Text 4342, 517 rader
Skriven 2007-04-10 23:30:56 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0704101) for Tue, 2007 Apr 10
====================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Discusses Iraq War Supplemental, War on Terror
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 10, 2007

President Bush Discusses Iraq War Supplemental, War on Terror
American Legion Post 177 Fairfax, Virginia

˙ Video (Windows) ˙˙White House News

˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: Defense ˙˙˙˙˙ In Focus: Renewal in Iraq

10:23 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Good morning; please be seated. Thank you for
your warm hospitality. It's a pleasure to be here at Legion Post 177,
Fairfax, Virginia. I appreciate you inviting me. And I've come to share
some thoughts about service to our country, this war we face, and the need
for the United States Congress to make sure our troops have what is
necessary to complete their mission. (Applause.)

Bob Sussan greeted me coming in. I appreciate you, Commander, greeting a
fellow from Post 77 -- we dropped the "1" in Houston. (Laughter.) He not
only presented me with a cake, he gave me a chance to express my gratitude
to the Legion, its members and the service you provide for those who wear
the uniform today.

I appreciate the example you have set. You know, there's something to be
said for a country where people serve something greater than themselves,
where people in this era volunteer in the face of danger to defend the
United States of America. And those who have worn the uniform in the past
have set such a powerful example for our brave men and women who wear the
uniform today and I thank you for that a lot -- I don't know if you know
that or not -- but the example of our veterans have inspired many to wear
the uniform today.

I find the history of this post interesting, Bob. In November of 1944, a
group of World War I veterans gathered here in Fairfax to form an
organization to help the troops returning from the battlefield in Word War
II. Veterans said, "What can I do to help a fellow veteran?" The founders
rallied support for the soldiers and the sailor and the airmen and the
Marines. In other words, these veterans understood what it meant to be in
war, what it meant to be far from home, and they provided necessary support
for our troops.

And when they came back from war, they helped make the transition to
civilian life. In other words, there was somebody there available to help
them, somebody to -- "Brother or sister, how can I help you? What can I do
to help you after you have served our country?" It's a proud American
tradition and a tradition being carried on here at Post 177, and I thank
you for that a lot.

Today, the men and women at this post visit the wounded in our military
hospitals. And I thank you for going to Walter Reed in Bethesda. You know,
we're going to make sure that the care is superb care. I went over there
the other day and I made it clear to the care-givers that there were some
bureaucratic snafus that were unacceptable. Secretary Gates and our
military folks will clean that up. But the care that our troops get from
the doctors and nurses is superb care, and we owe those people in the front
lines of providing care for the wounded a real debt of gratitude, just like
we owe the families and the soldiers the best health care possible.

I appreciate very much the ROTC scholarships you provide, particularly for
George Mason University students. I'm a big believer in education; I know
you are, as well. But rather than talking on the subject, you're acting,
and I appreciate that a lot. But, more importantly, the students do, too.

And thanks for sending the care packages to our troops. It matters. Iraq
and Afghanistan are far away from home -- a little different from the wars
you fought, however; there is email today -- (laughter) -- and cell phones.
But, nevertheless, there is a sense of loneliness that can sometimes affect
our troops, and the fact that you would take time to send them care
packages to remind those who wear the uniform that you support them, a
stranger reaches out to them and offers support, I thank you a lot for
that.

This is an unusual era in which we live, defined on September the 11th,
2001. See, that's a date that reminded us the world had changed
significantly from what we thought the world was. We thought that -- we
thought that oceans and friendly neighbors could protect us from attack.
And, yet, on that day, less than 20 miles from this post, an airplane
crashed into the Pentagon and killed 184 men, women and children. An
airplane driven by fanatics and extremists and murderers crashed into the
Pentagon. And as you know, on that day nearly 3,000 people died in New York
that day. And more would have died had not the people on United Flight 93
showed incredible courage and saved no telling how many lives here in
Washington, D.C. by taking that plane to the ground.

My attitude about the world changed, and I know the attitude about the
world from a lot of folks here in America's attitude changed. It reminded
me that the most solemn duty of your federal government is to protect the
American people from harm. The most solemn duty we have is to protect this
homeland. I vowed that day that we would go on the offense against an
enemy; that the best way to defeat this enemy is to find them overseas and
bring them to justice so they will not hurt the folks here at home.

