AP News, August 9th, 2007
Q: In your previous conversations with Prime Minister Maliki, have you been confident that he shares your view on Iraq (sic)?
BUSH: On Iran?
Yes. He knows that weaponry being smuggled in to Iraq from Iran and placed into the hands of extremists _ over which the government has no control, all aimed at killing innocent life _ is a destabilizing factor.
BUSH: He absolutely understands that. I don't know if you saw, yesterday, there was _ we talked to General, General Petraeus, or I talked to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker yesterday.
I noticed, in the papers today, there was a description of a military operation that took place in Sadr City. The military operation in Sadr City was going after extremist elements, Shia extremist elements. And it was a very robust operation.
The _ obviously _ well, I shouldn't say obviously. It was done with the full understanding of the Maliki government. I don't know whether this extremist element had been fueled by Iran, but I do know that Maliki is committed against extremist elements who are trying to, you know, create enough chaos and confusion that this young government and young democracy is not able to progress.
So the first thing I looked for was commitment against the extremists. Second thing is: Does he understand with some extremist groups there's connections with Iran? And he does. And I'm confident.
Now, is he trying to get Iran to play a more constructive role? I presume he is. That doesn't _ that's _ what my question is _ what my message to him is, is that: When we catch you playing a nonconstructive role, there will be a price to pay.
Q: Mr. President, are you considering a plan to cut corporate taxes? Do you believe America's corporations are not making enough money these days?
BUSH: Actually we had an interesting discussion on this subject. And if you read carefully the penetrating report by the financial reporter _ like, semi-financial reporter _ you'll find that it was _ I was talking about an idea that has begun to surface as a result of meetings being held at the Treasury Department.
And the whole reason to look at corporate rates is to determine whether or not they make us less competitive in a global economy. If so, in other words, if the conclusion is is that our tax structure makes it harder for businesses to compete, therefore making it harder for people to find work over time, then we need to address the competitive imbalance in our tax code.
I also made it clear that we're at the very early stages of discussion and that, in my own judgment, anything that would be submitted to Congress, if submitted to all, would have to be revenue neutral.
And, therefore, what we'd really be talking about is a simplification of a very complex tax code that might be able to lower rates and, at the same time, simplify the code _ which is like shorthand for certain deductions would be taken away _ in other words, certain tax preferences in the code.
My view all along has been: The more simple the code, the better, whether it be in the individual income tax side or the corporate tax side.
However, I would readily concede to you that this is a difficult issue because the reason there's tax preferences in the first place, there are powerful interests that have worked to get the preference in the code.
And as I remarked to the distinguished group of writers I was talking to yesterday, it's much easier to get something in the code than get it out of the code.
But I do think it's in the interests to constantly evaluate, you know, our competitive advantages and disadvantages.
And what Hank Paulson told me was that there's a lot of folks who really believe the tax code creates a competitive disadvantage and, therefore, it's certainly worth looking at.
Q: On the subject of tax preferences, what about carried interest?
Do you think that taxing those capital gains rates is fair?
A lot of people think it's not.
BUSH: First of all, I think that what ends up happening is, in trying to deal with one particular aspect of partnerships, is that you end up affecting all partnerships. And partnerships are an important vehicle to encourage investment and capital flows.
They've been important vehicles to encourage the, you know, entrepreneurial spirit. In other words, small businesses have been organized as limited partnerships.
We're very, very hesitant about trying to target one aspect of limited partnerships for fear of the spillover it'll have in affecting small business growth. And we don't support that.
Q: You've been clear about saying that you will veto overspending by Congress when they come back next month to do appropriations bills. You've also been clear you don't want to raise taxes.
Can you do justice to the kind of programs the government needs for bridges, for housing, and also continue to spend as much as you do in the war in Iraq?
BUSH: One can meet priorities if they set priorities.
The problem in Congress is they have trouble actually focusing on priorities. Appropriators take their title seriously and they all feel like they got to appropriate, which means there's a myriad of priorities. And so the role of the president, it seems to me, is to help Congress focus on that which is important.
We have a debate over that which is important, of course, but one thing is _ that we shouldn't have the debate over is whether or not it's important to fund our troops in this war against radicals, extremists, the war on terror.
And I think we'll be able to get that kind of cooperation. I would hope that they would get the defense bill to my desk as quickly as possible.
Part of my concerns, of course, is that there is different sets of priorities in both bodies, and it seems like to me that the Congress needs to come together, solve their differences _ solve their differences first and then bring them to the White House and see if we can find accommodation.
I have proven in the past, though, that one's able to set priorities, keep taxes low, grow the economy and reduce the deficit.
