YYYC NEWS

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 30, 2007

President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom Camp David, 11:46 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BUSH: Welcome, thank you. It's good to have you here. So everybody is wondering whether or not the Prime Minister and I were able to find common ground, to get along, to have a meaningful discussion. And the answer is, absolutely. You know, he probably wasn't sure what to expect from me -- and I kind of had a sense of the kind of person I'd be dealing with. I would describe Gordon Brown as a principled man who really wants to get something done. In other words, in my discussions with him last night we spent about two hours over dinner, just alone. We dismissed the rest of the delegations to the bowling alley, I think. (Laughter.) As Josh Bolten said, it's the Ryder Cup of bowling. I think the trophy was left for Great Britain, if I'm not mistaken.

But we had a really casual and good discussion and we'd be glad -- I'll be glad to share some of the insights here. But the notion of America and Britain sharing values is very important; and that we have an obligation, it seems to me, to work for freedom and justice around the world. And I found a person who shares that vision and who understands the call. After all, we're writing the initial chapters of what I believe is a great ideological struggle between those of us who do believe in freedom and justice and human rights and human dignity, and cold-blooded killers who will kill innocent people to achieve their objectives.

One of the great calling that we have here in the beginning of the 21st century is to protect our own people. And so we spent a fair amount of time making sure that our systems are properly aligned so as we can share information to protect our citizens from this kind of brutal group of people who really would like to see us driven from parts of the world so they can impose their ideology. And I do congratulate the Prime Minister for his steady and quick response in the face of a significant threat to the homeland. You've proved your worthiness as a leader, and I thank you for that.

We also recognize that if you're involved with an ideological struggle, then you defeat that one ideology with a more hopeful ideology, and that's why it's very important for us to defend and stand with these young democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. I appreciate very much the British commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq. I appreciate the bravery of the soldiers. Obviously I mourn the loss of any life. I think it's very important for us to make it clear to those who are in harm's way that these missions will be driven not by local politics but by conditions on the ground, because success in Afghanistan and Iraq will be an integral part of defeating an enemy and helping people realize the great blessings of liberty as the alternative to an ideology of darkness that spreads its murder to achieve its objectives.

We talked about the tyranny of poverty, the tyranny of lack of education. And I appreciate the Prime Minister's strong commitment to press forward on working together dealing with disease, whether it be HIV/AIDS or malaria. He's got a strong commitment to helping people realize the blessings of education. I thank you very much for that vision.

He also understands what I know, that if we're really interested in eradicating poverty, it's important for us to be successful in the Doha round. Gordon Brown brought some interesting suggestions on the way forward. He is optimistic that we can conclude the Doha round, as am I. And I want to thank you for strategizing as to how to get that done in a way that is beneficial for all of us.

We talked about the Holy Land. We talked about Darfur. We had a good discussion as to how to keep this world engaged in the atrocities -- I've called it a genocide -- taking place in Darfur, and I want to thank you for your leadership on that issue.

And so we had a good, relaxed, meaningful discussion over dinner, and then picked it up at breakfast. I'm pleased you're here, and I'm pleased to report that this relationship will be a constructive and strategic relationship for the good of our peoples.

Welcome.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Thank you very much. Can I say, Mr. President, it's a great honor for me to come within a few weeks of becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom here to Camp David, to have been invited by you to have the discussions that we've just concluded, and to be able to affirm and to celebrate the historic partnership of shared purpose between our two countries. And I believe it's a partnership that's founded on more than common interests and more than just a common history; it's a partnership founded and driven forward by our shared values -- what Winston Churchill, who was the first British Prime Minister to visit Camp David, called the joint inheritance of liberty, a belief in opportunity for all, a belief in the dignity of every human being.

And I've told President Bush that it's in Britain's national interest that with all our energies we work together to address all the great challenges that we face also together: nuclear proliferation, climate change, global poverty and prosperity, the Middle East peace process, which we've discussed; and most immediately, international terrorism. Terrorism is not a cause, it is a crime, and it is a crime against humanity. And there should be no safe haven and no hiding place for those who practice terrorist violence or preach terrorist extremism.

Ladies and gentlemen, in Iraq we have duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep, in support of the democratically elected government, and in support of the explicit will of the international community, expressed most recently through U.N. Resolution 1723.

Our aim, like the United States, is step by step to move control to the Iraqi authorities, to the Iraqi government, and to its security forces, as progress is made. And we've moved from combat to overwatch in three of the four provinces for which we, the British, have security responsibility. We intend to move to overwatch in the fourth province, and that decision will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground. Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to parliament when it returns.

Our aim, as is the aim of the United States government, is threefold: security for the Iraqi people, political reconciliation, and that the Iraqis have a stake in the future. And I can say also that I have proposed to the Iraqi government the offer of new finance for Basra and the surrounding areas where we have responsibility, that we invite the Iraqis to set up with our support a Basra economic development agency, so that there are jobs, businesses, the chance of prosperity, and economic hope.

I strongly support President Bush's initiative, a bold initiative to make early progress in the Middle East peace process. Afghanistan is the front line against terrorism, and as we have done twice in the last year, where there are more forces needed to back up the coalition and NATO effort, they have been provided by the United Kingdom.

On Iran, we are in agreement that sanctions are working and the next stage we are ready to move towards is to toughen the sanctions with a further U.N. resolution.

Darfur is the greatest humanitarian disaster the world faces today, and I've agreed with the President that we step up our pressure to end the violence that has displaced 2 million people, made 4 million hungry and reliant on food aid, and murdered 200,000 people. We have agreed on expediting the U.N. resolution for a joint U.N.-African Union peace force. We're agreed on encouragement for early peace talks, a call to cease violence on the ground, an end to aerial bombing of civilians, and support for economic development if this happens, and further sanctions if this does not happen.

Across developing countries, 30,000 children die needlessly every day, and we support the President's path-breaking initiatives on HIV/AIDS and on malaria. And we are agreed to support a new partnership that brings together public and private sectors, faith groups and civil society to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

In a world trade agreement lies the difference between progress to a more open, global trading economy and a retreat into protectionism.

In recent days I've been able to talk to Chancellor Merkel, President Barroso, Prime Minister S crates, President Lula, President Mbeki, and Prime Minister Singh, as well as the Trade Negotiator Pascal Lamy. And the President and I are one in seeking an early conclusion to a trade agreement. We agreed that contact between leaders will be stepped up so that we are ready to quickly finalize an agreement in the near future.

We also agreed on the importance of the issue of climate change, which needs to be tackled in the context of sustainable development, and in the context of energy security. We support the framework of meetings over the coming months to address this issue and move forward the agenda agreed at this year's G8 in Germany.

Mr. President, we have had full and frank discussions. We've had the capacity and the ability to meet yesterday evening for two hours to discuss person to person some of the great issues of our time. You were kind enough also to arrange talks this morning where we continued the discussion on the issues that I've just talked about, and I'm very grateful to you for your hospitality and for the chance for our two countries, with our great shared histories, to continue to work together on these great issues.

I think we're agreed that all challenges can best be met when together the United Kingdom and the United States work in a partnership that I believe will strengthen in the years to come, and I thank you for both your invitation and for the chance to talk about these great issues.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir. Two questions a side. Ben.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your own military commander suggests that, in Iraq, the Iraqi forces are not nearly ready to take over security for their own country, and that U.S. troops will need to stay in the region for many months, if not years. Are you prepared to pass on the fate of the war to the next President?

And Mr. Prime Minister, if I may, what do you see as the biggest mistakes in the management of the war, and what do you propose to do to correct them?

PRESIDENT BUSH: David Petraeus, the general on the ground, will be bringing his recommendations back to the Congress on or about September the 15th. And I think it's going to be very important for all of us to wait for him to report. And the reason it's important is, is that I believe that the decisions on the way forward in Iraq must be made with a military recommendation as an integral part of it. And therefore I don't want to prejudge what David is going to say.

I have said this is going to take a long time in Iraq, just like the ideological struggle is going to take a long time. And so I look forward to David's report, and then we'll respond accordingly. There has been some notable progress -- Anbar province being such a place -- where there's bottom up reconciliation, where people are rejecting this al Qaeda vision of the world, and saying there's a better way forward.

There are still setbacks, obviously. We've got these suiciders that are trying to foment sectarian violence. But, Ben, I would ask you and the Congress to wait -- to do what I'm doing, which is wait until David to come back and make his report. And I think you'll find it will be considered and based upon the evidence there on the ground.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: You asked about the difficulties we've faced, and a lot has happened over the last period of time. I think the difficulties include the -- getting political reconciliation within Iraq itself; moving forward the reconstruction and the time it has taken to do so.

But I think the one thing that I'm pleased about is that Iraq is now building up its own security forces, it's now building up its own military, and it's now building up is own police. So we've got to a situation where there are perhaps 300,000 people who are in the Iraqi security and policing forces.

In Basra, and in the four provinces that we're dealing with, security forces have built up over the last few years now to around 30,000 people. It's in that context where we can then achieve what we want to do, which is to pass security over to the Iraqi people themselves, to pass it over to the elected Iraqi government, and of course to local provincial control.

And one of the encouraging things that's happened over the last few months, indeed the last year and more is that we've been able to pass the control of the three of the four provinces for which we've got responsibility back to Iraqi hands. And of course the issue in Basra, which is the largest province, is the point at which we can do what we want to do, which is to have local people and local army and local police in charge of the security there.

So that is the challenge that we face over this next period of time: that Iraq itself becomes more responsible for its own security; that we are able to pass control of the province both to elected politicians and to the security services; and we're able to combine that with the people of Iraq themselves having a stake in the future.

So, yes, there have been problems, but, yes, also, when you look at the four provinces for which we've got responsibility, we can see that we're able to move control back to the Iraqi people in three, and there's a chance of being able to do that in the fourth as a result of the buildup of the security forces.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Still hanging around.

Q Good afternoon, Mr. President. (Laughter.) It's very nice to be back.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It is.

Q Mr. President, you trusted Tony Blair not, in your phrase, to cut and run from Iraq. After your talks, do you believe you can trust Gordon Brown in the same way?

And Prime Minister, you talked of Afghanistan being the front line in the struggle against terror, not Iraq. Do you believe that British troops in Iraq are part of the struggle against terrorism, or as many people now believe, making that harder, not easier, to win?

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Well, perhaps I should deal with it first and then pass on to you, President.

In Iraq, you're dealing with Sunni-Shia violence, you're dealing with the involvement of Iran, but you're certainly dealing with a large number of al Qaeda terrorists. And I think I described Afghanistan as the first line in the battle against the Taliban, and of course the Taliban in Afghanistan is what we are dealing with in the provinces for which we've got responsibility, and doing so with some success.

There is no doubt, therefore, that al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them, and there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also al Qaeda itself.

So one of the tests that the military commanders will have on the ground, in the province for which we've got direct responsibility now and before we move from combat to overwatch, is whether we are strong enough and they are strong enough to enable them to stand up against that threat.

PRESIDENT BUSH: There's no doubt in my mind that Gordon Brown understands that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the security of our own countries; that failure in Iraq would embolden extremist movements throughout the Middle East; that failure in Iraq would basically say to people sitting on the fence around the region that al Qaeda is powerful enough to drive great countries like Great Britain and America out of Iraq before the mission is done. He understands that violence could spill out across the region, that a country like Iran would become emboldened.

So there's no doubt in my mind he understands the stakes of the struggle, and there's no doubt in my mind that he will keep me abreast of his military commanders' recommendations based upon conditions on the ground. As he accurately noted, the Brits have been involved in four of the provinces; transfer has taken place in three of the four. Why? Because progress was made. This is a results-oriented world, and the results were such that Great Britain was able to transfer responsibility. That's what we want to do. We want to be able to be in a position where we can achieve results on the ground so that we can be in a different posture.

The problem was, last fall, we weren't going to be able to transfer, because conditions on the ground were getting out of control. And so I made the decision to send more troops in, understanding the consequences of failure if we did not do so. In other words, I said I think if we don't send troops, it's more likely we'll fail, and the consequences of failure would be disaster for Great Britain and the United States, something this Prime Minister understands.

The idea of somehow achieving results and therefore this is a change of attitude just simply doesn't -- I just don't agree with that. I find him to be resolved and firm and understanding about the stakes in this series of initial struggles in this war against extremists and radicals. And the challenge for Gordon and me is to write a chapter, the first chapter in this struggle that will lead to success, and that's exactly what we're determined to do.

Rutenberg, today's your birthday? How old are you?

Q Thirty-eight.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: My goodness.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Here you are -- amazing country, Gordon, guy is under 40 years old, asking me and you questions. It's a beautiful sight. (Laughter.)

Q Forty is the new 30, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's a beautiful sight. (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Six in my cabinet are under 40.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Are they? (Laughter.)

Q Forty is the new 20.

PRESIDENT BUSH: You must be feeling damn old, then?

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Absolutely. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, Jim.

Q Mr. President, the Prime Minister has referred to terrorism as "a crime," and he's referred to it in part as a law enforcement issue. So for you, I'm wondering, does that underscore any sort of philosophical difference when your 2004 campaign took issue with somewhat similar descriptions from John Kerry?

And Mr. Prime Minister, I've heard a lot about how your approach to the United States will be the same as that of your predecessor, but how will it differ?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Look, people who kill innocent men, women and children to achieve political objectives are evil, that's what I think. I don't think there's any need to negotiate with them. I don't think there's any need to hope that they'll change. They are cold-blooded killers, and we better be clear-eyed when we're dealing with them.

And this Prime Minister, right in the beginning of his office, got a taste of what it means to be in a world with these people that would come and attempt to kill innocent civilians of his country, and he handled it well.

But we're dealing with a variety of methodologies to deal with them: one is intelligence, one is law enforcement, and one is military. We got to use all assets at disposal to find them and bring them to justice before they hurt our people again.

In the long run, the way to defeat these people is through a competing ideology, see. And what's interesting about this struggle -- and this is what I was paying very careful attention to when Gordon was speaking -- is, does he understand it's an ideological struggle? And he does.

As he said to me, it's akin to the Cold War, and it is, except the difference this time is we have an enemy using asymmetrical warfare to try to affect our vision, to try to shake our will. They'll kill innocent women and children so it gets on the TV screens, so that we say it's not worth it -- let's just back off. The death they cause makes it -- maybe we just ought to let them have their way. And that's the great danger facing the world in which we live, and he gets it.

He can answer his own -- your question. What's the second half? I talked too long for --

Q It's how would your approach differ from that of your predecessor? And while we're on the subject, also --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Wait a minute, it doesn't work that way. (Laughter.)

Q It's his birthday.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, Mr. Birthday Boy is taking latitude here. (Laughter.)

Q Do you have the same philosophy as the President, in terms of terrorism? So it's two-pronged.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Absolutely.

PRESIDENT BUSH: What do you expect the answer to be, Rutenberg? Come on, man.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Absolutely. And let me just stress that we're in a generation-long battle against terrorism, against al Qaeda-inspired terrorism, and this is a battle for which we can give no quarter; it's a battle that's got to be fought in military, diplomatic, intelligence, security, policing, and ideological terms. And we have to face groups of terrorists operating in Britain. And other countries around the world have seen -- perhaps, in 17 countries -- terrorist attacks over the last few years. And we in Britain have faced 15 of our own since September of 2001. And of course when America itself faced in September 2001 and showed such bravery, resilience, and courage in standing up against terrorism then. We know we are in a common struggle, and we know we have to work together, and we know we've got to use all means to deal with it.

So we are at one in fighting the battle against terrorism, and that struggle is one that we will fight with determination and with resilience, and right across the world.

You asked about the new government in the United Kingdom. What I would say is this: Every generation faces new challenges, and the challenges that we face in 2007 are not the same as the challenges that we faced as a government when Tony Blair started in 1997. Then the challenges in Britain were about stability, about employment, about public services. Then the challenges around the world were not seen at that point as the challenges against international terrorism.

Today, in 2007, we see the challenges are radically different from what they were 10 years ago. We have the climate change challenge we've just been discussing, which wasn't one that was seen in exactly the same way a few years ago. And that will lead to the work that we've got to do together, and involving China and India in particular to deal with the energy issues, and including issues of energy security that we face.

We have the challenge of security and terrorism. We have the challenge that we now know in Africa, Darfur, a challenge that we've got to meet immediately to make sure that famine does not afflict millions of people in that part of Africa. And of course we have the challenge that we can see now, where there are opportunities, as well as difficulties, in the Middle East peace process. And that, of course, is a challenge that Secretary of State Rice is -- I'm glad she is here today and has joined our discussions -- is going on only today to the Middle East to take up.

So the challenges are different. We will deal with them by being a government of opportunity and security for all. But the challenges, of course, are new as we face the next decade, and these are challenges that we will face, and I believe America will face, with exactly the same resilience, courage and professionalism.

Adam.

Q Thank you. Mr. Brown's new formulation for what we used to call the special relationship is Britain's single-most important bilateral relationship. I wonder if I could ask him what precisely that means, whether it works the other way for the United States, in terms of their bilateral relationship. And also, Mr. President, what you think has actually changed with the arrival of Gordon Brown instead of Tony Blair?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Besides toothpaste? (Laughter.) You want to -- I'll start. Look, any time you share values the way we share values, it makes it easy to have strategic conversations; it makes it easy to be able to have common ground on which to deal with these problems. You just listed off a lot of problems. I happen to view them as great opportunities to begin to put conditions in place so that the world looks fundamentally different 50 years from now.

But I would say that the relationship between Great Britain and America is our most important bilateral relationship, for a lot of reasons -- trade. Great Britain has been attacked, we've been attacked, which caused us to lash up our intelligence services like never before. We have common interests throughout the world.

But it's an important relationship primarily because we think the same. We believe in freedom and justice as fundamentals of life. There's no doubt in my mind that freedom is universal; that freedom is a gift to each man, woman and child on the face of the earth, and that with freedom comes peace. And there's no doubt in my mind those of us who live under free societies have an obligation to work together to promote it.

And the man I listened to shares that same sense of morality, and that same sense of obligation -- not to free others, but to create the conditions so others can realize the blessings of freedom. We can't impose freedom, but we can eliminate roadblocks to freedom, and to allow free societies to develop. And it's really hard work, you know? There's a lot of cynics saying, how dare they; how dare they impose U.S. or Great British values. And what I found was a man who understands that these aren't Great British and U.S. values, these are universal values.

And so what was your question? (Laughter.)

Q What's changed?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, what's changed? He's a Scotsman, kind of a -- he's not the dour Scotsman that you described him, or the awkward Scotsman; he's actually the humorous Scotsman, the guy that -- we actually were able to relax and to share some thoughts. I was very interested in his family life. He's a man who has suffered unspeakable tragedy, and instead of that weakening his soul, strengthened his soul.

I was impressed, and I am confident that we'll be able to keep our relationship strong, healthy, vibrant, and that there will be constant communications as we deal with these problems. As I said, he's a problem-solver. And that's what we need as partners. We've got a lot of problems we're dealing with, and we can reach solutions. He's a glass-half-full man, not a glass-half-empty guy, you know? Some of these world leaders say, oh, the problems are so significant, let us retreat; let us not take them on, they're too tough. That's not Gordon Brown. His attitude is, I see a problem, let's work together to solve it. And for that, I'm grateful.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: What President Bush has said is both very compassionate and reflects the conversation we had about a whole series of issues that we can deal with together.

I think your understanding, if I may say so, of Scotland was enhanced by the fact that you went to Scotland, you told me, at the age of 14, and had to sit through very long Presbyterian Church services in which you didn't understand a word of what the minister was actually saying. (Laughter.) So I think you came to a better understanding of the Scottish contribution to the United Kingdom from that.

Adam, you asked about the single-most important bilateral relationship for Britain, and I think President Bush has answered that, that that is the view of the United States, as well. Call it the special relationship; call it, as Churchill did, the joint inheritance; call it when we meet as a form of homecoming, as President Reagan did -- then you see the strength of this relationship, as I've said, is not just built on the shared problems that we have to deal with together, or on the shared history that is built, as President Bush has just said, on shared values. And these are values that he rightly says are universal. They're the belief in the dignity of the individual, the freedom and liberty that we can bring to the world, and a belief that everyone -- everyone -- should have the chance of opportunity.

And I do see this relationship strengthening in the years to come, because it is the values that we believe in that I think will have the most impact as we try to solve the problems that we face right across the world. And in a sense, the battle that we are facing with international terrorism is a battle between our values, which stress the dignity of every individual, and those who would maim and murder, irrespective of faith, indifferent to human life, often simply for propaganda effect, and of course with devastating effects, both on the communities that they claim to represent and the whole world.

So I want to stress the values that we hold in common, not in an abstract way, but in a very positive and concrete way, because I think the more we debate these issues about how the world would be organized to face international terrorism, the more we come back to the values that unite decent, hardworking people right across the world, whatever their faith, whatever their country, whatever their continent.

And it's been a privilege to be able to have these discussions with the President about how we can deal with all these challenges by applying not just our values, but applying the strength that comes from the strong relationship that exists between our two countries.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Good job, thank you.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Glad you all are here. END 12:18 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 30, 2007

President Bush Signs Passport Backlog Reduction Act of 2007

On Monday, July 30, 2007, the President signed into law:

S. 966, the "Passport Backlog Reduction Act of 2007," which facilitates the hiring of Foreign Service retirees to assist in the processing of passport and visa applications and fraud investigations relating to passport applications.

# # #

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 28, 2007

President's Radio Address

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week I visited with troops at Charleston Air Force Base. These fine men and women are serving courageously to protect our country against dangerous enemies. The terrorist network that struck America on September the 11th wants to strike our country again. To stop them, our military, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals need the best possible information about who the terrorists are, where they are, and what they are planning.

One of the most important ways we can gather that information is by monitoring terrorist communications. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- also known as FISA -- provides a critical legal foundation that allows our intelligence community to collect this information while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. But this important law was written in 1978, and it addressed the technologies of that era. This law is badly out of date -- and Congress must act to modernize it. Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country. Technologies like these were not available when FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments. As a result, our Nation is hampered in its ability to gain the vital intelligence we need to keep the American people safe. In his testimony to Congress in May, Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, put it this way: We are "significantly burdened in capturing overseas communications of foreign terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside the United States."

To fix this problem, my Administration has proposed a bill that would modernize the FISA statute. This legislation is the product of months of discussion with members of both parties in the House and the Senate -- and it includes four key reforms: First, it brings FISA up to date with the changes in communications technology that have taken place over the past three decades. Second, it seeks to restore FISA to its original focus on protecting the privacy interests of people inside the United States, so we don't have to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located in foreign locations. Third, it allows the government to work more efficiently with private-sector entities like communications providers, whose help is essential. And fourth, it will streamline administrative processes so our intelligence community can gather foreign intelligence more quickly and more effectively, while protecting civil liberties.

Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country. Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country.

As the recent National Intelligence Estimate reported, America is in a heightened threat environment. Reforming FISA will help our intelligence professionals address those threats -- and they should not have to wait any longer. Congress will soon be leaving for its August recess. I ask Republicans and Democrats to work together to pass FISA modernization now, before they leave town. Our national security depends on it.

Thank you for listening. END

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 27, 2007

President Bush Discusses Economic Expansion and Gross Domestic Product Growth
Roosevelt Room, 9:46 A.M.

THE PRESIDENT: I want to thank my economic advisors for joining me here in the Cabinet [sic] today. We've had a wide range of discussions about a lot of aspects of our economy. I appreciate the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Treasury and others for giving me their opinions about the events of day.

And what they're saying -- one of the important pieces of data that I've been briefed on is the fact that our economy grew at 3.4 percent in the second quarter this year. Inherent in that growth is a free enterprise system that provides incentives for people to take risk and to grow their businesses and it's an economy that is large, flexible and resilient.

One of the interesting aspects of this economic growth is that we have benefitted from increased exports. In other words, U.S. farmers and small business owners and manufacturers have found markets overseas for our products, products grown right here or built right here in the United States. And by selling those products overseas it's contributed to the strong second quarter growth.

And when we are able to sell products overseas, or goods and services overseas, it means that Americans are more likely to find a job here in America. Job growth has been strong, and that's what you'd expect when our economy is strong and resilient and flexible. People working, unemployment rate is down, wages are increasing.

And so I want the American people to take a good look at this economy of ours. The world is strong -- the world economy is strong. I happen to believe one of the main reasons why is because we remain strong. And my pledge to the American people is we will keep your taxes low to make sure the economy continues to remain strong, and we'll be wise about how we spend your money in Washington, D.C. I submitted a budget that will be in balance at 2012, and I look forward to working with Congress to achieve that goal.

Anyway, thank you all for coming. I appreciate you being here. END 9:48 A.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 27, 2007

President Bush Presents Awards to 2005 and 2006 National Medal of Science and Technology Recipients East Room, 1:44 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome to the White House. It's an honor to welcome some of our country's most gifted and accomplished citizens. I appreciate your work on behalf of our nation. I congratulate you on this achievement, and I look forward to presenting you the National Medals of Science and Technology.

I welcome your families and I welcome your friends. I also welcome the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us today. (Applause.) Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez. Mr. Secretary. (Applause.) Dr. Jack Marburger, who is the Director of Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Marburger. (Applause.) Dr. Arden Bement, Director of the National Science Foundation. Arden, thank you for coming. (Applause.) I welcome the representatives from the National Science Foundation who have joined us, members of the Board from the National Science and Technology Medals Foundation. Our awardees have got to be thanking you, as well. (Laughter.)

I thank Dr. Zerhouni, Director of the National Institute of Health. Thanks for coming, Doc. Dr. Bill Jeffrey, Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Appreciate all the previous recipients of the National Medals of Science and Technology who have joined us. I thank the students from Benjamin Banneker Academic High School here in Washington, D.C. for being with us. I thank my friends, the Barretts, who are strong supporters of basic research and good science, for bringing future scientists and engineers to the White House in the hopes that this ceremony will inspire them and others to contribute to our country like our award winners have today.

From the earliest days, we have been a nation of innovators -- people who look at challenges, and find creative ways to adapt and improve. There's been some interesting examples of that attitude right here in the East Room. For example, Abigail Adams needed a place to hang her clothes, so she innovated and converted the East Room into a White House laundry room. Or Theodore Roosevelt used the East Room as a roller skating rink for his children. Gerald Ford's daughter, Susan, used this very room as the site of her high school prom, which was well attended, I might add. (Laughter.)

This afternoon, the East Room is home to innovators of a different kind -- some of our finest science and technology leaders. The men and women we salute have been recognized with countless honors, including the Nobel Prize. They have served as leaders of major research foundations, university presidents, directors of government agencies, and heads of academic departments. And now they add to their deep and remarkable resumes the highest award a President can confer in their fields, the National Medals of Science and Technology. And I congratulate you.

The intellectual achievements of these men and women are momentous. In a single room, we have thinkers who helped formulate and refine the Big Bang theory of the universe, the "bootstrap re-sampling technique" of statistics, the algebraic K-theory of mathematics. I'm going to play like I understand what all that means. (Laughter.) We have experts in fields like organometallic chemistry, atomic physics, and neurobiology. We have researchers who have drilled into glaciers, isolated the DNA of mobile genes, and pioneered the distributed feedback laser. In other words, we've got some smart people here. (Laughter.) And we're glad you're Americans. (Applause.)

Each of our Laureates has deepened our understanding of the world, and many have directly changed our lives. Their discoveries have led to hopeful treatments for HIV/AIDS, new vaccines to prevent childhood illnesses, safer drinking water around the world. Innovations are responsible for the CD players in our homes, the guardrails on our highways, the stealth fighters in our Air Force. Their breakthroughs have helped make it possible for burn victims to heal with fewer scars, and older people to hear more clearly, businesses to e-mail documents around the world, and doctors to administer medicine without needles. That's a much welcome change for a lot of us.

Whatever their chosen field, the National Laureates in Science and Technology have brought great credit to themselves and this country. And you have the gratitude of the American people. And that's what we're here to tell you today.

The work of these Laureates demonstrates that innovation is vital to a better future for our country and the world. In America, the primary engine of innovation is the private sector. But government can help by encouraging the basic research that gives rise to promising new thought and products. So that's why I've worked with some in this room and around our country to develop and propose the American Competitiveness Initiative. Over ten years, this initiative will double the federal government's commitment to the most critical, basic research programs in physical sciences. Last year the Congress provided more than $10 billion, and that's just a start. And I call on leaders of both political parties to fully fund this initiative for the good of the country.

Maintaining our global leadership also requires a first-class education system. There are many things that American schools are doing right -- including insisting on accountability for every single child. There are also some areas where we need to improve. And so as members work to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, one of their top priorities has got to be to strengthen math and science education.

One way to do that is to create an "adjunct teachers corps" of math and science professionals all aiming to bring their expertise into American classrooms. It's not really what the aim is -- the aim is to make it clear to young Americans that being in science and engineering is okay; it's cool; it's a smart thing to do. And so for those of you who are involved with inspiring youngsters, thank you for what you're doing. I appreciate you encouraging the next generation to follow in your footsteps. And I ask that Congress fully fund the adjunct teacher corps, so you can have some help as you go out to inspire.

One of the many reasons that I am an optimistic fellow, and I am, is because I understand that this country is a nation of discovery and enterprise. And that spirit is really strong in America today. I found it interesting that one of today's Laureates, Dr. Leslie Geddes, is 86 years old and continues to teach and conduct research at Purdue University. Even more interesting is what he had to say. He said, "I wouldn't know what else to do. I'm not done yet." (Laughter.)

He's right. He's not done yet, because the promise of science and technology never runs out. With the imagination and determinations of Americans like our awardees today, our nation will continue to discover new possibilities and to develop new innovations, and build a better life for generations to come. And that's what we're here to celebrate.

So I thank you for your many contributions to our nation, congratulate you on your fine achievements. And now I ask the military aide to read the citations. (Applause.)

(The medals are presented as the citations are read.)

2005 National Medal of Science to Jan D. Achenbach, for his seminal contributions to engineering research and education in the area of wave propagation in solids and for pioneering the field of quantitative non-destructive evaluation.

2005 National Medal of Science to Ralph A. Alpher, for his unprecedented work in the areas of nucleosynthesis, for the prediction that universe expansion leaves behind background radiation, and for providing the model for the Big Bang theory.

2005 National Medal of Science to Gordon H. Bower, for his unparalleled contributions to cognitive and mathematical psychology, for his lucid analyses of remembering and reasoning, and for his important service to psychology and American science.

2005 National Medal of Science to Bradley Efron, for his contributions to theoretical and applied statistics, especially the bootstrap sampling technique; for his extraordinary geometric insight into nonlinear statistical problems; and for applications in medicine, physics, and astronomy.

2005 National Medal of Science to Anthony S. Fauci, for pioneering the understanding of the mechanisms whereby the human immune system is regulated, and for his work on dissecting the mechanisms of pathogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that has served as the underpinning for the current strategies for the treatment of HIV disease.

2005 National Medal of Science to Tobin J. Marks, for his pioneering research in the areas of homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysis, organo-f-element chemistry, new electronic and photonic materials, and diverse areas of coordination and solid state chemistry.

2005 National Medal of Science to Lonnie G. Thompson, for his pioneering research in paleoclimatology analyzing isotopic and chemical fingerprints found in tropical ice cores from the world's highest mountain glaciers and for his courage in collecting these disappearing climate archives that has transformed our understanding of the natural and anthropogenic factors influencing climate variability on our planet, past and present.

2005 National Medal of Science to Torsten N. Wiesel, for providing key insights into the operation of the visual system and for the discovery of the manner in which neural connections in the brain are made during the development and how they are maintained.

2006 National Medal of Science to Hyman Bass, for his fundamental contributions to pure mathematics, especially in the creation of algebraic K-theory, his profound influence on mathematics education, and his service to the mathematics research and education communities.

2006 National Medal of Science to Marvin H. Caruthers, for his work in developing robust methods for the chemical synthesis of DNA, which has enabled genetic engineering of new biopharmaceuticals, forensic "DNA fingerprinting," and the human genome project.

2006 National Medal of Science to Rita R. Colwell, for her in-depth research that has contributed to a greater understanding of the ecology, physiology, and evolution of marine microbes, most notably Vibrio cholerae, the causative agent of pandemic cholera, and which has elucidated critical links between environmental and human health.

