Replies

Bush: Last night I addressed the nation about our strategy for victory in Iraq and the historic elections that took place in the country last week.

In a nation that once lived by the whims of a brutal dictator, the Iraqi people now enjoy constitutionally protected freedoms and their leaders now derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Millions of Iraqis are looking forward to a future with hope and optimism.

The Iraqi people still face many challenges. This is the first time the Iraqis are forming a government under their new constitution. The Iraqi constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the parliament for certain top officials, so the formation of the new government will take time as Iraqis work to build consensus.

And once the new Iraqi government assumes office, Iraq's new leaders will face many important decisions on issues such as security and reconstruction, economic reform and national unity.

The work ahead will require the patience of the Iraqi people and the patience and support of America and our coalition partners.

As I said last night, this election does not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: a constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East.

And we will keep working toward our goal of a democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

Our mission in Iraq is critical to victory in the global war on terror. After our country was attacked on September the 11th, and nearly 3,000 lives were lost, I vowed to do everything within my power to bring justice to those who were responsible.

I also pledged to the American people to do everything within my power to prevent this from happening again.

What we quickly learned was that al Qaeda was not a conventional enemy. Some lived in our cities and communities and communicated from here in America to plot and plan with bin Laden's lieutenants in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Then they boarded our airplanes and launched the worst attack on our country in our nation's history.

This new threat required us to think and act differently. And as the 9/11 Commission pointed out, to prevent this from happening again, we need to connect the dots before the enemy attacks, not after. And we need to recognize that dealing with al Qaeda is not simply a matter of law enforcement: It requires defending the country against an enemy that declared war against the United States of America.

As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it.

And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda.

After September the 11th, one question my administration had to answer was, using the authorities I have, how do we effectively detect enemies hiding in our midst and prevent them from striking us again?

We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks.

So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorize the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.

This program is carefully reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure it is being used properly. Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this program.

And it has been effective in disrupting the enemy while safeguarding our civil liberties. This program has targeted those with known links to al Qaeda.

I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens.

Another vital tool in the war on terror is the Patriot Act. After September the 11th, Congress acted quickly and responsibly by passing this law, which provides our law enforcement and intelligence community key tools to prevent attacks in our country.

The Patriot Act tore down the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist threats. It allows federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools already used against other types of criminals.

America's law enforcement personnel have used this critical tool to prosecute terrorist operatives and their supporters and to break up cells here in America.

Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in 12 days. The House of Representatives voted for reauthorization, but last week a minority of senators filibustered the Patriot Act, blocking the Senate from voting to reauthorize key provisions of this vital law.

In fact, the Senate Democratic leader boasted to a group of political supporters that the Senate Democrats had, quote, "killed the Patriot Act," end quote.

Most of the senators now filibustering the Patriot Act actually voted for it in 2001. These senators need to explain why they thought the Patriot Act was a vital tool after the September the 11th attacks but now think it's no longer necessary.

The terrorists want to strike America again. And they hope to inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. Congress has a responsibility to give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools the need to protect the American people.

The senators who are filibustering the Patriot Act must stop their delaying tactics and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

As we fight the war on terror, we're also continuing to work to build prosperity for citizens. Because we cut taxes and restrained nonsecurity spending, our economy is strong and it is getting stronger.

We added 215,000 new jobs in November. We've added nearly 4.5 million new jobs since May of 2003.

The unemployment rate is down to 5 percent; lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Despite hurricanes and high gas prices, third-quarter growth was 4.3 percent. More Americans own their own homes than at any time in our history. Inflation is low, productivity is high and consumer confidence is up.

We're heading into a new year with an economy that is the envy of the world. And we have every reason to be optimistic about our economic future.

We've made other important progress this year on the priorities of American families. We passed a good energy bill, and we're putting America on the path to make our economy less dependent on foreign sources of oil.

We were wise with taxpayers' money and cut nonsecurity discretionary spending below last year's level. We passed the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement to open up markets and help level the playing field for America's workers and farmers and small businesses. We passed bankruptcy reform and class-action lawsuit reform.

