing responsibility on this issue in such a
way that I believe will lead to an attitudinal change by Kim Jong-il,
which will be very positive for peace in the region.
Q Thank you, Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Kate.
Q That's right. Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: How long have you been -- how long have you been in
the press corps? You look like you just came.
Q Last week was my first week.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, congratulations.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Be careful whose company you're keeping, though.
(Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, you often speak about the need for
accountability in many areas. I wonder then, why is Dr. Condoleezza
Rice not being held accountable for the statement that your own White
House has acknowledged was a mistake in your State of the Union address
regarding Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium? And also, do you take
personal responsibility for that inaccuracy?
THE PRESIDENT: I take personal responsibility for everything I
say, of course. Absolutely. I also take responsibility for making
decisions on war and peace. And I analyzed a thorough body of
intelligence -- good, solid, sound intelligence -- that led me to come
to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from
power.
We gave the world a chance to do it. We had -- remember there's --
again, I don't want to get repetitive here, but it's important to
remind everybody that there was 12 resolutions that came out of the
United Nations because others recognized the threat of Saddam Hussein.
Twelve times the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions in
recognition of the threat that he posed. And the difference was, is
that some were not willing to act on those resolutions. We were --
along with a lot of other countries -- because he posed a threat.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice is an honest, fabulous person. And America is
lucky to have her service. Period.
Michael Allen.
Q Mr. President, with no opponent, how can you spend $170
million or more on your primary campaign?
THE PRESIDENT: Just watch. (Laughter.) Keep going.
Q Yes, sir. And with 15 fundraisers scheduled between -- for
the summer months, do you worry about the perception that you're unduly
attentive to the interests of people who can afford to spend $2,000 to
see you?
THE PRESIDENT: Michael, I think American people, now that they've
realized I'm going to seek reelection, expect me to seek reelection.
They expect me to actually do what candidates do. And so, you're
right, I'll be spending some time going out and asking the American
people to support me. But most of my time, as I say in my speeches --
as I'm sure you've been bored to tears listening to -- is that there is
a time for politics, and that's going to be later on. I've got a lot
to do. And I will continue doing my job. And my job will be to work
to make America more secure.
Steve asked a question about this al Qaeda possible attack. Every
day I am reminded that our nation is still vulnerable. Every day I'm
reminded about what 9/11 means to America. That's a lesson, by the
way, I'll never forget, the lesson of 9/11, because -- and I remember
right after 9/11 saying that this will be a different kind of war, but
it's a war, and sometimes there will be action, and sometimes there
won't, but we're still threatened. And I see that almost every day,
Mike. And therefore, that is a major part of my job.
And the other part of my job that I talked about is the economic
security of the American people. And I spend a lot of time on the
economy, going out and talking to the American people about the
economy, and will continue to do so.
But, no, listen, since I've made the decision to run, of course,
I'm going to do what candidates do. And we're having pretty good
success, which is -- it's kind of an interesting barometer, early
barometer, about the support we're garnering.
Keil, Jeanne, and then Larry. Keil. Stretch. Super Stretch.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said just a few moments
ago, and say frequently in your speeches, the deficit was caused
variously by the war, by recession, by corporate scandals, the 9/11
attacks. But just a couple of weeks ago, on July 15th, the Office of
Management and Budget put out a report saying that without the tax cuts
that Congress passed, the budget would be back in surplus by 2008, but
with those tax cuts factored in, we have deficits that year and further
years out of at least $200 billion -- to use the phrase, as far as the
eye can see. Aren't tax cuts in part responsible for the deficits, and
does fact concern you? Are we now in a period where we have deficits
as far as the eye can see?
THE PRESIDENT: We would have had deficits with or without tax
cuts, for this reason: The slowdown in the economy, the decline in the
stock market starting March of 2000, plus the recession, reduced the
amount of revenues coming into the federal treasury. Secondly, we
spent money on the war. And we spent money on homeland security. My
attitude is, if we're going to put our troops into harm's way, they
must have the very best. And there's no doubt we increased our budgets
on defense and homeland security. So there would be recessions.
And so, given the -- I mean, there would be deficits. So given the
fact that we're in a recession, which had it gone on longer than it did
could have caused even more revenues to be lost to the treasury, I had
a policy decision to make. And I made the decision to address the
recession by a tax cut. And so part of the deficit, no question, was
caused by taxes. About 25 percent of the deficit. The other 75 -- 50
percent caused by lack of revenues and 25 percent caused by additional
spending on the war on terror.