2006 National Medal of Science to Peter B. Dervan, for his fundamental research contributions at the interface of organic chemistry and biology, and for his influence in education and industrial innovation.

2006 National Medal of Science to Nina V. Federoff, for her pioneering work on plant molecular biology, and for her being the first to clone and characterize maize transposons. She has contributed to education and public policy pertaining to recombinant DNA and genetic modification of plants.

2006 National Medal of Science to Daniel Kleppner, for his pioneering scientific studies of the interaction of atoms and light including Rydberg atoms, cavity quantum electrodynamics, quantum chaos; for developing techniques that opened the way to Bose Einstein Condensation in a gas; and for lucid explanations of physics to non-specialists and exemplary service to the scientific community.

2006 National Medal of Science to Robert S. Langer, for his revolutionary discoveries in the areas of polymeric controlled release systems and tissue engineering and synthesis of new materials that have led to new medical treatments that have profoundly affected the well being of mankind.

2006 National Medal of Science to Lubert Stryer, for his elucidation of the biochemical basis of signal amplification in vision and pioneering the development of high density micro-arrays for genetic analysis. His influential biochemistry textbook has influenced and inspired millions of students.

2005 National Medal of Technology to Alfred Y. Cho, for his contributions to the invention of the MBE technology and the development of the MBE technology into an advanced electronic and photonic devices production tool, with applications to cellular phones, CD players, and high-speed communications.

2005 National Medal of Technology to Dean L. Sicking, for his innovative design and development of roadside and race track safety technologies that safely dissipate the energy of high-speed crashes, helping prevent fatalities and injuries.

2005 National Medal of Technology to Ronald Eby, Velupillai Puvanesarajah, Dace Madore, and Maya Koster, for their work in the discovery, development and commercialization of Prevnar, the first-ever vaccine to prevent the deadly and disabling consequences of Streptococcus pneumoniae infections in children.

2005 National Medal of Technology to Genzyme Corporation, for pioneering dramatic improvements in the health of thousands of patients with rare diseases and harnessing the promise of biotechnology to develop innovative new therapies.

2005 National Medal of Technology to Semiconductor Research Corporation, for building the world's largest and most successful university research force to support the rapid growth and advance of the semiconductor industry; for proving the concept of collaborative research as the first high-tech research consortium; and for creating the concept and methodology that evolved into the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors.

2005 National Medal of Technology to Xerox Corporation, for over 50 years of innovation in marking, materials, electronics, communications, and software that created the modern reprographics, digital printing, and print-on-demand industries.

2006 National Medal of Technology to Leslie A. Geddes, for his contributions to electrode design and tissue restoration, which have led to the widespread use of a wide variety of clinical devices. His discoveries and inventions have saved and enriched thousands of lives and have formed the cornerstone of much of the modern implantable medical device field.

2006 National Medal of Technology to Paul G. Kaminski, for his contributions to national security through the development of advanced, unconventional imaging from space, and for developing and fielding advanced systems with greatly enhanced survivability. He has made a profound difference in the national security posture and the global leadership of the United States.

2006 National Medal of Technology to Herwig W. Kogelnik, for his pioneering contributions and leadership in the development of the technology of lasers, optoelectronics, integrated optics, and lightwave communication systems that have been instrumental in driving the growth of fiber optic transmission systems for our nation's communications infrastructure.

2006 National Medal of Technology to Charles M. Vest, for his visionary leadership in advancing America's technological workforce and capacity for innovation through revitalizing the national partnership among academia, government, and industry.

2006 National Medal of Technology to James E. West, for co-inventing the electret microphone in 1962. Ninety percent of the two billion microphones produced annually and used in everyday items such as telephones, hearing aids, camcorders, and multimedia computers employ electret technology. END 2:15 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 27, 2007

President Bush Presents Awards to 2005 and 2006 National Medal of Science and Technology Recipients
East Room, 1:44 P.M. EDT

So I thank you for your many contributions to our nation, congratulate you on your fine achievements. And now I ask the military aide to read the citations. (Applause.)

(The medals are presented as the citations are read.)

For Immediate Release
July 27, 2007

Briefing by Tony Snow
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, 12:33 P.M. EDT, MR. SNOW: Here we go. Questions.

Q Okay, so I'm going to try from the gaggle this morning -- I'm just a little confused, both from this morning and from what you were talking about on the plane yesterday -- trying to iron out whether Gonzales contradicted himself, and whether he and Mueller contradicted each other or not. You guys say, no, but we can't tell you why. But that's -- can you try to explain it a little bit better?

MR. SNOW: I can understand -- let me try a little better. I understand it's difficult to parse because what you have involved here are matters of classification. Attempts to discuss those in an open congressional setting sometimes is going to lead people to talk very carefully, and there's going to be plenty of room for interpretation or conclusion.

This comes down to conversations in 2004. In 2004 the Department of Justice and the White House all agreed that there was a legal basis for intercepting conversations or communications involving al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates in the United States and overseas. There is no dispute about that. That program did not have a name at the time. It was later labeled the terrorist surveillance program, after some press disclosures, and I think the label stuck in 2006. But again, there has never been, at any juncture along the line, any disagreement about the propriety or legality of that program.

Now, when you talk about the terrorist surveillance program, there are many intelligence activities in the American government. We're talking about a very thin slice, limited to exactly what I was telling you about, which is monitoring communications between al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda affiliates, one in the United States, one overseas. So when the Attorney General talks about TSP, that's precisely what he's discussing.

Q So, okay, what you're saying then is, when the Attorney General and Mueller were talking about -- the consideration of the administration is that they were talking about two different things, because one of is before it was disclosed, and one was after?

MR. SNOW: No, let me just say -- this is where -- look, there are a broad range of intelligence activities that the government is involved in, and from time to time there are going to disputes about some of those intelligence activities. But again, what the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which I've defined very narrowly and carefully, there have been no disputes about that.

Q And the briefing in 2004 was about that program, or about something else?

MR. SNOW: Again, I don't want to go too much into the briefing. The answer to your question is, yes.

Q About that program in a different iteration?

MR. SNOW: No, you asked a different question that I said yes to.

Q Well, let me try this and then ask a broader question. My understanding is, this is a disagreement about the how, and not the what -- how you arrived at some of the targets that you were going to monitor, but ultimately it had to do with this program.

MR. SNOW: Again, David, when you talk about "this program," I'm being very specific here, this program, monitoring those al Qaeda conversations, trying to find out what al Qaeda is communicating here in this room --

Q What Mueller was referring to, that Comey was referring to --

MR. SNOW: Well, what he referred to was a National Security Agency program. I'm giving you a very narrow slice, which is -- because there are lots of programs and lots of activities that are used to try to protect American citizens. This narrow slice, this bit of surveillance on al Qaeda was not, itself, at any point, a subject of controversy, legal or otherwise.

Q But the gathering of names of people that you were going to surveill, which was part of that effort, was something --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you're asking me to get into operational matters and I can't.

Q But isn't the issue here that the most charitable explanation is that the Attorney General is trying to parse this discussion and to come to a conclusion that there was not a disagreement about this, and there was a disagreement --

MR. SNOW: No, I think the Attorney General had in mind exactly what I was talking about, which was this particular program, which was not -- I mean, I've described it as a narrow program, but it was a significant program. But there are many other efforts on the part of the federal government to protect the American people.

I cannot get into operational discussion such as the one that you've raised. But again, the question of the propriety of this program, were there concerns about the legality of a program that allowed U.S. authorities, the President to go ahead and approve attempts to intercept communications between these folks -- that simply was not a matter of concern. I'm not going --

Q But you had the threat of mass resignations in the Justice Department and from the head of the FBI. How can you say there was not a disagreement about the program?

MR. SNOW: No, again, this is where you get into the fact that there's a possibility that there were broader discussions, and I'm not going to get into the context of those. What is worth noting is that whatever concerns may have been raised, as has been testified by the former acting head of the Justice Department, were, in fact, resolved, and whatever concerns they had were addressed and addressed appropriately to their satisfaction.

Q Mueller did not contradict the Attorney General?

MR. SNOW: No, we don't think he did.

Q The Attorney General has told the truth to the American people and to Congress about this program, this surveillance --

MR. SNOW: Here's the -- rather call them activities -- and the problem again is you are applying retroactively a label to a program that didn't even have that label at the time this conversation was taking place. And so I cannot -- I don't want to stand here as the judge to try to interpret for you what everybody means when they use that term, when they use "terrorist surveillance program," because it may have different significations to different people. I've told you the narrow construction that the Attorney General has used.

And this gets us back into the situation that I understand is unsatisfactory because there are lots of questions raised and the vast majority of those we're not going to be in a position to answer, simply because they do involve matters of classification that we cannot and will not discuss publicly.

Q One final one. Why does the President believe that the Attorney General does not reflect badly on the Justice Department and on this White House with the way he has handled questions related to this and other matters?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, when you -- because he has testified truthfully and tried to be very accurate. And what also happens is, you've got an interesting situation, when members of Congress, knowing that somebody is constrained by matters of classification, they can ask very broad questions, and those are questions they know the person sitting on the other side cannot answer thoroughly in an open session -- you can create any kind of perception you want, by saying, well, can't you finish the answer, or why don't you tell us this, or why don't you tell us that -- knowing perfectly well that there are very real constraints there. There's no way that that is not going to create uncomfortable moments for the person sitting in the chair. But you simply cannot give a full and complete answer, because to do so would compromise American security.

Q But the President believes that Alberto Gonzales's credibility is intact?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Tony, are we -- in terms of trying to understand this, is what you're telling us is that Director Mueller and Attorney General Gonzales have differing definitions of the term "terrorist surveillance program"?

MR. SNOW: This is one where I don't want to climb into their heads. All I'm going to say -- because notice yesterday, the Director of the FBI never once used "terrorist surveillance program." It was used in questions to him, and he always said "National Security Agency" --

Q He said --

MR. SNOW: No, no, he said "National Security Agency program."

Q He was asked directly by Congresswoman Lee --

Q -- had it been widely discussed, yes.

Q -- "Do you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?" "I had an understanding the discussion was on an NSA program, yes."

MR. SNOW: Okay.

Q "We use TSP, we use warrantless wiretapping, so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?" "The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."

MR. SNOW: As I said, he was very careful about his words, and I am not going to try to read his minds on this. But again, we have been using a very clear and specific definition of TSP. And I just think -- I can't go any further than that.

Q Okay, but in terms of the American people trying to understand what's going on here, it seems as though the answer that's coming from the podium is, we had differing definitions of the terrorist surveillance program.

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way: There is no question that the legal basis and the activity of providing surveillance of al Qaeda members -- overseas or al Qaeda affiliates tied to people in the United States or communicating with them -- having the federal government go after them, that was not a matter of controversy for the Director of the FBI.

Q But it was how you were going about it --

Q But that's --

Q -- without a warrant.

Q Is the administration giving any consideration to declassifying any of this material to try to clear up this controversy and clear Gonzales's name?

MR. SNOW: Not if it involves compromising national security.

Q But are you considering declassifying --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into conversations that we may or may not be having. We understand how frustrating it is, but again, what we're talking about -- this is what happens when one turns into a political football highly classified programs, knowing that you have free rein to say whatever you want, knowing that the other side can't respond. Cannot respond without violating the law.

Q Are you saying it was not about the wiretapping that had already been acknowledged?

MR. SNOW: I'm saying that that acknowledged program -- the program that the President disclosed to the American people was not something that was legally controversial.

Q Wait a minute, Tony you said one thing --

Q Why are you saying then that nothing --

Q -- was no controversy, and you also said that whatever controversy there was was resolved. Can you say which it is?

MR. SNOW: Because -- what I'm saying is that there was the discussion of a controversy; the controversy did not hinge upon this program that I've discussed --

Q Controversy over what?

MR. SNOW: Okay --

Q Controversy over what?

MR. SNOW: I thought I was pretty clear, but maybe I'm just being too --

Q No, you're not speaking English, really. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Okay, let me try again. The terrorist surveillance program, as it has been labeled -- it was not so labeled at the time -- was a program of doing surveillance on communications of al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda members internationally -- internationally into the United States. The legal basis of that was accepted by the Department of Justice, and it was not a matter of controversy. To the extent that there were controversies on -- there are many different things that involve the gathering or use of intelligence; some of those may, in fact, themselves have been subjects of controversy, there were controversies about those. It is also the case that whatever controversy had been raised by the then acting Attorney General had been resolved. And that is something that he has said publicly.

I can't -- I know, I know you're going to say, well, what are you talking about? I can't tell you.

Q No, I'm not going to ask you that, actually. What I'm going to say is that, you're saying there was no disagreement, and then you say, but there were disagreements and they were resolved.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q It's two separate things.

MR. SNOW: That's right.

Q So you're contradicting yourself.

MR. SNOW: I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that -- because you're assuming that -- again, the terrorist surveillance program -- no controversy about that -- many intelligence activities, could be some controversies about other intelligence activities.

Q But that program itself was named --

Q -- go to the hospital room?

MR. SNOW: Again, now we're getting into one of these things where linguistically it becomes a total muddle. I'm simply telling you, I have defined very narrowly what the terrorist surveillance program is, and that has never -- the legal basis and the authority of that were never a matter of controversy.

Q So in February of 2006, when Attorney General Gonzales is asked, are there any serious disagreements about NSA wiretapping, and he says, no, he's only answering --

MR. SNOW: He's referring to the TSP. He's referring to the program that the President made public.

Q When you referred to a political football would you include Senator Specter in that? How do you feel about his remarks by Air Force One -- do you feel if he was going to be critical of the Attorney General he should not be speaking in that venue?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll let you refer this to Senator Specter. But Senator Specter is a guy who's got his own opinions. Among other things, one of the things he also said yesterday were calls for a special prosecutor he thought were wholly political and unwarranted. I mean, he's Senator Specter.

Q No on here at the White House is upset that he spoke on Air Force One?

MR. SNOW: I'm just -- I'm not going to get into that.

Q Tony, with Congress trying to exercise its oversight responsibility to try to get to the bottom of this, how does that constitute what the White House said today was a Democrat-led crusade to try to destroy Gonzales?

MR. SNOW: Well, take a look at what's been going on. There have been a whole series of attempts to go after Alberto Gonzales, on U.S. attorneys and a number of other things, from the beginning of the year. And each one begins with an insinuation rather than a fact. And that's what we have here are a series of insinuations. It is worth going through -- look, Congress has an absolute right and obligation to do oversight and they're free to do so. As a matter of fact, the Department of Justice has been very accommodating in terms of making all its personnel available, thousands of pages of documents available.

And it does seem that what happens is some story comes up, you've got -- it's very easy to understand, with the ambiguities in the language here, how people could get worked up. But the fact is to start out trying to create a benefit of ill behavior on the Attorney General strikes me as not the attitude you strike when you're trying to do due diligence. It's something where you've got your mind made up at the beginning.

Q You mentioned Senator Specter. He also said in his news conference yesterday that one of the most important things for him to come out of the hearing Tuesday with Attorney General Gonzales was the question, what's going on in intelligence? Is there another program? So I just want to make sure I'm clear. You say that TSP is one slice, essentially --

MR. SNOW: There are lots of programs in intelligence. I will not talk about any others, but of course -- look, you don't simply have one intelligence program when you're trying to fight a war on terror. There are lots of them.

Q He's expressing dissatisfaction about not being read in on whatever other programs may be --

MR. SNOW: Well, I understand his concerns.

Q Can I say -- can I try --

Q Why didn't the Attorney General just say, this would be better handled behind closed doors, during the hearing?

MR. SNOW: I don't want to -- it might be worth taking it up with members and asking them what they think of the idea.

Q I just want to try and jump into this muddle a little bit again. So Mueller is saying that, yes, it was the program that was widely discussed, yes. So "widely discussed," that's the surveillance program that was acknowledged. There were other aspects of that program that are still classified that you can't talk about that created disagreements such that Mueller and other Justice Department officials were going to resign. That got resolved; we don't know and you guys aren't going to tell us because it's classified. But that we know.

But there seems to be an effort by you and others to say you have to disaggregate all of this, these are all individual pieces, when, in fact, it sounds like it was one meal and you're arguing over the ingredients here. (Laughter.) There was disagreement about the meal and Gonzales is saying, no, no, we disagreed about the ingredients, not the meal. That's preposterous.

MR. SNOW: No, it's not preposterous. But it's a great analogy, and I can't even come back with a countervailing analogy. (Laughter.)

Q But is it wrong imagery? You know what I'm getting at.

MR. SNOW: No, I know what you're getting at, and the fact is, again, I'm in a position here where I can acknowledge the peas, I can't acknowledge whether there are other things on the dish. So what I can say is --

Q -- confusing my meal analogy. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Good, then I did succeed.

Q Yes, so you would come up with --

MR. SNOW: Yes, just mashed them all together. Let me try to deal with David's question as best I can. And I'll guarantee you right up front it's not going to be satisfactory, because to give a satisfactory answer means telling far more than we're simply in the position to be able to tell. I'm sorry about that, but that's the way it is. When it comes to matters of classification, these are simply not things that you can discuss in great detail out in public. And therefore, it does lead to conversations like this one where we look like we're chasing each other around the --

Q You're saying unequivocally that the Attorney General is not parsing with the specific intent of trying to obfuscate?

MR. SNOW: No, I think -- to the extent that -- what he's trying to do is to be precise. You also understand that if one is construed as being too loose with language in a situation like this, all of a sudden people can import all sorts of other meanings in things and you're in deep trouble, too. It's a really, really difficult situation . You've got people trying to talk in open session about things the vast majority of which you can't talk about in open session. So you have to be very, very careful in the way you do it. You certainly are going to stand accused of parsing; probably better that than spilling the beans.

Q Tony, the other day from the podium you said, no one has laid a glove on Attorney General Gonzales. Do you still feel that way?

MR. SNOW: Yes. I mean, he's -- but what's happened is -- look, it is clear that there are a lot of members of Congress who don't like his performance. But the President supports him ad the President supports his performance.

Q Among those members were some Democratic senators who are privy to intelligence briefings, who have pushed for a special prosecutor, in part in terms of trying to get to the bottom of this discrepancy. Do you think senators who are aware of the intelligence, do understand all the different ingredients of the meal, and still say something is not right here -- are they playing politics with intelligence? Or aren't they in a position to assess that --

MR. SNOW: I don't want to get into that because I think you've seen a number of people who have had access to this, having themselves differing memories -- I don't want to get into being the referee of that.

Q Who supports Gonzales besides the President?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, there have been others, but I will allow them to speak for themselves.

Q Can we talk about the economy a little bit?

Q Can we follow up first on this?

MR. SNOW: Let's finish this, and then I'll get to the economy, Wendell. Go ahead, Ken.

Q I just want to do this as simply as possible. Were the controversies that existed, were they about programs apart and separate from TSP, or was it part and parcel of --

MR. SNOW: Again, I can't -- I just can't go any further than I've gone.

Q Okay.

MR. SNOW: I know, like I said, it's a natural consequence of frustration at this line of questioning.

Q There were controversies, they weren't about TSP?

MR. SNOW: As I've defined TSP, that is correct.

Q Can I say, being as simple as possible --

MR. SNOW: Please.

Q We're getting a game show feel now.

MR. SNOW: Yes. (Laughter.)

Q You can assure us that both Mueller and Gonzales were telling the truth?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I think so. Yes, I mean --

Q You think so?

MR. SNOW: Look, I cannot -- I cannot serve as the fact witness of everything that was in their head and try to unpack exactly what they meant. But I'm sure that both men were up there telling the truth and the whole truth as they understood it.

Q And can you tell us and assure us that they were both speaking about the same program?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to go any further than I've gone.

Q On a related thing. Is Fred Fielding going to respond to the Congress on the Rove subpoena?

MR. SNOW: Yes, of course, in due course.

Q Okay. When -- any idea when that would be? And will you release --

MR. SNOW: Before the deadline. Typically -- you will know what our response is.

Q Tony, I always seem to ask the resignation questions -- I feel like Oscar, the Grim Reaper cat -- but despite what you just said, if Gonzales submitted his resignation and then --

MR. SNOW: The Grim Reaper -- oh, my goodness.

Q -- Oscar the cat.

MR. SNOW: Have you heard this story?

Q No.

MR. SNOW: They've got this hospice where this cat climbs in bed with people in the final hours. Go ahead.

Q If the Attorney General submitted his resignation and meant it, would the President accept it?

MR. SNOW: Come on, Connie, that's --

Q One more on this. As a routine matter, are resignation letters always in the President's desk if he wants to act on them?

MR. SNOW: You mean, do we all have resignation letters in the file? No, unless someone has written one for me and stuffed it in the desk and I'm unaware of it.

Q You keep saying "as you've defined it," and what you're saying the program is surveillance between suspected al Qaeda members somewhere in the country, as you've defined it. Does that definition include doing that without a warrant?

MR. SNOW: It includes the way -- yes, the way the President put it together.

Q So the program without a warrant was not in dispute?

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, that's right. The program as it was then constituted and operating.

Q One more on this. Do you support an attorney -- do you support an independent counsel to clear Gonzales's name?

MR. SNOW: At this point, probably the best way is, let's just -- I don't think we're ready to cross that river yet.

Q -- that's not really the answer --

MR. SNOW: That's not an answer, yes. I'm just -- I'm not prepared to answer that question right now.

Q I believe I have dibs on this --

Q Does that mean that you're --

MR. SNOW: Okay, that's right, you know what -- that's absolutely right. Wendell. Go ahead, Wendell.

Q Secretary Paulson says that the shake-out in the market, if you want to call it that, is a wake-up call on the value of risk and the cost of risk. Now, the President got a lot of a political mileage out of the increase in home ownership. And I want to know if there's a contradiction here, whether it's good for the President to be pushing home ownership for people who may not be quite financially able to handle it, and to -- the "welcome to my house" line he has -- and whether that's good for the economy, or whether it might be better for him to be pushing, perhaps, more reasonable, more conservative financial --

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, I am unaware of any time in which the President said, come on, come all, buy a house you can't afford.

Q Well, the President wouldn't say that.

MR. SNOW: Well, that's right. So I think you've created a strawman there. What the President has said is that it's important to have an economy that continues to provide for jobs, opportunity and income. He has celebrated, quite rightly, the growth of home ownership in this country. And one of the things you want to do to deal with the situation now is to create enough continued growth in the economy so that at some point we'll have the possibility of interest rates once again moderating. But it's also important for people to make wise choices in how they finance their homes. I mean, all of those are legitimate issues, but I think the idea that somehow the President -- you lay it at the President that a lot of people went out and bought homes, that seems an awful stretch.

Q Tony, on the whole --

MR. SNOW: Let Wendell continue --

Q I'm not necessarily saying the President caused this problem.

MR. SNOW: Oh, good.

Q I'm not saying that at all. I'm asking you whether or not the President may have contributed to it, and whether he may have benefitted politically from it, and whether or not it might have been better for him to stress more conservative fiscal management.

MR. SNOW: So, in other words, it would have driven our numbers from the high 90s to the mid 90s.

Q There's a cost to this sub-prime lending thing, and we're paying it.

MR. SNOW: Everybody is paying it. I was unaware of a big burst. I'm not sure that the home ownership created a bonanza at the polls. Perhaps it did. The fact is -- what's really interesting, Wendell, is you take a look at all the economic numbers, and we still have the strongest economy we've had in a very long time.

One of the other things that Hank Paulson said, the world's economy is the strongest he's ever seen it -- somehow that doesn't seem to have been reflected. So if you're trying to import some sort of political insinuation, somehow we didn't get the benefit, so let's take the political piece out of it. When it comes to trying to figure out how to come up with a system that is going to be able to enable folks to finance their homes and to achieve the American Dream, that's something the President does support. And if problems come up along the way that deserve addressing, I'm sure that we'd be happy to look at them, and I'm sure Congress would, as well.

Q Tony, there are chain-reaction effects to what's happening on the sub-prime market. We've got some of the biggest companies, like Bear Stearns and others, that are really facing a potential blowout. And these are firms that are too big to fail, as they used to say. And if something happens in that -- now people are talking about a credit crunch, talking about blowout in the markets -- as a chain reaction of the inflation, the loans in the housing markets can affect the entire system. Now, the President didn't cause that problem, but it's going to be on his plate, and it's going to be on his plate soon. And I'm sure there's some discussions going on with regard to that. And the question is, what is he prepared to do -- there are some things he can do. The value of the dollar, in particular, is probably the most important item that he would have responsibility for, because if the bottom falls out of that, believe me, all hell breaks lose.

MR. SNOW: Let me offer several general propositions. Number one, as I said early on in my tenure here, I do not make market-moving pronunciamentos from the podium, whether they be about the value of the dollar, or the proper levels of prime interest rates, or so on. Furthermore, you have laid out a scenario that had dominos toppling hither and yon at some point in the future. Whether they do or not, I am not competent to tell and, therefore, not competent to answer about consequences.

It is important to realize that the President does believe in fiscal responsibility. He also believes in trying to keep the economy growing, so that people will have options and will have income streams and will have strong futures, and furthermore, that you've got a Treasury team that continues to look at these and many more issues to try to maintain the strength of the American economy. And despite the sort of cataclysmic scenario you've just laid out, we've just gotten a report that indicates that there's, in fact, extraordinary strength in the American economy, something that would be the envy of the rest of the industrialized world. It is our challenge to build on that and where there are problems, to address them.

April.

Q Tony, on Iraq, General Barry McCaffrey said about an hour ago -- he said he'd given the administration too much benefit of the doubt about the September surge report, and now he says, it's the political hurdle the administration cannot surmount. He also says, it's no secret the Pentagon is looking at starting an immediate draw-down, that the army is stretched too thin. He says, the army will come apart next summer.

MR. SNOW: Since you're presenting me with Barry McCaffrey quotes that I've not been able to read or see in context --

Q -- can see it.

MR. SNOW: -- or just email me. But either way, I'm not going to respond right now.

Q Tony, two questions. One, this morning the President announced about U.S.-India civil nuclear deal. So did Mr. Nicholas Burns at the State Department.

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

Q And do you think the President willing to take personal interest on the -- for this final 123, as it's known --

MR. SNOW: Goyal, what do you think? I mean, the President has already made it clear that closer relations with India are pivotal for us. Of course, he takes interest in it.

Q And second, as far as this immigration is concerned, one judge already said that it's not a local issue but a federal issue. You think the President sees the same, that immigration is a federal issue, not a local and state --

MR. SNOW: One of the things that was of concern during the conversation about comprehensive immigration reform is that if you did not get comprehensive federal legislation, localities would try piecemeal to apply different solutions, and it would make it rather difficult to figure out what to do from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Senator Lindsey Graham made that point on a number of occasions.

But you know what, localities do, in fact, have their own federalist responsibilities and freedoms when it comes to doing certain types of legislation, so I'm certainly not going to get into arguing about it. We still think the best way to deal with the immigration problem is on a comprehensive basis.

Q Tony, I want to come back to what you jumped off.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, let me talk to John, and then you and I will hook up again.

Q To get back to the issue of a special prosecutor or a special counsel, what is the White House's role in that? Are you going to leave that up to the --

MR. SNOW: Well, once again, typically a special counsel is something appointed by the Department of Justice. But I'm not going to get into that right now.

Q Tony, going back to McCaffrey, McCaffrey has stated -- and this is a man that the President has talked to, the President has asked for advice -- he talks about the fact that troops are going out, and then they're -- they're going out and coming back for two months and then going out and staying for much longer periods of time, that everything is just thin. What is this administration trying to do to accommodate that? He says it's no secret that the Pentagon is talking about a draw-down, and by the end of this President's term, that half of the U.S. troops in Iraq will be gone.

MR. SNOW: Well, that's a prediction on his part. I don't know where he gets it.

Q He says it's from the Pentagon. He said --

MR. SNOW: Well, the Pentagon, which has thousands of employees. Let me just -- a couple of things.

Q He's a general who the President has consulted with, so he is privy to information, correct?

MR. SNOW: We like and respect Barry McCaffrey. Again, I am not going to get in a position of trying to fly-speck something that you have back in your --

Q I will email it to you so you can hear it --

MR. SNOW: I would be happy to do it. But several things to keep in mind: What are we doing about it? In the State of the Union address, the President talked about significantly increasing the size of the military forces, precisely so you could get back into a regular rotation structure. He also talked about rebuilding equipment in a way so that we also didn't have equipment problems. Go back and -- again, you can read it, it's right there, it's in the State of the Union address, it's a five-year plan, it deals with tens of thousands of new forces.

Q But things have changed, since then things have changed.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, because the President knew that we were talking about a way forward. The other thing that has changed is that there's been significant success on the military front -- this is less and less disputed -- in the early stages of the surge. And we've seen it in Baghdad and we've seen it in areas around Iraq. We've seen it also in the change of behaviors of Iraqis, where, with much increasing regularity, they're turning in bad guys -- the number of tips up by something like 400 percent. And you have a significant change on the ground, in terms of the security situation.

We understand the importance of providing for the forces, and also training up not only our own forces by Iraqi forces.

But you're getting me here into a very long philosophical dispute, not having heard what --

Q You've had generals on the ground say that troop strength is thin, it's wearing thin.

MR. SNOW: I believe that the generals who have spoken recently have talked about the success of things that are going on, the importance of staying the course --

Q Is it thin or not?

MR. SNOW: Thin? It's a tough war.

Okay, thank you.

Q Gordon Brown? Can you say a little bit about the Gordon Brown visit?

MR. SNOW: Gordon Brown? I believe you'll --

Q Week ahead?

MR. SNOW: We did the week ahead this morning. Let me just take -- let me see if I've got any -- let me just -- there will be pool coverage for the arrival on Saturday with the Prime Minister. And there will be a joint press availability --

Q Sunday.

MR. SNOW: I mean on Sunday -- I'm sorry, Sunday. And on Monday at 11:25 a.m., there will be a joint press availability with the Prime Minister. And after that he'll return.

Q Could just talk about the topics again? I know you went over this in the gaggle, but if you --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, it's the topics that you would expect. And it -- I know I say this often, but what will happen is, the two will follow the issues that are closest to them. They'll talk about the Middle East, they'll talk about security in Europe, they'll talk about Darfur. They certainly will talk about Iraq. They will talk about the broader war on terror. Chances are they may talk about political developments in Europe, talk about the Doha Round. So the kinds of smorgasbord of big topics you could expect them to be discussing, but I don't know at what length or what order; that's really up to them.

Q Are they working on any security agreements or anything to announce on Monday --

MR. SNOW: I don't expect any deliverables.

Q Both you and the British have said that you expect the close relationship that was maintained under Tony Blair to continue. Can it possibly continue at anything like the same level?

MR. SNOW: We'll find out. When Tony Blair -- when George W. Bush came to office, people said, how can there possibly be a close relationship, concerning how close Tony Blair was to Bill Clinton? You got to keep in mind, the things that draw the Americans and Brits together are the personalities of their leaders, but also deep affection and shared interests between the two nations.

With that, we're done.

Q Thank you. END 1:05 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 26, 2007

President and Mrs. Bush Attend Special Olympics Global Law Enforcement Torch Run Ceremony
Rose Garden, 11:45 A.M. EDT

MRS. BUSH: Welcome, everyone, to the White House. Thank you for coming to celebrate the 2007 Special Olympics Games.

The Special Olympics have been a joyful part of international athletics since 1968, when the first games were held at Chicago's Soldier Field. Started by activist, Eunice Shriver, the games reflect her belief that young people with intellectual disabilities deserve the same opportunities as young people everywhere. Mrs. Shriver knows that young people everywhere share the same satisfaction for a contest won, experience the same growth from persistence and hard work, and cherish the same friendships with coaches and teammates. Thank you, Mrs. Shriver. (Applause.)

Those first games in Chicago drew a thousand athletes from 26 United States states and Canada. Today, the Special Olympics has grown into a global movement of 2.5 million athletes, representing 165 nations. As they compete, Special Olympians build discipline, enthusiasm and self-confidence. Parents, neighbors, teachers and friends follow their achievements, while Olympians' countries look on with pride.

