White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/01/07 VIDEO PODCAST

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE White House Conference Center Briefing Room, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:12 P.M. EDT.

MS. PERINO: Hello, everybody. I do not have anything to start off with, so I'll go straight to your questions.

Q What does the White House think of the proposal by Senators McCain, Warner and Graham to have Judge Mukasey, if confirmed, say that no U.S. agency will use waterboarding?

MS. PERINO: What Judge Mukasey said in his letter to the Senate is that he will, if confirmed, thoroughly review all the legal opinions and all of the classified programs that he will then be read into. And I think that's a very reasonable position. And he said that if confirmed he would do that, and I think that's what the senators are saying in that letter, "as Attorney General." And I think that bodes well for his nomination, that they intend for him to be confirmed.

Q Well, what their letter says is, we urge you publicly make clear that waterboarding can never be employed. I think that's a little more --

MS. PERINO: While they were saying is -- which Judge Mukasey has done, is to say, I will not be able to provide a legal opinion about any particular technique. He is not read into the programs. He's right now a private citizen. He is willing to serve his country. The President will say today, he is -- the Attorney General is a critical member of the nation's war on terror team, and that he needs to be confirmed immediately. And once he is confirmed, then the Congress has the capability to ask him to come to Congress and to testify on all sorts of matters, including this one.

Q Is it the White House sense that his nomination is in serious trouble? You've got another senator coming out today, announcing his opposition.

MS. PERINO: We are convinced that if senator Mukasey is allowed to get out of committee that he will garner -- I'm sorry, did I say "senator"? I'm giving him additional titles -- Judge Mukasey is allowed to get out of committee, that he would receive a majority of the votes on the Senate floor. We are concerned that it is taking so long to get him a committee vote. We are pleased that it is scheduled for Tuesday. But you will hear the President say today that the delay in getting his nomination completed is unacceptable; that it's been 41 days, which is unprecedented for a nominee to sit in committee.

It is this very same Congress who said they wanted new leadership at the Department of Justice. They have an exceptionally well-qualified individual who is now before them, and is willing to serve. And on this one, narrow issue, I think it is very unfair for somebody who is not read into a program --being briefed on a classified program, who doesn't have all the facts at his disposal, to be asked to render a legal opinion. None of us would want that from a judge, if we were in front of a judge in a court of law, we would not want a judge to render a decision without having all of the facts in front of him. And that's what he is saying. I think it's eminently reasonable, and he should be confirmed.

Q Dana, does the President believe that Foreign Service Officers should be compelled to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan even when they express fears about doing so?

MS. PERINO: I understand that there is concern on behalf of many of the Foreign Service Officers at the State Department. As Secretary Rice has said, if there are volunteers to serve, then no one will have to be directed to go. The President understands that at a time of war it is distressing for some individuals to serve in those areas. The Secretary has the responsibility to make sure that when sending people into those areas that are difficult and dangerous, that they have all the tools that they need and all the protection they need in order to do their job to the best of their ability.

Our Foreign Service Officers are the very best in the world. They do their jobs wonderfully. Many of them are serving on the provincial reconstruction teams. And Iraqis are benefiting greatly from all of their service. The President is concerned, but he also has confidence that Secretary Rice will handle this matter in a way that is caring for the people at the Foreign Service, but also ensures that the mission that the United States is on is supplemented by the Foreign Service Officers who took an oath in order to serve their country.

Q Does that mean that it is a requirement for them to serve, much like active duty military are compelled to serve? Are you equating those?

MS. PERINO: I don't know all the rules that go into the regulations for Foreign Service Officers; I'd have to refer you to the State Department for that. They do serve our country very well; they're in places all around the world. And obviously if there is a need to have additional people in -- from the State Department serving in positions, then Secretary Rice might have to take the measure of directing people to go, but the preference is to have volunteers.

