Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Wall Street Journal
February 1, 2007
Pg. 16
The following are excerpts from President George W. Bush's meeting yesterday with the Journal's editorial board:
On the new Iraq strategy:
WSJ: Was there a moment in the war when you said we have to make a major change in the way we're doing things in Iraq?
GWB: Yes, there was.
WSJ: When was that?
GWB: September/October.
WSJ: Why?
GWB: Violence. It looked like it was uncontrollable. A young democracy is not going to survive if its capital city is in sectarian violence. I thought for example after the Samarra bombing that we were going to be fine. I thought the Shias had looked into the abyss of a civil war and pulled back. We thought they had, and they didn't.
On congressional opposition:
WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .
GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .
WSJ: You do?
GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress. I find it interesting, however, that on the one hand the Senate listens to the testimony of David Petraeus, who said, send me over with some additional reinforcements and this is the best chance to succeed. And they vote for him 81 to nothing. In other words, they listened to his testimony, appreciated what he had to say, and then they forgot the part about how he said I need the help. There's a contradiction there. . . .
WSJ: Can they put caps on total deployments in Iraq?
GWB: They can . . . through the purse. In others, I don't know if they're going to. And I don't want to predict. But they have the right to try to use the power of the purse to determine policy.
WSJ: But can they put conditions on those funds? Can they say we're only gonna give you the money if you don't send troops to Anbar province?
GWB: They put conditions on funds all the time. Some of those are called earmarks.
WSJ: Would you veto . . .
GWB: Well, . . . I have put forth a plan that will succeed and it needs to be given a chance. So I'll wait and see what they try to do. But I have said [to] the American people I've analyzed every plan and I think this one has the best chance of success. If you think failure is a disaster, then you have an obligation to come up with a plan for success and this is the one that I think will work.
On Iran:
GWB: My theory all along has been to isolate the Iranian regime to determine whether or not there are people in their country who will worry about financial isolation, isolation from trade opportunities. One of the interesting things that we do know about Iran is that there is a large diaspora that is communicating inside Tehran, for example. There are rational people in that country who believe that isolation is not in their interests. And there is enough commerce that if it can be affected through international cooperation, it may cause people to say, 'Wait a minute. We'd better take a look to see who's running this deal.'
And I can only tell you that I'm encouraged by the fact that others are beginning to question whether Ahmadinejad is capable of leading the country. . . . I happen to believe, and the focus of this administration is really to continue to rally the pressure on their nuclear weapons program. I have said that I believe that they should have a civilian nuclear power plant so long as the materials are provided by and collected by a consortium. . . .
I'm also concerned about Iranian influence into Iraq and have made it clear to the Iranians that if we catch them moving weapons they'll be dealt with. There is a temptation for people to take my comments and say, 'Really what he wants to do is escalate the conflict.' The answer to that is that we can solve this peacefully and we're going to need other partners to help us solve it peacefully. Anyway, that's where we are.
WSJ: Do you believe the deadline on the Iranian nuclear issue is during your term?
GWB: You know, I can't . . . we're watching very carefully is the best way for me to describe it. And I'll be pushing hard to solve this diplomatically.
On Social Security:
WSJ: Can I ask about Social Security? You mentioned it in your speech. You also talked about low taxes being important to the strength of the economy. Would you accept an increase in the Social Security tax income cap from present levels in order to get a [reform] deal?
GWB: I want people to bring their best idea to the table, and I'm bringing my best idea, which is you don't have to raise taxes to solve Social Security.
On immigration:
WSJ: How concerned are you about the issue of immigration dividing the Republican Party?
GWB: Getting hammered is what happens when you take tough, principled positions. I don't want our party to be viewed as anti-anybody. If you get labeled as anti-people, you can't win elections. I believe the philosophy of our party is the most hopeful philosophy. It says to any person from any country: 'You have a chance to succeed.' It relies upon individuals. It empowers individuals to be able to realize their potential, as opposed to saying the government is going to do it for you. I know that sounds trite, but that's how I view the difference of philosophy.
I hope I can get a bill through the Congress so that the issue is dealt with in a rational way, before the election process.
WSJ: Do you think that will be easier with a Democratic Congress?
GWB: I think it's going to be hard either way. I think it's going to be [a] hard bill to get through. And I'll tell you why. The ultimate question is what happens to 12 million people who are here. My view is that you can't kick them out, nor should you grant them automatic citizenship. And so there's got to be rational middle way.
WSJ: What is it about this issue that causes so many conservatives to abandon their free-market principles? Raiding businesses, becoming protectionists, etc.?
GWB: I think raiding a business is more about enforcing the law. And conservatives tend to want to enforce the law. . . . This is an emotional issue. It's interesting. There have been periods in our history where nativism has had a strong appeal. Sometimes nativism, isolationism and protectionism all run hand in hand. We've got to be careful about that in the United States. The 1920s was a period of high tariff, high tax, no immigration. And the lesson of the 1920s ought to be a reminder of what is possible for future presidents.
I'm going to work hard on this. I feel strongly about the issue. I gave a speech from the Oval Office on the issue. And I hope we can get something done. But it's going to be hard. This is an issue where you can distort words and label things. Amnesty. That's all you've got to say. He's for amnesty. Whether it's amnesty or not. So it's a tough debate for us all. We'll see how it goes.
On Vladimir Putin:
WSJ: Do you feel that you misjudged Putin?
GWB: Vladimir Putin has kept his word on everything he's said to me. And my relationship with him is such that I'm able to express our disappointment when for example he deals harshly with the Baltics. Vladimir Putin is a person who's going to have to make a choice, as will his successors: whether or not his interests lie with the West or not. And my objective is to convince him that his interests do lay West. But in order to do so, he's got to understand the values that make Western societies move.
