|
Podcast Directory: View All Podcasts by Rank
|
|
- Parental rating: Not applicable
- Links:
- Hosts: not available
- Show contact:
- Last update: not available
- Managing editor: not available
- Language: not available
- Skype:
|
|
Recent .rm files found by Blogdigger Recent .rm files found by Blogdigger
How did you like the show?
Report a problem
Reviews:
Episodes
 (0mb)
Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:58:00 EST
President Welcomes President Sirleaf of Liberia to the White House , FULL STREAMING VIDEO, The Oval Office, 11:58 A.M. EST In Focus: Global Diplomacy President George W. Bush welcomes Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to the Oval Office at the White House,  | Tuesday, March 21, 2006. President Sirleaf is the first woman elected President to any country on the continent of Africa. White House photo by Eric Draper. | PRESIDENT BUSH: It has been such an honor to welcome you, Madam President, to the Oval Office. I find that one of the interesting parts of my job is to be able to talk to pioneers, and Madam President, you're a pioneer. You're the first woman elected President to any country on the continent of Africa. And that requires courage, and vision, and the desire to improve the lives of your people. And I congratulate you on that.
You know, I can remember, it wasn't all that long ago that Laura -- that would be Laura Bush -- and Condi Rice came back from the inauguration of this good person. I said, okay, tell me what kind of person am I going to be dealing with? And they said: capable, smart, a person who is a doer, a person committed to a bright future for Liberia. And we welcome you.
The President and I have had a good discussion. We discussed ways that the United States government can help this country get on its feet toward a democracy. We talked about education. We talked about security. We talked about -- we also talked about the neighborhood. I asked the President her advice on a variety of issues. I told her that part of a friendship is one in which we can speak directly with each other about how best to deal with keeping the peace and making sure that health care initiatives are robust and effective. I also shared with her some of my thoughts about the world beyond the continent of Africa. So I -- we really had a good discussion.
And so, Madam President, thank you. I want to thank your delegation. Laura and I look forward to having you for lunch here in a little bit. All in all, I think it was a very good first visit.
PRESIDENT SIRLEAF: Mr. President, as I mentioned to you, on behalf of the Liberian people, I would like to thank you -- thank you, thank your administration, thank the American people, thank the U.S. Congress, for all the support that our country has received in making this important transition from war to peace.
Our people have new hope, they have new promise in the future as a result of the strong position you took that enabled us to get this opportunity for national renewal. We have taken the necessary first steps to restoring dignity to our people, starting to fix our economy, to get our international credibility and reputation back. And we're confident that Liberian people are ready to do what it takes. They're back at work; our country is open for business. We're beginning to put in all the processes that will enable us to manage our resources that God has been so good to us in giving us, for the good of our people.
We want you to know that Liberia is going to do all it can to justify the confidence that you have given to us. Liberia, we think, has the potential to become the U.S. success story in Africa. We'll be working within our own borders; we'll be working with our neighboring states to bring peace, stability and development to our sub-region; we'll be working with our African leaders to ensure that the example we set on this transition will be one that can fuse many of our -- many of our other countries and other people in Africa.
As the first democratic-elected woman, I represent the expectations and aspirations of women in Liberia, in Africa, and I dare say, the world. And I must be able to deliver for them. My performance must justify.
Again, I just want to thank you for the encouragement and the support that you have given us, to enable us to meet these enormous challenges of development.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, Madam President.
END 12:02 P.M. EST, For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, March 21, 2006
Related: Keywords: Liberia Thursday, March 16, 2006 President to Welcome President of the Republic of Liberia , Wednesday, January 18, 2006 First Lady After Liberia Inauguration ,
Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Condoleezza Rice and Liberian or Monrovia and Liberia or Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Africa
(0mb)
Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:15:00 EST
Daily Press Briefing, Spokesman Sean McCormack , FULL STREAMING VIDEO, file is real media format, running time is 35:57 PODCAST , file is MP3 for PODCAST, running time is 35:36 Washington, DC, March 22, 2006  | Department Spokesman Sean McCormack (shown during the Daily Press Briefing) was sworn in as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Department Spokesman on June 2, 2005. Immediately prior to returning to the State Department, | Mr. McCormack served as Special Assistant to the President, Spokesman for the National Security Council, and Deputy White House Press Secretary for Foreign Policy. State Department Photo by Michael Gross. TRANSCRIPT:, 1:00 p.m. EST
MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. How are you? Good. Well, I don't have any opening statements so I'll be happy to jump into whatever questions you want to start off with.
QUESTION: Well, Iran nuclear, if I could?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.
QUESTION: Again this morning Under Secretary Burns was at the (inaudible) about Iran's (inaudible)
MR. MCCORMACK: As the Secretary has been as well.
QUESTION: As the Secretary has been -- that's right, but she's traveling, so I haven't heard her. But I know she's (inaudible) about getting a good statement out of the -- a presidential statement out of the UN. But he was asked a couple of times about whether you were applying a deadline of sorts and he didn't answer that directly. He suggested you have to work with Russia and China, but he said everybody's against Iran being nuclear.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: So are you prepared to give us an idea, you know, a deadline for finishing the job and a deadline -- imposing a deadline possibly, or trying to, on Iran to comply?
MR. MCCORMACK: The second of those, Barry, certainly, that would be a matter for discussion among the members of the Security Council and we're not going to negotiate the final text of the statement in public. It's safe to say we are working very closely with the other members of the Security Council on a statement that would send a strong, clear message to the Iranians that they have to heed the call of the international community. That was spelled out very clearly in the IAEA Board of Governors resolution from just about a month ago.
We're working well with the other members of the Security Council, but as you've heard from me, you've heard from Under Secretary Burns, and more importantly, from Secretary Rice that multilateral diplomacy sometimes take a little bit of time. And we're patient, we're focused. The diplomacy is moving in the right direction. You know that it's the case in these kinds of endeavors -- presidential statements -- that every word matters to somebody. And sometimes it takes time to work through the specific wording and work through the various ideas. But we're confident that the diplomacy is moving in the right direction. We're working hard on this. Under Secretary Burns is engaged on the issue, Ambassador Bolton up at the UN and certainly Secretary Rice. So we're moving in the right direction. We are engaging in focused, patient diplomacy, Barry, but we're also trying to push the process along. We think that that's -- we think it's important. And we think it's important that the Security Council send that strong, clear message and that's what we're working towards.
Teri.
QUESTION: Do you still think that a presidential statement is the way to go rather than a resolution?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's where our focus is at the moment. And as Secretary Rice said, we're confident that we're going to find the right words. We're confident that we'll find the right vehicle to accomplish this. The focus of our diplomacy up in New York right now is working on the wording of a presidential statement. And as I pointed out to Barry, all the diplomacy on that is moving in the right direction.
QUESTION: But what are the advantages of a presidential statement over a resolution?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, you know, this is a matter of working through these issues with the members -- other members of the Security Council. We have talked in public for quite some time about the fact that the first step that we would be working on would be a presidential statement. There are certainly technical differences between the two. A presidential statement is a statement from the Security Council that reflects a consensus view of all the members of the Security Council. It is not, however, a binding matter of international law. Now, a UN Security Council resolution -- there are several different types. But, for example, a Chapter VII resolution has the effect of binding on the country or countries that it's directed against. It has the effect of binding international law, so there's a technical distinction between the two of them. At this point, what we're working on is a presidential statement.
Saul.
QUESTION: Any concern that the differences that are causing the time to run without a statement, are actually diluting the power of the message that you want to be delivered in a statement?
MR. MCCORMACK: You know, Saul, I think it doesn't, because all the members of the Security Council, and certainly the permanent five members that we're working with, are united in the objective. And that objective is that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Everybody agrees that that would be a destabilizing event. So what we're -- and that's been clearly stated in the IAEA Board of Governors resolution, certainly that's the implication of it. And we want to send a strong, clear message to Iran that they won't be allowed to obfuscate -- they won't be allowed to thwart the will of the international community. They won't be allowed to lie to the international community about what they're really doing.
And what we're hoping for in this presidential statement is a strong, clear signal from the Security Council that reflects what has already been said by the IAEA Board of Governors. And that is: you have to abide by your international commitments. You have to, for example, suspend all your enrichment activities, which by the way, they have previously pledged to do, and demonstrate to the international community that this regime is serious about coming back into the mainstream of the nonproliferation international community. Thus far, they have decided not to. Thus far, they have -- the regime has taken the Iranian people down the pathway to increased isolation from the rest of the world. And the sole party responsible for that is the Iranian regime and the Iranian people should understand that.
QUESTION: What is it you mean by technical differences? Can you give us an example of somewhere where the United States has a technical difference with Russia?
MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of the specific wording?
QUESTION: Yeah, is the -- what does it come down to? It's difficult for us to imagine --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, no, no. I understand that and I certainly appreciate the question. At this point, certainly we're going to -- as I pointed out to Barry, we're going to try to perform these negotiations within diplomatic channels and I hope you would appreciate that we're not going to get into, really, the ins and outs of the diplomacy and what specifically is -- what the specific wording is that we're working on.
But again, I underline the point here that everybody shares a common objective. There's unanimity on the fact that Iran can't be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, so what we're trying to do is work on the proper wording, work on the proper vehicle to send that clear message to them.
QUESTION: So by a technicality, what you mean is we differ over the words?
MR. MCCORMACK: We're working -- it's essentially tactical differences, working through tactical issues with respect to words. That's how I would characterize it. I'm trying to differentiate here between the strategic overall objectives that all share and between any tactical issues that might arise. And we're confident that we'll be able to resolve any differences of opinion concerning wording through the process of patient diplomacy up in New York.
QUESTION: Have you -- tactical could be quite wide-ranging, I guess. I mean, you could have the strategic goal of Iran not getting a nuclear weapon, but tactically, one side might think sanctions are the way to go and another might say tactically, that's counterproductive, that's not the way. That's a -- you know, big difference.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, no, no -- certainly, I appreciate that. We're -- in terms of sanctions, we talked about the fact that at the UN, the United States -- that was not the first step that we would be seeking and that still holds.
QUESTION: In another arena, have you taken note of what seems to be now Iranian Government approval, not just the arms negotiator, to talk to the U.S. on Iraq --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: I agree separately -- really separate from --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: -- what's going on with the UN. Is there some new life in this process?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've talked about this a little bit before in this room. I think everybody understands the history here, that this -- Ambassador Khalilzad, for some time, has been authorized to have this channel of communication on a very narrow range of interest concerning Iraq.
Again, as I have pointed out previously when asked this question, I find it very interesting that the Iranian regime has chosen this particular time to seek to communicate with the United States Government through this channel of communication, where this channel of communication has been open for some time. We think it has more to do with Iran's desire to decrease the pressure on the regime and to divert attention from the ongoing discussions about the topic of Iran's nuclear program that we're watching unfold up in New York. We think it has more to do with that and less to do with the actual desire to communicate with the United States Government on issues concerning Iraq.
So we're certainly not going to allow that to divert our attention and I doubt very much that it is going to divert the attention of the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is united in its concern over Iranian behavior, certainly on the nuclear matter. And I would also submit to you on questions related to support -- state sponsor support of terrorism and the Iranian regime's terrible human rights record.
So we're, again, going to continue our discussions in New York. I think everybody else is focused on those discussions and in terms of a meeting, I don't have -- I checked, Barry, and I don't have any update for you on that.
QUESTION: All right. I don't want to get out of line here, but the Iranian nuclear program is, for a long -- for the foreseeable future, is going to hang over this situation and if you, indeed, want to talk about -- about their meddling in Iraq, you know, you seem to be -- the White House last week, now you today, of finding suspicious motives, which may very well be true. But how do you ever talk to them, because the -- on Iraq -- because the nuclear thing won't go away and indeed, they probably are trying to divert attention. But so what; don't you want to slow them down in Iraq, get them out of there?
MR. MCCORMACK: As we said, Barry, this channel of communication is available. It's open. It has been for quite some time. Ambassador Khalilzad has been empowered for quite some time to have those kinds of communications with the Iranian Government and as I pointed out, it's really a matter of curious timing now, that they -- in which they find themselves under the very harsh and intense spotlight of the international community, that they choose to say, "Oh, well, you know, perhaps we would like to communicate with you regarding Iraq," and use that channel of communication.
QUESTION: But does the curious timing mean that you don't want to accept their offer to --
MR. MCCORMACK: There is -- again, it was the United States that said that this channel of communication was open. We don't have any meeting scheduled at this point. I'm not aware of any -- I have not been made aware of any communications regarding establishing -- setting up a meeting. Like I said, I've pledged to you that we'll try to keep you up to date as best we can if there is, in fact, a meeting and what the content of those discussions would be. But from our point of view, certainly, it would -- any communication would take place within a very narrow band of issues related to Iraq.
QUESTION: So you say to them, "We'd like to talk to you about Iraq," they come back with some curious timing, you say, "Yes, we'd like to talk." You go out of your way to emphasize this skepticism rather than, "Okay, we invited them, they've said yes. I haven't got a time for you, but yes, we do plan to meet them." Can you not tell us whether you plan to take them up on this?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, the channel of communication is open on that particular issue, Saul. Let me just get back to one issue here and that is, the issues that Iran has are not solely with the United States. The issues that Iran has and that this regime has are with the rest of the world on the issues of terrorism, on the issue of seeking nuclear weapons, and the issue of their human rights record.
So this isn't a -- the Iranians would certainly like to make this a U.S.-Iran issue on all of these various fronts, but the fact of the matter -- it isn't. And the international community is united in this, certainly on the nuclear program we have seen that sending a very strong, clear message to the Iranian Government that that -- the behavior in which they have engaged will not be tolerated. And that behavior is seeking a nuclear weapon under the cover of a peaceful nuclear program in abrogation of their international agreements and in abrogation of the agreements that they reach with the EU-3.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.
QUESTION: I'm just confused because I understand that you say this is a very limited mandate, only about Iraq, but you seem to be talking about everything else other than Iraq. I mean, why don't you just have the conversations with them about Iraq, not talk about anything else? I mean, it seems like you're the one that's introducing all this other stuff into the equation. Even though you don?t want to talk about that with the Iranians, you're not dealing with the issue of Iraq with the Iranians. I mean, are you waiting for them to call you and say, "Let's meet," or -- I mean, if you really want to meet them, why don't you just meet them and keep the conversation limited to Iraq?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I would only point you to the history of this and --
QUESTION: Why don't you just call them on their bluff, then?
MR. MCCORMACK: We have talked about the history of this issue, I think, going back to this fall when we, in this briefing room, talked about the fact that this channel of communication was open and available to the Iranians and they declined. They declined -- they declined an offer to meet on these topics. So as I told Saul and as I've told others, that channel of communication on those particular issues is open. We don't have any updates for you with regard to any meeting and we'll try to keep you updated on it.
QUESTION: A follow-up on that.
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.
QUESTION: I agree with what you're saying. I think this mixed message that's going out there, which is -- you know, they're not going to talk about your nuclear situation, but on the issue of Iraq, you seem to be sending a very negative message that sort of says -- talking out of both sides of our mouths which are saying, "Well, we want to have a discussion about the Middle East and Iraq, in particular, but" --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're actually not saying --
QUESTION: -- (inaudible) the stick and the carrot by saying, "If you don't talk" --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're actually --
QUESTION: Are you're holding this over their head that "if you don't cooperate on your nuclear program, we're not going to meet with you on Iraq?"
MR. MCCORMACK: I think --
QUESTION: The communication is open and it's (inaudible).
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm sorry, I think the question ignores the history that I just went through here and first -- and also, I want to clarify one thing. You mentioned, "Have this discussion about the Middle East and Iraq." -- no. The discussion would be very narrowly focused and this channel of communication is very narrowly focused on Iraq.
The onus in all of these questions is on Iraq -- on Iran. It is the Iranian regime that is engaged in behavior that the international community finds troubling. It is the Iranian regime that is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, even though they pledged in signing the nonproliferation treaty not to do so. They are also the central banker for terrorism in the Middle East. They're the most significant state sponsor of terrorism in the world. This directly goes against UN Resolution 1373, which calls upon all states to fight terrorism. Their human rights record has grown increasingly troubling, certainly during the regime of President Ahmadi-Nejad. You have more and more media outlets that are either being shut down or not opened because of the regime. You have more and more -- you see more and more instances where freedom of expression is stifled.
One very good example are some transportation workers who, within the past several months wanted to organize peacefully and to express their differences with the regime concerning work conditions. They were just speaking out, saying they wanted better working conditions. And the public demonstration was violently broken up. That's an example of the kind of behavior of this regime. And it is the kind of -- it is a kind of behavior that is troubling to the rest of the world, not just the United States. Certainly, we have expressed our concerns with their behavior. But the onus is upon the Iranian regime to change their behavior and that's what the rest of the world is calling upon them to do.
QUESTION: Are you saying that the Iranian regime has to change its behavior before you'll talk to them about Iraq?
MR. MCCORMACK: No. Like I said, I don't know how many times I can say it or how I can say it more clearly.
