Text 2973, 945 rader
Skriven 2006-07-07 23:35:22 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0607071) for Fri, 2006 Jul 7
===================================================
===========================================================================
Press Conference by the President
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 7, 2006

Press Conference by the President
Museum of Science and Industry
Chicago, Illinois


˙˙˙˙˙ Fact Sheet: A Day in Chicago: President Bush Highlights Economic
Growth and Innovation ˙˙˙˙˙ Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues - 5.4
Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 ˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: Jobs _

10:00 A.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Thank you. It's nice to be here in
Chicago. Mr. Mayor, I thought you might have had enough of me last night.
(Laughter.) Thanks for the birthday party. I really enjoyed our dinner, and
enjoyed our conversation. Jesse, thanks for being here, as well. It's
awfully kind of you to come.

I do want to thank the trustees of this beautiful museum for opening up
your facility for a press conference. I hope it doesn't ruin the atmosphere
of the museum. I will try to make sure it doesn't. I'm looking forward to a
tour of this museum after the press conference.

I'm sure you're wondering why I would have a press conference in Chicago.
It's a fabulous city; plus I like to see what it's like to have a major
press conference outside of Washington. It might do me some good. The truth
of the matter is it might do the White House press corps some good, as
well. So I welcome the Chicago reporters here. Thank you for coming.

I had a fine dinner last night at the Chicago Firehouse, and I did
breakfast today at Lou Mitchell's. It's really interesting sites here in
Chicago, and a lot of fun going to them. And I want to thank the gracious
hospitality of the restauranteurs and the people of Chicago for -- by
welcoming me.

I had some conversations with some of the business leaders last night and
for breakfast, and I think there's kind of an interesting sense of optimism
here in this part of the world, and the statistics bear that out. In the
Chicago area, businesses have added over more than 74,000 new jobs over the
past two years. And that's positive, it's a good sign. The unemployment
rate in this area is 4.3 percent -- that's below the national average.
People are working. People are able to find jobs. Illinois created more
jobs than any other state in the month of April. So the entrepreneurial
spirit is strong here.

One of the things I detected from the business leaders, that there's a
sense of optimism which encourages people to invest. And when you invest
you create the conditions for job growth. Major companies have announced
plans to add even more jobs.

This morning we got some good news -- the nation added 121,000 new jobs for
the month of June. That's over 5.4 million jobs since August of 2003;
that's 34 months of job increases. In the first quarter, our economy grew
at 5.6 percent; productivity is high. People are better off, things are
working. And so the fundamental question we face in Washington is how do we
keep economic vitality alive. What do we do, what are the policies
necessary to keep this growth strong?

And one policy is to keep taxes low. If you raise taxes, you take money out
of the pockets of small businesses and entrepreneurs, which makes it harder
to increase employment. One of the reasons I'm here at this museum is
because one way to make sure we continue to grow the economy is to have a
work force that's capable of filling the jobs of the 21st century.

One of the subjects the Mayor and I talked about last night was the No
Child Left Behind Act, and what the city of Chicago is doing to hold people
to account and have high standards and to offer different choices to
parents here in Chicago through charter schools, for example. The Mayor
said something interesting -- he said, reading scores are up. That's a good
sign. It means people are measuring, and teachers are teaching. And when
you have the basics -- the basic foundation for good education laid, then
you can focus on math and science.

So, the truth of the matter is we have to make sure our kids have got the
math and science skills to fill the jobs of the 21st century. We live in a
global economy and an interconnected world, and if we can't provide the
employees for the jobs of the 21st century, they're going to go somewhere
else. So education is crucial to make sure we're a competitive and vibrant
nation.

Job training is really important. The Labor Department, working with the
local folks here, have set up one-stop centers in Chicago to help connect
workers with employers. You've got a good community college system here.
Community colleges are really important to make sure that workers are given
the skills to fill the jobs which actually exist. And the Lakeland
Community College system is a strong program. There's federal help and
there's state help and there's local involvement, all aimed at making sure
people have got the capacity to have the -- to fill the jobs. When you have
a growing economy like this, there's concern by employers whether or not
they're going to be able to find people to do the work. And education is
the gateway to make sure that we remain a competitive economy.

I also believe strongly that we've got to open up markets to goods produced
here in Illinois, goods and services. One way to make sure this economy of
ours grows is to reject protectionism and be confident in our capacity to
trade. I'm getting ready to go to the G8, and one of the topics there is
going to be the Doha Round of the WTO, which basically -- the commitment is
that a world that trades freely is a world in which people are going to be
able to find work here at home, and it means we have better capacity to be
able to help lift nations out of poverty.

We talked last night about immigration. I found it interesting that the
people that were there with the Mayor and me, employees and chamber of
commerce-type people ,put immigration as one of the issues they want to
talk about. I told them this; I said, first of all, I'll always remember
that immigrants have helped shape the character of this nation. We are a
land of immigrants. I also reminded them that the system we got today isn't
working, and it needs to be changed and reformed.

