Via email:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claimed in a press conference yesterday that the Democrats' surrender bill "gives the President more than he asked for."
Indeed, the President never asked Democrats to limit General Petraeus' ability to fight the Global War on Terror.
The President never asked Democrats to tie troop funding to unrealistic conditions and timelines.
The President never asked Democrats for a surrender date.
The President never asked Democrats for money for salmon fisheries.
Yes, it looks as though Democrats have in fact given the President "more than he asked for." They gave him so much he didn't ask for that he will now veto this measure as soon as Democrats are finished stalling. Then, perhaps, the House and Senate can get to work on a clean troop funding bill that gives our troops and our generals the resources they need to succeed in the Global War on Terror.
In a press conference yesterday, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said that if Democrats bring a clean troop funding bill to the floor, House Republicans will support it:"There is a bipartisan majority in the Congress - in the House and Senate - to support our troops without conditions, without surrender dates, and without all of the excess spending we see in this bill. And I can tell you this: if Democrat leaders do the right thing, I can promise that Republicans will be there to support them to get this bill to the President's desk as soon as possible - a bill that he can sign that will in fact support our troops that are in harm's way." (AUDIO)
Congress should immediately move to pass a clean troop funding bill that gives our soldiers the resources they need to succeed in the Global War on Terror.
The lastest from the media:
The Chicago Tribune described the Democrat surrender bill as “self-defeating.” “…[E]stablishing a timetable now would be self-defeating. … A new defense secretary and a new commander on the ground should have time and flexibility to see if they can succeed where their predecessors failed.” (Chicago Tribune editorial, “After the veto,” 4/27/07)
Chicago Tribune: “President Bush will veto the war spending bill approved by Congress this week because it contains a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq . He is right to do so.” (Chicago Tribune editorial, “After the veto,” 4/27/07)
Chicago Tribune: “…[E]stablishing a congressionally mandated timetable for withdrawal would straitjacket the ability of Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander on the ground, to pursue the stabilization of Iraq as events and conditions warrant. Sen. Harry Reid said recently the war is “lost.” This legislation would all but guarantee it. (Chicago Tribune editorial, “After the veto,” 4/27/07)
The Wall Street Journal sees Washington Democrats taking ownership of defeat in Iraq . “In calling for withdrawal, Mr. Reid and his allies, just as with Vietnam , may think they are merely following polls that show the public is unhappy with the war. Yet Americans will come to dislike a humiliation and its aftermath even more, especially as they realize that a withdrawal from Iraq now will only make it harder to stabilize the region and defeat Islamist radicals. And they will like it even less should we be required to re-enter the country someday under far worse circumstances.” (Wall Street Journal editorial, “Harry’s War,” 4/25/07)
Wall Street Journal: “…[A]t least Mr. Bush and his commanders are now trying to make up for these mistakes with a strategy to put Prime Minister Maliki's government on a stronger footing, secure Baghdad and the Sunni provinces against al Qaeda and allow for an eventual, honorable, U.S. withdrawal. That's more than can be said for Mr. Reid and the Democratic left, who are making the job for our troops more difficult by undermining U.S. morale and Iraqi confidence in American support.” (Wall Street Journal editorial, “Harry’s War,” 4/25/07)
The San Diego Union Tribune described the Democrat surrender bill as a sham that is detrimental to our efforts in Iraq . “…[T]he Democratic campaign is a textbook lesson in why the war cannot be managed by a committee of 535 bitterly divided lawmakers. … The Constitution gives Congress control of the federal purse strings, to be sure. But this authority has never been an effective instrument for directing forces in a combat zone. The Constitution gives that authority to the commander in chief alone.” (San Diego Union Tribune editorial, “Potemkin bill,” 4/26/07)
San Diego Union Tribune: “Yesterday's pleas to lawmakers by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq , not to micromanage the war were brushed off without serious consideration in the House's partisan stampede. Meanwhile, essential funding for the troops has been sidetracked by the phony legislative exercise playing out on Capitol Hill.” (San Diego Union Tribune editorial, “Potemkin bill,” 4/26/07)
