Text of Bush Press Conference

Q: So in the near term you think there will be more attacks and more people dying?

BUSH: I can't predict that.

In the near term I can only tell you one thing: We will stay on the offense. We'll be relentless, we'll be smart about how we go after the terrorists, we'll use our friends and allies to go after the terrorists, we will find them where they hid and bring them to justice.

Let me finish with the TV people first.

You're not a TV person, Ed. I know you'd like to be.

Q: You'd be surprised.

BUSH: Yes. It's a tough industry to get into.

Q: Mr. President, it was four years ago when you first met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. You said you looked into his eyes and you saw his soul. You'll also be meeting with the Russian leader in about a week or so.

What do you think of Putin now that he has expressed a willingness to supply weapons to outlaw regimes, specifically his recent comments that he said he would provide short-range missiles to Syria and nuclear components to Iran?

BUSH: Yes. First, just on a broader — kind of in a broader sense, I had a long talk with Vladimir there in Slovakia about democracy and about the importance of democracy.

And as you remember at the press conference, or, if you weren't there, somebody will remember, he stood up and said he strongly supports democracy. I take him for his word.

And we'll continue to work. Condi Rice, our secretary of state, just came back and she briefed me that she had a very good discussion with Vladimir about the merits of democracy, about the need to listen to the people and have a government that's responsive.

Now, we're working closely with the Russians on the issue of vehicle-mounted weaponry to Syria. We didn't appreciate that, but we made ourselves clear.

As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant and then collect that uranium after it's used for electricity, power purposes. That's what they've decided to do.

And I appreciate that gesture.

See, what they recognize is that what America recognizes and what Great Britain, France and Germany recognize, is that we can't trust the Iranians when it comes to enriching uranium; that they should not be allowed to enrich uranium.

And what the Iranians have said is, Don't we deserve to have a nuclear power industry just like you do?

I'm, kind of, wondering why they need one, since they've got all the oil. But nevertheless, others in the world say, Well, maybe that's their right to have their own civilian nuclear power industry.

And what Russia said: Fine, we'll provide you the uranium. We'll enrich it for you and provide it to you and then we'll collect it.

And I appreciate that gesture. So I think Vladimir was trying to help there. I know Vladimir Putin understands the dangers of an Iran with a nuclear weapon. And most of the world understands that as well.

Q: Mr. President, have you asked your ambassador to the U.N., Ambassador John Bolton, about allegations that he acted improperly to subordinates? Do you feel that these allegations warrant your personal intervention?

And if they're true, do you feel that they should disqualify him from holding the post, sir?

BUSH: Well, John Bolton has been asked the questions about how he handles his business by members of the United States Senate. He's been asked a lot of questions, and he's given very good answers.

John Bolton is a seasoned diplomat. He has been serving our country for, I think, 20 years.

He has been confirmed by the United States Senate four times. In other words, he's been up before the Senate before. And they've analyzed his talents and his capabilities. And they've confirmed him.

John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm little too blunt.

John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations.

It seemed like to me it made sense to put somebody who's capable, smart, served our country for 20 years, been confirmed by the United States Senate four times and who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the ambassador to the U.N.

See, the U.N. needs reform. If you're interested in reforming the U.N. like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and who's not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations.

Now, I asked John during the interview process in the Oval Office — I said, Before I send you up there to the Senate, let me ask you something: Do you think the United Nations is important?

See, I didn't want to send somebody up there who said, Well, that's not worth a darn. I don't think I need to go.

He said, No, it's important, but it needs to be reformed.

And I think the United Nations is important.

As a matter of fact, I'll give you an example: Today I met with the United Nations representative to Syria, Mr. Larsen.

He's an impressive fellow.

Now, he's delivered — to Lebanon, excuse me. He's delivered a very strong message to the Syrian leader, though, that the world expects President Assad to withdraw not only his military forces, but his intelligence services, completely from Lebanon.

And now he is in charge of following up to make sure it happens.

I think that's a very important and useful role for the United Nations to play.

We have played a role. France has played a role. A lot of nations have played roles. But the United Nations has done a very good job in Syria — with Syria in Lebanon of making it sure that the world expects the Lebanese elections to be free in May, without Syrian influence.

He's an impressive fellow. I applaud him for his hard work. But there's an example of why I think the United Nations is an important body.

On the other hand, the United Nations has had some problems that we've all seen.

And if we expect the United Nations to be effective, it needs to clean up its problems. And I think it makes sense to have somebody representing the United States who will be straightforward about the issues.

Stretch?

Do you mind if I call you Stretch in front of your ...

BC-Bush-Text, 2nd Add,2,140

UNDATED: front of your.

Q: I've been called worse.

BUSH: OK.

