Posted on 03/23/2007 11:04:16 AM PDT by bd476
Edited on 03/23/2007 12:04:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Live now, President Bush is making a strong response.
Not a problem...this is his Pressure back on the fence sitting dims...their are only a few votes to swithch to the minority position to kill this in the house!
you complain about Bush and then you switch it all around....I think either you are mentally challenged or you just enjoy the attention.
Bye, bye.
Thanks...now I understand the connection in Claire's post.
Was there a statement that without a clean bill the troops would be seriously disrupted? Maybe I shouldn't be asking, but this is what I believe I heard.
Good queation. Maybe he is finally being more conservative!
yep another nut....
Could it be? The spine has been found???
Nah, go look who the 14 were. They are the super-leftists who want to cut off ALL funding for the war. They thought this bill was not defeatist ENOUGH.
This just came up on the White House site. Would you please be so kind as to add this to the content? Thank you in advance. :-)
Remarks by the President on the Iraq War Emergency Supplemental
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE IRAQ WAR EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
Diplomatic Reception Room
2:00 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Today I'm joined here at the White House by veterans, family members of people serving in combat, family members of those who have sacrificed. I am honored that they have joined me here today.
Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives advocated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.
The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.
As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.
Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.
Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.
The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women standing with me here today.
Thank you for your time.
END 2:04 P.M. EDT
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE IRAQ WAR EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
woohoo!! Way to go Bush!!!
I'm curious, what does From One - Many mean?
Well to claim the VETO because of timetable is consistent... and right.
To try to argue PORK is the reason? Just doesn't wash.. Bush has had no issue with PORK his entire presidency, and not tried once to reign in congressional drunken spending.
We all know why you are VETOing it Mr. President, and thats over the war timetable provisions, which is fine and just... but to spin PORK had anything to do with it just makes you look hypocritical.
The war issue alone is more than enough justification for the veto, why even verbally bring PORK into it? It's just going to play into the oppositions hand.
Thank you!
See post #46!
They want to Nixonize GWB, I say go ahead make our day.
Mr. President, Shutdown Washington.
The Dept's of Education, Energy, and HHS are a good start, no kid every learned to read of got a drop of oil from these paper-pushers.
2nd. go on a world wind tour of all the small Guard Barracks in the districts of those who voted for Pelosi's bill and Dis-invite the Reps.
Have a national address to the nation or Press Conference EVERY DAY, use your pulpate Sir.
Stick it to um, name names, Especially Kennedy, I want to see his face really red after you read him the riot act. Every talk show large and small will give you airtime Sir, the mike is yours.....
SeeBS email alert:
In a stinging rebuke of a House vote on Iraq war spending, President Bush
slamed the House for "abdicating its responsiblity" and "political theater."
Log on now to www.cbsnews.com, or wap.cbsnews.com for wireless users, for details.
thank you for post the transcript.....
Attack the donks, they passed the bill. GW had nothing to do with it. Attacking the president is only helping Pelosi, unless that is what you are intending to do.
I'll take a shot at him.
If my POTUS were really serious about our safety, he'd secure our borders and defend our Gatekeepers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.