QUESTION: I let you expand on the history, but my question to you was you seem to be saying --
MR. MCCORMACK: It's the same question that Elise asked and other people asked. The channel of communication is open. We've said it's open. Ambassador Khalilzad has been authorized for quite some time to --
QUESTION: But now you're saying that they've responded and you find it curious that they're now saying, you know, well, we want to talk -- well, why don't -- just as Elise just said, why don't we say, okay?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, first of all, let's be clear about the history. There was -- they previously have said that they didn't want to talk in this channel. Why is it that several months ago, they wouldn't want to talk in this -- with this channel of communication. But just now when the situation in the international community has changed, where they find themselves now isolated and they now find themselves before the U.N. Security Council, that now they're interested in opening up that channel of communication. And I think that any reasonable person walking down the street would certainly find that timing as curious as we do.
QUESTION: Sean, I don't think anybody is even questioning this, I mean, is kind of disagreeing that the timing is curious, but so what? I mean, why should the Iraq issue kind of suffer? If you need to talk to these people, why are you --
MR. MCCORMACK: Who's saying it's suffering, Elise?
QUESTION: Well, no. I mean, you're saying that --
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't -- I'm not quite sure I get the point of your question. The channel of communication is open. Ambassador Khalilzad is authorized to speak with the Iranian government.
QUESTION: Is he waiting to hear from the Iranians?
MR. MCCORMACK: I have told you --
QUESTION: What's --
MR. MCCORMACK: I have told you that we will keep you up to date on any meetings. There are no meetings scheduled at this point?
QUESTION: Well, why not?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well -- (Laughter) -- Teri, we will keep you up to date on any meetings that are scheduled.
QUESTION: But that doesn't answer the question of why you aren't scheduling meetings?
MR. MCCORMACK: Any other questions?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. I apologize to change the topic.
MR. MCCORMACK: That's fine. Fine with me. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: This is Carlos Sedaya (ph) from the Spanish network Quattro on CNN Plus. Today the terrorist group ETA has called a permanent ceasefire. I'm wondering how do you receive this announcement and if there is any specific collaboration already offered to the Spanish Government?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have certainly seen the news reports about this and I think in the days ahead certainly we're going to be in touch with the Spanish Government to get some more information concerning these news reports. I would say a few points. One, that the United States and Spain are the closest of allies and we're allies in fighting the war against terrorism. We certainly have known the -- we have both known the suffering from terrorists acts and let us be very clear that the United States is opposed to all forms of terrorism and is committed to continuing fighting the war against terrorism with Spain. I think that as an initial comment, we would say that any decisive steps taken by E-T-A -- ETA -- to give up violence should be welcomed and that we, as I said, are going to be in contact with the Spanish Government in the days ahead, as details of these news reports become more clear.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yeah. Since there have been more announcements of this kind for -- does the U.S. Government give credit to ETA to issue such an announcement?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, like I said, we're going to be in contact with the Spanish Government to follow up to get more clarity about the details of this announcement. As I've said, any decisive steps taken by ETA to walk away from the use of violence and terror should be welcomed.
QUESTION: May I follow up just briefly?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you think that the Irish process, the Northern Ireland process could be a model in the Spanish possible peace process?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to try to get into the business of suggesting how the Spanish Government deal with this. This is an issue for the Spanish Government to deal with.
QUESTION: Just a few minutes ago, a story started coming out of Jerusalem that the Acting Prime Minister says he can't wait -- Israel can't wait forever for Hamas to straighten itself out and that they will begin -- Israel will have to begin implementing its own plan. This is not brand new. But still, newly said, are there any instant reflections here on that story?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think -- I haven't had an opportunity to see the Acting Prime Minister's remarks, so let me defer any comment until we have an opportunity to take a look at exactly what he said.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: Samir. We'll come back to you guys.
Samir.
QUESTION: PLO Executive Committee under the leadership of President Abbas rejected Hamas new government and its platform. It was the -- they don't recognize the agreements the Palestinian Authority had with Israel and because they don't recognize the PLO Executive Committee as the sole representative of all the Palestinian people. I mean, how the U.S. react to this?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll have to take a look, Samir. I hadn't seen those particular comments from President Abbas. I know that they are in the process of government formation and there is some communication back and forth between Hamas, who is trying to form a government, and the president's office. I'll check for you to see what the -- what we have in terms of the latest comment on where that process stands.
Elise.
QUESTION: This week, the Chinese Government-owned entity LanEvo (ph) group announced it would be selling 16 -- this is the group that bought, I think, some divisions of IBM -- announced it would be selling 16,000 computers to the State Department as part of a worldwide upgrade of both unclassified and classified systems. Given the -- you know, kind of well-documented concern in the past about Chinese spying activities through front companies in the United States, are you concerned at all that this could pose a security risk to your classified systems?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, my understanding, the original solicitation was for unclassified systems with removable hard drives. A second point, the computers in question were purchased under standard government procurement laws. It was done in full compliance with the requirements that were laid out and certainly, the United States takes its responsibility seriously in terms of getting the best value for the dollar whenever we spend American taxpayer dollars.
One other point about the Lenovo purchase, which was done through a government contractor, that the -- Lenovo's North American presence and workforce are, in large part, in North America. The desktops are manufactured in Raleigh, North Carolina. The smaller mini-tower computers are manufactured in Mexico. I guess the only -- the final point I would make about this is that although Lenovo purchased IBM's PC operations, the -- IBM will continue to service all Lenovo PC products.
QUESTION: Follow-up on China?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.
QUESTION: Different subject, but on Capitol Hill, there's a bill being drafted, or I guess it's already written, that would threaten China if it doesn't float the yuan, threatened it with a 27.5 percent tax. Does the State Department take any position on this? Is this something that you weigh in on or that --
MR. MCCORMACK: Usually -- I'll check, Teri. Usually, what will happen with legislation of this type, once it reaches a certain stage, is there will be a statement of administration position, which is a government-wide position. Obviously, the State Department would input to that as a matter of practice.
On this particular question, I'll check to see. I don't know off the top of my head if there is a statement of administration position on it.
QUESTION: Okay. In general, has the State Department said -- taken a position yet at all on whether China should -- whether there should be any measures to try to force China into --
MR. MCCORMACK: I know that the U.S. Government has, in the past, spoken about this issue and I know that the Chinese Government has, in the past, taken some steps on the issue to -- that meet some of the United States' concerns. In terms of the current state of play on the issue, I'll have to check for you. I know that they have taken some steps in the past. I'll be happy to check for you to see if there's any other -- anything else that we are --
QUESTION: Yeah, if there's anything you can say on the current bill?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure, I'll check for you.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR. MCCORMACK: Joel
QUESTION: Right about now, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes is addressing an all-day conference and -- in Northwest Washington. It's an inter-religious conference. Will you be -- meaning the State Department -- directing any changes or any particular emphasis to counter madras schools, their curriculum, and the religious behavior? And these schools have been inciting the terrorism that you're trying to combat.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, Joel, you know, schools and school systems will vary from country to country. The madras system in Indonesia is different than the one in Pakistan, which is different than the system in Saudi Arabia. I can only tell you in -- you know, a couple of case-by-case examples, for example, Pakistan -- President Musharraf has made changing the curriculum of the madrasas a core of his education reform policy and we certainly support that.
In Indonesia, the Secretary recently visited a madrasa and she very much enjoyed her visit. She found it very encouraging that you had little boys and little girls learning together in that environment, where they were learning the practical tools that will help them later in life, learning -- you know, learning about grammar, learning about science, learning about mathematics. They were also learning about religion and their heritage as well, all happening in one place.
So again, the particular curriculum and the particular schooling and the way that this fits into the overall education program will vary from country to country. We have placed a great deal of emphasis on the importance of education. It's an important passport for children as they seek to find their place not only in their societies, but in the global economy.
Teri.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) issue of yesterday.
MR. MCCORMACK: Teri, do you want to get that?
QUESTION: The Afghan case again.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: Now President Bush says he's deeply troubled by this, that anybody would be prosecuted for something like this. Is there anything more you can say also about the fact that they're now talking about possibly declaring the man unfit to stand trial as a way out?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah Teri, we talked about this a little bit yesterday. Under Secretary Burns also talked about it. I think I would just build on those comments from yesterday, certainly echoing the President's comments that he made in West Virginia, that we find deeply troubling any case -- you know, any case that would allow somebody to be tried, much less face the death penalty, for freely expressing their religious views. Clearly, this case challenges concepts of the universal right of people to freely express themselves and choose how they worship and also, I think goes against the Afghan constitution, which talks about the -- and which guarantees freedom of worship.
So as we talked about yesterday, we have made these concerns very clear to Foreign Minister Abdullah. He continues his visit here and we will be following this issue very, very closely. It's an issue of real concern.
