Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Iraq Progress Report; View From Baghdad; Flight Diverted; Al Qaeda Resurgence?; President Bush Press Conference

Aired July 12, 2007 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ExpressJet Airlines released this statement to us regarding Kate's complaint. "We received Ms. Penland's letter expressing her concerns and intend to investigate its contents."
(END VIDEOTAPE)

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: OK. Reporter Rachel Kim (ph) spoke to another passenger on the plane. That woman quoted as saying, "none of the passengers felt the boy was a problem and the mother never threatened the flight attendant."

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Unbelievable.

HARRIS: Yes, really.

COLLINS: Good morning, everybody. I'm Heidi Collins.

HARRIS: And I'm Tony Harris. Stay informed all day in the CNN NEWSROOM. Here's what's on the rundown.

A presidential news conference live this hour. The likely focus, a pair of new progress reports. One on Iraq, one on al Qaeda.

COLLINS: Sorting out a security breach. A Los Angeles to London flight diverted to New York after a passenger skirts security.

It's Thursday, July 12th. You are in the NEWSROOM.

HARRIS: And at the top this hour, President Bush and an assessment on Iraq. A live news conference set for this hour. Details of a much anticipated progress report out right now. We are covering this story from several fronts. Our White House correspondent Elaine Quijano at her post on the front lawn. CNN's Hala Gorani live in Baghdad, congressional correspondent Dana Bash on Capitol Hill, and Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr also with us live.

Elaine, first to you.

What are we going to hear from the president, oh, in about 29 minutes from now?

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, in short, Tony, that it is early yet and to have patience.

Now over the past few days, the White House has essentially been trying to downplay the significance of this report. Officials here have been calling it a snapshot. They say it's an early progress report. And that's certainly reflected in the language that we've seen in the report itself and also in the kinds of ratings that we have been seeing for these 18 political, economic and military benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet.

Eight get a satisfactory rating, including some key security areas. Eight are unsatisfactory. Some of those in the political areas. And two getting a mixed rating.

Now look for the president to emphasize that, in his view, it is still early to tell and make conclusions, draw conclusions about each of these benchmarks, even though it's important to remember that the U.S. began rolling out troops for this surge strategy back in February. The president, though, wants lawmakers to wait until September before making their next move. That, of course, is when General David Petraeus is said to deliver his own report.

But the bottom line here is that while President Bush will try to point to signs of progress in this report, it will likely not be enough to quiet those critics of the president who want him to change course on Iraq now, including, Tony, some of his fellow Republicans.

Tony.

HARRIS: Our White House correspondent Elaine Quijano for us.

Elaine, thank you.

COLLINS: What do the Iraqi people have to say about the U.S. military presence in their country? Or Hala Gorani is in Baghdad with that.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HALA GORANI, CNN CORRESPONDENT, (voice over): Should the Americans stay or go? The debate rages on in Washington and across America and also here on the streets of Iraq, where the effects of a pullout would be most felt. In a block of apartments in central Baghdad, a mixed Sunni/Shiite couple, at war in Iraq's bloody sectarian conflict, here a family. Monged Alnaieb, a Sunni, his wife, Shiite. They agree, U.S. troops should stay to fix the chaos, they say, the occupation has created.

MONGED ALNAIEB, BAGHDAD RESIDENT: If they leave today, you know, the militias now take control of the country. There is no -- neither the American or the Iraqi soldiers or the police.

GORANI: Their three sons can't walk freely in a Shiite neighborhood anymore. Their son had a typically Sunni name, so they changed it to Ahmed (ph) so that his I.D. card would not give him away.

Elsewhere on the streets of Baghdad, though, there is no shortage of people who say American troops should leave and leave now. "Well, because they did not provide us security," this passerby says. "They came and destroyed the country, nothing less, nothing more. It was them who started sectarianism."

This man says he's grateful the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein, but that everything they've done sense has hurt his country.

"It is true, when they first came, they got rid of the Baathists. They got rid of them, but they didn't provide us with the security and stability in Iraq. They destroyed the Iraqi economy."

Back at the apartment complex, one floor down, I visit a Shiite family. Munthar Nader used to be a cabdriver, but he was shot on the road between Baghdad and Mosul and his car was stolen. Despite the violence his family has suffered, he says the Americans should stay.

MUNTHAR NADER, BAGHDAD RESIDENT: If I don't see U.S. forces in front of me, I feel scared. Honestly, I feel scared because the terrorists are afraid from U.S. forces, along with Iraqi forces. So I would prefer for them to stay.

GORANI: Munthar's brother was killed last year and he now takes care of his orphaned nephew and niece, including young Hidar (ph), sitting quietly on his knees. For Munthar's mother, whether the U.S. military stays or goes it matters little today.

"My dearest son to me was killed and he is my son. Now I do not care about anything. His children have become orphans."

Above the television, a picture of a dead son, and the hopeless realization no political benchmarks or military strategy will ever bring him back.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: CNN's Hala Gorani is joining us now live from Baghdad.

And, Hala, as today we begin to look at this early interim report, the 18 benchmarks in Iraq, tell me a little bit about the reaction in Iraq of the sectarian violence?

GORANI: Well, it's a little bit early to get official reaction. This report that we've been able to look through, albeit it rather quickly, is something that just came out. So we're going to have to wait a little bit for official reaction.

But what I can tell you is, we've looked at some of those sectarian killing benchmarks that the Bush White House is saying have been -- or are satisfactory being achieved, in the process of being achieved. Now it is true that since the beginning of the year, sectarian killings have gone from about 2,000 bodies on the streets of Baghdad to about 600. But if you look at it since the beginning of the invasion in 2003, we're really back to the level of before of first bombing of the Samarra mosque that kicked off this very deadly year and a half of sectarian killing. So really what has been achieved is going back to pre-Samarra bombing levels and also militias really on the ground are still very much in control of security in Iraq.

Back to you.

COLLINS: Also there is something that was pointed out earlier. Our Dana Bash had a copy of the report pretty early on as well. And the ability for the Iraqi security forces to operate independently. That was given an unsatisfactory grade as well.

GORANI: Yes. And you have to also read between the lines of those benchmarks that are considered satisfactory. Even the sectarian killing number, you have to read next to it, with substantial support from coalition forces. In other words, Iraqi security forces on their own are not achieving any of these benchmarks. And also you have to look politically and legislatively at all these very important laws, like the oil revenues sharing law, the debaathification law, reforming the constitution. All these very important laws that are designed to bring the Iraqis back together that are really not even being discussed in parliament today.

COLLINS: Well, we will continue to look at this throughout the day, both from here in the United States and from Baghdad.

Hala Gorani, thanks so much, live from Baghdad for us today.

Meanwhile, President Bush addresses the Iraq report card. His news conference this morning at 10:30 Eastern live in the NEWSROOM here on CNN.

HARRIS: Al Qaeda, as strong as it's been since 9/11. That's the unsettling conclusion of a classified intelligence report. Early on CNN's "American Morning," the nation's Homeland Security chief said the bottom line here is clear.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I think the real lesson here, and it's something we saw, for example, during the Cold War, is that we can never rest on our laurels. We have done a lot to secure this country over the last five years and we've been fortunate, but also we've reaped the harvest of that in that we have not had a successful attack here. But the enemy is continuing to change and adapt. And we cannot be static. And that's why, as we go forward into this next year, I'm really urging people to take a close look at some of the additional security measures we're trying to put into place here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: Michael Chertoff raised eyebrows earlier this week when he said he had a gut feeling the U.S. could be attacked this summer. He is stressing now he doesn't know of a specific, credible threat.

COLLINS: Unfolding this hour. Flights averted, passenger detained and questions still unanswered. An American Airlines plane now on the ground at New York's JFK Airport after a possible security breach. CNN's Alina Cho is there for us this morning. Anything new about this now, Alina? Because we had so many questions, obviously, off the top about where this individual had come from. It turns out he's an executive traveler, if you will. A platinum member.

ALINA CHO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's try to sort it out for you, Heidi. The very latest information is this. American Airlines tells CNN that the man in question, the man that's been detained, is not an employee, not a flight attendant of American Airlines, but rather an executive platinum traveler. In other words, a frequent flyer. The big question is, whether that man in question actually boarded an employee shuttle bus at LAX.

Whatever the case, there was a conversation on that flight between a flight attendant, who believed that he or she saw that man in question on the employee bus and later on the flight, said, wait a minute, what is this person doing on the flight as a passenger now? There was a conversation that ensued. Ultimately, the plane was diverted in the overnight hours, over Newfoundland, and landed at JFK in the early morning hours.

Interestingly enough, passengers were initially told by the pilot that the plane was making an emergency landing here at JFK in order to refuel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHO, (voice over): So you didn't get the sense that people on board that flight were scared, concerned?

JENNI BAINBRIDGE, PASSENGER ON DIVERTED FLIGHT: No.

ROGER BAINBRIDGE, PASSENGER ON DIVERTED FLIGHT: No. No.

CHO: Maybe relieved that actually whatever it was was discovered and caught?

R. BAINBRIDGE: Yes. I mean it kind of makes you feel a little bit better about flying knowing that these things can get caught, rather than more are prevented (INAUDIBLE).

J. BAINBRIDGE: I think also the fact that there were 12 police - you know the fact that it surrounded. It made people feel safer. I certainly know that when you said hijack, I felt a little scared. I mean when all these police came on, you felt safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHO: Now an FBI official in Washington has literally just told CNN that the man in question has been detained. Is not under arrest, but has been detained. Is still being questioned. And this is important. The FBI says this man poses no security risk.

What is still unclear is whether that man actually got on to the employee shuttle bus. And, if so, how that man got on. But again, it has not been determined yet whether that man actually boarded the employee shuttle bus. And so the largest issue is whether there was a security breach at all.

What is clear is this has been a travel nightmare, Heidi, as you might imagine, for the 188 passengers on board. Most, if not all, of those passengers have been rebooked on other flights with the first one leaving here at JFK at 9:00 a.m.

Heidi.

COLLINS: Yes, I can imagine, the travel backup. Not a good time.

All right. Alina Cho, I know you can't hear us very well, so we'll let you go for now and continue to work the sources. Thanks so much, Alina.

HARRIS: So, Heidi, let's stay with this story for a bit here. Former Department of Homeland Security inspector general Clark Kent Ervin joining us.

Clark, great to see you again.

CLARK KENT ERVIN, FORMER DHS INSPECTOR GENERAL: You too, Tony.

HARRIS: Hey, at the end of the day, what are we likely to have here. You know, not a lot is new. Something tells me that this kind of thing, on the edges perhaps, has happened before. So at the end of the day, what do you think is going to come out of this?

ERVIN: Well, you know, we've learned a lot from Alina's report there. This fellow is not an employee. That's important. What's still unclear though, as she just said, is whether he boarded the employee bus.

If he boarded the employee bus, of course that raises the question, how it is that somebody who isn't an airport employee can board a employee bus and then use that to evade security measures. It also raises the question whether even employee should be able to evade the screening checkpoint process. And my answer to that is, they should not be, particularly now in the post-9/11 world.

HARRIS: Yes. So what do you think? Is it policy that you have to show some kind of an I.D. in order to get on the employee bus?

ERVIN: Yes, I believe that is the policy at every airport. If not, it certainly should be the policy. And again, we don't know exactly what the facts are here. But again, if this person is not an employee and was allowed to get on to the employee bus, presumably without any employee identification, obviously that's a huge potential problem.

HARRIS: If the assessment has been made by the FBI that this passenger is no security risk, what's going on? What is the questioning that's going on right now?

ERVIN: Well, they are trying to confirm their apparent initial conclusion that this person is not a security risk. If, in fact, he's not a security risk, obviously that's a very good thing. Also it's a very good thing that this was an alert crew member of the plane who noticed something suspicious and called the authorities' attention to it.

HARRIS: Let me stop you there. That's right. Clark, let me stop you there. Give us a sense of the questions that might have gone on, if you can, between this flight attendant and a passenger that the flight attendant thought was suspicious.

ERVIN: Right. I'm sure that the flight attendant said, you know, aren't you the guy or the one, well the guy who I just saw on the employee bus? If not, how -- what are you doing here on the plane? What's your background? What are your intentions, et cetera, et cetera? And then I'm sure she called the authorities right away and the plane was diverted.

HARRIS: Yes. I want you to hear the initial response from Michael Chertoff this morning on "American Morning." And I'm just sort of curious as to where -- who is informing the secretary of Homeland Security. And it seems, at least now, there were some more information that the secretary could have used before making any statements on this. Take a listen and then let's talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I have gotten a report that the individual in question was, in fact, an employee who was traveling in a private capacity. I think the good news here, of course, is an alert crew sees something that's anomalous or seems a little bit questionable and they take action. It may very well turn out that this is nothing more than a misunderstanding with an employee who used an employee bus to get on a plane for a private flight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: OK. Employee, employee, employee a couple of times. Who is talking to the secretary?

ERVIN: Well, that's a good question, Tony. You know, based on what we are learning now, it sounds like the secretary was misinformed. I'm actually sympathetic to him, though. You know in these kinds of situations, initial reports are often untrue. You have to have an investigation to confirm exactly what the facts are. And I think the secretary was trying to share with CNN what he knew at the time.

HARRIS: Should he have talked about it before he had a little more clarity?

ERVIN: If I were he, I would have clarified it to say that this is my understanding. You know, it may turn out differently once the investigation is complete, et cetera, et cetera. But I think he was trying to share as much information as he had available to him at that time.

HARRIS: I am so out of time. I'm in so much trouble. Clark, great to see you.

ERVIN: You too, Tony.

HARRIS: Thanks for your time this morning.

ERVIN: Thank you.

COLLINS: Iraq making some progress. A new White House assessment heads to Congress today. The president talks about it shortly, 10:30 Eastern, live right here in the NEWSROOM.

