Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
President Bush Addresses National Newspaper Association
Aired March 10, 2006 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Officials say at least 26 members of a wedding party are dead in southwest Pakistan. Their vehicle hit by a land mine. Most of the dead are women and children.
And good morning to you on this Friday morning. I'm Daryn Kagan at CNN Center in Atlanta.
We're going to start this hour with the business of politics. The fall-out from yesterday's surprising announcement that the controversial ports deal is dead. Amid scathing political and public criticism, the United Arab Emirates abandoned its plan to manage operations at six major U.S. ports. Many Americans fear that Arab control of those ports could invite terrorism. Let's take a closer look in the CNN "Security Watch."
First the political and public outcry. It domed the deal, but it may trigger a backlash far beyond U.S. shores. Brian Todd has that part of the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT, (voice over): A warning of possible fall-out from the port fight.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think we've missed an opportunity.
TODD: CNN National Security Advisor John McLaughlin, a former deputy CIA director, says American politicians focused too much on the UAE's pre-9/11 terrorist ties and undervalued the Emirates role since September 11th in catching terrorists, cracking down on weapons trafficking and money laundering. Now . . .
MCLAUGHLIN: I think the UAE will continue to be a good intelligence partner, but there's a risk here, a chance, that they will lose a lot of their enthusiasm for cooperating as closely with us as they have in the past.
TODD: Militarily, U.S. officials consistently hit home one point, the emirates, specifically their port facilities in Dubai, are critical to U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CAPT. THOMAS GOODWIN, U.S. NAVY: On a daily basis there is at least one U.S. ship in a port in the UAE and often time mores than that.
GEN. PETER PACE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: The United Arab Emirates location and capacity will be critical to our ability to succeed.
TODD: Now one former U.S. defense secretary tells CNN, the ruling family may not kick American ships out of port, but may, in his words, rethink their level of participation. In business, the UAE is a huge American partner. Emirates Airline has placed a multibillion order for Boeing jets, but also buys planes from European based Airbus. Now . . .
RICHARD ABOULAFINA, TEAL GROUP: It's easy to see a scenario where this poisons commercial relations between the emirates and the U.S. and that could directly impact Boeing's prospects to sell aircraft to the emirates.
TODD: A Boeing official tells CNN his company is getting no signals from UAE that business will be affected by the ports development. But exerts say what's important are the signals going in the other direction. That in business, the military and intelligence, the U.S. needs to send a message it has a critical partner in the Arab world. One that will be there through thick and thin. That message, they fear, may, at the very least, become deluded.
Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KAGAN: Some of that strong Arab response is splashed across the pages of a Dubai newspaper. Here is part of an editorial published in today's "Gulf News." It says, "much of the anti-Arab sentiment must be laid at the door of the White House. Since the days of 9/11, it has encouraged the American public to believe all things Middle Eastern are to be feared and that the Republican Party is the only one capable of protecting the country against terrorist attacks from Arabs."
Speaking of President Bush, he is speaking in Washington, D.C. right now talking about port security. Let's listen.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Nevertheless, Congress was still very much opposed to it.
My administration will continue to work with the Congress to provide a greater understanding of how these transactions are approved -- in other words, the process -- and how we can improve that process in the future.
I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East.
In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East.
UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror. They are a key partner for our military in a critical region. And outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military ships than any country in the world.
They're sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists. They've helped us shut down a worldwide nuclear proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan.
UAE is a valued and strategic partner. I'm committed to strengthening our relationship with UAE and explaining why it's important to Congress and the American people.
Thank you for letting me come by. I'll be glad to answer some questions.
QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Mike Rounds signed a bill this week banning almost all abortions in South Dakota; sort of a frontal assault on the constitutional challenges.
QUESTION: I wonder if you agree with this process that the state has taken.
BUSH: As a former governor, I fully recognize that state legislatures will vote on matters that they think expresses the will of the local folks.
Obviously, this bill he signed will work its way through the court system and maybe some day be given a fair hearing in the Supreme Court.
I don't know. I can't predict to you the course these legal challenges will take.
I can assure you, however, if it does make it to the Supreme Court, the two people I nominated and who were approved were not picked because of any litmus test. They will interpret laws based upon the Constitution is what they'll do.
And so, I followed this in the newspapers. I haven't talked to the governor about it.
QUESTION: Mr. President...
BUSH: Yes? I meant to call on you first. I'm sorry.
(LAUGHTER)
Don't hold it against the man from South Dakota.
