juliadollis/QEvasion_test_predictions_two_models

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-3

14

Q. You said yesterday in your statement that the North Korean nuclear test was unacceptable. Your chief negotiator for the six-party talks said last week that North Korea has a choice of either having weapons or having a future. When you spoke a month or so ago to the American Legion, you talked about Iran and said, There must be consequences for Iran's defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. I am wondering, sir— your administration has issued these kinds of warnings pretty regularly over the last 5 years, and yet these countries have pursued their nuclear programs. I'm wondering if you—what is different about the current set of warnings, and do you think the administration and our Government runs a risk of looking feckless to the world by issuing these kinds of warnings regularly without response from the countries?

That's a fair question. First of all, I am making it clear our policy hasn't changed. It's important for the folks to understand that we don't continually shift our goals based upon polls or whatever. See, I think clarity of purpose is very important to rally a diplomatic effort to solve the problem. And so I try to speak as clearly as I can and make sure there's no ambiguity in our position. I also found that's a pretty good way to help rally a diplomatic effort that I believe will more likely work.I know this sounds—I'm just saying it over and over again, but it's—rhetoric and actions are all aimed at convincing others that they have an equal stake in whether or not these nations have a nuclear weapon, because I firmly believe, Mike, that that is the best strategy to solve the problem. One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards. It is much easier for a nation to hear what I believe are legitimate demands if there's more than one voice speaking. And that's why we're doing what we're doing.And to answer your question as to whether or not the words will be empty, I would suggest that, quite the contrary, that we not only have spoken about the goals, but as a result of working together with our friends, Iran and North Korea are looking at a different diplomatic scenario.I thought you were going to ask the question, following up on Sanger, how come you don't use military action now? You kind of hinted it; you didn't say it. And some wonder that. As a matter of fact, I'm asked questions around the country— just go ahead and use the military. And my answer is, is that I believe the Commander in Chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military. And I believe the diplomacy is—we're making progress when we've got others at the table.I'll ask myself a followup. If that's the case, why did you use military action in Iraq? And the reason why is because we tried the diplomacy. Matter of fact, we tried resolution after resolution after resolution. All these situations are—each of them different and require a different response, a different effort to try to solve this peacefully. And we'll continue to do so.The inability to convince people to move forward speaks volumes about them. It ought to say to all the world that we're dealing with people that maybe don't want peace—which, in my judgment, in order for there to be peace, requires an international response. It says volumes about a person who signs an agreement with one administration and signs an agreement or speaks about an agreement with another administration and doesn't honor the agreement. It points up the fact that these are dangerous regimes and requires an international effort to work in concert.Roger [Roger Runningen, Bloomberg News].

null

What is different about the current set of warnings?

null

Implicit

Explicit

false

290

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-5

11

Q. Thanks. Let me ask you about Presidential pardons. Last week, you issued 17 of them. That brought the number of pardons you've issued in your Presidency to 97, and that's far fewer than most of your recent predecessors, except your dad. And I want to ask you, do you consider yourself to be stingy when it comes to pardons? What is your philosophy on granting Presidential pardons?

You know, I don't have the criterion in front of me, Mark, but we have a strict criterion that we utilize—we being the Justice Department and the White House Counsel. And I, frankly, haven't compared the number of pardons I've given, to any other President. Perhaps I should. But I don't think a scorecard should, necessarily, be the guidepost for pardoning people.McKinnon [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal]. I'm going to go to you, Jackson [David Jackson, USA Today], and kind of work around.

null

Do you consider yourself to be stingy when it comes to pardons?

null

Implicit

General

false

157

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-john-w-howard-australia-sydney

4

Q. Okay. So is the administration at this time trying to play it both ways by appeasing the critics, suggesting that troop withdrawal is right around the corner, at the same time making no real commitments?

Suzanne, I think I went on to say on Air Force One, if I recall, somewhere between Baghdad and Sydney, that, why don't we all just wait and see what David Petraeus says when he comes— General Petraeus, when he comes back to America. He and Ambassador Crocker are going to come back, and they're going to report to me and report to the Congress and the American people about their recommendations on the way forward. I will then take their recommendations into account as I develop the strategy necessary to win in Iraq.That's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in artificial timetables or dates of withdrawal; I'm interested in achieving objective. I repeat: If you think it's not important that we're there, then you're going to find excuses to get out. If you think it is important to be there, then you ought to be thinking about ways to achieve our objectives. And we are achieving our objectives.And so I was being as candid as I could with the people on the airplane. And what I said in Baghdad was exactly what they told me: That if conditions still improve, security conditions still improve the way they have been improving, is that we may be able to provide the same security with fewer troops. And whether or not that's the part of the policy I announce to the Nation when I get back from this trip, after the Congress has been briefed on David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker—why don't we see what they say—and then I'll let you know what our position is and what our strategy is. Dennis [Dennis Shanahan, The Australian].

null

Is the administration at this time trying to play it both ways by appeasing the critics, suggesting that troop withdrawal is right around the corner, at the same time making no real commitments?

null

General

false

217

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1135

8

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, was recently asked by New York Times columnist David Brooks if knowing what he knows now, invading Iraq was a good idea. And I believe your Defense Secretary answered, I don't know. Does that represent daylight with you? Is that second-guessing? Have you spoken to the Defense Secretary? And does that change your mind at all?

I think he made it pretty clear the removal of Saddam—I don't know about this column, but I know his previous statements, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision. But I haven't talked to him about the column. If I had to ask everybody in my Government to respond to columns and news stories, that's all I'd be doing, is talking to people in my Government.I am absolutely convinced Secretary Gates knows that removing Saddam was the right thing, and I'm absolutely convinced he believes we will succeed in . And so I've got a lot of trust in the man. He's doing a fine job as the Secretary.Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News].

null

Potential impact on the President's viewpoint

null

Implicit

false

true

40

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-tony-blair-the-united-kingdom-0

1

Q. Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, with support apparently growing among the Arab population, both Shi'a and Sunni, for Hizballah by bounds, is there a risk that every day that goes by without a cease-fire will tip this conflict into a wider war?And, Mr. President, when Secretary Rice goes back to the region, will she have any new instructions, such as meeting with Syrians?

Her instructions are to work with Israel and Lebanon to get a— to come up with an acceptable U.N. Security Council resolution that we can table next week. And secondly, it's really important for people to understand that terrorists are trying to stop the advance of freedom, and therefore, it's essential that we do what's right and not necessarily what appears to be immediately popular.There's a lot of suffering in Lebanon because Hizballah attacked Israel. There's a lot of suffering in the Palestinian Territory because militant Hamas is trying to stop the advance of democracy. There is suffering in Iraq because terrorists are trying to spread sectarian violence and stop the spread of democracy. And now is the time for the free world to work to create the conditions so that people everywhere can have hope.And those are the stakes; that's what we face right now. We've got a plan to deal with this immediate crisis. It's one of the reasons the Prime Minister came, to talk about that plan. But the stakes are larger than just Lebanon.Isn't it interesting, that when Prime Minister Olmert starts to reach out to President Abbas to develop a Palestinian state, militant Hamas creates the conditions so that there's crisis, and then Hizballah follows up? Isn't it interesting, as a democracy takes hold in Iraq, that Al Qaida steps up its efforts to murder and bomb in order to stop the democracy?And so one of the things that the people in the Middle East must understand is that we're working to create the conditions of hope and opportunity for all of them. And we'll continue to do that, Tom. That's— this is the challenge of the 21st century. It's very obvious what the strategy of terrorism is, and of the actions that Hizballah took. Their strategy is to commit an outrage that provokes a reaction and then on the back of the reaction, to mobilize extreme elements and then try and create a situation which even moderate people feel drawn to their cause. That's the strategy.And you, quite rightly, say, Well, isn't there a danger that the Arab street and people in Arab Muslim countries become more sympathetic to Hizballah as a result of what's happened? That is their strategy. How do we counter it? We counter it, one, by having our own strategy to bring the immediate crisis to an end, which we do. That is what is important about the Secretary of State visiting the region, getting an agreement, tabling it to the United Nations, getting the endorsement of the United Nations, having an international stabilization force to move into the situation. We've got to deal with the immediate situation.But then, as the President was saying a moment or two ago, we've then got to realize what has happened in the past few weeks is not an isolated incident. It is part of a bigger picture. Now, I'm going to say some more things about this in the days to come, but we really will never understand how we deal with this situation unless we understand that there is a big picture out in the Middle East which is about reactionary and terrorist groups trying to stop what the vast majority of people in the Middle East want, which is progress towards democracy, liberty, human rights, the same as the rest of us.Now, that's the battle that's going on. And, yes, it is always very difficult when something like this happens, as it has happened over the past few weeks. So we've got to resolve the immediate situation, but we shouldn't be in any doubt at all, that will be a temporary respite unless we put in place the longer-term framework.

null

New instructions for Secretary Rice's visit to the region

null

Explicit

Implicit

false

true

37

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-3

2

Q. Senator Warner says Iraq appears to be drifting sideways, and James Baker says a change in strategy may be needed. Are you willing to acknowledge that a change may be needed?

Steve, we're constantly changing tactics to achieve a strategic goal. Our strategic goal is a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself. The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend a caliphate.The stakes couldn't be any higher, as I said earlier, in the world in which we live. There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives. And they want us to leave, and they want us to—and they want to topple government. They want to extend an ideological caliphate that is—has no concept of liberty inherent in their beliefs. They want to control oil resources, and they want to plot and plan and attack us again. That's their objectives. And so— and our strategic objective is to prevent them from doing that. And we're constantly changing tactics to achieve that objective.And I appreciate Senator Warner going over there and taking a look. I want you to notice, what he did say is, if the plan is now not working—the plan that's in place isn't working, America needs to adjust. I completely agree. That's what I talk to General Casey about. I said, General, the Baghdad security plan is in its early implementation. I support you strongly, but if you come into this office and say we need to do something differently, I support you. If you need more troops, I support you. If you're going to devise a new strategy, we're with you, because I trust General Casey to make the judgments necessary to put the tactics in place to help us achieve an objective.And I appreciate Jimmy Baker—willingness to—he and Lee Hamilton are putting this—have got a group they put together that I think was Congressman Wolf's suggestion—or passing the law. We supported the idea. I think it's good to have some of our elder statesmen—I hate to call Baker an elder statesmen—but to go over there and take a look and to come back and make recommendations. Somebody said he said, Well, you know, cut-and-run isn't working. That's not our policy. Our policy is to help this country succeed, because I understand the stakes. And I'm going to repeat them one more time. As a matter of fact, I'm going to spend a lot of time repeating the stakes about what life is like in the Middle East.It is conceivable that there will be a world in which radical forms, extreme forms of religion fight each other for influence in the Middle East, in which they've got the capacity to use oil as an economic weapon. And when you throw in the mix a nuclear weapon in the hands of a sworn enemy of the United States, you begin to see an environment that would cause some later on in history to look back and say, How come they couldn't see the problem? What happened to them in the year 2006? Why weren't they able to see the problems now and deal with them before it came too late?, Steve.And so Iraq is an important part of dealing with this problem. And my vow to the American people is, I understand the stakes, and I understand what it would mean for us to leave before the job is done. And I look forward to listening how—what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton say about how to get the job done. I appreciate them working on this issue because I think they understand what I know, and the stakes are high.And the stakes are high when it comes to developing a Palestinian state so that Israel can live at peace. And the stakes are high when it comes to making sure the young democracy of Lebanon is able to fend off the extremists and radicals that want to crater that democracy.This is the real challenge of the 21st century. I like to tell people we're in an ideological struggle. And it's a struggle between extremists and radicals and people of moderation who want to simply live a peaceful life. And the calling of this country and in this century is whether or not we will help the forces of moderation prevail. That's the fundamental question facing the United States of America—beyond my Presidency. And you can tell I made my choice. And I made my choice because the most solemn duty of the American President and government is to protect this country from harm.Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News]. Yes. I'm sure it was a profound followup. Okay.

null

Are you willing to acknowledge that a change may be needed?

null

Deflection

General

Implicit

false

14

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1133

28

Q. One more on veterans, sir?

Go ahead—he hasn't asked his question yet. I rudely interrupted him.The Presidency/Cooperation With Congress/

null

Request for permission to ask another question on veterans.

null

Explicit

General

Explicit

false

true

60

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-5

2

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Iran has indicated that it will defy the U.N. on nuclear enrichment. It's been holding military exercises, sending weapons and money to Hizballah. Isn't Tehran's influence in the region growing despite your efforts to curb it?

The final history in the region has yet to be written. And what's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and the violence in and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy. They're trying to thwart the will of millions who simply want a normal, hopeful life. That's what we're seeing. And it's up to the international community to understand the threat.I remember, right after Hizballah launched its rocket attacks on Israel, I said, this is a clarifying moment. It's a chance for the world to see the threats of the 21st century, the challenge we face.And so to answer your question on Iran, Iran is obviously part of the problem. They sponsor Hizballah. They encourage a radical brand of Islam. Imagine how difficult this issue would be if Iran had a nuclear weapon. And so therefore, it's up to the international community, including the United States, to work in concert to—for effective diplomacy. And that begins at the United Nations Security Council.We have passed one Security Council resolution, demanding that Iran cease its enrichment activities. We will see what their response is. We're beginning to get some indication, but we'll—let's wait until they have a formal response. The U.N. resolution calls for us to come back together on the 31st of August. The dates—dates are fine, but what really matters is will. And one of the things I will continue to remind our friends and allies is the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.But, no, you're right; this is a—they're a central part of creating instability, trying to stop reformers from realizing dreams. And the question facing this country is, will—do we, one, understand the threat to America? In other words, do we understand that a failed—failed states in the Middle East are a direct threat to our country's security? And secondly, will we continue to stay engaged in helping reformers, in working to advance liberty, to defeat an ideology that doesn't believe in freedom? And my answer is, so long as I'm the President, we will. I clearly see the challenge. I see the challenge to what these threats pose to our homeland, and I see the challenge—what these threats pose to the world.Helen [Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers]. [] What's so funny about me saying Helen? [] It's the anticipation of your question, I guess.

null

Isn't Tehran's influence in the region growing despite your efforts to curb it?

null

Implicit

false

9

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-vladimir-v-putin-russia-strelna-russia

2

Q. Have you discussed proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile delivery, and what are the results of your talks?

