James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
March 06, 2012 1:15 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Now, I understand there
are some political contests going on tonight, but I thought I'd start
the day off by taking a few questions, which I'm sure will not be
political in nature. (Laughter.) Before I do, I want to make a few
announcements about some steps we're taking to help responsible
homeowners who've been struggling through this housing crisis.
We've clearly seen some positive economic news over the last few
months. Businesses have created about 3.7 million new jobs over the
last two years. Manufacturers are hiring for the first time since the
1990s. The auto industry is back and hiring more than 200,000 people
over the last few years. Confidence is up. And the economy is getting
stronger.
But there are still millions of Americans who can't find a job. There
are millions more who are having a tough time making the rent or the
mortgage, paying for gas or groceries. So our job in Washington isn't
to sit back and do nothing. And it's certainly not to stand in the
way of this recovery. Right now we've got to do everything we can to
speed it up.
Now, Congress did the right thing when they passed part of my jobs
plan and prevented a tax hike on 160 million working Americans this
year. And that was a good first step. But it's not enough. They
can't just stop there and wait for the next election to come around.
There are a few things they can do right now that could make a real
difference in people's lives.
This Congress should, once and for all, end tax breaks for companies
that are shipping jobs overseas, and use that money to reward
companies that are creating jobs here in the United States. I've put
forward a proposal that does just that, and there's no reason why
Congress can't come together and start acting on it.
This Congress could hold a vote on the Buffett Rule so that we don't
have billionaires paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
That's just common sense. The vast majority of Americans believe it's
common sense. And if we're serious about paying down our deficit,
it's as good a place to start as any.
And finally, this Congress should pass my proposal to give every
responsible homeowner a chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by
refinancing their mortgage at historically low rates. No red tape. No
runaround from the banks. If you've been on time on your payments, if
you've done the right thing, if you've acted responsibly, you should
have a chance to save that money on your home -- perhaps to build up
your equity, or just to have more money in your pocket that you can
spend on businesses in your community. That would make a huge
difference for millions of American families.
Now, if Congress refuses to act, I've said that I'll continue to do
everything in my power to act without them. Last fall, we announced
an initiative that allows millions of responsible homeowners to
refinance at low interest rates. Today we're taking it a step further
-- we are cutting by more than half the refinancing fees that families
pay for loans ensured by the Federal Housing Administration. That's
going to save the typical family in that situation an extra $1,000 a
year, on top of the savings that they'd also receive from refinancing.
That would make refinancing even more attractive to more families.
It's like another tax cut that will put more money in people's
pockets. We're going to do this on our own. We don't need
congressional authorization to do it.
We're also taking a series of steps to help homeowners who have served
our country. It is unconscionable that members of our armed forces
and their families have been some of those who have been most
susceptible to losing their homes due to the actions of unscrupulous
banks and mortgage lenders. Over the last few years that happened --
a lot.
So as part of the landmark settlement we reached with some of the
nation's largest banks a few weeks ago, here's what we're going to do:
If you are a member of the armed forces whose home was wrongfully
foreclosed, you will be substantially compensated for what the bank
did to you and your family. If you are a member of the armed forces
with a high interest rate who was wrongfully denied the chance to
lower it while you were in active serve, which banks are required to
do by law, the banks will refund you the money you would have saved
along with a significant penalty.
The settlement will make sure that you aren't forced into foreclosure
just because you have a permanent change in station but can't sell
your home because you owe more than it's worth. Some of the money
will also go into a fund that guarantees loans on favorable terms to
our veterans, and there will be more foreclosure protections for every
man and woman who is currently serving this country in harm's way.
As I've said before, no amount of money is going to be enough to make
it right for a family who has had their piece of the American Dream
wrongfully taken away from them, and no action -- no matter how
meaningful -- will entirely heal our housing market on its own. This
is not something the government by itself can solve. But I'm not one
of those people who believe that we should just sit by and wait for
the housing market to hit bottom. There are real things that we can
do right now that would make a substantial difference in the lives of
innocent, responsible homeowners. That's true in housing, and that's
true in any number of different areas when it comes to ensuring that
this recovery touches as many lives as possible. That's going to be
my top priority as long as I hold this office, and I will do
everything I can to make that progress.
So with that I'm going to take some questions, and I will start with
Mike Viqueira.
Q Yes, sir. On the Middle East and as it relates to American
politics, a little less than a year ago Moammar Qaddafi gave a speech,
and he said he was going to send his forces to Benghazi, he was going
to rout opponents from their bedrooms and he was going to shoot them.
You frequently cited that speech as a justification for NATO, the
no-fly zone and military action against Libya. In Syria, Bashar al
Assad is killing people. There's a massacre underway. And your
critics here in the United States, including, most notably, John
McCain, said you should start air strikes now.
And on Iran, Mitt Romney, on Sunday, went so far as to say that if you
are re-elected, Iran will get a bomb and the world will change. How
do you respond to those criticisms?
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Mike, you've asked a couple of questions
there, so let me -- let's start with the Iran situation since that's
been the topic in the news for the last few days.
When I came into office, Iran was unified, on the move, had made
substantial progress on its nuclear program, and the world was divided
in terms of how to deal with it. What we've been able to do over the
last three years is mobilize unprecedented, crippling sanctions on
Iran. Iran is feeling the bite of these sanctions in a substantial
way. The world is unified; Iran is politically isolated.
And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting
a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to
prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a
nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would
undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into
the hands of terrorists. And we've been in close consultation with
all our allies, including Israel, in moving this strategy forward.
At this stage, it is my belief that we have a window of opportunity
where this can still be resolved diplomatically. That's not just my
view. That's the view of our top intelligence officials; it's the
view of top Israeli intelligence officials. And, as a consequence, we
are going to continue to apply the pressure even as we provide a door
for the Iranian regime to walk through where they could rejoin the
community of nations by giving assurances to the international
community that they're meeting their obligations and they are not
pursuing a nuclear weapon.
That's my track record. Now, what's said on the campaign trail --
those folks don't have a lot of responsibilities. They're not
Commander-in-Chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of
these folks talk about war, I'm reminded of the costs involved in war.
I'm reminded that the decision that I have to make in terms of
sending our young men and women into battle, and the impacts that has
on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact
it has on our economy.
This is not a game. There's nothing casual about it. And when I see
some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk,
but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it
turns out they repeat the things that we've been doing over the last
three years, it indicates to me that that's more about politics than
actually trying to solve a difficult problem.
Now, the one thing that we have not done is we haven't launched a war.
If some of these folks think that it's time to launch a war, they
should say so. And they should explain to the American people exactly
why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything
else is just talk.
Q That goes to Syria as well?
THE PRESIDENT: With respect to Syria, what's happening in Syria is
heartbreaking and outrageous, and what you've seen is the
international community mobilize against the Assad regime. And it's
not a question of when Assad leaves -- or if Assad leaves -- it's a
question of when. He has lost the legitimacy of his people. And the
actions that he's now taking against his own people is inexcusable,
and the world community has said so in a more or less unified voice.
On the other hand, for us to take military action unilaterally, as
some have suggested, or to think that somehow there is some simple
solution, I think is a mistake. What happened in Libya was we
mobilized the international community, had a U.N. Security Council
mandate, had the full cooperation of the region, Arab states, and we
knew that we could execute very effectively in a relatively short
period of time. This is a much more complicated situation.
So what we've done is to work with key Arab states, key international
partners -- Hillary Clinton was in Tunisia -- to come together and to
mobilize and plan how do we support the opposition; how do we provide
humanitarian assistance; how do we continue the political isolation;
how do we continue the economic isolation. And we are going to
continue to work on this project with other countries. And it is my
belief that, ultimately, this dictator will fall, as dictators in the
past have fallen.
But the notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to
deploy our military, that hasn't been true in the past and it won't be
true now. We've got to think through what we do through the lens of
what's going to be effective, but also what's critical for U.S.
security interests.
Jake Tapper.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. What kind of assurances did you give
Prime Minister Netanyahu about the role that the U.S. would play if
diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to work to convince Iran's
leaders to change their behavior, and Israel goes ahead and prepares
to strike a nuclear facility? What kind of assurances did you tell
him? And shouldn't we -- I recognize the difference between debate
and bluster -- but shouldn't we be having in this country a vigorous
debate about what could happen in the case of a Middle East war in a
way that, sadly, we did not do before going into Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think there's no doubt that those who are
suggesting, or proposing, or beating the drums of war should explain
clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits
would be.
I'm not one of those people -- because what I've said is, is that we
have a window through which we can resolve this issue peacefully. We
have put forward an international framework that is applying
unprecedented pressure. The Iranians just stated that they are
willing to return to the negotiating table. And we've got the
opportunity, even as we maintain that pressure, to see how it plays
out.
I'm not going to go into the details of my conversation with Prime
Minister Netanyahu. But what I said publicly doesn't differ greatly
from what I said privately. Israel is a sovereign nation that has to
make its own decisions about how best to preserve its security. And
as I said over the last several days, I am deeply mindful of the
historical precedents that weigh on any Prime Minister of Israel when
they think about the potential threats to Israel and the Jewish
homeland.
What I've also said is that because sanctions are starting to have
significant effect inside of Iran -- and that's not just my
assessment, that's, I think, a uniform assessment -- because the
sanctions are going to be even tougher in the coming months, because
they're now starting to affect their oil industry, their central bank,
and because we're now seeing noises about them returning to the
negotiating table, that it is deeply in everybody's interests -- the
United States, Israel and the world's -- to see if this can be
resolved in a peaceful fashion.
And so this notion that somehow we have a choice to make in the next
week or two weeks, or month or two months, is not borne out by the
facts. And the argument that we've made to the Israelis is that we
have made an unprecedented commitment to their security. There is an
unbreakable bond between our two countries, but one of the functions
of friends is to make sure that we provide honest and unvarnished
advice in terms of what is the best approach to achieve a common goal
-- particularly one in which we have a stake. This is not just an
issue of Israeli interest; this is an issue of U.S. interests. It's
also not just an issue of consequences for Israel if action is taken
prematurely. There are consequences to the United States as well.
And so I do think that any time we consider military action that the
American people understand there's going to be a price to pay.
Sometimes it's necessary. But we don't do it casually.
When I visit Walter Reed, when I sign letters to families that haven't
-- whose loved ones have not come home, I am reminded that there is a
cost. Sometimes we bear that cost. But we think it through. We
don't play politics with it. When we have in the past -- when we
haven't thought it through and it gets wrapped up in politics, we make
mistakes. And typically, it's not the folks who are popping off who
pay the price. It's these incredible men and women in uniform and
their families who pay the price.
And as a consequence, I think it's very important for us to take a
careful, thoughtful, sober approach to what is a real problem. And
that's what we've been doing over the last three years. That's what I
intend to keep doing.
Q Sir, I'm sorry, if I could just quickly follow up -- you didn't --
THE PRESIDENT: Jake --
Q You might not be beating the drums of war, but you did very
publicly say, we've got Israel's back. What does that mean?
THE PRESIDENT: What it means is, is that, historically, we have
always cooperated with Israel with respect to the defense of Israel,
just like we do with a whole range of other allies -- just like we do
with Great Britain, just like we do with Japan. And that broad
statement I think is confirmed when you look at what we've done over
the last three years on things like Iron Dome that prevents missiles
from raining down on their small towns along border regions of Israel,
that potentially land on schools or children or families. And we're
going to continue that unprecedented security -- security commitment.
It was not a military doctrine that we were laying out for any
particular military action. It was a restatement of our consistent
position that the security of Israel is something I deeply care about,
and that the deeds of my administration over the last three years
confirms how deeply we care about it. That's a commitment we've made.
Jackie. Where's Jackie? There you are.
Q With the news this morning that the U.S. and its allies are
returning to the table, are taking up Iran's offer to talk again, more
than a year after those talks broke up in frustration, is this
Israel's -- Iran's last chance to negotiate an end to this nuclear
question?
And you said three years ago -- nearly three years ago, in a similar
one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, that the time for
talk -- by the end of that year, 2009, you would be considering
whether Iran was negotiating in good faith. And you said at that time
that "we're not going to have talks forever." So here we are nearly
three years later. Is this it? And did you think you would be here
three years after those first talks?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, there is no doubt that over the last three
years when Iran has engaged in negotiations there has been hemming and
hawing and stalling and avoiding the issues in ways that the
international community has concluded were not serious. And my
expectations, given the consequences of inaction for them, the severe
sanctions that are now being applied, the huge toll it's taking on
their economy, the degree of isolation that they're feeling right now
-- which is unprecedented -- they understand that the world community
means business.
To resolve this issue will require Iran to come to the table and
discuss in a clear and forthright way how to prove to the
international community that the intentions of their nuclear program
are peaceful. They know how to do that. This is not a mystery. And
so it's going to be very important to make sure that, on an issue like
this -- there are complexities; it obviously has to be methodical. I
don't expect a breakthrough in a first meeting, but I think we will
have a pretty good sense fairly quickly as to how serious they are
about resolving the issue.