QUESTION: After that long introduction I gave you, I figured you owed me something.
BUSH: I do owe you one.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: This organization and its members are vitally interested in the passage of association health plans, and we wonder what the possibilities are... BUSH: Yes. I appreciate that.
QUESTION: ... for that.
And then, as the next questions come round, we'll just hand this microphone around.
BUSH: Look what you did.
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Fine with me. No, don't worry about.
I don't care.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: I don't have to deal with the guy. I'm fixing to leave.
(LAUGHTER)
I'm going to go meet with President Toledo of Peru here after this.
The question is association health plans.
First of all, I fully understand the pressures being put on small businesses because of rising health-care costs. And therefore, good policy needs to address the rising cost of health care.
I've got some ideas for you. I'll get to AHPs in a minute.
I think it's very important that there be more transparency in pricing in health care. It's really the only industry, when you think about it, where somebody else decides whether the price is worthwhile. The consumer isn't directly involved in health-care decisions; a third-party payer is.
And so there's really no interaction between the provider and the customer when it comes to health care.
I'm a big believer in what's called health savings accounts, because it puts consumers in charge of health-care decisions. And we strongly urge small businesses to look at this vehicle.
Secondly, health care is an inefficient industry.
When you really think about what information technology has done to your business, providing better productivity increases -- as well as interesting challenges, by the way -- the same productivity increases haven't happened in health care.
I mean, you got a guy writing down prescriptions by hand and/or files being written by hand, and doctors don't write so good anyway, which leads to medical error and inefficiency. So information technology, which we're now advancing here at the federal level, in conjunction with providers throughout the country, to develop a common vocabulary so that eventually there will be electronic medical records with ample privacy protections available, will help wring out some of the costs of health care.
Health care costs are driven by frivolous lawsuits. Doctors practice defensive medicine in order to be able to withstand a court challenge. And a lot of times, the practice of defensive medicine isn't necessary except for legal reasons.
Secondly, lawsuits cause premiums to go up, which causes price to go up. And, therefore, I'm a believer in medical liability reform at the federal level.
I wasn't when I first arrived in Washington. I thought states should handle it OK. But the problem is that it's estimated that these lawsuits and defensive practice of medicine and the rising premiums causes us to spend about $28 billion a year in additional federal money through Medicaid, Medicare, veterans' benefits.
And so I am for medical liability at the federal level.
Finally, AHPs makes a lot of sense. I'm a strong backer. I believe small businesses ought to be able to pool risk across jurisdictional boundaries so they can get the same benefits from larger risk pools that big companies get.
And so I'm a believer in AHPs.
I think we've got a pretty good chance this year -- I hope so -- I know we got it out of the House; we got to get it out of the Senate. So a part of a comprehensive strategy for dealing with health care costs is to have AHPs as a part of a health-care vision.
QUESTION: I've got a follow-up question about the small business -- keeping small business healthy that you referred to.
Postal delivery rates are very important to a community newspapers. Much as you might know, I believe, Bonnie Mullins of McGregor Mirror and Crawford Sun down in your area.
(LAUGHTER)
And we are...
BUSH: She didn't call you to go after her subscriber, did she?
QUESTION: No, we just did a little research.
BUSH: OK, good. Smart man. That's called due diligence.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Postal reform, which has been going on in Congress for about 10 years, was really pushed forward by a commission that you appointed. And it was passed overwhelmingly by both houses and we have this bill going to conference in April or May.
QUESTION: There's some concern that the administration may want to oppose this bill or veto it; it's so-called not favorable to the federal budget.
But there are things in that bill that are very important to the newspaper industry. And part of that is the funding that keeps rates fair because of some overpayment of military pensions that we don't think should be put on to the taxpayers, the ratepayers. So we would ask your support on behalf of us and Bonnie Mullins...
(LAUGHTER)
... to support that bill as it's in the Congress, if it comes to your desk, sir.
BUSH: As you know, we did support postal reform. And as you accurately noted, we got the process started. And we look forward to working with Congress on an acceptable bill.
Frankly, this issue hadn't made it to my desk prior to me arriving at this meeting. I'm mindful of the bill. I need to know more about the particulars before I make you a commitment one way or the other.
QUESTION: Mr. President, what are our plans if civil war breaks out in Iraq?
BUSH: Step one is to make sure do everything we can that there not be one.
Secondly, I believe the Iraqi people have made a choice. It wasn't all that long ago that 11 million people went to the polls. It may seem like an eternity, but that was last December that people defied assassins, car bombers, threats, and said, "We want a democracy."
Secondly, the first real test for an interim government occurred when the Shia shrine was blown up -- a holy site. And while, as I said earlier, there was no question there was violence and killing, the society took a step back from the abyss, and people took a sober reflection about what a civil war would mean.
I just got off of a teleconference with Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, as well as General Casey. They are obviously concerned about sectarian violence and the violence you see. They understand people are trying to create this tension, this ethnic tension.
But they were also pleased with the response of the security forces -- it wasn't perfect across the board, but nevertheless in 16 of the 18 provinces, I mentioned, that there was relative calm. Most of the violence was in the Baghdad area; the violence you're seeing on your TV screens.
And so the purpose is to make sure that we continue to remind the interim government that the people want democracy. One of the keys is going to be to get a unity government up and running, a government that reflects the diversity of the country. We talked about that today.
We want the Iraqis to make that selection, of course. They are the ones who got elected by the people. They're the ones who must form the government. But we are going to continue to remind them that the sooner they can get a unity government up and running, the more confidence the people will have in their future.
So it's to take advantage of the desire of the Iraqis to live in a peaceful world and encourage government to continue to respond to fight off the desires of a few people by those who are trying to sow the seeds, and get a democracy going.
You know, it's very important for people in the Muslim world to understand that we understand there's a -- we're dealing with -- we want them to have a democracy that reflects their history and their traditions. Iraqi democracy doesn't have to look like the United States, nor should it.
But it's also important for people around the world to recognize that there are such things as the natural rights of men and women. That's what we are founded on here in America.
We believe in the universality of freedom. We believe people desire to be free, not just Americans but universally.
And that faith -- at least my faith in the natural rights of men and women and the desire for people to be free was expressed at the ballot box.
And it's that powerful statement that I believe will enable Iraq to develop a democracy.
A democracy in Iraq is important. It's important to deny safe haven to Al Qaida. Zawahiri made it clear -- he's the number two man in Al Qaida -- that it's just a matter of time for America leaving. That's what he said.
And the reason why that was important for him to say, because they wanted to use Iraq as a place to plot, plan, as well as to spread their jihadist, Islamist and radical Islamic view. They're totalitarians, that's what they are, and we've got to recognize them as such.
And so it's, kind of, a long-winded answer to my belief that we will succeed, and we must succeed.
And the reason I say we will, because the Iraqis want us to succeed. They want to succeed.
There's a lot of talk about Iran. A free Iraq will inspire reformers in Iran.
I believe the more women are empowered in the Middle East -- like it's going to happen in Iraq -- the more that will inspire others in the Middle East to demand their freedom.
Now, if you don't believe freedom is universal, then I can understand skepticism about what I just said.
But I reject that notion that freedom is only, you know, available to some of us. I believe liberty is universally desired. And I know it's in our interest to help democracy spread.
I like to remind people about this historical parallel. And I've used it a lot. You probably have heard it. So I beg your pardon for bringing it up again.
(LAUGHTER)
But it's important for me to connect the idea of laying the foundation for peace with reality. And that reality is what we see in Europe today.
There were two major world wars in Europe in the 1990s -- I mean the 1900s. And today Europe is free and whole and at peace. And a lot of it has to do with the fact that the nations of Europe are democracies. Democracies don't war.
One of my best buddies in the international arena is Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. What is interesting about that is my dad fought the Japanese as did, I'm sure, your relatives -- some of your relatives.
And yet today I can tell the newspaper owners that I work with Koizumi to keep the peace.
Democracy has the capacity to turn enemies into allies; to cause, kind of, warring factions to come together.
And it's hard work to help a democracy get hope, particularly if you just lived under the thumb of a brutal tyrant, somebody who'd kill you in a moment, or get you killed in a moment's notice.
Remember, we discovered mass graves of a lot of people in Iraq. This guy Saddam Hussein was brutal for the people of Iraq.
And there's a lot of tension and a lot of rivalry. One of the big issues we're going to have to deal with is make sure that people don't take revenge outside the rule of law; militias that are, kind of, seeking revenge.
At any rate, I'm just trying to share with you some of the philosophical tenets of the decisions I have made and my optimism about the future and my, hopefully realistic, assessment about the necessity for us to achieve our objectives.
Remember, this is a global war on terror. We've got a strong ally in Pakistan fighting off Al Qaida, and Saudi Arabia and the kingdom of Saudi has committed itself to fighting Al Qaida.
Lebanon is now becoming a freer democracy, although we've still got work there to make sure foreign influences, you know, allow the Lebanese democracy to grow.