QUESTION: And about the fact that they -- (cell phone rings) -- sorry.
MR. MCCORMACK: Cell phone violation. You disturbed Teri's train of thought. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay, sorry. About the fact that they may declare him unfit to stand trial, I mean, is this -- this doesn't solve the problem that he is still being -- you know, that the case could be brought in the first place, which is the fundamental issue?
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. That's right and that is the fundamental issue. And, you know our views. We have over the past couple of days, and certainly the President today, made very clear our views on this issue. Freedom of religion is a core element of any democracy and any application, practical application of that, of those ideas, has to be true. And it is important, we believe, that the Afghan Government act to uphold those guarantees in the Afghan constitution.
QUESTION: Are you yet saying that you think the case should be dismissed or do you stand by your comments before that you'll just see how it plays out in the court system?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think we would -- you know, again, building on what I said and Under Secretary Burns said yesterday that we are deeply troubled that even such a case would be brought when, in fact, the Afghan constitution guarantees freedom of worship and freedom to worship as people would choose.
QUESTION: And one more thing. Did you hear that Foreign Minister Abdullah is no longer going to continue in his job?
MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen those press reports.
QUESTION: Yeah, Hamid Karzai has announced a reorganization and he's apparently no longer Foreign Minister. They've already announced a replacement. News to you? Okay, so I guess it didn't come up.
MR. MCCORMACK: It didn't come up in the meetings I was in.
QUESTION: Right, okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: Elise.
QUESTION: New question, new topic. This is about Mr. Posada Carriles. A judge has denied his petition for release and he seems to be a little bit in limbo because the judge also ruled he can't be sent back to Cuba or Venezuela but at the same time he isn't being released. Is the State -- there are some reports that the State Department is petitioning a third country to accept him. Is this true? And if so, what countries are you talking to?
MR. MCCORMACK: I know DHS is handling the matter. Let me -- I'll check for you, Elise, to see what kind of State Department involvement there may be in the case.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: There's a gentleman over here. We'll come to you. You'll be the last question. You, sir.
QUESTION: May I go back to Iranian issue?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure, sure. We had so much fun with it the first time around.
QUESTION: I'd like to know when was the last official contact or meeting with Iranians that took place in this (inaudible)?
MR. MCCORMACK: You know, we have well-established channels of communication. I can't tell you when the last contact was.
QUESTION: So, yes, it's already (inaudible).
MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, I can't tell you specifically when the last time there was a communication through the channels that we have already.
Yes, sir. Lambros.
QUESTION: I need your special attention (inaudible). Do you have, first of all, anything on Greece about the visit?
MR. MCCORMACK: The Secretary looks forward to meeting with the Greek Foreign Minister.
QUESTION: That's it?
MR. MCCORMACK: They're going to discuss a wide range of issues.
QUESTION: Anything else?
MR. MCCORMACK: Greece is a good friend and ally.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay. Let's go to Turkey and I need your attention, your attention.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, okay.
QUESTION: Hello? Ready?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm ready.
QUESTION: Your attention. According to a series of reports, the dictator-to-be in Turkey, Turkish General Yasar Buyukanit, is planning a coup d'etat to overthrow the popular government of Recep Erdogan in the name of Islamic (inaudible). Since Turkey is an ally to U.S. and NATO member, are you concerned to prevent such a fascist coup d'etat to present democracy, because in the case of Greece, as I do remember very well 1967, neither U.S. or NATO did absolutely nothing to prevent such a coup.
MR. MCCORMACK: I have not heard any such reports. Turkey is a good friend and ally and we have full faith and confidence in Turkish democracy and adherence to their constitution.
QUESTION: May I have one more? I know it is a decision (inaudible) because in the Turkish newspaper Zaman, Z-a-m-a-n, March 20th reported, "In a telephone conversation with a Turkish official over the parliamentary refusal of the March 1st deployment mission prior to the war in Iraq, an official from the U.S. Department of Defense was referring to the Turkish armed forces, as he said, 'Tell them they owe us a favor for three coup d'etats.' Is this the way they are doing us a favor?'"
I'm wondering what is going on.
MR. MCCORMACK: You'll have to ask Zaman newspaper. I can't make heads or tails out of that.
QUESTION: But as far as for democracy, are you concerned about democracy in Turkey?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think I just answered that question.
Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:35 p.m.), DPB # 48, Released on March 22, 2006
Technorati Tags: VIDEO and State Department or PODCAST and IRAN , or Hamas Government and SPAIN or Condoleezza Rice , or SPAIN and Abdul Rahman , or PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY , and Luis Posada Carriles , or Secretary Hughes , and UN Security Council ,
Related: Keywords State Department, Monday, March 13, 2006 State Department Podcast, VIDEO and Text 03/13/06 , Wednesday, March 01, 2006 State Department Podcast and Text 02/28/06 , Wednesday, February 22, 2006 State Department Podcast and Text 02/21/06 , Monday, February 13, 2006 State Department Podcast and Text 02/10/06 , Thursday, February 09, 2006 State Department Podcast and Text 02/08/06 , Friday, January 27, 2006 State Department Podcast and Text 01/25/06 , Friday, January 27, 2006 Rice on Palestinian Elections (PODCAST) , Tuesday, January 24, 2006 State Department Podcast and Text 01/23/06 , Friday, January 20, 2006 State Department Podcast and Text 01/19/06 , Thursday, January 19, 2006 Secretary Rice, South Korean Foreign Minister PODCAST 01/19/06 , Wednesday, January 18, 2006 State Department Podcast, Text 01/17/05 ,
(0mb)
Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:37:00 EST
 | Press Conference of the President , FULL STREAMING VIDEO, James S. Brady Briefing Room 10:01 A.M. EST,
President George W. Bush answers reporters questions, Tuesday morning, March 21, 2006, during a news briefing at the White House. White House photo by Paul Morse | THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Yesterday I delivered a -- the second in a series of speeches on the situation in Iraq. I spoke about the violence that the Iraqi people had faced since last month's bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. I also said that for every act of violence there is encouraging progress in Iraq that's hard to capture on the evening news.
Yesterday I spoke about an important example of the gains we and the Iraqis have made, and that is in the northern city of Tal Afar. The city was once under al Qaeda control, and thanks to coalition and Iraqi forces, the terrorists have now been driven out of that city. Iraqi security forces are maintaining law and order. We see the outlines of a free and secure Iraq that we and the Iraqi people have been fighting for. As we mark the third anniversary of the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the success we're seeing in Tal Afar gives me confidence in the future of Iraq.
Terrorists haven't given up; they're tough-minded, they like to kill. There's going to be more tough fighting ahead. No question that sectarian violence must be confronted by the Iraqi government and a better-trained police force. Yet we're making progress. And that's important for the American people to understand.
We're making progress because of -- we've got a strategy for victory, and we're making progress because the men and women of the United States military are showing magnificent courage and they're making important sacrifices that have brought Iraq to an historic moment -- the opportunity to build a democracy that reflects its country's diversity, that serves its people, and is an active partner in the fight against the terrorists.
Now Iraq's leaders must take advantage of the opportunity. I was encouraged by the announcement Sunday the Iraqi leaders -- that the Iraqi leaders made -- are making progress toward a council that gives each of the country's main political factions a voice in making security and economic policies. It's an indicator that Iraq's leaders understand the importance of a government of national unity. Our Ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad, is very much involved in the process and will encourage the Iraqi leaders to put aside their differences, reach out across sectarian lines and form a unity government.
Here at home, I'm also encouraged by the strength of our economy. Last year our economy grew at a healthy 3.5 percent. Over the past two-and-a-half years, the economy has added nearly 5 million new jobs -- that's more than Japan and the 25 nations of the European Union combined. The national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent -- that's lower than the average rate of the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. Productivity is strong. Inflation is contained. Household net worth is at an all-time high. Real after-tax income is up more than 8 percent per person since the beginning of 2001. The growing economy is a result of the hard work of the American people and good policies here in Washington
I believe America prospers when people are allowed to keep more of what they earn so they can make their own decisions about how to spend, save and invest. So I'm going to continue to work with Congress to make the tax relief permanent, continue to work with Congress to restrain federal spending, continue to work with Congress to achieve the goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.
We cannot take our growing economy for granted, and so I look forward to working with the Congress to make sure we invest in basic research, and promote math and science education. I'm going to work with Congress to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I know it came as a surprise to some of you that I would stand up in front of the Congress and say, we got a problem, we're addicted to oil. But it is a problem. And I look forward to working with both Republicans and Democrats to advance an agenda that will make us less dependent on foreign oil; an agenda that includes hybrid cars and advanced ethanol fuels and hydrogen cells. I'm going to look forward to working with Congress to make sure health care is affordable and available.