Now, we have laid out a plan which shows that the deficit will be
cut in half over the next five years. And that's good progress toward
deficit reduction. That's assuming Congress holds the line on
spending. I presented them with a 4-percent increase in the
discretionary budget, to help them hold the line on spending. They
passed the budget. Now they've got to meet the budget in their
appropriations process.
My first concern, Dick, was for those folks who couldn't find a
job. And I addressed unemployment and addressed economic stagnancy
with a tax cut that affected growth -- or the lack of growth -- in a
positive way. And I'm optimistic about our economy. But I'm not going
to stop working until people can find a job who are looking for work.
Jeanne.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Staying with that theme, although
there are some signs of improvement in the economy, there are sectors
in the work force who feel like they're being left behind. They're
concerned about jobs going overseas, that technology is taking over
jobs. And these people are finding difficulty finding work. And
although you're recommitted yourself to your tax cut policy, do you
have any ideas or any plans within the administration of what you might
do for these people who feel like there are fundamental changes
happening in the work force and in the economy?
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Listen, I fully understand what you're
saying. In other words, as technology races through the economy, a lot
of times worker skills don't keep up with technological change. And
that's a significant issue that we've got to address in the country.
I think my idea of reemployment accounts makes a lot of sense. In
essence, it says that you get $3,000 from the federal government to
help you with training, day care, transportation, perhaps moving to
another city. And if, within a period of time, you're able to find a
job, you keep the balance as a reemployment bonus.
I know the community colleges provide a very important role in
worker training, worker retraining. I look forward to working with our
community colleges through the Department of Education, coordinate
closely with states, particularly in those states in which technology
is changing the nature of the job force.
I've always found the community college -- and this is from my days
as the governor of Texas -- found the community college to be a very
appropriate place for job training programs because they're more
adaptable, their curriculums are easier to change, they're accessible.
Community colleges are all over the place.
And -- but you're right. I mean, I think we need to make sure that
people get the training necessary to keep up with the nature of the
jobs, as jobs change.
Lawrence. USA Today.
Q Mr. President, you've been involved now in the Mideast peace
process, and have certainly learned firsthand how developments like
creation of a fence can complicate progress. Based on that, when you
stood there about a year ago and proposed your road map, you spoke
about a Palestinian state in 2005. Do you think that goal is still
realistic, or is it likely to slide just because it's so hard to make
headway?
THE PRESIDENT: I do think it's realistic. I also know when we
start sliding goals, it makes progress less realistic. Absolutely, I
think it's realistic. And I think we're making pretty good progress in
a short period of time.
I'm impressed by Prime Minister Abbas' vision of a peaceful
Palestinian state. I believe him when he says that we must rout out
terror in order for a Palestinian state to exist. I believe he's
true. I think Mr. Dahlan, his Security Chief, also recognizes that.
And we've got to help those two leaders in a couple of ways to
realize that vision of a peaceful Palestinian state. One is to provide
help and strategy to Mr. Dahlan so that he can lead Palestinian
security forces to the dismantlement of bomb-making factories,
rocket-making factories, inside Gaza and the West Bank. That's going
to be a very important part of earning the confidence of the world, for
that matter. We've also got to recognize that there are things that
can happen on the ground that will strengthen Mr. Abbas' hand, relative
to the competition, moving -- for example, movement throughout the
country.
So I spent time talking to Prime Minister Sharon yesterday about
checkpoints. We discussed the difference between a checkpoint for
security purposes, and a checkpoint that might be there that's -- that
isn't -- there for inconvenience purposes. Let me put it to you that.
We talked about all the thorny issues. But the most important
thing is that we now have an interlocutor in Mr. Abbas who is committed
to peace, and who believes in the aspirations of the Palestinian
people.
One of the most interesting visits I've had on this issue took
place in the Oval Office there with the Finance Minister of the
Palestinian Authority. I was pleased to discover that he -- I think he
received a degree from the University of Texas, which gave me even more
confidence when he spoke. But he is a -- he talked about how a free
state, free country, will flourish when the Palestinians are just given
a chance.
See, he believes in the Palestinian people to the point where he's
willing to take risk for peace. As I understand it, he's put the
Palestinian budget on the web page. That's -- that's what we call
transparency in the diplomatic world. It means that he's willing to
show the finances to make it clear they're not stealing money -- is
another way to put it. That's a positive development, Larry.