Libya made a decision to get rid of its weapons programs. There is a -- positive things are happening, and they need to happen on a global basis because this is a global war on terror.
Yes, ma'am?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Cheryl Capley (ph) from the state of Michigan.
Many of the things that you mentioned are affecting the state. We have a high unemployment rate and, of course, much of our economy is dependent upon the automobile industry.
BUSH: Right.
QUESTION: General Motors is having problems with their health care plans, their pension plans. And, of course, the issue of gas is definitely one, energy conservation.
I know the auto industry has asked the administration for advice and for help in this problem. What role do you see the federal government playing in terms of some of the industries in the country that are partially problem-makers, you know, for your policies as well as for the people of our state?
BUSH: People have asked whether or not private companies that have made pension promises should be relieved of their responsibility. And my answer is, if you make a promise, you got to keep it, that if you said, "I, company XYZ, promise you this," it's up to the company to make good on the promise. I think that's a very important principle to state loud and clear.
You know, one of the real issues that affects Michigan and people in Michigan is trade. They're concerned about trade. They're worried that trade has only benefited our friends, but not our country.
Let me take a step back and tell you I'm a free trader.
I believe it's very important for this country to be opening markets. I'm confident that if the playing field is level that we can compete with anybody.
And, therefore, one of the things I've tried to assure the people of Michigan is that not only am I a free trader, but I believe the rules ought to be fair. In other words, I would hope the American people will say, "Just treat us fairly."
We've got the confidence to compete. I know our farmers can compete.
And for those of you who remember the processed soy bean a couple of years ago, part of that is because we opened up markets.
If you got cattlemen and women in the area buying newspapers, one of the things they constantly talk to me about is, "Get those markets open. Work with the Japanese to get that market open again."
We've got chicken growers. I remember one of the first discussions I had with Vladimir Putin in Russia was, "You know, you made some promises on our chickens. Open up your markets like you said you would do."
My point is is that opening markets is good, so long as we're treated fairly.
So I've constantly reminded the Chinese leadership that, "Intellectual property rights need to be protected, your currency needs to be floated. Treat our people fairly."
That's all we want. Our manufacturers need to have a level playing field.
And so, you know, I fully understand Michiganders' concerns about the trade arena. And I would think it would be a mistake if we'd become a protectionist nation.
I thought so strongly about it that I put it in my State of the Union address.
I am worried about isolation and protectionism. To me, it's a lack of confidence in our ability to shape the future. And I think it would be wrong economic policy.
And so I will continue to work to open up markets. But I fully am aware of the issues in Michigan.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I publish in southern and eastern suburbs of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
BUSH: There you go.
QUESTION: I know you have heard a lot of complaints from Louisiana and seen a lot of hands out, and I would like to thank you for your personal interest, and also for all the money.
BUSH: Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: My congressman, Richard Baker, came up with the idea of forming a federal entity and buy out property in New Orleans and sell it back into commerce selectively.
That seemed to have a political consensus in Louisiana from both parties. It got to your office and was rejected.
BUSH: Correct.
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about the problems that you see with Richard's plan?
BUSH: Yes. QUESTION: And also, you're still about to send many billions more down to us. How would you like to see that money handled, since you've been to us 10 times?
BUSH: Well, thank you.
First of all, I want to thank the people of Baton Rouge for being so generous to the evacuees. I want to thank my fellow Texans for being generous to evacuees. And I'm sure people throughout -- I bet you most of you are involved with communities that said, "Welcome." And it was a fantastic gesture of kindness by the American people, by the way.
I felt like there was a better approach to the housing issue.
You're talking about a good fellow, a really good guy named Richard Baker, came up with a plan that basically had the government buying the property, getting developers to develop the property. And to the extent that money was not recovered, the government would basically be the banker.
Let me step back.
Right off the bat I knew it was important for Louisiana to develop its own plan, not have the federal government impose a plan but to have the folks in Louisiana come up and develop a plan.
We obviously had interfaced with them because, as you recognized, kind of a cavalier way, "Thanks for all the money" -- well, not cavalier.
(LAUGHTER)
You made sure you mentioned it, let me put it to you that way.
And Louisiana had the Baker plan, but also was developing another plan as well, and one that we agreed to.
Governor Blanco has put together a citizens group of distinguished people, good, honorable people, who are working closely with the group that Mayor Nagin, put together to develop a plan that will take CDBG money and money I have requested in the supplemental to basically have money that goes directly to the homeowner.
