Bush: Further Delay in War-Spending Bill Will Impact Troops

American Forces Press Service ^ | Steven Donald Smith

[SandRat]

WASHINGTON, April 15, 2007 – President Bush yesterday once again called for Congress to send him a clean emergency war-spending bill that does not include tacked on funding measures and a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Without the supplemental funds requested by the White House in early February, military officials will be compelled to shift money around to fill expenditure disparities, Bush said during his weekly radio address to the nation.

“In the next few days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to make up for the gaps caused by Congress' failure to fund our troops in the field,” he said. “That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere.”

The $1.6 billion is in addition to the $1.7 billion in transferred funds U.S. military leaders notified Congress about last month, Bush noted.

“In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems, so we can continue to fund programs that protect our troops from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles to the front lines,” he said.

Bush said further delays in the war-spending bill would negatively affect U.S. troops. “The longer Congress delays the worse the impact on the men and women of the armed forces will be,” he said.

On April 18, the president plans to meet congressional leaders of both political parties at the White House to discuss the emergency war funding request. Bush said he will veto the bills already passed by the House and Senate because they impose restrictions on U.S. military commanders, set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, and include billions of dollars on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war.

“We owe it to the American people and to our troops and their families to deliver our full support,” he said.

Bush said he realizes political differences are inherent in Washington, but stressed U.S. troops should not be trapped in the middle of such differences.

“Supporting our troops is a solemn responsibility of all elected officials in Washington, D.C.,” he said.

[SandRat]

FR WAR NEWS!

WAR News at Home and Abroad You'll Hear Nowhere Else!

All the News the MSM refuses to use!

Or if they do report it, without the anti-War Agenda Spin!

[RightWhale]

The Pres can veto, but Congress can submit the same bill over and over. Although checks and balances works to a degree, it evidently can lead to nothing but checks, which if something important is involved means collapse of the effort.

[nmh]

Demoncrats must be grinning from ear to ear.

THIS is their way of FORCED with drawl. The time table for with drawl is when the money runs out. THIS is their way of showing SUPPORT for the war.

HOW SHAMEFUL!

[RightWhale]

There are mobs roaming around. Avoid crowds.

[EagleUSA]

Let us hope the appropriate level of hate and disgust is building in the American people for the filthy liberal DemoRats. They want our troops to be hurt and to lose. The treasonous libs should be banned from America — they do not deserve the protections of this country, especially those provided by our troops.

[kcar]

The Democrats new ideas on Iraq war policy seems to be old French one, except they don’t even have the stones to call it surrender.

[SteamShovel]

The Pres can veto, but Congress can submit the same bill over and over. Although checks and balances works to a degree, it evidently can lead to nothing but checks, which if something important is involved means collapse of the effort.

It's too bad the "Line Item Veto" was shot down by the SC. We need an amendment for it. This is a perfect case for it.

[headstamp]

If ever there was a time for the White House’s press office to crank into high gear, this is it.

Hammer those bastards to no end on this. There should be a coordinated effort with congressional Republicans and political groups also.

This is the area where the Dems clean our clocks and it should not be.

[greasepaint]

Iraq war.
different year.
same everything else.

[kanawa]

May be a silly question but...

Does the President have any leeway to temporarily redirect funds?
In the case of an emergency need for funding of the troops
could he use money destined for, say, NPR and use it instead for the troops?

[nmh]

Ah, but I’ve got some guns and KNOW how to use them.

They’d better be careful when around ME.

[nmh]

Evil cowards are what they are.

Demoncrats make my skin crawl.

[bnelson44]

YOUR ACTION REQUESTED BY SOME TROOPS IN IRAQ: Please spread the word about an appeal for redress that people in the military can sign to show support for the mission. They are having problems getting the word out:

www.appealforcourage.org

If you haven't seen this yet: A campaign by active-duty troops asking Congress to drop plans for a withdrawal from Iraq. Lt. Jason Nichols, a 33-year-old naval projects officer who has been in Baghdad since mid-January, said the goal is to keep lawmakers focused on letting the military finish its mission in Iraq, and not prematurely declare failure

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7392499685041821301&hl=en

Petitions for civilians:
http://www.townhall.com/ref/surrender
http://www.gopetition.com/online/11574.html

[Marysecretary]

I am really beginning to hate these people. Not good for my blood pressure. Dear Lord, please get them voted out of office!

[Jeff Chandler]

THIS is their way of FORCED with drawl.

And it isn't just the Southern Democrats.

[Pub Linkser--80]

This is really disgraceful. The democRATs are only concerned with their trivial political careers and are showing no concern for long-term national security strategy. I really believe the voters wanted a change in our strategy for Iraq back in November, not a surrender in Iraq. Bush made a big change in our Iraq strategy, but now a group of treasonous Dems wants a surrender, which is not what the voters asked for last November. Elections have consequences and these are the bitter consequences of emotional voters overreacting and electing a bunch of cowardly selfish democRATs. Now I’m wondering, how many dems to we have to flip to get a bill without a surrender date?

[EagleUSA]

Elections have consequences and these are the bitter consequences of emotional voters overreacting and electing a bunch of cowardly selfish democRATs. Now I’m wondering, how many dems to we have to flip to get a bill without a surrender date?

---

I still feel these cowardly traitors should be banned from America — they do not belong here and they certainly do not deserve the protection of our military.0

[nmh]

Shameful and words like that are inadequate for what this is. Sometimes I wonder ... WHAT country do I live in?

[Bush gal in LA]

Has there ever been a time in history where a country has pulled the plug ( the money)on it’s own troops while they are fighting and dying on the battlefield. I know people always site Vietnam, but weren’t most of the American troops out already and the Congress basically pulled the plug on our allies? Which is also shameful and terrible , but I cannot see the RATS doing this while all our troops are in harms way.They seem to be heading for political suicide if they stay on their present course and one soldier comes to harm because of their disgusting behavior!