HARRIS: On the rebound. A new threat assessment finds al Qaeda is as muscular now as anytime since 9/11.

COLLINS: It's being called a cold blooded attack. A new development this morning in the shooting of two New York police officers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Al Qaeda rising. A chilling conclusion from a classified report. Here to fill us in on all of it is CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena.

Kelli, tell us, to begin with, what the bottom line of this report is.

KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, there are no bottom lines to intelligence reports because, unfortunately, this is more of an art than it is a science. But we spoke to some people who looked at that summary, Heidi, and that report is still classified, by the way.

And what they come away with is that al Qaeda has gotten stronger, it is resurging, it is rebuilding its force, its ranks. It's getting its training capability back in order. It's raising some money. All of this is being allowed because al Qaeda has a relatively safe haven along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan on where it's allowed to conduct many of its activities unbothered.

You know, it was sobering. One of the words used by one of the people who has seen the report. But, you know, intelligence reports don't really work well for headlines, unfortunately. They don't, you know, come up and say, OK, well they're at this level of strength or that level of strength. It's just, hey, you know what, this is a concern. They are rebuilding. We've got to watch this.

COLLINS: So nothing in there about whether or not we are actually facing a bigger threat right now?

ARENA: Oh, for sure. I mean the stronger al Qaeda gets, the bigger the threat is. But I can tell you that repeatedly we have been told by government officials that there is no specific or credible information that there's any imminent attack planned against the United States. Again, those same officials always say, you know, it's not a question of if, but it's a question of when. When will al Qaeda choose to move against the United States? And the prevailing wisdom, Heidi, is basically that when they do, that they'll probably try to do something that is larger than we have seen them do in other parts of the world because this, of course, is, in their eyes, the grand prize and they don't want to come off as looking weaker if they do something smaller than September 11th.

COLLINS: What about the funding? I mean we talk so much about being able to disrupt some of the funding that is going into organizations like al Qaeda. Does it mention much of that?

ARENA: Well, again, I don't know exactly what's in the full report, because that remains classified. But that has been a concern. And as you know, the U.S. has done a lot of work in trying to break down the networks, charities and so on, that were used to avert money to terrorist funding.

The same amount -- that is not the same story when you get overseas. Enforcement is not as vigorous as the U.S. would like it to be. But, of course, the U.S. can't enforce its laws on other sovereign nations. So that remains a problem. But again, the big focus, Heidi, is on the activities that are happening right along that border area.

COLLINS: Yes, can't do it without the funding, though, it seems to me.

ARENA: That's right.

COLLINS: All right. Kelli Arena, thanks so much for keeping your eye on that one for us.

ARENA: You're welcome.

COLLINS: And meanwhile, CNN "Security Watch" does keep you up- to-date on your safety. You can stay tuned day and night for the most reliable news about your security.

HARRIS: Iraq making some progress. That new White House assessment heads to Congress today. The president talking about it minutes from now, 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, about eight minutes away. Live right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: Assessing Iraq's progress. A much anticipated White House report out this morning. President Bush talking about it, oh, just minutes from now. CNN has learned the report states of 18 benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress. The Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on eight, unsatisfactory progress on eight, and mixed progress on two benchmarks. Senator John McCain says the report will show some success on the military side, but he added, on the political side, there is none.

COLLINS: Turning now to CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash live on Capitol Hill. Dana, you have to wonder how this report will affect the Iraq debate on The Hill.

DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, that is going to be the question we're already looking at, Heidi. I'll tell you, Just in talking to senators, obviously most important here Republican senators, over the past couple of days, it's unclean how much of an effect this is really going to have.

Why? Because many of them who are making their increasing concerns more known publicly, they're telling us, you know, what this shows now isn't going to surprise them, doesn't surprise them, and that they understand that things are not going that well, especially as this report shows, when it comes to the Iraqi government. And that is certainly the biggest concern that you hear from Republicans here. And so what is going to be interesting, though, to see how much it really affects them when they actually see this report, Heidi in black and white.

But we do know, again from talking to these Republican senators, that many of them say, you know, as much as the White House is going to say, and you're going to hear the president say this is an interim report, wait until September, wait for the final report. Many of them are already saying, we don't want to wait. We understand and we believe that this particular strategy going on right now is not going to get us where we need to go.

And they're already pushing for some kind of new course legislatively. Whether or not they can actually get the votes to find consensus to that, that's a big question mark here.

Heidi.

COLLINS: All right. Dana, we're getting closer and closer to the president's news conference at 10:30. Stick around for us. We'll talk with you again.

HARRIS: And let's go to CNN's Barbara Starr live now with a view from the Pentagon.

Barbara, great to see you.

What is the military success the president is likely to stress when he talks to us in about three minutes or so?

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, he's going to talk about some success with the Iraqi security forces in fielding units to work the security crackdown situation. But make no mistake, there's still the major challenge is security, security, security. Al Qaeda is still there, able to stage spectacular attacks. Sectarian violence down in some areas, but, still, not enough control over the militia movement.

And one very interesting line in this report, Tony, we'll see if the president talks about it. The report says, "a more normalized and sustainable level of U.S. engagement in Iraq with a decreasing number of U.S. combat forces increasingly focused on a core set of missions, such as those set out by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The report talks about this being the ultimate goal.

What could those missions be for the lower number of U.S. troops? Border security, fighting al Qaeda and training Iraqi security forces. This seems to open the door to the next step in the post-surge strategy, if you will, reducing the number of U.S. forces there. But very key, it doesn't say when this might happen.

HARRIS: Yes. Very interesting.

Barbara Starr for us.

Barbara, thank you.

COLLINS: Just about two minutes away now from President Bush's statement on the Iraq Progress Report. Elaine Quijano is in the White House briefing room for us this morning.

Hi there, Elaine.

QUIJANO: Good morning to you, Heidi.

Well, you know, for days the White House has really been trying to downplay the significance of this report. Officials here have been calling it a snapshot. They say it's an early progress report. And that, interestingly, has been reflected in the kinds of ratings we're seeing.

Not letter grades, pass or fail or a or f, which would denote some sense of finality. Instead we are see satisfactory or unsatisfactory. One rating, of course, even mixed. And what this is intended to do, the administration wants to emphasize, and you will hear the president talk about, how, in his view, he feels it is still very early in this process yet. He wants lawmakers to wait until September when General David Petraeus gives his assessment.

Heidi.

COLLINS: Elaine, you know, when we talk about these 18 different benchmarks, and some of them are politically unsatisfactory but we are hearing militarily pleased with some of the progress there. In particular, there's an unsatisfactory mark for the increasing of Iraqi security forces to act independently of the United States forces.

It seems to me that's sort of a mixture, is it not, of military and political? It must be very difficult to sort this all out.

QUIJANO: Yes, and you know what's interesting here is already the argument we have been hearing early this morning is that, look, the security benchmarks, some of those are being met, look at those. And that has been part of their strategy all along, saying once the security is at an acceptable level, then in fact you will start to see some of these political benchmarks fall into line as well.