We sure have. We talked about our concerns about developing a nuclear weapon or having the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, and we talked about North Korea. And the results of our talks are that we agree that we've got to work together to send a common message to both that there is a better way forward for these leaders.And so we're working with Russia and our partners to develop Security Council resolutions that will send a clear message. One thing is for certain, that if the ians see that the United States and Russia are working together on this issue, they'll understand the seriousness of our intent.And so we spent time talking about the issue—sure did. We understand that a grave threat that faces countries like America and Russia would be—is the ability of a terrorist organization to end up with a weapon of mass destruction. Both nations have had to deal with terrorism; both nations know what it's like to see people blown up. Russia suffered through one of the most horrible terrorist incidents in modern mankind, which is Beslan, where terrorists are willing to kill young children to achieve political objectives. And the President and I understand that when you make that kind of attitude with a weapon of mass destruction, you could be talking about greater catastrophe. And so we spent a lot of time talking about it.I think relations between the United States and Russia are very good. There's a lot of skeptics on both sides of the equation as to whether or not the relationship is good. We've got people in Russia questioning U.S. motives, people in America questioning Russian motives. But that's what happens when you have—when you're big nations that have got influence, where you've got leaders willing to make tough decisions. And I would characterize, from my perspective, that our relationship is strong and necessary. That's the point I want to make to you, that a strong relationship will make the world a better place, in my judgment, because we'll be better able to confront the current problems that face us all. I have already mentioned that we will not participate in any crusades, in any holy alliances. This is true. I reaffirm our position in this matter. But our common goal is to make the world a more secure place, and certainly we'll be working with all our partners, including the United States, in order to address this problem. It is for this reason that we are joining our efforts with other G-8 countries.And I have to say that this is not some kind of plot against a particular country, where a certain problem emerges, be it missile or nuclear proliferation. We are seeking not only for the possibility of controlling this or that process; we are seeking opportunities for ensuring their legal access to nuclear technology. It is to this end that we have adopted our joint initiative on the creation of international centers for uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. These are not unilateral actions aimed at trying to block somebody's access to something. This is a search for solutions that could ensure development in the world, at the same time would make the development secure in terms of nuclear nonproliferation and missile nonproliferation.We're satisfied with the level of exchanges at the working level, which we have achieved in terms of bilateral cooperation. At the summit's end, in the context of the U.N. Security Council, we will continue our work tonight and tomorrow in the course of our discussion with our partners who are arriving in St. Petersburg.

null

Discussing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile delivery

null

Explicit

false

true

146

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-vladimir-v-putin-russia-strelna-russia

4

Q. I apologize, but I would like to follow up on the question of my U.S. colleague. Could you speak at greater detail? You have discussed the Iranian nuclear issue in terms of what has happened before and what may happen in the future. There is now the situation with the Iranian nuclear issue. How do you see it as of now? And most importantly, what are we to expect in the future?

——progress, because Russia and the United States agree that should not have a nuclear weapon. In other words, the ians need to understand that we're speaking with one voice that they shouldn't have a weapon, and that's progress.You see, my judgment is they're testing the resolve of the parties to determine whether or not we really are resolved to work together to prevent them from having a weapon. And the clearer they hear a message, the better off—or the closer we'll be to them recognizing there's a better way forward. See, we've made our choice, and that's progress. We've agreed to work together to achieve a common goal. That's considerable progress.And now the choice is theirs to make. I have said the United States will change our posture on this issue if the ian Government does what they've already said they would do, which is to verifiably suspend their enrichment program, at which point, if they do so, we will come to the negotiating table. We will sit side by side.Right now we're negotiating together to send a common message. We will come to the table. It's their choice to make, however. There is a better way forward for the ian people than to be isolated because of their Government's actions. And so I would say that we've made good progress on the issue. I can see that members of the Russian and U.S. press have colluded and are tormenting us with the same kind of questions. [] An old colluder, but a colluder.

null

How do you see the situation with the Iranian nuclear issue as of now?

null

Explicit

false

66

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-3

12

Q. Do you feel in some way that there is some shift going on in terms of the general support for the war in Iraq and your strategy specifically? And do you ever feel like the walls are closing in on you in terms of support for this?

[] Jim, I understand how hard it is, and I also understand the stakes. And let me go back to Senator Warner. Senator Warner said, If the plan isn't working, adjust. I agree completely. I haven't seen Baker's report yet, but one of the things I remind you of is that I don't hear those people saying, get out before the job is done. They're saying, be flexible. And we are.I believe that you empower your generals to make the decisions, the recommendations on what we do to win. You can't fight a war from Washington. In other words, you can't make the tactical decisions necessary to win. It just won't work. And I trust General Casey. I find him to be one of the really competent, decent guys.

null

Do you feel in some way that there is some shift going on in terms of the general support for the war in Iraq?

null

Implicit

false

192

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-cannes

5

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. The world leaders here have stressed growth, the importance of growth. And yet growth back at home has been anemic, the new jobs report today showing just 88,000 jobs added. The Republicans in Congress have made it clear that they're going to block your jobs bill because they believe the tax hikes in it hurt small businesses. At what point do you feel that you declare stalemate to try and reach common ground? And do you feel like you have been an effective leader when it comes to the economy?

Well, first of all, wherever Republicans indicate an interest in doing things that would actually grow the economy, I'm right there with them. So they've said that passing trade bills with South Korea and Panama and Colombia would help spur growth. Those got done, with significant bipartisan support. They've suggested that we need to reform our patent laws. That's something that was part of my long-term program for economic growth; we've got that done. What I've said is all those things are nice and they're important, but if we want to grow the economy right now then we have to think bigger; we've got to do something bolder and more significant.So we put forward the American Jobs Act, which contains ideas that are historically supported by Democrats and Republicans, like rebuilding our infrastructure, our roads, and our bridges, putting teachers back in the classroom, providing tax credits to small businesses.You say, Norah, that the reason they haven't voted for them is because they don't want to tax small business. Well, actually, that's not--if that's their rationale then it doesn't fly, because the bill that they voted down yesterday, a component of the American jobs bill, essentially said we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, making America more competitive, and the entire program will be paid for by a tax not on millionaires, but people making a million dollars a year or more, which in the United States is about--a little over 300,000 people.Now, there aren't a lot of small businesses across the country that are making that kind of money. In fact, less than 3 percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. So what they've said is, we prefer to protect 300,000 people rather than put hundreds of thousands of people back to work and benefit 300 million Americans who are hurting because of low growth.So we're going to keep on pushing. Now, there are steps that we can take absent congressional action. And the refinancing proposal that we put forward in Las Vegas is an example of that--helping students with student loans. We're going to keep on rolling out administrative steps that we can take that strengthen the economy. But if we're going to do something big to jump-start the economy at a time when it's stabilized, but unemployment is way too high, Congress is going to need to act.And in terms of my track record on the economy, here's just a simple way of thinking about it: When I came into office, the U.S. economy had contracted by 9 percent, the largest contraction since the Great Depression. Little over a year later, the economy was growing by 4 percent, and it's been growing ever since.Now, is that good enough? Absolutely not. We've got to do more. And as soon as I get some signal from Congress that they're willing to take their responsibilities seriously, I think we can do more. But that's going to require them to break out of the rigid ideological positions that they've been taking. And the same is true, by the way, when it comes to deficit reduction.We can solve all our problems. We can grow our economy now, put people back to work, reduce our deficit. And you get surprising consensus from economists about how to do it, from both the left and the right. It's just a matter of setting politics aside. And we're constantly remembering that the election is 1 year away. If we do that, there's no reason why can't solve these problems.All right. Thank you, everybody.

null

At what point do you feel that you declare stalemate to try and reach common ground?

null

Deflection

General

Deflection

false

262

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-stephen-harper-canada-and-president

1

Q. Good afternoon. This question is to the three leaders. The stock exchange mar-kets—the stock markets have gone through a severe crisis in recent weeks. How close are we to a stock exchange crash, and what measures have you taken so that it does not affect the real economy?So when you will be presenting your first report, there's an opposition party that wants to prevent this—what is the outlook in your view? What's the outlook? And do you trust—do you believe that the opposition will accept your invitation for a dialog?

Well, to answer the first question, there's the financial problem, which is quite delicate in several markets. What I can tell you in relation to the case of Mexico, fortunately, our financial system has been solid enough to resist these critical times. I know that many central banks in several parts of the world, the European Union, the Federal Reserve in the U.S., and other central banks, have applied considerable resources in order to bring liquidity to their financial and banking systems.Now, fortunately, in the case of Mexico, this has not been necessary. The financial system and the banking system is very solid. It took us a lot of work, a lot of money to have such a solid system that would resist situations like this, but fortunately, it has not required the support of liquidity from the Central Bank of Mexico.Currently, the Mexican Stock Exchange has adjusted fixed income values. This is the case throughout the world. However, the Mexican Stock Exchange was one of the five that actually had an increase in its value throughout the world last year, over 50 percent. And obviously, the reduction that we're seeing is somehow or another a form of a correction, which will actually improve the health of the financial markets in Mexico.Could it have an impact in the real economy? Well, that depends on the scope of the situation, how it affects the markets, particularly the North American markets, which affects us most. My belief is that the situation is beginning to stabilize. And it will depend on the impact that it might have on the growth of the U.S., which, as you know, Mexico depends on this growth, on the U.S. growth.Now, in relation to the second subject, the second issue, I have invited legislators. I'm a democrat that believes in the basic ideas and that believes in constructing dialog, and this is what I'm seeking in Congress, constructive dialog. Unfortunately, I still haven't received a positive answer from this—in relation to this invitation, but I believe, I trust that in the future, there will be greater willingness to talk about issues of concern for all Mexicans.I know it's another system, Canada is, but Prime Minister Harper has to talk to his Parliament just about every day, every week. And I think—I would say that we would—I would very much like to have an institutional way in Mexico so that we're able to work and to talk about what we agree with and what we don't agree with in our country. I'll be willing to talk to anybody that wants to talk to me, particularly within Congress.Now, in relation to the attitude of the PRD or other members of that party, I respect them, and of course, I appeal to the sense of responsibility towards the country. And I hope that maturity will prevail and common sense too. So the only thing that will be lost with this is that anybody that breaks the basic laws of our institutional life—let's say that citizens know very well and recognize the maturity and the responsibility of political parties, and the people of our country are able to punish these attitudes too. Our monetary and financial systems that monitor it are following it closely. But naturally, there are certain differences in their assets and liabilities, and some of the major corporations will have drops in their stocks. That is the normal course. But I can assure you that the capital situation of our major corporations, our financial institutions, of our individual persons are very strong.[.]Our economic and financial institutions that are responsible for watching these markets are monitoring them closely. At the same time, just to remind people, it's normal for the price of assets of various securities or companies or whatever to go up and down in the marketplace. It's not unusual. I can assure you that the position of Canadian financial sector, in particular our banks, Canadian companies in general, and the household sector, our capital positions are very strong. The fundamentals of the U.S. economy are strong. Inflation is down; interest rates are low; the employment picture is strong; exports are up. We grew at over 3 percent in the second quarter. The fundamental question is, is there enough liquidity in our system as people readjust risk? And the answer is, yes, there is.

null

What is the outlook in your view when you will be presenting your first report?

null

Deflection

Implicit

General

false

25

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-nuri-al-maliki-iraq

3

Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister. General Abizaid said that the danger that Iraq is facing is the religious danger. Do you agree with his assessment? And do you see that—is there any security plan that can really curb the religious violence?[Inaudible]—humanitarian aid to Lebanon, yet there's also reports that your administration are speeding up delivery of laser-guided missiles to Israel and bunker-buster bombs. And do you see this—if this is true, do you see it as contradictory? On one hand, you allow Israel to kill people, and civilian, in particular, and on the other hand, you're trying to aid the very people that have been suffering and killed as a result?

No, I don't see a contradiction in us honoring commitments we made prior to Hizballah attacks into Israeli territory. And I—like the Prime Minister, I'm concerned about loss of innocent life, and we will do everything we can to help move equipment—I mean, food and medicines to help the people who have been displaced and the people who suffer. Yes. I do not reduce the risk and the danger of the religious feelings, especially through some of the organizations that are trying to promote this hatred. And there are—some of the events are on the basis of religious divide, but I would like to assure the political, religious leaders, and civil societies that the Iraqi parties, politicians, religious leaders are rising to their responsibility and are condemning those who are cooperating with Al Qaida and those who are trying to start a civil war.The one—the most important element in the security plan is to curb the religious violence, because we will not allow any Iraqis to use this background. This is one of the main objective of the security plan. It is the policy of the Government: There is no killing or discrimination against anyone. Everything is by law and everything based on the Constitution and the law. The Government responsibility is to protect all Iraqis, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. It's important to say that we are shedding the light against those who are calling for sectarian religious, because we feel that this is a great danger to Iraq. And, God willing, there will be no civil war in Iraq.Thank you very much. Thank you.

null

General Abizaid said that the danger that Iraq is facing is the religious danger. Do you agree with his assessment? And do you see that—is there any security plan that can really curb the religious violence?

null

Explicit

false

true

false

158

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-secretary-state-condoleezza-rice-crawford-texas

2

Q. The Lebanese Prime Minister is demanding a quick and decisive cease-fire after an Israeli air raid today killed 40 people. When will we see this resolution? And if it's approved, when will we see a cessation of violence?

I'll let Condi talk about the details of what she's going to do today, if you care to hear from her. But we will work with our partners to get the resolution laid down as quickly as possible. And the resolution will call for a cessation of violence. And the concern, by the way, from the parties in the region is whether or not the resolution will create a vacuum into which Hizballah and its sponsors will be able to promote more instability.We all agree that we ought to strengthen this Government, the Lebanese Government—that's the purpose of the resolutions, as well as to stop the violence.I don't know if you want to comment upon—— First of all, we are working from what we believe to be a strong basis for a cessation of hostilities, that is the U.S.-French draft, a strong basis for the cessation of hostilities, and then as the President said, to have a process then that can address the root causes. And we also believe that it's going to be very important that this first resolution lay a very quick foundation for passage of a second resolution. So these have to be worked, in a sense, together.I spoke last night and yesterday with Prime Minister Olmert, with Prime Minister Siniora, with Secretary General Kofi Annan, with a number of others, and I think we believe that there is a way forward.Now, we understand that this has been a very emotional and, indeed, devastating and tragic set of circumstances for Lebanon and for Israel. And obviously, the parties have views on how to stop this. Their views are not going to necessarily be consonant about how to stop it. The international community has a view, but, of course, we're going to take a little time and listen to the concerns of the parties and see how they can be addressed.But I want to just note, we believe that the extant draft resolution is a firm foundation, is the right basis, but, of course, we're going to listen to the concerns of the parties and see how they might be addressed. And that's really what's going to be going on today, particularly after the Arab League meets and Prime Minister Siniora emerges from that. The President. Yes, Peter [Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times].

null

When will we see this resolution?

null

Explicit

General

false

3

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1135

8

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, was recently asked by New York Times columnist David Brooks if knowing what he knows now, invading Iraq was a good idea. And I believe your Defense Secretary answered, I don't know. Does that represent daylight with you? Is that second-guessing? Have you spoken to the Defense Secretary? And does that change your mind at all?

I think he made it pretty clear the removal of Saddam—I don't know about this column, but I know his previous statements, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision. But I haven't talked to him about the column. If I had to ask everybody in my Government to respond to columns and news stories, that's all I'd be doing, is talking to people in my Government.I am absolutely convinced Secretary Gates knows that removing Saddam was the right thing, and I'm absolutely convinced he believes we will succeed in . And so I've got a lot of trust in the man. He's doing a fine job as the Secretary.Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News].

null

Communication with the Defense Secretary

null

Explicit

false

true

250

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-3

13

Q. Yes. And you chose not to. And I was wondering whether in retrospect you regret that decision at all, whether or not you think that, because of the long history of deception that you pointed out before, you should have acted differently?

I used the moment to continue my desire to convince others to become equity partners in the Korean issue—North Korean issue, because, David, I obviously look at all options all the time, and I felt like the best way to solve this problem would be through a diplomacy effort that was renewed and reinvigorated by having China and South Korea and Japan and Russia joining us in convincing Kim Jong Il there's a better way forward.And frankly, I was quite optimistic that we had succeeded last September when we had this joint statement, which you adequately covered. And yet he walked away from it. He decided, well, maybe his word doesn't mean anything.And so we will continue to work diplomatically to solve the problem. That's what I owe the American people, to come up with a diplomatic solution. I also made it clear, and I will repeat, that we have security obligations in the region that I reconfirmed to our partners.Sir. Washington Post man [Michael Fletcher, Washington Post].

null

Regret for not acting differently in light of the long history of deception.

null

Dodging

false

true

220

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1133

16

Q. Secretary Rice said that failure is not an option. You talked about substantial issues need to be discussed. What is the minimum expectation from you that you will call this conference a success? And what you're offering the Arab nations to encourage them to participate?

Right. Well, that's why Condi is making the trip she's making, is to explain to people in private, as well as in public, that, one, we're for comprehensive peace; two, that there is a—the meeting, the international meeting will be serious and substantive. In other words, as she said the other day, this isn't going to be just a photo opportunity. This is going to be a serious and substantive meeting.We believe that now is the time to push ahead with a meeting at which the Israelis and Palestinians will lay out a vision of what a state could look like. And the reason why there needs to be a vision of what a state could look like is because the Palestinians, that have been made promises all these years, need to see there's a serious, focused effort to step up a state. And that's important so that the people who want to reject extremism have something to be for.So this is a serious attempt. And I'm pleased with the progress. And the reason I'm pleased is because it appears to me that President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert are, one, talking—I know they're talking a lot—but they're making progress. And in order for there to be lasting peace, the deal has to be good for the Palestinians as well as the Israelis. Our job is to facilitate the process.Another reason I have an international meeting is to get Arab buy-in for a state. In other words, part of the issue in the past has been that the Arab nations stood on the sidelines, and when a state was in reach, they weren't a part of the process encouraging the parties to move forward. And so this is a—that's what I mean by comprehensive. It's comprehensive not only for what the state will look like; it's comprehensive in getting people in the region to be a part of the process. And so I'm feeling pretty optimistic about it.

null

What are you offering the Arab nations to encourage them to participate?

null

General

false

8

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-5

12

Q. Thanks. Mr. President, what do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you're paying for that right now?

I've been talking about gas prices ever since they got high, starting with this—look, I understand gas prices are like a hidden tax—not a hidden tax, it's a tax; it's taking money out of people's pockets. I know that. All the more reason for us to diversify away from crude oil. That's not going to happen overnight. We passed law that encouraged consumption through different purchasing habits, like hybrid vehicles. You buy a hybrid, you get a tax credit. We've encouraged the spread of ethanol as an alternative to crude oil. We have asked for Congress to pass regulatory relief so we can build more refineries to increase the supply of gasoline, hopefully taking the pressure off of price.And so the strategy is to recognize that dependency upon crude oil is—in a global market affects us economically here at home, and therefore, we need to diversify away as quickly as possible.Jackson.

null

What do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon?

null

Explicit

Dodging

General

false

59

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1132

12

Q. Mr. President, to go back to Iran for a minute, the Non-Proliferation Treaty doesn't prohibit a country like Iran from having the knowledge to enrich uranium. Are you setting a different standard in this case and a different international obligation on Iran? And is that going to complicate the efforts to keep the pressure on when it comes to sanctions at the United Nations?

The problem that most of the world has seen in stems from the fact that they hid their program. That's what the NIE says. The '68 agreement that signed contemplated full transparency and openness. They didn't contemplate a regime that would have a covert nuclear weapons program, all the more reason for the international community to continue to work together. If somebody hid their program once, they could hide it again. If somebody defied the agreement that they signed, the codicils of the agreement they've signed, they could do it again. And most of the world understands that with a nuclear weapon would be a serious danger to peace, and therefore, now is the time to work together to convince them to suspend their program.People say, Would you ever talk to ? For you veterans here, for those who have been following this administration for a while, you might remember that I have consistently said that we will be at the table with the EU-3 if would verifiably suspend their program, and the offer still stands.What changed was the change of leadership in . In other words, we had a diplomatic track going, and Ahmadi-nejad came along and took a different tone. And the ian people must understand that the tone and actions of their Government are that which is isolating them. There's a better way forward for . There's a better way forward for the ian people than one in which they find themselves isolated in the world. Their economy can be stronger. But their leadership is going to have to understand that defiance and hiding programs and defying IAEA is not the way forward.And my hope is, is that the ian regime takes a look at their policies and changes their policies back to where we were prior to the election of Ahmadi-nejad, which was a hopeful period. They had suspended their program; they were at the table. The United States had made some very positive gestures to convince them that there was a better way forward. And hopefully, we can get back to that day.Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News].

null

Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran's knowledge to enrich uranium

null

Implicit

Deflection

General

false

true

295

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1

20

Q. What are the odds for a guest-worker provision?

Well, that's got to be an integral part of a comprehensive plan. When you're talking comprehensive immigration reform, one part of it is a guest-worker program, where people can come on a temporary basis to do jobs Americans are not doing. I've always felt like that would be an important aspect of securing the border. In other words, if somebody is not trying to sneak in in the first place, it makes—decreases the work load on our Border Patrol and lets the Border Patrol focus on drugs and guns and terrorists. But that's a—I appreciate you bringing that up. I should have remembered it.Listen, thank you all very much for your time. I appreciate your interest.

null

. What are the odds for a guest-worker provision?

null

Implicit

General

Implicit

false

22

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-chicago

9

Q. Mr. President, if the EU does not receive a definitive answer from Iran on the incentives package by next week, do you foresee the G-8 summit as being a springboard to bring that issue to the U.N. Security Council? And what do you say to Americans who are frustrated by the familiar roadblocks, it seems, of China and Russia on harsh sanctions?

I said I wasn't going to answer a hypothetical; now you're trying to get me to answer a hypothetical. The G-8 will be an opportunity for those of us involved with this issue to make it clear to the Iranians that they—we're firm in our resolve for them not to have a nuclear weapon.I talked to President Putin about ; I also talked to him about Iran. I believe he understands the dangers of the Iranians having a nuclear weapon.Some nations are more comfortable with sanctions than other nations, and part of the issue we face in some of these countries is that they've got economic interests. And part of our objective is to make sure that national security interests, security of the world interests, trump economic interests. And sometimes that takes a while to get people focused in the right direction.You know, the first step of a diplomatic solution is for there to be a common goal agreed upon by those of us participating in the process. The goal in is a nuclear weapons-free peninsula—not just in but North and South Korea. And that's an important goal. It's important for the neighborhood to have embraced that goal.The goal for Iran is for them to have a—verifiably get rid of their weapons program. The first step, however, is to—for their verifiable suspension. And by the way, if they will verifiably do which they said they would do in Paris, we will come back to the table. That's what we've said we will do.And whether or not they—what their posture is, we're finding out as a result of the conversations of Mr. Solana of the EU and Mr. Larijani. I do appreciate Javier Solana's work on this issue. I saw him when I was in Austria, and I thanked him for doing a good job.Yes. I'm trying to kind of tamp the followups down a little bit here.

null

And what do you say to Americans who are frustrated by the familiar roadblocks, it seems, of China and Russia on harsh sanctions?

null

Explicit

General

false

95

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1132

15

Q. Sir, did the elections come up, sir— the Russian elections?

They did. They did. And I said we were sincere in our expressions of concern about the elections.Wolf [Richard Wolf, USA Today].

null

Did the elections come up, the Russian elections?

null

Explicit

false

282

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1124

2

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You've said in the past that waterboarding, in your opinion, is torture. And torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?

What I've said, and I will repeat, is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who have examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices. I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, We don't torture, when the entire British--all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what's best in a people; it corrodes the character of a country.And so I strongly believe that the steps that we've taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term, because it will put us in a position where we can still get information. In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy.At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians. And it makes us--it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.So this is a decision that I am very comfortable with. And I think the American people, over time, will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on a unscrupulous enemy.Okay. I'm sorry.

null

Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?

null

General

Implicit

General

false

78

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-4

6

Q. Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit—as they see fit—you're saying that you'd be okay with that?

I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt, and that by clarifying Article 3, we make it stronger; we make it clearer; we make it definite.And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules—if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.

null

Would you be okay with other countries interpreting the Geneva Conventions as they see fit?

null

Deflection

false

248

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-3

4

Q. You talk about failures of the past administration with the policy towards North Korea. Again, how can you say your policy is more successful, given that North Korea has apparently tested a nuclear weapon? And also, if you wouldn't mind, what is the redline for North Korea, given what has happened over the past few months?

My point was, bilateral negotiations didn't work. I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work. And therefore, I thought it was important to change how we approached the problem so that we could solve it diplomatically. And I firmly believe that with North Korea and with Iran that it is best to deal with these regimes with more than one voice, because I understand how it works. What ends up happening is, is that we say to a country such as North Korea, Here's a reasonable way forward. They try to extract more at the negotiating table, or they've got a different objective, and then they go and say, Wait a minute; the United States is being unreasonable. They make a threat. They could—they say the world is about to fall apart because of the United States problem. And all of a sudden, we become the issue.But the United States message to North Korea and Iran and the people in both countries is that we have—we want to solve issues peacefully. We said there's a better way forward for you. Here's a chance, for example, to help your country economically. And all you got to do is verifiably show that you—in Iran's case, that you suspended your weapons program, and in North Korea's case, that you've got international safeguards on your program— which they agreed to, by the way.And so my point is, is that—to the American people I say, Look, we want to solve this diplomatically. It's important for the President to say to the American people, diplomacy was what—is our first choice and that I've now outlined a strategy. And I think it is a hopeful sign that China is now a integral partner in helping North Korea understand that it's just not the United States speaking to them.And it's an important sign to North Korea that South Korea, a country which obviously is deeply concerned about North Korean activities—South Korea is a partner, and that if North Korea decides that they don't like what's being said, they're not just stiffing the United States—I don't know if that's a diplomatic word or not—but they're sending a message to countries in the neighborhood that they really don't care what other countries think, which leads to further isolation. And when we get a U.N. Security Council resolution, it will help us deal with issues like proliferation and his ability—he being Kim Jong Il's ability— to attract money to continue to develop his programs.

null

What is the redline for North Korea, given what has happened over the past few months?

null

General

Dodging

false

266

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-3

16

Q. Mr. President, with growing numbers of House Members and staffers saying that they knew of and told others about a problem with Mark Foley some years ago, has House Speaker Hastert lost touch within his own ranks, and has the scandal damaged Hastert's credibility and effectiveness in maintaining party control in the midterm elections?