And there have been many volunteers that have been serving, and they've done an excellent job in helping build economies over in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to help build institutions; like they're helping for their interior ministry, their defense ministry, their rule of law -- these are the experts and so the President understands that there is concern. Secretary Rice knows there is concern. She has fought very hard on behalf of the State Department employees to have additional resources and to make sure that they are protected while they are over there, and they have a very good track record of doing so.

Q One of those employees likened it to a "potential death sentence." Does the President think that's overstatement?

MS. PERINO: The President is not going to question anybody's personal feelings about possible service in Iraq. If that's how the individual feels, then that's how he or she feels. The President understands that service in a war zone can be very difficult. It's distressing for the families, but they should be reassured, as well, that Secretary Rice takes this issue very seriously. She's concerned about their safety and that is why she has worked very hard to make sure that they have all the tools that they need and the protections that they need in order to get their job done.

Caren.

Q Judge Mukasey did say in his answer that he, personally, finds waterboarding repugnant. Does the President share that view?

MS. PERINO: As I've said before, the President does not talk about any possible techniques that may or may not be used against captured terrorists when they are caught by the United States.

Q What kinds of consultations is he doing on the Hill? Obviously he's making a very public statement about this today.

MS. PERINO: Yes, and of course, earlier in the week when he traveled to Pennsylvania, he did talk to Senator Specter, and tomorrow we'll be on our way to South Carolina where he'll have a chance to talk with Senator Graham. So I don't know all the different activities -- and certainly our staffs have been in contact with them -- with members of the committee, including Fred Fielding.

Mark.

Q Dana, a follow up on that. The McCain-Graham letter, on the assumption that Judge Mukasey is confirmed and is read into the program, your policy is still not to talk about specific methods, so he is, if he is confirmed, not going to be in a position to speak about waterboarding as being legal or not.

MS. PERINO: Let me remind you of something. Congress passed a law that this President signed regarding Detainee Treatment Act and also Congress said that the CIA's program for interrogation is legal. They have been briefed on the legal underpinnings and they have been briefed on the techniques. So Congress -- the appropriate members of Congress have all the information that they need about these programs. They are safe, they are effective, they are tough, and they are legal. And Judge Mukasey said that he will review all of the opinions and he will review the information he gets in his classified briefings, and that he will be able to have additional thought after that.

A lot of these discussions are held in closed session, and that's appropriate because they're classified for a reason.

Q Understood, but America's allies in the world, the American people, they will never know whether or not Judge Mukasey is told, so long as the administration --

MS. PERINO: I think that's a hypothetical that I'm just not prepared to go into right now. I don't know what Judge Mukasey will or will not say, if confirmed.

Q To follow on that, is Senator McCain specifically among those who has been briefed and knows exactly what techniques are being used?

MS. PERINO: I don't know the names of all the members that have been briefed. I know that the -- I would have to go back and look; I believe that he has been given information.

Q Can I follow up on that? If this position is so important, in part, in terms of national security, why didn't President Bush ask the former Attorney General to stay in office until the confirmation of his successor, as most other Cabinet officers have done?

MS. PERINO: Well, that was the -- the former Attorney General, Al Gonzales, had decided he was ready to leave. We have someone there, Craig Morford, who is acting as the Attorney General*, so the Department does have leadership. However, both Republicans and Democrats said that Judge Mukasey was the type of person that they would like to have as Attorney General. He went through unprecedented two days of hearings. He answered 495 written questions for the record after those two days of hearings. The Congress has had a plethora of information that Judge Mukasey has provided. It's unprecedented from any other nominee that we know of in history, there -- for a Justice Department nominee.

We -- so we've had -- we have somebody there in place now, but the Justice Department function is not just related to interrogation programs or the war on terror; it's quite broad and there are, I think, eight or nine other positions that are vacant, and the Senate really should start moving on their nomination so that they can get it confirmed so that they can have the leadership there. It's critically important for people who work at a department to feel that they have the leadership that they need and the management structures so that they can plan and move forward and have a really productive -- you know, productive days.