In other words, we don't have the luxury of hoping for the best, of sitting
back and being passive in the face of this threat. In the past we would say
oceans would protect us, and therefore what happened overseas may not
matter here at home. That's what changed on September the 11th. What
happens overseas affects the security of the United States. And it's in
this nation's interest that we go on the offense and stay on the offense.
We want to defeat them there, so we don't have to face them here.

On 9/11, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state
7,000 miles away can bring death to our citizens. I vowed that if you
harbor a terrorist you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. That's a
doctrine. In order for this country to be credible, when the President says
something, he must mean it. I meant it, and the Taliban found out that we
meant what we said. And, therefore, we ended al Qaeda's safe haven in a
failed state.

The two points I want to make is, doctrine matters, and secondly, a failed
state can lead to severe consequences for the American people. And
therefore it's in our interests not only to pursue the enemy overseas, so
we don't have to face them here, it's in our interest to spread an
alternative ideology to their hateful ideology. These folks do not believe
in the freedom to worship. They don't believe that women have got an equal
place in society. They don't believe in human rights and human dignity.

We believe that people have the right to worship the way they see fit. We
believe all humans are created equal. We believe in dissent. We believe in
public discourse. Our ideology is based upon freedom and liberty; theirs is
based upon oppression. And the best way to secure this country in the long
run is to offer up an alternative that stands in stark contrast to theirs.

And that's the hard work we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. In
Afghanistan the Taliban that ran that country and provided safe haven to al
Qaeda, where thousands of people were able to train in order to be able to
launch attacks on innocent people, innocent Americans, for example. That
Taliban no longer is in power. And, in fact, there is a young, struggling
democracy in Afghanistan.

The people in Afghanistan went to the polls and voted. President Karzai is
now representing a government of and by and for the people. It's an
unimaginable sequence of events. Had you asked people in the mid-1990s, is
it possible for there to be a democracy in Afghanistan -- of course not.
But there is a democracy in place, and it's in our interest to deny al
Qaeda and the Taliban and the radicals and the extremists a safe haven. And
it's in our interest to stand with this young democracy as it begins to
spread its wings in Afghanistan.

And then we're doing the hard work in Iraq. I made a decision to remove a
dictator, a tyrant who was a threat to the United States, a threat to the
free world, and a threat to the Iraq people -- and the world is better off
without Saddam Hussein in power. (Applause.)

And now we're undertaking the difficult and dangerous work of helping the
Iraqi people establish a functioning democracy. I think it's necessary work
to help them establish a functioning democracy. It's necessary because it
is important for the moderate people -- people who want to live in peace
and security -- to see what is possible in the Middle East. It is hard work
because we face an enemy that understands the consequences of liberty
taking root, and are willing to kill innocent lives in order to achieve
their political objectives.

A minority -- and I emphasize "minority" -- of violent extremists have
declared that they want to turn that country into a terrorist base from
which to launch an ideological war in the Middle East and attacks on the
United States of America. That is the stated objective of al Qaeda in Iraq.
It's important that we listen to the enemy. It's important we take their
threats seriously.

In contrast, however, the vast majority of Iraqis have made it clear they
want to live in peace. After all, about 12 million of them went to the
polls -- a feat that was, again, unimaginable in the mid-1990s. If you had
said, can you imagine Iraqis being able to vote for a constitution and then
a government under that constitution in the mid-1990s, they would have
said, you're too idealistic, that's impossible. And, yet, that's what
happened.

The terrorists, recognizing that this country was headed toward a society
based upon liberty, a society based upon an ideology that is the opposite
of what they believe, struck. And they struck by blowing up the Golden
Mosque of Samarra, which is a holy shrine, a holy site. It's a site that a
lot of people hold dear in their heart. And they were attempting to provoke
retaliation by a segment of that society -- the Iraqi Shia. And they
succeeded. And the result was a tragic escalation of violence.

And in the face of the violence -- in other words, there was reprisal,
people said, we're going to get even, how dare these people do this -- and
in the face of this violence, I had a choice to make. See, we could
withdraw our troops from the capital of Iraq and hope that violence would
not spiral out of control, or we could send reinforcements into the capital
in the hopes of quelling sectarian violence, in order to give this young
democracy time to reconcile, time to deal, with the politics necessary for
a government that can sustain itself and defend itself to emerge.

I made the decisions after -- to reinforce. But I didn't do it in a vacuum.
I called in our military commanders and experts, and I listened to a lot of
opinions -- and there's a lot of opinions in Washington, D.C., in case you
hadn't noticed. (Laughter.) The opinions that matter a lot to me are what
our military folks think. After all, this is a military operation, and as
the Commander-in-Chief, you must listen to your military and trust their
judgment on military matters. And that's what I did.