We're a nation of law, and we can be a compassionate nation when it comes
to immigration, and the two don't conflict. So I've talked about a
comprehensive immigration plan. People in this country expect us to secure
the border, and we will. The way you do that is you add more manpower and
you put new technologies on the border to keep people from sneaking across.

But in order to enforce this border, we've got to have a rational way that
recognizes there are people sneaking across to do work Americans aren't
doing. They're doing jobs Americans are not filling. And my attitude is
this: When you find a willing worker and a willing employer, there ought to
be a legal way to let somebody come here to work on a temporary basis. It
takes pressure off the border. When you got people sneaking across to do
work, it puts pressure on a border. If somebody can come in on a legal way,
it's going to make it easier for our Border Patrol agents to do their job.

Secondly, one of the serious issues we have, and one of the issues that the
-- some of the leaders brought up yesterday was -- the guy said, we really
shouldn't be in a position to be document verifiers. And when you make
something illegal that people want, it's amazing what happens -- got a
whole industry of smugglers and innkeepers and document forgers that sprung
up. And so people show up and say, I want to work; the guy says, show me
your document, and they don't know whether it's real or not. And we got a
Basic Pilot program to help people verify whether documents are real.

But one way to do is if you have a temporary worker program, say, here's a
tamper-proof card that will enable our employers to be able to verify
whether someone is here legally to do work on a temporary basis, and enable
the government to hold people to account for hiring illegal workers. See,
it's against the law to hire somebody who is here illegally, and the
American people expect us to enforce the law, and we will. But the system
needs to be reformed.

I told the workers last night that there are about 11 million people here,
more or less, who have been here for a while, that are building families,
and they're good workers. And they said, what are you going to do about it?
And I said, well, there's two extremes on this issue. One extreme is, kick
them out, deport everybody. That's not going to work. It may sound like
kind of an interesting sound byte, kind of a nice throwaway line, but it's
not going to work. It's impractical.

The other option is to say, well, you're an automatic citizen. That's
called amnesty. That won't work. And the reason that won't work is if you
grant 8 million or 9 million people who are here illegally automatic
citizenship, it means another 8 million or 9 million coming.

The best way to deal with this problem, in my judgment, is to say, look,
you're here illegally, there's got to be a consequence. The consequence
could be a penalty, a fine. It could be proof that you're not a criminal.
In other words, there's got to be ways to say -- make restitution for
society for breaking the law; but say to the person, you can get in the
citizenship line, but at the back of the line, not at the beginning. See,
there are people in line who want to become a citizen of the United States.
It doesn't make sense to penalize those who are here legally, playing by
the rules, to let people who have been here illegally get ahead of them.

This is a comprehensive plan. Look, the House has passed a bill, the Senate
has passed a bill, and we're working in Washington to reconcile the
differences. It's hard work. It's not an easy assignment. But I'm confident
if we all keep working on it, we can get a comprehensive bill done which
will be good for the country, and send the message that we're a land of
different folks from different religions and different backgrounds, all
united under the great -- the great American ideal.

I spend a lot of time worrying about the war on terror. I think about it
every single day. My biggest job, frankly, is to protect the American
people, and this is a dangerous world and there are people out there
lurking who are trying to figure out ways to hurt us. I know some dismiss
that as empty rhetoric; I'm just telling you it's the truth. And therefore,
we're doing a lot of stuff in Washington. We're reforming our intelligence
services to be able to react better. The FBI is now focusing on
counter-terrorist activities. The CIA is developing more human
intelligence, which will make it easier to be able to do our duty.

We're also on the offense against the terrorists. We'll keep the pressure
on them. We'll bring them to justice before they hurt our people.

The central front in the war on terror is Iraq. And I know Iraq is on the
minds of a lot of people here in Chicago. It's hard work. It's hard work
because we face an enemy that will keep innocent people in order to achieve
an objective, and their objective is to drive us out of Iraq so they can
have safe haven from which to launch attacks against modern Muslim nations,
so they can spread their ideology of hate. They want us to -- they believe
capitalist societies and democracies are inherently weak. They do not
believe that we've got the capacity to do the hard work necessary to help
the Iraqis succeed.

And they're mistaken. They're just wrong. Success in Iraq is vital for the
security of the United States, and success in Iraq is vital for long-term
peace. And so, therefore, we'll complete the mission.

But we've got good partners. And Zal Khalilzad came in the other day, who
is our Ambassador to Iraq. And he, like me, has confidence in Prime
Minister Maliki. He's a guy who can set goals and follow through on those
goals. He understands what needs to be done in order to succeed. And he
represents the will of 12 million people who went to the polls. That's a
pretty interesting sign that the Iraqi people want to live in freedom.

There's been a lot of sacrifice in the war on terror. People have lost
life. We've lost, obviously, a lot of lives here on the homeland and we've
lost lives overseas. I think of Corporal Ryan Cummings, from right here in
the Chicago area. He was an honor student at Hoffman Estates High School.
He volunteered for the United States Marine Corps. He served two tours of
duty in Iraq, and then he volunteered for a third. Ryan understood the
stakes. He understood we must win. And so he said, I'd like to go back. And
he was killed in Anbar Province last month.