The Justice Department has continued to have record numbers of prosecutions, on a variety of areas, and they're doing tremendous work in both the national security -- through the national security division, through the criminal division, and any number of the divisions you can look to. At the Department of Justice they are well staffed by fantastic career civil servants, but they also need that leadership, and this Senate Judiciary Committee is the very ones who said they wanted new leadership at the Justice Department. They have someone in front of them right now who would be an excellent candidate.

Q Dana?

MS. PERINO: Go ahead, Les.

Q Dana, two -- thank you. Two questions. AP reports a team of U.S. nuclear experts heading for Pyongyang to begin disabling the North Korean nuclear facilities. And my question: Is the President confident that the agreement under which these experts are working will in fact eventually result in a non-nuclear North Korea?

MS. PERINO: That is the hope, and that is where we are working towards, and we expect that they will fulfill their part of the bargain; and if they don't, then we won't have to fulfill our part, either. And so we are hopeful. Secretary -- I'm sorry, Assistant Secretary Hill said the same thing today.

Q And after the Democratic presidential debate, The Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed candidate Kucinich and quoted him as saying of President Bush, "I seriously believe we have to start asking question about his mental health." And my question: Does the White House believe that during the debate, the Kucinich admission that he has seen a UFO demonstrates the quality of Kucinich mental health analysis?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment. I think that speaks for itself.

Q It speaks for itself? Oh, thank you very much.

MS. PERINO: Olivier.

Q Yes, just to review the thing you touched on in the gaggle, about Japan calling its ships home and ending the refueling mission; you said you were going to talk to the Japanese and, as I understood it, get them to reconsider that.

MS. PERINO: We would like for them to reconsider their decision to stop the refueling. They've played a very important role, and the President will be looking forward to talking to the new Prime Minister when he comes in the next few weeks. You know, until we have more an update, I'll have to defer.

Q Are there alternatives for them? I mean, are they -- they've announced, as I understand it, an increase in other kinds of aid to the Afghan mission. Is there an alternative or --

MS. PERINO: I have not heard that. Obviously, whatever sort of assistance they want to provide in the mission, we would appreciate. But we do think that refueling was very important and we'd like for them to continue.

Peter.

Q Going back to the question that came up in the gaggle, I asked you about the memos that are published in the Post from Donald Rumsfeld and his quote that "oil wealth has made Muslims averse to physical labor" --

MS. PERINO: That is not -- I went back and looked and that is not all in line with the President's views. What the President will say today, however, is that one of the things that we have to focus on is promoting liberty, because liberty has the capacity to transform societies from hopeless ones into hopeful societies, where people feel that they have a strong future, where they'll be able to provide for their families and have -- lead good, productive lives. And it's one of the things we're trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan and all throughout the world.

Q Arab American groups are already speaking out about this. They've had, obviously, an angry reaction to the quote from Rumsfeld.

MS. PERINO: I can understand why.

Q What effect do you think is -- they say it's going to have a chilling effect on the administration's outreach efforts to the Muslim world?

MS. PERINO: Well, again, I just said that it's not in line with the President's views. And, obviously, we have been working very hard throughout the Middle East, and actually throughout the world, in order to help spread the word of what America stands for. This includes going back to the relief we provided after the tsunami; after the earthquakes in Iran; the public diplomacy that we've been working on, including just last week, when Mrs. Bush went to the Middle East region to visit four countries to encourage breast cancer awareness and treatment.

So there's a variety of different things that we've done, including all the work that Karen Hughes has done at the Department of State, one of those being English language programs, teaching -- I think it was 13,000 students just this summer, going through an intensive language -- English-language program. I think they were all from Palestine.

So we are aware that we have a lot of work to do in order to win hearts and minds across the Arab world and the Muslim world. And I can understand why they would be offended by those comments.

Q Dana, a follow-up on Mukasey?

MS. PERINO: I'm going to go to Mike first.

Q Dana, it sounds like you're fairly confident that Judge Mukasey would pass a floor vote. Do you have any concerns that he might not get out of committee, though?

