[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 17 (Monday, April 30, 2007)]
[Pages 514-515]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on Congressional Action on Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

April 24, 2007

    Good morning. Seventy-eight days ago, I sent Congress a request for 
emergency war funding that our troops urgently need. I made it clear to 
Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill that I'm willing to discuss our 
differences on the way forward in Iraq. But I also made it clear, our 
troops should not be caught in the middle of that discussion.
    Yesterday Democratic leaders announced that they plan to send me a 
bill that will fund our troops only if we agree to handcuff our 
generals, add billions of dollars in unrelated spending, and begin to 
pull out of Iraq by an arbitrary date. I'm disappointed that the 
Democratic leadership has chosen this course.
    The bill they announced yesterday includes some of the worst parts 
of the measures they had earlier passed with narrow majorities in the 
House and the Senate. They know I'm going to veto a bill containing 
these provisions, and they know that my veto will be sustained. But 
instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose 
to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political 
statement. That's their right, but it is wrong for our troops, and it's 
wrong for our country.
    To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to 
accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military 
commanders. I strongly believe that the Democrats' proposal would 
undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American people here 
at home. And here is why.
    First, a proposal would mandate the withdrawal of American troops 
beginning as early as July 1st of this year, and no later than October 
1st of this year, despite the fact that General Petraeus has not yet 
received all the reinforcements he needs. It makes no sense to tell the 
enemy when you start to plan withdrawing. If we were to do so, the enemy 
would simply mark their calendars and begin plotting how to take over a 
country when we leave.
    We know what could happen next. Just as Al Qaida used Afghanistan as 
a base to plan attacks of September the 11th, Al Qaida could make Iraq a 
base to plan even more deadly attacks. The lesson of 9/11 is that 
allowing terrorists to find a sanctuary anywhere in the world can have 
deadly consequences on the streets of our own cities.
    Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not a plan to bring peace to the 
region or to make our people safer at home. Instead, it would

[[Page 515]]

embolden our enemies and confirm their belief that America is weak. It 
could unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the entire region. 
It would be an invitation to the enemy to attack America and our friends 
around the world. And, ultimately, a precipitous withdrawal would 
increase the probability that American troops would one day have to 
return to Iraq and confront an enemy that's even more dangerous.
    Second, the Democratic leadership's proposal is aimed at restricting 
the ability of our generals to direct the fight in Iraq. They've imposed 
legislative mandates--they passed legislative mandates telling them 
which enemies they can engage and which they cannot. That means our 
commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting 
directions from legislators 6,000 miles away on Capitol Hill. The result 
would be a marked advantage for our enemies and a greater danger for our 
troops.
    Third, the bill proposed by Democratic leaders would spend billions 
of dollars on projects completely unrelated to the war. Proposed 
legislation does remove some of the most egregious porkbarrel projects 
that Democratic leaders had inserted in earlier bills. Yet it still 
includes huge amounts of domestic spending that has no place in an 
emergency war funding bill. We should debate those provisions on their 
own merits, during the normal process, but funding for our troops should 
not be held hostage while that debate unfolds.
    I know that Americans have serious concerns about this war. People 
want our troops to come home, and so do I. But no matter how frustrating 
the fight can be and no matter how much we wish the war was over, the 
security of our country depends directly on the outcome in Iraq. The 
price of giving up there would be paid in American lives for years to 
come. It would be an unforgivable mistake for leaders in Washington to 
allow politics and impatience to stand in the way of protecting the 
American people.
    Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and 
wanted change in our strategy in Iraq. I listened. Today, General David 
Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from 
our previous course. The American people did not vote for failure, and 
that is precisely what the Democratic leadership's bill would guarantee.
    It's not too late for Congress to do the right thing and to send me 
a bill that gives our troops and their commanders the funds and 
flexibility they need. I'm willing to meet with leaders in Congress as 
many times as it takes to resolve our differences. Yet if the Democratic 
leaders insist on using the bill to make a political statement, they 
will leave me with only one option: I will veto it. And then I'll work 
with Congress to pass a clean bill that funds our troops without 
handcuffing our commanders, spending billions of dollars unrelated to 
the war, and forcing our Nation to withdraw on the enemy's terms.
    Thank you.

Note: The President spoke at 11:13 a.m. on the South Lawn at the White 
House. In his remarks, he referred to Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, 
commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq.