WASHINGTON, April 3, 2007
Bush, Dems Spar Over Iraq Funding
President Calls Democrats "Irresponsible," Dems Say They Represent Americans' Views On "Failed War"
-
Play CBS Video Video Bush Vows To Veto Iraq Bill As more troops heard to Iraq, the president again fired back at Democrats, who are attempting to use Congressional powers to cut off war spending, and vowed to veto their bill. Susan Roberts reports.
-
Video Bush Renews Veto Threat CBS News RAW: President Bush renewed a promise to veto two congressional spending bills, saying it had been 57 days since he requested over $100 billion to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
Video Pelosi In Syria House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in Syria and sending a strong message home: The isolation of Syria has failed, and so has the President's war policy. Democrats want change. Wyatt Andrews reports.
-
President Bush addresses reporters in the Rose Garden of the White House on April 3, 2007. Mr. Bush criticized Congress, saying: "They left for spring break without finishing their work." (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
In The Spotlight Bush's New Iraq Strategy A glimpse at some of the key elements in President Bush's new plan for Iraq.
-
Who's Who Congress Reacts To Plan Reaction to President Bush's new Iraq stategy, which includes an increase in troops.
With Congress out of town, Mr. Bush tried to take the upper hand over Democrats who are making increasing forays into foreign policy as his term heads towards its end and his approval ratings remain low.
Democrats, buoyed by recent Republican defections from Mr. Bush on Iraq, shot back that they are the ones pursuing effective solutions overseas in response to a national desire for change from his approach.
"We are not going to allow the president to continue a failed policy in Iraq. We represent the American people's vision on this failed war," Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said at a ceremony for a new Nevada National Guard armory near Las Vegas. "We have said time and time again the troops will have everything they need."
Presidential Historian Douglas Brinkley said Democrats believe they have nothing to lose by confronting the president, reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews.
"They're taking the posture that Bush is not just a lame-duck president, but is irrelevant and wrong. And I think this is a very significant, historic day," he said.
Speaking a day before he heads out of town for six days for events in the West and an Easter break at his ranch, the president said Democrats are failing their responsibility to the troops and the nation's security by leaving for their own recess after passing bills to fund the war that contain timelines for American withdrawal.
Given his promised veto of anything containing a deadline — and the likelihood that his veto would be sustained on Capitol Hill — Mr. Bush said Democrats are merely engaging in games that "undercut the troops."
"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," Mr. Bush said. "In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds."
Nearly two months ago, Mr. Bush asked for more than $100 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Congress has approved the money, but the Senate added a provision also calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. The House version demands a September 2008 withdrawal.
These bills still must be reconciled before legislation can be sent to the president.
"They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I'll veto it," the president said. "And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done."
Not so fast, Democrats responded.
"Americans want compromise, not a cowboy-style showdown," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C.
Fresh from a briefing by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the president sought to put pressure on Democrats by detailing ways that delaying the money could harm troops and their families.
After the current $70 billion war appropriation runs out in mid-April, Mr. Bush said, the military would have to consider cutting back on equipment, repairs and training for National Guard and reserve forces. After mid-May, he said, more steps would be considered, such as delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces.
Despite Mr. Bush's warnings, dire consequences can be avoided even after the money starts to run out. It has become routine in recent years for Pentagon accountants to move money around in the department's half-trillion-dollar budget to make sure operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not disrupted. The money is repaid, usually with minimal disruption, when the president signs a new war spending bill.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Mr. Bush and Congress have about three months to resolve their standoff before Iraq operations would actually be affected.
Democrats told Mr. Bush to stop blaming them for being the ones to keep money from soldiers, and to start negotiating.
"If President Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he will be the one who is blocking funding for the troops. Nobody else," said presidential candidate John Edwards.
On another topic, the president took issue with a two-day stay in Syria by Pelosi that began Tuesday.
As the speaker donned a head scarf and mingled with Syrians at a mosque and a market in Damascus' Old City, preparing for meetings Wednesday with Syrian President Bashar Assad, Mr. Bush said she was sending dangerous signals. State-run newspapers in Syria published news of the visit on their front pages, with one daily publishing a photograph of Pelosi next to the headline: "Welcome Dialogue."
President Bush called the meeting counterproductive, warning that it sends mixed signals, reports CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante.
"Photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror," he said.
Mr. Bush added that meetings with many high-level Americans have done nothing to persuade Assad to control violent elements of the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, to halt efforts to destabilize Lebanon or to stop allowing "foreign fighters" from flowing over Syria's border into Iraq.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended that the U.S. begin direct and extensive talks with Syria and Iran over Iraq. The Bush administration has long rejected that idea, but recently agreed to allow U.S. representatives to talk with Syrian officials at an international conference in Baghdad.
Pelosi's office said her trip was appropriate.
"The Iraq Study Group recommended a diplomatic effort that should include 'every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq," said deputy press secretary Drew Hamill. "This effort should certainly include Syria."