This year about 7,500 Special Olympians will gather for the summer games in Shanghai. Leading up to the games, people from around the world are joining in a tradition that dates back to ancient Athens, the kindling of the Olympian flame. The flame has been a symbol of the Special Olympics since 1981, when a Kansas Police Chief, Richard LaMunyon established the Law Enforcement Torch Run, to raise money and public awareness. Last year, on the torch run's 25th anniversary, more than 85,000 law enforcement officials in 35 countries carried the "flame of hope". Their efforts raised more than $25 million to support Special Olympians around the world.

This year marks the first ever global torch run. Starting in Athens and stopping in 10 international cities, the flame will make its way to Shanghai, held aloft by many dedicated and physically fit law enforcement officers. Some of them are here with us today. The torch run reflects the work these officers do every day. Our law enforcement officers protect the rights and dignity of each person, and they make our communities welcoming places, where everyone can make the most of his or her talents.

This is the spirit of the Special Olympics. Today we're thrilled to support our athletes as they enter their final phases of training before the games. This fall we'll cheer as Team USA represents our country's optimism and diversity abroad. And we offer gratitude to all the compassionate law enforcement officers who will carry the "flame of hope."

Now I'd like to introduce a man of great compassion, who while perhaps not an Olympic athlete -- (laughter) -- is at least a big sports fan. (Laughter.) Ladies and gentlemen, my husband, President George W. Bush. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Welcome to the Rose Garden. Thanks for that touching introduction, Laura. (Laughter.) I am proud to salute an outstanding group of athletes, the men and women of Team USA. (Applause.) And I'm pleased to announce today that Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, who is with us today, will lead the impressive delegation to the World Games in Shanghai. Thank you, Madam Secretary. (Applause.) Appreciate your service.

I'd also like to extend our greetings to the representatives from Team China. You're welcome here in the Rose Garden, and I appreciate you bringing this warm weather with you. (Applause.) I thank Secretary Mike Leavitt for joining us. Michael, it's good to see you. Thanks for being here. We are really proud that Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the founder of the Special Olympics, took time to be here in the Rose Garden. Welcome back to the White House. Great to see you. (Applause.) And I'm glad you brought your boy with you -- (laughter) -- the Chairman of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver. Thanks for being here, Tim. (Applause.) These are good people.

I'm proud to be here, as well, with Liu Peng -- he's the Chinese Minister of Sports -- and other members of the Chinese delegation. We welcome you here. Thank you for coming, Mr. Minister. (Applause.) And I appreciate very much your bringing President Hu's letter on the 2007 Special Olympics World Summer Games in Shanghai. It's very kind for you to have brought his letter to me. I'm glad to have received it.

I want to thank Hans Hickler, the CEO of DHL, who has joined us. I thank Chief LaMunyon, who Laura just talked about. He's the founder of the Law Enforcement Torch Run, and he's here with his wife, Sharron. Chief, appreciate you coming. Thanks for being a visionary. Glad you brought Sharron.

I thank the Special Olympic athletes, the final leg runners, and the law enforcement officials that have joined us today. Proud of your service and proud of your compassion. (Applause.)

I remember when I was the governor of the great state of Texas being a hugger. That was during the Special Olympic games. If you've never been a hugger, I strongly advise you to be one. (Laughter.) That means you stand at the end of the finish line of a race and you hug the people coming across the line. It meant a lot to me to be a hugger. It introduced me to the Special Olympics and I have been a big backer of the Special Olympics -- primarily because then and since then I have been inspired by the determination and the courage of our athletes. (Applause.)

And so we welcome you, and we welcome your families, and we welcome your coaches and your supporters. And to the family members and coaches and supporters, I thank you for helping our fellow citizens understand that the promise of this country belongs to every citizen. Over four decades, the Special Olympics has changed the lives of millions of people across the world. And we're proud to note that this noble mission began right here in America. And let me just say, I believe it is a fitting testimony to this country, that was based upon ideals of inclusion and acceptance and hope, that the games we honor today began right here in our country.

And ours is a country that constantly needs to strive to realize that vision. Interestingly enough, it was 17 years ago today that the Americans With Disabilities Act was signed into law at the White House. I know some folks here witnessed that signature. And I know a man who played a major role in getting that done, and that was the 41st President -- you call him President, I call him Dad. I am proud it was my dad that signed that law into being. I firmly believe millions of disabled Americans have found more opportunities to work and to contribute to our society because of that law.

There's more work to be done, and that's why my administration is building on progress through what we have called the New Freedom Initiative. It's a good initiative and it's an important initiative, and it's an initiative that will help all Americans realize the great blessings of this country.

That's why the message of Special Olympics is important. That's why millions have joined this cause, Eunice. It started off as an idea, and now it's a worldwide movement. And that's why we look proudly upon the "flame of hope," which symbolizes the dreams of millions.

One of the athletes who is going to carry the torch today is Karen Dickerson. Karen is a tireless advocate for her fellow athletes. She's what we call a fierce competitor. In the 2003 World Games in Ireland, Karen was told that she had a stress fracture in her leg. Yet, through sheer willpower, she won the Bronze Medal. (Applause.) She has since run two Marine Corps Marathons. In the Boston Marathon this April, she finished in the top 10 percent of all women. (Applause.)

I want to thank you for being here. Karen should serve as an inspiration for a lot of folks in our country. You're a true champ, just like every other Special Olympian that has joined us today, and the millions who will be in Shanghai later on. Your success is best measured not by the medals you win, but the kind of courage you show. You follow your dreams, you never gave up, and you've shown us what the Olympic spirit is all about.

And so we send you to the World Games with our love and our prayers. We ask that you carry the greetings of the American people with you when you go to Shanghai, and our wish for a world -- and that you remind the people that our wish for our world is a more welcoming, more hopeful and more peaceful place.

God bless you all, and good luck. (Applause.) END 11:57 A.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 26, 2007

President Bush Addresses the American Legislative Exchange Council, Discusses Budget, Education and War on Terror
Philadelphia Marriott, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 9:11 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thanks for the warm welcome. It's good to be back with my friends here at ALEC. Kenny, thanks. He was a silver-tongued devil when he was a state legislator, he still is as a United States Congressman. I appreciate Kenny Marchant coming from Washington with me today. It's not all that rough a trip when you're on Air Force One, Ken. (Laughter.) I'm glad to get my hot cup of coffee, and visit about the old days of working together in the state -- with the state legislature, and about the challenges we face today. And I'm going to spend a little time talking to you all about those challenges. But I appreciate you coming, Ken.

I'm also proud to be with two members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation, United States Senator Arlen Specter -- proud you're here, Senator, thanks for coming -- and Congressman Jim Gerlach. (Applause.) When Kenny and I were reminiscing about what it was like to be in Texas worrying about schools and budgets and criminal justice, I think they were somewhat amazed by the stories we were telling.

Speaking about the Texas legislature, I am proud to be here with the Speaker of the Texas House, a friend of mine from my old hometown of Midland, Texas, Tom Craddick. Proud you're here, Tom. (Applause.) And his wife, Nadine. (Applause.) And his daughter, Christi.

Laura was just out in Midland, visiting her mother. That would be First Lady Laura Bush, who sends her greetings to you all. You know, I'm a really lucky guy to have a wife who is patient enough to put up with me as President of the United States, is wise enough to seize the moment, and is compassionate enough to worry about the lives of our fellow citizens. She's a fabulous First Lady. (Applause.)

One thing I can assure the Craddicks, we always remember where we came from. And part of making good decisions in a complex world and in a complex environment is to make decisions based upon basic principles, is to stand for something. I believe in that old Texas adage, if you don't stand for something, you don't believe in anything. (Applause.) And I believe in some certain principles that I hold inviolate, such as, there is an Almighty, and a great gift of that Almighty to each man, woman and child on the face of Earth is liberty and freedom. (Applause.)

I appreciate Dolores Mertz and all the leadership of ALEC. I appreciate Jerry Watson, the Private Sector Chairman. Thank you all. Thank you for serving. Our government is only as good as the willingness of good people to serve. And it's not easy to serve in public life. Sometimes it can get a little testy. (Laughter.) Sometimes people would rather throw a punch than put out a hand of fellowship. But that's okay. What matters is, is that our democracy flourish, that people have an opportunity to exchange ideas, that there be constructive debate. And that requires good people willing to sacrifice to serve. And one of the reasons I wanted to come back today is to encourage you to continue serving your states, to continue representing the people.

I urge you to not rely upon the latest opinion poll to tell you what to believe. I ask you to stand strong on your beliefs, and that will continue to make you a worthy public servant.

I want to spend a little time talking about a couple of issues. I'd like to spend time talking about the budget and the economy, a little time talking about how to educate our children -- how best to educate our children. And then I'd like to spend some time talking about a serious obligation that I have and the people in Washington have, and that is to protect the American people from harm.

First, the budget. There's an interesting philosophical debate that's now playing out in the United States Congress, and it really boils down to how much money we need and who do we trust to handle the people's money. A basic principle from which I have operated as governor and now as President is this: I think it's wise for government and government officials to trust the people to spend their money. See, I think you can spend your money, and I think you know how to save your money better than the federal government knows how to spend your money. (Applause.)

And that's what I've acted on. That's been the basis of a lot of our fiscal policy in Washington, D.C. I also acted on the belief that if there is more money in the economy, if more families have more money of their own to spend, and if small businesses have more money in their treasury, it is more likely that an economy can recover from difficult times. And we have faced some difficult times since I've been your President. We had a recession right after I got in office. We had a terrorist attack that affected our economy. We had corporate scandals that sent a chill throughout the investment community and caused some citizens to wonder whether or not their savings were being treated with the respect that they should be. We had uncertainty.

But I acted. I acted with the -- at that time, a Republican-controlled Congress, on the principle that if we can get more money in circulation, if we can let the people have more of their own money to save, invest and spend, we would overcome these difficulties. And it worked. We cut the taxes on everybody who pays taxes in the United States of America. (Applause.)

On average, our taxpayers this year will save -- this is on average, now -- amongst all the taxpayers, they'll save about $2,200 on their taxes. Now, Washington, we spend -- we throw out a lot of big numbers. In the statehouse you talk millions; Washington, we talk trillions. But $2,200 -- it may not sound like a lot when we're talking big numbers in Washington, but you ask the family that's trying to save for a child's education whether $2,200 means a lot and they'll tell you, it sure does. You talk about the working family that's struggling to get ahead, that $2,200 means a lot. You talk about the farmer out there who's worried about making crop, that $2,200 means a lot. It may sound small to the opiners in Washington, but you ask the average American family, would they rather have the $2,200 to spend on their own, or would they rather send it to Washington, D.C., they'll say, let me have my money, I can do a good job with it. (Applause.)

Since August of 2003, when these tax cuts took full effect, we've increased new jobs by 8.2 million. In other words, people are working. Unemployment rates and -- are pretty low around the United States of America. Real wages are going up; inflation is relatively stable. In other words, this economy is strong. And I would argue with the doubters and the skeptics that one of the reason is because of the tax cuts we passed. (Applause.) And the fundamental question facing this Congress is will they be wise enough to keep taxes low.

Now, let me talk about the deficit and the budget. You know, there's an argument in Washington that says, well, we've got to raise the taxes in order to balance the budget. Well, you all know how government tends to work -- generally, when you raise the taxes, those monies don't go to balance the budget, they tend to go to new programs. They tend to expand the size and scope of government.

We have a different strategy in Washington, and that is, rather than raise taxes to balance the budget, we believe you ought to keep taxes low to balance the budget. And here's why. Low taxes have yielded a strong economy; a strong economy produces more tax revenues. As a matter of fact, tax revenue increase this year are -- the federal tax revenues this year are expected to rise $167 billion higher than last year. In other words, we kept the taxes low; the economy was strong; and we're receiving about $167 billion more tax revenues.

Then all of a sudden, you begin to get a sense of our strategy on how to handle the deficit: Keep the economy growing by keeping taxes low, which is yielding more tax revenues. But we've got to be wise on how we spend the money. We've held the growth of domestic discretionary spending below the rate of inflation for the past three years, which has enabled us to report to the country that the deficit is down to $205 billion. That is 1.5 percent of GDP; that is lower than the national average over the last 10 years.

And then we submitted another budget that showed you can keep taxes low, prioritize federal spending, and be getting surplus by $33 billion by 2012. The best way to balance this budget is to keep the economy strong by letting you keep your money, and being wise about how we spend your money in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

As you know, we've had a change in leadership in Washington, D.C. That was not my first choice. (Laughter.) But nevertheless, it is a situation that we're dealing with. And I would remind those who are now running the Congress that they have a responsibility when it comes to leadership. They have proposed a budget -- and I told you there's a debate raging in Washington, and I'd like to share with you why I said that. Earlier this year, the Democrats passed a resolution calling for $205 billion in additional domestic spending over the next five years. That's what their budget resolution said. I just told you what our budget proposal was, and there's a different approach. There's a different feeling in Washington among some -- good people, fine people, they just have a different philosophy than I do, and they proposed $205 billion additional dollars in spending over a five-year period.

The problem is, is that spending promises out of the nation's capital have a way of shrinking American wallets in the heartland, because you've got to figure out how to pay for that spending increase. And so it's no surprise that their budget framework includes the largest tax increase in American history. In order to pay for the promises they have made, their budget framework includes the largest tax increase -- not the second largest or close to the largest -- the largest tax increase in American history.

Here's what that would mean. It means if you have a child, your taxes would go up by $500 per child. Remember, we cut the -- we increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. Their plan would reduce it to $500. I don't agree with that approach. I think it's important to help people with children, by keeping taxes low. If you're a family making $60,000 a year, and you have two children, your taxes would go up by more than $1,800. Under their plan that would increase federal spending by over $200 billion, the average American family of four, making $60,000, would see their bill go up by $1,800.

Twenty-six million small business owners would see their taxes increase by an average of $4,000. You see, one of the reasons why I thought it was important to cut taxes was to stimulate the small business sector of our economy. Now, most small businesses pay tax at the -- many small businesses pay tax at the individual income tax rate. You talk to your average small business owner in your state, many of them will be Subchapter-S corporations, or limited liability partnerships. In other words, they pay tax at the individual income tax rate, so when you heard me talking about reducing individual income taxes, you're really stimulating the small business sector.

And that's important, because about 70 percent of new jobs in America are created by small business owners. When the small business sector is strong, America is strong. And cutting taxes on small businesses was good policy. And the Democrats, under their budget resolution, would raise small business taxes by about $4,000, on average, for 26 million small businesses. And more than 5 million low-income Americans who now pay no income taxes because of our relief would once again pay.

What I'm telling you is, is that there's a philosophical debate in Washington, and the bunch now running Congress want to return to the tax-and-spend policies of the past that did not work then and will not work in the future. And that's why I plan on using my veto to keep your taxes low. (Applause.)

Not only has the leadership proposed their idea on the budget, they have a responsibility to set an agenda that will get the spending bills to my desk, one at a time, in a reasonable time frame. In other words, they're now in charge; it's important that they exercise their responsibility. That's what the American people expect.

And part of that responsibility is to get the 12 basic spending bills that are needed to keep the federal government running to my desk in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, they've been dragging their feet on these bills. They're now getting ready to leave for their August recess without having passed a single spending bill. The legislative process is complicated, no doubt. But in a time of war, one spending bill should take precedence over all the rest. And so at the very least, members of Congress ought to finish the spending bill for the Department of Defense before they go on recess, so I can sign it into law.

We got troops in harm's way. They need to exercise their responsibility and get this defense bill passed. There's time to do it. I'll hang around if they want me to -- (laughter) -- to get the bill passed. And when members come back in September, they need to pass the rest of the basic spending bills, to keep the federal government running.

Now, I believe these bills need to be passed one at a time because the alternative is to pass a massive spending bill that no one can read, and into which anyone can hide wasteful spending. They need to get the work done before the fiscal year ends on September the 30th. If they're responsible leaders, that's what they will do.

The other thing we need to do is confront this business about earmarks. You know, earmarks are these special spending projects that get stuck in these bills that really never see the light of day. Somebody has got a good idea about how to spend your money and they just put it in the bill. This year I proposed reforms that would make the earmark process more transparent, that would end the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language; that would eliminate wasteful earmarks and cut the overall number by at least half.

There's been some agreement on this issue in Washington -- Democrats and Republicans have taken a good step by agreeing to list all earmarks before the bills are passed. You see, we want the public to see them. I believe in accountability when it comes to spending your money. We want there to be transparency. We want there to be a chance for lawmakers to strike them out if they think that they're frivolous and don't meet national concerns. Congress needs to uphold its commitments and the Senate needs to make transparency a part of its formal rules.

And then there's the issue of entitlements, as I'm going through the list of the items that will make this budget process not only better and more transparent. But I want Congress to understand that I'm going to continue talking about big issues, because I firmly believe that we, those of us in public office, have a responsibility to confront serious problems now and not pass them on to future Congresses or future generations. And such a serious problem is in our entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

The programs are growing faster than our economy, faster than inflation, and therefore, faster than our ability to pay. Old guys like me will be taken care of in the system. I'm worried about younger people paying into a system that won't be around for them. And we can solve these problems. It takes political will and political courage. And I've called on Congress to work with my administration to deal with these significant problems now, so our children know they'll be paying in a system that is not bankrupt. (Applause.)

Oh, there's a lot of issues we'll be working on over the next months. We'll be working hard to make sure that our economy continues to run with good energy policy. I firmly believe that we can use technologies to help change our -- how we use energy. I think it's in the national interest to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. I know it's in our national -- our economic interest to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. After all, when demand for crude oil goes up in other parts of the world, it causes the basic price of oil to go up if corresponding supply is not found, which causes the price of gasoline to go up.

We're on the verge of some unbelievable technologies in this country. And I believe that you'll be driving to work over the next couple of years in an automobile that's powered by electricity and it won't have to look like a golf cart. In other words, Tommy, we'll be driving pickup trucks that may not be running on gasoline. I know they're going to be running on ethanol, which, by the way, I like the idea of our farmers growing energy to help us become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. (Applause.)

What I'm telling you is I'm optimistic about our future when it comes to energy diversification, which, by the way, will enable us to be better stewards of the environment. Optimistic things that are coming, and we're spending a fair amount of taxpayers' money to be a part of these new technologies, whether they be safe nuclear power, or clean coal technologies, or the ability to explore for oil and gas in offshore regions that, heretofore, were unimaginable for people to find energy. I mean, we've got a comprehensive plan that says, technology and free enterprise can help us achieve energy independence. That's what we want.

Another way to make sure this economy grows is to be smart about our education system. The No Child Left Behind Act is an important piece of legislation. I'm a big believer in it, and I'll tell you why. First of all, as the Speaker will tell you, I'm a strong advocate for local control of schools. I don't believe Washington ought to be telling local districts how to run their school system. I do not believe that. (Applause.)

But I do believe this: I believe that when you spend money, you ought to insist upon results. That's what I believe. I believe that every child can learn, and I believe that we ought to expect every school to teach. And when we spend money, I think it makes sense to ask simple questions: Can the child you're educating read, write, add and subtract? I don't think it's too much to ask. As a matter of fact, I think it's good for society that we do ask. It's what I call challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations. (Applause.) If you have low expectations, you've going to get lousy results. If you have high expectations for every child, you're not afraid to measure.

No Child Left Behind says we're going to spend federal money, and we want you to develop an accountability system that will show the parents and taxpayers that the schools are meeting high standards. That's what it says, and it's working. You know, one of the real problems we have in America is an achievement gap. I guess that's a fancy word for saying that generally Anglo kids are doing better in the basics than African American or Latino kids. And that's not good for this country, and it's not right. And it seems like to me we've got to focus our efforts and energies on solving that problem if we want this country to be a hopeful country with a strong economy.

The economy is going to demand brain power as we head into the 21st century, and therefore now is the time to make sure our 4th graders can read, write, and add and subtract, and our 8th graders are more proficient in math, and when you graduate from high school, your diploma means something. And the best place to start is to measure. And when you see a problem, fix it before it's too late. When you find an inner-city kid that may not have the right curriculum to get he or she up to the grade level at the 4th grade, let's solve it now; let's now wait. No Child Left Behind is working, and it needs to be reauthorized by the United States Congress. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to spend some time talking about securing this country. September the 11th changed my way of thinking, and it should change the way our country views the world, as well. We were attacked by a group of ruthless killers who have an ideology. In other words, they believe something. These people are -- it's hard for you and your constituents to imagine a frame of mind that says, I'm going to kill innocent men, women and children to achieve a political objective. That's the nature of this enemy. That's exactly what they're like.

They prayed upon hopelessness to convince 19 kids to get on airplanes to come and kill nearly 3,000 of our people. And when that happened, I vowed that I would do everything in my power to protect the American people. And we've got a strategy to do that. On the one hand, we have altered how we view protecting the homeland. We've created a whole department of government that brought disparate parts of our government together, with the main aim of protecting the people.

But protection requires more than just making sure we know who is coming in and out of the country, and who is leaving, and screening cargo, and making people take off their shoes at airports. It requires more than that. I believe it requires a relentless search, relentless pressure on an enemy that wants to do us harm again. I would rather defeat them over there than face them here. And that's why -- (applause.)

I say that because you can't negotiate with these people. You cannot hope for the best that, oh, maybe if we don't pressure them then they'll just retreat. These are determined adversaries that have stated their ambitions. They would like to see their point of view spread as far and wide as possible. When I talk about a caliphate that stretches from Spain to Indonesia, that means that they want to impose their ideology on people.

And what would that mean? Well, I just want you to remember -- think what it would be like to be a young girl growing up in Afghanistan, when they were able to find their safe haven and impose their vision across that country. You couldn't be educated, you were forced to be a second-class citizen. If you stepped out of line, you were whipped. These people, they're smart, they're tough, and we need to be tougher every single day. The best way to protect you is to keep them on the run, is to keep the pressure on them. And that is exactly what the United States of America is doing and will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States. (Applause.)

But that's not enough to defeat them. I have told the American people we're in an ideological struggle, and the best way to defeat their ideology of darkness in the long-term is with an ideology of hope. The ideology of hope is based upon the universality of liberty. I told you I believe in the universality of liberty. I don't believe there's a debate on that. I believe every man, woman and child wants to be free. And I know that free societies yield the peace we want. And therefore, the strategy is -- the short-term strategy of defeating them, is to finding them and bring them to justice. And the long-term strategy is to help others realize the blessings of liberty.

And this is a great challenge for the United States of America. It's a different kind of war. It's akin to the Cold War in some ways, where we had an ideological struggle. But in this war there's an enemy that uses asymmetrical warfare, and they're propagandists. They kill the innocent to affect the conscience of those of us who feel like we need to keep pressuring them. See, they understand when they fill our TV screens with death and misery it causes a compassionate people to recoil. They know that we value human life, and therefore, when they take human life it affects how the American people feel.

And so I understand the angst amongst the American people. I know that people are weary of war. I fully understand that these hard images that these killers get on our TV screens ask people -- causes people to question whether or not the cause is worth it, and whether or not we can succeed. Well, I believe the cause is worth it. I wouldn't ask a mother's child to go into combat if I didn't think it was necessary to protect the American people to stay on the offense. And I do believe we can succeed if we don't lose our nerve. Because freedom has had the capacity over time to change enemies to allies, and to lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.

And right now what you're seeing is this global war against these extremists and radicals unfolding in two major theaters, Afghanistan, where we liberated 25 million people from the clutches of a barbaric regime that had provided safe haven for al Qaeda killers who plotted and planned and then killed 3,000 of our people, and in Iraq.

The Iraq theater has gone through several stages. The first stage was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Let me just be as blunt as I can about that. It was his choice to make as to whether or not he was able to survive in power. The free world, through the United Nations, spoke clearly to Saddam Hussein. He made the choice. We removed Saddam Hussein and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. (Applause.)

And then the society which had been traumatized by his tyranny did something remarkable, and that is they went to the polls in three historic elections and voted for a modern constitution, and expressed their desire to have Iraqi-style freedom, Iraqi-style democracy. It was an amazing moment. It seems like several decades ago -- to some. But that happened in the end of 2005.

And then this enemy -- and the enemy, by the way, is comprised of people who wish they were still in power, disgruntled militia that are trying to make -- see if they can't take advantage of some chaos. But the enemy that is causing the biggest spectaculars is al Qaeda.

Now, there's a debate in Washington -- I gave a speech about this in South Carolina the other day -- well, is the al Qaeda in Iraq have anything to do with the al Qaeda that's hiding out somewhere in the regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan? There's some actually who say, well, they're different, they're not to be -- we don't need to worry about them. All they care about is Iraq. Well, I reminded the audience in that speech that the person who started al Qaeda in Iraq was not an Iraqi, he was from Jordan. And after we killed him, the next person was not from Iraq, that started al Qaeda in Iraq -- he was from Egypt.

And they have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and they agree that Iraq is the central part of this war on terror, with Osama bin Laden. And they agree with his ambition to drive us out so they could have a safe haven from which to plot further attacks. Yes, al Qaeda in Iraq is dangerous to the United States of America. They blew up the holy shrine. They saw the progress being made; they can't stand the thought of a free society that will thwart their ambitions, and they blew up the shrine.

And why did they do it? They did it because they saw that progress was being made, that the Iraqis might be actually able to have a government of, by, and for the people, and they wanted to create sectarian violence. And they were successful. In other words, there wasn't enough security at the time -- in other words, enough confidence in the security at the time amongst the Iraqi people to be able to stop people from fighting each other.

And so I had a decision to make, and I made the decision -- rather than pulling out and hoping for the best in the capital of the new democracy, recognizing that in the long run, a system based upon liberty will be a major defeat for these radical extremists, I sent more troops in. Rather than say, let's hope for the best, I said, we can do a better job of providing security to give this young government a chance to grow and thrive, and to give the people confidence in the constitution that they voted for.

And David Petraeus became a new general there on the ground -- the new general on the ground. He's an expert in counterinsurgency. The mission is to help protect Baghdad and the people inside Baghdad, and to keep relentless pressure on those extremists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy. And he's making progress. And I believe it's in the interests of this country, for our own security, for the United States Congress to fully support General Petraeus in his mission and to give him time to come back and report to the United States Congress the progress that he's making. (Applause.)

It's really interesting to watch this counterinsurgency strategy work. I mean, when people on the ground begin to have confidence, they, all of a sudden, start making good decisions for a state that will represent their interests. There is such a thing as top-down reconciliation -- that's the passage of law. And the Iraqi parliament has passed quite a few pieces of legislation, and they're working, trying to work through their differences. Sometimes legislative bodies aren't real smooth in getting out a piece of legislation in timely fashion, as some of you might recognize. But nevertheless, they're working hard to -- learning what it means to have a parliament that functions.

But there's also bottom-up reconciliation. That's when people on the ground begin to see things change, and start making decisions that will lead to peace. See, I believe most Muslim mothers, for example, want their child to grow up in peace. I believe there's something universal about motherhood. I don't think mothers in America think necessarily different from mothers in Iraq. I think the mother in Iraq says, gosh, I hope for the day when my child can go outside and play and not fear violence; I want my child to be educated; I have hopes that my child can grow up in a peaceful world. And when people begin to see that these thugs that have a dark vision begin to get defeated, people begin to change attitudes. And that's what's happened in Anbar province.

Last November, many experts said that Anbar province, which al Qaeda in Iraq has stated as their -- that they wanted as a safe haven -- this was going to be where they were going to launch their caliphate from -- they said, we can't win there. And all of a sudden, we put more Marines in, the people saw things change on the ground, local leaders started turning in al Qaeda -- they don't like to be -- people don't like to be intimidated by thugs and murderers. And the whole situation is changing -- for the better. Progress is being made there.

Now, I know that the car bombs that take place tend to cloud people's vision. What I'm telling you is that we gave David Petraeus a mission, the troops just fully got there one month ago, and he's accomplishing that mission. And my point to you is, it's worth it, and necessary, because if we were to leave before the job is done, these radicals like al Qaeda would become emboldened, there would be chaos, mass casualties in Iraq. And that chaos could spill out across the region. And if that were to happen, there would be significant competition among radical groups, whether they be Sunni or Shia, all aiming to destabilize the region in order to be able to achieve power. But they would have one thing in common, and that would be to inflict harm on the United States of America.

It's in our interests that there be a stable government that is an ally against these extremists, not only in Iraq, but elsewhere. It's in our long-term interest for peace and security. Failure in Iraq would undermine that long-term interest. See, unlike some wars, this enemy wouldn't be content to stay in Iraq. They would follow us here. They would use the resources of Iraq to be able to acquire additional weaponry, or use economic blackmail to achieve their objectives. They're dangerous in Iraq, and they'll be dangerous here. And that is why we must defeat them in Iraq. And we can. (Applause.)

I have spent a lot of time sharing this story with people, so I'm going to share it with you. If you've heard me tell it, play like you hadn't heard it. (Laughter.) One of my close friends in the international arena over the last six-and-a-half years is Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. He was such a close friend that Laura and I took him down to Elvis's place -- (laughter) -- which was really fun. I'm also a close friend of his successor, Prime Minister Abe.

The reason I bring this up is that, as you know -- or may not know -- my dad, professionally known as 41, fought the Japanese. As a young kid, he got out of high school, went down and trained in Corpus -- part of his training mission -- and then fought the Japanese as the sworn enemy of the United States of America. I'm sure some of your relatives did the same thing.

And yet, here, some 60-odd years later, his son is sitting down at the table with the head of the former enemy, talking about keeping the peace. We were talking about, when I was visiting with Prime Minister Koizumi, and now his successor, the fact that it's important to help these young democracies survive in the face of this radicalism and extremism that can affect our homelands. See, we share this great -- same philosophical belief that liberty can prevail, and that we have a duty to help liberty to prevail if we want there to be security.

I've always found that to be very interesting: My dad fought the Japanese, and the son, one lifetime later, is talking about keeping the peace. We talk about Afghanistan and helping that young democracy. Of course, we talk about North Korea, to make sure that we deal with any weapons proliferation that might be happening. We talk about a lot of issues, but they're issues about peace. Something happened between the 18-year-old kid who joined up to be in the Navy, and the 60-year-old son being the President. And what happened is, is that liberty has got the capacity to convert an enemy into an ally.

I don't know how many people would have been predicting in 1947 or '48, or after the peace treaty was signed when President Truman was the President, that there would be this kind of accommodation made between two former enemies for the sake of peace. I'm not sure how many would have -- particularly right after World War II. I suspect a lot of people would say this never would have happened. They were the enemy then, they'll be the enemy now.

And the reason I tell you this story is that if you really look at history, you'll find examples where liberty has transformed regions that were warlike, where a lot of people died, into regions of peace. And that's going to happen again, so long as we have faith in that fundamental principle; so long as we don't lose our confidence in certain values -- that are not American values, but they're universal values.

I believe the most important priority of our government is to protect the American people from further harm. And you just need to be reassured, and so do your constituents, that a lot of good people are spending every hour of every day doing just that. But I would remind you, in the long run, the best way for your children and grandchildren to be able to say that when given a tough task, this generation didn't flinch, and had certain faith -- had faith in certain values -- is that we stay strong when it comes to liberty as a transformative agent to bring the peace we want.

Thanks for letting me come. God bless. (Applause.) END 9:57 A.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 25, 2007

President Bush Receives Briefing by The Co-Chairs of The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors
Oval Office, 10:34 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I want to thank Secretary Shalala and Senator Dole for briefing myself and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Defense on the general recommendations they'll be making to the country about how to make sure that our wounded heroes get the best possible care from the Defense Department and the Veterans Affairs Department.

I asked these two distinguished citizens to lead an extensive search about how best for this government to respond. We owe a wounded solider the very best care and the very best benefits and the very easiest to understand system. And so they took a very interesting approach. They took the perspective from the patient, as the patient had to work his way through the hospitals and bureaucracies. And they've come up with some very interesting and important suggestions that they'll be voting on later, and then will be holding a press conference about afterwards.

The reason I've asked you to come in is I do want to thank you on behalf of the nation for doing what's right.

I also want to recognize Bob Woodruff here. He is a -- he himself was wounded, severely wounded, and went through the system, to a certain extent. And we welcome you back, and we're glad you're with us. And we would hope that any wounded soldier, any person in uniform would receive the kind of care and the ability to return to work, just like you have done. And so we're glad you're with us, Bob. Congratulations on the will to recover.