I like that idea better than the government moving in and becoming the bank as opposed to the government providing money for individual homeowners to make decisions.
And the rules and the zoning laws attributable to that money are now being developed. But it's a very good concept in my judgment.
It's very important for Congress to make sure that the $4.2 billion, I think it was, request in the supplemental go to Louisiana, as I said down in New Orleans the other day.
Step one in the recovery in New Orleans has got to be to make sure that the levees are strong enough, equal to or better than pre- Katrina, in order for there to be confidence -- confidence for the market, confidence for the homeowner -- to be able to rebuild in certain parts of New Orleans. Secondly, it's important that as the levees are rebuilt and people gain confidence, that there be a rational development plan in place.
I think a lot of taxpayers really don't want to pay money for people to rebuild in an area that's likely to be flooded again. And the people in New Orleans understand that and the people in Louisiana understand that. That issue is being addressed.
Thirdly, it's very important that the federal government rebuild the infrastructure that we're obligated to rebuild in a timely fashion.
Incredibly enough, the Slidell bridge, as I understand it, because of proper incentives was built in record time under budget. That may be, you know, a contradiction in terms when you hear a federal official saying "under budget, on time." But nevertheless, I believe that's what the governor told me.
So there is a comprehensive strategy in place that I'm comfortable with. Details need to be worked out, more details about dealing with the floodplain issue and, you know, how high the houses have to be built if people choose to rebuild there.
I like the idea of funding people, of letting them make the decision.
By the way, Mississippi -- and I don't know if we got any folks from Mississippi here -- but if you've ever been to the Gulf Coast of Mississippi since the storm, you'll know what I'm saying.
It looked like, you know, a bomb blast.
It just leveled, absolutely wiped out a lot of homes and property and some lives along there.
And they developed a plan, too; their own plan. Louisiana is different from Mississippi. They came up with a Mississippi plan. That has been funded. And they're now in the process of saying to homeowners, "We're helping you rebuild your lives."
I went to a home where the guy rebuilding on the beach. I forgot how high he's got it up, but it's high enough to meet new standards -- new building standards.
Debris removal in both locations -- you just can't imagine how much debris was there. As you know, I'm not too poetic to begin with, so I'll probably not be able to describe it properly. Let me just say, it's a lot.
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, a whole lot.
And Mississippi has moved a lot of it off private and public land. I'm probably telling you more than you want to know.
I'll just give you an interesting public policy dilemma. When we first got down there, the government will remove debris off public property, but not private -- would pay to remove debris off public property, but not private property.
Simplest way to explain why not is, you start moving debris off private property and the guy shows up and says, "Where's my million- dollar necklace?"
And so therefore there needs to be a, kind of, a "held harmless" statute or a "held harmless" agreement with local authorities.
And so we devised a perfectly legal way of saying that if you declare a health and safety hazard for particular blocks, then government money will pay to clean up the land.
A lot of Mississippi's been cleaned up because a lot of the local folks decided to take that tack.
Now, the problem in Louisiana, as far as debris cleanup, is that, like in the Lower Ninth, a lot of people haven't come back to their homes yet to seen the devastation, they've been displaced around the country. And until people are able to come home, and until people are clear about what the rules will be and the funding mechanism will be, the debris removal will be slow.
We've done a pretty effective job of cleaning debris off the public right-of-ways, public lands, but not off the private lands. And so that's yet another deterrent to economic development.
So all this is coming together. My point: the funding is coming together, the levees are coming together, the rules about rebuilding are coming together. And the debris removal, albeit slow at this point in time -- waiting for people to inspect their houses -- will probably accelerate when people realize there's a way forward.
Long answer to a complicated problem.
We got $100 billion that has been allocated for the region, which is going to create some interesting opportunities and further problems. One is going to be labor. People are going to be rebuilding down there a long time.
If you're interested in making a living, go down there and there'll be a job. And we want the first people hired, of course, to be Mississippi people and Louisiana people. It's a great opportunity, by the way, for small-business development.
And I believe -- as you can tell, I'm an optimistic person. I believe that out of this terrible harm and grief is going to come a vibrant part -- a vibrant economy that -- you know, sales taxes receipts are, I think, almost equal to what they were last year in Mississippi. Amazing, isn't it? Great resiliency to the American people.
Anyway, thanks for asking.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Whereabouts?
QUESTION: Aurora, Colorado.
BUSH: Oh, good. Thanks.
QUESTION: And in our town a teacher was suspended for remarks critical of your State of the Union message, made the talk shows, et cetera; compared you to Hitler. And, actually, I've heard the tape and he didn't: He said, "Hitleresque."
(LAUGHTER)
It's not the...
BUSH: He's not the only one, you know.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: And it is not the context of my question, though.
My question is about your sense of the free speech rights in the classroom or in public to criticize you without being considered unpatriotic.
BUSH: Yes, I think people should be allowed to criticize me all they want. And they do.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: Now, what are you all laughing at over there? Don't cheer them on.
Look, I think that's the great thing about -- look, there are some certain basic freedoms that we've got to protect. The freedom of people to express themselves must be protected. The freedom of people to be able to worship freely; that freedom is valuable.
I tell people all the time: "You're equally American if you are a Christian, Jew or Muslim. You're equally American if you believe in an almighty or don't believe in an almighty." That's a sacred freedom.
The right for people to express themselves in the public square is a freedom.
Obviously, there's limitations. For example, if someone is inciting violence or the destruction of property or public -- causing somebody harm. But the idea of being able to express yourself is a sacred part of our society.
And that's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. And that's important for Americans to understand. We're in an ideological struggle. And one way for people to connect the ideological struggle with reality is to think about what life was like for people under the rule of the Taliban.
If you didn't agree with their view of religion, you were punished. If you tried to send your little girl to school, you were punished.
These people have a backward view. I don't believe -- I believe religion is peaceful. I believe people have religion in their heart are peaceful people. And I believe these people have subverted a great religion to accomplish a political end.
So thank you for bringing that up. I appreciate it.
Look, people say to me -- my buddies in Texas, "How do you handle all this stuff, you know?" Just after a while you get used to it.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: But you have to believe in what you're doing, see? You have to believe in certain principles and beliefs. And you can't let the public opinion polls and focus groups, one, cause you to abandon what you believe and become the reason for making decisions.
My job is a job where I make a lot of decisions. And I decide big things and little things. And there are certain principles to decision-making.
You make decisions. You know, you have to make a lot of decisions. And you don't put your finger in the air to figure out how to make a decision. And neither should the president of the United States.
And you have to know what you believe. Good decision-making rests on certain basic principles.
I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe democracies lead peace. I believe people ought to worship freely. I do believe there's an almighty god that has spread freedom, making freedom available for everybody.
I believe in private enterprise. I believe in free enterprise. I believe in high standards in education. These are basic beliefs that I'm not going to change.
And I know some would like me to change, but you can't be a good decision-maker if you're trying to please people.
You've got to stand on what you believe, that's what you've got to do, if you're going to make decisions that are solid and sound.
And I understand some of the things I've done are unpopular. But that's what comes with the territory. If you're afraid to make decisions and you only worried about, you know, whether or not people in the classroom are going to say nice things about you, you're not leading.
And I think we have got to lead. We have got to lead to spread the peace, we've got to lead to protect this country, and we've got to lead to make sure we're the preeminent economic power so our people can benefit.
QUESTION: Who do you think the biggest threat is: Iran, North Korea or China?
BUSH: Interesting question: The biggest threat to American security: Iran, North Korea or China?
Why did I call on you? No...
(LAUGHTER)
It would be an Oklahoma guy, you know.
(LAUGHTER)
The biggest threat to American security, short term, is Al Qaida.
They would like to attack us again.
I think about Al Qaida and their potential to attack all the time -- all the time. That's what you want your president doing.
My job is to basically insulate people from some concerns. You don't risk capital if you are worried about an attack coming tomorrow, you know. You don't go confidently about your business if an attack's right around the corner. I understand that. But I think about it a lot.
So step one, I'm changing your question.
(LAUGHTER)
Would you please order the threats? Al Qaida.
I said in an early speech there was an axis of evil and it included Iran and North Korea. I said that, I think -- help me out here, April? 2002, perhaps? Yes. State of the Union. If it's not 2002, it's April's fault because she nodded her head.
(LAUGHTER)
Relatively early in my presidency.
I did that because I'm concerned about totalitarian governments that are not transparent, that have stated their intentions to develop nuclear weapons.
One of the real dangerous threats, of course, is the nexus of terrorist groups, nonstate groups, that get a weapon of mass destruction, which is their stated objective. And so, I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about -- I would say they're equal, Iran and North Korea, as for a security threat, because any time there's a nontransparent regime without a free press to hold people to account, it creates an unpredictability in the world.
BUSH: The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern.