They recognized what I recognized, and it's important for the American
citizen to recognize this, that if we were to have stepped back from
Baghdad before the Iraqis were capable of securing their capital, before
they had the troops trained well enough to secure the capital, there would
have been a vacuum that could have easily been filled by Sunni and Shia
extremists, radicals that would be bolstered by outside forces. In other
words, the lack of security would have created an opportunity for
extremists to move in. Most people want to live in peace in Iraq. There are
extremists who can't stand the thought of a free society that would have
taken advantage of the vacuum. A contagion of violence could spill out
across the country, and in time the violence could affect the entire
region.

What happens in the Middle East matters here in America. The terrorists
would have emerged under this scenario more emboldened. They would have
said, our enemy, the United States, the enemy that we attacked, turns out
to be what they thought: weak in the face of violence, weak in the face of
challenge. They would have been able to more likely recruit. They would
have had new safe haven from which to launch attacks. Imagine a scenario in
which the extremists are able to control oil revenues to achieve economic
blackmail, to achieve their objectives. This is all what they have stated.
This is their ambition.

If we retreat -- were to retreat from Iraq, what's interesting and
different about this war is that the enemy would follow us here. And that's
why it's important we succeed in Iraq. If this scenario were to take place,
50 years from now people would look back and say, "What happened to those
folks in the year 2007? How come they couldn't see the danger of a Middle
East spiraling out of control where extremists competed for power, but they
shared an objective which was to harm the United States of America? How
come they couldn't remember the lesson of September the 11th, that we were
no longer protected by oceans and chaos and violence, and extremism could
end up being a serious danger to the homeland?"

That's what went through my mind as I made a difficult decision, but a
necessary decision. And so rather than retreat, I sent more troops in.
Rather than pull back, I made the decision to help this young democracy
bring order to its capital so there can be time for the hard work of
reconciliation to take place after years of tyrannical rule, brutal
tyrannical rule.

And now it's time for these Iraqis, the Iraqi government, to stand up and
start making some -- making some strong political moves. And they're
beginning to. I speak to the Prime Minister quite often and remind him that
here at home we expect them to do hard work; we want to help, but we expect
them to do some hard work. And he reminds me, sometimes legislative bodies
and parliaments don't move as quickly as the executive branch would like.
(Laughter.) But he understands. He understands we expect them to spend
money on their reconstruction, and they've committed $10 billion to do so.

They understand that when we said we were going to send more troops in, you
need to send more troops into Baghdad, that we expect them to, and they
have. They understand that when we work together to set up a security plan
where there is a top military figure in charge of Baghdad's security from
the Iraq side, that we expect somebody there who is going to be
non-sectarian and implement security for all the people of Baghdad, they
responded. See, the understand that. And now we expect them to get an oil
law that helps unify the country, to change the de-Baathification law so
that, for example, Sunni teachers that had been banned from teaching are
allowed back in the classroom, and that there be provincial elections. And
we'll continue to remind them of that.

In sending more troops -- in other words, in sending troops in, it is -- I
recognize that this is more than a military mission. It requires a
political response from the Iraqis, as well.

The Iraqi people, by the way, have already made a political response; they
voted. (Laughter.) I also sent a new commander in, General David Petraeus.
He is an expert in counterinsurgency warfare. He's been in Baghdad two
months. A little less than half of -- only about half of the reinforcements
that he's asked for have arrived. In other words, this operation is just
getting started. There's kind of, I guess, knowledge or a thought in
Washington that all you got to say is send 21,000 in and they show up the
next day; that's not the way it works. (Laughter.) It takes a while for
troops to be trained and readied and moved into theater. And that's what
our military is doing now.

And there are some encouraging signs. There's no question it's violent, no
question the extremists are dangerous people. But there are encouraging
signs. Iraqi and American forces have established joint security stations
across Baghdad. As you might remember, we had a strategy of clear, hold and
build. Well, because we didn't have enough troops, nor did the Iraqis have
enough troops, we would do the clear part, but we didn't do the hold part,
and so it made it hard to do the build part. And now because of our
presence and more Iraqi troops, along with coalition troops, they're
deployed 24 hours a day in neighborhoods to help change the psychology of
the capital, that for a while was comfortable in its security, and then
violence began to spiral out of control. That's the decision point I had to
make, do you try to stop it? And what I'm telling you is, according to
David Petraeus, with whom I speak on a weekly basis, we're beginning to see
some progress toward the mission -- that they're completing the mission.