We're going to work with Congress to make sure we meet our commitments to our fellow citizens who are affected by Katrina. I appreciate the step that the House of Representatives took last week on passing a supplemental appropriations bill that funds Gulf Coast reconstruction and, of course, supports our men and women in uniform. I look forward to working with the Senate to get that supplemental bill passed and to my desk.
Now I'll be glad to take any questions you have, starting with AP person. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be you, Terry.
Q Iraq's Interim Prime Minister said Sunday that violence is killing an average of 50 to 60 people a day, and that, "if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Do you agree with Mr. Allawi that Iraq has fallen into civil war?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not. There are other voices coming out of Iraq, by the way, other than Mr. Allawi -- who I know, by the way, and like, he's a good fellow. President Talabani has spoken. General Casey, the other day, was quite eloquent on the subject. Zal Khalilzad, who I talk to quite frequently. Listen, we all recognize that there is violence, that there's sectarian violence. But the way I look at the situation is that the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to civil war.
A couple of indicators are that the army didn't bust up into sectarian divisions. The army stayed united. And as General Casey pointed out, they did, arguably, a good job in helping to make sure the country stayed united.
Secondly, I was pleased to see religious leaders stand up. Ayatollah Sistani, for example, was very clear in his denunciation of violence and the need for the country to remain united. The political leaders who represent different factions of the Iraqi society have committed themselves to moving forward on a unity government.
No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that. They're willing to kill innocent people. The reports of bound Sunnis that were executed are horrific. And it's obviously something we're going to have to deal. And more importantly, the Iraqis are going to have to deal with it.
But I see progress. I've heard people say, oh, he's just kind of optimistic for the sake of optimism. Well, look, I believe we're going to succeed. And I understand how tough it is -- don't get me wrong -- I mean, you make it abundantly clear how tough it is. I hear it from our troops; I read the reports every night. But I believe -- I believe the Iraqis -- this is a moment where the Iraqis had a chance to fall apart, and they didn't. And that's a positive development.
Steve.
Q Thank you. You describe Iran as a threat, yet, you're close to opening talks with them about Iraq. What would be the objective in these talks if they are not negotiations? And is there a risk of getting drawn into the nuclear issue?
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for asking that question. A couple of months ago, I gave Zal, our Ambassador in Iraq, permission to explain to the Iraqi -- Iranians what we didn't like about their involvement in Iraq. I thought it was important for them to hear firsthand, other than through press accounts. He asked whether or not it made sense for him to be able to talk to a representative in Baghdad; I said, absolutely. You make it clear to them that attempts to spread sectarian violence, or to maybe move parts that could be used for IEDs is unacceptable to the United States.
It is very important for the Iranians to understand that any relationship between Iraq and Iran will be negotiated between those two countries. Iraq is a sovereign government. They have a foreign policy. And when they get their unity government stepped up, they will be in charge of negotiating with the Iranians their foreign policy arrangement. And so this is a way for us to make it clear to them that -- about what's right or wrong in their activities inside of Iraq.
Secondly, our negotiations with Iran on the nuclear weapons will be led by the EU-3. And that's important because the Iranians must hear there's a unified voice about -- that says that they shall not have a capacity to make a nuclear weapon and/or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon, for the sake of security of the world.
It's important for our citizens to understand that we have got to deal with this issue diplomatically now. And the reason why is because if the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could blackmail the world. If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate. This is a country that's walking away from international accords; they're not heading toward the international accords, they're not welcoming the international inspections -- or safeguards -- safeguard measures that they had agreed to.
And so our policy for the Iranians, in terms of the nuclear program, is to continue to work with the EU-3, as well as Russia and China. Later on this week, there's going to be a P-5 -- that's a diplomatic sloganeering for the permanent members of the Security Council -- plus Germany, and working together to make sure that the message remains unified and concerted.
If you're a non-transparent society, you've got a negotiating advantage over six parties, because all you have to do is kind of try to find a -- the weakest link in the negotiating team. And so our job is to make sure that this international will remains strong and united, so that we can solve this issue diplomatically.
Helen. After that brilliant performance at the Grid Iron, I am -- (laughter.)
Q You're going to be sorry. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, let me take it back. (Laughter.)
Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --
Q Everything --
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.
Q -- everything I've heard --
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.
Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --
Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.
THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --
Q I'm talking about Iraq --
THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --
Q -- go to war --
THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
Q Thank you, sir. Secretary Rumsfeld -- (laughter.)
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome. (Laughter.) I didn't really regret it. I kind of semi-regretted it. (Laughter.)
Q -- have a debate.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right. Anyway, your performance at the Grid Iron was just brilliant -- unlike Holland's, was a little weak, but -- (laughter.)
Sorry.
Q Secretary Rumsfeld has said that if civil war should break out in Iraq, he's hopeful that Iraqi forces can handle it. If they can't, sir, are you willing to sacrifice American lives to keep Iraqis from killing one another?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the first step is to make sure a civil war doesn't break out. And that's why we're working with the leaders there in Baghdad to form a unity government. Obviously, if there is difficulty on the streets, the first line of defense for that difficulty will be the Iraqi forces, which have proved themselves in the face of potential sectarian violence, right after the bombing of the mosque in Samarra. The forces are -- part of our strategy for victory is to get the forces the skills and the tools and the training necessary to defend their own country, whether it be against Zarqawi and the killers, or whether it be those who are trying to spread sectarian violence. And they have proven themselves.
And so our position is, one, get a unity government formed, and secondly, prepare the Iraqi troops, and support Iraqi troops, if need be, to prevent sectarian violence from breaking out.
Yes, sir.
Q Mr. President, I'd like to ask you for your reaction on the latest insurgent attack in Baghdad: 17 police officers killed and a bunch of insurgents freed. I spent a fair amount of time in front of that hotel in Cleveland yesterday, talking to people about the war and saying you were there to talk optimistically. And one woman who said she voted for you, said, "You know what, he's losing me. We've been there too long; he's losing me." What do you say to her?
THE PRESIDENT: I say that I'm talking realistically to people. We have a plan for victory and it's important we achieve that plan. Democracy -- first of all, this is a global war on terror and Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Mr. Zarqawi and al Qaeda, the very same people that attacked the United States, have made it clear that they want to drive us out of Iraq so they can plan, plot, and attack America again. That's what they have said; that's their objective. I think it is very important to have a President who is realistic and listens to what the enemy says.
Secondly, I am confident -- I believe, I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out. If I didn't believe we had a plan for victory I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way. And that's important for the woman to understand.
Thirdly, in spite of the bad news on television -- and there is bad news. You brought it up; you said, how do I react to a bombing that took place yesterday -- is precisely what the enemy understands is possible to do. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't talk about it. I'm certainly not being -- please don't take that as criticism. But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemies capability to affect the debate, and they know that. They're capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show. And, therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to. And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win.
I think most Americans understand we need to win. But they're concerned about whether or not we can win. So one of the reasons I go around the country, to Cleveland, is to explain why I think we can win. And so I would say, yes, I'm optimistic about being able to achieve a victory, but I'm also realistic. I fully understand the consequences of this war. I understand people's lives are being lost. But I also understand the consequences of not achieving our objective by leaving too early. Iraq would become a place of instability, a place from which the enemy can plot, plan and attack.
I believe that they want to hurt us again. And, therefore, I know we need to stay on the offense against this enemy. They've declared Iraq to be the central front and, therefore, we've got to make sure we win that. And I believe we will.
Q Good morning, sir. Mindful of the frustrations that many Americans are expressing to you, do you believe you need to make any adjustments in how you run the White House? Many of your senior staffers have been with you from the beginning. There are some in Washington who say --
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, is this a personal attack launching over here? (Laughter.)
Q Some say they are tired and even tone-deaf, even within your party who say that maybe you need some changes. Would you benefit from any changes to your staff?
THE PRESIDENT: I've got a staff of people that have, first of all, placed their country above their self-interests. These are good, hardworking, decent people. And we've dealt with a lot. We've dealt with a lot. We've dealt with war, we've dealt with recession, we've dealt with scandal, we've dealt with Katrina. I mean, they had a lot on their plate. And I appreciate their performance and their hard work and they've got my confidence.
And I understand -- Washington is a great town for advice. I get a lot of it -- sometimes in private, from my friends, and sometimes in public. There are those who like to stand up and say to the President, here's what you ought to be doing. And I understand that. This isn't the first time during these five-and-a-half years that people have felt comfortable about standing up, telling me what to do. And that's okay. I take it all in and appreciate the spirit in which it's delivered, most of the time. But -- no, look, I'm satisfied with the people I've surrounded myself with. We've been a remarkably stable administration. And I think that's good for the country.