Q: Getting back to Social Security for a moment, sir, would you consider it a success if Congress were to pass a piece of legislation that dealt with the long-term solvency problem, but did not include personal accounts?

BUSH: I feel strongly that there needs to be voluntary personal savings accounts as a part of the Social Security system.

I mean, it's got to be a part of the comprehensive package. And the reason I feel strongly about that is that we got a lot of debt out there, a lot of unfunded liabilities, and our workers need to be able to earn a better rate of return on their money to help deal with that debt.

Secondly, I like the idea of giving someone ownership.

Why should ownership be confined only to rich people? Why should people, you know, not be allowed to own and manage their own assets, who aren't the so-called investor class?

I think everybody ought to be given that right.

Matter of fact, Congress felt so strongly that people ought to be able to own and manage their own accounts, they set one for themselves.

And, you know, you've heard me say — I like to say this, if it's good enough for the Congress, it ought to be good enough for the workers to give them that option.

The government's never saying, You have to set up a personal account. We're saying, You ought to have the right to set a personal savings account so you can earn a better rate of return on your own money than the government can.

And it's that difference between the rate of return — between what the government gets on your money and what a conservative mix of bonds and stocks can get on your money — that will make an enormous difference in a person being able to build his or her own nest egg that the government cannot spend.

Now, it's very important for our fellow citizens to understand there is not a bank account here in Washington, D.C., where we take your payroll taxes and hold it for you and then give it back to you when you retire.

Our system is called pay as you go. You pay into the system through your payroll taxes and the government spends it. It spends the money on the current retirees and with the money left over, it funds other government programs.

And all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs.

The reason I believe that this ought to work is not only should a worker get a better rate of return, not only should we encourage ownership, but I want people to have real assets in the system.

I want people to be able to say, Here is my mix of bonds and stocks that I own, and I can leave it whomever I want.

Now, I hear complaints saying, Well, you know, there's going to be high — Wall Street fees are going to fleece the people.

Well, there's ways to have fee structures that are fair. As a matter of fact, all you got to do is go to some of these states where they've got personal accounts available for their workers, and you'll find that the fees will be fair.

People say, Well, I don't want to have to take risk. Well, as I outlined in my opening statement, there are ways where you don't have to take risk.

People say, I'm worried about the stock market going down right before I retire. You can manage your assets. You can go from bonds and stocks to only bonds as you get older.

In other words, we're giving people flexibility to own their own asset. And I think that's a vital part of making sure America is a hopeful place in the future.

So not only will these accounts make the system work better, but the accounts are a better deal. The accounts will mean something for a lot of works that might not have assets they call their own.

Q: Mr. President, in your answer before about Iraq, you set no benchmarks for us to understand when it is that troops may be able to ...

BUSH: In Iraq?

Q: In Iraq, yes — about when troops may be able to come back.

BUSH: Right.

Q: Based on what you've learned now in two years of fighting the insurgency and trying to train the Iraqi security forces, can you say that within the next year you think you could have very substantial American withdrawal of troops?

BUSH: I know there's a temptation to try to get me to lay out a timetable. And as you know, during the campaign and I reiterated, I don't think it's wise for me to set out a timetable. All that will do is cause an enemy to adjust.

So my answer is, as soon as possible. And as soon as possible depends upon the Iraqis being able to fight and do the job.

I had a good video conference recently with General Casey and General Petraeus.

General Casey is in charge of the theater. General Petraeus, as you know, is in charge of training.

And they were upbeat about what they're seeing with the Iraqi troops.

One of the questions I like to ask is, Are they are to recruit?

In other words, you see these killers will target recruiting stations, and I've always wondered whether or not that has had an effect on the ability for the Iraqis to draw their fellow citizens into the armed forces.

Recruitment's high. It's amazing, isn't it, that people want to serve, they want their country to be free?

The other question that — one of the other issues that is important is the equipping issue. And equipment is now moving quite well. In other words, troops are becoming equipped.

Thirdly, a fundamental problem has been whether or not there's an established chain of command, whether or not a civilian government can say to the military, Here's what you need to do, and whether the command goes from top to bottom and the plans get executed.

And General Petraeus was telling me he is pleased with the progress being made with setting up a command structure, but there's still more work to be done.

One of the real dangers is that, as politics takes hold in Iraq, whether or not the civilian government will keep intact the military structure that we're now helping them develop. And my message to the prime minister and our message through our government to the Iraqis is: Keep stability. Don't disrupt the training that has gone on.

Don't politicize your military, in other words. Have them there to help secure the people.

So we're making good progress.

We've reduced our troops from 160,000, more or less, to 139,000. As you know, I announced to the country that we would step up our deployments — step up deployments and retain some troops for the elections. And then I said we'd get them out, and we've done that.