MS. PERINO: Well, as I said, we are pleased that there is a committee -- that the committee set a date for a hearing, on Tuesday, November 6th. We would like to see him get out of committee. We are concerned that there has been this long of a delay, and that there are -- that anyone would think that he shouldn't get out of committee would be -- we would be very concerned about that, if they're thinking that they should block him. It would be unprecedented in history. But we are confident that if he can be allowed a vote in committee, that once he got to the Senate floor he would get a majority of the votes.

Q Has the President spoken to Judge Mukasey recently?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I don't know. He has been around, but I don't know if --

Q He's been in the White House?

MS. PERINO: Periodically. He can work out of the EEOB.

Q So he wrote this letter to the 10 Democrats who sit on the Judiciary Committee, and he said, "waterboarding, as it's been described to him, is repugnant." And I'm just wondering, in your view, can something be repugnant but also legal?

MS. PERINO: Look, as I said, I'm not going to comment on any techniques, I'm not going to comment on any of it. That was his personal view, and the senators, if they want to ask him more questions about that, should confirm him and then they'd have the opportunity to do so.

Elaine.

Q I just want to come back to the pen and pad this morning. You talked about this at the gaggle. How did that come about, the decision to hold that?

MS. PERINO: Well, we're always looking for ways to do additional communication here at the White House, and provide more access for reporters. It was just a new tool we'd like to have in our tool box. I hope we use it again.

Q So is it part of sort of a new communications strategy at this point?

MS. PERINO: I'm going to say it was an additional tool that we added.

Q Is there something that sparked this, though? Did the President have something specific in mind that he thought -- was he jumping from what other Presidents might have done in the past? (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Look, President Bush enjoys his time talking with the media, believe it or not.

Q He does?

MS. PERINO: He did say that -- he does. He did say that he had seen a photograph of Dwight Eisenhower having reporters into the Oval Office for a press conference. With our press corps now, it's a little bit -- there would be probably too many people to try to get in there for a full press conference, although I won't rule that out in the future.

But this is an opportunity to have the in-town travel pool to be able to come in and talk to the President with a -- in a pen-and-pad format to provide him an opportunity to talk about what he is going to be saying at his speech that's taking place in just about 20 minutes, and also a chance for reporters to have an opportunity to ask him some questions. There are a variety of ways we communicate at the White House, and I hope that this is a tool that we can employ in the future.

Q Thank you, Dana.

MS. PERINO: Okay.

END 12:29 P.M. EDT

*Craig Morford is the Acting Deputy Attorney General. Peter Keisler is the Acting Attorney General.

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, November 1, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and VIDEO, or PODCAST and Ron Paul TV Ads for New Hampshire VIDEO and Vlad Ţepeş Vlad the Impaler Dracula and Sol-gel inks produce complex shapes with nanoscale features

President Bush Heritage Foundation War on Terror VIDEO PODCAST

	President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror. FULL STREAMING VIDEO. The Heritage Foundation. Washington, D.C. In Focus: Defense and In Focus: National Security, 12:47 P.M. EDT. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE Running time 26:16
President George W. Bush meets in the Oval Office Thursday morning, Nov. 1, 2007, with members of the White House Press Corps with whom he gave a quick preview of his remarks on the Global War on Terror that later were delivered to the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Ed, thanks. Thanks for the kind introduction. I'm looking forward to working with you for the next 14 months -- but you better put on your running shoes, because my spirits are high, my energy level is good and I'm sprinting to the finish line. (Applause.)

I congratulate you on your 30th anniversary as President -- (laughter.) No such thing as term limits here. (Laughter.) And rightly so, because Ed is a person who has taken the conservative movement from one that used to meet in a phone booth here in Washington -- (laughter) -- to a robust group of folks who are shaping policy in Washington, D.C. As a matter of fact, you've got a little bigger phone booth these days than you did 30 years ago. (Laughter.)