Certainly an interesting argument, President Bush set to take questions here and lay out how he views these 18 political, economic and military benchmarks so critical in some lawmakers' eyes, as they try to see whether or not the strategy that the president first announced back in January is in effect working.

President Bush due out here momentarily, Heidi.

COLLINS: Also interesting, when Republicans yesterday, Elaine, were telling Stephen Hadley that they really didn't want to wait until September, they wanted to get this report today, they wanted to hear some sort of, as you call it, a snapshot, or as the White House is calling it, a snapshot, of what will come later in September.

QUIJANO: Now that's exactly right, and the emphasis here, the White House's emphasis is that this is an ongoing process, that no conclusion should be drawn, but of course, Heidi, lawmakers have a very clear, including some members of his own party, making it clear to the president that in fact they want him to look beyond the surge.

COLLINS: All right, let's listen to the president now.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning. Thank you.

Yesterday, America lost an extraordinary first lady and a fine Texan, Lady Bird Johnson. She brought grace to the White House and beauty to our country.

On behalf of the American people, Laura and I send our condolences to her daughters, Lynda and Luci, and we offer our prayers to the Johnson family.

Before I answer some of your questions, today I'd like to provide the American people with an update on the situation in Iraq.

Since America began military operations in Iraq, the conflict there has gone through four major phases.

The first phase was the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

The second phase was the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people and the holding of free elections.

The third phase was the tragic escalation of sectarian violence sparked by the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

We've entered a fourth phase, deploying reinforcements and launching new operations to help Iraqis bring security to their people.

I'm going to explain why the success of this new strategy is vital for protecting our people and bringing our troops home, which is a goal shared by all Americans. I'll brief you on the report we are sending to Congress. I'll discuss why a drawdown of forces that is not linked to the success of our operations would be a disaster.

As president, my most solemn responsibility is to keep the American people safe. So on my orders, good men and women are now fighting the terrorists on the front lines in Iraq.

I've given our troops in Iraq clear objectives. And as they risk their lives to achieve these objectives, they need to know they have the unwavering support from the commander in chief.

And they do.

And they need the enemy to know that America is not going to back down. So when I speak to the American people about Iraq, I often emphasize the importance of maintaining our resolve and meeting our objectives.

As a result, sometimes the debate over Iraq is cast as a disagreement between those who want to keep our troops in Iraq and those who want to bring our troops home.

And this is not the real debate. I don't know anyone who doesn't want to see the day when our brave service men and women can start coming home.

In my address to the nation in January, I put it this way: If we increase our support at this crucial moment, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

The real debate over Iraq is between those who think the fight is lost or not worth the cost and those who believe the fight can be won, and that, as difficult as the fight is, the costs of defeat would be far higher.

I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must. So we're working to defeat al Qaeda and other extremists, and aid the rise of an Iraqi government that can protect its people, deliver basic services, and be an ally in the war against these extremists and radicals.

By doing this, we'll create the conditions that will allow our troops to begin coming home, while securing our long-term national interests in Iraq and in the region.

When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will because (ph) our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it'll be good politics.

The strategy I announced in January is designed to seize the initiative and create those conditions. It's aimed at helping the Iraqis strengthen their government so that it can function even amid violence. It seeks to open space for Iraq's political leaders to advance the difficult process of national reconciliation which is essential to lasting security and stability.

It is focused on applying sustained military pressure to root out terrorist networks in Baghdad and surrounding areas. It is committed to using diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's democratic government.

Doing all these things is intended to make possible a more limited role in Iraq for the United States. It's the goal outlined by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It's the goal shared by the Iraqis and our coalition partners. It is the goal that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus and our troops are working hard to make a reality.

Our top priority is to help the Iraqis protect their population, so we've launched an offensive in and around Baghdad to go after extremists, to buy more time for Iraqi forces to develop, and to help normal life and civil society take root in communities and neighborhoods throughout the country.

We're helping enhance the size, capabilities and effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces, so the Iraqis can take over the defense of their own country.

We're helping the Iraqis take back their neighborhoods from the extremists.

In Anbar province, Sunni tribes that were once fighting alongside al Qaeda against our coalition are now fighting alongside our coalition against al Qaeda. We're working to replicate the success in Anbar in other parts of the country.

Two months ago, in the supplemental appropriations bill funding our troops, Congress established 18 benchmarks to gauge the progress of the Iraqi government. They required we submit a full report to Congress by September the 15th.

Today, my administration has submitted to Congress an interim report that requires us to assess, and I quote the bill, "whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is or is not being achieved."

Of the 18 benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report that satisfactory progress is being made in eight areas.

For example, Iraqis have provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around Baghdad. And the Iraqi government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from its own funds this year to train, equip and modernize its forces.

In eight other areas, the Iraqis have much more work to do.

For example, they've not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law to share oil revenues.

And in two remaining areas, progress is too mixed to be characterized one way or the other.

Those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism.

Our strategy is built on the premise that progress on security will pave the way for political progress. So it's not surprising that political progress is lagging behind the security gains we are seeing.

Economic development funds are critical to helping Iraq make this political progress. Today I'm exercising the waiver authority granted me by Congress to release a substantial portion of those funds.

The bottom line is that this is a preliminary report. And it comes less than a month after the final reinforcements arrived in Iraq.

In September, as Congress has required, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will return to Washington to provide a more comprehensive assessment. By that time, we hope to see further improvement in the positive areas and the beginning of improvement in the negative areas.

We'll also have a clearer picture of how the new strategy is unfolding, and be in a better position to judge where we need to make any adjustments.

I will rely on General Petraeus to give me his recommendations for the appropriate troop levels in Iraq. I will discuss the recommendation with the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will continue consultations with members of the United States Congress from both sides of the aisle. And then I'll make a decision.

I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we're ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda.

It'd mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It'd mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It'd mean we'd be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that's unfolding across the region. The same region in Iran -- the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers.

The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq.

The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic Jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq.

All these extremist groups would be emboldened by a precipitous American withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region.

Nations throughout the Middle East have a stake in a stable Iraq. To protect our interests and show our commitment to our friends in the region, we are enhancing our military presence, improving our bilateral security ties and supporting those fighting the extremists across the Middle East.

We're also using the tools of diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's democratic government.

So I'm sending Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice to the region in early August. They will meet with our allies, reemphasize our commitment to the international compact of Sharm el-Sheikh, reassure our friends that the Middle East remains a vital strategic priority for the United States.

There is a conversion (ph) of visions between what Iraqi leaders want, what our partners want and what our friends in the region want and the vision articulated by my administration, the Iraq Study Group and others here at home.

The Iraqis do not want U.S. troops patrolling their cities forever, any more than the American people do.

But we need to ensure that when U.S. forces do pull back, the terrorists and extremists cannot take control.

The strategy that General Petraeus and the troops he commands are now carrying out is the best opportunity to bring us to this point.

So I ask Congress to provide them with the time and resources they need. The men and women of the United States military have made enormous sacrifices in Iraq. They have achieved great things, and the best way to begin bringing them home is to make sure our new strategy succeeds.