San Diego Union Tribune: “And even though this sham bill is merely a political show, the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate managed to lard it up with nearly $25 billion in wasteful pork, most of it entirely unrelated to war funding.” (San Diego Union Tribune editorial, “Potemkin bill,” 4/26/07)
The Washington Times decried the surrender bill for its contempt of our brave men and women in uniform. “The Democrats' lack of interest in the real-world impact of their legislation is reflected in their shabby treatment of the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq , Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. Last week, House Democratic leaders initially declined Gen. Petraeus' invitation to brief members, reversing themselves only after coming under fire from Republicans. … And by tying funding for the war to a surrender bill that the president will veto, the Democrats are showing studied contempt for our troops in the field.” (Washington Times editorial, “Surrender date: Oct. 1,” 4/26/07)
Washington Times: “When it came to the 150,000 U.S. troops now fighting in Iraq , lawmakers included enough poison-pill language to ensure a presidential veto -- which will in turn delay much-needed support for military operations in Iraq .” (Washington Times editorial, “Surrender date: Oct. 1,” 4/26/07)
Washington Times: “To satisfy the MoveOn.org types, particularly in the House, the bill starts the pullout as early as nine and a half weeks from now. In an effort to provide political cover for House “Blue Dogs” from more conservative districts who want to vote with Mrs. Pelosi, it contains troop-withdrawal language that sets a “goal” for pulling out rather than a deadline.” (Washington Times editorial, “Surrender date: Oct. 1,” 4/26/07)
The spokesman for the Iraqi government criticized the Democrat surrender bill shortly after Senate passage. “‘We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process,’ Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press.” (Associated Press, “Iraqi spokesman criticizes Senate vote on withdrawal of troops,” 4/26/07)
o Iraqi spokesman: “Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over. …We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices.” (Associated Press, “Iraqi spokesman criticizes Senate vote on withdrawal of troops,” 4/26/07)
Sen. Joe Lieberman wrote in The Washington Post that the Democrat surrender bill is “dangerously wrong.” “And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq . This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there. What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face.” (Sen. Joe Lieberman, Washington Post op-ed, “One Choice in Iraq,” 4/25/07)
Sen. Lieberman: “Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.” (Sen. Joe Lieberman, Washington Post op-ed, “One Choice in Iraq,” 4/25/07)
Sen. Lieberman: “In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.” (Sen. Joe Lieberman, Washington Post op-ed, “One Choice in Iraq,” 4/25/07)
Rep. Jerry Lewis wrote in USA Today that the Democrat surrender bill is ill-advised and ill-conceived. “Political leaders in Congress must not exert their political will over the professional judgment of our military leaders on the front lines in the global war on terror. … We must get on with our responsibilities to support our troops in their fight for our safety and freedom, and pass a clean spending bill without placing political limits on how to defeat our enemies.” (Rep. Jerry Lewis, USA Today op-ed, “Progress is being made,” 4/27/07)
Rep. Lewis: “Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists are waiting in Iraq and throughout the region. They most certainly are watching our every move in Congress, and if President Bush does not veto this bill, they will celebrate this as the day the House of Representatives threw in the towel.” (Rep. Jerry Lewis, USA Today op-ed, “Progress is being made,” 4/27/07)
Rep. Lewis: “We in the Congress are not generals. We are not the secretary of State. We are most certainly not the commander in chief. We cannot be dictating arbitrary timelines to the commanders in the field.” (Rep. Jerry Lewis, USA Today op-ed, “Progress is being made,” 4/27/07)
Constitutional scholar Richard Cass believes Democrats are infringing on the President’s constitutional authority to command the U.S. military. “As for Congress' power to order redeployment of U.S. forces, Cass said that authority rested with the commander in chief.” ( Houston Chronicle editorial, “War powers,” 4/25/07)
The best news of the day comes from an AP News Alert:
CAMP DAVID, Md. (AP) President Bush has served notice on Congress that he'll veto bills as long as necessary to thwart attempts to force the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Eventually, the Democrats are going to have to send up a clean funding bill or face the wrath of the American people.