That will exist with our troops, as well. It's amazing how courageous our men and women in uniform are, and they deserve the best. And that's the spirit in which you analyzed the system, and we welcome your recommendations and we thank you for your service.

Thank you. END 10:37 A.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 25, 2007

President Bush Jogs with Wounded Soldiers, Discusses Care For Returning Wounded Warriors
South Lawn, 4:25 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I've been running with Max and Allen -- I mean, Neil. I met these guys at Walter Reed. Neil lost both legs, and he told me he's going to run with me on the South Lawn of the White House. Max lost his leg, and he told me he was going to be jumping out of airplanes with the 101st Airborne. Sure enough, he's jumping out of airplanes with the 101st Airborne, and along with Neil, he's running on the South Lawn.

Running with these two men is incredibly inspirational for me. And it should be inspirational to anybody who has been dealt a tough hand. Sometimes in life you get dealt a hand that you didn't expect to play, and they got dealt a tough hand, and they're playing it with all their soul. And I appreciate you guys being here. It means a lot to me.

Today Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala delivered a report to the White House. I told the press corps that they were going to go out and hold a press conference. They've held their press conference. I'd like to make some comments on that report.

First of all, the spirit of that report is, any time we have somebody hurt, they deserve the best possible care, and their family needs strong support. We've provided that in many cases, but to the extent we haven't, we're going to adjust. In that recommendation, there are things the United States Congress should do, and I call upon them to do it.

In that report, there are a lot of things that the executive branch of government can do, the Veterans Administration, Department of Defense. And I've instructed Secretary Gates and Secretary Nicholson to look at every one of these recommendations, to take them seriously, and to implement them, so that we can say with certainty that any soldier who has been hurt will get the best possible care and treatment that this government can offer.

I'm working with two men who have been hurt, two men who refuse to allow their current circumstances to get them down or to keep them down. I am proud to be with you with guys. Neil, thank you. God bless you, Max. He wanted me to jump out of airplanes with him. I respectfully declined.

Q How does it feel to be with the Commander-in-Chief running around the track?

SERGEANT DUNCAN: Fantastic. It's an accomplishment. It's like the pinnacle of recovery, I think. Being a wounded vet, coming of Afghanistan a little over a year-and-a-half ago, being here, running around this track is just amazing. I couldn't ask for anything better.

THE PRESIDENT: Don't ask him why he outran me.

Q Why did he outrun you?

THE PRESIDENT: Because he's a faster runner. Anyway, thank you guys. It's a proud moment for me, a proud moment.

END 4:28 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 25, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
James S. Brady Briefing Room, 12:43 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Hello, everybody. As you probably know, the House Judiciary Committee has just voted along partisan lines to have a criminal contempt of Congress referral against White House legal counsel and the White House Chief of Staff. For our view, this is pathetic. What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations rather than pursuing the normal business of trying to pass major pieces of legislation, such as appropriations bills, and to try to work in such a way as to demonstrate to the American people that Congress and the White House can work together.

I want to remind people that this White House, on a number of occasions, has reached out to the House Judiciary Committee and offered accommodations: First, we offered anybody at the Department of Justice who was of interest to testify under oath and on Capitol Hill, which many did. We supplied 8,500 pages of documents, including some between the Justice Department and the White House. The Attorney General, himself, and senior members of his team also went up to testify on Capitol Hill.

In addition, we offered further that we would make available any persons of interest at the White House for full interviews by members of the committees -- they'd be able to ask whatever questions they wanted to do. In each and every one of these cases, the efforts of the White House were rebuffed.

And so now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that's never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington, and in particular, to use criminal contempt charges against a White House chief of staff and the White House legal counsel. Ironically, this comes as the very same committee is marking up the attorney-client privilege protection act, apparently not believing that attorney-client privilege applies to the President and his own lawyer.

In any event, it's worth putting this in perspective in terms of the accomplishments of the present Congress. If you take a look at the 110th Congress right now, which had promised to have all of its appropriations bills done this month, here's what we have seen since the beginning of the Congress: More than 300 executive branch investigations or inquiries; 400 requests for documents, interviews, or testimony; we've had more than 550 officials testify; we've had more than 600 oversight hearings; 87,000-plus hours spent responding to oversight requests; and 430,000 pages made available to Congress for oversight. That's pretty significant.

In fact, the 87,000 hours that we mentioned that have been used in document production -- that's equal to more than nine-and-a-half years -- and here's your graphic of the day, ladies and gentlemen -- if you took those 430,000 pages and stack them on top of each other, they would reach a height twice that of the executive mansion, itself.

Now, this White House remains committed to the principle that we are willing to accommodate members of Congress. They have legitimate oversight interest, and we have made available any individuals and any facts that would be necessary for them to conduct their deliberations. Interestingly enough, nobody has cited or recited anything that they think they've been denied. Instead, there has been constantly, and it seems, a desire to provoke a confrontation.

We think a confrontation of this sort is neither constructive, nor necessary. As I said, we maintain our position of accommodation toward the House of Representatives. But make no mistake, based on legal precedent this is something that the drafters of this particular referral know has very little chance of going anywhere. And so the question is, why are they doing this rather than the people's business?

Questions.

Q Tony, how can you cite as a sign of cooperation sending the Attorney General to Capitol Hill, when every time he seems to go there he contradicts what he said before, to the point that you have Republicans like Arlen Specter saying they don't think he can effectively serve any more?

MR. SNOW: I will let you do the characterizations. In point of fact --

Q That's what Arlen Specter said.

MR. SNOW: I understand what Arlen Specter said --

Q These are not my characterization.

MR. SNOW: Well, your characterization was, he contradicts himself every time, I think is what you said.

Q But he has contradicted himself repeatedly.

MR. SNOW: Well, no -- I don't want to parse too much here, and I'm not going to serve as the fact witness, so we're not going to get too deep into what he said, when and where. But I will remind you that when one is being called in an open session to talk about classified matters, it becomes very difficult to walk the line about what is permissible and what is not permissible to say in public. We continue to believe that the Attorney General has testified truthfully. He has also testified behind closed doors in considerably greater detail. Neither you nor I have heard that.

Q -- he testify under oath last year, under oath, and say that there was no disagreement within the Bush administration over the terrorist surveillance program, and yet, James Comey, who was the acting Attorney General, come out and say, actually there was a major disagreement.

MR. SNOW: James Comey did not mention the terrorist surveillance program.

Q But has it reached the point, Tony, where --

MR. SNOW: We'll go here, then -- go ahead, Jennifer.

Q On the citations, rhetoric aside, you all will have to choose a response. And so is that response going to be to enforce them, or to go to court?

MR. SNOW: No, we don't choose a response. The Department of Justice will handle the referral. If you take a look at opinions that have been handed out by prior Departments of Justice, and including the quote that I used last week from Senator Leahy, who seemed to believe that it would be a fruitless endeavor, given separation of powers doctrines and opinions that had been written by Democratic and Republican administrations in the past, that this is not likely to go anywhere -- but nevertheless, that is a decision to be made by the Department of Justice and will do so.

Q The Department of Justice works for the President, so that decision will involve him and will involve the White House.

MR. SNOW: No, it does not. No, in this particular case --

Q What is the preference, going to court or enforcing them?

MR. SNOW: -- the decision-making authority in this falls to the Department of Justice. They'll make the decision.

Q With absolutely no input from the White House? We can hold you to that, when that decision is made, that the White House will have zero input into it?

MR. SNOW: Well, at this point it's being done out of the Department of Justice.

Q Tony, the White House has already informed the committee, the Judiciary Committee, that it would perhaps instruct federal prosecutors not to prosecute contempt citations if they're issued.

MR. SNOW: No, what it did was recite -- what was provided was an opinion written by Ted Olson that explained why it would be inappropriate to do such referrals -- this was a 1984 opinion -- and also some opinions written by Walter Dellinger during the Clinton administration.

Q But has it reached the point, Tony, for the Attorney General to -- he's lost his effectiveness and his credibility?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's interesting is that there have been all these hearings on the Attorney General and yet nobody has really laid a glove on him. What you do is you have complaints, but there is yet to be any specific allegation. Instead what you have is a demand for more and more intrusive looks into the internal workings of the White House. Again, look at all the pages here, look at all the hearings. It is as if they keep throwing mud against the wall, hoping something is going to stick.

Frankly, if you have something solid and you think you do, invite the people up, ask the questions. Everybody has been made available. You have not been denied a shred of information. I've yet to hear anybody say any piece of information that they have been denied. Instead, this looks like an attempt to provoke something that falls more into the area of political theater than respectful, good governance and trying to do oversight.

Q If Justice is going to be determining the course, what kind of time frame are we talking about?

MR. SNOW: That I don't know.

Q Is it the kind of thing where they just may kind of let the clock run out on the administration?

MR. SNOW: No, I -- no, no, no. I mean, again, you look at past precedent; they will be putting together -- but I would refer you to Justice. But, no, this is not something where somebody is going to say, hmmm, can I stretch this out for 18 months? Nobody would stand for that and that would be an improper way to proceed.

Q What's the President's objection to taking the oath? He has taken the oath, himself.

MR. SNOW: The President's objection in this particular case is going in and trying to open up the issue of executive privilege. You may recall that in this administration, the first time we went to bat for executive privilege it was on behalf of executive privilege for the Clinton administration. It is very important to be able to protect the confidentiality of conversations.

I guarantee you if somebody went before any member of the Senate and said, we want to know everything anybody said in this deliberative process, they wouldn't stand for it for a minute, nor should they. If you did the same thing to the judicial branch, nobody would stand for it. This is, in fact, a central principle of our government and it has been held since the administration of George Washington. And we have done -- I listed a whole series of accommodations, which have not been met at any juncture by reaching out by members of the House or the Senate, in terms of saying, we're giving you everything you could possibly need to render a decision; what more do you want? And the answer seems to be --

Q They want them to take an oath and they want transcription. You also said --

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, the second word?

Q Transcripts.

Q Having a transcript.

MR. SNOW: Oh, a transcript. Okay.

Q The whole thing is you also said, on this question of classified information -- the President had no trouble yesterday in declassifying anything he wanted to, selectively.

MR. SNOW: Well, but when you -- no, what the President was doing was declassifying the names of some of the people who have been involved in killing Americans. That's a far different thing than talking operationally about ongoing efforts to try to save Americans.

April, first of all --

Q How about declassifying more to save America?

MR. SNOW: We will classify as is appropriate. We will not declassify in such a --

Q As you wish.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, there is, I think, Helen, a pretty sensible way of going about this. We are certainly not going to declassify things that say, hey, al Qaeda, here's what we're doing; hey, al Qaeda, here's what we're working with; here are the people going out, please go and kill them.

Q No, no, no -- tell the American people why they attacked us in the first place on 9/11, and what we know about bin Laden.

MR. SNOW: Are you arguing that we were somehow responsible for being attacked on September 11th?

Q No, no, no. Don't twist that. I'm asking you why --

MR. SNOW: Okay, then the answer, why did they attack us on September 11th, it goes back to a fatwah --

Q -- and what information have you gotten through your harsh interrogations.

MR. SNOW: Well, we will not talk about -- number one, there's no -- you are characterizing an interrogation; those are interrogations that are conducted by --

Q No, torture is on the record.

MR. SNOW: No, torture is not on the record. It's against the law. I'm just not going to get into spin cycle.

Go ahead, April.

Q Tony, this country -- if I'm correct from out history books, wasn't this country based on the system of checks and balances? You say they're not doing the people's business, but isn't that the people's business? If there is something in question -- granted, there might have been 400 investigations, but if there was something in question, isn't that the people's business?

MR. SNOW: That's a very good question. But what if there isn't anything in question and somebody is going on a --

Q There are things in question.

MR. SNOW: April, at this point, we have hundreds of hearings that have produced bupkis. And what has happened is that there is generated this idea of, let's go on a fishing expedition and let's haul somebody up, and let's make insinuations without having firm proof. And what that does is it creates a toxic atmosphere.

Let me mention to you that a system of checks and balances also has checks. And part of the checks are that branches of government may not raid the powers or the principles and authorities of other branches of government. They need to remain separate and equal. What we're talking about here is an attempt to take the principle of confidentiality and strip it away from the executive branch while maintaining it for the legislative and the judicial branches. That hardly qualifies as checks and balances.

Q But, Tony, can you concede when there is not transparency under oath, there leads -- it's not innuendos, it leads to the fact that something is not right --

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute. You've already had all the key members under oath from the Justice Department. You've had 8,500 pages of documents. You've also had an offer to bring people up under --

Q The White House even said that if it's under oath it could be a problem with perjury. Your White House has said this.

MR. SNOW: No, what we have said is that we don't think it's appropriate. But furthermore, you do have, in fact, you have laws that deny anybody the right to lie before Congress; that applies to anybody who testifies before them. There is, in fact, a guarantee that people go up and testify truthfully.

What we have been trying to avoid appears to be the one thing that is most devoutly sought by some on Capitol Hill, which is an entertainment event, rather than a calm, deliberative and respectful attempt to take a look at things that may be of concern to members of Congress.

Q A couple on different topics, if I can. First, the Italian Foreign Minister said it was time to wrap up Enduring Freedom and wrap it under ISAF in Afghanistan. Is the United States open to that? And second, the Iraqi Ambassador is complaining about the pace of U.S. arms transfers to the government in Baghdad.

MR. SNOW: Well, I will back up on the second one. We continue to work with the Iraqis to try to make sure that we make all arms and equipment available, and in fact have been doing that as rapidly as possible. It is in many ways -- those are the kinds of signs that you want to see, which is an Iraqi government saying, we want to be fully equipped and trained. We're doing it as rapidly as we can. We understand the frustrations. We continue to have frustrations. We have a Congress who can't even get through a defense appropriations bill at a time when we're looking at things like MRAPs for our own forces.

So the point is we do understand that and we continue to work with it. These are matters that the President discusses regularly with the Prime Minister and obviously are discussed on a regular basis with others.

As for Afghan operations, I really don't have anything for you at this juncture on the recommendation.

Martha.

Q Tony, can I go back to the intel that the President was talking about yesterday?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Can we assume there is other intelligence analysis that does not see such a strong connection? Or is he quoting analysis that shows a definite connection between al Qaeda central and local?

MR. SNOW: No, I think it's pretty clear -- if you take a look at "al Qaeda central" and "local," for one thing you have --

Q No, just the question -- is there a variety of intelligence, or did the President choose the intelligence that showed the strongest connection?

MR. SNOW: I'm sure the President -- I don't know what all the intelligence is so I can't answer your question. Do you --

Q That would go to people wondering whether he just cherry-picked, or whether there's other intelligence out there, saying --

MR. SNOW: As you know also -- let me put it this way: When a speech like that gets put together, it is vetted by, among other things, the CIA, the DNI, and other agencies. And they are loath to have people cherry-picking and trying to misrepresent the overall consensus. So I can --

Q So that would be overall consensus --

MR. SNOW: I'm just telling you, Martha, that that is the way the vetting process works, and if there were concerns about cherry-picking, they would have been known during the vetting process. If you have -- what you're doing is you're putting together an insinuation. If you have a specific charge that you would like me to respond to, I will do this. But to do this in a hypothetical way doesn't serve much of a purpose.

Q The National Intelligence Estimate said there was an affiliation between the two. The President was much harder on this, saying it was public enemy number one, that there was a connection, that these are the same people who want to attack us here.

MR. SNOW: Right. Well, let's take a look at what the President talked about, and these are things that have been made available both in Baghdad and in public. If you take a look at senior leadership in al Qaeda in Iraq, it is not Iraqi, and it hasn't been. The highest we have had, at this point, was Mr. Mashadani, who was essentially the minister of propaganda. But if you take a look at what was the case under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, or al-Masri, an Egyptian, what you have is a cadre of people who come from places like Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. So what you have are folks who are hand-picked. And in some cases, there is evidence that they were, in fact, dispatched by the center al Qaeda core to go fight in Iraq to try to assist in the efforts.

That seems to me to set up a pretty clear operational tie. Also, you go back to some of the communications -- and I've mentioned this many times -- communications directly between Zarqawi, who had pledged his loyalty to bin Laden -- had been named the "prince of Iraq," I believe, by bin Laden -- his conversations with Zawahiri, the number two -- Zawahiri was unhappy with beheadings, at the same time he was asking for a $100,000 in aid from Zarqawi. That gives you a pretty clear sense of some operational ties between the two.

So the idea that they're completely separate and distinct and operating on completely different agendas seems to be belied by the fact -- furthermore, if you go back and even take a look at the Zawahiri videos that --

Q I'm not saying completely separate, and I don't think people are saying completely separate, there's clearly some ties there, Tony. But to say -- to tie them in as the same sort of threat to the United States -- do you have evidence that there are kind of attacks being planned out of Iraq right now?

MR. SNOW: Well, what you do have evidence of is that the one place that it said that it would be willing to try to be mounting attacks on the United States, at the encouragement of al Qaeda core, was what? Was al Qaeda in Iraq. That intelligence has been available. That wasn't declassified just for yesterday's speech.

Q Okay, membership, Tony, membership in al Qaeda in Iraq, is that Iraqi?

MR. SNOW: There is considerable al Qaeda membership in Iraq. Also, it does seem to be eroding. If you take a look, for instance, again at the comments that were made by Mr. Mashadani, there seems to be a lot of chafing at this point, because the foreigners are apparently not terribly respectful. Also, if you take a look at some of the data that have been coming out, not only from Anbar and elsewhere, it seems that not merely the presence, but also the methods that have been adopted by al Qaeda have turned considerably unpopular. Yes, there are Iraqis involved.

Q But the majority membership is Iraqi?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I think that's -- I will double-check, but I think that's probably accurate to say. Having said that, you do have the leadership and the cadres, and furthermore, the most lethal activities are being done not by Iraqis, but by foreign fighters, many of whom are making their way through Syria, through the Damascus airport in particular.

So the point here is, yes, you've got a lot of Iraqis, but the guys who are mounting the high-value threats, the guys who are working the big actions, especially the most deadly ones, they tend not to be -- they in fact, as a general rule, are not Iraqis. And furthermore, again, what you're seeing -- and this is a significant development -- is that the Iraqis are beginning to get fed up by them. Are there Iraqis in al Qaeda in Iraq? Absolutely.

Q But there's no real evidence now that anyone in Iraq is trying to stage an Iraq on the United States?

MR. SNOW: I don't know -- I don't want to get into that intelligence. And again, I want to remind you that --

Q Do you know the intelligence?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't. And furthermore, if I did, I wouldn't tell you, because it would be totally inappropriate. But let me just put it this way: Again, if you take a look at what had been discussed, in terms of the means, methods --

Q Even though the President said it was a threat?

MR. SNOW: The President says it's a threat because the NIE, itself, mentions the fact that al Qaeda in Iraq, itself, said it wanted to kill Americans, and that it wanted to be involved in mounting attacks on American soil. That creates a heightened threat environment. Whether they've got cells or activities going on, that's the sort of thing for our intelligence people to know, and I certainly hope to foil, as well.

Victoria.

Q Tony, you said you've made everybody available and everything available, when it comes to the intelligence. But you haven't made everybody available. You've made them available if they go without the oath, if they go without the transcript, and if they go in private. But you haven't even made the documents available; you've only made the documents available that aren't the documents that they want. You won't make the documents available that they do want.

MR. SNOW: Wait, because the documents they do want violate executive privilege. You're absolutely right, those that violate the privilege we're not going to share with them.

Q You say that they're the ones that violate executive privilege, but that's not what the executive branch says -- that's what the executive branch says, that's not what the legislative branch says.

MR. SNOW: Well, the legislative branch is making characterizations of documents it has not seen. On the other hand, it has had plenty of opportunities to review documents. And as you know, there have been a number of cases where people are called up to the Hill, and people say, wow, this is going to be the big one. And it turns out, nothing. They get a new tranche of documents -- man, I bet I'm going to see all sorts of names in here, and it turns out to be a bunch of nothing.

So what you're saying is that on the basis of suspicion, rather than fact, some people think that there may be smoking guns in items that in fact pass for executive privilege. I will tell you that this White House looks very carefully at documents to try to figure out which ones properly qualify as being covered by executive privilege. It is something that we take seriously, because we understand that the way in which these things are handled -- and not just for us, but subsequent White Houses -- you have to preserve the privilege, you have to preserve it in a credible way.

Back to what you said originally -- there is no fact that the would not have access to, and furthermore, there is no situation under which somebody testifying before members of Congress would not be compelled to tell the truth. If there was no transcript, they could ask the same question 48 times; they could tell them to slow down and write it on the wall in crayon if they so decided. But the fact is that you would have the opportunity to get a full hearing of what anybody said; you could vet it, you could cross-reference it against other statements. You could do a completely full investigation. And what's being deprived is a little bit of political theater.

What we've been trying to do is to create a little air of dignity in this town, where at the very beginning of this Congress there was a lot of talk about getting work done, setting a new tone. And instead what have we gotten? We have got insults, insinuations, investigations and inquisitions. This is not the kind of thing --

Q They're trying to find out why these prosecutors were fired. It's a simple --

MR. SNOW: Actually, the real question is, does the President have the authority to do it? Yes. And was anything improperly done? The answer is, no.

Q The lack of a transcript seems to be the one area in which you could all agree. It seems to be one thing that is, frankly, just silly. Everybody knows that the lack of a transcript is something that --

MR. SNOW: You know what's silly, Victoria, is after we have made all these offers, Congress doesn't step forward with anything. That's silly.

Q -- that leads to this question --

Q Conyers says he has something.

MR. SNOW: Well, he has something -- would you characterize "something"?

Q Conyers says he has uncovered serious evidence of wrongdoing by retaliation for the improper firings. What do you have to say about that -- other than a pregnant pause?

MR. SNOW: Look forward to hearing what he has -- (laughter.) Let me ask you, how credible do you consider that? Do you consider that a credible reasoned argument, or an attempt to roll a grenade down the aisle?

Q It's not for me to say.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, it's not for me to say, either.

Q You said the Democrats seem to want confrontation --

MR. SNOW: Seem?

Q Well, I'm paraphrasing, obviously. They say the same thing about the White House, of course.

MR. SNOW: But wait a minute. I cannot let them get away with that. We have talked about -- we've talked about a whole series of things where we have reached out and we have had a series of escalating proffers in terms of making people and information available. You simply cannot say that that is stubbornness on the part of the White House when we have made available all these documents, when we've made the people available, and the Congress itself has said, nope, we're just going to push this story to confrontation.

I think that the attitudes and approaches are significantly different. Proceed.

Q Well, that leads me to this question: How much negotiation went on, and do you think it was in good faith?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it was absolutely in good faith on our part. I mean, Fred Fielding went up --

Q On their part.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I'm not going to characterize on their part. But I'll tell you what has happened is that there has been no demonstration that they've been willing to say -- to take up the offer, to get access to all the facts.

Here's the interesting thing. Suppose you do get these people in and we're writing on crayon or we're taking the notes and we're doing whatever we can to record each and every syllable that has been given in testimony, and somebody finds something that looks like a smoking gun -- well, what does Congress do? They go in and ask for more. That's perfectly possible. The kind of offer we have made does not serve as an endpoint, it serves as an opportunity for Congress to do a full investigation and if they have other questions, to ask us whether, in fact, we have other items that might come to bear on this.

We have made it possible for them to proceed down the road to gather information and to try to assess the situation, and they've just basically rebuffed it.

John.

Q With so many contempt possibilities out there now in the House and in the Senate, where there's actually bipartisan discussion of contempt citations --

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q -- don't you feel like you're kind of rolling the dice on what is, as you say, an important constitutional principle?

MR. SNOW: You don't roll a dice on a constitutional principle, you stand by it. And you do it for the sake of the institution. Keep in mind, again, the first assertion of executive privilege in this White House was on behalf of the Clinton administration. This is an administration that believes it is important to maintain that kind of confidentiality. Normally, if you lose it you lose the ability to recruit the kind of people you need, to bring folks in who are going to be able to give their best advice and counsel to a President. And let me repeat, if you did the same thing to Congress, they would consider that completely crippling; and if you did it in the court system, it would be even more crippling because it would profoundly compromise their independence.

So I will repeat, it is not rolling the dice, and in fact, is an acknowledgment that no matter how much political heat people may want to try to generate, or how many colorful statements they may have to make, this is about preserving the institution so it can work effectively and, in fact, have checks against the other branches of government so that they remain separate and co-equal.

Q Can I follow up? If the Senate Judiciary Committee decides to do a contempt proceeding on its own, what they call I think, inherent contempt, would the White House participate? Would you have lawyers --

MR. SNOW: We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm not going to get into procedures. Let's just see what goes on. We still hope, because the House is not going to have a full vote on contempt at least until next week, we still hope cooler heads may prevail and people will think, okay, we'll take up an offer, we'll look at what you've got. I mean, that would make sense. That would show that, in fact, the real purpose here is not to try to create a big public furor, but to get at the facts and find out whether there was anything wrong in the President doing what Presidents may do, which is to fire people who serve at their privilege.

Q What do you mean when you say that nobody has really laid a glove on Gonzales? Isn't the President troubled by senators questioning his truthfulness and by Specter saying that he doesn't think he has any credibility?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's happened on a number of occasions is that people have hauled him up and there have been insinuations and, yet, in the end, what is the specific charge? What is the specific charge of malfeasance?

Q Well, for one thing, his truthfulness has been questioned.

MR. SNOW: But again, the President stands --

Q Isn't the President bothered by that?

MR. SNOW: The President is bothered sometimes by the tone of debate in Washington. He understands it can be bruising and he stands by the Attorney General.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. The AP reports that Sydney, Australia's Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, is leading a campaign urging all residents to pack an emergency survival kit in preparation for any terrorist attack or other disaster in Australia's largest city. And my question -- does the White House believe that this is a campaign U.S. cities should be launching, or not?

MR. SNOW: That would be something that I would not be privy to comment on. And, Les, let me just -- before we get back into a situation where it will be more difficult to get called on, let me just point out that you need to ask questions that bear on the President's responsibilities. I saw the piece you wrote the other day, that has been thoroughly twisting out of context the answer I gave you when I told you that the President, in fact, was --

Q That's what --

MR. SNOW: I don't care. What you did --

Q They wrote it out there.

MR. SNOW: You know what, I don't care, okay, because the fact is, if somebody is going to take questions about things that do not fall under the President's purview -- and I answered that question -- and it gets twisted, that is a disservice to this White House and to the craft of journalism. So if I were you, I'd pick up the phone and tell them to start cleaning up or writing corrections.

What's your next question?

Q Since Article II, Section III of the Constitution says that the President may or on extraordinary occasions convene both houses or either of them, my question is, is the President considering so convening a lame duck session after next year's election to try to have them pass his comprehensive immigration reform legislation?

MR. SNOW: Oh my goodness. It is way, way, way too early to start talking about after the election of 2008. I think what the President would like is in the year 2007 for members of Congress who had promised to get all their appropriations bills done at this time to get cracking and get them done.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Thank you. END 1:12 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 24, 2007

President Bush Discusses War on Terror in South Carolina
Charleston Air Force Base, Charleston, South Carolina, 11:50 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you, Colonel. Thanks for the hospitality and kind introduction. I'm proud to be with the men and women of the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, the Army and the Coast Guard. Thanks for serving. Thanks for wearing the uniform of the United States of America.

I'm proud to be back here in the great state of South Carolina. I'm proud to be with some of the Palmetto State's finest citizens. I'm glad to be eating lunch with you. The food is pretty good, Colonel. (Laughter.) I always like a good barbecue.

I also am proud to be with the military families. You know, our troops are obviously engaged in a tough struggle, tough fight, a fight that I think is noble and necessary for our peace. And so are our families. Our military families endure the separations. They worry about their loved ones. They pray for safe return. By carrying out these burdens, our military families are serving the United States of America, and this country is grateful to America's military families. (Applause.)

I appreciate Colonel Millander leading the 437th Airlift Wing here at the Charleston Airbase. Thank you for the tour. Nice big airplanes carrying a lot of cargo. And it's good to see the amazing operations that take place here to keep our troops supplied.

I'm honored here to be with Deb, as well. That's Red's wife. I call him Red; you call him Colonel. He did a smart thing; he married a woman from Texas. (Applause.) So did I. (Laughter.) And Laura sends her very best to you all.

I'm proud to be here with Mark Bauknight -- Colonel Bauknight -- Acting Commander of they're 315th Airlift Wing, and his wife Leslie.

I am traveling today with one of the true stalwarts of freedom, a man who understands the stakes of the war we're in, and a man who strongly supports the military in accomplishing the mission that we've sent you to do, and that's Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. (Applause.)

This base is represented by Congressman Henry Brown, of South Carolina. (Applause.) He understands what I understand; when we have somebody in harm's way, that person deserves the full support of the Congress and the President. And you'll have the full support of the President of the United States during this war against these radicals and extremists.

I appreciate the Lieutenant Governor of this state, Andre Bauer. Thanks for coming, Governor. I'm proud to be here with the Speaker of the House of Representatives for South Carolina, State Representative Bobby Harrell. Mr. Speaker, thanks for coming.

We've got some mayors with us, and I appreciate the mayors being here today: Mayor Riley, Mayor Hallman, Mayor Summey. I'm honored that you all would take time out of your busy schedule to come by and pay tribute to these men and women who serve our nation so ably.

I'm proud to be with Chairman Tim Scott of the Charleston County Council. I'm proud to be with other state and local officials. And I'm really glad to be with you all. Thank you for your courage.

Since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, the Airmen of Team Charleston have deployed across the globe in support in the war on terror. During the liberation of Afghanistan, air crews from Team Charleston flew hundreds of sorties to transport troops and deliver supplies, and help the liberation of 25 million people.

Team Charleston is playing a crucial role in Iraq. Every day C-17s lift off from Charleston carrying tons of vital supplies for our troops on the front lines. Your efforts are saving lives and you're bringing security to this country. Every member of Team Charleston can take pride in a great record of accomplishment. And America is grateful for your courage in the cause of freedom. And your courage is needed.

Nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks, America remains a nation at war. The terrorist network that attacked us that day is determined to strike our country again, and we must do everything in our power to stop them. A key lesson of September the 11th is that the best way to protect America is to go on the offense, to fight the terrorists overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. And that is exactly what our men and women in uniform are doing across the world.

The key theater in this global war is Iraq. Our troops are serving bravely in that country. They're opposing ruthless enemies, and no enemy is more ruthless in Iraq than al Qaeda. They send suicide bombers into crowded markets; they behead innocent captives and they murder American troops. They want to bring down Iraq's democracy so they can use that nation as a terrorist safe haven for attacks against our country. So our troops are standing strong with nearly 12 million Iraqis who voted for a future of peace, and they so for the security of Iraq and the safety of American citizens.

There's a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's also a debate about al Qaeda's role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America.

That would be news to Osama bin Laden. He's proclaimed that the "third world war is raging in Iraq." Osama bin Laden says, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda. (Applause.)

Today I will consider the arguments of those who say that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are separate entities. I will explain why they are both part of the same terrorist network -- and why they are dangerous to our country.

A good place to start is with some basic facts: Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.

In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."

Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the "Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq" -- and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq -- quote -- "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." The merger also gave al Qaida's senior leadership -- quote -- "a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence ... to plot external operations ... and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere." The merger between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers -- and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail.

Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in June 2006. He was replaced by another foreigner -- an Egyptian named Abu Ayyub al-Masri. His ties to the al Qaida senior leadership are deep and longstanding. He has collaborated with Zawahiri for more than two decades. And before 9/11, he spent time with al Qaida in Afghanistan where he taught classes indoctrinating others in al Qaida's radical ideology.

After Abu Ayyub took over al Qaida's Iraqi operations last year, Osama bin Laden sent a terrorist leader named Abd al-Hadi al Iraqi to help him. According to our intelligence community, this man was a senior advisor to bin Laden, who served as his top commander in Afghanistan. Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured, and was recently transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that bin Laden risked sending one of his most valued commanders to Iraq shows the importance he places on success of al Qaida's Iraqi operations.