I appointed John Roberts as the 17th chief justice of the United States. Chief Justice Roberts is poised to lead the Supreme Court with integrity and prudence for decades to come.

We've got more work to do in this coming year. To keep our economy growing we need to keep taxes low and make the tax relief permanent. We must restrain government spending. And I'm pleased that the House today has voted to rein in entitlement spending by $40 billion, and I urge the United States Senate to join them.

We must reduce junk lawsuits and strengthen our education system and give more Americans the ability to obtain affordable health insurance.

We must pass comprehensive immigration reform that protects our borders, strengthens enforcement and creates a new temporary worker program that relieves pressure on the border but rejects amnesty.

I look forward to the Senate holding an up-or-down vote on Judge Sam Alito and confirming him by January 20th as associate justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Alito has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years. He's a highly respected and principled jurist. And he will make our nation proud as a member of the high court.

As we prepare to spend time with our families this holiday season, we also stop to count our blessings. We're thankful for our courageous men and women in uniform who are spending the holidays away from loved ones standing watch for liberty in distant lands.

We give thanks for our military families, who love and support them in their vital work and who also serve our country.

And we pray for the families of the fallen heroes. We hold them in our hearts and we lift them up in our prayers and we pledge that the sacrifice of their loved ones will never be forgotten.

BUSH: I'd be glad to answer some questions.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?

BUSH: Let me start with the first question.

There's a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward.

My personal opinion is it was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in time of war.

The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.

You've got to understand, and I hope the American people understand, there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they're very dangerous.

And, you know, the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust.

Now, I can understand you asking these questions. And if I were you, I'd be asking me these questions too.

But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.

Let me give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or may not be happening.

In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak.

And guess what happened. Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated.

We're at war. And we must protect America's secrets. And so, the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation.

I haven't ordered one. But, as I understand, there's, kind of, a natural progression that will take place when this kind of a leak emerges.

The second part of the question is -- sorry; I gave a long answer.

QUESTION: It was: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

BUSH: First of all, right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want.

We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker, and that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still. You're referring to the FISA accord in your question. Of course we use FISAs.

But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

And having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely.

As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you have hailed the Iraqi elections as a success. But some lawmakers say you are not focusing on the threat of civil war.

Do you fear a civil war? And how hard will you push Iraq's competing political parties to get a government and a constitutional compromise?

BUSH: No, I appreciate that.

We look at all contingencies, but my optimism about a unified Iraq moving forward was confirmed when over 10 million people went to the polls under a -- and voted for a constitutional -- a government under the new constitution.

I mean, constitutions tend to bind societies.

Now, there are some things we've got to watch, for certain.

One is, we've got to help the Iraqi government best as they need help to stand up a government as quickly as possible. In other words, we're urging them: "Don't delay. Move as quickly as you can. Solve the -- you know, get the political parties -- once the vote is completed, get the political parties together and come up with a government."

And it's going to take a while, because, first of all, the ballots won't be fully counted, I guess, until early January.

And then, as I mentioned in my remarks, it takes a two-thirds vote to seat certain officials. Sometimes it's hard to achieve a two-thirds vote in legislative bodies. How about the Senate, for example?

(LAUGHTER)

But, nevertheless, it's going to take a while.

And the American people have got to understand that we think in terms of elections. Most of our elections end the day after the election. Sometimes they don't.

(LAUGHTER)

And so you're going to see a lot of give and take, and it's important for us to get this process moving forward.

Secondly, there is an opportunity to amend the constitution. You remember that was part of the deal with the Iraqis in order to get this process moving. And we'll want to make sure we're monitoring and involved with that part.

In other words, involvement doesn't mean telling the sovereignty government what to do. Involvement means giving advice as to how to move forward so a country becomes more unified.

And I'm very optimistic about the way forward for the Iraqi people. And the reason why is based on the fact that the Iraqis have shown incredible courage.