No, I think the Speaker's strong statements have made it clear to not only the party members but to the country that he wants to find out the facts. All of us want to find out the facts. I mean, this is disgusting behavior when a Member of Congress betrays the trust of the Congress and a family that sent a young page up to serve in the Congress. And I appreciated Speaker Hastert's strong declaration of his desire to get to the bottom of it. And we want to make sure we understand what Republicans knew and what Democrats knew, in order to find the facts. And I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

null

Has House Speaker Hastert lost touch within his own ranks?

null

Explicit

false

63

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-cannes

4

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm curious what you would say to Americans back home who've watched their 401(k)s recover largely when the bailout seemed a certainty, and then this week with the brand new political tumult in Greece, watched themselves lose essentially what they had gained back. You mentioned you're confident in the bailout plan. Are you confident this will actually happen, and if so, that it will work?

Well, first of all, if you're talking about the movements of the U.S. stock market, the stock market was down when I first took office and the first few months I was in office about 3,000 points lower than it is now. So nothing has happened in the last 2 weeks that would suggest that somehow people's 401(k)s have been affected the way you describe.Am I confident that this will work? I think that there's more work to do. I think there are going to be some ups and downs along the way. But I am confident that the key players in Europe--the European political leadership--understands how much of a stake they have in making sure that this crisis is resolved, that the euro zone remains intact, and I think that they are going to do what's necessary in order to make that happen.Now, let's recognize how difficult this is. I have sympathy for my European counterparts. We saw how difficult it was for us to save the financial system back in the United States. It did not do wonders for anybody's political standing, because people's general attitude is, you know what, if the financial sector is behaving recklessly or not making good decisions, other folks shouldn't have to suffer for it.You layer on top of that the fact that you're negotiating with multiple parliaments, a European Parliament, a European Commission--I mean, there are just a lot of institutions here in Europe. And I think several--I'm not sure whether it was Sarkozy or Merkel or Barroso or somebody, they joked with me that I'd gotten a crash course in European politics over the last several days. And there are a lot of meetings here in Europe as well. So trying to coordinate all those different interests is laborious, it's time consuming, but I think they're going to get there.What is also positive is, if there's a silver lining in this whole process, it's the fact that I think European leaders recognize that there are some structural reforms, institutional modifications they need to make if Europe and the euro zone is to be as effective as they want it to be.I think that what this has exposed is that if you have a single currency but you haven't worked out all the institutional coordination and relationships between countries on the fiscal side, on the monetary side, that that creates additional vulnerabilities. And there's a commitment on the part of European leaders, I think, to examine those issues. But those are long term. In the short term, what they've got to do is just make sure that they're sending a signal to the markets that they stand behind the euro.And if that message is sent, then I think this crisis is averted, because some of this crisis is psychological. Italy is a big country with a enormous industrial base, great wealth, great assets, and has had substantial debt for quite some time; it's just the market is feeling skittish right now. And that's why I think Prime Minister Berlusconi's invitation to the IMF to certify that the reform plan that they put in place is one that they will, in fact, follow is an example of the steady, confidence-building measures that need to take place in order for us to get back on track.Norah O'Donnell [CBS News]./Small Businesses

null

In light of the recent political tumult in Greece causing Americans to lose what they had gained back in their 401(k)s, are you confident that the bailout plan will actually happen and if so, will it work?

null

Explicit

Dodging

Explicit

false

163

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-ehud-olmert-israel-jerusalem

1

Q. [Inaudible]—Israel's finding about Iran are completely different than the NIE report. Given the duration and the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, there is a fear, a concern in Israel that your administration will not take the necessary action against Iran.[At this point, the reporter asked a question in Hebrew, which was translated by an interpreter as follows.]And the question to Prime Minister Olmert: Did you perhaps present to Mr. Bush positions that run counter to those of the Americans, and perhaps you are concerned that what he said now actually indicates that his hands are tied when it comes to Iran?

[Inaudible]—what the NIE actually said. It said that, as far as the intelligence community could tell, at one time, the ians had a military—covert military program that was suspended in 2003 because of international pressure. My attitude is that a nontransparent country, a country which has yet to disclose what it was up to, could easily restart a program. The fact that they suspended the program is heartening in that the international community's response had worked. The fact that they had one is discouraging because they could restart it.Secondly, there are three aspects to a weapons program. One is the capacity to have—enrich so that you can have the materials necessary to make a bomb. They're claiming they're enriching for civilian purposes. I believe that knowledge gained for civilian purposes could be transferred for military purposes. Therefore, our efforts are to stop them from enriching.Secondly, the knowledge of how to convert any materials into a bomb—we don't know whether they have that knowledge or not. However, for the sake of peace, we ought to assume they do and, therefore, rally the world to convince others that they're a threat. Third, they've got missiles in which they can use to deliver the bomb. So no matter how you might have interpreted the NIE, I interpreted it to mean you better take the ians' threat seriously.Secondly, I have always told the American people that I believe it's incumbent upon the American Presidents to solve problems diplomatically. And that's exactly what we're in the process of doing. I believe that pressure—economic pressure, financial sanctions—will cause the people inside of to have to make a considered judgment about whether or not it makes sense for them to continue to enrich or face world isolation. The country is paying an economic price for its intransigence and its unwillingness to tell the truth.The ian people, we have no qualm with the ian people; I'm sure Israel doesn't either. It's people with a proud history and a great tradition. But they are being misled by their Government. The actions of their Government are causing there to be isolation and economic stagnation. People went into office saying, we promise you this, and we promise you this economic benefit, but they're simply not being delivered. And so we'll continue to keep the pressure on the ians, and I believe we can solve this problem diplomatically.[] We had a very thorough discussion, which, of course, also covered the ian subject, as President Bush said. And we discussed all aspects of this issue, and of course, it goes without saying that we shared with one another what we know and what we—what the Americans know when it comes to this topic. And without my sharing with you right now all of the details, of course, despite the natural curiosity, which I appreciate, I believe that what has just been said now by the President of the United States is particularly important. The President of the largest power in the world, the most important power in the world, is standing right here, and he has said in no uncertain terms that was a threat and remains a threat.And the fact that it has certain technological capacities is a fact. And through this, it is capable of realizing that potential and creating nuclear weapons. And considering the nature of the Government there and the type of threats that they are voicing, one cannot possibly disregard that power, and we must do everything possible to thwart them.Of course, the United States will decide for itself just what steps to take. I can only say one thing, namely, my impression based on this conversation as well as previous talks that we had—and we talk quite frequently, apart from the face-to-face meetings—my impression is that we have here a leader who is exceptionally determined, exceptionally loyal to the principles in which he believes. He has proven this throughout his term in office in his preparedness to take exceptional measures in order to defend the principles in which he believes and in his deep commitment to the security of the State of Israel.Inasmuch as I could sum up all of these impressions this evening, I would say that I certainly am encouraged and reinforced having heard the position of the United States under the leadership of George Bush, particularly on this subject. Anne Gearan of the Associated Press, please.

null

Fear and concern in Israel that the administration will not take necessary action against Iran due to the duration and unpopularity of the war in Iraq.

null

Implicit

General

true

false

true

20

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-5

13

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, the one-year anniversary of Katrina is coming up. And there are a lot of retrospectives about what went wrong down there last year. Specifically, what has your administration done in the past year to help the folks down there, and what remains to be done?

Yes, thanks. You know, I went to New Orleans, in Jackson Square, and made a commitment that we would help the people there recover. I also want the people down there to understand that it's going to take a while to recover. This was a huge storm.First things—the first thing that's necessary to help the recovery is money. And our Government has committed over $110 billion to help. Of that, a lot of money went to—went out the door to help people adjust from having to be moved because of the storm. And then there's rental assistance, infrastructure repair, debris removal. Mississippi removed about 97 percent, 98 percent of its what they call dry debris. We're now in the process of getting debris from the waters removed. Louisiana is slower in terms of getting debris removed. The money is available to help remove that debris. People can get after it, and I would hope they would.

null

What remains to be done?

null

Dodging

false

68

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-nuri-al-maliki-iraq

2

Q. I have two questions—one, President Bush. The first one: Is there an obvious change that could be made to the security status, you politically—particularly in Baghdad right now?And the second question for you, Mr. Prime Minister. You said in a press conference in Baghdad that your visit to Washington, you will put—you will cross the t's and dot the i's, especially regarding the security needs. Did you cross the t's and dot the i's in your discussion with President Bush?

——a lot of time talking about security, and I can understand why. Because there's—there are people who are willing to destroy innocent life to achieve a political objective. And the Prime Minister is deeply concerned about the lives of his fellow citizens. And I appreciate that concern. I would be very worried if a Prime Minister came to talk about his country and did not mention, first and foremost, protecting people's lives. That's, after all, the most important responsibility of government.And he believes, and I believe, that the—there needs to be more forces inside Baghdad who are willing to hold people to account. In other words, if you find somebody who's kidnaping and murdering, the murderer ought to be held to account. It ought to be clear in society that that kind of behavior is not tolerated.And that's the attitude of the Prime Minister. My attitude is, we shouldn't try to gauge whether or not someone is justified or not; we ought to be saying that if you murder, you're responsible for your actions. And I think the Iraqi people appreciate that type of attitude.And so we—so we're not only talking about adjusting a Baghdad plan at the Prime Minister's request to make it more effective—we're also talking about how to make the Iraqi Army more effective. But the truth of the matter is, the Iraqi Army is becoming a highly professional force that will help bring confidence to the people inside Iraq that the Government has got the capacity to protect them. Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, successful acts and large issues has to be based on a clear vision. And through the serious discussion and the clear and the frank conversation that I had with President George Bush, that we are truly crossing the t's and dotting the i's in terms of enhancing the security and supporting the reconstruction. Through the discussion, we were able to go through the details of the vision that will cover the future, because we are not talking here about a specific phase of the reconstruction, but we are facing the necessity of continuous work in order to make sure that the entire political experiment will succeed.I believe with a great deal of confidence that I have reaffirmed through this, and I became convinced that—I have full confidence of victory, and we will be highly capable of defeating terrorism in Iraq.

null

Did you cross the t's and dot the i's in your discussion with President Bush regarding the security needs?

null

Explicit

false

124

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-3

1

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Democrats say that North Korea's reported test shows that your policy has been a failure, that you got bogged down in Iraq, where there were no weapons of mass destruction, while North Korea was moving ahead with a bomb. Is your administration to blame for letting North Korea get this far?

North Korea has been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time, long before I came into office. And it's a threat that we've got to take seriously, and we do, of course.In 1994, the Government—our Government—entered into a bilateral arrangement with the North Koreans that worked to make sure that they don't have the capacity to develop a bomb, and North Korea agreed that there would be no program whatsoever toward the development of a weapon. And yet we came into office and discovered that they were developing a program, unbeknownst to the folks with whom they signed the agreement, the United States Government. And we confronted them with that evidence, and they admitted it was true and then left the agreement that they had signed with the U.S. Government.And my point—and then I—as I mentioned in my opening statement, we, once again, had North Korea at the table—this time with other parties at the table—and they agreed once again, through this statement as a result of the six-party talks, to verifiably show that they weren't advancing a nuclear weapons program. And they chose again to leave. And my point to you is that it's the intransigence of the North Korean leader that speaks volumes about the process. It is his unwillingness to choose a way forward for his country, a better way forward for his country. It is his decisions. And what's changed since then is that we now have other parties at the table who have made it clear to North Korea that they share the same goals of the United States, which is a nuclear weapons-free peninsula.Obviously, I'm listening very carefully to this debate. I can remember the time when it was said that the Bush administration goes it alone too often in the world, which I always thought was a bogus claim to begin with. And now all of a sudden, people are saying, the Bush administration ought to be going alone with North Korea. But it didn't work in the past, is my point. The strategy did not work. I learned a lesson from that and decided that the best way to convince Kim Jong Il to change his mind on a nuclear weapons program is to have others send the same message.And so in my phone calls that I recently made right after the test, I lamented the fact that he had tested to Hu Jintao and also lamented the fact that Hu Jintao had publicly asked him not to test. I talked to the South Korean President, and I said, It ought to be clear to us now that we must continue to work together to make it abundantly clear to the leader in North Korea that there's a better way forward. When he walks away from agreement, he's not just walking away from a table with the United States as the only participant, he's walking away from a table that others are sitting at.And my point to you is, in order to solve this diplomatically, the United States and our partners must have a strong diplomatic hand, and you have a better diplomatic hand with others sending the message than you do when you're alone. And so obviously, I made the decision that the bilateral negotiations wouldn't work, and the reason I made that decision is because they didn't. And we'll continue to work to come up with a diplomatic solution in North Korea.This is a serious issue. But I want to remind our fellow citizens that the North Korean issue was serious for years. And I also remind our citizens that we want to make sure that we solve this problem diplomatically. We've got to give every effort to do so. But in my discussions with our partners, I reassured them that the security agreements we have with them will be enforced if need be, and that's in particular to South Korea and Japan.Terry. I mean—you're not Terry; you're Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

null

Is your administration to blame for letting North Korea get this far?

