By The Associated Press

The text of President Bush's news conference at the White House Friday, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:

BUSH: Thank you.

It's always a pleasure to be introduced into the Rose Garden.

Thank you, Wendell.

Thank you for coming. Looking forward to answering some of your questions.

This week our nation paused to mark the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It was a tough day for a lot of our citizens. I was so honored to meet with family members and first responders, workers at the Pentagon, all who still had heaviness in their heart.

But they asked me a question. They kept asking me, What do you think the level of determination for this country is in order to protect ourselves? That's what they wanted to know.

You know, for me, it was a reminder about how I felt right after 9/11. I felt a sense of determination and conviction about doing everything that is necessary to project the people. I'm going to go back to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly. And I'll talk to all leaders gathered there about our obligation to defend civilization and liberty, to support the forces of freedom and moderation throughout the Middle East.

As we work with the international community to defeat the terrorists and extremists, to provide an alternative to their hateful ideology, we must also provide our military and intelligence professionals with the tools they need to protect our country from another attack.

And the reason they need those tools is because the enemy wants to attack us again.

Right here in the Oval Office, I get briefed nearly every morning about the nature of this world. And I get briefed about the desire of an enemy to hurt America. And it's a sobering experience, as I'm sure you can imagine. I wish that weren't the case, you know, but it is the case.

And therefore, I believe that it's vital that our folks on the front line have the tools necessary to protect the American people. There are two vital pieces of legislation in Congress now that I think are necessary to help us win the war on terror.

We will work with members of both parties to get legislation that works out of the Congress.

The first bill will allow us to use military commissions to try suspected terrorists for war crimes. We need the legislation because the Supreme Court recently ruled that military commissions must be explicitly authorized by Congress.

So we're working with Congress. The Supreme Court said, You must work with Congress. We are working with Congress to get a good piece of legislation out.

The bill I have proposed will ensure that suspected terrorists will receive full and fair trials without revealing to them our nation's sensitive intelligence secrets.

As soon as Congress acts on this bill, the men our intelligence believed helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks can face justice.

The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists.

The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

He gave us information that helped uncover al-Qaida cells' efforts to obtain biological weapons.

We've also learned information from the CIA program that has helped stop other plots, including attacks on the U.S. Marine base in East Africa, our American consulate in Pakistan, or Britain's Heathrow Airport.

This program has been one of the most vital tools in our efforts to protect this country. It's been invaluable to our country, and it's invaluable to our allies.

Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland.

By giving us information about terrorist plans we couldn't get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives. In other words, it's vital.

That's why I asked Congress to pass legislation so that our professionals can go forward doing the duty we expect them to do.

Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program in question. It's another reason I went to Congress. We need this legislation to save it.

I'm asking Congress to pass a clear law, with clear guidelines, based on the Detainee Treatment Act that was strongly supported by Sen. John McCain.

There's a debate about the specific provisions in my bill, and we'll work with Congress to continue to try to find common ground.

I have one test for this legislation. I'm going to ask one question, as this legislation proceeds, and it's this: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue. That's what I'm going to ask.

The second bill before Congress would modernize our electronic surveillance laws and provide additional authority for the terrorist surveillance program.

I authorized the National Security Agency to operate this vital program in response to the 9/11 attacks. It allows us to quickly monitor terrorist communications between someone overseas and someone in the United States, and it's helped detect and prevent attacks on our country.

The principle behind this program is clear.

When an al-Qaida operative is calling into the United States or out of the country, we need to know who they're calling, why they're calling and what they're planning.

Both these bills are essential to winning the war on terror.

We'll work with Congress to get good bills out, because we have a duty - we have a duty to work together to give our folks on the front line the tools necessary to protect America.

Time's running out. Congress is set to adjourn in just a few weeks. Congress needs to act wisely and promptly, so I can sign good legislation.

And now I'd be glad to answer some questions.

Q: Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

BUSH: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. It's just - I simply can't accept that.

It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

My job and the job of people here in Washington, D.C., is to protect this country.

We didn't ask for this war. You might remember the 2000 campaign. I don't remember spending much time talking about what it might be like to be a commander in chief in a different kind of war.

But this enemy has struck us and they want to strike us again. And we'll give our folks the tools necessary to protect the country. That's our job.

It's a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't that way. I wish I could tell the American people, Don't worry about it. They're not coming again. But they are coming again.

And that's why I've sent this legislation up to Congress. And that's why we'll continue to work with allies in building a vast coalition, to protect not only ourselves but them.

The facts are - is that after 9/11, this enemy continued to attack and kill innocent people.

I happen to believe that they're bound by a common ideology. Matter of fact, I don't believe it, I know they are. And they want to impose that ideology throughout the broader Middle East. That's what they have said.

Makes sense for the commander in chief and all of us involved in protecting this country to listen to the words of the enemy. And I take their words seriously. And that's what's going to be necessary to protect this country, is to listen carefully to what they say and stay ahead of them as they try to attack us.

Steve?

