    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 12 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
    [Pages 349-350]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    The President's Radio Address

    March 17, 2007

        Good morning. In times of war, Congress has no greater obligation
    than funding our war fighters. And next week, the House will begin
    debate on an emergency war spending bill.
        The purpose of this legislation should be to give our troops on the
    frontlines the resources, funds, and equipment they need to fight our
    enemies. Unfortunately, some in Congress are using this bill as an
    opportunity to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous
    withdrawal from Iraq, and spend billions on domestic projects that have
    nothing to do with the war on terror.
        Our troops urgently need Congress to approve emergency war funds.
    Over the past several weeks, our Nation has begun pursuing a new
    strategy in Iraq. Under the leadership of General David Petraeus, our
    troops have launched a difficult and dangerous mission to help Iraqis
    secure their capital. This plan is still in its early stages, yet we're
    already seeing signs of progress. Iraqi and American troops have rounded
    up more than 700 people affiliated with Shi'a extremists. They've also
    launched aggressive operations against Sunni extremists, and they've
    uncovered large caches of weapons that could have been used to kill our
    troops.
        These are hopeful signs. As these operations unfold, they will help
    the Iraqi Government stabilize the country, rebuild the economy, and
    advance the work of political reconciliation. Yet the bill Congress is
    considering would undermine General Petraeus and the troops under his
    command just as these critical security operations are getting underway.
        First, the bill would impose arbitrary and restrictive conditions on
    the use of war funds and require the withdrawal of forces by the end of
    this year if these conditions are not met. These restrictions would
    handcuff our generals in the field by denying them the flexibility they
    need to adjust their operations to the changing situation on the ground.
    And these restrictions would substitute the mandates of Congress for the
    considered judgment of our military commanders.

        Even if every condition required by this bill was met, all American
    forces, except for very limited purposes, would still be required to
    withdraw next year, regardless of the situation in Iraq. The
    consequences of imposing such an artificial timetable would be
    disastrous.

        Here is what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently told
    Congress: Setting a fixed date to withdraw would ``essentially tell the
    enemy how long they would have to wait until we're gone.'' If American
    forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, the
    scale and scope of attacks would increase and intensify. A contagion of
    violence could spill out across the entire country, and in time, this
    violence would engulf the region. The enemy would emerge from the chaos
    emboldened with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an
    even greater determination to harm America. Such an outcome would be a
    nightmare for our country.

        Second, the bill would cut funding for the Iraqi security forces if
    Iraqi leaders did not meet rigid conditions set by Congress. This makes
    no sense. Members of Congress have often said that the Iraqis must step
    forward and take more responsibility for their own security, and I
    agree. Yet Members of Congress can't have it both ways. They can't say
    that the Iraqis must do more and then take away the funds that will help
    them do so. Iraq is a young democracy that is fighting for its survival
    in a region that is vital to American security. To cut off support for
    their security forces at this critical moment would put our own security
    at risk.

    [[Page 350]]

        Third, the bill would add billions of dollars in domestic spending
    that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the House bill
    would provide $74 million for peanut storage, $48 million for the Farm
    Service Agency, and $35 million for NASA. These programs do not belong
    in an emergency war spending bill. Congress must not allow debate on
    domestic spending to delay funds for our troops on the frontlines. And
    Members should not use funding our troops as leverage to pass special
    interest spending for their districts.
        We are a nation at war, and the heaviest responsibilities fall to
    our troops in the field. Yet we in Washington have responsibilities as
    well. General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate without a single vote
    in opposition, and he and his troops need these resources to succeed in
    their mission. Many in Congress say they support the troops, and I
    believe them. Now they have a chance to show that support in deed as
    well as in word. Congress needs to approve emergency funding for our
    troops, without strings and without delay. If they send me a bill that
    does otherwise, I will veto it.
        Thank you for listening.

    Note: The address was recorded at 7:50 a.m. on March 16 in the Cabinet
    Room at the White House for broadcast at 10:06 a.m. on March 17. The
    transcript was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary on
    March 17 but was embargoed for release until the broadcast. In his
    address, the President referred to Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA,
    commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq. The Office of the Press
    Secretary also released a Spanish language transcript of this address.