THE PRESIDENT: 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 front lines 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 were already seeing signs of
progress. Iraqi and American troops have rounded up more than 700
people affiliated with Shia extremists. Theyve also launched
aggressive operations against Sunni extremists. And theyve
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 under way.
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 were 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 cant have it both ways: They cant 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.
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 front lines. 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.
END
TAG:
评分(