And there are steps that they can take that would send a signal to the
international community and that are verifiable, that would allow them
to be in compliance with international norms, in compliance with
international mandates, abiding by the non-proliferation treaty, and
provide the world an assurance that they're not pursuing a nuclear
weapon. They know how to do it, and the question is going to be
whether in these discussions they show themselves moving clearly in
that direction.
Ed Henry.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to follow up on Israel and
Iran because you have said repeatedly you have Israel's back. And so
I wonder why, three years in office, you have not visited Israel as
President. And related to Iran and Israel, you have expressed concern
about this loose talk of war, as you call it, driving up gas prices
further. Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas
prices to go higher because you have said before, that will wean the
American people off fossil fuels, onto renewable fuels. How do you
respond to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think
the President of the United States going into reelection wants gas
prices to go up higher? (Laughter.) Is that -- is there anybody here
who thinks that makes a lot of sense?
Look, here's the bottom line with respect to gas prices. I want gas
prices lower because they hurt families; because I meet folks every
day who have to drive a long way to get to work and them filling up
this gas tank gets more and more painful, and it's a tax out of their
pocketbooks, out of their paychecks, and a lot of folks are already
operating on the margins right now.
And it's not good for the overall economy, because when gas prices go
up, consumer spending oftentimes pulls back. And we're in the midst
right now of a recovery that is starting to build up steam, and we
don't want to reverse it.
What I have also said about gas prices is that there is no silver
bullet and the only way we're going to solve this problem over the
medium and long term is with an all-of-the-above strategy that says
we're going to increase production -- which has happened; we are going
to make sure that we are conserving energy -- that's why we doubled
fuel efficiency standards on cars, which will save consumers about
$1.7 trillion and take about 12 billion barrels of oil offline, which
will help to reduce prices -- and we're going develop clean energy
technologies that allow us to continue to use less oil.
And we've made progress. I mean, the good news is, 2010, first time
in a decade that our oil imports were actually below 50 percent, and
they have kept on going down. And we're going to keep on looking at
every strategy we can to, yes, reduce the amount of oil that we use,
while maintaining our living standards and maintaining our
productivity and maintaining our economic growth, and we're going to
do everything we can to make sure that consumers aren't hurt by it.
Now, there are some short-term steps that we're looking at with
respect to -- for example, there are certain potential bottlenecks in
refineries around the country that we've been concerned about. We're
concerned about what's happening in terms of production around the
world. It's not just what's happening in the Gulf. You've had, for
example, in Sudan, some oil that's been taken offline that's helping
to restrict supply.
So we're going to look at a whole range of measures -- including, by
the way, making sure that my Attorney General is paying attention to
potential speculation in the oil markets. I've asked him to
reconstitute a task force that's examining that.
But we go through this every year. We've gone through this for 30
years. And if we are going to be competitive, successful, and make
sure families are protected over the long term, then we've got to make
sure that we've got a set of options that reduce our overall
dependence on oil.
And with respect to Israel, I am not the first President who has been
unable, because of a whole range of issues, not to visit Israel as
President in their first term. I visited Israel twice as senator,
once right before I became President. The measure of my commitment to
Israel is not measured by a single visit. The measure of my
commitment to Israel is seen in the actions that I've taken as
President of the United States. And it is indisputable that I've had
Israel's back over the last three years.
Aamer Madhani.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Do you believe Rush Limbaugh's apology
to the Georgetown law student was sufficient and heartfelt? Do you
agree with the decision of the growing number of sponsors that have
decided to drop his show or stop supporting his show? And has there
been a double standard on this issue? Liberal commentators have made
similarly provocative or distasteful statements and there hasn't been
such an outrage.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to comment on what sponsors decide to
do. I'm not going to comment on either the economics or the politics
of it. I don't know what's in Rush Limbaugh's heart, so I'm not going
to comment on the sincerity of his apology. What I can comment on is
the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were
made don't have any place in the public discourse.
And the reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and
Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to
engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them
on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and
thoughtful way. And I don't want them attacked or called horrible
names because they're being good citizens. And I wanted Sandra to
know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we
want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a
democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate, and we want
you to be engaged, and there's a way to do it that doesn't involve you
being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you're a private
citizen.
Jessica Yellin.
Q Bill Mahr apologized for what he said about -- (inaudible) --
should apologize for what they said about that?
THE PRESIDENT: Jessica.
Q Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Top Democrats have said that Republicans on a similar issue are
engaged in a war on women. Some top Republicans say it's more like
Democrats are engaged in a war for the women's vote. As you talk
about loose talk of war in another arena and women are -- this could
raise concerns among women, do you agree with the chair of your
Democratic National Committee that there is a war on women?