According to our intelligence community, many of al Qaida in Iraq's other senior leaders are also foreign terrorists. They include a Syrian who is al Qaida in Iraq's emir in Baghdad, a Saudi who is al Qaida in Iraq's top spiritual and legal advisor, an Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and who has met with Osama bin Laden, a Tunisian who we believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters. Last month in Iraq, we killed a senior al Qaida facilitator named Mehmet Yilmaz, a Turkish national who fought with al Qaida in Afghanistan, and met with September the 11th mastermind Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, and other senior al Qaida leaders.

A few weeks ago, we captured a senior al Qaida in Iraq leader named Mashadani. Now, this terrorist is an Iraqi. In fact, he was the highest ranking Iraqi in the organization. Here's what he said, here's what he told us: The foreign leaders of Al Qaida in Iraq went to extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction that al Qaida in Iraq is an Iraqi-led operation. He says al Qaida even created a figurehead whom they named Omar al-Baghdadi. The purpose was to make Iraqi fighters believe they were following the orders of an Iraqi instead of a foreigner. Yet once in custody, Mashadani revealed that al-Baghdadi is only an actor. He confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are at the top echelons of al Qaida in Iraq -- they are the leaders -- and that foreign leaders make most of the operational decisions, not Iraqis.

Foreign terrorists also account for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Our military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born al Qaida terrorists. It's true that today most of al Qaida in Iraq's rank and file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi. But to focus exclusively on this single fact is to ignore the larger truth: Al Qaida in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader -- Osama bin Laden. They know they're al Qaida. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaida. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaida. And there's a good reason they are called al Qaida in Iraq: They are al Qaida ... in ... Iraq.

Some also assert that al Qaida in Iraq is a separate organization because al Qaida's central command lacks full operational control over it. This argument reveals a lack of understanding. Here is how al Qaida's global terrorist network actually operates. Al Qaida and its affiliate organizations are a loose network of terrorist groups that are united by a common ideology and shared objectives, and have differing levels of collaboration with the al Qaida senior leadership. In some cases, these groups have formally merged into al Qaida and take what is called a "bayaat" -- a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. In other cases, organizations are not formally merged with al Qaida, but collaborate closely with al Qaida leaders to plot attacks and advance their shared ideology. In still other cases, there are small cells of terrorists that are not part of al Qaida or any other broader terrorist group, but maintain contact with al Qaida leaders and are inspired by its ideology to conduct attacks.

Our intelligence community assesses that al Qaida in Iraq falls into the first of these categories. They are a full member of the al Qaida terrorist network. The al Qaida leadership provides strategic guidance to their Iraqi operatives. Even so, there have been disagreements -- important disagreements -- between the leaders, Osama bin Laden and their Iraqi counterparts, including Zawahiri's criticism of Zarqawi's relentless attacks on the Shia. But our intelligence community reports that al Qaida's senior leaders generally defer to their Iraqi-based commanders when it comes to internal operations, because distance and security concerns preclude day-to-day command authority.

Our intelligence community concludes that -- quote -- "Al Qaida and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy." And they say that al Qaida senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq -- quote -- "see al Qaida in Iraq as part of al Qaida's decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group."

Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida -- and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check.

You might wonder why some in Washington insist on making this distinction about the enemy in Iraq. It's because they know that if they can convince America we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida there, they can paint the battle in Iraq as a distraction from the real war on terror. If we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida, they can argue that our nation can pull out of Iraq and not undermine our efforts in the war on terror. The problem they have is with the facts. We are fighting bin Laden's al Qaida in Iraq; Iraq is central to the war on terror; and against this enemy, America can accept nothing less than complete victory. (Applause.)

There are others who accept that al Qaida is operating in Iraq, but say its role is overstated. Al Qaida is one of the several Sunni jihadist groups in Iraq. But our intelligence community believes that al Qaida is the most dangerous of these Sunni jihadist groups for several reasons: First, more than any other group, al Qaida is behind most of the spectacular, high-casualty attacks that you see on your TV screens.

Second, these al Qaida attacks are designed to accelerate sectarian violence, by attacking Shia in hopes of sparking reprisal attacks that inspire Sunnis to join al Qaida's cause.

Third, al Qaida is the only jihadist group in Iraq with stated ambitions to make the country a base for attacks outside Iraq. For example, al Qaida in Iraq dispatched terrorists who bombed a wedding reception in Jordan. In another case, they sent operatives to Jordan where they attempted to launch a rocket attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Red Sea.

And most important for the people who wonder if the fight in Iraq is worth it, al Qaida in Iraq shares Osama bin Laden's goal of making Iraq a base for its radical Islamic empire, and using it as a safe haven for attacks on America. That is why our intelligence community reports -- and I quote -- "compared with [other leading Sunni jihadist groups], al Qaida in Iraq stands out for its extremism, unmatched operational strength, foreign leadership, and determination to take the jihad beyond Iraq's borders."

Our top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has said that al Qaida is "public enemy number one" in Iraq. Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil. Al Qaida is public enemy number one for the Iraqi people; al Qaida is public enemy number one for the American people. And that is why, for the security of our country, we will stay on the hunt, we'll deny them safe haven, and we will defeat them where they have made their stand. (Applause.)

Some note that al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion -- and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions. Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We were not in Iraq when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.

Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence -- and America withdrawal from Iraq would not end it. The al Qaida terrorists now blowing themselves up in Iraq are dedicated extremists who have made killing the innocent the calling of their lives. They are part of a network that has murdered men, women, and children in London and Madrid; slaughtered fellow Muslims in Istanbul and Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta, and elsewhere around the world. If we were not fighting these al Qaida extremists and terrorists in Iraq, they would not be leading productive lives of service and charity. Most would be trying to kill Americans and other civilians elsewhere -- in Afghanistan, or other foreign capitals, or on the streets of our own cities.

Al Qaida is in Iraq -- and they're there for a reason. And surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida would be a disaster for our country. We know their intentions. Hear the words of al Qaida's top commander in Iraq when he issued an audio statement in which he said he will not rest until he has attacked our nation's capital. If we were to cede Iraq to men like this, we would leave them free to operate from a safe haven which they could use to launch new attacks on our country. And al Qaida would gain prestige amongst the extremists across the Muslim world as the terrorist network that faced down America and forced us into retreat.

If we were to allow this to happen, sectarian violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of mass casualties. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos, and we would soon face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who would pursue nuclear weapons, and use their control of oil for economic blackmail or to fund new attacks on our nation.

We've already seen how al Qaida used a failed state thousands of miles from our shores to bring death and destruction to the streets of our cities -- and we must not allow them to do so again. So, however difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it. And we can win it.

Less than a year ago, Anbar Province was al Qaida's base in Iraq and was written off by many as lost. Since then, U.S. and Iraqi forces have teamed with Sunni sheiks who have turned against al Qaida. Hundreds have been killed or captured. Terrorists have been driven from most of the population centers. Our troops are now working to replicate the success in Anbar in other parts of the country. Our brave men and women are taking risks, and they're showing courage, and we're making progress.

For the security of our citizens, and the peace of the world, we must give General Petraeus and his troops the time and resources they need, so they can defeat al Qaida in Iraq. (Applause.)

Thanks for letting me come by today. I've explained the connection between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate. I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection. The facts are that al Qaida terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al Qaida in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat. If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous for the world -- and disastrous for America. We will defeat al Qaida in Iraq.

In this effort, we're counting on the brave men and women represented in this room. Every man and woman who serves at this base and around the world is playing a vital role in this war on terror. With your selfless spirit and devotion to duty, we will confront this mortal threat to our country -- and we're going to prevail.

I have confidence in our country, and I have faith in our cause, because I know the character of the men and women gathered before me. I thank you for your patriotism; I thank you for your courage. You're living up to your motto: "one family, one mission, one fight." Thank you for all you do. God bless your families. God bless America. (Applause.) END 12:19 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 21, 2007

President's Radio Address

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Friday, I met with a group of veterans and military families who support our troops and our mission in Iraq. These men and women know the tremendous sacrifices that our troops and their families are making. And I appreciate the good work their organizations are doing to support our men and women in uniform in their important mission to protect the United States.

This week Americans saw more evidence of how difficult that mission is -- and how central it is to our security. The Director of National Intelligence released a summary of an important document called the National Intelligence Estimate on the Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland. This assessment brings together the analysis of our entire intelligence community and provides policymakers with an up-to-date picture of the threat we face. I know you are hearing a lot about this document. Some of its assessments are encouraging, and others are cause for concern. Most importantly, this document reminds us that America faces "a persistent and evolving" threat from Islamic terrorist groups and cells -- especially al Qaeda.

Since al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, the United States has taken many steps to keep the American people safe. We've gone on the offense, taking the fight to the terrorists around the world. We've worked with partners overseas to monitor terrorist movements, disrupt their finances, and bring them to justice. Here at home, we've strengthened security at borders and vital infrastructure like power plants and airports and subways. We have given intelligence and law enforcement professionals new tools like the Patriot Act, and we continue to work with Congress to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The actions we and our partners around the world have taken have helped disrupt plots and save lives. Here's how the NIE report put it -- quote -- "We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the U.S. homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11."

The NIE report also cites some setbacks. One of the most troubling is its assessment that al Qaeda has managed to establish a safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. Last September, President Musharraf of Pakistan reached an agreement that gave tribal leaders more responsibility for policing their own areas. Unfortunately, tribal leaders were unwilling and unable to go after al Qaeda or the Taliban.

President Musharraf recognizes the agreement has not been successful or well-enforced and is taking active steps to correct it. Earlier this month, he sent in Pakistani forces to go after radicals who seized control of a mosque, and then he delivered a speech vowing to rid all of Pakistan of extremism. Pakistani forces are in the fight, and many have given their lives. The United States supports them in these efforts. And we will work with our partners to deny safe haven to the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan -- or anywhere else in the world.

Nearly six years have passed since 9/11. And as time goes by, it can be tempting to think that the threat of another attack on our homeland is behind us. The NIE report makes clear that the threat is not behind us. It states that al Qaeda will continue to -- and I quote -- "focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S. population." It goes on to say that al Qaeda will continue to seek chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material to use in these attacks.

The men who run al Qaeda are determined, capable, and ruthless. They would be in a far stronger position to attack our people if America's military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other elements of our government were not engaged in a worldwide effort to stop them. We will meet the responsibility that history has given us; we will adapt to changing conditions, and we will not let up until our enemies are defeated and our people are secure.

Thank you for listening. END

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 20, 2007

President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror, Thanks Troops
Rose Garden, 10:42 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you all for coming. I'm joined by veterans and military families who are here to express support for our troops and their mission in Iraq, and I want to thank you all for being here today.

We've just finished a really good meeting. In our discussions, these folks had a message that all of us in Washington need to hear: It is time to rise above partisanship, stand behind our troops in the field, and give them everything they need to succeed.

In February, I submitted to Congress a Defense Department spending bill for the upcoming fiscal year that will provide funds to upgrade our equipment for our troops in Iraq and provides a pay raise for our military -- it's a comprehensive spending request that Congress has failed to act on. Instead, the Democratic leaders chose to have a political debate on a precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. The House and Senate are now scheduled to leave for their August recess before passing a bill to support our troops and their missions. Even members of Congress who no longer support our effort in Iraq should at least be able to provide an increase in pay for our troops fighting there.

When Congress returns after Labor Day, there will be less than one month before the fiscal year ends and current funds for Defense Department operations run out. Congress still has an opportunity to do right by our men and women in uniform -- and our national security. So today I call on Congress to take action and get this vital piece of legislation to me to sign -- on budget and on time.

I also ask Congress to give our troops time to carry out our new strategy in Iraq. Like all wars, the fight in Iraq has had frustrating setbacks. It has also had important successes. We've seen dramatic turnarounds in places such as Anbar province, which was once thought lost to the enemy. Just this week, our military forces announced the capture of one of al Qaeda's top Iraqi leaders. He helped to form what al Qaeda calls the Islamic State in Iraq, in an attempt to replicate what the Taliban had created in Afghanistan. Today that leader is under arrest, and his followers are under siege.

These successes demonstrate the gains our troops are making in Iraq, and the importance of giving our military the time they need to give their new strategy a chance to work.

Earlier this year, the Senate seemed to share that view. They confirmed General David Petraeus as commander of our forces without a single dissenting vote. And now, barely a month after his strategy became fully operational, many of those same senators are saying that that strategy has failed.

Our nation deserves a serious debate about Iraq, because the outcome of this conflict will have enormous consequences for our country. Failure in Iraq would allow terrorists to operate from a safe haven with access to the world's third largest oil reserves. Failure in Iraq would increase the probability that at some later date, American troops would have to return to Iraq to confront an enemy more dangerous and more entrenched. Failure in Iraq would send an unmistakable signal to America's enemies that our country can be bullied into retreat.

America's involvement in Iraq does not have to end this way. A free and stable Iraq is still in reach. It has the potential to transform the Middle East and bring us closer to the day when radical regimes are replaced by peaceful allies, when terrorists have fewer places to train and operate, and when moms and dads in the Arab world see a future of hope for their children.

One of the folks with us today is an Air Force Reservist named Eric Egland. Here's what he said, he said, "We live in the world's oldest democracy and have been blessed with the strength to protect our freedoms and to help others who seek the same."

This has always been America's mission, and today that mission is being carried out by brave men and women who have stepped forward to keep our country secure. I thank them and I thank their families for the sacrifices they're making. And I thank you all for supporting them.

Thank you very much. END 10:46 A.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 19, 2007

President Bush Visits Nashville, Discusses Budget
Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center, Nashville, Tennessee, 11:35 A.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. I'm glad you're here. Thanks, Darrell. Are you sure you want the federal government moving to Nashville? (Laughter.)

Thanks for the invitation. I've got some thoughts I'd like to share with you, and then if you've got some questions, I'd love to answer some. My job is the Commander-in-Chief and my job is the Educator-in-Chief, and part of being the Educator-in-Chief is to help our fellow citizens understand why I've made some of the decisions I've made that have affected your lives. So thanks for letting me come.

Here we are in the presidential ballroom -- smart move, Darrell, to pick a presidential ballroom. (Laughter.) I'm sorry Laura is not with me. She is, first of all, a fabulous woman. She is a patient woman. And she is doing a marvelous job as the First Lady. (Applause.)

I want to thank Ralph Schulz, the president and CEO of the Nashville Area Chamber. I thank the business leaders who have allowed me to come and visit with you. You do have an exciting city here. This, of course, is not my first time here -- I can remember being here in the Opryland hotel complex when I was the owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. And I can remember coming here for my mother and father's 50th wedding anniversary. They had a bunch of country and western singers sing to honor the 50th wedding anniversary, and it was a special time. And you're right, you've got a fabulous city here.

I have just come from the Harrington's company, a small business here, the Nashville Bun Company. (Applause.) And I know that some of the employees from the Nashville Bun Company are here. Thank you for being here today. It's quite an operation. I love going to small businesses because the small business sector of our economy is really what drives new job growth. If the small businesses are doing well in America, America is doing well.

And so I went by to see this operation, and I want to spend a little time talking about small business growth, if you don't mind. So I want to thank the Harrington -- good, solid Tennessee citizens who are entrepreneurs, risk takers, dreamers. (Applause.)

I don't intend to talk about this war against radicals and extremism in my remarks. If you've got questions, I'll be glad to answer them. I do want to, though, pay homage to those who wear the uniform. I'm honored to be with you. Thanks for serving the country. (Applause.)

Cordia asked me in the limousine coming over here, have you had any amazing experiences as the President? And, yes. (Laughter.) I told her there's no more amazing experience than to meet those who have served in harm's way and to realize the strength of spirit of American citizens who volunteer during a time of danger. And one of the young men I have met during my presidency -- I did so in my home state of Texas -- who is with us today, a man who is recovering from terrible injury, but has never lost the spirit of life: Kevin Downs. (Applause.) He's a good man. We're going to get him some new legs, and if he hurries up, he can outrun me on the South Lawn of the White House. Proud that Kevin's mom and dad are here with us, too.

I want to spend a little time on the economy -- more particularly, the budget. You've got to worry about your budgets; we've got to worry about your budget, too, since you're paying for it. (Laughter.) There's a philosophical debate in Washington, and really it's kind of to calibrate how much money we need and how much money you need. Some say we need more of your money to expand the size and scope of government, or, they would argue, more of your money to balance the budget. Then there are those like me in Washington who say, there's ample money in Washington to meet priorities, and the more money you have in your pocket, the better off the economy is. In other words, let me put it bluntly: I think you can spend your money better than the federal government can spend your money. (Applause.)

Part of my job is to deal with problems. And I try to do so with a set of principles in mind. A principle is, you can spend your money better than the government can, but a further principle is, if you have more of your money in your pocket to save, invest or spend, the economy is likely -- more likely to grow.

We were confronted -- this administration has confronted some difficult economic times, particularly earlier in this administration. There was a recession. There were the terrorist attacks that affected the economy in a very direct way. There were corporate scandals which created some thousand -- uncertainty about our system that needed to be corrected. And we responded to those problems by cutting taxes.

See, if you believe in the principle the more money you have -- and all of a sudden you see some rough, economic times, act on the principle. So I worked with Congress and we cut taxes on everybody who pays taxes. On one of these tax cuts -- said, okay, you deserve a tax cut, but you don't deserve a tax cut. It was the belief that everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief.

And as you can see from this chart here, this is what the tax cuts have meant in 2007. But ever since they have been enacted, it has got the same type of effect. So if you're a average taxpayer, you're receiving $2,200 of tax relief. Some receive more, some receive less, but the average for all taxpayers is $2,216.

See -- and the fundamental question is: Does it make sense to have the average taxpayer have that money in his or her pocket? I think it does for a lot of reasons: It encourages consumerism, it encourages investment, it enables people to be able to put money aside for a family's priorities. You don't want the government setting your priorities; you set your own priorities. And if college happens to be a priority of yours -- if you want to save for your little guys coming up -- here's some money for you to put aside. That's what the tax relief meant.

There's obviously more tax relief for married families with children because there's the child credit. I thought it makes sense to say, if you've got a child, you ought to get credit for that child when it comes to the tax code to help you raise the children. You know, we put the -- did something on the marriage penalty. Imagine a tax code that penalizes marriage. That's what the code did earlier on and we mitigated the marriage penalty and the tax code. We ought to be encouraging marriage, not discouraging marriage through bad tax policy. (Applause.)

The Nashville Bun Company folks are organized so that they pay tax at the individual income tax level. A lot of small business owners know what I'm talking about. If you're an LLC or Subchapter S, you don't pay corporate tax, you pay tax at the individual income tax rates so that when you cut taxes on all who paid income taxes, you're really cutting taxes on small business owners as well. And if most new jobs are created by small businesses, it makes a lot of sense if you're dealing with economic problems to cut the taxes on those who are creating new jobs.

The more money in the small business's treasury, the more likely it is they'll be able to expand. And when they expand, the more likely it is they'll be hiring new people. We also put incentives in the tax code that said if you purchase equipment -- you're a small business owner and you purchase equipment, like the English muffin rolling deal or whatever you want to call it -- (laughter) -- getting out of my lane here -- (laughter) -- we provide an incentive in the tax code to encourage you to purchase equipment. That not only helps your business become more productive and more competitive, the more productive and competitive you become, the more likely it is you'll be able to sustain growth and, therefore, continue hiring.

But it also means that the English muffin manufacturing company -- English muffin machine manufacturing company is more likely to have work. In other words, there's an effect, the tax code can affect commerce. And that's exactly what we did, and we cut the taxes and it's worked. This economy is strong. Unemployment has dropped. Since August of 2003 we've added over 8.2 million new jobs. Productivity is up. People are working. (Applause.)

People are working. And that's what we want. We want people to say, I'm making a living for my family, and I've got more money in my pocket so I can make decisions for the best of my family. And I'm going to spend a little time, if you've got any questions, on how to keep it going strong.

But I now want to talk about the budget. People say you can't balance the budget if you cut taxes. That's one of the arguments in Washington, D.C. I think all of us would like to balance the budget. But they're saying, I'm going to raise your money -- raise your taxes so we can balance the budget. There's a flaw in that argument. And that is, most of the time they raise taxes on you, they figure out new ways to spend the money, as opposed to reckon it to deficit reduction. I've got a better idea that I want to share with you and share with the American people. And that is, the best way to balance the budget is to keep taxes low, growing the economy, which will yield more tax revenue into the economy. And it works, so long as you hold spending down. And that's the most important thing, is to keep taxes low and spending down.

And I got a chart here I'm about to show you. Yes, there you go. And so I submitted a budget based upon no tax increases and being fiscally wise with your money. And here's the record of that plan. As you can see there, we had a deficit of $413 billion in 2004. This economy started picking up steam -- kept the taxes low -- and tax revenues started coming in, and then the deficit dropped to $318 billion, and it dropped to $245 billion, and it's anticipated it's going to be $205 billion in the year 2007. You can see the projection. We've done this without raising your taxes. We've done this by saying keep taxes low, keep the economy growing, and be wise about how we spend your money.

I project -- we project if we can continue to have fiscal sanity in Washington, D.C., that we'll be in surplus by the year 2012. That's where we're headed. And I believe we can do so without penalizing the small business sector -- or the large business sector, for that matter. And particularly we can do so without penalizing the families and individual taxpayers in the country. But that's the argument.

Now, the Democrats have submitted their budget. Put up the next chart. Oops, that's my budget. (Laughter.) This is non-defense discretionary spending. This is what we propose, see. We go to Congress and say, here's our budget proposals. We're going to make sure our troops have what it takes to win this war against these extremists and radicals. That's what the American people expect. (Applause.)

So this is my proposal, and I'd like to show you what the Democrats have proposed. Here's their proposal. They've added billions of dollars in new spending on the budget they submitted. The reason I'm -- this is not a -- I'm not bashing anybody. I'm just -- what I'm here to do is educate you on the different approaches to how we're dealing with your money when it comes to the federal budget. And as you notice, there is a -- quite a disparity about the different approaches of how much money ought to be spent. You can't pay for the red lines unless you're willing to raise taxes on the American people. I would call that a return to the tax-and-spend days. I have showed you our budget to get to surplus, and it requires this level of increase in spending, the blue.

The people now in charge of the House and the Senate have submitted their own budgets; their own blueprint for how we should spend your money, and it's reflected in the red lines. Now, you can't grow the economy fast enough to get to the red lines. And, therefore, the only way to do so is to run up your taxes.

I'd like you to see the next chart, if you don't mind. This is the tax increases inherent in a different approach. As you can see, will raise taxes $392 billion over five years, and with a $1.8 trillion increase in taxes in order to make the budget projections that they have spent. I would warn the Nashville Bun Company to be very careful with this kind of approach because you can't keep making buns if the Democrats take all your dough. (Laughter and applause.)

I don't disparage anybody; there's just a difference of opinion. Part of my job is to make it clear to people that there are choices to make. And people have got to understand this budget process. You know, we're throwing around huge numbers in Washington, D.C. And the reason I've come today is to clarify the difference of opinion so you can make your own choice about the right approach. I've obviously got my choice, but the American people need to know the facts so they can make up their mind as the best approach to dealing with the finances of the United States today and tomorrow and for the next decade to come. This is the tax increases that will be required under one vision of dealing with your money -- and here's my view of what we ought to do on taxes. (Applause.)

And, of course, the comparison. (Laughter.) We don't need to raise your taxes in order to balance the budget. We shouldn't raise your taxes in order to balance the budget. As a matter of fact, we ought to keep your taxes as low as possible to make sure this economy continues to grow. (Applause.) So you'll watch this budget process and the appropriations process unfold here. And it's really important for the leadership in Congress to pass the appropriations bills -- that's the spending bills -- as quickly as possible. There are 12 spending bills that are supposed to get to the President's desk.

And they need to be passing these things; they need to be doing the people's business in Washington, D.C. They need to have an honest debate about the appropriations for the different departments that they're dealing with -- an open, honest debate. They ought not to be trying to slip special spending measures in there without full transparency and full debate -- those are called entitlements. And they ought to be wise about how they spend your money, and they ought to get these appropriations bills to my desk as quickly as possible, and not delay.

Now, I will tell you that there's an interesting relationship between the President and the Congress. The President [sic] has got the right to initiate spending bills -- and they do; they've got the right to decide how much money is spent. And I've got the right to accept whether or not the amount of money they spend is the right amount. That's what's called the veto. If they overspend or if they try to raise your taxes, I'm going to veto their bills. (Applause.)

So I'd like -- I appreciate you letting me come and give you a little budget discussion. But I thought it would be appropriate, if you don't mind, to answer some of your questions, any question, I'd be glad to answer them. I've been there for six and a half years, if I can't answer them, I can figure out how not to answer them. (Laughter.)

Yes, sir.

Q Your administration has been pro-small business. How do we continue that philosophy in Washington?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, here's the thing that the country -- first of all, tax policy helps small businesses. If a small business owner has got certainty in the tax code that taxes will remain low, it causes people to be more interested in investment.

The biggest issue I hear facing small business owners, however, is health care. We got a lot of small business owners are really having problems dealing with the rising cost of health care. When I talk to risk takers and entrepreneurs, I find that people have a lot of anxiety about how to deal with health care for two reasons: one, whether they can afford it; and two, they have this great sense of obligation to their employees. In other words, they want their employees -- really good CEOs or owners of small businesses care deeply about the life of their employees.

There is a -- as you can imagine, and this is the great thing about our democracy -- there tends to be differences of opinion. And we got a big difference of opinion on health care. And I would like to tell you where I'm worried -- my worries and my recommendations. I'm worried that there are people in Washington who want to expand the scope of the federal government in making health care decisions on behalf of businesses and individuals. There is a debate in Washington, D.C., now taking place on whether or not to expand what's called S-CHIP, which is a health care program designed primarily for poor children. I support the concept of providing health care to help poor children, just like I support the concept of Medicaid to help provide health care for the poor.

The problem, as I see it, is this: that the people -- some in Washington want to expand the eligibility for those available for S-CHIP, in some instances up to $80,000 per family -- which really means, if you think about it, that there will be an incentive for people to switch from private health insurance to government health insurance. I view this as the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the federal government on the health care system. The federal government has got a huge role in health care -- as I say, Medicare, Veterans Affairs, Medicaid, poor children. But I am deeply worried about further expansion will really lead to the undermining of the private health care system, which would take the greatest health care system in the world and convert it into a mediocre health care system.

Now, you can't -- not only am I against what they're trying to do, I am for something else, and I'd like to share with you what it is. First, there is a common goal, and we all share the goal in Washington -- is to make sure health care is available and affordable. If you're worried about available and affordable health care, there are some practical things you can do like stopping these junk lawsuits that are running good doctors out of practice and forcing professionals to practice defensive medicine so they can defend themselves in a court of law. (Applause.)

Secondly, small businesses ought to have the right to pool risk across jurisdictional boundaries. If you're a restaurant owner in Nashville, Tennessee, you ought to be allowed to pool risk. In other words, you ought to be allowed to put your employees in a larger risk pool with a restaurant, say, in Texas, or in Minnesota. Part of the problem small businesses have is they are unable to get the economies of purchase that big businesses are able to get because they have got such a small number of employees. And so we ought to encourage the pooling of assets -- the pooling of risk so small businesses can buy insurance at the same discounts that big businesses get to do. (Applause.)

Thirdly, I'm a strong proponent of Health Savings Accounts. Health Savings Accounts is an insurance product that has got high-risk deductibles -- or high deductibles for catastrophic illness, plus the ability for an employee to be able to put money in -- with employer's help -- put money into the account tax-free, save tax-free and withdraw money tax-free. And the reason I am is because I believe one of the real problems we have in health care is that there is no market, in essence. In other words, somebody else pays your bills; we have a third-party payer system. I think you know what I'm talking about: You submit your claims, somebody else pays the bills.

I don't know many of you have ever asked the doc, what's your price? Or, you know, how good are you? Or, what's your neighbor's price? You certainly do that in most aspects of your consumer decision making; you think about price and you think about quality, but not in health care. And the reason why is, is that somebody else has been paying the bills under our traditional system. But what Health Savings Accounts -- do and products like it -- is that it puts the consumer, the patient in charge in the decision making. And in order to make that effective, there needs to be more price transparency and more quality transparency in the marketplace. In other words, when people shop, it helps affect the cost of a good or a service, in this case.

And so since we're such huge health care providers, one of the things we're working with is large corporations and entities to say, look, you've got to post your price to providers and hospitals. It creates some angst, but nevertheless it is a much better alternative than the federal government making all decisions. So one of the things we're trying to do from a philosophical perspective is to encourage more consumerism in health care.

Another thing that needs to happen in health care is there needs to be better information technology in health care. The way I like to make this point is that this is an industry that still -- where a lot of the paperwork is still filled out by hand. Most businesses have been able to use these fantastic new technologies to be able to make their companies more productive. But not health care. You got doctors writing prescriptions. They don't know how to write very well anyway, and secondly, it's easy to lose paperwork.

And so the health care industry lags behind when it comes to the modernization that a lot of other industries have been through by the advent of information technology. There's a role for the government. Remember, we're huge providers of health care. The Veterans Affairs Department, for example, now has got electronic medical records for each person covered through Veterans Affairs. So somebody can just take your chip, show it to -- run it into the computer, and out comes the medical records. And they estimate that as we help develop a common language so that IT can take hold in the health care system that we can save up to 30 percent of the costs in the current system.

But finally, I want to share another idea with you. They've got -- those folks up there who want to spread further government into health care have got their ideas -- and you've got to beat a bad idea with a good idea, in my judgment, and I want to share with you another idea that seems to make sense.

If you work for a corporation, you get your health care free. There's a tax break for you. If you're an individual, you have to pay for your health care. People are not treated the same in the tax code. If you're working for a big company, you come out pretty good when it comes to health care. It's a tax-free benefit. If you're out there on your own, you got to purchase your health care. It's an after-tax purchase. If you're working for a small business that has trouble affording health care, and they have co-payments, for example, a lot of times the employee is not treated as fairly in the tax code as someone who works for a larger company.

And so I propose that we change the tax code, we treat everybody fairly. For example, if you're a married couple -- a married couple, yes, you ought to get a $15,000 deduction, no matter where you get your health care, so long as you then use the savings to purchase health care. If you're single, you ought to get a $7,500 tax deduction. (Applause.) So it's like -- it's like a mortgage deduction off your income tax. But it levels the playing field. And then what ends up happening is the market starts to respond as more individual decision makers are now able to use the fairness in the tax code to demand product.

Part of the problem we have is there is no individual market that is developed. If you're out there trying to find your health care on your own, it's very difficult to find competitive -- something that you can live with, something that's competitive. And we believe that changing the tax code will help. There are some in Congress who believe a better approach would be a tax credit. I happen to believe that deductions are a better way to go, but I know that either approach is better than the nationalization of health care. And so one of the real issues that we got -- (applause) -- anyway, thanks for the question.

Don't get me started on energy. If you're a small business person, you better worry about the cost of energy, and that's why I have said that it is in our national interest to diversify away from oil. It's in our national interest to promote alternative fuels, and I believe we can do so with current technology and new technology. It's in our national security interest that we're not heavily dependent on oil. I think you know what I mean by that. I mean there's a lot of parts of the world where we buy oil that don't like us. That's not in the national security interest of the country.

It's in our economic security interest to diversify because when the demand for crude oil goes up in a developing country, for example, it causes the price of crude oil to go up, unless there's a corresponding increase in supply; and when that price of crude goes up, it runs up the price of your gasoline. And therefore, it is in our interest to promote ethanol, for example, or biodiesel as ways to power our automobiles. It also happens to be good for the environment that we diversify away from crude oil.

On the electricity side, I'm a big proponent of nuclear power. I think if you're genuinely interested in dealing with climate change, you have to be a supporter of nuclear power, because nuclear power will enable us to grow our economy, and if we grow our economy, it'll mean we'll be able to afford new technologies and at the same time, there are zero greenhouse gas emissions.

And so to answer your question -- obviously, a little long-winded -- (laughter) -- is: Good tax policy, good health care policy, and good energy policy will make it more likely that this small business sector of ours will remain strong.

Yes, sir. Go ahead and scream.

Q Sir, thank you very much for your service to our country so far, we appreciate that very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Appreciate it. (Applause.)

