President's Remarks: Iraq War Emergency Supplemental(Responds to Congress' Betrayal Live Thread)

White House ^ | March 23, 2007

[bd476]

Live now, President Bush is making a strong response.

---

Updated:

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 abdictated 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

[Lucky9teen]

Great viewpoint. I agree. Bush knows what he's doing.

And although he may not be perfect in every decision, it seems lots of folks misunderestimate him.

[haircutter]

why not leave this site, go and search the Internet for your answers and maybe calm down..
seems to me you are seeking an arguement..
some people are never satisfied nor happy..you seem to be one..
Please don't call me "another nut"... I was a BUCKEYE for 50 years....you need a vacation..

[pleikumud]

This may have been posted already - shows how they voted.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll186.xml
The Democrats are allies of the terrorists. Anyone who voted for this is a traitor.

[From One - Many]

I personnally do not enjoy seeing government reps, undercutting our military efforts...

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Well said. Bump!

[Ramius]

but I believe I just saw him make one of the biggest political mistakes/missteps I've seen by any president in a long time.

Nonsense. It doesn't make any sense to obsess on this little nitpick.

He DID make it clear that a timetable was unacceptable. That there was irrelevant pork in the bill is indeed yet another problem with it. To call attention to it is just fine.

He was on a roll today. He's at his best when he's aggressive. Let's hope he keeps it up.

[penelopesire]

LOL

[CDHart]

Does anyone know how the individual house members voted?

Carolyn

[longhorn too]

I see where our new conservative blue dog democrat Heath Schuler voted for the bill, I wonder what kind of pork he got for his district.

[eraser2005]

"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."

Pot...kettle...black...

Bush has become a master of making moves solely to score political points...

Is there anyone decent in DC anymore?

[jveritas]

Because the normal way to fund the troops and the war is through the supplemental bills, however there is always a way of the President to take "non ordinary" measures and fund the troops from anywhere he wants form the budget.

Remember that the adminstration also needs to expose the traitors and defeatists among us. The President cannot just simply let them go away with treason as in the case of this bill because he can overcome it anyway and fund the troops. He needs to hold them accountable and that is what he is doing exactly here.

[HamiltonJay]

I'm not overdramatizing, I'm pointing out it was needless, and it sets the President up for yet another round of bashing in news stories.

There was no need to mention it at ALL, that's my point. You play to your strengths, and Bush's strength has always been the war... He should have vetoed it purely on the effects on the war (which I am certain based on his past behavior is fully the reson he vetoed it) and not eve mentioned Pork.

Now that he has, every single news organization will be sure to run repeated stories of Bush never standing up to pork in the past, purely for the purpose to make him look hypocritical and bad... mark my words.

What do you think the news stories will be? BUSH'S Veto's due to congress overstepping authority and putting our soldiers lives at risk? Or will it be spun as this "Why did Bush finally veto pork?".. followed by the listing of every pork bill he's ever signed listed ad nausea?

You play to your strenths, had he stuck purely with its a bad bill and I won't put our soldiers lives and the war at risk by signing it. He'd have framed the news cycle to his advantage.. but by mentioning pork at all, he's open the door to one of his biggest weaknesses and as such the news cycle will get framed that way, IMHO.

He shouldn't have mentioned it at all, there was no reason too, he was fully justified in Vetoing the bill without that topic even coming up. Bad move.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Thanks! :)

[soycd]

I trust our President. These things that involve educating the less attentive in society take time. The honor of America and those that love it will prevail....for now.

[colorado tanker]

So, the President showed "real courage" by signing every pork-stuffed bill Congress sent him, by signing CFR, by caving into bad bills on NCLB and Medicare drug benefits, by not fighting for his judges, by bending over backwards over and over again to appease the Dems to set his "new tone"?

Obviously, the Dems don't think he'll veto this bill. I think he will, I think he finally gets that the Dems will never, ever, sign on to his "new tone." But I have to say, even I am not sure he'll veto it.

[HamiltonJay]

Have you been paying attention to the media at all since oh, about late 2003? What do you think the media framing of this veto is going to be at large?

Do you really think its going to be Bush stands ground on war? Or is it going to be Bush hypocrite on pork spending? I can almost guarantee the second framing which would not even be possible without him personally mentioning it will get huge play now. Poor move.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

See post 179

[agincourt1415]

You never know, the gloves are off now!

[kevkrom]

While I agree with this Veto.. why is he only NOW vetoing for PORK??? This guys rubber stamped more PORK than anyone in my lifetime.

He's not going to veto it for the pork, he'll do so because of the provisions that will cripple his ability to effectively run the military.

[tobyhill]

The key to this is that no matter what the congress does this is a supplemental bill and not the actual budget bill meaning if the President has to he will get the money from somewhere. The Pentagon asked for $93 billion but in reality the need is probably half that and if the President wants to really get mad he could take it from states whose reps voted for this pork bill through the Defense Contractors.