THE PRESIDENT: Here is what I think. Women are going to make up
their own mind in this election about who is advancing the issues that
they care most deeply about. And one of the things I've learned being
married to Michelle is I don't need to tell her what it is that she
thinks is important.
And there are millions of strong women around the country who are
going to make their own determination about a whole range of issues.
It's not going to be narrowly focused just on contraception. It's not
going to be driven by one statement by one radio announcer. It is
going to be driven by their view of what's most likely to make sure
they can help support their families, make their mortgage payments;
who's got a plan to ensure that middle-class families are secure over
the long term; what's most likely to result in their kids being able
to get the education they need to compete.
And I believe that Democrats have a better story to tell to women
about how we're going to solidify the middle class and grow this
economy, make sure everybody has a fair shot, everybody is doing their
fair share, and we got a fair set of rules of the road that everybody
has to follow.
So I'm not somebody who believes that women are going to be
single-issue voters. They never have been. But I do think that we've
got a strong story to tell when it comes to women.
Q Would you prefer this language be changed?
THE PRESIDENT: Jessica, as you know, if I start being in the business
of arbitrating --
Q You talk about civility.
THE PRESIDENT: And what I do is I practice it. And so I'm going to
try to lead by example in this situation, as opposed to commenting on
every single comment that's made by either politicians or pundits. I
would be very busy. I would not have time to do my job. That's your
job, to comment on what's said by politicians and pundits.
All right. Lori Montenegro.
Q Mr. President, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: There you go.
Q Mr. President, polls are showing that Latino voters seem to be
favoring your reelection over a Republican alternative. Yet some of
them are still disappointed, others have said, about a promise that
you've made on immigration reform that has yet to come to pass. If
you are reelected, what would be your strategy, what would you do
different to get immigration reform passed through the Congress,
especially if both houses continue as they are right now, which is
split?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, just substantively, every American
should want immigration reform. We've got a system that's broken.
We've got a system in which you have millions of families here in this
country who are living in the shadows, worried about deportation.
You've got American workers that are being undercut because those
undocumented workers can be hired and the minimum wage laws may not be
observed, overtime laws may not be observed.
You've got incredibly talented people who want to start businesses in
this country or to work in this country, and we should want those
folks here in the United States. But right now, the legal immigration
system is so tangled up that it becomes very difficult for them to put
down roots here.
So we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And it is
not just a Hispanic issue -- this is an issue for everybody. This is
an American issue that we need to fix.
Now, when I came into office I said I am going to push to get this
done. We didn't get it done. And the reason we haven't gotten it
done is because what used to be a bipartisan agreement that we should
fix this ended up becoming a partisan issue.
I give a lot of credit to my predecessor, George Bush, and his
political advisors who said this should not be just something the
Democrats support; the Republican Party is invested in this as well.
That was good advice then; it would be good advice now.
And my hope is, is that after this election, the Latino community will
have sent a strong message that they want a bipartisan effort to pass
comprehensive immigration reform that involves making sure we've got
tough border security -- and this administration has done more for
border security than just about anybody -- that we are making sure
that companies aren't able to take advantage of undocumented workers;
that we've got strong laws in place; and that we've got a path so that
all those folks whose kids often are U.S. citizens, who are working
with us, living with us and in our communities, and not breaking the
law, and trying to do their best to raise their families, that they've
got a chance to be a fuller part of our community.
So, what do I think will change?
Q What would you do differently?
THE PRESIDENT: What I will do -- look, we're going to be putting
forward, as we've done before, a framework, a proposal, legislation
that can move it -- move the ball forward and actually get this thing
done.
But ultimately, I can't vote for Republicans. They're going to have
to come to the conclusion that this is good for the country and that
this is something that they themselves think is important. And
depending on how Congress turns out, we'll see how many Republican
votes we need to get it done.
Norah O'Donnell. How are you?
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Today is Super Tuesday, so I wonder if
you might weigh in on some of your potential Republican opponents.
Mitt Romney has criticized you on Iran and said, "Hope is not a
foreign policy." He also said that you are "America's most feckless
President since Carter." What would you like to say to Mr. Romney?
THE PRESIDENT: Good luck tonight. (Laughter.)
Q No, really.
THE PRESIDENT: Really. (Laughter.)
Lynn, since you've been hollering and you're from my hometown, make it
a good one.