Obviously, there's some times when government bureaucracies haven't responded the way we wanted them to. And like citizens, I don't like that at all. I mean, I think, for example, of the trailers sitting down in Arkansas. Like many citizens, they're wondering why they're down there. How come we got 11,000? So I've asked Chertoff to find out, what are you going to do with them? The taxpayers aren't interested in 11,000 trailers just sitting there; do something with them.
And so I share that sense of frustration when a big government is unable to -- sends wrong signals to taxpayers. But our people are good, hardworking people.
Elisabeth.
Q Can I just follow up on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Sure.
Q But aside from staff, Mr. President, are you listening to suggestions you bring somebody else into the White House, a wise man, a gray beard, some old-time Washington hand who can steady Congress if they're upset about things, Republicans in Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm listening to all suggestions. I really am. I mean, I'm listening to Congress. We're bringing Congress down here all the time. And it's interesting to hear their observations. They -- they're, obviously, expressing concerns. It's an election year, after all. And it seems like history tends to repeat itself when you're in the White House. I can remember '02 before the elections, there was a certain nervousness. There was a lot of people in Congress who weren't sure I was going to make it in '04, and whether or not I'd drag the ticket down. So there's a certain unease as you head into an election year. I understand that.
My message to them is, please continue to give me advice and suggestions. And I take their advice seriously. But also remember we've got a positive agenda. We've got something to do. It's important for Congress to have confidence in our ability to get things done. We're supporting our troops over the last 12 months. We've got two Supreme Court judges confirmed. We've got the Patriot Act reauthorized over the objections of the Democrat leadership in the Senate. We got some tort reform passed. We passed a budget that cut non-security discretionary spending. There's a series of -- we got an energy bill passed. We worked to get a lot of positive things done. And now we've got an agenda -- continue to keep this economy growing, and keep this nation competitive.
I meant what I said in my speech, we shouldn't fear this future. In other words, we shouldn't allow isolationism and protectionism to overwhelm us. We ought to be confident about our ability to shape the future. And that's why this competitiveness initiative is important. That's why this energy plan that gets us less addicted to oil is important. We got some interesting ideas on health care that we need to continue to press, to make sure consumers are actually a part of the decision-making process when it comes to health care decisions. We've got an aggressive agenda that, by working together, will get passed. But I do, I listen.
Yes, Jim.
Q -- new guy? No new guy?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to announce it right now. Look, they've got some ideas that I like and some I don't like. Put it that way.
Q You've said during your presidency that you don't pay that much attention to the polls, but --
THE PRESIDENT: Correct.
Q -- there is a handful that have come back, and they all say the exact same thing: A growing number of Americans are questioning the trustworthiness of you and this White House. Does that concern you?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe that my job is to go out and explain to people what's on my mind. That's why I'm having this press conference, see. I'm telling you what's on my mind. And what's on my mind is winning the war on terror. And I understand war creates concerns, Jim. Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of -- of uncertainty in the country. The person you talked to in Cleveland is uncertain about our ability to go forward. She's uncertain about whether or not we can succeed, and I understand that. War creates trauma, particularly when you're fighting an enemy that doesn't fight soldier-to-soldier, they fight by using IEDs to kill innocent people. That's what they use. That's the tool they use. And it creates a sense of concern amongst our people. And that makes sense, and I know that.
And one of the reasons why it's important for me to continue to speak out and explain why we have a strategy for victory, why we can succeed. And I'm going to say it again, if I didn't believe we could succeed, I wouldn't be there. I wouldn't put those kids there. I meet with too many families who's lost a loved one to not be able to look them in the eye and say, we're doing the right thing. And we are doing the right thing. A democracy in Iraq is going to affect the neighborhood. A democracy in Iraq is going to inspire reformers in a part of the world that is desperate for reformation.
Our foreign policy up to now was to kind of tolerate what appeared to be calm. And underneath the surface was this swelling sense of anxiety and resentment, out of which came this totalitarian movement that is willing to spread its propaganda through death and destruction, to spread its philosophy. Now, some in this country don't -- I can understand -- don't view the enemy that way. I guess they kind of view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill. I just don't see it that way. I see them bound by a philosophy with plans and tactics to impose their will on other countries.
The enemy has said that it's just a matter of time before the United States loses its nerve and withdraws from Iraq. That's what they have said. And their objective for driving us out of Iraq is to have a place from which to launch their campaign to overthrow modern governments -- moderate governments -- in the Middle East, as well as to continue attacking places like the United States. Now, maybe some discount those words as kind of meaningless propaganda. I don't, Jim. I take them really seriously. And I think everybody in government should take them seriously and respond accordingly. And so it's -- I've got to continue to speak as clearly as I possibly can about the consequences of success and the consequences of failure, and why I believe we can succeed.
Q Mr. President, Kathleen Koch, CNN.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q You said you listen to members of Congress, and there have been growing calls from some of those members for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; also from his own former subordinates like U.S. Army Major General Paul Eaton, who described him in a recent editorial as "incompetent and tactically inept." Do you feel that personally you've ever gotten bad advice in the conduct of the war in Iraq? And do you believe Rumsfeld should resign?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't believe he should resign. I think he's done a fine job of not only conducting two battles, Afghanistan and Iraq, but also transforming our military, which has been a very difficult job inside the Pentagon.
Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy -- not just the war plan we executed in Iraq, but the war plans that have been executed throughout the history of warfare. In other words, the enemy changes tactics, and we've got to change tactics, too.
And no question that we've had to adjust our tactics on the ground. And perhaps the clearest example is in the training of Iraqi security forces. When we got into Iraq, we felt like we needed to train a security force that was capable for defending the country from an outside threat. And then it became apparent that the insurgents and Zarqawi were able to spread their poison and their violence in a ruthless way, and therefore, we had to make sure that the Iraqi forces were able to deal with the internal threat. And we adjusted our tactics and starting spending a lot more time getting the Iraqis up and running, and then embedding our troops with the Iraqis.
And it has been a success. But no question about it, we missed sometime as we adjusted our tactics. We had to change our reconstruction strategy. We were -- we thought it made sense, initially, when we went in there to build big, grand projects, which turned out to be targets for the insurgents to blow up. And a better strategy was to be spending reconstruction money at the local level, so that local leaders committed to a peaceful and unified Iraq would benefit. In other words, people would see tangible benefits from an emerging democracy, and the leaders would be viewed as people helping to improve their lives.
And so this is a war in which we've changed tactics. It's a war in which we've adjusted and learned lessons in the process of the war.
Yes, sir.
Q Just after the 2004 election, you seemed to -- you claimed a really enviable balance of political capital and a strong mandate. Would you make that claim today? Do you still have that?
THE PRESIDENT: I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war.
Q Well, is that costing you elsewhere, then?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think so. I just named 12 -- I just named an agenda that over the last 12 month was -- would be, I suspect, if looked at objectively, would say, well, they got a lot done. And I'd be glad to repeat them if you like, which is -- (laughter.)
Q -- Social Security --
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Please no hand gestures. (Laughter.)
Social Security -- it didn't get done. You notice it wasn't on the list. (Laughter.) Let me talk about that, if you don't mind. First of all, Social Security is a really difficult issue for some members of Congress to deal with because it is fraught with all kind of political peril. As a matter of fact, it's been difficult for a lot of Congresses to deal with. The one time in recent memory that it was dealt with was when there was a near crisis -- in other words, when the system was about to fall into the abyss, and people came together and solved it. But they thought it was a fairly long-term fix; it turned out to be a lot shorter fix than they thought.
So I'm disappointed Congress didn't want to go forward with it, but I'm not surprised. Therefore, I tried a new tactic. Last year the tactic was to believe that once the people saw there was a problem they would then demand a solution. And we made progress on describing the problem. I think the American people are now beginning to get the picture that if we don't do something, Social Security and Medicare will bust. If we don't do something, future Congresses -- not this Congress, but future Congresses -- are going to be confronted with some serious decisions about raising taxes enormously, or cutting benefits drastically, or other programs drastically.
And so that issue sunk in. There just wasn't the connection with action inside, in the body of the respective chambers -- although, there were some noble efforts made by some members of Congress to get something started.
So the new tactics to get people involved in this process is to try to take the politics out of it and bring members of both parties, both chambers together. There's quiet consultations going on to get this commission -- committee together of members that could get something put in place that would have a bipartisan appeal to it. Bipartisanship is hard to achieve in Washington these days. I readily concede that. Yet, this issue is one that's going to require a bipartisan approach. It's simply not going to be an issue where one party, without the cooperation of the other party, kind of tries to move a bill. At least, that's how I view it.