Think about what has happened in a brief period of time -- relatively brief. I know with all the TV stations and stuff in America, two and a half years seems like an eternity. But in the march of history, it's not all that long. They have gone from tyranny to an amazing election last December (sic).

If I'd've stood up here a year ago in one of my many press conferences and told you that, "Next year I make this prediction to you: that over 10 million Iraqis, including many Sunnis, will vote for a permanent government," I think you probably would have said, "There he goes again."

But it happened. And it happened because the Iraqis want to live in a free society.

And what's important about his election is that Iraq will become an ally in the war on terror and Iraq will serve as a beacon for what is possible, a beacon of freedom in a part of the world that is desperate for freedom and liberty.

And, as I say in my speeches, a free Iraq will serve as such a optimistic and hopeful example for reformers, from Tehran to Damascus. And that's an important part of a strategy to help lay the foundation of peace for generations.

QUESTION: So many questions, so little time.

BUSH: Well, keep your questions short, then.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: I'll do my best, sir.

(LAUGHTER)

Sir, you've shown a remarkable spirit of candor in the last couple of weeks in your conversations, speeches about Iraq. And I'm wondering if, in that spirit, I might ask you a question that you didn't seem to have an answer for the last time you were asked.

And that is: What would you say is the biggest mistake you've made during your presidency, and what have you learned from it?

BUSH: Answering Dickerson's question.

The last time those questions were asked, I really felt like it was an attempt for me to say it was a mistake to go into Iraq.

And it wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq. It was the right decision to make.

I think that there's going to be a lot of analysis done on the decisions on the ground in Iraq. For example, I'm fully aware that some have said it was a mistake not to put enough troops there immediately -- or more troops.

I made my decision based upon the recommendations of Tommy Frank. And I still think it was the right decision to make. But history will judge.

I said the other day that a mistake was trying to train a civilian defense force and an Iraqi army at the same time, but not giving the civilian defense force enough training and tools necessary to be able to battle a group of thugs and killers.

And so we adjusted.

And the point I'm trying to make to the American people in this, as you said, candid dialogue -- I hope I've been candid all along -- but, the candid dialogue, is to say we're constantly changing our tactics to meet the changing tactics of an enemy. And that's important for our citizens to understand.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

If you believe that present law needs to be faster, more agile, concerning the surveillance of conversations from someone in the United States to somewhere outside the country, why, in the four years since 9/11, has your administration not sought to get changes in the law instead of bypassing it, as some of your critics have said?

BUSH: I appreciate that.

First, I want to make it clear to the people listening that this program is limited in nature to those that are known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates.

That's important. So it's a program that's limited.

And you brought up something that I want to stress, and that is is that these calls are not intercepted within the country, they are from outside the country to in the country or vice versa. So in other words, if you're calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that.

I think I've got the authority to move forward. I mean, this is what -- and the attorney general was out briefing this morning about why it's legal to make the decisions I make.

I can fully understand why members of Congress are expressing concerns about civil liberties. I know that. And I share the same concerns.

I want to make sure the American people understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and we're doing that and at the time protecting your civil liberties.

Secondly, an open debate about law would say to the enemy, "Here's what we're going to do." And this is an enemy which adjusts.

We monitor this program carefully. We have consulted with members of the Congress over a dozen times. We are constantly reviewing the program. Those of us who review the program have a duty to uphold the laws of the United States. And we take that duty very seriously.

QUESTION: You say you have an obligation to protect us. Then why not monitor those calls between Houston and L.A.? If the threat is so great and you use the same logic, why not monitor those calls?

Americans thought they weren't being spied on in calls overseas; why not within the country if the threat is so great?

BUSH: We will, under current law, if we have to. We will monitor those calls.

And that's why there is a FISA law. We will apply for the right to do so.

And there's a difference...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Let me finish.

There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to note the distinction between the two.

QUESTION: But preventing is one thing. And you say the FISA laws essentially don't work because of the speed in monitoring calls overseas.