Our prayers go out to Ryan's family. I marvel at the strength of his
mother, when she said, "He wanted to be doing something that made a
difference; he was doing what he wanted to do."

I have confidence in the capacity of liberty to transform hostile regions
to peaceful regions. And I have confidence in our capacity to win the war
on terror because of people like Ryan Cummings are willing to step up and
serve this nation.

There's a lot of issues that I'm sure we'll be talking about today -- North
Korea and Iran, hopefully the Middle East, maybe some local issues here in
Chicago. It's my honor to be here. Thank you for coming. And now I'll start
answering some questions, starting with one of the senior members of the
press corps -- are you over 60?

Q -- (inaudible) --

THE PRESIDENT: You look like you're about 65. Anyway, go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q Harsh. Mr. President, Japan has dropped the threat of sanctions from its
proposed Security Council resolution about North Korea. Why was that
necessary? And how do you punish or penalize a country that's already among
the poorest and most isolated in the world?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that the purpose of the U.N. Security Council
resolution is to send a clear message to the leader of North Korea that the
world condemns that which he did. Part of our strategy, as you know, has
been to have others at the table; is to say as clearly as possible to the
North Korean, get rid of your weapons and there's a better way forward. In
other words, there's a choice for him to make. He can verifiably get rid of
his weapons programs and stop testing rockets, and there's a way forward
for him to help his people.

I believe it's best to make that choice clear to him with more than one
voice, and that's why we have the six-party talks. And now that he has
defied China and Japan and South Korea and Russia and the United States --
all of us said don't fire that rocket. He not only fired one, he fired
seven. Now that he made that defiance, it's best for all of us to go to the
U.N. Security Council and say loud and clear, here are some red lines. And
that's what we're in the process of doing.

The problem with diplomacy, it takes a while to get something done. If
you're acting alone, you can move quickly. When you're rallying world
opinion and trying to come up with the right language at the United Nations
to send a clear signal, it takes a while.

And so, yesterday, I was on the phone with -- I think I mentioned this to
the press conference yesterday -- to Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin; the day
before to President Roh and Prime Minister Koizumi. And Condi, by the way,
was making the same calls out there to her counterparts, all aiming at
saying, it's your choice, Kim Jong-il, you've got the choice to make.

So we'll see what happens at the U.N. Security Council. I talked to Condi
this morning first thing, in anticipation of this question, and she feels
good about the progress that can be made there.

Yes.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, what matters most of all is for Kim Jong-il to see the
world speak with one voice. That's the purpose, really.

Here's the problem, it seems like to me, that there have been agreements
with North Korea in the past. There's the '94 agreement. I think you were
around here then, Sanger. And then it turns out he didn't live up to the
agreement. He said -- in September of '05, there was a joint declaration
that talked about lasting peace, and we all signed on to a document that
said we'll denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. That's a noble and important
goal. This was signed by the five of us plus North Korea. He had also
talked about the rocket moratorium. He assured Koizumi in '04, Prime
Minister Koizumi, that he would adhere to that. And you just got to wonder
whether the man's word means anything. And one way to make sure it does
mean something is for nations other than the United States to say the same
thing, to speak loud and clear. And that's what you're seeing evolve.

Steve.

Q Thank you, sir. Some experts say North Korea may be launching missiles to
attract more concessions. Are you prepared to offer any more concessions
beyond that already offered in the six-party format? And have you ruled out
the possible military option in responding to them?

THE PRESIDENT: As you know, we want to solve all problems diplomatically.
That's our first choice.

What was the first part of your question? This is what happens when your 60
--

Q -- are they trying to -- (inaudible) --

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I don't know -- I don't know what the man's intentions
are. I don't know what they are. It's an interesting question: Is he trying
to force us to do something by defying the world? If he wants a way
forward, it's clear. If he wants to have good relations with the world,
he's got to verifiably get rid of his weapons programs like he agreed to do
in 1994, stop testing missiles, and there is a way forward. Part of the
discussions in September were, here's a way forward. Here's a way for --
he's worried about energy, and our partners at the table said, well, here's
an energy proposal for you to consider. And so the choice is his to make.

And I made it very clear to our partners that it seems like to me that the
message ought to be one that said, you shouldn't be rewarded for violating
that which you've said you're going to do and kind of ignoring what the
world has said. And it's just -- whether it be the Iranian issue or the
North Korean issue, there is a way forward for these leaders that will lead
to a better life for their people and acceptance into the international
community. And one of the things we've done in the United States is to work
with the coalition to send that message. It's a clear message. He knows
what his options are.

Kelly. A couple -- then we'll start working the local thing. Warm up.

Q Hello, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q I'd like to ask you to speak on the broad implications of that recent
Supreme Court case -- not the specifics of the case. But the justices said
that you overreached your authority. And your critics have been saying
that, too. Given your support and respect for the Court, are you willing to
rethink how you use your presidential authority?