Q My question is, in light of the immigration bill, I'm not understanding exactly how if, with the amnesty of this many people coming in and then with the still concern about the borders being somewhat porous, how do we really achieve your desired effect in this, which would be, for obviously taking care of them, but yet afford not to be a big bulk sort of expense and the lack of the safety of the border?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for bringing that question up. It's a very important question that the nation is confronting. You can sit down. (Laughter.)

Here are the common-sense objectives that need to be addressed when it comes to immigration. First, we need to enforce the border. (Applause.) A sovereign state -- it is the job of a state, of a nation, to enforce its borders. That's not an easy task. I'm real familiar with the border. I was a border-state governor. I understand how difficult it is to fully enforce a border. But nevertheless, as a result of congressional action and the administration working with the Congress, we're making substantial progress on modernizing the border.

Now, you go down to Arizona, for example, you can't find the border. Man, it's just desert. It is, like, wide open desert. And so what you're beginning to see is new infrastructure, new technologies, some fencing, berms to prevent automobiles from moving -- all aimed at making the Border Patrol agency, which we are now doubling on the border, more effective. And we're making progress. The number of arrests over the last 12 months are down significantly. That is one way to measure whether or not people are making it into our country illegally.

Last year, we arrested and sent back 1.1 million people on the southern border. Now, you divide that by 365; there is active participation on the border to do that which the American people expect us to do. Secondly, you're about to find -- I think the country is about to find out that we're going to need hardworking, decent people to do jobs that Americans aren't doing. And that is why, for the sake of the economy, I support a temporary worker plan.

There are people who are coming -- look, let me start over. There are people in our hemisphere whose families are really hungry, particularly compared to the lifestyle we have in America, and they want to work to feed their families. And they're willing to do jobs Americans don't want to do. That's just -- that's reality. Some say, well, force Americans to do the jobs they're unwilling to do. Well, that's not the way the system works. And yet there are people willing to come, to get in the fields, the agricultural sector. There are people willing to pick apples in Washington, you know, hitting those vegetable fields in California. And they want to do so because they want to feed their families.

And the interesting problem we have, sir, is that because they're motivated by the same thing you're motivated by, I suspect -- love of family and desire to provide for your family -- they will go to great lengths to get in to the country. You think about somebody who's willing to get stuffed in the bottom of an 18-wheeler and pay one of these thugs that are smuggling them into the country to do work Americans aren't doing. So I've always felt like a temporary worker program will recognize an economic reality, and also help keep pressure off the border. It's a long, hard border to enforce.

By the way, in my state of Texas, when it comes to the fencing, I would strongly urge those who advocate it not to go down there and go face to face with some of these Texas ranchers down there. They're really not interested in having the federal government on their property. See, most of our property down in Texas is private land. The farther you go west, it's federal land.

And the reason I say that, it just shows how difficult it is to do what some assume can be done, which is, like, totally seal off the border. One way to make it easier for our Border Patrol is to have this temporary worker program with verifiable identification and say, yes, you can come for a limited period of time and then you're going home.

Now, the -- I suspect I'm all right so far with some of those who worry about immigration reform. The other question is -- I'm not trying to elicit applause -- (laughter) -- the other question is there are about 11 million people who have been here over time who are working -- some not working -- but they're here. And what do we do with them? Now, some say that if you don't kick them out, that's called amnesty. I disagree. First of all, I think it's impractical to kick somebody out. I feel like if you make a person pay a fine -- in other words, a cost for having broken our law -- I agree with those who say that if you're an automatic citizen it undermines the rule of law; I agree with that argument. I have a little problem with the argument, though, that says if you pay a fine, if you prove you're a good citizen, if you've paid your back taxes, if you go home and re-register and come back, that you ought to be allowed to get in the back of the line. I don't think that's amnesty, but that's a lot of where the argument came.

This is a difficult subject for a lot of folks. And I understand it's difficult. I was disappointed, of course, that the Senate bill didn't get moving. I think it's incumbent upon those of us in Washington, D.C. to deal with hard problems now, and not pass them on to future Congresses. So, as you know, the bill failed and I can't make a prediction to you at this point, sir, where it's going to head. I can make you a prediction, though, that pretty shortly people are going to be knocking on people's doors saying, man, we're running out of workers. This economy is strong. Remember, we've got a national unemployment rate of 4.5 percent. A lot of Americans are working and there are still jobs Americans don't want to do. And the fundamental question is, will we be able to figure out a way to deal with the problem.

Let me say one other point. I feel strongly about this issue. I do not like a system that has encouraged predators to treat people as chattel. We have a system that has encouraged the onset of coyotes -- those are the smugglers -- and they prey upon these poor people. And they charge them a lot of money to smuggle through routes. And as a result of that system there is innkeepers that charge exorbitant fees. There are document forgers. You're a small business guy out here in Tennessee, and you're trying to run your nursery or whatever it is, and somebody shows up -- you're not a document checker, the government can't expect the small business owners to be able to determine whether or not the Social Security card has been forged or not. We need a new system. The system we've got is broken. And therefore, the fundamental question is, are we going to be able to deal with it?

Let me say one other thing, and this is important for America to remember, too. We have been a fabulous country when it comes to assimilating people. You know, ours is a country that has got such a fabulous spirit to it that the newcomer can come, work hard, obey law and realize dreams. And that's what America has been about. And in my judgment, that's what America should always be about: the idea of people realizing dreams. So the question people say is, well, certain people can't assimilate. But there has been that argument throughout our history, that certain people of certain ethnicity or certain backgrounds can't assimilate. We must never lose faith in our capacity for people to assimilate. It's what has made us great in the past and what will make us great in the future.

And so thank you for bringing up a tough subject for people in Washington. (Applause.)

Yes, sir.

Q Mr. President, music is one of our largest exports the country has. Currently, every country in the world -- except China, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda and the United States -- pay a statutory royalty to the performing artists for radio and television air play. Would your administration consider changing our laws to align it with the rest of the world?

THE PRESIDENT: Help. (Laughter.) Maybe you've never had a President say this -- I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about. (Laughter and applause.) Sounds like we're keeping interesting company, you know? (Laughter.)

Look, I'll give you the old classic: contact my office, will you? (Laughter.) I really don't -- I'm totally out of my lane. I like listening to country music, if that helps. (Laughter.)

You've got a question? Yes.

Q Mr. President, I appreciate your position on the war in Iraq. We've got a debate that's going on as much about should we stay or should we come home. Is there a way to change the tenor of the debate to determine how we win in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. The hardest decision a President makes are the decisions of war and peace, are putting kids, men and women in harm's way. And I have made two such decisions after we were attacked. And I did so because I firmly believe we're at war with ideologues who use murder as a tool to achieve political objectives, and that the most important responsibility is to protect -- for the government is to protect the American people from harm, and therefore, went on the offense against these radicals and extremists.

We went off the offense wherever we can find them -- we are on the offense wherever we can find them. And of course, in two theaters in this global war, we have sent troops -- a lot of troops into harm's way.

Afghanistan still is a part of this war on terror, and a lot of the debate in Washington, of course, is focused on Iraq, as it should be. But I do want our fellow citizens to understand we've still got men and women in uniform sacrificing in Afghanistan, and their families are just as worried about them as the families of those in Iraq.

The short-term solution against this enemy is to keep the pressure on them, keep them on the move, and bring them to justice overseas so we don't have to face them here. In other words, no quarter -- (applause.)

I would just tell you, you can't hope for the best with these people. You can't assume that if we keep the pressure off, everything will be fine. Quite the contrary. When there wasn't enough pressure on, they were able to bunch up in safe haven and plot and plan attacks that killed 3,000 of our citizens. And they have been active ever since -- not here on our soil, but they've got a global reach. They have been trying to kill the innocent.

Of course, I made the decision to go in to remove Saddam Hussein. I firmly believe that this world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power, and I believe America is more secure. (Applause.)

The long-term solution for your grandkids' sake is to defeat their ideology of hate with an ideology of light, and that's called liberty and democracy. The fight in Iraq is evolving. We've been through several stages in this difficult theater. First was the liberation stage. Secondly was the nascent political movement, reflected in the fact that 12 million Iraqis went to the polls under a modern constitution. And then a thinking enemy, primarily al Qaeda, blew up, used their violent tactics, to blow up holy sites of religious people trying to incent -- incite sectarian violence, and they succeeded. In other words, at the end of 2005, when the 12 million people voted, and we were training the Iraqis to take more responsibility, I felt like we would be in a much different force posture as the year went on; that's what I felt.

But the Commander-in-Chief always, one, listens to the military commanders on the ground, and two, remains flexible in the decision making. The enemy succeeded in causing there to be murderous outrage. And so I had a decision to make, and that was, do we step back from this capital of this new democracy -- remember, forums of government will ultimately determine the peace, and that a government based upon the principles of democracy and liberty is the best way to defeat those killers who incited this sectarian violence in Iraq, the same ones -- people ask me, are these really al Qaeda? Well, they have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden; what else are they? They are cold-blooded killers who have declared publicly that they would like to drive us out of Iraq to develop a safe haven from which to launch further attacks. And I believe we better be taking their word seriously in order to do our duty to defend.

And so we're now watching this democracy unfold. The decision I had to make was, do we continue to stand and help this democracy grow, or do we stand back and hope that the violence that was happening in the capital doesn't spread anywhere else? I made the decision that it was in our interest, the nation's security interest, instead of stepping back from the capital, to actually send more troops into the capital to help this young democracy have time to grow and to make hard decisions so it can become an ally in the war on terror, not a safe haven from which al Qaeda could launch further attacks.

And it's hard work, and it's tough work. And it's tough work because there are ruthless people who have declared their intent to attack us again, trying to prevent success.

And I can understand why the American people are tired of this. Nobody likes war. Nobody likes to turn on their TV set and see needless death at the hands of these extremists. But I want to remind our fellow citizens that much of the violence they're seeing on their TV screens in Iraq is perpetuated by the very same people that came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. People sworn -- not the exact same person; those are dead who got on the airplanes -- but they have sworn allegiance to Osama, just like the killers in Iraq have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And so I listen to David Petraeus, and of course the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense have made the recommendation to send more in.

Victory is -- I remember a guy asking me at one of these town halls, he said, well, when are you going to, like -- when are they going to surrender, or when is this thing going to end? He looked like an older fellow, I think, and it was like he was remembering the USS Missouri. This is an ideological struggle, more akin to the Cold War. What makes it different is, is that we have an enemy that is murderous and is willing to use asymmetrical warfare.

And so there is not a moment of ending. But there will be a moment in Afghanistan and Iraq where these governments will be more able to support their people, more able to provide basic services, more able to defend their neighborhoods against radical killers. It's going to be a while though. And there's a lot of debate in Washington -- yes, so how do you change the debate? Just keep talking about it. Today, David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, who is our ambassador in Iraq, are briefing Congress about the difficulties we face and the progress we're making.

Let me give you one example. I'm optimistic. We'll succeed unless we lose our nerve. We will succeed. Liberty has got the capacity to conquer tyranny every time. Every time we've tried, it has worked. (Applause.) It takes a while -- here's the definition of success. The enemy, by the way, defines success as, can they pull off a car bombing. If we ever allow ourselves to get in a position where it's "no car bombings, therefore we're successful," we've just handed these killers a great victory.

So there's a province called Anbar province, and this is the province out in western Iraq, where it's mainly Sunni and where al Qaeda had declared its intention to really drive us out and establish a safe haven, with the declared intention of spreading -- using it as a base to spread their ideology throughout the Middle East, as well as a safe haven from which to make sure that they inflict enough pain on us that we actually help them by leaving. I know this is farfetched for some Americans to think that people think this way; this is the nature of the enemy. And they are an enemy and they're real and they're active.

So Anbar province was declared lost by some last November. And literally, we were -- there was an intel report that came out, and the person was not very encouraging, and some of the press, it was the beginning of the end for the policy in Iraq. And we started working the issue hard. That's why I sent some more Marines into Anbar province. It turns out that people were sick and tired of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had no vision. You see, our citizens have got to remember that most mothers want their children to grow up in peace; that's universal. Most mothers want something -- it's just something instinctive when it comes to motherhood and children, where they want their child to have a chance to succeed in life, to have a chance to grow up in a peaceful world.

Well, it turns out that many people in Anbar hate violence. They want something better. They may not -- they may distrust their central government because it's new. Remember, Saddam Hussein sowed great seeds of distrust during his time as a tyrant. It takes time to get over distrust and to develop trust with a citizen.

But there's something instinctive involved with people when it comes to normal life. They got sick of this al Qaeda threat and bullying and torturing. These people don't remain in power because they're loved, they remain in power because they're feared. And all of a sudden, tribal sheikhs begin to turn on them. And al Qaeda is now on the run in Anbar province. What's happening is there's two types of political reconciliation, one from the bottom up, where grassroots people just get sick of something, and with our help, they're dealing with the problem. And then there's reconciliation from the top down, as you watch government wrestle with the different factions inside their legislature. And we expect progress on both fronts, because the military can't do it alone. But the decision I made was that neither front will work, neither aspect of reconciliation will work if there was violence in the country's capital. And that's what you're seeing unfold.

And so you'll see a debate in Washington, D.C. about troop levels and funding those troop levels. First, whatever the troop level is, it needs to be funded by the United States Congress. Our troops need all the support they can get when they're in harm's way. (Applause.) And secondly, most Americans, I hope, understand that the best way to make decisions on troop levels is based upon the sound advice of people in the field, not based upon the latest focus group or political poll. (Applause.)

I'd like to share a story with you, and then I'll answer some questions. I'm not attempting to have just a few questions by giving you really long answers. It's called the filibuster. (Laughter.) You know what's interesting about my presidency, another interesting aspect of the presidency, is the friendship I had with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan, and his successor, a man named Prime Minister Abe. What makes it interesting, to me at least, is the fact that my dad fought the Japanese as a young guy. I know he went in right after high school, became a Navy fighter pilot, went overseas, and fought them. They were the sworn enemy. He was willing to risk his life, like thousands of others did, because the Japanese were our bitter enemy.

And here we are, 60 years later or so, that I am at the table with the leader of the former enemy, working to keep the peace, whether it be in North Korea, or -- let me finish here -- or thanking the -- or working with the Japanese who committed self-defense forces to help the young democracy in Iraq, because they understand the power of liberty to be transformative. Liberty has got the ability to change an enemy into an ally. Liberty has got a powerful ability to transform regions from hostility and hopelessness to regions of hope. And it's hard work, and it takes a long time, but it has been repeated throughout modern history, whether it be on the continent of Europe or in the Far East. And it can happen again if Americans don't lose faith in the great power of freedom.

And so this is an interesting time. We're in the beginning -- trying to get to your question -- we're in the beginning of a long ideological struggle that's going to take patience, perseverance and faith in certain basic values. I'm a big believer in the universality of liberty. I believe deep in everybody's soul -- I'll take it a step further -- I believe in an Almighty, and I believe a gift from that Almighty to each man, woman and child is the desire to be free. And I believe that exists in everybody's soul is the desire to be free. I wasn't surprised when the 12 million people showed up; I was pleased. But I wasn't surprised because I believe, if given a chance, people will take a -- will choose liberty. Now, having a form of government that reflects that is hard work, and it takes time. And not every democracy, of course, will look like us, nor should it. But there's just some basic principles inherent in free governments that will enable us to be more likely to be secure and peaceful over the next years. That's what I've been thinking about.

Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.

Q For the last, I'd say about 15 or 20 minutes about terrorism and al Qaeda, and I expect (inaudible) feel very bullish when it comes to that subject. But what I want to know is, this is an open society, right? Supposed to be open society. People come from every which way, most of them very decent and stuff, but like you say, al Qaeda and the terrorists. What about the borders? I always see on TV they jumping the borders, Spanish people jumping at borders, and could it be some time -- it could be al Qaeda jumping the borders, with (inaudible) or anything. Our borders are not secure, like they should be, I don't think. It's up to you, you're my President. I'm supposed to ask you.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, you are. (Laughter.) Well, listen, thank you very much for that. Listen, the reason -- a reason to have a verifiable temporary worker card is to make it more likely that if al Qaeda does try to come across the border illegally, that we can catch them.

You ask a very good question. The other half of the equation, by the way, in securing the homeland, is to take measures necessary to catch people -- know who's coming in and why, and catch them before they come in. It's a very legitimate question. On one hand, we stay on the offense, in the long run defeat their ideology with a better ideology, but we got to secure the homeland, and we're working hard to do so. One of the interesting management challenges was when we merged these different departments all into the Department of Homeland Security and I must say, it's gone pretty well. It's hard to take separate cultures and merge them into a common culture, working for a common purpose, but -- it takes time again -- but we're making good progress on that; we really are. Are we perfect? No. Are there flaws? Yes. But we're making -- can I say, the country is more secure than it was before 9/11? Absolutely.

Now it's interesting, sir. I have made some -- I made one -- a couple controversial decisions about how to better find information about who might be coming to our country so that we can anticipate. The best way to be able to protect ourselves from al Qaeda -- no question, good border control, but it's to good intelligence as well. I mean, if we can learn intention before somebody begins to make a move, we're more likely to be able to say we're a lot more -- we'll be able to say we're a lot more secure.

And that's why one of the controversial programs that I suggested was that we take a known phone number from one of these al Qaeda types, or affiliates -- and you can find them. We get them all kinds of ways. We're picking people up off the battlefield, for example, in one of these theaters I just describe to you. They may have a laptop. On the laptop might be some phone numbers. Off the phone numbers may be somebody else's. I mean, there's ways to get information as a result of some of the operations we have taken overseas. And my attitude is, if we do have a number of a suspected al Qaeda and/or affiliate and that person is making a phone call to someone in the United States, we ought to understand why; we ought to know.

And so the reason I bring this up to you is that, yes, enforcing the border and being wise about how we enforce the border is an important of trying to detect -- find out whether terrorists are coming into our country to inflict harm. Same with airports. You got to take off the shoes? Well, there's a reason. It's because we're doing our job that you expect us to do about -- trying to effect/affect** the security of all ports of entry. But as well, we're beefing up our intelligence and trying to get a better handle on the actions somebody may be taking before they do so.

It requires enormous cooperation. We spend a lot of time in your government working with other nations. Curiously enough, as a result of al Qaeda's activities in other countries, it's caused people to say, I think we better work together more closely. And we do. There's a lot of information sharing that goes on between governments; a lot of intelligence sharing that goes on. And there's better communication now between the intelligence services and the law enforcement services. One of the reasons why we had to pass the Patriot Act was because there was a prohibition about people sharing information between intel and law, and that made no sense in this new world in which we live.

I just want to assure you that I fully understand the need to make sure assets are deployed properly to protect you, and I fully understand the need to safeguard the civil liberties of the United States of America. One of the worst things that would happen is this enemy, in trying to respond to them, would force us to lose part of our very soul. And I believe we're able to achieve -- take the necessary steps to protect you, and at the same time, protect the civil liberties that Americans hold so dearly to their heart.

Yes, ma'am. The price is right. (Laughter.)

Q Come on down. (Laughter.) I am here representing -- Nashville is a strong city of lots of communities of faith, and as a part of that, there are lots of people going back and forth and caring about the people of Africa. And I want to first thank you, I know that your administration has taken lots of initiative on AIDS and malaria nets, and we really appreciate that. (Applause.) And then I -- my hard question is, what we can we do to stop the genocide in Darfur?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. For starters, the fact that Americans care about people in faraway lands is a great testimony to our compassion. I believe -- good foreign -- you've heard about one aspect of our foreign policy -- two aspects, really, when you think about it. One is the combination of military and diplomatic assets trying to achieve objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Another is the working coalitions. And by the way, there are a lot of other countries in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't get nearly the credit they deserve, but a lot of other people besides us understand that this is the beginning of a long ideological struggle, and now is the time to make the hard decisions so little guys in the future don't have to deal with the consequences of that.

The other aspect of foreign policy is I believe to whom much is given, much is required. And people say, well, we got plenty of problems in America; why do you worry about something going on overseas? First of all, we're wealthy. We're spending enormous sums of money. If we set proper priorities, we can not only help our own citizens, but I believe it helps our soul and our conscience, and I believe we have a moral obligation to help others.

And so when it comes to -- let met talk about HIV/AIDS. A lot of people don't know what we're doing. The United States has really taken the lead in saying to other nations, here is a problem that we can help solve, and therefore, follow us. We picked 17 of the most deeply affected nations, most of which are on the continent of Africa, and you provided $15 billion to get antiretroviral drugs in the hands of faith givers, community givers, nurses, to save lives. And in three short years, the United States of America has taken the lead to getting antiretroviral to people, and it's gone from 50,000 people to over 1.1 million receiving antiretroviral drugs.

It is -- conditions of life matter in this struggle, by the way, against extremists and radicals. Where you find repressive forms of government, you're likely to find somebody who's frustrated so they can become recruited by these cynical murderers, and then become suiciders. Or where you find disease and pestilence or hunger, the conditions of life matter at whether or not the future of the world is going to be stable.

We're very much involved in a malaria initiative -- Laura is really active in that -- where the government is spending $1.6 billion aiming to get mosquito nets and sprays and information to save lives. There are too many young babies around the world dying from something that we can prevent, and it's in the national interest to do that.

Interestingly enough, a lot of the -- a lot of the deliverers, those who are delivering the help are from the faith community, people who are volunteering their time saying, what can I do, how can I love my neighbor? And it's really heartwarming.

She asked about Darfur. First we -- as this administration has proven, it's possible to achieve some success in Sudan with the north-south agreement that we were able to achieve with Ambassador Danforth at the time. We are now working to make sure that holds by insisting that the revenue-sharing agreement of the oil on Sudan is effective. She's referring to Darfur.

I made the decision not to send U.S. troops unilaterally into Darfur. The threshold question was: If there is a problem, why don't you just go take care of it? And I made the decision, in consultation with allies, as well as consultation with members of Congress and activists, that -- and I came to the conclusion that it would -- it just wasn't the right decision.

Therefore, what do you do? And if one is unwilling to take on action individually, then that requires international collaboration and so we're now in the United Nations. And it doesn't seem -- I talked to Ban Ki-moon about this, and this is a slow, tedious process, to hold a regime accountable for what only one nation in the world has called a "genocide," and that is us.

Now we have taken unilateral moves other than military moves. I have -- we have put serious economic sanctions on three individuals that are involved with -- two with the government, one with one of the rebel groups. We have sanctioned 29 companies that are involved in Sudan. In other words, we're trying to be consequential. We're trying to say that, you know, change, or there's consequences.

By the way, the same approach we're dealing with Iran on: We are going to continue to press you hard until you change your behavior. And so my challenge is to convince others to have that same sense of anxiety that you have and that I have about the genocide that's taking place.

Ban Ki-moon actually gave a pretty encouraging report when he talked about -- see, the idea is that if countries aren't going to -- willing to do it unilaterally, in our case, or other cases, then we try to get the AU force that's in place to get complemented by further peacekeepers to the U.N. And that's what we're working on. Good question on a tough, tough issue.

Yes, sir. There you go. Don't mean -- you can sit down. Or stand up.

Q I personally admire the way you've conducted the government and I admire your backbone, where you just stand and take a position. (Applause.) I'm not happy about the influx from Mexico. Seems that far too many came over in waves. I know that during the days of San Jacinto that they were fighting, using rifles and everything, but this is the first time I've ever seen an influx like this to try to take over our country. Now then, thirdly, when they do these polls to determine how you're rated, how come, if they have 1,000 people, they call 750 Democrats and only 25 Republicans? (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I thought when you started talking about Texas history, that you were going to say we couldn't have existed without Tennessee. That's where I thought you were headed, you know. (Laughter and applause.) You're a Texan? Where are you from?

Q Waco.

THE PRESIDENT: There you go. Right at Waco, Texas.

Q This young lady in the red -- (inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT: There you go. Well, as you know, Crawford is not very far from Waco, same county.

Let's see, yes, ma'am. You guys got -- one of them uniformed guys got a question? No. Okay. I'm proud *to be in there with you.

Q Mr. President, welcome to Nashville.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Q And I want to thank you for the appointments or the nominations for our Supreme Court. That will be a wonderful legacy for you. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Q My question to you is this: There are two border guards presently in jail. The Tennessee General Assembly passed a resolution, with 91 votes in the House and 30 in the Senate, asking our Tennessee delegation to support -- to go to you asking for a pardon for these two men that were tried, where information was left not with -- was kept back from their trial. And there's also a resolution in the House, H.R. 40, with a number of our Tennessee delegation signed on to that. Will you pardon these men that are unjustly imprisoned?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to make that kind of promise in a forum like this. Obviously I am interested in facts. I know the prosecutor very well, Johnny Sutton. He's a dear friend of mine from Texas. He's a fair guy. He is an even-handed guy. And I can't imagine -- you've got a nice smile, but you can't entice me into making a public statement -- (laughter) -- on something that requires a very -- I know this is an emotional issue, but people need to look at the facts. These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts as my friend, Johnny Sutton, presented them. But anyway, no, I won't make you that promise.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As the mother of a six-month-old named after Sam Houston, a great person --

THE PRESIDENT: You've got to be kidding me, awesome, yes. Is it Houston or Sam?

Q It's Houston --

THE PRESIDENT: There you go.

Q -- because we wanted somebody that was a great representative of both Tennessee and Texas within our family. But while your presidency has been important to me, personally, I want to know about your legacy, and I want to know what one policy would you hope would affect your predecessor and he would continue on what maybe you might not be able to finish by the time your term ends.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Freedom agenda. The only way to secure America in the long term is to have great faith in the spread of liberty. And it's -- I really view it as the calling of our time. People have -- some people have said, well, he is a hopeless idealist to believe that liberty is transformative in a part of the world that just seems so difficult. But I would like to remind fellow citizens that we have had this sense of difficulty in parts of the world before, where liberty has been transformative.

And so it's -- look, first of all, let me talk about presidential legacies. I'll be dead before -- long gone before people fully are able to capture the essence of -- the full essence of a presidency. I'm still reading books about George Washington. My attitude is, is they're writing about 1, 43 doesn't need to worry about it. (Laughter.) And so you know what the lesson is in life? Just do what you think is right. Make decisions based upon principle. (Applause.) And that's the only way I know to do it. I've disappointed this lady in the red, I'm confident, because I won't tell her -- but I can only tell you what I think is the right thing to do. It's the only way I know how to live my life. And it's -- for youngsters here, it's just like -- it's really important not to sacrifice principle to try to be the popular person. (Applause.)

Yes, sir. Semper Fi, there you go.

Q Semper Fi. First of all, Mr. President, I want to thank you, personally, for your support for our veterans. My son was lost in Iraq, and I want to thank you very much for your strength.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. Thanks for sharing that.

Q I also wish that there was some way that, as the press make so much to-do about what goes on in areas around pretty much the 50-mile area around Baghdad, which is pretty much where everything is going on, if there was some way to offset that with all of the great things that are going on. I have had communication with a gentleman by the name of Azam Alwash (phonetic), who is from Nasiriyah area, and what's going on there, the building of water sheds and the building of new items and the fact that they're building colleges in the Kurd area.

I wish that there was some way that your administration could offset the negative press by a consistent influx of very positive press that's going on in the majority of that country. Is there some way that could be done?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thanks. I'm asked that a lot by people. The interesting thing about this fight in Iraq is that the families and the troops have got a really different view, in many ways, than a lot of other folks do, because they're firsthand -- they see what's happening. And it's -- I hear from -- I talk to our people in the field a lot, talk to people who have been to the field a lot, and these stories of just incremental change that add up to something different over time -- they're prevalent. The best messengers are the people who are actually there.

What's interesting about the world in which we live, there's no question there's the electronic media that people watch, but there's also the blogosphere -- you're on it, I know, you're hearing from people, your son's comrades that are constantly emailing you. There's a lot of information that's taking place that is causing people to have a different picture of what they may be seeing on TV screens. See, this enemy of ours is very effective; they're smart people. They're effective about getting explosions and death on TV screens, and they know it affects Americans because we're good people, we're compassionate, we care about human life. Every life matters. And therefore, when human life is taken through a car bomb, it causes people to say, is it worth it? Does it matter what happens over there?

See, one of the interesting things about this war I forgot to tell you is, unlike, say, the Vietnam War, that if we fail in Iraq, the enemy won't be content to stay there. They will follow us here. That's what different about this struggle than some of the others we're had. What happens overseas matters.

We ask this question a lot about how we can do a better job. As I say, Ryan Crocker and David Petraeus are briefing today. It's good to have them on TV, on these talk shows and stuff like that, but they've also got a job to do. And they're very credible people because they see firsthand what's going on. But they've got a lot of work to do over there as they command these troops.

I hope you're doing okay. I'll tell you something interesting in meeting with the families of the fallen. I get all kinds of opinions, of course. But one of the most universal opinions I get is one, I'm proud of my son; two, he was a volunteer; and three, do not let his life be in vain, Mr. President, you complete the mission. (Applause.) Thank you, brother.

All right, guess what? You got to get to work. (Laughter.) And so do I. Thank you all for giving me a chance to come and visit with you. I found this to be an interesting exchange. I appreciate your questions. I hope you have a better sense for why and how I have made decisions that have affected the individual lives of our citizens, as well as the life of our nation. I'm an optimistic person. I believe that those decisions were not only necessary, but I firmly believe they will yield the peace that we all want; peace of mind and peace of heart. God bless you. (Applause.) END 12:55 P.M. CDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 18, 2007

President Bush Meets with the Import Safety Working Group
Roosevelt Room, 2:50 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: The American people expect their government to work tirelessly to make sure consumer products are safe. And that is precisely what my administration is doing.

I've called together key members of my Cabinet to review the procedures in place, the regulations in place, the practices in place to make sure that our food supply remains the safest in the world. The world is changing, and in order to make sure that we can continue to have the confidence of our consumers, that we will continually review practices and procedures to assure the American consumer.

And so I've asked Mike Leavitt, the Secretary of HHS, to lead a task group that will report back to me in 60 days on a strategy that will review procedures in place and regulations in place to make sure that they're meeting the needs of a changing world; that part of our strategy is we work with our countries from which we import goods to make sure that their procedures and practices will give us comfort. And, finally, we'll be working with companies that import goods from around the world, to make sure that their practices meet the high standards that we set for the United States.

This is a serious issue -- food safety and consumer safety is a serious issue. We take it seriously and we spend a lot of time on it in this administration. So Michael, I want to thank you very much for taking on this task force. It's important for the American people to know their government is on top of the situation and constantly reviewing procedures and practices. So thank you.

END 2:52 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 18, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
James S. Brady Briefing Room, 1:05 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: As Bill Plante just said, let's begin by welcoming back Bret Baier. You've been in a lot of our thoughts and prayers, and very happy to hear the Bret's son has come through some very testing surgery, coming through with flying colors. (Applause.) There's no fear like a parent worrying about a kid. So, God bless you. Just very happy to hear it.

We are going to give you some audio-visuals -- or some visuals today.

Q Oh, boy.

Q Pictures of Bret's baby? (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: No, but I'll tell you what, we expect to see those soon.

As we mentioned yesterday, there have been a number of actions against al Qaeda in Iraq. Today, in Baghdad, General Kevin Bergner laid out some recent developments, and I thought I'd share a few of those with you today. Now, one of the things I mentioned last week was the fact that there -- hang on a second. All right, let's try this -- here we go. (Laughter.) Getting used to my own technology here.

One of the things we noted last week is that in the months of May and June, there were kills or captures of a number of senior al Qaeda in Iraq leaders. That would include 11 local al Qaeda in Iraq leaders, seven facilitators, five cell leaders, and three vehicle-borne IED network leaders.

Since then, further developments: On the 14th of this month, coalition forces captured the security emir of Mosul, the security leader, and also a car bomb cell leader, southeast of Baghdad. The following day, coalition forces killed a top al Qaeda target in south Baghdad. His name was Abu Jurah, who was a cell leader responsible for considerable death and carnage. He was responsible for IEDs -- vehicle-borne IEDs, and indirect fire attacks on coalition forces in Abu Jabour.