BUSH: I say we use the FISA courts to monitor calls. It's a very important tool and we do use it. I just wanted to make sure we've got all tools at our disposal.

This is an enemy which is quick and it's lethal. And sometimes we have to move very, very quickly. But if there is a need based upon evidence, we will take that evidence to a court in order to be able to monitor calls within the United States.

QUESTION: Democrats have said that you have acted beyond the law and that you've even broken the law. There are some Republicans who are calling for congressional hearings and even an independent investigation.

Are you willing to go before members of Congress and explain this eavesdropping program? And do you support an independent investigation?

BUSH: We have been talking to members of the United States Congress. We have met with them over 12 times. And it's important for them to be brought into this process.

Again, I repeat, I understand people's concerns. But I also want to assure the American people that I am doing what you expect me to do, which is to safeguard civil liberties and at the same time protect the United States of America.

And we've explained the authorities under which I'm making our decisions and will continue to do so.

Secondly, there are two committees on the Hill which are responsible, and that's the Intelligence Committees. Again, any public hearings on programs will say to the enemy, "Here's what they do. Adjust."

This is a war. Of course we consult with Congress and have been consulting with Congress. And we'll continue to do so.

QUESTION: You've talked about your decision to go to war and the bad intelligence. And you've carefully separated the intelligence from the decision, saying that it was the right decision to go to war despite the problems with the intelligence, sir.

But, with respect, the intelligence helped you build public support for the war. And so, I wonder if now, as you look back, if you look at that intelligence and feel that the intelligence and your use of it might bear some responsibility for the current divisions in the country over the war.

And what can you do about it?

BUSH: Yeah. No, I appreciate that.

First of all, I can understand why people were -- you say, "Well, wait a minute: Everybody thought there was weapons of mass destruction; there weren't any." I felt the same way.

We'd looked at the intelligence and felt certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You know, intelligence agencies around the world felt the same way, by the way.

Members of the United States Congress looked at the National Intelligence Estimate, the same intelligence estimate I looked at, and came to the same conclusion.

So in other words, there was a universal feeling that he had weapons of mass destruction. As a matter of fact, it was so universal that the United Nations Security Council passed numerous resolutions.

And so, when the weapons weren't there, like many Americans, I was concerned and wondered why.

That's why we set up the Silberman-Robb commission, to address intelligence shortfalls, to hopefully see to it that this kind of situation didn't arise.

Now, having said all that, what we did find after the war was that Saddam Hussein had the desire to -- or the liberation -- Saddam had the desire to reconstitute his weapons programs. In other words, he had the capacity to reconstitute them.

America was still his enemy. And, of course, he manipulated the oil-for-food program in the hopes of ending sanctions. In our view, he was just waiting for the world to turn its head, to look away, in order to reconstitute the programs.

He was dangerous then. It's the right decision to have removed Saddam.

Now, I will continue to speak to the American people on this issue, to not only describe the decision-making process but also the way forward.

I gave a speech prior to the liberation of Iraq when I talked about a broader strategic objective, which is the establishment of democracy, and I talked about democracy in Iraq.

Certainly, it's not the only rationale. I'm not claiming that. But I also want you to review that speech so that you get a sense for not only the desire to remove a threat but also the desire to help establish democracy.

And the amazing thing in Iraq, as a part of a broader strategy to help what I call lay the foundation of peace: democracies don't war; democracies are peaceful countries.

And what you're seeing now is a historic moment, because I believe democracies will spread. I believe when people get the taste for freedom or see a neighbor with a taste for freedom, they will demand the same thing, because I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe everybody has the desire to be free.

I recognize some don't believe that. That was -- basically condemned some to tyranny. I strongly believe that deep in everybody's soul is the desire to live in liberty, and if given a chance, they will choose that path.

And it's not easy to do that. The other day I gave a speech and talked about how our road to our Constitution -- which got amended shortly after it was approved -- pretty bumpy. We tried the Articles of Confederation; it didn't work. There was a lot of, kind of, civil unrest.