But I'm committed to moving the issue. I think it's important. And I'm not deterred by the fact that nothing happened. As a matter of fact, I take great pride in the fact that I was willing to bring up the issue while others might not have. That's the job of the President. The job of the President is not to worry about the short-term attitudes. The job of the President is to confront big issues and to bring them to the front, and to say to people, let's work together to get it solved. And I'm going to continue working on it.
Carl.
Q Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q -- not to change the tone from all this emphasis on bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program. The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation. What, sir, do you think the impact of the discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office, and to the nation during a time of war, and in the context of the election?
THE PRESIDENT: I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we're at war -- the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.
I did notice that, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized -- "they" being at least the Minority Leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand -- I don't want to misquote him -- something along the lines that, "We killed the Patriot Act." And if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so. That's a debate I think the country ought to have.
Yes, sir.
Q You mentioned earlier that you were encouraged by some of the discussions going on over a unity government, over the last few days. Do you now have in mind a target date for forming the unity government and --
THE PRESIDENT: As soon as possible. Next question.
Q How much of a factor do you think that will be -- in turning around, or at least improving the situation in the public opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: Here in America?
Q Right.
THE PRESIDENT: That's a trick question, because you want to get me to talk about polls when I don't pay attention to polls.
Q That was one --
THE PRESIDENT: At least that's -- after five-and-a-half years I was able to rout you out. (Laughter.)
First of all, I have no idea whether or not a -- how Americans are going to react to a unity government. There will be a unity government formed, then there could be an attack the next day, and so it's hard for me to predict. I do know a unity government, though, is necessary for us to achieve our objective. I do know that the Iraqi people -- 11 million of them -- voted in an election in December, which was, like, four months ago. And the message I received from that is I hope the same message that those who have been in charge with forming a unity government receive, and that is the people have spoken and they want democracy. That's what they said. Otherwise, they wouldn't have participated. They expect there to be a democracy in place that listens to their demands.
And so I'm -- most importantly, I believe a unity government will begin to affect the attitudes of the Iraqis. And that's important for them to get confidence not only in a government, but in a security force that will provide them security. It's -- confidence amongst the Iraqis is what is going to be a vital part of achieving a victory, which will then enable the American people to understand that victory is possible. In other words, the American people will -- their opinions, I suspect, will be affected by what they see on their TV screens. The unity government will affect, first and foremost, the Iraqi people, and that's a very important part of achieving success.
We do have a plan for victory and victory is clearly stated, and that is that Iraq is not a -- becomes a safe haven. And that's important for the American people, that Iraq not be a safe haven for terrorists. Their stated objective is to turn Iraq into a safe haven from which they can launch attacks.
Secondly, part of the plan for victory is for there to be security forces capable of defending and providing security to the Iraqi citizens. And, thirdly, that democracy, the government take root to the extent that it can't be overturned by those who want to stop democracy from taking hold in Iraq. These are clear objectives and they're achievable objectives.
Okay. Mark.
Q Mr. President, in the upcoming elections I think many Republicans would tell you one of the big things they're worried about is the national debt, which was $5.7 trillion when you took office, and is now nearly $8.2 trillion, and Congress has just voted to raise it to $8.9 trillion. That would be a 58-percent increase. You've yet to veto a single bill, sir -- I assume that means you're satisfied with this.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not satisfied with the rise of mandatory spending. As you know, the President doesn't have the -- doesn't veto mandatory spending increases. And mandatory spending increases are those increases in the budget caused by increases in spending on Medicare and Social Security. And that's why -- back to this man's question right here -- it's important for -- "this man" being Jim -- (laughter) -- sorry, Jim, I've got a lot on my mind these days. That's why it's important for us to modernize and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, in order to be able to deal with the increases in mandatory spending.
Secondly, in terms of discretionary spending, that part of the budget over which Congress has got some control, and over which the President can make suggestions -- we have suggested that the Congress fully fund the troops in harm's way. And they have, and for that the American people should be grateful.
Secondly, we suggested that Congress fund the reconstruction efforts for Katrina. They have spent now a little more than $100 billion, and I think that's money well-spent, a commitment that needed to be keep [sic]. Thirdly, we have said that other than security discretionary spending, that we ought to, last year, actually reduce the amount of discretionary spending, and were able to do so. Ever since I've been the President we have slowed the rate of growth of non-security discretionary spending and actually cut discretionary spending -- non-security discretionary spending. Last year I submitted a budget to the United States Congress. I would hope they would meet the targets of the budget that I submitted, in order to continue to make a commitment to the American people.
But in terms of the debt, mandatory spending increases is driving a lot of that debt. And that's why it's important to get the reforms done.
Q Thank you, sir. For the first time in years, interest rates are rising in the U.S., Europe and Japan at the same time. Is this a concern for you? And how much strain are higher interest rates placing on consumers and companies?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, interest rates are set by an independent organization, which --
Q -- still, are you concerned about that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not quite through with my answer yet.
Q I'm sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm kind of stalling for time here. (Laughter.) Interest rates are set by the independent organization. I can only tell you that the economy of the United States looks very strong. And the reason I say that is that projections for first-quarter growth of this year look pretty decent. That's just projections, that's a guess by some economists, and until the actual numbers come out we won't know. But no question that the job market is strong. When you have 4.8 percent unemployment -- 4.8 percent nationwide unemployment, that indicates a strong job market, and that's very important.
One of the measures as to whether or not this economy will remain strong is productivity. And our productivity of the American worker and productivity of the American business sector is rising. And that's positive, because productivity increases eventually yield -- eventually yield higher standards of living. Home ownership is at an all-time high. And there has been all kinds of speculation about whether or not home ownership would -- home building would remain strong, and it appears to be steady. And that's important.
In other words -- and so to answer your question, I feel -- without getting into kind of the -- kind of micro-economics, from my perch and my perspective, the economy appears to be strong and getting stronger. And the fundamental question that those of us in Washington have to answer is, what do we do to keep it that way. How do we make sure, one, we don't put bad policies in place that will hurt economic growth? A bad policy is to raise taxes -- which some want to do. There are people in the United States Congress, primarily on the Democrat side, that would be anxious to let some of the tax relief expire. Some of them actually want to raise taxes now. I think raising taxes would be wrong. As a matter of fact, that's why -- and I think it's important for us to have certainty in the tax code. That's why I'd like to see the tax relief made permanent.
You know, it's a myth in Washington, for Washington people to go around the country saying, well, we'll balance the budget, just let us raise taxes. That's not how Washington works. Washington works raising taxes and they figure out new ways to spend. There is a huge appetite for spending here. One way to help cure that appetite is to give me the line-item veto. You mentioned vetoing a bill -- one reason why I haven't vetoed any appropriation bills is because they met the benchmarks we've set. They have -- on the discretionary spending, we've said, here is the budget, we've agreed to a number, and they met those numbers.
Now, sometimes I didn't -- I like the size of the pie, sometimes I didn't particularly like the slices within the pie. And so one way to deal with the slices in the pie is to give the President the line-item veto. And I was heartened the other day when members of both parties came down in the Cabinet Room to talk about passage of a line-item veto. I was particularly pleased that my opponent in the 2004 campaign, Senator Kerry, graciously came down and lent his support to a line-item veto, and also made very constructive suggestions about how to get one out of the United States Congress.
Let's see here. They told me what to say. David.
Q Mr. President, you've spoken about Iraq as being a beacon for democracy throughout the Middle East. Yet we've had troubles in Iraq and we've seen aggressiveness from Syria and Iran. Are you concerned that the Iraq experience is going to embolden authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and make it tougher to get democracy there?
THE PRESIDENT: There's no question that if we were to prematurely withdraw and the march to democracy were to fail, the al Qaeda would be emboldened; terrorist groups would be emboldened; the Islamo-fascists would be emboldened. No question about that.
There are a lot of reformers in the Middle East who would like to see Iraq succeed. And I think that if we were to lose our nerve and leave prematurely, those reformers would be let down. So failure in Iraq -- which isn't going to happen -- is -- would send all kinds of terrible signals to an enemy that wants to hurt us and people who are desperate to change the conditions in the broader Middle East.
The -- it's an interesting debate, isn't it, about whether or not this country of ours ought to work to spread liberty. It's -- I find it fascinating that -- to listen to the voices from around the world as to whether or not it is a noble purpose to spread liberty around the world. And it is a -- I think it's -- I think it's -- at least, my position is affected by my belief that there is universality when it comes to liberty. This isn't American liberty, this isn't America's possession. Liberty is universal. People desire to be free. And history has proven that democracies don't war. And so part of the issue is to lay peace, is to give people a chance to live in a peaceful world where mothers can raise their children without fear of violence, or women are free to be able to express themselves.