February 1, 2007
Pg. 16
The following are excerpts from President George W. Bush's meeting yesterday with the Journal's editorial board:
On the new Iraq strategy:
WSJ: Was there a moment in the war when you said we have to make a major change in the way we're doing things in Iraq?
GWB: Yes, there was.
WSJ: When was that?
GWB: September/October.
WSJ: Why?
GWB: Violence. It looked like it was uncontrollable. A young democracy is not going to survive if its capital city is in sectarian violence. I thought for example after the Samarra bombing that we were going to be fine. I thought the Shias had looked into the abyss of a civil war and pulled back. We thought they had, and they didn't.
On congressional opposition:
WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .
GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .
WSJ: You do?
GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress. I find it interesting, however, that on the one hand the Senate listens to the testimony of David Petraeus, who said, send me over with some additional reinforcements and this is the best chance to succeed. And they vote for him 81 to nothing. In other words, they listened to his testimony, appreciated what he had to say, and then they forgot the part about how he said I need the help. There's a contradiction there. . . .
WSJ: Can they put caps on total deployments in Iraq?
GWB: They can . . . through the purse. In others, I don't know if they're going to. And I don't want to predict. But they have the right to try to use the power of the purse to determine policy.
WSJ: But can they put conditions on those funds? Can they say we're only gonna give you the money if you don't send troops to Anbar province?
GWB: They put conditions on funds all the time. Some of those are called earmarks.
WSJ: Would you veto . . .
GWB: Well, . . . I have put forth a plan that will succeed and it needs to be given a chance. So I'll wait and see what they try to do. But I have said [to] the American people I've analyzed every plan and I think this one has the best chance of success. If you think failure is a disaster, then you have an obligation to come up with a plan for success and this is the one that I think will work.
On Iran:
GWB: My theory all along has been to isolate the Iranian regime to determine whether or not there are people in their country who will worry about financial isolation, isolation from trade opportunities. One of the interesting things that we do know about Iran is that there is a large diaspora that is communicating inside Tehran, for example. There are rational people in that country who believe that isolation is not in their interests. And there is enough commerce that if it can be affected through international cooperation, it may cause people to say, 'Wait a minute. We'd better take a look to see who's running this deal.'
And I can only tell you that I'm encouraged by the fact that others are beginning to question whether Ahmadinejad is capable of leading the country. . . . I happen to believe, and the focus of this administration is really to continue to rally the pressure on their nuclear weapons program. I have said that I believe that they should have a civilian nuclear power plant so long as the materials are provided by and collected by a consortium. . . .
I'm also concerned about Iranian influence into Iraq and have made it clear to the Iranians that if we catch them moving weapons they'll be dealt with. There is a temptation for people to take my comments and say, 'Really what he wants to do is escalate the conflict.' The answer to that is that we can solve this peacefully and we're going to need other partners to help us solve it peacefully. Anyway, that's where we are.
WSJ: Do you believe the deadline on the Iranian nuclear issue is during your term?
GWB: You know, I can't . . . we're watching very carefully is the best way for me to describe it. And I'll be pushing hard to solve this diplomatically.
On Social Security:
WSJ: Can I ask about Social Security? You mentioned it in your speech. You also talked about low taxes being important to the strength of the economy. Would you accept an increase in the Social Security tax income cap from present levels in order to get a [reform] deal?
GWB: I want people to bring their best idea to the table, and I'm bringing my best idea, which is you don't have to raise taxes to solve Social Security.
On immigration:
WSJ: How concerned are you about the issue of immigration dividing the Republican Party?
GWB: Getting hammered is what happens when you take tough, principled positions. I don't want our party to be viewed as anti-anybody. If you get labeled as anti-people, you can't win elections. I believe the philosophy of our party is the most hopeful philosophy. It says to any person from any country: 'You have a chance to succeed.' It relies upon individuals. It empowers individuals to be able to realize their potential, as opposed to saying the government is going to do it for you. I know that sounds trite, but that's how I view the difference of philosophy.
I hope I can get a bill through the Congress so that the issue is dealt with in a rational way, before the election process.
WSJ: Do you think that will be easier with a Democratic Congress?
GWB: I think it's going to be hard either way. I think it's going to be [a] hard bill to get through. And I'll tell you why. The ultimate question is what happens to 12 million people who are here. My view is that you can't kick them out, nor should you grant them automatic citizenship. And so there's got to be rational middle way.
WSJ: What is it about this issue that causes so many conservatives to abandon their free-market principles? Raiding businesses, becoming protectionists, etc.?
GWB: I think raiding a business is more about enforcing the law. And conservatives tend to want to enforce the law. . . . This is an emotional issue. It's interesting. There have been periods in our history where nativism has had a strong appeal. Sometimes nativism, isolationism and protectionism all run hand in hand. We've got to be careful about that in the United States. The 1920s was a period of high tariff, high tax, no immigration. And the lesson of the 1920s ought to be a reminder of what is possible for future presidents.
I'm going to work hard on this. I feel strongly about the issue. I gave a speech from the Oval Office on the issue. And I hope we can get something done. But it's going to be hard. This is an issue where you can distort words and label things. Amnesty. That's all you've got to say. He's for amnesty. Whether it's amnesty or not. So it's a tough debate for us all. We'll see how it goes.
On Vladimir Putin:
WSJ: Do you feel that you misjudged Putin?
GWB: Vladimir Putin has kept his word on everything he's said to me. And my relationship with him is such that I'm able to express our disappointment when for example he deals harshly with the Baltics. Vladimir Putin is a person who's going to have to make a choice, as will his successors: whether or not his interests lie with the West or not. And my objective is to convince him that his interests do lay West. But in order to do so, he's got to understand the values that make Western societies move.