Q: Can I just follow up?

BUSH: No, you can't.

Steve?

If we follow up, we're not going to get - I want Herman to be able to ask a question. It's his last press - not yet, Herman.

Soon. You and Wendell seem...

Q: Thanks very much, sir.

What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings?

And Sen. McCain says your plan would put U.S. troops at risk. What do you think about that?

BUSH: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like - it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity ? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.

And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they're doing is legal.

You know, it's a - and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

The first question that we've got to ask is: Do we need the program?

I believe we do need the program. And I detailed in a speech in the East Room what the program has yielded; in other words, the kind of information we get when we interrogate people within the law.

You see, sometimes you can pick up information on the battlefield, sometimes you can pick it up, you know, through letters, but sometimes you actually have to question the people who know the strategy and plans of the enemy.

And in this case, we questioned people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we believe ordered the attacks on 9/11, or Ramzi Binalshibh or Abu Zubaydah, cold-blooded killers who were part of planning the attack that killed 3,000 people.

And we need to be able to question them, because it helps yield information, information necessary for us to be able to do our job.

Now, the court said that you've got to live under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. And the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law.

These are decent, honorable citizens who are on the front line of protecting the American people. And they expect our government to give them clarity about what is right and what is wrong in the law. And that's what we have asked to do.

And we believe a good way to go is to use the amendment that we worked with John McCain on, called the Detainee Treatment Act, as the basis for clarity for people we would ask to question the enemy.

In other words, it is a way to bring U.S. law into play. It provides more clarity for our professionals.

And that's what these people expect. These are decent citizens who don't want to break the law.

Now, this idea that somehow, you know, we've got to live under international treaties, you know - and that's fine; we do. But oftentimes the United States government passes law to clarify obligations under international treaty.

And what I'm concerned about is if we don't do that, that it's very conceivable our professionals could be held to account based upon court decisions in other countries. And I don't believe Americans want that.

I believe Americans want us to protect the country, to have clear standards for our law enforcement, intelligence officers, and give them the tools necessary to protect us within the law.

It's an important debate. It really is. It's a debate that really is going to define whether or not we can protect ourselves.

I will tell you this - and I've spent a lot of time on this issue, as you can imagine. And I've talked to professionals, people I count on for advice. These are the people who are going to represent those on the front line protecting this country.

They're not going forward with the program. They're professionals - will not step up unless there's clarity in the law.

So Congress has got a decision to make. You want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America.

Herman?

This is Herman's last press conference so - sorry about that.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President.

On another of your top priorities, immigration, leaders of both parties have indicated that any chance of comprehensive immigration reform is dead before the election.

Is this an issue you would like to revisit in a lame duck session after the election? Or would it be put off until the new Congress?

BUSH: I strongly believe that in order to protect this border, Congress has got to pass a comprehensive plan that, on the one hand, provides, you know, additional money to secure the border and, on the other hand, recognizes that people are sneaking in here to do jobs Americans aren't doing, it would be better that they not sneak in; that they would come on a temporary basis, in an orderly way, to do work Americans aren't doing, and then go home.

And I will continue to urge Congress to think comprehensively about this vital piece of legislation.

I went up to the Hill yesterday and, of course, this topic came up. And that's exactly what I told the members of Congress.

They wanted to know whether or not we were implementing border security measures that they had funded last January. And the answer is: We are.

And one of the key things I told them was we had ended what's called catch-and-release. That was, you know, where the Border Patrol agent would find somebody, particularly from a - not from Mexico - and would say, Well, we don't have enough detention space, so why don't you come back and check in with the - you know, the local person you're supposed to check in with, and then they'd never show back up.

And that, of course, frustrated the Border Patrol agents, it frustrates American citizens, it frustrates me. And we ended it, because Congress appropriated money that increased the number of beds available to detain people when we get them sneaking into our country illegally.

The border has become modernized. And Secretary Chertoff here later on this month will be announcing further modernizations, as he has let a contract that will use all kinds of different technologies to make the border more secure.

But in the long run to secure this border, we've got to have a rational work plan.

And finally, we going to have to treat people with dignity in this country. Ours is a nation of immigrants. And when Congress gets down to a comprehensive bill, I will just remind them, it's virtually impossible to try to find 11 million folks who've been here working hard, in some cases raising families, and kick them out. It's just not going to work.

But granting automatic citizenship won't work either. To me, that would just provide an additional incentive for people to try to sneak in.

And so, therefore, there is a rational way forward. I'll continue working. I don't know the timetable. My answer is as soon as possible. That's what I'd like to see done.

Wendell?

Q: My apologies, Mr. President, for talking too long at the start.

BUSH: I'm not going to apologize for talking too long to your answer.

Q: Talk as long as you like, sir.

When you go to New York next week, it's our thinking that one of the things you'll be trying to do is to get more international support for taking a tough stance against Iran.

I wonder how much that is frustrated by two things: one, the war in Iraq and world criticism of that; and the other, the Iraqi prime minister's going to Iran and basically challenging your administration's claim that Iran is meddling in Iraqi affairs.