And therefore it's very important for the United States to continue to work with others to solve these issues diplomatically; in other words, deal with these threats today. And we are.
We've got the E.U.-3 -- Great Britain, France and Germany -- diplomatic lingo, sorry -- are basically taking the position for the free world to the Iranians and said, "No nuclear weapon and no knowledge about how to make a nuclear weapon."
I talked to Vladimir Putin this week -- or the foreign minister from Russia this week about making sure that Russia says the same thing.
In other words, we want the Iranians to hear loud and clear that the world is speaking with one voice when it comes to their capacity to develop a nuclear weapon.
Remember now, the reason we are where we are is because they had agreed to international norms and then were caught not adhering to the international norms. In other words, they basically tried to pull one over on the world, and to me that's a warning signal we got to take seriously.
Korea, the issue is one in which we've tried to alter the relationship with the Koreans to be more than just the voice of the United States saying to the Koreans the same thing. And so we now got China, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States involved in what's called the six-party talks.
Ultimately, I think it's very important for the people in those countries to be able to live in a free society.
If you believe liberty is universal, then you would hope liberty would spread to those countries as well.
Our relationship is a very interesting relationship with the Chinese. It's an amazing country in many ways.
It's a country that has got to create 25 million new jobs a year to stay even. Think about that.
It's a country that has chosen the path, by and large, of markets and enterprise. They are an economic issue for us, and that's why we've got a huge deficit with them.
And therefore, it's very important for the government to, on the one hand, reject protectionism, but on the other hand insist that their markets open and they be traded freely and fairly, like I answered the lady from Michigan.
China is a strategic partner when it comes to trade, for example. And I can't say that about the other two countries. And so the relationship is different. It's a different relationship.
He's giving me the hook, because I got to go see President Toledo, but anyway.
Yes, ma'am?
QUESTION: Hi. I'm Karen Dishman (ph). I represent the Tullahoma News.
BUSH: The what?
QUESTION: I represent the Tullahoma News from Tullahoma, Tennessee. I have the very best job there: I'm the wife of the publisher.
BUSH: Yes. I don't know if Laura would say the same thing.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: But I wanted to know what you understand the complaints to be about your No Child Left Behind policy. And if you acknowledge those complaints as any weaknesses to the policy, how effective do you think it is in spite of that?
BUSH: Right. No. Good question. I'm glad you brought up No Child Left Behind.
The complaint is that, "How dare the government cause us to measure?" One of the complaints. Too much testing. You know?
I heard that when I was the governor of Texas. Jerry didn't editorialize there, I'm sure. Maybe he did.
You know, "How dare you test people who don't speak English as a first language?"
My answer to those concerns is that, "How do you know if you don't test? How can you possibly tell whether a child is learning to read and write if you don't measure?"
When I was the governor of our state I was deeply concerned about a system where, you know, people would come to me and say, "You know what? We're getting kids in college that are not very literate." Kind of, just social promotion was the culture and the norm.
If I were a newspaper owner, I'd want to make sure people could read. And one way to make sure people read is to measure early whether or not people can pass a test.
I've heard people say all we're doing is teaching the test -- "You're causing people to teach the test." And my answer to that is, teaching a child to be literate will enable that child to pass the test. There's something fundamental about literacy.
Secondly, people said we believe in local control of schools, and the No Child Left Behind Act is not local control of schools. I strongly disagree. I believe in local control of schools.
The No Child Left Behind Act said, "We're spending a lot of federal money, particularly on Title I students. Show us whether or not the money's being well spent."
We didn't say, "Here's the curriculum you must use, here are the class sizes you have."
We didn't say, you know, "We're going to design the test on your behalf." I fought off a national test because I believe a national test would undermine local control of schools.
All we said was, "Measure and post your scores for everybody to see, and that you've got to be meeting a higher standard." In other words, we're holding people to standards.
I believe the No Child Left Behind Act honors local control of schools.
One of the classic debates that takes place at the local level is what curriculum to use. I'm sure some of you have been through the classic reading curriculum debates. They raised hot and heavy in the state of Texas for a while. And, you know, this side would be yelling at this side.
One way to make sure that your curriculum works is to measure. If a child is passing reading by using this curriculum and another child is not passing reading and they use another curriculum, it provides a useful tool for the local newspaper, for example, to say, "We told you so. The curriculum is not working," or, "We told you so. The curriculum is working."
There's got to be accountability in the public school system. If you do not diagnose the problem, you can never solve the problem. And one of the things about No Child Left Behind which is important is that when we diagnose a reading problem early, there is supplemental service money to help that child be brought up to speed. That's why it's called No Child Left Behind.