I appreciate all you've done and I really want to thank Heritage. One of the interesting things about the Heritage legacy is that the folks here have been tireless advocates, tireless champions of liberty, and free enterprise, and democracy and religious freedom. These are values that came under attack on September the 11th, 2001. Our nation was attacked by a brutal enemy that despises freedom, that rejects tolerance, that kills the innocent in the pursuit of a dark vision. These folks believe that it's okay to subjugate women and indoctrinate children and murder those who oppose their harsh rule. They have stated clearly they want to impose this ideology on millions. They're at war with America because they hate what they stand for -- and they understand we stand in their way.

And so today I've come to talk to you about the war on terror, my firm commitment that we'll do everything in our power to protect the American people, and my call on the United States Congress to give us the tools necessary so we can do the job the American people expect.

I, too, want to thank the members of the Heritage Foundation Board of Trustees who have joined us. Thank you for supporting this important organization. I can't tell you how important it is to have good centers of thought in Washington, D.C. -- people who are willing to look at today's problems and come up with innovative solution based upon sound principle to solve those problems. And that's how I view Heritage.

I thank all the members and guests who've joined us today, as well. It's a pleasure to be with you.

It's been now more than six years since the enemy attacked us on September the 11th, and we are blessed that there has not been another attack on our soil. With the passage of time, the memories of the 9/11 attacks have grown more distant. And for some, there's a temptation to think that the threats to our country have grown distant as well. They have not.

The terrorists who struck America that September morning intend to strike us again. We know this, because the enemy has told us so. Just last year, Osama bin Laden warned the American people, "Operations are under preparation, and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished." Seven months later, British authorities broke up the most ambitious known al Qaeda plot since the 9/11 attacks -- a plot to blow up passenger airplanes flying over the Atlantic toward the United States. Our intelligence community believes that this plot was just two or three weeks away from execution. If it had been carried out, it could have rivaled 9/11 in death and destruction.

The lesson of this experience is clear. We must take the words of the enemy seriously. The terrorists have stated their objectives. They intend to build a totalitarian Islamic empire -- encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialog with those they call infidels -- a category that includes America, the world's free nation [sic], Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam. They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world. Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden last year: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

History teaches that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake. In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin, as he laid out his plans to launch a Communist revolution in Russia -- and the world paid a terrible price. The Soviet Empire he established killed tens of millions, and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war.

In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler, as he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany, take revenge on Europe, and eradicate the Jews -- and the world paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives and treasure.

Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is: Will we listen? America and our coalition partners are listening. We have made our choice. We take the words of the enemy seriously. Over the past six years, we have captured or killed hundreds of terrorists. We have disrupted their finances. We have prevented new attacks before they could be carried out. We removed regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq that had supported terrorists and threatened our citizens, and in so doing, liberated 50 million people from the clutches of tyranny. (Applause.)

With our allies, we're keeping the pressure on the enemy. We're keeping him on the move. We're fighting them everywhere they make their stand -- from the mountains of Afghanistan, to the deserts of Iraq, to the islands of Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa. On every battlefront, we're on the offense. We're keeping constant pressure. And in this war on terror we will not rest, or retreat, or withdraw from the fight until this threat to civilization has been removed. (Applause.)

I fully understand that after six years, the sense of imminent danger has passed for some -- and it can be natural for people to forget the lessons of 9/11 as they go about their daily lives. I just want to assure you that I'll never forget the lessons of September the 11th, and nor will the people with whom I work. I know that when I discuss the war on terror, some here in Washington, D.C. dismiss it as political rhetoric -- an attempt to scare people into votes. Given the nature of the enemy and the words of its leaders, politicians who deny that we are at war are either being disingenuous or naive. Either way, it is dangerous for our country. We are at war -- and we cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist.

Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war. For example, in a time of war, it is vital for the President to have a full national security team in place -- and a key member of that team is the Attorney General. The job of the Attorney General is essential to the security of America. The Attorney General is the highest ranking official responsible for our law enforcement community's efforts to detect and prevent terrorist attacks here at home.

I've selected an outstanding nominee to fill this vital role: Judge Michael Mukasey. Judge Mukasey has a long record of accomplishments in matter of law and national security. He has been praised by Republicans and Democrats alike as a man of honesty, intellect, fairness and independence.

Judge Mukasey provided nearly six hours of testimony. He patiently answered more than 200 questions at the hearing. He has responded to nearly 500 written questions less than a week after his hearing. Yet the Senate Judiciary Committee has been holding up his nomination.

As a price of his confirmation, some on that committee want Judge Mukasey to take a legal position on specific techniques allegedly used to interrogate captured terrorists. As Judge Mukasey explained in a letter to committee members, he cannot do so for several reasons: First, he does not know whether certain methods of questioning are in fact used, because the program is classified -- and therefore he is in no position to provide an informed opinion. He has not been read into the program, and won't until he is confirmed and sword in -- won't be until he is confirmed and sworn in as the Attorney General. Second, he does not want an uninformed opinion to be taken by our professional interrogators in the field as placing them in legal jeopardy.

Finally, he does not want any statement of his to give the terrorists a window into which techniques we may use, and which ones we may not use. That could help them train their operatives to resist questioning, and withhold vital information we need to stop attacks and save lives.

In the war on terror, intelligence is one of the most crucial tools for our defense. If a captured terrorist has information about a plot against our homeland, we need to know what he knows. And so that's why I put in place in place, under the CIA, a program to question key terrorist operatives and its leaders. Last year, Congress passed a law that allows the CIA to continue this vital program. The procedures used in this program are safe. They are lawful. And they are necessary. (Applause.)

Senior leaders in the House and Senate, from both political parties, have been briefed on the details of this program. It's wrong for congressional leaders to make Judge Mukasey's confirmation dependent on his willingness to go on the record about the details of a classified program he has not been briefed on. If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge Mukasey on these grounds, they would set a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for Attorney General. And that would guarantee that America would have no Attorney General during this time of war.

By any measure, Judge Mukasey is eminently qualified to be the next Attorney General. And now, after allowing his nomination to languish for 41 days, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote for next Tuesday. Senate leaders must move this nomination out of committee, bring it to the Senate floor and confirm this good man. (Applause.)

Congress has also failed to act on intelligence legislation that is vital to protect the American people in this war on terror. Stopping new attacks on our country requires us to make sure we understand the intentions of the enemy. We've got to know what they're thinking and what they're planning. And that means we got to have effective measures to monitor their communications.

This summer, Congress passed the Protect America Act, which strengthened our ability to collect foreign intelligence on terrorists overseas and this good law closed a dangerous gap in our intelligence. Unfortunately, they made this law effective for only six months. The problem is that al Qaeda doesn't operate on a six-month timetable. (Laughter.) And if Congress doesn't act soon, the law will expire -- and the gap in our intelligence will reopen, and the United States of America will be at risk.

We must keep the intelligence gap firmly closed. If terrorists are communicating with each other and are plotting new attacks, we need to know what they're planning. (Applause.) We must ensure that the protections intended for the American people are not extended to terrorists overseas who are plotting to harm us. And we must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks.

The Senate Intel Committee has approved a bipartisan bill that contains provisions to preserve our ability to collect intelligence on terrorists overseas, while protecting the civil liberties of Americans here at home. This bill still needs some improving, but it's an important step in the right direction. (Applause.) Time is of the essence, and the full Senate and the House of Representatives need to pass a good bill and get it to my desk promptly so our intelligence professionals can continue to use the vital tools of the Protect America Act to keep us safe. (Applause.)

Congress is also stalling on the emergency war supplemental to fund our troops on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq. This crucial bill includes funds for bullets and body armor, protection against IEDs and mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. Congress should be able to move the supplemental quickly. There's no reason why they're not moving the supplemental -- after all, it had more than eight months to study most of its provisions. In fact, nearly 75 percent of the funding request in the supplemental was submitted along with my annual budget in February of this year. The supplemental is critical for our troops -- and Congress should not go home for the holidays while our men and women in uniform are waiting for the funds they need. (Applause.)

Congress also needs to pass the Department of Defense spending bill, as well as the funding bill for our nation's veterans. There are reports that congressional leaders may be considering combining the funding bills for our military and our veterans together with a bloated labor, health and education spending bill. It's hard to imagine a more cynical ploy than holding funding for our troops and our wounded warriors hostage in order to extract $11 billion in wasteful Washington spending. If the reports of this strategy are true, I will veto such a three-bill pileup. (Applause.)

I ask Congress to send me a clean veterans funding bill by Veterans Day; and to pass a clean defense spending bill. Congress needs to put the needs of those who put on the uniform ahead of their desire to spend more money. When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters. (Applause.)

Here's the bottom line: This is no time for Congress to weaken the Department of Justice by denying it a strong and effective leader. It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to gather vital intelligence from captured terrorists. It's no time for Congress to weaken our ability to intercept information from terrorists about potential attacks on the United States of America. And this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al Qaeda terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the struggle against the terrorists and extremists, I hope I made my strategy clear today -- that we will keep constant pressure on the enemy in order to defend the American people; we will fight them overseas so we do not have to fight them here at home. (Applause.) At the same time, we'll use every available tool of law and intelligence to protect the people here. That's our most solemn duty. It's a duty I think about every day. In the long run, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to advance freedom as the great alternative to radicalism and repression.

We can have confidence in this cause because we have seen the power of liberty to transform nations and secure peace before. Here at the Heritage Foundation, you understand this better than most. During the Cold War, there were loud voices in Washington who argued for accommodation of the Soviet Union -- because they believed the watchword of our policy should be "stability." At Heritage, you knew that when it came to the Soviet Union, the watchword of our policy should be "freedom."

Together with a great President named Ronald Reagan, you championed a policy of rolling back communism oppression and bringing freedom to nations enslaved by communist tyranny. And by taking the side of dissidents, who [sic] helped millions across the world throw off the shackles of communism, you helped build the free and peaceful societies that are the true sources of stability and peace in the world.

And now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding -- this time regarding my policy in the Middle East. Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be "stability." And once again they're wrong. In Kabul, in Baghdad, in Beirut, and other cities across the broader Middle East, brave men and women are risking their lives every day for the same freedoms we enjoy. And like the citizens of Prague and Warsaw and Budapest in the century gone by, they are looking to the United States to stand up for them, speak out for them, and champion their cause. And we are doing just that. (Applause.)

We are standing with those who yearn for the liberty -- who yearn for liberty in the Middle East, because we understand that the desire for freedom is universal, written by the Almighty into the hearts of every man, woman and child on this Earth. (Applause.)

We are standing with those who yearn for liberty in the Middle East, because we know that the terrorists fear freedom even more than they fear our firepower. They know that given a choice, no one will choose to live under their dark ideology of violence and death.

We're standing with those who yearn for liberty in the Middle East, because we know that when free societies take root in that part of the world, they will yield the peace we all desire. See, the only way the terrorists can recruit operatives and suicide bombers is by feeding on the hopelessness of societies mired in despair. And by bringing freedom to these societies, we replace hatred with hope, and this will help us to marginalize the extremists and eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism, and make the American people more secure.

The lessons of the past have taught us that liberty is transformative. And I believe 50 years from now an American President will be speaking to Heritage and say, thank God that generation that wrote the first chapter in the 21st century understood the power of freedom to bring the peace we want. (Applause.)

Thank you for coming. God bless. (Applause.)

END 1:14 P.M. EDT

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, November 1, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Global War on Terror and Heritage Foundation or Ron Paul TV Ads for New Hampshire VIDEO and Vlad Ţepeş Vlad the Impaler Dracula and Sol-gel inks produce complex shapes with nanoscale features