Our troops are also training Iraqis. In other words, part of the effort is
not only to provide security to neighborhoods, but we're constantly
training Iraqis so that they can do this job. The leaders want to do the
job. Prime Minister Maliki makes it clear he understands it's his
responsibility. We just want to make sure that when they do the job,
they've got a force structure that's capable of doing the job. So that's
why I rely upon our commanders, like General Petraeus, that let me know how
well the Iraqis are doing. So it's the combination of providing security in
neighborhoods through these joint security stations, and training that is
the current mission we're going through, with a heavy emphasis on security
in Baghdad.

Iraqis see our forces out there, joint forces, both coalition and Iraqi
forces, and they have confidence. And as a result of the confidence,
they're now cooperating more against the extremists. Most people want to
live in peace. Iraqi mothers, regardless of their religious affiliation,
want their children to grow up in a peaceful world. They want there to be
opportunities. They don't want their children to be subject to random
murder. They expect our government to provide security. And when the
government doesn't provide security, it causes a lack of confidence. And
they're beginning to see more security, and so people are coming into the
stations and talking about different -- giving different tips about where
we may be able to find the extremists or radicals who kill innocent people
to achieve political objectives.

We're using the information wisely. And I say "we" -- every time I say
"we," it's just not American troops, there are brave Iraqi troops with us.
Our forces have launched successful operations against extremists, both
Shia and Sunni. My attitude is, if you're a murderer, you're a murderer,
and you ought to be held to account. Recently, Iraqi and American forces
captured the head of a Baghdad car bomb network that was responsible for
the attacks that you see on your TV screens -- some of the attacks you see
on your TV screen.

Look, these people are smart people, these killers. They know that if they
can continue the spectacular suicide bombings they will cause the American
people to say, is it worth it? Can we win? Is it possible to succeed? And
that really speaks to the heart of the American people, I think. I mean, we
are a compassionate people. We care about human life. And when we see the
wanton destruction of innocent life, it causes us to wonder whether or not
it is possible to succeed. I understand that.

But I also understand the mentality of an enemy that is trying to achieve a
victory over us by causing us to lose our will. Yet we're after these car
bombers. In other words, slowly but surely these extremists are being
brought to justice by Iraqis, with our help. Violence in Baghdad, sectarian
violence in Baghdad, that violence that was beginning to spiral out of
control is beginning to subside. And as the violence decreases, people have
more confidence, and if people have more confidence, they're then willing
to make difficult decisions of reconciliation necessary for Baghdad to be
secure and this country to survive and thrive as a democracy.

The reinforcements are having an impact, and as more reinforcements go in,
it will have a greater impact. Remember, only about half of the folks we've
asked to go in are there.

It's now been 64 days since I have requested that Congress pass emergency
funding for these troops. We don't have all of them there. About half more
are going to head in. We're making some progress. And 64 days ago, I said
to the United States Congress, these troops need funding. And instead of
proving [sic] that vital funding, the Democrat leadership in Congress has
spent the past 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops,
just as we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad. In both the House and
the Senate, majorities have passed bills that substitute the judgment of
politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground.
They set arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq, and they spend
billions of dollars on pork barrel projects and spending that are
completely unrelated to this war.

Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they
know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the
legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the
field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying this money. In
the coming days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will
be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to cover
the shortfall caused by Congress's failure to fund our troops in the field.
That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so
they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

This $1.6 billion in transfers come on top of another $1.7 billion in
transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last month. In
March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from
military personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems so we can
continue to fund programs to protect our soldiers and Marines from
improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles
to our troops on the front lines. These actions are only the beginning, and
the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of
the Armed Forces will be.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, recently
testified that if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April,
the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment repair and
quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. The Army will
also be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and Reserve
units here at home. This would reduce their readiness, and could delay
their availability to mobilize for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow
even more acute. The Army will be forced to consider slowing or even
freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops depend on
is repaired. They will have to consider delaying or curtailing the training
of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of those the force --
of those forces to deploy overseas. And the Army may also have to delay the
formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those
troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy.

