Ask Questions - Get Answers [ Public Answers' Archive - Questions ]

Sunday 19th May 2024 09:19:13 PM

Home/Government/Politics

Question Board

Return to Question Board

Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Remarks by the President on the Iraq War Emergency Supplemental	Itsdb	03/23/07
THE PRESIDENT: Today I'm joined here at the White House by veterans, family members of people serving in combat, family members of those who have sacrificed. I am honored that they have joined me here today. Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives advocated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job. The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city. Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground. Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families. The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women standing with me here today. Thank you for your time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How many Democrats have complained that Bush did not supply our troops with adequate armor and other supplies? Recently? Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) and others Harry Reid Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) John Murtha How many others? Pardon my French, but how the hell do Democrats reconcile slamming the President for not supplying adequate armor while either endorsing or voting to cut the funding they need to survive? The President is absolutely correct, not only has the Democratic majority in the House ... shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground, they're more than willing to cut their throats, too.
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/24/07 10:13 am: Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/24/07 10:59 am: Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/24/07 5:01 pm: Exactly what I have been saying for the past two or three years. They tie their hands to make the war look bad and then they point fingers making it look like it was all Bush's fault. Clarification/Follow-up by CeeBee2 on 03/24/07 9:59 pm: So what's the reason the troops haven't had adequate training and gear and armor for the past four years? And what about paychecks that are months behind? And what about inadequate medical care once injured soldiers return to the States? We love our soldiers but we haven't been doing well by them, methinks. Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/25/07 6:13 pm: well of course spinach is high in iron.Since Congress has deemed it appropriate to invest our tax money in bribes to the spinach growers , maybe the troops can wear that as body armor. Clarification/Follow-up by PrinceHassim on 03/26/07 1:18 am: The US spinmch and salad industries have been hit by disease in plague proprotions and subjected to savage freeze conditions. It is on its knees, rather like Norleans, and that is still a devatsated area. Gee, thanks George. Although I find the US systenm of passing clumps of bills on the same slate, decidedy odd and subject to ridicule by the civilised world, it is your home grown system and you should have complained about it before. How many more must die so that those who have already died will not have died in vain? What in the name of Henry does that mean in the real world? Gladys Knight for president, then you have a woman, a black, and a Mormon all in one go. Go Gladys! Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/26/07 9:26 am: Please Hank stop the charade. As you know I am a long time critic of pork spending and bill riders. I think the President should have line item veto authority and then this legislation would not even be an issue. How dare you claim that the soldiers have died in vain ? Go tell their families that .Stick to golf where you have some competence allegedly . Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/26/07 1:34 pm: CeeBee, you might start here. Clarification/Follow-up by CeeBee2 on 03/26/07 4:03 pm: Good grief, Steve!!! Now please read this. Clarification/Follow-up by CeeBee2 on 03/26/07 4:04 pm: or if that doesn't work: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/03/landeck.html Clarification/Follow-up by CeeBee2 on 03/26/07 4:11 pm: or this Salon article: Army deployed seriously injured troops Soldiers on crutches and canes were sent to a main desert camp used for Iraq training. Military experts say the Army was pumping up manpower statistics to show a brigade was battle ready. By Mark Benjamin Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/26/07 4:45 pm: CeeBee, with all due respect to Mr. Landeck, the President did not "take him away from us," his son volunteered for an organization whose sole purpose is violence. The left here and many in the International community have whined incessantly about rules of engagement; the US targeting civilians, etc., and now we're supposed to be outraged that the ROE's wouldn't allow Mr. Landeck's son to engage the enemy like he wanted to? As for the Salon article, I'll wait for more information before commenting - they're not the most unbiased folks in the world.

Summary of Answers Received	Answered On	Answered By	Average Rating
1. >>how the hell do Democrats reconcile slamming the President...	03/23/07	kindj
2. I think the vote demonstrated how weak the Democrat majority...	03/24/07	tomder55
3. Shades of the politics during the Viet Nam "conflict"....	03/24/07	drgade
4. >>>How many others?<<< Hillary, for one. Jim Webb for anot...	03/26/07	ETWolverine

Your Options
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !

viewq © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. Make Us Your Homepage. Bookmark Answerway.