[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.