February 11, 2009 5:06 PM

Bush, Dems Spar Over Iraq Funding

(CBS/AP)  President Bush denounced "irresponsible" Democrats on Tuesday for going on spring break without approving money for the Iraq war with no strings. He condemned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, too, accusing her of encouraging a terrorism sponsor.

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:

  • Said his administration "had a right to remove" eight U.S. attorneys. Mr. Bush added a note of concern about damage to the prosecutors' reputations: "I'm sorry it's come to this," he said.

  • Refused to say whether he believes homosexuality is immoral, a characterization made recently by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation," he said.

  • Rejected any "quid pro quo" to win the release of 15 British sailors captured by Iran, such as exchanging five Iranians arrested by the U.S. military in Iraq in January. At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said there was no link "as far as we know" between the captured Britons and the release Tuesday of an Iranian diplomat missing for two months in Iraq.
  • © 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    Add a Comment See all 112 Comments
    by homespunlady April 5, 2007 12:22 AM EDT
    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
    by j0hnwi11iams April 4, 2007 10:51 PM EDT
    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
    by imprisonbush April 4, 2007 6:55 PM EDT
    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
    by imprisonbush April 4, 2007 6:52 PM EDT
    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
    by homespunlady April 4, 2007 6:34 PM EDT
    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
    by homespunlady April 4, 2007 6:24 PM EDT
    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
    by missmyhubby April 4, 2007 5:10 PM EDT
    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
    by missmyhubby April 4, 2007 4:33 PM EDT
    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
    by abbe7 April 4, 2007 11:43 AM EDT
    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
    by tank611 April 4, 2007 11:09 AM EDT
    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
    See all 112 Comments
    .
    Scroll Left
    Scroll Right More »
    CBS News on Facebook