THE PRESIDENT: I am willing to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court said that in this particular case when it comes to
dealing with illegal combatants, who were picked up off a battlefield and
put in Guantanamo for the sake of our security, that we should work with
the United States Congress to develop a way forward. They didn't we
couldn't have done -- made that decision, see. They were silent on whether
or not Guantanamo -- whether or not we should have used Guantanamo. In
other words, they accepted the use of Guantanamo, the decision I made. What
they did say was, in terms of going forward, what should the court system
look like? How can we use a military commission or tribunal?

And we'll work with the United States Congress. They have said, work with
the Congress. I have been waiting for this decision in order to figure out
how to go forward. I want to move forward. First of all, I stand by the
decision I made in removing these people from the battlefield. See, here's
the problem: These are the types of combatants we have never faced before.
They don't wear uniforms and they don't represent a nation state. They're
bound by an ideology. They swore allegiance to individuals, but not to a
nation. The Geneva conventions were set up to deal with armies of nation
states. You've got standard rules of war.

So this is new ground. This is different than any President has been
through before, in terms of how to deal with these kind of people that
you're picking up off a battlefield and trying to protect the American
people from.

So we have about 600 or so there, and 200 have been sent back home. We'd
like to send more back to their countries of origin. Some need to be tried,
and the fundamental question is, how do we try them? And so, in working
with the Supreme -- in listening to the Supreme Court, we'll work with
Congress to achieve that objective.

And so your question is slightly loaded, which is okay, I'm used to it. But
the idea of making the decision about creating Guantanamo in the first
place was upheld by the courts. Or let's say, the courts were silent on it.

Let's see -- Jessica. Go ahead and yell it out. Or don't yell it out.

Q It's been three days since North Korea fired those missiles. Yesterday
you said you did not know the trajectory of the long-range missile. Can you
now tell us where was it was headed? And if it were headed? And if it were
headed -- if it had been headed at the United States, how would our
national ballistic missile system have taken it down?

THE PRESIDENT: I still can't give you any better answer than yesterday. I
can embellish yesterday's answer. It may sound better. No, really, I
haven't talked to the Secretary of Defense about that.

Our missile systems are modest, our anti-ballistic missile systems are
modest. They're new. It's new research. We've gotten -- testing them. And
so I can't -- it's hard for me to give you a probability of success. But,
nevertheless, the fact that a nontransparent society would be willing to
tee up a rocket and fire it without identifying where it's going or what
was on it means we need a ballistic missile system.

So that's about all I can tell you on that. Obviously, it wasn't a
satisfactory answer.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we had a reasonable chance of shooting it down.
At least that's what the military commanders told me.

Rick. Let's get a little local here, Ricky. Do you consider yourself local
or national? Hybrid? Are you a hybrid?

Q It seems trendy --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very trendy. You're kind of a trendy guy. Got the gray
shirt.

Q Thank you very much. Mr. President, the work of U.S. Attorney Patrick
Fitzgerald in prosecuting alleged corruption is well-known here in Chicago,
as well as nationally. It's my understanding that technically, he hasn't
been reappointed to his position, and serves at your pleasure. Do you have
any plans to formally reappoint him to the post, or any position at
Department of Justice?

THE PRESIDENT: As a special prosecutor?

Q And would you give us your assessment of the job that he's doing?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't have any plans to reappoint him because I haven't
thought about it. I will now think about it, now that you brought it up.

The only -- I can give you an assessment of how I thought he handled the
case in Washington. I haven't been following the cases here. I thought in
Washington he handled the case with professionalism, he was very
professional about it. You didn't see a lot leaks, you didn't see a lot of
speculation, you didn't see a lot of people kind of dropping a little crumb
here for the press to chew on. And I really thought he handled himself
well.

But as far as reappointing him as a special prosecutor, I don't know
whether the Attorney General is going to do that, or not. That's his choice
to make.

Chris. Or, Paul. Paul.

Q Mr. President, gas prices are high, as you know. Oil is at $75 a barrel.
There is a poll that suggests that three in four Americans are not content
with your leadership on the issue, and that the State of the Union pitch
for alternative fuel technology has fallen flat and is not moving. Why not
call for an emergency energy summit and lift the issue to a higher
priority?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I thought addressing the issue at the State of the
Union was pretty much lifting it to a high priority. When you include it in
the State of the Union it means it's a top priority, and it is.

It took us a while to get in a position where we're reliant upon sources of
energy from outside our boundaries, and it's going to take us a while to
become less dependent. It just takes a while; things just don't happen
instantly. I told the people, if I could lower gasoline prices with a snap
of the fingers, I'd do it. And I've been talking about energy independence
since I first got elected. And we've made some progress. We made progress
by encouraging the spread of ethanol. And I think if you were to look at
the facts, ethanol has gone from low market penetration to pretty
significant market penetration in selected parts of the country, relatively
speaking, particularly in the Midwest.