On other matters, Mr. Bush:
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Politics
Add a Comment See all 119 Comments
- Imprisonbush:
It's been tried. Unfortunately the fine print on the back of the contract may as well say "contract with the devil". You simply sign your life over period.
Been there, done that, was "lucky", only crippled for the rest of my life. I've seen worse.
The best I can do is tell the truth about what it's all about and warn of the consequences.
It works for the more rational and less desperate but there will probably always be someone willing to sell their soul for a lie or out of desperation. For those I give my prayers because I was one of those fools. - Reply to this comment
- Not NEARLY as irresponsible as King George who doesn't need a budget, schedule, or oversight of any kind. Each word uttered from his lips hits my ears as a million fingernails on slate. Every idea is poisoned by hubris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris - Reply to this comment
- I think the members of the military would be justified morally in quitting the military due to the false promises made and breached here by the military. As a lawyer, I also think a compelling legal argument could be made, though admittedly I am not a military lawyer and the risks would be severe. I encourage all military members to speak to great legal military counsel to see if you can get out of this roller coaster legally given the promised made and breached. This is an illegal disaster of the greatest magnitude, imposed by war criminals who pretend to be the duly elected President and Vice President. The need to be impeached and prosecuted and incarcerated
- Reply to this comment
- Bush says he supports the troops. Yet there are divisions (if that's the right term) of troops which have just been ordered back for their 5th rotation with less than a year since their return contrary to promises made previously. Bush relies heavily on National Guard and Reserves to fight despite many who never believed this kind of service coule result. Can you imagine how this must fu*ck up their lives and the lives of their loved ones? As but one of many examples, how do you get and keep a job and support your family if you can't stay here more than a few months? This must be horrific for them and they cannot get out without threat of criminal punishment! This is likely to decimate both the Reserves and National Guard for ever -- who would ever sign up know if s/he believed s/he could be stuck fighting a war? Not I.
- Reply to this comment
- Tank611
Why did several of your listed "successes" keep repeating? Didn't they STAY successes? How about that one on the Carrier, you know "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" or maybe the "last throes" that kept getting repeated. This broken record needs to be replaced. - Reply to this comment
- How about NJ's Gov. McGreevey? He appoints his gaybird lover to HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR for the State!
That my freinds is a scandal. Not hiring a company that was the ONLY company capable of carrying out the infrastructure rebuild of Iraq.
Posted by cbville72
How do we KNOW they were the ONLY possibility. From what I've heard about the contract awards, it was more like a rigged lottery.
I remember hearing and reading about numerous complaints from other American, European and even Iraqi companies that were told they were SHUT OUT from even trying for contracts. Apparently if they didn't KNOW SOMEONE or negotiate "arrangements" they didn't have a chance.
Investigations into this had a habit of "dying" particularly if you were say maybe a Colonel in Iraq with a sense of integrity.
Shutting out ALL other possible competition (that is sole sourcing) in favor of the former and possibly future (MAYBE) employer of our Vice-President which STILL PAYS into a fund for him, looks like a MUCH BIGGER scandal simply based on the potential LEVEL OF CORRUPTION - State governor versus Vice President of the United States.
I'd believe Cheney was cleaner if that fund was going straight to some charity- say Darfur or AIDS rather than sitting there waiting for him until after he's done with us.
To claim that Cheney's "removed" from being paid off because the money goes into a future trust instead of REMOVING ALL FUTURE MONETARY TIES says it all.
CRONYISM IS STILL UNACCEPTABLE. - Reply to this comment
- The Iraq govt. is beginning to take shape and the Iraqi people are volunteering more and more into their military and their police force. That is a simple fact. It is simply a matter of training them and giving their newly elected govt. time. The war in Iraq was militarily and strategically an overwhelming success. That too is a simple fact. Iraq will be better off once we finish the job of training their recruits. The deadline should be about when the job is complete and not a date on the calendar. That too is a fact.
Posted by cbville72
And while this OVERWWHELMING success is going on....my husband continues to do combat missions in Iraq--looking for IED's, detaining bad guys, finding weapons caches...it has been 5 years...so what?? Another 5 or 10 and the Iraqi gov't will be ready?? OVERWHELMING SUCCESS INDEED! - Reply to this comment
- I love to hear about the Halliburton "scandals" and the neocon rants that go on in this site. How about NJ's Gov. McGreevey? He appoints his gaybird lover to HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR for the State!
That my freinds is a scandal. Not hiring a company that was the ONLY company capable of carrying out the infrastructure rebuild of Iraq.
Posted by cbville72
Yeah--almost 5 years later...how is that rebuilding going?? Looking good to me....NOT! - Reply to this comment
- As far as Pelosi going to Syria she is only doing what smarter people than bush have suggested.