So what does that mean? These things happen: Some of our forces now
deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended, because other
units are not ready to take their places. In a letter to Congress, the Army
Chief of Staff, Pete Shoemaker, recently warned, "Without approval of the
supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly
draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships
on our soldiers and their families."

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean
that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones
to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed
back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's
unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to
our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.

The United States Senate has come back from its spring recess today. The
House will return next week. When it comes to funding our troops, we have
no time to waste. It's time for them to get the job done. So I'm inviting
congressional leaders from both parties -- both political parties -- to
meet with me at the White House next week. At this meeting, the leaders in
Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my
desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill: a bill
that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and
without handcuffing our generals on the ground.

I'm hopeful we'll see some results soon from the Congress. I know we have
our differences over the best course in Iraq. These differences should not
prevent us from getting our troops the funding they need without withdrawal
and without giving our commanders flexibility.

The Democrat leaders in -- Democratic leaders in Congress are bent on using
a bill that funds our troops to make a political statement about the war.
They need to do it quickly and get it to my desk so I can veto it, and then
Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings
and without further delay. (Applause.)

We are at war. It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in
Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting
for the funds they need to succeed. As the national commander of the
American Legion, Paul Morin, recently put it, "The men and women of the
armed forces in the theater of operations are dependent on this funding to
sustain and achieve their military missions. This funding is absolutely
critical to their success and individual well being." I thank the commander
and the American Legion for their strong support on this issue. You do not
make a political statement; you're making a statement about what is
necessary for our troops in the field, and I am grateful. (Applause.)

I'm always amazed at the men and women who wear our uniform. Last week,
before I went down to Crawford -- for a snowy Easter, I might add --
(laughter) -- I was in California at Fort Irwin. And I had a chance to
visit with some who had just come back from Iraq and some who were going
over to Iraq, and it just amazes me that these young men and women know the
stakes, they understand what we're doing, and they have volunteered to
serve. We're really a remarkable country, and a remarkable military, and
therefore, we owe it to the families and to those who wear the uniform to
make sure that this remarkable group of men and women are strongly
supported -- strongly supported, by the way, during their time in uniform,
and then after their time in uniform through the Veterans Administration.
(Applause.)

I tried to put this war into a historical context for them. In other words,
I told them that they're laying the foundation of peace. In other words,
the work we're doing today really will yield peace for a generation to
come. And part of my discussion with them was I wanted them to think back
to the work after World War II. After World War II, we defeated -- after we
defeated Germany and Japan, this country went about the business of helping
these countries develop into democracies. Isn't it interesting a country
would go to -- have a bloody conflict with two nations, and then help
democracy succeed? Why? Because our predecessors understood that forms of
government help yield peace. In other words, it matters what happens in
distant lands.

And so today, I can report to you that Japan is a strong ally of the United
States. I've always found that very ironic that my dad, like many of your
relatives, fought the Japanese as the sworn enemy, and today one of the
strongest allies in keeping the peace is the Prime Minister of Japan.
Something happened between when old George H. W. Bush was a Navy fighter
pilot, and his boy is the President of the United States. Well, what
happened was the form of government changed. Liberty can transform enemies
into allies. The hard work done after World War II helped lay the
foundation of peace.

How about after the Korean War? Some of you are Korean vets, I know. I bet
it would have been hard for you to predict, if you can think back to the
early '50s, to predict that an American President would say that we've got
great relations with South Korea, great relations with Japan, that China is
an emerging marketplace economy, and that the region is peaceful. This is a
part of the world where we lost thousands of young American soldiers, and
yet there's peace.

I believe that U.S. presence there has given people the time necessary to
develop systems of government that make that part of the world a peaceful
part of the world, to lay the foundation for peace. And that's the work our
soldiers are doing in the Middle East today. And it's necessary work. It is
necessary because what happens in the Middle East, for example, can affect
the security of the United States of America. And it's hard work, and we've
lost some fantastic young men and women, and we pray for their families,
and we honor their service and their sacrifice by completing the mission,
by helping a generation of Americans grow up in a peaceful world.

I cannot tell you how honored I am to meet with the families of the fallen.
They bear an unbelievable pain in their heart. And it's very important for
me to make it clear to them that I believe the sacrifice is necessary to
achieve the peace we all long for.

I thank you for supporting our troops. I thank you for setting such a
fantastic example for a great group of men and women who have volunteered
to serve our country. And thanks for being such fine Americans.

God bless. (Applause.)

END 11:00 A.M. EDT

˙
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070410-1.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)