And, now, I'd be glad to answer a few questions.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you started this war, the war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point. Bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead.

Don't you accept -- don't you understand, we brought the al Qaeda into Iraq?

BUSH: Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That's why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said, "Disclose, disarm or face serious consequences."

That was the message -- clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) go into Iraq?

BUSH: It was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is power.

Now the fundamental question facing America is: Will we stand with this young democracy? Will we help them achieve stability? Will we help them become an ally in this war against extremists and radicals that is not only evident in Iraq, but it's evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan?

We're at the beginning stages of a great ideological conflict between those who yearn for peace and those who want their children to grow up in a normal, decent society -- and radicals and extremists who want to impose their dark vision on people throughout the world.

Iraq is obviously -- it has got the attention of the American people, as it should. This is a difficult war. And it's a tough war.

But, as I have consistently stated, throughout this presidency, it is a necessary war to secure our peace.

I find it interesting that, as this young democracy has taken hold, radicals and extremists kill innocent people to stop its advance. And that ought to be a clear signal to the American people that these are dangerous people.

And their ambition is not just contained to Iraq.

Their ambition is to continue to hurt the American people. My attitude is: We ought to defeat them there so we don't have to face them here and that we ought to defeat their ideology with a more hopeful form of government.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you're facing a rebellion from Republican -- key Republican senators, who want you to change course and begin reducing the U.S. combat role.

Given the mixed report that you present today, how do you persuade Republicans to stick with you as they look ahead to the next elections?

BUSH: A couple of things. First of all, I respect those Republicans that you're referring to. I presume you're referring to friends of mine, like Lugar -- Senator Lugar, Domenici.

These are good, honorable people. I've spoken to them. And I listened very carefully to what they have to say.

First of all, they share my concern that a precipitous withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda.

And they also understand that we can't let al Qaeda gain safe haven inside of Iraq.

I appreciate, you know, their calls, and I appreciate their -- their desire to work with the White House to be in a position where we can sustain a presence in Iraq.

What I tell them is this, just what I've told you, is that as the commander in chief of the greatest military ever I have an obligation, a sincere and serious obligation to hear out my commander on the ground. And I will take his recommendation -- and as I mentioned, to talk to Bob Gates about it, as well as the Joint Chiefs about it, as well as consult with members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats -- as I make a decision about the way forward in Iraq.

And so, you know, I value the advice of those senators. I appreciate their concerns about the situation in Iraq. And I'm going to continue listening to them.

QUESTION: Mr. President, in addition to members of your own party, the American public is clamoring for a change of course in Iraq.

Why are you so resistant to that idea, and how much longer are you willing to give the surge to work before considering a change in this policy?

BUSH: First of all, I understand why the American people are -- you know, they're tired of the war. People are -- there's war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology. I've said this before. I understand that. This is an ugly war. It's a war in which an enemy will kill innocent men, women and children in order to achieve a political objective. It doesn't surprise me that there is deep concern amongst our people.

Part of that concern is whether or not we can win, whether or not the objective is achievable. People don't want our troops in harm's way if that which we're trying to achieve can't be accomplished.

I feel the same way. I cannot look a mother and father of a troop in the eye and say, "I'm sending your kid into combat, but I don't think we can achieve the objective." I wouldn't do that to a parent or a husband or a wife of a soldier. I believe we can succeed, and I believe we are making security progress that will enable the political track to succeed as well.

And the report, by the way, which is -- as accurately noted as being submitted today -- is written a little less than a month after the full complement of troops arrived.

I went to the country and said, "I have made this decision." I said, "What was happening on the ground is unsatisfactory in Iraq."

In consultation with a lot of folks, I came to the conclusion that we needed to send more troops into Iraq, not less, in order to provide stability, in order to be able to enhance the security of the people there.

And David asked for a certain number of troops. David Petraeus asked for a certain number. General Petraeus asked for a certain number of troops. And he just got them a couple of weeks ago. Military -- it takes a while to move our troops, as the experts know. You just can't load them all in one airplane or one big ship and get them into theater.

They had to stage the arrival of our troops. And after they arrived in Iraq, it took a while to get them into their missions.

Since the reinforcements arrived, things have changed.

For example, I would remind you that Anbar province was considered lost. Maybe some of you reported that last fall.

And yet today, because of what we call bottom-up reconciliation, Anbar province has changed dramatically.

The same thing is now beginning to happen in Diyala province.

There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where violence is down. There are still car bombs, most of which have the al Qaeda signature on them.

But they're declining, you know. So there's some measurable progress.

And you ask: how long does one wait? I will repeat as the commander in chief of a great military who has supported this military and will continue to support this military, not only with my -- with insisting that we get resources to them, but with -- but by respecting the command structure, I'm going to wait for David to come back -- David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees.

And then we'll use that data, that -- his report, to work with the rest of the military chain of command and members of Congress to, you know, making another decision, if need be.

QUESTION: You talk about all the troops now being in place, and only in place for the last three weeks or a month. Yet, three quarters of the troops for the surge were in place during the period when this July interim report was written.

Are you willing to keep the surge going, no matter what General Petraeus says, if there is no substantial Iraqi political progress by September?

BUSH: You're asking me to speculate on what my frame of mind will be in September. And I would just ask that you give General Petraeus to come back and brief me. And then, of course, I'll be glad to answer your questions along that line.

QUESTION: But there's been no -- but there has been no substantial political progress, even with three-quarters of the troops in there.

BUSH: Well, as I mentioned ...

QUESTION: So can you keep that going through September even if there isn't ...

BUSH: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have felt all along that the security situation needed to change in order for there to be political progress. It's very hard for a young democracy to function with the violence that was raging.

Secondly, there's a lot of the past that needs to be worked through the system. Living under the brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein created a lot of anxiety and a lot of tensions and a lot of rivalry. And it's just -- it's going to take a while to work it through.

But they couldn't work through those tensions and rivalries in the midst of serious violence.

And so the strategy was: move in more troops to cause the violence to abate. And that's what David Petraeus will be reporting on.

QUESTION: Question for you about the process you're describing of your decision-making as commander in chief.

Have you entertained the idea that at some point Congress may take some of that sole decision-making power away through legislation? And can you tell us: are you still committed to vetoing any troop withdrawal deadline?

BUSH: You mean in this interim period?

QUESTION: Yes.

BUSH: I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops.

I'm certainly interested in their opinion. But trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure, as far as I'm concerned, and we can't afford to fail.

I'll work with Congress.

I listen to Congress. Congress has got all the right to appropriate money.

But the idea of telling our military how to conduct operations, for example, or how to, you know, deal with troops strength, is -- I don't think it makes sense. I don't think it makes sense today, nor do I think it's a good precedent for the future.

And so the role of the commander in chief is, of course, to consult with Congress.

QUESTION: So if Reed-Levin or anything like it were to pass and set a ...

BUSH: Well, I would hope they wouldn't pass.