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended that the U.S. begin direct and extensive talks with Syria and Iran over Iraq. The Bush administration has long rejected that idea. - Reply to this comment
- Tank611,
You forgot one ...
Success- Western Oil companies get an unprecedented
good deal for Iraqi oil, the reason of the war, after all - Reply to this comment
- cbville72... The "job" of completing training of the IRAQI troops will NEVER be complete, as long as WE are there getting blown away INSTEAD of THEM, or ALONG with them. Wake up, Moron.
Posted by wayfedup at 12:02 AM : Apr 04, 2007
It takes supposedly 4 months to train a american good enough to send them into combat and it takes over 3 years to train iraqis. I ask what is wrong with this picture.
You can train them till he*l freezes over and they will not be ready unless they are willing to be ready.
So I agree wake up moron. - Reply to this comment
- QUOTE:
'Thanks for showing us all the great things done in Iraq. Time to go now'
No it's not 'time to go now'. - Reply to this comment
- irishbitch1; I Love you, Good Post!
Tank611; Great since you listed the successes American can now leave totally and MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Thanks for showing us all the great things done in Iraq. Time to go now! - Reply to this comment
- cutting off funding will stop the war! the leadership of the military will pull the troops out! Any order to keep on fighting without funding will be an illegal order and the military leadership will not obey that order! they will plan for staged withdrawl as they already have plans for such a move, and execute a withdrawl from iraq! Bush and you koolaid kid supporters of his either have no military experience or are just lying as usual!
- Reply to this comment
- QUOTE:
'Anyone stupid enough to be still supporting Bush after all that's happened is a flat earth believer. No amount of facts, rational arguement or logic will convince them otherwise'
Here are the facts:
Success- invasion of Iraq
Success- destruction of Iraq's armed forces
Success- occupation of Iraq's capitol city
Success- occupation of all of Iraq
Success- removal of Iraq's government
Success- free elections
Success- capture of Saddam Hussein
Success- death of Uday and Qusay Hussein
Success- death of Al-Zarqawi
Success- capture of 50 out 55 on Iraq's 'Most Wanted' list
Success- introduction of new Iraqi currency
Success- formation of the new Iraqi Army
Success- Iraqi army operates independantly
Success- more free elections
Success- formation of new Iraqi government
Success- regime change
Success- more free elections
Success- practically no violence in the Kurdish region
Success- 85% of eligible voters cast votes in the most recent elections
Success- US and Iraqi forces re-take Sadr City
Success- Muqtada al-Sadr flees Iraq
Success- invasion of Iraq prompts Libya to give up it's WMD - Reply to this comment
- This country is in a very pathetic state, here we have both political parties playing politics when our children are loosing their lives,bush could care less about our Soldiers so long as he gets what he wants they can keep on dieing. Let's not even go to criticising the dems for the pork in their bill when the repubs have been porking up everything for the past six years.
Mr Bush this war belong to you and no matter how you try to spin it,it will always belong to you!You messed up and you can't pass the buck,it stops dead with you! - Reply to this comment
- QUOTE:
'You would know'
Posted by mcdazz
That is a lie.
Where have I attacked someone? NOWHERE.
You anti-war people constantly condemn Bush for lying then you turn around and lie about me. So it's OK for you to lie,but it's not OK for Bush to lie? You're making yourselves look completely hypocritcal. - Reply to this comment
- President Bush is holding the American Troops as hostages to his Iraq Policy. He is trying to spin the topic to the point that if you do not support his Stay the Course Iraq Policy you are some how hurting the American fighting force. Once again he is lying to the American People to support his political agenda. 363 tons of money and 500 billion American Tax dollars, and over 3200 lives say if Bush cannot get it right with that expendature he will never get it right! Other nations of that region have political action committees in America lobbying our elected officials to support their agenda in the Middle East that is why American troops are there and have been there for 50 years. There is nothing in Iraq or the entire Middle East worth one more drop of American Blood. Iraq did not attack us on 911. Bin Laden was an ally of America when he was fighting the Russians he was done dirty then turned on us and hit us on 911. Bush has derailed the hunt for Bin Laden at every turn. It would appear to the casual observer that there has been some back room deal with the Saudi Arabians not to catch Bin Laden. Bush openly transfers funds from Iraq to support Sunni al Qaeda insurgents in working Lebanon. America cannot endure another two years of this ineptitude. Bush and Cheney must be impeached and tried for war crimes.
- Reply to this comment
- QUOTE:
'we now have legalized torture'
Nope.
QUOTE:
'600,000 dead Iraqi civilians'
Nope. Try 60,000. - Reply to this comment
- Congress must realize somehow that cutting the funding to the troops will not stop the wars progress.This will only help the insurgents because our soldiers will not have all the equipment that they need to fullfill their mission,or protect themselves properly.I do realize that they are not getting shot at and blown up on a daily basis.I also doubt if any of their children are in this type of situation either.I gotta back the Pres on this one!
- Reply to this comment