So I -- what I first look at is attitudes. I also believe Prime
Minister Sharon is committed to a peaceful Palestinian state. He's
committed because he understands that I will in no way compromise the
security of the Israeli people, or the Palestinian people, for that
matter, to terror; that he knows when I say we're willing to fight
terror, we mean it, because we proved it.
I thought it was interesting yesterday, by the way, that he spoke
clearly about Iraq and the importance of Iraq in terms of Middle
Eastern peace, as well. And I believe he's right on that. I believe
that a free Iraq will make it easier to achieve peace in that part of
the world. I also know that we've got to get others in the
neighborhood to continue to remind certain countries that it will be
frowned upon if they destabilize the process.
The stated objective of Iran is the destruction of Israel, for
example. And we've got to work in a collective way with other nations
to remind Iran that they shouldn't develop a nuclear weapon. It's
going to require more than one voice saying that, however. It's going
to require a collective effort of the Europeans, for example, to
recognize the true threat of an armed Iran to achieving peace in the
Middle East. And -- but I'm pleased by the attitudes.
You know, when I was in Aqaba, I don't know if you remember, but I
asked Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Abbas to go outside. I
wanted to watch the body language, first and foremost, just to make
sure we weren't fooling ourselves, that when leaders commit to being
able to work with each, you can get a pretty good sense of that
commitment.
What was also interesting on the outside meeting -- I mean, it was
a very cordial discussion, and there was the desire for these leaders
to talk. And they have talked since the Aqaba meeting, and that's a
positive development. But what was also interesting, as Condi reported
to me later, to watch the discussions between the different -- both
Cabinets. And we were watching carefully to determine if there's the
will for peace. We have found a person who has got the will to work
for peace. And that's Prime Minister Abbas.
We'll work through the issues that are nettlesome. And there will
be some big issues that come along. But the first thing that has to
happen is the Palestinian people have got to realize there's hope in a
free society. And if they choose the leader that is most likely to --
choose to back the leader that is most likely to deliver that hope.
Carl.
Q I want to ask you about something else in your State of the
Union.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q You spoke and got great applause from both sides of the aisle
about a new initiative in Africa for AIDS. You mentioned the figure,
$15 billion over three years. When the AIDS community and some of the
activists got into the budget, they said when they saw your budget,
they said it was really a little less than that. And these
conversations have gone back and forth, and they said, really more like
$10 billion in new money. And then somebody told me it was really more
like $400 million for the first year. I want to ask you here, in the
Rose Garden, will you reiterate that $15-billion figure and make sure,
personally, that it's really delivered to Africa?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I will, Carl, absolutely, $15 billion. Now,
that's not new money. The person who said, it's $15 billion on top of
that which we're already -- $10 billion on top of that which we're
already spending equals the $15 billion. Secondly, there is some
discussion about the first year budget. In other words, we didn't send
a budget -- $15 billion over five -- we didn't send up $3 billion. We
sent up something less than $3 billion, because we didn't think the
program could ramp up fast enough to absorb that amount of money
early.
So it's not -- people then say, well, wait a minute, he doesn't
believe what he said. Well, that's just simply not true. As a matter
of fact, after my trip to Africa, I know we're doing the right thing,
even more.
But the OMB came up with a plan that allows for a smaller amount in
the beginning -- I think it's about a little less than $2.5 billion,
initially, and it ramps up more in the out-years, as the program is
capable of absorbing a lot of money.
You know, one of the things we looked for over there in Africa was
whether or not countries could absorb money. In other words, whether
-- for example, was the distribution system for antiretrovirals in
place? It doesn't make any sense to load up on antiretrovirals if the
distribution system won't get them out. In other words, there's some
things some countries have to do to prepare for the arrival of a lot of
money, and we recognize that, Carl.
The commitment is there, absolutely. And a matter of fact, we're
doing the right thing in Africa. The American people have got to
understand that we're a blessed country, and when we find the kind of
suffering that exists in Africa, we will help. And we are.
Q Liberia question?
THE PRESIDENT: You want to ask a Liberian question? Please do.
