Transcript: Bush News Conference Q & A

April 13 -- In the third prime-time news conference of his administration, President Bush made a lengthy statement on the conditions in Iraq. Afterward, he took questions from reporters.

The following is a transcript of that session, provided by the Federal Document Clearing House.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraqsince the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq toVietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support foryour policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans nowsupport it.

What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnamcomparison?

BUSH: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think thatanalogy sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrongmessage to the enemy.

Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in acountry that has been strangled by tyranny. And yet we must stay thecourse because the end result is in our nation's interest.

A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change theworld and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the midst of theMiddle East will have incredible change.

It's hard. Freedom is not easy to achieve. I mean we hada little trouble in our own country achieving freedom.

And we've been there a year. I know that seems like a long time.It seems like a long time to the loved ones whose troops have beenoverseas. But when you think about where the country has comefrom, it's a relatively short period of time.

And we're making progress. There's no question it's been atough, tough series of weeks for the American people. It's beenreally tough for the families. I understand that. It's been tough onthis administration. But we're doing the right thing.

And as to whether or not I made decisions based upon polls, Idon't. I just don't make decisions that way. I fully understand theconsequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world, and theworld will be better off and America will be more secure as a resultof the actions we're taking.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. What's your best predictionon how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds likeyou will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?

BUSH: Well, first of all, that's up to General Abizaid, and he'sclearly indicating that he may want more troops. It's coming upthrough the chain of command. And if that's what he wants, that'swhat he gets.

Generally, we've had about a 115,000 troops in Iraq. There's135,000 now as a result of the changeover from one division to thenext.

If he wants to keep troops there to help, I'm more thanwilling to say, "Yes, General Abizaid."

I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantlyasking him does he have what he needs, whether it be in troop strengthor in equipment. He and General Sanchez talk all the time. And if hemakes the recommendation, he'll get it.

In terms of how long we'll be there, as long as necessary, andnot one day more. The Iraqi people need us there to help withsecurity. They need us there to fight off these, you know, violentfew, who are doing everything they can to resist the advance offreedom. And I mentioned who they are.

And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, our commanders on theground have got the authorities necessary to deal with violence, andwill — will in firm fashion.

And that's what by far the vast majority of the Iraqis want.They want security so they can advance toward a free society.

Once we transfer sovereignty, we'll enter into a securityagreement with the government to which we pass sovereignty, the entityto which we pass sovereignty. And we'll need to be there for a while.

We'll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I wasdisappointed in the performance of some of the troops.

Some of the units performed brilliantly. Some of themdidn't. And we need to find out why. If they're lacking inequipment, we'll get them equipment. If there needs to be moreintense training, we'll get more intense training.

But eventually, Iraq's security is going to be handled by theIraqi people themselves.

Oh, let's see here. Terry.

QUESTION: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of youradministration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops wouldbe greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oilrevenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq notonly had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of DefenseRumsfeld said, we know where they are.

How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong?

And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took thisnation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series offalse premises?

BUSH: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior togoing into Iraq.

First, the lesson of September the 11th is that when this nationsees a threat, a gathering threat, we got to deal with it. We can nolonger hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we musttake seriously.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had usedweapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threatbecause he coddled terrorists.

He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was athreat to the region. He was a threat to the United States.

That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, theassessment that Congress made from the intelligence. That's the exactsame assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with theintelligence.

I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, "Either youtake care of him, or we will." Any time an American president says,"If you don't, we will," we better be prepared to. And I was preparedto.

I thought it was important for the United Nations SecurityCouncil that when it says something, it means something for the sakeof security in the world.

See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We neededto work with people. People needed to come together to work. Andtherefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who arewilling to kill indiscriminately.

The United Nations passed a Security Council resolutionunanimously that said, "Disarm or face serious consequences." And herefused to disarm.

I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who justcame back — he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group — reported someinteresting findings from his recent tour there. And one of thethings was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been towardUNMOVIC and UNSCOM, deceptive in hiding things.

We knew they were hiding things. A country that hidessomething is a country that is afraid of getting caught, and that waspart of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that.

He also confirmed that Saddam had the ability to producebiological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger.

And he had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the UnitedNations. He was a danger. And so we dealt with him.

And what else was part the question? Oh, oil revenues.

Well, the oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they wouldbe at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation ofIraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant.

One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going intoIraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren't.They're now up and running. And that money is — it will benefit theIraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct thecountry.

Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people —it's an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid ofSaddam Hussein, and you can understand why. This guy was a torturer,a killer, a maimer. There's mass graves.

I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked thecountry in many ways, shocked it into a kind of a fear of makingdecisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Somecitizens are fearful of stepping up.

And they were happy — they're not happy they're occupied.I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either. They do want us thereto help with security.

And that's why this transfer of sovereignty is an importantsignal to send, and it's why it's also important for them to hear wewill stand with them until they become a free country.

Elisabeth?

Excuse me.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE), Mr. President. To move to the 9/11Commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden wasnot a central focus of the administration in the months beforeSeptember 11th. "I was not on point," you told the journalist BobWoodward. "I didn't feel that sense of urgency."

Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personalresponsibility for September 11th?

BUSH: Let me put that quote to Woodward in context, because hehad asked me if I was — something about killing bin Laden. That'swhat the question was.

And I said, you know, compared to how I felt at the time, afterthe attack, I didn't have that — and I also went on to say, "My bloodwasn't boiling," I think is what the quote said.

I didn't see — I mean, I didn't have that great sense of outragethat I felt on September the 11th. I was — on that day, I was angryand sad. Angry that al Qaeda — I thought at the time al Qaeda, foundout shortly thereafter it was al Qaeda — had unleashed this attack.Sad for those who lost their life.

Your question, do I feel -- yes?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) personal responsibility for September 11th?

BUSH: I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family members,and I do quite frequently. I grieve for, you know, the incredibleloss of life that they feel, the emptiness they feel.

There are some things I wish we'd have done, when I look back. Imean, hindsight's easy. It's easy for a president to stand up andsay, "Now that I know what happened, it would have been nice if therewere certain things in place."