January 12, 2009 Transcript
Following is the transcript of President Bush’s news conference, as provided by the White House.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Tapper. We have been through a lot together. As I look through the room, I see Jake, Mike, Herman, Ann Compton. Just seemed like yesterday that — that I was on the campaign trail and you were analyzing my speeches and my policies. And I see a lot of faces that travel with me around the world and — to places like Afghanistan and Iraq and Africa. I see some new faces, which goes to show there’s some turnover in this business.
Through it all, it’s been — I have respected you. Sometimes didn’t like the stories that you wrote or reported on. Sometimes you misunderestimated me. But always the relationship I have felt has been professional. And I appreciate it.
Toby. Yes, we’ll get everybody.
. . . . . .
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Do you believe that the Gaza conflict will have ended by the time you leave office? Do you approve of the way that Israel has conducted it? And why were you unable to achieve the peace deal that you had sought?
THE PRESIDENT: I hope so. I’m for a sustainable cease-fire. And a definition of a sustainable cease-fire is that Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. And there will not be a sustainable cease-fire if they continue firing rockets. I happen to believe the choice is Hamas’s to make. And we believe that the best way to ensure that there is a sustainable cease-fire is to work with Egypt to stop the smuggling of arms into the Gaza that enables Hamas to continue to fire rockets. And so countries that supply weapons to Hamas have got to stop. And the international community needs to continue to pressure them to stop providing weapons.
Hamas, obviously, if they’re interested in a sustainable cease-fire, needs to stop arming. And then, of course, countries contingent to the Gaza need to work to stop the smuggling. And it’s a difficult — difficult task. I mean, there’s tunnels and, you know, great opportunities for people who want to continue to try to disrupt democracy to provide the weapons to do so.
Second part of your question, please, ma’am?
Q Do you approve of the Israeli conduct in this?
THE PRESIDENT: I think Israel has a right to defend herself. Obviously in any of these kinds of situations, I would hope that she would continue to be mindful of innocent folks, and that they help, you know, expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid.
And third, why haven’t we achieved peace? That’s a good question. It’s been a long time since they’ve had peace in the Middle East. Step one is to have a vision for what peace would look like. And in 2002, on the steps of the Rose Garden, I gave a speech about a two-state solution — two states, two democracies living side by side in peace. And we have worked hard to advance that idea. First thing is to convince all parties that the two states were necessary for peace.
And one thing that’s happened is, is that most people in the Middle East now accept the two-state solution as the best way for peace. Most Palestinians want their own state, and most Israelis understand there needs to be a democracy on their border in order for there to be long-lasting peace.
The challenge, of course, has been to lay out the conditions so that a peaceful state can emerge — in other words, helping the Palestinians in the West Bank develop security forces, which we have worked hard to do over the past years. And those security forces are now becoming more efficient, and Prime Minister Fayyad is using them effectively. The challenge is to develop — help the Palestinians develop a democracy — I mean, and a vibrant economy in their — that will help lead to democracy.
And the challenge, of course, is always complicated by the fact that people are willing to murder to stop the advance of freedom. And so the — Hamas, or for that matter al Qaeda, or other extremist groups, are willing to use violence to prevent free states from emerging. And that’s the big challenge.
And so the answer is — will this ever happen? I think it will. And I know we have advanced the process.
. . . . . .
Q In your 2002 State of the Union address, you identified U.S. threats as an axis of evil — Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Iraq is relatively calm; North Korea is no longer on the terrorist threat list. How would you define, if, in fact, there is an axis of evil? And what is the greatest and most urgent threat when it comes to security that Barack Obama has to deal with?
THE PRESIDENT: The most urgent threat that he’ll have to deal with, and other Presidents after him will have to deal with, is an attack on our homeland. You know, I wish I could report that’s not the case, but there’s still an enemy out there that would like to inflict damage on America — Americans. And that will be the major threat.
North Korea is still a problem. There is a debate in the intel community about how big a problem they are. But one of my concerns is that there might be a highly enriched uranium program. And therefore it is really important that out of the six-party talks comes a strong verification regime. In other words, in order to advance our relations with North Korea, the North Korean government must honor the commitments it made to allow for strong verification measures to be in place, to ensure that they don’t develop a highly enriched uranium program, for example.
So they’re still dangerous, and Iran is still dangerous.
Yes.
. . . . . . . . .
Q Four years ago, you were asked if you had made any mistakes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q And I’m not trying to play “gotcha,” but I wonder, when you look back over the long arc of your presidency, do you think, in retrospect, that you have made any mistakes? And if so, what is the single biggest mistake that you may have made?