In other words, the withdrawals that I said would happen have happened.

Go ahead. I can see that you've got a follow-up right there on the tip of your tongue.

Q: Do you feel that the number of troops that you've kept there is limiting your options elsewhere in the world?

Just today you had the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency say that he was now concerned that the North Koreans, for example, could put a nuclear weapon on a missile that could reach Japan or beyond.

Do you feel, as you're confronting these problems, the number of troops you've left tied up in Iraq is limiting your options to go beyond the diplomatic solutions that you've described for North Korea, Iran?

BUSH: I appreciate that question.

The person I asked that to — the person I asked that to, at least, is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military adviser.

I said, Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq? And the answer is no, he doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got plenty of capacity.

You mentioned the Korean Peninsula. We've got good capacity in Korea.

We've traded troops for new equipment, as you know. We've brought some troops — our troop levels down in South Korea, but replaced those troops with more capacity.

Let me talk about North Korea, if you don't mind.

Is that your question?

Q: Go right ahead.

BUSH: I'm surprised you didn't ask it.

Look, Kim Jong Il is a dangerous person. He's a man who starves his people. He's got huge concentration camps. And, as David accurately noted, there is concern about his capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon. We don't know if he can or not, but I think it's best, when you're dealing with a tyrant like Kim Jong Il, to assume he can.

That's why I've decided that the best way to deal with this diplomatically is to bring more leverage to the situation by including other countries.

It used to be that it was just America dealing with North Korea. And when Kim Jong Il would make a move that would scare people, everybody would say, America, go fix it.

I felt it didn't work. In other words, the bilateral approach didn't work. The man said he was going to do something and he didn't do it, for starters.

So I felt a better approach would be to include the people in the neighborhood into a consortium to deal with him. And it's particularly important to have China involved. China's got a lot of influence in North Korea.

We went down to Crawford with Jiang Zemin, and it was there that Jiang Zemin and I issued a statement saying that we would work for a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula.

And so, when Kim Jong Il announced the other day about his nuclear intentions and weapons, it certainly caught the attention of the Chinese, because they had laid out a policy that was contradicted by Kim Jong Il.

And it's helpful to have the Chinese leadership now involved with him.

It's better to have more than one voice sending the same message to Kim Jong Il. The best way to deal with this issue diplomatically is to have four other nations beside ourself dealing with him. And we'll continue to do so.

Finally, as you know, I have instructed Secretary Rumsfeld, and I have worked with Congress, Secretary Rumsfeld has worked with Congress to set up a missile defense system. And we're in the process of getting that missile defense system up and running.

One of the reasons why I thought it was important to have a missile defense system is for precisely the reason that you brought up: Perhaps Kim Jong Il has got the capacity to launch a weapon; wouldn't it be nice to be able to shoot it down?

And so, we've got a comprehensive strategy in dealing with him.

Q: Sir, you've talked all around the country about the poisonous, partisan atmosphere here in Washington. I wonder, why do you think that is? And do you personally bear any responsibility in having contributed to this atmosphere?

BUSH: I'm sure there are some people that don't like me.

You know, and I don't know. I've long and hard about it.

I've been disappointed. I felt that people could work together in good faith.

It's just a lot of politics in the town. It's kind of a zero-sum attitude. We can't cooperate with so and so because it may make their party look good and vice versa.

Although, having said that, we did have some success in the education bill. We certainly came together as a country after September the 11th. I appreciate the strong bipartisan support for supporting our troops in harm's way.

There's been a lot of instances of bipartisanship. But when you bring a tough issue up like Social Security, it — you know, sometimes people divide into camps.

And I'm proud of my party. Our party's been the party of ideas.

We said, Here's a problem, and here's some ideas as how to fix it.

And, as I've explained to some people, I don't want to politicize this issue. People will say, You didn't need to bring this up, Mr. President; it may cost you politically.

I don't think so. I think the American people appreciate somebody bringing up tough issues, particularly when they understand the stakes.

The system goes broke in 2041. In 2027, for those listening, we'll be obligated to pay $200 billion more a year than we take in in order to make sure the baby boomers get the benefits they've been promised.

In other words, this is a serious problem. And the American people expect us to put our politics aside and get it done.

I can't answer your question as to why. I'll have to continue to do my best.

I've tried to make sure the dialogue is elevated.

I don't believe I've resorted to name calling here in Washington, D.C. I find that to not be productive.

But I also understand the mind of the American people.

They're wondering what's going on. They're wondering why we can't come together and get an energy bill, for example. They're wondering why we can't get Social Security done.

And my pledge to the American people is, I'll continue to work hard with people of both parties and share credit and give people the benefit of the credit when we get something done.

BC-Bush-Text, 3rd Add,2,700

UNDATED: get something done.

Part 3