Q But how about the difficulty --
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me a second, David. Excuse me for a second, please.
The -- that we ought to pursue liberty. We ought to not be worried about a foreign policy that encourages others to be free. That's why I said in my second inauguration address, the goal of this country ought to be to end tyranny in the 21st century. I meant it. For the sake of -- I said that for the sake of peace.
Now, what is your follow-up yell? (Laughter.)
Q I was wondering -- have the difficulties of the last three years made the job of those reformers more difficult?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the United States were to lose its nerve, it would certainly make the job of reformers more difficult. If people in Iran, for example, who desire to have a Iranian-style democracy, Iranian-style freedom, if they see us lose our nerve, it's likely to undermine their boldness and their desire.
What we're doing is difficult work. And one -- the interesting thing that's happening is, is that imagine an enemy that says we will kill innocent people because we're trying to encourage people to be free. What kind of mind-set is it of people who say, we must stop democracy? Democracy is based upon this kind of universal belief that people should be free. And yet, there are people willing to kill innocent life to stop it. To me, that ought to be a warning signal to people all around the world that the enemy we face is an enemy that ascribes to a vision that is dark and one that doesn't agree with the universal rights of men and women. As a matter of fact, when given a chance to govern or to have their parasitical government represent their views, they suppressed women and children. There was no such thing as religious freedom. There was no such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There was no such thing as press conferences like this.
They were totalitarian in their view. And that would be -- I'm referring to the Taliban, of course. And that's how they would like to run government. They rule by intimidation and fear, by death and destruction.
And the United States of America must take this threat seriously and must not -- must never forget the natural rights that formed our country. And for people to say, well, the natural rights only exist for one group of people, I would call them -- I would say that they're denying the basic rights to others.
And it is hard work. And it's hard work, David, because we're fighting tradition. We're fighting people that have said, well, wait a minute, the only way to have peace is for there to be tyranny. We're fighting intimidation. We're fighting the fact that people will be thrown in prison if they disagree.
Yes.
Q Sir, you said earlier today that you believe there's a plan for success; if you did not, you would pull the troops out. And so my question is, one, is there a point at which having the American forces in Iraq becomes more a part of the problem than a part of the solution? Can you say that you will not keep American troops in there if they're caught in the cross-fire in a civil war? And can you say to the American people, assure them that there will come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: Bob, the decisions about our troop levels will be made by General Casey and the commanders on the ground. They're the ones who can best judge whether or not the presence of coalition troops create more of a problem than a solution -- than be a part of the solution.
Secondly, I've answered the question on civil war. Our job is to make sure the civil war doesn't happen. But there will be -- but if there is sectarian violence, it's the job of the Iraqi forces, with coalition help, to separate those sectarian forces.
Third part of your question?
Q Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when, not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.
Q So it won't happen on your watch?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean a complete withdrawal? That's a timetable. I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say.
Cannon.
Q Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: No, you're not Cannon. That's Cannon. You're Ken.
Q Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Sorry, Ken. You thought I said Cannon --
Q I thought you said Ken.
THE PRESIDENT: Bazinet. (Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, two years ago, Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Francisco, heard your State of the Union address, went back to California, and began authorizing the marriage of gay men and lesbians. Thousands of people got married. The California courts later ruled he had overstepped his bounds. But they were -- we were left with these pictures of thousands of families getting married, and they had these children, thousands of children. Now, that might have changed the debate, but it didn't. In light of that, my question is, are you still confident that society's interest and the interest of those children in gay families are being met by government saying their parents can't marry?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe society's interest are met by saying -- defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That's what I believe.
Q Mr. President, on immigration, yesterday you answered a question from a woman and said, the tough question here is what happens to somebody who has been here since 1987. Will you accept a bill that allows those who have been here a long time to remain in the country permanently --
THE PRESIDENT: I also said that -- let me make sure, Steve, that you -- first of all, I'm impressed that you're actually paying attention to it. The people I saw in the press pool weren't. They were, like, Elisabeth was half-asleep -- (laughter) -- yes, you were. (Laughter.)
Q No, I wasn't.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Well, the person next to you was. (Laughter.) They were dozing off. I could see them watching their watches, kind of wondering how long he's going to blow on for. Let's get him out of here so we can go get lunch, is what they were thinking. (Laughter.) So at least you paid attention. Thanks.
I also went on to say that people who have been here need to get in line, like everybody else who is in line legally. My point is that if we were -- first of all, whatever is passed should not say "amnesty." In my judgment, amnesty would be the wrong course of action. We have a way toward legality, in terms of citizenship. In other words, there's a difference between someone who is here legally working and someone who is a citizen. And that's part of the -- I maybe didn't make that distinction perfectly clear.
This is going to be a -- this could be a fractious debate, and I hope it's not. Immigration is a very difficult issue for a lot of members, as you know. It's an emotional issue. And it's one that, if not conducted properly, will send signals that I don't think will befit the nation's history and traditions.
My view is, is that border security starts with a good, solid strategy along the border, itself -- in other words, Border Patrol agents, technology, the capacity to pass information quickly so that Border Patrol agents will be more likely to intercept somebody coming across the border illegally. There needs to be enforcement mechanisms that don't discourage the Border Patrol agents. They work hard, they get somebody coming in from country X; the person says, check back in with us in 30 days -- they don't. In other words, they end up in society. That has created some despondency -- not despondency -- it's got to discourage people who are working hard to do their job down there and realize the fruits of their labor is being undermined by a policy that, on the one hand, releases people, kind of, into society, and on the other, doesn't have enough beds to hold people so that we can repatriate them back to their countries. Chertoff has announced the fact that we're getting rid of this catch-and-release program.
Thirdly, there has to be enforcement, employer enforcement of rules and regulations. The problem there, of course, is that people are showing up with forged documents. I mentioned this onion picker that I met yesterday -- onion grower -- who is worried about labor to pick his onions. But he's not -- I don't think he's in a position to be able to determine whether or not what looks like a valid Social Security card, or whatever they show, is valid or not -- which leads to the fact there's a whole industry that has sprung up around moving laborers to jobs that Americans won't do.
It's kind of -- when you make something illegal that people want, there's a way around it, around the rules and regulations. And so you've got people, coyotes stuffing people in the back of 18-wheelers, or smuggling them across 105-degree desert heat. You've got forgers and tunnel-diggers. You've got a whole industry aimed at using people as a commodity. And it's wrong and it needs to be -- we need to do something about it. And the best way to do something about it is to say that if you're -- if an American won't do a job and you can find somebody who will do the job, they ought to be allowed to do it legally, on a temporary basis.
One of the issues I did talk about -- the man asked me the question about, don't let people get ahead of the line. So I made that clear. But one of the issues is going to be to deal with somebody whose family has been here for a while, raised a family. And that will be an interesting -- interesting debate. My answer is, that person shouldn't get automatic citizenship.
Listen, thank you for your time. I've got lunch with the President of Liberia right now. I'm looking forward to greeting this -- the first woman elected on the continent of Africa. Appreciate the opportunity to visit with you all. Look forward to future occasions.
END 10:58 A.M. EST, For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, March 21, 2006
Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or September the 11th and VIDEO and Middle East or War on Terror and Iraq or al Qaeda and terrorists or Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom or Golden Mosque and unity government or tax relief and hydrogen cells or Zal Khalilzad and Ayatollah Sistani
Related: Keyword Iraq, Monday, March 20, 2006 Third Anniversary of Beginning of Iraq Liberation (VIDEO) , Tuesday, March 14, 2006 President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Iraq, 03/13/05 VIDEO , Thursday, March 09, 2006 President Signs USA PATRIOT Act (VIDEO) , Saturday, February 25, 2006 President Addresses American Legion, Discusses Global War on Terror (VIDEO) , Wednesday, January 25, 2006 President Discusses War on Terror at K-State (VIDEO) , Wednesday, January 04, 2006 President Discusses War on Terror Following Pentagon Briefing (VIDEO) , Monday, December 19, 2005 President's Address to the Nation (VIDEO) 12/18/05 , Thursday, December 15, 2005 President, McCain, Warner, Discusses Interrogation , Wednesday, December 14, 2005 Iraqi Elections, Victory in the War on Terror (VIDEO) , Monday, December 12, 2005 President Discusses War on Terror and Upcoming Iraqi Elections (VIDEO) , Sunday, July 17, 2005 Soldiers charged with assault on suspected insurgents , Sunday, July 24, 2005 Iraqi, American Women Discuss Constitution, Women's Rights , Thursday, July 28, 2005 Killing of Algerian Diplomats to Iraq , Saturday, August 06, 2005
| |