There is more work to be done. There is a lot of ethanol plants being built
as we speak, and there's incentives in government law to do that. We've
effected CAFE standards when it comes to light trucks, which will help
consumers make a rational decision. We put incentives for people to buy
hybrid vehicles in law. If you go out and buy a hybrid vehicle, you get a
tax credit.

I happen to believe it's essential for us to promote nuclear power as a way
to make us less dependent on natural gas from overseas, for example. Also,
this will help us be wise stewards of our environment. We're spending a lot
of money on technologies -- battery technologies, for example -- that would
enable Chicago residents to drive the first 40 miles on electricity before
one would have to use gasoline.

And so we do have a full-blown strategy to make this country less dependent
on foreign sources of oil, to help relieve pressure at the gas pump. When
the demand for crude oil in China rises, it affects the global price of
crude oil, which affects your price of gasoline. And, therefore, the
strategy has got to be to diversify away from crude oil.

One of the issues that we're trying to get done here is that if you -- if
people are genuinely concerned about the price of gasoline, they ought to
be supporting my initiative to encourage the construction of additional
refinery capacity. Certainly, it's not the long-term solution, but it's an
important solution for the short run. If you have constrained gasoline
supplies and demand remains high, you're going to have higher prices of
gasoline. We haven't built a new refinery in this country since the early
1970s. And so, the truth of the matter is, I would hope people would
contact their members of Congress to insist that they support a -- the bill
that we ran up to the Hill, which would have made it much easier to permit
and construct refineries.

So we have a comprehensive plan. This is a serious issue. I understand
people are paying high gasoline prices here -- it's like a tax. I
understand it's like a tax. And we got a strategy to deal with it.

Anna. We're going to work our way down the row here. The Daily Herald, is
that one of Pearson's competitors? It is?

Q Well, we compete with everyone. My question is focusing, too, also, on
technology. There's been a lot of mergers with companies in the technology
industry, and one of the more recent ones was Lucent Technologies with
Alcatel, which is French-owned. How do you feel about a lot of the
foreign-owned companies buying out U.S. tech companies, especially those
that have military contracts?

THE PRESIDENT: We have laws that prevent sensitive technologies from being
transferred as a result of sale and/or merger. And we watch that very
carefully.

On the broader scale, I have no problem with foreign capital buying U.S.
companies; nor do I have a problem with U.S. companies buying foreign
companies. That's what free trade is all about. As a matter of fact, there
are workers working here in Illinois because of foreign investment. A
foreign company takes a look at Illinois, they like the tax structure, they
like the governance, they like the work force, and they invest. And when
they invest, they create jobs.

A lot of the jobs in America exist as a result of foreign companies
investing here in our country. So I believe in opening markets. I do
believe in protecting secrets, but we've got laws on the books to prevent
secrets from being transferred, or vital technology from being transferred.
But I believe in free flows of capital, and I believe in free trade. And
that's not a given in the United States. There are people who say, well, we
can't compete with China, let's throw up roadblocks, let's protect
ourselves. Or, we don't want foreigners coming to invest in our country. I
think that would be a mistake. I think that's the early signs of
protectionist sentiments, which would mean our economy wouldn't grow.

In my State of the Union -- the very same State of the Union that I
addressed the energy problem -- I talked about trends that are worrisome.
One trend would be protectionism, and its corollary would be isolationism.
An isolationist world basically says, don't worry about what happens
overseas, we'll just worry about what happens here at home. Don't worry
about HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa, not our problem. Don't worry
about Darfur, it's not our problem. Don't worry about the fact that there's
tyrannies in the Middle East, that's not our problem.

The truth of the matter is, all of these issues are our problem, and if we
became isolationist, we would not do our duty to protect the American
people and kind of lay the foundations for a better world.

People say, well, you know, China is too tough to compete with, let's just
throw up tariffs. I completely disagree. I think competition is good and
healthy. I think it's important to have a competitive world. It means that
people are constantly producing a better product and a better service at a
better price, which is good for consumers.

Yes, sir.

Q An aide to Judy Topinka was quoted as saying that given your low approval
ratings in the polls, they prefer you to come here in the middle of the
night.

THE PRESIDENT: Didn't work. I'm coming to have lunch. (Laughter.)

Q I'm wondering if you're offended by those remarks, and whether or not you
think your presence may actually harm Republican candidates when you come
out to campaign for them.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not offended. Personally, I think -- am I offended that
you read the person's remarks to me? No, I'm not offended that you were
reading that at all, nor am I offended at what the person said. The first
I've heard it was just then. And I'm coming to lunch. I think it's going to
be a pretty successful fundraiser. And I -- we will hold the House and the
Senate. And I've spent a lot of time on the road. I like campaigning, and
I'm proud she invited me.

Q (Inaudible) -- approval ratings, do you think that -- (inaudible) --

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to the candidates to decide. I was invited; I
gladly came. And I think we're going to have a pretty successful fundraiser
for her.