But nevertheless, deep in the soul are a desire to live in liberty. People have got the patience and the steadfastness to achieve that objective. And that is what we're seeing in Iraq.

And it's not going to be easy. It's still going to be hard, because we're getting rid of decades of bitterness.

You find these secret, you know, prisons, where people have been tortured; you know, that's unacceptable.

And yet there are some who still want to have retribution against people who harmed them.

I'll tell you an amazing story; at least I thought it was amazing.

We had people, first-time voters -- or voters in the Iraqi election come in to see me in the Oval. They had just voted that day and they came in. It was exciting to talk to people.

And one person said, "How come you're giving Saddam Hussein a trial?"

I said, "First of all, it's your government, not ours."

She said, "He doesn't deserve a trial. You know, he deserves immediate death for what he did to my people."

And it just struck me about how strongly she felt about the need to not have a rule of law, that there needed to be quick retribution, that he didn't deserve it.

And I said to her, "Don't you see that the trial itself stands in such contrast to the tyrant that that in itself is a victory for freedom and a defeat for tyranny, just the trial alone, and it's important that there be rule of law?"

My only point to you is there's a lot of work to get rid of the past, yet we're headed in the right direction. And it's an exciting moment in history.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment, according to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern. And it can be applied retroactively.

Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

BUSH: We used the process to monitor.

But also, this is a different era, different war. It's a war where people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent.

I keep saying that. But this is -- it requires quick action.

And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and three, we're guarding your civil liberties.

And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NASA (sic), the legal team as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress.

This is a part of our effort to protect the American people.

American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job.

QUESTION: Following up on Wendell's question about the intelligence failures ahead of Iraq, one of the side effects appears to have been that the United States has lost some credibility with its allies when it goes to them with new intelligence.

You, for example, or your administration, has been sharing with some of your allies the contents of a laptop computer that was found in Iran concerning their nuclear program.

Yet you are still...

BUSH: Is that classified?

No. Never mind.

QUESTION: Yet you are still having some difficulty convincing people that Iran has a nuclear program.

Can you tell us whether or not you think one of the side effects of the intelligence failure has been that it has limited your ability to deal with future threats like Iran, like North Korea or any other future threats concerning terrorists?

BUSH: I hate to admit it, but that's an excellent question.

(LAUGHTER)

No question that the intelligence failure on weapons of mass destruction caused all intelligence services to have to step back and re-evaluate the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence. No doubt about that.

And so, there's been a lot of work done to work with other intelligence agencies to share information about what went right and what went wrong, as well as to build credibility among all services.

I think where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena. People will say, you know, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, you know, "Well, the intelligence failed in Iraq; therefore, how can we can trust the intelligence in Iran?"

And part of the reason why there needs to be a public message on this is because the first hope and the first step is a diplomatic effort to get the Iranians to comply with the demands of the free world.

If they don't, along the diplomatic path, there's always the United Nations Security Council.

But that case of beginning to say to the Iranians, "There are consequences for not behaving," requires people to believe that the Iranian nuclear program is, to a certain extent, ongoing.

And so we're working hard on that. I mean, it's no question that the credibility of intelligence is necessary for good diplomacy.

QUESTION: Do you intend to make that case publicly, sir? (OFF- MIKE) laid out the evidence on Iran before?

BUSH: Well, I think that the best place to make the case now is still in the counsels of government; in convincing the E.U.-3, for example, to continue working the diplomatic angle. Of course we want this to be solved diplomatically, and we want the Iranians to hear a unified voice.

I think people believe that -- I know this: People know that an Iran with the capacity to manufacture a nuclear weapon is not in the world's interest.

That's universally accepted.

And that should be accepted universally, particularly after what the president recently said about the desire to annihilate, for example, an ally of the United States.

And so, the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is -- people say, "Well, we can't let that happen."

The next step is to make sure that the world understands that the capacity to enrich uranium for a civilian program would lead to a weapons program. And so therefore, we cannot allow the Iranians to have the capacity to enrich.

More to come