After U.S. forces received intelligence about a meeting involving Abu Jurah and his associates, field artillery fired two guided rounds into a house in which a meeting was taking place. After an unmanned aerial vehicle spotted people fleeing the scene in a sedan, an Apache helicopter was dispatched and tracked down and destroyed the sedan.

This is an example of the kind of intelligence we are beginning to get now from locals about al Qaeda activities. And it has certainly been indispensable in Baghdad and elsewhere.

In addition, MNF-I has announced the capture earlier this month of another senior al Qaeda operative, Khalid Abdul Fattah Da'ud Mahmoud al-Mashadani -- also known as Abu Shahid. He was captured in Mosul on July 4th. He was the highest ranking Iraqi in the al Qaeda in Iraq ranks. He was the so-called media emir, basically the propaganda minister. He also served as an intermediary between the Egyptian head of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayub al-Masri, and senior al Qaeda leadership, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Quite often, he was the direct conduit of conversations between the two.

The following chart notes some of his key associates, living and departed. These include Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Kurdi, who was a bomb maker, Baziyani, a senior leader -- all of these are either killed or captured -- Wamid, a former emir of Baghdad, another former emir of Baghdad, Azzam, Khalil who was al-Masri's spiritual advisor. The point here is that this is a very important fellow who clearly had connections with senior leadership.

Now, Mashadani was the senior Iraqi, but he answered to foreigners. I already mentioned that al-Masri, who is the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, is an Egyptian. But the four top officers who respond to al-Masri are, themselves, not Iraqis, they're an Egyptian, an Saudi, a Yemeni, and a Tunisian. Al-Mashadani and his masters understood that Iraqis wanted some sense that al Qaeda in Iraq had indigenous leadership, so what they did is they created a fictional head of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. They even hired an actor to provide voice-overs for al-Baghdadi's statements that were posted on the Internet.

Mashadani, under interrogation has, in fact, admitted to sort of the nature of the charade, and he told those who were questioning him: "Al-Masri started overpowering us and acted of his own accord." Al-Masri controlled the distribution of funding and controlled the content of ISI publications.

Among other things that also have happened this week in Iraq was, in south of Baghdad, the seizure of a car bomb-making factory, a bomb factory was destroyed. As you can see, it contained two truck bombs, 10 shaped charges, and 3,000 pounds of ingredients for explosives, along with 10 55-gallon drums filled with explosives such as nitric acid.

So there you have -- again, if you're trying to get a sense of the motion and the operational pace when it comes to going after al Qaeda in Iraq, operations like this are going on constantly, dealing with cell leaders and also with small cells around the country. We'll try to provide those on a fairly regular basis, just to give you a sense of ongoing operations.

And with that, we'll go to questions.

Q Yes, Tony, are you convinced that this kind of information is not being reported adequately out of Iraq, itself? Is that why you're doing it --

MR. SNOW: I don't know. This is something -- I actually think Kevin Bergner has been very forward-leaning and he's putting these things out. I'm not sure that the American public gets an opportunity to see a lot of this and I think it's important to do it.

Q Tony, do you know what compares with last year, how many people were captured or killed or --

MR. SNOW: I will get you a comparison. No, a perfectly good question, Martha, and I'll give you a basis of comparison. What is clear right now -- and I think you know this from your own reporting -- is that there does appear to have been what Pete Pace was calling a sea change in the way that the Iraqis, themselves -- particularly Sunnis -- are regarding al Qaeda. They look upon it as an interloper, an invader, and one that is clearly flying not only under false colors, but knows it, even to the somewhat comical point of creating a fictional head of a fictional Islamic front within Iraq. So I'll try to get you some basis for a backward comparison, but it is important to note the forward progress, as well.

Go ahead.

Q Could you talk about the hierarchy here and how you decide who is high-ranking, who isn't high-ranking? You put 26 guys high-ranking. Do you have any sense of how big this operation is, what the command and control is like there?

MR. SNOW: Well, you do know -- again, you don't want to go too far into disclosing sources and methods, but on the other hand, what you do have is a pretty clear structure. You do have al-Masri and his lieutenants, who are sort of at the top of the pyramid. And actually, Kevin did provide kind of an operational flowchart. I'll make that available to you. I did not put that together as a slide --

Q But just the scope of the organization. I mean, you, over the years, have said that, I think, two-thirds of al Qaeda, the international leaders --

MR. SNOW: Yes, senior leadership.

Q -- senior leadership was knocked out, and yet you said they're regenerating. It appears, from tracking this for the past few years, that al Qaeda in Iraq also regenerates --

MR. SNOW: Of course.

Q Zarqawi was killed. So you'd say, these senior leaders, they just keep regenerating?

MR. SNOW: Well, look, people fill the vacancies. But on the other hand, what you also have when you fill those vacancies, quite often are people with less experience and less capability than the people they have replaced.

Q They don't seem like they're any less capable in the last --

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know. If you take -- no, if you take a look at what has been going on, and point of fact, they have been less successful. There have been more interdictions, there have been more cases in which their operations --

Q The lethality has been enormous.

MR. SNOW: Well, the lethality -- what you had was, sort of, a fall in lethality from, I guess it was February through May; then you had a spike in May and June -- no, I'm sorry, March and April -- and then it has gone down again. Look, you know that there are going to times when al Qaeda does, in fact, succeed, having lethal attacks. The question is, are you degrading capabilities, and more importantly, are the locals turning on al Qaeda? Are they providing actionable intelligence against people who are clearly committing acts of violence against them? And that is the case.

Go ahead.

Q Just one more. Diane Sawyer asked Fran Townsend this morning, are there more al Qaeda in Iraq today than there were before the Americans went in? And Fran said, "It's difficult to say because there's no baseline by which I can judge the numbers." Do you actually think it's possible there aren't more al Qaeda members?

MR. SNOW: I'm going to stick with what Fran said, but it is clear that what has happened is that al Qaeda does look upon Iraq, or has been looking upon Iraq as a great opportunity to try, in fact, to blow apart a democracy and establish its own safe haven.

There has been -- as we've documented and we've talked about before, you know that 60 to 80 suiciders seem to be coming across the Syrian border each month; 90 percent of them are not Iraqis. And they clearly -- so there's an attempt to get that in. You also know that there are unrelated -- well, there are related activities, but Quds forces and others have also been flooding some resources in. So we do know that foreigners are trying to come in and disrupt the democracy in Iraq.

Q Then how can you stick with what she said? You don't really know whether there are more now than before?

MR. SNOW: Because Fran -- look, Fran is our Homeland Security Assistant to the President, has access to more information on this than I do.

Q You're making a great deal out of the cooperation of the locals.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Do you have any reason to believe that the locals would be as cooperative if there weren't American troops and American money behind this effort? Do you believe that they're doing this simply because they want to, or are they simply going where the power is?

MR. SNOW: No, I think -- for instance, if you take a look -- and I don't want to pretend to be able to read their minds, Bill, but at least based on what I've been able to see, if you take a look at what happened in Anbar, this was not sort of following the dough or following the power, but, in fact, making a deliberate decision, once there was some confidence that American forces were going to be staying with the Iraqis, to turn against al Qaeda. Why? Because al Qaeda was killing their people, they're sick of it.

There are also some evidence that out of Diyala, former insurgent groups that operated as fairly cohesive units going after U.S. and Iraqi forces, again, have made the decision that it is in their interest and their security interest to be going after al Qaeda because al Qaeda is killing them and they're tired of it.

I think it is safe to say that having some confidence of American presence is a contributing factor because if, in fact, you believe that the Americans are going to be there, they're going to help you finish the job and they're going to provide support, that there is going to be a higher level of confidence, not merely in sort of cooperating militarily, but also turning over pieces of intelligence, such as saying, we've got a meeting in this house.

Q Why would they believe that the Americans are going to be there when there is a great effort, which they can see, to get the Americans out?

MR. SNOW: On the other hand, what they have also seen is a surge of troops in, beginning in February, concluding just several weeks ago, of troops being surged in, and they also see that there are --

Q The President says they're coming home.

MR. SNOW: The President doesn't say when they're coming home, and the President also says that the troops are there to create greater security conditions. And so far, there's evidence that they're having some success in that area.

Q I guess the bottom-line question is, what guarantee can there possibly be of security when American troops do draw down?

MR. SNOW: Well, one of the things that the President -- we have always said is that what you need to have is the ability for the Iraqis to step up into the leadership roles. There are some examples of that, as well. Kevin talked about a number of them today, and this had to deal with some of the Quds forces. He mentioned on July 1st, Iraqi police detained a special group brigade commander -- they call them special groups, or special group brigades -- commander 50 miles south of Baghdad; 7 July, Iraqi forces detaining seven special group members in Baghdad are involved in death squad activities, kidnappings and assassination; 11 July, Iraqi army, with some support from coalition forces, killed a special group cell leader who controlled a cell of 120 terrorists and was involved in kidnapping, extortion, sectarian murders, explosively formed penetrators; 14 July, Iraqi security forces killing two special group terrorists who were trying to put an explosive device along the roadside in Al Quds; and on 15 July, Iraqi army and coalition forces detaining three special group terrorists.

What you do have is operational cooperation that is building greater capacity on the part of the Iraqis. As we've mentioned, they're taking a much higher percentage of casualties and kills in battle than the Americans are. So they are stepping up and developing the capability. But also, as we noted last week, they've got a long way to go and they still need more. They need more in terms of troops, they need more in terms of equipment. And that has to be a continued point of emphasis, because our forces -- we do want our forces to be able to come home, but we also want them to come home under circumstances where the Iraqi people, themselves, are going to know that their own forces can do the security job.

Q Tony, could you say something about the 52-47 Senate vote? Republicans pretty much held together; it was eight votes away from cloture. Do you expect to be able to hold these Republicans together going forward?

MR. SNOW: Well, we think so. The question is whether they're -- look, as we've said all along, it is important to allow people to assess what's going on in Iraq. We've given you a little bit of evidence of what's gone on the last week in terms of taking on some of the key factors in Iraq. It's important for members of Congress to get a fuller sense of how the surge is working, or also where they think it's not working. They're going to get a report -- they want a report on September 15th from Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus; they'll get that. And at that point, people will be able to make further assessments.

Q Following up on the NIE and the administration's recognition, according to that document, that what's happening in Pakistan with respect to al Qaeda simply is not working, given that, what is the administration prepared to do?

MR. SNOW: Well, there are a number of things. We, in fact, have done a number of things in terms of trying to provide support for the Pakistanis. And I'll just lay out a few of those for you. Forgive me as I leaf through my own materials here. Among other things -- and this is just a partial list -- but let's -- first what you have is 85,000 Pakistani security forces deployed at the border, and they're making further forward deployments.

The Pakistani government has a development plan for the region, for about $100 million from that government. We're committed to providing $150 million a year for five years. We've also committed to $300 million a year in foreign military financing. We also provide coalition support funds to reimburse expenditures incurred in operations in the war on terror. We have provided 100 forward observation bases within the tribal areas. We have provided fixed-wing aircraft and also helicopters for doing surveillance and trying to make it possible for more rapid deployment.

President Musharraf wants additional funding to support Frontier Corps that represent the majority of those fighting in the federally administered tribal areas, and we're looking for ways to support the request. And, as always, we also retain -- we certainly do not rule out options, and we retain the option especially of striking actionable targets.

So there's considerable discussion going on, but it is clearly of the utmost importance to go in there and deal with the problem in the tribal areas.

Q Given all those resources and everything you've laid out, is there a new urgency, now that the NIE has been made public, to take action?

MR. SNOW: No, I think there's been continued urgency, and I think one of the things -- it certainly provides a moment of focus or clarity, but on the other hand, these are realities that I think people have known about and need to continue to deal with. Keep in mind that the movement of forces toward the tribal area by the Musharraf government began before this report came out.

Q Following up on that, Tony, given that urgency and the new resources that you're talking about, what do you think the prospects are that you'll ever stand up there and put on a slide show that shows the kingpins that are hiding in the -- the capture of the kingpins who are hiding in Pakistan?

MR. SNOW: Look, we devoutly hope for that day. I'm not going to try to make a prediction. It is obviously very difficult business. But make no mistake about it, we're determined to get bin Laden, we're determined to get Zawahiri, we're determined to get senior leadership of al Qaeda. And furthermore, we're determined to continue to develop methods by which we interrupt, intercept, kill and capture those who are involved, but also use whatever means at our disposal to make it more difficult.

One of the key findings in the National Intelligence Estimate is that the United States has become a much more difficult target, in many ways, since September 11th, because we have enhanced security, because we have enhanced abilities to try to ferret out what terrorists are doing, and also because we've been very active on the global front, and, in addition, we have considerable cooperation from our allies around the globe.

So while al Qaeda is trying to build strength, keep in mind we're building strength at the same time, and so are our allies. So to roll this all together, again, obviously we want to get bin Laden, and the sooner the better.

Q Given the political reality in the domestic situation in Pakistan, do you think Musharraf fully shares that determination?

MR. SNOW: Again, Pervez Musharraf is a guy who twice has been the target of al Qaeda plots to kill him. I think he understands far more vividly than you or I the importance of breaking up al Qaeda and going after terror elements.

Q Tony, two quick questions. One, as far as this report is concerned, comparing the first reports, you think the President is concerned about this report this time, or is no change as far as attitude or -- what President think about --

MR. SNOW: Well, first, this is a different kind of report. This is one that was directly concerning homeland security. What the President does is he takes a look at the intelligence, and obviously, what you do with intelligence -- the President gets briefings constantly on this -- is that you try to use that as the basis for effective action to make the country safe.

Q But then as far as the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement is concerned, there were yesterday some high-level officials meeting with Mr. Hadley, including Energy and Foreign Secretary and also National Security Advisor from India. Did they discuss, as far as this report, of terrorism in the region, and also, where does this up-and-down vote, "123" stands now?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, as we've said all along, Goyal, the civil nuclear agreement is very important to us and we want to see it successfully concluded.

Bret?

Q Tony, this morning, you said the Import Safety Working Group the President is setting up is not a slap at China.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q But it does come after this string of high-profile cases --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q -- of food-borne illnesses, so it's kind of easy to connect the dots to China, isn't it?

MR. SNOW: Yes, but it's also important to note that you still have food safety concerns throughout the world and it's important to act on them.

Q China's now blocking some shipments of chicken and pork ribs and other food products from American companies. Is this -- is there a concern here that this increased food fight might be a mini trade war?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. Again, I think it's important to understand that the first obligation of the federal government is always the safety and security of the American people. And what we're doing is due diligence on trying to make sure that, in fact, we can ensure the safety of products coming into the country.

On the other hand, the President also has been a vigorous and continues to be a vigorous advocate for free trade. We have been pushing to try to have a successful completion of the Doha Round, and we understand that it is especially important for developing countries to have free trade. It not only gives us access to the vast majority of the world's markets, but also gives them access to be able to strengthen their own economies through an open and competitive process. So, no, we don't see this as the beginning of a trade war.

Q Tony, two questions about the President's telephone diplomacy ever since the Middle East conference or meeting announcement. My understanding of the timing is that Sheikh Khalifa was either on his way to or just arriving in Syria when the phone call happened. Was there any discussion of what he should -- what the United States would like him to say to Syria?

MR. SNOW: No, we've given you the details and the readout.

Q When you talk about asking these leaders to provide support or keep supporting -- provide more support President Abbas, what kinds of things are you looking for?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'll leave it at -- look, there are any number of forms support can take. One is financial, one is humanitarian, certainly to do -- so you put together whatever packages you want. But the fact is that you also have to do the institution building. We keep talking about the upcoming meeting involving parties.

The most important thing right now is to strengthen the Palestinian government institutionally so it's capable of moving forward. It will need to be able to provide for its security; it will need to be able to provide for the needs of its people; and obviously there's still humanitarian concerns in Gaza that folks need to deal with, as well.

Q Tony, following on Bret's question, you mentioned this morning, obviously, there's import products from a large number of countries, but does the administration have specific concerns about China and its role as an increasingly large provider of an increasingly wide array of products that are commonly used in the United States?

MR. SNOW: Well, we think it's important -- no, we believe in free trade. But on the other hand, again, it's important to maintain the safety and security of this country by making sure the things that you import meet the basic health standards.

So, look, China obviously does a brisk trade with the United States. It's one that we think we have a vested interest in making sure that there's continued growth in China; at the same time, continued two-way growth between China and the United States in terms of trade.

Q Does the recent track record provide anything to give Americans pause about products from China?

MR. SNOW: I'll let others draw conclusions on that.

Q Tony, you just said recently in this press conference the U.S. has become a much more difficult target, while, when Tom Ridge was the head of Homeland Security, he said it's not a matter of it, but when. Are we still living under that umbrella?

MR. SNOW: I think you always have to assume that al Qaeda is going to do whatever it can to try to commit high-profile acts of violence in the United States. And the last thing we want to do is to have people become complacent about the security situation.

One of the things that the National Intelligence Estimate said and briefers said afterwards, is that while al Qaeda certainly has a much different configuration than it had before September 11th, the one thing that hasn't changed is the determination to inflict damage on the United States. So I think there is a need for constant vigilance, and therefore -- I'm not going to -- I understand what Tom Ridge said. We hope that it doesn't come to pass that it happens again. But on the other hand, one of the reasons why the President has spent so much time trying to build capacity on the security side -- militarily, in terms of intelligence, in terms of greater cooperation between federal, state and local law enforcement officials, and sharing information and responding quickly to things that are going on -- all of that is designed not only to make the country safer, but also make it much more difficult and even prohibitively expensive for terror organizations to try to conduct large-scale operations in the U.S.

Q Our vulnerabilities six years ago compared today -- what is the percentage of the nation's vulnerabilities --

MR. SNOW: There's no way to quantify, but we are significantly less vulnerable than we were --

Q How? Can you give us specifics?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you simply talk about the security situation, September 10th, 2001. We didn't have the Patriot Act. We didn't have surveillance programs. We didn't have military operations and police operations all around the globe going after al Qaeda and its affiliates, ranging from Asia to North Africa to Europe, even to the United States when there have been cells. The most recent report indicates no known al Qaeda cells in the United States -- doesn't mean they're not going to try to set up cells. But the fact is that we have brought a whole lot more resources to bear, we know more, we have more people in the fight -- and not just Americans, but people from all around the world who are providing intelligence and cooperation in fighting the war on terror.

It's one of the reasons why the United States is less vulnerable, it's a tougher target -- but on the other hand, again, you have to underscore three times, as the President has said many times, it only takes one successful operation on al Qaeda to be able to declare victory. We have to have a hundred percent success record in interdicting and preventing those acts of violence. And that requires a lot of vigilance and a lot of people staying on top of things constantly.

Q Tony, tomorrow there will be a news conference of the Israeli Project on Capitol Hill. They've got 75,000 petitions they're distributing to world leaders, asking for more rapid sanctions against -- and international pressure against Iran. Is the administration now backing and taking action at this point?

MR. SNOW: Connie, I'm not -- I'm afraid I was not briefed on the Israel Project's activities before I came up here today.

Q Have any of these sanctions or steps that have been taken by the United States or the U.N. had any results?

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way: The United States engages in activities that are designed to send a clear signal that the status quo is unacceptable. You saw that with some financial sanctions with North Korea. And what actions we take with regard to the Iranians, are designed to make it clear that they are posed with a choice: The choice is to go ahead and align itself with the international community, stop trying to pursue anything that may be construed as progress towards nuclear weapons, and have a way forward that has been offered; or, on the other hand, face strictures from the international community. The President talked yesterday with Ban Ki-moon, once again, about the importance of U.N. action when it comes to the Iranians, because the Iranians have not met up with their obligations.

Bill.

Q What is your reaction to the airing of the so-called "confessions" of these Americans being held by Iran?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, the entire -- these are people who came peacefully to Iran, and ironically, many of these folks have devoted considerable amounts of their time and energy to try to encourage Americans to think more kindly of the government of Iran. They are private citizens, they are not party to any of the ongoing disputes between the government of Iran and government of the United States. And it is just ridiculous for anybody to harbor notions that they represent a threat to the regime.

Q Is there any leverage that the U.S. has to get them out?

MR. SNOW: Connie, I'm not going to go -- obviously, we'll use what leverage we can.

Q Is there any reaction to Iran's Foreign Minister saying his government has accepted a U.S. request for ambassador-level talks on Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's going on -- the proper venue -- what happens is that the Iraqis themselves request conversations between the United States and the government of Iran, and this is a channel that has long been open, in terms of dealing strictly with issues that have to do with the security of Iraq. And there certainly has been some interest in having conversations with the Iranians, not about anything broader -- not about the nuclear issues or anything else, but security issues. Again, this is a channel we have talked about many times.

Q At the ambassador level?

MR. SNOW: It could be at the ministerial level, but it's certainly going to be high level.

Q I also have a question about Pakistan. The President, when he had a news conference with Musharraf last September, right after the tribal deal was signed --

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q -- he said that when the President, President Musharraf, "looks me in the eye and says the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people, I believe him." Does he regret allowing that plan so much time to give it a chance to work?

MR. SNOW: No, I think -- again, Pakistan is a sovereign government and Pervez Musharraf is a man who, as President of Pakistan and as the general, has an obligation and a challenge to do what he thinks is going to be most effective in securing peace within his own land and, also, at the same time, obviously, dealing with many of the troublesome issues that have to do with border -- the incursion across the border of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan. But the one thing we can say for sure is that the plan, as well-intentioned as it was, didn't work.

Q But as a close U.S. ally who receives aid, can't you put pressure on him? Are you --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, as I pointed out, he understands the realities and they have begun moving troops -- they began moving troops before the NIE came out. And they've been moving troops into the area because they understand that they got a real -- they have got a challenge then they need to deal with.

Q Tony, one more on the Senate debate.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Have you been able to ascertain whether the President watched any of it? And is it your judgment that this was a completely waste or time, or was something accomplished by it?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll let others -- look, I'm not sure a whole lot was accomplished by it. I don't think a lot of people are going to take out campaign ads, saying triumphantly that they skipped a night's sleep or that they spent time on a cot. (Laughter.) So I think I'll just let it stay at that.

Q Just one last thing. I think you said the most recent intelligence said that there are no known cells in the U.S. Are you --

MR. SNOW: That's what the NIE was saying, yes.

Q But that -- the NIE wouldn't really be the most recent intelligence. Would it be real-time intelligence --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to try to talk about real-time intelligence. I was repeating what the NIE said.

Q Okay, that's what I wanted to make clear. And that was finished when?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. These things are -- as you know, they get completed, and then they run through a staffing process. But this is not something that's been sitting on the shelf for a long time. Better make sure I get those --

Q Is that an unscrubbed version that you're giving us the statement from?

MR. SNOW: I am giving you the unscrubbed -- I am giving the key judgments.

Elaine.

Q Can I just get your reaction -- I know you talked about this morning, or actually didn't talk about it -- about the Border Patrol agents. Senator Feinstein is saying she and Senator Cornyn are going to write letters to the President -- a letter asking for commutation --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm sure the President will read them with interest. What I did say -- and we never talk in advance -- as you noted the Scooter Libby case -- we simply do not talk about applications or petitions or requests for pardon or commutation. That is something that is done on a confidential basis, and people look at it. I will not confirm -- confirm or deny that anything has been done, including whether there have been any applications by the parties involved. So it's just inappropriate to get into that.

Q Tony, you noted this morning that the sentences in the Border Patrol case were within the federal sentencing guidelines. They also were in the Libby case. So those guidelines are not a hurdle around here?

MR. SNOW: Well, actually -- no, if you take a look, actually, there is some dispute in legal circles about what the proper boundaries were for the sentencing in the Libby case. And I'll leave it at that. I'll leave it to the lawyers --

Q No one recommended no jail time.

MR. SNOW: On the other hand, there are differing benchmarks there for the use of it. What you do have is you've got probation, you've got a $250,000 fine. That's a significant punishment.

Q Is it the administration's position that the sentence in that case was beyond the federal sentencing guidelines?

MR. SNOW: Again, I will -- I'm not going to try to get myself into the legal cases, but you've seen arguments on both sides. I think if you took at look at the court papers -- I'm not going to try to fob myself off as a lawyer on this. I'll let the lawyers argue over it.

Sarah.

Q Thank you. Tony, what are the safeguards of American nuclear plants to prevent what happened in Japan? And do we also have sufficient safeguards to protect against terrorists at our nuclear plants?

MR. SNOW: Yes. (Laughter.)

Q How does the President see the job description of Tony Blair as the envoy for the Quartet --

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, what?

Q How does the President see the job description of Tony Blair as the envoy for the Quartet to the Middle East?

MR. SNOW: Well, obviously, what he's going to try to do is to be a facilitator in efforts to try to deal with the many challenges. In the short run, it amounts to trying to assist in institution-building in the Palestinian -- with the Palestinian government -- that is the foremost challenge right now -- and to try to create conditions and institutions that are going to provide security and stability so that that government will be in a position to negotiate in good faith with Israel, and also be able to deliver on Quartet requirements, ultimately. But first things first is, we're in an institution-building phase, and Tony Blair obviously is somebody who's very persuasive and able to try to marshal a lot of support on the international scene.

Q Do you have any reaction to Mahmoud Abbas -- he just said a few minutes ago he doesn't want to talk about money, he doesn't want to talk about our procedural steps towards a state, he wants to talk about the final status now, which he actually rolled out from his conference.

MR. SNOW: That's the first I've heard. I can't react to something that I haven't had a chance to see or put in context.

Q Tony, you told us this morning that Americans don't like the imagery of Iraqi lawmakers not working in August. But what about the White House? What does the President think about that imagery?

MR. SNOW: Well, I've said before, what we think is important is that there is continued work and continued progress toward political accommodation, and ultimately political success in the form of passing key pieces of legislation. I'm not going to go any further.

Q Tony, just curious, what are the mechanics of the way this deal works with the slides? How often do you --

MR. SNOW: Well, obviously I pushed the wrong button for starters, so I'm getting used to it myself. (Laughter.)

Q How often do you think you'll be using it? How are the pictures chosen? What agency -- how many agencies were behind this thing today?

MR. SNOW: Well, basically, I'm the one who picked the slides, and what we did was we put them through a staffing process to ensure accuracy. We will use them when we think it's appropriate, in terms of providing things that are of news value. And at some point, we may have a capacity for using video, as well.

I don't want to -- obviously, you want to use it in a way that's going to be a complement and not a substitute for doing a press briefing. So -- but we do plan to make fairly regular use of it. I think it's important.

Q Do you see the President, himself, standing up there and pressing buttons? (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Again, I hope he does a better job than I did at the outset.

Q Did you press the buttons or did they?

MR. SNOW: I did. Didn't you notice when I was like, oh, no, that's the wrong button.

Q No, but that lectern is so big and ugly I can't see a thing. (Laughter.)

Q What does the button say?

MR. SNOW: "Next." (Laughter.) That's literally what is says.

Q Tony, going back to a question of legality in Scooter Libby, did the President and Scooter Libby, by any chance, have any communication --

MR. SNOW: No.

Q -- since the commutation?

MR. SNOW: Oh, since the -- no, I don't think so. I don't think so.

Q So Libby hadn't sent a note or anything, saying "thank you" or -- (laughter) --

MR. SNOW: Not that I'm aware of. I don't think there has been any. There were no flowers, no chocolates. (Laughter.)

Q Do you have an "eject" button there, Tony?

MR. SNOW: An "eject" button? No. (Laughter.) But I think, in advance -- one of you can say the magic words. You're certainly free to do it. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: There you go. (Laughter.) END 1:40 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 18, 2007

President Bush Participates in Roundtable on Health Care
Man and Machine, Inc., Landover, Maryland, 11:27 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Today I've had a really good discussion about health care and health care problems with three business owners and employees of the small business with Secretary Leavitt and Mark McClellan and Administrator Preston. I heard a common complaint, that health care is -- costs are too high; that small business owners feel very pinched by these high costs; that they don't like the idea of having to make the decision between providing health care for their employees and not expanding their businesses.

And the fundamental question, given these frustrations, is what do we do about it as a nation. There is an interesting debate taking place in Congress, and there is a philosophical divide. Some in Congress believe the best solution to solving the frustrations of uninsured and high costs for small businesses is to expand the role of government. I have a different point of view. I believe the best way to deal with the frustrations of the high cost of health care and uninsured is to change the tax code, is to make health care in the private sector more affordable and more available.

The debate in Congress is now centering around what's called S-CHIP, which is the Children's Health Care Insurance Program. It was a program initially designed to help poor families afford health care for their children. I support that concept. As a matter of fact, the budget I submitted funds health care for poor children. Members of Congress have decided, however, to expand the program to include, in some cases, up to families earning $80,000 a year -- which would cause people to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan.

And when you couple that with the idea that some have suggested of reducing the age at which you can be eligible for Medicare, you're beginning to get a sense of a strategy to grow the government's role in the provision of health care. I believe government cannot provide affordable health care. I believe it would cause -- it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time. If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the S-CHIP program -- which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people -- I'll veto the bill.

Our proposal is a strategy that says to small business owners and individuals we want you, one, to be in charge of your health care system -- health care decisions; and, two, we believe you're discriminated against in the tax code. If you work for a large company, you get a tax break on your health care. If you work for a small business and/or you're in the individual market, you don't get the same tax break. And that's unfair and it's not right. And, therefore, I have proposed to the United States Congress that we have a $15,000 deductible for families and a $7,500 deductible for individuals, all aimed at encouraging people to be able to afford insurance and aimed at the encouragement of the development of an individual market.

I believe strongly that small businesses ought to be afforded the chance to purchase health care across jurisdictional boundaries. Mike owns a small restaurant, he ought to be able to pool risk with restaurants in Texas or California or anywhere else, so he can better afford insurance. I want patients making decisions, not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. I want the system to benefit the individual, the small business owner, not large insurance companies.

And I really do believe that government involvement in health care will lead to less quality care and rationing over time. And, therefore, we proposed a plan. I urge the Congress to work with us on making the tax code fair. I know there are different ideas as to whether or not there ought to be a $15,000 deductible or a credit. I'm open-minded, I'm willing to listen. But what I'm not willing to listen to is a direct expansion of the federal role in providing -- a massive expansion of the federal role in providing health care for individuals across the country.

Thank you all for having me. Cliff, thank you; you have a very interesting company here. I'm proud to be with small business owners. I understand the role of small businesses in our society. We have worked to reduce taxes on small businesses because we want you to grow. And the fact that you are growing across the country collectively is one reason why our economy is so strong. And this economy is doing well. The unemployment rate is 4.5 percent. Small businesses are growing. People are working. Stock market is up. Inflation is down. And we're going to keep it that way. One way you keep it that way is to have good health care policy emanating out of Washington, and another is to keep taxes low. And that's what we're going to do. So thank you all.

END 11:32 A.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 17, 2007

President Bush Meets with United Nations Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon
Oval Office, 2:16 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary General, welcome; thanks for coming. We've just had a wide-ranging and full discussion on a lot of issues. First, Mr. Secretary General, I appreciate you, one, taking on this job; two, working extremely hard; and, three, doing a fine job. I admire the values you hold dear to your heart and I appreciate the chance to share some thoughts with you.

We discussed a lot of issues. We have discussed Darfur. We discussed proliferation. We discussed the potential trial for -- about Hariri. The Secretary General and I talked about the speech I gave yesterday on the Middle East. We have talked about Afghanistan and Iraq.

And one of the things I briefed the Secretary on was my views about extremism and these radicals that will do anything to disrupt the goals set by the United Nations and/or disrupt the advance of democracy in peaceful societies. Al Qaeda is strong today, but they're not nearly as strong as they were prior to September the 11th, 2001, and the reason why is, is because we've been working with the world to keep the pressure on, to stay on the offense, to bring them to justice so they won't hurt us again; to defeat them where we find them.

And now we find them in Iraq. These killers in Iraq, people who will kill innocent life to stop the advent of democracy, people who are trying to get on our TV screens on a daily basis to drive us have got ambitions and plans. These people have sworn allegiance to the very same man who ordered the attack on September the 11th, 2001, Osama bin Laden. And they want us to leave parts of the world, like Iraq, so they can establish a safe haven from which to spread their poisonous ideology. And we are steadfast in our determination to not only protect the American people, but to protect these young democracies. And I appreciate your interest in the subject.