Here's how you win elections. You win elections by believing something. You
win elections by having a plan to protect the American people from
terrorist attack. You win elections by having a philosophy that has
actually produced results -- economic growth, for example -- or kind of
changing the school systems for the better, or providing prescription drug
coverage for elders. That's how you win elections. And I'm looking forward
to these elections. I think you'll be surprised. Or maybe you won't be
surprised. You're probably a sophisticated political analyst, you know
what's going on.

Q Mr. President, a lot of people here in Chicago tell us that they see an
incongruity in your foreign policy. We're involved in a shooting war in
Iraq; yet we have a leader in North Korea who has announced his affection
for nuclear weapons and no hesitation to use them against the United
States. Is your policy consistent between the way you have dealt with Iraq
and the way you have dealt with North Korea? And if so, are we headed
toward a military action in North Korea? And if so, can this nation sustain
military action on three fronts -- Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea?

THE PRESIDENT: I have always said that it's important for an American
President to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before the use of force.
Committing our troops into harm's way is a difficult decision. It's the
toughest decision a President will ever make. And I fully understand the
consequences of doing so.

All diplomatic options were exhausted, as far as I was concerned, with
Saddam Hussein. Remember that the U.N. Security Council resolution that we
passed when I was the President was one of 16, I think -- 16, 17? Give me a
hand here. More than 15. (Laughter.) Resolution after resolution after
resolution saying the same thing, and he ignored them. And we tried
diplomacy. We went to the U.N. Security Council -- 15-to-nothing vote that
said, disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.

I happen to believe that when you say something you better mean it. And so
when we signed on to that resolution that said, disclose, disarm or face
serious consequences, I meant what we said. That's one way you keep the
peace: You speak clearly and you mean what you say.

And so the choice was Saddam Hussein's choice. He could have not fooled the
inspectors. He could have welcomed the world in. He could have told us what
was going on. But he didn't. And so we moved.

And we're in the diplomatic process now with North Korea; that's what
you're seeing happening. Remember, remember, we put a coalition together at
the United Nations that said, disclose, disarm, or face serious
consequences. It was 15 to nothing. It wasn't a U.S., 1 to 14. It was 15 to
nothing; other nations stood up and said the same thing we said.

So we're now working the diplomacy, and you're watching the diplomacy work,
not only in North Korea, but in Iran. It's kind of painful in a way for
some to watch because it takes a while to get people on the same page.
Everybody -- not everybody thinks the exact same way we think. There are
different -- words mean different things to different people, and the
diplomatic process can be slow and cumbersome. This is why this is probably
the fourth day in a row I've been asked about North Korea -- it's slow and
cumbersome. Things just don't happen overnight.

But what you're watching is a diplomatic response to a person who, since
1994, has said they're not going to -- he's not going to have a weapon.

Q Do you believe the United States --

THE PRESIDENT: I don't accept that hypothetical question. You're asking me
a hypothetical. What I believe is we can solve the problem diplomatically.

Let's see here -- Brett.

Q Mr. President, if the EU does not receive a definitive answer from Iran
on the incentives package by next week, do you foresee the G8 summit as
being a springboard to bring that issue to the U.N. Security Council? And
what do you say to Americans who are frustrated by the familiar roadblocks,
it seems, of China and Russia on harsh sanctions?

THE PRESIDENT: I said I wasn't going to answer a hypothetical; now you're
trying to get me to answer a hypothetical. The G8 will be an opportunity
for those of us involved with this issue to make it clear to the Iranians
that they -- we're firm in our resolve for them not to have a nuclear
weapon.

I talked to President Putin about North Korea; I also talked to him about
Iran. I believe he understands the dangers of the Iranians having a nuclear
weapon.

Some nations are more comfortable with sanctions than other nations, and
part of the issue we face in some of these countries is that they've got
economic interests. And part of our objective is to make sure that national
security interests, security of the world interests trump economic
interests. And sometimes that takes a while to get people focused in the
right direction.

You know, the first step of a diplomatic solution is for there to be a
common goal agreed upon by those of us participating in the process. The
goal in North Korea is a nuclear weapons-free peninsula -- not just in
North Korea, but North and South Korea. And that's an important goal. It's
important for the neighborhood to have embraced that goal.

The goal for Iran is for them to have a -- verifiably get rid of their
weapons program. The first step, however, is to -- for their verifiable
suspension. And by the way, if they will verifiably do which they said they
would do in Paris, we will come back to the table. That's what we've said
we will do.

And whether or not they -- what their posture is we're finding out as a
result of the conversations of Mr. Solana of the EU and Mr. Larijani. I do
appreciate Javier Solana's work on this issue. I saw him when I was in
Austria, and I thanked him for doing a good job.

Yes. I'm trying to kind of tamp the follow-ups down a little bit here.

Q Do you have a sense of urgency with Iran --

THE PRESIDENT: Do I have a sense of urgency? I have a -- I'm realistic
about how things move in the world. Sanger will tell you, he's been
covering North Korea since the mid '90s -- these problems don't arise in a
nanosecond. It takes a while for a problem to fester and grow, and then it
takes a while to solve them diplomatically. That's just the nature of
diplomacy. I wish we could solve them overnight. But I'm a realistic -- one
thing I'm not going to let us do is get caught in the trap of sitting at
the table alone with the North Korean, for example. In my judgment, if you
want to solve a problem diplomatically, you need partners to do so.

And a good partner to have at the table with us is China. They're in the
neighborhood, got some influence in the neighborhood. Another good partner
to have at the table is South Korea. They've got a lot at stake of what
happens in North Korea, so it's important to have them at the table, as
well. My concern -- I've said this publicly a lot -- my concern about being
-- handling this issue bilaterally is that you run out of options very
quickly. And sometimes it's easier for the leader of the nontransparent
society to turn the tables and make a country like the United States the
problem, as opposed to themselves.

The problem in North Korea and the problem in Iran is their leaders have
made choices. And what we're saying is, there's a better avenue for you.
There's a different route, there's a different way forward for your people.

I said yesterday and I truly mean this I am deeply concerned about the
plight of the folks who live in North Korea. I'm concerned about starvation
and deprivation. I'm concerned that little children are being denied enough
food so they can develop a mental capacity to be citizens of this world.
I'm concerned about concentration camps. There is a better way for the
people of North Korea, and their leader can make better choices if he truly
cares about their plight. And we have made clear what that choice is.

Suzanne.

Q Mr. President, if I could follow up, you say diplomacy takes time --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it does.

Q -- but it was four years ago that you labeled North Korea a member of the
"axis of evil." And since then it's increased its nuclear arsenal, it's
abandoned six-party talks and now these missile launches --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a question. It's increased it's -- that's an
interesting statement: "North Korea has increased its nuclear arsenal." Can
you verify that?

Q Well, intelligence sources say -- if you can -- if you'd like to dispute
that, that's fine.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not going to dispute, I'm just curious.

Q Our intelligence sources say that it's increased the number -- its
nuclear capability --

THE PRESIDENT: -- dangerous -- it has potential danger.

Q It's increased is nuclear capabilities. It's abandoned six-party talks,
and it's launched these missiles.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Why shouldn't Americans see the U.S. policy regarding North Korea as a
failed one?

THE PRESIDENT: Because it takes time to get things done.

Q What objective has the U.S. government achieved when it comes to North
Korea? And why does the administration continue to go back to the same
platform process if it's not effective in changing North Korea's behavior?
Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Suzanne, these problems didn't arise overnight, and they
don't get solved overnight. It takes a while. Again, I think if you look at
the history of the North Korean weapons program, it started probably in the
'80s. We don't know -- maybe you know more than I do -- about increasing
the number of nuclear weapons. My view is we ought to treat North Korea as
a danger, take them seriously. No question that he has signed agreements
and didn't stick by them. But that was done during -- when we had bilateral
negotiations with him, and it's done during the six-party talks.

You've asked what we've done. We've created a framework that will be
successful. I don't -- my judgment is, you can't be successful if the
United States is sitting at the table alone with North Korea. You run out
of options very quickly if that's the case. In order to be successful
diplomatically, it's best to have other partners at the table. You ask what
we've done. We got the six-party talks started. And that's a positive
development. It's a way to solve this problem diplomatically.

Bill.

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: I just thought for a minute you might have known more than I
do about -- when you say, definitively say he's increased the number of
weapons. I don't think we know that.

Q Maybe you know, but you're not telling.

THE PRESIDENT: That's an option. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, you said some time ago that --

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe I don't know and don't want to tell you I don't know.
Anyway. (Laughter.)

Q You said some time ago that you wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive. You
later regretted the formulation, but not the thought.

THE PRESIDENT: I regretted the formulation because my wife got on me for
talking that way.

Q We suspected as much, sir. (Laughter.) But the question I have -- the
question I have is, it appears that the CIA has disbanded the unit that was
hunting him down. Is it no longer important to track him down?

THE PRESIDENT: It's just an incorrect story. I mean, we got a -- we got a
lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden. So whatever you want to read in
that story, it's just not true, period.

Q -- you're still after him --

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. No ands, ifs, or buts. And in my judgment, it's
just a matter of time, unless we stop looking. And we're not going to stop
looking so long as I'm the President -- not only for Osama bin Laden, but
anybody else who plots and plans attacks against the United States of
America. We're going to stay on the offense, so long as I'm your President.
And my judgment is, if we let up the pressure on them, the world is more
dangerous. In the short run, we will bring these people to justice. We will
use good intelligence. We will share information with our allies. We will
work with friends. We'll bring people to justice. In the long run, the way
you defeat this enemy is to spread liberty, and that's what you're seeing
unfold.

Yes, sir. You are?

Q Carlos.

THE PRESIDENT: Who are you working for, Carlos?

Q CLTV, the Tribune TV station in town.

THE PRESIDENT: CLTV --

Q I work with Pearson, so --

THE PRESIDENT: You do?