null

Deflection

Implicit

false

189

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-chicago

14

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

They expect that their loved one will be participating in a noble and important cause. If I didn't think it was important, I wouldn't have put out the orders to have people go there. And if I didn't think we could win, I wouldn't be there. That's what they can expect. They can expect tough work, tough sledding, and they can expect a grateful Commander in Chief and a grateful nation for their sacrifices.In terms of troop levels, those decisions will be made by General Casey. There's a debate in Washington as to whether or not we set an artificial timetable for withdrawal. That's what it's about in Washington, DC. And the answer is, absolutely not. You can't win a war if you have an artificial timetable for withdrawal. You can't have people making troop decisions based upon political considerations. It just won't work. It's unfair to those families that we're sending—of the kids we're sending over, and it's unfair to the troops.Artificial timetable for withdrawal sends the wrong message to the Iraqis; they're seeing it's not worth it. There's a lot of Iraqis over there determined—trying to make up their mind whether they want to be a part of democracy or whether or not they're going to take to the hills and see what happens. Artificial timetable for withdrawal, kind of early withdrawal before this finishes, sends the message to the enemy, we were right about America. That's what they say. Al Qaida has said it's just a matter of time before America withdraws. They're weak; they're corrupt; they can't stand it; and they'll withdraw. And all that would do is confirm what the enemy thinks.And getting out before we finish the job would send a terrible message to the troops who've sacrificed. We'll win. We'll achieve our objective, which is a free country that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself and will be an ally in the war on terror. And we're making progress toward that goal.The problem is that the enemy gets to define success better than we do. See, they'll kill innocent people like that; they don't care. Life is not precious to them. And they're willing to kill women and children in order to achieve a tactical objective. And it gets on our TV screens. And people mourn the loss of life. This is a compassionate nation that cares about people, and when they see people die on their TV screens, it sends a signal: Well, maybe we're not winning.We occasionally are able to pop in with great success, like Zarqawi or 12 million people voting. But increasing electricity in Baghdad is not the kind of thing that tends to get on the news, or small-business formation is not the kind of thing to get— or new schools or new hospitals, the infrastructure being rebuilt that had been torn apart. And I'm not being critical. I'm just giving you a fact of something I have to deal with in order to make it clear to the American people that the sacrifice of those families is worth it. We are winning. And a free Iraq is an essential part of changing the conditions which causes the terrorists to be able to recruit killers in the first place.For a long period of time, our foreign policy was just, kind of, excuse tyranny and hope for the best. It didn't work. The world may have seemed placid, it may have seemed calm, but beneath the surface was resentment and hatred, out of which came an attack that killed 3,000 of our citizens.And so I am committed to the spread of liberty. It's, after all, how we were founded. And there's a debate here in the United States that says, well, maybe it's too much for the United States to insist others live in a free world. Maybe that's just too unilateral. I view that as cultural elitism for people who say that. It's like saying, we're okay to be free, but you're not.I believe freedom is universal, and I believe etched in the soul of every person on the face of the Earth is the desire to be free. And I know that freedom has got the capacity to change regions of the world for the better.Our press corps is bored with this story, but I'm going to tell it anyway—the Koizumi story. [] That's what you get when you get familiar with people; they can anticipate your remarks.I hope you thought it was interesting that Prime Minister Koizumi and I went to Graceland. It was really a lot of fun, wasn't it? It's an interesting part of the development of our relationship, from one in which Japan was the enemy of the United States and today, the son of a person who fought the Japanese and the son of a person who resented the United States are close friends. We talk about keeping the peace. We talk about working together to change the world for the better: What do we do? How do we feed people who are hungry? How do we build roads in Afghanistan? What do we do?And so what happened? What happened was, is that Japan adopted a Japanese-style democracy after World War II, and the conditions of our relationship, the condition of the country changed; the attitude changed, and our relationship changed.The Far East was a pretty difficult place. I know we spend a lot of time talking about the Far East today because of , but if you really look at the development in the Far East, it's pretty remarkable, isn't it? South Korea has emerged into a vibrant capitalist society. Japan has still got a little hangover from their previous activities in the region but, nevertheless, is a thriving partner in peace. Taiwan is making progress. China has got opening markets. Their economy is growing. Their entrepreneurial class is strong. They need to—the political system needs to evolve. But nevertheless, the region is relatively peaceful except for one outpost, one system that's not open and transparent, one system that doesn't respond to the will of the people, one system that's dark, and that's .It took a while for that peaceful evolution to occur. And that's what's going to happen in the Middle East. It is. And it's hard work. And I want those parents to know that. These are historic times. We will lose if we leave too early. The stakes of success are vital, but a free Iraq is going to help inspire others to demand what I believe is a universal right of men and women.General Casey will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there. And that's important for the families to know. It's really important. General Casey is a wise and smart man who has spent a lot of time in Baghdad recently, obviously. And it's his judgment that I rely upon. He'll decide how best to achieve victory and the troop levels necessary to do so.I spent a lot of time talking to him about troop levels, and I told him this, I said, you decide, General. I want your judgment, your advice. I don't want these decisions being made by the political noise, by the political moment. It's just unfair to our troops, and it's unfair to their families. It's the reasoned judgment of our military commanders that the President must count on in order to achieve a victory that is necessary to help make this country more secure. And that's exactly how I'm going to make my decision.So if the people are listening, they need to know I'm proud of their families. The cause is noble and necessary. And the size of the troops that will be there will depend upon the sound judgment of our military commanders.Thank you for this press conference. I've enjoyed it. Appreciate it.

null

expectations for the families of the Illinois National Guardsmen who have left for Iraq

null

Explicit

false

true

133

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-5

6

Q. Mr. President, as you mentioned, we're just 10 days from the U.N. Security Council deadline on Iran. Judging by the public comments from the Iranians, it appears, at least, highly unlikely that they're going to stop or suspend their enrichment program. Are you confident that the U.N. Security Council will move quickly on sanctions if Iran thumbs its nose at the world again?

I certainly hope so. In order for the U.N. to be effective, there must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council. And we will work with people in the Security Council to achieve that objective, and the objective is that there's got to be a consequence for them basically ignoring what the Security Council has suggested through resolution.

null

Will the U.N. Security Council move quickly on sanctions if Iran does not stop or suspend its enrichment program?

null

Explicit

General

Implicit

false

209

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-secretary-state-condoleezza-rice-crawford-texas

6

Q. Mr. President, you've spoken with Prime Minister Blair and Chancellor Merkel about this. Have you spoken directly with Prime Ministers Olmert and Siniora? And if not, why not?

Because Condi is handling those conversations, and she's doing a fine job of doing so.Yes.

null

Have you spoken directly with Prime Ministers Olmert and Siniora?

null

Implicit

false

119

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference

1

Q. Mr. President, on Russia, is the Vladimir Putin who said, The United States is undermining global security and provoking a new arms race, the same Vladimir Putin whose soul you looked into and found to be trustworthy? Has he changed? Are U.S.-Russian relations deteriorating?

I think the person who I was referring to in 2001 is the same strong-willed person. He is a person with whom I have had agreements and disagreements throughout the course of my Presidency and his. We've disagreed on the utility of NATO. I've tried to convince Vladimir that NATO is positive; it's a positive influence; that democracies on your border are good things to have. Democracies tend not to fight each other. And I firmly believe NATO is a stabilizing influence for the good, and that helps Russia. Evidently, he disagrees with that assessment; part of his speech was expressing concerns about NATO.There's a lot we can work together on, and that's what's important for American people to understand. We know that we've got common goals that make sense for both our peoples. Two such goals are , convincing the ians to get rid of its nuclear weapons. And Russia's leadership on this issue is very important to getting a Chapter VII resolution out of the United Nations. And by the way, they were constructive, in terms of the resolution I just described about North Korea. In other words, where we have common interests and we work together on those common interests, we can accomplish important things for the security of our own people as well as the security of the world.And secondly, Russia and the United States work very closely on proliferation concerns. We're both concerned about the proliferation of technologies that could end up hurting our people and other people in the world.And so there's—it's a complicated relationship. It's a relationship in which there are disagreements, but there's also a relationship in which we can find common ground to solve problems. And that's the spirit I'll continue to work with Vladimir Putin on.Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters]./War in Iraq

null

Is the Vladimir Putin who said, The United States is undermining global security and provoking a new arms race, the same Vladimir Putin whose soul you looked into and found to be trustworthy?

null

Explicit

Implicit

Explicit

false

219

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1134

3

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You speak often about taking care of the troops and honoring their sacrifice. But the family of Corporal Pat Tillman believes there was a coverup regarding his death, and some say perhaps he was even murdered, instead of just friendly fire. At a hearing last week on Capitol Hill, your former Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, other officials used some version of I don't recall 82 times. When it was his term to step up, Pat Tillman gave up a lucrative NFL career, served his country, and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Now you have a chance to pledge to the family that your Government, your administration will finally get to the bottom of it. Will you make that pledge to the family today, that you'll finally, after seven investigations, find out what really happened?

Well, first of all, I can understand why 's family, you know, has got significant emotions, because a man they loved and respected was killed while he was serving his country. I always admired the fact that a person who was relatively comfortable in life would be willing to take off one uniform and put on another to defend America. And the best way to honor that commitment of his is to find out the truth. And I'm confident the Defense Department wants to find out the truth too, and we'll lay it out for the Tillman family to know.

null

Will the President pledge to the family of Corporal Pat Tillman that the government and administration will finally get to the bottom of his death?

null

Explicit

Partial/half-answer

Implicit

false

64

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-chicago

7

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

We have laws that prevent sensitive technologies from being transferred as a result of sale and/or merger. And we watch that very carefully.On the broader scale, I have no problem with foreign capital buying U.S. companies; nor do I have a problem with U.S. companies buying foreign companies. That's what free trade is all about. As a matter of fact, there are workers working here in Illinois because of foreign investment. A foreign company takes a look at Illinois, they like the tax structure, they like the governance, they like the workforce, and they invest. And when they invest, they create jobs.A lot of the jobs in America exist as a result of foreign companies investing here in our country. So I believe in opening markets. I do believe in protecting secrets, but we've got laws on the books to prevent secrets from being transferred or vital technology from being transferred. But I believe in free flows of capital, and I believe in free trade. And that's not a given in the United States. There are people who say, Well, we can't compete with China; let's throw up roadblocks; let's protect ourselves, or, We don't want foreigners coming to invest in our country. I think that would be a mistake. I think that's the early signs of protectionist sentiments, which would mean our economy wouldn't grow.In my State of the Union—the very same State of the Union that I addressed the energy problem—I talked about trends that are worrisome. One trend would be protectionism, and its corollary would be isolationism. An isolationist world basically says, Don't worry about what happens overseas; we'll just worry about what happens here at home. Don't worry about HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa, not our problem. Don't worry about Darfur, it's not our problem. Don't worry about the fact that there's tyrannies in the Middle East; that's not our problem.The truth of the matter is, all of these issues are our problem, and if we became isolationist, we would not do our duty to protect the American people and, kind of, lay the foundations for a better world.People say, well, you know, China is too tough to compete with; let's just throw up tariffs. I completely disagree. I think competition is good and healthy. I think it's important to have a competitive world. It means that people are constantly producing a better product and a better service at a better price, which is good for consumers.Yes, sir.

null

How do you feel about a lot of the foreign-owned companies buying out U.S. tech companies, especially those that have military contracts?

null

Partial/half-answer

General

Explicit

false

261

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1135

14

Q. Mr. President, there's a deal taking shape this morning where the Government of Dubai would buy a share of—a stake in the NASDAQ stock market. And there is some concern being expressed on Capitol Hill about this. It's another deal involving, you know, people overseas that we might not trust. What's your reaction to it? And also, what's your level of concern about protectionism in general?

My reaction is, is that we have a reform process in place that will be able to deal with this issue. In other words, we're going to take a good look at it as to whether or not it has any national security implications involved in the transaction. And I'm comfortable that the process will go forward.John, I'm also—I am concerned about protectionism. I'm concerned about it because if the United States loses its confidence when it comes to trading, it will make it less likely our economy would grow. And I just told you, one of the underpinnings of our support is the fact that exports—for economic vitality—is the fact that exports are up, and workers benefit when we're selling products overseas. And I believe these free trade agreements will be an interesting test of protectionism, whether protectionism is real.We've got four trade agreements that we've negotiated that we want to get passed, and there's going to be some crucial votes coming up here pretty soon in the Congress. And we'll work hard to get all four trade agreements through. And if they don't get through, it is a sign that the protectionists are beginning to be on the ascendancy here in Washington, DC, and that would be a mistake. And for people who are deeply concerned about poverty around the world like I am, the best way to help lift people out of poverty is through free trade agreements. And that's why we're dedicated to the Doha round that is—that Secretary Schwab is so actively engaged in—not Secretary Schwab, trade negotiator Schwab. And we're committed to reach an accord with these nations so that—because trade helps poor people realize a better life. And it's a proven fact.I'm also worried about isolationism. Isolationism tends to run hand in hand with protectionism. You'll find isolationists are those who say it's not our business what happens overseas, it doesn't matter if there's a free society in the heart of the Middle East, as far as our long-term security and peace. I just strongly reject that. I think it does matter a lot that the United States is working with other nations to promote liberty and freedom because I believe liberty is a change agent. Liberty can help hostile parts of the world become peaceful parts of the world.You know, our strategy in dealing with these extremists who still want to attack us is on the one hand, chase them and find them and bring them to justice, and on the other hand, help change the conditions that caused 19 kids to get on airplanes and come and kill nearly 3,000 citizens on our soil. The best way to do that is to be active with foreign policy. It's not to lose faith in values, but to actively promote universal values. And isolationists would say, it's not worth it, doesn't matter to the United States of America. Well, I think it does matter, and I think it matters a lot.Herman [Ken Herman, Cox News], have you got a question?

null

What is the President's level of concern about protectionism in general?

null

Explicit

Dodging

General

false

135

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-tony-blair-the-united-kingdom-0

2

Q. Mr. President, you spoke of having a plan to rebuild houses in Lebanon. Wouldn't the people of Lebanon rather know when you're going to tell the Israelis to stop destroying houses?And, Prime Minister, you've talked of having a plan today, but isn't the truth that you and the President believe that Israel is on the right side in the war on terror and you want them to win this war, not to stop it?

Look, we care deeply about the people whose lives have been affected in Lebanon, just like we care deeply about the people whose lives have been affected in Israel. There's over a million people in Israel that are threatened by this consistent rocket attack coming out of Lebanon. And, yes, we want to help people rebuild their lives, absolutely. But we also want to address the root causes of the problem, and the root cause of the problem is you've got Hizballah that is armed and willing to fire rockets into Israel—a Hizballah, by the way, that I firmly believe is backed by Iran and encouraged by Iran.And so for the sake of long-term stability, we've got to deal with this issue now. Listen, the temptation is to say, It's too tough. Let's just try to solve it quickly with something that won't last; let's just get it off the TV screens. But that won't solve the problem. And it's certainly not going to help the Lebanese citizens have a life that is normal and peaceful.What is necessary is to help the Siniora Government, and one way to help the Siniora Government is to make aid available to help rebuild the houses that were destroyed. Another way to help the Siniora Government is to implement 1559, which is the disarmament of armed militia inside his country.And I—look, we care deeply about the lives that have been affected on both sides of this issue, just like I care deeply about the innocent people who are being killed in Iraq and people being denied a state in the Palestinian Territory. But make no mistake about it, it is the goal and aims of the terrorist organizations to stop that type of advance. That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to evoke sympathy for themselves. They're not sympathetic people. They're violent, coldblooded killers who are trying to stop the advance of freedom.And this is the calling of the 21st century, it seems like to me, and now is the time to confront the problem. And of course, we're going to help the people in Lebanon rebuild their lives. But as Tony said, this conflict started, out of the blue, with two Israeli soldiers kidnaped and rockets being fired across the border.Now, we have urged restraint. We made it clear that we care about wanton destruction. On the other hand, in my judgment, it would be a big mistake not to solve the underlying problems. Otherwise, everything will seem fine, and then you'll be back at a press conference saying, How come you didn't solve the underlying problems? We feel deeply for people in Lebanon and people in Israel who are the innocent casualties of this conflict. Of course we do. And we want it to stop, and we want it to stop now. And what we're putting forward today is actually a practical plan that would lead to a U.N. resolution—could be early next week—that would allow it, put in place the conditions for it to stop.But what we've also got to do is to make sure that we recognize that this action wasn't simply aimed against Israel, and then Israel retaliated. It was also aimed against the proper Government of Lebanon being able to control its own country. And the very reason why, 2 years ago, the international community passed this resolution was because people could see that what was going to happen in southern Lebanon was that these Hizballah militias, that are armed and financed by Iran and by Syria, were going to move into the south of the country in order to be a focus of terrorism and discontent.Now, that is the fact. And of course, all of us are appalled at the destruction and loss of life; of course, we are. And that's why we've actually come together today with a viable plan—if people can agree it, as I believe they can—to get it stopped. But once you stop this violence happening now—which, of course, we should do—once you do, it doesn't alter the underlying reality unless we've got a framework that allows us to put the Government of Lebanon properly back in charge of its own country; unless we've got the commitment to take forward the Israel-Palestine two-state deal, which is there and which everyone wants to see; and then if we can—unless we mobilize the international community, to deal with the threat that Iran poses.And there's no other way out of this. We're not—we can, all of us, make whatever statements we want to do, use whatever words we want to do, but the brutal reality of the situation is that we're only going to get violence stopped and stability introduced on the basis of clear principles.Now, as I say, we've set out a way to do this. But it requires the long term, as well as the short term.

null

Do you and the President believe that Israel is on the right side in the war on terror?

null

General

Dodging

false

42

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-hamid-karzai-afghanistan-camp-david-maryland

3

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. President Karzai said yesterday that he believed Iran was playing a helpful role in Afghanistan. Was he able to convince you in your meetings that that was the case, or do you still have concerns about Iran's role?And I have a question for President Karzai as well. I'm just wondering if the President was able to give you the assurances that you sought about the effort to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan?

Let me comment on the civilian casualties, if I might. First, I fully understand the angst, the agony, and the sorrow that Afghan citizens feel when an innocent life is lost. I know that must cause grief in villages and heartbreak in homes.Secondly, I can assure the Afghan people, like I assured the President, that we do everything that we can to protect the innocent; that our military operations are mindful that innocent life might be exposed to danger, and we adjust accordingly.Thirdly, it is the Taliban who surround themselves with innocent life as human shields. The Taliban are the coldblooded killers. The Taliban are the murderers. The Taliban have no regard for human life. And therefore, we've spent some time talking about—as the President rightly expressed— his concerns about civilian casualty. And I assured him that we share those concerns.Secondly, it's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force, as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a Government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon. This is a Government that is in defiance of international accord, a Government that seems to be willing to thumb its nose at the international community and, at the same time, a Government that denies its people a rightful place in the world and denies its people the ability to realize their full potential. So I believe that it's in the interests of all of us that we have an Iran that tries to stabilize, not destabilize, an Iran that gives up its weapons ambitions. And therefore, we're working to that end.The President knows best about what's taking place in his country, and of course, I'm willing to listen. But from my perspective, the burden of proof is on the Iranian Government to show us that they're a positive force. And I must tell you that this current leadership there is a big disappointment to the people of Iran. I mean, the people of Iran could be doing a lot better than they are today. But because of the actions of this Government, this country is isolated. And we will continue to work to isolate it because they're not a force for good, as far as we can see. They're a destabilizing influence wherever they are.Now, the President will have to talk to you about Afghanistan. But I would be very cautious about whether or not the Iranian influence there in Afghanistan is a positive force. And therefore, it's going to be up to them to prove to us and prove to the Government that they are. I had a good discussion with President Bush on civilian casualties. I'm very happy to tell you that President Bush felt very much with the Afghan people, that he calls the Afghan people allies in the war against terror and friends, and that he is as much concerned as I am, as the Afghan people are. I was very happy with that conversation.Lady?

null

Do they still have concerns about Iran's role in Afghanistan?

null

Explicit

Dodging

Implicit

false

284

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1134

19

Q. But you're confident that you can continue to sustain the kind of level of spending that you've invested in, in Iraq?

I would certainly hope so, because when you say, sustain the level of spending, you're mainly talking about making sure our troops have what it takes to do the job we've asked them to do. I know there's a lot of Members who don't agree with the decisions I've made. I would certainly hope they would agree, however, that once someone is in combat or in harm's way, that they get the full support of the Federal Government. That's exactly what their families expect, and that's what the Commander in Chief expects as well.I. Lewis Scooter Libby/Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales/Congressional Priorities

null

Can you continue to sustain the kind of level of spending that you've invested in, in Iraq?

null

Explicit

General

false

52

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-4

13

Q. Mr. President, your administration had all summer to negotiate with lawmakers on the detainee legislation. How is it that you now find yourself in a situation where you have essentially an open rebellion on Capitol Hill led by some of the leading members of your own party, very respected voices in military affairs? And secondly, would you veto the bill if it passes in the form that the Armed Services Committee approved yesterday?

First, we have been working throughout the summer, talking to key players about getting a bill that will enable the program to go forward, and was pleased that the House of Representatives passed a good bill with an overwhelming bipartisan majority out of their committee, the Armed Services Committee. And I felt that was good progress. And obviously, we've got a little work to do in the Senate, and we'll continue making our case. But, no, we've been involved—ever since the Supreme Court decision came down, Sheryl, we've been talking about both the military tribunals and this Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.The Article 3 of the Geneva Convention is hard for a lot of citizens to understand. But let's see if I can put it this way for people to understand. There is a very vague standard that the Court said must kind of be the guide for our conduct in the war on terror and the detainee policy. It's so vague that it's impossible to ask anybody to participate in the program for fear— for that person having the fear of breaking the law. That's the problem.And so we worked with members of both bodies and both parties to try to help bring some definition to Common Article 3. I really don't think most Americans want international courts being able to determine how we protect ourselves. And my assurance to people is that we can pass law here in the United States that helps define our treaty—international treaty obligations. We have done that in the past. It is not the first time that we have done this. And I believe it's necessary to do it this time in order for the program to go forward. Peter [Peter Baker, Washington Post].

null

How is it that you now find yourself in a situation where you have essentially an open rebellion on Capitol Hill led by some of the leading members of your own party, very respected voices in military affairs?

null

Dodging

General

false

232

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-tony-blair-the-united-kingdom-0

5

Q. Thank you. Mr. President, both of you, I'd like to ask you about the big picture that you're discussing. Mr. President, 3 years ago, you argued that an invasion of Iraq would create a new stage of Arab-Israeli peace. And yet today, there is an Iraqi Prime Minister who has been sharply critical of Israel. Arab governments, despite your arguments, who first criticized Hizballah, have now changed their tune; now they're sharply critical of Israel. And despite, from both of you, warnings to Syria and Iran to back off support from Hizballah, effectively, Mr. President, your words are being ignored. So what has happened to America's clout in this region that you've committed yourself to transform?

David, it's an interesting period because instead of having foreign policies based upon trying to create a sense of stability, we have a foreign policy that addresses the root causes of violence and instability.For a while, American foreign policy was just, let's hope everything is calm, kind of managed calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested in its—on September the 11th. And so we've taken a foreign policy that says, on the one hand, we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short run by being aggressive and chasing down the killers and bringing them to justice— and make no mistake, they're still out there, and they would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for— in the long term, to defeat this ideology, and they're bound by an ideology. You defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom.And, look, I fully understand some people don't believe it's possible for freedom and democracy to overcome this ideology of hatred. I understand that. I just happen to believe it is possible, and I believe it will happen. And so what you're seeing is a clash of governing styles. For example, the notion of democracy beginning to emerge scares the ideologues, the totalitarians, those who want to impose their vision. It just frightens them, and so they respond. They've always been violent.I hear this amazing, kind of, editorial thought that says, all of a sudden, Hizballah has become violent because we're promoting democracy. They have been violent for a long period of time. Or Hamas— one reason why the Palestinians still suffer is because there are militants who refuse to accept a Palestinian state based upon democratic principles.And so what the world is seeing is a desire by this country and our allies to defeat the ideology of hate with an ideology that has worked and that brings hope. And one of the challenges, of course, is to convince people that Muslims would like to be free, that there's other people other than people in Britain and America that would like to be free in the world. There's this kind of almost—kind of—weird kind of elitism that says, well, maybe certain people in certain parts of the world shouldn't be free; maybe it's best just to let them sit in these tyrannical societies. And our foreign policy rejects that concept. We don't accept it.And so we're working. And this is—as I said the other day, when these attacks took place, I said this should be a moment of clarity for people to see the stakes in the 21st century. I mean, there's an unprovoked attack on a democracy. Why? I happen to believe because progress is being made toward democracies. And I believe that—I also believe that Iran would like to exert additional influence in the region. A theocracy would like to spread its influence using surrogates.And so I'm as determined as ever to continue fostering a foreign policy based upon liberty. And I think it's going to work unless we lose our nerve and quit. And this government isn't going to quit.

null

Asking about what has happened to America's clout in the region and why the actions and words of the President are being ignored.

null

Implicit

false

true

82

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-5

17

Q. And would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman, whose Republican candidate may support you, but he supports you too, on Iraq?

I'm going to stay out of Connecticut. []

null

Would you campaign against Senator Joe Lieberman on Iraq?

null

Dodging

Implicit

false

17

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-5

16

Q. Is that a make-or-break issue for you, in terms of domestic politics? There's a Republican in Pennsylvania who says he doesn't think the troops should—would you campaign for Mike Fitzpatrick?

I already have.

null

Is that a make-or-break issue for you, in terms of domestic politics?

null

Dodging

false

206

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-secretary-state-condoleezza-rice-crawford-texas

8

Q. Lebanon's Parliament Speaker, Nabih Berri, who has been negotiating for Hizballah, has rejected the first resolution, saying it's unacceptable. They want the Israeli troops to pull out immediately. Is that a negotiable point? And also, Secretary Rice, will you be reaching out to Berri, as you had spoken with him before?

Whatever happens in the U.N., we must not create a vacuum into which Hizballah and its sponsors are able to move more weapons. Sometimes the world likes to take the easy route in order to solve a problem. Our view is, it's time to address root causes of problems. And to create a vacuum, Suzanne, is unacceptable. It would mean that we haven't addressed the root cause.The idea is to have the Lebanese Government move into the south so that the Government of Lebanon can protect its own territory and that there be an international force to provide the help necessary for the Lebanese Government to secure its country. Remember, in Germany, the first thing I said was—or one of the first things I said—I think I said this—help me out here, if I didn't—— I think you did. The President. ——was we want the Siniora Government to survive and to be strengthened. The linchpin of the policy is to support democracies. And so the strategy at the U.N., the diplomatic strategy is to support that notion because a democracy in Lebanon will not only help that nation address its long-term issues—such as rebuilding and providing a hopeful life—but a democracy on Israel's northern border will stabilize—help stabilize the region. We are committed to a democracy in the Palestinian Territory. President Abbas, in his conversations with Condi, talked about moving forward with democracy. There are people who can't stand the thought of a society based upon universal liberty from emerging. And that in itself ought to be a warning signal to those of us who care deeply for peace, that people would be willing to kill innocent citizens in order to stop the advance of liberty.Now, I've talked a lot about the universal appeal of liberty, and I readily concede some people aren't willing to—some say, well, you know, liberty may not be universal in this sense—America imposes its will. We don't impose liberty; liberty is universal.It's one of the interesting debates of the 21st century, I think, that some would be willing to say it's okay for people not to live in a free society. It's not okay for us. If you love peace, in order to achieve peace, you must help people realize that which is universal, and that is freedom.She asked you a question. Our point of contact for the Lebanese Government is obviously Prime Minister Siniora. As you know, I've also spoken to Speaker Berri on a couple of occasions.I understand how emotional this is for the Lebanese. They've been through a very difficult war. It's emotional for Israel as well. They're in the midst of a difficult war.Let me just say that in terms of what the end state will look like here, I don't think there is any disagreement that the right solution is the one that the President referred to. It's the Lebanese and the Lebanese Armed Forces able to secure their territory. And the international help is so that Lebanon can secure its territory. And I don't believe anybody anticipates that there should be foreign forces on Lebanese soil as a result of what has happened here.And so I think there is room on this issue to work on this issue, because everybody has the same vision—that it's the Lebanese Army, with support from an international force, that can actually prevent that vacuum from obtaining again in the south, so that we're not right back here 3 or 4 or 5 months from now, in the same situation.

null

Is the demand for Israeli troops to pull out immediately negotiable?

null

Dodging

false

7

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-washington-dc

44

Q. As a moral leader though?

I think I am a great moral leader, and I love our country.Go ahead, please.Bipartisanship//House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

null

As a moral leader though?

null

Explicit

General

Explicit

false

224

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-stephen-harper-canada

3

Q. Does he pose—come to the booth, sir, I'll tell you who it was. [Laughter] Does he pose any particular unique problems to deal with? And do you feel that he's looking, for instance, at what's been offered to the Iranians by the world community in terms of incentives and saying, I'd like a little of that for myself?

It's hard for me to tell you what's on his mind. He lives in a very closed society. It's unlike our societies where we have press conferences and people are entitled to ask questions, and there's all kinds of discussions out of administrations and people saying this, saying that, and the other. This is a very closed society.We do know there's a lot of concentration camps. We do know that people are starving. As a matter of fact, our Nation has tried to help feed the hungry. But what we don't know is his intentions, and so I think we've got to plan for the worst and hope for the best. And planning for the worst means to make sure that we continue to work with friends and allies, as well as those who've agreed to be a part of the six-party talks, to continue to send a unified message.We've also got a very strong Proliferation Security Initiative, because one of the threats that can emanate from a closed society, particularly one that claims to have nuclear weapons, is proliferation. One of the real dangers we face is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of people who would like to continue to hurt us, hurt the United States or hurt Canada, hurt anybody who has the courage to stand up and embrace freedom, see. That's the big threat.And so we don't know, Jim, about his intentions, but we take—we're planning. And so one of the things we've done— and I thank Canada's contribution—is for there to be a very strong initiative to prevent proliferation, through what we call the Proliferation Security Initiative. And it's an important initiative. It's a way to say, we're not going to allow you to threaten us; we're not going to allow you to—the rocket— as I say, I'm not exactly sure what the azimuth was of the rocket. We've got our people still analyzing that. But, for example, we didn't—we don't know what was on the rocket. We don't know where the rocket was headed. It would have been helpful, of course, had he said, Here's what we're going to do. Here's our intentions. Here's what—we want to work with you; we want to explain it. Who knows—maybe send a satellite—who knows what his intention was.But that's not the way he decided to deal with it. He just decided to say—to start firing, and he fired seven of them. And we take this seriously. We take, and we all should take, threats seriously. That's one of the lessons of September the 11th, is that what takes place in other parts of the world can come home to hurt the American people. See, a failed government in Afghanistan enabled plotters and planners to train and then come and kill 3,000 of our citizens. And so it used to be that's it's okay if something were happening from afar, oceans could protect us. I presume that's how some in Canada used to feel. The lesson of September the 11th is, is that we're vulnerable, and therefore, we've got to deal with each threat.I've assured the American people and assured our friends and allies, we want to deal with threats diplomatically. The best way to deal with threats diplomatically is to encourage others to be a part of the process. And that's what we're doing. That's why we've got the six-party talks.And one of the keys in the six-party talks is for all the nations to send clear messages to Kim Jong Il. That's why I was on the phone this morning, saying as clearly as I could to our fellow partners, four other leaders, to say, let's send a common message that you won't be rewarded for ignoring the world and that you'll be isolated if you continue to do this, and yet there's a way forward.See, I care deeply about the people in . I truly do. It breaks my heart to know that young children are literally starving to death. And I wish—I just wish at some point in time there was an openness in that society where we could help save lives. I'm also realistic enough to realize what weapons of mass destruction could mean in the world in which we live.And so we're working this issue hard. We're working the Iranian issue hard. Steve and I talked about a strategy going into the G-8 session. I talked to President Putin this morning abut making sure that not only do we send messages to the ns but that our strategy will work with Iran.And it's just really important for the American President to see the world the way it is, not the way we would hope it would be, and to deal with threats, and to do so in a way that will achieve results. And it takes a while. I mean, these threats didn't arise overnight, and these problems won't be solved overnight. But we've got strategies in place to deal with them.And one of the reasons why it's important to have Steve here is so we can talk about how we can work together to deal with it. And they're not just threats to our security that normal people think of. HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa is a threat to our security in the long run. That's why I'm proud to report the United States took the lead on setting up the Global Fund, as well as bilateral programs to help save people's lives. I think it's in our interests. I also happen to believe in the admonition, To whom much is given, much is required.And so we've got a robust foreign policy on a lot of fronts, and I intend to keep it that way. And I'm confident that what we're doing is going to make this world a better place. And I'm proud to have allies like Steve who understand the stakes of the 21st century.

null

Does he pose any particular unique problems to deal with?

null

Implicit

Deflection

false

271

Ambivalent

Clear Non-Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-5

21

Q. Do you like them?

They may be a little too fancy for you.

null

Do you like them?

null

Deflection

Dodging

false

112

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1115

5

Q. According to some exit polls, sir, about one out of two voters apparently said that they would like to either see it overturned or repealed. Do you--are you concerned that that may embolden voters who are from the other party, perhaps?

Well, it also means one out of two voters think it was the right thing to do. And obviously, this is an issue that has been contentious. But as I said, I think what's going to be useful is for us to go through the issues that Republicans have issues on, not sort of talking generally, but let's talk specifics. Does this particular provision--when it comes to preexisting conditions--is this something you're for or you're against? Helping seniors get their prescription drugs--does that make sense or not?And if we take that approach, which is different from campaigning--I mean, this is now governing--then I think that we can continue to make some progress and find some common ground.Chip Reid [CBS News].

null

Are you concerned that the results of the exit polls may embolden voters from the other party?

null

Implicit

false

272

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1157

10

Q. Thank you, sir. You've spoken extensively about the debt ceiling debate, but some Republicans have further said that they're willing to allow a Government shutdown to take place rather than put off deep spending cuts. Are you prepared to allow the Government to grind to a halt if you disagree with the spending cut proposals they put forth? And who do you think the American people would blame if that came to pass?

Well, ultimately, Congress makes the decisions about whether or not we spend money and whether or not we keep this Government open. And if the Republicans in Congress have made a decision that they want to shut down the Government in order to get their way, then they have the votes at least in the House of Representatives, probably, to do that.I think that would be a mistake. I think it would be profoundly damaging to our economy. I think it would actually add to our deficit because it will impede growth. I think it's shortsighted. But they're elected representatives, and folks put them into those positions, and they're going to have to make a decision about that. And I don'tI suspect that the American people would blame all of Washington for not being able to get its act together.But the larger issue here has to do with, well, what is it that we're trying to accomplish. Are we trying to reduce the deficit? Because if we're trying to reduce the deficit, then we can shape a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit. I mean, is that really our objective? Our concern is that we're spending more than we take in, and if that's the case, then there's a way of balancing that out so that we take in more money, increasing revenue, and we reduce spending. And there's a recipe for getting that done.And in the conversations that I had with Speaker Boehner before the end of the year, we came pretty close; I mean, a few hundred billion dollars separating us when stretched out over a 10-year period, that's not a lot.But it seems as if what's motivating and propelling at this point some of the House Republicans is more than simply deficit reduction. They have a particular vision about what Government should and should not do. So they are suspicious about Government's commitments, for example, to make sure that seniors have decent health care as they get older. They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions about whether Government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat or whether we should be spending money on medical research. So they've got a particular view of what Government should do and should be.And that view was rejected by the American people when it was debated during the Presidential campaign. I think every poll that's out there indicates that the American people actually think our commitment to Medicare or to education is really important, and that's something that we should look at as a last resort in terms of reducing the deficit, and it makes a lot more sense for us to close, for example, corporate loopholes before we go to putting a bigger burden on students or seniors.But if the House Republicans disagree with that and they want to shut down the Government to see if they can get their way on it, that's their prerogative. That's how the system is set up. It will damage our economy.The Government is a big part of this economy, and it's interesting that a lot of times, you have people who recognize that when it comes to defense spending; some of the same folks who say we've got to cut spending or complain that Government jobs don't do anything, when it comes to that defense contractor in their district, they think, wow, this is a pretty important part of the economy in my district, and we shouldn't stop spending on that. Let's just make sure we're not spending on those other folks.

null

Government shutdown threat

null

Explicit

Implicit

false

true

205

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-0

14

Q. I've just two questions related to the amazing fact that a quarter of your Presidency lies ahead. First, I keep reading that you'll be remembered only for Iraq, and I wonder what other areas you believe you're building, a record of transformation you hope will last the ages. And second, a followup on Julie's question, what is your plan for either changing your role or keeping control of the agenda at a time when Democrats have both Houses on the Hill, and when the '08 candidates are doing their thing?

Well, one is to set priorities. That's what I've just done, setting a priority. My message is: We can work together. And here are some key areas where we've got to work together, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, minimum wage. I hope we're able to work together on free trade agreements. We can work together on Social Security reform and Medicare reform, entitlement reform. We need to work together on energy, immigration, earmarks.The leadership has expressed their disdain for earmarks; I support their disdain for earmarks. I don't like a process where it's not transparent, where people are able to slip this into a bill without any hearing or without any recognition of who put it in there and why they put it in there. It's just not good for the system, and it's not good for building confidence of the American people in our process or in the Congress.The first part of the—oh, last 2 years. I'm going to work hard, Michael. I'm going to sprint to the finish, and we can get a lot done. And you're talking about legacy. Here—I know—look, everybody is trying to write the history of this administration even before it's over. I'm reading about George Washington still. My attitude is, if they're still analyzing number 1, 43 ought not to worry about it and just do what he thinks is right and make the tough choices necessary.We're in the beginning stages of an ideological struggle, Michael. It's going to last a while. And I want to make sure this country is engaged in a positive and constructive way to secure the future for our children. And it's going to be a tough battle.I also believe the Medicare reform—the first meaningful, significant health care reform that's been passed in a while—is making a huge difference for our seniors. No Child Left Behind has been a significant education accomplishment, and we've got to reauthorize it. We have proven that you can keep taxes low, achieve other objectives, and cut the deficit. The entrepreneurial spirit is high in this country, and one way to keep it high is to keep—let people keep more of their own money.So there's been a lot of accomplishment. But the true history of any administration is not going to be written until long after the person is gone. It's just impossible for short-term history to accurately reflect what has taken place. Most historians, you know, probably had a political preference, and so their view isn't exactly objective—most short-term historians. And it's going to take a while for people to analyze mine or any other of my predecessors until down the road when they're able to take—watch the long march of history and determine whether or not the decisions made during the 8 years I was President have affected history in a positive way.I wish you all a happy holiday. Thank you for your attendance. Have fun. Enjoy yourself. For those lucky enough to go to Crawford, perhaps I'll see you down there.Thank you.

null

What other areas do you believe you're building a record of transformation in, apart from Iraq, that you hope will last the ages?

null

Explicit

false

93

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-gordon-brown-the-united-kingdom-camp

1

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?

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, just like this ideological—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 Qaida vision of the world and saying, there's a better way forward.There's 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. 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 its 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.Nick [Nick Robinson, BBC News]. Gosh, still hanging around. []

null

What do you see as the biggest mistakes in the management of the war, and what do you propose to do to correct them?

null

Partial/half-answer

Implicit

General

false

129

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-5

16

Q. Is that a make-or-break issue for you, in terms of domestic politics? There's a Republican in Pennsylvania who says he doesn't think the troops should—would you campaign for Mike Fitzpatrick?

I already have.

null

Would you campaign for Mike Fitzpatrick?

null

Explicit

false

147

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-3

19

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke of the troubles in Iraq. And as you know, we have Woodward [Bob Woodward, Washington Post] and we have a shelf full of books about Iraq, and many of them claim that administration policies contributed to the difficulties there. So I'm wondering, is there anything you wish you would have done differently with regard to Iraq?

Speaking about books, somebody ought to add up the number of pages that have been written about my administration. There's a lot of books out there. A lot. I don't know if I've set the record or not, but I guess it means that I've made some hard decisions and will continue to make hard decisions.And, David, this is the—this is about the fifth time I've been asked this type of question. And as you know, there are some things that I wish had happened differently: Abu Ghraib. I believe that really hurt us. It hurt us internationally. It kind of eased us off the moral high ground. In other words, we weren't a country that was capable of, on the one hand, promoting democracy, and then treating people decently. Now the world has seen that we've held those to account who are—who did this.You know, there's just a lot of look-backs. Presidents don't get to look back, but I will tell you, the decision to remove Saddam was the right decision. And I would look forward to the debate where people debate whether or not Saddam should still be in power.As you know, a leader in the Senate Intel Committee on, I think it was CBS News, Axelrod, I'm not sure—you follow your news closely; you can verify this—said that the world would be better if Saddam were in power. I strongly disagree. So when it comes to that decision, which is a decision to cause a lot of people to write books, it's the right decision.And now the fundamental question is, will this country help this young democracy succeed? And the answer is, we will. We'll change tactics when we need to change tactics to help this young democracy succeed. But the stakes are high if we were to leave. It means that we would hand over a part of the region to extremists and radicals who would glorify a victory over the United States and use it to become—use it to recruit. It would give these people a chance to plot and plan and attack. It would give them resources from which to continue their efforts to spread their caliphate. The stakes are really high.Joe [Joseph Curl, Washington Times].

null

Is there anything you wish you would have done differently with regard to Iraq?

null

Explicit

false

90

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-junichiro-koizumi-japan

3

Q. On North Korea, I'd like to ask a question of both of you, Prime Minister and President. On North Korea, I understand you spent a lot of time to exchange views. It is said that the North Koreans are preparing to launch Taepodong-2. To resolve this missile issue, what kind of cooperation do you think is possible between Japan and the United States? And also, did you discuss possibly referring the matter to the U.N. Security Council?On the abduction issue and human rights issue, I understand, Mr. President, you've shown deep concern for the resolution of the abduction issue. What sort of cooperation do you think is possible between the U.S. and Japan?