We believe every child can learn -- every child.
And, therefore, this is a program that says we want accountability for the taxpayers' money; we'll provide extra help early on when we find a child who needs extra help. And it's working.
That's the other thing that I would tell people. How do I know? Because we measure.
There's an achievement gap in America that is not right. When you measure at the fourth grade, you know, Anglo kids did fine; African-American and Latino kids didn't. And that's not fair and that's not right.
And so we've essentially ended social promotion in the early grades and said, "We're going to correct problems."
And it's working, because that gap is narrowing. And the reason I can say that is because we measure.
Interestingly enough, when you, kind of, compare measurements internationally in math and science -- or math -- we're doing fine in the fourth grade; we're falling off in the eighth grade.
And so what I want to do is supply the same rigor for reading that we did in the early grades to math in the junior high, so in the eight grade, so we can get those scores and, kind of, lay that foundation for the sciences and the engineering, the physicists so we can compete.
I'm a strong believer in No Child Left Behind. My secretary of education -- my good buddy Margaret Spellings, who helped me put a similar program in place in the state of Texas, is now the secretary of education.
She is obviously listening to complaints about certain aspects of AYP. But we're not going to undermine the basic tenet that says, "We believe in high standards, we believe every child can learn and we're going to measure. And when we see the status quo is unacceptable, we'll challenge the status quo."
That's what you need to do. And I'm sure you are doing that.
It ought to be unacceptable to opinion-makers when you find illiteracy -- and you ought to demand change, not only for your own self-interests, but for the sake of this country.
So thanks for asking the question.
I got to go. Listen, I'll be a diplomatic problem if I don't get over there on time.
(LAUGHTER)
I'm honored you would have me. Thanks for letting me come by and visit with you. God bless.
(APPLAUSE)
KAGAN: We've been listening to President Bush from Washington D.C.. He's addressing the National Newspaper Association, touching on a number of topics. In the question-and-answer period, he says the biggest threat he believes to the United States is not a specific country, but rather al Qaeda, also talked about Katrina recovery, the war on terror, the recently passed South Dakota abortion law and the port's deal with the Dubai-owned company, with that deal falling apart earlier this week.
On the topic of that ports deal, we want to hear from you. Should foreign-owned companies be prohibited from managing U.S. ports? E-mail us thoughts. Our address, livetoday@cnn.com.
And be sure to stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: thoughts are addressed live today at cnn.com. And be sure to stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Two developing stories to bring you from our "Just In" file, the first from the Associated Press about General Motors and about 900,000 pickup trucks are being recalled. The models are 1999 to 2000 models of Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks.
Apparently, there's a problem with the tailgate cables that can corrode and break when loads are placed on them. GM is saying there have been 84 injuries, most of them minor scrapes and bumps, no crashes or deaths linked to the problem. Still, they want to get those cables fixed.
And then there's this out of New Jersey. We've been following that story of the missing girl from Jersey City. She was found yesterday. Now, apparently, an arrest in the case.
Let's go to our Allan Chernoff who is on the phone with more on that -- Allan.
ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (on phone): Daryn, the Bergen County, New Jersey prosecutor is charging a 19-year-old with criminal sexual contact with a 13-year-old girl from Jersey City who he had met at a mall.
And this case has been the focus of local media attention because the girl who had been missing sent text messages to her mother saying she had been abducted, that she had just woken up in a basement, and that she was being forced to do things she didn't want to.
The girl was missing for three days then yesterday she calls home, a cabdriver then took her to a police station, and she told the police that she had been abused by two men.
She was later examined at Bellevue Hospital and doctors found no serious injuries. Later on yesterday, Jersey City's police chief, Robert Troy, announced that the girl's credibility is in doubt. But today, we have the Bergen County prosecutor bringing a charge of criminal sexual contact against the 19-year-old -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Any other possible arrests or leads in the case, Allan?
CHERNOFF: Well, the investigation is continuing, and they certainly have been interviewing other young men, as well, who apparently also had met with the woman. But we don't have any detail, any word yet, on another charge. KAGAN: Allan Chernoff, thank you for the latest on the Jersey City girl's story.
Ahead, it's a sickening story, a Kansas group choosing military funerals as sites to stage protests. You won't believe it 'til you see it.
Also ahead, the dark side of the Internet, teenagers getting involved in secret and often dangerous activities through online blogs their parents know nothing about.
The second hour of CNN LIVE TODAY begins after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