Q Thank you. Do you expect American troops to be landing in
any large force in Liberia soon? And how far can the U.S. go in other
international conflicts? When are we stretched too thin?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very good question. First of all, the
conditions that I laid out for the Liberian rescue mission still
exist. Charles Taylor must go, the cease-fire must be in place, and we
will be there to help ECOWAS. And so we're working to get those
conditions in place. And we will continue working to get them in place
until they are in place, at which point we will then take the necessary
steps to get ECOWAS in place, so that we can deliver aid and help to
suffering Liberians.
I also want to remind you, I also said the troop strength will be
limited, and the time frame will be limited. And we're working on
that. The idea, of course, is to go in, stabilize the situation, get
the NGOs moving back in to -- to their positions to be able to help
deliver aid, and then work immediately with the United Nations to
provide blue helmets -- maybe blue helmets, some of the ECOWAS forces
in place, provide other blue helmets; and that the United Nations would
then take up the peacekeeping mission, as well as the political
mission, in order to provide the framework for a transition to
democracy. And, hopefully, that will help stabilize the situation. I
think it will.
Hutch.
Q I wanted to ask you about Iran, one of your other countries in
the axis of evil. One of the things we learned from that march to war
is that when you start warning countries, they better pay attention.
Are we now in the early stages of a march to war in Iran? Or are they
more like in the category of North Korea?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I -- look, Hutch, I remember right after Iraq
the first thing that happened out of -- out of some writers' pens was
that, oh, no, they're getting ready to attack either Syria or Iran.
You know, the march to war is just a campaign that's just going to
march everywhere.
I -- all options remain on the table. I believe that the best way
to deal with the Iranians at this point in time is to convince others
to join us in a clear declaration that the development of a nuclear
weapon is not in their interests. I believe a free Iraq will affect
the lives of Iranians. I want to thank the diaspora here in the United
States, particularly in L.A. -- which reminds me, my last question is
going to Ed. And -- so you can prepare for it, Ed. We've got a lot
of our fellow citizens who are in e-mail contact, phone contact with
people who live throughout Iran. And I want to thank them for that.
Interestingly enough, there's a TV station that I think has been --
people have read about that is broadcast out of L.A. by one of our
citizens. He's -- he or she has footed the bill. It's widely
watched. The people of Iran are interested in freedom, and we stand by
their side. We stand on the side of those who are desperate for
freedom in Iran. We understand their frustrations in living in a
society that is totalitarian in nature. And now is the time for the
world to come together, Ron, to send a clear message.
And so I spent time with Prime Minister Berlusconi on the ranch,
and I talked to him about the need for the EU to send a very clear
message, along with the United States. As you know -- some of you have
been on the trips with me to Russia, and you remember me talking with
my friend Vladimir Putin about the need to be mindful of the Iranians'
desire to have nuclear weapon. We're making progress there. I really
believe that we can solve this issue peacefully, but this is an issue
that's going to require a concerted effort by nations around the world
to work with the United States, particularly in Europe, to speak
clearly to the Iranian administration.
The other thing that's interesting about Iran is that they do have
al Qaeda. They've admitted they got al Qaeda. Now, that's positive,
that the al Qaeda is not talking to anybody. I mean, I would rather
them be held somewhere other than out moving around, plotting and
planning. And I would just hope the Iranians would listen to the
request of countries in their neighborhood to turn them over. In other
words, some of the countries of origin for these al Qaeda operatives
have asked for those al Qaeda detainees to be sent back to the country
of origin. It would be very helpful for the Iranians to make that
decision.
Ed, last question.
Q Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a minute, please.
Q Good morning, Mr. President. Since California is on your
mind, I'd like to ask you about the recall campaign. Since you're not
only the leader of this country, but as someone who came into office
under extraordinarily partisan circumstances, do you view this recall,
which was funded almost entirely by one wealthy Republican who would
like to be governor, as a legitimate, democratic exercise? And do you
have a candidate in this fight, since one of the potential successors
is somebody you've backed before?
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, let me tell you how I view it. I've got a lot
of things on my mind, and I view it like a interested political
observer would view it. You know, it's kind of a -- we're not used to
recalls in Texas, for example, thankfully. I think that -- I think the
most important opinion is not mine, but it's the people of California.
Their opinion is what matters on a recall. It's their decision to
decide whether or not there will be a recall, which they decided. Now
they get to decide who the governor is going to be. And that's really
my only comment I've got.
Listen, thank you all very much for giving me a chance to come and
answer some of your questions. For those of you who are traveling to
Crawford, gosh, did you luck out. And we look forward to seeing you
there. (Laughter.) Thank you.