QUESTION: But what ... (CROSSTALK)

BUSH: But let me make sure you understand what I'm saying.

Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops.

What you're asking is whether or not Congress ought to be basically determining how troops are positioned or troop strength, and I just -- I don't think that would be good for the country.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you said many times this war, at this stage, is about the Iraqi government creating a self-sustaining, stable government.

Last November, your own CIA director, according to "The Washington Post," told you about that government, quote, "The inability of the government to govern seems irreversible. He could not point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around."

And he said, in talking about the government, that, "It's balanced, but it cannot function."

BUSH: Yes.

QUESTION: When you heard that, since that point, you think of how many hundreds of soldiers have been killed, how much money has been spent, why shouldn't people conclude that you are either stubborn, in denial, but certainly not realistic about the strategy that you've pursued since then?

BUSH: You know, it's interesting, it turns out Mike Hayden -- I think you're quoting Mike Hayden there -- was in this morning to give me his weekly briefing. And I asked him about that newspaper article from which you quote.

His answer was his comments to the Iraq Study Group were a little more nuanced than the quotation you read.

He said that he made it clear the current strategy in Iraq wasn't working.

That's his recollection of the briefing to the Iraq Study Group.

He briefed them to the fact that it wasn't working and that we needed a change of direction.

He also said that those who suggest that we back away and let the Iraqis' government do it -- this is in November of 2006 -- let the Iraqis handle it, don't understand the inability of the Iraq government at that time to take on that responsibility.

He then went on to say -- this is what he -- his recollection of this conversation was that our strategy needed to help get the violence down, so that there could be political reconciliation from the top down as well as the bottom up.

There has been political reconciliation from the bottom up. Anbar province is a place where the experts had -- or an expert had said that it was impossible for us to achieve our objective.

This is the -- part of the country of Iraq where al Qaeda had made it clear that they would like to establish a safe haven from which to plan and plot further attacks, to spread their ideology throughout the Middle East.

Since then, since this November 2006 report and since that statement to the Iraq Study Group, things have changed appreciably on the ground in Anbar province. And they're beginning to have the same change (ph), because the people on the ground there are sick and tired of violence and being threatened by people like al Qaeda, who have no positive vision for the future.

And there's been a significant turn, where now Sunni sheiks and Sunni citizens are working with the coalition to bring justice to al Qaeda killers. And that same approach is being taken in Diyala.

And so there's a lot of focus -- and should be, frankly -- on oil laws or elections. But, remember, there's another political reconciliation track taking place as well, and that's the one that's taking place at the grassroots level. Mike Hayden talked about that as well.

QUESTION: So you think you've been realistic about the strategy and what's possible?

BUSH: Well -- thank you for the follow-up. Nothing's changed in the new room.

Anyway, yes. I mean, as I told you last November right about this time, I was part of that group of Americans who didn't approve of what was taking place in Iraq because it looked like all the efforts that we had taken to that point in time were about to fail. In other words, sectarian violence was really raging.

And I had a choice to make, and that was to pull back, as some suggested, and hope that the chaos and violence that might occur in the capital would not spill out across the country, or send more troops in to prevent the chaos and violence from happening in the first place.

And that's the decision I made, so it was a realistic appraisal by me.

What's realistic as well is to understand the consequences of what will happen if we fail in Iraq. In other words, it's -- people aren't just going to be content with driving America out of Iraq; al Qaeda wants to hurt us here. That's their objective. That's what they'd like to do.

They have got an ideology that they believe that the world ought to live under, and that one way to help spread that ideology is to harm the American people, harm American interests.

The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home.

So I've been realistic about the consequences of failure. I have been realistic about what needs to happen on the ground in order for there to be success. And it's been hard work.

And the American people see it as hard work.

And one of the reasons it's hard work is because on our TV screens are these violent killings perpetuated by people who have done us harm in the past. And that ought to be a lesson for the American people to understand that what happens in Iraq and overseas matters to the security of the United States of America.

QUESTION: On that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present?

And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden himself?

BUSH: al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America -- obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead. And the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity -- like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

But the people in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously.

QUESTION: Mr. President, in Jordan in November you stood by Prime Minister Maliki and said, "He's the right guy for Iraq."

Given this report card today and given the lack of top-down political reconciliation, can you tell the American people that you still believe he's the right guy for Iraq?

BUSH: I believe that he understands that there needs to be serious reconciliation and they need to get law passed, I firmly believe that.

I have had a series of conference calls with the prime minister, as well as the presidency council.

In the presidency council, you would have the president, Talabani. You'd have the two vice presidents, Mahdi and Hashemi, as well as the prime minister.

And I have urged them to work together to get law passed. It's not easy to get law passed in certain legislatures, like theirs. There's a lot of work that has to be done.

And I will continue to urge ...

QUESTION: Do you have confidence in them?

BUSH: Let me just -- I'm almost through with the first one, and I'll come back to the second one.

And so I'll continue to urge the Iraqis to show us that they're capable of passing legislation. But it's not just us; it's the Iraqi people.

And what really matters is whether or not life's improving for the Iraqi people on the ground.

And, yes, I've got confidence in them. But I also understand how difficult it is. I'm not making any excuses, but it is hard. It's hard work for them to get law passed.

And sometimes it's hard work for people to get law passed here. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to work to achieve an objective, which is a government that is able to, you know, provide security for its people and to provide basic services; and, as importantly, serve as an ally against these extremists and radicals.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

BUSH: No, not you.

QUESTION: I'd like to switch subjects.

BUSH: OK, is that harsh?

QUESTION: Yes.

BUSH: Like the new hall -- I should have been more gentle? Do we ever use kinder and gentler? No. Go ahead.

QUESTION: If I could just switch subjects for a second to another big decision you made recently, which was in the Scooter Libby case, you spoke very soberly and seriously in your statement about how you weighed different legal questions in coming to your decision on that commutation.

But one issue that you did not address was the issue of the morality of your most senior advisers, you know, leaking the name of a confidential intelligence operator.

Now that the case is over -- it's not something you've ever spoken to -- can you say whether you're at all disappointed in the behavior of those senior advisers?

And have you communicated that disappointment to them in any way?

BUSH: First of all, the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision. Secondly, I haven't spent a lot of time talking about the testimony that people throughout my administration were forced to give as a result of the special prosecutor. I didn't ask them during that time and I haven't asked them since.

I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person. And, you know, I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, "I did it." Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?

But it has been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course, and now we're going to move on.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you have spoken passionately ...

BUSH: Oh, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: You're going to take it away from me?

BUSH: I am.

QUESTION: After doing the fair and balanced, you're going to take it away from me?

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: That was just a tease.

You're going to come back to me, sir.

BUSH: You've got the mike and it's a possession deal, you know what I'm saying.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

You have spoken passionately about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send enough troops there at the start, failed to keep al Qaeda from stepping into the void created by the collapse of Saddam's army, failed to put enough pressure on Iraq's government to make the political reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is suffering from now from occurring.

So why should the American people feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir?