Al Qaeda would have been a heck of a lot stronger today had we not stayed on the offense. And it's in the interest of the United States to not only defeat them overseas so we don't have to face them here, but also to spread an ideology that will defeat their ideology every time -- and that's the ideology based upon liberty.

So Mr. Secretary General, I'm proud to have you here and thank you for your leadership.

SECRETARY GENERAL BAN KI-MOON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. This is my second time for meeting with you in this Oval Office. I appreciate your strong support and active participation of the United States in the United Nations. And I'm very much grateful for all the strong support for peacekeeping operations.

In addition to what President Bush has just mentioned on the issues we have covered, I'd like to mention just a few important, from my perspective.

First of all, I welcome the interest which you have announced yesterday for the comprehensive Middle East peace process. As a member of the Quartet, I am prepared to work very closely to see expedited peace process in the Middle East.

As for Iraqi situation, this is a problem of the whole world. And as far as the United Nations is concerned, we are prepared to contribute to Iraqi government and people to help them overcome this difficulty, in close coordination with the MNF and including the United States. We are going to help their political facilitation, as well as economic and social reconstruction. And we also are going to continue the international compact process for Iraq, as well as expanded -- foreign ministers meeting. This will provide good opportunity for Iraqi people and international community to work together for peace and security in Iraq.

In Darfur situation we have made considerable progress. And we are going to step up the political process. We have made a positive development yesterday in Tripoli through the meeting chaired by United Nations and African Union. We are going to have negotiation, pre-negotiation in Arusha, Tanzania in early August. We are also going to facilitate humanitarian assistance. I'm going to step up efforts to deploy hybrid operations as soon as possible in Darfur to resolve this issue as soon as possible. In that regard, I appreciate U.S. government strong support in this matter.

On climate change, which is very important issue for all humankind, I appreciate President Bush's initiative during Heiligendamm G8 summit meeting. I extended an official invitation to President Bush today to attend, to participate in a high-level U.N. debate on climate change, which will be held on September 24th. Your participation will be very much appreciated and I'm looking forward to welcoming you to New York.

Lastly, on North Korean nuclear issue, I appreciate the U.S. government initiative and flexibility in promoting development of these issues. I'm encouraged and I welcome the recent development of situation. I hope that the parties concerned, including DPRK, will take necessary measures to implement this joint statement to realize the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as soon as possible.

Thank you very much for your hospitality.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir. Thank you all. END 2:24 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 17, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
James S. Brady Briefing Room, 12:21 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: All right. First, one announcement, a war on terror-related announcement, before we get to questions.

Today the President signed and executive order to block the property of persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq, either through financial, material, logistical or technical support that undermine economic reconstruction, political reform, or humanitarian assistance. The executive order targets terrorists and insurgent groups, including those assisted by Syria and Iran, that are not covered by existing authorities. In other words, what we have is something that fills a gap left in other executive orders to make sure that we have the means to go financially after anybody who is trying to go after the efforts to secure freedom and democracy in Iraq.

Questions.

Q Specifically who, Tony? Who is this aimed at?

MR. SNOW: Well, what this is really aimed at is insurgents and those who come across the border. There are a couple of prior executive orders. One deals with financial flows to former members of the Saddam regime, another to members of al Qaeda in Iraq. But there are other players in this game. So anybody who is caught providing support or poses a significant risk of providing support to those who may come across the borders, who may be -- who may not fit neatly into those other two categories, this provides ways of going after those who provide financial, logistical or other support for them.

Q The Senate is going to hold an all-night session tonight to talk about the President's military strategy in Iraq. Do you think that that's a healthy debate tonight?

MR. SNOW: It may be a healthy debate. It's also likely to be theatrical. What's interesting is that the Senate is going to hold this debate, but it's not going to vote on defense authorization to support the troops.

Q Well, don't you think that it's an opportunity for both sides to defend their positions and --

MR. SNOW: Yes, I think it is. Look, it's always good to have --

Q What's wrong with that?

MR. SNOW: It's always good to have a healthy debate. On the other hand, it is a debate in pursuit of what? We want to see Congress go ahead also and do its basic business, which is to fund the government and not try to suspend consideration of things like defense authorization and appropriations, because those are also vital for moving forward.

Q Tony, when the report -- the NIE says that al Qaeda is likely to try to leverage the gains it's made in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, doesn't that undermine the President's case that by fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we're preventing them from coming to U.S. soil and attacking here?

MR. SNOW: No, and you asked the same question to Fran, and she reread to you the language of the NIE, which is probably worth doing, because what it really talks about is the fact that it will -- let me just find the particular item there -- what's happening is al Qaeda basically is looking for ways to generate bragging rights that are going to be useful in recruiting or plotting or trying to leverage contacts. Here's what it says: "Of those concerns, we assess that al Qaeda will try to exploit the conflict in Iraq, to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al Qaeda in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate, and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack us here." It does not say that it has a stronger hand. What it says is that it is going to try to exploit, for political and also for recruiting purposes, anything it possibly can out of the ongoing conflict in Iraq.

Q Right. The President was warned of that, though, by the CIA before the war in Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Well, the President had a lot of inputs before the war. The fact is, right after the war, as you recall, there was heavy military action -- what did al Qaeda lose? It lost its home base in Afghanistan. It lost a lot of its senior leadership -- two-thirds of the senior leadership at that time. It lost its ability to operate openly and freely. Certainly Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are no longer circulating publicly. It lost a lot of its ability also financially.

What I talked about in the executive order today is a reflection of the fact that we are putting the squeeze on terror organizations around the world. It lost its ability to move around because intelligence organizations all around the world are keeping an eye on movements of those who may be affiliated with al Qaeda, and certainly remain on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and others.

So the fact that you have al Qaeda in Iraq trying to make Iraq the central front in the war on terror probably is not a surprise. They have got to make a stand some place. But it does not mean that al Qaeda today is stronger or more capable than it was before -- and in point of fact, it's not stronger or more capable than it was a month ago. If you take a look at what's been going on in Iraq in the last month -- and this is a point that is very important to stress -- since the way forward, we have seen a real change on the ground -- Pete Pace described it yesterday, I think, as a sea change in Iraq -- where areas that once had been controlled by al Qaeda are now completely cleared of al Qaeda, and populations once that had lived under the thumb of al Qaeda have turned against them, with the help of tribal leaders. Insurgent groups that had fought against us in the past in places like Diyala have turned around and they are now joining us in the fight against al Qaeda.

So there is a -- when you're fighting an enemy like al Qaeda they will constantly shift their location, their methods, their personnel, and we'll continue to chase them down.

Q Do you think the President -- since you just mentioned Osama bin Laden -- do you think the President regrets saying in March 2002 that, "I just don't spend that much time on him ... he's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met its match" -- suggesting to the American people that bin Laden wasn't really that big of a threat, that he had met his match already back in 2002?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think what the President is -- what we're saying now is al Qaeda is a threat and bin Laden is a target. But, no, I don't think the President -- the President was also sending a message to the rest of the world that bin Laden who before had been boasting openly about the United States -- in fact, he'd been driven into hiding from which he has yet to emerge.

Q But he hasn't been killed or captured, either.

MR. SNOW: If we get actionable intelligence, as Fran told you, we're going to act on it.

Q We had it in 2005, though.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm not sure -- you know, I'm not going to try to get into classified information or reports. But the fact is, Ed, that, again, if we find actionable intelligence, we're going to go after it.

Ann.

Q The President often -- back on the Senate debate tonight, the President often says the Senate should just let things come to a vote. He often says that about judgeships. Why not just let those democratic resolutions or legislation on Iraq come to a vote?

MR. SNOW: Well, a number of them have. And we've made it clear -- but the fact is within the Senate, the Senate has its own rules and procedures and quite often senators, themselves, decide not to have votes on things because they use the filibuster or whatever power. The President is not going to be instructing Republicans on how to proceed.

Q Why the theatrics tonight?

MR. SNOW: Because, for one thing, the idea of sort of going through the gesture of having a late night, all-night meeting is highly unusual, as you know, Ann, and you think, well, okay, this might be kind of interesting. So let's all take it for the spectator event it is.

Q Tony, is it because the U.S. military is stretched and taxed and every other way you want to describe it, in Iraq, is that a reason why when the report says that there is a safe haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal area that includes the lieutenants and top leadership of al Qaeda, is that why the U.S. isn't going in there, or is it out of deference to Musharraf?

MR. SNOW: No, again, if you talk -- when you talk about the U.S. going in there, you don't blithely go into another nation and conduct operations. We --

Q Well, the President went into a sovereign nation in 2003.

MR. SNOW: Well, he went into a sovereign nation that was, in fact -- he also had with him the support of 17 U.N. resolutions, including Resolution 1441.

Q But he could seek similar world support for such an action --

MR. SNOW: Well, again -- but on the other hand, we are working with a sovereign nation which is an ally with us, in this particular case. And when it comes to Pakistan, the United States has, in fact, been continuously working with President Musharraf and we're going to do what we can to try to strengthen his hand in whatever he needs. We have spent -- we have devoted considerable resources to helping him beef up capabilities and presence within the federally administered tribal areas, which are very tough.

Q With all the complications and diplomacy and everything else involved in this, but just for the American citizen watching this, if we can identify that the safe haven is there, that lieutenants and top leadership are there --

MR. SNOW: Well, it's not as if they've hung out a shingle and there's a great big compound. These are people who, in fact, do their very best to remain concealed.

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. SNOW: No, this is -- again, the geography of Waziristan and the federally administered tribal areas are something unique. And so certainly there continue to be teams that are looking for them, and the Pakistanis are looking hard for them. But this is not a simple exercise. This is not something where you look down and you see a big, large cleared area. It's not like the camps that bin Laden had in Afghanistan, which, in fact, could be clearly seen. It is also an area in which as you know by custom, if you are brought in as somebody's guest, the locals will do everything they can to hide and support you. And they quite often are very aggressive in fighting against those who come in looking for them.

So it's a very complicated business, but that doesn't mean it's not important and it means that the United States and the Pakistanis are committed to going in there and dealing with it.

Q Tony, does the intelligence community take a look at all the various al Qaeda offshoots and develop any sort of ranking as to where the most potential threat comes from?

MR. SNOW: I don't think you do a ranking, because it's sometimes hard to disaggregate what's going on. I mean, again, the way al Qaeda operates, Jim, is that not a lot of the communications -- I've just mentioned that bin Laden and Zawahiri and others have been driven into hiding, so how do they communicate? Well, they either tend to communicate indirectly or use the Internet or use different means to try to reach out to people and try to create offshoots and supporters around the world.

I mean, anybody who is trying to spend their time and their resources or to get aid and support to try to kill Americans or come to shores and kill us, all of those rank at the top. You have to try to do what you can to --

Q So is al Qaeda in Iraq seen as more dangerous than, say, the al Qaeda groups in the tribal lands?

MR. SNOW: Again, what you have are some -- I think it's impossible to say that, and I'll tell you why. Again, a terror organization is based on the ability to dispatch small teams of low budgets to try to commit highly visible acts of violence that are designed either to shake, destabilize or create economic damage in countries around the world.

As the President has often said, they only need to succeed once; we need to succeed every time in trying to intercept what they do. Therefore, the idea that you sort of rank order -- I think what the National Intelligence Estimate says is that al Qaeda in Iraq is seen as the largest and most capable of the al Qaeda organizations around the world. But that doesn't mean that you can rank order them. You have to do your very best to keep eyes and ears on all of them.

Q Tony, I have just two quick ones. Has President Bush spoken to President Putin on the expulsion of the Russians from England? Does he have --

MR. SNOW: No, he hasn't.

Q Okay. And also on this Middle East conference, I'm not clear, where is it going to be held and --

MR. SNOW: We don't know yet. And it's really -- I would -- even though I know I used the term "conference" this morning, this is a meeting. It is a meeting that is designed -- it is -- I think a lot of people are inclined to try to treat this as a big peace conference. It's not. This is a meeting to sit down and try to find ways of building fundamental and critical institutions for the Palestinians that are going to enable them to have self-government and democracy.

Q And who is in charge? Former Prime Minister Blair or (inaudible)?

MR. SNOW: No, Prime Minister Blair, obviously, as the Quartet representative. It's not anybody in charge. What it is, is a gathering of people who are interested. You're going to have parties in the region; you're also going to have Prime Minister Blair as the Quartet representative. They are going to be sharing ideas, trying to figure out how to move forward.

Ken.

Q Tony, does the best available current intelligence say that bin Laden, himself, is in the tribal areas of Pakistan?

MR. SNOW: I don't know, and wouldn't say.

Q What do you want the public to take away from a day that has seen the administration talk again about a heightened terror environment, while at the same time again saying there are no credible, specific threats?

MR. SNOW: I think what they ought to take away from it is that we have a vigorous and, so far, successful effort to go against al Qaeda. And, in fact, there ought to be reassurance and, at the same time, vigilance. What you talk about is a heightened threat environment because it is clear that terrorists, in many cases having suffered a series of setbacks, are looking for a victory, themselves. They've tried in England. There is no doubt that if al Qaeda could, it would try to mount an operation in the United States. It is also clear that al Qaeda is weaker than it was on September 11, 2001; as I said, it's weaker than it was a month ago.

But the fact is that al Qaeda members remain determined. They are not going to give up their hatred, they're not going to give up their ideology, they're not going to wane in their determination to go after us. And, again, I will remind you, sometimes a small cell, as we saw a relatively small cell on September 11th, can exact enormous damage. And, therefore, you need to make sure that you continue to be vigilant, and at the same time deploy the kinds of tools necessary to ferret out those who intend to commit acts of violence.

And the fact is that we have means and methods at our disposal, as well as a large coalition of supporters and cooperative governments around the world that we did not have six years ago. We have more intelligence than we've ever had, we have more help than we've ever had, we have more support than we've ever had. And we have also the determination.

But the one thing that it warns against, the NIE, is basically a sense of complacency. That's the one thing that down the road can cause damage if people, in fact, let their vigilance wane. And it's important, I think, to note that.

I think, as I also indicated in describing what the President has done with the executive order today, is you look at everything in your disposal, including using economic means, which have been highly effective in other venues, to try to make sure that you make life as difficult as possible, you go back to the national counterterrorism strategy that we released last year, and it talked about a whole series of efforts. It means going after them in terms of their propaganda, it means going after them in terms of recruiting, finances, on the battlefield. So you look at a whole broad range of ways of going after them, and we continue to try to (inaudible).

Q When you say you're worried about complacency, don't you also have to be concerned that this fosters complacency and confusion when you say, hey, we're worried that the threat environment is higher, but --

MR. SNOW: We didn't say we're worried. What we're saying is that there is a calculation that the threat environment is higher.

Q Okay, the threat environment is higher, but we don't have anything specific or credible at the moment.

MR. SNOW: Yes, but you also keep in mind, if you take a look, the National Intelligence Estimate, again, is not a tactical document. It tries to give you a sense, looking broadly forward, at trends that are going on within terror -- within, in this case, terror organizations that mean to commit acts of violence in our homeland.

It is not the sort of thing that is going to tell you, we've got concern about this cell or this cell or this cell. That is part of the ongoing communication on a daily basis, as Fran pointed out, the National Counterterrorism Center has meetings three times a day. And there are a whole series of regular meetings and conversations between senior intelligence and security analysts and organizations throughout this government to keep people abreast and apprised at all times of the latest intelligence on any movements or concerns.

Q Tony, doesn't all this discussion of the threat posed by al Qaeda on multiple fronts, on which you, yourself, say the government is going after them, suggest that the group should have been crushed entirely before the U.S. took up something like going into Iraq?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Why not?

MR. SNOW: The fact is that this is a group that was --

Q Why give them the battlefield?

MR. SNOW: Excuse me -- they were already spread out over 60 countries, Wendell, before the war began. Al Qaeda started war against the United States in 1993 with the bombing of the World Trade Center, that continued with actions at Khobar Towers, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombings of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Al Qaeda was already in the battlefield before that war began. Furthermore, al Qaeda had dispersed itself around the globe.

So, in point of fact, what you are asking is a question, why didn't we crush al Qaeda globally before we went into Iraq?

Q Precisely, yes, that's what I'm asking.

MR. SNOW: The answer is that, as part of a larger war on terror, you're assuming that al Qaeda is a small, contained entity that can be beaten by conventional war methods. And the fact is, when you take a look at asymmetrical warfare, it is something where you constantly have to go after a shifting enemy.

The real question you need -- that this policy answers is, when you have an enemy like this, unlike any that we've ever seen, how do you fight them most effectively? And we are trying to do that by enlisting the help of allies around the globe -- it not simply the United States alone that can do it -- we have enlisted an unprecedented group of nations, in terms of sharing intelligence and doing action against the terror network; we have mobilized people throughout the world, and we've created capabilities that did not previously exist.

So I think you're creating a straw man here. The fact is, al Qaeda, again, was already around the globe. The President -- go back to September 20, 2001, when the President talked about a global terror network spread over 60 nations. He noted that this was going to be a long fight, and it is one that continues to try to reconstitute itself by sowing hatred and communicating in novel and interesting methods.

Q Are you telling me it was impossible to smash them globally before we went into Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Thank you.

Q Tony, one more in a series of what you want the American people to take away from the NIE today. If al Qaeda is sort of the biggest threat facing the American people, then to those who say, so what are we doing policing a civil war in Iraq, the answer is what?

MR. SNOW: Well, the answer is, again, what you -- if you take a look at what's going on in Iraq, you've seen sectarian violence down considerably -- really over the last six months. You've seen acts of -- so the civil war construct is a little less strong than it used to be.

Furthermore, what you see in Iraq is precisely the sort of thing that ought to give confidence in efforts in there. Let me make the point again, Jim, that you have seen a province -- Anbar -- which last November was written off as gone. As a matter of fact, you will recall that this was an issue in the Virginia senatorial election, where George Allen was being hammered because he was talking about Anbar and it was lost. How dare you talk about that? In point of fact, Anbar has completely flipped, in a period of months, because what has happened is the determined application of force, the knowledge on the part of the locals that they can rely on that force and support, and the turning of a local population against al Qaeda.

Q Is Anbar a model for Baghdad?

MR. SNOW: Anbar -- what you're going to have is Anbar is a -- Anbar, I think, ultimately is a model for what you want to see throughout Iraq. But you also have specific problems in different parts of Baghdad. But, yes, in parts of Baghdad you want to see it. And ultimately what you do want to see is that the Iraqi people make the determination not only against al Qaeda, but also insurgents and others who want to destabilize the government the fact they're not going to support them anymore.

Q But the relationship between being involved in the midst of this sectarian strife, and pursuing the number one threat to the American people is what?

MR. SNOW: Say what?

Q If you are saying that al Qaeda is the number one threat to the American people, then what are we doing policing a civil war in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: You've just asked me an argumentative question rather than a factual question. I've just told you --

Q I'm asking the folks who say -- that's what I asked you at the outset, to people who say --

MR. SNOW: And I explained to you why the civil war construct is a lot less persuasive than it used to be.

Q So people who are concerned about being involved in the middle of sectarian strife shouldn't be concerned?

MR. SNOW: Of course they -- of course they should. But you're dancing from lily pad to lily pad, so let me try to hit each lily pad, give you an answer for each.

Number one, on the issue of sectarian strife, there have been determined efforts on the part of the Iraqi government and the U.S. and other interested parties to try to tamp down on the sources of violence. That's a lot of what's going on, in terms of political reconciliation and accommodation in Iraq today. You have seen significant reductions in sectarian violence, and significantly, after the most recent Samarra mosque bombing, you did not see the kind of eruption of violence that occurred after the bombing in February 2006. Furthermore, what you have seen is a significant turn in the attitudes of Iraqi citizens, themselves, against al Qaeda.

So, first, sectarian violence I'm taking off that lily pad. Now let's go to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been trying to foment sectarian violence. It succeeded in so doing in February 2006. It sees that as the chief method of destabilizing Iraq and creating an opportunity for al Qaeda to gain a foothold, if not a base of operations in Iraq.

What has happened as a result of U.S. policy, and also Iraqis stepping into the lead, is a significant reversal for al Qaeda -- a very significant reversal in areas -- they once thought that Anbar was going to be the hold for al Qaeda -- no more. Similarly, you're seeing the moves in Diyala.

Now, how does this fit into the larger picture? Al Qaeda is trying to use anything it can accomplish in Iraq as a way of recruiting. The most important goal for al Qaeda is not necessarily on the battlefield, but it is strategic. If it believes that it can, through a series of operations or by its persistence, weaken American determination to finish the job, and the United States should leave before the job is done, you can be sure that al Qaeda once again will repeat the words of Osama bin Laden -- that America is the weak horse and that it cannot stay the fight and that al Qaeda, itself, will be triumphant. This is what I was talking about before. He gives it bragging rights at that juncture to recruit, to raise money, and to try to extend operations. So this is how the things are knitted together.

Q Tony, just to follow-up on that, what would be the implications that you draw from this NIE for the strategy in Iraq? Does it support it? Does it undermine it? Does it -- what is the lesson that you draw?

MR. SNOW: I don't want to do that, because I think it's unfair to those who do intelligence estimates. What they try to do is to paint a picture. They are not trying to do a policy document that will point somebody in a direction. I think it would be twisting the purpose of any National Intelligence Estimate to say that this is an action document that tells us to do A, B, or C.

Q But you were just saying to Jim that it showed the need to go after the terrorists --

MR. SNOW: What Jim was asking me was a question about methods of going after al Qaeda. He said -- I mean, he asked a series of complex questions that involved everything from sectarian violence in Iraq to the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. And I did answer that based on our overall strategy in the region. I just didn't try to apply it to the NIE.

Q Tony.

MR. SNOW: Wait a second, Goyal.

Q Getting back to the Middle East conference.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Who's going to attend the meeting? Who's going to attend the meeting? And, also, why is the President willing to take on a higher-profile role in Middle East peace-making now, when people have said he should have done it a lot sooner?

MR. SNOW: Well, I can't imagine anybody taking a higher profile than the President did five years ago, when he became the first person ever to talk about a two-state solution, or the fact that he has continued to have meetings here in Washington and elsewhere, with President Abbas, Prime Minister Olmert.

The idea that somehow we've been disengaged is simply false. What the United States has not done is wrap its arms around those who are committed to terror and, therefore, engage in fruitless negotiations that would have led nowhere. Bill Clinton, upon leaving office, famously expressed frustration that he had trusted Yasser Arafat and, therefore, had been deceived when it came to trying to pursue peace.

It is important to note that the President and this administration have also put together a series of conferences where people have met to talk about the topic. The President regularly converses with heads of state in the region about this. So I think what we're doing is we now see a moment of opportunity, as the President said yesterday. It's not only a moment of choice, but a moment of opportunity. We have a government with President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad -- Prime Minister Fayyad now no longer temporary Prime Minister -- you have a government in which we have confidence in the leaders, and we also know that there's a willing partner for working with the Israelis. So it does seem that it's an opportune time to try to exploit that development and, at the same time, work with regional partners who have always said that this has to be a top priority, and to enlist their more vigorous involvement, as well.

As the President said yesterday, everybody has got responsibilities. The Israelis have responsibilities, the Palestinians have responsibilities, the Arab neighbors have responsibilities. And this is a time for all of them to step up.

Q But in terms of him taking on a higher profile, this speech was the first speech that he's given in a while on this topic.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's also -- again, it came the day after you had the cementing of a government with the Palestinian Authority, where you had a President and a Prime Minister with whom the President thinks we have an opportunity to do business. And in fact, on the same day as the speech, Prime Minister Olmert did meet with President Abbas. So you do have -- you've got some people who are committed to peace now, working hard on it. And this is one of these times where you've got an opportunity, the President believes, to seize a certain amount of momentum where people are determined to try to go ahead and cut the knot and try to move forward.

But the first thing you've got to do is build the capability within the Palestinian areas, to have those institutions that are going to be able to -- not only to sustain democracy, but also to sustain peace and security within the area, and to be able to fulfill the Quartet conditions, which are renouncing violence, recognizing Israel, and abiding by international treaties. I mean, all those things are still capabilities that they have to work on developing. So you do first things first.

Q But was there no better moment of opportunity? I mean, a lot of people say that this is actually not the greatest opportunity because Abbas wasn't (inaudible) -- Palestinians.

MR. SNOW: It's not clear that he's weakened at all. And secondly, you look --

Q Was there no better opportunity earlier? Why was there no better opportunity since (inaudible)?

MR. SNOW: Look, it's an interesting thing, when a President goes up and he takes an historic step and he does something that is more forward-leaning than anybody else, and somebody says, couldn't he have done it earlier? That is major league backseat driving, at a point where the President has, in fact, been regularly engaged with the leaders. You make a proposal when you think you're -- when the conditions are appropriate. And we now see conditions that are appropriate, especially with developments within the Palestinian government to move forward. Those conditions were not present before.

Helen.

Q Is there any contradiction or is (inaudible) that Congress is talking about withdrawal of troops, the American people obviously are hoping for it, and you're talking about a surge, a new surge --

MR. SNOW: We're not talking about a new surge --

Q -- General Pace says we may have to have a surge, and so forth. And you talk about commanders on the ground, they'll decide whether they have to have more troops. What is this?

MR. SNOW: It's a war, Helen. It's a war that's being fought based on what actually takes place on the ground.

Let's clarify what General -- what was said yesterday. General Pace said, if they need more troops, we'll talk about it; if they need fewer troops, we'll talk about it. He didn't rule out either of those. In point of fact, we have seen, with a surge that fully became operational less than a month ago, real success -- real success on the battlefield. It has made tangible improvements in the situation and offers some hope that they will create the space that makes political reconciliation possible.

What we think is important to do is to permit not only that process to move forward, but also economic development through our provisional reconstruction teams, and political accommodation with leading members of the Iraqi government. All of those things are essential.

The American people want to see that. What Americans want to see is victory. They want to see success in Iraq. And what's going to happen --

Q And they also want to pull out.

MR. SNOW: You know, it's interesting, again, I think if they see that there are successes, that things are moving forward, that, in fact, that creates a certain atmosphere of confidence. And we're going to have to see --

Q Have you been talking to the American people lately?

MR. SNOW: Yes, yes, I do.

Q Really? You don't seem to reflect what they think.

MR. SNOW: No, actually, I think the American people, A, are not an unamalgamated lump, but instead they're 300 million people who love their freedom and love their opinions. Secondly --

Q Nobody is denying that. That's not the criteria.

MR. SNOW: Permit me to finish this. The second thing is that a lot of them are understandably tired of war. We're all tired of war and we would all love to have our forces coming home. Furthermore --

Q (Inaudible) tired of it, it's horrifying.

MR. SNOW: It is horrifying. But what is even more horrifying are the prospects of what will happen to America and what will happen within the Middle East and radiating outward if, in fact, we do not --

Q Continue to kill people in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, you know, you want to kill the people who want to kill us. And there are --

Q Oh, come on.

MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry, you're absolutely right --

Q Did the Iraqis attack us?

Q Since you have talked about successes from the first surge, is it possible, then -- I just want to be clear about what General Pace is saying -- obviously, there are always options on the table and contingencies. But since you've seen -- you believe you've seen some success from the surge, (inaudible) from a security standpoint, is the President leaving the door open to a second surge and sending more troops in because maybe he'll get more success under his (inaudible).

MR. SNOW: No, I think what you do, rather than trying to -- is he leaving the door open? Let's see what the generals have to say. I mean --

Q Well, he did say looking at possible planning for more troops.

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, but you would plan -- as you know, you do a lot of contingency planning in the Pentagon. But I'm not going to try to prejudge what conclusions they may reach come September.

Q What significance should we read into the fact, though -- because now you're saying it's a meeting in the Mideast. Yesterday, when you first started teasing this out, you said it's significant, a conference; but now it's a meeting. What's -- why are we backpedaling here?

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think what happened is it was being spun up as a major peace conference where people are going to be talking about final status issues, and that is not the case. And the President made that pretty clear.

You can call it what you want. Call it a confab. You guys have thesauruses and you also have extensive vocabularies -- (laughter) -- but the fact is that it will be a gathering where people really do try to get down to nuts and bolts issues of helping build that institutional capability so that the Palestinian government will be in a position to move on to the next phases.

Q Tony, can you tell us why Secretary Nicholson is resigning?

MR. SNOW: Yes. A couple of weeks ago he called Josh Bolten out of the blue and said, my work is done and I want to return. Josh informed the President -- that is, return to private life -- the President expressed his gratitude for Jim Nicholson's service and he's grateful he served. He certainly could have served longer if he so desired.

Jim has expressed a willingness to stay on until October, because now you've got the issue of trying to find a successor. Obviously Congress is going on recess pretty soon. It's going to be difficult to get somebody up and through the system. However, you probably do it through the month of September.

So Jim has agreed, but there's no back story here. He called up, said he wanted to leave and move on, and the President accepted his resignation.

Q Thank you, Tony. You said on July 3rd that it was up to Congress to take the lead on the issue of dealing with the problem of illegal immigration now, correct?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q All right. Recently I spoke to Corey Stewart, the chairman of the board of supervisors of Prince William County in Virginia, which unanimously passed a resolution permitting police to ask people if they're illegal aliens, and then detain them if they are. And he was told, however, by ICE, that they're limited to only a certain amount of people that they can arrest because ICE does not have the processing and detention facilities. Does the administration support greater funding for ICE to have these kinds of facilities for processing --

MR. SNOW: I don't know, John. That's -- one of the things that you're going to see is until you do have a national policy, you'll have county by county, city by city, people coming up with different approaches. And it makes it very complicated to have a unified approach toward dealing with these issues.

But the fact is, I don't have an answer for you on that, mainly because -- you started with a question about Congress, and then you posed me a question about the capabilities of Prince William County. So I'll take a look at it.

Q I think you said that Congress should take the lead on it. I'm just saying, does the administration --

MR. SNOW: Well, you're asking me to respond to a question about a characterization made by a county official about a conversation with ICE. It's something for which I have no firsthand factual support.

I'll tell you what the President remains committed to, which is immigration reform that allows us, number one, to find out who is here legally and who is here illegally; number two, to go after employers who willingly and knowingly shield and employ illegal immigrants; number three, really, the first -- let me make those numbers two and three -- number one, secure the border, obviously. And number four is to come up with a temporary worker program that not only relieves pressure on the border but makes sure that people who come here to work do so legally.

And, finally, the President realizes that in Prince William County and elsewhere, people are going to be confronting issues about whether people are here legally or illegally. Those are fairly complex issues, and you need to come up with a coordinated, nationwide way of so doing.

Q Thank you. END 12:56 P.M. EDT

Y Yes You Can.Com ©

Have a Y YES YOU CAN DAY, WEEK, YEAR! ©

News/Weather/Airport Info

Feb. News 2018

Jan News 2018

Dec. / Nov. News 2017

Sept./Oct. News 2017

August News 2017

August News 2012.

July News 2012

June News 2012.

May News 2012.

April News 2012.

March News 2012.

February News 2012.

January News 2012

GOP 2012

December News 2011.

November News 2011

October News 2011

September News 2011

August News 2011

July News 2011.

June News 2011.

May News 2011

April News 2011.

March News 2011

Feb. News 2011

January News 2011.

December News 2010.

November News 2010.

October News 2010

September News 2010

August News 2010

July News 2010.

June News 2010.

May News 2010.

April News 2010.

March News 2010

February News 2010.

January News 2010.

AUTO / TRUCK SHOPPING

MOTORCYCLE / SCOOTER

CDL TRUCKS

Jobs

YYYC Deliver

Real Estate/ R.E. News

Real Estate

FHA 2007 News

HUD 2007 News

Mortgage Stats

Mortgage Avg. Stats

Financial / Business

Past Market Data

Financial Bail Out Plan

Tax / IRS Jan. News

Taxes

Music/Bands/Media

You Can Records

YYesYouCan TV Show

YYYC Radio Show

Radio

12 Nights

U.S. WARS

Veteran Info.

Book Shelf

Consumer Recalls

FOOD - Groceries

RESTAURANTS

Oil Facts

PET SHOP

International Figures

International

Law / Legal Eagle

Sup.Ct. Justice Sotomayer

African Americans

KWANZAA

Slavery in the U.S.A.

Louis Farrakhan

Eugene Sawyer