BUSH: First, my decision, along with other countries, to remove Saddam Hussein has obviously created some concern amongst allies, but it certainly hasn't diminished the coalitions we put together to deal with radicalism.

For example, there's 70 nations involved with the Proliferation Security Initiative. And that's an initiative to help prevent weapons of mass destruction and/or component parts from being delivered to countries that could use them to hurt us; or the broad war on terror, intelligence-sharing or financial - the sharing of financial information; or Afghanistan, where NATO troops are there now, along with ours.

In other words, there's a broad coalition - most nations that - you know, recognize the threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon in the Middle East. And there's common consensus that we need to work together to prevent the Iranian regime from developing that nuclear weapons program.

I have - I am pleased that there is strong consensus. And now the objective is to continue reminding the Iranian regime that there is unanimity in the world and that we will move forward together.

And we expect them to come to the table and negotiate with the E.U. in good faith. And should they choose to verifiably suspend their program - their enrichment program, we'll come to the table.

That's what we have said and the offer still stands.

During the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, the United Nations did pass a resolution with our European friends and ourselves and, of course, Russia and China voting for the resolution.

I think it passed 14-1. One nation voted against the resolution toward Iran. So there is common consensus.

And if you've heard me lament oftentimes it takes a while to get diplomacy working.

There's one nation of Iran and, you know, a bunch of nations like us trying to, kind of, head in the same direction. And my concern is that, you know, they'll stall; they'll try to wait us out.

So part of my objective in New York is to remind people that stalling shouldn't be allowed. In other words, we need to move the process. And they need to understand we're firm in our commitment and that if they try to drag their feet or, you know, get us to look the other way, that we won't do that; that we're firmly committed in our desire to send a common signal to the Iranian regime.

It is important for the Iranian people to also understand we respect them, we respect their history, we respect their traditions, we respect the right for people to worship freely. We would hope that people would be able to express themselves in the public square. And that our intention is to make the world safer, and we'll continue to do so.

Q: If I could follow up on that question, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, will actually be in the same building as you next week in Manhattan for the United Nations General Assembly.

You say that you want to give the message to the Iranian people that you respect them.

Is this not an opportunity, perhaps, to show that you also respect their leader? Would you be willing to perhaps meet face- to-face with Ahmadinejad? And would this possibly be a breakthrough - some sort of opportunity for a breakthrough on a personal level?

BUSH: No, I'm not going to meet with him.

I have made it clear to the Iranian regime that we will sit down with the Iranians once they verifiably suspend their enrichment program, and I meant what I said.

Q: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al-Qaida. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship.

Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan.

I never said there was an operational relationship. I was making the point that Saddam Hussein had been declared a state sponsor of terror for a reason, and therefore he was dangerous.

The broader point I was reminding people is why we removed Saddam Hussein from power: He was dangerous. I would hope people aren't trying to rewrite the history of Saddam Hussein and all of a sudden he becomes, kind of, a benevolent fellow. He's a dangerous man.

And one of the reasons he was declared a state sponsor of terror is because that's what he was. He harbored terrorists. He paid for families of suicide bombers.

Never have I said that Saddam Hussein gave orders to attack 9/11. What I did say was after 9/11, when you see a threat, you've got to take it seriously. And I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein, as did Congress, as did the United Nations.

I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam in power.

Dave? He's back!

Q: Sorry, I've got to get disentangled.

BUSH: Would you like me to go to somebody else, here, till you get...

Q: Sorry.

BUSH: Well, take your time, please.

Q: I really apologize for that. Anyway...

BUSH: I must say, having gone through those gyrations, you're looking beautiful today, Dave.

Q: Thank you very much.

Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test. These critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning.

And that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that as commander in chief?

BUSH: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction.

We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.

And let me just repeat: We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward.

You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They - let me finish please - they will not violate the law.

You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is - and the American people have got to understand this - that this program won't go forward if there's vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It's just not going to go forward.

You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.

Now, I know they say they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that, you know. Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that.

Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example. I'm just telling you the bottom line. And that's why this debate is important and it's a vital debate.

Now, perhaps, some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't.

I think it's vital and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country - I got to give them the tools they need, and that is clear law.

Q: This is an important point, and I think it ...

BUSH: The point I just made is the most important point, and that is the program is not going forward.

You can give a hypothetical about North Korea or any other country. The point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law.

And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law. That's how we define Common Article 3. And it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about.

Next man?

Q: But wait a second. I think this is an important point.

BUSH: I know you think it's an important point.

Q: But, sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, as they see fit, you're saying that you'd be OK with that?

BUSH: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article 3 we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.

And I will tell you again, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts.

And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules - if they do not do that, the program's not going forward.

Q: This will not endanger U.S. troops in your ...

BUSH: Next man?

Q: This will not endanger ...

BUSH: David, next man please. Thank you.

Took you a long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6083150,00.html

 (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)