BUSH: Those are all legitimate questions that I'm sure historians will analyze. I mean, one of the questions is: should we have sent more in the beginning?

Well, I asked that question, "Do you need more?" to General Tommy Franks.

In the first phase of this operation, General Franks, you know, was obviously in charge. And during our discussions in the run-up to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council resolutions, my primary question to General Franks was: Do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein?

And his answer was yes.

Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only thing I can tell you is that I relied upon military commander to make the proper decision about troop strength in acting.

And I can remember meeting with the Joint Chiefs, who said: We've reviewed the plan, and seemed satisfied with it.

I remember sitting in the PIAT (ph), or the situation room, downstairs here at the White House. And I went to commander and commander, that were all responsible for different aspects of the operation to remove Saddam.

I said to each of them, "Do you have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy?" And the answer was yes.

We have worked hard to help this country reconcile. After all, they do have a modern constitution, which is kind of a framework for reconciliation. And after all, there was a significant series of votes where the people were given a chance to express their desire to live in a free society. As a matter of fact, 12 million Iraqis went to the polls.

What happened then, of course, is that the enemy -- al Qaeda -- attacks the Samarra mosque, which of course created anxiety and anger amongst the Shia and then all of a sudden the sectarian violence began to spiral. Reconciliation hadn't taken hold deep enough in society to prevent this violence from taking hold.

And so I have a -- you know, I've got to decide whether or not it's OK for that violence to continue or whether or not it makes sense for us to try to send more troops in to quell the violence, to give the reconciliation process further time to advance.

My concern is that, as a result of violence and killing, there would be chaos. Now that's -- that's a state of affairs that thugs like al Qaeda need to survive, and they like chaos. As a matter of fact, they like to create chaos in order to create conditions of fear and anxiety and doubt.

Out of that chaos could come a further escalation of violence in the Middle East, and this is what's important for the American people to understand. That violence and that chaos would embolden extremists groups, whether they be Shia or Sunni.

And they would then get into competition with each other.

Such chaos and violence would send a mixed signal to the Iranians, who have stated that they believe Israel ought to be wiped off the map.

People would begin to wonder about America's resolve. al Qaeda would certainly be in a better position to raise money and recruit. And what makes all this scenario doubly dangerous is that they have proven themselves able to attack us and kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens, and they would like to do it again.

And therefore the strategy has got to be to help this government become an ally against these people. What happens in Iraq -- and I understand how difficult it's been. It's been hard. I have received a lot of inspiration, however, from meeting with our troops, who understand the stakes of this fight, and meeting with their families.

And, you know, we owe it to our troops to support our commanders: smart, capable people who are devising a strategy that will enable us to succeed and prevent the conditions I just talked about from happening.

QUESTION: Your administration has cited al Qaeda leaders such as Zawahiri as saying that if we leave prematurely, it would be a glorious victory for al Qaeda. But the reason that we can't leave or haven't been able to leave is not because we're getting defeated in any way militarily, it's because the Iraqis can't get it together so far.

So why can't we counter those messages and, obviously, not withdraw precipitously, but begin some sort of gradual withdrawal that prevents ethnic cleansing but also allows our military to get out?

BUSH: Well, there's a lot of discussion about a scenario in which our troop posture would be to guard the territorial integrity of the country of Iraq, to embed and train, to help the Iraqi security forces deal with violent elements in their society, as well as keep enough special forces there to chase down al Qaeda.

As a matter of fact, that is something that I've spoken publicly about, said that's a position I'd like to see us in.

However, I felt like we needed to send more troops to be able to get the situation to quiet down enough to be able to end in that position.

And in terms of my own decision-making, as I mentioned earlier, I definitely need to be in consultation, and will be, with General David Petraeus, who asked for the additional troops in the first place, troops which have been in place -- fully in place for about three weeks.

And so, I would ask members of Congress to give the general a chance to come back and to give us a full assessment of whether this is succeeding or not.

And it's at that point in time that I will consult with members of Congress and make a decision about the way forward, all aiming to succeed and making sure that al Qaeda and other extremists do not benefit from a decision I might have to make. Mark?

QUESTION: Yes, sir, Mr. President.

BUSH: Yes, sir, Mark.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: How come -- thank you. Thank you, sir.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: How comfortable are you -- sir, how comfortable are you with your homeland security secretary saying, in the face of no credible intelligence of an imminent threat against the United States, that he has a gut feeling that one is coming this summer? And, sir, what does your gut tell you?

BUSH: My gut tells me that -- which my head tells me as well -- is that when we find a credible threat, I'll share it with people to make sure that we protect the homeland.

My head also tells me that al Qaeda's a serious threat to our homeland. And we've got to continue making sure we've got good intelligence, good response mechanisms in place; that we've got to make sure we don't embolden them with -- by failing in certain theaters of war where they're confronting us; that we ought to continue to keep the pressure on them.

We need to chase them down and bring them to justice before they come home to hurt us again.

And so it's a serious issue that is going to outlast my presidency. As I say, this is the beginning stages of what I believe is an ideological conflict that -- where you've got competing visions about what the world ought to be like.

What makes this more difficult than previous conflicts is that there's the assymetrical use of power. In other words, IEDs and, you know, suicide bombers are the main -- the main tactical device used by these thugs to try to achieve, you know, strategic objectives.

Their objective is to impose their vision of the -- on the world. Their objective is to drive the United States out of parts of the world. They want safe haven.

They -- they -- they -- they'd love a society where women have no rights, just like the society that they worked to impose, with the Taliban, on the -- on the women of Afghanistan.

That's their vision.

And it's in our interests to defend ourselves by staying on the offense against them. And it's in our interests to spread an alternative ideology. We have done this before in our nation's history. We have helped people realize the blessings of liberty, even though they may have been our enemy.

And freedom has an amazing way of helping lay the foundation for peace. And it's really important as we head into this ideological struggle in the 21st century that we not forget that liberty can transform societies.

Now, the interesting debate is whether or not a nation, you know, like Iraq can self-govern, whether or not these people even care about liberty.

As you've heard me say before, I believe -- strongly believe that freedom is a universal value, that freedom isn't just, you know, for Americans or Methodists, that freedom is universal in its application.

And so when they voted in '05, I wasn't surprised -- I was pleased that the numbers were as big as they were to defy that many, you know, threats and car bombers, but I wasn't surprised.

And this is the real challenge we face. And Iraq is just a part of a broader war against these jihadists and extremists. It's a -- it is a -- it is a -- we will be dealing with this issue for a while, just like we dealt with other ideologies for a while. It takes time for ideologies to take root.

I firmly believe that you'll see the democracy movement continue to advance throughout the Middle East if the United States doesn't because isolationist. That's why I told you that I'm making sure that we continue to stay diplomatically involved in the -- in the -- in the region.

Condi Rice and Bob Gates will be traveling there in early August to continue to remind our friends and allies that we're -- one, we view them as strategic partners and secondly that we want them to work toward, you know, a freer societies and to help this Iraqi government survive. It's in their interests that Iraq become a stable partner. And I believe we can achieve that objective.