THE PRESIDENT: Gotcha. I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better, or, you know, mistakes I made. Clearly putting a “Mission Accomplished” on a aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.
I’ve thought long and hard about Katrina — you know, could I have done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge. The problem with that and — is that law enforcement would have been pulled away from the mission. And then your questions, I suspect, would have been, how could you possibly have flown Air Force One into Baton Rouge, and police officers that were needed to expedite traffic out of New Orleans were taken off the task to look after you?
I believe that running the Social Security idea right after the ’04 elections was a mistake. I should have argued for immigration reform. And the reason why is, is that — you know, one of the lessons I learned as governor of Texas, by the way, is legislative branches tend to be risk-adverse. In other words, sometimes legislatures have the tendency to ask, why should I take on a hard task when a crisis is not imminent? And the crisis was not imminent for Social Security as far as many members of Congress was concerned.
As an aside, one thing I proved is that you can actually campaign on the issue and get elected. In other words, I don’t believe talking about Social Security is the third rail of American politics. I, matter of fact, think that in the future, not talking about how you intend to fix Social Security is going to be the third rail of American politics.
One thing about the presidency is that you can make — only make decisions, you know, on the information at hand. You don’t get to have information after you’ve made the decision. That’s not the way it works. And you stand by your decisions, and you do your best to explain why you made the decisions you made.
There have been disappointments. Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency. Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don’t know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were — things didn’t go according to plan, let’s put it that way.
Anyway, I think historians will look back and they’ll be able to have a better look at mistakes after some time has passed. Along Jake’s question, there is no such thing as short-term history. I don’t think you can possibly get the full breadth of an administration until time has passed: Where does a President’s — did a President’s decisions have the impact that he thought they would, or he thought they would, over time? Or how did this President compare to future Presidents, given a set of circumstances that may be similar or not similar? I mean, there’s — it’s just impossible to do. And I’m comfortable with that.
Yes, Mike.
Q One of the major objectives that the incoming administration has talked frequently about is restoring America’s moral standing in the world. And many of the allies of the new President — I believe that the President-elect himself has talked about the damage that Gitmo, that harsh interrogation tactics that they consider torture, how going to war in Iraq without a U.N. mandate have damaged America’s moral standing in the world. I’m wondering basically what is your reaction to that? Do you think that is that something that the next President needs to worry about?
THE PRESIDENT: I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite, but people still understand America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope.
You go to Africa, you ask Africans about America’s generosity and compassion; go to India, and ask about, you know, America’s — their view of America. Go to China and ask. Now, no question parts of Europe have said that we shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq without a mandate, but those are a few countries. Most countries in Europe listened to what 1441 said, which is disclose, disarm or face serious consequences.
Most people take those words seriously. Now, some countries didn’t — even though they might have voted for the resolution. I disagree with this assessment that, you know, people view America in a dim light. I just don’t agree with that. And I understand that Gitmo has created controversies. But when it came time for those countries that were criticizing America to take some of those — some of those detainees, they weren’t willing to help out. And so, you know, I just disagree with the assessment, Mike.
I’ll remind — listen, I tell people, yes, you can try to be popular. In certain quarters in Europe, you can be popular by blaming every Middle Eastern problem on Israel. Or you can be popular by joining the International Criminal Court. I guess I could have been popular by accepting Kyoto, which I felt was a flawed treaty, and proposed something different and more constructive.
And in terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn’t worry about popularity. What I would worry about is the Constitution of the United States, and putting plans in place that makes it easier to find out what the enemy is thinking, because all these debates will matter not if there’s another attack on the homeland. The question won’t be, you know, were you critical of this plan or not; the question is going to be, why didn’t you do something?
Do you remember what it was like right after September the 11th around here? In press conferences and opinion pieces and in stories — that sometimes were news stories and sometimes opinion pieces — people were saying, how come they didn’t see it, how come they didn’t connect the dots? Do you remember what the environment was like in Washington? I do. When people were hauled up in front of Congress and members of Congress were asking questions about, how come you didn’t know this, that, or the other? And then we start putting policy in place — legal policy in place to connect the dots, and all of a sudden people were saying, how come you’re connecting the dots?
And so, Mike, I’ve heard all that. I’ve heard all that. My view is, is that most people around the world, they respect America. And some of them doesn’t like me, I understand that — some of the writers and the, you know, opiners and all that. That’s fine, that’s part of the deal. But I’m more concerned about the country and our — how people view the United States. They view us as strong, compassionate people who care deeply about the universality of freedom.