Q Well, thank you, Mr. President. Last summer, when you were here to sign
the transportation bill in Denny Hastert's district, you described Mayor
Daley as "a great Mayor." If you've read the morning papers, you'll find
that Patrick Fitzgerald has secured the conviction of one of the Mayor's
top -- former top officials for rigging city jobs to benefit the Mayor's
political workers. Does that change your assessment of Mayor Daley's
tenure?

THE PRESIDENT: I still think he's a great Mayor. It is a well-run city, and
he gets a lot of credit for it. He doesn't get sole credit, but he gets a
lot of credit. He's a leader. The thing I like about Daley is he -- when he
tells you something, he means it. Like, he told me, he said, we're going to
whomp you in the 2000 election. He meant it. (Laughter.) He's a -- yes, I'm
proud to call him, friend. I'm proud to have shared my 60th birthday with
your Mayor.

Yes, sir? Yes, Mark.

Q Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. President, three Illinois National Guard units
left this week for Iraq, at a time when there's discussion about withdraw
or draw-down of troops. What are the families of these Illinois National
Guardsmen to expect?

THE PRESIDENT: They expect that their loved one will be participating in a
noble and important cause. If I didn't think it was important, I wouldn't
have put out the orders to have people go there. And if I didn't think we
could win, I wouldn't be there. That's what they can expect. They can
expect tough work, tough sledding, and they can expect a grateful
Commander-in-Chief and a grateful nation for the sacrifices.

In terms of troop levels, those decisions will be made by General Casey.
There's a debate in Washington as to whether or not we set an artificial
timetable for withdrawal. That's what it's about in Washington, D.C. And
the answer is, absolutely not. You can't win a war if you have an
artificial timetable for withdrawal. You can't have people making troop
decisions based upon political considerations. It just won't work. It's
unfair to those families that were sending -- of the kids we're sending
over, and it's unfair to the troops.

Artificial timetable for withdrawal send the wrong message to the Iraqis,
they're seeing it's not worth it. There's a lot of Iraqis over there
determined -- trying to make up their mind whether they want to be a part
of democracy, or whether or not they're going to take to the hills and see
what happens. Artificial timetable for withdrawal, an early withdrawal
before this finishes sends the message to the enemy, we were right about
America. That's what they said. Al Qaeda has said it's just a matter of
time before America withdraws. They're weak, they're corrupt, they can't
stand it, and they'll withdraw. And all that would do is confirm what the
enemy thinks.

And getting out before we finish the job would send a terrible message to
the troops who sacrificed. We'll win. We'll achieve our objective, which is
a free that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and will
be an ally in the war on terror. And we're making progress toward that
goal.

The problem is that the enemy gets to define success better than we do.
See, they'll kill innocent people like that (snaps his fingers), they don't
care. Life is not precious to them. And they're willing to kill women and
children in order to achieve a tactical objective. And it gets on our TV
screens. And people mourn the loss of life. This is a compassionate nation
that cares about people, and when they see people die on their TV screens,
it sends a signal, well, maybe we're not winning.

We occasionally are able to pop in with great success, like Zarqawi or 12
million people voting. But increasing electricity in Baghdad is not the
kind of thing that tends to get on the news, or small business formation is
not the kind of thing to get -- or new schools or new hospitals, the
infrastructure being rebuilt that had been torn apart. And I'm not being
critical. I'm just giving you a fact of something I have to deal with in
order to make it clear to the American people that the sacrifice of those
families is worth it. We are winning. And a free Iraq is an essential part
of changing the conditions which causes the terrorists to be able to
recruit killers in the first place.

For a long period of time, our foreign policy was just kind of excuse
tyranny and hope for the best. It didn't work. The world may have seemed
placid, it may have seemed calm, but beneath the surface was resentment and
hatred, out of which came an attack that killed 3,000 of our citizens.

And so I am committed to the spread of liberty. It's, after all, how we
were founded. And there's a debate here in the United States that says,
well, maybe it's too much for the United States to insist others live in a
free world. Maybe that's just too unilateral. I view that as cultural
elitism for people who say that. It's like saying, we're okay to be free,
but you're not.

I believe freedom is universal, and I believe etched in the soul of every
person on the face of the Earth is the desire to be free. And I know that
freedom has got the capacity to change regions of the world for the better.

Our press corps is bored with this story, but I'm going to tell it anyway
-- the Koizumi story. (Laughter.) That's what you get when you get familiar
with people -- they can anticipate your remarks.

I hope you thought it was interesting that Prime Minister Koizumi and I
went to Graceland. It was really a lot of fun, wasn't it? It's an
interesting part of the development of our relationship, from one in which
Japan was the enemy of the United States, and today, the son of a person
who fought the Japanese, and the son of a person who resented the United
States are close friends. We talk about keeping the peace. We talk about
working together to change the world for the better: What do we do? How do
we feed people who are hungry? How do we build roads in Afghanistan? What
do we do?

And so what happened? What h