And not only do I believe we can -- I know we've got to achieve the objective so we will have done our duty.

This is hard work. And one of the things I talked about in the opening comments was, you know, do we do it now or basically, you know, pull back, let the Gallup poll or whatever poll there are decide the fate of the -- of the country.

And my view is that if that were to happen, we would then have to go back in with greater force in order to protect ourselves. Because one of the facts of the 21st century is that what happens overseas matters to the security of our country.

QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. President. Given the events on the ground in Iraq and the politics here at home, has U.S. military deployment to Iraq reached the ceiling or can you allow any further military escalation?

BUSH: You're trying to do what Martha very skillfully tried to get me to do, and that was to ...

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up?

BUSH: Yes, you can, because you're about to realize I'm not going to answer your question ...

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: ...except to say this: there's going to be great temptation to -- not temptation. There will be -- you won't be tempted. You'll actually ask me to speculate about what David Petraeus will talk to us about when he comes home. And I just ask the American people to understand that the commander in chief must rely upon the wisdom and judgment of the military thinkers and planners.

It's very important that there be that solid connection of trust between me and those who are in the field taking incredible risk.

And so I'm going to wait to see what David has to say. I'm not going to pre-judge what he may say. I trust David Petraeus' judgment. He's an honest man. Those of you who have interviewed him know that he's a straight shooter, he is an innovative thinker. I was briefed by members of the CODEL that came back that said that it appeared to them that our troops have high respect for our commanders in Baghdad, as do I.

Now, do you have a follow-up on perhaps another subject, another area, another ...

QUESTION: How hard is it for you to conduct the war without popular support? Are you personally -- do you ever have trouble balancing the -- between doing what you think is the right thing and following the will of the majority of the public, which is really the essence of democracy?

BUSH: Yes, it is.

And, first of all, I can fully understand why people are tired of the war. The question they have is: can we win it?

And, of course, I'm concerned about whether or not the American people are in this fight. I believe, however, that, when they really think about the consequences, if we were to precipitously withdraw, they begin to say themselves, maybe we ought to win this; maybe we ought to have a stable Iraq.

Their question, it seems like to me, is: can we succeed?

And that's a very important, legitimate question for anybody to ask. I think many people understand we must succeed. And I think a lot of people understand we've got to wait for the generals to make these military decisions. I suspect -- I know this: that, if our troops thought that I was taking a poll to decide how to conduct this war, they would be very concerned about the mission.

In other words, if our troops said, "Well, here we are in combat, and we've got a commander in chief who is, you know, running a focus group," in other words, "Politics would be -- is more important to him than our safety and/or our strategy," that would dispirit our troops.

And that's a lot of constituencies in this fight. Clearly, the American people, who are paying for this, is the major constituency. And I repeat to you, I understand that there -- this violence has affected them, and a lot of people don't think we can win. There's a lot of people in Congress who don't think we can win as well.

And, therefore, their attitude is, "Get out." My concern with that strategy, something that Mike Hayden also discussed, is that just getting out may sound simple, and it may affect polls, but it would have long-term, serious security consequences for the United States.

And so sometimes you -- you know, you just have to make the decisions based upon what you think is right. My most important job is to help secure this country. And, therefore, the decisions in Iraq are all aimed in helping do that job and that's what I firmly believe.

The second constituency is the military, and I repeat to you, I'm pretty confident our military do not want their commander in chief making political decisions about their future.

A third constituency that matters to me a lot is military families. These are good folks who are making huge sacrifices, and they support their loved ones. And I don't think they want their commander in chief making decisions based upon popularity.

Another constituency group that is important for me to talk to is the Iraqis. Obviously, I want the Iraqi government to understand that we expect there to be reconciliation, top-down, that we want to see laws passed. I think they've got that message.

They know full well that the American government and the American people expect to see tangible evidence of working together.

That's what the benchmarks are aimed to do.

They also need to know that I'm making decisions based upon our security interests, of course, but also helping them to succeed and that a poll is not going to determine the course of action by the United States. What will determine the course of action is: Will the decisions that we have made help secure our country for the long run?

And finally, another constituency is the enemy, who are wondering whether or not America has got the resolve and the determination to stay after them.

And so that what's I think about. And, you know, I'm guess I'm like any other political figure. Everybody wants to be loved -- just sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved.

And so, when it's all said and done, if you ever come down and visit the old, tired me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say, I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics.

And that's important to me.

Thank you all for your time. I loved being here at this new building. Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you about the al Qaeda intelligence report, please?

BUSH: What was that?

QUESTION: The intelligence ...

BUSH: This is amazing.

QUESTION: I know. I know.

BUSH: The new me.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: The al Qaeda intelligence report?

QUESTION: The intelligence analysts are saying al Qaeda has reconstituted in areas of Pakistan, saying the threat to the West is greater than ever now -- well, as great as 2001.

What's happened?

You tell ...

BUSH: OK, I'm glad you asked. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that opportunity to ...

QUESTION: Thank you for coming back.

BUSH: I'm happy to do it. This is not the new me. I mean, this is just an aberration. In other words ...

QUESTION: It's over, next time?

BUSH: I'm not going to leave and then come back for somebody to yell something at me.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Yes, exactly. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Exactly.

There is a perception in the coverage that al Qaeda may be as strong today as they were prior to September the 11th. That's just simply not the case. I think the report will say since 2001, not prior to September the 11th, 2001.

Secondly, that because of the actions we've taken, al Qaeda is weaker today than they would have been. They are still a threat. They are still dangerous.

And that is why it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere else we find them. And that's our strategy, is: to stay on the offense against al Qaeda.

She asked the question, "Is it al Qaeda in Iraq?"

Yes, it is al Qaeda, just like it's al Qaeda in parts of Pakistan. And I'm working with President Musharraf to be able to -- I mean, he doesn't want them in his country. He doesn't want foreign fighters in the outposts of his country, and so we're working to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda.

But, no question, al Qaeda is dangerous for the American people, and that's why -- as well as other people that love freedom. And that's why we're working hard with allies and friends to enhance our intelligence.

That's why we need terrorist surveillance programs. That's why it's important to keep -- and I would hope Congress would modernize that bill, and that's why we're keeping on the offense.

Ultimately, the way to defeat these radicals and extremists is to offer alternative ways of life so that they're unable to recruit, that they can use -- they like to use frustration and hopelessness. The societies that don't provide hope will become the societies were al Qaeda has got the capacity to convince a youngster to go blow himself up.

What we need to do is help governments provide brighter futures for their people so they won't sign up.

And the fundamental question facing the world in this issue is whether or not it makes sense to try to promote an alternative ideology. I happen to think it does.

They say, "He's idealistic." Yeah, I'm idealistic. But I'm also realistic in understanding if there's not an alternative ideology presented, these thugs'll be able to continue to recruit. They'll use hopelessness to be able to recruit.

And so it's a -- thank you for asking that question.

QUESTION: Is bin Laden...

BUSH: Thank you all.

QUESTION: Is bin Laden alive?

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com