Do you want to go? Yes, please. The ns—I believe, in the first place, we need to try and approach the ns not to launch Taepodong-2, through various efforts, and should they ever launch the missile, that will cause various pressures—we would apply various pressures. And we discussed that. I believe it is best that I do not discuss what specific pressures we were talking about.As we approach the ns, we shall maintain close cooperation and coordination with the United States, including the abduction issue. ——all kinds of opportunities, and the U.N. is an opportunity to express our common concern. You know, another interesting opportunity is, over time, to work on missile defenses. The Japanese cannot be—afford to be held hostage to rockets. And neither can the United States or any other body who loves freedom. And so one really interesting opportunity is for—to share and cooperate on missile defenses.You know, the leader of is just going to have to make a decision: Does he want to be isolated from the world, or is he interested in being an active participant in, kind of, the nations of the world who care about their people and desire peace? It's his choice to make. We've made our choice. We believe it's important for nations such as Japan and the United States to be active participants in the world in a positive way. And that's what we're doing.You know, a lot of the focus of our relationship is based upon, obviously, Iraq and Afghanistan, but the truth of the matter is, Japan and the United States make mighty contributions to end suffering because of disease and hunger. And that's why I appreciate the Prime Minister's leadership. He understands that with economic might comes serious responsibilities in the world. And the United States takes those responsibilities seriously, and so does Japan. Matt [Matt Spetalnick, Reuters].

null

What sort of cooperation do you think is possible between the U.S. and Japan to address the abduction issue?

null

Deflection

Implicit

General

false

50

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-prime-minister-tony-blair-the-united-kingdom-0

3

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. On the issue of the multinational force, what shape should it take; who should lead it; who should be part of it? And also, should Hizballah agreeing to it be a precondition for setting up the force?And, Mr. Prime Minister, you talked about a resolution leading to a cessation of hostilities, and I'm just wondering, should it include a call for an immediate cease-fire?

In terms of the troops, that's what the meeting Monday is going to be about. And this is one of these issues that requires international consensus. People will put forth ideas, and we'll participate, in terms of trying to help develop a consensus about what the force ought to look like.In a general sense, though, the force needs to serve as a complement to a Lebanese force. See, that's the whole purpose of the force, is to strengthen the Lebanese Government by helping the Lebanese force move into the area. The whole cornerstone of the policy for Lebanon is for Lebanon to be free and able to govern herself and defend herself with a viable force.And so one of the things you'll see in discussions there is, how do we help the Lebanese Army succeed? What does it— what's required? What's the manpower need to be in order to help this force move into the south so the government can take control of the country. What it looks like— if I hold a press conference on Tuesday, I'll be able to answer that better. But since I probably won't be, read your newspaper.

null

Shape of the multinational force

null

Explicit

Claims ignorance

General

false

true

11

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

Clear Non-Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-chicago

6

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

Well, I thought addressing the issue at the State of the Union was pretty much lifting it to a high priority. When you include it in the State of the Union, it means it's a top priority, and it is.It took us a while to get in a position where we're reliant upon sources of energy from outside our boundaries, and it's going to take us a while to become less dependent. It just takes a while; things just don't happen instantly. I told the people, if I could lower gasoline prices with a snap of the fingers, I'd do it. And I've been talking about energy independence since I first got elected. And we've made some progress. We made progress by encouraging the spread of ethanol. And I think if you were to look at the facts, that ethanol has gone from low market penetration to pretty significant market penetration in selected parts of the country, relatively speaking, particularly in the Midwest.There is more work to be done. There is a lot of ethanol plants being built as we speak, and there's incentives in Government law to do that. We've effected CAFE standards when it comes to light trucks, which will help consumers make a rational decision. We put incentives for people to buy hybrid vehicles in law. If you go out and buy a hybrid vehicle, you get a tax credit.I happen to believe it's essential for us to promote nuclear power as a way to make us less dependent on natural gas from overseas, for example. Also, this will help us be wise stewards of our environment. We're spending a lot of money on technologies, battery technologies, for example, that would enable Chicago residents to drive the first 40 miles on electricity before one would have to use gasoline.And so we do have a full-blown strategy to make this country less dependent on foreign sources of oil, to help relieve pressure at the gas pump. When the demand for crude oil in China rises, it affects the global price of crude oil, which affects your price of gasoline. And therefore, the strategy has got to be to diversify away from crude oil.One of the issues that we're trying to get done here is that if you—if people are genuinely concerned about the price of gasoline, they ought to be supporting my initiative to encourage the construction of additional refinery capacity. Certainly, it's not the long-term solution, but it's an important solution for the short run. If you have constrained gasoline supplies and demand remains high, you're going to have higher prices of gasoline. We haven't built a new refinery in this country since the early 1970s. And so the truth of the matter is, I would hope people would contact their Members of Congress to insist that they support a—the bill that we ran up to the Hill, which would have made it much easier to permit and construct refineries.So we have a comprehensive plan. This is a serious issue. I understand people are paying high gasoline prices here—it's like a tax. I understand it's like a tax. And we got a strategy to deal with it.Anna [Anna Kukec, Daily Herald]. We're going to work our way down the row here. The Daily Herald, is that one of Pearson's competitors? It is?

null

Why not call for an emergency energy summit and lift the issue to a higher priority?

null

Explicit

Dodging

General

false

79

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-lee-myung-bak-south-korea-seoul

3

Q. President Lee, on the same subject? President Lee, do you have any concerns about that U.S. policy might lead to a flood of hot money coming into the Korean economy?

I think that kind of question should be asked to me when President Obama is not standing right next to me. []No, we get asked a very similar question. And I answer it this way: I tell those who ask me that question that, first and foremost, what's most important for us and for everyone around the world, including the Americans, is for the U.S. economy to be robust, to recover, and to continue to grow. That is critically important for the entire global economy if they wish to get on the path of sustainable and balanced growth.Now, I know that there have been certain decisions taken by the U.S. Government and the Federal Reserve. And I know that those decisions were made with due consideration for everything else.And you asked me a question about the influx of hot money into the Korean economy. I don't see any possibility of this happening or such an event becoming destabilizing for the Korean economy. But what I would want to emphasize is that such a measure--decision taken by the U.S. Government, we hope that it will be a positive contribution to the recovery and the revival of the U.S. economy. We know that this has been talked about in Pittsburgh. And that is, namely, the fact of adopting an indicative guideline or a framework for ensuring strong and sustainable growth.And we know that these and other topics of interest will be included in the Seoul communique as well. And we know that are making progress on this through cooperation. I'd also emphasize another point, and that is the importance of international cooperation.

null

Concerns about the U.S. policy leading to a flood of hot money in the Korean economy.

null

Explicit

General

Explicit

false

true

144

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-vladimir-v-putin-russia-sochi

4

Q. My question is—first to both Presidents—you mentioned that yesterday and today you summed up the 8 years of your cooperation. I would like to ask you, if you assess your work, have there been more pluses or minuses? And please tell me, what have you achieved, and what concrete things will be bequeathed to your successors? Do you think the world has become a safer and more secure place? And how has the U.S.-Russian relationship influenced world politics?And my question to the United States now—to the President of the United States now—you have met President-elect today— Dmitry Medvedev. You talked about the impression you have of him. I would like to ask you, did you discuss the schedule of your further exchanges with him in the course of this year—for the remaining part of this year?

Okay, I will start answering. Has it become better, or has it become worse? We always want to have more of a good thing, and we shouldn't forget that the—as we say, the better is the worst enemy of the good.Let us remember the world on the brink of a nuclear disaster during the Caribbean crisis, and now let us look at the U.S.Russia relationship today. A crisis like the Cuban crisis would not be possible now; it would be unthinkable. I agree with George when he said that Russia and the United States no longer consider each other as enemies. At a minimum, they look at each other as partners, and I believe this is very important.Of course, a lot of outstanding issues remain. It is true that we do have disagreements on some sensitive areas of our cooperation, but at the same time, we do have enough strength to search for solutions. And as our meeting today has shown, we are capable of achieving positive re-sults—that is, on the whole—in counterterrorism, in fighting proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology, of fighting the drug threat. All of these create a reliable platform for cooperation, not only between Russia and the United States but a platform that contributes to ensuring international security.If we mention on top of that our economic cooperation, we can state that in the past 8 years, we have been able to improve the relations between our two countries and in the world as a whole. Yes, I agree with that answer. And secondly, I spent—I told President-elect that I would see him in Japan at the G-8, and that's the only scheduling matters that we discussed. And I'm going to finish out my term—my time with Vladimir, and then I'll turn my attention to the President when he gets to be the President. But the first time I suspect we'll meet will be in the scheduled meeting in Japan.Thank you.

null

Influence of U.S.-Russian relationship on world politics: How has this relationship affected world politics?

null

Implicit

false

200

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

Ambivalent

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-1130

1

Q. Mr. President, bad economic news continues to pile up, the latest today, with the GDP barely growing. Are you concerned that a sagging economy and hard times will help defeat John McCain like it did your father in 1992? And how far are you willing to go to prevent that?

I'm concerned about the economy because I'm concerned about working Americans, concerned about people who want to put money on the table and save for their kids' education. That's why I'm concerned about the economy. I want Americans working.And there's no question, the economy has slowed down. You just cited another example of slowdown. I don't think we're headed to a recession, but no question, we're in a slowdown. And that's why we acted, and acted strongly, with over $150 billion worth of progrowth economic incentives, mainly money going into the hands of our consumers and some money going to incent businesses to invest, which will create jobs.And so we've acted robustly. And now it's time to determine whether or not this progrowth package will actually work. Now the checks will start going out in the second week of May. There are going to be letters out soon explaining who is eligible for the refunds. Credit will happen in the first week of May. In other words, some people will choose to have their bank accounts credited. And in the second week of May, we anticipate the checks start moving out of Washington.And the purpose is to encourage our consumers. The purpose is to give them money—their own to begin with, by the way—but give them money to help deal with the adverse effects of the decline in housing value. Consumerism is a significant part of our GDP growth. And we want to sustain the American consumer, encourage the American consumer, and at the same time, we want to encourage investment. So we'll see how the plan works.

null

Willingness to take action in order to prevent a similar outcome as in 1992.

null

Explicit

Implicit

Explicit

false

true

102

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-secretary-state-condoleezza-rice-crawford-texas

3

Q. Thanks. Mr. President, officials have been quoted saying that the international force would not include U.S. troops. And I wonder if you can explain why that is? Is it because the military is already overtasked? Is it because you're afraid that the U.S. doesn't have credibility in the region?

No, I think, first of all, there has been a history in Lebanon with U.S.troops. Secondly, I have said that if the international force would like some help with logistics and command and control, we'd be willing to offer logistics and command and control. There are some places where—it's like Darfur; people say to me, Why don't you commit U.S. troops to Darfur as part of an international peacekeeping? And the answer there is that those troops would be—would create a sensation around the world that may not enable us to achieve our objective. And so when we commit troops, we commit troops for a specific reason, with the intent of achieving an objective. And I think command and control and logistical support is probably the best—is the best use of U.S. forces.Mike Fletcher [Washington Post].

null

Is it because the military is already overtasked?

null

Dodging

Implicit

false

201

Ambivalent

Clear Reply

null

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-news-conference-with-president-vladimir-v-putin-russia-strelna-russia

4

Q. I apologize, but I would like to follow up on the question of my U.S. colleague. Could you speak at greater detail? You have discussed the Iranian nuclear issue in terms of what has happened before and what may happen in the future. There is now the situation with the Iranian nuclear issue. How do you see it as of now? And most importantly, what are we to expect in the future?

——progress, because Russia and the United States agree that should not have a nuclear weapon. In other words, the ians need to understand that we're speaking with one voice that they shouldn't have a weapon, and that's progress.You see, my judgment is they're testing the resolve of the parties to determine whether or not we really are resolved to work together to prevent them from having a weapon. And the clearer they hear a message, the better off—or the closer we'll be to them recognizing there's a better way forward. See, we've made our choice, and that's progress. We've agreed to work together to achieve a common goal. That's considerable progress.And now the choice is theirs to make. I have said the United States will change our posture on this issue if the ian Government does what they've already said they would do, which is to verifiably suspend their enrichment program, at which point, if they do so, we will come to the negotiating table. We will sit side by side.Right now we're negotiating together to send a common message. We will come to the table. It's their choice to make, however. There is a better way forward for the ian people than to be isolated because of their Government's actions. And so I would say that we've made good progress on the issue. I can see that members of the Russian and U.S. press have colluded and are tormenting us with the same kind of questions. [] An old colluder, but a colluder.

null

What are we to expect in the future regarding the Iranian nuclear issue?

null

Explicit

false

76

Clear Reply