In other words, we have cut taxes and _ causing economic growth, which caused there to be, this year alone, 187 billion more tax dollars coming into the Treasury.
The deficit's reduced to 1.5 percent of GDP, which, on a 40-year historical average, is very low _ or is low, below the average. And we've proven that you can set priorities and meet obligations. And so the Congress needs to learn to do that itself.
Q: But you're confident that you can continue to sustain the kind of level of spending that you've invested in Iraq?
BUSH: I would certainly hope so. Because, when you say sustain the level of spending, you're mainly talking about making sure our troops have what it takes to do the job we've asked them to do.
And I know there's a lot of members who don't agree with the decisions I made. I would certainly hope they would agree, however, that once someone's in combat, or in harm's way, that they get the full support of the federal government. That's exactly what their families expect and that's what the commander in chief expects as well.
Q: I wanted to ask you about accountability. You're a big believer in it. You've talked about it with regard to the public schools.
But given the performance of Iraqi leaders, given your decision to commute the sentence of Lewis Libby; you've also stood by the attorney general recently _ there have been a lot of questions about your commitment to accountability.
And I'm wondering if you could give the American people some clear examples of how you've held people accountable during your presidency.
BUSH: Lewis Libby was held accountable. He was declared guilty by a jury and he paid a high price for it.
Al Gonzales _ implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong.
As a matter of fact, I believe we're watching a political _ you know, a political exercise.
I mean, this is a man who _ who's testified. He sent thousands of papers up there. There's no proof of wrong. Why would I hold somebody accountable who has done nothing wrong?
Frankly, I think that's a typical Washington, D.C., assumption _ not to be accusatory. I know you're a kind, open-minded fellow. But you suggested holding the attorney general accountable for something he did wrong.
And, as a matter of fact, I would hope Congress would become more prone to deliver pieces of legislation that matter as opposed to being the investigative body. I mean, there have been over 600 different hearings, and yet they're struggling with getting appropriations bills to my desk.
Q: Given the decision to commute the sentence of Libby, given the performance of Iraqi leaders, is it fair for people to ask questions about your commitment to accountability?
BUSH: I would hope people would say that I am deliberate in my decision-making. I think about all aspects of the decisions I make, and I'm a fair person.
And the _ back to Iraq, it's no question they haven't made as much progress as I would have hoped. But I also recognize how difficult the task is.
And I repeat to you _ the fundamental question is: Does it matter whether or not there is a self-governing entity that's an ally in the war on terror in Iraq? Does it matter? Does it matter to, you know, a guy living in Crawford, Texas? Does it matter to your children?
As you know, from these press conferences, I have come to the conclusion that it does matter. And it does matter because enemies that would like to do harm to the American people would be emboldened by failure.
I recognize there's a debate here in America as to whether or not failure in Iraq would cause there to be more danger here in America. I strongly believe that's the case.
It matters if the United States does not believe in the universality of freedom. It matters to the security of people here at home if we don't work to change the conditions that caused 19 kids to be lured onto airplanes to come and murder our citizens.
The first question one has to ask on Iraq is: Is it worth it? I could not send a mother's child into combat if I did not believe it was necessary for our short-term and long-term security to succeed in Iraq.
Once you come to the conclusion that it's worth it, then the question you must ask is: How difficult is the task of a young democracy emerging?
Those who study the Articles of Confederation would recognize that there are difficult moments in young democracies emerging _ particularly after, in this case, tyrannical rule.
That's not to say that we shouldn't be pushing hard for all opportunities for reconciliation. But, for those of us who believe it's worth it, we will see progress. For those who believe it's not worth it, there is no progress.
And that's going to be the interesting debate.
And what it's going to come down to is whether or not the United States should be in Iraq and in the region in a position to enable societies to begin to, you know, embrace liberty for the long term. This is an ideological struggle.
And I recognize some don't view it as an ideological struggle, but I firmly believe it is an ideological struggle. And I believe it's a struggle between the forces of moderation and reasonableness and good and the forces of murder and intolerance.
And what has made the stakes so high is that those forces of murder and intolerance have shown they have the capacity to murder innocent people in our own country.
And so I put that in the context of accountability.
In the case of Iraq, it's a lot more complicated than just the passage of four laws, even though I would hope they would get the four laws passed.
But again, I repeat, the threshold question: Does it matter? Does it matter to our security here at home?
And the answer is: Absolutely, it does. It does.
And then the second question, really, for a lot of Americans is: Can we succeed?
And, in my mind, the answer to that is: Absolutely, not only we must succeed; we can succeed.
Listen, thank you all for your time. I appreciate it.
END