Q My question is about the switch of the G8 summit from Chicago to
Camp David. A reason given from the White House is that now you
wanted a more intimate summit. People of Chicago would like to know
what do you know now that you did not know when you booked hometown
Chicago for the G8 that led to the switch? And what role did security
threats possibly play in the decision?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind, Lynn, we're still going to be
showing up with a whole bunch of world leaders. We've got this NATO
summit. Typically what's happened is, is that we try to attach the G8
summit to the NATO summit so that the leaders in the G8 summit don't
have to travel twice to whatever location. So last year, in France,
we combined a G8 with a NATO summit. We'll do so again.
I have to say, this was an idea that was brought to me after the
initial organizing of the NATO summit. Somebody pointed out that I
hadn't had any of my counterparts, who I've worked with now for three
years, up to Camp David. G8 tends to be a more informal setting in
which we talk about a wide range of issues in a pretty intimate way.
And the thinking was that people would enjoy being in a more casual
backdrop. I think the weather should be good that time of year. It
will give me a chance to spend time with Mr. Putin, the new Russian
President. And from there, we will then fly to Chicago.
I always have confidence in Chicago being able to handle security
issues. Whether it's Taste of Chicago or Lollapalooza -- (laughter)
-- or Bull's championships, we know how to deal with a crowd. And I'm
sure that your new mayor will be quite attentive to detail in making
sure that everything goes off well.
All right? Okay. Go ahead, last one, last question.
Q Thank you. Mr. President, just to continue on that -- when the
NATO leaders gather in Chicago in May, do you expect that they'll be
able to agree on a transition strategy? And are you concerned at all
that the Koran burning and the episodes that have followed since then
threaten your ability to negotiate with partners?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind that the transition policy was in
place and established at Lisbon, and we've been following that
strategy that calls for us turning over increasing responsibility to
Afghans and a full transition so that our combat role is over by the
end of 2014. And our coalition partners have agreed to it. They are
sticking with it. That continues to be the plan.
What we are now going to be doing over the next -- at this NATO
meeting and planning for the next two years, is to make sure that that
transition is not a cliff, but that there are benchmarks and steps
that are taken along the way, in the same way that we reduced our role
in Iraq so that it is gradual, Afghan capacity is built, the
partnering with Afghan security forces is effective, that we are
putting in place the kinds of support structures that are needed in
order for the overall strategy to be effective.
Now, yes, the situation with the Koran burning concerns me. I think
that it is an indication of the challenges in that environment, and
it's an indication that now is the time for us to transition.
Obviously, the violence directed at our people is unacceptable. And
President Karzai acknowledged that. But what is also true is
President Karzai I think is eager for more responsibility on the
Afghan side. We're going to be able to find a mechanism whereby
Afghans understand their sovereignty is being respected and that
they're going to be taking a greater and greater role in their own
security. That I think is in the interest of Afghans. It's also in
our interests. And I'm confident we can execute, but it's not going
to be a smooth path. There are going to be bumps along the road just
as there were in Iraq.
Q Well, are these bumps along the road, or are you seeing a
deterioration in the relationship, based on the Koran burning itself,
the violence that has followed, that inhibits your ability to work out
things like how to hand off the detention center?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I -- none of this stuff is easy, and it never has
been. And obviously, the most recent riots or protests against the
Koran burning were tragic, but remember, this happened a while back
when a pastor in Florida threatened to burn a Koran. In Iraq, as we
were making this transition, there were constant crises that would pop
up and tragic events that would take place and there would be
occasional setbacks.
But what I've tried to do is to set a course, make sure that up and
down the chain of command everybody knows what our broader strategy
is. And one of the incredible things about our military is that when
they know what our objective is, what our goal is, regardless of the
obstacles that they meet along the way, they get the job done.
And I think that President Karzai understands that we are interested
in a strategic partnership with the Afghan people and the Afghan
government. We are not interested in staying there any longer than is
necessary to assure that al Qaeda is not operating there, and that
there is sufficient stability that it doesn't end up being a
free-for-all after ISAF has left.
And so we share interests here. It will require negotiations, and
there will be time where things don't look as smooth as I'd like.
That's kind of the deal internationally on a whole range of these
issues.
All right? Thank you guys.
Oh, can I just make one other comment? I want to publicly express
condolences to the family of Donald Payne, Congressman from New Jersey
-- a wonderful man; did great work, both domestically and
internationally. He was a friend of mine. And so my heart goes out
to his family and to his colleagues.
All right.
END
1:59 P.M. EST
More:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/06/press-conference-president
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment